INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 615
www.rsisinternational.
org
Seating Arrangement and Students’ Behaviour in French Language
Classroom: A Qualitative Case Study in Higher Education in
Malaysia.
Exploring Seating Arrangement and Student’s Behaviour in French
Language Classroom
Does it Really Matter Where a Student Sits in French Language
Learning Classroom? The Impact of Seating Arrangement on
Students’ Learning.
Saira Riaz
Pagoh, Johor, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100049
Received: 09 November 2025; Accepted: 18 November 2025; Published: 28 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Several educators believed that the seating arrangement is a critical factor for learning performance. Seating
arrangement is considered as a pivotal factor in giving positive learning outcomes and learning behaviour. Most
of the educational literature addresses issues such as room temperature, room lighting, and acoustics (Conners,
1983, Granstrom, 1996). Fewer studies have been conducted on the classroom seating arrangement and its effects
on students’ actions and learning (Haghighi and Jusan, 2012, Hoekstra et al., 2023). This paper examines the
impact of seating locations on student classroom learning. Specifically, it examines the impact of seating on a)
student learning behaviour b) student and teacher relationships c) attention d) student classroom participation.
Active engagement and participation in the learning experience positively affects students' learning while
promoting the use of higher order thinking skills (Flynn, Vermette, Mesibov and amp; Smith, 2009; McKeachie,
1990; Stronge, 2007). This study was conducted with an objective to compare two different types of seating
arrangements: rows and circular in the traditional and modern classrooms of French language while observing
students’ learning behaviour.
BACKGROUND
In the 1920s, German psychologist, Otto Köhler presented a theory known as “Köhler Effect”. He found that
when two people completed a joint task, the individual performance of the weaker member was improved.
Therefore, weaker students could not influence the good ones but they themselves improved their performance.
According to this effect, the stronger students will inspire and motivate them. This in turn would mean that the
less-able students would work harder and perform better. In the twenty first century, the idea emerged that the
physical factors such as lighting, space, ventilation, and cleanliness were equally important (Matlab, 2017) for
good learning outcomes and promoting teamwork (Rohani et al., 2017). In 1950, the traditional seating pattern
was dominating with rows seating in the classroom where teacher used to speak, and students listened to the
teacher (Tanahashi, 2007). In the following years, for active, task-oriented learning, semi-circle and cluster
seating pattern were introduced (Lotfy, 2012). In the mid- 1990s, educational research focused on classroom
environment from the perspective of either teacher or student (Angela, and Kathryn, 2011). The research of
Kostourous and Olivier (2014) emphasized students’ freedom to choose their seats by themselves for comfort
and long attention span in the classroom. Later, the concept of conducive learning environment was introduced.
The arrangement of seating created an environment in which students performed and interacted with each other
(Richard, 2006). The physical arrangement of objects such as furniture and visual aids for students’ involvement
in class activities was emphasized by Wilson (2012) and Minchen (2007). Therefore, teaching and learning both
were affected by seating arrangement (Lotfy, 2012). However, the configuration of furniture, space, room
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 616
www.rsisinternational.
org
dimensions could also lead to negative students’ performance (Atherton, 2005 and Gifford, 2002). The classroom
design might be favorable to enhance students’ performance. On the other hand, seating arrangement heightened
the instructor’s ability to teach in the best manner. To uplift the standard of teaching and learning, teachers needed
to have a variety of seating plans which would influence class environment, students’ behaviour, and
achievement. Teacher’s class management skill also contributed to students’ learning outcomes (Chingos, 2013
and Ngware et al., 2013). It was also observed that the inappropriate layout demotivated students and teacher’s
efficiency. However, for a variety of class activities, students required changes in the seating arrangement for a
high level of motivation, engagement, and participation (Hammang, 2012).
Performance:
Alberto et al., (2010) and Juhary (2012) indicated that students’ position in the classroom corresponded directly
to their performance. In his observation, students who were sitting infront were more motivated than those sitting
at the back. Thus, students’ performance and teaching and learning methods were dependent on the physical
factors. Both classroom capacity and size influenced the performance of students and teachers. It was observed
that conducive learning space proves to be effective for teaching and learning process (Yelkpieri, 2012). Bonus
and Riordan (1998) supported the notion that students were more attentive when the seating arrangement in the
classroom was set in accordance with the instructional goals.
Confidence:
From the perspective of confidence, the studies of Peter et al., (2015) found that the physical layout improved
the confidence and engagement level of students. Healthy interactions were developed among students and
between students and teachers. Consequently, students scored quite good.
