61
Launching the 21 st Century Learner: Exploring the Connections of a Coffee Shop Style Classroom and Affective Learning on the Young Adolescent Student A Thesis Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies School of Professional Studies Gonzaga University Under the Supervision of Dr. John S. Caputo Under the Mentorship of Dr. Elizabeth Davis In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies By Wendy Tollefsen December 2016

Launching the 21st Century Learner: Exploring the ...web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Tollefsen_gonzaga_0736M... · Launching the 21st Century Learner: Exploring the Connections

  • Upload
    hanhi

  • View
    227

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Launching the 21st Century Learner: Exploring the Connections of a Coffee Shop Style

Classroom and Affective Learning on the Young Adolescent Student

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Dr. John S. Caputo

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Elizabeth Davis

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Wendy Tollefsen

December 2016

We the undersigned, certify that we read this thesis and approve it as adequate in scope and

quality for the degree Master of Arts.

Gonzaga University

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies

iii

ABSTRACT

This study explored the connections of how the physical classroom design and layout of

an instructional environment influenced the affective learning opportunities and affinity seeking

opportunities for the 21st century young adolescent learner. Two Language Art classrooms, one

offering a traditional layout, desks arranged in a modified horseshoe, and a non-traditional coffee

shop style design classroom consisting of couches, flexible seating and bean bag chairs were

compared using a voluntary, self-administered survey. Teacher One, based in the traditional

classroom received n=139 responses, and Teacher Two in the coffee shop style classroom

received n=126 responses. The combined responses represented the 7th grade student body class

attending a small, public middle school in Northern Arizona. A descriptive analysis interpreted

the data concluding that certain trends occurred in clusters. Based on the survey results, the role

of instructional communication, expansion of the instructional space construct, affective domain

learning and affinity seeking relationships deepens insight into the interpersonal relationships

within the educational setting and young adolescent learning outcomes.

Keywords: affective learning, coffee shop style classroom, instructional proxemics

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their combined support,

guidance and patience, Dr. S. Caputo for his understanding, and clarity throughout the entire

writing and submission process, to Dr. Elizabeth Davis, my mentor professor, who without her

willingness to read several versions of each chapter I would not have made it to the next level, to

my little sister Wanda Lou, who never left a doubt in my mind that I would finish with a smile of

confidence, to my beautiful children, Brit Elisabeth & Sean Aaron who bring joy beyond

compare to my life, to TAC an amazing woman who understands how to format Word 2016

better than I ever could and to my husband, Arthur Ray, who stood by me throughout each late

night, each revision and each success. Thank you all.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i

SIGNATURE PAGE ...................................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF IMAGES ....................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION Page

Introduction .......................................................................................................................1

Importance of the Study ....................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................2

Definitions of Terms Used ................................................................................................3

Organization of Remaining Chapters ................................................................................3

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Philosophical Assumptions ...............................................................................................4

Theoretical Basis ...............................................................................................................5

The Literature....................................................................................................................8

Rationale .........................................................................................................................12

Research Questions .........................................................................................................13

III. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................14

Methodology of the Study...............................................................................................14

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................16

Validity ...........................................................................................................................16

Reliability ........................................................................................................................16

Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................................17

vi

(Table of Contents Cont.)

IV. THE STUDY Page

Introduction .....................................................................................................................18

Results of the Study ........................................................................................................18

Part One ..........................................................................................................................19

Part Two ..........................................................................................................................22

Discussion .......................................................................................................................23

V. SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................25

Further Recommendations ..............................................................................................26

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................27

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................29

APPENDICIES ..............................................................................................................................32

Appendix A-Survey Questions ..........................................................................................32

Appendix B-Teacher One’s Classroom .............................................................................33

Appendix C-Teacher Two’s Classroom .............................................................................35

Appendix D-Survey Results...............................................................................................37

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.a – Data collected from self-survey measuring the affective

learning domain ..................................................................................................20

1.b – Data collected from the self-survey measuring affinity

seeking opportunities ..........................................................................................22

viii

LIST OF IMAGES

Images Page

1.a – Teacher One traditional classroom

modified horseshoe .............................................................................................33

1.b – Teacher One traditional classroom

modified horseshoe .............................................................................................33

1.c – Teacher One traditional classroom

modified horseshoe .............................................................................................34

1.d – Teacher One traditional classroom

modified horseshoe .............................................................................................34

2.a – Teacher Two non-traditional classroom

coffee shop style .................................................................................................35

2.b – Teacher Two non-traditional classroom

coffee shop style .................................................................................................35

2.c – Teacher Two non-traditional classroom

coffee shop style .................................................................................................36

2.d – Teacher Two non-traditional classroom

coffee shop style ................................................................................................ .36

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

1

CHAPTER I

Introduction

The successful maneuvering through the middle school years for the young adolescent

learner depends are resilience, relationships and responsiveness. Family support, peer

acceptance and self-esteem dominate the conversation, however technology and the fluidity of

information create a new set of stressors during a time of physical, emotional and intellectual

growth (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan & Iver, 1993: Martin &

Dowson, 2009). Navigating the waters of a new educational environment, deciphering the

teaching styles of new instructors and new classrooms has resulted in a significant dip in the

young learner’s motivation and an increase in negative attitudes toward the educational

experience (Anderman & Maehr, 1994).

Importance of the study

The role of communication plays an integral part of the student’s learning narrative.

Instructional communication offers educators a vantage point, a lens into which the teacher can

evaluate the importance and create quality learning experiences through the manipulation of the

five instructional communication constructs; teacher’s roles, students, learning outcomes, teacher

behavior/efficacy, and the sixth construct also recognized as part of instructional communication,

and the focus of this study, the instructional environment (McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond,

2004).

As the young adolescent learner transitions into the larger and complex instructional

environment, new strategies for determining success within the classroom continue to dominate

the learning paradigm, however understanding the new challenges facing the 21st century middle

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

2

school student such as, peer acceptance, self -perception and social adaptation remains under

researched and critical for educational success (Feldlaufer, Midgley & Eccles, 1988). This leads

the conversation to include how the communication environment, technology and learning

outcomes will adapt to accommodate a new 21st century pedagogy designed to reveal the

importance of the space and instructional environment within the instructional communication

paradigm. A new focus examining the impact of technology, collaboration, learning spaces and

diverse communication styles within the educational venue (Punie, 2007; Sorensen &

Christophel, 2006) will direct the scholarship of this study.

