This study aims to research positional preferences of  teachers and pupils reflected in seating plans in Czech lower secondary classrooms. The intention to insight classroom reality through positional lenses is based on the fact that educational processes can be seen as  spatially influenced phenomena (Adams, Biddle, 1970, Marx, 1999; Wheldall et al., 1981, Hastings, Schwieso, 1985; Benedict, Hoagh, 2004, Perkins, Wieman, 2005).

Apart from furniture arrangement,  educational processes and teacher´s and pupils´ behaviour can be influenced by their positional patterns. In this context, academic literature refers to contrast of front, rear, center and peripheral positions characterized by different levels of educational activities. The existence of action zone in row-and-column classrooms (Adams, Biddle, 1970) is a well-established example. The area consisting of front and middle desks shapes reversed letter T and features more accentuated communication activity as pupils from this zone appear to be more communicatively commited  and are also dedicated more intensive  attention from their teachers (Marx et al., 1999).

Although the action zone primarily indicates occurrence of communication activity, its shape is consistent with location of students motivated to excel in the class (Jones, 1990) and achieve best academic results (Benedict, Hoagh, 2004; Rebeta et al., 1993).  Conversely, students with negative attitudes toward the school and prone to off-task behaviour can be identified mainly in peripheral parts (MacPherson, 1983) while back seat students  are even more likely to incline to truancy (Burda, Brooks, 1996).

Differences in students´ actions in terms of contrast of front-rear and center-peripheral positions are therefore obvious, however the question arises why such variations within particular areas occur. Explanation is offered in two contradictory theories of cause and effect. According to the environmental theory, based on environmental psychology, location itself can influence student´s behavior and performance. Proximity along with advantageous position for creating visual contact contribute to formation of positive relational bonds and thus willingness to interact with teachers. The explanation can be even more pragmatic, as students who find themselves in teacher´s eye view might simply feel under control and therefore participate more significantly (Schwebel, Cherlin, 1972; Sommer, 1967).

Not all researchers, however, explain action zones as influence of the location itself. Proponents of  self-selective theory claim that the location is an effect of students´ personality traits and they locate themselves  in accordance to their character and  attitudes towards learning process. Similar effect occurs when teachers control students´ location as they might follow conscious or subconscious patterns of labeling students and allocate them to particular seats (Babad&Ezer, 1993).      

The above mentioned concludes that an attempt to interpret classroom reality in terms of positional arrangement of teachers and pupils should be firstly based on the notion how their location is performed, who it is decided by and how it translates into everyday reality of learning processes . This study, therefore, aims to contribute to the state of knowledge by focusing on seating plan of lower-secondary Czech classrooms, attempting to map conditions, functions, and teacher-student tendencies in the course of its creation.

ADAMS, R., BIDDLE, B. Realities of teaching: Explorations with video tape. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1970. BABAD, E., EZER, H. Seating locations of sociometrically measured student types: methodological and substatntive issues. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1993, 63(1), 75-87. BENEDICT, M.E., HOAGH, J. Seating location in large lectures: Are seating preferences or location related to course performance? Journal of Economic Education, 2004, roč. 35(3), 215–31. BURDA, J. M., BROOKS, C. I. College classroom seating position and changes in achievement motivation over a semester. Psychological Reports, 1996, 78(1), 331-336. HASTINGS, N., SCHWIESO, J. Tasks and tables: The effect of seating arrangements on task engagement in primary classrooms. Educational Research, 1995, 37(3), 279-291. Jones, M.G. Action zone theory, target students and science classroom interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1990, 27, 651–660. MARX, A., FUHRER, U., HARTIG, T. Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 1999, 2(3), 249-263. MacPHERSON, J.C. The feral classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1983. PERKINS, K.K., WIEMAN, C. The surprising impact of seat location on student performance. The Physics Teacher, 2005, 43(1), 30–33. REBETA, J.L., BROOKS, Ch. I. , O'BRIEN, J.P., HUNTER, G.A. Variations in Trait-Anxiety and Achievement Motivation of College Students as a Function of Classroom Seating Position. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1993, 61(3), 257-267. SCHWEBEL, A.I., CHERLIN, D.L. Physical and social distancing in teacher-pupil relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 543-550. SOMMER, R. Classroom ecology. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 489-503. WHELDALL, K., MORRIS, M.,VAUGHAN, P., NG,Y.Y. Rows versus tables: an example of the use of behavioural ecology in two classes of eleven-year-old children. Educational Psychology, 1981, 1(2), 171–184.