Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter?

- The Impact of
Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning
Amanda Careena Fernandes, M.Ed.
Graduate, College of Education
Niagara University

Jinyan Huang, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of TESOL and Assessment
Niagara University

Vince Rinaldo, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Education
Niagara University

Abstract: This paper examines the impact Wieman, 2005; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008).
of seating locations on student classroom Though this belief has become an
learning. Specifically, it examines the anecdotal comment, there are indicators
impact of seating locations on a) student suggesting that student location within the
learning motivation, b) student-student classroom affects academic performance
and teacher-student relationships, c) the (Burda & Brooks, 1996; Holliman &
nature of different tasks and activities Anderson, 1986; Perkins & Wieman,
performed, and d) student classroom 2005; Sztejnberg & Finch, 2006). Over
participation. Its impact on classroom the past decades, research has explored
participation is carefully discussed whether it is the good student who selects
because active engagement and the seat at the front of the class or if the
participation in the learning experience seat at the front of the class creates the
positively affects students’ learning while good student (Burda & Brooks, 1996).
promoting the use of higher order What teachers consider to be a good
thinking skills (Flynn, Vermette, Mesibov student can vary. Research shows that
& Smith, 2009; McKeachie, 1990; seating locations1 are related to academic
Stronge, 2007). Student control, along achievement and classroom participation
with the implications related to seating (Budge, 2000; Marx, Fuhrer, & Hartig,
locations in the classroom is also 2000; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008;
explained and discussed. Research gaps Weinstein, 1979). Seating locations
in this area are identified. concern how students are seated within
the classroom environment. They can vary
Introduction
in size and formation; however, they
It seems that there is a common belief affect students’ learning conditions, and
that where students decide to sit within a learning conditions impact their
classroom reflects upon their motivation, engagement and participation in the
engagement, and willingness to learn
(Benedict & Hoag, 2004; Betoret &
Artiga, 2004; Budge, 2000; Burda & 1
Brooks, 1996; Daly & Suite, 1982; Marx, Seating location depicts where a student
Fuhrer, & Hartig, 2000; Perkins & sits within the classroom.

66
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 67

classroom (Budge, 2000; Marx, Fuhrer, & of seating locations on student classroom
Hartig, 2000; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). learning has important educational
Research has begun to show that implications.
active engagement and participation in the This paper examines the impact of
learning experience positively affects seating locations on student classroom
students’ learning (Flynn, Vermette, learning. Specifically, it examines the
Mesibov, & Smith, 2009; Stronge, 2007). impact of seating locations on a) student
Classroom participation is associated with learning motivation, b) student-student
the generation and promotion of higher and teacher-student relationships, c) the
order thinking skills, and this cognitive nature of different tasks and activities
stimulation provides students with a performed, and d) student classroom
different environment which promotes participation. Its impact on classroom
positive and effective learning participation is carefully discussed
experiences (McKeachie, 1990). because active engagement and
Further, a pleasant classroom learning participation in the learning experience
environment helps students learn better, positively affects students’ learning and
and different seating locations provide promotes students’ use of higher order
students with access to learning resources, thinking skills (Flynn, Vermette, Mesibov
such as the teacher and clear lines of sight & Smith, 2009; McKeachie, 1990;
to the board (Douglas & Gifford, 2001; Stronge, 2007). Student control, along
Jamieson, 2003; Sztejnberg & Finch, with the implications related to seating
2006). Classroom seating arrangements2 locations in the classroom is also
also have the ability to affect the explained and discussed. Research gaps in
communal environment within the room this area are further identified.
(Jamieson, 2003; Sztejnberg & Finch,
Impact of Seating Locations on Student
2006). Due to the large amount of time
Learning Motivation
students and teachers spend in the
classroom; overall comfort level of the Although the access to different
environment is a factor that impacts resources and increased monitoring
student achievement and success. Students provided by sitting at the front of the class
who find their classroom to be pleasant pose students with a different environment
and comfortable generally demonstrate an than those sitting near the back of the
increase in participation leading to higher class, student learning motivation and
achievement (Douglas & Gifford, 2001). personalities traits play a big role in
Therefore, the examination of the impact achievement and involvement in the
learning experience (Burda & Brooks,
1996; Edwards, 2000). It may be that
2
Seating arrangements refer to the layout students with higher motivation levels and
of desks and chairs within the classroom. a deeper interest in learning choose to sit
This reflects both where students choose near the front of the class, while those
to sit and where they are assigned to sit. who sit farther away exhibit less
Seating arrangements identified in this motivation and interest in the learning
paper include rows and columns, u-shape, experience. This may also be a perception
semi-circle, fan-shape, and clusters, also that teachers hold towards their
known as small groups. Seating prospective students (Burda & Brooks,
arrangements, seating plans, and seating 1996).
layout may be used interchangeably in
this paper.
IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 68