Class environment:
The classroom environment had a direct impact on students' grades specially interaction between students and
teachers while highlighting health and enjoyable learning process (James, 2016). Idayu et al., (2016) elaborated
that if students’ learning needs were addressed, the space lay out of classroom was appropriate then healthy
environment would facilitate collaborative learning. Mudassir and Norsuhaily (2015), emphasized that healthy
and supportive learning environment enabled students to be more motivated and engaged in class activities.
Behaviour:
The studies of John (1999), Wannarka and Ruhli (2008) and Juson (2010) proved that seating arrangement
improved students’ behaviour in the classroom. They were more attentive and engaged in class activities.
Students’ social interaction was healthy, thus resulting in positive learning outcomes.
The study of educational literature highlighted the factors that influenced the physical layout (Ramli et al., 2013,
Ngware et al., 2013), Mushtaq and Khan (2012). They highlighted the classroom capacity, student behaviour,
course conducted, and student achievement and challenges as important factors as shown in Figure No. 1.
Figure 1: Influencing factors for the selection of seating arrangement in the classroom (Ramli et al., 2013,
Ngware et al., 2013 and Mushtaq and Khan, 2012)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 617
www.rsisinternational.
org
Few years later, Downer et al. (2007) and Canter and Canter (1976), Curwin and Mendler (1988), Badia-Martin
(2006) studied the link between the classroom and students’ performance. Physical layout in the given space was
sometimes never changed by the instructors as they considered it conducive for a particular type of task or class
activity (Anderson, 2007). Another factor was highlighted by Richard (2006) and Black (2007). They explored
that poor seating arrangement weakened student’s performance by almost 50%, if they stood or had distance of
6 meters from the visual aids within the classroom. Therefore, it was essential to change the seating arrangement
if it failed to enhance students’ performance and resulted in disruptive behaviour. However, the traditional
classroom setting was usually limited to three seating layouts: rows, horseshoe, and clusters (Weinstein, 1979).
The seating plan can be a challenging task for the teachers who decide about how to integrate students with
different abilities and from different backgrounds in the classroom and to develop a sense of belonging to the
class. The class management can be so complex at times that it results in teacher burnout. Steinzor (1950) and
Gump (1987) emphasized the fact that students around tables established face to face direct connection easily
and more happily than those seated in columns and rows. Active learning, healthy and positive interactions were
observed in the circle or cluster seating arrangements. Heindselman et al., (2007) observed that seating
arrangement not only influenced student performance but also their grades in the class tests. The same concept
was re-inforced by Rennells and Chaudhari (1988). Pace and Price (2005) emphasized on students’ behaviour
and attainment owing to the seating arrangement. Sylvain (2003) discovered that students’ behaviour was
observed to be modified with age. It was equally important to understand the students’ perspective on the seating
arrangement with an objective to create suitability of layout for an amicable learning environment, especially in
multicultural context. However, the U-shaped arrangement encouraged and improved social interaction among
students and developed a sense of collaboration and community. Because not only they confronted the teacher
but also each other (Hurt et al.,1978). Students’ engagement and participation also enhanced in U shaped layout
(Sommer, 1969). Also, students were asked more questions while sitting in a semicircular arrangement than rows
and columns. Atherton (2005) indicated that row arrangements supported a top-down (teacher-student) approach
to learning and students were passive and inattentive in this arrangement.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies of Chieu and Cheng (2016) and Reinke (2019) emphasized on keeping the students actively engaged in
the classrooms inorder to achieve learning outcomes. In the language learning classroom, organizing activities
were an effective way to enhance students’ motivation (Reinke, 2019) noticeably in the blended classrooms in
higher education (Evians et al., 2020 and Serrano et al., 2019). The physical classroom environment specially
seating arrangements (Cornell, 2002, Haghhighi and Jusan, 2012) was found to be a crucial factor to boost
students’ attention, engagement, and participation in the language learning process in the blended learning
environment (Clinton and Wilson, 2019; Evian et al., 2020; Ochola and Achrazoglou, 2015 and Serrano et al.,
2019). The physical classroom layout represented the instructional paradigm and linked with students’ attitudes,
behaviour, communication, engagement (Bolden et al., 2019; Ochola and Achrazoglou, 2015, Park and Choi,
2014), students’ social connections inside the classroom (Vercellotti, 2017, Wilburn et al., 2019) and academic
performance (Lewinski, 2015). Baron (1992) and Lotfy (2012) highlighted that the priority should be given to
the classroom seating arrangement in the creation of classroom environment with an objective to maximize
students’ participation in the activities. Lewinski (2015) also pointed out that the most powerful tool to improve
students’ high performance is the seating when effectively arranged in the blended learning setting (Evian et al.,
2020 and Serrano et al., 2019).
