Chapter 2

Review – Related Literature

This chapter presents a comprehensive review of existing literature and studies

that explore the intricate relationship between traditional row seating arrangements and

students' academic performance, specifically focusing on Grade 12 students in the

Senior High School department of Gingoog Christian College. By examining a diverse

range of scholarly works, this section provides a synthesized perspective on the potential

impact of traditional row seating on student learning outcomes.

The Prevalence of Traditional Row Seating in Educational Settings

Traditional row seating, characterized by desks arranged in straight lines facing the

front of the classroom, remains a prevalent arrangement in educational settings

worldwide, particularly in primary and secondary education (Tobia, Sacchi, Cerina, et al.,

2020). This seating style, deeply rooted in historical practices, aligns well with teacher-

centered instructional methods and has been the dominant layout for decades. Its

simplicity in managing classroom behavior and facilitating direct instruction contributes

to its widespread use. Teachers often favor this arrangement as it allows for clear

visibility of the board and the instructor, making it easier to maintain students' attention

during lectures. Additionally, this layout can minimize distractions among students, as it

limits opportunities for peer interaction during individual tasks.

However, as educational philosophies have evolved towards more student-

centered and collaborative approaches, the limitations of traditional row seating have

become increasingly apparent. Researchers such as Tobia et al. (2020) have highlighted

the need for more flexible and dynamic seating arrangements that can accommodate
diverse learning styles and promote active engagement. While traditional row seating

may be effective for certain types of instruction, it can hinder creativity, critical thinking,

and social interaction, which are essential skills for 21st-century learners.

Despite these criticisms, traditional row seating persists in many classrooms,

particularly in countries like the Philippines. Kali Rogers (2020) notes that this layout is

commonly found in Philippine educational settings, often due to practical considerations

such as limited resources and space. In such contexts, traditional row seating may be

seen as a necessary compromise, balancing the need for order and efficiency with the

desire for more engaging learning experiences.

However, even in resource-constrained environments, there is a growing

movement towards more innovative seating arrangements. Some educators in the

Philippines are beginning to experiment with alternative layouts, such as small group

clusters or U-shaped configurations, to foster collaboration and discussion. By creating

more flexible and student-centered learning spaces, these educators aim to enhance

student engagement and achievement.

While traditional row seating remains a common feature of many classrooms, it is

increasingly being challenged by a growing body of research and a shift towards more

student-centered pedagogical approaches. As educators continue to explore innovative

ways to optimize learning environments, it is likely that we will see a gradual decline in

the prevalence of traditional row seating and a rise in more flexible and collaborative

arrangements. By embracing these changes, we can create more engaging, effective,

and equitable learning experiences for all students.

The Effectiveness of Traditional Row Seating

 The effectiveness of traditional row seating in classrooms has been a subject of

considerable research, particularly in relation to student focus, behavior, and academic

performance (Tobia, Sacchi, Cerina, et al., 2020). This seating arrangement,

characterized by desks aligned in straight rows facing the teacher, is often praised for its

ability to minimize distractions and promote individual attention to the instructor. Studies

have shown that traditional row seating can enhance students' on-task behavior, as it

limits peer interactions that might lead to disruptions during lessons. For instance,

research indicates that students seated in rows tend to complete a greater quantity of

work in subjects such as reading and mathematics, while maintaining the quality of their

output. This suggests that the structured environment of row seating may foster a more

conducive atmosphere for focused learning, particularly for students who may struggle

with attention or are prone to disruptive behavior.

However, the effectiveness of this arrangement can vary depending on the

cognitive tasks being performed; while it may support logical reasoning and individual

assignments, it could hinder collaborative learning and creativity, which thrive in more

interactive settings like cluster arrangements. Furthermore, individual differences among

students, such as their levels of shyness or social comfort, can influence how well they

respond to traditional row seating. Overall, while traditional row seating has its

advantages in promoting focus and productivity, it may not be the optimal choice for all

learning scenarios, highlighting the need for a flexible approach to classroom seating

that accommodates diverse learning needs and encourages both individual and

collaborative learning experiences (Tobia, Sacchi, Cerina, et al., 2020).

Traditional row seating has been widely used in educational settings for its

effectiveness in promoting structured learning environments (Kali Rogers, 2020). This

layout allows teachers to maintain clear visibility of all students, facilitating direct
instruction and classroom management. The arrangement helps minimize distractions,

as students are focused on the front of the classroom where the teacher typically

delivers lessons. One of the key advantages of traditional row seating is its support for

independent work. Students seated in rows can concentrate on their tasks without the

potential distractions that come from group interactions. This setup is particularly

beneficial during assessments or when students are engaged in individual assignments,

as it encourages a quiet and focused atmosphere.

However, while traditional row seating is effective for certain instructional

strategies, it may limit opportunities for collaboration and peer learning. As educational

practices evolve, there is an increasing emphasis on student engagement and

interaction. Some educators are exploring alternative seating arrangements that foster

collaboration, such as small groups or circular layouts, which can enhance

communication and teamwork among students. In summary, traditional row seating is

effective for maintaining order and supporting independent work, but it may not fully

address the needs of collaborative learning environments. Balancing the benefits of this

layout with the advantages of more interactive arrangements is essential for creating a

dynamic and engaging classroom experience (Kali Rogers, 2020).

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Traditional Row Seating

Traditional row seating, a common classroom arrangement, presents a complex

interplay of advantages and disadvantages (Tobia, Sacchi, Cerina, et al., 2020; Kali

Rogers, 2020). While it offers benefits such as clear visibility, reduced distractions, and

ease of classroom management, it can also limit opportunities for collaboration,

engagement, and the development of essential social skills. The passive nature of this

arrangement may not cater to diverse learning styles and can hinder the creation of a

dynamic and inclusive learning environment.

 As educators strive to optimize learning experiences, it is crucial to weigh the

potential benefits and drawbacks of traditional row seating and consider alternative

seating arrangements that can foster a more engaging, collaborative, and student-

centered classroom.

The Influence of Traditional Row Seating and Alternatives on Student Academic

Performance

Research suggests that alternative seating arrangements, such as circular or

cluster seating, can promote more active and collaborative learning experiences (Nehyba

et al., 2023; Sutherland et al., 2019). These arrangements can foster peer-to-peer

interaction, encourage critical thinking, and enhance problem-solving skills. By creating a

more dynamic and inclusive learning environment, these alternative arrangements can

lead to increased student engagement and motivation.

However, the effectiveness of different seating arrangements can vary depending

on various factors. For example, the cognitive load theory suggests that the physical

layout of a classroom can affect students' ability to concentrate and process information

(Sharma & Joshi, 2020). Traditional row seating, with its rigid structure and limited

opportunities for visual and auditory access, may hinder information retention and

academic performance. In contrast, more flexible arrangements, such as those that allow

students to move around the room, can reduce cognitive load and enhance learning.

Cultural factors can also play a significant role in the impact of seating

arrangements on student outcomes (Teng, 2020). In some cultures, traditional row

seating may be seen as a symbol of authority and respect for the teacher. In other

cultures, more collaborative and interactive arrangements may be preferred.

Understanding these cultural nuances is essential for designing effective learning

environments.
 To further explore the influence of seating arrangements on student performance,

future research could investigate the long-term effects of different configurations,

particularly in diverse educational contexts. Additionally, it would be beneficial to

examine how factors such as teacher characteristics, classroom culture, and student

preferences interact with seating arrangements to impact learning outcomes.

Traditional Row Seating Arrangement vs. Circular Seating Arrangement

Traditional row seating and circular seating arrangements represent two distinct

approaches to classroom design, each with its own implications for student engagement,

interaction, and learning outcomes (Falout, 2024; Alhajri, 2021). In traditional row

seating, students are typically arranged in straight lines facing the front of the

classroom, where the teacher delivers instruction. This configuration can create a

hierarchical atmosphere, often positioning the teacher as the central authority figure

while students adopt passive roles as recipients of information. Such an arrangement

may limit opportunities for interaction among students, as they are physically separated

from one another, which can lead to feelings of isolation and disengagement. Research

has shown that this setup is least effective for tasks requiring social interaction, as it

discourages collaboration and peer communication (Alhajri, 2021).

In contrast, circular seating arrangements promote a more inclusive and

participatory environment. By placing students in a circular or semi-circular formation,

the physical barriers between them are minimized, fostering a sense of community and

encouraging open dialogue (Falout, 2024). This arrangement allows all students to see

and engage with one another, facilitating collaborative learning and enhancing social

dynamics within the classroom. Studies have indicated that circular seating can lead to

higher rates of student participation, as it creates an action zone where students feel

more comfortable asking questions and sharing ideas. Furthermore, the circular setup
can help to democratize the classroom experience, as it diminishes the power distance

between the teacher and students, allowing for a more egalitarian exchange of thoughts

and perspectives (Falout, 2024).

While traditional row seating may serve its purpose in certain contexts, circular

seating arrangements offer significant advantages in promoting active learning, fostering

interpersonal connections, and creating a more vibrant and engaging educational

experience. However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of different seating

arrangements can vary depending on various factors, such as the specific learning

objectives, the teacher's instructional style, and the students' individual needs and

preferences. A flexible approach to classroom design, which allows for a variety of

seating configurations, can help to create a more dynamic and effective learning

environment (Falout, 2024; Alhajri, 2021).

