I

A NATURALISTIC STUDY IN PROXEMICS: SEATING ARRANGEMENT

AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERACTION, PERFORMANCE,

AND BEHAVIOR

Gary N. Rubin

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1972 ii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to determine if various seating arrangements would have an effect on the performance, attitudes, and behavior of 84 sixth grade students.

The study was conducted in a naturalistic setting. The 84 subjects comprised four groups ranging in I.Q. from 56-134 of a local Ohio school. Ehch week for a period of six weeks the teacher rearranged the class­ room setting. Students were assigned their seats by process of random­ ization. At the beginning of each week and at the end of each week students completed semantic differential scales to determine their attitudes toward their seating position, the person they were sitting next to, the teacher's seating position, their feelings about school, and degree of class participation and verbal interaction. At the beginning and end of each week the teacher also completed semantic differential scales evaluating students on their class participation, written work, verbal interaction, discipline, and number of complaints regarding a subject's seating position.

Mean scores were determined for each of the eleven variables in each of the four groups in the various arrangements. They were examined for their relative magnitude and for trends. Canonical correlation was employed to examine the relationship of one set of variables to a second set. In the present instance, scores obtained from the teacher for each proxemic arrangement (Set One) were examined for their rela­ tionship to the scores obtained from each subject (Set Two).

The results indicated that seating arrangement effected the per­ formance, attitudes, and behavior of subjects. The canonical correlation associated particular variables with specific arrangements. It was also found that I.Q. scores did correlate with particular arrangements.

In conclusion the investigator stressed that the results of this study did not suggest causation. Instead the findings were to be interp­ reted as indications. Replication of the study was suggested. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Special acknowledgment is due to the author’s advisor, Dr.

Fhymond Tucker, for his encouragement and guidance during the writing of this dissertation and also to the author’s wife, Nancy, without whose assistance and understanding this dissertation would not be possible. iv

TABLE OP CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Theoretical Grounds The Dimensions of Proxemics ...... 2

A Review of the Literature .•••••• ...... 15

Objectives .••••»..•••••••••■... 19

Exploratory Question 1 ...... 20

Exploratory Question 2 21

Exploratory Question 3 ...... 21

Exploratory Question 4 ...... 22

Exploratory Question 5 ...... 22

Exploratory Question 6 ...... 23

Exploratory Question 7 23

Exploratory Question 8 ...... 23

Justification for the Present Study 24

II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ...... 26

Method • • • • ...... ••••••••••• 35

Setting ...... 35

Subjects 35

Procedure • •••••••••••••• ...... 36

Dependent Variables • ••••••••••■••• 38

Analysis of Data Procedures...... 41

III. RESULTS ...... 44

Interpretation of Thble 1.45 V

CHAPTER Rage

Set One: Teacher 45

Set Two: Students...... 48

Interpretation of Ihble 2 ...... 49

Interpretation of Table 3...... 51

Set One: Teacher...... 51

Set Two: Students ...... 54

Interpretation of Table 4...... 56

Interpretation of Ihble 5***»»*»*»***»*» 58

Interpretation of Ihble 6 ...... 58

Set One: Teacher ...••••••...... 58

Set Two: Students 63

Interpretation of Thble 7 • ...... 65

Interpretation of Table 8...... 65

Interpretation of Table 69

Set One: Teacher ••.••••••••••••. 69

Set Two: Students ..•••••...... 73

Interpretation of Ihble 10 76

Interpretation of Table 11 ■•••••...••... 79

Interpretation of Thble 12 ..»«.•••• ...... 79

Set One: Teacher ••••••••.••••.•• 79

Set Two: Students ...... 84

Interpretation of Ihble 13 ...... 86

Interpretation of Table 14 89

Interpretation of Ihble 15 ••••...... 91

Set One: Teacher 91 vi

CHAPTER fege

Set Two: Students ...... 95

Interpretation of Tàble 16 ...... 97

Interpretation of ï&ble 17 ...... 97

Interpretation of Thble 18...... 101

Set One : Teacher ...... 101

Set Two: Students...... 105

Interpretation of liable 19 ...... 107

Interpretation of liable 20 ...... 109

IV. DISCUSSION...... Ill

Pretest Prior to the Six-Week Investigation ...... Ill

Group Concept Arrangement ...... 113

Circle Arrangement ...... 115

Teacher Among Students Arrangement • ...... 117

Horseshoe Arrangement ...... 119

Random Arrangement ...... 121

Traditional Arrangement ...... 123

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 132

Pretest Prior to the Six Arrangements ...... 132

First Arrangement: Group Concept ...... 133

Second Arrangement: Circle ...... 133

Third Arrangement: Teacher Among Students ...... 134

Fourth Arrangement: Horseshoe ...... 134

Fifth Arrangement: Random...... 135 vii

CHAPTER Page

Sixth Arrangement: Traditional • •*■>>..••• 135

Sources of Error • •»•••••••••••...« 136

Ideas for Further Research . . •...... • • 137

Conclusions 138

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 140

APPENDIX...... 144 viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. Mean Scores For Arrangement (Traditional) Prior Six Week Investigation, Pretest • 46

2. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement (Traditional) Prior to Six Week Investigation, Pretest with 1 Significant Root ...... 50

3. Mean Scores for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Pre and Posttests ...... 52

4. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Pretest with 0 Significant Roots ... 57

5. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ... 59

6. Mean Scores for Arrangement #2 (Circle) Pre and Posttests •••••••...... 60

7. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #2 (Circle) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ...... 66

8. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #2 (circle) Posttest with 2 Significant Roots ...... 67

9. Mean Scores for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Pre and Posttests ...... 79

10. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Pretest with 2 Significant Roots, 77

11. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ...... 70

12. Mean Scores for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Pre and Posttests ...... 81

13. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Pretest with 2 Significant Roots ..... 87

14. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ..... 90 TABLE Page

15. Mean Scores for Arrangement #5 (Random) Pre and Posttests ...... 92

16. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #5 (Random) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ...... 98

17. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #5 (ftetndom) Posttest with 2 Significant Roots...... 99

18. Mean Scores for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Pre and Posttests ...... 102

19. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ..... 108

20. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ..... 110 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It is this author’s contention that when one thinks of the

term ’’communication" the first notion that comes to mind, is the process

of verbal interaction that exists between two people in various situa­

tions. Communication failure is often attributed to improper use of

language symbols, whereas successful communication is explained as the

proper use of words or the verbal understanding that is shared by

individuals. Thus communication success or failure is often explained

simplistically. Often the process of communication is analyzed only

with reference to verbal responses. Certainly verbal communication plays a central role in communication theory and for years communicologists

have focused their attention primarily on this aspect of communication.

In recent years, however, social scientists from many disciplines have

concerned themselves with other features of communication. Research in nonverbal communication has focused upon eye-contact, body movement, posture, and the ways in which these three variables Interrelate. Another area which has carved out a significant position in the communication literature is proxemics. Research has indicated that the proxemic variable has an effect on interaction, performance, and behavior of individuals in group settings.

It was from this area of research that the present writer’s in­ vestigation received its theoretical grounding. The purpose of this

1 2

study was to explore the effect of the seating variable on interaction,

performance, and behavior of 84 sixth grade students. The major goal

of the present chapter is to present the dimensions of proxemics and

to define the relationship between proxemics and the present study.

THEORETICAL GROUND: THE DIMENSIONS OF PROXEMICS

Specifically, the study of proxemics is concerned with man's

use of space. This includes studies involving personal space, distance

between individuals engaging in interpersonal relationships, and the

use of space in planning man’s towns and communities. Much research

has been conducted to investigate the norms that exist in relation to

physical space between individuals in various settings. Investigators

attempt to show how the physical distance between individuals is depen­

dent upon the setting of an interaction as well as the relationship

that exist between those individuals. For, example, physical distance

between individuals who are courting is very different than the physi­

cal distance between two strangers. Physical distance between individuals

interacting in public may often be at variance with the way they act in

private. Researcher's involved in cross-cultural studies investigate

how man’s use of space (physical distance) not only may vary from situ­ ation to situation, but from culture to culture. Researchers study different ethnic groups to determine the norms which govern their use

of physical space. Sex differences are also taken into consideration.

Research in proxemics is interested in the physical distance between two males, two females, and male and female while engaging in various 3

activities (conversation, walking, etc, ). Hie study of physical space

between individuals in various settings and in various types of inter­

personal relationships is one major emphasis of proxemie research.

Another emphasis of proxemie research is the study of man’s

use of space in the design of his buildings, his houses, and his

communities. Researchers involved in work which investigates the use

of space in planning man’s environment study how space can affect man’s

interaction with others, the types of activities he engages in, and

the persons with whom he will interact. Playgrounds, classrooms, offices,

and neighborhoods all must be designed with space in mind so that they

may have maximum utility.

In addition, proxemie research is interested in what space can

communicate about individuals in a particular setting. Space can often

give us information about the purpose of a communication (courting

behavior) as well as information about individual’s status and prestige

in a particular setting (teacher sitting at the front of the classroom).

Generally, then proxemics is the study of man’s use of space and how

it is reflected in his environment, in his activities (work and recre­ ation) and in his interpersonal relationships.

In their book Nonverbal Communication. Eisenberg and Smith

characterize proxemics as one type of nonverbal communication which involves the relationship between the communicator’s body and other people or objects in the environment. The authors state that the key concept in the study of proxemics is space, and how man’s use of space can be communicative: 4

For example, how far interactants stand from one another indicates their degree of familiarity and the purpose of their communication. Put another way, individuals send messages by placing themselves in certain spatial relation­ ships with one another. ... Proxemic relationships re­ flect the total culture of a society. When you next walk into a classroom or an office, look around to see what the room tells you about the people who occupy it. Do some people have different kinds of spaces alloted to them? Who in the room is alloted to them? Who in the room is allowed to communicate with whom, and at what distance?

Although Eisenberg and Smith indicate some of the dimensions of proxemics in this treatise, there are others that need to be dis­ cussed. One scholar who has contributed greatly to the literature of proxemics and who is responsible for the word "proxemics" is Hall.

Hall defines proxemics as the ". • . interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture."1

It is ", • . the study of how man unconsciously structures microspace— the distance between men in the conduct of dally transactions, the organization of space in his houses and buildings, and ultimately the 3 layout of his towns•In his books The Silent Language and The Hidden

Dimension, and in numerous articles, Hall has studied the concept of spacing and its relation to various phenomena. His work includes ob­ servation on the distance regulation and social behavior of animals as well as proxemics in a cross cultural context. Hall is significant for

lAbne M. Eisenberg and Ralph R. Smith, Jr., Nonverbal Communica­ tion (New York, 1971)» p. 28.

2 Bi ward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York, 1969)» P» 1»

^Edward T. Hall cited by 0. Michael Watson and Theodore D. Graves, "Quantitative Research in Proxemics," American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 4 (1966), p. 971. 5

his amount of research, hut also for his influence on other social

scientists* thinking, Hall made the concept of spacing an important

variable for study and influenced many, if not all of the following studies.

In Mardi J. Horwitz’s article entitled "Human Spatial Behavior," the author states: ", . • use of space remains a meaningful parameter in the observation of human behavior ... human attitudes, needs, and behavior in relation to space may be psychologic variables worthy of A closer study." Horwitz’s investigation was primarily concerned with personal space and interpersonal transactions between psychotherapists and patients. The author concluded that every individual is surrounded toy an area which may be regarded as a body-buffer zone, and that there is a need to emphasize the clinical importance of observation of patients’ feelings about space, for these feelings will affect their relationships with others. Horwltz suggested that the therapist’s use of space could be looked at as a "message system" to convey attitudes and intentions.

Although this study offers much for psychiatric theory, its generaliza- bility to communication research is limited since the subjects used in the study were schizophrenics. Horwitz, in fact, suggests that schizo­ phrenics view space in unusual ways.

Baxter makes the following comment about spatial arrangements:

"Thus, culturally differentiated groups tend to prefer different spatial

^Mardi J. Horwitz, "Human Spatial Behavior," American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1965), p. 21. 6

arrangements of participants involved in social interactions. . . . "^

Baxter was concerned with interpersonal spacing of subjects in natural

settings. Subjects were differentiated according to Anglo, Black, or

Mexican-American ethnic group. His findings indicated that Mexicans, regardless of age or sex-grouping, interact most proximally when compared

to Anglo and Black groups. In addition, Baxter found that Mexicans

"touched" one another more frequently than Blacks or Anglos, and that

Blacks have a tendency to stand at greater distances from one another.

In general, the study revealed a very small but exceedingly consistent sub-cultural difference between the interaction of subjects in natural settings. The validity of the findings is questionable because ethnic and age classifications were made on the basis of external appearance and language. Often the investigators seemed to be assuming that In­ dividuals were of a particular ethnic group without direct knowledge of this.

Aiello and Jones observed the proxemie relationships of 210 interacting pairs of Puerto Rican, black, and white first and second graders. Their observations were restricted to the interaction of these children while on the school playground. Interaction distance and directness of shoulder orientation (axis) were recorded. The results indicated that middle-class white subjects stood farther apart than lower class blacks and Puerto Ricans. Sex differences between and among white subjects in distance scores and cultural and sex

5James G. Baxter, "Interpersonal Spacing in Natural Settings," Sociometry, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1970), p. 444. 7

differences in axis scores were also revealed. Aiello and Jones stated

that these results indicated that proxemic patterns are acquired early

in life, and support the contention that differences between the dom­

inant culture and other groups in the use of space are basic, with the

qualification that sex roles may also be an influence in proxemic be­

havior. This study lends support to Baxter’s findings of sub-cultural

differences in interaction. In Aiello and Jones’ study a particular

group of subjects were being observed over a period of time whereas

in Baxter’s study subjects were selected at random and observed for

ten-second intervals.

In 1966, Watson and Graves conducted a study with three purposes in mind: "(l) to record empirical data quantifying Arab and American proxemic behavior; (2) to test pragmatically Hall’s system for the no­ tation of proxemic behavior to tiy to uncover any weaknesses or ambigui­ ties inherent in the system; and (3) to test the validity of Hall’s impressionistic observations on Arab and American differences.Their research demonstrated the feasibility of systematic investigation in the area of proxemics. It also indicated the need for improved methods of notation as well as larger samples to provide further generaliza- bility. Also, Watson and Graves indicated the need to learn more about the psychological meanings attached to the many forms of proxemic behavior

This study is significant for it empirically tested Hall's impressions concerning Arab and American differences in proxemic behavior. As

6Watson and Graves, p.- 971» 8

expected, highly significant Arab-American differences emerged in the

direction hypothesized. Arab students confronted each other more

directly than did the American. They were also observed to move

closer together, to touch one another more often, look at each other

more directly in the eye, and speak in louder tones.

Another study, influenced by Hall, was Mehrabian’s "Orientation

Behaviors and Nonverbal Attitude Communication,” The purpose of this

study was to investigate the concept of immediacy. Mehrabian states,

"The concept of immediacy when it is adapted to nonverbal phenomena ■7 of communication, is analogous to the concept of ’Proxemics.’" The

findings indicate that head orientation behaviors "could be used in

conjunction with attitude communicated in explicit verbal contents

to investigate the effects of inconsistent communications of degree 8 of positive attitude." Since the subjects were only observed for periods of two and one-half minutes, it is difficult to determine the degree of generalizabillty of the results although the study does call attention to the effects of inconsistent communications of degree of positive attitude. Mehrabian suggests that whenever information communicated in an implicit channel (proxemic) contradicts the information of the explicit verbal channel, the message is Interpreted predominantly hy the information communicated in the implicit channel. In other words, nonverbal communication often plays a greater role in message transmission than verbal communication.

^Albert Mehrabian, "Orientation Behaviors and Nonverbal Attitude Communication," Journal of Communication. Vol, 1?, No. 4 (1967), p. 325.

8Ibid.. pp. 330-331. 9 ,

These above studies provide some indication of the wide range

of theoretical inquiry that has been influenced by research in proxemics.

Another area of interest, also concerned with proxemie effects, is the

study of small groups.

Steinzor discusses the results of his study which set out to

determine if the seating arrangements of individuals in a face to face

group had any relationship to verbal responses. Steinzor's initial

hypothesis was that in a small group seated in a circle, the greater

the seating distance between two people, the greater the chance that

they will succeeed one another with a verbal response. His results

indicated that seating arrangement or distance between persons is one

factor in determining sequence of statements. His study emphasizes

the importance of proxemie variables on group interaction. Steinzor

points out that interaction among people was not only affected by the

content of what was said, but by non-verbal factors such as posture, gestures, and "more generally the total physical impression the indi- 9 viduals made on each other.” Steinzor suggests that knowing where

individuals sit and its effect on interaction can have value for the leader of a group.

Assuming for a moment that a high level of interaction and a greater extent of participation by members of a group is desirable, the leader may well attend to where specific people sit in a group. It might be desirable, for instance, to have a rather expressive individual sit opposite a rather

9Bernard Steinzor, "The Spatial Fhctor in Fb.ce to Fa.ce Dis­ cussion Groups," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 45, No.3 (1950), pp. 552, 554-555. 10

quiet person. Or the leader might find it helpful to have two people who tend to monopolize the discussion sit next to each other in order to decrease the interstimulation between these two members.

Steinzor points out that a person who occupies a spatial position

which has more of a chance of being completely observed has the advantage

of gaining increased stimulus value for his ideas and statements "by

virtue of that very factor of his greater physical and expressive im­ pact on others."^ This study is significant for it specifically

examines the effect of the seating variable on interaction. Also,

the discussions were electrically recorded thus providing an accurate

picture of the sequence of individual participation.

Another study conducted by fore and Bales was also interested

in seating position and its effect on small group interaction. The

purpose of their study was to analyze several sets of data from five-

men laboratory groups to determine if the results would support the

hypothesis that both centrality of seating position and distance between members can be used to predict interaction patterns. Generally, the hypothesis was supported. The researchers found that seating position not only affected the amount of interaction a person would give and receive, but also that persons who might be inclined to dominate the discussion chose the more central seats. Their findings, however, appeared to be valid only in the "task" session. In a "social" session for the same type of group, members had the tendency to talk more fre­ quently to the person next to them. They would turn away from the group

-LOsteinzor, p. 552.

^Steinzor, p. 552. 11

for a more intimate conversation. Hare and Bales found also that

personality variables were related to seating choice and to interaction

rate. This study has significance for it attempted to validate the

findings of Steinzor, Sommer, and Strodtbeck and Hook whose research

had linked seating position with interaction. It also indicated the

relationships between seating position, interaction, and personality.

Bass and KLubeck’s study concerned itself with the seating

variable and its relation to the processes of leadership. These

researchers examined the relationship, if any that existed between

the particular seat a person occupied during an initially leaderless

discussion and the leadership status he attained as estimated by two

observers. Two types of seating arrangements were employed: an

inverted V arrangement and a rectangular arrangement. In both arrange­

ments, it appeared that the particular seat a person occupied had

little effect on the final leadership rating he received while a

participant in the discussion. Although an attempt was made to determine

the outside leadership status of group members, sufficient data was

often unavailable. Thus the effect of "outside status" of individual members on their group discussions was not fully explored. This is an important variable in the theory of leadership in small groups, and the inability to deal with this variable completely limits the value of this study.

A study designed by Lott and Sommer explored the connection between location and status. "The question in each case was how the 12

S would locate himself vis-a-vis a person of higher, lower, or equal 12 status." The study was conducted in four stages. The first two

stages employed paper and pencil diagrams of rectangular tables,

which showed an association of the head position with the high status

person. In the third stage paper and pencil diagrams were also uti­

lized. Although at this stage, the diagrams of square tables indicated

that all positions were equal. This suggested that the people sat

farther from both high and low status individuals than they did from

their peers, The fourth stage involved a subject going into a room

and sitting at a table containing a surrogate of a high, low, or

equal status person. The results indicated that Ss would sit farther

from higher and lower status individuals than they did from their peers.

