The Effects of Classroom Seating The Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements On Arrangements On

On-Task Behavior and Academic On-Task Behavior and Academic PerformancePerformance

An Action Research Project An Action Research Project By Danielle StegerBy Danielle Steger

EDUC 702.22EDUC 702.22Spring 2010Spring 2010

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

•• AbstractAbstract•• IntroductionIntroduction

-Statement of the Problem-Statement of the Problem-Review of Related -Review of Related LiteratureLiterature-Statement of the -Statement of the HypothesisHypothesis

• • MethodMethod-Participants-Participants (N) (N)-Instruments (s)-Instruments (s)-Experimental Design-Experimental Design-Procedure-Procedure

• • ResultsResults• • DiscussionDiscussion• • ImplicationsImplications• • ReferencesReferences

IntroductionIntroduction

Seating arrangement has been a topic of Seating arrangement has been a topic of debate since the debate since the early 1900’s. early 1900’s.

Popularity has moved from single row or Popularity has moved from single row or column seating to column seating to cluster seating, a model cluster seating, a model to encourage cooperative learning. to encourage cooperative learning.

The question still remains, what is the most The question still remains, what is the most effective seating effective seating arrangement for the primary arrangement for the primary classroom setting? classroom setting?

Is there one particular model that should Is there one particular model that should be used 100% of be used 100% of the school day, or should the the school day, or should the lesson dictate the seating lesson dictate the seating arrangement? arrangement?

Statement of theStatement of the ProblemProblem

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

Review of Related Review of Related LiteratureLiterature

The Importance of The Importance of Seating Seating Arrangement Arrangement

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

(Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Florman, 2003; (Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Florman, 2003; Lackney Lackney & Jacobs, 2002; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; & Jacobs, 2002; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1977). Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1977).

PROS: PROS: Research Research Supporting Row Supporting Row SeatingSeating

• • On-task behavior On-task behavior increases with rows.increases with rows.

(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995).(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995).

Review of Related Review of Related LiteratureLiterature

PROS: Research Supporting Row PROS: Research Supporting Row SeatingSeating

• • Students prefer orderliness and clear views of Students prefer orderliness and clear views of the teacher. the teacher. (Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990).(Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990).

• • Some learners prefer to learn alone or with Some learners prefer to learn alone or with oneone partner.partner.(Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Church, 2004; (Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Church, 2004; Dunn & Dunn, 1975).Dunn & Dunn, 1975).

• • Learning style is 60% biological.Learning style is 60% biological.(Dunn, 1990). (Dunn, 1990).

Review of Related Review of Related LiteratureLiterature

PROS: Research Supporting Row PROS: Research Supporting Row SeatingSeating

• • Row seating reduces talking.Row seating reduces talking.(Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; Silverstein & Stang, 1976; Wannarka & (Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; Silverstein & Stang, 1976; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008; Weinstein, 1979).Ruhl, 2008; Weinstein, 1979).

• • In the 1900’s the business model entered In the 1900’s the business model entered the American education system based on the American education system based on the German model of efficiency.the German model of efficiency.(Callehan, 1962). (Callehan, 1962).

Review of Related Review of Related LiteratureLiterature

PROS: PROS: Problems Problems With Cluster With Cluster Seating Seating

• • Increased Increased proximity proximity increases increases likelihood of off-likelihood of off-task conversations.task conversations.(Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; (Koneya, 1976; Ridling, 1994; Weinstein, 1979). Weinstein, 1979).

PROS: PROS: Theorists and Theorists and Supporters of Row Supporters of Row SeatingSeating

• • Students prefer row Students prefer row seating. seating. (McCorskey & MCVetta, 1978). (McCorskey & MCVetta, 1978).

• • Task orientation is Task orientation is improved.improved.(Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990; Weinstein, (Raviv, Raviv & Reisel, 1990; Weinstein, 1979). 1979).

Review of Related Review of Related LiteratureLiterature

CONS: Arguments CONS: Arguments Supporting Cluster Supporting Cluster SeatingSeating

• • It is ideal for socially It is ideal for socially facilitated learning.facilitated learning.(Patton, Snell, Knight & Florman, 2001).(Patton, Snell, Knight & Florman, 2001).

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

• • Students like each other Students like each other more and communicate more and communicate better when facing each better when facing each other.other.

(O’Hare, 1998; Bovard, 1951).(O’Hare, 1998; Bovard, 1951).

CONS: Arguments CONS: Arguments Against Row Against Row SeatingSeating

• • Row seating impedes Row seating impedes a teacher’s ability to a teacher’s ability to walk between student walk between student desks and assess desks and assess learning.learning.

(Weaver Dunne, 2001).(Weaver Dunne, 2001).

Statement of the Statement of the HypothesisHypothesis

HHRR1: Changing the seating 1: Changing the seating arrangement from cluster seating to arrangement from cluster seating to paired columns over a five week paired columns over a five week period will increase the on-task period will increase the on-task behavior of 25 common branch behavior of 25 common branch second grade students at PS X during second grade students at PS X during math class, and lead to increased math class, and lead to increased scores on math assessments.scores on math assessments.

