() g .d--

----

CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS:INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

THEORY VERSUS STUDENT PREFERENCESJames C. McCorskey

Effective communication in the class-room is essential to the success of boththe student and the teacher.! The kindof communication as well as the amountof communication that occurs in the

classroom has long been thought to bepartially a function of the seating ar-

Rod W. McVetta

rangement of stUdents. While there prob-ably is an infinite number of ways ofarranging a classroom, three are mostcommon: traditional, horseshoe, andmodular.

The traditional. arrangement (seeFigure I) for classrooms typically consistsof about five or six perfectly straightrows, each containing five to seven chairsequidistant from each other-or asRosenfeld and Civikly say, "somethinglike tombstones in a military ceme-tery.":! Historically, Sommer explains,the straight-row arrangement evolved to

Dr. McCroskey is Professor and Chairperson ofthe Department of SPeech Communication atWest Virginia University. Mr. McVetta is adoctoral candidate specializing in Communica-tion in Instruction at the same institution.

1 For recent books concerned with the roleof communication in the classroom, see GustavW. Friedrich, Kathleen Galvin, and CassandraBook, 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

TRADITIONAL ARRANGEME1'o'T

FIGURE 1

Teacher

M H

M M

L M

L ~L L

H H ~~ M M

H M L

~ L L

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

make the best use of the only adequatelighting then available-natural lightfrom side windows.3 In spite of develop-ments in lighting which make thestraight-row arrangement unnecessary,this traditional arrangement persists, infact dominates. A recent survey of class-rooms on a university campus found over90 percent of the classrooms to have thisarrangement.

The horseshoe or semi-circular ar-

rangement (see Figure 2) is frequentlyemployed in smaller classes, such as semi-nars. Some rooms are not physically con-ducive to this arrangement for larger

3 Robert Sommer, Personal Space (EnglewoodCliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1969).

classes because of the "dead space" inthe middle. Consequently a "doublehorseshoe", two semi-circular rows withone inside the other, is also frequentlyobserved. The modular arrangement (seeFigure 3) is found mostly in specializedclassrooms (e.g. home economics. sciencelaboratories) and in classrooms :It thelower elementary school levels.

Evaluation of Variotls Arrangements

As we noted above, the traditional

straight-row arrangement is predominatein most educational settings, particularlyin college and upper elementary throughhigh school settings. The cause of thisdominance is elusive, but tradition is the

CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS 101

FIGURE 2

HORSESHOE ARRANGEMENT-

I T,~" I

I M I I M I

I M I I--~-I

M [:JI 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

I L II ~ I L I II L I

Table Table

~ 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

-102 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

, FIGURE 3

. MODULAR ARRANCn1E:-IT

I T ,.me, I

I H j I H I

-

I M II I M I I M I I M I

Table Table

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

CL\SSROOM SEATING ARRANGE~rENTS

explanation offered most frequently. Dis-cussions with teachers who employ thestrait-row arrangement (over 300) yieldedother reactions as well. Many commentedthat they simply had never thoughtabout it. Others commented that the

school janitor would become incensed ifthey rearranged the seats. Some reportedtrying other arrangements but beingchastised by colleagues or superiors forhaving or leaving a "messy room". Manysimply indicated that they liked theirroom that way, with no explanation forwhy they had that preference.

This dominance of the traditional ar-

rangement also is difficult to ey?lainfrom the vantage point of the specialistin instruction. Three-quarters of a cen-tury ago John Dewey attacked this ar-rangement because it inhibits experi-mentation in the classroom. Subsequentwriters in education have agreed almostunanimously. If seating is discussed atall in a teaching methods course, thetraditional arrangement is virtually al-ways attacked as less desirable than otheralternatives.

The view of speci~lists in instructionalcommunication departs somewhat fromthat of Dewey's descendants. Taking afunctional approach, for example, Hurt,Scott, and McCroskey argue that each ofthe three arrangements has positive ele-ments depending on the desired type ofcommunication in the classroom:~ Theysuggest that if the purpose of the classis primarily one of information dissemi-nation, the traditional arrangement isprobably best because it minimizesstudent-student interaction and placesthe primary interaction focus in the class-room on the teacher. With regard to thehorseshoe arrangement, they suggest thisarrangement would be the best if bothstudent-student and stUdent-teacher in-

teraction are important to the learning

~ Hurt. Scott, and ~[cCroskey, pp. 95.99.

