A Survey of Secondary Instrumental Teachers’ Immediacy,Ensemble Setup,and Use of Classroom Space in Colorado and Indiana

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to survey secondary band and orchestra teachers (N = 436) in Colorado and Indiana regarding their self-reported immediacy behaviors, ensemble setups, and use of classroom space when teaching. Immediacy “refers to nonverbal teacher behaviors which increase nonverbal interaction with students and which communicate closeness.” Female teachers and teachers of young ensembles reported higher levels of overall immediacy. Among component immediacy behaviors, teachers reported using proximity-related behaviors the least; females reported using proximity behaviors at higher rates than males. The majority of teachers reported using “closed” ensemble setups (i.e., setups that limit teacher movement among students) and remained in these setups for the majority of the school year. Teachers of young ensembles reported greater use of “opened” setups (i.e., setups that help facilitate teacher movement among students). Although teachers reported spending the majority of rehearsal time on the podium, female teachers, teachers of young ensembles, and teachers who used opened setups reported less time on the podium and more time moving among students. Implications for immediacy, ensemble setup, and teacher use of space in music education are discussed.

Keywords

immediacy nonverbal behaviors proximity band orchestra

Teachers intuitively understand that immediacy behaviors, the organization of classroom spaces, and the physical use of classroom space (e.g., moving toward and among students) impact student behavior, motivation, and engagement. Immediacy refers to “nonverbal teacher behaviors [including eye contact, touch, proximity, vocal variety or inflection, hand and arm gestures, and body position] which increase nonverbal interaction with students and which communicate closeness” and “operate to reduce distance between people by either decreasing actual physical distance between people or psychological distance” (Andersen et al., 1981, p. 377). Yet, very little is known about the immediacy behaviors of music teachers broadly and instrumental ensemble teachers specifically. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any research in music education exploring the ways in which band and orchestra teachers are setting up their classrooms. In addition, very little appears to be known about how music teachers physically move through the classroom space while teaching. The present study aimed to explore teacher immediacy, ensemble setup, and teacher use of classroom space among secondary band and orchestra teachers.

Review of Literature

General Education Research

Researchers in general education have revealed important relationships among immediacy, classroom organization, and teacher use of space with affective, motivational, and cognitive implications for both students and teachers (e.g., Andersen et al., 1981; Axelrod et al., 1979; Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Burgess & Kaya, 2007; Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993; Marx et al., 1999; Parker et al., 2011; Schwebel & Cherlin, 1972; Wheldall et al., 1981). In one study of immediacy, Andersen and colleagues (1981) examined the relationship between student perceptions of teacher immediacy behaviors and teaching effectiveness among 198 students and 13 instructors enrolled in a university interpersonal communications course. Effectiveness was operationally defined as students’ cognitive learning in the form of test scores, attitudes toward the teacher and the course, willingness to engage with the course, and intent to enroll in future courses with the instructor. They concluded that teachers who exhibited greater immediacy behaviors were also viewed more favorably in the areas of communication, course content, instruction, engagement in class, overall course evaluation, and enrollment in future courses. These results echo other findings that demonstrate positive correlations between teacher immediacy, student affect, and motivation (e.g., Andersen, 1978; Andersen et al., 1981; Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993).

Additionally, the physical organization of desks in classrooms—for example, rows and columns, horseshoe, seating students at clusters of desks versus individual desks, and so on—was found to influence various student behaviors, including engagement, question asking, and a sense of comfort (e.g., Axelrod et al., 1979; Burgess & Kaya, 2007; Marx et al., 1999; Parker et al., 2011; Schwebel & Cherlin, 1972; Wheldall et al., 1981). For example, students seated in certain “action zones” like the “T-zone”—with the top of the T representing the front row and the stem representing the middle section of the room—tended to have higher participation rates (e.g., Marx et al., 1999; Parker et al., 2011).

In a study of instructor use of space, Hesler (1972) sought to explore how teachers occupied classroom space when using either traditional (e.g., row-and-column setups) or nontraditional classroom setups (e.g., clusters, horseshoe, or circles). Hesler found that male instructors tended to be more “physically active” than female instructors and preferred the area nearest the desk or lectern (considered a location “distant” from students), whereas females preferred the area in front of the desk (considered a location “near” to students; p. 47). Furthermore, teaching in front of the desk and among students was positively correlated with students’ feelings of inclusion and “affection,” respectively. In contrast, preference for using space near the desk was negatively correlated with inclusion and affection. Taken together, these studies in general education research may have important implications for teachers of large ensembles because immediacy, classroom setup, and teacher use of space each appear to have some influence on student affect, motivation, participation, and learning.

