The Levels of Affective Learning and Teacher

Apprehension of the Students in the

Communication Department at SUNY New
Paltz

May 2014

Cassidy Scanlon

Abstract
The Communication Department Department of SUNY New Paltzs mission as stated on their
website is to prepare students for graduate degrees and careers in the field of
communication. According to the SUNY New Paltz website, the department of Communication
and Media, soon to be divided, has 15 faculty members and 500 students. To determine the
levels of affective learning and teacher evaluation within the Communication and Media
department, the current study conducted an anonymous survey. The survey measured affective
learning and teacher evaluation with teacher apprehension, cognitive processing styles, teacher
clarity, and teacher credibility. The research questions of the current study are is there a
difference between males and females in affective learning in the Communication Department at
SUNY New Paltz and is there a difference between males and females in teacher evaluation in
the Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz. The participants include 64 males (42.1%)
and 88 females (57.9%). The mean age was 20.85 (SD =1.27) with a range from 18 to 25. The

results of the current study suggest that teacher apprehension and teacher evaluation both play an
important role in the learning environment for students at SUNY New Paltz.
key words: affective learning, teacher evaluation, teacher apprehension, cognitive processing
style, teacher clarity, and teacher credibility.

The Levels of Affective Learning and Teacher Apprehension of the Students in the
Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz
The Communication Department of SUNY New Paltzs mission as stated on their
website is to prepare students for graduate degrees and careers in the field of
communication. The department of Communication and Media, soon to be divided, has 15
faculty members and 500 students. To determine the levels of affective learning and teacher
evaluation, the department among these students conducted the following survey.
The variable teacher apprehension, which is the anxiety or fear a student has when
receiving information or talking with a teacher (Wrench, Richmond, & Gorhan, 2009) was
measured. The next variable was the cognitive processing styles of the students in the
department, whether they be visual or verbal learners. People have these different learning styles
because of different ways of processing information both in a classroom setting and outside of
one (Chen & Sun, 2012). It is important to note way in which students process information
when discussing teacher and student relationships. Our third variable was affective
learning. Affective learning is the emotion process students have while learning (Johnson,
2007). Our final variable was the credibility of the instructor, or how much the students trust or
believe the information the instructor is providing them.

Affective Learning
The concept of affective learning is important when thinking about student- teacher
satisfaction in the classroom. The current study will focus on affective learning as one of the
variables that will be tested and evaluated with an anonymous survey. One scholar defines
affective learning as changes in interest, attitudes, and values, and the development of

appreciation and adequest adjustment (Hsu, 2012 p. 2). This definition means that when a
student experiences a difference in either interest, attitudes, or values, the student may then learn
different affectively. Similarly, another scholar indicates that affective learning can include the
feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes of the learners toward the
content, the instructor and the setting (Aydin, 2012). When it comes to understanding the
concept of affective learning, it is important to note that there are distinct classifications that
should be addressed. One scholar classifies affective learning into these distinct categories the
learning affective learning objectives into five groups (receiving, responding, valuing,
organization, and characterization) based on the principle of internalization (Aydin,
2012 p.1). These classifications help determine how students learn affectively based on their
own internalized feelings. A simplified definition of affective learning based off of the two
previous ideas is that affective learning is the students emotional process while learning
(Johnson, 2009). One scholar believes that it is important to understand how learning occurs and
why. Learning is thought to be crucial to instructional communication scholars and they continue
to argue that without learning there is no real value in instruction (Henning, 2010).
Research examining affective learning has investigated the importance of learning in the
classroom and in instructional communication research. More specifically, research examining
affective learning has investigated the teacher- student assessment, student- student interaction,
classroom environment and community, computer mediated communications, course content,
and teacher clarity. For example, research has found that when an emphasis is placed on
learning and the teachers exhibit these behaviors, the student perceptions become more favorable
and learning ability is increased (Henning, 2010). Further, scholars have found that very small
changes in a written assessment can make a difference in affective learning (Katt & Collins,

2009). These examples clearly display the importance of learning through both students
perceptions and teachers expectations that lead to affective learning.
Research that discusses interpersonal relationships is a key concept to the current
study. One scholar found that there are positive relationships between the learners perceptions
of task and social attractiveness of the instructor as well as their perceptions of affective learning
and evaluations of their instructors (Aydin, 2012 p. 5). Likewise, another scholar explains that
positive student- student relationships relate to learning because affect influences cognitive
learning, whereas affective learning is the initial instructional goal (Johnson, 2007). Further,
scholars explain that students who report greater levels of motivation to learn are the ones who
have a strong sense of classroom community. Having more motivation to learn leads to higher
levels of affective learning (Edwards, Edwards, Torrens, & Beck, 2011). Teachers providing
feedback to students can affect the way students feel about the class. For example, scholars
explain that a difference in a word or two can change the way a student learns (Katt & Collins,
2009). These examples of interpersonal relationships clearly explain their importance of how
and why they contribute to affective learning.
Research that explores classroom environment is another key component to the current
study. Scholars found that teacher confirming behaviors can help this process happen by
providing a warm, caring and supportive environment for student community to grow and
flourish (Edwards, et. al., 2011 p. 17). Further, connected classroom climate focuses on
supportive and cooperative student- student communication and that student- student interaction
has been associated with positive affect (Johnson, 2009 p. 9). These examples of classroom
environment clearly explain having a connected classroom with both the students and the
teachers lead to positive student motivation and affective learning.

