You are on page 1of 13

() g .

d--

----

CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS:


INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
THEORY VERSUS STUDENT PREFERENCES
James C. McCorskey Rod W. McVetta

Effective communication in the class- rangement of stUdents. While there prob-


room is essential to the success of both ably is an infinite number of ways of
the student and the teacher.! The kind arranging a classroom, three are most
of communication as well as the amount common: traditional, horseshoe, and
of communication that occurs in the modular.
classroom has long been thought to be The traditional. arrangement (see
partially a function of the seating ar- Figure I) for classrooms typically consists
of about five or six perfectly straight
Dr. McCroskey is Professor and Chairperson of rows, each containing five to seven chairs
the Department of SPeech Communication at
West Virginia University. Mr. McVetta is a equidistant from each other-or as
doctoral candidate specializing in Communica- Rosenfeld and Civikly say, "something
tion in Instruction at the same institution.
1 For recent books concerned with the role
like tombstones in a military ceme-
of communication in the classroom, see Gustav tery.":! Historically, Sommer explains,
W. Friedrich, Kathleen Galvin, and Cassandra the straight-row arrangement evolved to
Book, Growing Together:Classroom Communi-
cation (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
1976), and H. Thomas Hurt, Michael D. Scott. 2 Lawrence B. Rosenfeld and Jean M. Civikly,
and James C. McCroskey, Communication in the With Words Unspoken: The Nonverbal Experi-
Classroom (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. ence (New York: Holt, Rinehart and 'Winston,
Co., 1978). 1976), p. 161.
COMMUNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 27, Marro 1978
JllII COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

FIGURE 1
TRADITIONAL ARRANGEME1'o'T

Teacher

M H H H
~
M M
~ M M

L M H M L

L
~ ~ L L

L L M L
~I
. H = High Interaction seat, M = Moderate Interaction, L = Low Interaction

make the best use of the only adequate classes because of the "dead space" in
lighting then available-natural light the middle. Consequently a "double
from side windows.3 In spite of develop- horseshoe", two semi-circular rows with
ments in lighting which make the one inside the other, is also frequently
straight-row arrangement unnecessary, observed. The modular arrangement (see
this traditional arrangement persists, in Figure 3) is found mostly in specialized
fact dominates. A recent survey of class- classrooms (e.g. home economics. science
rooms on a university campus found over laboratories) and in classrooms :It the
90 percent of the classrooms to have this lower elementary school levels.
arrangement.
The horseshoe or semi-circular ar- Evaluation of Variotls Arrangements
rangement (see Figure 2) is frequently As we noted above, the traditional
employed in smaller classes, such as semi- straight-row arrangement is predominate
nars. Some rooms are not physically con- in most educational settings, particularly
ducive to this arrangement for larger in college and upper elementary through
high school settings. The cause of this
3 Robert Sommer, Personal Space (Englewood dominance is elusive, but tradition is the
Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1969).
CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS 101

FIGURE 2
HORSESHOE ARRANGEMENT-

I T,~" I

I M I I M I

I M I I--~-I

M [:J
I L I I L I

I L I I L I

I L I I L I

I L I I L I

IL J ~

I L I I L I

~ /H I
IH IIH IIH IIH IIH'
. H= High Interaction seat, M = Moderate Interaction, L = Low Interaction
-
102 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

, FIGURE 3
. MODULAR ARRANCn1E:-IT

I T ,.me, I

I H j I H I

I M II Table
I M I I M I

Table
I M I

.1 M II I M I I M I I M I

I L II
Table
~ I L I
Table
II L I

~ I I L I I L II II L I

I H_-' I H I ,;-1

I H I I Table I I H l

~IMI
. H = High Interaction seat, M = ~loderate Interaction.L = Low Interaction
CL\SSROOM SEATING ARRANGE~rENTS 103