MethodMethodParticipantsParticipants

Class AClass A

• • Began with 24 studentsBegan with 24 students

(12 boys, 12 girls)(12 boys, 12 girls)

• • Ended with 25Ended with 25

(12 boys, 13 girls)(12 boys, 13 girls)

Class BClass B • • 22ndnd Grade Grade •• PS X, Brooklyn PS X, Brooklyn • 24 students• 24 students

• • Common Branch (14 boys, 10 Common Branch (14 boys, 10 girls)girls)

• • Title 1 schoolTitle 1 school

• • Cluster SeatingCluster Seating

MethodMethodInstrumentsInstruments

Student SurveysStudent Surveys

• • Class A Pre-testClass A Pre-test

• • Class B Pre-testClass B Pre-test

• • Class A Post-testClass A Post-test

Unit TestsUnit Tests (enVision (enVision program)program)

• • Unit Tests 1-11 (Pre-Unit Tests 1-11 (Pre-test)test)

• • Unit Tests 12-14 (Post-Unit Tests 12-14 (Post-test)test)

Research DesignResearch Design

Quasi Experimental:Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Nonequivalent Control Group Design.Design.

•• Two groups: Designated treatment group (X1) Two groups: Designated treatment group (X1) and control group (X2) are pre-tested (O), exposed and control group (X2) are pre-tested (O), exposed to a treatment (X), and post-tested (O).to a treatment (X), and post-tested (O).

•• Symbolic Design: Symbolic Design: O X1 OO X1 O O X2 OO X2 O

•• Groups not randomly assigned.Groups not randomly assigned.

Threats to Validity Threats to Validity

Internal ThreatsInternal Threats

• • HistoryHistory• • MaturationMaturation• • TestingTesting• • InstrumentationInstrumentation• • SelectionSelection• • MortalityMortality• • Selection-Selection-

Maturation Maturation InteractionInteraction

External ThreatsExternal Threats

• • Generalizable Generalizable ConditionsConditions

• • Pre-Test Treatment Pre-Test Treatment SelectionSelection

• • Treatment Treatment InteractionInteraction

• • Specificity of Specificity of VariablesVariables

• • Multiple TreatmentsMultiple Treatments

ProcedureProcedureSeptember 2009 – January 2010 September 2009 – January 2010 • • Pretest Data Collection (Unit Tests 1-11)Pretest Data Collection (Unit Tests 1-11)

February 2010February 2010• • Class A Pre-test SurveyClass A Pre-test Survey• • Class B Pre-test SurveyClass B Pre-test Survey

February 2010 – March 2010February 2010 – March 2010• • Intervention in Class AIntervention in Class A• • Post-test Data Collection (Unit Tests 12-14)Post-test Data Collection (Unit Tests 12-14)

March 2010March 2010• • Class A Post-test Survey Class A Post-test Survey

ResultsResultsClass A Post-testClass A Post-test

*No correlation was found.*No correlation was found.*rxy = +0.57*rxy = +0.57

Correlation of Students Distracted by Cluster Seating to Test Scores

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5

Likert Survey Scale Rating

Stu

de

nt

Te

st

Av

era

ge

ResultsResultsClass A & B Pre-testClass A & B Pre-test

* Class A average 85%, Class B average 86%.* Class A average 85%, Class B average 86%.* Class B performed 1% higher than Class A.* Class B performed 1% higher than Class A.

0102030405060708090

100

Class Average

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Unit Tests

Math Unit Tests Prior to Intervention

Class A

Class B

ResultsResultsClass A & B Post-testClass A & B Post-test

* Class A average 80%, Class B average 79%.* Class A average 80%, Class B average 79%.

* Class A performed 1% higher than Class B.* Class A performed 1% higher than Class B.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Class Average

12 13 14

Unit Tests

Math Unit Tests During Intervention

Class A

Class B

DiscussionDiscussion• • Theorists link seating arrangement with a child’s Theorists link seating arrangement with a child’s

ability to remain attentive, work productively, and ability to remain attentive, work productively, and learn.learn. (Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Koneya, 1976; Lackney & Jacobs, 2002; (Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004; Koneya, 1976; Lackney & Jacobs, 2002; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1979).2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1979).

• • The results support the research: The results support the research: - Class A and B were taught using identical - Class A and B were taught using identical lesson plans, resources, and assessments. lesson plans, resources, and assessments. - Pre-test: Class B outperformed Class A.- Pre-test: Class B outperformed Class A.

- Post-test: Class A outperformed Class - Post-test: Class A outperformed Class B.B.

ImplicationsImplications

• • A change in seating improved test scores A change in seating improved test scores in Class B.in Class B.

• • More research needs to be done.More research needs to be done.

• • More participants are needed.More participants are needed.

• • A longer study needs to be done.A longer study needs to be done.