Research that explores affective learning based on the content itself is another important
factor to the current study. According to scholars, affective learning is based on the positive
attitudes of the students toward the course content itself (Edwards, Bresnahan, & Edwards,
2008). Further, affective learning is the primary interest of when it comes to the content of the
course and the behaviors suggested for that course (Richmond, 1990). These examples clearly
explain that if a student is simply not interested in the course and the content being covered, they
are not going to learn as well. According to one scholar, it is believed that students with high
affective learning are more likely to value course content and tend to be more engaged in the
learning process (Mazer, 2013). However, if they like the course and the content being covered,
the students are going to be more willing to learn and will be more likely to do better in the
course overall.
Research that explores teacher clarity is the final key concept to understanding affective
learning for the current study. Scholars explain that teacher clarity, the extent to which an
instructor presents the course content in an understandable and organized manner, has been
positively associated with student affective evaluations of the teacher, affective evaluations of
the course, student motivation, and self-reports of cognitive learning (Comadena, Hunt, &
Simonds, 2007 p 242). One scholar believes that when a teacher provides better vocal qualities,
the students will perceive their instructor as having more confirmation behaviors, and in
turn, the students will have less fear and anxiety throughout the learning process (Hsu,
2012). This is important for the current study because understanding ones teacher influences
the students learning ability. An example that would hinder ones ability to understand their
teacher is an accent. If a student does not understand their teacher, more than likely the student
will not understand the content in the course. One scholar explains that this can be improved by;

nonnative teachers may have to try harder in building interpersonal relationships with
students by more frequent uses of confirmation behaviors, such as showing interest in
students and taking time responding to students questions. Confirming behaviors
should help increase students receptivity to nonnative speaking instructors teaching,
which in turn should improve students learning outcomes ( Hsu, 2012 p 10).
Methods

Procedure
In order to complete this study, information was gathered from communication students
at a medium sized college in the Northeast. 152 surveys were distributed to undergraduate
students in the communication department. The students were asked to think of their most recent
teacher in the department to fill out the survey. Participants were given the option to decline and
were made aware that there were no risks from participating in this study. The entire survey took
5-10 minutes to complete.
Participants
The survey was taken by 64 males (42.1%) and 88 females (57.9%). The mean age was
20.85 (SD =1.27) with a range from 18 to 25.
Affective Learning and Teacher Evaluation Scale was developed by McCroskey
(1994) to measure affective learning in students. The scale measured with four bipolar scales;
affect toward content, affect toward classes in this content, affect toward instructor, and affect
toward taking classes with this instructor. There are 16 statements, 4 for each scale, on a
semantic differential scale ranging from (1) to (7) so the overall measure consists of 112 items.
Alpha reliabilities were conducted for the four measures: affect toward content .86 (M = 20.93,
SD = 5.37); affect toward classes in this content .93 (M = 20.22, SD =6.85); affect toward

instructor .94 (M = 21.54, SD = 5.86); and affect toward taking classes with this instructor .94 (M
= 20.04, SD = 7.28).

Rationale
Affective Learning
H1A: There will be a difference between males and females in affective learning in the
Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz.
H1B: There will be a difference between males and females in teacher evaluation in the
Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz.
Affective learning is about feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and
attitudes of the learners toward the content, the instructor and the setting (Aydin, page 1).
Affective learning is based on the emotional process of the student while they are learning
(Johnson, 2007), therefore male students will be more affective learners. Females will not learn
as affectively because they require more feedback and emotional responses from the teachers.
One important factor of affective learning is the use of words. When a teacher gives feedback, a
difference in a word or two can change the way a student learns (Katt & Collins, 2009).