103

in the class. Classes such as those con-

cerned with higher-order cognitive oraffective goals, particularly where thereare few "right" or "wrong" answers,would be benefitted most by this arrange-ment.

The modular arrangement is advocatedfor classes in which student-student inter-

action is most important.5 If task groupsare formed in the class, this arrangementpermits ma.ximum interacrion amongthose groups while minimizing the inter-ference of one group with another. Thisarrangement is also recommended forclasses which require that the teacherwork closely with individuals or smallgroups rather than primarily with theclass as a whole.

While the teacher is the primary focusin the traditional arrangement andteacher and students share the focus in

the horseshoe arrangement, the teacheris removed from the focal point in themodular arrangement. Because of thedifferences in purpose for which eacharrangement is best suited noted above,Hurt et a!. refuse to suggest one systemover the others. However, they do arguethat the traditional system is least con-ducive to interaction and that if theteacher seeks to increase communicationin the classroom, one of the other ar-rangements should be chosen.6

'While much has been written- about

the comparative values of various seatingarrangements, the stUdent's view hasbeen virtUally ignored. Only two studiescould be found which explored this area.Heston and Garner found that for small,undergraduate classes in interpersonalcommunication, stUdents demonstrateda marked preference for the horseshoeor semi-circular arrangement." Feitler

5 Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey, pp. 98.99.6 Hurt, Scott, and ~IcCroskey, pp. 98.,. ]udee Heston and Patrick Garner, "A Study

of Personal Spacing and Desk Arrangement inthe Learning Environment," paper presented at

104 COM;\WNICATION EDuCATION

found a similar preference on, .the partof graduate and undergraduate studentsin education. He also found that these

students did not like a modular type ofarrangement with students seated insmall groupS.8

Since it has been reasonably well estab-lished that student affect toward a class

is related to student learning,9 studentattitudes toward classroom arrangementsare a matter of no small concern when

determining a choice of classroom ar-rangement. An arrangement that is dis-agreeable to the student may erect aneedless barrier, possibly one that willprevent learning in spite of other appro-priate behaviors of the teacher. Conse-quently, the first question we posed for

. this investigation was: Do students havedifferential preferences for the threecommon types of classroom arrange-ments? .

'\Ve were also concerned with elements

which might impact any general prefer-ences which students might express,specifically differences in courses to betaken and individual differences in stu-

dent orientations. The type of course astudent would be taking was expected toimpact what type of arrangement thestudent would prefer. Some classes areattractive to students and may inflatetheir desire to interact, while otherclasses are disliked and may deflate thestudents' desire to interact. Consequent-ly, our second research question was:Does the type of course to be taken affectstudent preferences for classroom ar-rangements?

'Within this context we restricted our

analysis to two types of classes: required

the annual convention of the International Com-munication Association. Aclanta. 1972.

8 Fred C. Feicler, as reported bv KennethGoodall. "The Line," Psychology Today, 5 (Sep-tember, 1971), 12.

9 See, for example, Benjamin S. Bloom, Hu-man Characteristics and School Learning (NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 1976).

classes the student does not want to take,and elective classes within the student's

major.l0 vVe felt that these two typeswere effective operationalizations of un-attractive and attractive classes, respec-tively. Since we assumed that studentswould be more likely to desire to inter-act in an attractive course and less likelyto desire to interact in an unattractive

course, we hypothesized that their prefer-ences in this regard would be reflected inclassroom arrangement preferences, sincethe various arrangements allegedly pro-mote or restrict interaction. Our specific

hypothesis was:

HI: Studencs will prefer the tradidonal class-room arrangement over horseshoe andmodular arrangemencs for required coursesbut will prefer horseshoe and modulararrangements over the tradidonal arrange-ment for elective courses.