Music Education Research

As far as can be determined, no music education research exists with the primary objective of exploring teacher immediacy or use of classroom space (i.e., moving toward and among students). Several studies of student spacing and seating of choir members on overall choral sound or other acoustical properties were found (e.g., Daugherty, 1999; Ekholm, 2000; Lambson, 1961) but are not relevant to the present study. More commonly, music education researchers have indirectly explored concerns related to immediacy, ensembles setups, and teacher use of classroom space.

Nonverbal Behaviors

Although music researchers do not appear to have studied immediacy specifically, researchers have explored nonverbal communication broadly (e.g., Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; Wang, 2001; Zhukov, 2012) or specific immediacy-related behaviors, including eye contact (Byo & Austin, 1994; Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; Price & Winter, 1991; VanWeelden, 2002; Yarbrough, 1975; Yarbrough & Price, 1981), proximity or space (Byo & Austin, 1994; Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; Yarbrough, 1975), vocal expression (Kurkul, 2007; Yarbrough, 1975), gestures (Kurkul, 2007; Price & Winter, 1991; Yarbrough, 1975), facial expressions (Byo & Austin, 1994; Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; Price & Winter, 1991; Yarbrough, 1975; VanWeelden, 2002), or touch (Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994), in various contexts like conducting (Byo & Austin, 1994; Price & Winter, 1991; VanWeelden, 2002; Yarbrough, 1975), one-on-one lessons (Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; Wang, 2001; Zhukov, 2012), and ensemble rehearsal (Yarbrough & Price, 1981). Among these efforts to explore nonverbal communication in music teaching and learning, the nonverbal behaviors and affective components of the studies by Levasseur (1994) and Kurkul (2007) are most similar to the characteristics of the immediacy construct.

In both studies, Levasseur (1994) and Kurkul (2007) sought to explore nonverbal communication behaviors in one-to-one lessons. Levasseur explored how nonverbal communication in the applied voice studio may affect student learning and teacher - student relationships. She concluded that nonverbal communication “is used in the studio and conveys both cognitive ideas and affective states; that is, concepts, emotional expectations, and establishing necessary conditions for rapport” (p. iii). She also noted that most teachers seemed unaware that their students were affected by teachers’ nonverbal cues. Somewhat in contrast to Levasseur, Kurkul found no relationships between the nonverbal behaviors of teachers and lesson effectiveness. However, she did find that teachers who were more sensitive to their students’ nonverbal behaviors were perceived as more effective by students.

In music classroom instruction, Hamann and colleagues (2000) sought to explore the effect of delivery skills and lesson content on university music students’ (N = 511) perceptions of lesson effectiveness. The students observed four lessons, including lessons with good delivery skills and good content, good delivery and poor content, poor delivery and good content, and poor delivery and poor content. Related to the present study, “good delivery” included good use of posture, eye contact, gestures (including varying proximity to individuals), facial expressions, and vocal inflections. Hamann and colleagues found that students perceived lessons with good delivery to be more interesting and enhanced student liking compared to lessons with poor delivery regardless of lesson quality. In short, strong use of nonverbal behaviors may have played an important role in perceptions of lesson effectiveness by students.

However, teachers may see nonverbal behaviors as a relatively less important teaching attribute. Guided by the same questionnaire, Teachout (1997) and Davis (2006) conducted surveys that contained 40 personal, musical, and teaching skills where respondents rated each item as somewhat important, important, very important, or extremely important. The instrument contained several items related to the immediacy construct. For example, “frequently make eye contact with students,” “use of physiological communication (body language),” and “move toward and among the group.” Teachout surveyed 35 preservice teachers and 35 experienced teachers, whereas Davis surveyed 55 students in their first music education course and 25 student teachers. Eye contact was ranked 17th most important by preservice teachers, 21st by experienced teachers, 12th by first course students, and 16th by student teachers; body language was ranked 31st by preservice teachers, 34th by experienced teachers, 32nd by first course students, and 30th by student teachers.¹ Move toward and among the group was ranked 34th most important by preservice teachers, 33rd by experienced teachers, 30th by first course students, and 34th by student teachers. Taken together, among the 40 skills that were rated from somewhat important to extremely important, teachers ranked eye contact as a relatively moderate important skill, whereas body language and move toward and among students were ranked as a relatively less important. It is important to note that the rating scale used by Teachout and Davis ranged from somewhat important to extremely important. Accordingly, even though body language and move toward and among students ranked lower than eye contact, it does not mean that Teachout’s and Davis’s participants believed these characteristics to be unimportant.

