Case study, "The Case of the Missing Chairs" the possible bias that David Hamilton expresses in this case were that he supports that every child should have a seat in the classroom. Hamilton also doesn’t believe that allocated funds in place for classroom furniture should not be utilized for other than putting seats and desk for each classroom. He also is firm on his theory that group teaching is not a reason to not allocate hundred percent seating. In the beginning of the article Hamilton poses the theory that only seventy percent of the time will a child occupy their seat. Hence this theory goes, to be proven incorrect in the 1960’s. This lead to prove targeting an open floor plan is not beneficial. This would only save money on the architectural spectrum. Effective learning is essential and there should be a seat for each child. The article looked at each child can be position in varies activities throughout the day. Not all learning agendas require seating. However, in the study none of the examples where proven to be effective. Children do need hundred percent seating in a classroom is Hamilton’s view. Funds for classroom furniture should stay allocated …show more content…
With the study conducted with three groups of teachers in the 1970’s proved that seating for each child is necessary even when doing other group projects with children. Children will require to be seated during the day in order to effectively retain the lesson. The prime example used was writing lessons children can’t be expect to write standing up or laying on the floor. They often found it was more of a disruption to the class in order to find adequate seating for each child when for example the children wanted to engage in an activity that require them to sit like playing hairdresser. As the children or teachers had to look or accommodate seating this often became a distraction and