Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Matthew Munoz – 17822099

Researching and learning 2, Asessment 2: Part A – Literature review

Main topic area: Behaviour management strategies in the classroom

Individual topic area: Seating arrangements

Do seating plans have an effect on classroom behavioural management?

It is commonly thought that a student’s decision on where they sit inside a classroom

is a reflection on their motivation, engagement, and eagerness to learn (Benedict &

Hoag, 2004). Although this perception is created through anecdotal experiences,

there are indications that where a student is located within the classroom can have

an impact on their academic performance and behaviour (Sztejnberg & Finch, 2006).

Research suggests that there is a correlation between seating locations and

academic performance and classroom engagement and on-task behaviour (Budge,

2000). Seating location refers to where and how students are seated in a learning

context. They can be of different sizes and formations, which thus alters their

learning conditions, which in turn influences student behaviour and participation

(Budge, 2000). Further, the location in which students are seated can influence

access to learning resources, such as being able to clearly see the board or teacher.

It has also been suggested that a student’s own satisfaction with where they are

placed in the classroom can affect learning achievement and behaviour. Therefore,

choice of seating arrangement can have important educational implications (Douglas

& Gifford, 2001). This paper will compile and review various bodies of literature to

compare findings and identify consistent trends on similar research questions.

1
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

The literature synthesis by Wannarka & Ruhl (2008) suggests that the educational

importance of seating arrangements, is that appropriate classroom seating

arrangement can prevent disruptive and problem behaviours which can lead to

decreased student engagement, which can often diminish available instructional

time. This literature review investigated eight different studies which focus on

identifying what type of desk arrangement most effectively fosters positive

behavioural outcomes. The findings from this article state that the nature of the

learning activity should dictate the type of seating arrangement used. The article

suggests that generally, teachers seeking to maximise ‘on-task behaviour’ during

independent work should consider predominantly arranging their tables in rows over

groups, with findings showing that this is of particular importance for students who

are deemed frequently off-task. This is theorised to be partly attributed to being in

clear line of the teacher where it is difficult to engage in disruptive behaviour without

being seen by the teacher. However, if the nature of the task is collaborative, such

as a brainstorm or discussion activity, seating arrangements which easily facilitate

interaction due to position and proximity, such as small clusters or semi-circles,

should be used.

Another article which was examined is the literature review by Haghighi & Jusan

(2012). An important point brought up in this article is that it is commonly seen in

articles on this topic that teachers oftentimes pick a seating arrangement at the start

of the teaching period and do not change it throughout, but this study highlights that

the more effective strategy is to pick an appropriate seating arrangement depending

on the specific tasks that will be conducted in class. Generally, these articles findings

coincide closely with that of Wannarka & Ruhl (2008), in saying that depending on

2
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

the nature of the task at hand, different seating arrangements will be more desirable.

For instance, it is reiterated that the task is reliant on student interactions and

encourages a great deal of questioning and collaborative efforts, a U-

shape/horseshoe arrangement is preferred to rows. Another issue which is brought

up in this review, is the lack of priority placed on the students perception on the

seating plan. The article raises two important questions for future research: “If a

student is given freedom to choose seating arrangement preferred by him/her, which

seating arrangement would he/she select? If a student is given freedom to choose

their own seating location in any of the three layouts, which particular seat would be

his/her selection?” (pp.289)”. The implication of students being in a seating

arrangement they do not like is that it has the potential to increase amount of

disruptive behaviour as a result of children feeling unhappy with their seating location

or wanting to show acts of defiance against being allocated a seat.

Another article which was examined was an observational study written by Siang

(1991) which examined and inteviwed 22 students. The findings of this article

reinforces the findings from other studies in saying that appropriate seating

arragenment and student location within the classroom can have implicaitons for the

amount of off-task behaviour student engagement. This study however brings up

another important consideration that other studies do not. Siang (1991) interviwed

students and asked them how they felt about where they sat with some important

issues being brought up. Another point brought to light by this study is that certain

personality types had preferences for where they would sit in the classroom, as the

interviews conducted found that students who considered themselves introverted

and passive learners who did not enjoy being overly involved in class discussions

3
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

and activities. For instance, some students felt their learning was impeded by a

seating plan versus if they had freedom over where they sat. Some students stated

that they would have sat closer to the board or teacher as they find it difficult to hear

or see when they are too far away. This intrinsic feeling of not being in an optimal

location in the classroom was an influencing factor for students engaging in off-task

behaviour or not completeing their work, as their feelings of unhappiness led to

feelings of disengagement and restlessness. The implications highlighted by this

article that although strategic seating arragenments can have positive influences on

student behaviour, however, it is important to be aware of students physical

capabilities as well as their emotional characteristics when deciding on where

students should be seated if educing student demotivation and unruly behaviour are

to be achieved.

