A Comparative Study of Row Seaters and Cluster Seaters towards Performance of Grade XII -

Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics in Paliparan III Senior High School
Allan S. Parra
Jumelah Sibuma
Jasper Balcoba
Arianne Fercy Almoguerra
Danica A. Busano
Ritchel Delima
Raisha Barahama
Edy Jonard Sanjuan
Ernie B. Banutan Jr.
General Academic Strand
Paliparan III Senior High School
Abstract
The purpose of this study it to determine wither there is differences or non in the performance of
students that seats in different types of seating arrangement. In this study, two seating arrangement are
compared in Grade 12 STEM students. These seating arrangements are Row seating and Cluster seating.
The researchers used informal survey by asking permission of the students’ in their grade average
that will use and serve as the data of the research study.
It was found out that there is difference in the cluster seaters and row seaters performance in their
mean average of grades in seven subject, and the findings shows cluster seaters have high mean average
than row seaters. Since teachers are the one who plan the arrangement of seats, the researchers
recommend to choose cluster seating arrangement because it effectively helpful in both students and
teachers to formulate interaction.

Key words: Seating arrangement, Cluster Seater, Row seaters, Performance

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Seating arrangement is an essential part

in a learning setting contains physical setup of
seats, tables, and demonstrations. Particularly it
is been use in the classroom and other places
that involves seats. Traditional row is one of the
most commonly used in a classroom because
most of the students especially the teacher itself
who grew up in that seating arrangement are
also use it. Cluster arrangement is used for a
group and pair activity; it promotes coordination
and cooperation within a group discussion or
other activities that involves two or more
members. It gives more interaction when it
comes on giving suggestions, thoughts, and
ideas to be compromise. Both of these seating
arrangements have major effect in the
performance of the students and also their
behavior, its either it gives motivation or
discourage. (Bicard, D. F., 2012) According to
him, seating arrangements and position is an
Easy way to effectively minimize or
Eliminate student misconduct and behavior
without the use of consequence intervention or
other differential reinforcement or punishment.
Choosing appropriate seating arrangement build
more Interactive, organized and comfortable
atmosphere. Under the seating arrangement,
seating location and position have impact the
performance of student learners. (Richards, J. ,
2006) He discovered that the location of a
student’s seats in the classroom can affect his or
her performance. (Perkins & Wieman, 2005)
Those students seated at the rear of the
classroom have the lowest average attendance
and the lowest fraction of grade A. (Malif,
Cardoso, & Meirellec, 2015) They found lower
percentages of absents are in the seating position
closer at the board and it identifies better school
performance. Seating at the front could excel
individual performance but the other seating
locations such as (middle, back) are opposite to
it. (WANNARKA & RUHL, 2005) According

1
in their study, Found that those students seated
at the back of the classroom are most often
interact/ talking to other than students who
seated in front. And it might be affect the
performance of a student’s seated at the back of
classroom.
This research values the seating arrangement
towards performance of the student because it is
the one of most essential part of learning and
also the classroom setting. And the purpose of it
is to determine if which of the two seating
arrangements (Cluster and Row) are effectively
and better for the students.
This literature is the reference of this research
study, (Atherton, J. S, 2005) He revealed that
active learners are more effectively motivated
through circular or cluster-seating arrangements
than in row-and-column classrooms, but it has
insufficient statistical proof.
1.1 Review Related Literature
Seating arrangements of chairs and desk are
essential part of classroom setting because it
takes the learning of a student and affects his or
her overall performance, so it should properly
designated to the successful of the part of it such
as (teachers, facilitator, and student)
(Marx, Furher, & Hartig, 1999) Regard if
seating arrangements cause students asking more
questions. Their study results showed that
seating in the semicircular arrangement is more
frequent question-asking by the student.
(Atherton, J. S, 2005)He revealed that active
learners are more effectively motivated through
circular or cluster-seating arrangements than in
row-and-column classrooms.