While the above hypothesis was ex-

pected to hold for the aggregate for allstudents, we also recognize that studentsdiffer sharply in their desire to com-municate. This individual difference is

partially a function of the personality-type orientation referred to as "com-munication apprehension" (CA).l1 Thus,we anticipated that students with highlevels of CA would be less likely to

select interaction promoting arrange-ments and students with low levels of CA

would be more likely to select such ar-rangements, regardless of the type ofcourse involved. Our second hypothesis,therefore, was:

10 Other class characteristics should also beexpected to affect preferences in specific cir-cumstances, e.g. class content, time of day, pre-vious experience with the class instructor, andaffecdve reladonships with other stUdencs in theclass.

11 For a recent survey of the research in thisarea, see James C. McCroskey, "Oral Communi-cation Apprehension: A Summary of RecentTheorv and Research:' Human CommunicationResea~ch, 4 (1977), 78-96. .

CLASSROOM SEA TI:-iG ARRANGEMENTS 105

H..:' Students with high levels of CA, .compared- to stUdents with low levels of GA, will ex-

press greater preferences for arrangementsinhibiting interaction and lesser preferencesfor arrangements facilitating interaction.

While this hypothesis suggests that ar-rangement preferences of students withhigh and low CA levels will be affectedby their CA level, it does not posit animpact for students with an intermediateCA level. These individuals. the mode-rates, are seen as "normal". Consequent-ly, their preferences should fall in be-tween those of the CA extremes and

correspond to the preferences of theaggregate of all students.

Preferences 'Within Arrangements

The second concern of this study in-volved student preferences for seatswithin the three types of classroom ar-rangements. Previous research suggeststhat students occupying certain seats ina classroom will participate much morethan will students occupying otherseats. I:! Similar interaction patterns havebeen observed in small group settings.13

Considerable research has been re-

ported which has investigated the natureof communication in traditional-arrange-ment classrooms. Adams and Biddle con-ducted one of the most extensive studiesconcerned with the effects of traditional

or straight-row seating.14 They foundlocation within the seating arrangement

12Sommer. pp. 112-119.13 For a recent survey of this research, see

Leslie A. Baxter, "The Independent Effects ofSeating Position on the Frequency and Di-rection of Group Interaction," paper presentedat the annual convention of the vVestern SpeechCommunication Association. Seattle, 1975. ClassicstUdies in this area include A. Paul Hare andRobert F. Bales, "Seating Position and SmallGroup Interaction," Sociometry 26, (1963) 480-486. and Fred Strodtbeck and L. Hook, "TheSocial Dimensions of a Twelve-Man Jury Table,"Sociometry 24, (1961), 397-415.

14 Raymond S. Adams and Bruce J. Biddle.Realities of Teaching: E;"plorations with VideoTape (New York: Holt, Rinehart and 'Winston,1970).

to be the main determinant of whether

a student was actively involved in theprocess of classroom communication.The researchers identified the center of

activity where most interaction takesplace to be the area extending from thefront of the room directly up the centerline and diminishing in intensity as itmoves farther away from the teacher.Sommer. in an analysis of a number ofstraight-row arrangements, found pre-cisely the same thing; participation isgreatest in the front row and in thecenter of each row.15 Crawford repeatedSommer's study with a discussion groupand found a linear relationship betweenrow and interaction.16 Students occupy-ing the first row contributed six timesas many statements per session as the last(fourth) row.

There is some reason to believe that

these participation patterns are relatedto student achievement in the natUralenvironment. Daum found that when

college students were allowed free choiceof seating, the stUdents choosing seatsnearer the front obtained higher testscores than students seated nearer theback. However, when stUdents matched

for previous achievement were assignedseats, this pattern was only partially re-plicated: previous high-achievers main-tained their high levels of achievementwhether they were assigned to the frontor the rear of the room, but previouslow-achievers significantly improvedtheir performance if they were assignedseats in the front. IT

Although less research has been re-ported involving arrangements otherthan the traditional straight-row system,Sommer found that in a seminar arrange-ment, similar to the horseshoe arrange-

15 Sommer, pp. 115-119.16 Reviewed in Sommer, p. 116.11 J. Daum, as cited by Jere E. Brophy and

Thomas L. Good, Teacher-Student Relation-ships: Causes and Consequences (New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974). pp. 22.23.

