Group Seating in Primary Schools: an

indefensible strategy1?
Nigel Hastings & Karen Chantrey Wood
Nottingham Trent University
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational
Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002
In primary classrooms throughout the UK, it is standard practice for children to
sit around grouped tables - usually with four to six children in each group. Such
arrangements are also common in primary schools in other English-speaking
countries, Australia and USA for example. Precisely because this configuration is
so normal and so well established in our schools, it is unusual to ask about its
rationale or to question its appropriateness. In this paper, we will examine
common arguments for group seating, find them wanting and, informed by
evidence of the consequences of different seating arrangements, argue that
primary classroom organisation should be adapted to support the actual mix of
learning activities that children experience. Finally, we'll offer examples of
teachers organising their classrooms flexibly, but also strategically, to support
children's learning.
When teachers reflect on why primary classroom seating is generally arranged in
groups, four reasons are commonly mentioned, viz.:
Group seating facilitates:
small group teaching,
collaboration in learning within groups of children,
'ability grouping' or setting within a class
access to resources which, when placed in the centre of a group
table, can be reached by all.
'Group Seating facilitates Small Group Teaching'.
The strategy of teachers working with groups of children within a class was
strongly endorsed by the Plowden Committee. By spending time with groups of

children, the Committee reasoned, teachers could adjust their teaching to the
needs of the individuals within the group to a greater extent than when working
with the class as a whole, while also ensuring that all children have a reasonable
amount of direct contact with their teacher - albeit shared with others in their
group.
If a teacher is to work with groups of children and to move between these groups,
it makes sense that children should be seated together as groups and also apart
from other groups. In this context, there is an evident consistency between what
the teacher is trying to do, what the pupils are to do, the kind of interaction that is
intended and the configuration of the furniture. So, group seating seems to be a
good idea for small group teaching and, to the extent that primary teachers make
use of small group teaching, this would be a good way to organise classrooms.
But how much use is made of small group teaching? There is a wealth of
evidence, drawn from over 25 years of observational studies of teachers' and
pupils' interactions and activities in primary classrooms, that is relevant to this
question. We have in mind, particularly, Maurice Galton and his
colleagues' ORACLE and related studies , the London Infant and Junior School
projects , Croll & Moses' One in Fivestudy , Alexander's Leeds Evaluation
project , the six-year PACE project and a recent smaller scale study in Scottish
classrooms . Taken together, with proper regard for differences in method and
sample, these studies reflect both change and consistency in primary classrooms
over the last two and a half decades.
All these studies examined how teachers distribute their time between interacting
with children individually, in groups and as a whole class. (See Table 1) Groups
have consistently accounted for just 10-20 per cent of teachers' interactions with
pupils - always less than whole-class or one-to-one interactions (See summaries
of this evidence in ). But not all of teachers' recorded interactions with groups
will be for small group teaching. In ORACLE 2, just over one-third of teachers'
interactions with groups were 'task-focused' and construable as 'small group
teaching': the remaining two-thirds concerned 'task-supervision' and matters of
routine.
Evidence from observations of how children's time is spent and, in particular, of
their contact with their teachers also indicates that small group teaching is not
much used. In Key Stage 1 the indications are that six to ten percent of children's
time is spent in a group with a teacher. In Key Stage 2 the figure is around four
percent . These studies all collected their data prior to implementation of the
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and there are indications that teachers in

England now do more small group teaching : but it still accounts for only a very
small proportion of most children's time.
Returning to the claim that group seating is valuable because it supports small
group teaching, we have to conclude that, while this may well be true, the limited
proportion of teachers' and especially of children's time that small group teaching
accounts for means that it cannot (alone) justify group seating as
the standard seating arrangement in primary classrooms.
'Group Seating facilitates Collaborative Learning'
A second argument for arranging classroom furniture in groups is that the layout
supports collaboration between groups of children. As with small group teaching,
the essence of the argument here is that the physical context should support the
teaching and learning method. We have no dispute with this proposition. When
children are to collaborate in learning they need to interact, share resources, and
so on, a group seating arrangement clearly fits the bill.
Again, however, while the case in principle is sound, we need to enquire about
practice. We know that children do sit in groups and that the intention to
stimulate and support learning through collaboration is a good reason to arrange
classrooms this way, but are these intentions realised? How much group
collaboration in learning takes place in our primary classrooms?
The same body of classroom observation studies is helpful here in establishing
how frequently children are asked to and, in practice, how much they do work
together as groups. The emphasis is important, as collaboration does not have to
involve a group: it can happen in pairs as well as in groups of three or more.
Indeed, there is a mountain of literature and plenty of evidence on the power of
pairs working together, in peer tutoring or other peer assisted learning
relationships e.g. .
The two ORACLE studies , undertaken twenty years apart, suggest that children
now spend 50 per cent more time talking with other pupils than their earlier
counterparts. But this is not 50 per cent more chat: all of the increase is
accounted for by work-related discussion. However, even so, ORACLE 2 pupils
were recorded as actively working with at least one other in just 13.5 percent of
observations - and most of this collaborative interaction took place between pairs
of children, not within groups. PACE data showed that, work related or not,
interactions involving more than two pupils accounted for an average of just
eight percent of children's classroom activity .