The study of educational literature indicated three dimensional effects of the seating arrangement on student
engagement and commitment. Firstly, the relationship between seating arrangement and students’ level of
communication and social interaction with classmates was observed (Harmer, 2007; Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008)
as mentioned in Figure 2.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 618
www.rsisinternational.
org
Figure 2: Three dimensional effects of the seating plan
Considering the rows and columns arrangement, the whole classroom space was used. It is convenient from
teachers’ perspective for students’ monitoring and at the same time students’ view the teacher and interacted
easily. This arrangement was beneficial for lecturing and watching the videos (Harmer, 2007, Ochola and
Achrazoglou, 2015). However, students could not see other students and those at the back could not be viewed
clearly. However, rows were considered unfavorable for peer communication and interaction within the
classrooms. In addition to this, students in front could not see other students, students at the back had poor
visibility of the instructors and screen which lessened their engagement in activities (Shernoff et al., 2017 and
Wei et al., 2018). On the contrary, semicircular or circular arrangements were found to be more suitable and
avoided positional discrimination in the blended learning (Park and Choi, 2014). Therefore, teachers were found
to move, provide quick feedback, facilitate students’ discussions, and group work than in the rows and columns
(Kinahan, 2017). From students’ perspective, they sit closer and maintained direct eye contact (Harmer, 2007).
Students in group seating enjoyed social interaction with peers, they asked more questions than rows and
columns seating arrangement (Gremmen et al., 2016 and Lotfy, 2012). The seating plans are shown in the Figure
3
CIRCULAR SEMI CIRCULAR
Figure 3: Seating patterns in the classroom.
Research Design:
This research is a qualitative study. A case study approach was used “to study the characters in real life situation”
(Yin,2009). The research instruments such as semi structured interviews and class observations suited the best
for this study. By using the case study approach, this research explored the impact of seating arrangement on
students’ behaviour in the classroom in higher education. The interview protocol was designed with fourteen
questions. The interview time was fixed as per interviewees’ convenience.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 619
www.rsisinternational.
org
Two groups of twenty students were selected through probability sampling. From group 1 students A, B, C, D,
E were interviewed. They used to sit in the modern classroom equipped with the latest facilities and the layout
was cluster seating with round tables and chairs. From group B, students X, Y, Z who learned in a traditional
classroom with linear seating arrangement, were interviewed for this study. They were given freedom to choose
the seats of their choice as well as peers. They were given different tasks and activities to perform within the
classroom. Same interview protocol was used for both groups. Using the research instrument of class
observations, data was collected by observing the students from both groups. Author (2014) explained an
observation process in which he used a “teaching attribute instrument; qualitative notes of behaviors.” (P.6)
Throughout the semester, students were observed in the classroom with special focus on their communication,
attention, engagement, interaction, and environment. The data was analyzed through codes and themes (Saldana,
2021).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The data was analyzed through codes and themes as shown in the table 1 below:
Table 1: Data analysis through codes and themes.
THEMES
CODES
Seating arrangement
relevant, feasible, flexible, circular arrangement, social interaction, satisfied,
change, positions, helpful, rows, perfect, fine, enjoy, prefer, sitting alone, focusing
myself, like, only class with circular arrangement, sit, want, move easily, facilitates,
not far from teacher, classmates, move around, last row,
big space, learning easier, close to class fellows, convenient, traditional classroom,
rows and columns, big circle, circular seating, better, round tables, better, easy,
facilitates, learning, lecture halls, big classrooms, talk louder, discomfort
Attention & engagement
easier, focus, actively engaged, learning, language, do things, alone, complicated,
see each other, enjoy, groups, sit, around the table, work in groups, ask friends, no
blocking from person, trying best, see each other easily, pay attention to each other,
teacher in front, attention span, class activities, easy for discussions and activities,
physical layout, helps, a lot of French activities, easy to handle problems, mutual
group work, sitting closer, task-based learning
Class environment
Comfortable, flexible, enjoy, groups, language, closer, bonding, attentive, attention,
move around, learning more interesting, more friends, choose our seats, helpful,
feel closer to friends and teacher, freedom to choose, sit anywhere, learn together,
connect better
Communication
Easy, see each other, face, circular, activities, together, friends, around the table,
effective, enjoy, work, groups, easy, teacher, classmates, helps, understand, refer to
friend and teacher, expressions, problem, talk to each other, see students better, easy
for teacher, easy interaction, just raise our hands, asking questions
Confidence
Seating, good, confident, ask questions, shy person, less confident, friends,
motivation, working together, friend, sitting, next to me, feeling, secured, feel left
behind, last row, love the classroom, love French language, enjoy, working with
friends, physical layout, important role
1. Seating arrangement
The data analysis revealed that the students were satisfied with their seating arrangement. They preferred circular
seating for learning French as a foreign language. The interviewees highlighted multiple advantages of round
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 620
www.rsisinternational.
org
tables seating such as comfort, peer support, quick learning, easy to focus, easy access to teacher and engagement
in group work.