The learning experience received by A higher engagement level thus manifests

students sitting near the front of the class itself in students’ capability to achieve
is different than that received by students much more academically. Increased
sitting farther away. A replicate study by involvement in learning tasks or
Burda and Brooks (1996) demonstrated communication with the teacher has the
that students sitting near the front of the ability to promote learning, as greater
class demonstrate higher motivation and exposure to the subject matter often
participation results on the NachNaff increases understanding and retention
scale, which is a survey consisting of 30 (Leung & Fung, 2005; Weaver & Qi,
items in which students had to choose 2005; Xia, 2006). Higher participation
between self-descriptive adjectives levels can then lead to higher academic
consistent with either a need for achievement which may be interpreted by
achievement or a need for affiliation (Sid educators as being more motivated and
& Lindgren, 1982). The study by Burda involved in the learning process. As
and Brooks (1996) concluded that mentioned above, such traits are
students sitting near the front of the class commonly represented in students who
received much higher achievement scores desire to sit closer to the front of the
than students sitting farther away. It classroom. Such a trend has the ability to
further concluded that pre-existing influence teachers’ perceptions of
personality traits motivate students to students’ motivation and learning
select seats near the front of the classroom interests.
(Burda & Brooks, 1996; Edwards, 2000).
Impact of Seating Locations on
This may be due to their self-assurance in
Student-Student and Teacher-Student
their ability to maximize the learning
Relationships
experience provided by sitting closer to
the front. This may also be due to the Different seating locations have the
ability to recognize the increase in access ability to influence teacher-student and
to learning resources and a clearer line of student-student interaction (Marx, Fuhrer,
communication between the student and & Hartig, 2000). As such, teachers are
the instructor. Aggressiveness and the often led to have different perceptions
need for success may also be motivating about student locations within the
students to sit closer to the front of the classroom. Different classroom seating
classroom (Burda & Brooks, 1996). More arrangements create various social
passive learners may feel more interaction opportunities. For example,
comfortable farther away from the central non-linear seating arrangements such as
location of the instructor. Such a seating semi-circles or a u-shape increase the
location often guarantees less direct possibility of face-to-face communication
interaction and the ability to distance between students and teachers (Sztejnberg
oneself (Burda & Brooks, 1996). & Finch, 2006). Such seating
Directly related to motivation is arrangements promote positive student-
student engagement in the learning student and teacher-student interaction.
process. An engaging environment Furthermore, non-linear seating
provides students with an effective and arrangements, such as those above
enticing setting in which learning can mentioned, often allow for students to
occur (Vermette, 2009). Behavioural have better access to learning resources,
engagement is also directly related to such as the teacher (Wannarka & Ruhl,
students’ abilities to cope and relate to the 2008). This in itself can promote not only
subject matter being taught (Lan, Ponitz, teacher-student interaction, but also better
Miller, Li, Cortina, Perry, & Fang, 2009). understanding and access to learning
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 69

experiences. linear seating arrangements may be best.