Statement of the Problem

Interested researchers within the fields of education and communication continue to

launch vigorous hypotheses investigating the links between learning spaces, motivation and

achievement goals however, most research studies conducted target the undergraduate

population (Dittoe, 2002; Harvey & Kenyon, 2013; McArthur, 2015; Morrone, Ouimet, Siering

& Arthur, 2014). One study conducted in Germany did examine the learning spaces of 4th

graders and their question and asking techniques based on seating arrangement (Marx, Fuhrer &

Hartig, 2002). While the findings of younger children evaluate communication strategies using

questioning techniques, the larger and untapped population of young adolescents remains a target

of interest and investigation.

Previous studies have focused on the five constructs of instructional communication and

the importance of best practices in educational communication, while the instructional

environment’s high variance in error has been deemed difficult to measure (Mcarthur, 2015),

therefore discouraging a modern framework to explore how the middle school learner

experiences communication strategies within the classroom based on the instructional

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

3

environment paradigm.

Discovering the possibilities of student satisfaction, teacher/student interpersonal

relationship building and affective learning based on the connections between the instructional

environment and the young adolescent learner will direct the scholarship of this study.

Definition of Terms Used

The Affective Domain- contributes to the student’s overall impression either in a positive

or negative light toward both the instructor and the subject (Christophel, 1990).

Coffee Shop Style Classroom- a classroom that shares café-style characteristics. The

classroom includes, couches, a high bistro table, an abundance of natural light, brightly colored

walls, and bean bag chairs (Morrone, Ouiment, Siering & Arthur, 2014).

Instructional Proxemics- explores the use of space, and the physical design of the

classroom, how the independent variable of the instructional environment impacts the affective,

cognitive and behavioral domains while applying instructional communication (Mcarthur, 2008).

Organization of the Remaining Chapters

The remaining chapters explore the process of this study which include in Chapter II the

philosophical assumptions, theoretical basis, an exemplary literature review, the rationale for the

study and the research questions, followed by Chapter III’s outline of both the scope and

methodology of the study, the data analysis, validity and reliability of the collection process and

the ethical considerations for the study. Chapter IV introduces the results of the study and offers

a discussion of the findings, concluding with Chapter V’s examination of the study through

summaries and conclusions, limitations of the study, further recommendations and the

conclusion.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

4

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

Philosophical Assumptions

The process of interpersonal communication might feel as chaotic as a well-played ping-

pong match or subtler like the nuances of a game of charades where the act of dialogue depends

on the willingness of the actors to participate (Griffin, 2006, p. 53). Whichever way the process

is perceived, the role of authentic and meaningful dialogue between the young adolescent learner

and the teacher creates the cornerstone for genuine learning, affinity and motivation (Frymier &

Houser, 2002). Maintaining an open perspective while at the same time offering meaningful

discourse in the vein of a bidirectional flow necessary for a successful teacher-student/student-

teacher relationship, aligns with the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber’s, “I-Thou & I-It”

distinction of ethical dialogue (Buber 1932/ 1958).

Looking to define the communication and ethical context of a coffee shop style setting in

a middle school classroom invites a closer look using Buber’s dialogue philosophy “I-Thou”

connection between individuals. Due to the openness and nontraditional design of the café

classroom, a new direction toward the impact of the teacher’s communication style and

immediacy directly creates a new of understanding that correlates with student affinity, and

motivation. Buber (1932/1985) postulated that when individuals converse, the act itself is

determined to be genuine by the quality of the dialogue, meaning that by design, the

transactional nature of communication would be one of mutuality or exclusivity, or in other

words, the delivery of information extending a coefficient mutuality of benefits through

authentic discourse, that then in turn, accommodates and recognizes the goals and needs of the

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

5

participants, in this case the student/teacher relationship. When disingenuous dialogue occurs

inside the classroom, per Buber’s (1932/1958) “I-It” philosophy, the relevancy of the discourse

evaporates and the relationship building potential dissolves and in the context of a teacher

centered classroom leads to student anxiety, lack of motivation and a decrease in the affective

domain of learning (Noels, Clement and Pelletier, 1999). Postulating further on Buber’s, “I-It”

characteristic of authentic dialogue, this scenario depicts the stereotypical -teacher centered-

classroom delivering prepackaged information to the student, based not on the genuine, cognitive

and affective needs of the student, but shifts focus toward the teacher’s own set of referential

personal goals. In this setting, the capacity for trustworthy discourse ceases to exist, thus

creating a dialogue and learning vacuum for the student.

Through thoughtful introspection and examination over how these two integral dynamics

relate to the transmission of information, teacher encouragement, and student support, allows one

to identify and discover the importance of how Buber’s, “I-Thou & I-It” constructs can

distinguish the difference between a rich learning experience or an underwhelming educational

episode (Burber, 1932/1958; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Wentzel, 1999).

Theoretical Basis

Instructional Communication

The study under consideration will explore the role of the teacher and the role of the

instructional environment as defined within the constructs of instructional communication. This

aspect links educational space to young adolescent affective learning within the context of a

coffee shop style classroom design in a middle school setting. The theoretical basis will also

concentrate on how the interpersonal constructs of the relational / rhetoric perspective (Mottet,

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

6

Richmond & McCroskey, 2006) interface with student affinity dynamics, thus widening the

conversation to examine the importance of the physical instructional environment composed of a

coffee shop style learning space and its impact on the affective domain of the young adolescent

learner, while at the same time exploring connections between increased student emotional

response to motivation and positive relationship building within the teacher/student interpersonal

communication relationship (Christophel, 1990; Martin & Dowson, 2009).

Rhetorical/Relational Values

Per McCroskey, Valencic, and Richmond (2006) the rhetorical aspect of the

communication process finds its roots in classical rhetoric, or the act of persuasion (p.23).

McCroskey et al. (2006) presents the traditional roots of rhetoric when he refers to, both

Aristotle’s use of pathos, ethos, and logos (p.23) and to the canons of Roman rhetoricians, which

include, inventions, arrangement, style, as being the most important and widely applicable to the

study of instructional communication (p.23-24). The act of dispensing relevant and meaningful

information to the student depends on how well the teacher demonstrates non-verbal and verbal

strategies to promote credibility, affinity and immediacy (Goodenow, 1993; Wentzel, 1999),

thereby increasing achievement goals, student motivation and affective outcomes (Heyman &

Dweck, 1992).