WHELDAL, K., MORRIS, M., VAUGHAN, P
.& NG,Y.Y. (1981) Discovered that the
arrangement of a row improved on-task
behavior. As they collect class average and
separate data on high, middle, and low in begin
of on-task behavior , they discovered a little
difference in row and cluster seating
arrangement in the category group, such as
medium and low groups.
(Steinzor, B. , 1950)They have hypothesized that
students seated around tables distributed within
a classroom cane Establish face-to-face contact
more easily than those in row and-column
seating.
2
(Hood-Smith, N. E. & Leffingwell, R. , 1983)
They found that Students behaviors improved
significantly after altering the classroom desk
arrangement which included less noise, longer
attention spans, more positive student
interaction, more comfort, and the elimination of
paper airplanes
(Bicard, D. F., 2012)According to him, seating
positions and seating arrangements is an easy
way to effectively minimize or eliminate student
misconduct and behavior without the use of
consequence intervention or other differential
reinforcement or punishment
(Çinar, Đ. , 2010)He stated. To determine if
seating arrangement is successful it should
facilitate interaction among students and teacher,
suite the instructional objectives and activities,
and easy access to the instructional material.
(Li, Zhang, Bai, & Feng-Kuang, 2017)
According in their study, seating arrangement
can affect in some students especially in their
behavior depends on class seating arrangement.
And some cases, shows that it might affect the
student academic performances, however the
problem is seating arrangement.
(WANNARKA & RUHL, 2005) Found
that those students seated at the back of the
classroom are most often interact/ talking to
other than students who seated in front.
(Perkins & Wieman, 2005) Those students
seated at the rear of the classroom have the
lowest average attendance and the lowest
fraction of grade A. (Benedict & Hoag, 2004)
According to them, students in the front position
can reach the highest grade. (Malif, Cardoso, &
Meirellec, 2015) Observe, students seated on the
front are most present in classes, and they found
lower percentages of absents are in the seating
position closer at the board and it identifies
better school performance.
(Adam & Biddle, 1970) They stated that the
proximity of the teacher creates more
interaction, which motivates the students and
therefore improves their school performance.
(Totusek & Staton-Spicer, 1982) They reported
that students who choose a seat near the
blackboard show greater creativity, being more
intellectually engaged and conscious of the
school purposes. (Griffith, 1921) He published
one of the first reports on this subject and noted
that students sitting in the last row had low
academic performance, but no statistical support
was provided. (Perkins & Wieman, 2005) They
found that sitting in the back of a classroom has
no detrimental effect on students’ exam
performance and also reinforce motivation to
explain why seat location and school
performance were not associated with each other
in major students in a small biology class, a
condition where all students are expected to be
involved in the class. ( Kalinowski & Taper,
2007) They assert a non-causal relationship
between seat position and student performance,
they still assume that this might depend on the
classroom size (thus accepting effect of position
on learning).
(Shernoff, 2017)He found that seating position
in large lecture halls influences student
participation, attention, classroom learning
experience, and curriculum performance.
(Hood-Smith, N. E. & Leffingwell, R. , 1983)
According to them, there are several factors
could account for potential academic differences
between students seated in the front versus
students seated in the back of a classroom.
Typically teachers spend seventy percent of the
classroom time in the front of the classroom in a
traditional classroom seating arrangement.
(Kaya, N. & Burgess, B. , 2007) They states that
the concentration of the teacher at the front of
the room could partially contribute to findings
that students seated in the front of the classroom
have higher participation, ask and receive more
questions from the teacher, and have improved
belief of their abilities through several different
grade levels.
(Richards, J. , 2006) He discovered that the
location of a student’s seats in the classroom can
affect his or her performance.
(Moore & Glynn, 1984) They reported that the
location of students in classrooms typically
determines the number of interactions they have
with teachers, with greater interaction eventually
improving students’ learning.