Use of Space and Physical Organization of Spaces

Proximity-related behaviors were also elements of Yarbrough’s (1975) study of conductor magnitude. In particular, Yarbrough sought to explore the effect of conductor magnitude—conceived as degrees of eye contact, volume and modulation of voice, gestures, facial expressions, rehearsal pace, and closeness—on student attentiveness, performance, and attitude. The operational definition of “closeness” for a high magnitude conductor was one who “frequently walks or leans toward chorus or particular section,” in contrast to a low magnitude conductor, who “stands behind music stand at all times [where the] music stand is always a minimum of four feet from chorus” (p. 138). Yarbrough found no significant results related to closeness. To that end, Yarbrough wrote, “Future research might focus on increasing the variety of conductor behavior within each category or the isolation of specific categories of behavior” (p. 145).

The use of space by studio music teachers was also explored by Levasseur (1994) and Kurkul (2007). Levasseur found that use of space depended on factors including the size of the piano and the size of the room and that teachers generally sat behind the piano. Levasseur quoted one student’s perception of their teacher’s use of space:

I recall that a poor teacher used to sit on the opposite side of the room from me, distant and reserved. My best teacher shared the room with me. He was near enough to seem caring without ever violating my space. (pp. 112–113)

Kurkul found no significant relationships between physical distance or leaning forward behaviors on student and teacher outcomes. However, Kurkul noted that teacher mobility varied between teachers and encouraged further research into the relationship between teacher mobility and perceptions of lesson effectiveness.

Regarding considerations of physical classroom space among music educators, Brewer and Rickels (2014) conducted a content analysis of the Band Directors Group on Facebook and summarized the topics of discussion among the group’s members. Included in the analysis were 14,854 unique entries posted to the group over 2 months. Entries were organized into 54 categories, including “organizing physical space.” This category contained 122 unique entries, representing .8% of all entries analyzed. This finding suggested that band directors may be relatively unconcerned with or unaware of matters surrounding the organization of physical space in band classrooms.

Purpose and Research Questions

As described in general education research, teacher immediacy, classroom setups, and teacher use of classroom space have important implications for student learning, motivation, engagement, and affect. However, these topics have yet to be extensively explored in music education, and it is unknown if the findings and implications described in the general education literature will be found in music teaching and learning. In an effort to begin exploring these ideas within music education, the present survey of teachers was designed. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to survey secondary band and orchestra teachers in the U.S. states of Colorado and Indiana regarding their self-reported immediacy behaviors, ensemble setups, and use of classroom space when teaching. The research questions that guided this investigation were:

What are band and orchestra teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes toward immediacy behaviors, and do these perceptions and attitudes vary by sex of instructor and teaching position (i.e., band vs. orchestra, middle school vs. high school)?

How are teachers organizing their ensembles? Does use of traditional versus nontraditional and/or closed versus opened setups differ by sex of instructor, teaching position, and immediacy?

How are teachers stating that they use classroom space in a typical rehearsal? Does use of classroom space differ by sex of instructor, teaching position, ensemble setup, and immediacy?

Defining Terms

Traditional setups are ensemble setups that are commonly used in bands and orchestras, usually consisting of concentric arcs extending from the conductor’s podium or stand.

Nontraditional setups are ensemble setups that reflect an overall organization of chairs and stands that may be considered unusual or uncommon.

Closed setups are ensemble setups where chairs and stands are organized in such a way that limits the movement of teachers to the front of the room (typically on or near the conductor’s podium or stand) or to the periphery of the ensemble. These setups do not easily allow teachers to move among students; these setups are “closed” to teachers, for example, setups that are organized in such a way that chairs and stands are close together so that moving among students is either difficult or inconvenient.

