Using the Comfortability-in-Learning Scale to Enhance Positive Classroom Learning Environments.

Abstract

A goal of higher education is to advance learning. This study examined the role “comfortability” plays in that process. Defined as the level of comfort students experience with their classmates, instructor, and course material, comfortability addresses how secure a student feels in the classroom. Comfortability was assessed multiple times during one semester with undergraduate students and found student comfortability significantly increased across the course of the semester and significantly predicted affective learning. These findings suggest the importance of the classroom environment in the learning process and support the need for faculty to consider “non-academic” factors in addition to course content. Constructs such as engagement, community, relatedness, and connection are common in higher education. Multiple studies have demonstrated when students were more engaged, aware, and comfortable with their environments they would become more active in their learning (Tinnesz, Ahuna, & Kiener, 2006), had a positive perception of learning and performance (McKinney, McKinney, Franiuk, & Schweitzer, 2006) and persisted until graduation (Cheng, 2004; Harris, 2003). There are at least two underlying themes among these constructs that support positive learning environments, intellectual safety and affective learning. Schrader (2004) defined intellectual safety as a learning atmosphere in which students feel secure in challenging and strengthening ideas to deepen learning. Affective learning examines student intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, methods students use to interact with content, and how students receive, respond to, and integrate information to form an intellectual disposition (Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007; Holt & Hannon, 2006). It is feasible to believe a further examination of the interaction of intellectual safety or learning environment and affective learning will lead to additional insights on emphasizing student learning. Rodriguez, Plax, and Kearney (1996) sought to analyze the indirect relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning; specifically examining if affective learning or student motivation had a more significant impact on cognitive learning. Examples of instructor nonverbal immediacy include: smiling, eye contact, and forward body lean. The researchers used a correlational design with path coefficients to determine which model (motivational or affective learning) had a greater fit to predict cognitive learning. The results of the study found when instructors displayed immediacy both student motivation and affective learning predicted cognitive learning; however, the affective learning model produced less error and thus had more theoretical relevance (Rodriguez et al., 1996). In addition to nonverbal instructor communication predicting affective learning, Henning (2010) examined the impact communicative style and instructor credibility had on student affective learning. Communicative style refers to how an instructor initiates, adapts, and responds to communication of others; whereas, instructor credibility is student evaluation and