(Armstrong, N & Chang, S., 2007)They did not
find a significant difference in seating location
on student achievement, and the student has
chosen seating location determined less than
seven percent of the variation in student
achievement.
(PACE & PRICE, 2005)The
arrangement of the classroom impacts the
3
behavior of the student and also there is
evidence that it impacts their achievement.
(WANNARKA & RUHL, 2005) According to
them, the environment can be called the setting
events for a lesson which can include the
temperature of the room, lighting, physical
space, seating arrangement student seating
position noise level, and presence or absence of
peers or adults among other elements which help
shape the classroom environment in which
students are expected to learn. And they stated
that each seating arrangement has several
benefits, which teachers can utilize to
accommodate lessons. To improve efficiency
teachers should let the nature of the task dictate
student seating arrangement.
(Badia-Martin, 2006)Researchers have revealed
that classrooms have a major effect on students.
The arrangement of seats in the classroom is an
essential component of the teaching environment
and has a major effect on the allocation of
educational resources and educational
opportunities.
(Fernandes, Huang, & Rinaldo,
2011)They showed the free choice of seats for
students affects their learning experience base
on the seating position they choose.
(Zomorodian, K, 2012)He explained that seat
selection has a mutually reinforcing influence on
students’ seat allocation and performance.
Students in the front row of a classroom may be
more active and interactive with the lecturer than
other students.
(Weinstein, 1985)They reported that students'
choice of seating influences their Personality
and behavior. Although the seat position can
motivate, or disincentive the student for
learning, students´ interest in learning May also
affect the position they choose in the classroom.
(Parker, T., Hoopes, O., & Eggett, D.,
2011)They found that there was a positive
correlation between seating preference and
students overall grade point average further
distinguishing that motivated students prefer to
be seated at the front of the class.
1.2 Research Questions
For the further explanation about this
study, it aimed to answer this question:
1.) What are the differences of mean grade
average in six subjects of Cluster and Rows
seaters Grade 12 STEM students?
2.) What overall mean grade average of two
different seaters has high average chance?
3) What overall mean grade average of two 1.5 Theoretical & Conceptual framework
different seaters has low average chance? Conceptual framework
4) What are the differences between six subjects
of total mean grade average in Grade 12 STEM
students? Input Process Output
5) What total mean grade average in six subjects
of two different seaters had high average? Row seater Descriptive There is
6) What total mean grade average in six subjects Cluster seater Comparative difference in
of two different seaters had low average? Performance Study Performance of
7) Which mean grade averages in six subjects of (Comparing the the Students in
two different seaters are in top rank? mean grade Row and
Which mean grade averages in six subjects of average) Cluster
two different seaters are in bottom rank? This table describes the process in determining
differences of the row and cluster seaters in
1.3 Significance of the Study Grade 12 Stem students through comparing the
This study serve as a guiding map of an mean average of per six subjects and all
amateur researchers and it helps everyone subjects.
especially the students to have an idea about this Theoretical Framework
research study and imparted knowledge for the
betterment. And it gives background to those
Independent Dependent
who enters college life.
The researchers also benefit in this
Cluster Performance
because of the experiences while gathering this
research including the conformity to other Row
people that is unfamiliar and it molds self –
steem. Title
For the readers, it would be useful for
their projects that are connected about the topic A Comparative Study of Row Seaters
that is sited here. It serves as guide tool. and Cluster Seaters towards Performance

1.4 Scope and Limitation

This study focus on the two seating
arrangement (Row and Cluster) in the
population of two sections of Grade 12 Science, Data Collection
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
The section 1 and 2, to determine the difference Informal survey
in performance through the students grade
average in six subjects, this is the data
collection.
