e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
Number 1
Spring 2010
How Teacher Positioning in the Classroom
Affects the On-Task Behavior of Students
Author: Annabelle Myers and Sofia Anderson
Editor: Dr. Eucabeth Odhiambo
Assessment and Evaluation
of Student Behavior in Relation to
Teacher Positioning in the Classroom
A vital part of one’s effectiveness as
a teacher is to motivate and help students
learn content matter. The teacher’s
positioning impacts how students learn,
receive instruction, and maintain on-task
behavior. Students learn information by
participating in class, taking notes, listening,
and asking questions. In order for a teacher
to motivate his or her students to learn, he or
she must establish a classroom environment
that is conducive to learning and make
himself or herself attractive and engaging to
the learners. Students will succeed in the
classroom when they receive the support
they need to be successful. The positioning
of the teacher in the classroom indicates
whether he or she is enthusiastic about the
subject matter, cares about the students’
progress, is motivated to help students learn
content material, and has high expectations
for the success of his or her students.
Furthermore, the teacher’s involvement with
the class contributes to his or her
professional demeanor and demonstrates to
students that the new material they are
expected to learn is deliberately taught and
should be taken seriously. On the other
hand, when the teacher is not engaged with
the class, distracted with a computer or
telephone call, or leaves the room, students
are less motivated to learn and more tempted
to participate in off task behavior
(Cruickshank, Jenkins, Metcalf, 2009, p.
339-354). Eucabeth Odhiambo
Methodology
We sought to answer the question: How
does the teacher’s positioning in the
classroom affect the on-task behavior of
students? We defined on task on-task
behavior as occasions when the child is
engaging in behavior that is directly related
to the activity established by the teacher.
Similarly, we defined off-task behavior as
occasions when the child is engaging in a
behavior that is not related to the activity
established by the teacher. Typically, this
term is used to refer to relatively low-level
forms of behavior, such as daydreaming,
playing with materials or equipment, talking
to others, and wandering around the room
(Merrett & Wheldall, 1990, p. 124). To
assess the impact a teacher’s positioning in
the classroom has on the on-task and offtask behavior of the students, we observed
and collected date from the classroom. We
focused our attention on off-task behaviors
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
1
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
of students, described the location of the
teacher at this time, and then noted if she
changed her positioning in the classroom to
address the off task behavior of students.
More specifically, we completed a table that
answered the questions pertaining to: (1) the
number of students who were off-task; (2)
the teachers positioning in the classroom
when the students were off task; (3) whether
Number 1
Spring 2010
the teacher repositioned herself (4) the new
position the teacher assumed, if she
repositioned herself (5) whether the new
position of the teacher resulted in a
decreased number of students who were off
task, and by what numerical figure. We
collected our date using the observation
table below:
Table:
Number of
students off
task:
Teacher’s
positioning in
classroom,
when
children were
off task:
Did the
teacher
change her
position?
Yes or No
We each conducted our own
observations of our host teacher during a
two day period in a third grade classroom.
Additionally, we experimented with
different positioning while we each taught a
lesson on the second day and observed the
impact various positions had on the on-task
behavior and motivation of students. We
recorded our observations in a table similar
to the one above. At the end of the two day
period, we compared our observations. We
analyzed and drew conclusions about the
relationship between teacher positioning in
If yes, where
did the
teacher
reposition
herself?
Did number
of off-task
students
decrease?
If Yes, by
how many?
the classroom and the ability of the students
to stay on task, based on the observations of
the teachers and our lesson.
Review of Related Literature
Research has demonstrated that time
spent on task is consistently related to the
amount of information students learn.
Students learn more when both teachers and
students spend more time actively engaged
in academic tasks (Brush, 1997, p. 30). The
U.S. Department of Education reported in
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
2
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
2002 that, “students typically increase their
attention to a task and show improved
compliance when the teacher is in close
physical proximity” (1). Therefore, it is
recommended that teachers hold the students
attention by standing or sitting near them
before giving directions or engaging in
discussion and that the teacher circulates
around the room to keep students focused
during group activities (Ford, Olmi,
Edwards, & Tingstrom, 2001, p. 1).
Our related literature further pointed
us to research conducted on the areas of the
classroom where students are most likely to
interact with the material they are expected
to learn. The term action zone, or T zone, is
used to refer to an area where the teacher is
most likely to interact with his or her
students. The arrangement of the classroom,
and specifically the desks, has an immense
impact on the action zone. A study
conducted by M. Gail Jones at the School of
Education at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill conducted
observations between interactions with
students in the action zone compared to
students located outside of the action zone in
the fifty-six physical science and chemistry
classes. The researcher observed that
students located in the action zone,
“dominated class interactions and received
more direct questions, teacher-afforded
conversation, and sustaining feedback” (1).