While the rhetorical element of the instructional communication process delivers insight

into the persuasive dialectic aspect between participants, the role of this study is to determine the

connection of how immediacy, the use of non-verbal and verbal messaging develops an

emotional/ relational bond between the student and the teacher in a café style learning space,

thus impacting student motivation and affective learning for the young adolescent student (Bell

& Daly, 1984; Frynier & House, 2000; Kaplan & Maehr, 2006).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

7

Affinity-Seeking Interpersonal Communication

While framing the study using the relational perspective of instructional communication,

the basis for the work will also include the constructs of affinity-seeking to explain the

importance of the emotional connections between teacher/student, delivery of communication

strategies, and the instructional value of the teacher’s affinity-seeking strategies, such as; non-

verbal immediacy gestures, such as eye contact, smiling, forward leaning (Frymier, 1994;

McArthur, 2015; McCroskey et al. 2004) to help explain the impact of relational powers within a

flexible educational space (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Marx, Fuhrer & Hartig, 1999;

McArthur, 2015) thus influencing goal motivation and affective student learning outcomes.

(MacAulay, 1990; McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond, 2004).

The relationship between the young adolescent and motivation to participate in an

educational setting rests not only on the communication strategies displayed by the teacher, but

also on the immediacy verbal and non-verbal cues demonstrated and how those cues are further

evaluated and perceived through student articulation within the instructional communication

constructs (Feldlaufer, Midgley & Eccles, 1988; Mcroskey et al. 2004).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

8

The Literature

Educational Space / Affective Learning

One cannot deny the importance of physical space and its impact on the affective learning

outcomes of the student as it has been expressed in several studies (McArthur, 2015; McCorskey

& McVetta, 1978; Punie, 2007; Temple, 2008; Weinstein, 1979). Many of these studies have

focused on the classroom design settings-educational space- in colleges and universities here in

the United States and abroad. While these studies are relevant to underscoring the needs of the

new 21st Century learner, including the dynamics of technology integration and student-centered

classrooms (Harvey & Kenyon, 2013; Matthews, Andrews & Adams, 2010; Morrone, Ouimet,

Siering & Arthur, 2014) few studies explore the impact of how flexible learning spaces within

the middle school years influence student affective learning, or investigate how a supportive

emotional bond between the teacher and the young adolescent learner applies to the overall

satisfaction of the learning experience (Marx et al.,1999; Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan,

Reuman, Flanagan & Iver, 1993; MacAuley, 1990; Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005).

Focusing on the physical design of the classroom to meet the pedagogical needs of the

learner goes back to the inception of the one room school house (McClintock & McClintock,

1968) where students were placed in rows, and pointed toward the direction of the instructor.

Windows allowed for natural lighting, and were not necessarily important to the aesthetic design

for learning, as a utilitarian purpose dominated the space. Even in today’s 21st century

classroom, the seating arrangements of the 19th century those of sitting in straight rows with little

room for movement or any feature other than looking in one direction toward the teacher

continues to dominate classroom design comparing the experience to a cross between a crowded

express lane in the grocery store and the static rows of a cemetery.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

9

Delivery of effective instructional communication stands paramount for success between

the stakeholders -teacher/student-student/teacher (McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Richmond,

1990), thereby adopting a flexible seating style within the classroom would seem interesting and

profitable to promote a greater flow for discourse, student engagement, collaboration and

increased teacher/student interaction (Matthews, Andrews & Adams, 2010; Morrone, Ouimet,

Siering & Arthur, 2014).

Environmental Variables/Instructional Goals

Furniture Style and Student Preference

In a study conducted by Harvey & Kenyon (2013) conclusions drawn about the

educational space learning environment, extended to include the importance of selecting

furniture used in the space in the context of a, “tool” meaning that certain factors such as,

“comfort, safety, and health” should be taken into consideration when applied to not only the

student’s educational outcomes, but also the student’s psychological needs (McArthur, 2015).

These findings are consistent with Morrone et al., (2014) who researched how the café

style space would allow instructors to meet instructional goals and facilitate student

collaboration. Based on Morrone et al., (2014) research, ranking number one among those

surveyed, 44% preferred soft cushioned chairs and short tables, when utilizing the space. While

the intentions of the researchers were not to identify any pedagogical style, a key summary of

takeaways included; an appreciation of comfortable and flexible seating, mobility within the

space, and enjoyment of an “abundance of natural lighting, making the environment more

conducive to learning” (p.4). The conclusions of both studies, Harvey & Kenyon (2013) and

Morrone et al., (2014) should be considered by any middle school teacher looking to model and

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

10

design a flexible learning space offering opportunities for collaboration, interpersonal

communication building, interaction, and meeting the psychological needs of the early

adolescent learner (Weinstein, 1979).

Seating Position

Studies researching the impact of seating arrangements on task oriented activities,

disruptive behavior, and affective learning student outcomes have delivered an array of varying

results. For example, the classroom environment study developed by MacAulay (1990)

elaborates on four conceptual domains, while engaging in a subset of the open classroom

concept, the traditional classroom setting and how these two determinants affect classroom

functioning. According to MacAulay (1990) the seating arrangement of the traditional rows

better accommodates structure and on task behavior, while the circular arrangement offers a

higher level of collaboration, thus providing conflicting degrees of success. Mirroring the same

findings made earlier by McCorskey & McVetta (1978) found students preferred different

seating arrangements based on content matter, and that where the student is seated, dictates a

causal link to the level of interaction (p. 106).

