Opinion and Perspective

Designing an Interaction-centered
Language Classroom

Tim Greer
Kobe University
Although speaking classes have become part of the standard language curriculumat tertiary level institutions in Japan, the physical layout of the typical college
classroom is rarely conducive to natural interaction. Students are conditioned toequate rows of desks facing the blackboard with teacher-centered communication.
In this article I would like to describe how some minor changes to the classroom
learning environment can impact significantly on the communication that
happens there.
I originally trained as a primary school teacher in Australia, where teachers
are assigned a classroom of their own and can therefore set it up in the way thatbest suits their teaching approach. In the lower grades student-centered models
tend to be the norm, and it is common to see desks positioned in flexible clusters
that allow students to talk in pairs and small groups.
In most Japanese universities, on the other hand, teachers share theirclassrooms with other professors and rarely have a say over how those rooms
are set up. EFL practitioners often use the same rooms in which economics orphysics lectures take place, and in the vast majority of cases this means the desks
are arranged in rows facing a chalkboard. Sometimes the chairs are even attachedto the desks, which are in turn bolted to the floor.
Of course, this setup may be fine for teacher-centered lectures, where theassumption is that the students’ role is not to speak but simply to listen to theprofessor. However, in communicative language classrooms, the first thing many
46

Designing a Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 46-52

teachers do each week is to have the students rearrange the desks into pairs orgroups. Teachers then spend the remainder of the class negotiating the narrow
space between the clusters of students and the unused desks that fill up the restof the room. Having endured this style of teaching for many years, I finally had
the opportunity to design a classroom of my own, and so I made sure that it was aplace that naturally encouraged learner-centered interaction (Figure 1).
It is often pointed out that the physical setting has an incredible influence on
the way college students learn (Brase, 1988; Hill & Epps, 2010). Even beyond
issues of physical comfort and audibility, the arrangement of furniture will affectthe sorts of learning that takes place there ( Jones, 2007). In addition, as Veltri,Banning and Davies (2006) have noted, many classroom design flaws stem froma lack of understanding about how teachers use the space. Unfortunately, in mostuniversities, it is administrators and accounting staff rather than teachers whomake fundamental decisions about classroom layout, such as how many desks tohave in each room and where to place them. When it comes time to refurbish,
office accountants no doubt reflect on their own background knowledge about

Figure 1. Students in Kobe University’s group-work classroom

47

Greerwhat a classroom “should” look like, and therefore they play a part in perpetuating
the teacher-centered classroom as the default model.
I would argue that many language teachers, on the other hand, would preferto have a student-centered classroom layout that helps develop collaborative
group work and co-operative learning as well as increase retention (Cohen,1994), and also provide valuable opportunities for negotiation of meaning.
Furthermore, both traditional SLA and sociocultural approaches recognize thevalue of pair work and small group interaction in fostering oral communicative
proficiency (Naughton, 2006). Whole-group instruction puts the focus on theteacher and therefore constrains the sort of communication that takes place.
However, teachers who view learning as a sociocultural practice aim to provide
students with opportunities for dialogic interaction (Haworth, 1999). Sitting at
individual desks is obviously not compatible with a communicative approach tolanguage learning.
In short, the classroom design places limits on the interaction that takes place
there, which in turn determines whether the learning is likely to become teachercentered or student-centered. With this in mind, I started to consider a classroom
design that would promote interaction between students.
In 2010, the general education building at Kobe University was due forrenovation. Although the office staff was responsible for the majority of theplans, they did consult the teaching faculty about the rooms where we would beteaching. The language teachers came up with a list of essential elements, including
sound-proofed walls, carpeting, audio-visual equipment, and a permanentlyinstalled projector. These were accepted without much problem, and for myJapanese colleagues this seemed to be the end of the story. Surprisingly, there washardly any discussion about the desks, which would suggest that the majorityof the professors were satisfied with the teacher-centered layout. As a result, thevast majority of rooms were refurnished with heavy single-person desks that werepositioned in rows facing the whiteboard, leaving the classroom layout essentiallythe same as before. Since the rooms had to accommodate 44 students in an areaof just 68 m2 (6.2 m x 11 m), there was little space left between the desks forstudents to walk, let alone store their bags.
48