Student A indicated:
“Yes, I am satisfied with the circular arrangement. I communicate easily with teacher…I enjoy working in
groups. I really prefer circular arrangement because I can everyone and I can get to know everyone as we are
closer, and it creates closer bonding among us”.
Student B stated that she gained confidence to ask questions as the physical layout is comfortable and stress free:
“Seating arrangement is circular and quite good because I have become more confident to ask questions and I
am no more a shy person to ask questions to my teacher.”
Student C expressed his views and expressed his joy to have freedom to sit and work with his peers:
“I am satisfied with seating arrangement because I can sit anywhere, I want and move easily… the circular
seating arrangement makes learning easier because your attention and focus is there than the traditional
classroom with rows and columns.”
Student D Shared her opinion about her attention span due to cluster arrangement:
Seating arrangement makes easier to pay attention to teacher because we aren’t far from teacher, so she can see
us, so we just need to focus on our work.
Student E showed her satisfaction with the seating arrangement:
“Yes I am satisfied with circular seating arrangement in French classroom.”
Student X expressed his discomfort for the rows seating which hindered visibility and learning from the slides
while sitting at the back row:
“In rows it’s quite difficult to interact with the classmates in group work. Also, it makes difficult to watch the
slides…..i prefer round tables seating arrangement because I don’t have to turn my back to see the slides. Around
the tables, communication is easy and helpful.”
Student Z shared his problem of visibility from the back rows:
“Sometimes it becomes difficult to have a clear vision of teacher which makes interaction difficult as well.”
2. Attention & Engagement
The cluster arrangement was discovered to facilitate attention, motivation, engagement, bonding among students
and students and teacher. The rows arrangement created problems for students sitting at the back as the students
infront blocked the view specially for students with weak eyesight. Also it was found time consuming to move
back and forth. Engaging in class activities with the peers was also challenging in rows.
Student A highlighted bonding and connection developed due to seating arrangement:
“This kind of arrangement creates bonding between us, and we can pay more attention to teacher and
activities…yes, I am attentive in class. Yes, the seating arrangement makes it easier to pay attention to the
teacher. Because whenever we sit around the table, all students can pay attention, can focus on what teacher is
teaching and helps us to focus. I am actively engaged in class activities for learning French language”.
Student B explained her views that she feels motivated to work with classmates around the tables:
“Yes, I am attentive in class, the circular seating is helpful to pay attention in class. Because when I see my
friends working in class, I feel motivated, they give me motivation, rather than I sit alone, and focus alone and
don’t participate in class and don’t say anything”.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 621
www.rsisinternational.
org
Student C shared his experience. She highlighted that unlike rows, its much easier to pay attention to the teacher:
“Seating arrangement really helped me because the teacher is infront of me so I have to be more focused and
engaged in class activities…. Its easier to pay attention with this seating, there is no blocking from the person
infront of you so you can easily see and pay attention to teacher. One of the things that make students pay more
attention.”
Student D praised the modern language learning classroom:
“Yes, I am attentive in French classroom. I love French so much, I love the classroom.”
Student E shared his opinion that he is engaged in activities:
“Yes I am attentive in French classroom… with circular seating arrangement, it is definitely easier to pay
attention to teacher….i am attentive and engaged in class activities.”
Student X shared her unpleasant experience of sitting in rows arrangement that blocked her view of the
PowerPoint slides and serve as an obstacle in learning:
“I have bad eyesight. So it makes it difficult to answer the questions. I cannot read the slides…. for individual
work rows are fine but for group work in rows seating, it becomes time consuming. Sometimes students have to
turn their backs for group work.”
Student Y shared his experience of learning in rows:
“In rows seating, it is easy to pay attention to teacher but it’s difficult to engage in class activities with
classmates……to do activities in a traditional classroom is a bit hard. Group members have to move from their
places. It involves movement which creates disturbance at times.”
3. Class environment
Data analysis indicated that the round tables seating created pleasant and healthy class environment as students
were facing each other. The seating arrangement encouraged good communication and interaction. Students
found easier to move in the classroom. Learning was fun based but in traditional classroom it was not very
comfortable and helpful in interaction.
Student A highlighted:
“Yes, ofcourse, seating arrangement makes environment comfortable and flexible. In traditional classroom with
rows, you cannot communicate easily with your classmates but in circular, we can engage ourselves easily in
activities together”.
Student B shared her opinion on easy communication:
“Yes seating arrangement makes environment comfortable and flexible because when we sit circular
arrangement, we can see each other and we can communicate easily without the need to move around. In circular
seating, we can see our classmates and their expressions, how they react to our answers or how they motivate
us to answer or support us whenever we work in groups.”