Evaluating the effects of the seating arrangement in a classroom and the subsequent

examination of a child’s propensity to ask questions, finds the following conclusions set out in a

study done by Marx, Fuhrer & Hartig’s (1999). While the subjects of the study were a group of

4th graders, one cannot discount the addition to the conversation about instructional

communication, and student interaction based on a seating arrangement. Just like McCorskey &

McVetta (1978) and MacAulay (1990) students seated in the semi-circular horseshoe setting

were perceived to be more interactive with the teacher, while those students seated in traditional

rows, contributed less to the question asking process, however those conclusions were based on

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

11

active versus less active zones consisting of students seated closer to the instructor active zones

as opposed to those seated further away from the teacher or less active zones (Dittoe, 2002;

Marx, et al., 1999; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Weinstein, 1979). Based upon the outcomes

of these studies, one might infer that the need for further study based on the physical educational

classroom design directed toward the 21st century learners interest in creating a deeper

interpersonal communication avenue between teacher/ student, and emotional integration, would

show a higher contribution of interaction directly influencing a perceived increase in affective

learning outcomes for the middle school learner.

Student Motivation/Instructional Communication

Likeability, credibility and relatedness join the discussion when articulating the

correlation between student affective learning, and student motivation (Frymier & Thompson,

1992). Per Anderman & Maehr (1994) a new cognitive paradigm emerged to include the

attribute of motivation, or in other words, how the influence of an individual’s belief system,

morals, and perceptions contribute to the study of needs and drives (p. 290). Furthermore,

Anderman & Maehr (1994) conclude that the study of motivation for the young middle school

adolescent continues to be of interest within the field of cognition dynamics and student

outcomes (p. 290). While student motivation correlates to achievement within the classroom,

building a successful emotional base within the instructional communication constructs also

contribute to affective learning (Sorenson & Christophel, 2006; Stanton-Spicer & Marty-White,

1981).

When a student’s psychological need of belonging and relatedness are met within the

classroom, per the Goodenow’s study (1993) the researcher concludes that the most influential

factor determining the student’s effort rested on perceived teacher support and respect. One can

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

12

then conclude that the emotional needs of the student support and respect create the backdrop for

relational communication strategies necessary for developing a successful collaborative

environment, thereby increasing the importance of the immediacy cues both verbal and non-

verbal to deliver an affective learning outcome for the student (Christophel, 1990; Rodriguez,

Plax & Kearney, 1996; Sprague, 1992).

Rationale

Instructional communication advances and evolves invoking further in depth studies that

embrace the dynamics of the educational communication arena ((Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005).

Several studies in the past have drawn relevant conclusions on the impact of instructional

communication and affective learning based on the affinity-seeking construct and its use within

the classroom (Bell & Daly, 1984; Frymier, 1994; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Furrer & Skinner,

2003).

While these studies have advanced the teacher/student constructs conversation, and added

to a better understanding of the interpersonal communication relationship between the

stakeholders within an educational setting, many of these studies concentrated on the older

student. The middle school years have not received the same attention in the instructional

communication arena, notwithstanding, research has shown that the young adolescent’s

successful transition into middle school depends on the same variables observed in the upper

classes, while the emotional-affinity- bond overrides many of the upper level teacher/student

constructs. (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Christophel, 1990; Eccles et al., 1993; Feldlauger et al.,

1988; Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Goodenow, 1993).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

13

The rationale behind this study seeks to offer another dynamic to understanding the

young adolescent’s transition to middle school by focusing on the classroom climate, specifically

looking at the influences of a coffee shop style classroom creating a causal relationship of the

physical space on affective learning and exploring a new understanding within the instructional

communication using the environmental construct as a determinant for advancement of affinity

building. Investigating the dynamics of the instructional environment and the young adolescent

learner guides the study by exploring the following research questions:

RQ 1- Does the coffee shop style classroom enhance the affective learning domain in the

young adolescent learner?

RQ2- Does the coffee shop style classroom create affinity seeking opportunities between

teacher/student?

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

14

CHAPTER III

Scope and Methodology

The Scope of the Study

The study under consideration explores the connections between a coffee shop style

classroom and the affective learning domain on the young adolescent learner. The design and

flexibility of the middle school classroom offers an opportunity to investigate the links between

student satisfaction, affective learning, and instructional communication. As the educational

learning environment continues to adapt to meet the needs of the 21st century learner the physical

design and climate of the classroom creates a new area of interest for the instructional

communications researcher.

In his 2008 dissertation, “Instructional Proxemics: Creating a place for space in

instructional communication,” John Mcarthur, creates a new term specifically directed at the

study of space and learning, Instructional Proxemics (p. 4). By combing the instructional

communication constructs of the environmental space within the classroom and the instructor’s

communication strategies to produce affective learning, this study will incorporate certain key

components proven in Mcarthur’s study for further evaluation in two 7th grade Language Arts

classrooms.

Methodology of the Study

Per Rubin (2010) the quantitative explanatory technique design using a self-administered

survey advances and examines the relationship between the independent variable of classroom

design and layout to the dependent variables of affective learning and teacher instructional

communication strategies. The survey (Appendix A) explores the links between affective

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

15

learning, student satisfaction, and instructional communication delivered within two

differentiated designed classrooms, with Teacher One using traditional desks with a modified u-

shape horseshoe design (Appendix B) and Teacher Two, using a layout considered in operational

terms, a non-traditional coffee style classroom (Appendix C).

The independent variable, the classroom design, will be explored through the survey

questions designed to investigate connections between the dependent variables such as; affective

learning and teacher communication, based upon a self-administered survey to 265, 7th grade

students attending a middle school in Northern Arizona.

The survey contains twenty-eight Likert items and a 5pt. Likert Scale (Appendix A).

The self-administered survey was delivered simultaneously on one school day during each 7th

grade student’s Language Arts class divided by each prep taught in classroom Teacher One’s

class and classroom Teacher Two’s class. Each classroom has a designated survey title to

identify either Teacher One (traditional desks) or Teacher Two (coffee style classroom). Both

surveys include the same questions as to not deter or pollute the survey results and do not include

either teacher’s name. Upon accordance and agreement with both facilitating teachers, the

survey was administered at the beginning of each Language Arts class period and run

concurrently throughout the day. Both teachers teach five Language Arts preps, and both

teachers enjoy a third period preparation time. The class load of both teachers consists of

approximately 28-35 students. Each class period consists of fifty-five minutes, with a passing

bell of five minutes between classes. The students could complete the survey at their own pace

and received no repercussions if the student skipped questions, or took longer than other students

in the same class. The participants were also given the option to decline participation.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

16

The Participants

The participants in this one case study include young adolescent learner’s ages (11-13)

attending the 7th grade at a middle school in Northern Arizona. The other actors include, two

Language Arts teachers who administered the student survey. Teacher One’s classroom design

includes student desks, an ITV, a Chromebook cart, file cabinets and teacher desk (Appendix B).