106 COMMUNIC::ATION EDUCATION

ment, the students sitting directly acrossfrom the teacher were the most frequentparticipants.l8 No studies of interactionfrequency involving modular classroomarrangements have been reported. How-ever, several studies of small group par-ticipation patterns provide an analogto this arrangement, since each modulewithin this arrangement can be viewedas a small group. This research suggeststhat people occupying central or endseats (head or foot of table) are the mostfrequent participants in task-orientedgroups.l9

The general conclusion that is com-monly drawn from this body of researchis that sitting in certain seats in a class-room increases a student's participation,

. thus inferring a causal relationship be.tween seat and interaction leve1.2° Re.cently this causal link has been chal-lenged. Baxter discovered, while review-ing the literature relating to seating insmall groups, that all of the previousstudies had permitted subjects to choosefreely the seat they were to occupy. Thus,she argued that the results could as wellbe attributed to differences in peoplewho selected certain seats as to the seats

themselves. \Vhen she attempted to re-plicate the earlier findings while random-ly assigning subjects to seats, she foundthat the previously reported interactionpatterns did not exist.:!1

.Within the classroom context, reportedresults are somewhat conflicting. 'Whileall of the studies allowing free choiceof seating have found certain seats to behighly associated with increased inter-action, the two previous studies that didnot permit free choice have resulted inless consistent findings. Ebert found thatin an imposed seating arrangement (i.e.,

18 Sommer, pp. 112-114.19 Baxter.

:!OJames J. Thompson, Beyond Words: Non-verbal Communication in the Classroom (NewYork: Citation Press, 1973).

:!l Baxter.

alphabetically) students toward the frontof the room still participated more eventhough the teacher directed an equalnumber of comments to all areas.~

Koneya, on the other hand, found thatthe seats observed in previous studies toproduce the most participation did soin his study with random seat assign-ment; however students who had beenidentified previously as low verbal inter-actors did not increase their participationwhen assigned to high participationseats.:!3 This lead Koneya to concludethat both the seat and the orientation of

the occupant contribute to participationfrequently. He also found that highverbal interactors indicated a significant-ly greater preference for high interactionseats than other students.24

Such differential preferences have alsobeen noted in another recent study.McCroskey and Sheahan hypothesizedthat students with differential levels of

communication apprehension would re-port differential preferences for seatingwithin the traditional classroom arrange-ment.:!5 Their results supported the hy-pothesis. Students with low levels of CApreferred seats demonstrated previouslyto generate higher participation, whilestudents with high levels of CA pre-ferred to avoid those seats. These results

parallel those reported by Koneya, al-though Koneya determined which stu-dents were high or low verbal interactorsby observing previous behavior whileMcCroskey and Sheahan made this de-termination by means of a self-reportmeasure of CA.

:!:!Reviewed in Sommer, pp. 116-117.:!3 ~{ele Koneya, "The Relationship Between

Verbal Interaction and Seat Location of Mem-bers of Large Groups," unpublished dissertation(Denver, 1973).

:!4 Koneva.:!5James C. McCroskey and Michael E.

Sheahan, "Seating Position and Participation:An Alternative Theoretical Explanation," paperpresented at the annual convention of the Inter.national Communication Association, Portland,Oregon, 19i6.

CLASSROOM SEA TING ARRANGEME~TS 10i

The present study sought to ,Teplicatethe McCroskey and Sheahan -study in-volving the traditional, straight-row ar-rangement while substantially increasingthe sample size and to extend the investi-gation to the other two types of class-room arrangement.26 Because of the re-sults of the original study and the find-ings reported by Koneya,27 the hypothesistested was:

H : Students with low levels of CA, compared;! to students with high levels of CA, will ex-

press greater preferences for high par-ticipation seats and lesser preferences forlow participation seats.