The results also showed that a connection exists between status and

location which is determined by both fixed and relational aspects of

the environment, identification of certain table positions with status

levels, as well as by the location of another person already seated.

Besides determining the relationship between location and status, another goal of the study was to learn the connection between eye-contact, dominance and spatial arrangement. However, during the course of the study, it became apparent that in studying spatial arrangements around tables, the authors were not directly dealing with eye contact and this fact limited their investigation of this variable.

Baie F. Lott and Robert Sommer, "Seating Arrangement and Status," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1967), p. 90« 13

Lott and Sommer's conclusion that a relationship between status and location exists gained support in a study conducted by Pelllgrini.

In this study subjects were asked to complete semantic differential scale ratings of target individuals photographed while seated at a rectangular table. It was found that occupancy of the head position was associated with higher ratings on the following six scales:

(l) Talkativeness, (2) Persuasiveness, (3) Dominance, (4) Leadership,

(5) Self-Confidence, and (6) Intelligence. Pelllgrini interpreted the results as an indication of a general "halo effect" reflecting cultural standards and traditions regarding the organization of social space. Unlike Lott and Sommer, Pelllgrini employed only paper and pencil scales to determine his results.

Sommer has also added much to the literature on the effects of various seating arrangements on groups. Sommer states that there is a lack of studies concerned with this variable. "Considering the number of studies concerned with small discussion groups, relatively 13 few made the arrangement of people a variable." His studies indicate that different tasks are associated with different spatial arrangements; and in his examination of co-action and competition he found that the ecology of interaction changes according to spatial arrangement. This finding is significant for it indicates that there is a correlation between proxemic variables and interaction. His results are of particular relevance to social-scientists interested in different types of task oriented groups.

^Robert Sommer, "Further Studies in Small Group Ecology," Sociometry. Vol. 28, No. 4 (1965)» p. 337. 14

Russo has summarized some of the findings that have been compiled

in studies concerned with the seating variable.

Research indicates that several variables influence the inter­

personal distance in our culture. Two such variables are sex (girls

sit closer together than boys ¿Sommer, 19527) and status (higher status

persons gravitate to the ends of tables ¿Strodtbeck and Hook, I96I5

Sommer, 196l/). Research has also indicated that type of interaction

is a factor. Casual groups prefer comer seating, cooperating groups

prefer side by side seating, co-acting groups prefer a distant arrange­

ment (with one person at the head of the table and one person one seat

over on a side), and competing groups prefer to be opposite one another

(Sommer, 1965). Observations in natural settings validated the results

of these studies (Sommer, 1965). It was also found that angle of

participation in combination with distance seems to affect interaction.

Studies have demonstrated that leaders emerge from the side of a table

which allows a person to have greater stimulus value (Howells and Becker,

1962). One study demonstrated that the physical distance between two

men may affect ratings of the social distance between them (Bums, 1964).

Russo set out to test the effects of proxemity and angle of

members involved in dyads on the following dimensions : Ihtimate-

Unaquainted, Talkative-Untalkative, Friendly-Hostile, and Equal-Unequal.

The results indicated that seating patterns have different connotations, and that psychological closeness and physical distance have a complex relationship. Russo observed that people who are more acquainted tend to be friendlier and more talkative. She found that cooperating groups

(preferring side by side seating) and casual groups (preferring comer seating) had a higher level and more familiar type of interaction. 15

Russo's study lends support to previous research, considers variables

not previously measured, and recognizes the importance of the seating

variable on the study of small groups.

The differences in seating patterns have implications for studies of small group, both as a variable to be controlled when studying other properties of interaction and as a variable in itself. Also intimacy of an interaction viewed as a dynam­ ic equilibrium of variables such as distance and eye-contact, provides a useful framework for generating hypotheses for small group research.

The purpose of this section was to provide an overview of the

research that has been conducted in the area of proxemics, and to serve

as an introduction to the research that is relevant to the present

study.

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In his book, Personal Space, Sommer devotes a chapter, "Designed for Learning," to classroom space and classroom layout and their effect on student participation and interaction. He suggests that a great deal can be learned from observing where students sit.

It is surprising how much one can learn from observing where students sit—are the fearful huddled in the rear with the front rows empty, or in isolated bands searching for their lost leader. . • . Many teachers are blind to the physical dis­ tribution of the students. ... A teacher may sense that some­ thing is wrong, he is not getting through to his students, participation is poor, and the class hour is mutually frustra­ ting, but he does not know whether this is due to the students or what. The distribution of students within the room repre­ sents an accomodation to their environment that goes on to in­ fluence subsequent behavior.^5

l^Naney Felipe Russo, "Connotations of Seating Arrangements," Cornell Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 2, No. 2 (196?), pp. 42-4-3.

•^Robert Sommer, Personal Space (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969), p. no. 16

Sommer receives support for his conclusions from Richardson.

Richardson suggests that the physical arrangement of classrooms does

affect communication between pupils and that present arrangements being

utilized in classrooms defeat the purpose of learning for which they

were designed.

It is obvious that the actual process of communication be­ tween pupils, as well as from pupils to teacher, will be affected in some way by the physical arrangements in these different rooms. What, then are the effects of the conventional arrangements of desks on the children who occupy them? ... this arrangement impedes natural communication between pupils in different parts of the room ... the school classroom, in which most teachers are trying to encourage the articulate exchange of knowledge and ideas, clings to a physical arrangement that inhibits it. °

Wingo points out that there is a definite relationship between environment

and learning and suggests that improved instruction in the upper ele­

mentary grades is dependent upon providing environmental conditions

which are more conducive to learning than many are now. Finally Rolfe

emphasizes the importance of the physical setting in a quote attributed

to Lao Tzse, the Chinese philosopher, who lived approximately 2500 years

ago: "The reality of a room is not in the four walls but in the space 17 enclosed." '

Even though few studies have been designed to study the effect

of the seating variable on student interaction, performance or behavior,

those that have been conducted yield some interesting results.

One study related to the effect of seating on student interaction

was conducted by Sanders. The findings of this investigation were

•^Elizabeth Richardson, "The Physical Setting and Its Influence on Learning," Environmental Psychology (New York, 197^)» pp. 397-388.

17Max G. Wingo, "Implications for Improving Instruction in the Upper Elementary Grades," Learning and Instruction, Forty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ftirt I. (Chicago, 1950), p. 285. 17

published in a book entitled Innovations in Elementary School Classroom

Seating. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the usability of

newly designed elementary school furniture, and to determine the

relationship between the instructional program and classroom furniture.

A basic assumption of the study was that although instructional pro­

grams (kinds of activities) have changed over the years, very little

change has taken place in classroom furniture to accomodate these new

teaching innovations. The study employed conventional types of furni­

ture and arrangements (individual desks in straight rows) and compared

these to more innovative arrangements and furniture (round tables, group

work, open classroom spaces). The findings indicate that the type of

furniture and classroom arrangement,' affects instructional programs by

restricting activities. Sanders points out that the most common inade­ quacy of classroom layout was the lack of "closeness” of the group and

this greatly decreased interaction. Although the study did not address

itself directly to the affect of seating on particular variables (inter­ action, performance, and behavior), it did point up the importance of seating on group life.

A study similar to Sanders' was conducted by Otto. This researcher suggests that as long as teachers arrange their classrooms in a conven­ tional manner, "they are handicapped in putting their full imaginative powers to work In re-thinking the relationships between classroom fumi- 18 ture and teaching procedures. ..." Again he seems to reinforce the notion that classroom seating can affect student productivity and interaction

I^Henry J. Otto, "An Experiment with Elementary School Classroom Seating and Equipment," Texas School Board Journal, Vol. 11 (1955)» P* 3« 18

In this study thirty-six full days were spent in observing instruction in 18 second and 18 fifth grade rooms. As a result of this observation period, it was concluded that certain classroom activities necessitated particular seating arrangements and equipment in order to maximize the facilitation of those activities.

Rolfe’s study, previously cited, set out to determine differences in spaee use and learning situations in social studies, reading and arithmetic classes in selected small and large elementary classrooms.

Although this study, like the others reported, does not really address itself to the seating variable per se, it does point up the affect of physical environment on student activities. Rolfe says "The Glassroom is no longer considered a place where children sit together to be taught; it is a physical environment conducive to learning, with a 19 function to facilitate the teaching-learning process." He feels that the role of the classroom in teaching and learning is a neglected area of educational research and scientific investigation is needed to define more specifically how the classroom can contribute to pupil learning.

A study with particular relevance to the present investigation was conducted by Feltler. He and two fellow researchers devised seven different types of seating arrangements that would be conducive to a classroom, and asked 276 graduates and undergraduates at Syracuse Uni­ versity’s School of Education to rank them along the dimensions of

^Howard Glemet Rolfe, "Observable Differences in Space Use and Learning Situations in Small and Large Elementary Classrooms," (An unpublished dissertation from the University of California at Berkeley), p. 13» 19

least and most comfortable. Setting #1, which consisted of four groups

of six desks (students working in small groups) was selected as least

comfortable. Setting #4, (desks arranged in a horseshoe with the teacher

facing them) was selected as the most comfortable. Setting #5» which

consisted of desks randomly arranged without the presence of the teacher,

was not placed in either category. The researchers theorized that the

choices related to a person’s need to be controlled by or to control

others (teacher: need to have a conventional or non-conventional classroom arrangement) and that the various arrangements had great affect on student-student or student-teacher interaction. Although this study derives its results from paper and pencil questionnaires rather than from other experimental methods, it indicates the need to consider the seating variable in the educational setting.

Feitler and his colleagues say that more studies of this sort are needed because ’the traditional classroom setting—the teacher in front of a class in neat rows— is undergoing significant, if not revolutionary changes.’ They reason that comfortable seating arrangements ’facil­ itate the learning process.’

OBJECTIVES

Hall indicates that proxemics is the study of man’s concept and use of space. It is the study of the organization of space in all facets of daily living—in the house, in the office, in the university, in the street. The studies presented thus far have indicated that space has a significant effect on man’s behavior. Not only does it affect the

20 Feitler cited in Kenneth Goodall, "Teacher’s Desk," Psychology Today, Vol. 5. No. 4 (1971), p. 12. 20

nature of his interaction, but it also helps to determine those per­

sons with whom he will Interact. The present study is also interested

in the effects of proxemic variables on behavior. The effects of six

different seating arrangements on interaction, performance, and behav­

ior of 84 sixth grade students were analyzed. Although some laboratory

research indicated that the seating variable does have an effect on

interaction, performance, and behavior, very little research concerning

this variable has been conducted in naturalistic settings. The purpose

of the present study is to provide information pertaining to this var­

iable by utilizing naturalistic methods of research. The investigator

will now indicate some of the questions that this study will attempt to

answer. Because this study is exploratory in nature, questions will be

used in place of hypotheses.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 1

Is class participation affected by various seating arrangements?

This question implies that a person's verbal participation in the class­

room may be affected by his seating position in that room. Students

sitting closer to the teacher might feel greater pressure to participate

than might those sitting in the back of the room. Contrary to this,

students sitting farther away from the teacher may have greater partici­

pation because they are not as fearful of her close presence. Students

in the front of the room may feel more "psychological closeness" to the

group and to the teacher and this may precipitate greater participation.

Whatever the reasons, studies have indicated (Steinzor, 195°î Sommer,

1965) that certain types of arrangements affect interaction differently, and therefore are worthy of further investigation. 21

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 2

Is the student’s written work affected by various seating

arrangements? The literature has indicated (Richardson, 1970} Sommer,

1969} Wingo, 1950) that in order for the learning process to take

place, students as well as teachers must work in an environment that

is conducive to this goal. The physical arrangement of the classroom

is one important component in the learning environment, and its affect

on the activities that take place in the classroom is an important

variable for study. Where a student sits in a classroom may affect his intake of information. He may be more attentive at the front of the room and less attentive at the back of the room. Certain class­ room arrangements might make it difficult for him to hear what is going on around him. Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of a classroom setting are, they have a direct effect on the student’s written work

(tests, .papers, etc.) for they will either depress or facilitate learning.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 3

Is verbal interaction among one’s fellow students differentially affected by various seating arrangements? This question implies that certain seating arrangements contribute to more verbal interaction among students than others. Research indicates (Steinzor, 1950} Russo, 1967) that particular kinds of arrangements increase verbal interaction.

Students may interact more if desks are arranged in clusters (groups 22

of desks) rather than in rows. Student interaction may decrease if

the teacher is integrated among the students’ desks. Verbal interaction

is an important part of the learning process and cannot be overlooked

when designing the physical environment of a classroom.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 4

Is the student’s discipline deportment affected by various

seating arrangements? As previously indicated (Sommer, 1970), the

distribution of students in a room represents an accomodation to their

environment and will influence subsequent behavior. If a student is unhappy with his position in the classroom setting, this unhappiness will probably be reflected in his discipline. He may become uncoopera­ tive and hostile. He may become passive and uninterested. If the student is happy with his position in the classroom setting, this happiness will also be reflected in his discipline. His behavior may characterize cooperation and high interest in his work. Certain arrangements en­ courage too much verbal interaction and student restlessness and this too must be considered when planning the classroom environment.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 5

Does the number of student complaints over his seating position vary according to arrangement? The teacher depends on feedback from his students to learn how they feel about a particular classroom setting.

Often this feedback comes in the form of complaints and requests to be moved to another seat. This feedback must be considered in an analysis of classroom environment. 23

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 6

Is the student’s attitude toward the teacher affected by-

various seating arrangements? Ibis question implies that there may

be a relationship between a student’s attitude toward his position

in a classroom setting and his attitude toward the teacher’s seating position. Certain classroom arrangements may prohibit a close re­ lationship between teacher and students. Teacher attitudes (need to control the class) are often reflected in the seating arrangements that are selected. Because of the constant relationship between student and teacher in the classroom setting, it is necessary to explore any variables which might affect this relationship.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 7

Is the student’s attitude toward school affected by various seating arrangements? How a student feels about the classroom setting may influence his attitudes about school in general. Since so much of his time is spent in school, specifically in the classroom, it becomes difficult to separate one from the other; and feelings about school are probably combined with feelings about the classroom setting. If this is so, it becomes extremely important that research be conducted which studies the seating variable.

EXPLORATORY QUESTION 8

Is the student’s attitude toward other students affected by various seating arrangements? Students may attach particular value 24

and meaning to certain seating positions in the room. Students who

are selected to sit at the front of the room may be considered the

"teacher’s pet” whereas those assigned to the back of the room may

be considered to be "trouble-makers." Thus, student attitudes toward

each other may be affected by where one sits in the classroom, and

must be considered when analyzing the classroom setting.

Certainly the author has not raised all of the possible ques­

tions that could be generated from a study of this type; but hopefully

he has indicated some of the more important ones.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

If the major criterion for justification of a study were a lack

of research, the present study would certainly be justifiable. As in­ dicated in the overvievi of the literature, however, previous research

is sparse. Yet the available research suggests that if teachers or

"leaders" of particular groups knew the implications of the seating variable it might benefit those Involved in the group. Steinzor states:

Assuming for the moment that a high level of interaction and a greater extent of participation hy members of a group is desirable, the leader may well attend to where specific people sit in the group. It might be desirable to have a rather expressive individual sit opposite a rather quite person. Or the leader might find it helpful to have two people who tend to monopolize the discussion sit next to each other in order to decrease the interstimulation between these two members. 1

Apparently many educators are not aware of the importance of the seating variable or they have other reasons for ignoring it. Richardson makes the following observations:

21Steinzor, p. 552 25

Interestingly enough, what inexperienced, teachers are most often told is that they ought to bring their pupils near the front of the classroom in the interest of control and disci­ pline. This implies that the rearrangement is to be made primarily for the benefit of the teacher; and of course for some classes the need for control will be the most crying need. The notion that a different kind of grouping, even with a well behaved class, might in fact be pleasanter for the pupils, or that the teacher is seeking a physical group­ ing in which his own position can be less dominating rather 22 than more so, is seldom given the prominence that it merits.

Regardless of what the reasons may have been for social scientists and educators to ignore the seating variable as a signifi­ cant factor in the learning process, it is this author’s belief that it does have importance, and further research is warranted. If one considers that children, young adults, and adults spend most of their waking hours involved in some type of group situation whether it be in school, business, or in the family, it becomes apparent that an under­ standing of all factors of the group situation would be beneficial to communication. The proxemic effects of the seating variable on students and the facilitation of the learning process should be no exception.

22jRichardson, p. 388 CHAPTER II

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The design of this study falls under the rubric of naturalistic experimentation. Naturalistic experimentation is not a new type of research methodology. Redding states that until very recent times substantially all that has been known about the vast universe of phenom­ enon called human communication behavior has been derived from observa­ tions made in the field. Although since the end of World War II, researchers from a variety of academic departments and disciplines have been applying laboratory methods to the study of communication.

Thus, for a while, naturalistic research held a subordinate position to laboratory experimentation. Redding suggests that this is changing*

... in the last few years many voices, including those of laboratory experimentalists themselves, have been raised to question the universal validity and applicability of the laboratory approach, particularly in the study of complex, j dynamic, and multivariate phenomena of human communication.

However, since the purpose of this section of Chapter II is to define and to clarify the goals and techniques of naturalistic experi­ mentation and to suggest why it is an appropriate methodology for the present study, the present writer will not attempt to provide a defense for either naturalistic or experimental research. In order to understand the dimensions of naturalistic research in relation to the present study, it is also necessary to discuss the dimensions of laboratory research, and to suggest when implementation of these two methodologies is appropriate.

•'•Charles Redding, "Research Setting* Field Studies,” Methods of Research in Communication, eds. Philip Emmert and William Brooks (Boston, 1970), p. 106.

26 27

Redding suggests that one way of defining field research is in

terms of locale. "However, as field research was originally developed

by anthropologists and sociologists during the last several decades,

the term field study has frequently been used as roughly synonymous 2 with certain methods (as well as locales) ..." It is this author’s belief that a discussion of any type of research methodology must con­ sider both locale and methods and will proceed with this in mind.

Willems and Raush define naturalistic research as "investigation of phenomena within and in relation to their naturally occurring con- texts.In naturalistic investigation, phenomena are studied in situ.

"Nature is the only inducer and the investigator can only be a trans- 4 ducer." Hughes supports Willems and Raush when he states: "Field work

• • • refers to observation of people in situ. . . .Scott points out that observation takes into account any kind of technique that has been employed to examine behavior in naturally occurring groups—"human beings ’on the hoof'—as opposed to studies of ad hoc groups conducted in the laboratory.”6 In general, naturalistic research is a methodology in which the investigator observes and records phenomena that he does not produce or bring about. Willems and Raush further state:

2Redding, p. 106.

3Biwin P. Willems and Harold L. Raush, Naturalistic Viewpoints in Psychological Research (New York, 1969), p. 3«

4ibld.. p. 37.