Additionally, nearly one third of the students
located outside of the action zone did not
interact and were silent (Jones, 1989).
It is recommended that children who
are the most likely to become distracted
should be placed in forward and central
Number 1
Spring 2010
locations of the action zone. This will
decrease the likelihood that these students
will be off task and improve their degree of
interaction with the teacher. It is also the
responsibility of the teacher to be cognizant
of the students located farther away from the
action zone by circulating around the
classroom to keep them involved.
Additionally, the teacher should make eye
contact and call on those positioned farther
away to keep them actively engaged in the
lesson (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber,
2008, p. 325-327).
For optimal results, teachers must
gain and hold the attention of their students
throughout the lesson. To accomplish this,
teachers must interact with students in a
variety of ways by mandating group
projects, individual work, and classroom
discussions (Grouws & Cebulla, 2000).
Furthermore, “teachers should also vary the
ways in which they reinforce or praise
students for desirable performance or inform
them about their progress. Smiling at
students, maintaining eye contact, moving
closer, laughing, and gesturing toward
students often can be reinforcing and convey
support and interest. More explicitly, you
can give students rewards for desirable
performance. Verbal praise, recognition of
outstanding work, free time, or tokens are
examples” (Cruickshank, Jenkins, Metcalf,
2009, p. 364). The involvement of the
teacher and the support he or she offers to
students in the class are vital to capturing
and holding the interest of the students in the
content material they are expected to learn,
in addition to demonstrating the importance
of the material to the students.
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
3
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
Results
Our results were directly related to
on task and off task behavior of students.
We observed the teacher in three principal
Number 1
Spring 2010
positions in the classroom at the times when
students displayed the most off-task
behaviors. Our results were recorded in the
table below.
Table:
Teacher’s
positioning in
classroom, when
children were
off task:
Did the teacher
change her
position?
4 / 17:
Moving around,
playing with
items in hands,
and talking to
those near them
8/17:
Out of their
seats, talking
with others,
playing with
friends, walking
around
classroom
Rocking chair in
front of group,
while group was
sitting on carpet
No
No, removed
students from
group and
further from her
Yes, by 1, student
removed from
group
At her desk, with
group or at her
computer or
organizing
papers and
grading
No
No, she gave two
verbal warnings
for students to
get on task and
then returned to
her activity
10/17:
Students ran
around room
chasing each
other, talking to
each other in
loud voices, and
not completing
work
Left the room to
speak to
neighboring
teacher for
approximately 23 minutes.
Yes
Teacher
reentered the
room
Yes, temporarily
after the verbal
warning, but
soon returned to
students being
off task once
teacher withdrew
attention from
them
Yes, due to the
teacher
reentering room,
commanding
student attention
and giving a new
set of direction
Number of
students off
task:
Yes or No
If yes, where did
the teacher
reposition
herself?
Did number of
off-task
students
decrease?
If Yes, by how
many?
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
4
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
We observed four out of seventeen
students moving around the room, playing
with items in their hands, and talking to
those near them, during instruction time.
The teacher was sitting in her rocking chair
and positioned in front of the students who
were seated on the carpet in front of the
rocking chair. The teacher made no change
in her positioning during the lesson, or while
students were off-task. However, the
teacher did implement a change in the
positioning of the off task student by
moving him or her from the group and
instructing him or her to “take a break.”
Therefore, the student was farther from the
teacher, and further away from the action
zone.
The next significant observation
recorded eight of the seventeen students
participating in off task behavior. The offtask behaviors displayed included children
got up and out of their seats, talked with
other students, played with friends, and
walked around the classroom. The teacher
at this point was positioned at her desk
organizing papers and grading, while the
students were supposed to be completing
graphic organizers a story they had just read.
A few students approached her desk with
questions. However, the majority of the
students remained at their seats and showed
visible confusion about the assignment and
was unsure how to proceed, which resulted
in students entertaining themselves with
non-work related activities. While many of
the students were off-task, the teacher did
not reposition herself. Instead, the teacher
gave two verbal warnings for students to get
back to work and finish the assignment if
Number 1
Spring 2010
they wanted to have recess. There was a
temporary decrease in the number of
students off task after the verbal warnings,
but the students soon returned to off-task
behaviors once the teacher had returned her
attention to her computer and papers.
Although the classroom arrangement
allowed for the teacher to walk around the
room and have a variety of action zones, she
chose not to utilize them. As a result,
students did not finish their assignments on
time and had to either stay inside during
recess or complete them at home.
