臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

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。

Abstract:
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.

第一章 緒論………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機…………………………………1
第二節 研究目的…………………………………5
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………6
第一節 座位安排與活動區………………………6
第二節 班級互動…………………………………12
第三節 學業成就…………………………………18
第三章 研究方法…………………………………21
第一節 研究架構…………………………………21
第二節 研究問題與假設…………………………23
第三節 研究設計…………………………………23
第四章 研究結果…………………………………29
第一節 活動區和公共區的界定…………………29
第二節 不同區域座位互換班級互動的比較……34
第三節 老師指定座位和學生選擇座位班級互動和學業成就的比較………………………………………………….40
第四節 班級互動和學業成就的關係……………51
第五節 不同互動類型班級互動和學業成就的差異
.........................................54
第五章 結論與建議………………………………61
第一節 結論………………………………………61
第二節 建議與檢討………………………………64
參考書目 …………………………………………67
附錄 ………………………………………………72
附錄1學生座位問卷調查表………………………72
附錄2老師座位問卷調查表………………………74
附錄3班級互動紀錄表……………………………76
附錄4教室觀察時程表……………………………77
附錄5-1六年級教室座位表………………………78
附錄5-2四年級教室座位表………………………79
附錄5-3一年級教室座位表………………………80

一、中文部分
中華網新聞中心(2001)，〈教室座位後排換前排，收費200元〉，(http://news.china.com/zh_cn/school/10000502/20010619/10047735.html)，2001/6/19。
王保進(1999)，《視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究》，台北：心理。
王瑞賢(1999)，《尋找出路─教育運作原則的探索》，高雄師範大學特殊教育中心。
朱文雄(1992)，《班級經營》，高雄：復文。
朱立德(1989)，〈座位安排方式之探討〉，《研習資訊》，54：31-3。
余作輝(1987)，〈國小普通教室課桌椅編排之設計〉，《台灣教育輔導月刊》，1：18-22。
余曉雯(1997)，《權力交戰場--學校中的身體規範與學生的身體觀》，台北師院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯(1995)、Patton, M. Q. 著，《質的評鑑與研究》，台北：桂冠。
李德顯(2000)，〈師生權力與角色分析〉，《教育理論與實踐》，20(2)：35-40。
汪美鳳、張勻銘、張梅楓(1999)，〈班級經營中的座位安排〉，(http://class.ncue.edu.tw/article20.shtml)，2001/6/19。
周玉真譯(1999)、Wragg, E. C.著，《如何進行教室觀察》，台北：五南。
林俊榮、陳彥汝、彭瑞琴、莊凱婷(2000)，〈教室佈置對教學活動的影響〉，(http://home.educities.edu.tw/likewind/www)， 2001/4/28。
林萬義(1986)，《我國台灣地區國民小學學校建築及其附屬設備評鑑之研究》，政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
胡鍊輝(1990)，〈教室佈置的新理念〉，《師友月刊》，78年9月。
容若愚(2002)，〈由距離到關係〉，(http://www.hkdavc.com/yy/v2-yy-20020102.html)，2002/01/02。
許慧玲(1988)，《教室管理》，台北：心理。
陳桂蘭、王維志、鄭雅真、顏素麗、盧彥儒(1995)，〈國立台北師院學生上課座位選擇及其相關因素之調查〉，《傳習》，13：15-36。
湯志民(1992)，〈教室情境對學生行為的影響〉，《教育研究雙月刊》，23：44-53。
黃德祥(1989)，《國中與國小班級中影響學生社會行為與社會關係之相關因素研究》，政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
楊語芸譯(1997)、Deaux, K., Fuancis, C. D., Lawarence S. W. 著，《九０年代社會心理學》，台北：五南。640-4。
劉軍(2001)，〈教室座位竟可用錢買〉，《法制日報》，2001/02/19(第三版)。
劉惠敏、鄭玉旻(1989)，〈座位安排方式〉，《教育文粹》，18：103-5。
蔡敏玲、彭海燕譯(1998)、Cazden, C. B.著，《教室言談》，台北：心理。
蔡碧璉編(2002)，〈教學中的管理行為〉，(http://163.29.187.2/class4/text-04-1.htm)，2002/04/07。
鄭明痕指導、宋方議、邱錦祥、胡憶民、李安石、蔣江明著(1989)，〈高中學生座位與學業成績之關係〉，《師大校友月刊》，243：15-7。
蕭坤松(1998)，〈一個教學過程的實證例子：學生成績與座位空間分佈的關係〉，《菁莪季刊》，10(2)：38-40。
謝華然(2000)，〈也談「請班主任吃飯」〉，《茂名日報》，2000/11/3(A2版)。
鍾群珍(2001)，〈社交測量在班級管理上的實施及運用〉，(http://sp.yjjh.tp.edu.tw/soci/artice51.htm)，2002/5/19。
二、英文部分
Atwood, V.A. & J. T. Leitner (1985). ”Time and Space: Tools for Effective Teaching,” Education. 106(1):15-21.
Becker, F. D., Sommer, R., Bee, J., & Oxley, B. (1973). ”College Classroom Ecology, ” Sociometry. 36:514-25.
Brooks, C. I. & J. L. Rebeta (1991). ”College Classroom Ecology: The Reaction of Sex of Student to Classroom Performance and Seating Preference,” Environment and Behavior. 23 : 305-313.
Caproni, V., Levine, D. W., O’Neal E. C., Garwood, S. G., & McDonald, P. J. (1977). ”Seating Position, Instructor’s Eye Contact Availability, and Student Participation in a Small Seminar,” Journal of Social Psychology. 103: 315-6.
Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental Psychology : Principles and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gump, P. (1987). ”School and Classroom Environments. In Altman,& D.Stokols(Eds.),” Handbook of Environment Psychology. 698-701.