Designing a Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 46-52

Thankfully though, I was given the chance to select a different seating
arrangement for one of the classrooms. Although limited by space and class sizes,
I decided to make this an environment that would be conducive to conversation
by replacing the single desks with larger tables that seated four people instead ofone. This economical solution also left more space and ensured that the students
were already in a physical position to talk.
The desks were arranged in two rows of five with one more desk at the backof the room (Figure 2). The layout mimicked the U-shaped configuration that isFigure 2. The classroom layout

49

Greeroften found in language classrooms designed for smaller classes, while still catering
for group-based interaction. This left a reasonable space in the center of the room
which enabled the teacher to move freely between the groups. Though ideally
it would have been even bigger, the space was sufficient for students to standand talk to other students, such as during survey interviews and “find-someonewho” activities. Most classroom interaction, however, takes place at the tables.
As shown in Figure 3, the two-plus-two seating arrangement naturally put thestudents into both pairs and groups yet still afforded them an uncompromisedview of the whiteboard.
We were able to salvage some swivel chairs that were being discarded from anearby meeting room, which not only saved us money but also gave the students
additional mobility. Since there were wheels on both the chairs and the desks,
the furniture arrangement became more flexible, encouraging teachers to use it
in innovative ways. During poster presentations, for example, the tables could be
easily pushed up against one wall and the chairs quickly moved into the corridor
to provide a large open space in which to move.
Overall, the rather simple change of replacing individual desks with groupbased tables had a huge impact on the classroom and the learning that wenton there. While the chairs were still facing the front of the room, the implicit
message was that the teacher was no longer the sole source of knowledge. Sitting

Figure 3. The seating arrangement at each desk

50

Designing a Language Classroom, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 46-52

in groups meant that students could no longer ignore the person next to them,and I noticed there was a lot more interaction happening between them before I
even walked in the room. Even quiet students came to know their regular groupand started to break down the barrier of silence that often exists in Japaneseclassrooms.
Although it is still not perfect, the classroom is much better than the rowsof individual desks that have been the bane of many language teachers at ouruniversity up until now. It has proved a popular layout among the foreign teachers
particularly, and reservations for classes in this room are competitive.
My aim in writing this article has been to document the way that some
simple changes to the physical layout of one university classroom have enriched
the language learning that goes on there. However, a secondary theme that has
emerged is the issue of how to make your voice heard in matters of educational
planning, such as classroom design. While it was undoubtedly a rare opportunity,
it may not be as unlikely as it first appears; even part-time teachers can use
feedback surveys to make specific requests for the classroom layout they need.
Sometimes enacting change just involves knowing who to talk to and being
there at the right time. At first I hesitated to mention my ideas during our meetingwith the administration because it seemed that the majority of the professors were
not concerned about the layout of the desks. However, later I talked about it with
an approachable colleague who was more closely involved with the renovation
project, and he was supportive of my suggestions and helped me negotiate further
with the office. As is often the case in Japan, the best way to make your voice heard
is quietly. And I am glad that I did. The group-work classroom sends the message
that student-centered learning takes place here, and slowly that is challenging theway my colleagues think about what can go on in a language classroom.

References

Brase, W. (1988). Design criteria for effective classrooms. Planning for Higher
Education, 17(1), 81-91.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive
small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
51Greer

Haworth, A. (1999). Bakhtin in the classroom: What constitutes a dialogic
text? Some lessons from the small group interaction. Language andEducation, 13(2), 99-117.
Hill, M., & Epps, K. (2010). The impact of physical classroom environment on
student satisfaction and student evaluation of teaching in the universityenvironment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), 65-79.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction:
Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169-184.
Veltri, S., Banning, J., & Davies, T. G. (2006). The community college classroom
environment: Student perceptions. College Student Journal, 40(3), 517-527.

Author’s bio

Tim Greer teaches in the School of Languages and Communication and theGraduate School of Intercultural Studies at Kobe University. His research focuses onnatural interaction in bilingual and second language contexts, and he is applying hiswork on conversation analysis to the language classroom. tim@kobe-u.ac.jp

Received: June 8, 2013
Accepted: June 30, 201352