Another aspect of social relationships As Wannarka & Ruhl (2008) note in their
within the classroom is those formed summary of empirical research on seating
between students. Student-student arrangements in the classroom,
interaction affects classroom participation communication is greatly emphasized and
(Fassinger, 1996). The implementation of increased when students sit in a semi-
different seating arrangements either circular seating arrangement. Though the
reinforces or diminishes the availability of row and column set-up is often
social interaction within the classroom. implemented in teacher-centered
Research has shown that where students classrooms, research illustrates that small
are located within the classroom can group seating arrangements are often
influence the amount of non-academic preferred when focusing on student-
activity, off-task behavior, and centered activities (Martin, 2002;
socialization they engage in (Benedict & Sztejnberg & Finch, 2006). Small groups
Hoag, 2004; Budge, 2000; Davis & Fox, as a form of seating arrangement often
1999; Edwards, 2000; Granstrom, 1996; provides the instructor and the student the
Perkins & Wieman, 2005; Wannarka & ability to interact more often; this
Ruhl, 2008). promotes working with individuals more
closely when compared to row and
Impact of Seating Locations on the
column seating arrangements (Kaya &
Nature of Different Tasks and Activities
Burgess, 2007; Patton, Snell, Knight, &
Seating locations can also impact the Gerken, 2001). The mere comparison of
nature of different tasks and activities these two different seating arrangements
used in the classroom. For example, using demonstrates how different behavior and
rows and columns greatly emphasizes the activities are emphasized through each
role of the individual. As such, one may seating plan. While a rows and columns
conclude that using rows and columns as a seating plan greatly focuses on
seating arrangement increases on-task individualistic activities with minimal
behavior and attention when students are social interaction, small groups offer
to complete individual work (Betoret & students greater interaction amongst peers
Artiga, 2004; Budge, 2000; Edwards, while working together.
2000; Hastings & Schwieso, 1995; While the rows and columns set-up
Hofkins, 1994; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). emphasizes individuality, semi-circular
This provides teachers with the ability to arrangements, where students are able to
closely monitor students individually and, have clearer lines of interaction, allows
therefore, disruptive, non-individual for communication to flourish and be
interaction can be easily identified. nurtured. Aside from semi-circular
Keeping in mind teachers’ needs, teaching arrangements, small groups offer small
styles also influence the seating social interaction with a set number of
arrangement provided to the students people (Betoret & Artiga, 2004; Patton,
(Betoret & Artiga, 2004; Sztejnberg & Snell, Knight, & Gerken, 2001). This may
Finch, 2006). Therefore, though it would be more common when implementing
be beneficial for students, the type of group work activities. As such,
activity often does not dictate the seating communication increases when students
arrangement. Commonly, the instructor’s are placed in seating arrangements which
teaching style dictates the classrooms focus on the group (Marx et al., 2000).
seating arrangement. Promoting such interaction can be directly
If the focus of the activity is no linked to communication between
longer individual but communal, non- persons. The facilitation of
IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 70

