Is it possible that the location of the teacher in the classroom could be an indicator as to whether the activity really matters?
Read on to find out what I think.
Proximity. It's very possibly the first thing every teacher learned in their classroom management course in college, and there's a good reason why. It works. Whether with first graders or adult drivers and police cars, proximity is an easy and effective management strategy.
This is one of the reasons why I never sit at my desk when the children are in the room. I acknowledge that the secondary world is a bit different. My cousin Laurie can sit at her desk while her AP seniors spend the class period independently writing timed essays, but I can't think of a time when using the teacher desk as a stopping place is appropriate in the elementary classroom. In fact, I would venture to say that if an elementary teacher is sitting at his/her desk, the children are not doing something worthwhile. If the activity matters, then the teacher will:
want to observe students
ask questions
interact
nudge
take notes
check on understanding
prevent possible behavior issues
show students they're invested in every part of the day
None of this can happen without proximity and constant movement. And if the teacher doesn't need to do any of the above things and can sit at a desk instead, then the children obviously shouldn't be doing what they're doing either.
Is it possible that the location of the teacher in the classroom could be an indicator as to whether the activity really matters?
I say yes.