The Effects of Classroom Seating
Arrangements On
On-Task Behavior and Academic
Performance
An Action Research Project
By Danielle Steger
EDUC 702.22
Spring 2010
Table of Contents
• Abstract
• Introduction
-Statement of the Problem
-Review of Related Literature
-Statement of the Hypothesis
• Method
-Participants (N)
-Instruments (s)
-Experimental Design
-Procedure
• Results
• Discussion
• Implications
• References
Introduction
Seating arrangement has been a topic of debate since the
early 1900’s.
Popularity has moved from single row or column seating to
cluster seating, a model to encourage cooperative learning.
The question still remains, what is the most effective seating
arrangement for the primary classroom setting?
Is there one particular model that should be used 100% of
the school day, or should the lesson dictate the seating
arrangement?
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
PROS: Research
Supporting Row Seating
• Room arrangement affects
• On-task behavior increases
with rows.
the learning process, student
behavior, and student
(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995).
engagement.
(Bonus & Riordan, 1998; 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
• 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).
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
CONS: Arguments Against
Row Seating
• It is ideal for socially facilitated
learning.
• Row seating impedes a
teacher’s ability to walk
between student desks and
assess 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).
(Weaver Dunne, 2001).
Statement of the Hypothesis
HR1: Changing the seating arrangement from
cluster seating to paired columns over a five
week period will increase the on-task behavior
of 25 common branch second grade students at
PS X during math class, and lead to increased
scores on math assessments.
Method
Participants
Class B
Class A
• 2nd Grade
• Began with 24 students
(12 boys, 12 girls)
• Ended with 25
(12 boys, 13 girls)
• PS X, Brooklyn
• Common Branch
• Title 1 school
• Cluster Seating
• 24 students
(14 boys, 10 girls)
Instruments
Method
Student Surveys
Unit Tests (enVision program)
• Class A Pre-test
• Class B Pre-test
• Class A Post-test
• Unit Tests 1-11 (Pre-test)
• Unit Tests 12-14 (Post-test)
Research Design
Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design.
• Two groups: Designated treatment group (X1) and control
group (X2) are pre-tested (O), exposed to a treatment (X), and
post-tested (O).
• Symbolic Design:
O X1 O
O X2 O
• Groups not randomly assigned.
Threats to Validity
Internal Threats
External Threats
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Generalizable Conditions
• Pre-Test Treatment
Selection
• Treatment Interaction
• Specificity of Variables
• Multiple Treatments
History
Maturation
Testing
Instrumentation
Selection
Mortality
Selection-Maturation
Interaction
Procedure
September 2009 – January 2010
• Pretest Data Collection (Unit Tests 1-11)
February 2010
• Class A Pre-test Survey
• Class B Pre-test Survey
February 2010 – March 2010
• Intervention in Class A
• Post-test Data Collection (Unit Tests 12-14)
March 2010
• Class A Post-test Survey
Class A Post-test
Results
Correlation of Students Distracted by Cluster
Seating to Test Scores
Student Test Average
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
Likert Survey Scale Rating
*No correlation was found.
*rxy = +0.57
4
5
Results
Class A & B Pre-test
Math Unit Tests Prior to Intervention
100
90
80
70
60
Class Average 50
40
30
20
10
0
Class A
Class B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unit Tests
* Class A average 85%, Class B average 86%.
* Class B performed 1% higher than Class A.
9
10
11
Results
Class A & B Post-test
Math Unit Tests During Intervention
100
80
60
Class Average
Class A
40
Class B
20
0
12
13
14
Unit Tests
* Class A average 80%, Class B average 79%.
* Class A performed 1% higher than Class B.
Discussion
• Theorists link seating arrangement with a child’s ability
to remain attentive, work productively, and learn.
(Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Koneya, 1976; Lackney & Jacobs, 2002; McCorskey &
McVetta, 1978; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein,
1979).
• The results support the research:
- Class A and B were taught using identical
lesson plans, resources, and assessments.
- Pre-test: Class B outperformed Class A.
- Post-test: Class A outperformed Class B.
Implications
• A change in seating improved test scores in Class B.
• More research needs to be done.
• More participants are needed.
• A longer study needs to be done.