5e. G. Hughes cited in Redding, "Research Setting: Field Studies," P. 3. 6W. R, Scott cited in Redding, p. 105. 28

• • • naturalistic study, as traditionally conceived, is a strategy by which an investigator records, or commits to researchable form, phenomena that he does not produce or bring about • • . • Naturalistic research Is any form of research that aims at discovery and verification through observation, and this includes as specialized cases all techniques, appara­ tus and procedures of experimentation • • . measures (a) which do not require the cooperation of the subject, (b) do not per­ mit the subject’s awareness that he is being measured or treated in any way, and (c) do not change the phenomena being measured. The above three provisions may be taken as an op­ erational definition of naturalistic measures. Most such measures will, of both choice and necessity, occur outside the laboratory and in the real world.7

These various writers seem to point out that there are two ways of viewing naturalistic investigation, (l) Naturalistic investigation is a research methodology in which the investigator observes events or phenomena as they occur in their natural setting. No manipulation of variables takes place at any time. The cooperation of subjects is not needed for the investigator’s only function is to observe and record his observations. He often has no specific purposes, questions, or hypotheses in mind. (2) Naturalistic investigation is a research methodology in which the investigator observes events or phenomena as they occur in their natural setting. In this instance, the investi­ gator does have specific purposes in mind. He is interested in a certain facet of the phenomena he is observing. Therefore, manipula­ tion of variables often takes place. Cooperation of subjects is some­ times necessary. However, in order to study phenomena with the highest degree of "naturalism” that is possible, the investigator strives for a minimal amount of manipulation. Cooperation of subjects is often

^Willems and Raush, pp. 49, 81, and 152 29

needed, but the investigator in the design of his study is able to

get this cooperation without the subjects* awareness that they are

part of an investigation. The present study subscribes to this view

of naturalistic investigation.

Whereas naturalistic investigation studies phenomena as they

occur in their natural setting, laboratory research takes a different

approach t

A laboratory experiment is a research study in which the variance of all or nearly all of the possible influential independent variables not pertinent to the immediate problem of the investigation is kept at a minimum. This is done by isolating the research in a physical situation apart from the routine of ordinary living and by manipulating one or more independent variables under rigorously specified, operationalized, and controlled conditions.“

In laboratory research, the experimenter has the possibility of

more complete control. ”Ihe laboratory experimenter can, and often does,

isolate the research situation from the life around the laboratory by

eliminating the many extraneous influences that may effect the dependent 9 variable.7 In addition laboratory experimenters can manipulate the independent variables, can achieve a high degree of specificity in operationalizing definitions, and can replicate studies over and oyer again under almost identical conditions. However, studies are replicated very infrequently. Because naturalistic investigators study phenomena as they occur in natural contexts, a high degree of control is unlikely.

Qpred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavior Research (New York, 1965), P. 379.

9Ibid., p. 379. 30

Naturalistic investigation strives for a low degree of manipulation while laboratory research thrives on a high degree of manipulation.

Willems and Raush state that research activities can be conducted in various ways and that the amount of manipulation will vary according to the manner of research. They state:

Assuming that the target of an investigation is some behavioral phenomenon, it is possible to describe two sep­ arate, though often interdependent, ways in which the investigator may function in the process of obtaining behav­ ioral data: (a) by influencing or arranging the antecedent conditions of the behavior, and (b) by imposing restrictions or limitations on the range or spectrum of response that is, the behavior itself. Furthermore, as described by Figure 3— 1, each of these functions can vary on a continuum.

#1 #2 High Low-High High-High

Degree of #3 Imposition Med Med-Med of Units

#4 #5 Low Low-Low High-Low

Low Med High

Degree of Manipulation of 10 Antecedent Conditions

The first dimension of this diagram describes the investigator’s influence upon, or the manipulation of conditions of the phenomenon being studied.

The second dimension describes the degree to which units are imposed on the phenomenon by the investigator.

According to this diagram, laboratory research is high on both sectors (manipulation of antecedent conditions and degree of imposition

10Willems and Raush, p. 47. 31

of units) and naturalistic research is low on both sectors. In labora­ tory research manipulation of conditions is vigorously controlled. Often the laboratory investigator must impose restrictions (imposition of units) on his subject’s responses in order to maintain this control. In naturalistic research manipulation of conditions and imposition of units must be low in order to maintain "ecological representativeness" and the subject’s unawareness that he is participating in an experiment.

However, it is important to point out that the degree of "ecological representativeness" will vary according to the design of the investi­ gation. Manipulation of conditions and imposition of units will be higher in some naturalistic investigations than in others. Yet in general, laboratory research is higher on both sectors. Willems and Raush comment on manipulation in research when discussing Bruns- wik’s concept of "artificial tying and untying of variables."

One of the favorite arguments against manipulational laboratory research by the proponents of naturalistic research is that the conditions of investigation, and therefore the findings, are artificial in the labora­ tory study. ... What are the specifiable criteria of artificiality? . • • Egon Brunswik dwelt at length on this problem and stated it in terms of 'tying and un­ tying of variables' in his critiques of manipulational research. ... In Brunswik's terms, artificial tying occurs when variables are allowed or made to vary together in ways that persons never confront in their everyday lives, whereas artificial untying occurs when natural covariations of variables are eliminated through experimental control.

Campbell and Stanley also discuss some of the factors which affect representativeness and suggest the need for non-reactive measures of investigations

^Willems and Raush, p. 55 32

* . • factors jeopardizing external validity or repre­ sentativeness . . • reactive or interaction effect to testing, in which a pretest might increase or decrease the respondent’s sensitivity or responsiveness to the experimentable variable • . « use non-reactive measures whenever possible, ... In the usual psychological ex­ periment, if not in educational research, a most prominent source of unrepresentativeness is the patent artificiality of the experimental setting and the student’s knowledge that he is participating in an experiment.

All of these statements support naturalistic methods of investigation.

Rosenthal and Rosnow point out that all scientific Inquiry

is subject to error, and it therefore becomes the task of the investi­ gator to be aware of this, attempt to minimize it, and to estimate the magnitude of such errors in his findings. "The lack of demonstration

of error in certain fields of inquiry often derives from the non­ existence of methodological research into the problem and merely denotes a less advanced stage of that profession." J Like Brunswik and Campbell and Stanley, Rosenthal and Rosnow emphasize the need for maintaining representativeness in an experiment and suggest that experiments which lack representativeness are probably utilizing reac­ tive arrangements. They point out that representativeness can be achieved in both naturalistic and experimental settings. However, in discussing the problem of "subject awareness" (one source of unrepre­ sentativeness), the authors point out that the use of naturalistic methods is one way of eliminating some of this error.

Hie obvious cure for all these artifacts is the disguised experiment in which the respondents (if not the experimenters) are aware of participating in an experiment, are unaware that they are 'being experimented with.* Such experiments are best

-^Donald T. Campbell and Julian C, Stanley, Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago, 19^3pp. 5, 9, 20,

13Willems and Raush, p. 6l. 33

done in natural rather than laboratory settings, not be­ cause natural settings are more representative of the target of generalization, but rather because in natural settings respondents do not suspect they are being ex­ perimented with. Laboratories in general, are perceived as just that, i.e., as settings for experiments.^

Webb and Campbell refer to the awareness of subjects as the "guinea pig effect." They quote from Selltiz and her associates s

The measure process used in the experiment may itself affect the outcome. If people feel that they are ’guinea pigs’ being experimented with, or if they feel that they are being ’tested' and must make a good impression, or if the method of data collection suggests responses or stimu­ lates an interest the subject did not previously feel, the measuring process may distort the experimental results.-45

While these statements support the use of naturalistic techniques as a way of reducing the "guinea pig effect," this can also be attained under experimental conditions. Often, it is the way in which measuring tech­ niques are employed as to whether or not they will affect results. For example, the movie camera can be utilized under naturalistic or exper­ imental settings. If the subjects are aware of it, it will probably alter their behavior regardless of the setting.

An issue which does not require much explanation, but which does contribute to the rationale for naturalistic techniques, is the fairly obvious realization that certain phenomena could not be studied at all if it were not for naturalistic methods. Certain events cannot be brought into the laboratory and studied under close scrutiny. Such

44pobert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow, Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York, 1969), p. 22.

^Eugene Webb and Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest, Unobtrusive Measures (Chicago, 1970)» P« 13» y*

contemporary examples are protest marches, mass riots, and. political

conventions, Willems and Raush comment on the need to study such

phenomena and the role naturalistic investigation can plays

For ethical reasons and sometimes because of their intrin­ sic nature, the correlates and effects of natural disasters, physical disabilities, child rearing regimens, deaths, accidents, and other classes of events are, after certain points, research­ able only through naturalistic methods. And yet if reliable da­ ta can be obtained, such phenomena should enter the behavioral sciences¿I®

In summary, naturalistic investigation is a research methodology

which attempts to study phenomena in their natural context. In natural­

istic investigation, manipulation is low. Imposition of units is low.

Subjects are unaware that they are being studied or observed. Thus,

naturalistic investigation is a function of what the investigator

does. It is a tool for generating and collecting data. Spiker suggests,

"The actual execution of research is always a curious and complex product of the purposes and questions of an investigator, together with his choice of methods to achieve his purposes and answer his questions."^

Finally, both naturalistic and experimental methods of research can pro­ vide meaningful data and can contribute to one another. Menzel makes the following observations s

... I am, in fact convinced that naturalistic and exper­ imental studies can be compatible with each other; that their respective methods can be applied to any situation (instead of being linked to a given situation such as laboratory or field); that both types of information are necessary to a meaningful

16Willems and Raush, p. 61.

I^C. C. Spiker cited in Willems and Raush, p. 67. 35

general science of primate behavior; that any sharp division between naturalistic and experimental methodology is not only undesirable but impossible; and that, finally disputes as to which method or situation is intrinsically best are non-sensi- calJ8

METHOD

Setting

The present study was conducted in a social studies class at an

elementary school in northwest Ohio, This school is located in a rural

community. Most members of the community work on their own individual

farms or in one of the four factories in the town. There is a high

rate of working women. There are few professional people.

Subjects

Subjects were 84 sixth grade students. The majority of the

subjects were white and protestant. A few of the subjects were Mexican

and Catholics. There were no blacks or jews.

In this school students are grouped according to their intelli­ gence and performance. Thus, this investigator did not group the subjects for the purposes of his study. These groupings were part of the natural setting. Prior grouping had proportioned the students in the following manner;

Group 1 (23 students) I.Q, Range—102-134

Group 2 (24 students) I.Q. Range—79-131

Group 3 (24 students) I.Q. Range—83-125

Group 4 (13 students) I.Q. Range—56-94

l^Emil W. Menzel, Jr. in Willems and Raush, p. 78. 36

The teacher who observed, the students for six weeks was the wife of the present investigator.

Procedure

The present study was conducted over a six week period. The classroom was arranged in six different seating arrangements; a new seating arrangement was constructed every week for six weeks. Indivi­ dual students were assigned to their seats through a process of ran­ domization. They remained in the assigned seats throughout each experimental time period. The models for these arrangements were abstracted from Feitler*s study at Syracuse University, and from research conducted by Sommer, Howells and Becker, and Steinzor which indicated that certain arrangements have differing effects on group life. Also, the six arrangements selected were conducive to the size and facilities of the classroom where the investigation took place.

Finally, the investigator chose arrangements which would give the students and teacher an opportunity to sit in various settings and locations in the room.

Week I—(»roup Concept—In this arrangement the desks were arranged in four clusters; six at each clus­ ter. The teacher's desk was loca­ ted in the center of the four clusters. 37

Week II—Circle—In this arrange­ ment the desks were arranged in a circle. The teacher’s desk was integrated within the circle.

Week III—Teacher Among Students— In this arrangement the desks were • • • • • arranged in five rows of five. The teacher’s desk was integrated among • • • • • the rows. • • X • • • • • • • ♦ '• • • •

Week IV—Horseshoe—In this arrange­ ment the desks were arranged in a horseshoe. The teacher’s desk was located at the opening in the horse­ shoe.

Week V—Random Arrangement—In this arrangement the desks were arranged at random around the room. The teacher’s desk was located in approx imately the center of the room. 38

X • • » • • • Week VI—Traditional—In this arrange­ • ••••• ment the desks were arranged in four rows of six. The teacher’s desk was located at the front of the room.

♦Actual reproductions of the arrangements with corresponding student numbers indicating where particular students sat can be found in the appendix.

Dependent Variables

Students were given an attitude test to complete before the start of the six new arrangements (pretest). At the start of each of the six weeks (beginning of each new arrangement) students were given the same attitude test to complete (pretest). At the completion of each of the six weeks (discontinuation of a seating arrangement) students were given the same attitude test to complete (posttest). The following questions were asked of each students

(1) Do you like where you are sitting now?

Very Much______Not at all

(2) Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

Very Much______Not at all

(3) Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

Very Much______Not at all

(4) As of right now, do you like school?

Very Much____ Not at all 39

(5) What is your degree of class participation?

High______Low

(6) What is the degree of your verbal interaction with other students ?

High______Low

Students were Instructed by their teacher on how to complete a semantic differential. It is important to point out that at no time were the students aware that they were participating in this writer’s inves­ tigation, However, the students were aware that they were participating in an experiment ( changing their desks around) for their teacher. This did not seem unusual to them or unnatural. Teachers often request that students change their seating positions in a classroom. The students were told that the findings of the teacher’s "experiment" would benefit both themselves and her. They did not view completion of semantic differ ential scales as an unnatural request. The teacher had previously established herself as an "authority figure" in the room and the students seemed to interpret this request no differently than any other requests she had made to them throughout the year. The teacher made the following statements to her students before administering the first dependent variable s

You’ve been asking me about changing your desks around, and I’ve decided to do what you want. So what we’re going to do is change the desks around every week for the next six weeks—then at the end you can either pick one of the six that I’ve chosen and have that one for the rest of the year or you can chose one of your own. 40

You see I’ve been teaching for two years and I plan to teach for a while longer. I want to know what seating arrange­ ments I should, place my students in in the years to come so I’m asking you to fill out some forms—so I can find out what seating arrangement you like best. You have to answer the questions on the forms very truthfully so I'll know for sure which one you like best so that in years to come, I won’t have to try out all six—I'll know which one works.

At the start of each week and at the end of each week the teacher

was also given a semantic differential to complete for each of the

eighty-three subjects, evaluating them on the following dimensions:

(1) Class participation

High______Low

(2) Written work

Good______Poor

(3) Verbal interaction with students

High______Low

(4) Discipline

Good______Poor

(5) Complaints

High______Low

Class participation was evaluated in relation to student responses to questions and discussions carried on in class. Written work was evalua­

ted according to the results of tests and papers handed in to the teacher.

Verbal interaction with students was evaluated in terms of how much the students talked to one another. Discipline was evaluated with relation to students* conduct. Complaints were evaluated according to the number

of requests for seat changes or a change in the classroom arrangement. 41

These particular dimensions were chosen for evaluation because

the teacher (person who acted as observer) indicated that these were

the dimensions she regularly used to assign grades to students. After

talking to the other sixth grade teachers in the school and also to

the elementary school principal, it was decided that these five dimen­

sions were the major criteria for evaluating students.

In addition to the information gathered from semantic differential

scales in terms of the stated dimensions, the teacher kept a daily diary

of events taking place in the classroom. Also at the end of the six

weeks, students were asked to rank the seating arrangements from 1-6

(l denoting high preference; 6 denoting low preference). Students also provided a written explanation for their choices.

At the start of the study, each of the students were differentiated by initials. No names were used.

ANALYSIS OF DATA PROCEDURES

Since the present study was an exploratory, naturalistic investigation, the investigator did not predict specific results.

Whatever information he could gather about the effects of various seating arrangements on his subjects was of interest to him. In other words, this study was not designed to yield conclusions, in the ordinary sense.

In many experimental situations scientists seek specific results.

If the findings of a study prove to be statistically significant, the study is often termed a "success" and it may then generate further re­ search. However, if the findings are not statistically significant. 42

the study is often considered to be a failure. This is unfortunate,

for many times studies which do not yield statistical significance can

nevertheless offer much information about a given phenomenon. There­

fore, data should be analyzed for what it indicates about a particular

stimulus being studied as well as for the statistically significant

conclusions one can draw from it. Tukey supports this position and

suggests that the only thing a single study can provide is at best a

set of '’indications." He argues that there exists a need in the

sciences for people who concentrate on methods of analyzing data and

interpreting statistical results as well as for people who utilize

scientific judgement more than they use mathematical judgement. Tukey says, as scientists break into new fields of sciencing, they must be more interested in "indication procedures" than in "conclusion pro­ cedures." Finally, he points out that "indications" becomes conclusions only when they turn up time and time again, i.e., are replicated.

Data analysis in the present study utilized the following descriptive statistics:

1. The mean. Subjects’ mean scores across each of the four groups were examined for relative magnitude and for any trends that might have resulted. The present writer followed the formula below in determining relative strengths of association:

1- 1 .'9 low

2- 2.9 slightly high

3- 3*9 moderately high

4- 4.9 high

5- 7 extremely high 2. Canonical correlation. This statistic, primarily descriptive,

examines the relationship of one set of variables to a second set. In the present instance, scores obtained from the teacher for each proxemic arrangement were examined for their relationship to the scores obtained from each subject. The resulting canonical correlation (Rc) Indicates whether or not a given "root” is statistically significant. In some eases, more than one root was significant. The coefficients for variables on both sides indicate the extent to which that variable is contributing to the overall canonical relationship. The present writer followed the formula below in determining relative strengths of association s

,10-,25 moderately high

.26-.40 high

.40 and over - extremely high

Canonical correlation, once again, is considered a descriptive statistic. As such the present writer considered it justifiable to utilize it. The present writer is neither a student of inferential statistics nor experimental design. Hence he confined his analytical methods to those that are considered primarily descriptive, rather than inferential statistics.1 CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Bata analysis in the present study employed the following

descriptive statistics: lata indicating the mean scores for all

eleven dependent variables (pre- and posttests) on each arrangement

for each of the four groups was compared. Subject’s mean scores were

examined for relative magnitude and for any trends that might have

resulted. In interpreting the mean scores the following scale will

obtains

1- 1.9 low

2- 2.9 slightly high

3- 3.9 moderately high

4- 4.9 high

5- 7 extremely high

Data indicating the canonical correlation coefficients for all eleven variables, plus I.Q. scores (pre- and posttests) on each arrangement

over all the groups was also compared. The first five variables reflect the teacher's structural image of students while the second six reflect the students’ image of themselves in each of the various arrangements.

This statistic, primarily descriptive, examines the relationship of one set of variables to a second set. The resulting canonical correlation

(Rc) indicates whether or not a given "root" or "roots" are statistically significant. The coefficients for variables on both sides indicate the extent to which that particular variable is contributing to the overall

44 4-5

canonical relationship. The present writer followed, the formula below

in determining relative strengths of associations

.10-,25 moderately high

.26-,40 high

.40 and over extremely high

It is important to note that while the major purpose for calculating

the mean scores was to observe how individual groups compared on each

of the eleven variables, the major purpose of the canonical correlation

was to examine the differences in the relationship between variable

(in the various arrangements) over all the groups.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 1

Mean scores indicated the results of the pretest prior to the six week investigation. Students had been sitting in the Traditional

Arrangement ( ..?..) before the study began.

Set One : Teacher

Variable Is Class Participation—Groups 1 and 4 were high in

class participation. Groups 2 and 3 were moder­

ately high in class participation.