Student C highlighted his sentiments:
“Yes, I enjoy working in groups. Circular makes learning more interesting, you sit around the tables, interesting,
you sit around the tables, you can have more friends, it makes us feel bonding there compared to just rows.”
Student D expressed her opinion:
“The physical layout keeps us attentive and engaged. It’s helpful and we don’t need to move around, we choose
our seats and work in groups and helpful in group discussions…, it makes environment flexible and comfortable.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 622
www.rsisinternational.
org
We did a lot of activities in French class. So, it’s easy for us to sit around the tables and work and we discuss a
lot.”
Student E praised the flexible class environment:
“Comfortable, yes, seating arrangement makes class environment flexible and comfortable, and we have freedom
to choose where we choose to sit anywhere in class.”
Student X highlighted: “yes I am comfortable in class.”
Student Y shared his experience of learning a foreign language in rows was hard:
“I prefer round tables for learning French as a foreign language as learning a new language is quite hard.
You need fun environment and modern equipment. “
4. Interaction & Communication:
It was found that the cluster seating proved to be useful in establishing effective communication and healthy
social interaction among students and between students and teacher. The close seating encouraged effective
communication.
Student A expressed her positive opinion:
“When me and my friends are around the table, we can communicate easily since we can see each other’s face
easily and communicate easily as we are close to each other. So, communication becomes more effective”.
Student B expressed her view that sitting next to her friends around the table gave her a sense of belonging:
“When I sit near my friends, I feel connected with each other rather than far from them or sitting alone…. When
I don’t understand anything, I can refer to my friend or we can refer to our lecturer easily. This is how physical
layout helps in effective communication.
Student C expressed his views on easy communication due to lay out in the room:
“Yes, I communicate easily, it really facilitates social interaction, it does feel too far in the room, you feel close
to your friends.”
Student D expressed his joy for sitting with classmates that enhanced his motivation and engagement:
“Yes I am satisfied with this seating arrangement because its close to our class fellows, so we communicate
easily during class activities…. Its quite easy for us to interact and work in groups with this arrangement…..
seating arrangement makes easier to pay attention to teacher because we aren’t far from teacher, so she can see
us, so we just need to focus on our work.”
Student E shared his opinion about easy interaction in groups:
“Yes I communicate easily with the teacher…it facilitates social interaction with my classmates in groups…. I
enjoy working in groups…. We sit in groups, it eases group activities, I ask my friends and we do group mutually,
so it eases for class work and activities. This is how physical layout plays an important role.”
According to student X:
“Yes, it is easy to communicate with teacher because we can easily catch teachers’ attention and it is easy to
communicate.”
Student Y expressed the difficulty in communication with peers due to rows:
“Sitting in rows is kind of not easy because we are sitting side by side, we have to move to communicate with
peers, its time consuming….”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 623
www.rsisinternational.
org
Confidence:
It was found that the physical layout in cluster form helped the students to gain confidence as they used to sit
with their friends, discussions with peers in group work and peer correction also played an important role to
uplift the level of confidence. They preferred the circular seating to rows as rows were found to be less
facilitating.
Student A gave his opinion:
“Everything is perfect and fine. I really like this type of arrangement and I enjoy French class very much.”
Student B remarked positively about her high level of confidence:
“I have become more confident to ask questions and I am no more a shy person to ask questions to my
teacher…..absolutely, I enjoy working in groups. I am less confident when I sit and work alone but around the
round tables, I ask my friends is it right or wrong, so that they can help me with that.”
Student C appreciated the freedom of movement:
“We can move around, if I don’t see the screen, talk to each other and that enhanced my confidence.”
Student D compared the two seating arrangements:
Circular seating is better than traditional for learning of French language. I enjoy working with my friends in
groups. I prefer circular arrangement because I gained confidence. Round tables are better and easy for groups
work and communication with teacher.”
Student E spoke highly about easy learning in the clusters:
“Definitely, seating arrangement makes learning easier than traditional rows or columns. I would prefer sitting
closer to my friends for task-based learning, it doesn’t matter which shape but important thing is that we sit
closer to eachother, we learn together, where we connect better with friends and teacher.”
Student Y shared his opinion:
“To participate in activities with classmates in a traditional classroom is a bit hard. Group members have to
move from their places to make a group. It involves movement which looses interest and motivation.”
6. Proximity:
The data revealed that students from the modern classroom were satisfied with the learning environment and
highlighted proximity with teacher in cluster seating arrangement. The direct contact proved to be beneficial in
establishing healthy interaction with teacher, reading the power point slides, asking questioning to teacher, It was
also convenient for both students and teachers. In rows setting, the last rows created inconvenience to
communicate with teacher, to remain attentive and focused. Also students talk at the back rows and distract
others. Sometimes teacher fails to satisfy students’ questions.