communication, either among students or Aside from teacher control of space,

between the student and the teacher, has students may also feel the need to
the ability to further promote learning delineate spatial constraints affecting
opportunities. The inability to access seating selection and arrangement.
desirable and interactive seating locations Creating a sense of personal space can
has the potential to negatively affect effectively control social interaction
student learning, as it may limit the within the classroom setting (Kaya &
exposure to subject matter and the Burgess, 2007). Though the goal is not to
expression of thoughts and knowledge. constrain students’ freedom, seating plans
have proven to encourage certain types of
Impact of Seating Locations on Student
behavior, which may be best suited to the
Classroom Participation
different learning experiences teachers
Seating arrangements themselves wish to provide their students (Betoret &
create various dynamics within the Artiga, 2004; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008).
classroom. The actual seating arrangement In addition to the ability to influence
layout can influence student control in the behavior, seating arrangements have the
classroom. The impact of seating possibility to influence movement within
locations within the classroom and how the classroom. Though this is a subtle
students self-select different seating form of control, seating arrangements can
locations are also related to participation be utilized to encourage desirable
levels in the classroom. Lastly, where one behavior and interaction while limiting the
sits in the classroom, the front of the class opportunity for misbehavior (Marx et al.,
or the back of the class has the potential to 2000). Additionally, studies have
affect student participation. demonstrated that students’ location
within the classroom can influence the
Student Control amount of non-academic activity students
Seating arrangements can help engage in affecting students’ social
control disruptive and easily distracted behavior and on-task engagement
students (Hastings & Schwieso, 1995; (Benedict & Hoag, 2004; Budge, 2000;
Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). The notion of Davis & Fox, 1999; Edwards, 2000;
using the environment to help control or Granstrom, 1996; Perkins & Wieman,
manipulate behavior is not a new concept. 2005; Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008). Non-
The creation of environmental and academic peer interaction has the
physical structures around humans has the increased ability to negatively affect
potential to greatly mould one’s behavior. students’ academic achievement as the
As Foucault (1972) explored, control over limitation of education distracters
others is possible without physical promotes increased retention and
restraints or implications. One can further understanding (Ahmed & Arends-
apply this concept to the use of different Kuenning, 2006).
classroom seating plans to help prevent As mentioned above, communication
disruptive behavior within the classroom. is a key component to the learning
The larger the class size is, the greater the experience. It becomes clear that different
need for control. As such, the size of the seating arrangements allow for increased
class and the room teachers are presented control and restraint of student interaction
with are directly related to how the and movement. One may also further
classroom is to function (Weaver & Qi, analyze the ability for increased eye-
2005). Management of such conditions contact with all students in more open,
will pose different conditions for both non-linear seating arrangements. An
educators and students. unobstructed face-to-face visual line has
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 71

the ability to further control student within a university class established a

behavior (Marx et al., 2000). Seating difference in attendance, performance,
arrangements which promote eye-contact, and achievement. In this study the
such as a semi-circle or a u-shape, will students’ performance and attendance was
assist the instructor in being aware of noted and compared to where they were
student movement while still being able to located within the classroom. Halfway
promote social interaction between through the course, the students were
students (Kaya & Burgess, 2007). required to change seats, bringing those
Therefore, not only can teachers have who sat at the back closer to the front and
more awareness of student activities, those who sat at the front closer to the
perceptions about students may also be back of the class. What was found was
created dependent upon the seating that the further the original seating
location they choose to select. This aspect location was to the front of the class the
can also be included when the teacher lower the average attendance (Perkins &
selects the seating location for each Wieman, 2005). Other analyses indicated
student. Assigned seating location may that the likelihood of achieving an A as a
also keep in mind how teachers wish to grade decreased as the distance from the
control students. Keeping a visible line of front of the class increased (Perkins &
sight on students will allow for the teacher Wieman, 2005).
to have additional input on that student’s Benedict and Hoag (2004) reported
activities and engagement level within the similar results. In their study, analyzing
class. Whether the students select their seating preferences and seating location
classroom locations or the teacher selects and their relation to course performance, a
the students’ seats, different perceptions preference to sit closer to the front of the
of student motivation, involvement, and class translated into a decreased likelihood
engagement may be at play in the decision of receiving a low grade. Students who
making process (Kaya & Burgess, 2007). preferred to sit at the front of the class
In addition to communication and demonstrated a higher likelihood of
physical restriction of student movement, receiving a B or an A as a grade than those
teacher selected seating arrangements and sitting closer to the back of the class.
classroom organization further reflect on Additionally, students who prefer to sit
the unspoken control educators have over closer to the back of the class had a higher
their students. Seating arrangements have likelihood of receiving a D or an F when
been directly linked to the instructors’ compared to those who preferred to sit
teaching style, which is not guided by the near the front of the class. In this study
students (Sztejnberg & Finch, 2006). As students were forced to change their
explored above, different arrangements seating location. Students were either
have the ability to affect teacher-student moved closer to the front or farther back.
interaction (Marx et al., 2000). Though Results show that students who are forced
teachers may hold different perceptions to the front demonstrated an increase in
about student locations within the likelihood of receiving a higher grade in
classroom, much of the conditions the course (Benedict & Hoag, 2004).
students are presented with are provided Being forced to the sides of a fan-shape
to them by the instructor. lecture hall reduced the probability that a
student would receive a B or an A as a
Impact on Attendance and Grades grade (Benedict & Hoag, 2004). These
A recent study by Perkins and results suggest that moving students
Wieman (2005) demonstrated significant forward in a class may override the
results in which changing student location negative effects associated with sitting at
IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 72

