Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Seating Arrangement on Class Engagement in Team-based Learning: a Quasi-Experimental Study

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

This study investigated the effects of seating distance and orientation on engagement in novice and experienced learners in a large classroom explicitly designed for team-based learning (TBL). Learning what affects TBL engagement may improve its implementation.

Methods

Participants were novice first-year and experienced second-year undergraduate medical students in Singapore (male = 103, female = 57). Their age ranged from 18 to 23 (M = 19.5, SD = 1.06). This quasi-experimental study considered two factors. Firstly, the distance from the teams’ table to the tutor’s table. Secondly, students’ orientation at each table, with either their front or back facing the tutor. Engagement was measured using two instruments, Situational Cognitive Engagement Measure and Classroom Engagement Survey at two TBL sessions — before and after swapping seating arrangements.

Results

For experienced students, seating distance did not significantly affect engagement (p = 0.08–0.89). Novice student’s engagement levels decreased significantly for those who moved further; M = 3.30 to 2.98 (p = 0.009–0.023). However, overall engagement also decreased post-swap regardless of direction moved; M = 3.26 to 3.00 (p = 0.004). For both cohorts, seating orientation did not significantly affect engagement (p = 0.07–0.62). Those unaffected by seating arrangement commended the classroom’s design, such as screens all around and quality audio-visual system. Novice students exhibited a stronger preference to sit nearer to the tutor than experienced students. Both groups preferred sitting with their front-facing the tutor.

Discussion

Within specially designed TBL classrooms, seating distance and orientation did not significantly affect engagement. Technologically enhanced team-centric spaces provide a favourable environment for TBL, though students’ preferences for seats may change with more TBL experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13625336.v1

References

  1. Beichner RJ. History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Dir Teach Learn. 2014;2014(137):9–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nordquist J, Sundberg K, Laing A. Aligning physical learning spaces with the curriculum: AMEE Guide No. 107. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):755–68. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147541.

  4. Oblinger DG. Learning Spaces. Educase; 2006.

  5. O’Hare M. Classroom design for discussion-based teaching. J Policy Anal Manage. 1998;17(4):706–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shernoff DJ, Sannella AJ, Schorr RY, Sanchez-Wall L, Ruzek EA, Sinha S, et al. Separate worlds: the influence of seating location on student engagement, classroom experience, and performance in the large university lecture hall. J Environ Psychol. 2017;49:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Becker FD, Sommer R, Bee J, Oxley B. College classroom ecology. Sociometry. 1973;36(4):514–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ridling Z. The effects of three seating arrangements on teachers’ use of selective interactive verbal behaviors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New Orleans, LA. 1994.

  9. Marx A, Fuhrer U, Hartig T. Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learn Environ Res. 1999;2(3):249–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009901922191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, Reschly AL. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J Sch Psychol. 2006;44(5):427–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Richardson JC, Newby T. The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Am J Distance Educ. 2006;20(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Walker CO, Greene BA, Mansell RA. Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learn Individ Differ. 2006;16(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG, Rajalingam P, Hao JWY, Canning CA, Ferenczi MA, et al. How cognitive engagement fluctuates during a team-based learning session and how it predicts academic achievement. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23(2):339–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9801-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2011;16(4):465–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9272-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(23):8410–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sinatra GM, Heddy BC, Lombardi D. The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educ Psychol. 2015;50(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 1999;69(1):21–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD. Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub. 2004.