Results
Affective Learning
In order to address the hypothesis regarding affective learning a t-test was conducted to
predict that there will be a difference in the levels of affective learning between males and
females in the Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz (H1A). An independent ttest
was conducted to determine if female (M = 43.02, SD =9.98) and male (M = 38.45, SD = 11.48)
samples, analyzing affective learning for the students in the communication department at SUNY

New Paltz. The Levenes test for equality of variances was not significantly different (F = 1.84,
p > .18), so equality of variances can be assumed: t(150.00) = 2.62, p = .01. Cohen's d for this t
test was 0.27 which indicates a small effect size for the test. Therefore the hypothesis is correct,
however, there is only a very small difference.
In order to address the hypothesis regarding affective learning a t-test was conducted to
predict that there will be a difference in the levels of teacher evaluation between males and
females in the Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz (H1B). An independent ttest
was conducted to determine if female (M = 43.90, SD =11.51) and male (M = 38.36, SD = 13.63)
samples, analyzing teacher evaluation for students in the communication department at SUNY
New Paltz. The Levenes test for equality of variances was not significantly different (F = 3.43,
p > .07), so equality of variances can be assumed: t(148.00) = 2.69, p = .01. Cohen's d for this t
test was 0.27 which indicates a small effect size for the test. Therefore the hypothesis is correct,
however, there is only a very small difference.

Discussion
Affective Learning
The hypothesis used regarding affective learning is (H1A) there will be a difference
between males and females in affective learning in the Communication Department at SUNY
New Paltz.
The hypothesis used regarding teacher evaluation is (H1B) there will be a difference
between males and females in teacher evaluation in the Communication Department at SUNY
New Paltz. The data supported both hypotheses and proved each to be correct. However, there

is only a very small difference in effect size between males and females for both affective
learning and teacher evaluation.
Research on affective learning has found that students with high affective learning are
more likely to value course content and tend to be more engaged in the learning process (Mazer,
2013). According to the data both males and females are affected by affective learning and
teacher evaluation. Research also found that ... the extent to which an instructor presents the
course content in an understandable and organized manner, has been positively associated with
student affective evaluations of the teacher, affective evaluations of the course, student
motivation, and self-reports of cognitive learning (Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, page
242). According to the data both males and females have been positively associated with
affective learning and teacher evaluation.
Previous research examined that teacher confirming behaviors can help this process
happen by providing a warm, caring and supportive environment for student community to grow
and flourish (Edwards, Edwards, Torrens, & Beck, page 17). The measures of both affective
learning and teacher evaluation clearly display the importance of cognitive processing styles,
teacher apprehension, teacher clarity, and teacher credibility between males and females in the
Communication Department at SUNY New Paltz.

Conclusion

In sum, both t-tests for affective learning and teacher evaluation proved to have a small
effect size. In addition, teacher apprehension proved to have a strong relationship with teacher
evaluation and a moderate relationship with teacher apprehension. (Visual and verbal
learners). (Credibility). (Clarity). Previous research suggests that the concept of teacher

credibility, teacher clarity, cognitive processing styles, and teacher apprehension are important
factors when testing the variables of teacher evaluation and affective learning. Research on
affective learning has found that students with high affective learning are more likely to value
course content and tend to be more engaged in the learning process (Mazer, 2013). Research on
teacher apprehension has found that students with high teacher apprehension do not improve as
much in affective learning as students who have low teacher apprehension (Messman & JonesCorley, 2010). These results suggest that teacher apprehension and teacher evaluation both play
an important role in the learning environment for students.

Work Cited
Aydin, I. E. (2012). Relationship between affective learning, instructor attractiveness and
instructor evaluation in videoconference- based distance education courses. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 246-252.
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal
immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning.
Communication Research Reports, 24, 241-248. doi:10.1080/08824090701446617
Edwards, C., Bresnahan, K., & Edwards, A. (2008). The influence of humorous positive
computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication on student motivation and affective
learning. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33, 1-8.
Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Torrens, A., & Beck, A. (2011). Confirmation and community: The
relationships between teacher confirmation, classroom community, student motivation,
and learning. Online Journal of Communication & Media Technologies, 1, 17-43.
Henning, Z. (2010). Teaching with style to manage student perceptions: The effects of so
communicative style and teacher credibility on student affective
learning. Communication Research Reports, 27, 58-67. doi:
10.1080/08824090903526471
Hsu, C. (2012). The influence of vocal qualities and confirmation of nonnative english-speaking
teachers on student receiver apprehension, affective learning, and cognitive learning.
Communication Education, 61, 4-16. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.615410
Johnson, D. I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: A validity study. Communication
Research Reports, 26, 146-157. doi: 10.1080/08824090902861622
Katt, J. A., & Collins, S. J. (2009). The effects of language style in written student assessments

on student motivation and affective learning. Human Communication, 12, 465-475.

Mazer, J. P. (2013). Validity of the student interest and engagement scales: Associations with
student learning outcomes. Communication Studies, 64, 125-140.
doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.727943
Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and
motivation. Communication Education, 39, 182-184.