explanation offered most frequently. Dis- in the class. Classes such as those con-
cussions with teachers who employ the cerned with higher-order cognitive or
strait-row arrangement (over 300) yielded affective goals, particularly where there
other reactions as well. Many commented are few "right" or "wrong" answers,
that they simply had never thought would be benefitted most by this arrange-
about it. Others commented that the ment.
school janitor would become incensed if The modular arrangement is advocated
they rearranged the seats. Some reported for classes in which student-student inter-
trying other arrangements but being action is most important.5 If task groups
chastised by colleagues or superiors for are formed in the class, this arrangement
having or leaving a "messy room". Many permits ma.ximum interacrion among
simply indicated that they liked their those groups while minimizing the inter-
room that way, with no explanation for ference of one group with another. This
why they had that preference. arrangement is also recommended for
This dominance of the traditional ar- classes which require that the teacher
rangement also is difficult to ey?lain work closely with individuals or small
from the vantage point of the specialist groups rather than primarily with the
in instruction. Three-quarters of a cen- class as a whole.
tury ago John Dewey attacked this ar- While the teacher is the primary focus
rangement because it inhibits experi- in the traditional arrangement and
mentation in the classroom. Subsequent teacher and students share the focus in
writers in education have agreed almost the horseshoe arrangement, the teacher
unanimously. If seating is discussed at is removed from the focal point in the
all in a teaching methods course, the modular arrangement. Because of the
traditional arrangement is virtually al- differences in purpose for which each
ways attacked as less desirable than other arrangement is best suited noted above,
alternatives.
Hurt et a!. refuse to suggest one system
The view of speci~lists in instructional over the others. However, they do argue
communication departs somewhat from that the traditional system is least con-
that of Dewey's descendants. Taking a ducive to interaction and that if the
functional approach, for example, Hurt, teacher seeks to increase communication
Scott, and McCroskey argue that each of in the classroom, one of the other ar-
the three arrangements has positive ele- rangements should be chosen.6
ments depending on the desired type of 'While much has been written- about
communication in the classroom:~ They the comparative values of various seating
suggest that if the purpose of the class arrangements, the stUdent's view has
is primarily one of information dissemi- been virtUally ignored. Only two studies
nation, the traditional arrangement is could be found which explored this area.
probably best because it minimizes Heston and Garner found that for small,
student-student interaction and places undergraduate classes in interpersonal
the primary interaction focus in the class- communication, stUdents demonstrated
room on the teacher. With regard to the a marked preference for the horseshoe
horseshoe arrangement, they suggest this or semi-circular arrangement." Feitler
arrangement would be the best if both
student-student and stUdent-teacher in-
5 Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey, pp. 98.99.
teraction are important to the learning 6 Hurt, Scott, and ~IcCroskey, pp. 98.
,. ]udee Heston and Patrick Garner, "A Study
of Personal Spacing and Desk Arrangement in
~ Hurt. Scott, and ~[cCroskey, pp. 95.99. the Learning Environment," paper presented at
104 COM;\WNICATION EDuCATION

