Seating Position and Small Group Interaction

Hare, A. Paul; Bales, Robert F.

doi:10.2307/2786150

Cited by 87 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although one could argue that the most dominant students, D1, become D1 students simply by sitting in the middle position, research has shown that students with a dominant personality are more likely to choose such "high-talk" positions (Hare and Bales 1963). Students that are shy, regard themselves as "weaker" or who do not wish to engage in discussions, are then more likely to be seated in one of the outer positions where communication can be more difficult.…”

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations

Nielsen

Hansen

Stav

2014

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors have compared students discussing multiple-choice quizzes during peer instruction with and without the initial thinking period before discussion. Video clips of students engaged in peer discussion in groups of three of varying group combinations, a total of 140 different students in all, were compared to students' own experiences extracted from group interviews (16 students in groups of four and a total of seven interviews) and survey results (109 responses). The initial thinking period was found to increase argumentation time during discussion, consistent with students' own experiences. However, while students felt that the initial thinking period increased participation and contribution of ideas among all group members, the authors only found significantly improved discussion for two out of three group members, those already most active. The research did not find any statistically significant difference for the least active students with or without the inclusion of the initial thinking period.

show abstract

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations

Nielsen

Hansen

Stav

2014

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…these Include: rate of speech (Apple, Streeter, & Krauss, 1979;Smith, Brown, Strong, & Rencher, 1975;Ryan & Giles, 1982), fluency (Miller & Hewgill, 1963) Sereno & Hawkins, 1967), latency or lack of hesitation (Willard & Strodtbeck, 1972;Lamb, 1981), gaze or eye contact (Kleinke, Bustos, Meeker, & Straneski, 1973;Mazur et al, 1980;Ridgeway, Berger, Smith, 1985), and nonverbal behavior such as choosing the head of the table (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1974" Hare & Bales, 1963.…”

Section: J 20 Navirasyscen Tr87-002mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Taxonomy for Composing Effective Naval Teams

Driskell¹,

Salas²,

Hogan³

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hare and Bales [5] as well as Sommer [8] agreed with Steinzor [9] hypothesis which plays important aspect in the interaction between members who sits in the arrangement. Students who are seated around tables distributed through a classroom could establish face-to-face contact, which is easier than those who seated in rows-and-colums Gump [4]. Meanwhile, Argyle [1] disagreed that it is possible to control the degree of interaction by operating on the angle between chairs, where the space of interaction between people to another are nearer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%