Lastly we observed the majority of
the class off-task, ten out of seventeen
students, off task when the teacher exited the
classroom. The students were observed
running around the room, chasing each
other, talking to each other in loud voices,
and not completing any work. The teacher
was out of the room for approximately 2 to 3
minutes, conversing with a teacher from a
neighboring classroom. When she reentered the classroom, stood at the door and
scolded the students for their behavior she
commanded their attention with her tone of
voice. The number of students off task
decreased to zero due to the severity of the
teacher’s response and her central
positioning in front of the class while
issuing a new set of directions. Her
positioning helped her to command the
students’ attention and get them redirected
to the next activity. The teacher then
positioned herself in the front of the
classroom where she could see all students
at their desks and ensure that they were on
task. On task behaviors were only observed
when the teacher was in a position that kept
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
5
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
her involved in the task, near the students
and or exercising productive actions zones.
Most off task behaviors arose and increased
when the teacher withdrew her positioning
to her desk and away from the students and
task at hand.
For our lesson, we tried to correct the
problems we witnessed through our
observations, and included a variety of
positioning and action zones in our
individual lessons. Sofia addressed the
students in a standing position in front of the
students throughout the lesson, circulated
the classroom to ensure students were
completing their work, and administered the
informal oral examination to each individual
student. Annabelle also stood in front of the
class while giving instructions, moved
behind the students as they did a hands-on
activity, circulated the classroom while
students were completing their work, and
administered the informal oral examination
to each student. During both lessons,
students remained enthusiastic about the
lesson, were able to complete their work,
and fulfilled the objective of the lesson.
Our results show that our host
teacher’s choice of positioning in the
classroom did little to nothing to keep her
students on-task. Her positioning, and lack
of repositioning, offered ways for her
students to become and, at many times, stay
off-task. This off-task behavior resulted in
confusion about the lesson and a small
number of completed assignments from the
students. Our positioning during our lessons
demonstrated that we were interested in our
students and enthusiastic our lessons, which
Number 1
Spring 2010
resulted in the students retaining the
information they were required learn.
Discussion
According to Bohlin, Durwin, &
Reese-Weber (2008), students located in the
action zone show an improved degree of
interaction with the teacher. We each made
sure to vary action zones to keep all students
engaged and on task during our lessons. In
Annabelle’s case, she made sure to change
her positioning to target different action
zones throughout the lesson. She began by
standing in front of the class at the easel
where she administered directions while the
students sat on the carpet directly in front of
her. This allowed students to clearly
understand what was required of them
during the lesson. Then, she changed her
positioning to observe the students from
behind while they were participating in a
hands-on activity. The hands-on activity
allowed students to interact directly with the
lesson while still under the supervision of
the instructor. After, Annabelle moved to a
standing position in front of them at the
white board while instructing the students to
complete a worksheet. The students
remained on-task and quiet for the
instructions. Next, Annabelle had the
students return to their desks during which
time she walked around the classroom to
insure that the worksheets were being
completed thoroughly and correctly. This
change in action zones demonstrated to the
students that they needed to remain on-task
because Annabelle was aware of the
progress they were making. Finally,
Annabelle visited each group of students for
the informal evaluation, asking each
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
6
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
member of the group to correctly answer the
essential question. This allowed Annabelle
to speak directly with each student in the
class, further enlarging the action zone and
the number of students engaged in the
lesson. The changes in her positioning kept
the students motivated to learn and curious
as to what would come next during the
lesson. This was evidenced in the
excitement of the students and the fact that
they could correctly identify the meaning of
a procedure by the end of the lesson.
In Sofia’s lesson, she began by
having the students gather on the carpet for
instruction, a position they were comfortable
assuming. Sofia then varied the action zone
by standing in front of the class, which
commanded the students’ attention and
clearly showed her as an authority figure.
While she read the two books to the class for
the comparison lesson, she moved from the
middle to the right, back to the middle, and
to the left of the group seated on the carpet.
During the lesson, all students faced forward
and had remained focused on the books as
Sophia moved in the front of the classroom.
The students remained on task due to the
instructor’s moving around and inviting the
children to be a part of the lesson with her
positioning. After the introduction to the
lesson, the children were asked to move
from the carpet to their desks, and Sofia then
moved to the white board where she had the
students volunteer to assist in filling out the
Venn diagram on the board, while they
copied the information on their graphic
organizers. Sofia faced the students and
when talking to the class, moved closer to
them and turned to the volunteer. To make
Number 1
Spring 2010
sure all children were on task during this
part of the lesson, she also moved towards
each group to make sure students were
engaged and on task. The students eagerly
volunteered and participated in the lesson by
doing what was expected of them. The
variety of action zones kept the students’
attention on the instructor and kept them on
task.
Cruickshank, et al. (2009) states that
a teacher’s positioning demonstrates that he
or she is engaged in the lesson and
concerned for the progress of the students.