found a similar preference on, .the part classes the student does not want to take,
of graduate and undergraduate students and elective classes within the student's
in education. He also found that these major.l0 vVe felt that these two types
students did not like a modular type of were effective operationalizations of un-
arrangement with students seated in attractive and attractive classes, respec-
small groupS.8 tively. Since we assumed that students
would be more likely to desire to inter-
Since it has been reasonably well estab-
lished that student affect toward a class act in an attractive course and less likely
to desire to interact in an unattractive
is related to student learning,9 student
attitudes toward classroom arrangements course, we hypothesized that their prefer-
are a matter of no small concern when ences in this regard would be reflected in
determining a choice of classroom ar- classroom arrangement preferences, since
rangement. An arrangement that is dis- the various arrangements allegedly pro-
agreeable to the student may erect a mote or restrict interaction. Our specific
needless barrier, possibly one that will hypothesis was:
prevent learning in spite of other appro-
priate behaviors of the teacher. Conse- HI: Studencs will prefer the tradidonal class-
room arrangement over horseshoe and
quently, the first question we posed for modular arrangemencs for required courses
. this investigation was: Do students have but will prefer horseshoe and modular
differential preferences for the three arrangements over the tradidonal arrange-
common types of classroom arrange- ment for elective courses.
ments? .
'\Ve were also concerned with elements While the above hypothesis was ex-
which might impact any general prefer- pected to hold for the aggregate for all
ences which students might express, students, we also recognize that students
specifically differences in courses to be differ sharply in their desire to com-
taken and individual differences in stu- municate. This individual difference is
dent orientations. The type of course a partially a function of the personality-
student would be taking was expected to type orientation referred to as "com-
impact what type of arrangement the munication apprehension" (CA).l1 Thus,
student would prefer. Some classes are we anticipated that students with high
attractive to students and may inflate levels of CA would be less likely to
their desire to interact, while other
select interaction promoting arrange-
classes are disliked and may deflate the ments and students with low levels of CA
students' desire to interact. Consequent-
would be more likely to select such ar-
ly, our second research question was:
Does the type of course to be taken affect rangements, regardless of the type of
student preferences for classroom ar- course involved. Our second hypothesis,
rangements? therefore, was:
'Within this context we restricted our
analysis to two types of classes: required 10 Other class characteristics should also be
expected to affect preferences in specific cir-
cumstances, e.g. class content, time of day, pre-
the annual convention of the International Com- vious experience with the class instructor, and
munication Association. Aclanta. 1972. affecdve reladonships with other stUdencs in the
8 Fred C. Feicler, as reported bv Kenneth class.
Goodall. "The Line," Psychology Today, 5 (Sep- 11 For a recent survey of the research in this
tember, 1971), 12. area, see James C. McCroskey, "Oral Communi-
9 See, for example, Benjamin S. Bloom, Hu- cation Apprehension: A Summary of Recent
man Characteristics and School Learning (New Theorv and Research:' Human Communication
York: McGraw-Hill. 1976). Resea~ch, 4 (1977), 78-96. .
CLASSROOM SEA TI:-iG ARRANGEMENTS 105

H..:' Students with high levels of CA, .compared to be the main determinant of whether
- to stUdents with low levels of GA, will ex- a student was actively involved in the
press greater preferences for arrangements
inhibiting interaction and lesser preferences
process of classroom communication.
The researchers identified the center of
for arrangements facilitating interaction.
activity where most interaction takes
While this hypothesis suggests that ar- place to be the area extending from the
rangement preferences of students with front of the room directly up the center
high and low CA levels will be affected line and diminishing in intensity as it
by their CA level, it does not posit an moves farther away from the teacher.
impact for students with an intermediate Sommer. in an analysis of a number of
CA level. These individuals. the mode- straight-row arrangements, found pre-
rates, are seen as "normal". Consequent- cisely the same thing; participation is
ly, their preferences should fall in be- greatest in the front row and in the
tween those of the CA extremes and center of each row.15 Crawford repeated
correspond to the preferences of the Sommer's study with a discussion group
aggregate of all students. and found a linear relationship between
row and interaction.16 Students occupy-
Preferences 'Within Arrangements ing the first row contributed six times
as many statements per session as the last
The second concern of this study in- (fourth) row.
volved student preferences for seats There is some reason to believe that
within the three types of classroom ar- these participation patterns are related
rangements. Previous research suggests to student achievement in the natUral
that students occupying certain seats in environment. Daum found that when
a classroom will participate much more college students were allowed free choice
than will students occupying other of seating, the stUdents choosing seats
seats. I:! Similar interaction patterns have nearer the front obtained higher test
been observed in small group settings.13 scores than students seated nearer the
Considerable research has been re- back. However, when stUdents matched
ported which has investigated the nature for previous achievement were assigned
of communication in traditional-arrange- seats, this pattern was only partially re-
ment classrooms. Adams and Biddle con-
plicated: previous high-achievers main-
ducted one of the most extensive studies
tained their high levels of achievement
concerned with the effects of traditional whether they were assigned to the front
or straight-row seating.14 They found or the rear of the room, but previous
location within the seating arrangement low-achievers significantly improved
their performance if they were assigned
12Sommer. pp. 112-119. seats in the front. IT
13 For a recent survey of this research, see
Leslie A. Baxter, "The Independent Effects of Although less research has been re-
Seating Position on the Frequency and Di- ported involving arrangements other
rection of Group Interaction," paper presented
at the annual convention of the vVestern Speech than the traditional straight-row system,
Communication Association. Seattle, 1975. Classic Sommer found that in a seminar arrange-
stUdies in this area include A. Paul Hare and
Robert F. Bales, "Seating Position and Small ment, similar to the horseshoe arrange-
Group Interaction," Sociometry 26, (1963) 480-
486. and Fred Strodtbeck and L. Hook, "The
Social Dimensions of a Twelve-Man Jury Table," 15 Sommer, pp. 115-119.
Sociometry 24, (1961), 397-415. 16 Reviewed in Sommer, p. 116.
14 Raymond S. Adams and Bruce J. Biddle. 11 J. Daum, as cited by Jere E. Brophy and
Realities of Teaching: E;"plorations with Video Thomas L. Good, Teacher-Student Relation-
Tape (New York: Holt, Rinehart and 'Winston, ships: Causes and Consequences (New York:
1970). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974). pp. 22.23.
106 COMMUNIC::ATION EDUCATION

