Influence of Flexible Classroom Seating on the Wellbeing and Mental Health of Upper Elementary School Students: A Gender Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While traditional seating (also known asfixed seatingorfixed classroom) remains the preferred classroom seating arrangement for teachers, a new type of seating arrangement is becoming more common in schools: the flexible classroom (also known asflexible seating). The purpose of this type of arrangement is to meet the needs of students by providing a wide variety of furniture and workspaces, to put students at the center of learning, and to allow them to make choices based on their preferences and the objectives of the task at hand. This study aimed to examine the influence of flexible seating on the wellbeing and mental health of elementary school students. This article presents the results of exploratory research conducted in Quebec among Grade 5 and 6 students comparing the wellbeing and mental health of students in fixed and flexible classrooms. The study was conducted with 107 students in three Grade 5 and 6 flexible classrooms (n = 51) and three Grade 5 and 6 fixed classrooms (n = 56). It is based on a quasi-experimental, quantitative design with post-test only and a control group. The groups were matched based on natural conditions (i.e., from a convenience sample). Furthermore, the study included a gender-differentiated analysis for each group. The results showed that flexible classroom seating had a positive influence on the girls’ wellbeing and mental health. In contrast, for the boys, fixed classroom seating was most conducive to their wellbeing and mental health. However, our study has some limitations that are discussed in the article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".