Abstract
43 students in an introductory psychology class were periodically moved from one seating location to another in an attempt to discover the effects of location on classroom test performance and on four aspects of personal preference: enjoyment, motivation, feeling a part, and interest. The students spent the entire classroom time between successive tests seated in one of three “zones” located at various distances from the front of the classroom. Immediately prior to each test the students responded to a personal experience questionnaire and then took the exam, after which they were assigned to a new location. Analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in test performance as a function of seating location. There were, however, significant differences on all four aspects of personal preference as a function of seating location in both free and assigned seating. These results are consistent with other research which indicates no effect on performance attributable to location. They also make it clear that students’ satisfaction with a classroom experience is closely related to proximity of student and teacher.
Waller was one of the first educators to show an interest in the significance of classroom seating positions. He reported that the “extremely zealous” students sit in the front of the classroom while “persons in rebellion” (Waller, 1932, p. 161) sit in the back. Since that time numerous studies have provided evidence that seating position is significantly related to classroom behavior. The variable receiving the most interest has been that of participation. A number of researchers (Sommer, 1967; Adams, 1969; Delefes & Jackson, 1972) have demonstrated that students who sit near the front participate more than those who sit at the rear.
Sommer (1969) reported that many teachers assume the front rows to contain the most interested students, whereas the back rows contain students engaged in “illicit activities” (p. 111). Becker, et al. (1973) found that most students believe that students having the highest interest and grades in the class typically sit in the front, and the uninterested, low achieving students sit in the rear.
There is also evidence that people having certain personal characteristics tend to select certain seats. Walberg (1969) found correlations between seating-choice and attitudes toward school. People who indicated that they preferred to sit in the back were uninterested and unhappy with school. They did not feel it was important to get good grades or have classmates admire their work. Students, who indicated on a questionnaire that they would prefer the front row seats, also felt that it was important to get good grades and be seen as intelligent and creative by others. Wulf (1977) found that students who had achieved “A” grades preferred to sit in the front, whereas “C” students did not care where they sat. Pedersen (1977) reported that students who feel they are performing well in the class and like the class and professor, select seats with the closest proximity to the teacher. These studies lend support to the conventional wisdom of students and teachers that the motivated students seek out seats in close proximity to the teacher.
An additional important question is to what extent performance and enjoyment in the class are affected by seating location. There is some evidence to suggest that the variable of seating by itself is not strong enough to affect grade performance. Kinarthy (1976) assigned students to seats and found that seating position was not related to class grade. Wulf (1977) found that subjects who said they would have preferred to sit in the front row had still achieved, even though frustrated in their choice of seating by assignment to different seating zones.
Other than the work done with performance cited above, there has been no direct test to determine the extent to which a cause and effect relationship exists between seating location and enjoyment, motivation, interest, and feeling a part of the class. The present study utilized assigned seating and examined the possibility that there are effects on enjoyment and performance attributable to seating location.
Method
The participants were 43 students enrolled in an introductory psychology class taught by one of the authors. The students were randomly assigned to sit in one of three seating zones located at various distances from the front of the classroom. Zone 1 was the two front rows. An empty row separated Zone 1 from Zone 2, i.e., rows four and five. Zone 3, then, included rows seven and eight. The classroom, which measured 20 by 8 m, was a conventional classroom with rows of seats, except the seats were on a rising incline from the front to the back of the classroom. The seats were bolted together in rows of 10.
Students sat in each section for approximately 2 wk., after which time they took a class examination and then, on the following class period, were shifted as a group to a new seating zone. During the final 2 wk. of the term students self-selected seating in any zone they preferred. The period of rotation, then, was about 2 wk. with the class meeting 6 hr. per week. The rationale for shifting students as a group rather than counterbalancing to eliminate possible effects of order, was the concern that counterbalancing might lead to a disruption of social relationships which could affect students’ liking for the class.
Immediately prior to each test, the students responded to a personal preference questionnaire on the four personal experiences. They rated their enjoyment of the class, interest in the class, feeling a part of the class (inclusion) and motivation, on a five-point scale, with one being negative and five positive.
The four examinations were 55 multiple-choice questions in which test scores were standardized to eliminate possible bias resulting from differences in level of difficulty.