The theoretical case for using collaborative learning activities is strong and there
is a good deal of evidence from intervention studies, especially from America, of
the benefits of carefully planned and well structured activities requiring
collaboration. For reasons well considered by others however, e.g. , , , the
evidence continues to be that teachers in UK primary schools make little use of
collaborative learning activities, which have been typically reported as
accounting for less than ten percent of children's time.
In summary, the situation is that collaboration in learning has increased in use
and that it happens mostly through pairs of children working together.
Collaboration within a group of more than two is rare in most classrooms, as are
tasks in which teachers specifically intend a group to work together. While
children sit in groups they are infrequently asked to work as groups. When they
are required or choose to collaborate, it is usually in pairs - which does not
require group seating.
As with the argument from small group teaching, collaboration in learning within
a group is a sound reason for a group seating arrangement. But the method is
little used and therefore cannot justify groups as the standard seating
arrangement.
'Group Seating facilitates Ability Grouping'
A third reason proffered for using group seating is that it facilitates 'ability
grouping'. This is an interesting but different type of reason from the two already
considered. Whereas the first two arguments are sound in principle, but
inconsistent with the actual balance of activities in classrooms, the claim that
group seating supports 'ability grouping' is just muddled.
Teachers differ in the criteria they use to arrange seating groups. Some create
mixed ability or mixed gender groups; others go for homogeneity. Some focus on
friendship clusters and just about every teacher will modify seating arrangements
if behaviour becomes an issue . In parallel with seating groups, teachers generally
also plan and teach on the basis of what are commonly, though unfortunately,
called 'ability groups' . These two forms of grouping - physically in the
configuration of seating arrangements and pedagogically through differentiation
of learning activities by 'setting' - can produce coincident allocations whereby
children in the same set sit together. But this is not a necessary outcome. Indeed,
in many classrooms seating arrangements are deliberately planned so that
children from different 'ability groups' sit together.

The fact that seven children constitute a ' Literacy group' does not require them to
sit as a group - unless, of course, they are to work together or are to work directly
with their teacher as a group, in which case the argument for them sitting together
is that they are to collaborate or to be taught as a small group. Ability grouping
per se does not need and is not facilitated by group seating.
'Group Seating facilitates Access to Resources'
The fourth commonly suggested benefit of routinely seating children in groups is
that the
arrangement allows six or eight children each to reach and use one centrally
placed set of resources, such as pens, glue etc. This is self-evidently true. If
children were to be seated in separate pairs or in a horseshoe, for instance,
resource sets would either have to increase in number or be passed more
frequently between children. We have no challenge to this argument for group
seating: it reflects some practical realities but it is pretty trivial as a justification.
Matching classroom organisation and learning
Of the four arguments considered, only the two relating to small group teaching
and to group collaboration in learning are pedagogical and coherent. Both reflect
the proposition that the configuration of furniture should support the interactions
and the types of attention that a teaching strategy requires. The problem is not in
the case they make for group seating for small group teaching
and for collaborative group work, but in the suggestion that this is a reason for
group seating being the standard organisation when these two teaching strategies
feature so infrequently in classrooms. We need to ask whether group seating
arrangements are suitable for the types of teaching and learning activities that
feature most in primary children's experience as well as for these two
infrequently used strategies.
Studies of primary classrooms consistently report that the 'typical primary child'
spends most of his/her classroom time working alone. They also show that s/he
gets most of his/her limited direct teacher contact as a member of the whole class,
not as an individual . Table 2 summarises the general prominence of different
types of activity as revealed by studies of primary classrooms. Even though
teachers now spend more time working with their classes as a whole than they
did even ten years ago, individual work remains the most common type of task
for children when they are not with their teacher: it often accounts for more than
half of a child's classroom time.