Opened setups are ensemble setups where the organization of chairs and stands can allow teacher movement toward and among students; these setups are “opened” to teachers, for example, adding an aisle down the middle of the ensemble setup to allow teacher movement toward and among students.

It should be noted that many ensemble setups may be characterized as being either traditional/nontraditional while also being either closed/opened. Some of these possibilities are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Traditional/nontraditional, closed/opened setups.

Method

Participants

The participants for the survey included all identified secondary band and orchestra teachers in the U.S. states of Colorado and Indiana. For the purposes of this article, secondary refers to middle schools, high schools, and junior/senior high schools; in some cases, middle schools in particular may contain students in the sixth grade or lower. These states were selected due to my experience with the music education communities in both states. Furthermore, the present survey was used as a recruiting tool for a related follow-up study, and teachers located in these states were most accessible to me to complete that study. A directory of teachers for Colorado and Indiana was compiled by consulting existing directories of teacher contact information and by visiting individual school district and school building websites to confirm, update, and add contact information as needed. The questionnaire was distributed via Qualtrics to 1,296 teachers. Qualtrics indicated that 44 emails “bounced,” resulting in a final possible sample of 1,252 teachers. A total of 436 useable responses were collected for a response rate of 35%.

Demographics

Data were collected from 436 teachers in Colorado (n = 175) and Indiana (n = 261). The sample included 160 women, 272 men, and 2 individuals who did not disclose their birth-assigned sex. The teachers taught for a mean of 13.76 years (SD = 10.47). When asked about their teaching position, 292 teachers indicated they taught only band, 90 taught only orchestra, and 54 taught both band and orchestra. Furthermore, 377 teachers indicated they were the head director (or only director), 26 were assistant directors, 29 were codirectors, and 4 had multiple titles (e.g., head director of a middle school program and assistant director of a high school program). When asked to identify what grade levels they taught, the teachers indicated many combinations of elementary, intermediate, middle, junior/senior high, and high school. For the purposes of this study, 175 teachers were identified as teachers of “young ensembles” (combinations of elementary, intermediate, and/or middle school), 201 teachers were junior/senior high or high school teachers, and 60 teachers were identified as “combination” teachers (combinations of elementary and high school). All teachers taught some degree of secondary education.

Questionnaire Contents

The first section of the questionnaire described the nature of the instrument. Sections 2 and 3 asked for personal and teaching demographic information. Demographic variables included primary instrument, highest level of education, years of teaching, state they taught in, birth-assigned sex, ensemble(s) taught, position, grade level(s) taught, largest and smallest class sizes, total students participating in program, and frequency of contests or festivals.

The fourth section contained an abbreviated version of a questionnaire created by Teachout (1997). The Teachout questionnaire was condensed for the present study to shorten the length of the overall questionnaire and to contextualize the relative importance of three immediacy-related behaviors within a broader array of teaching behaviors among the teachers in the present study. The original questionnaire included 40 personal, musical, and teaching skills in which respondents rated each item as somewhat important, important, very important, or extremely important. From the original 40 items, 10 skills were randomly selected for use in the present study. The 10 randomly selected behaviors were “sense of humor,” “possess musical knowledge,” “easily develop a positive rapport with people,” “enthusiastic/energetic,” “maintain high level of professionalism,” “maintain an effective rehearsal pace,” “possess an understanding of teaching/learning strategies,” “maintain student behavior,” “maximize time on task,” and “be patient.” The original Teachout questionnaire also included three items related to immediacy that were purposefully included in the present questionnaire. The three immediacy-related items were “frequent eye contact with students,” “use effective body language,” and “move toward and among the group.” Similar to the original Teachout questionnaire, teachers in the present study were asked to rate the importance (somewhat important, important, very important, extremely important) for the 13 skills.

Section 5 asked teachers to identify how much flexibility they had to change their ensemble setup (a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, none at all) and to explain their response. Section 6 asked participants about their ensemble setup. The section began with a diagram depicting nine ensemble setups (see Figure 1).² The questions in this section asked participants to indicate which setup they most frequently use, how often they use their most frequently used setup, how frequently they use the other setups depicted, how frequently they change their classroom setup, and the reasons why they do or do not change their classroom setup. In anticipation that some participants’ most frequently used setup was not depicted on the diagram, a “Setup J: Other” option was provided. If this item was selected, participants were directed to Section 7 that asked them to richly describe their “other” setup.