We each remained engaged with the
students and closely monitored their
progress during the lesson and during
individual work to show that we were
interested in their progress. During
Annabelle’s lesson, she stood in front of the
students when she clearly stated the
objective of the lesson. She further stated
that the students would be required to
correctly define the word “procedure” by the
end of the lesson. This positioning asserted
Annabelle as an authority figure and
demonstrated to the students that this
information was important. During the
hands-on activity, Annabelle aided students
while they made a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich. When the students were required
to make the sandwich a second time, using
only the steps they had recorded as a class,
Annabelle demonstrated that if the students
did not explicitly write, “Open the jar of
peanut butter,” the whole jar of peanut butter
would have to be placed on the sandwich.
Her involvement in the lesson showed that
she was engaged and involved with their
learning experience. Then Annabelle
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
7
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
circulated around the room while the
students were completing their worksheets
to ensure that the students understood the
material while they were working
individually. Finally, Annabelle distributed
peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to
students who correctly completed the
worksheet and defined procedure a set of
directions. This position demonstrated care
about their work. The fact that she
demonstrated her interest and remained
engaged in the lesson motivated students to
learn the material, so they were able to
correctly explain the meaning of a
“procedure.”
During Sofia’s lesson, she stood in
front of the class and presented the students
with one of four words at a time and had
students “discuss” or “pair share” with a
neighbor what they believed the meanings of
the words to be. Sofia had a flash card for
each word that she showed the class and
walked from one side of the group to the
other side to make sure all students saw it
and were ready to participate in the
discussion. She asked for volunteers to
define the word; she then gave the written
definition and had students repeat the word
and the meaning. This process was done for
each of the four terms. The students were
informed that at the end of the lesson they
would have to define the four terms when
the flash cards were shown to them. The
final part of the lesson included individual
work at each student’s desk. Sofia made
sure to show the students that she cared
about them and their learning by moving
around the room and checking the students’
work as they worked on it. She drew a star
Number 1
Spring 2010
on each student’s paper when it was
correctly completed. She walked around to
each group and announced that those
students had completed their work and had
earned their stars. Sofia also stood at each
group and had the students hold up their
pictures related to the lesson to share it with
the class. With Sofia’s staying involved in
the lesson and positioning herself well and
at one time or another close to each group, it
showed her enthusiasm for the students to
do well and to be involved. At the end of
the lesson, it was evident that the students
had learned and remained on task because
they could all orally define the four terms
presented at the beginning of the lesson and
used throughout the lesson to achieve
mastery of the terms. The varying of the
action zones kept the students engaged and
allowed for the learning of the terms.
Recommendations
We recommend that the teacher hold
the attention of the students by standing or
sitting near the students during a lesson
while giving directions or engaging in
discussion. We also recommend that the
teacher circulate around the room to keep
students focused during group activities and
individual work.
We further recommend that the
teacher use a variety of action zones to keep
students on task during group or
independent work in the classroom to
distinguish her as the authority figure. The
teacher would benefit from using her
positioning in the classroom to demonstrate
her interest in the lesson and involvement
with her students. Staying stationary or
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
8
e-Journal of Student Research
Volume 2
moving to, and staying at, her desk during
group or individual work will result with the
teacher’s appearing disengaged and allow
for off-task behaviors.
Finally, our host teacher noticed our
variation of action zones and complimented
each of us on our movement around the
classroom, specifically when we went to
each group individually to assess student
knowledge of the subject matter.
_______________________________
References
Bohlin L., Durwin C.C., Reese-Weber M..
(2008) EdPsych: Modules. 1st Edition.
Boston: McGraw Hill, 325-327.
Brush, T. (1997). The Effects of Group
Composition on Achievement and
Time on Task for Students Completing
ILS Activities in Cooperative Pairs.
Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 30, 2-17.
Cruickshank D.R., Jenkins D.B., & Metcalf
K.K. (2009). The Act of Teaching. 5th
Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Number 1
Spring 2010
Grouws, D., & Cebulla, K. (2000).
Improving Student Achievement in
Mathematics. Brussels: International
Bureau of Education.
Jones, V., & Jones, L. (1995).
Comprehensive classroom
management (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Meadows, N.B. (1993). A philosophy of
teaching, not just managing
behaviors. Teaching
Education,
6(1), 93-99.
Meadows, N.B. & Melloy, K.J. (1996).
Behavior management as a
curriculum for students with emotional
and behavior disorders Source:
Preventing School Failure. Vol. 40 Issue
3 P. 124.
Merrett, F and Wheldall, K (1990) Positive
Teaching in the Primary School.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
_____________________
Authors: Annabelle Myers and Sofia Anderson
are Juniors of Elementary Education Major at
Shippensburg University in spring 2010.
Curwin, R., & Mendler, A. (1998).
Discipline with Dignity. Reston, VA:
Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Ford, Olmi, Edwards, & Tingstrom, 2001;
Gettinger & Seibert, 2002; U.S.
Department of
Education, 2004.
Department of Teacher Education Shippensburg University |
9