Can an oval table change learning?

In today's Times, Nicola Woolcock writes that Antony Seldon, master of Wellington College, is replacing traditional lessons with boardroom style seminars where every child must contribute. Seldon claims that this method of teaching, with everyone seated around one large oval table instead of an individual desk, makes children active rather than passive participants when it comes to learning.

But this method of teaching, the Harkness table, is quite definitely not new, although it may now be fashionable. It was "invented" by  US oil magnate Edward Harkness in the 1930s, and he felt that it was truly innovatory, saying "What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up. This would be a real revolution in methods."

Harkness donated a vast amount of money ($5.8m) to Phillips Exeter Academy in 1931 and asked them to come up with a practical way of implementing his vision. What they came up with was the oval, seminar-style table, where everyone can see everyone else and no one can hide. The idea is that pupils and teachers exchange ideas, collaborating on their learning, and becoming ever more confident and capable (it sounds quite a lot like university tutorials to me). The idea proved so popular that Phillips Exeter Academy are clearly very proud of being the first proponents. A quick look at their website shows that the Harkness method is held up there as a true beacon of leaning. It proclaims: "It’s exciting, rewarding, confidence-building, and incredible educational." (surely incredibly educational??)

It does sound good, doesn't it? Sometimes it's practical things like this which can make a difference: it's easy to see how an oval table would encourage children to learn from each other, and require all pupils to be up to speed with what's going on. That would surely benefit the entire class.

But (and you knew that was coming, didn't you?) I do foresee a problem. And, once again, it's of the financial kind.

Most of the schools which use this method in the States are fee-paying and exclusive (as is Wellington College here). Today's report says that the tables cost a not inexpensive £1,200 each, while they are set up for 12 to 14 pupils. How will this work in a class of 30? Will there be two tables, two teachers and two rooms per class? It's unlikely. Or is this just another (rather depressing) example of a fine educational idea which may well end up limited to those children fortunate enough to attend the most expensive schools?

Read School Gate on:

From bankers to teachers? Not when they find out about the salaries

The real cost of the rise in private school fees

Why going private is an incendiary issue in the US too

Bring back the cane? What a ridiculous idea.

Comments

[James]

The idea that students learn in different ways, that different lessons involve different teaching styles and that there would be a benefit in enabling furniture to support this was the basis of Shin Azumi's classroom table, Orbital, which won the Furniture for the Future competition run by the then DFES and the Design Council which takes up no more space than a traditional classroom table.

[evelyna]

I think that home education numbers will get a boost with this initiative.

[Peter Bridge]

When I taught English abroad, both of the above set ups were used.

I do think the idea would work very well in our schools in the UK. However, I foresee a space issue as "Harkness Ovals" appear to be less space efficient than the traditional grid arrangement. As space is money, this may well be the deciding factor. Time for a mathematician to solve the riddle.

[W D Toulman]

The problem of having to sit at the back of the class is common in all schools that locate the classes in alphabetical order. The pupils with names begining with letters at the end of the alphabet miss out. Even worse when suffering from less tthan super eyesight.

Teachers should ensure that pupils are allocated seats randomly and ensure that shy or less able pupils sit near the front.

When attending Technical colleges I found that one usualy had squaters rights to the seat he occupied at the forst session of the year. I always arrived early on that date and bagged a seat on the front row.

[Peejays]

It is encouraging that in the current economic climate, at least skilled labourers are still going to be financially secure if Anthony Seldon's "profound" changes spread around the nation's schools. It is a happy carpenter indeed who is given the contract to produce desks that will sit 35 pupils around them!

[Gipsy]

Random Act of Kindness - you are right in that no, of course a student shouldn't be left to struggle on their own. But think it through - exactly what is a child who is extremely shy and absolutely terrified into silence and mortification at the idea of having to stand in front of any group of people, let alone in front of their friends and show, not how good they are at something, but how bad they are at it? Exactly how much would a child learn in that situation? Absolutely nothing because it is going to take quite a while to encourage that child to go back to that classroom let alone actually learn anything. I want my child to be taught maths, and to learn maths. Yes, learning how to be assertive and other skills are important - but giving him the confidence to stand up in front of a group of people is not the job of a maths lesson. A maths teacher should be teaching him to solve number problems. Giving him drum lessons, and allowing him to start to show a skill behind the safety of a large kit, eventually led to him being able to stand up and do lines in a school play. Whereas all that maths teacher did was give him nightmares for weeks, and a horror of attending not just maths class but school full stop.