the back of a classroom (Benedict & when students get to select their own seats
Hoag, 2004). Overall, both studies a sense of autonomy is provided to the
demonstrate how different seating student. However, this freedom to select
locations have the possibility to affect one’s own seat may prove to be an
student attendance and grades. indicator of the student’s motivation and
Some of the factors affecting learning interest in the class (Benedict & Hoag,
experiences and seating selection include 2004; Marx et al., 2000).
student motivation levels, personality
traits, the ease of communication, The Front of the Class versus the Back
availability of seats, and proximity to of the Class
learning resources, such as the teacher. One may interpret a student’s
Although these factors influence the decision to sit near the front of the class as
learning experience, one’s ability to an indicator of deeper interest in the class
recognize such factors will also affect and to secure that student’s ability to
learning success. Teachers may be aware participate in the class activities. If this is
of such conditions, but students are not the case, then student personality is a key
always cognisant of these conditions. motivator in the selection of seating
Whether teachers are aware of such a fact location. Earlier research has indicated
may greatly affect their subsequent that students who choose to sit near the
perceptions of the students they teach. front of the class, or in central seats, more
Seating locations are often used by often exhibit creative, assertive, and
teachers as an indicator of student interest competitive personality traits (Totusek &
and motivation (Daly & Suite, 1982), Staton-Spicer, 1982). The most prevalent
even though the students may not trend suggests that students who sit front
recognize this. Keeping with this belief, and center within the classroom will
the ability to self-select seating will participate more than those who sit at the
further grant the students the ability to back; and so, they are perceived to be
demonstrate their feelings towards better students (Benedict & Hoag, 2004;
learning. Nevertheless, teachers often Burda & Brooks, 1996; Daly & Suite,
have the ability to select seating 1982; Perkins & Wieman, 2005; Weaver
arrangements. Where students are & Qi, 2006). As such, student
assigned to sit may then be a revelation of participation is related to the teacher’s
the teachers’ interpretations of their impressions of the student. Other studies
student, which may not necessarily be have noted that students who self-select
accurate. seats near the front of the class also
exhibit a sense of increased attentiveness
Student Selected Seating Location (Hillmann, Brooks & O’Brien, 1991). One
There appears to be a strong can argue that such student traits are
relationship between where a student desirable in the educational field and later
selects to sit and his/her subsequent when entering the employment field. Thus
involvement in the class. Proximity of one may conclude that students who select
seats to the front of the class or to the to sit near the front of the class may
source of learning, most commonly the recognize the need to obtain learning
teacher, will greatly vary on the format of conditions which will best allow them to
seating arrangement currently being achieve their desired results.
implemented. Educators must keep in The opposite may be concluded for
mind self-selected seating locations will those sitting near the back of the class.
hold different circumstances than when However, other conditions will also affect
teachers select students’ seats. After all, the availability of such desirable seating
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 73

