Classroom Seating Research Articles

Classroom Seating Effects

Stires's (1982) critique of our study (Levine, McDonald, O'Neal, & Garwood, 1980) and Knowles's (1982) comment on the state of classroom research (both in this issue) are considered. Stires's statement that we interpreted our stud)' as supporting the self-selection rather than the environmental hypothesis is shown to be inaccurate. Instead, we contend that some variables are affected more by location, others by self-selection, and still others by an interaction between the two. Stires's (1980) results are reevaluated and found to be congruent With this View'. We found Knowles's discussion of Griffith's (1921) study and his comments on classroom research provocative, although the relevance to our study seems tangential We fully agree with Knowles about the paucity of theory in this area and suggest several limitations in the existing research that should be dealt with systematically within a theoretical framework.

Classroom Seating Location, Order Effects, and Reactivity

A study of classroom seating location by Levine, McDonald, O'Neal, and Garwood (1980) was interpreted as supporting the self-selection rather than the environmental hypothesis. Due to certain flaws in the design of the Levine et al. study, their rejection of the environmental hypothesis is premature.

Classroom Seating Preference as a Function of Student Personality

This study examined the relationship between classroom seating preference and student personality characteristics. Previous research has revealed front and center seating positions are characterized by high student-teacher interaction. In this study it was suggested that one explanation for the high interaction is that students with similar personality characteristics prefer to sit in the central seats. The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to 285 undergraduates in two treatment conditions: preference seating and random seating. Analyses of variance and t tests were performed on the data. The research hyotheses were partially supported in that several personality factors were significantly different for those who chose action seats and those who did not.

Classroom Seating Choice and Teacher Perceptions of Students

Based on research linking seating position to participation and achievement in classrooms this study investigated the impact of seat position on teachers’ initial judgments of students. Teachers were presented with a seating chart where the student’s chosen seat, sex, and grade were described. Teachers made evaluations on the basis of this information. Results indicated a significant effect for seating and a three-way interaction. Students sitting forward in the classroom are regarded more favorably than those sitting in the rear. Teachers regard males sitting in the rear and females sitting forward more positively in the early grades and less positively in the later grades than their counterparts. In addition, teacher social-communicative anxiety affects evaluations based upon seating choice. High-anxious teachers differentiate between students on the basis of seating significantly more than low-anxious teachers.

Further Investigation of the Relationship between Hypnotic Susceptibility and Classroom Seating

Three classrooms of students ( n = 98) were tested for hypnotic susceptibility, handedness, and seating preference in an attempt to replicate the relationship between classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility reported in 1979 by Sackeim, Paulhus, and Weiman. No relationship between these variables emerged for males. For females the relationships were inconsistent across samples. Over-all these results constitute a failure to replicate previously reported findings. Theoretical implications for the relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and “hemisphericity” are briefly discussed.

Classroom Ecology

A two-phase study was conducted to examine the effects of classroom seating position on test scores and participation. When students selected their seats (Phase 1), those in the front performed better on the exam than did those in the rear. There was, however, no effect of proximity on participation. When students were randomly assigned to seats (Phase 2), there were no differences in test scores as a function of proximity; however, students in the front of the class participated more than did those in the rear. These results imply that the relationship between seating position and grades is mediated by self-selection processes, while participation is influenced by seat location per se.

Classroom Seating Location, Student Grades, and Attitudes

A previous study by Becker et al. demonstrated that students who sit near the front and center of a classroom get better grades and like the instructor better than students who sit in the back or at the sides. To determine whether this was a true environmental effect or an artifact of self-selection, students in one class were permitted to choose their seats (choice condition), while students in another section of the same class were assigned seats alphabetically (no choice). Regardless of choice condition, students seated in the middle of the room got higher grades, liked the course better, and liked the instructors better than students seated at the sides. Location effects were obtained on several other dependent variables. In only one instance did location interact with choice. The results are interpreted as supporting the environmental hypothesis rather than the self-selection hypothesis.

