每一位家長都希望自己的孩子有好的成績，而且都認為坐在前排能得到較好的成績，座位的影響力到底有多大呢？本研究將探討不同座位安排其班級互動和學業成就的差異，以提供老師安排座位的依據。本研究座位安排方式分老師指定座位和學生選擇座位二種，研究採用實驗法在嘉義縣一所國小進行，班級互動分成口語互動、企圖參與及同儕互動三種，資料收集包括為期一學期的教室觀察，學期中的焦點團體訪談法，及期末的問卷調查法，教室觀察所得初步結果再用焦點團體法深入研究，學業成就以學生的月考成績為準。 主要研究結果如下：一、無論老師指定座位或是學生選擇座位，活動區都在教室前排中央和前排右邊，在學生選擇座位時口語互動集中於活動區的情形更加明顯。二、活動區的形成不全然由環境因素造成，活動區和學生的互動類型有關，高、低互動類型的「口語互動」前排和後排沒有差異，只有中互動類型的口語互動次數前排比後排多。三、高、中、低互動類型「企圖參與」前排和後排沒有差異。四、「同儕互動」在老師指定座位時，後排比前排多；在學生選擇座位時，前排和後排沒有差異。五、高、中、低互動類型的「學業成就」前排和後排沒有差異。六、在老師指定座位時，企圖參與和學業成就呈正相關，並達顯著水準；在學生選擇座位時，口語互動、企圖參與和學業成就呈正相關，同儕互動呈負相關，三個項目均達顯著水準。 Parents wish their children have the best learning achievement, and they believe that sitting in the front will ensure a better learning result. How does seating arrangement influence learning and interaction in the classroom? This research aimed to evaluate the effect of seating arrangement on the interactions in the classroom and learning achievement. This research was carried out at an elementary school in Chiayi. An experimental design (manipulating seating arrangement) was used. Two types of seating arrangements teacher- assigned and student- selected were used in this study. Three types of interactions in the classroom were measured, including verbal interactions, attempted participations and peer interactions. The data collection process included classroom observation, focus group interview during the semester; in addition a questionnaire survey was carried out at the end of the semester. The quantitative methods got the initial results and the qualitative methods did the research deeply. Students’ learning achievement was measured in terms of their performance on the monthly tests. The major findings were as follows: 1) The action zone is located in the central and right of the front seats, both under teacher- assigned and student- selected condition. This action zone was more obvious when students selected their own seats. 2) The action zone is not inevitably formed by environmental factors. It was also related to the students’ interaction types. There were no significant front- rear difference in verbal interaction between students of high and low interaction type; only students of moderate interaction type would produce higher interaction when sitting in the front than in the rear. 3) There is no significant difference in attempted participation among all kinds of interaction types. 4) In the teacher- assigned seating condition, those seating in the rear produced significantly higher peer interaction than those in the front, but in the student- selected condition, there was no significant difference between the two zones. 5) There is no significant difference in learning achievement among all kinds of interaction types. 6) In the teacher- assigned seating condition, attempted participation was positively correlated with learning achievement; in the student- selected condition, attempted participation and verbal interaction were positively correlated with learning achievement, but peer interaction was negatively correlated with learning achievement.