ment, the students sitting directly across alphabetically) students toward the front
from the teacher were the most frequent of the room still participated more even
participants.l8 No studies of interaction though the teacher directed an equal
frequency involving modular classroom number of comments to all areas.~
arrangements have been reported. How- Koneya, on the other hand, found that
ever, several studies of small group par- the seats observed in previous studies to
ticipation patterns provide an analog produce the most participation did so
to this arrangement, since each module in his study with random seat assign-
within this arrangement can be viewed ment; however students who had been
as a small group. This research suggests identified previously as low verbal inter-
that people occupying central or end actors did not increase their participation
seats (head or foot of table) are the most when assigned to high participation
frequent participants in task-oriented seats.:!3 This lead Koneya to conclude
groups.l9 that both the seat and the orientation of
The general conclusion that is com- the occupant contribute to participation
monly drawn from this body of research frequently. He also found that high
is that sitting in certain seats in a class- verbal interactors indicated a significant-
room increases a student's participation, ly greater preference for high interaction
. thus inferring a causal relationship be. seats than other students.24
tween seat and interaction leve1.2° Re. Such differential preferences have also
cently this causal link has been chal- been noted in another recent study.
lenged. Baxter discovered, while review- McCroskey and Sheahan hypothesized
ing the literature relating to seating in that students with differential levels of
small groups, that all of the previous communication apprehension would re-
studies had permitted subjects to choose port differential preferences for seating
freely the seat they were to occupy. Thus, within the traditional classroom arrange-
she argued that the results could as well ment.:!5 Their results supported the hy-
be attributed to differences in people pothesis. Students with low levels of CA
who selected certain seats as to the seats preferred seats demonstrated previously
themselves. \Vhen she attempted to re- to generate higher participation, while
plicate the earlier findings while random- students with high levels of CA pre-
ly assigning subjects to seats, she found ferred to avoid those seats. These results
that the previously reported interaction parallel those reported by Koneya, al-
patterns did not exist.:!1 though Koneya determined which stu-
.Within the classroom context, reported dents were high or low verbal interactors
results are somewhat conflicting. 'While by observing previous behavior while
all of the studies allowing free choice McCroskey and Sheahan made this de-
of seating have found certain seats to be termination by means of a self-report
highly associated with increased inter- measure of CA.
action, the two previous studies that did
not permit free choice have resulted in :!:!Reviewed in Sommer, pp. 116-117.
:!3 ~{ele Koneya, "The Relationship Between
less consistent findings. Ebert found that Verbal Interaction and Seat Location of Mem-
in an imposed seating arrangement (i.e., bers of Large Groups," unpublished dissertation
(Denver, 1973).
:!4 Koneva.
18 Sommer, pp. 112-114. :!5James C. McCroskey and Michael E.
19 Baxter. Sheahan, "Seating Position and Participation:
:!OJames J. Thompson, Beyond Words: Non- An Alternative Theoretical Explanation," paper
verbal Communication in the Classroom (New presented at the annual convention of the Inter.
York: Citation Press, 1973). national Communication Association, Portland,
:!l Baxter. Oregon, 19i6.
CLASSROOM SEA TING ARRANGEME~TS 10i

The present study sought to ,Teplicate Personal Report of Communication Ap-


the McCroskey and Sheahan -study in- prehension (PRCA).28 This is the most
volving the traditional, straight-row ar- widely used measure in research involv-
rangement while substantially increasing ing CA. It has a history of high internal
the sample size and to extend the investi- reliability and predictive validity.29 In
gation to the other two types of class- the present study the estimate of internal
room arrangement.26 Because of the re- (split-half) reliability was .94, and the ob-
sults of the original study and the find- tained distribUtion of scores was found
ings reported by Koneya,27 the hypothesis not to deviate from normality. For pur-
tested was: poses of analysis, subjects scoring beyond
one standard deviation above the mean
H : Students with low levels of CA, compared
;! to students with high levels of CA, will ex- were classified as "high" in CA; those
press greater preferences for high par- scoring beyond one standard deviation
ticipation seats and lesser preferences for below the mean were classified as "low";
low participation seats. and the remainder were classified as
"modera te."
As was the case with our ~ccond hy- To obtain measures of classroom ar-
pothesis, this hypothesis does not specifi- rangement preferences, subjects were pro-
cally take into account students with vided diagrams of classrooms similar to
moderate CA levels. Their preferences those in figures 1-3, except that the seats
were presumed to fall in between those were represented by numbers (01-25).
of the CA extremes.
They were asked to check which arrange-
ment they would "usually prefer", which
METHOD
they would prefer "for a required course
Procedure you don't want to take", and which they
would prefer "for an elective course in
Subjects were 972 college students who
your major". In addition they were asked
were simultaneously enrolled in two to mark an "X" across the seat they
basic courses in communication, one a
would normally prefer in each arrange-
lecture course with over 300 stUdents per
ment. Seats classified a priori as (H)
section and the other an experience-based
course with a ma.ximum enrollment of 25 high, (M) moderate, and (L) low inter-
action areas on the basis of previous re-
per section. Data were collected at
two different times in the course of a search are indicated in figures 1-3.
1\10st subjects had little difficulty com-
semester. During the first week of class a
measure of CA was obtained in the small pleting the instrument. However, some
subjects had to be dropped from some
classes. Approximately three months of the analyses because of omitted re-
later the measures of arrangement and
sponses or uninterpretable responses.
seating preferences were obtained in the
lecture course. Coded student numbers Data were submitted to chi-square
analyses. The criterion for statistical sig-
were employed at both times so that the
two data sets could be merged for anal-
nificance was set at alpha = .05. The
ysis.
28 James C. McCroskey, "Measures of Com-
munication-Bound Anxiety," Speech Mono-
lv[easures graphs, 37 (19iO), 269-277, and "Validity of
the PRCA As An Index of Oral Communication
The measure of CA employed was the Apprehension," paper presented at the annual
convention of the Speech Communication Asso-
ciation, Houston, 19i5.
28 McCroskey and Sheahan. 29 McCroskey, "Validity of the PRCA As An
27 Koneya. Index of Oral Communication Apprehension."
108 COMMU:-IICA TION ED lJCA TION

power of all tests to detect a moderate (55.3%) of the subjects preferred the
effect was above .99. traditional arrangement for required
courses, less than one-third (32.8%) ex-
RESULTS pressed that preference for an elective
The general arrangement preferences course in their major. It is particularly
of the subjects are reported in Table l. interesting to note that the horseshoe ar-
As noted in that table about half of the rangement was the one most preferred
for an elective course, but only 14.1%
subjects reported a genenl preference
for the traditional arrangement. a third preferred it for a required course.
preferred the horseshoe arrangement, Table 2 reflects arrangement prefer-
and the remainder opted for the modular ences as a function of CA. In terms of
arr:lOgemen t. general preferences, subjects with low
Such general preferences, however, CA favored the horseshoe arrangement,
may be quite meaningless. It is clear but those with moderate and high CA
from the results concerning elective and favored the traditional arrangement.
required courses (see Table 1) that type "When considering an elective course, the
of course has a major influence on ar- low CA subjects were strongly in favor of
rangement preferences. 'While over half the horseshoe arrangement. Although in

TABLE I
STVDE;I;T SEATING PREFERE;I;CES FOR THREE CLASSROO~( ..1,RR.\.:\GDIE;I;TS
BY COI!RSE Tn'E.

Type of Type of Arrangement


Course Straight Row Horseshoe Modular

Req uired 538 (55.3)" 137 (14.1) 297 (30.6)


Elective 319 (32.3) 428 (H.O) 225 (23.1)
Usual Preference 46i (48.1) 32j (33.5) 179 (lSA)

.
..
x:! =233..56. P <.001; C =.27
:-lumbers in parentheses report percemage expressing preference.

TABLE 2
ARRANGDIE:'iT PREFERDICES By COI:RSE
TYPE OF ApPREHENSION LEVEL

Main
Type of Arrangement Effect
Apprehension
Level Straight Row Horseshoe Nlodular x:!

General Preferencea
Low 51 (34.0). 69 (46.0) 30 (20.0) 1;;.24.1
Moderate 329 (49.6) 213 (32.1) 121 (18.:;) 98.32
High 8i (55.1) 43 (27.2) 28 (I i.i) 35.69
Required Courseb
Low 71 (47.3) 25 (16.i) 54 (34.0) 21.64
Moderate 373 (56.1) 94 (I'U) 198 (29.8) 179.35
High 94 (59.9) 18 (11.5) 45 (2S.7) 56.77
Elective Coursec
Low 31 (20.7) 85 (56.7) 34 (22.7) 36.84
Moderate 231 (34.i) 274 (41.2) 160 (24.1) 29.90
High 57 (36.3) 69 (43.9) 31 (19.7) 14.42

.Ntlmbers in parentheses
a Test of interaction: X2
report percemage
= 17.60,P <.005. C = .13
expressing preference

b Test of interaction: X2 = 5.53. P < .10


c Test of interaction: X2 = 15.35.P <.005: C = .12
d X2 required for alpha <.001 = 13.80
CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS 109

terms of percentage the moderate and DISCUSSION

high CA subjects. also favored that ar- The answer to our research question
rangement, the differences between tradi-
tional and horseshoe were not statistical- concerning whether students have dif-
ferential preferences among the three
ly significant for either group.
common types of classroom arrangements
The results concerning the required is clear. They do. 'While the aggregate
course were quite unambiguous. All
preference appears to favor the tradi-
groups most preferred the traditional
tional arrangement, this is tempered
arrangement and least preferred the
both by type of course and CA. level of
horseshoe. The differences, however, in- student.
creased with level of CA. Traditional was
favored over horseshoe by a ratio of less As a group, students in this study in-
than 3-1 by subjects with low CA bUt by dicated a preference for the more inter-
action-restricting, traditional seating ar-
approximately 4-1 by moderates and over
5-1 by highs. rangement for required courses. How-
ever, these same students indicated a
Seating preferences by CA level within
each arrangement are reported ill Table preference for the more interaction-
3. In each arrangement CA level and enhancing horseshoe and modular ar-
rangements for elective courses. This
type of seating interacted to produce
differential preferences. In all cases sub- differential preference was most marked
for the students with low CA.. This may
jects with low CA, compared to high CA
subjects, showed greater preference for suggest that these individuals are more
high interaction seats and lesser prefer- sensitive to environment impact on inter-
ences for low interaction seats. action. 'When they want to talk they may
TABLE 3
SEATING PREFERENCES By ARRANGEME1'IT AND ApPREHE:-ISION LEVEL

Type of Seating
Main
Apprehension High Moderate Low Effect
Level Interaction Interaction Interaction X:!

Slright Rowa
Low 64 (H.W 64 (44.1) 17 (1l.i) 54.76d
[oderate 168 (25.7) 3i2 (56.9) 114 (17.4) 163.27
High 32 (20.3) 88 (55.7) 38 (24.1) 28.00
Sears in
Classification 6 9 10
Horses/web
Low 60 (4l.i) 35 (24.3) 49 (34.0) 15.48
Moderare 185 (28.5) 119 (18.3) 345 (53.2) 12.34
High 29 (18.6) 19 (12.2) 108 (69.2) 28.66
Sears in
Classification 7 6 12
Modularc
Low 40 (29.6) 53 (39.2) 42 (31.1) .18
Moderate 150 (25.2) 229 (38.4) 217 (36.4) 5.iO
High 25 (16.8) 53 (35.6) 71 (47.8) 18.84
Scats in
Classification 7 10 8

. :-.lumbersin parentheses report percentage expressing preference.


