No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Where Do You Sit in Class? A Study of Spatial Positioning During Two Courses of Different Duration
Abstract
The objective of this study was to study the selection of seat location by individuals in a group in a confined environment and to identify the factors leading people to prefer one location to another. We analyzed the seating location of students in a lecture hall over the course of two academic programs of different durations (19 days and 44 days). The goal was to determine the rate at which participants would settle into a specific seat location. Unobtrusive photography was used to collect objective data on an hourly basis. Results showed that in both courses participants began to settle into a specific location from the second day of class. Twenty percent of the participants had settled after 4-7 days or 15.5 hours in class. Settling continued for the duration of the shorter course. However, in the longer course settling stopped after 28.5 days on average. The plateau in the number of settlers depended on the number of days, not on the time actually spent in class. At the end of the longer course 52.5% of the participants had settled, compared to 38.9% in the shorter course. Settling into the same seat location can be interpreted as a strategy to establish a personal territory. These results indicate that about half of a cohort expresses the need for establishing a personal territory when in a confined and crowded environment, and this process takes about one month.
... Other elements of the classroom that may influence learning space attachment are the student seating location, due to issues, such as proximity to the teacher, accessibility to the halls or distance to the screen [26]. This choice of location in the classroom is influenced by the territoriality and personality of the individual [27,28]. Additionally, the learning space attachment has been associated with students' perception whose artworks were permanently exhibited [29]. ...
Optimization of environmental performance is one of the standards to be achieved towards designing sustainable buildings. Many researchers are focusing on zero emission building; however, it is essential that the indoor environment favors the performance of the building purpose. Empirical research has demonstrated the influence of architectural space variables on student performance, but they have not focused on holistic studies that compare how space influences different academic performance, such as Mathematics and Arts. This manuscript explores, under self-reported data, the relationship between learning space and the mathematics and art performance in 583 primary school students in Galicia (Spain). For this, the Indoor Physical Environment Perception scale has been adapted and validated and conducted in 27 classrooms. The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis have evidenced that the learning space is structured in three categories: Workspace comfort, natural environment and building comfort. Multiple linear regression analyses have supported previous research and bring new findings concerning that the indoor environment variables do not influence in the same way different activities of school architecture.
This study explores the relationship between seating quadrants and student performance, including the role of classroom type in the quadrant effect. Data collected from 131 classes taught at 17 colleges of Northwest A&F University in China were analyzed using the ordinary least squares method. The results revealed that where a student sat in a classroom always had a significant effect on their performance. Classroom type also played an important role in students’ academic performance, specifically, the longer the depth of the classroom, the more obvious the quadrant effect. Additionally, different classroom utilization schemes resulted in different student densities in the classrooms, further affecting students’ academic performance. The higher the student density, the better the academic performance. We thus propose that the classroom utilization schemes should be in line with the matching relationship between student density and the classroom and that students be taught in small classrooms as much as possible.
Although we are constantly making spatial decisions about where to place our objects and ourselves, few studies in psychology have investigated this phenomenon in‐depth. In the current study, we examined how spatial decisions are made over time by tracking students’ seating choices in classrooms over the course of a semester (i.e., 12 weeks). We found that seating choice became more fixed over time (i.e., a decrease in the distance between seats chosen on adjacent days), though this was disrupted by individuals’ time of arrival to class; latecomers often sat further away from where they last sat. We also observed a surprising destabilization of this pattern on the last day of class wherein seating choices became more varied. These results suggest that although spatial habit plays a crucial role in shaping individuals’ spatial decisions over time, it may weaken once individuals no longer expect to occupy that space in the future.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
While an extensive body of research exists regarding the delivery of course knowledge and material, much less attention has been paid to the performance effect of seating position within a classroom. Research findings are mixed as to whether students in the front row of a classroom outperform students in the back row. Another issue that has not been fully examined in higher education is the effect of environmental factors, specifically seating type, on student performance. This study examines the impact of both factors—seating location and seating type—on overall performance. Data were collected over a 10-year period from 1,138 undergraduate senior business students during their capstone course. The findings suggest that student performance is not significantly altered by seating location or seating type.