As Whimsey said, not all students are extroverts and not all are capable of learning in this way.

Some of the classes in my school did arrange the desks in a circle or square ring, but only where the classroom was large enough to allow the furniture to be rearranged in this way (mainly the studio art classrooms).
The advantages were that you didn't have to worry about what the person behind you was up to, and the teachers could what everyone was doing.

[Malcolm McLean]

The master traditionally sits in the marketplace or sacred grove, with the disciples in a semi-circle around him.

It's a tried and tested method that has worked for thousands of years. However the drawback is that numbers are limited to twelve or so.

[whimsey]

I agree with Gypsy that one style of teaching does not suit all the children all of the time - you have to be flexible, as much as possible for each individual class's overall characteristics, and, of course, never to penalise any particular child in a class. In the example shegave, surely it would have been kinder and wiser to have had two pupils up at the front, or even a small group, who collectively owned the problem. We never feel so isolated if we are in a group.

Actually, ARK, I'm not sure there ARE many things worse than being hauled up in front of a huge bunch of people and everyone staring and laughing at you (well, you thinking they are, etc etc). For some, 'going public' is an unimaginable ordeal, the stuff of nightmares. It's hard for anyone extroverted to understand that. How much we should 'face our fears' is debateable. I've got a good few I really don't want ever to have to face! (eg, being in a mine that is flooding...or a sub, or the Titanic - drowning in an enclosed space is a real terror, and I'd never go on a cruise for that reason)

[random act of kindness]

Gipsy

I think that wuld be a great activity for your stepson to take part in. What would be the alternative - let him sit and struggle? never show that public speaking isn't the worst thing in the world? Who's to say half the class wouldn't identify with him?
Especially as it was expected of every pupil...

[Jennifer Edwards]

The article seems to imply that the oval table idea is entirely new in this country. When I started teaching in the early 1970s, however, this idea was very much in vogue - - and mainly discarded for the reasons listed above!

[Gipsy]

It is the blanket, one size fits all approach to teaching that yet again, is implicit in this article as well. This sort of teaching won't suit all children. Great if class sizes are 18 or 20, not so great if there's twice that number. Plus what is it that they're going to be discussing? How will it be structured so that even those students who find it difficult to push themselves forward in front of a group of people (especially their peers) are able to participate and learn?

It was utterly traumatic for my stepson to have to do anything like this in class. In one maths lesson, the teacher thought it would be a good idea for pupils to pick a sum/exercise they couldn't do, or found really difficult, write it up on the blackboard and 'present' the problem. The class would then have a discussion and work out the best way to solve the problem. Or perhaps that is how it sounded in the teacher's head. In reality what stepson heard was 'stand up in front of the class, something you find mortifying to do at the best of times, and never mind that you get tongue tied and your mind goes blank in these situations, you tell them what it is you're too stupid to figure out and the class will solve it thereby showing you that everyone in the class is more intelligent than you, you thicko'.

[Peter A Rushforth]

The Harkness model would distract from pupils' attention. In the tradiional model they have few distractions other than the back of the heads of those in front of them, whereas in the Harkness layout they can be distracted by the facial expressions and hand movements of those opposite.
In my school days the brighter pupils were on the back rows and the less bright and those who were usually less attentive were at the front where the teacher could keep a close watch.
Dare I mention that I used to be at the back !!!

[whimsey]

Call me a bit thick, but why can't you just arrange desks and individual or paired tables into an oval shape in the class room (I've certainly seen this done for extracurricular activities in a classroom). You don't actually have to go out and buy a table, do you? (and why on EARTH does anyone think a table has to cost £1,500!! Are they mad? You buy a couple of stands, then put a cut-to-size piece of chipboard over the top, with a cover. Works perfectly well as a dining table - my sister in law does this! - so why not for a classroom. I can't BEAR schools wasting money on expensive 'stuff' when cheap stuff will do just as well. Insane.)

Rearranging desks/tables would have the added benefit of being able to resume a traditional 'desks facing teacher' orientation when the 'board meeting orientation' wasn't suitable for particular work.

However, as said, the main problem is the class size - would a 'board meeting' work for 30 plus children at a time?