Teacher Two’s classroom design includes, four couches, a converted whiteboard into a table that

seats up to twelve students, three bean bag chairs, a tall café-style table with seating for four

students, a Promethean Panel, an ITV, a Chromebook cart, and an independent standing teacher

space (Appendix C).

Data Analysis

Once the data has been collected a descriptive statistical analysis will examine the

relationship between the classroom design, affective learning, and teacher communication. The

design of the survey incorporates five affective learning constructs:

awareness/listening/attention, participation/questioning/ leadership, value/empathy/respect,

autonomy/freedom/comfort, and teamwork/problem-solving/independence. The second part of

the survey focuses on teacher communication strategies, and has been incorporated from the

study guided by John Mcarthur’s Dissertation on Instructional Proxemics (2008).

Validity and Reliability

Each question on the survey attempts to measures a specific construct designed to

examine the relationship of the dependent variables, which per Rubin (2010) defines the validity

through the measurement of content (p. 203). Since the measurement scale defines all twenty-

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

17

eight Likert items using a 5pt Likert scale, internal consistency should produce the same results

if taken several times.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical considerations of this study are multi –layered, beginning with the young

adolescent students, the cooperating teachers, the school administration, and the governing

board. Per Rubin (2010) the researcher’s desire to design a survey, or build a theory should and

must be built upon the premise of, “Do No Harm.” (p. 204). By this sentiment, the study under

consideration has taken several safe holds to champion the integrity and honesty throughout the

study’s survey and data gathering process. Through each step of the research process, all

stakeholders remained informed of the process of the study, and the necessary conditions for the

collection of data. The ethical considerations include the privacy and anonymous participation

of the survey takers. The instructions given on the title page of the survey included anonymity

and voluntary participation.

An introduction to the intent of the formal research survey and data collection was

presented to the principal of the middle school and the survey received permission for

implementation. No personal information, gender, family status, or economic standing was

gathered for this study. The governing board of the school district will assess the data analysis

for use in the future. Dependent upon the results, the study might create a discussion platform

based on the study’s construct of flexible seating and instructional communication.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

18

CHAPTER IV

The Study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore what connections if any could be attributed to

the physical design of a middle school classroom on the young adolescent learner’s affective

domain, and teacher affinity opportunities. The study used a self-survey consisting of 28 Likert

items using a 5pt. Likert scale (Appendix A). All 7th grade students present took the survey.

Two hundred and sixty five young adolescent learners participated in the survey, representing

98.5% of the 290, 7th grade students enrolled in a public middle school located in Northern

Arizona.

The survey was administered to each student during their Language Arts class. The 7th

grade class attends one of two Language Art’s classes, taught by Teacher One, and Teacher Two.

The decision to distribute the survey during Language Arts was based upon the classroom

design/layout, and the same subject matter thereby reducing the possibilities of student confusion

about the nature of the questions.

Results of the Study

The data collected from the survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The

constructs defining affective learning was broken down into four subsets:

awareness/listening/attention (1), participation/leadership (2), autonomy/comfort (3) and

teamwork/independence (4). Self-administered survey questions correspond to measure each of

the affective learning variables: Q1-4 (1), Q5-10 (2), Q11-16 (3) and Q17-20 (4). Questions 21-

28 measure the teacher’s affinity opportunities and will be discussed in the second part of the

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

19

analysis. The classroom design and layout underscores each question and remains the

independent variable for analysis. See Appendix A for the complete questions.

Part One

RQ 1- Does the coffee shop style classroom enhance the affective learning domain in the

young adolescent learner?

Since research to define the associations between the instructional communication

construct of the physical classroom environment, affective learning and affinity seeking

opportunities has been under-researched toward the young adolescent learner, the survey’s

questions and design used for RQ 1 & RQ 2 combined both proven and established research

operationalized methods (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994; Harvey & Kenyon, 2013; Mcarthur,

2008; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978; Morrone et al., 2014). From these methods, a set of 28

Likert items using a 5pt Likert scale were created (Appendix A). Teacher One had n=136

respondents while Teacher Two had n=129. The discrepancies in student participation does not

factor into the overall validity of the data collected. Students who were absent during the

administration of the survey were not included in the final data collection.

The mean, standard deviation and variance between the two classrooms provided the

foundation for the interpretation of the data, thus providing the following conclusions. Based on

the data (Table 1.a) Teacher One’s traditional classroom with a modified U-shaped design

(Appendix B) showed a higher mean, standard deviation and variance in all questions in

correlation to Teacher Two’s coffee shop style classroom (Appendix c).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

20

1.a - Data collected from self-survey measuring the affective

learning domain Teacher One Mean Standard

Deviation

Variance Teacher Two Mean Standard

Deviation

Total n=136 Total n=129 Q 1 n=136 1.79 0.73 0.08> Q 1 n=129 1.62 0.65

Q 2 n=135 2.08 0.92 0.14> * Q 2 n=129 1.76 0.78

Q 3 n=135 2.16 1.11 0.02> Q 3 n=128 1.99 1.09

Q 4 n=135 2.33 1.09 0.09> Q 4 n=124 1.96 1.00

Q 5 n=135 2.26 1.19 0.3> ** Q 5 n=127 1.83 0.89

Q 6 n=135 2.27 1.11 0.15>* Q 6 n=129 1.92 0.96

Q 7 n=135 2.21 1.05 0.02> Q 7 n=129 2.03 1.03

Q 8 n=133 2.16 0.91 0.08> Q 8 n=127 1.90 0.83

Q 9 n=136 1.87 0.86 0.05> Q 9 n=125 1.67 0.81

Q 10 n=134 2.22 1.02 0.13> * Q 10 n=129 1.70 0.89

Q 11 n=135 2.27 1.03 0.26> * Q 11 n=129 1.79 0.77

Q 12 n=135 2.45 1.20 0.12> * Q 12 n=128 2.15 1.08

Q 13 n=135 1.84 0.90 0.24> * Q 13 n=127 1.49 0.66

Q 14 n=133 2.34 1.18 0.4> ** Q 14 n=126 1.71 0.78

Q 15 n=133 2.04 0.91 0.26> * Q 15 n=127 1.65 0.65

Q 16 n= 135 2.13 1.14 0.58> * Q 16 n=128 1.47 0.56

Q 17 n=135 1.87 0.84 0.08> Q 17 n=126 1.70 0.76

Q 18 n=134 1.62 0.66 0.06> Q 18 n=125 1.45 0.60

Q 19 n=134 2.35 1.12 0.19> * Q 19 n=129 1.86 0.93

Q 20 n=135 2.19 1.13 0.03> Q 20 n=125 1.98 1.10

Questions 1-4 measured the student’s awareness/listening/attention. The standard

deviation for questions 1, 3, 4 remain within an average range of 0.063, which provides only a

