The Effects of Classroom Seating

Arrangements On
On-Task Behavior and Academic
Performance

An Action Research Project

By Danielle Steger
EDUC 702.22
Fall 2009
 Table of Contents
• Abstract
• Introduction
-Statement of the Problem 4
-Review of Related Literature 5-12
-Statement of the Hypothesis 13
• Method
-Participants 14
-Instruments 15
-Experimental Design
-Procedure
 Table of Contents
• Results
• Discussion
• Implications
• References 16-18

• Appendices
-Appendix A 19
-Appendix B 20
-Appendix C 21
 Statement of the Problem

PS X has adopted cluster seating for all

classrooms, 100% of the school day. Independent
math practice at PS X is complicated by off-task
behavior and would benefit from a less distracting
seating arrangement, such as paired columns.
 Review of Related Literature

The Importance of Seating Arrangement

• The main cause of off-task behavior is classroom seating arrangement.
(Bonus & Riordan, 1998).

• Room arrangement affects the learning process, student behavior, and

student engagement.
(Florman, 2003; Lackney & Jacobs, 2002; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006;
Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1977).
 Review of Related Literature
PROS: Research Supporting Row Seating

• On-task behavior increases with rows.

(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995).
 Review of Related Literature
PROS: Research Supporting Row Seating

• Students prefer orderliness and clear views of the

teacher.
(Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990).

• Some learners prefer to learn alone or with one partner.

(Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Church, 2004; Dunn & Dunn, 1975).

• Learning style is 60% biological.

(Dunn, 1990).
 Review of Related Literature
PROS: Research Supporting Row Seating

• Row seating reduces talking.

(Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; Silverstein & Stang, 1976; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008;
Weinstein, 1979).

• In the 1900’s the business model entered the American

education system based on the German model of efficiency.
(Callehan, 1962).
 Review of Related Literature
PROS: Problems With Cluster Seating

• Increased proximity increases likelihood of off-task

conversations.
(Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; Weinstein, 1979).
 Review of Related Literature
PROS: Theorists and Supporters of Row Seating

• Students prefer row seating.

(McCorskey & MCVetta, 1978).

• Task orientation is improved.

(Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990; Weinstein, 1979).
 Review of Related Literature
CONS: Arguments Supporting Cluster Seating

• It is ideal for socially facilitated learning.

(Patton, Snell, Knight & Florman 2001).

• It promotes “innovation.”
(Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990).

• Students like each other more and communicate better when facing
each other.
(O’Hare, 1998; Bovard, 1951).
 Review of Related Literature
CONS: Arguments Against Row Seating

• Row seating impedes a teachers ability to walk

between student desks and assess learning.
(Weaver Dunne, 2001).
 Statement of the Hypothesis

HR1: Changing the seating arrangement from

cluster seating to paired columns over a four
week period will increase the on-task behavior
of 24 common branch second grade students at
PS X during math class, and lead to increased
scores on math assessments.
 Participants
Two second grade common branch classes in the NYCBOE.

Classroom A
• 24 students
• 1 student repeating second grade
• cluster seating (4 groups of 6) 100% of the school day

Classroom B
• 24 students
• 1 student repeating second grade
• cluster seating (4 groups of 6) 100% of the school day
 Instruments
• Tests
- Three Unit Tests

• Student surveys
- Survey 1: To be given to both classes prior to action research.
- Survey 2: To be given to both classes following action
research.
- Survey 3: To be given only to class one following action
research.
 References
Bonus, M., & Riordan, L. (1998, May 1). Increasing student on-task behavior through the use of specific seating
arrangements.
(Report No. PS026868). Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED422129).
Bovard, E. Jr. (1951, Nov). The psychology of classroom interaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 45(3),
215-224. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from the JSTOR database.
Burke, K., & Burke-Samide, B. (2004, July-August). Required changes in the classroom environment: It’s a matter
of design. Jamaica, New York: Clearing House. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ705442).
Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press.
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
 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).
 References
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).
Susi, F. D. (July, 1989). The physical environment of art classrooms: A basis for effective discipline. Art
Education, 42(4), 37-43. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from JSTOR database.
Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008, May 1). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and
behavioural outcomes: A
review of empirical research. Oxford, UK: Support for Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. EJ793728).
Weaver Dunne, D. (2001, April 4). Do seating arrangements and assignments classroom management?
Education
World. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr330.shtml
Weinstein, C. (1977, Summer). Modifying student behavior in an open classroom through changes in the
physical
design. American Educational Research Journal, 14 (3), 249-262. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from the
SAGE database.
Weinstein, C. (1979, Fall). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of
Educational
Research, 49(4), 577-610. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from the SAGE database.
 Appendix A:
Student Survey on Seating and Math
(To be given to Class 1 and Class 2 prior to action research).
Directions: Please write the number on the line that matches how you feel about the statement.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

I like math. ___________

I like sitting near other people. ___________
I am good at math. ___________
I can get my work done during math class. ___________
I think that math is hard. ___________
I like sitting near other people while I work. ___________
I get distracted by the people near me during math class. ___________
The people near me distract me from my work. ___________
I can work independently during math class. ___________
I can’t get my work done during math class. ___________
 Appendix B:
Student Survey on Seating and Math
(To be given to Class 1 and Class 2 after action research).

Directions: Please write the number on the line that matches how you feel about the statement.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

I like math. ___________

I like sitting near other people. ___________
I am good at math. ___________
I can get my work done during math class. ___________
I think that math is hard. ___________
I like sitting near other people while I work. ___________
I get distracted by the people near me during math class. ___________
The people near me distract me from my work. ___________
I can work independently during math class. ___________
I can’t get my work done during math class. ___________
 Appendix C:
Student Survey on Seating and Math
(To be given to Class 1 after action research).

Directions: Please write the number on the line that matches how you feel about the statement.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

I like math. ___________

I like sitting in rows. ___________
I am good at math. ___________
I can get my work done during math class when I sit in rows. ___________
I think that math is hard. ___________
I like sitting in rows better than groups. ___________
I get distracted by the people near me during math class. ___________
The people near me distract me from my work. ___________
I can work independently during math class when I sit in rows. ___________
I like sitting in groups better than rows. ___________