Variable 2s Written Work—Groups 1-4 were high in quality of

written work, although Groups 1 and 3 scored the

highest of the four groups. 46

TABLE 1

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT (TRADITIONAL) PRIOR SIX WEEK INVESTIGATION, PRETEST

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set One s Teacher

1. Class Partici­ pation Pre 4.7391 3.9167 3.6250 4.0000

2. Written work Pre 4.7826 4.4583 4.8333 4.O769

3. Verbal Interac­ tion with stu­ dents Pre 4.9130 4.0417 4.8750 3.9231

4. Discipline Pre 4.0870 4.8750 4.3750 4.6154

5. Complaints Pre 3.9130 5.1250 4.0417 4.6923

Set Twos Students

6. Do you like where you are sitting now? Pre 5.9130 5.5000 4.2917 4.0000

7. Do you like whom you are sitting next to now? Pre 6.4783 6.0833 5.0000 6.5385

8. Do you like where your teacher is sitting now? Pre 5.0000 3.8750 3.2083 3.7692

9. As of right now, do you like school? Pre 3.3043 3.4167 4.2500 3.1538 47

Table 1 (continued)

10. What is your degree of class participation? Pre 4.6522 4.4167 4.4167 4.5385

11. What is the de­ gree of your verbal interac­ tion with other students? Pre 5.8696 4.7083 4.6667 4.2308 48

Variable 3s Verbal Interaction with Students—Groups 1, 2 and

3 scored high in verbal interaction. Groups 1 and

3 scored higher than 2. Group 4 scored moderately

high in verbal interaction.

Variable 4 s Discipline—Groups 1-4 were perceived to be at a

high level of discipline. Groups 2 and 4 scored

highest.

Variable 5 s Complaints—Group 2 was extremely low in complaints.

Groups 3 and 4 were low in complaints. Group 1 was

moderately low in complaints.

Set Two s Students

Variable 6s Do you like where you are sitting now?—Groups 1

and 2 liked their seating positions to an extremely

high degree. Groups 3 and 4 liked their seating

positions to a high degree.

Variable 7 s Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?—

Groups 1-4 liked whom they were sitting next to,

to an extremely high degree. Groups 1 and 4 scored

the highest.

Variable 8 s Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?—

Group 1 liked where the teacher was sitting to an

extremely high degree. Groups 2, 3» and 4 liked

where the teacher was sitting to a moderately high

degree 49

Variable 9: As of right now, do you like school?—Group 3

liked school to a high degree. Groups 1, 2, and

4 liked school to a moderately high degree.

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation?—

Groups 1-4 revealed a high degree of class partici­

pation. Group 1 and 4 scored the highest.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students ?~Group 1 had an extremely high degree

of verbal interaction. Groups 2, 3» and 4 had high

degree of verbal interaction.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 2

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest prior to the six week investigation. Students had been sitting in the traditional arrangement. x • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

In this particular arrangement the teacher ascribes the following characteristics to students: an extremely high level of verbal interaction, a high number of complaints, a moderate lack of class participation, and a moderately low quality of written work. Students ascribed these char­ acteristics to themselves: an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, a high dislike for the person they were sitting next to, a moderately high dislike for where the teacher was sitting, a moderately high lack of class participation, and a moderately high dislike for school. 50

TABLE 2

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT (TRADITIONAL)..PRIOR TO SIX WEEK INVESTIGATION, PRETEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT *

Set One s Teacher Set Two t Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Verbal Inter­ What is the action with Positive .93 degree of Positive .83 students your verbal interaction with other students ?

Complaints Negative .31 Do you like whom you are Negative .39 sitting next to now?

Class Parti­ cipation Negative .23 Do you like where your Negative .20 teacher is sitting now?

Written work Negative .11 What is your degree of Negative .20 class parti­ cipation ?

As of right do you like Negative .13 school?

*Canonlcal .correlation « .6341 Significance at £ <.0003 51

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 3

mean scores indicated the results of the pre and posttests of

the first arrangement (Group Concept ••• •*• ) for each of the four x groups.

Set One s Teacher

Variable Is Class ftirticipation (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and

4 were moderately high in class participation.

Group 4 scored the highest. Group 3 was slightly

high in class participation. (Posttest)—Group

2 was high in class participation. Groups 1, 3» and

4 were moderately high in class participation. Group

1 was the highest of these three groups.

Variable 2 s Written Work (Pretest )—Group 3 was extremely high

in its quality of written work. Groups 1, 2 and 4

were high in their quality of written work. Group

4 was the highest of these three groups. (Posttest)-

Group 3 was extremely high in its quality of written

work. Groups 1 and 2,were high in their quality of

written work. Group 4 was moderately high in its

quality of written work.

Variable 3« Verbal Interaction with Students (pretest)—Group

4 was high in verbal interaction. ‘ Groups 1, 2,

and 3 were moderately high in verbal interaction.

(Posttest)—Group 3 was extremely high in verbal

interaction. Groups 1, 2, and 4 were high in verbal

interaction. 52

TABLE 3

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #1 (GROUP CONCEPT) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set Ones Teacher

Pre 3.5217 3.6250 2.6667 3.9231 1. Class rurtici- pation Post 3.9130 4.5417 3.1667 3.3077 Diff. .3913 -I.II67 1.5000 - .6154

Pre 4.6956 4.5417 5.2500 4.9231 2. Written Work Post 4.5217 4.6667 5.1250 3.3846 Diff. -.1739 .1250 -.1250 -1.5385

Pre 3.9565 3.9583 3.7083 4.3077 3. Verbal Inter­ action with Post 4.9130 4.9167 5.1350 4.5385 students Diff. .9565 .9584 1.4167 .2308

Pre 4.9130 4.7083 4.9167 4.9231 4, Discipline Post 4.8261 4.6250 4.4167 4.5385

Diff. -.0869 -.0833 -.5000 -.3846

Pre 4.9130 5.9583 5.6250 7.0000 5. Complaints Post 5.1739 4.6250 6.3333 5.9231 Diff. .2609 .5834 .7083 -1.0769

Set Two: Students

Pre 3.3913 2.8750 2.8333 2.0769 6. Do you like where you are Post 3.3913 3.3333 2.4167 2.0769 sitting now? Diff. .0000 .4583 -.4166 .0000 53

Thble 3 (continued)

7. Do you like Pre 3•9565 2.4583 2.6667 3.3077 whom you are 3.6956 2.5833 sitting next Post 2.2500 2.9231 to now? Diff. - .2609 .1250 - .4167 - .3846

8. Do you like Pre 4.6956 5.2083 4.2500 5.8462 where your 4.3043 5.0833 4.5833 teacher is Post 4.9231 sitting now? Diff. - .3913 - .1250 .3333 - .9231

9. As of right Pre 3.3913 3.7083 3.7500 4.9231 now, do you Post 3.7826 3.6250 4.7500 4.2308 like school? Diff. .3913 - .0833 1.0000 - .6923

10. What is your Pre 4.5217 4.8750 3.9583 3.9231 degree of Post 5.4783 5.0417 4.1250 3.8462 class parti­ cipation? Diff. 1.1566 .1667 .1667 - .0769

11. What is the Pre 3.9565 4.0000 4.2500 4.0000 degree of 4.9565 your verbal Post 4.5417 4.3750 4.3846 interaction Diff. 1.0000 .5^17 .1250 .3846 with other students ? 54

Variable 4 s Discipline (Pretest)—Groups 1-4 were at a high

level of discipline. Group 2 was the lowest of

the four groups. (Posttest)—Groups 1-4 were at

a high level of discipline. Group 1 was the high­

est of the four groups. Group 3 was the lowest.

Variable 5’ Complaints (Pretest)—Group 4 had an extremely

low number of complaints. Groups 2 and 3 also

had an extremely low number of complaints. Group

4 had the lowest number of the three groups. Group

1 had a low number of complaints. (Posttest)—

Groups 1-4 had an extremely low number of complaints.

Group 2 had the lowest number of complaints. Group

1 had the highest.

Set Two i Students

Variable 6 s Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Group 1 liked its seating position to a moderately

high degree. Groups 2, 3» and 4 liked their seating

positions to a slightly high degree. Group 2 was

the highest of the three groups. (Posttest)—Groups

1 and 2 liked their seating positions to a moderately

high degree. Groups 3 and 4 liked their seating

positions to a slightly high degree.

Variable ?: Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

(Pretest)—Subjects in Group 1 liked whom they

were sitting next to, to a moderately high degree. 55

Subjects in Group 4 liked whom they were sitting

next to to a moderately high degree. Subjects in

Groups 2 and 3 liked whom they were sitting next to

to a slight degree. (Posttest)—Subjects in Group

1 liked whom they were sitting next to to a moder­

ately high degree. Groups 2, 3, and 4 liked whom

they were sitting next to to a slightly high degree.

Variable 8: Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest)—Groups 2 and 4 liked where their teacher

was sitting to an extremely high degree. Groups 1

and 3 liked where their teacher was sitting to a

high degree. (Posttest)—Group 2 liked where the

teacher was sitting to an extremely high degree.

Groups 1, 3, and 4 liked where their teacher was

sitting to a high degree. Group 4 was the highest

of the three groups. Group 1 was the lowest.

Variable 9s As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Group 4 liked school to a high degree. Groups 1,

2, and 3 liked school to a moderately high degree.

Group 3 was the highest of the three groups. Group

1 was the lowest. (Posttest)—Groups 3 and 4 liked

school to a high degree. Group 1 and 2 liked school

to a moderately high degree.

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation? (Pretest)—

Groups 1 and 2 had a high degree of class partici­

pation. Groups 3 and 4 had a moderately high degree 56

of class participation. (Posttest)—Groups 1

and 2 had an extremely high degree of class

participation. Group 3 had a high degree of class

participation. Group 4 had a moderately high degree

of class participation.

Variable 11t What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 2, 3» and 4 had

a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 1 had

a moderately high degree of verbal interaction.

Group 3 was the highest. (Posttest)—Groups 1-4

had a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 2

was the highest of the three groups.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 4

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest to the first arrangement (Group Concept •*• .*. ) over all the groups. • • •••

In this particular arrangement (Group Concept) the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students : an extremely low number of complaints, a moderate^ quality of written work, a high lack of class participation. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high opinion of whom they were sitting next to, a high opinion of where they were sitting, a moderately high opinion of school, and a moderately high lack of class participation. In addition low I.Q. scores correlate extremely high with this arrangement. 57

TABLE 4

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #1 (GROUP CONCEPT) PRETEST WITH O SIGNIFICANT ROOTS*

Set One s Teacher Set Twos Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .92 Do you like whom you are Positive .43 sitting next to now?

Written Work Positive .18 Do you like where you are Positive .32 sitting now?

As of right now do you like Positive .11 school?

Class Par- ticipation Negative .34 I.Q. Negative .73

What is your degree of class Negative .21 participation ?

*Canonical. Correlation «= .4673

Not significant, £>.0782 58

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 5

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the

posttest to the first arrangement (Group Concept . •• . *• ) over all x * the groups. .*. • •

On the posttest the teacher associated the following character­

istics with students: extremely high verbal interaction, moderately low quality of written work, moderately high lack of class participation, moderately high level of discipline. The students ascribed these char­ acteristics to themselves: an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, a moderately high opinion of where they are sitting, an extremely high dislike of whom they are sitting next to, a high dislike of school, and a moderately high dislike for their teacher’s seating position.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 6

Mean scores indicated the results of the pre and posttests for the second arrangement (Circle • •) for each of the four groups. • • •

Set One : Teacher

Variable 1: Class Participation (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 4

were moderately high in class participation. Group

2 was the highest of the three groups. Group 4 was

the lowest. Group 3 was slightly high in class

participation. (Posttest)—Groups 1-4 were moderately

high in class participation. Group 2 was the highest

of the four groups. Group 3 was the lowest. 59

TABLE 5

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #1 (GROUP CONCEPT) POSTTEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One : Teacher Set Twos Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Verbal interac­ Do you like tion with Positive .81 where you are Positive .26 students sitting now?

What is the de­ gree of your verbal inter­ Positive 1.10 action with other students?

Written work Negative .21 Do you like whom you are Negative .59 sitting next to now?

Class Partici­ Negative .16 As of right pation now, do you Negative .38 like school?

Discipline Negative .14 Do you like where your Negative .21 teaGher is sitting now?

*Canonical Correlation ® .5381

Significant at £ C .0169 60

TABLE 6

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #2 (CIRCLE) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set One: Teacher

Class Ihrti- Pre 3.5217 3.7083 2.4583 3.2308 cipation Post 3.6956 3.9167 3.2917 3.6923 Diff. .1739 .2084 .8334 .4615

Written Pre 4.9130 4.7917 6.2917 3.9231 Work Post 4.6087 4.3750 4.8333 3.4615 Diff. - .3043 - .4167 -1.4584 - .4616

4.9167 4.8462 Verbal Inter­ Pre 5.O87O 4.0833 action with Post 4.4783 5.3750 4.7083 5.1538 students Diff. - .6087 .4583 .6250 .3076

Pre 3.9565 3.9583 5.0417 3.7692 iTrt/X O UXJTJilX JiUnlioO Post 4.3043 3.4167 3.8333 3.8462 Diff. .3478 - .5416 -1.2084 .0770

3.8333 6.6667 3.9231 Complaints Pre 3.7391 Post 4.4348 4.7917 5.5417 6.8462 Diff. .6957 .9584 -I.I25O 2.8231

Set Twos Students

3.913O 4.4167 4.1667 3.6154 Do you like Pre where you are Post 4.O87O 3.9583 3.1667 2.3846 sitting now? Diff. .1740 - .4584 -1.0000 -I.2308

Do you like Pre 4.1739 3.9583 4.3333 3.1538 whom you are Post 3.8696 4.2083 3.9583 2.4615 sitting next to now? Diff. - .3043 .2500 - .3750 .6923 6l

Thble 6 (continued)

8. Do you like Pre 4.8261 4.2917 4.5OOO 6.3077 where your Post 4.5652 4.4167 3.6250 teacher is 4.6154 sitting now? Diff. - .2605 .1250 - .8750 -1.6923

9. As of right Pre 4.6087 3.8750 3.4167 5.1538 now, do you Post 4.5217 4.2917 4.0833 5.0769 like school? Diff. - .O87O .4167 .6666 - .0769

10. What is your Pre 5.3043 4.7083 4.1667 3.8462 degree of Post 5.4348 4.9167 4.0417 2.8462 class par­ ticipation ? Diff. .1305 .2084 - .1250 1.0000

11. What is the 4.9130 4.6667 4.2083 degree of Pre 4.3077 your verbal Post 5.6956 4.8333 4.25OO 3.6154 interaction with other Diff. .5826 .1666 .0417 - .6923 students? 62

Variable 2: Written Work (Pretest)-—Group 3 was extremely high

in its quality of written work. Groups 1 and 2 were

high in their quality of written work. Group 4 was

moderately high in its quality of written work.

(Posttest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 were high in their

quality of written work. Group 4 was moderately

high.

Variable 3: Verbal Interaction with Students (Pretest)—Group

1 was extremely high in verbal interaction. Groups

2, 3» and 4 were high in verbal interaction. (Post­

test )--Groups 2 and 4 were extremely high in verbal

interaction. Groups 1 and 3 were high in verbal

interaction.

Variable 4t Discipline (Pretest)—Group 3 had an extremely high

level of discipline. Groups 1, 2, and 4 had a mod­

erately high level of discipline. (Posttest)—

Group 1 had a high level of discipline. Groups 2,

3 and 4 had a moderately high level of discipline.

Group 2 was lowest.

Variable 5s Complaints (Pretest)—Group 3 had an extremely low

number-of complaints. Groups 1, 2, and 4 had a

moderately low number of complaints. Group 1 had

the highest number of complaints. (Posttest)—

Groups 1, 2, and 4 had an extremely low number of

complaints. Groups 1 and 2 had a moderately low

number of complaints. Group 1 had the highest number

of complaints. 63

Set Two i Students

Variable 6: Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Groups 2 and 3 liked where they were sitting to a

high degree. Groups 1 and 4 liked where they were

sitting to a moderately high degree. Group 4 was

the least satisfied. (Posttest)—Group 1 liked where

they were sitting to a high degree. Groups 2 and 3

liked where they were sitting to a moderately high

degree. Group 4 liked where it was sitting to a

slight degree.

Variable 7: Do you like whom you are sitting next to? (Pretest)—

Members of groups 1 and 3 liked whom they were sitting

next to to a high degree. Members of Groups 2 and

4 liked whom they were sitting next to to a moderately

high degree. (Posttest)—Members of Group 2 liked

whom they were sitting next to to a high degree.

Members of Groups 1 and 3 liked whom they were sitting

next to to a moderately high degree. Members of Group

4 liked whom they were sitting next to to a slightly

high degree.

Variable 8s Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest)—Group 4 liked where their teacher was

sitting to an extremely high degree. Groups 1,

2 and 3 liked where their teacher was sitting to a

high degree. Group 2 was the least satisfied. 64

(Posttest)—Group 1, 2, and 4 liked where their

teacher was sitting to a high degree. Group 2

was the least satisfied of the three groups.

Group 3 liked where their teacher was sitting to

a moderately high degree.

Variable 9 s As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Group 4 liked school to an extremely high degree.

Group 1 liked school to a high degree. Groups 2

and 3 liked school to a moderately high degree.

(Posttest)—Group 4 liked school to an extremely

high degree. Groups 1, 2, and 3 liked school to a

high degree. Group 3 was the least satisfied of

the three groups.

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation? (Pre­

test)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of

class participation. Groups 2 and 3 had a high

degree of class participation. Group 4 had a mod­

erately high degree of class participation. (Post­

test)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of class

participation. Groups 2 and 3 had a high degree of

class participation. Group 4 had a slightly high

degree of class participation.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal Interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 1-4 had a high

degree of verbal interaction. Group 1 was the

highest in verbal interaction. Group 3 was the lowest 65

(Posttest)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree,

of verbal interaction. Groups 2 and 3 had a high

degree of verbal interaction. Group 4 had a mod­

erately high degree of verbal interaction.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 7

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest

for the second arrangement (Circle . * • ) over all the groups.

In this particular arrangement the teacher ascribed the following

characteristics to students: an extremely high quality of written work,

an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, a high degree of class

participation, a high degree of discipline, an extremely high number of

complaints. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves:

an extremely high satisfaction for where they were sitting, a high degree

of class participation, an extremely high dislike for whom they were

sitting next to, a high dislike for where the teacher was sitting, a

high dislike for school, and a moderately high lack of verbal inter­

action. In addition high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with

this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 8

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the post­ test for the second arrangement (Circle *. ) over all the groups.

•. • (Root l)—On the posttest the teacher associated the following characteristics to students: an extremely low number of complaints, an 66

TABLE 7

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #2 (CIRCLE) PRETEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set Ones Teacher Set Twos Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Written Work Positive .66 Do you like where you are Positive .58 sitting now?

Verbal interac­ tion with stu­ Positive .62 I.Q. Positive .51 dents

Class Partici­ What is your pation Positive .36 degree of class Positive .37 participation ?

Discipline Positive .30

Complaints Negative .65 Do you like whom you are sitting Negative .57 next to now?

Do you like where your tea­ Negative .40 cher is sitting now?

As of right now, do you Negative .31 like school?

What is the de­ gree of your verbal interac­ Negative .15 tion with other students ?

*Canonical Correlation .4888 Significant at .1082 67

TABLE 8

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #2 (CIRCLE) POSTTEST WITH 2 SIGNIFTCANT ROOTS*

Root 1

Set One : Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .70 Do you like where your Positive .38 teacher is sitting now?

As of right now, do you like Positive .32 school?

Do you like where you are sitting Positive .26 now?

Verbal interact tion with Negative .63 What is the de­ students gree of your verbal interac­ Negative .72 tion with other students

Written Work Negative .16 What is your de­ gree of class Negative .44 participation ?

Do you like whom you are sitting Negative .14 next to now?

♦Canonical Correlation «= .6032 Significant at ¡> ^. 0002 68

Thble 8 (Continued)

Root 2

Set Che : Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Class Partici­ pation Positive .48 I.Q. Positive .70

Written Work Positive .24 What is your degree of class Positive .48 participation?

Do you like whom you are sitting Positive .32 next to now?

Verbal inter­ action with Negative .68 What Is the de­ students gree of your ver­ bal interaction Negative .67 with other stu­ dents?