If working alone and engaging with the teacher in a whole class session are the
most prominent types of activity, the suitability of group seating for these
activities needs to be considered. Adults faced with a task requiring independent
work do not generally seek the company of others at the same work surface, but
this is how young children are asked to concentrate. Evidence from studies which
have compared the impact of group seating on children's attention with that of
other arrangements, typically pairs facing the same direction, find marked
differences.
These studies are not well known within the teaching profession but reviews of
these experiments reveal two important effects. Firstly, almost all children's
attention to their individual work increases when they sit in pairs, or in
configurations in which no one sits opposite them, as compared with group
seating. Average gains of more than 30 percent are common. Secondly, the
children who benefit most are those who are the most distracted when sitting in a
group: many double their time on-task. When undertaking individual work in a
'rows' type of arrangement, the variation between the most and the least attentive
all but disappears: in group seating arrangements, the range is substantial.
So, we have a situation in which the standard practice of group seating is well
matched to activities that are little used in most primary classrooms but which is
ill-suited to individual work - a conspicuously frequently used activity. What
should happen?
What should not happen is a change to another standard layout. The important
theme here is that different types of learning activity require different types and
levels of interaction, behaviour and attention. No single layout will suit all of the
varied types of learning activities that are to be encouraged in primary
classrooms. Classrooms need to reflect and support learning activities and, where
necessary, to change to match those differing activities.
The case for strategic flexibility in classroom organisation seems to follow from
the arguments and evidence we have reviewed. However, the practical feasibility
of teachers operating in this way might well be questioned, at least by those who
have never tried it or heard of teachers who work this way. We have reported
elsewhere on a project that set out to discover, describe and then disseminate
examples of classrooms, and indeed of whole schools, where classroom layout
varies to fit task requirements .
The teachers in the project work in very varied contexts and differ in their
professional experience. Some teach in spacious classrooms while others work in
cramped conditions. Some work in schools serving relatively affluent areas:

others are in schools within substantially disadvantaged communities. However,

in every case, their strategies have been developed to suit local conditions as well
as the principle of matching seating to activity. Here we will simply illustrate the
strategy in operation though the approach developed by two teachers. They have
been chosen to demonstrate how the principle can be developed and implemented
in differing types of school, in spacious and cramped conditions and with classes
throughout the primary age range.
Matt: Yr. 6
In the first example, Matt has a small classroom with a class of 25 Yr. 6 children.
Although the limited space considerably restricts the scope for using varied
seating layouts, he moves between two main layouts and also occasionally uses
graph paper to plan alternative arrangements to suit other purposes.
The arrangement used most regularly is a simple 'extended E' formation for
individual, paired and whole-class work (Figure 1.1). It allows free access to
resources, easy view of the whiteboard and enables Matt to move around to work
with everyone. In order to ensure all children have access to resources without
having to move around too much, each child has an individual 'tool kit' of
resources for 'mental and oral maths' and a 'magic' writing box, or 'carryall' with
dictionary, a rubber and a sharpener for English.
The second arrangement, for group or workshop activities, involves moving the
middle two 'prongs' of the 'E' formation out to the sides of the classroom, to join
with other tables(Figure 1.2). Matt uses the instruction "move to a group
situation" with the children to move from the 'E' and "back to normal" or "back to
starting position" to return to the 'E' arrangement.
This arrangement is adapted on certain days in the week when one of the blocks
of 8 to 10 seats on the right hand side of the classroom is used as a workshop for
the deputy head to work specifically with children with English as an additional
language. As well as certain named children, anyone in the class can choose to
work with her if they feel they are having difficulties.
The furniture is normally moved about twice a day, often for Maths and for Topic
or Science work. As the planning determines the seating, for a recent Science
activity requiring access to lots of beakers and apparatus, Matt tried another
arrangement. A set of tables was set end-to-end in the centre of the room to hold
all the apparatus. On either side of this long table were squares made of two
tables, allowing easy access to the equipment (Figure 1.3)