nominal difference between the classes, though question 2 (It is easy to ask questions), offers a

higher variance of 0.14* from Teacher One. The data suggests that the lack of flexibility might

increase the student’s hesitation to reveal lack of understanding or knowledge. This would

translate into a lower level of affective learning. Similar tendencies developed throughout the

survey. Question 5 (I am comfortable helping other people with assignments) presented the

second largest variance of 0.3** from Teacher One. This might suggest that the ability for

students to collaborate, or enjoy the flexibility to move from student to student due to the

classroom configuration, could negatively affect the young adolescent learner’s prospect for

participation or explore leadership opportunities.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

21

Of interest were the results found in the cluster of questions 11-16 which measured the

affective domain variable of autonomy/comfort (3). The traditional classroom of Teacher One

showed a consistent degree of mean, standard deviation and variance, reaching the highest

variance of 0.4** for question 14 (In this classroom I sit where I will do my best work). While

each one of the questions measuring the autonomy/comfort variable remain of interest, question

14’s revealing data speaks loudly to the student’s desire to have choice, make decisions about

their learning, acknowledging the basic drive to choose an area or seating preference that creates

an authentic interaction of communication translating into affective learning. This conclusion

aligns with the relational goals outlined in Mottet, Richmond & McCroskey (2006) that

“Students have a need to feel confirmed as a student and often as a person.” (p. 266).

Questions 17-20 measured teamwork/independence. Teacher One’s responses continue to

show a trend of a higher measurements which combined with the data from the first twenty

questions supports research question one, that the coffee shop style classroom enhances the

affective learning domain of the young adolescent learner. The data also shows that the

responses for Teacher One showed a greater propensity in variance toward a larger mean than

did the responses for Teacher Two, which connects even at a limited view, better affective

learning outcomes for the student’s engaging within Teacher Two’s coffee shop style classroom.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

22

Part Two

RQ2- Does the coffees shop style classroom create affinity seeking opportunities between

teacher/student?

Questions 21-28 deal with attitudes of affinity seeking opportunities between the teacher

and student, correlated between Teacher One and Teacher Two (Table 1.b).

1.b – Data collected from the self-survey measuring affinity seeking

Teacher 1 Mean Standard

Deviation

Variance Teacher 2 Mean Standard

Deviation

Total n=136 Total n=129 Q 21 n=134 2.35 0.93 0.12> * Q 21 n=129 1.70 0.81

Q 22 n=134 1.85 0.91 0.29> * Q 22 n=128 1.55 0.62

Q 23 n=133 2.39 0.94 0.08> Q 23 n=129 1.81 0.86

Q 24 n=133 1.73 0.87 0.18> * Q 24 n=128 1.44 0.69

Q 25 n=135 2.24 1.15 0.31> * Q 25 n=128 1.59 0.84

Q 26 n=136 2.16 0.88 0.02> Q 26 n=127 1.83 0.86

Q 27 n=135 1.89 0.85 0.06> Q 27 n=126 1.65 0.79

Q 28 n=136 2.12 0.97 0.08> Q 28 n=129 1.67 0.89

The same observations of mean and variance as discerned by the standard deviation,

highlights the differences between Teacher One and Teacher Two. The data shows that there is

more certainty of affinity opportunities enjoyed within Teacher Two’s classroom when

examining the comparison of the traditional classroom of Teacher one and the coffee shop style

classroom of Teacher Two.

Per Frymier (1994) affinity seeking describes the ability of creating a positive attitude

toward another person (p.88), while the affective learning domain directly relies on the

perceptions of likability of the instructor (Christophel, 1990). The data found in Table Two

shows a slight preponderance toward a greater amount of affinity opportunities in the coffee shop

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

23

style classroom, meaning the independent variable designed to answer RQ2 remains within a

certain degree of acceptability.

Discussion

Throughout this study, the focus on the physical design of the classroom remained

paramount to advance a dialogue based on the instructional environment construct as outlined as

one of the six tenets of instructional communication (McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004).

The data of this study reveals direct correlations between interpersonal communication

relationships, affective domain learning and the physical layout of the classroom. Teacher One’s

classroom configuration combines a modified model of the traditional row and desk organized to

encourage teacher / student interaction, while Teacher Two’s coffee shop style classroom creates

a minimal amount of obstruction between teacher and student allowing for maximum interaction

and affinity seeking opportunities (Bell & Daly, 1984; Christophel, 1990).

Per Morrone, Ouiment, Siering & Arthur (2014) similar findings of student seating

preference and flexible seating offered a greater enhancement of the student / teacher

communication relationship. The study also goes on to support the collaborative nature of

flexible seating, and organization of the classroom. The 21st century young adolescent learner’s

exposure to diverse groups, peoples and communication styles will continue to dominate the skill

sets necessary for affective learning, advancement and cooperation (Feldlaufer, Midgley &

Eccles, 1988; Mcarthur, 2015; McCorskey & McVetta, 1978).

Leading the discussion on the operative nature and value of exploring the instructional

environment, Mcarthur’s research on classroom space continues to challenge the conventional

pedagogy of traditional classroom seating which in turn does not advance differential learning

outcomes. In his dissertation (2008) Mcarthur describes the evolution of instructional

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

24

communication, the advent of technology within the learning paradigm and the instructional

space, creating a new term, Instructional Proxemics to define the phenomenon of the physical

classroom environment and its impact on the interpersonal communication relationships between

teacher and student.