Complaints Negative .50 Do you like where you are Negative .63 sitting now?

*Ganonical Correlation .4846

Significant at £ <\ .0321 69

extremely high lack of verbal interaction, a moderate poor quality of written work. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselvess a high satisfaction toward the teacher's seating position, a high satisfaction toward school, a high satisfaction toward their seating positions, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, an extremely high lack of class participation, and a moderately high dis­ like for whom they were sitting next to.

(Root 2)—On the posttest, the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely high degree of class partici­ pation, a moderately high quality of written work, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, and an extremely high number of complaints.

The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high degree of class participation, a high satisfaction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high lack of verbal inter- * action, and an extremely high dislike for where they were sitting.

In addition high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 9

Mean scores indicated the results of pre and posttests for the third arrangement (Teacher Among Students ) I°r each of the four groups.

Set One : Teacher

Variable 1: Glass Participation (Pretest )—Group 1 had a

moderately high degree of class participation. 70

TABLE 9

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #3 (TEACHER AMONG STUDENTS) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set One s Teacher

Pre 3.1739 2.8333 2.6667 2.9231 Class fartici- pation Post 4.9565 3.8333 3.2083 3.5385 Diff. 1.7826 1.0000 .5416 .6154

Pre 4.3043 4.0000 4.7O83 3.4615 Written Work . . . Post 5.5257 5.0000 5.1667 4.0000 Diff. 1.2214 1.0000 .4584 .5385

Verbal Inter­ Pre 3.9565 3.6250 4.4167 4.7692 action with Post 4.1739 5.2083 5.1667 5.3846 students Diff. .2174 1.5833 .7500 .6154

Pre 4.6522 ^.7917 3.9167 4.23O8 Discipline Post 5.0870 4.5833 3.8333 4.3846 Diff. .4348 - .2084 - .0834 .1538

Pre 2.7391 4.5833 4.1250 6.8462 Complaints Post 6.6087 5.7917 5.9583 3.7692 Diff. 3.8696 1.2084 1.8333 -3.0750

Set Two: Students

Pre 3.6522 3.5833 4.5OOO 2.7692 Do you like where you are Post 3.913Ô 4.0000 3.7083 2.3077 sitting now? Diff. .2608 .4167 - .7917 - .4615

Do you like Pre 3.4348 3.7O83 4.2917 2.6I54 whom you are Post 3.9130 4.0000 3.5833 2.0000 sitting next to now? Diff. .4788 .2917 - .7084 - .6154 71

Tàble 9 (continued)

8. Do you like Pre 3.9565 i^,b-l67 5.0417 3.7692 where your Post 4.2174 3,3750 4.2917 4.2308 teacher is sitting now? Diff. .2609 1.0417 - .7500 .4616

9. As of right Pre 4.3478 4.0417 4.4167 4.8462 now, do you Post 4.0000 3.3750 4.5OOO 5.23O8 like school? Diff. - .3478 - .6667 .0833 .3846

10. What is your Pre 5.0000 4.3750 4.5OOO 5.23O8 degree of class Post 5.4783 4.4167 3.8333 2.6154 participation? Diff. .4783 .0417 - .5417 - .5384

11. What is the degree of Pre 4.8696 3.9167 4.3333 4.0769 your verbal Post 4.5217 5.1250 4.3750 2.8462 interaction with other Diff. - ,3^79 1.2083 - .0417 -I.2307 students ? 72

Groups 2, 3, and 4 had a slightly high degree of

class participation. Group 4 was the highest of

the three groups. Group 3 was the lowest. (Post--:

test)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of class

participation. Groups 2, 3, and 4 had a moderately

high degree of class participation. Group 2 was

the highest of the three groups. Group 3 was the

lowest.

triable 2s Written Work (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a

high quality of written work. Group 3 was the high­

est of the three groups. Group 2 was the lowest.

Group 4 had a moderately high quality of written

work. (Posttest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had an extremely

high degree of written work. Group 1 was the highest

of the three groups. Group 2 was the lowest. Group

4 had a high degree of written work.

Variable 3 s Verbal Interaction with Students (Pretest)—Groups 3

and 4 had a high degree of verbal interaction. Group

4 was the highest. Groups 1 and 2 had a moderately

high degree of verbal interaction. Group 2 was the

lowest. (Posttest)—Groups 2, 3, and 4 had an

extremely high degree of verbal interaction. Group

4 was the highest. Group 3 was the lowest of the

three groups. Group 1 had a high degree of verbal

interaction 73

Variable 4: Discipline (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 4 had a high

degree of discipline. Group 2 was the highest of

the three groups. Group 4 was the lowest. Group

3 had a moderately high degree of discipline.

(Posttest)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of

discipline. Groups 2 and 4 had a high degree of

discipline. Group 3 had a moderately high degree

of discipline.

Variable 5s Complaints (Pretest)—Group 4 had an extremely low

number of complaints. Groups 2 and 3 had a low

number of complaints. Group 1 had a slightly low

number of complaints. (Posttest)—Groups 1, 2, and

3 had an extremely low number of complaints. Group

1 was the lowest of the three groups. Group 2 was

the highest of the three groups. Group 4 had a

moderately low number of complaints.

Set Two i Students

Variable 6: Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Subjects in Group 3 liked where they were sitting

to a high degree. Subjects in Groups 1 and 2 liked

where they were sitting to a moderately high degree.

Group 4 liked where it was sitting to a slightly

high degree. (Posttest)—Group 2 liked where it

was sitting to a high degree. Subjects in Groups

1 and 3 liked where they were sitting to a moder­

ately high degree. Subjects in Group 4 liked 7^

where they were sitting to a slightly high

degree.

Variable ?! Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

(Pretest)—Subjects in Group 3 liked whom they

were sitting next to to a high degree. Subjects in

Groups 1 and 2 liked whom they were sitting next to

to a moderately high degree. Subjects in Group 4

liked whom they were sitting next to to a slightly

high degree. (Posttest)~Subjects in Group 2 liked

whom they were sitting next to to a high degree.

Groups 2 and 3 liked whom they were sitting next to

to a moderately high degree. Subjects in Group 4

liked whom they were sitting next to to a slightly

high degree.

Variable 8: Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest )~Group 3 liked where its teacher was

sitting to an extremely high degree. Group 2

liked where its teacher was sitting to a high

degree. Groups 1 and 4 liked where their teacher

was sitting to a moderately high degree. (Post­

test)—Groups 1, 3, and 4 liked where their teacher

was sitting to a high degree. Group 3 was the most

satisfied of the three groups. Group 1 was the

least satisfied of the three groups. Group 2 liked

where its teacher was sitting to a moderately high

degree« 75

Variable 9 s As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Groups 1-4 liked school to a high degree. Group 4

was the most satisfied of the four groups. Group

2 was the least satisfied. (Posttest)—Group 4

liked school to an extremely high degree. Groups 1

and 3 liked school to a high degree. Group 2 liked

school to a moderately high degree.

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation (Pretest)-

Group 1 had an extremely high degree of class partici

pation. Groups 2 and 3 had a high degree of class

participation. Group 4 had a moderately high degree

of class participation. (Posttest)—Group 1 had an

extremely high degree of class participation. Group

2 had a high degree of class participation. Group

3 had a moderately high degree of class participation

Group 4 had a slightly high degree of class partici­

pation.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 1, 3 and 4 had a

high degree of verbal interaction. Group 1 was the

highest of the three groups. Group 4 was the lowest.

Group 2 had a moderately high degree of verbal inter­

action. (Posttest)—Group 2 had an extremely high

degree of verbal interaction. Groups 1 and 3 had a

high degree of verbal interaction. Group 4 had a

slightly high degree of verbal interaction. 76

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 10

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest

for the third arrangement (Teacher Among Students *!xZZ ) over all the

groups.

(Root l) In this particular arrangement, the teacher ascribed

the following characteristics to students: extremely high class

participation, an extremely high lack of verbal Interaction, an extremely

high lack of discipline, a moderately high number of complaints, a

moderately poor quality of written work. The students ascribed these

characteristics to themselves: an extremely high degree of class participation, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, a moderately high dislike for where the teacher was sitting, a moderately high dislike for whom they were sitting next to, a moderately high dislike for school. I.Q. scores correlate high with this arrangement.

(Root 2) In this particular arrangement, the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely low number of complaints, a moderately high degree of discipline, a moderately high degree of class participation, a moderately high quality of written work, and a moderately high degree of verbal interaction. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high satis­ faction toward school, an extremely high satisfaction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, a high lack of class participation, and a moderately high dislike for where the teacher was sitting. In addition low I.Q. scores correlated ex­ tremely high with this arrangement. 77

TABLE 10

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #3 (TEACHER AMONG STUDENTS) PRETEST WITH 2 SIGNIFICANT ROOTS*

Root 1

Set One : Teacher Set Two: Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Class Partici­ What is your pation Positive .43 degree of class Positive .45 participation ?

I.Q. Positive .35

Verbal Interac­ What is the de­ tion with stu­ Negative 1.47 gree of your dents verbal interac­ Negative .9Q tion with other students ?

Discipline Negative .55 Do you like where your Negative .25 teacher is sitting now?

Complaints Negative .21 Do you like whom you are Negative .18 sitting next to now?

Written Work Negative .17 As of right now, do you like Negative .18 school?

* Canonical Correlation .6006

Significant at 0004 78

Thble 10 (continued.)

Root 2

Set One : Teacher. Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .96 As of right now, do you Positive .50 like school?

Discipline Positive .19 Do you like whom you are Positive .48 sitting next to now?

Class Partici­ pation Positive .15 I.Q. Negative .63

Written Work Positive .14 What is the degree of your verbal inter­ Negative .61 action with other students?

Verbal inter­ What is your action with Positive .13 degree of class Negative .29 students participation ?

Do you like where your Negative .15 teacher is sitting now?

* Canonical Correlation - .5233 Significant at £^.0570 79

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 11

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the

posttest for the third arrangement (Teacher Among Students ..x..)

over all the groups.

In the Posttest the teacher ascribed the following character­ istics to students: an extremely low amount of complaints, an extremely high degree of class participation, a high lack of discipline, a mod­ erately high lack of verbal interaction. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: a high degree of class participation, a moderately high satisfaction for whom they were sitting next to, a moderately high satisfaction with school, a moderately high satisfaction toward the teacher’s seating position, and a high dislike for where they were sitting.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 12

Mean scores indicated the results of pre and posttests of the fourth arrangement (Horseshoe • •) for each of the four groups. •' ■* •••

Set One: Teacher

Variable 1: Class Ih.rticipation (Pretest)—Group 2 was high in

class participation. Groups 1, 3» and 4 were mod­

erately high in class participation. Group 4 was

the lowest group. (Posttest)—Group 1 was high in

class participation. Groups 2, 3» and 4 were mod­

erately high. Group 4 was the highest of the three

groups. Group 3 was the lowest. 80

TABLE 11

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #3 (TEACHER AMONG STUDENTS) POSTTEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One : Teacher Set Two: Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .77 I.Q. Positive • 86

Class Partici­ pation Positive .77 What is your degree of class Positive .27 participation ?

Do you like whom you are sitting Positive .24 next to now?

As of right now, do you like Positive .11 school?

Do you like where your Positive .10 teacher is sitting now?

Discipline Negative .26 Do you like where you are Negative .33 sitting now?

Verbal interaction Negative .12 with students

*Canonical Correlation = .6490

Significant at p ,0005 81

TABLE 12

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #4 (HORSESHOE) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set Ones Teacher

4.0000 3.958 3.6154 Class Parti­ Pre 3.7391 cipation Post 4.3913 3.6667 3.0833 3.9231 Diff. .6522 - .3333 - .8750 .3077

Pre 5.1304 5.1667 5.1667 4.1538 Written Work Post 5.3043 4.6250 4.5OOO 4.23O8 Diff. .1739 - .5417 - .6667 .0770

4.1667 5.1667 Verbal Inter­ Pre 4.3478 5.23O8 action with Post 4.6956 4.7O83 5.1250 5.0769 students Diff. .3478 .5416 - .0417 .1539

Pre 5.0435 4.4167 4.0000 4.2308 Discipline Post 4.6956 3.5417 3.4167 4.2308 Diff. .3479 - .8750 .5833 .0000

Pre 6.2174 5.5833 4.8750 3.3846 Complaints Post 6.8261 6.6667 7.0000 4.0000 Diff. .6087 1.0834 2.1250 .6154

Set Two: Students

3.3043 3.9167 3.7083 2.6923 Do you like Pre where you are Post 3.4348 3.9583 3.6667 2.6154 sitting now? Diff. .1305 .0416 - .0416 - .0769

Do you like Pre 3.7391 4.5833 3.2083 2.6154 whom you are Post 3.6522 4.1667 3.7O83 2.6154 sitting next to now? Diff. - .0869 - .4l66 .5000 .0000 82

ïhble 12 (continued)

8. Do you like Pre 4,4783 4.3750 4.3750 4.2308 where your 4.1739 4.0833 4.4583 4.3846 teacher is Post sitting now? Diff. .3044 - .2917 .0833 .1538

9. As of right Pre 3.4348 3.75OO 4.3333 4.4615 now, do you Post 4.6522 3.8750 4.4583 4.3846 like school? Diff. 1.2174 .1250 - .1250 - .7692

10. What is your Pre 4.7391 4.1667 3.7500 2.6923 degree of Post 5.O87O 4.1250 3.5OOO 2.6923 class par­ ticipation? Diff. .3479 - .0417 - .2500 - .3846

11. What is the 3.0769 degree of Pre 4.9565 4.3750 4.3333 your verbal Post 4.2609 4.1250 4.4583 2.6923 interaction with other Diff. - .6956 - .2500 .1250 - .3846 students? 83

Variable 2s Written Work (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 were

extremely high in their quality of written work.

Group 4 was high in its quality of written work.

(Posttest)—Group 1 was extremely high in its

quality of written work. Groups 2, 3, and 4 were

high in their quality of written work. Group 4

was the lowest of the four groups.

Variable 3s Verbal Interaction with Students (Pretest)—Groups

3 and 4 were extremely high in verbal interaction.

Group 4 was highest. Groups 1 and 2 were high in

verbal interaction. Group 2 was the lowest of the

four groups. (Posttest)—Groups 3 and 4 were ex­

tremely high in verbal interaction. Group 4 was

the highest. Groups 1 and 2 were high in* verbal

interaction. Group 1 was the lowest of the four

groups.

Variable 4: Discipline (Pretest)—Group 1 had an extremely

high degree of discipline. Groups 2, 3» and 4

had a high degree of discipline. Group 3 was the

lowest of the four groups. (Posttest)—Groups 1

and 4 had a high degree of discipline. Groups

2 and 3 had a moderately low degree of discipline.

Group 1 was the highest of the four groups. Group

3 was the lowest of the four groups. 84

Variable 5s Complaints (Pretest)—Groups 1 and 2 had an ex­

tremely low amount of complaints. Group 3 had a

low amount of complaints. Group 4 had a moder­

ately low amount of complaints. (Posttest)—

Groups 1, 2, and 3 had an extremely low amount of

complaints. Group 3 had the lowest amount of the

three groups. Group 4 had a low amount of com­

plaints.

Set Two t Students

Variable 6: Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Subjects in Groups 1, 2, and 3 liked where they

were sitting to a moderately high degree. Subjects

in Group 2 were the most satisfied of the three

groups. Subjects in Group 4 liked where they were

sitting to a slightly high degree. (Posttest)—Groups

1, 2, and 3 liked where they were sitting to a

moderately high degree. Group 2 was the highest.

Group 4 liked where they were sitting to a slightly

high degree.

Variable 7: Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

(Pretest)—Subjects in Group 2 liked whom they were

sitting next to to a high degree. Subjects in Groups

1 and 3 liked whom they were sitting next to to a

moderately high degree. Subjects in Group 4 liked

whom they were sitting next to to a slightly high

degree. (Posttest)—Subjects in Group 2 liked whom 85

they were sitting next to to a high degree.

Subjects in Groups 1 and 3 liked whom they were

sitting next to to a moderately high degree.

Subjects in Group 4 liked whom they were sitting

next to to a slightly high degree.

Variable 8: Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest)—Groups 1-4 liked where their teacher

was sitting to a high degree. Group 1 was the most

satisfied. Group 2 was the least satisfied, (Post­

test)—Groups 1-4 liked where their teacher was

sitting to a high degree. Group 3 was the most

satisfied. Group 2 was the least satisfied.

Variable 9t As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Groups 3 and 4 liked school to a high degree. Groups

1 and 2 liked school to a moderately high degree.

Group 1 was the least satisfied. (Posttest)—

Groups 1 and 3 liked school to a high degree. Groups

2 and 4 liked school to a moderately high degree.

Group 4 was the least satisfied.

Variable 10s What is your degree of class participation? (Pretest)—

Groups 1 and 2 had a high degree of class participa­

tion. Group 3 had a moderately high degree of

participation. Group 4 had a slightly high degree

of class participation. (Posttest)—Group 1 had an

extremely high degree of class participation. Group 2 86

had a high degree of class participation. Group

3 had a moderately high degree of class partici­

pation. Group 4 had a slightly high degree of

class participation.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3

had a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 1

was the highest. Group 4 had a moderately high

degree of verbal interaction. (Posttest)—Groups

1, 2, and 3 had a high degree of verbal interac­

tion. Group 3 was the highest of the three groups.

Group 4 had a slightly high degree of verbal inter­

action.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 13

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest

to the fourth arrangement (Horseshoe *. • )) over all the groups. •..*

(Root l) In this particular arrangement (Horseshoe) the teacher

ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely low number of complaints, a high degree of class participation, a moderately

high quality of written work, an extremely high lack of discipline, and an extremely high lack of verbal interaction. The students ascribed these

charactertistics to themselves: an extremely high satisfaction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high degree of class partici­ pation, a moderately high degree of satisfaction toward their teacher’s 87

TABLE 13

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #4 (HORSESHOE) PRETEST WITH 2 SIGNIFICANT ROOTS*

Root 1

Set One s Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .84 Do you like whom you are sitting next Positive .68 to now?

Class Parti­ What is your cipation Positive .34 degree of Positive .52 class parti­ cipation?

Written Work Positive .20 Do you like where your Positive .19 teacher is sitting now?

What is the de­ gree of your verbal inter­ Positive .18 action with other students?

I.Q. Positive .17

Discipline Negative .94 As of right now do you like Negative .29 school?

Verbal inter­ Do you like action with Negative .76 where you are Negative .20 students sitting now?

*Canonical Correlation = »5915 Significant at £ ^.0003 88

Tàble 13 (continued. )

Root 2

Set One s Teacher Set TWo: Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Discipline Positive 1.32 As of right now, do you Positive 1.07 like school?

Verbal inter­ action with Positive .62 I.Q. Positive .55 students

Written Work Positive .14 Do you like where your Positive .24 teacher is sitting now?

Complaints Positive .10 Do you like whom you are Positive .12 sitting next to now?

Do you like where you are Negative .52 sitting now?

What is the de­ gree of your verbal inter­ Negative .32 action with other students?

*Canonical Correlation « .5088 Significant at £ ^.0281 89

seating position, a moderately high degree of verbal interaction, a

high dislike for school, and a moderately high dislike toward their

seating position. In addition high I.Q. scores correlated moderately

high.