locations. Students who enter the discomfort which can also detract from
classroom first may be in the position to the learning experience. This study is
select desirable seats first; thus, those who significant as it exposes another factor
are unable to come first may be left with driving student seat selection.
seats they do not desire but are left with The study conducted by Ruoff and
no other option (Benedict & Hoag, 2004). Schneider (2006) illustrates yet another
Diminished access from desirable seats aspect of seating location within the
has the potential to place students in a classroom. This study focuses more on the
position where they are left with personal and social reasoning behind seat
undesirable seating location which selection versus the accessibility to
increases psychological and physical learning resources or the students’
pressures in the learning environment motivation to learn. The peer conditions
(Xia, 2006). Evidently, this is a factor to presented within the classroom influence
keep in mind. The availability of limited not only seating selection but also the
resources within the classroom, including amount of interaction and participation
seating location, should not be neglected. elicited by students, all factors which
Keeping this in mind, one may wish to affect teachers’ perceptions of students
consider seat preference versus actual (Weaver & Qi, 2005). Seat selection is
seating location. Benedict and Hoag seen in this study as a result of social and
(2004) noted that seat preference versus repetitive actions. Seating is seen as an
actual sitting location was an indicator of interactive process, where the decisions of
academic motivation and achievement. As the individual are influenced by the
such, seating preference may be an decision of those before him or her (Ruoff
indicator of learning motivation and & Schneider, 2006). Social pressures may
interest. in fact influence students’ seat selection.
Aside from being an indicator of There may be a fear to be perceived as
student motivation and interest, seat anti-social or pressure may be felt to join
selection within the classroom can also be the larger group (Ruoff & Schneider,
linked to territoriality and the desire to 2006). Again, the topic of convenience
feel comfortable in the learning and comfort becomes a factor in this
environment. A study by Kaya and study. Individuals who have access to
Burgess (2007) examined the tendency for seats closer to the exit often select these
seat preference and territoriality within the seats. Such seats often offer the student
college level classroom. Upon having more comfort and less constriction when
labeled each respective seat with a attempting to leave the class.
number, a Likert scale based survey was Nevertheless, such a location can also be
conducted to determine which seats interpreted as giving the student an easy
students preferred and what their feelings way out of the class due to his/her
were about seat territoriality within their disengagement and disinterest in attending
classrooms. Student seating preference the full class period.
was also noted within this survey. The The process of selecting seats within
results of this study demonstrated how the classroom poses an interesting
exterior seats are more desirable due to situation in itself. Teacher perspectives
commonly being more spacious (Kaya & towards students and where they select to
Burgess, 2007). The more items a student sit may also pose an interesting dynamic
may need to have present during class can in the learning environment. The
influence his/her subsequent seating availability of resources, in this case the
location decision. Sitting in the front and information the teacher offers students,
center may now pose difficulties and becomes very important for the success
IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 74

and growth of students. The main way to seating arrangements within the post-
convey this information is through secondary and secondary educational
communication. Communication occurs in level, thus leading one to question how
many forms; some of the most prevalent these topics affect students at the
include verbal, written, and illustrated. elementary level.
Nevertheless, the most common within In addition to the above
the classroom is still verbal mentioned research gaps, there is a
communication. profound scarcity of studies exploring the
impact of cultural factors on seating
Identified Research Gaps
arrangements and subsequent student
Thus far research on the topic of participation and academic achievement.
seating arrangements appears to provide With the increase of internationalization
educators and researchers alike with a gap of education (Bond, Jun, & Huang, 2003,
of studies. In more recent years there 2006), the field of education needs to
appears to be a resurgence of focus on the continuously expand its understanding
topic of seating arrangements and how and implementation of different learning
they affect students’ learning outcomes. environments. Different cultures are
Research most often explores what type of increasingly interacting thus the need to
student chooses to sit in different better understand and interpret the value
locations within the classroom (Benedict of education for the different parties
& Hoag, 2004; Daly & Suite, 1982). involved becomes imperative. Therefore,
Other common topics of research discuss future studies need to provide researchers,
the conditions surrounding students which educators, and other alike with an insight
impact student academic achievement, into how different cultural backgrounds
including seating location within the may differ in regards to the
classroom (Burda & Brooks, 1996; Lan et implementation and reaction to different
al., 2009; Stronge, 2007). Though not seating arrangements within the
abundant, there are studies exploring the classroom.
direct impact of seating locations and the
Conclusion
consequential impact such a change has
on academic achievement and grades The classroom environment is a very
(Perkins & Wieman, 2005). diverse and highly dynamic setting.
Although there are some studies Teacher perceptions about students are
directly related to seating arrangements, often influenced by the conditions which
educational research regarding seating are presented to them. One of the most
arrangements is not abundant. A direct obvious and constant factors is that of
connection between seating arrangements seating location. In turn, students’ seating
and student participation is very scarce. locations are greatly affected by the
Identified research gaps include topics seating arrangements provided to them.
such as an in depth analysis of different Different seating conditions also
seating arrangements and how they are present themselves in different countries.
most effective, how teacher perspective of Though seating arrangements such as
students differs depending on where rows and columns, small groups, u-shape,
students choose to sit, who makes the and semi-circles are often used throughout
decision as to where students sit: teachers the world, pedagogical beliefs tend to
or students; and how such a decision influence and dictate the most commonly
affects student participation and academic used seating plan. For example, North
achievement. The majority of the studies America is moving towards the promotion
discussed within this paper focus on of small groups within the classroom (Lan
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 75