Student C shared his views about his learning experience in rows:
“In rows setting, the second row is fine but the last row, you feel so left behind, my attention span will be very
short and I will be easily distracted. In circular arrangement, the space is big, you can move around, the lecturer
can see students better and students can see lecturer better.”
Student D emphasized on the benefits of the circular seating plan:
“The circular arrangement is quite convenient because its not far from my teacher, so its close to teacher and
my class fellows, so when we talk to each other. Even its easy for teacher to hear us and see what we are doing.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 624
www.rsisinternational.
org
Student E explained the discomfort of rows:
“Because in lecture halls, the class is very big so when we sit sometime, we have to talk louder with discomfort
but when we sit closer, we feel that we are close to teacher and its easy to ask questions, we just raise our hands,
easy if any problem.”
Student X shared her experience of rows seating:
“When we sit at the back, it depends on who is sitting infront of you. If the person is taller than its quite difficult
because you have to move here and there. It is also difficult to watch the slides.”
Student Y explained the discomfort in rows:
“We have to move and change our places to form a group with the members and that’s time consuming and
requires movement.”
Class Observations:
The two groups A and B were observed throughout the semester. Students from group A were observed in
modern classroom equipped with modern facilities for French language learning. The students from group B
were taught French language in the traditional classroom. The observations of group A indicated that students
were much more enthusiastic and motivated than group B. In group A, improved interpersonal communication
was observed in students’ learning behaviour. It was found that the circular layout of the modern classroom was
quite convenient and comfortable for the students. Students picked the seats of their choice and sat with their
friends, enjoyed friendships while productively working in groups. Their class fellows were constantly assisting
each other in discussions to accomplish the given language tasks around the tables. Excitement, enthusiasm, and
motivation was observed among students as soon as they entered the classroom. Some of them entered the
classroom about 20 min before class. They sat and read French books together, while turning the pages of colorful
French picture books with great zeal and exchanged views with their friends. They also enjoyed collaborative
learning while exploring French as a foreign language.
Creativity was encouraged in French language classroom through thought-provoking videos to express one’s
point of view. Students’ attendance, motivation and confidence were observed to be heightened and fear of
teachers and learning a foreign language was diminished. Creativity was observed in groups as well. The weak
students were supported by the brighter ones. Mutual learning developed a culture of caring and sharing. Students
were found attentive and disciplined. Even when the lecture was over, it seemed that students did not feel like
leaving the classroom and remained thrilled and excited in the room with their classmates. Learning with peers
and peer correction of errors in oral production around the tables was noticed. While correcting the
pronunciation, peers giggled and teased each other. The act of asking questions both to the teacher and their
classmates indicated a positive sign of curiosity for learning and attentive behaviour in class. Change in students’
thinking, attitude and behaviour were noticed. Students were found to be more responsive in groups in the
circular seating arrangement than rows.
The social constructivist elements of learning were facilitated by the grouped seating by making the teacher more
accessible as the distance between students and teacher was less and the content was comprehensible. Students’
engagement dominated their classroom activities that led to the positive ambiance. Students were found to be
highly engaged in language related tasks such as watching videos on You tube, exercises, worksheets, and
dialogue writing. Each member concentrated on the activity, participated with vigour and enjoyed the process of
learning by doing with their classmates sitting around the table. It was found that learning in groups in circular
seating arrangement sharpened students thinking process and cooperation through interaction with peers for the
completion of tasks. High energy level, enthusiasm, and dynamism was found among groups. Even the quiet and
timid students’ performance in class improved as well. All the group members gave their input in mutual
discussions and did research work together with high motivation. Each group member was found focused and
absorbed in the tasks. The element of collectivity was discovered to be stronger such as collective thinking
process and collective research for vocabulary and synonyms etc. The creative group presentations uplifted the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 625
www.rsisinternational.
org
excitement of the class. And made the class environment interesting. Weaker and less confident students were
found to learn from the active students. Open communication, healthy interaction, sense of competition,
motivation to perform better than others were manifested by the students. It was noticed that students’ creativity
was at its peak in working with peers in groups Cross questioning and comments among the groups, peer
correction of French pronunciation and repetition exercises with peers. Mime session, theatrical presentations,
freedom of expression and movement in the classroom, noise, laughter, friendly environment, freedom of
performance, fun based learning were the noticeable elements in the modern classroom with the circular seating.
A variety of styles of group performances and presentations also created humor in class. On the other hand, group
B in the traditional classroom with rows was found to be passive. Students who were sitting infront were more
motivated and attentive than those sitting at the back. The level of engagement also varied among students. The
ones having less proximity with teachers were more productive than others. From the perspective of behaviour,
students sitting in the back rows were found chatting, playing with their cell phones and distracting others.