The study would not cover the problem
of the classroom physical appearance, student
seating preference, seating position, and seating Mean Grade
location. Only seating arrangement is the focus average
of the study. This would be done by the process
of getting mean grade average of both (Row and
Cluster seaters) in the six subjects. It serves the According to (Myers, 2017) instructional
data and by comparing the mean grade average communication theory is a discipline that centers
of six subjects, the researchers will determine on the role that communication plays in the
the differences. teaching-learning process independent of the

4
type of student learner, the subject matter, or the
instructional setting.
(RW, 2019)Instructional communication theory
suggests seating arrangements impacts the
instructor or teachers on how they communicate
towards the students and how the students
interact. This theory supports that seating
arrangements can impacts possibly towards
teachers and student’s communication and
interaction.
WHELDAL, K., MORRIS, M., VAUGHAN, P.
& NG, Y.Y. (1981) Discovered that the
arrangement of a row improved on-task
behaviour. As they collect class average and
separate data on high, middle, and low in begin
of on-task behaviour, they discovered a little
difference in row and cluster seating
arrangement in the category group, such as
medium and low groups.
Those research studies indicated the difference
and effects of different seating arrangements
towards students.
(Atherton, J. S, 2005)He revealed that active
learners are more effectively motivated through
circular or cluster-seating arrangements than in
row-and-column classrooms.
This researcher indicates that in circular or
cluster form of seats there is higher chance that
student motivates than the students in row-and-
column arrangement. The more effectively
motivated a student the more chances that the
student performs better. That is why this
research trying to compare the two different
arrangement of seats to determine on which of
this two seating arrangement perform better
because according to (WANNARKA & RUHL,
2005) they stated that each seating arrangement
has several benefits, which teachers can utilize
To accommodate lessons. To improve efficiency
teachers should let the nature of the task dictate
student seating arrangement. And it supports
(Hood-Smith, N. E. & Leffingwell, R. , 1983) ;
they found that Students behaviors improved
significantly after altering the classroom desk
arrangement which included less noise, longer
attention spans, more positive student
interaction, more comfort, and the elimination of
paper airplanes.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Design
5
The researchers used descriptive
comparative research design in able to describe,
interpret and compare the data to determine the
difference between two different seating
arrangements.
(Jeannifer Villanueva, 2013) Define descriptive
design as the researcher considered two
variables that is not manipulated, establishes
A formal procedure to compare and conclude
that one is better than the other if significant
difference exists. Through Descriptive statistics
the data will analyse, describe and interpret
quantifiable.
2.2 Sampling Technique
The researchers used Proportional
Stratified Sampling Design in order to define the
reliable sample size by using its formula.
According to the web page STAT TREK (2019)
discussed that Proportionate stratification is type
of stratified sampling, each stratum with sample
size is proportionate to the population size of the
stratum. It means each stratum has the same
sampling fraction.
2.3 Research Respondents
The researchers selected the respondents
in two sections of Grade 12 STEM students that
seats in different seating arrangements, the
section 1 classified as cluster arrangement and
section 2 classified as Row arrangement. Both
15 samples represent each seating arrangement
for the total of 30 samples that is selected in the
61 population size of Grade 12 Stem students.
2.4 Data Gathering Procedure
Informal survey is a way on which the
researchers used to conduct the data by asking
the permission of each participant to not
compulsory give their grade average in the six
subjects they have.
Without this type of instrument data, it is
impossible to gather information. The
researchers collected the grade average of the
students and computed the mean grade average
of the six subjects include the overall mean
grade average of six subjects.
61 is the identified population that currently
enrolled including the transferred out and the
regularly attends in Grade 12 STEM Students,
through Proportional Stratified Sampling the
researcher determine the exact reliable sample
size used which is 15 in both (Row and Cluster
seaters) these are the respondents.
2.5 Data Analysis Grade 12 STEM students. Patiently, concern and
The researcher decided to use friendly approach has been applied and practiced
Descriptive statistics in order to showcase the because in the first and second day of collecting
data that is collected. With the help of the data are not successfully taken because of
Descriptive statistics the researchers could the situation of our respondents but then we find
determine if there is difference in the opportunities and alternative way to take the
performance (Grade average) of Grade 12 data again. Then after a while, we successfully
STEM students that seat at the Row and Cluster taken the all data needed in the study.