As the school sets across the year for Maths and English, Matt has the middle
target group for Maths, and a lower attaining group for English. As a 'Leading
Maths teacher', he is also responsible for Additional Maths groups. This means as
well as Matt's own class, other children are taught in his classroom and so need to
be familiar with and understand the rationale for having different seating
arrangements for different tasks, as well as being trained in switching from one
arrangement to another.
Moving between arrangements does not take a long time as not all of the
classroom furniture is moved. Images of seats being passed over tables this way
and that would be unrealistic. Most of the tables stay where they are whilst others
are rotated, and it is the simplicity of the change that is one of the great merits of
the approach that Matt has developed in this classroom where space is at a
premium. Matt has taught in this way across the KS2 age range and in
classrooms of varied shapes. Thinking about children's working environment is
integral to his planning which, coupled with high expectations of his children and
his simple training techniques, has resulted in a strategy that children can
remember and operate easily, and that can be adapted to fit any shape and size of
classroom.
Melanie: Reception & Yr. 1
Melanie, the teacher in the second example, is the Deputy Head in a church
school in a commuter village. She began experimenting with seating
arrangements in her previous school when she had a "lively" Yr. 3 / 4 class.
Having rearranged the furniture into rows as part of a project on "The
Victorians", she noticed the children responded to this unfamiliar environment in
ways she had not anticipated. In both class teaching and individual work,
children were less distracted and concentration was better than usual. She
continued using row arrangements for some activities beyond the end of the
project and found the effects endured. A few years later, she heard a talk on the
issue and decided to try using varied arrangements with a younger age group
Melanie has developed three basic arrangements for her classroom; each
associated with a working style that she identifies by name with the children. For
'Group Work' the children sit in groups of mostly four to six, around two tables
drawn together to form a square surface (Figure 2.1). For 'Large Group Work',
when large surfaces are required, children can be seated in groups of up to
twelve, around four tables (Figure 2.2). As the children sit at only three sides of
the working surface, no child has their back to the whiteboard. This means both
arrangements can support group work, work requiring plenty of space, and whole
class teaching.

The third arrangement is referred to as 'Quiet Work'(Figure 2.3). When each child
has to work on their own or quietly in pairs, the children sit in twos at single
tables, spaced out in columns, all facing the whiteboard. Although the tables in
each line stand separately, this formation could reasonably be described as 'rows',
but it is not. By calling the layout 'Quiet Work' instead, the nature of the work
and behaviour that it supports is immediately and consistently evident, and also
avoids triggering the negative connotations of the term 'rows'.
Melanie's class, being Reception and Year 1, grows in size throughout the
academic year as children reach their fifth birthday and start school. As they are
so young and also relatively inexperienced in the ways of school, Melanie feels it
is important at the beginning of the year to spend some time ensuring all the
children are able to move furniture safely and can appropriately organise the
classroom. In practice, the time spent in training the children reaps long-term
benefits in terms of time saved throughout the year. Within a couple of weeks the
children can usually move between the different arrangements in just under a
minute.
Moving between the three layouts happens about two or three times a day. As the
day begins on the carpet and moves into 'Quiet Work', the first move is usually to
rearrange the tables from the "Group Work' setting that they were left in at the
end of the previous day. The 'Group Work' configuration is used for most
Literacy sessions and also for many sessions in other subjects. However, "Quiet
Work', is used a great deal for Numeracy and for extended writing. Whilst, the
"Quiet Work" arrangement is used less frequently than the 'Group Work' setting,
the difference and the move between the two, does act as a clear signal for the
children about the nature of the work they are undertaking and about the
behaviour appropriate to that task and setting.
Melanie's example demonstrates again the significance of planning, simple
training and tailoring practice to fit the learning needs of the children within a
strategic and flexible approach to classroom organisation.
An Indefensible Practice.....?
The case for change to the orthodox practice of seating primary school children
in groups is compelling.
There is no sustainable rationale for group seating as
a standard practice. The four commonly mentioned justifications do
not provide, individually or together, a sound basis.

 There is robust evidence that sitting in groups has detrimental

effects on attention. For individual task work, which features
prominently in UK primary classrooms, other seating arrangements
support much higher rates of attention and engagement, especially
among those who find it difficult to concentrate when sitting in
groups.
As for the alternative?
There is a strong pedagogical, empirical and essentially intuitive
case for arranging the physical environment to support the attention
and activities that a task requires whether in a primary classroom, a
library, a coffee lounge or a courtroom. Different activities require
different environments.
Establishing and using a number of different classroom layouts,
each designed to support one or more types of activity, and
involving children in changing from one to another is a viable
modus operandi.
The physical environment in which we ask children to learn affects their
attention; and learning requires attention. The physical environment of the
classroom is a tool for teachers to use. It can be, and it should be, used to better
effect. Group seating is suitable for some types of classroom activity, but its
widespread use as standard practice is indefensible.
---------------------------------------Website: A classroom organisation website, currently under construction, is
planned to provide a growing library of examples of practice in classroom
organisation and of teachers' accounts of their successes and disappointments in
trying new approaches. It will also provide a forum for discussions about primary
classroom organisation, teaching and learning. The URL is
http://education.ntu.ac/research/primary_class_org
Table 1. Summary of observational studies of distribution of English primary
teachers' interactions with pupils by context as percentages of all teacher-pupil
interactions (.