(Pretest—Root 2) In this particular arrangement (Horseshoe)

the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an

extremely high degree of discipline, an extremely high degree of verbal

interaction, a moderately high quality of written work, a moderately

low number of complaints. The students ascribed these characteristics

to themselves: an extremely high satisfaction toward school, a mod­

erately high satisfaction toward the teacher’s seating position, a

moderately high satisfaction toward the individuals they were sitting

next to, an extremely high dislike toward where they were sitting, and

a high lack of verbal interaction. In addition high I.Q. scores

correlated extremely high with this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 14

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the post- , x • test to the fourth arrangement (Horseshoe . •) over all the groups. ••••

On the posttest the teacher ascribed the following character­

istics with students: an extremely low amount of complaints, a high degree of class participation, a high quality of written work, a high lack of verbal interaction. The students ascribed these characteristics

to themselves: an extremely high degree of class participation, a moderately high degree of satisfaction toward the teacher’s seating 90

TABLE 14

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #4 (HORSESHOE) POSTTEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One : Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive .58 I.Q. Positive .61

Class ftirtici- What is your pation Positive .39 degree of class Positive .55 participation ?

Written Work Positive .39 Do you like where you are Positive .24 sitting now?

Do you like where your Positive .21 teacher is sitting now?

Verbal inter­ Do you like action with Negative .28 whom you are Negative .11 students sitting next to now?

^Canonical Correlation = .6393

Significant at £ ^. 0007 91

position, and moderately high dislike for the person they were sitting next to. In addition, high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 15

Mean scores indicated the results of pre and posttests of the fifth arrangement (Random •* *. x *.) for each of the four groups. • •

Set One : Teacher

Variable 1: Glass ihrticipation (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 4

were moderately high in class participation. Group

4 was the highest of the three groups. Group 3 was

slightly high in class participation. (Posttest)—

Group 1 was high in class participation. Groups 2

and 4 were moderately high in class participation.

Group 3 was slightly high in class participation.

Variable 2s Written Work (Pretest)—Groups 1 and 2 were ex­

tremely high in their quality of written work.

Group 1 was the highest. Groups 3 and 4 were high

in their quality of written work. Group 4 was

the lowest of the four groups. (Posttest)—

Groups 1 and 3 were extremely high in their quality

of written work. Group 1 was the highest. Group

2 was high in its quality of written work. Group

4 was moderately high in its quality of written

work 92

TABLE 15

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #5 (RANDOM) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set One: Teacher

Pre 3.6522 3.5417 2.5833 3.7692 Class Partici­ Post 4.7391 3.2917 2.75OO 3.1538 pation Diff. I.O863 - .25OO .1637 - .6154

Pre 5.4783 5.I667 4.7500 4.23O8 Written Work Post 5.5652 4.8333 5.2917 3.8462 Diff. .0869 - .3334 .5417 - .4846

3.6087 3.8750 4.8462 Verbal Inter­ Pre 5.1250 action with Post 4.5652 4.8333 5.1667 5.4615 students Diff. .9565 .9583 .0417 .6153

Pre 5.1739 4.75OO 3,3740 4.8462 Discipline Post 4.6O87 3.6250 3.6667 3.7692 Diff. - .5657 -I.1250 .2917 - .0770

Pre 6.5652 6.7083 6.5000 5.3077 Complaints Post 5.913O 6.9583 6.1250 5.8462 Diff. - .6522 .2500 - .3750 .5385

Set Two: Students

Do you like Pre 4.0000 3.5833 4.7500 3.3846 where you are 5.6956 3.4583 4.7083 3.9231 sitting now? Post Diff. I.6956 - .1250 - .0033 .5385

Do you like Pre 4.7391 3.4167 4.6250 3.9231 whom you are 5.3478 3.2083 4.1667 4.1538 sitting next Post to now? Diff. .6087 - .2084 - .4583 .2307 93

Täble 15 (continued)

8. Do you like Pre 4.6087 4.7917 4.9167 4.6923 where your Post 4.8696 4.0000 4.75OO 4.1538 teacher is sitting now? Diff. - .2609 - .7917 - .1667 - .5385

9. As of right Pre 3.7826 3.5833 4.2917 4.6154 now, do you Post 4.7826 3.2083 4.625O 4.9231 like school? Diff. 1.0000 - .5750 .3333 .3077

10. What is your Pre 4.8696 4.7917 4.25OO 3.1538 degree of class partici­ Post 5.3478 4.4583 4.0000 3.2308 pation ? Diff. .4782 - .3334 - .2500 .0770

11. What is the degree of Pre 4.0435 4.4167 4.5417 2.6154 your verbal 5.4348 4.7917 4.7083 2.5385 interaction Post with other Diff. I.39I3 .3750 .1666 .0769 students ? 94

Variable 3s Verbal Interaction with Students (Pretest)—

Group 3 had an extremely high degree of verbal

interaction. Group 4 had a high degree of verbal

interaction. Groups 1 and 2 had a moderately high

degree of verbal interaction. Group 1 was the

lowest of the four groups. (Posttest)—Groups 3

and 4 had an extremely high degree of verbal inter­

action. Group 4 was the highest. Groups 1 and 2

had a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 1

was the lowest of the four groups.

Variable 4s Discipline (Pretest)—Group 1 had an extremely high

degree of discipline. Groups 2 and 4 had a high

degree of discipline. Group 3 had a moderately high

degree of discipline. (Posttest)—Group 1 had a

high degree of discipline. Groups 2, 3» and 4 had

a moderately high degree of discipline. Group 2

was the lowest of the four groups.

Variable 5* Complaints (Pretest)—Groups 1-4 had an extremely

low number of complaints. Group 2 had the lowest

number of the four groups. Group 4 had the highest

number of the four groups. (Posttest)—Group 1-4

had an extremely low number of complaints. Group 2

had the lowest number of the four groups. Group 4

had the highest number of the four groups. 95

Set Two: Students

Variable 6s Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Subjects in Groups 1 and 3 liked their seating

position to a high degree. Subjects in Groups 2

and 4 liked their seating positions to a moderately

high degree. Subjects in Group 3 were the most sat­

isfied. Group 4 was the least satisfied. (Posttest)—

Subjects in Group 1 liked their seating positions to

an extremely high degree. Subjects in Group 3 liked

their seating positions to a high degree. Subjects

in Groups 2 and 4 liked their seating positions to

a moderately high degree. Subjects in Group 2 were

the least satisfied.

Variable 7: Do you like whom you are sitting next to now? (Pre­

test)—Subjects in Groups 1 and 3 liked whom they

were sitting next to to a high degree. Subjects in

Groups 2 and 4 liked whom they were sitting next to

to a moderately high degree. Subjects in Group 1

were the most satisfied. Subjects in Group 2 were

the least satisfied. (Posttest)—Subjects in Group 1

liked whom they were sitting next to to an extremely

high degree. Subjects in Groups 3 and 4 liked whom

they were sitting next to to a high degree. Subjects

in Group 2 liked whom they were sitting next to to

a moderately high degree. 96

Variable 8: Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest)—Groups 1-4 liked where their teacher

was sitting to a high degree. Group 3 was the most

satisfied. Group 1 was the least satisfied. (Post­

test)—Groups 1-4 liked where their teacher was

sitting to a high degree. Group 1 was the most

satisfied. Group 2 was the least satisfied.

Variable 9s As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Groups 3 and 4 liked school to a high degree. Groups

1 and 2 liked school to a moderately high degree.

Group 4 was the most satisfied. Group 2 was the

least satisfied. (Posttest)—Groups 1, 3» and 4 liked

school to a high degree. Group 2 liked school to a

moderately high degree. Group 4 was the most satis­

fied. Group 2 was the least satisfied.

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation? (Pretest)

Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a high degree of class partici­

pation. Group 1 was the highest of the three groups.

Group 4 had a moderately high degree of class partici­

pation. (Posttest)—Group 1 had an extremely high

degree of class participation. Groups 2 and 3 had

a high degree of class participation. Group 4 had

a moderately high level of class participation.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had 97

a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 3 was

the highest of the three groups. Group 4 had a

slightly high degree of verbal interaction. (Post­

test)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of ver­

bal interaction. Groups 2 and 3 had a high degree

of verbal interaction. Group 4 had a slightly high

degree of verbal interaction.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 16

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the pretest to the fifth arrangement (ffendom . • .x • ) over all the groups. • •

In this particular arrangement (Random) the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely high degree of discipline, a high degree of class participation, a high lack of verbal interaction with students, a moderately high poor quality of written work, a moderately high amount of complaints. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high satisfaction toward school, a moderately high degree of class participation, an extremely high dislike for whom they were sitting next to, and a high lack of verbal interaction. In addition high I.Q. scores correlated moderately high with this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 1?

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the posttest to the fifth arrangement (Random . * . * ) over all the groups. 98

TABLE 16

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #5 (RANDOM) PRETEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One s Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Discipline Positive .67 As of right now, do you like Positive .60 school?

Class Partici­ What is your pation Positive .24 degree of class Positive .24 participation?

I.Q. Positive .12

Verbal interac­ Do you like tion with stu­ Negative .41 whom you are Negative .70 dents sitting next to now?

Written Work Negative .21 What is the de­ gree of your verbal interac­ Negative .33 tion with other students ?

Complaints Negative .18

*Canonical Correlation w .5304

Significant at .0191 99

TABLE 1?

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #5 (RANDOM) POSTTEST WITH 2 SIGNIFICANT ROOTS*

Root 1

Set One : Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Discipline Positive .80 Do you like where you are Positive .54 sitting now?

Verbal interac­ tion with stu­ Positive .48 dents

Class i&rticl- I.Q. Negative .66 pation Negative .95

Complaints Negative .18 Do you like whom you are Negative .58 sitting next to now?

Written Work Negative .13 What is your degree of Negative .49 class par­ ticipation ?

*Canonieal Correlation = .545°

Significant at £< .0015 100

Thble 17 (continued)

Root 2

Set One s Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Complaints Positive • 77 Do you like where your Positive .72 teacher is sitting now?

Written Work Positive .11 What is your degree of class Positive .57 participation ?

Do you like where you are Positive .11 sitting now?

Verbal interac­ Do you like whom tion with stu­ Negative .47 you are sit- Negative .55 dents ting next to now?

What is the de­ gree of your ver­ bal interaction Negative .49 with other stu­ dents ?

As of right now, do you like Negative .39 school?

*Canonical Correlation = .4316

Significant at .0319 101

(Root l)—In the posttest the teacher ascribed the following

characteristics to students: an extremely high degree of discipline,

an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, an extremely high lack

of class participation, a moderately high degree of complaints, and a

moderately high poor quality of written work. The students ascribed

these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high satisfaction toward where they were sitting, an extremely high dislike for whom they were sitting next to, and an extremely high lack of class partici­ pation. In addition low I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement.

(Root 2)—In this root the teacher ascribed the following characteristics with students: an extremely low amount of complaints, a moderately high quality of written work, and an extremely high lack of verbal interaction. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high satisfaction for where the teacher was sitting, an extremely high degree of class participation, a moderately high satisfaction for where they were sitting, an extremely high dis­ like for whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, and a high dislike for school.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 18

Mean scores indicated the results of pre and posttests of the sixth arrangement (Traditional ) for each of the four groups. • • • • •

Set One: Teacher

Variable 1: Glass Participation (Pretest)—Group 1 had a high

degree of class participation. Group 4 had a 102

TABLE 18

MEAN SCORES FOR ARRANGEMENT #6 (TRADITIONAL) PRE AND POSTTESTS

Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Set One: Teacher

Pre 4.4348 2.5417 2.875O 3.6923 1. Class Partici­ 4.4783 2.4167 2.5417 3.0000 pation Post Diff. .0435 - .1250 - .3333 - .6923

Pre 5.5652 5.0833 5.25OO 4.6154 2. Written Work Post 5.6087 4.7917 5.4583 4.0000 Diff. .0435 - .2916 .2083 - .6154

4.9565 4.4167 4.5417 5.3077 3. Verbal Inter­ Pre action with Post 4.5652 4.4583 4.5OOO 5.6154 students Diff. - .3913 .0416 - .0417 .3077

Pre 4.2609 4.2917 4.4583 3.8462 4. Discipline Post 4.3478 4.2917 4.2917 3.3077 Diff. .0869 .0000 - .1666 - .5385

Pre 5.5652 6.2083 5.7O83 4.0769 5» Complaints Post 5.5217 6,1250 4.6667 4.0769 Diff. - .0435 - .0833 -1.0416 .0000

Set Two : Students

3.8261 3.8750 3.0000 2.4615 6. Do you like Pre where you are Post 3.7826 3.3333 2.5833 3.307? sitting now? Diff. - .0435 - .5417 - .4167 .8462

7. Do you like Pre 3.913O 4.2917 3.0833 3.4615 whom you are 3.0769 sitting next Post 3.6087 3.8750 2.7O83 to now? Diff. - .3043 - .4167 - .3750 - .3846 103

Tàble 18 (continued)

8. Do you like Pre 4.8696 4.0417 3.7917 5.3846 where your 4.2174 4.3333 4.1667 5.1538 teacher is Post sitting now? Diff. - .6522 .2916 .3550 - .2308

Pre 3.9I3O 3.4167 4.0417 4.8482 9. As of right 3.9565 3.8750 4.6154 now, do you Post 3.3750 like school? Diff. .0435 - .0417 - .1667 - .2308

10. What is your Pre 5.0435 4.5833 3.2917 2.9231 degree of 5.1304 4.7O83 4.0417 2.7692 class par­ Post ticipation? Diff. .0869 .1250 .7500 - .1539

11. What is the 4.6956 3.6923 degree of your Pre 4.7083 4.2083 verbal inter­ 4.8696 4.5833 4.2917 3.0769 action with Post other stu­ Diff. .1540 - .1250 .0834 - .6154 dents ? 104

moderately high degree of class participation.

Groups 2 and 3 had a slightly high degree of class

participation. Group 2 was the lowest of the four

groups. (Posttest)—Group 1 had a high degree of

class participation. Group 4 had a moderately high

degree of class participation. Groups 2 and 3 had

a slightly high degree of class participation. Group

2 was the lowest in class participation.

Variable 2s Written Work (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had an

extremely high quality of written work. Group 1 was

the highest of the three groups. Group 4 had a high

degree of written work. (Posttest)—Groups 1 and 3

had an extremely high quality of written work.

Group 1 was the highest in written work. Groups 2

and 4 had a high quality of written work. Group 4

was the lowest of the four groups.

Variable 3s Verbal Interaction with Students (Pretest)—Group 4

had an extremely high degree of verbal interaction.

Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a high degree of verbal inter­

action. Group 2 was the lowest of these three groups.

(Posttest)—Group 4 had an extremely high degree of

verbal interaction. Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a high

degree of verbal interaction. Group 2 was the lowest

of the three groups.

Variable 4s Discipline (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a high

degree of discipline. Group 3 had the highest de­

gree of discipline. Group 4 had a moderately high degree of discipline. (Posttest)—Groups 1, 2, and 105

3 had. a high degree of discipline. Group 1 had

the highest degree of discipline. Group 4 had a

moderately high degree of discipline.

Variable 5s Complaints (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had an

extremely low number of complaints. Group 2 had

the lowest of the three groups. Group 4 had a low

number of complaints. (Posttest)—Groups 1 and 2

had an extremely low number of complaints. Group 2

had the lowest of the two groups. Groups 3 and 4

had a low degree of complaints.

Set Two t Students

Variable 6: Do you like where you are sitting now? (Pretest)—

Subjects in Groups 1, 2, and 3 liked where they were

sitting to a moderately high degree. Group 2 was

the most satisfied of the three groups. Subjects

in Group 4 had a slightly high satisfaction toward

their seating positions. (Posttest)—Subjects in

Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a moderately high satis­

faction toward their seating positions. Group 1

was the most satisfied. Group 3 had a slightly

high satisfaction toward its seating positions.

Variable 7t Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

(Pretest)—Subjects in Group 2 liked whom they were

sitting next to to a high degree. Subjects in Groups

1, 3, and 4 liked whom they were sitting next to to 106

a moderately high degree. Group 3 was the least

satisfied of the three groups. (Posttest)—Subjects

in Groups 1, 2, and 4 liked whom they were sitting

next to to a moderately high degree. Group 2 was

the most satisfied of the three groups. Subjects

in Group 3 liked whom they were sitting next to to

a slightly high degree.

Variable 8s Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

(Pretest)—Group 4 liked where the teacher was

sitting to an extremely high degree. Groups 1 and

2 liked where their teacher was sitting to a high

degree. Group 3 liked where its teacher was sitting

to a moderately high degree. (Posttest)—Group 4

liked where the teacher was sitting to an extremely

high degree. Groups 1, 2, and 3 liked where the

teacher was sitting to a high degree. Group 3 was

the least satisfied of the four groups.

Variable 9s As of right now, do you like school? (Pretest)—

Groups 3 and 4 liked school to a high degree. Group

4 was the most satisfied. Groups 1 and 2 liked school

to a moderately high degree. Group 2 was the least

satisfied of the four groups. (Posttest)—Group

4 liked school to a high degree. Groups 1, 2, and

3 liked school to a moderately high degree. Group

2 was the least satisfied of the four groups. 107

Variable 10: What is your degree of class participation? (Pre­

test)—Group 1 had an extremely high degree of

class participation. Group 2 had a high degree of

class participation. Group 3 had a moderately high

degree of class participation. Group 4 had a slightly

high degree of class participation. (Posttest)—

Group 1 had an extremely high degree of class partici­

pation. Groups 2 and 3 had a high degree of class

participation. Group 4 had a slightly high degree

of class participation.

Variable 11: What is the degree of your verbal interaction with

other students? (Pretest)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had

a high degree of verbal interaction. Group 2 was

the highest of the three groups. Group 4 had a

moderately high degree of verbal interaction. (Post­

test)—Groups 1, 2, and 3 had a high degree of verbal

interaction. Group 1 was the highest of the three

groups. Group 4 had a moderately high degree of

verbal interaction.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 19

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the post­ test to the sixth arrangement (Traditional .«?..) over all the groups. • • • e •

In this particular arrangement (Traditional) the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely high degree of 108

TABLE 19

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #6 (TRADITIONAL) PRETEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One : Teacher Set Two : Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Discipline Positive 1.58 As of right now, do you Positive .86 like school?

Verbal inter­ Do you like action with Positive .74 whom you are Positive .15 students sitting next to now?

Class Itortici- Do you like pation Negative .27 where your Negative .40 teacher is sitting now?

Written work Negative .17 What is the de­ gree of your verbal inter­ Negative .35 action with other students?

I.Q. Negative .21

What is your degree of class Negative .14 participation ?

*Canonical Correlation « .5346

Significant at £^.0222 109

discipline, an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, a high lack

of class participation, and a moderately high lack of quality written

work. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an

extremely high satisfaction toward school, a moderately high satis­

faction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high dislike for where the teacher is sitting, a high lack of verbal interaction, and a moderately high lack of class participation. In addition, low I.Q. scores correlated moderately high with this arrangement.

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 20

Canonical correlation scores indicated the results of the post­ test to the sixth arrangement (Traditional ..f..) over all the groups.

In the posttest, the teacher ascribed the following character­ istics to students: a moderately high degree of class participation, an extremely high lack of discipline, an extremely high lack of ver­ bal interaction, and a high number of complaints. The students ascribed these characteristics to themselves: an extremely high sat­ isfaction toward where the teacher was sitting, a moderately high degree of verbal interaction, an extremely high dislike for school, and an extremely high lack of class participation. In addition, high I.Q. scores correlated high with this arrangement. 110

TABLE 20

CANONICAL CORRELATION FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ARRANGEMENT #6 (TRADITIONAL) POSTTEST WITH 1 SIGNIFICANT ROOT*

Set One : Teacher Set Two s Students

Item Direction Beta Item Direction Beta Weight Weight

Class Ihrtici- Do you like pation Positive .19 where your Positive .50 teacher is sitting now?