Enjoyment and Productivity as a Function of Classroom Seating Location

43 students in an introductory psychology class were periodically moved from one seating location to another in an attempt to discover the effects of location on classroom test performance and on four aspects of personal preference: enjoyment, motivation, feeling a part, and interest. The students spent the entire classroom time between successive tests seated in one of three “zones” located at various distances from the front of the classroom. Immediately prior to each test the students responded to a personal experience questionnaire and then took the exam, after which they were assigned to a new location. Analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in test performance as a function of seating location. There were, however, significant differences on all four aspects of personal preference as a function of seating location in both free and assigned seating. These results are consistent with other research which indicates no effect on performance attributable to location. They also make it clear that students’ satisfaction with a classroom experience is closely related to proximity of student and teacher.

Classroom Seating

Classroom Seating

Altering Classroom Seating and Serial Order

Altering Classroom Seating and Serial Order

Comparison of Two Common Classroom Seating Arrangements

Comparison of Two Common Classroom Seating Arrangements

Classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility.

Classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility.

Classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility.

Classroom seating and hypnotic susceptibility.

Personality correlates of classroom seating position.

Personality correlates of classroom seating position.

Personality correlates of classroom seating position.

Based on evidence that physical space serves to regulate the intensity of perceived threat, and that the experience of threat is mediated by personality characteristics, it was predicted that peripherally seated students in the classroom would have poorer self-concepts and greater personal space needs than centrally seated students. Personality, personal space, and attitudinal measures were administered to nine classes of high school students. Comparisons of extreme sections of the classroom revealed a significant polarization of student traits on three categories of variables dominated by self-concept and class participation issues. Results supported the notion that differential participation and physical isolation are closely related to self-concept. Physical distance has been reliably established as a compensatory regulator of the intensity of threat experienced in an interpersonal encounter (Altman, 1975; Argyle & Dean, 1965; Dosey & Meisels, 1969; Fisher & Cleveland, 1968; Horowitz, 1968; Meisels & Dosey, 1971; Patterson, 1976). In the usual experimental scenario, the impact of a threatening situation upon the subjects is such that the perception of threat elicits withdrawal or an avoidance response by the subject from the threatening stimulus. For this reason, physical space has been conceptualized as a body-buffer zone to which an individual has recourse when protection is needed in a physically or psychologically threatening situation (Dosey & Meisels, 1969; Horowitz, Duff, & Stratton, 1964). Distancing thereby serves as a defensive maneuver that promotes feelings of security because of reduced involvement with the threatening stimulus.

Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional communication theory versus student preferences

A study is reported which investigated student preferences for style of classroom arrangement (traditional straightrow, horseshoe, and modular) and seating preferences within each style. Results indicate that arrangement preferences are influenced by both attractiveness of the course involved and student communication apprehension level. It is concluded that manipulation of either type or amount of communication in a classroom may be more difficult than previously believed and that such manipulations have a high probability of engendering negative affect in students which could hinder learning.

Classroom seating and psychopathology: Some initial data.

Classroom seating and psychopathology: Some initial data.

Classroom seating and psychopathology: some initial data.

Classroom seating and psychopathology: some initial data.

Classroom seating and functional brain asymmetry.

Classroom seating and functional brain asymmetry.

An Experiment in Individualized Instruction through Small Group Interaction

ABSTRACT This experimentation was another step toward individualization of instruction and was conducted at Clarence High School, Clarence, N. Y. It was hypothesized that the academic achievement of an experimental group in French III would be greater if the students worked together, helped each other, and participated in the planning of the curriculum and of the classroom activities. Therefore the traditional classroom seating, where the students sit in rows, was used approximately one hour per week in order to give information or to clarify specific language difficulties. During the remaining time students worked independently, or in small groups as per interest and ability. Moreover, in order to increase the interactive process in the classroom, the following communication games were used: the Wheel, Pairing, the Inner‐outer Circle, Triads, Quartets, and Quintets. A Learning Environment Inventory Scale describing characteristics of classes was administered to determine the social climate. A t test indicated that there was a significant difference in the social climate of the experimental group in the scales of Diversity. Speed, Friction, Favoritism, Apathy, Democracy, and Satisfaction. Moreover, the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group in the four basic skills of French, as tested by the MA form of the Modern Language Cooperative Tests.