Teacher had to point them out and make effort to keep them engaged in class activity. The level of attention and
engagement was less. In the rows seating, teachers had to work harder on the group formation, movement was
difficult and some of the students preferred to stand near their classmates to participate in group work. It was
found to be more time-consuming and less convenient for the students.
This enquiry was made to study students’ learning behaviour in a traditional and a modern classroom designed
for the learning of French as a foreign language. The study probed into the relationship of seating arrangement
with students’ learning behaviour while focusing on students’ engagement in class activities, confidence,
communication, social interaction with teacher and students. Both modern and traditional classrooms had their
positive and negatives aspects. Circular classrooms created strong communication, bonding, and a sense of
belonging among the students. They learned more quickly with their peers sitting around them at round tables
and were more motivated, engaged and learning. The physical layout of the classroom represented the
instructional paradigm and linked with students’ attitudes, behaviour, communication, engagement as
highlighted by Bolden et al., (2019), Ochola and Achrazoglou (2015), Park and Choi (2014), students’ social
connections inside the classroom as mentioned by Vercellotti (2017), Wilburn et al., (2019) and academic
performance (Lewinski, 2015). The data indicated the fact that students around tables established face to face
direct contact joyfully than those seated in columns and rows as mentioned by Steinzor (1950) and Gump (1987).
Considering the rows and columns arrangement, it was convenient from teachers’ perspective for students’
monitoring and students could view the teacher and interact easily Those from the back rows found it difficult
to interact with teacher and visibility was less clear. However, this arrangement was beneficial for watching the
videos as mentioned by Harmer (2007), Ochola and Achrazoglou (2015). At the same time students could not
see other students and those at the back could not be viewed clearly. Hence, rows were considered unfavorable
for peer communication which created inconvenience for engagement in activities as mentioned by Shernoff et
al., (2017) and Wei et al., (2018).
CONCLUSION
This research was Qualitative in nature and was conducted at higher education institution in Malaysia. The Case
study approach was used to study the key actors; the students from the Undergraduate programme who were
studying French as a foreign language and as an optional subject. The research instruments were semi-structured
interviews of the students and the class observations throughout the semester in both traditional and modern
language learning classrooms. The type of seating arrangement and its effects on students’ learning behaviour in
the classroom was closely studied. Two different seating arrangements circular and rows were chosen through
purposive sampling. Two groups of students who were learning in two different classrooms with different layouts
were closely observed and interviewed.
The findings revealed that rows were good for the individual work. The students in the front rows are more
attentive as they face the teacher than those who sit at the back. Group work becomes challenging in the rows as
students are bound to move and change their places and physically adjust themselves to engage in group
activities. This consumes time and becomes time wasting strategy. On the other hand, students in the backrows
face problems such as focus, attention, asking questions becomes difficult and reading the content from
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 626
www.rsisinternational.
org
PowerPoint slides is also a hustle due to lack of visibility. Collaborative learning becomes exhaustive in this
seating arrangement. On the contrary, semicircular, or circular arrangements are proved to be more suitable and
avoid positional discrimination in the blended learning. Considering the rows and columns arrangement, the
whole classroom space was used. It is convenient from teachers’ perspective for students’ monitoring and at the
same time students viewed the teacher and interacted easily. This arrangement was beneficial for lecturing or
watching the videos but not for group work.
Therefore, teachers were found to move, facilitate students’ discussions, and group work than in the rows and
columns. From students’ perspective, they sit closer and maintained direct eye contact. Students in group seating
enjoyed social interaction with peers, they asked more questions than rows and columns seating arrangement.
Three dimensional effects of the seating arrangement on students’ engagement and commitment were proven.
Firstly, the relationship between seating arrangement and students’ level of convenience of communication and
social interaction with classmates and teacher was stronger in circular seating. Students’ performance, creativity,
confidence, motivation, and enthusiasm for learning were prominent features as well as peer support, peer
correction and a culture of collaborative learning dominate the classroom. The weaker ones also show their
involvement and good performance after sitting with the bright students. A culture of caring and sharing and a
sense of belonging was instilled within classroom community with overall positive effects on learning, emotions,
and well-being owing to circular seating arrangement.
REFERENCES:
1. Anderson (2009), The effects of seating arrangement on students’ on task-behaviour, The Capella
University.
2. Author, J. (2014). A ten year study of faculty classroom observations. Transformative Dialogues:
Teaching and Learning Journal, 7(2), 1-21.