The value of designing classrooms based on the motivational, social and academic goals

of the student have driven social science research for several years, beginning with a study

conducted forty years ago, by instructional communication theorists, McCorskey & McVetta,

(1978). Their research drew upon the understanding that the interaction between student and

teacher rested on more than authority and submission, it explored the premise that student

preference had a direct correlation to learning outcomes and instructional communication.

Communication is essential in the classroom as posited by McCorskey et al., (1978) saying that

the, “kind of communication,” and the “amount of communication,” were also a direct result of

the seating arrangements (p. 99).

If the posited premise designed forty years ago, by leading instructional theorists raised

questions of classroom environments, though difficult to measure (Mottet et al., 2006), then why

not continue the discussion to advance the of pedagogy, interpersonal communication

relationships and 21st learning literacies.

Young adolescent learners continue to experience many difficulties due to the shifting

dynamics of life, environment and personal growth, however through innovative models of

learning (Dittoe, 2002) the educational environment can offer more than the traditional take

away of a structured teacher driven agenda. The young adolescent years offer a variety of

opportunities which through purposeful and thought expression, can create everlasting

interpersonal relationships designed to promote growth and learning (Frymier & Houser, 2000).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

25

CHAPTER V

Summaries and Conclusions

Limitations of the Study

While the study produced measurable data, there were limitations. These limitations

include, student variability, many were unfamiliar with taking surveys which might have led to

answering all the questions in the same way, classroom distractions, time of the day, or other

uncontrollable factors.

Further limitations include the interpersonal relationship between the student and the

teacher, by that, students had already established a liking or disliking of the teacher based on

several predictable variabilities, such as the subject matter, having friends in the classroom,

teacher management and communication styles, inferring that while the survey participates

remained anonymous, the idea that a teacher might see who answered and how, deterred students

from answering honestly out of fear for reprisal, or to garner favorability from the teacher.

Students also shared their answers with other friends which might have coerced answers to be

manipulated through the exchange of information, creating a gap of authentic participation by the

students.

The fact that only two classrooms and two instructors were surveyed also limited the

study’s potential by restricting the parameters for evaluations to only the 7th grades student

population, whereas had the study included the 8th grade student body, and extended the survey

to include the young adolescent learner within the traditionally difficult subjects of math and

science, would have offered a greater variance in the final survey analysis.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

26

Finally, the methodology used for this study offered only one self- administered survey

limiting the amount of information available for evaluation, which if the study had utilized a

qualitative mixed method, for example student journals, or student interviews, a broader base of

gathered data might have exposed a greater variance in patterns and trends.

Further Study and Recommendations

An immediate response to the study and survey results reveals a trend of shifting

attitudes, perceptions and interests for the 21st century young adolescent learner. The study

exposes an opportunity for the education and communication researcher to take a closer look at

the role of physical space and classroom design as factor to the overall satisfaction for the

student.

While the information supports the importance of the physical space of the instructional

environment as an independent variable, the role of the educator as facilitator within the fluidity

of an unobstructed classroom layout, warrants further investigation. Per Mcarthur (2014) the

efficacy of the teacher within the non-traditional classroom and the student determines the

quality of learning and success. The teacher's approach to the delivery of instruction directly

correlates to the design of the instructional space, meaning that the teacher embracing the

flexible coffee shop classroom, will directly influence the affective domain and affinity

outcomes for the student just as the teacher who withdraws from the non-traditional classroom

reflects the same attributes within the traditional classroom. Understanding the interplay

between teacher, space and student requires additional study, including extended exploration on

the impact of classroom design on autonomy, choice, collaboration and empathy for the young

adolescent learner. With this point in mind, future studies within the instructional

communication arena should advance the study of the instructional environment directed at the

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

27

younger learner, where the potential to create longitudinal studies increase the reliability of

correlating the construct of physical space as an independent variable for interpersonal success

between teacher/student and student/student, collaboration and affinity seeking attributes.

Further recommendations include expanding the research to explore the classroom

culture, teacher efficacy, and physical space, by that meaning, an inclusive study to examine the

teaching styles, and affinity seeking methods influencing the educator’s instructional

communication strategies.

Conclusion

Since the day of the one room school house (McClintock, & McClintock, 1968) meeting

the pedagogical needs of the learner has continued to advance educational reform, learning

cultures and the information environment. While the traditional classroom design of desks and

rows stays firmly entrenched in modern society, the advancing global community of dedicated

researchers continue to drive the conversation toward the advancement of modernizing the

classroom, making it a place for collaboration, innovation and socialization. By building on the

social nature of learning, creating areas within the classroom to encourage problem-solving and

communication encourages the affective learning domain attributes directly leading to the

cognitive learning process (Frymier, & Thompson, 1992). This attitude of flexibility translates

into the type of classroom created to meet the pedagogical, emotional and intellectual needs for

the 21st century learner, building a foundation of communication necessary for the 21st century

workplace (Matthews, Andrews, & Adams, 2010).

This study drew upon the advancements made in instructional communication and

educational research to provide a window into the 21st century young adolescent learner’s

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

28

educational experience. The results from this study support the findings that students learn when

given choice, autonomy and voice.

The independent variable of physical space considered a communication construct within

instructional communication theory continues to build interest when connecting student

motivation, emotional response and the student’s psychological need of belonging and

relatedness (Goodenow, 1993).

Delivering quality instruction, meeting the needs of the learner, and preparing the student

for integration into the 21st century workplace requires a combination of successes based on the

determination, of not only motivation from the learner, it also requires vision, risk taking and

innovation on the part of the instructor.

By embracing the educational possibilities of learning outcomes based on the recreation

of the classroom design, integrating technology to advance 21st century literacies and organizing

the learning experience through flexible seating choice and student preference, the educational

experience can be transformed from the mundane to the exceptional, it starts with one teacher,

one classroom and one vision.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

29

References

Anderman, E. M., & Maeher, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.

Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.

Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication.

Communication Monographs, 51(2), 91-115.

Dittoe, W. (2002). Innovative models of learning environments. New Directions for Teaching

and Learning, 92, 81-90.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, M.

D. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit

on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,

48(2), 90-101.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher and observer perceptions of

the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 133-156.

Frymier, A. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the

classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87-105.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2002). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal

relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219.

Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to

perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41(4), 188-199.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(1), 148-162.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships

to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21-43.

Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Harvey, E. J., & Kenyon, M. C. (2013). Classroom seating considerations for 21st century

students and faculty. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(1).