  20. Koles PG, Stolfi A, Borges NJ, Nelson S, Parmelee DX. The impact of team-based learning on medical students’ academic performance. Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1739–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f52bed.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parmelee DX, Hudes P. Team-based learning: a relevant strategy in health professionals’ education. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):411–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.643267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reimschisel T, Herring AL, Huang J, Minor TJ. A systematic review of the published literature on team-based learning in health professions education. Med Teach. 2017;39(12):1227–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1340636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Currey J, Eustace P, Oldland E, Glanville D, Story I. Developing professional attributes in critical care nurses using Team-Based Learning. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015;15(3):232–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zgheib NK, Dimassi Z, Bou Akl I, Badr KF, Sabra R. The long-term impact of team-based learning on medical students’ team performance scores and on their peer evaluation scores. Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1017–24. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parmelee DX, Michaelsen LK. Twelve tips for doing effective Team-Based Learning (TBL). Med Teach. 2010;32(2):118–22. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903548562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rajalingam P, Rotgans JI, Zary N, Ferenczi MA, Gagnon P, Low-Beer N. Implementation of team-based learning on a large scale: three factors to keep in mind*. Med Teach. 2018;40(6):582–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1451630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hrynchak P, Batty H. The educational theory basis of team-based learning. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):796–801. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.687120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Rajalingam P, Low-Beer N. Knowledge reconsolidation: a psychological foundation for team-based learning. Acad Med. 2019; Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002810.

  29. Kelly PA, Haidet P, Schneider V, Searle N, Seidel CL, Richards BF. A comparison of in-class learner engagement across lecture, problem-based learning, and team learning using the STROBE classroom observation tool. Teach Learn Med. 2005;17(2):112–8. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark MC, Nguyen HT, Bray C, Levine RE. Team-based learning in an undergraduate nursing course. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(3):111–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Levine RE, O’Boyle M, Haidet P, Lynn DJ, Stone MM, Wolf DV, et al. Transforming a clinical clerkship with team learning. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(3):270–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1603_9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mennenga HA. Team-based learning: engagement and accountability with psychometric analysis of a new instrument. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 2010. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/854.

  33. Espey M. Does Space Matter? Classroom design and team-based learning. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2008;30(4):764–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00445.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hong JM, Rajalingam P. Geographic trends in Team-Based Learning (TBL) research and implementation in medical schools. Health Prof Educ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2019.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zomorodian K, Parva M, Ahrari I, Tavana S, Hemyari C, Pakshir K, et al. The effect of seating preferences of the medical students on educational achievement. Med Educ Online. 2012;17(1):10448. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v17i0.10448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Parmelee DX, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e275-e87. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.651179.

  37. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 8th ed. New York: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(3):91–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, van Asperen M, Croiset G. Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: a review of the literature. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):e242–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.558539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nordquist J, Laing A. Designing spaces for the networked learning landscape. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):337–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.1001349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Whiteside A, Brooks D, Walker J. Making the case for space: three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educase Quarterly. 2010;33.

  42. Sanders MJ. Classroom design and student engagement. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2013;57(1):496–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Brooks DC. Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. Br J Edu Technol. 2011;42(5):719–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cotner S, Loper J, Walker J, Brooks D. Research and teaching: "It’s Not You, It’s the Room"--are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? J Coll Sci Teach. 2013;042. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_042_06_82.

  45. Holley LC, Steiner S. Safe space: student perspectives on classroom environment. J Soc Work Educ. 2005;41(1):49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yuretich RF, Kanner LC. Examining the effectiveness of Team-Based Learning (TBL) in different classroom settings. J Geosci Educ. 2015;63(2):147–56. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-109.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sisk RJ. Team-based learning: systematic research review. J Nurs Educ. 2011;50(12):665–9. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111017-01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the undergraduate students from LKCMedicine Class of 2023 and 2024 for their kind participation in the surveys.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, 11 Mandalay Road, Novena Campus, 308232, Singapore

    Hong An Andrew Seet, Emmanuel Tan & Preman Rajalingam

Authors
  1. Hong An Andrew Seet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Preman Rajalingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong An Andrew Seet.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nanyang Technological University [2019-06-036].

Consent to Participate

Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 118 KB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 75 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seet, H.A.A., Tan, E. & Rajalingam, P. Effect of Seating Arrangement on Class Engagement in Team-based Learning: a Quasi-Experimental Study. Med.Sci.Educ. 32, 229–237 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01469-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01469-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation