Ceren Salma, Abdurrahman Şahin


Seating arrangement in classrooms plays a crucial role for the effectiveness of curriculum implementation. This multi-case pattern intertwined case study aimed to investigate the ongoing seating arrangements in language classrooms of middle schools with a focus on stakeholders (students, teachers, principals and janitors) perspectives. Two types of data were collected in this process. The data for the physical appearances of classrooms were collected through observation form and analyzed via descriptive analysis technique. The interview data gathered through semi-structured interview forms were analyzed through the content analysis technique. Findings revealed that language branch classrooms were not available and that classrooms had classic-row layout with cumbersome desks and deficient free space. Some curricular objectives and communicative activities were at odds with the ongoing seating arrangement, and therefore, skipped by teachers. Cluster and horseshoe layouts, cherished by students, were practiced to align the layout with the curricular objectives, though some reactions emerged.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


classroom seating, English language, curriculum, middle school

Full Text:



Aderonmu, P., Alagbe, O., Opoko, A., Oluwatayo, A. & Alagbe, T. (2014). Curriculum in architectural education: Implication for professional practice. Proceedings of EDULEARN14 Conference. 7th-9th July 2014, Barcelona, Spain.

Armstrong, N. &, Chang, S. (2007). Location, location, location. Does seat location affect performance in large classes? Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 54-58.

Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.

Benoit, A. (2017). Monitoring implementation of active learning classrooms at Lethbridge College. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 14-25.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to the theory and methods. (5. Edition). USA: Pearson.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (22. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Chen, V., Leger, A. & Riel, A. (2016). Standing to preach, moving to teach: What has learned from teaching in flexible and less-flexible spaces. CELT, 9, 187-198.

Correa, R., Lara, E., Pino, P. & Vera, T. (2017). Relationship between group seating arrangement in the classroom and student participation in speaking activities in EFL classes at a secondary school in Chile. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Facultadde Humanidades Folios, 45, 145-158.

Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations (ED338706). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338706.pdf

Duncanson, E. (2014). Lasting effects of creating classroom space: A study of teacher behavior. Educational Planning, 21(3), 29-40.

Ersoy, A. (2005). Evaluation of classroom setting and teacher’s role in computer course in elementary education in terms of constructivist learning principles. TOJET, 4(4), 170-180.

Eyiol, K. Ö. (2019). Evaluation of Elementary School Mathematics Applications Curriculum Based on Eisner’s Educational Criticism Model. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Pamukkale University, Institute of Educational Sciences.

Falout, J. (2014). Circular seating arrangements: Approaching the social crux in language classrooms. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 275-300.

Fedewa, A. L., & Erqin, H. E. (2011). Stability balls and students with attention and Hyperactivity concerns: Implications for on-task and in-seat behavior. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(4), 393-399.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Pearson.

Harvey, E. J. & Kenyon, M. C. (2013). Classroom seating considerations for 21st century students and faculty. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(1), 1-13.

Henshaw, R. G., Edwards, P. M. & Bagley, E. J. (2011). Use of swivel desks and aisle space to promote interaction in mid-sized college classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(1), 1-10.

Koç, Y., Isiksal, M. & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8(1), 30-39.

Kuyumcu Vardar, A. (2019). Temel felsefi akımlar ve eğitim VII: Pragmatizm ve eğitim. B. Biçer ve B. Zabun (Ed.), Eğitim Felsefesi (s. 131-146). İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.

Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Team-based learning practices and principles in comparison with cooperative learning and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3-4), 57-84.

NEM (National Education Ministry). (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pedro, N. (2017). Redesigning learning spaces: What do teachers want for future classrooms? International Conference Educational Technologies, 51-58.

Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Saunders, G., Oradini, F. & Clements, M. (2017). SMART teaching in new and old classrooms. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(1), 85-109.

Schilling, D. L. & Schwartz, I. S. (2004). Alternative seating for young children with autism spectrum disorder: Effects on classroom behaviors. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 34(4), 423-432. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000037418.48587.f4

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Simmons, K., Carpenter, L. Crenshaw, S. & Hinton, V. M. (2015) Exploration of classroom seating arrangement and student behavior in a second-grade classroom. Georgia Educational Researcher, 12(1), 50-68. DOI: 10.20429/ger.2015.120103

Smith, C. (2017). The influence of hierarchy and layout geometry in the design of learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 59-67.

Stapp, A. (2018). Alternative seating and students’ perceptions: Implications for the learning environment. Georgia Educational Researcher, 14(2), 34-50. DOI: 10.20429/ger.2018.140204.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Tan, C. (2017). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238-247, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2015.1105737

Toptaş, V. (2011). Classroom teachers’ perceptions about the use of alternative assessment and evaluation methods in mathematics courses. Education and Science, 36(159), 205-219.

Trappler, B. (2006). Integrated problem-based learning in the neuroscience curriculum – the SUNY Downstate experience. BMC Medical Education, 6, 1-7.

Wannarka, R. & Ruhl, K. (2008). Classroom seating and achievement: Seating arrangements that promote positive academic behavioral outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23(2), 89-93.

Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Wingrat, J. and Exner, C. (2005). The impact of school furniture on fourth-grade children’s on-task and sitting behavior in the classroom: A pilot study. Work, 25, 263-272.

Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.

Yüksel, S. (2004). Örtük program: Eğitimde saklı uygulamalar. Ankara: Nobel.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v9i11.4536


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Ceren Salma, Abdurrahman Şahin

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).