Finally, the last article which was analysed is the paper written bt Bennet and

Blundell (1983). What makes this article unique is that researchers not only analysed

student behaviour but also compared both quantity and quality of work of students in

row seating arragenments. Work quantity was measured by calculating the number

of attemped questions throughout the lesson whilst quality was measured by the

percentage of questions which were answered correctly. The research findings of

this article suggest that seating arrangement had a positive impact on behavioural

outcomes and quantity, but not quality. Findings from the research that students

were able to answer a significant amount more questions but the percentage of

answers which were correct was not statiscially significant.This further reinforces

other literature on the effectiveness of seating plans, that they have potential to have

positive impacts on both learning and behavioural outcomes but should be chosen

4
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

based on the nature of the tasks which will be completed. Tasks which require

collaboration and encourage asking questions should be seated in U-shapes or

small groups where as if the work is predominantly done individually, rows are

preferred.

What can be concluded from this literature review is that intelligent, task-specific and

purposely chosen seating plans can have positive effects on student behaviour. It is

reinforced by multiple bodies of literature that on-task behaviour is improved when

appropriate seating plans are implemented. Educators should know their student’s

individual charactersitcs and adapt to suit their classroom dynamics whilst also

considering the nature of the tasks being completed when selecting a seating plan.

Word count: 1215

5
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

Part B – Observation Protocol

Off-task behaviours Tally of instances

Talking out of turn

Class clowning behaviours

Overly loud or unrelated conversations

Blatantly not paying attention to the

teacher

Unnecessarily leaving their seat

Attempting to do things out of teachers

view

Unnecessarily touching/play fighting

with peers

Acts of defiance

Other undesirable/disruptive behaviour

6
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

Part C – Protocol explanation

Prior to the study taking place, consent forms would be distributed to each student

by the teacher of the class and returned to the teacher. All students would need to

give consent if the study is go ahead. Once consent is acquired from each student,

a single class of 24 students would be elected to be observed for 6 lessons which

were thought to potentially be the most disruptive time of day (e.g. after lunch break).

If circumstances allow, it would be the same class being observed during the same

period, with the same teacher, to better create a constant environement, so there is

a reduced chance that behavioural differences between classes are attributed to

other factors outside of the seating arrangement. Each class would only be told a

study is being carried out but not the nature of the study, as not to influence students

to behave in a certain manner because they know their off-task behaviours are being

monitored. Two lessons would be observed, with tables being organised in rows, two

classes utilising a U-shape arrangement and the other two classes using small

grouped tables arrangement. It would be established between observer prior to

selecting which classes would be observed. If time and fesability allows, it would be

ideal for the study that one class observing the effect of a U-shape class would be

predominantly comprised of individual tasks, and the other class being

predominantly comprised of discussion based or collaborative tasks, as to provide a

means to be compared between how students responded with different seating

arrangements when enaging in different tasks. The same applies to the ideal

circumstances for observation of small grouped table seating arrangement. On-task

7
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

behaviour is defined as behaviour which is deemed appropriate and relevant to the

task at hand; however, for the purpose of this research is loosely defined, as the

focus is placed on amount of off-task behaviours observed. These behaviours would

be tallied each time they are observed in the table provided. Each individual

“instance” of off-task behaviour would add to the tally. If multiple students are

engaging in the same off-task behaviour (e.g. play fighting with each other), a tally

would be added for each student involved. Results would then be compared

between the classes and the amount of tallied off-task behaviours would be the main

focus. If possible, it would be beneficial to have an additional observer to aid in this

study. This would allow for another tally to be recorded and an average score

calculcated, which would reduce the impact of factors which may skew results, for

example, human errors, such as one observer not being abe to see certain students,

or simply not seeing off-task behaviours occurring as focus was elsewhere. It is also

important to note that it should be discussed with the teacher prior to selecting which

class to observe, if there is any students with learning difficulties, as this would skew

the results and is outside of the scope of this research question.

8
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

References

Benedict, M., & Hoag, J. (2004). Seating Location in Large Lectures: Are Seating

Preferences or Location Related to Course Performance?. The Journal of

Economic Education, 35(3), 215-231. doi: 10.3200/jece.35.3.215-231

Bennett, N., & Blundell, D. (1983). Quantity and Quality of Work in Rows and

Classroom Groups. Educational Psychology, 3(2), 93-105. doi:

10.1080/0144341830030201

Budge, D. (2000). Secret is in the seating. Times Educational Supplement, 26-27.

Douglas, D., & Gifford, R. (2001). Evaluation of the physical classroom by students

and professors: a lens model approach. Educational Research, 43(3), 295-309.

doi: 10.1080/00131880110081053

Haghighi, M., & Jusan, M. (2012). Exploring Students Behavior on Seating

Arrangements in Learning Environment: A Review. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 36, 287-294. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.032

Sztejnberg, A., & Finch, E. (2006). Adaptive use patterns of secondary school

classroom environments. Facilities, 24(13/14), 490-509. doi:

10.1108/02632770610705275

Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive

academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support

For Learning, 23(2), 89-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00375.x

9
Matthew Munoz – 17822099

10

Potrebbero piacerti anche