I.Q. Positive .31

What is the de­ gree of your verbal interac­ Positive .16 tion with other students ?

Discipline Negative 1.49 As of right now, do you Negative .84 like school?

Verbal inter­ What is your action with Negative .82 degree of class Negative .51 students participation ?

Complaints Negative .33

*Canonical Correlation - .5418

Significant at p <.0055 CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The following discussion will emphasize "detective work." In other words, what does the data Indicate to the investigator about the particular phenomena which was studied. Did the various seating arrange­ ments have an effect on performance, attitudes, and behavior? Interpre­ tation will be based on the results reported in Chapter III and will be aided by a daily diary kept by the teacher for a period of six weeks.

In addition student responses concerning the particular arrangements will be taken into account. The discussion will focus primarily on the major or dominant themes, or indicators, that emerged in the six-week period of this study.

PRETEST PRIOR TO THE SIX-WEEK INVESTIGATION

Before discussing the six arrangements and the effect they seemed to have had on both the students and the teacher, it is important to note what the attitudes were before the six-week investigation began.

The arrangement prior to the six-week period was a "traditional” one.

Student desks were in rows with the teacher’s desk facing them at the front of the room. The results of the canonical correlation indicated that the dominant characteristic ascribed to students by the teacher was an extremely high amount of verbal interaction among students.

This was consistent with the students' self image that their verbal interaction was extremely high also. Since this study began in March,

111 112

the students had been sitting in their respective seats for nearly

seven months and knew their "neighbors" quite well, which normally

would precipitate high verbal interaction. It is also important to

point out that results indicated a high number of complaints and a

generally high dislike for the persons they were sitting next to.

Verbal interaction was extremely high, but dissatisfaction for their

seating positions was also high. Perhaps this could be explained

by the students* desire for change. The teacher indicated that weeks

before the investigation began, students were requesting her to change

their seating positions. Fortunately for this Investigator this was

an ideal environment for him to carry out his study.

In order to obtain an indication of the teacher's attitude

toward the arrangements before the six week period began, she was

asked to rank them in terms of which was most conducive to classroom

activities. The results of the ranking were as follows: (l) Tradi­

tional Arrangement (desks in rows with the teacher at the front of

the room)—Tie teacher prefered this arrangement because she would be

able to see everything going on in the room, could easily keep the

room in order, and it would provide for free movement. (2) Group

Concept (desks in clusters with the teacher in the middle of the room)—

The teacher chose this one second because she could easily keep the

room clean, could be integrated among the students and face all of

them, and it would provide for free movement. (3) Circle (desks arranged in a circle with the teacher integrated among them)—The teacher chose this one third because it wouldn't be as conducive to 113

free movement, and students would have a tendency to jump over the desks

in order to get to their seats. However, she liked this arrangement

because the students would feel that the teacher was a part of the group.

(4) Horseshoe (desks arranged in a horseshoe with the teaGher at the

frcnt of the horseshoe)—The teacher chose this one fourth because it

wouldn’t be conducive to free movement although she felt the teacher’s

position in front of the room would be desirable. (5) fkndom (desks

arranged randomly around the room)—The teacher chose this arrangement

fifth because it would tend to make the room lack order, and would not

be stable for student desks would be arranged in a haphazard fashion.

It would be conducive to free movement. (6) Teacher Among Students

(rows of desks with the teacher's desk integrated in one of the rows)—

The teacher chose this one last because her back would be facing certain

students, and because her desk would be integrated among the rows, students would have a tendency to concentrate on what she would be doing. The teacher's ranking seemed to reflect her desire for control over the classroom.

GROUP CONCEPT ARRANGEMENT

The first arrangement executed was the Group Concept. This arrangement consisted of four clusters of six desks with the teacher's desk In the center of the room. The results of the canonical correlation on the pretest Indicated that the dominant characteristics ascribed to students by the teacher was an extremely low number of complaints, and a high lack of class participation. The corresponding student image appeared to be consistent with this. The results indicated an extremely 114

high satisfaction toward the individuals they were sitting next to,

and a high satisfaction toward their seating position. Generally the

students appeared to be happy with their seating positions and this

correlated with the low number of complaints received by the teacher.

This contentment could be seen in the diary entries of the teacher.

She commented that classes ran smoothly most of the time. In addition

she pointed out that Group 4 (lowest I.Q.) seemed to adjust to the

arrangement more easily than the other three groups. Individual group

mean scores indicated the lowest number of complaints for this group.

Whereas the other three groups somewhat challenged her choice of seats

for them, Group 4 cooperated completely. It is difficult to hypothe­

size why Group 4 adjusted better than the other three groups although

Group 4 may have liked the conventional structuring (need for structure)

of this arrangement whereas the other three groups prefered a more

"carefree" arrangement. It is interesting to note, however, that the canonical correlation suggested that low I.Q. scores correlated ex­ tremely high with this arrangement. The high lack of class participation might have been due to the need to get acclimated to a new seating structure.

Posttest results indicated that the dominant characteristic ascribed to students by the teacher was an extremely high degree of verbal interaction. The corresponding student image also reflected an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, in addition to an extremely high dislike for whom they were sitting next to, and a high dislike for school. High verbal interaction was noted in the teacher’s diary. 115

She stated that students became verbally more active as they became

adjusted to the new arrangement. This high verbal interaction may

help to explain the negative feeling toward whom they were sitting

next to and toward school. As time progressed, students got to know

one another better, and their feelings toward each other changed.

The feeling toward their classmates seemed to correlate with their

dislike of school as indicated in the posttest. In summary, the

results of this arrangement begin to point out that student attitudes

and behavior are dependent upon many things—seating arrangement being

one of them.

CIRCLE ARRANGEMENT

The second arrangement executed was the circle. This arrange­ ment consisted of individual desks in a circle with the teacher's desk integrated among them. The results of the canonical correlation on the pretest indicated that the dominant characteristics ascribed to students by the teacher was an extremely high quality of written work, an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, a high degree of class participation, a high degree of discipline, and an extremely high number of complaints. The results also indicated that high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement.

The teacher noted in her diary that complaints were high in all the groups throughout the week. Students had difficulty getting settled and complained that in order to get to their seats they had to walk all the way around the room. In Group 1, students stood books up to signify 116

boundary lines. In general students did not seem to like this

arrangement (it ranked 5th). This evaluation was apparent in the

canonical correlation scores where students indicated an extremely high

dislike for whom they were sitting next to, a high dislike for where the

teacher was sitting, and a high dislike for school. However students

also showed an extremely high satisfaction for where they were sitting

and a high degree of class participation. In the pretest, results seemed

to imply that performance was not being affected by proxemie variables.

The results also suggested that just because an arrangement correlated

with high I.Q. scores, this did not necessarily mean high I.Q. students

will be favorable toward it.

Ch the posttest, Root 1, the teacher ascribed the following

characteristics to students: an extremely low number of complaints and an extremely high lack of verbal interaction. The teacher noted in the diary that complaints diminished as the week progressed. However, like the first arrangement, Groups 3 and 4 seemed to adjust to the new seating more easily than Groups 1 and 2. Individual group mean scores indicated that Groups 1 and 2 had the highest amount of complaints.

The high lack of verbal interaction can perhaps be partially explained when recalling the findings of Steinzor who suggests that groups in a circle interact more with persons opposite them than those next to them.

Verbal interaction across the room would be limited with the teacher integrated in the rows and having much control over the group. The corresponding student image of this arrangement also reflected an ex­ tremely high lack of verbal interaction as well as an extremely high 117

lack of class participation. The low number of complaints already mentioned seemed to correlate with students’ high satisfaction toward

the teacher's seating position, high satisfaction toward school, and high satisfaction toward their seating positions. Generally, the results indicate a more favorable opinion of this arrangement as the week progressed.

Another way of looking at this arrangement is found in Root 2 of the posttest. In this root the teacher ascribed an extremely high degree of class participation, an extremely high lack of verbal inter­ action, and an extremely high degree of complaints. The corresponding student image was structured this way: an extremely high degree of class participation, a high satisfaction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, and an extremely high dislike for where they were sitting. Again, as in the pretest, high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement. The results of the posttest did seem to point out that seating position was related to interaction in this arrangement.

TEACHER AMONG STUDENTS ARRANGEMENT

The third arrangement executed was Teacher Among Students. This arrangement consisted of desks arranged in straight rows with the teacher’s desk integrated among them. The results of the canonical correlation on the pretest, Root 1, ascribed the following characteristics to students: extremely high class participation, extremely high lack of verbal inter­ action, and an extremely high lack of discipline. The high lack of verbal 118

interaction can be partially explained by the teacher’s seating position.

Having her among the rows of individual desks would probably inhibit this

kind of interaction. However, a lack of verbal interaction does not

guarantee a high degree of discipline as indicated in the findings of

the pretest. The corresponding student image of this arrangement also

indicated an extremely high lack of verbal interaction as well as an

extremely high lack of class participation. High I.Q. scores correlated

high with this arrangement.

In the pretest, Root 2, the dominant characteristic ascribed

to students was an extremely low number of complaints. This was con­

sistent with the teacher’s diary which indicated a low number of com­

plaints by the students. The teacher again pointed out that Groups 3 and 4 adjusted to the arrangement more easily than 1 and 2. Groups 1 and 2 were beginning to show signs of easier adjustment whereas 3 and

4 were beginning to show more difficulty in adjusting. The correspon­ ding student image was structured this way: an extremely high satis­ faction toward school, an extremely high satisfaction toward whom they were sitting next to, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction and a high lack of class participation. These results correlated with the low number of complaints found by the teacher. In this root, low I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement. This finding supports the hypothesis made earlier (referring to the traditional arrangement) that low I.Q. students seem to be more comfortable in a more structured setting yet it does not help to explain the correlation of high I.Q. scores indicated in the pretest. 119

On the posttest the teacher ascribed the following characteris­

tics to students: an extremely low amount of complaints, an extremely

high degree of class participation, and a high lack of discipline.

Although complaints were low in this arrangement, student rankings

indicated low preference for it (it ranked 6th). The corresponding

student image was structured this way: a high degree of class partici­

pation, and a high dislike for where they were sitting. This finding

points out that low complaints do not necessarily mean satisfaction with where they were sitting. In summary, the findings of this arrange­ ment point out that student attitudes cannot always be determined by verbal comments. Other factors must be considered.

HORSESHOE ARRANGEMENT

The fourth arrangement executed was the Horseshoe. This arrangement consisted of individual desks arranged in a horseshoe with the teacher's desk at the front of the horseshoe. The results of the canonical correlation on the pretest, Root 1, ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely low number of complaints, a high degree of class participation, an extremely high lack of disci­ pline, and an extremely high lack of verbal interaction. Generally, the teacher's diary reported a low number of complaints, but it indi­ cated that Groups 1 and 2 took much less time in adjusting than Groups

3 and 4. Individual group mean scores indicated that Groups 1 and 2 had the lowest number of complaints. This is the reverse of what had been occurring up till now. The corresponding student image was 120

structured this way: an extremely high satisfaction toward whom they

were sitting next to, an extremely high degree of class participation,

and a high dislike for school. These findings indicate that satis­

faction toward where students were sitting does not necessarily correlate

with satisfaction toward school.

On the pretest, Root 2, the following characteristics were ascribed to students by the teacher: an extremely high degree of discipline, and an extremely high degree of verbal interaction. The corresponding student image reflected an extremely high satisfaction toward school, an extremely high dislike for where they were sitting, and a high lack of verbal interaction. Again satisfaction toward school did not seem to be correlated with seating position in this arrangement. The results also indicated that high I.Q. scores corre­ lated extremely high with this arrangement. Like the circle this arrange­ ment offered a less conventional structure than those previously discussed.

The results of this pretest, along with some of the other findings, suggest that high I.Q. students may prefer a less conventional setting.

On the posttest the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely low amount of complaints, a high degree of class participation, a high quality of written work, and a high lack of verbal interaction. Complaints were low for this arrangement and this appeared to be consistent with the students’ preference for it

(it ranked third). It is interesting that in both the circle and in the horseshoe a dominant characteristic appearing was a high quality of written work. In the other two arrangements discussed so far, there 121

had been no correlation between the seating arrangements and written

work. The corresponding student image reflected an extremely high

degree of class participation, and again high I.Q. scores correlated

with this arrangement.

RANDOM ARRANGEMENT

The fifth arrangement executed was the ikndom arrangement.

This arrangement consisted of desks placed randomly around the room

with the teacher’s desk in the back of the room. Ch the pretest the

teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely

high degree of discipline, a high degree of class participation, and

a high lack of verbal interaction with students. The teacher commented

in the diary that students adjusted very well to this arrangement. This

easy adjustment may have been partially attributable to the students'

adjustment to change itself over a period of five weeks. The corresponding

student image was structured this way: an extremely high satisfaction

toward school, an extremely high dislike for whom they were sitting next

to, and a high lack of verbal interaction. Students ranked this arrange­ ment first. Again, satisfaction toward school did not seem to correlate with whom students were sitting next to, although the seating arrangement in general did seem to affect satisfaction.

On the posttest, Root 1, the teacher ascribed the following characteristics to students: an extremely high degree of discipline, an extremely high degree of verbal interaction, and an extremely high lack of class participation. The corresponding student image was structured 122

this way: an extremely high satisfaction toward, where they were

sitting, an extremely high dislike for whom they were sitting next

to, and an extremely high lack of class participation. Low I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement. This finding is surprising because this arrangement is not as conventional as the

Group Concept and Teacher Among Students which correlated high with low I.Q. scores. One explanation for this finding may have been sub­ ject fatigue. By the fifth week, students were becoming hostile toward filling out the dependent variables. Perhaps they didn't really address themselves to the individual questions, but randomly completed the forms.

Also students had become adjusted to "change" by the beginning of the fifth week and any new arrangement would probably have had minimal effect on them.

On the posttest, Root 2, the teacher ascribed an extremely low amount of complaints and an extremely high lack of verbal interaction to the students. The corresponding student image was structured this way: an extremely high satisfaction for where the teacher was sitting, an extremely high degree of class participation, an extremely high dis­ like for whom they were sitting next to, and a high dislike for school.

The low number of complaints and the high dislike for school and for whom they were sitting next to seemed contradictory. However, the findings suggest that dissatisfaction, although not expressed verbally, may: still be present. Also students may have realized that the teacher was not going to change their seats even if they had complained. 123

TRADITIONAL ARRANGEMENT

The sixth arrangement executed was the Traditional. This

arrangement consisted of desks in straight rows with the teacher in

front of the room. It is important to note that this was the arrange­

ment prior to the six-week investigation. The results of the canonical

correlation on the pretest indicated that the dominant characteristics ascribed to students by the teacher was an extremely high degree of

verbal interaction, an extremely high degree of discipline, and a high lack of class participation. Ch the pretest prior to the six-week investigation, results also indicated a high lack of class participation

The corresponding student image was structured this way: an extremely high satisfaction toward school, an- extremely high dislike for where the teacher is sitting, and a high lack of verbal interaction. Compared to the results of the pretest for this arrangement prior to the six- week study, these results indicated that students disliked this arrange­ ment much more so after the six weeks than they did before.

On the posttest, the teacher ascribed the following character­ istics to students: an extremely high lack of discipline, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction, and a high number of complaints. In this arrangement complaints seemed to increase as the week progressed.

Students asked the teacher if she was going to continue moving around the desks. This arrangement seemed to indicate to them that the seating arrangement would not remain the same throughout the rest of the year.

Once students got adjusted to changing they seemed to prefer it. The corresponding student image was structured this way: an extremely high 124

satisfaction toward, where the teacher was sitting, an extremely high

dislike for school, and an extremely high lack of class participation.

In addition high I.Q. scores correlated high with this arrangement.

Until this point the major purpose of this chapter has been to

indicate the dominant themes that have been generated in in the canoni­

cal correlations of the six arrangements. It will now be the task of

this investigator to relate those findings to the eight'"exploratory questions which were generated in the first chapter.

1. Was class participation affected by the seating arrangements?

The results of this study suggest that class participation was affected differentially by various types of arrangements. In the Group Concept, teacher results (canonical correlation) associated a high lack of class participation with this arrangement. An explanation for this might be that students were unaccustomed to sitting in groups and became so preoccupied with the new arrangement that class participation was ham­ pered. Lack of class participation was found in both pre and posttests although to a lesser degree in the posttest. In the Circle, teacher results and student results (pretest) indicated a high degree of class participation. In the posttest (Root 2) teacher results reflected an extremely high degree of class participation while student results indicated a high degree of class participation. Class participation may have been high here because of the teacher’s seating position. Students may have felt pressured to participate since the teacher could see them from any point in the room. Also teaching was often conducted inside the circle and the teacher frequently walked around the room. In the 125

Teacher Among Students arrangement, teacher results (pretest, Root l) associated extremely high class participation while student results indicated a high lack of class participation. On the posttest, teacher results indicated an extremely high degree of class participation where­ as student results indicated a high degree of class participation.

Again, the teacher’s position may have influenced this variable. Having the teacher integrated among the rows may have pressured the students to participate. In the Horseshoe, the teacher indicated a high degree of class participation and students indicated an extremely high degree of class participation (pretest, Root l). These same findings were found in the posttest. Again the teacher’s seating position may have affected class participation. She could see all that was happening in the room at one time. In the F&ndom arrangement, teacher results (pretest) indicated a high degree of class participation. On the posttest (Root l) teacher and students indicated an extremely high lack of class partici­ pation. However, on the posttest, Root 2, students indicated an ex­ tremely high degree of class participation. Finally, in the Traditional arrangement teacher results (pretest) indicated an extremely high lack of class participation. This lack of class participation was also apparent in the posttest (Root l) results of teacher and students, lack of class participation might be attributable to the arrangement.

In the traditional arrangement the teacher's desk is not among the student desks and the students might not feel the pressure of her presence and the consequent need to participate as much. Some students might have felt protected and "out of sight" by the rows of desks. It is also 126

interesting to point out that a moderately high lack of class partici­

pation was associated in the teacher results of the pretest prior to

the six-week investigation. Students were sitting in the Traditional arrangement at that time. In general, class participation was high for all the arrangements, hut as Indicated differences were found.

2. Was the students' written work affected by various seating arrangements? In general, written work did not emerge as a dominant theme in most of the arrangements. The exceptions to this were the Circle and the Horseshoe arrangements. The teacher associated (pretest) an ex­ tremely high quality of written work with the Circle arrangement. In the Horseshoe the students (posttest) associated a high quality of written work. In both of these arrangements high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high. It is difficult to hypothesize why these two arrange­ ments correlated with written work. One explanation could be that the freer and more "open" atmosphere of these two arrangements decreased tension in the classroom (less conventional), encouraged more creativity, and generally helped to raise the quality of written work done by the students. The investigator suggests that the setting of a classroom contributes to the attitudes of students and this affects their per­ formance, in this instance, written work.

3. Was verbal interaction among one’s fellows differentially affected by various seating arrangements? The results indicated that verbal interaction was affected differently by the various arrangements.

In the Group Concept, results of the canonical correlation posttest indicated that the dominant characteristic ascribed to students by the 127

teacher was an extremely high degree of verbal interaction. The corre­

sponding student image also indicated an extremely high degree of verbal

interaction. The physical arrangement of having individual clusters of desks encouraged verbal interaction in this arrangement. In the Circle, the teacher associated (pretest) an extremely high degree of verbal interaction to students. However, in the posttest the reverse was true.

In both the teacher and student results, a high lack of verbal inter­ action was correlated. High verbal interaction in the pretest could have been the result of change in the classroom setting. Lack of verbal interaction in the posttest could partially be attributable to the teacher’s position (integrated in the circle) which might have prohibited verbal interaction. The high lack of verbal interaction indicated in the Teacher Among Students arrangement might be explained in the same way.