Results
An analysis of variance on the standardized examination scores showed no significant differences in performance between subjects in the three zones in either the assigned or free seating conditions. The means and standard deviations for the assigned seating condition were 99.77 and 10.14 for Zone 1; 100.65 and 10.05 for Zone 2; and 100.14 and 10.03 for Zone 3. For the free seating condition the means and standard deviations were as follows: Zone 1, 99.71 and 8.35; Zone 2, 99.44 and 11.55; Zone 3, 99.91 and 11.67.
Comparisons were also made between the final class grades for those who sat in the front when given a choice of free seating and the grades of those who sat in the back. There were no significant differences. It was noted by the experimenter, however, that when given a chance to move to preferred seating many students remained in the last zone in which they had sat.
The second part of the study was designed to discover the effects of different seating locations on students’ enjoyment of the class, interest in the class, feeling a part of the class, and motivation. Repeated-measures analyses of variance indicated significant differences between seating zones on all four ratings of personal experience (enjoyment: F2,84 = 19.082, p < .001; interest: F2,84 = 23.593, p < .001; inclusion: F2,84 = 31.147, p < .001; motivation: F2,84 = 22.681, p < .001). Results are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Mean ratings of personal preference factors in assigned seating condition
Students rated all four experience variables significantly higher (p < .001) when they sat in Zones 1 and 2 than when they sat in Zone 3. On all four ratings, Duncan's multiple-range tests showed significant differences between Zones 1 and 3 and between Zones 2 and 3, but not, between Zones 1 and 2. Apparently Zones 1 and 2 were close enough to the front that students in both zones felt involved and interested. Ratings for Zone 2 on all measures are lower than those in Zone 1 even though the difference is not statistically significant.
As Fig. 1 shows, participants rated the four measures quite similarly. In Zone 1 the mean for enjoyment was 4.09, for interest 4.03, for inclusion 4.09, and for motivation 3.95. The standard deviations for these measures were 1.29, 1.08, 1.16, and 1.17, respectively. From the very small differences among these means within zones, it appears that these four ratings are measuring a common variable of satisfaction or enjoyment of the class. Correlations among the four ratings in the assigned seating condition ranged from .59 to .88 and were all significant (p < .001), thus supporting the idea that they represent a common underlying dimension. No attempt was made to differentiate between enjoyment and interest for the subjects.
In the free-seating condition, the results were very similar to those in the assigned condition. Analyses of variance showed significant differences between people's ratings on the four personal experiences in the different zones (enjoyment: F2,44 = 6.08, p < .005; interest: F2,44 = 16.98, p < .001; inclusion: F2,44 = 12.73, p < .001; motivation: F2,44 = 8.94, p < .001). These results are displayed in Fig. 2.
Mean ratings of personal preference factors in free-seating condition
Duncan's multiple-range test showed significant differences between Zones 1 and 3 and between Zones 2 and 3, but not between Zones 1 and 2 (p < .01). As with the assigned seating condition, means of the subjects who sat in the first two zones are clearly higher than those of subjects who sat in the rear zone.
Discussion
The findings of this study support those of Wulf (1977) and Kinarthy (1976) who found no differences in test performance between students assigned to the front and those assigned to the back. While seating is not strong enough to affect test performance, it clearly has an effect upon students’ satisfaction with the class. Becker and Sommer, et al. (1973) pose the question about a possible cause-effect relation which could act to increase involvement and interest in the front even if students are assigned those seats. The present study shows that there is such an effect.
Pedersen (1977) and Sommer (1967) suggested that the possibility for unobstructed eye contact may be the crucial variable affecting higher participation and enjoyment. Becker, et al. (1973) suggest that students sitting closer to the professor feel obliged out of courtesy to pay attention and show interest. As the distance between professor and student increases, the feeling of obligation is lessened. In the present study all of the students had a direct view of the instructor since the seats in the back of the classroom rose on an incline. It is possible, however, that there may be significantly more eye contact between teacher and students in the front rows than between teacher and those in the back rows. It may also be that the people in the front rows have more of a feeling of being in the presence of the professor than students in the back. Several of these factors may interact and produce more enjoyment in students located in the front rows.
What are the implications of this research? First, it may be safe for a teacher to assume that the more interested students are sitting near the front, both because they select to sit there (Walberg, 1969) and because, as the present study shows, by sitting in front they may develop an interest and feel more a part of the class. Second, it is not entirely safe to assume that the highest performing students are sitting in front. It is possible that students may dislike a class and have no interest in it but still perform because of high need for achievement or ability.
This study shows that students performing highly will do well regardless of the zone in which they are located but that enjoyment, motivation, interest, and feeling involved are all related to proximity with the instructor.