Hastings, N. & J. Schwieso (1995). ”Tasks and Tables: The Effects of Seating Arrangements on Task Engagement in Primary Classrooms,” Educational Research. 37(3): 279-91.
Hastings, N. & K. C. Wood (2000). ”Space for Learning Primary Classrooms :Bridging the Gaps,” education-line. (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001532.htm), 200/09/27.
Hedgecock, C. (2000). ”Teaching Through a Seating Change,” Teaching PreK-8. 31(2): 60.
Holliman, W. B. & H. N. Anderson (1986). ”Proximity and Student Density as Ecological Variables in a College classroom,” Teaching of Psychology. 13: 200-3.
Kinarthy, E. L. (1975). The Effect of Seating Position on Performance and Personality in A College Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Univer of Southern California.
Koneya, M. (1976). ”Location and Interaction in Row-and-Column Seating Arrangements,” Environment and Behavior. 8(2): 265-82.
Lambert, N. M. (1994). The International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.). (9): 5355-9.
Levine, D. W., O’Neal E.C., Garwood, S. G., & McDonald, P. J. (1980). “Classroom Ecology: The Effects of Seating Position on Grades and Participation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.6: 409-12.
Levine, D. W., McDonld, P. J., O’Neal E.C.,& Garwood, S. G. (1982). “Classroom Seating Effects: Environment or Self-Selection-Neither, Either or Both,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8: 365-9.
Macpherson, J. C. (1984). ”Environments and Interaction in Row-and-Column Classrooms,” Environment and Behavior.16: 481-502.
Marx, A., Fuhrer, U. & Hartig, T.(2000). ”Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangement on Children’s Question-Asking,” Learning environments Research. 2: 249-63.
Mercincavage, J. E. & C. I. Brooks (1990). ”Differences in Achievement Motivation of College Business Major As a Function of Year in College and Classroom Seating Position,” Psychological Reports. 66: 632-4.
Montello, D. R. (1988). ”Classroom Seating Location and its Effect Achievement, Participation, and Attitudes,” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 8: 149-57.
Montello, D. R. (1992). ”An Effect of Seating Location on Course Achievement? Comment on Brooks and Rebeta,” Environment and Behavior. 24(3): 396-99.
Pedersen, D. M. (1994). ”Personality and Classroom Seating,” Perceptual and Motor Skill.78: 1355-60
Rosenfield, P., Lambert, N. M., & Black, A. (1985). ”Desk Arrangement Effects On Pupil Classroom Behavior,” American Psychological Association. 77: 101-8.
Sommer, R. (1967). ”Classroom Ecology,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 3:489-503.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Sommer, R. (1989). ”Classroom Ecology and Acquaintanceship,” Educational Psychology. 9(1): 63-6.
Stires, L. K. (1980). ”Classroom Seating Location, Student Grades, and Attitudes Environment or Self-selection?” Environment and Behavior. 12(2): 241-54.
Strodtbeck, F. L., & H. L. Hook (1961). “Social Dimension of the twelve-man jury table,” Sociometr. 24 : 397-415.
Toshiaki, K.(1998). ”The Latent Four- Zone Structure in Classroom Seating Space,” Japanese Psychological Research. 40(1): 40-6.
Walberg, H. J.(1969).”Physical and Psychological Distance in the Classroom,” The School Review. 77(1): 64-70.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley.
Weinstein, C. (1979). ”The Physical Environment of the School: A review of The Research,” Review of Education Research. 49(4): 577-610.
Wulf, K. M. (1977). ”Relation of Assigned Classroom Seating Area to Achievement Variables,” Education Research Quarterly. 2(2): 56-62.