Seating arrangements. 3.0 Results and Discussion
With the use of table sets of data it indicates the This chapter describes and represents
student’s information of grade averages and the findings of the study. It sought to answer the
mean towards their six subjects. following statement problems by interpreting
Table 1.0: Proportional Stratified Sampling and comparing the data through mean grade
This table shows how the sample size been taken average.
in the Population size of Grade 12 STEM 3.1 General Information
students, through the use of Proportional Table 1.1 Sample Size used
Stratified Sampling technique. This table shows the sample size and its total
Strata: Seating Arrangement used in this study with the use formula of
Seating No. Sample Size Proportional Stratified Sampling Technique
Arrangement Population Seating Arrangement Sample Size
type Type
Row 30 15 Row 15
Cluster 30 15 Cluster 15
Total 61 30 Total 30
DS = 30 3.2 Cluster seating arrangement has high
Row Seaters average chance and Row seating arrangement
(STEM 2) have low average chance
No.Population Table 1.2 Mean Average of overall students’
xDesiredSample subjects
TotalPopulation
The results in the table shows and answer the
30 research question addressed the overall mean
X 30 grade average of two different seating
61
arrangements, Cluster and Row. The study
Sample Size = 14.754 or 15 determines that there is difference between
cluster and row seaters in their mean grade
Cluster Seaters (STEM 1) average. These findings show that cluster seaters
take a high average of 90. 16 then row seaters
No.Population
xDesiredSample take a low average of 86.32.
TotalPopulation Seating Arrangement Mean Average (all
31 Type subjects)
X 30 Row 85.70
61
Sample Size = 15.245 or 15
This table shows how the sample size been taken Seating Arrangement Mean Average (all
from the Population Size, through the use of Type subjects)
Proportional Stratified Sampling technique. Cluster 89.80
2.6 Research Ethics 3.3 There is difference between two different
Before the collection of data and seating arrangements (Row and Cluster)
information, the researchers asked the Table 3.1 Mean grade average of six subjects
permissions of adviser of both sections, and the The results in the table shows and answer the
participants of the study, the section 1 and 2 of research question addressed the differences of

6
mean grade average in six subjects of Cluster Seating Arrangement Mean average
and Row seaters, Grade 12 STEM students. This type
study determines the differences in the two Row 85.98
different arrangements through the results that
are indicated in the table. 3.5 Piling is the top rank subject in Cluster
seaters while DRRR is the bottom rank; In
Row seaters, Piling larang is the top rank
CLUSTER Mean average subject while Gen. Biology is the bottom.
Subjects Table 5.1 the ranks of mean average grade in six
Piling larang 91.53 subjects from high to low
EAAP 90.60 The findings indicates the top and bottom rank
Gen.Physics 89.73 of six subjects of Grade 12 STEM students
Practical Research II 88.40
Gen.Biology 87.50
DRRR 85.90 CLUSTER Subjects Mean
Rank average
1 Piling larang 91.53
ROW Mean average 2 EAPP 90.60
Subjects 3 Gen.Physics 89.73
Piling larang 89.73 4 PR II 88.40
EAAP 89.60 5 Gen.Biology 87.50
Gen.Physics 85.70 6 DRRR 85.90
Practical Research II 83.80
Gen Biology 82.20 ROW Subjects Mean
DRRR 84.87 Rank average
1 Piling larang 89.73
3.4 Cluster seating arrangement takes a high 2 EAPP 89.60
grade average than Row arrangement 3 Gen.Physics 85.70
Table 4.1 total mean average of six subjects of 4 DRRR 84.87
two different arrangements 5 PR II 83.80
The results in table shows the differences of 6 Gen.Biology 82.20
grade mean average in Cluster and Row seaters.
In fifteen students’ seats at the cluster 3.6 Discussion of the findings
arrangement have a total mean grade average of 3.6.1 Cluster seating arrangement has high
89.34 and fifteen students’ seats at the Row average chance and Row seating arrangement
arrangement have a total mean grade average of have low average chance
86.29. WHELDAL, K., MORRIS, M., Student’s seats at Cluster arrangement have a
VAUGHAN, P .& NG,Y.Y. (1981) Discovered high average of mean grade and students who
that the arrangement of a row improved on-task seats at row arrangement have low average of
behavior. As they collect class average and mean in overall subjects of Grade 12 STEM
separate data on high, middle, and low in begin students. Different seating arrangements have
of on-task behavior , they discovered a little difference in the performance of students that
difference in row and cluster seating WHELDAL, K., MORRIS, M., VAUGHAN, P.
arrangement in the category group, such as & NG, Y.Y. (1981) research study prove, as
medium and low groups. they collect class average and separate data on
high, middle, and low in begin of on-task
Seating Arrangement Mean average behavior, they discovered a little difference in
type row and cluster seating arrangement in the
Cluster 88.94 category group, such as medium and low groups.

7
3.6.2 There is difference between two
different seating arrangements (Row and
Cluster)
The finding shows that both six subjects of
Cluster and Row seaters have differences in their
subjects mean grade average. It proves (Li,
Zhang, Bai, & Feng-Kuang, 2017) stated,
seating arrangement might affect in behavior
and also the academic performance of a student.
Different seating arrangement has different
effect in the academic performance of a student.
3.6.3 Cluster seating arrangement takes a
high grade average than Row arrangement
Through computation of the mean grade average
of both six subjects and compare each other,
Cluster arrangement take a high grade average,
than row arrangement
3.6.4 Piling larang is the top rank subject in
Cluster seaters while DRRR is the bottom
rank; In Row seaters, Piling larang is the top
rank subject while Gen. Biology is the
bottom.
Ranking of subjects are been shown, Findings
shows through comparison of mean grade in six
subjects determine differences in both subject on
which the study want to determine.
4.0 Summary, Conclusion and
Recommendation
4.1 Summary of findings
The study focuses to compare and determine the
difference of student seats at different seating
arrangement (Cluster and Row) of Grade 12
STEM students in Paliparan III Senior High
School. Data that is needed are collected through
the informal survey by asking the permission of
the adviser and students and computing the
mean average of six subjects and the students
overall subjects.
The summary of findings is as follows:
1. The results indicate that Grade 12
STEM students’ seats at different
seating arrangement with the same
subjects have differences in their mean
average of six subjects.
2. The results reveal that those Grade 12
STEM students’ seats at the cluster
arrangement have a high average in their
grade performance than those students’
seats at the row arrangement.
8
3. The result proof the research study of
(Atherton, J. S, 2005)He revealed that
active learners are more effectively
motivated through circular or cluster-
seating arrangements than in row-and-
column classrooms. (Steinzor, B. ,
1950)They have hypothesized that
students seated around tables distributed
within a classroom cane Establish face-
to-face contact more easily than those in
row and-column seating. The finding
shows those Grade 12 STEM seats at the
Cluster has a chance to have a high
grade average in their subjects.
4. The results proof that there is significant
difference in the performances of the
Grade 12 STEM students who seats at
cluster and row.
4.2 Conclusion
The objective of the study is to determine the
differences of Cluster seaters and Row seaters
towards Performance of Grade XII - Science
Technology Engineering and Mathematics in
Paliparan III Senior High School and also if
which of two seating arrangements is better to
use.
Based on the findings of the study, it proves and
found out that those Grade 12 STEM students
who seats at cluster and row has a different
significance in their performance.
Seating arrangement is essential in the part of
students and teachers on which interaction and
communication happens and it is include in the
teachers plan.
4.3 Recommendations
The scope of the study is the population of
Grade 12 STEM students who seats at the
different type of seating arrangements. The
recommendations of the researchers are in the
following:
1. For those researchers who will able to
study about seating arrangement, the
researchers recommend that they able to
use the causal comparative design to
determine the cause of different seating
arrangement in the student’s
performance.
2. For those teachers who will planning the
best arrangement of seats, he or she
decide to choose cluster seating
arrangement than the traditional
arrangement of chairs for the successful
comfortable atmosphere of interaction
and participation of the students to avoid
off – task behavior.
3. For those teachers, they must have a
high proximity in the students’ chairs
for them to learn and to be able to
participate properly.
4. In addition, for the student betterment
teachers must increase their activities of
groupings to be able to avoid off – task
behavior.

9
References
Kalinowski , & Taper. (2007). The effect of seat
location on exam grades and students
perceptions in an introductory biology class.
J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 54-57.
Adam, & Biddle. (1970). Realities of teaching:
Explorations with this video tape. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston., 110.
Armstrong, N, & Chang, S. (2007). . Location,
location, location. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 37 (2).
Atherton, J. S. (2005). Teaching in learning: Physical
layout. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/teachi
ng/layout.htm.
Badia-Martin. (2006). Disruptive behavior in schools.
. Educational Journal, 33-35.
Benedict, M., & Hoag, J. (2004). Seating location in
large lectures: Are seating preferences or
location related to course performance?
J.Econ. Educ. 35:, 215-231.
Bhat, A. (2019). RESEARCH DESIGN:
DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS AND
TYPES. Retrieved September 19, 2019, from
QuestionPro:
https://www.questionpro.com/blog/research-
design/
Bicard, D. F. (2012). Differential effects of seating
arrangement on disruptive behavior of fifty
grade students during independent seatwork.
Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45,,
407-411.
Çinar, Đ. . (2010). Classroom geography: Who sits
where in the traditional classroom?.. Journal
Of International Social Research, 3(10),,
200-212.
Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Packaged
discipline programs: let the buyer beware.
Educational Leadership, 46(2),, 68-71.
Downer J.T. (2007). How do classroom conditions
and children's risk for school problems
contribute tochildren's behavioral
engagement in learning?.. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 413-432.
Duan. (2015). College students classroom space
shape preference empirical research.
Modern education science (Higher
Education Research), 69-72.
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 Educational Studies, 10(1), 66-
77.
10
Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and
perceptions of junior high school students
during small-group learning. Journal of
educational psychology, 95(1), 137-147.
GRANSTROM, K. (1996). Private communication
between students in the classroom in relation
to different classroom features. In
Educational Psychology (pp. 16, 4, 349–
364.).
GREEN, R. W., BESZTERCZEY, S. K.,
KATZENSTEIN, PARK, T. K., &
GORING, J. (2002). Are students with
ADHD more stressful toteach? Patterns of
stress in an elementary school sample.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioural
Disorders,, 10, 2, 79–89.
Griffith. (1921). A comment uppon the psychology of
audience. Psychol. Monogr, 36-47.
Grump. (1987). School and classroom environments.
In D. Stokols & I. Altman (eds.) Handbook
of environmental psychology New york .
Wiley :, 698-701.
Gump, P.V. (1987). School and classroom
environments. In D.Stokols & I. Altman
(Eds.),. Handbook of environmental
psychology, 691–732.
Hood-Smith, N. E., & Leffingwell, R. . (1983). The
impact of physical space alteration on
disruptive behavior: A case study.
Education, 104(2), 224.
Jeannifer Villanueva. (2013, Febuary 15). SlideShare.
Retrieved September 19, 2019, from
slideshare.net:
https://www.slideshare.net/jeanniferbvillanu
eva/types-of-descriptive-research
Kaya, N., & Burgess, B. . (2007). Territoriality: Seat
preferences in different types of classroom
arrangements. Environment & Behavior,
39(6), 859-876.