3. Atherton, J. S. (2005). Teaching in learning: Physical layout. Retrieved December 20, 2007 from
https://www.learningand teaching.info/teaching/layout.htm
4. Badia-Martin, M. (2006). Disruptive behaviour in schools. Educational Journal, 92, 33-35.
5. Bennett, N. and Blundell, D. (1983) Quantity and quality of work in rows and classroom groups,
Educational Psychology, 3, 2, 93-105
6. Black, S. (2007). Achievement by design. American School Board Journal, 194(10), 39-41.
7. Bonus, M., & RIORDAN, L. (1998). Increasing student on-task behaviour through the use of specific
seating arrangements. Master’s Action research Project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/ Skylight field-
based Master program, retrieved November, 12.
8. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take charge approach for today’s educator. Los
Angeles: lee canter and Associates.
9. Chingos, M.M. (2013). Class size and student outcomes: Research and policy implications. Journal of
Policy analysis and management, 32(2), 411-438.
10. Conners, D. A. (1983). The school environment: A link to understanding stress. Theory into Practice, 22
(1), 15-21.
11. Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1988), Packaged discipline programs: Let the buyer beware.
Educational Leadership, 46(2), 68-71. Designing spaces that inspire learning. Retrieved October 10, 2007
from https: //www.schoolfacilities.com/cd_2924.aspx
12. Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s
risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology
Review, 6(3), 413-432.
13. Fernandes, A. C., Huang, J., & Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter? -The
Impact of Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning. International Journal of Applied
Educational Studies, 10(1).
14. Falout, J. (2014). Circular seating arrangements: Approaching the social crux in language classrooms.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 275-300.
15. Granström, M., & Inganäs, O. (1996). White light emission from a polymer blend light emitting diode.
Applied physics letters, 68(2), 147-149.
16. Gifford, R. (2002), Environmental psychology: principles and practice, Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 627
www.rsisinternational.
org
17. Gump, P.V. (1987), school and classroom environments. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook
of environmental psychology (pp, 691-732), New York: Wiley.
18. Hammang, A. J. (2012). The Effect of Seating Assignments on Student achievement in the Biology
Classroom. Montana State University.
19. Haghighi, M. M., & Jusan, M. M. (2012). Exploring students’ behavior on seating arrangements in
learning environment: a review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 287-294.
20. Hoekstra, N. A., van den Berg, Y. H., Lansu, T. A., Mainhard, M. T., & Cillessen, A. H. (2023). Teachers’
goals and strategies for classroom seating arrangements: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 124, 104016.
21. Hurt, T, H., Scott, M, D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978), Communication in the classroom. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
22. Idayu, N., Mohd, B., Ahmad, A.R. & Awang, M.M. (2016). Classroom Environment enhance in
determining students’ success. International conference on education and Regional Development, 1
November, 652-656.
23. James, W. Z. (2016). The flipped Classroom, a review of the literature. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, 48(2), 97-103. Doi: 10.1108/ICT-05-2015-0039
24. John, A. W. (1999). Classroom Arrangement and student behaviour. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay,
Ontario.
25. Juhary, J. (2012). An Assigned Seating Arrangement based on Students’ Performance: A Critical Review.
Education and practice, 3(14), 10-16.
26. Lotfy, N. (2012). Seating Arrangement and Cooperative Learning Activities: students’ on-task/off-task
Participation in EFL Classrooms. American University, Cairo.
27. Mahmud Mohd Jusan (2010a) Means End Chain, person Environment Congruence and Mass Housing
Design.
28. Open house International, Vol..35 No.3
29. Minchen, B. J. (2007). The effects of classroom seating on students’ performance in a high school science
setting. The college at Brockport.
30. Mudassir, I. U. Norsuhaily, A. B. ( 2015). The influence of School Environment on academic
performance of secondary school students in Kuala Lumpur. International Conference on empowering
Islamic civilization. University Sulatn Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) Malaysia., hlm. Vol. 6-7, 252-261.
31. Ngware, M. W., Ciera, J., Musyoka, P. K. & Oketch, M. (2013). The influence of classroom seating
position on student learning gains in primary schools in kenya. Scientific research, 4(11), 705-712
32. Peter, B. Yufan, Z. Fay, D, L. B. (2015) Clever Classrooms. Engine House Islington Mill Studios.
University Salford Manchester: ISBN978-1-907842-63-4, 53.
33. Rennels, M.R., & Chaudhari, R.B. (1988). Eye contact and grade distribution. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 67(2), 627-632
34. Richards, J. (2006). Setting the stage for student engagement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42 (2), 92-94.
Retrieved December 20, 2007 from ProQuest Education Journals database, (Document ID:955429681)
35. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. sage.
36. Slavin, R.E. (2003) Educational Psychology: theory and practice (seventh edition), Boston MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
37. Sommer, R. (1969b) Personal Space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
38. Steinzor, B. (1950). The spatial factor in face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 45, 552-555
39. Weinstein, C.S. (1992). Designing the instructional environment: Focus on seating. Bloomington, IN:
40. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 039)
41. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