As was the case with our ~ccond hy-pothesis, this hypothesis does not specifi-cally take into account students withmoderate CA levels. Their preferenceswere presumed to fall in between thoseof the CA extremes.

METHOD

Procedure

Subjects were 972 college students whowere simultaneously enrolled in twobasic courses in communication, one alecture course with over 300 stUdents persection and the other an experience-basedcourse with a ma.ximum enrollment of 25

per section. Data were collected attwo different times in the course of a

semester. During the first week of class ameasure of CA was obtained in the small

classes. Approximately three monthslater the measures of arrangement andseating preferences were obtained in thelecture course. Coded student numbers

were employed at both times so that thetwo data sets could be merged for anal-ysis.

lv[easures

The measure of CA employed was the

28 McCroskey and Sheahan.27 Koneya.

Personal Report of Communication Ap-prehension (PRCA).28 This is the mostwidely used measure in research involv-ing CA. It has a history of high internalreliability and predictive validity.29 Inthe present study the estimate of internal(split-half) reliability was .94, and the ob-tained distribUtion of scores was found

not to deviate from normality. For pur-poses of analysis, subjects scoring beyondone standard deviation above the meanwere classified as "high" in CA; thosescoring beyond one standard deviationbelow the mean were classified as "low";and the remainder were classified as"modera te."

To obtain measures of classroom ar-

rangement preferences, subjects were pro-vided diagrams of classrooms similar tothose in figures 1-3, except that the seatswere represented by numbers (01-25).They were asked to check which arrange-ment they would "usually prefer", whichthey would prefer "for a required courseyou don't want to take", and which theywould prefer "for an elective course inyour major". In addition they were askedto mark an "X" across the seat theywould normally prefer in each arrange-ment. Seats classified a priori as (H)high, (M) moderate, and (L) low inter-action areas on the basis of previous re-search are indicated in figures 1-3.

1\10st subjects had little difficulty com-pleting the instrument. However, somesubjects had to be dropped from someof the analyses because of omitted re-sponses or uninterpretable responses.

Data were submitted to chi-squareanalyses. The criterion for statistical sig-nificance was set at alpha = .05. The

28 James C. McCroskey, "Measures of Com-munication-Bound Anxiety," Speech Mono-graphs, 37 (19iO), 269-277, and "Validity ofthe PRCA As An Index of Oral CommunicationApprehension," paper presented at the annualconvention of the Speech Communication Asso-ciation, Houston, 19i5.

29 McCroskey, "Validity of the PRCA As AnIndex of Oral Communication Apprehension."

108 COMMU:-IICA TION ED lJCA TION

power of all tests to detect a moderateeffect was above .99.

RESULTS

The general arrangement preferencesof the subjects are reported in Table l.As noted in that table about half of the

subjects reported a genenl preferencefor the traditional arrangement. a thirdpreferred the horseshoe arrangement,and the remainder opted for the modulararr:lOgemen t.

Such general preferences, however,may be quite meaningless. It is clearfrom the results concerning elective andrequired courses (see Table 1) that typeof course has a major influence on ar-rangement preferences. 'While over half

(55.3%) of the subjects preferred thetraditional arrangement for requiredcourses, less than one-third (32.8%) ex-pressed that preference for an electivecourse in their major. It is particularlyinteresting to note that the horseshoe ar-rangement was the one most preferredfor an elective course, but only 14.1%preferred it for a required course.

Table 2 reflects arrangement prefer-ences as a function of CA. In terms of

general preferences, subjects with lowCA favored the horseshoe arrangement,but those with moderate and high CAfavored the traditional arrangement."When considering an elective course, thelow CA subjects were strongly in favor ofthe horseshoe arrangement. Although in

TABLE I

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

Type ofCourse

Req uiredElectiveUsual Preference

Straight Row

538 (55.3)"319 (32.3)46i (48.1)

Type of ArrangementHorseshoe

137 (14.1)428 (H.O)32j (33.5)

. x:! = 233..56. P <.001; C = .27

.. :-lumbers in parentheses report percemage expressing preference.

