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
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