Kregenow, J.M, Rogers, M, & Price, M.F. . (2011). Is
there a “back” of the room when theteacher
is in the middle?. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 20(6), 45-51.
Li, X., Zhang, Y., Bai, Y., & Feng-Kuang, C. (2017).
An Investigation of University Students’
Classroom Seating Choices. Journal of
Learning Spaces , Volume 6, Number 3.
Malif, M. M., Cardoso, G. M., & Meirellec, D.
(2015, June 17). Relationship between
students position in classroom. pp. Miguel et
al. 290-292.
Marx, A., Furher, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of
classroom seating arrangements on
children's question-asking. In Learning
Environments Research,2(3) (pp. 249-263).
Mercincavage , & Brooks . (1990). Differences in
achievement motivation of college business
majoras a function of year incollege and
classroom seating position. Psychology,
632-634.
Moore , & Glynn. (1984). Variation in question rate
as a function of position in the classroom.
Educational Psychology, 4(3),, 233-248.
Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during
cooperative small groups in mathematics.
The journal of education research, 85(5),,
261-273.
Myers, S. A. (2017, June 27).
OxfordBibliographies,your best research
starts here. Retrieved October 08, 2019,
from
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view
/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-
9780199756841-0177.xml
PACE, D., & PRICE, M. (2005). Instructional
techniques to facilitate inclusive education.
In D. Schwartz (ed.), Including Children
with. Westport, CT: : Greenwood Press.
PACE, D., & PRICE,, M. (2005). Instructional
techniques to facilitateinclusive education.
In D. Schwartz (ed.), Including Children
with Special Needs (pp. 115–131). .
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Parker, T., Hoopes, O., & Eggett, D. (2011). The
effect of seat location and movement or
permanence on student-initiated
participation. College Teaching, 59(2),, 79-
84.
Perkins , & Wieman. (2005). The surprising impact
of seat location on student performance. The
Physic. Teach., 30-33.
Perkins, K., & Wieman, C. (2005). The surprising
impact of seat. The Physic. Teach. 43, 30-
33.
Richards, J. . (2006). Setting the stage for student
engagement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2),
94-96.
RW, M. J. (2019). Yale poorvu center for teaching
and learning. Retrieved October 08, 2019,
from https://poorvucenter.yale.edu:
https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/ClassroomSeat
ingArrangements
Shernoff, D. J. (2017). Separate worlds: the influence
of seating location on student engagement,
classroom experience, and performance in
the large university lecture hall. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 49, 55-64.
Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based
model of cooperative learning. The journal
of educational research, 98(6), 339-349.
11
Singh, S. (2018, July 26). Medume. Retrieved
September 19, 2019, from Towards Data
Science:
https://towardsdatascience.com/sampling-
techniques-a4e34111d808
Steinzor, B. . (1950). The spatial factor in face to face
discussion groups. Journal of Abnormal &
Social Psychology, 45(3),, 552.
TesolClass.com. (2013, Novemeber 3). Seating
Arrangements. Classroom Management.
Totusek, & Staton-Spicer. (1982). Relationship
between students position in classroom.
International Journal of Educational
Research and Reviews .
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.
WANNARKA, R., & RUHL, K. (2005). Seating
arrangements that promote positive
academic and behavioural outcomes: a
review of empirical research. In D. a. PACE,
Instructional techniques to facilitate (pp. In
D. Schwartz (ed.), Including Children with
Special Needs (pp. 115–131).). Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Weinstein. (1985). Seating arrangements in the
classroom. International Encyclopedia of
Education New York: Pergamon.
Zhang, Z. X. (2011). Teaching Design: Principles and
Applications. Higher Education Press.
Zomorodian, K. (2012). The effect of seating
preferences of the medical students on
educational achievement. Medical
Educational Online.