Lack of proper architectural factors based on students’ viewpoint has created various unpleasant situations within the academic environment. The purpose of this inquiry is to investigate how classroom physical setting impacts learners’ seat-selection to enhance their performance according to gender; furthermore, path model was generated to verify the influence of achievement motivation and architectural features on learners’ performance. A quantitative method was employed to achieve learners’ requirements from 370 public high school students in Shiraz, Iran. Based on cluster sampling, 165 girls and 205 boys were selected from thirteen high schools. The first questionnaire comprised five-point Likert-type scales evaluating classroom architectural items in traditional row and column seating arrangement. A second student evaluation was carried out through achievement motivation survey. The results indicated that semi-flexible features such as a subscale of Direct-Architectural elements could influence student performance in boys group during their seat-selection. According to Indirect-Architectural elements, visual factor and aural factor were emphasized as effective features on learners’ performance in terms of seating given by boy and girl students, respectively. Consequently, the effect of achievement motivation and Direct-Architectural elements on learner performance was approved by the fitness indices of path model and Indirect-Architectural elements acted as a mediator factor.
YildirimKCapanoğluACağatayK. The effects of physical environmental factors on students’ perceptions in computer classrooms. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(5): 501–510.
2.
AhrentzenSEvansGW. Distraction, privacy, and classroom design. Environ Behavior1984; 16: 437–454.
3.
PedersenDM. Privacy preferences and classroom seat location. Social Behav Personal1994; 22: 393–398.
4.
HooperJReidDH. A simple environmental re-design for improving classroom performance of profoundly retarded students. Educ Treat Children1985; 8: 25–39.
5.
LoughlinCE. Understanding the learning environment. Elementary School J1977; 78: 124–131.
6.
HollimanWBAndersonHN. Proximity and student density as ecological variables in a college classroom. Teach Psychol1986; 13(4): 200–203.
7.
StiresL. Classroom seating location, student grades, and attitudes. Environ Behavior1980; 12(2): 241–254.
8.
BeckerFDSommerRBeeJOxleyB. College classroom ecology. Sociometry1973; 36(4): 514–525.
Arkkelin D and Freeman P. Cognitive, affective and behavioral responses to three classroom designs. Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 2000.
11.
DouglasDGiffordR. Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors A lens model approach. Educ Res2001; 43: 295–309.
12.
Patton JE, Snell J, Knight WJ and Gerken K. A survey study of elementary classroom seating designs. Annual Meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC, April 17-21, 2001.
13.
WongCYSommerRCookEJ. The soft classroom 17 years later. J Environ Psychol1992; 12: 337–343.
14.
BrooksCIRebetaJL. College classroom ecology: the relation of sex of student to classroom performance and seating preference. Environ Behavior1991; 23: 305–313.
15.
GumpPSchool and classroom environments. In: StokolsDAltmanI (eds). Handbook of environmental psychology, New York: John Wiley, 1987, pp. 698–701.
16.
PhilpottP. Seating patterns in small language classes: an example of action research. Br Educ Res J1993; 19: 191–211.
17.
Armstrong S, Hudon C, Miller H and Davis S. Classroom seating preference and level of self-esteem. Paper presented at the Southwestern Psychological Association Convention, Austin TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346785), 1992.
18.
RebetaJLBrooksCIO'BrienJPHunterGA. Variations in trait-anxiety and achievement motivation of college students as a function of classroom seating. J Exper Educ1993; 61(3): 257–267.
19.
TotusekPFStaton-SpicerAQ. Classroom seating preference as a function of student personality. J Exper Educ1982; 50(3): 159–163.
20.
DalyJASuiteA. Classroom seating choice and teacher perceptions of students. J Exper Educ1981; 50(2): 64–69.
21.
HillmannRBBrooksCI. Differences in self-esteem of college freshmen as a function of classroom seating-row preference. Psychol Record1991; 41(3): 315–315.
22.
HorneMS. The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. J Environ Psychol2002; 22 Nos 1/2: 139–156.
23.
TibúrcioTFinchEF. The impact of an intelligent classroom on pupils’ interactive behavior. Facilities2005; 23 Nos 5/6: 262–278.