a Test of interaction: x:! = 29.61. P <.001; C =.17
b Test of interaction: X:! = 37.52.P <.001; C = .20
"
frequencies
=
Test of interaction: X:! 11.26. P <.03; C
,\ Expected computed
.Il =
on the basis of the number of seats available in the classifica-
tion. X:J required for alpha <.05 = 6.0; X:! required for alpha <.001 = 13.80
110 COM~n;:-:ICATrO:-l EDCCATIO:-l

be more aware of the situational vari- bad situation worse. If students want to
ables which will increase their -opportun- interact but the arrangement inhibits
ity to do so. interaction, or if students do not want
In any event, our first two hypotheses to interact but are arranged so that inter-
action demands are high, we can expect
clearly were supported. Students prefer
the traditional classroom arrangement students to develop negative affect which
can interfere with learning.
for required courses but prefer the horse-
shoe or modular arrangement for elective Second, students should be given as
courses. Similarly, students with high much choice as feasible in selecting their
CA, compared to students with low CA, own seats no matter what arrangement is
express greater preferences for arrange- employed. Regardless of type of course,
ments inhibiting interaction and lesser students differ markedly in their desire
preferences for arrangements facilitating to communicate in the classroom. If we
interaction. Taken together these find- seat highly verbal students where inter-
ings suggest that students are aware of action is difficult or highly apprehensive
both their own desired level of participa- students where they are the center of
tion and the participation demands and attention and communication demands
opportunities of different classroom ar- are high, we can expect them to develop
rangements, and they desire arrange- negative affect which can hamper learn-
ments compatible with their desire (or ing.
lack of desire) for participation. Third, the results of this study, and
The above conclusion is additionally that reported by Koneya, suggest that
our ability to manipulate the level of
supported by the fact that the obtained
communication in a classroom may be
results also supported our third hypo-
thesis: students with low levels of CA, more limited than we previously have
believed. As both we and Koneya have
compared to students with high levels
found, students have markedly different
of CA, expressed greater preferences for
high participation seats and lesser pre- seating preferences. "\Nhen given free
ferences for low participation seats. This choice, highly verbal students will sit
where interaction is easiest, less verbal
suggests that even if an arrangement is
students will sit farther away from the
imposed on students which they do not
center of interaction. While Koneya
like, if they have free choice of seating,
found that the interaction of moderately
they may find places within that ar-
verbal students can be increased by seat-
rangement that are compatible with
their levels of desire for interaction. ing them in high interaction areas and
high verbal students can be silenced
The implications of the results of this to some extent by seating them away
study for instructional communication from interaction areas, he also found
specialists and classroom teachers are that low-verbals would not talk no matter
significant. First, decisions on classroom where they were seated.:!OThe often ex-
arrangement should take into account pressed desire of classroom teachers to
the attractiveness of the course to the
"get everyone involved and participat-
student. Using the traditional arrange- ing" may not be possible to realize.
ment in an attractive course or the norse-
Finally, it may also be that our ability
shoe arrangement in an unattractive to manipulate the type of interaction in
course may not be good practice. Stu- a classroom is more limited than we
dents prefer the opposite. Using the less
desired arrangement may only make a 30 Koneya.
CLASSROOM SEATING ARRAN'GEMENTS 111

previously believed. As we noted earlier, cation behavior of students in required


the traditional arrangement is presumed and elective courses as a function of seat-
to facilitate teacher-student interaction ing arrangement. The fact that com-
while the horseshoe arrangement is pre- munication levels are high in some classes
sumed to facilitate student-student and and not in others simply may be a func-
student-teacher interaction. Our results tion of the type of' course and have little
suggest that students in required courses or nothing to do with classroom arrange-
want nothing to do with the horseshoe ment. Of one thing we can be reasonably
arrangement. This may suggest that if certain, however. The more positive
they are placed in that arrangement their affect the student has for the course and
communication behavior may not be the teacher, the more likely the student
what the teacher expects. If they do not will be to desire to interact in the class-
want to interact, they simply want to get room. The results of this study suggest
their grade and get out, they may just that the classroom arrangement the
sit and not talk. Future research should teacher chooses to employ may have a
explore the impact on actUal communi- significant impact on that affect.

You might also like