This study provides a novel observational method to observe repetitive seating patterns chosen by students in a classroom. Although prior work that relied on self-reports suggests that students claim the same seats repeatedly, the main hypothesis of the study was that in a repeated use of a public space, people tend to occupy the same position, thus establishing a form of territoriality. Student seating locations were observed in two university lecture halls, 6 times during a span of 4 weeks. Observations were carried out on a sample of 47 and 31 students for Lecture Halls A and B, respectively. Two parameters were computed: mean displacement and mean territory dimension. The results showed very low mean displacements in both halls and the establishment of very small territories inside the halls. The results are explained in terms of conflict and anxiety avoidance, and the interaction between spatial preference and goal fulfillment driven by motivational and personality factors.
We analyzed whether the position of students in classroom is correlated with academic performance, and which factors might be involved. The sample consisted of 16 classrooms in a school year bimester, each one with around 30 students. Each student's position was registered in classroom maps and the reasons for the students' seat choice were gathered by a questionnaire. School performance and classroom absences of each student were collected directly from the teachers' register notebook. We found that better performances of students at school correlate with lower percentages of absence and choices of seating positions closer to the board. Moreover, the main reason to sit in a front position was motivation for learning. We suggest that school performance is associated to students' position in the classroom because both are affected by the student motivation for learning. As a consequence, changing students' position in the classroom without increasing their motivation is not likely to improve school performance.
Intra- and inter-personal determinants of sociability vs. privacy provided by a residential choice were investigated. We hypothesized that persons: (1) with strong affiliative needs; and (2) who were more socially involved with coresidents, would choose a living arrangement that offered more potential interaction (less potential privacy). Results from surveys and personality assessments of 60 male freshmen who had lived in a dorm for one year, and were forced to live in a non-dorm setting for their second year, supported both hypotheses. Follow-up interviews with the sample, conducted at the beginning of their junior year, also upheld the two hypotheses. Results confirm the role of affiliative tendencies in responding to and subsequently structuring the college environment. They also suggest that the development of local social ties, that serve as a "buffer" to the negative aspects of dorm life, also has effects that carry forward in time producing a greater tolerance for the presence of proximate others, and influencing subsequent residential decisions.
A method for linking classroom evaluations to specific physical properties and for comparing the evaluations of different groups is described and illustrated. Thirty-five college classrooms were photographed and shown to 20 professors and 51 undergraduate students, each of whom evaluated the friendliness of and their overall preference for all the classrooms. Seven physical properties of the classrooms were reliably assessed by independent observers. Using a modified Brunswik lens model, the relations between the physical properties and the evaluations by the two groups were established and compared. Between 40 and 57 per cent of the variance in the evaluations could be explained from only three classroom properties: view to outdoors, seating comfort and seating arrangement. Evaluations by the students and professors were surprisingly similar, an encouraging sign for classroom designers.
Le changement climatique est là: Où est la psychologie? Il est communément accepté que la lutte contre le changement climatique est le territoire des sciences de la terre et des océans, des sciences économiques, de la technologie, et des décisions politiques. Cet article présente en quoi la psychologie est aussi une discipline clé pour faire face au problème, et il décrit les défis internes et externes que cette discipline doit relever. Pour minimiser les dégâts causés par le changement climatique à la fois sur les individus et sur l'environnement, les efforts doivent nécessairement émaner de multiples disciplines, et la psychologie peut non seulement s'impliquer bien davantage, mais elle se doit de le faire.
The challenge to effectively evaluating teams in extreme environments necessarily involves a wide range of physiological, psychological, and psychosocial factors. The high reliance on technology, the growing frequency of multinational and multicultural teams, and the demand for longer duration missions all further compound the complexity of the problem. The primary goal is the insurance of human health and well-being with expectations that such priorities will naturally lead to improved chances for performance and mission success. This paper provides an overview of some of the most salient immediate challenges for selecting, training, and supporting teams in extreme environments, gives exemplars of research findings concerning these challenges, and discusses the need for future research.
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of students' seating location in a large, lecture style university course on student engagement, attention, classroom learning experience, and course performance. Participants (N = 407) were students in two cohorts of an undergraduate financial accounting course at a large university in the United States. They participated in the Experience Sampling Method measuring their self-reported seating location, engagement, attention, and other experiential dimensions throughout the one-semester course. Results showed that students reported lower engagement, attention, and quality of classroom experience when sitting in the back of the classroom than when sitting in the middle or front. Those sitting in the back of the classroom most of the time also received lower course grades. Engagement, attention, and other experiential factors mediated the influence of seating location on course grade. Multilevel models revealed both within-student and between-student effects of seating on classroom experience.