ApprehensionLevel

General PreferenceaLowModerateHigh

Required CoursebLowModerateHigh

Elective CoursecLowModerateHigh

TABLE 2

ARRANGDIE:'iT PREFERDICES By COI:RSETYPE OF ApPREHENSION LEVEL

Type of Arrangement

Straight Row Horseshoe Nlodular

.Ntlmbers in parentheses report percemage expressing preferencea Test of interaction: X2 = 17.60,P <.005. C = .13b Test of interaction: X2 =5.53. P < .10c Test of interaction:X2= 15.35.P <.005: C = .12d X2 required for alpha <.001 = 13.80

Modular

297 (30.6)225 (23.1)179 (lSA)

MainEffect

x:!

1;;.24.198.3235.69

21.64179.3556.77

36.8429.9014.42

51 (34.0). 69 (46.0) 30 (20.0)329 (49.6) 213 (32.1) 121 (18.:;)8i (55.1) 43 (27.2) 28 (I i.i)

71 (47.3) 25 (16.i) 54 (34.0)373 (56.1) 94 (I'U) 198 (29.8)94 (59.9) 18 (11.5) 45 (2S.7)

31 (20.7) 85 (56.7) 34 (22.7)231 (34.i) 274 (41.2) 160 (24.1)57 (36.3) 69 (43.9) 31 (19.7)

CLASSROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENTS

terms of percentage the moderate andhigh CA subjects. also favored that ar-rangement, the differences between tradi-tional and horseshoe were not statistical-

ly significant for either group.The results concerning the required

course were quite unambiguous. Allgroups most preferred the traditionalarrangement and least preferred thehorseshoe. The differences, however, in-creased with level of CA. Traditional was

favored over horseshoe by a ratio of lessthan 3-1 by subjects with low CA bUt byapproximately 4-1 by moderates and over5-1 by highs.

Seating preferences by CA level withineach arrangement are reported ill Table3. In each arrangement CA level andtype of seating interacted to producedifferential preferences. In all cases sub-jects with low CA, compared to high CAsubjects, showed greater preference forhigh interaction seats and lesser prefer-ences for low interaction seats.

DISCUSSION

109

The answer to our research questionconcerning whether students have dif-ferential preferences among the threecommon types of classroom arrangementsis clear. They do. 'While the aggregatepreference appears to favor the tradi-tional arrangement, this is temperedboth by type of course and CA. level ofstudent.

As a group, students in this study in-dicated a preference for the more inter-action-restricting, traditional seating ar-rangement for required courses. How-ever, these same students indicated a

preference for the more interaction-enhancing horseshoe and modular ar-rangements for elective courses. Thisdifferential preference was most markedfor the students with low CA.. This may

suggest that these individuals are moresensitive to environment impact on inter-action. 'When they want to talk they may

TABLE 3SEATING PREFERENCES By ARRANGEME1'IT AND ApPREHE:-ISION LEVEL

Type of SeatingMainEffect

X:!

54.76d163.2728.00

15.4812.3428.66

.185.iO

18.84

. :-.lumbersin parentheses report percentage expressing preference.a Test of interaction: x:! = 29.61.P <.001; C =.17b Test of interaction: X:! = 37.52.P <.001; C = .20" Test of interaction: X:!= 11.26. P <.03; C =.Il,\ Expected frequencies computed 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

Apprehension High Moderate LowLevel Interaction Interaction Interaction

Slright RowaLow 64 (H.W 64 (44.1) 17 (1l.i)

[oderate 168 (25.7) 3i2 (56.9) 114 (17.4)High 32 (20.3) 88 (55.7) 38 (24.1)

Sears inClassification 6 9 10

Horses/webLow 60 (4l.i) 35 (24.3) 49 (34.0)Moderare 185 (28.5) 119 (18.3) 345 (53.2)High 29 (18.6) 19 (12.2) 108 (69.2)

Sears inClassification 7 6 12

ModularcLow 40 (29.6) 53 (39.2) 42 (31.1)Moderate 150 (25.2) 229 (38.4) 217 (36.4)High 25 (16.8) 53 (35.6) 71 (47.8)

Scats inClassification 7 10 8

110 COM~n;:-:ICATrO:-l EDCCATIO:-l

be more aware of the situational vari-

ables which will increase their -opportun-ity to do so.