et al., 2009). This may be easily attained References

due to smaller class sizes and larger
Ahmed, A., & Arends-Kuenning, M.
classroom areas. In Asian countries like
(2006). Do crowded classrooms
China, the prominent seating arrangement
crowd out learning? Evidence from
is still that of rows and columns, with all
the food for education program in
students facing forward towards the
Bangladesh. World Development, 34,
teacher (Xia, 2006). As one can imagine,
665-684.
the subsequent teaching methods
Betoret, F. & Artiga, A. (2004). Trainee
implemented within each classroom
teachers’ conceptions of teaching and
setting will have to be different. Another
learning, classroom layout and exam
factor influencing the seating arrangement
design. Educational Studies, 30(4),
is the nature of the task at hand and the
354-372.
teacher’s instructional style. Depending
Budge, D. (2000). Secret is in the seating.
on what management style the instructor
Times Educational Supplement, 4396,
focuses on very different seating
26-27.
arrangements will be considered.
Benedict, M., & Hoag, J. (2004). Seating
In more traditional settings, where
location in large lectures: Are seating
rows and columns are emphasized, control
preferences or location related to
and individualistic traits are customary.
course performance? Journal of
Non-linear seating arrangements, such as
Economic Education, 35(2), 215-231.
a u-shape and semi-circle will tend to
Bond, S., Jun, Q., & Huang, J. (2003). The
promote communication and social
role of the faculty in the
cohesion. Regardless of which
internationalization of the
arrangement is present in the classroom,
undergraduate curriculum and
where a student sits will affect the
classroom experience. Ottawa:
resources and the learning experience the
Canadian Bureau for International
student is exposed to, such as being able
Education.
to see and hear the teacher (Benedict &
Bond, S., Jun, Q., & Huang, J. (2006).
Hoag, 2004).
Good practices for internationalizing
Teacher perceptions of student
the curriculum. Teaching and
learning and academic involvement can be
Learning in Higher Education, 43, 1-
greatly affected by where a student
4.
decides to sit. It may be ill advised to rely
Burda, J., & Brooks, C. (1996). College
on such first impressions to influence the
classroom seating position and
teacher-student relationship. After all,
changes in achievement motivation
learning is a covert action which needs
over a semester. Psychological
overt evidence for others to recognize it
Reports, 78, 331-336.
(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995; Vermette,
Daly, J., & Suite, A. (1982). Classroom
personal communication). Therefore, even
seating choice and teacher
though a student may sit in a front and
perceptions of students. The Journal
center location, appearing to be motivated
of Experimental Education, 50(2), 64-
and engaged, the student may still not
69.
learn. The conditions within the classroom
Davis, C., & Fox, J. (1999). Evaluating
are diverse and unique. As such, it is
environmental arrangement as setting
important to analyze and explore which
events: Review and implications for
perceptions teachers may have about how
measurement. Journal of Behavioral
classroom seating arrangements will
Education, 9(2), 77-96.
impact students’ classroom learning.
IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 76