A previous study by Becker et al. demonstrated that students who sit near the front and center of a classroom get better grades and like the instructor better than students who sit in the back or at the sides. To determine whether this was a true environmental effect or an artifact of self-selection, students in one class were permitted to choose their seats (choice condition), while students in another section of the same class were assigned seats alphabetically (no choice). Regardless of choice condition, students seated in the middle of the room got higher grades, liked the course better, and liked the instructors better than students seated at the sides. Location effects were obtained on several other dependent variables. In only one instance did location interact with choice. The results are interpreted as supporting the environmental hypothesis rather than the self-selection hypothesis.
Students' degree of territoriality based on gender and seat preferences in different types of classroom arrangements was studied. The types of classroom arrangements included rows of tablet-arm chairs, U-shaped, clusters, and rows of tables with individual chairs. The study was carried out through a survey at a large public institution in the southeast region of the United States. Results indicate that students who preferred seats at the end of rows of tables with individual chairs and tablet-arm chair arrangements had higher scores on claiming a particular seat than those who preferred middle seats in a row. In the rows of tables with individual chair arrangement, students who preferred seats at the end of rows also had more need to define their own territory than students who preferred middle seats in a row. No significant results were found in the U-shaped and cluster layouts. Females had higher scores on claiming a particular seat than males regardless of seating arrangement.
Most college students and faculty regard their classrooms as drab, sterile, and institutional. A traditional classroom was converted into a softer more aesthetically pleasing room. Student attitudes toward the new room were favorable, and there was an increase in classroom participation, including student-student discussion.
Observations were made for 12 general psychology classes taught over a 6-year period. Results showed that women sat in the front of the classroom more often than men, and also obtained higher grades and cut class fewer times than men. Furthermore, for men and women, grade point average decreased and number of absences increased as students sat farther from the front of the room.
A 17-year follow-up was conducted on an innovative classroom designed to improve esthetics and increase student participation. Despite a deterioration in esthetics due to neglect and poor maintenance, the room continued to maintain a constituency among students and faculty, and to enhance student participation relative to straight-row classrooms. Problems remain of accommodating an innovative design within a bureaucratic system based on standardization of spaces and functions.
The purpose of this study was to explore reasons for students' seat selection. Participants were 346 college students (14% freshmen, 47% sophomores, 24% juniors, and 14% seniors) from 12 classes (six sections of two courses). A 20-item questionnaire was used to ask students why they chose their seats in class. An exploratory factor analysis reduced the items to five seat-selection factors: Performance, Social, Asocial, Noticeability, and Environment. Seat selection factors were analyzed in terms of seating location: by row, by front/middle/back of the room, by center versus perimeter of the room, and by mid-room versus sides of the room. Performance and Noticeability ratings decreased by row from the front toward the back of the room. The Asocial factor was rated higher by those who sat in the back of the room, while the Environment factor was rated higher by those who sat in the center of the room.
1. Introduction Part I. Origins of Human Territorial Functioning: 2. Territorial Functioning and Related Processes in Different Species 3. The Origins of Human Territorial Functioning 4. Theoretical Perspectives on Interpreting Territorial Functioning: Exactly How did it Evolve? Part II. A Conceptual Model of Human Territorial Functioning: 5. A Perspective on Human Territorial Functioning 6. Clarifying Psychological and Ecological Consequences Part III. Territorial Functioning in Settings of Varying Centrality: 7. Interior Residential Settings 8. Territorial Functioning in Outdoor Residential Spaces Close to the Home 9. Regular Use Settings 10. Minimal Territorial Functioning Part IV. Applications to Social Problems: 11. Disorder 12. Resource Conservatism Part V. Review and Prospects: 13. Summary of the General Line of Argument and its Implications 14 Future Directions for Research and Application.
The relationship between privacy preferences and the location of selected seats in a classroom was investigated. Subjects were 17 men and 34 women in an undergraduate psychology class. The location of the seat selected in a rectangular classroom was described according to depth: front, middle, and back. Privacy preferences were measured using Marshalls (1974) Privacy Preference Scale. Those who opted to sit in the back were significantly higher on the Not Neighboring and Seclusion scales.
Social, occupational, and cultural adaptation during a 12-month wintering in Antarctica
- M Nicholas
- S L Bishop
- K Weiss
- M Gaudina
Nicholas M., Bishop S.L., Weiss K., Gaudina, M.
(2016) Social, occupational, and cultural adaptation
during a 12-month wintering in Antarctica. Aerosp.
Med. Hum. Perform. 87:1-9.
Psychology’s essential role in climate change
- R Gifford