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

30

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.

Educational Psychological Review, 19, 141-184.

MacAulay, D. J. (1990). Classroom environment: a literature review. Educational Psychology,

10(3), 239-253.

Martin, J. M., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and

achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review

of Educational Research, 79(1), 327-365.

Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (2002). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on

children’s question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 2, 249-263.

Matthews, K. E., & Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2010). Social learning spaces and student

engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 105-120.

Mcarthur, J. A. (2008). Instructional Proxemics: Creating a place for space in instructional

communication discourse. Clemson University Paper 197. Retrieved from

https://goo.gl/BZFtCr.

Macarthur, J. A. (2015). Matching instructors and spaces of learning: the impact of space on

behavioral, affective and cognitive learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1). Retrieved

from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/766/817.

McClintock, J., & McClintock, R. (1968). Architecture and pedagogy. Journal of Aesthetic

Education, 2(4), 59-77.

McCroskey, J. C., & McVetta, R.W. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional

communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2), 99-

111.

McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general mode of

instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 197-210.

Morrone, A. S., Ouiment, J. A., Siering, G., & Arthur, I. T. (2014). Coffeehouse as classroom:

examination of a new style of active learning environment. New Directions for Teaching

and Learning, 137, 41-51.

Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Handbook of Instructional

Communication: Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

31

Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative

style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal,

83(1), 23-34.

Nussbaum, J. F., & Friedrich, G. (2005). Instructional/developmental communication: Current

theory, research and future trends. International Communication Association, 55(3), 578-

593.

Punie, Y. (2007). learning spaces: An ICT-enabled model of future learning in the knowledge-

based society. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 185-199.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation.

Communication Education, 39(3), 181-195.

Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher

nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central

causal mediator. Communication Education, 45(4), 293-305.

Rubin, B. R., Rubin, A.M., Haridakis, P.M., & Piele, L. J. (2010). Communication research

strategies and resources. (7th ed.) Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Sorenson, G. A., & Christophel, D. M. (2006). The communication perspective. In Mottet, T. P.,

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Handbook of Instructional

Communication: Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives. (pp. 35-46). New York, NY

Routledge.

Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising

some unasked questions. Communication Education, 41(1).

Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Marty-White, C. R. (1981). A framework for instructional

communication theory: The relationship between teacher communication concerns

and classroom behavior. Communication Theory, 30(4), 354-366.

Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London

Review of Education, 6(3), 229-241.

Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research.

Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.

Wentzl, K. R. (1999). Social -motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:

implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 91(1), 76-97.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

32

Appendix A

Strongly Agree (1) – Agree (2) - Not Sure (3) - Disagree (4) - Strongly Disagree (5)

1. In this classroom it is easy to follow directions.

2. In this classroom it is easy to ask questions.

3. In this classroom I know most everybody's names.

4. In this classroom it is easy to make new friends.

5. In this classroom I am comfortable helping other people with assignments.

6. In this classroom I will raise my hand and ask a question, even if I feel unsure of my answer.

7. In this classroom it is easy to stay focused.

8. In this classroom I want to discuss important topics.

9. In this classroom I like to learn about new things

10. In this classroom learning is fun and interesting.

11. In this classroom I like to work on my assignments.

12. In this classroom I like working with new people.

13. In this classroom I have easy access to technology.

14. In this classroom I sit where I will do my best work.

15. In this classroom I am in control of my learning.

16. In this classroom I am physically comfortable.

17. In this classroom I make good choices.

18. In this classroom I respect the rules.

19. In this classroom important.

20. In this classroom I am important.

21. In this classroom the teacher looks at me when teaching.

22. In this classroom the teacher makes gestures (moves hands) while talking.

23. In this classroom the teacher turns toward me when speaking.

24. In this classroom the teacher smiles.

25. In this classroom the teacher moves around the room when teaching.

26. In this classroom the teacher talks to students before and/or after class.

27. In this classroom the teacher expresses support (smiles) when student's answer questions.

28. In this classroom the teacher uses many different facial expressions.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

33

Appendix B

Teacher One- Traditional with modified U-shape Classroom

Image 1.a

Image 1.b

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

34

Appendix B (continued)

Teacher One- Traditional with modified U-shape Classroom

Image 1.c

Image 1.d

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

35

Appendix C

Teacher Two - Coffee Shop Style Classroom

Image 2.a

Image 2.b

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

36

Appendix C (continued)

Teacher Two - Coffee Shop Style Classroom

Image 2.c

Image 2.d

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

37

Appendix D

Survey Results

Q1: In this classroom, it is easy to follow directions

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q2: In this classroom, it is easy to ask questions.

Teacher One - Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

38

Q3: In this classroom, I know most everybody's names.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q4: In this classroom, it is easy to make new friends.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

39

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q5: In this classroom, I am comfortable helping other people with assignments.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q6: In this classroom, I will raise my hand and ask a question, even if I feel unsure of my

answer.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

40

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q7: In this classroom, it is easy to stay focused.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

41

Q8: In this classroom I want to discuss important topics.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q9: In this classroom I like to learn about new things

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

42

Q10: In this classroom learning is fun and interesting.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q11: In this classroom I like to work on my assignments.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

43

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q12: In this classroom I like working with new people

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q13: In this classroom I have easy access to technology.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

44

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q14: In this classroom I sit where I will do my best work

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

45

Q15: In this classroom I am in control of my learning.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q16: In this classroom I am physically comfortable

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

46

Q17: In this classroom I make good choices.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q18: In this classroom I respect the rules.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

47

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q19: In this classroom my opinion is important.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q20: In this classroom I am important.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

48

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q21: In this classroom the teacher looks at me when teaching.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

49

Q22: In this classroom the teacher makes gestures (moves hands) while talking.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q23: In this classroom the teacher turns toward me when speaking.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

50

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q24: In this classroom the teacher smiles.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q25: In this classroom the teacher moves around the room when teaching.

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

51

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q26: In this classroom the teacher talks to students before and/or after class.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

52

Q27: In this classroom the teacher expresses support (smiles) when student's answer

questions.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom

Q28: In this classroom the teacher uses many different facial expressions.

Teacher One- Traditional classroom

LAUNCHING THE LEARNER

53

Teacher Two- Coffee shop style classroom