24.
ConnersDA. The school environment: a link to understanding stress. Theory Pract1983; 22(1): 15–21.
25.
ThomasB. Take my chair (please). Chronicle Higher Educ2003; 49(26): 36–38.
26.
KowaltowskiDCCKLabakiLCRuschelRCBertoliSRPinaSAMGBorges FilhoF. Melhorias do Conforto Ambiental em Edificações Escolares Municipais de Campinas, SP [Research report by the School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, State University of Campinas], Unicamp, Brazil: University of Campinas, 2001.
27.
SommerR. Design awareness, San Francisco: Rinehart, 1972.
28.
BenedictMEHoagJ. Seating location in large lectures: are seating preferences or location related to course performance. J Econ Educ2004; 35(3): 215–231.
29.
WulfKM. Relationship of assigned classroom seating to variables. Educ Res Quart1977; 2(2): 56–62.
30.
MercincavageJEBrooksCI. Differences in achievement motivation of college business majors as a function of year in college and classroom seating position. Psychol Report1990; 66: 632–634.
31.
MarxAFuhrerUHartigT. Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learn Environ Res2000; 2: 249–263.
32.
KoneyaM. Location and interaction in row-and-column seating arrangements. Environ Behav1976; 8: 265–282.
33.
GuyotGByrdGRCaudleR. Classroom seating: an expression of situational territoriality in humans. Small Group Behavior1980; 11: 120–127.
34.
WeinsteinCS. The physical environment of the school: a review of the research. Rev Educ Res1979; 49(4): 577–610.
35.
SommerR. Personal space: the behavioral basis of design, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969.
36.
BudgeD. Secret is in the seating. Times Educ Suppl2000; 4396: 26–27.
37.
HofkinsD. Rows of seats give a better work-rate. Times Educ Suppl1994; 4082: 13–13.
38.
McCroskeyJCMcVettaRW. Classroom seating arrangements: instructional communication theory versus student preferences. Commun Educ1978; 27: 99–111.
39.
Figlio DN and Stone JA. School choice and student performance: are private schools really better? Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Oregon, http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/.. dp114197.pdf (1997, accessed 5 October 2007).
40.
CanterLCanterM. Assertive discipline: a take charge approach for today’s educator, Los Angeles: Lee Canter and Associates, 1976.
41.
RichardsJ. Setting the stage for student engagement. Kappa Delta Pi Record2006; 42(2): 92–94.
42.
PerkinsKKWiemanCE. The surprising impact of seat location on student performance. Physics Teacher2005; 43: 30–33.
43.
LevineDWO'NealECMcDonaldPJ. Classroom ecology: the effects of seating position on grades and participation. Personality Social Psychol Bull1980; 6(3): 409–412.
44.
RennelsMRChaudhariRB. Eye contact and grade distribution. Percept Motor Skill1988; 67(2): 627–632.
45.
GriffithCR. A comment upon the psychology of the audience. Psychol Monogr1921; 30: 36–47.
46.
BrooksCI. Superiority of women in statistics achievement. Teach Psychol1987; 14: 45–45.
47.
BrooksCIMercincavageJE. Grades for men and women in college courses taught by female instructors. Teach Psychol1991; 18: 47–48.
48.
GramsJDWaetjenWB. Sex: does it make a difference?, North Scituate, MA: Duxbury, 1975.
49.
LeuptowLB. Parental status and influence and the achievement orientations of high school seniors. Sociol Educ1975; 48: 91–110.
50.
Rebeta JL and Brooks CI. Differences in achievement motivation of college students as a function of classroom seating preference. Unpublished raw data, 1990.
51.
AndersonGBenjaminDFussMA. The determinants of success in university introductory economics classes. J Econ Educ1994; 25(Spring): 99–119.
52.
WeinerB. History of motivation research in education. J Educ Psychol1990; 82: 616–622.
53.
ElliotAJChurchM. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. J Personality Social Psychol1997; 72(1): 218–232.
54.
HermansHJM. A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. J Appl Psychol1970; 54: 353–363.
