1 of 24

Classroom Seating Arrangements and Their Effects on Behavior and Classroom Community

​

Kati Marsh

IDEAFEST 2012

2 of 24

Statement of the Problem

​

In elementary classrooms, a lot of group work and partner activities take place. It takes too much time and distractions to move chairs and materials to the partner’s desk causing interruptions and off task behavior to occur. This disrupts the positive community atmosphere as well as creating behavior problems.

3 of 24

Why?

  • Will seating arrangement change or impact the student’s behavior?
  • Will seating arrangement change the community of the classroom?

4 of 24

Effects of Room Arrangement

  • Influences how children act and learn
    • Prompts children to use materials
    • Easily accessible, inviting
  • Children will be happy if the room is a welcoming place
    • Comfortable, pleasing to the eye, safe
  • Children will act orderly if the room is orderly
    • Can be the cause of disruptive behavior

5 of 24

The Importance of Seating Arrangement

  • The teacher and students needs to be able to walk around the room easily
  • Classroom management
  • Discussion
  • Keep in mind the position of whiteboard or smartboard
  • Stop off-task behavior
  • Room arrangement affects the learning process, student behavior, and student engagement.

​

​

​

6 of 24

Participants

One first grade classroom with 12 students

    • 5 girls and 7 boys
    • Middle class Caucasian students
    • Ages 6-7
    • 2 active and very talkative students
    • 2 very quiet and dependent students

​

​

​

​

​

7 of 24

Arrangement 1

8 of 24

Row Seating

  • Positives
    • On-task behavior increases with rows.
    • Students prefer orderliness and clear views of the teacher.
    • Some learners prefer to learn alone or with one partner.
    • Row seating reduces talking.
    • Task orientation is improved.
  • Negatives
    • Row seating impedes a teachers ability to walk between student desks and assess learning.
    • Reduces community.
    • Takes time and distraction to work with partners.

​

​

9 of 24

Arrangement 2

10 of 24

Arrangement 3

11 of 24

Arrangement 4

12 of 24

Arrangement 5

13 of 24

Arrangement 6

14 of 24

Cluster Seating

  • Form groups carefully by mixing students with differing strengths and weaknesses, genders and skill levels.
  • Seating children in ways that allow them to read with a buddy, compare ideas about how to solve a problem, or share manipulatives fosters cooperative learning.

15 of 24

Cluster Seating

  • Positives
    • It is ideal for socially facilitated learning.
    • Students like each other more and communicate better when facing each other.
    • The teacher can assign small tasks or projects to each group and easily circulate from one group to the next.
    • Allow for students to easily transition from group work to individual practice. 
    • Group seating can provide a less intimidating environment for students to voice their opinion and share knowledge.

​

16 of 24

Cluster Seating

  • Negatives
    • Increased proximity increases likelihood of �off-task conversations.
    • Cluttered classroom leaves less space to get around.
    • Uncomfortable for students who must sit sideways in seats to see the teacher.
    • May create competition between groups.
    • Students in back may feel neglected.

17 of 24

Questions Asked

  • Do you like the way the desks are arranged?
  • What could be better?
  • Does it make it easy to talk/work with your desk partners when you need to?
  • Does it make it easier/harder to do seat work?

18 of 24

Results

  • Arrangement 1
    • Overall No
  • Arrangement 2
    • Favorite
  • Arrangement 3
    • Yes, no dislikes
  • Arrangement 4
    • Overall No
  • Arrangement 5
    • Middle Ground
  • Arrangement 6
    • Favorite

1

2

3

4

5

6

19 of 24

Teacher Results

  • The supervising teacher and I found arrangement 2 to be our favorite.

​

20 of 24

Teacher Results

  • The supervising teacher found arrangement 6 to be her least favorite.

21 of 24

Teacher Results

  • I found arrangement 1 to be my least favorite.

22 of 24

Conclusion

  • Seating arrangement affects the way the students interact with one-another as well as with the teacher.
  • It affects community.
  • Boys and girls should sit together.
  • Groups are the most effective way to use partners and manipulatives.

​

23 of 24

References

​

Church, S. (2004). Learning Styles. Message posted to http://www.teresadybvig.com/learnsty.htm

Dunn, R. (1990, October). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Jamaica, NY: Educational Leadership.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ416423).

Dunn, K, & Dunn, R. (1975). Learning styles, teaching styles. NASSP Bulletin, 59,

37-49. Retrieved October, 25 2009, from SAGE database.

Florman, J. (Fall, 2003). Psychological & quantitative foundations: Researching classroom seating arrangements. Retrieved

October 4, 2009, from The University of Iowa, College of Education Web site:

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/edatiowa/fall03/department/pandq/index.html

Hastings, N., & Schwieso, J. (1995, December 1). Tasks and tables: The effects of seating arrangements on task engagement

in primary classrooms. Nottingham, UK: Department of Primary Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ514371).

Koneya, M. (1976, January 1). Location and interaction in row-and-column seating arrangements. Environment and Behavior, 8(2), 265-282. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from SAGE database.

Lackney, J., & Jacobs, P. (2002, January 1). Teachers as placemakers: Investigating teachers' use of the physical learning environment in instructional design (Report No. EF006078). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463645).

Learning styles: Unblock your true potential. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2009, from

http://www.learningstyles.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=70&lang=en

24 of 24

References

McCroskey, J. C., & MCVetta, R. W. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional

communication theory versus student preferences [Electronic version]. Communication Education, 27(2),

99-111.

O’Hare, M. (Autumn, 1998). Classroom design for discussion-based teaching. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 17 (4), 706-720. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Patton, J., Snell, J., Knight, W., & Gerken, K. (2001, April 1). A survey study of elementary classroom seating

designs (Report No. SP040068). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454194).

Proshansky, E., & Wolfe, M. (August, 1974). The physical setting and open education. The School Review, 82(4), 556-574. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Reisel, E. (1990, Spring). Teachers and students: Two different perspectives?!

Measuring social climate in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 141-157.

Retrieved September 17, 2009, from the JSTOR database.

Richards, J. (2006, Winter). Setting the Stage for Student Engagement. Kappa Delta Pi Record. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ724640).

Ridling, Z. (1994, April 1). The effects of three seating arrangements on teachers' use of selective interactive verbal

behaviors (Report No. SP035202). New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED369757).

Silverstein, H., & Stang, D. J. (June, 1976). Seating position and interaction in triads: A field study.

Sociometry, 39(2), 166-170. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007, April). Children and place: Reggio Emilia’s environment as third teacher. Montreal,

Quebec: Theory Into Practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ755994).

​

​

​

​