The influence of classroom seating arrangement on children's cognitive processes in primary school: the role of individual variables.

Valentina Tobia, Simona Sacchi, Veronica Cerina, Sara Manca, Ferdinando Fornara
Author Information
  1. Valentina Tobia: Faculty of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. ORCID
  2. Simona Sacchi: Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. ORCID
  3. Veronica Cerina: Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
  4. Sara Manca: Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
  5. Ferdinando Fornara: Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. ORCID

Abstract

To date, despite the great debate regarding the best seating arrangement for learning in classrooms, no empirical studies have examined the direct effects of different seating arrangements on children's cognitive processes. This is particularly important nowadays that the COVID-19 measures include maintaining distance in the classroom. Aim of this study was experimentally investigating the effect of changing the seating arrangement (clusters vs. single desks), on logical reasoning, creativity and theory of mind, in children attending primary school. Furthermore, some individual characteristics (e.g., gender, loneliness, popularity) were analysed as potential moderators. Results on 77 participants showed that, when children were seated in single desks, their score in logical reasoning was globally higher. Furthermore, when seated in single desks, girls showed a better performance in the theory of mind, and lonelier children performed better in theory of mind and creativity. This on field experimental study suggests the importance of considering both the nature of the task and children's individual characteristics when deciding on a seating arrangement in the classroom.

Keywords

References

  1. Am Psychol. 1990 Apr;45(4):513-20 [PMID: 2186679]
  2. J Soc Psychol. 1992 Feb;132(1):51-8 [PMID: 1507878]
  3. Psychol Rep. 2010 Oct;107(2):567-77 [PMID: 21117484]
  4. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017 May;45(4):789-801 [PMID: 27457234]
  5. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135-68 [PMID: 23020641]
  6. Psychol Bull. 1956 Jul;53(4):267-93 [PMID: 13336196]
  7. Emot Rev. 2011 Apr;3(2):207-213 [PMID: 21892360]
  8. Ergonomics. 2011 Jan;54(1):12-20 [PMID: 21181585]
  9. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Oct;13(10):447-54 [PMID: 19726219]
  10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1991 Nov;52 Suppl:48-51 [PMID: 1757457]
  11. Child Dev. 1998 Aug;69(4):1074-91 [PMID: 9768487]
  12. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Jan 03;5:2 [PMID: 17201923]
  13. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jan;113(1):99-128 [PMID: 8426876]
  14. Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Jan-Oct;7(1-4):45-54 [PMID: 25950081]
  15. New Dir Child Dev. 1993 Summer;(60):23-37 [PMID: 8414121]
  16. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Jul;18(1):23-32 [PMID: 11010601]
  17. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968 Sep;10(1):26-30 [PMID: 5682520]
  18. Ann Behav Med. 2010 Oct;40(2):218-27 [PMID: 20652462]
  19. Psychol Bull. 2000 May;126(3):424-53 [PMID: 10825784]
  20. J Exp Child Psychol. 2015 Feb;130:19-34 [PMID: 25313926]
  21. Psychol Methods. 2017 Mar;22(1):6-27 [PMID: 27362267]
  22. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Mar;130(3):204-13 [PMID: 19167690]
  23. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2013 Jan;39(1):43-56 [PMID: 23041611]
  24. Attach Hum Dev. 2004 Sep;6(3):285-304 [PMID: 15513270]
  25. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  26. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2012 Apr;40(3):403-12 [PMID: 21912844]
  27. Ital J Pediatr. 2020 Jun 9;46(1):79 [PMID: 32517815]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0seatingarrangementmindchildren'sclassroomsingledesksreasoningtheorychildrenindividualcognitiveprocessesstudylogicalcreativityprimaryschoolFurthermorecharacteristicsshowedseatedbetterdatedespitegreatdebateregardingbestlearningclassroomsempiricalstudiesexamineddirecteffectsdifferentarrangementsparticularlyimportantnowadaysCOVID-19measuresincludemaintainingdistanceAimexperimentallyinvestigatingeffectchangingclustersvsattendingeggenderlonelinesspopularityanalysedpotentialmoderatorsResults77participantsscoregloballyhighergirlsperformancelonelierperformedfieldexperimentalsuggestsimportanceconsideringnaturetaskdecidinginfluenceschool:rolevariablesCreativityLogicalPrimarySeatingTheory

Similar Articles

Cited By