In any event, our first two hypothesesclearly were supported. Students preferthe traditional classroom arrangementfor required courses but prefer the horse-shoe or modular arrangement for electivecourses. Similarly, students with highCA, compared to students with low CA,express greater preferences for arrange-ments inhibiting interaction and lesserpreferences for arrangements facilitatinginteraction. Taken together these find-ings suggest that students are aware ofboth their own desired level of participa-tion and the participation demands andopportunities of different classroom ar-rangements, and they desire arrange-ments compatible with their desire (orlack of desire) for participation.

The above conclusion is additionally

supported by the fact that the obtainedresults also supported our third hypo-thesis: students with low levels of CA,

compared to students with high levelsof CA, expressed greater preferences forhigh participation seats and lesser pre-ferences for low participation seats. Thissuggests that even if an arrangement isimposed on students which they do notlike, if they have free choice of seating,they may find places within that ar-rangement that are compatible withtheir levels of desire for interaction.

The implications of the results of thisstudy for instructional communicationspecialists and classroom teachers aresignificant. First, decisions on classroomarrangement should take into accountthe attractiveness of the course to the

student. Using the traditional arrange-ment in an attractive course or the norse-

shoe arrangement in an unattractivecourse may not be good practice. Stu-dents prefer the opposite. Using the lessdesired arrangement may only make a

bad situation worse. If students want to

interact but the arrangement inhibitsinteraction, or if students do not wantto interact but are arranged so that inter-action demands are high, we can expectstudents to develop negative affect whichcan interfere with learning.

Second, students should be given asmuch choice as feasible in selecting theirown seats no matter what arrangement isemployed. Regardless of type of course,students differ markedly in their desireto communicate in the classroom. If we

seat highly verbal students where inter-action is difficult or highly apprehensivestudents where they are the center ofattention and communication demands

are high, we can expect them to developnegative affect which can hamper learn-ing.

Third, the results of this study, andthat reported by Koneya, suggest thatour ability to manipulate the level ofcommunication in a classroom may bemore limited than we previously havebelieved. As both we and Koneya havefound, students have markedly differentseating preferences. "\Nhen given freechoice, highly verbal students will sitwhere interaction is easiest, less verbalstudents will sit farther away from thecenter of interaction. While Koneyafound that the interaction of moderatelyverbal students can be increased by seat-ing them in high interaction areas andhigh verbal students can be silencedto some extent by seating them awayfrom interaction areas, he also foundthat low-verbals would not talk no matterwhere they were seated.:!OThe often ex-pressed desire of classroom teachers to"get everyone involved and participat-ing" may not be possible to realize.

Finally, it may also be that our abilityto manipulate the type of interaction ina classroom is more limited than we

30 Koneya.

CLASSROOM SEATING ARRAN'GEMENTS 111

previously believed. As we noted earlier,the traditional arrangement is presumedto facilitate teacher-student interaction

while the horseshoe arrangement is pre-sumed to facilitate student-student andstudent-teacher interaction. Our results

suggest that students in required courseswant nothing to do with the horseshoearrangement. This may suggest that ifthey are placed in that arrangement theircommunication behavior may not bewhat the teacher expects. If they do notwant to interact, they simply want to gettheir grade and get out, they may justsit and not talk. Future research should

explore the impact on actUal communi-

cation behavior of students in requiredand elective courses as a function of seat-

ing arrangement. The fact that com-munication levels are high in some classesand not in others simply may be a func-tion of the type of' course and have littleor nothing to do with classroom arrange-ment. Of one thing we can be reasonablycertain, however. The more positiveaffect the student has for the course andthe teacher, the more likely the studentwill be to desire to interact in the class-room. The results of this study suggestthat the classroom arrangement theteacher chooses to employ may have asignificant impact on that affect.