Having the teacher integrated in the rows would limit the control of the students and decrease verbal interaction. This same reasoning could be applied to the extremely high lack of verbal interaction in the Horse­ shoe arrangement (pretest, Root 1, posttest). However, Root 2 of the pretest indicated an extremely high degree of verbal interaction. This may have been a result of students adjusting to the new arrangement. In the Random arrangement, a high lack of verbal interaction was associated with students on the pretest. On the posttest, Root 1, this was reversed. Here an extremely high degree of verbal interaction was indicated. The Traditional arrangement indicated a high to extremely high lack of verbal interaction throughout the pre and posttests. The conventional structure of this arrangement may not have been conducive to a high degree of verbal interaction. 128

4. Was the student’s conduct (disicpline) affected by various

seating arrangements? Discipline emerged as a dominant characteristic

in almost every arrangement. It was associated with the Circle (pretest

results indicated a high degree of discipline), Teacher Among Students

(pre and posttests indicated a high to extremely high lack of discipline),

Horseshoe (pretest indicated an extremely high lack whereas posttest

revealed a high degree of discipline), Random (pretest results indicated

a high degree of discipline), and Traditional (pretest indicated an

extremely high degree of discipline whereas the posttest Root 1 revealed an extremely high lack of discipline) arrangements. There appeared to

be no set pattern in these results. Less conventional arrangements did not necessarily bring about a high lack of discipline nor did con­ ventional arrangements guarantee a high degree of discipline. Although discipline was affected differentially by the various arrangements, it is difficult to categorize arrangements and conclude which type of arrangement (conventional or non-conventional) will produce a particular kind of discipline.

5. Did the number of student complaints over his seating position vary according to arrangement? The number of complaints varied from arrangement to arrangement. The Group Concept (pretest), Teacher Among

Students (pre and posttest), Horseshoe (pre and posttest), and Random

(posttest, Root 2) arrangements revealed an extremely low number of complaints. The Circle (pretest) and the Traditional (posttest, Root l) arrangements indicated a high to extremely high number of complaints.

Again no particular pattern emerged. While the Traditional and Circle 129

arrangements received low rankings by students and this correlated with

the high number of complaints, the Teacher Among Students arrangement

ranked last while results indicated an extremely low number of complaints.

This inconsistency suggests to this investigator that number of complaints

is not just a reflection of discontentment over a particular arrangement,

but is a product of many other factors also. Student attitudes toward a seating arrangement may be influenced by other variables. Some of these variables might be whom students are sitting next to, where the teacher is sitting, and attitudes toward school in general.

6. Was the student’s attitude toward the teacher’s seating position affected by the various seating arrangements? Attitude toward the teacher’s seating position was affected by the various arrange­ ments. The Circle (pretest) and the Traditional (pre and posttests) arrangements indicated an extremely high dislike for where the teacher was sitting. The Random arrangement (posttest, Root 2) indicated an extremely high satisfaction for where the teacher was sitting. This variable did not show up as a dominant characteristic in any of the other arrangements. The results presented here do not indicate whether students liked the teacher to be integrated among them or to be apart from them. However, comments made in the teacher's diary and comments made by students revealed a high preference for having the teacher among students. Again, the findings suggest that attitudes are formed as a result of many other variables but the findings also suggest that attitudes toward the teacher's position are affected differentially by the various arrangements. 130

7. Was the student’s attitude toward school affected by the various arrangements? This variable emerged as a dominant character­ istic in three of the six arrangements. In the Group Concept (posttest),

Horseshoe (pretest, Root l) and in the Random (posttest, Root 2) arrange­ ments high dislike for school was indicated. In the Horseshoe (pretest,

Root l) and in the Random (pretest) extremely high satisfaction toward school was associated. Satisfaction toward school is dependent upon many factors or events that take place in the classroom. To students the school is "their home away from home." Throughout most of the year they spend the majority of their day in the classroom. Everything that happens or goes on in the classroom will have an effect on students. It is difficult to pinpoint the degree or actual role which classroom setting influences satisfaction although these findings indicate that seating arrangements influence student attitudes.

8. Was the student’s attitude toward other students affected by various seating arrangements? The results of this study indicated when students did not like the persons they were sitting next to. It was difficult if not impossible to hypothesize why this dislike occurred.

Relationships and impressions formed before and during the six-weeks of this investigation may have contributed to student feelings. The seating arrangements themselves may also have had an effect on student relationships. Yet, the results of this study do not offer information which would correlate student satisfaction toward one another with prox­ emic variables. This is one limitation of the study and is certainly an area of investigation that needs to be explored. 131

In summary, the results of this study must not be interpreted as absolutes which could be applied to every classroom setting. As stated throughout the discussion, many factors must be considered and analyzed when trying to determine why changes occur in student attitudes performance, and behavior. All situations are unique and must be approached from their individual perspectives. Therefore, the findings gathered in this investigation do not suggest causation, but should be interpreted only as indications. However, the results do have utility for the teacher and communicologist for they point out that proxemic variables, (various seating arrangements) can have an effect on these phenomena and if the teacher were to become aware of these effects classroom activities and student attitudes and performance might be improved. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Before presenting the major findings of this study it is

important to point out that the results of this study do not suggest

causation. Instead, the findings should be interpreted as indications.

This means that in this particular study the investigator found that certain variables were associated with specific arrangements. If this study were to be replicated, different relationships might emerge.

In this perspective, the present writer presents the major findings of each arrangement derived primarily from canonical correlation scores and the indications they suggested.

PRETEST PRIOR TO THE SIX ARRANGEMENTS

In the pretest prior to the six week investigation, students were sitting in a Traditional arrangement. This arrangement consisted of student desks in rows with the teacher's desk facing them at the front of the room. The major characteristic associated with this arrangement was extremely high verbal interaction. In this pretest stage, it was difficult to determine whether extremely high verbal interaction was a result of the arrangement itself, or the fact that students had been sitting in their respective seats for nearly seven months. In general, students responded somewhat negatively to this arrangement.

132 133

FIRST ARRANGEMENT: GROUP CONCEPT

The first arrangement executed was the Group Concept. This arrangement consisted of four clusters of six desks with the teacher’s desk in the center of the room. The findings indicated that the major characteristic associated with this arrangement was extremely high verbal interaction (student and teacher results) and an extremely high dislike for students who were sitting next to them. In addition, low

I.Q. scores correlated high with this arrangement. Generally, students seemed to be happy with this arrangement (it ranked II) and their seating positions; however, they indicated a high dislike for school.

The findings suggest that proxemic factors do have a significant asso­ ciation with interaction and participation; but they also indicate that high satisfaction toward one’s seating position is not necessarily re­ lated to high satisfaction toward either school or particular individuals in the class.

SECOND ARRANGEMENT: CIRCLE

The second arrangement executed was the Circle. This arrangement consisted of individual desks in a circle with the teacher’s desk inte­ grated among them. The findings revealed that proxemic factors had a significant association with interaction, participation, written work, and discipline. In addition, high I.Q. scores correlated extremely high with this arrangement. This seems to correlate with the high quality of written work, high degree of class participation, and high degree of ver­ bal interaction reflected in some of the findings. Generally, students 134

seemed to like this arrangement more as the week progressed. However,

their hostility toward it in the beginning (it ranked IV) seems to suggest

that just because an arrangement correlates with high I.Q. scores, it does

not necessarily mean high I.Q. students will react favorably toward it.

THIRD ARRANGEMENT: TEACHER AMONG STUDENTS

The third arrangement executed was Teacher Among Students. This

arrangement consisted of desks arranged in straight rows with the teacher’

desk integrated among them. The findings indicated that seating arrange­

ment had a significant association with interaction, participation, and

discipline. In general, an extremely high lack of verbal interaction

was associated with this arrangement throughout the entire week. This

applied also to discipline. In addition, high I.Q. scores correlated high

with this arrangement. Canonical correlation results indicated that stu­

dents generally liked this arrangement although they ranked it last.

FOURTH ARRANGEMENT: HORSESHOE

The fourth arrangement executed was the Horseshoe. This arrange­

ment consisted of individual desks arranged in a horsehoe with the

teacher's desk in the front of the room. The results of this arrangement

suggested that the seating variable had an effect on class participation,

verbal interaction, discipline, and written work. A high degree of class

participation and a high quality of written work were associated with this arrangement. The results also associated high I.Q. with this arrange­ ment. Although the students Indicated an extremely high satisfaction 135

toward whom they were sitting next to, the results also reflected a high

dislike for school. These findings Indicated that satisfaction toward

where one was sitting does not necessarily correlate with satisfaction

toward school. Generally students indicated a high preference for this arrangement (it ranked III).

FIFTH ARRANGEMENT: RANDOM

The fifth arrangement executed was the Random arrangement. This arrangement consisted of desks placed randomly around the room with the teacher's desk in back of the room. The findings of this arrangement associated proxemie variables with discipline, verbal interaction, and class participation. Results indicated a high satisfaction for this arrangement, a high satisfaction toward school, but a high dislike for whom students were sitting next to. Again, satisfaction toward school did not seem to correlate with satisfaction toward whom students were sitting next to. However, the seating arrangement in general seemed to affect satisfaction. Students indicated that they liked this arrange­ ment best of all.

SIXTH ARRANGEMENT: TRADITIONAL

The sixth arrangement executed was the Traditional. As stated previously, this arrangement consisted of desks in straight rows with the teacher's desk facing them at the front of the room. (It is impor­ tant to note that this was the arrangement prior to the six week in­ vestigation). Results indicated that the teacher associated an extremely 136

high degree of verbal interaction and discipline with this arrangement

on the pretest. Posttest results indicated an extremely high lack of

discipline and verbal interaction. High satisfaction toward school

was indicated in the pretest whereas high dislike for school was indi­

cated in the posttest. Compared to the results of the pretest for this

arrangement prior to the six week study, these results indicated that

students disliked this arrangement (it ranked V) much more so after

the six weeks than they did before.

In summary, the findings of this study Indicate that seating arrangements have an effect on the performance, attitudes, and behavior

of students. Certainly these variables were affected by many other things going on in the classroom besides seating arrangements. However, the results indicated that this was an important factor, and needs to be considered in the design of a classroom.

SOURCES OF ERROR

Like most studies, this investigation was subject to error. In retrospect this investigator feels that the study should have been exe­ cuted over a four week period only. After the fourth week subjects seemed somewhat hostile toward filling out the dependent variables. In addition, subjects became so accustomed to change that the impact of a new arrangement seemed to be minimal.

This investigator also realizes that when working with eighty- four subjects it is impossible to insure that each of those subjects has the same interpretation of the dependent variables. Although the teacher 137

explained what each of the variables meant at various time during the

six weeks, individual interpretation probably still occurred. For

instance, verbal interaction might have had one meaning for one student

and a completely different meaning for another. Finally, when working

with eighty-four unique individuals it is difficult to determine all

the factors that could affect their performance, attitudes, and be­ havior in a classroom. Events taking place outside the classroom play a significant role in the lives of these students and their influence extends into the classroom. Thus the results of the present study must be examined with these limitations in mind.

IDEAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The investigator suggests that further replication of this study could have value for the student of communication. Studies similar to this one could be conducted in settings other than schools. A possibil­ ity would be a work study camp where students come from various economic and social backgrounds and have not previously formed relationships with each other. Also studies could be conducted with individuals of various age groups. The investigator is suggesting that groups of various ages, ethnic, and social backgrounds may view space or seating arrangements in , different ways. The writer recognizes the need for replication and the need to conduct similar studies in various settings with various types of individuals. 138

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the results of this study Indicate to this

investigator that proxemics does play a role in the development of

attitudes and in the performance and behavior of students in the class­

room. It is difficult to specifically define what that "role” is,

but the investigator can only conclude that proxemics along with many

other factors (student-student relationships, teacher-student relation­ ships) does effect these variables in some way. Ihe investigator con­ cludes from this study that various seating arrangements do have varying effects on classroom activities. Verbal interaction and class participa­ tion were two variables that were differentially affected by the different arrangements. The investigator also realized from his findings that students’ satisfaction toward their seating position does not necessarily correspond with satisfaction toward school or their classmates. The findings do suggest the possibility of a correlation between I.Q. and seating arrangement. High I.Q. students were generally associated with

"non-conventional” arrangements (Circle, Horseshoe) whereas low I.Q. students were generally associated with more "conventional" arrangements

(Traditional, Group Concept). More research needs to be conducted in this area before generalizations can be made. All of the findings of this study should be interpreted as indications rather than conclusions.

No cause and effect relationships should be made. Proxemics should only be thought of as one of the many factors which contribute to the for­ mation of attitudes and in the performance and behavior of students in the classroom. The exact role of proxemics is difficult to pinpoint, 139

but the present writer suggests that one can learn a great deal from

observing space and how the distribution of students in a classroom may influence their subsequent performance and behavior.

Finally, as indicated in Chapter I proxemics is concerned with man's use of space. Research in proxemics includes studies involving personal space, distance between individuals engaging in interpersonal relation­ ships and the use of space when planning man's towns and communities.

Proxemics is the study of how man structures space in various social settings. Research indicates that man's use of space often varies from individual to individual, from setting to setting, and culture to culture.

However, research in proxemics has been sparse and conclusions have been drawn from a limited amount of empirical research. The present author is suggesting that studies need to be replicated, but also need to be conducted in various settings. It was the task of this study to measure the effects of proxemics or seating arrangement in the "educational setting" (classroom). The present author had difficulty in finding research that had been conducted in this particular setting or literature that had discussed the effect of space on performance, behavior, and attitudes of students. The present writer felt that the classroom was an important setting to study and that any findings would have applica­ tion to both teachers and students of communication. The results of the study did indicate that proxemics was significantly associated with per­ formance, attitudes, and behaviors of students. This study, then, adds to the theoretical literature on proxemics, but perhaps of equal impor­ tance it points out the need to consider proxemic variable in various settings. BIBLIOGRAPHY 141

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiello, John R. and Stanley E. Jones. "Field Study of the Proxemic Behavior of Young School Children in Three Subcultural Groups." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3 11971), pp. 351-356.

Argyle, Michael and Janet Dean. "Eye-Contact, Distance, and Affiliation." Soclometry, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1965), pp. 289-304.

Bass, Bernard M. and Stanley KLubeck. "Effects of Seating Arrangement on Leaderless Group Discussions." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1952), pp. 724-726.

Baxter, James C. "Interpersonal Spacing in Natural Settings." Soclometry, Vol. 33, No. 7 (1970), pp. 444-455.

Campbell, Donald T. and William H. Krushal. "Seating Aggregation as an Index of Attitude." Attitude Measurement, ed. Gene F. Summer. Chicago; Rand McNally & Company, 1970.

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi- Experlmental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963.

Cooley, William W. and Thul R. Lohnes. Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971•

Eisenberg, Abne M. and Ralph R. Smith, Jr. Nonverbal Communication. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971»

Friedenberg, Edgar 2. Coming of Age in America. New York: Random House, 1965.

Fhrbay, Albert L. "The Influence of Scattered Versus Compact Seating on Audience Response." Speech Monographs, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1965), pp. 144-148.

Goodall, Kenneth. "Teacher’s Desk." Psychology Today, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1965), P. 12. lfe.ll. Edward T. "Proxemics." Current Anthropology, Vol. 9. Nos. 2-3 (1968), pp. 83-108.

______. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966.

______. The Silent Language. Greenwich, Conn: Fawcett Publications Inc., 1959« 142

P&re, Paul A. and Robert F. Bales. "Seating Position and Group Interaction." Sociometry, Vol. 26, No. 4 (1963), PP. 480-486.

Horowitz, Mardi J. "Human Spatial Behavior." American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1965), PP. 20-28.

Leavitt, Harold J. "Some Effects of Certain Communication bitterns on Group Performance." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1951), PP. 38-50.

Iyman, Stanford M. and Marvin B. Scott. "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension." Social Problems, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1967), pp. 236-249.

Lott, Dale F, and Robert Sommer. "Seating Arrangements and Status." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1967), PP. 90-95.

Masling, Joseph and George Stern. "Effect of the Observer in the Classroom." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 5 (1969), pp. 351-354.

Mehrabian, Albert. "Orientation Behaviors and Nonverbal Attitude Communication." Journal of Communication, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1967), PP. 324-332.

Montessori, Marie. Spontaneous Activity in Education. New York: Shocken Books, 1965»

Otto, Henry J. "An Experiment with Elementary School Classroom Seating and Equipment." Texas School Board Journal, Vol. 11 (1955), pp. 3-6.

Pellegrini, Robert J. "Some Effects of Seating Position on Social Perception." Psychological Reports, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1971), pp. 887-893,

Proshansky, Harold M., William H. Ittleson and Leanne G. Rivlin. Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.

Richardson, Elizabeth. "The Physical Setting and Its Influence on Learning." Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.

Rolfe, Howard Clemet. "Observable Differences in Space Use and Learning Situations in Small and Large Elementary Classrooms." Unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 143

Russo, Nancy Felipe. "Connotations of Seating Arrangements." Cornell Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1967), pp. 37-44.

Sanders, David. C. Innovations in Elementary School Classroom Seating. Austins Bureau of Laboratory Schools, Publication No. 10, The University of Texas, 1958«

Sommer, Robert. Personal Space. Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys Prentiss Hall, 1969.

______. "Further Studies in Small Group Ecology." Sociometry* Vol. 28, No. 4 (1965), PP. 337-348.

Steinzor, Bernard. "The Spatial Fhctor in Bh.ce to Bhce Discussion Groups." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1950), pp. 552-555.

Watson, 0. Michael and Theodore D. Graves. "Quantitative Research in Proxemic Behavior." American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 4 (1966), pp. 971-985.

Webb, Eugene J. and Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, Lee Sechrest. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicagos Rand McNally and Company, 1970.

Wicker, Alan. "Cognitive Complexity, School Size, and Participation in School Behavior Settings: A Test of the Frequency Interaction Hypothesis." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 3 (1969), PP. 200-203.

Wike, Edward L. Data Analysis. Chicago: Aldine and Altherton, 1971.

Willems, Edwin P. and Harold L. Rausch. Naturalistic Viewpoints in Psychological Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19o9".

Wingo, Max G. "Implications for Improving Instruction in the Upper Elementary Grades." Learning and Instruction, Forty-Ninth Year­ book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: The Society, 195°. APPENDIX 145

TEACHER EVALUATION

1. Class participation

High______Low

2. Written work

Good.______Poor

3. Verbal interaction with students

High______Low

4. Discipline

Good______Poor

5. Complaints

High______Low 146

STUDENT EVALUATION

1. Do you like where you are sitting now?

Very Much______Not at all

2. Do you like whom you are sitting next to now?

Very Much______Not at all

3. Do you like where your teacher is sitting now?

Very Much______Not at all

4. As of right now, do you like school?

Very much______Not at all

5. What is your degree of class participation?

High______Low

6. What is the degree of your verbal interaction with other students?

High______Low ARRANGEMENT I—GROUP CONCEPT

MARCH 6-10

œ 0 It should be noted that for Group 4 Desk 13 was moved 0 next to Desks 9 and 12 to accomodate all 13 students instead of having Person 13 sit by himself. Q 148

ARRANGEMENT II—CIRCLE

MARCH 13-17 149

ARRANGEMENT XII—TEAGHER AMONG STUDENTS

MARCH 20-24 150

ARRANGEMENT IV—HORSESHOE

MARCH 27-30 (Z O O û 151

ARRANGEMENT V—RANDOM

APRIL 10-14 IS-

ARRANGEMENT VI—TRADITIONAL

APRIL 24-28