Douglas, D., & Gifford, R. (2001). different types of classroom

Evaluation of the physical classroom arrangements. Environment and
by students and professors: A lens Behaviour, 39(6), 859-876.
model approach. Educational Lan, X., Ponitz, C., Miller, K., Li, S., &
Research, 43(2), 295-309. Cortina, K. (2009). Keeping their
Edwards, C. (2000). Classroom Discipline attention: Classroom practices
and Management. New York, NY: associated with behavioural
Wiley. engagement in first grade
Fassinger, P. (1996). Professors’ and mathematics classes in China and the
students’ perceptions of why students United States. Early Childhood
participate in class. Teaching Research Quarterly, 24, 198-211.
Sociology, 24(1), 25-33. Leung, M., & Fung, I. (2005).
Flynn, P., Vermette, P., Mesibov, D., & Enhancement of classroom facilities
Smith, R. (2009). Captivating classes of primary schools and its impact on
with constructivism. Postdam, NY: learning behaviours of students.
The Institute for Learning Centered Facilities, 23(13/14), 585-594.
Education. Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (2000).
Foucault, M. (1972). Power and strategies Effects of classroom seating
and the eye of power. In Power / arrangements on children’s question-
knowledge: Selected interviews and asking. Learning Environments
other writings. Edited by Colin Research, 2, 249-263.
Gordon, p. 135-165. McKeachie, W. (1990). Research on
Granstrom, K. (1996). Private college teaching: The historical
communication between students in background. Journal of Educational
the classroom in relation to different Psychology, 82,189-200.
classroom features. Educational Patton, J., Snell, J., Knight, W., & Gerken,
Psychology, 16(4), 349-364. K. (2001). A survey study of
Hastings, N., & Schwieso, J. (1995). elementary classroom eating designs.
Tasks and tables: The effects of Annual Meeting of the National
seating arrangements on task Association of School Psychologists,
engagement in primary classrooms. Washington, DC.
Educational Research, 37(3), 279- Perkins, K., & Wieman, C. (2005). The
291. surprising impact of seat location on
Hofkins, D. (1994). Rows of seats give a student performance. The Physics
better work-rate. Times Educational Teacher, 43, 30-33.
Supply, 4082, 13. Ruoff, G., & Schneider, G. (2006).
Holliman, W., & Anderson, H. (1986). Segregation in the classroom: An
Proximity and student density as empirical test of the Schelling model.
ecological variables in a college Rationality and Society, 18(1), 95-
classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 117.
13(4), 200-203. Sid, A., & Lindgren, H. (1982).
Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more Achievement and affiliation
effective on-campus teaching and motivation and their correlates.
learning spaces: A role for academic Educational and Psychological
developers. International Journal for Measurement, 42(4), 1213-1218.
Academic Development, 8(1/2), 119- Stronge, J. (2007). Qualities of Effective
133. Teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Kaya, N., & Burgess, B. (2007). Association for Supervision and
Territoriality: Seat preferences in Curriculum Development.
 IJAES – Vol. 10 No. 1 Pg. No. 77

Sztejnberg, A., & Finch, E. (2006). Education in China, 1, 56-69.

Adaptive use patterns of secondary Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating
school classroom environments. arrangements that promote positive
Facilities, 24(13/14), 490-509. academic and behavioural outcomes:
Totusek, P., & Staton-Spicer, A. (1982). A review of empirical research.
Classroom seating preference as a Support for Learning, 23(2), 89-93.
function of student personality. Weaver, R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom
Journal of Experimental Education, organization and participation:
50(3), 159-163. College students’ perceptions. The
Vermette, P. (2009). E.N.G.A.G.I.N.G. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5),
teens in their own learning: 8 keys to 570-601.
success. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Weinstein, C. (1979). The physical
Education. environment of the school: A review
Xia, W. (2006). Is our classroom and of the research. Review of Education
ecological place? Frontiers of Research, 49(4), 577-610.
Copyright of International Journal of Applied Educational Studies is the property of International Journal of
Applied Educational Studies-IJAES and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.