% of observed teacher

interactions with pupils

Project details

KS

Data
collection

1-1

Group

Class

72

19

69

15

16

51

18

30

61

13

26

58

16

26

67

23

ORACLE .
58 classes
40 classes

Late 1970s

One in Five

Early 1980s

32 classes
2

PRISMS

Early 1980s

School Matters
Yr4 classes in 50 schools
Yr5 classes in 50 schools

Mid-1980s

63

11

24

INCSS
2

1989/90

59

18

23

Yr1 9 classes

1990/91

45

22

33

Yr2 9 classes

1991/92

49

17

34

Yr3 9 classes

1992/93

57

14

29

Yr4 9 classes

1993/94

55

13

32

Yr5 9 classes

1994/95

57

16

28

Yr6 9 classes

1995/96

44

17

39

1996

48

16

35

PACE

ORACLE 2
28 classes

Note: The PACE figures in Table 1 have not been published in this form by the
PACE team but have been developed from information kindly provided by
Marilyn Osborn.
Table 2. Contexts in which primary school children are asked to work and learn.
(.

Working

Task / Interaction

One to one

Prominence in children's
experience

Very rare

With teacher

Rare
In a small group

Common
As a whole class member

On individual work

Prominent

Without teacher

Rare
Collaborating with one or
more others

Very rare = < 5%. Rare = < 15%. Common = 20-40%. Prominent = 30 - 60% of
observed classroom time. Table based on data drawn from UK studies 1976 2000.
References

Alexander, R. (1991). Primary Education in Leeds. Twelfth and final report from
the Primary Needs Independent Evaluation Project (12): University of Leeds.
Alexander, R. (1992). Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London:
Routledge.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: international comparisons in
primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel
Hempstead: Simon & Schuster.
Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (1999). The Nature and Use of Classroom groups in
Primary schools. Final report (R000237255): Economic and Social Research
Council.
Croll, P. (1996a). Teacher-Pupil Interaction in the Classroom. In P. Croll & N.
Hastings (Eds.), Effective Primary Teaching: research-based classroom
strategies . London: David Fulton Publishers.
Croll, P. (Ed.). (1996b). Teachers, Pupils and Primary Schooling: Continuity and
Change. London: Cassell.
Croll, P., & Moses, D. (1985). One in Five: The Assessment and Incidence of
Special Educational Needs. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Comber, C. (1998). Classroom Practice and the
National Curriculum in Small Rural Primary Schools. British Educational
Research Journal, 24(1), 43-61.
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the
Primary Classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.
Galton, M., & Patrick, H. (1990). Curriculum Provision in Small Schools.
London: Routledge.
Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary Classroom.
London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Galton, M., & Williamson, J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom.
London: Routledge.

Hallam, S., Ireson, J., Chaudhury, I., Lister, V., Davies, J., & Mortimore, P.
(1999, September). Ability grouping practices in the primary school: A survey of
what schools are doing. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association, Brighton.
Hastings, N., Schwieso, J., & Wheldall, K. (1996). A Place for Learning. In P.
Croll & N. Hastings (Eds.), Effective Primary Teaching; research-based
classroom strategies . London: David Fulton Publishers.
Hastings, N., & Wood, K. C. (2002). Reorganizing Primary Classroom Learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kutnick, P., & Manson, I. (2000). Enabling Children to Learn in Groups. In D.
Whitebread (Ed.), The Psychology of Teaching and Learning in the Primary
School . London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McPake, J., Harlen, W., Powney, J., & Davidson, J. (1999). Teachers' and Pupils'
Days in the Primary Classroom (SCRE Research Report No 93). Edinburgh: The
Scottish Council for research in Education.
Merrett, F. (1994). Whole Class Teaching and Individualised Approaches. In P.
Kutnick & C. Rogers (Eds.), Groups in Schools . London: Cassell.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School
Matters: The Junior Years. London: Open Books.
OFSTED. (1998). Setting in Primary Schools: A report from Her Majesty's Chief
Inspector of Schools. London: OFSTED.
Osborn, M. (2001). PACE classroom observation data .
Osborn, M., McNess, E., & Broadfoot, P. (2000). What Teachers Do: Changing
Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London: Continuum.
Pollard, A., Broadfoot, P., Croll, P., Osborn, M., & Abbott, D. (1994). Changing
English Primary Schools? London: Cassell.
Pollard, A., Triggs, P., Broadfoot, P., McNess, E., & Osborn, M. (2000). What
Pupils Say: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London:
Continuum.
Tizard, B., Blatchford, P., Burke, J., Farquhar, C., & Plewis, I. (1988). Young
Children at School in the Inner City. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (Eds.). (1998). Peer-Assisted Learning. Mahwah:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.
Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective Classroom Learning. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wragg, E. C. (1993). Primary Teaching Skills. London: Routledge.