Traditional Row Seating Arrangement vs. Flexible Seating

Traditional row seating, a long-standing classroom arrangement, has historically

been the norm in educational settings. This arrangement, with students seated in rows

facing the front of the classroom, often fosters a passive learning environment, limiting

student interaction and engagement (Cole et al., 2021).

In contrast, flexible seating offers a dynamic alternative that can enhance student

learning and well-being. By providing a variety of seating options, such as bean bags,

wobble stools, and floor cushions, flexible seating empowers students to choose their

preferred learning environment, thereby increasing their motivation and engagement

(Sutherland et al., 2019).

Moreover, this approach fosters collaboration and communication among peers, as

students are encouraged to work together on projects and activities. While transitioning
to flexible seating may require careful planning and implementation, the potential

benefits, including increased student engagement, reduced disruptive behavior, and

improved academic outcomes, make it a compelling option for educators seeking to

create more dynamic and inclusive learning environments.

Traditional Row Seating Arrangement vs. U-Shape Seating Arrangement

Traditional row seating, a common classroom arrangement, can hinder student

engagement and participation (Made Widwan Pranena, 2022). This arrangement often

leads to a passive learning environment, where students may feel isolated and less

inclined to interact with their peers and the teacher.

In contrast, U-shape seating, which places students in a semicircle facing the

instructor, can promote direct eye contact and facilitate discussions. This arrangement

can encourage active participation and foster a more interactive learning environment.

However, it is essential to consider the potential drawbacks of U-shape seating, such as

the increased pressure on students to engage and the potential for off-task behavior

(Made Widwan Pranena, 2022).

Ultimately, the choice between these arrangements should be based on the

specific learning objectives and the needs of the students. By carefully considering the

advantages and disadvantages of each option, teachers can create a classroom

environment that promotes active learning and student success.

Conclusion

To sum it all up, the choice of seating arrangement in a classroom can significantly

impact student engagement, motivation, and academic performance. While traditional

row seating has long been a common practice, its limitations in fostering collaboration,

creativity, and active learning have become increasingly evident. As educators strive to
create more dynamic and inclusive learning environments, alternative seating

arrangements, such as flexible seating and U-shaped configurations, offer promising

possibilities.

These arrangements can enhance student engagement, promote peer-to-peer

interaction, and cater to diverse learning styles. However, it is essential to consider the

specific needs of students and the learning objectives when selecting a seating

arrangement. By thoughtfully designing classroom spaces and incorporating a variety of

seating options, educators can create optimal conditions for learning and empower

students to reach their full potential.

REFERENCES:

 Nehyba, P., Šťastná, M., & Šimek, J. (2023). The Impact of Seating Arrangements on
Student Interaction in Reflective Practice. Journal of Teacher Education.
 Sutherland, L., Voogt, J., & Lou, Y. (2019). The Impact of Flexible Seating
Arrangements on Student Engagement and Motivation. Journal of Educational
Technology.
 Eilam, R., & Tzimor, Y. (2019). The Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements on
Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning.
 Sharma, S., & Joshi, A. (2020). The Influence of Classroom Seating Arrangements
on Student Cognitive Load and Academic Performance. Educational Technology
Research.
 Teng, Y. (2020). The Impact of Cultural Factors on Classroom Seating Arrangements
and Student Engagement. Journal of Cultural Studies in Education.
 Smith, J., Johnson, M., & Williams, K. (2021). The Relationship Between Seating
Arrangements and Student Academic Performance: A Quantitative Study.
Educational Research Quarterly.
 Alhajri, A. (2021). The Effects of Teacher Expectations on Student Performance: A
Case Study. International Journal of Educational Research.
 Cole et.al. (2021). Flexible Seating Impact on Classroom Environment. TOJET: The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.
 Joseph Falout (2024). Circular seating arrangements: Approaching the social crux in
language classrooms. Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine
Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz
 Kali Rogers (2020). The Effects of Classroom Seating Layouts on Participation and
Assessment Performance in a Fourth Grade Classroom. Journal of Learning Spaces.
 Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., Cerina, V. et al. (2022). The influence of classroom seating
arrangement on children’s cognitive processes in primary school: the role of
individual variables. Curr Psychol 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01154-9
 I Made Widwan Pranena (2022). U-shape and Cluster Seating Arrangement in
Teaching English as Foreign Language in Yayasan Dana Punia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361313511_U-
shape_and_Cluster_Seating_Arrangement_in_Teaching_English_as_Foreign_Languag
e_in_Yayasan_Dana_Punia