Launching the 21st Century Learner: Exploring the ...web02. ?· Launching the 21st Century Learner:…

  • Published on
    25-Aug-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

  • 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 Ones Classroom .............................................................................33

    Appendix C-Teacher Twos 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 learners 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 students 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; teachers 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

    environments 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 students 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 caf-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 IIIs 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 Vs 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 Bubers, 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 Bubers dialogue philosophy I-Thou

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

    classroom, a new direction toward the impact of the teachers 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 Bubers (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 Bubers, 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 teachers 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 Bubers, 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

    Aristotles 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 caf 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 teachers 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 todays 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

    students educational outcomes, but also the students psychological needs (McArthur, 2015).

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

    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 childs propensity to ask questions, finds the following conclusions set out in a

    study done by Marx, Fuhrer & Hartigs (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 individuals 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 students psychological need of belonging and relatedness are met within the

    classroom, per the Goodenows study (1993) the researcher concludes that the most influential

    factor determining the students 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 adolescents

    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 adolescents 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 instructors

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

    components proven in Mcarthurs 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 students Language Arts class divided by each prep taught in classroom Teacher Ones

    class and classroom Teacher Twos 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 teachers 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 learners 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 Ones classroom design

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

    Teacher Twos classroom design includes, four couches, a converted whiteboard into a table that

    seats up to twelve students, three bean bag chairs, a tall caf-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 Mcarthurs 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 researchers 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

    studys 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 studys 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 learners 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 Arts 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 teachers 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 surveys

    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 Ones 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 Twos 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 students 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 students 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 learners 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

    14s revealing data speaks loudly to the students 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 Ones 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 students engaging within Teacher Twos 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 Twos 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 Ones

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

    encourage teacher / student interaction, while Teacher Twos 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 learners

    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, Mcarthurs 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

    studys 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 educators 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 learners

  • 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 students 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 childrens 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

    childrens 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.

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

  • 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