Candice Harris

300009878
PED 3151 EE
Do Seating Arrangement Impact Student Learning and Classroom Dynamic?
The research
Classroom arrangements, also known as seating plans, are a critical aspect of the learning
process. They refer to the layout of desks and chairs within a classroom (Fernandes et al., 2011)
and include layouts such as rows and columns, small groups, u-shaped, and semi-circle
configurations. Classroom arrangements have been shown to have a significant impact on
student behaviour (Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008) as well as academic achievement and classroom
participation (Fernandes et al., 2011). Having the “ideal” classroom arrangement is depended on
what the teacher is trying to achieve. A lot of teachers use seating arrangements to either
minimize disruptive behaviour or maximize on-task behaviour (Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008). For
example, teachers who want to maximize on-task behaviour of students during independent work
should consider using rows and columns as their primary seating arrangement (Wannarka and
Ruhl, 2008). This is because this type of arrangement makes it more inconvenient for students to
interact with their peers, creating less of a distraction. However, if group work and collaboration
is the primary focus of the class, teacher should consider arranging desks in more of a communal
configuration, such as small groups. This is because rows are the least conductive to on-task
behaviour when collaborative group work is desired (Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008). Sometimes,
behaviour isn’t the primary focus of seating arrangements. Teachers may use seating
arrangements as a means to facilitate classroom participation. Typically, students are more likely
to participate and ask questions when arranged in a u-shaped and semi-circle configuration
(Fernandes et al., 2011). In addition, student who sit near the front of the classroom demonstrate
higher motivation and participation results and have much higher achievement score compared to
their peers who sit closer to the back (Fernandes et al., 2011).
There are other additional factors to consider when thinking about seating arrangements.
How we define on-task behaviour is very critical. Are we looking at it primarily from a
behavioural aspect, or are we looking at it from a classroom participation aspect (i.e the
frequency with which a student raises their hand to ask or answer a question)? Another important
aspect is the age of the student. Behaviour patterns of students tend to change as they grow older,
therefore student behavioural responses to seating arrangement may also differ with different
ages (Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008). The seating arrangement you create for a second-grade class
will not produce the same desired effect for a grade six class. This was also one of the gaps I
discovered in my research because all the research found has been conducted primarily on
younger elementary school-aged kids. The oldest student in the research was 15 years of age.
The conclusion that was reached is that the is no single seating arrangement that promotes
positive behavioural and academic outcome for all tasks (Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008). It is
suggested that the nature of the task (independent vs. collaborative) should dictate the
arrangement. However, in a classroom setting, we often switch back and forth between
independent and group work, even within a day. Changing a seating arrangement every time the
task changes would, therefore, not be an ideal practice.
 Candice Harris
300009878
PED 3151 EE
Practicum connections
For my practicum, as I explored the concept of seating arrangements, my primary focus was
on behaviour, though I also took participation into consideration. I used three different types of
arrangements: paired rows, small clusters, and a large u-shaped arrangement. In my
experimenting, I discovered similarities and differences with my research. One of the things at
the forefront of my seating arrangements was separating students who we a distraction to each
other. While this worked for some students, for others it had no effect; some students would
eventual wander over to where their friend was sitting and required constant reminders that they
needed to be at their desk for the current task. In terms of participation, there were a couple of
students of concern who I did see more participation from when I placed them closer to the front
of the classroom. However, for the most part, participation was not affected by where a student
was sitting. Participation level was dependent on the students’ own personality; a student would
continue to participate and vice versa regardless of where they were located in the class. What
remained true for every seating arrangement change is that trying to create the ‘ideal’ seating
plan is one of the more difficult tasks that a teacher has to perform, despite it being one of the
few things that teachers have total control over.

Resources
Fernandes, A.C., Huang, J., Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter? -
The Impact of Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning. International Journal of
Applied Environmental Science. 10(1); 66-77. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b653/f362b5201ca792c9c5256ed7aeb25de12c00.pdf
Wannarka, R., Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and
behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Retrieved from: https://journals-scholarsportal-
info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/pdf/02682141/v23i0002/89_satppaoaroer.xml