1. An Action Research Project By Danielle Steger EDUC 702.22 Spring 2010
The Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements On On-Task Behavior and Academic Performance
An Action Research Project
By Danielle Steger
EDUC
Spring 2010

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Review of Related Literature
The Importance of Seating Arrangement
• Room arrangement affects
the learning process, student behavior, and student engagement.
(Bonus & Riordan, 1998; Florman, 2003; Lackney
& Jacobs, 2002; Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974; Richards, 2006; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007; Susi, 1989; Weinstein, 1977).
PROS: Research Supporting Row Seating
• On-task behavior increases with rows.
(Hastings & Schwieso, 1995).

5. 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).

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. Review of Related Literature
CONS: Arguments Supporting Cluster Seating
• It is ideal for socially facilitated 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).
CONS: Arguments Against Row Seating
• Row seating impedes a teacher’s ability to walk between student desks and assess learning.
(Weaver Dunne, 2001).

9. 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.

10. Method Participants Class A Class B • Began with 24 students
(12 boys, 12 girls)
• Ended with 25
(12 boys, 13 girls)
Class B
• 2nd Grade
• PS X, Brooklyn • 24 students
• Common Branch (14 boys, 10 girls)
• Title 1 school
• Cluster Seating

11. Method Instruments Student Surveys Unit Tests (enVision program)
• Class A Pre-test
• Class B Pre-test
• Class A Post-test
Unit Tests (enVision program)
• Unit Tests 1-11 (Pre-test)
• Unit Tests (Post-test)

12. 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.

13. Threats to Validity Internal Threats External Threats • History
• Maturation
• Testing
• Instrumentation
• Selection
• Mortality
• Selection-Maturation Interaction
External Threats
• Generalizable Conditions
• Pre-Test Treatment Selection
• Treatment Interaction
• Specificity of Variables
• Multiple Treatments

14. 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

15. Results
Class A Post-test
*No correlation was found.
*rxy = +0.57

16. Results Class A & B Pre-test
* Class A average 85%, Class B average 86%.
* Class B performed 1% higher than Class A.

17. Results Class A & B Post-test
* Class A average 80%, Class B average 79%.
* Class A performed 1% higher than Class B.

18. 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.

19. 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.