Section 8 contained a self-report immediacy measure based on a tool developed by Richmond and colleagues (2003). The tool contained 26 items of positively and negatively worded pairs of immediacy behaviors—for example, “I gesture when I talk to people” and “I avoid gesturing when I talk to people.” When completed, the tool generated a single composite score representing the respondent’s immediacy score. The lowest possible immediacy score was 26, and the highest possible score was 130, indicating lower and higher levels of immediacy behaviors, respectively. For the present study, the measure was adapted to refer to “students” instead of “people.” Richmond and colleagues found the tool to be reliable (α = .90) and valid (e.g., it was found to be moderately correlated with “warmth and approachability” measures). For the measure in the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (α = .84).

The 9th section contained questions that pertained to whether teachers used a conductor’s podium while teaching; how much time they believed they spent teaching (a) from either on the podium or from behind their conducting podium, (b) while moving around the classroom, (c) while either seated in a student’s chair within the ensemble setup, (d) while at the board, and (e) other location(s); the size of their classroom (too small, a little small, neither too big nor too small, a little big, too big); and whether they taught in more than one classroom or building. The 10th and final section asked teachers who taught in more than one classroom or building to describe differences in setups and physical movement between the different spaces.

Survey Pilot

The survey was first piloted by five graduate students with ensemble teaching experience. The survey was piloted for a second time and distributed via my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts with 28 secondary band and orchestra teachers completing the survey. The survey was piloted a third and final time to a broader community of music education graduate students after I consulted with an expert in survey methods and design. In each round of piloting, errors and items lacking clarity were addressed. To help ensure the clarity of the diagram depicting various ensemble setups, one doctoral music education student with public school large ensemble teaching experience was asked to verbally describe what they saw depicted. Several corrections and adjustments, including labels for each setup, were added to the diagram to increase clarity.

Procedure

The survey was first distributed in April 2017 to 100 randomly selected teachers from the teacher directory to ensure (a) that the survey and its distribution were working properly and (b) that there were no significant attrition rates at any specific point in the questionnaire. After monitoring survey participation for 1 week with no indication of errors or significant drop-off rates at any point during the questionnaire, the questionnaire was distributed to the remaining sample. The survey remained opened for 6 weeks.

Results

Immediacy

In addition to descriptive statistics, several statistical procedures were used to explore the first two research questions. When exploring overall teacher immediacy scores (which were continuous and normally distributed), statistical analyses included t tests and analyses of variance (ANOVAs). When individual items from the immediacy measure were explored (which were ordinal), Mann-Whitney U tests were used. Chi-square analyses were used to explore data that were entirely categorical (including low/medium/high immediacy groups, sex, and teaching position). Where appropriate, only significance and effect size (Cohen, 1988; Fritz et al., 2012; Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014) for these results are presented in the following; complete statistical information is presented in the Supplemental Appendix in the online version of the article.

The self-report immediacy scores for the teachers ranged from 75 to 127 points (M = 102.86, SD = 8.70) with a skewness of –.08 and kurtosis of –.13. Among the individual immediacy behaviors from the immediacy measure, teachers indicated using all four proximity-related behaviors (touch, lean toward, sit/stand close, and move toward) the least, whereas behaviors related to eye contact were used the most. The three immediacy-related items from the adapted Teachout (1997) questionnaire were ranked among the bottom four teaching skills (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Ranking of Means with Standard Deviations for Adapted Teachout Questionnaire and Positively Worded Immediacy Measure Items.

Teachout Items	M	SD	Immediacy Items	M	SD
Move toward/among	2.82	0.83	Touch	2.40	0.93
Humor	3.08	0.82	Lean toward	3.24	0.82
Body language	3.24	0.73	Sit/stand close	3.39	0.89
Eye contact	3.26	0.76	Move toward	3.51	0.78
Knowledge	3.37	0.72	Relaxed body	4.26	0.63
Rapport	3.46	0.69	Smile	4.26	0.63
Enthusiastic	3.47	0.67	Animated	4.28	0.67
Professionalism	3.47	0.70	Have vocal variety	4.28	0.68
Pacing	3.52	0.66	Use hands/arms	4.29	0.71
Strategies	3.53	0.62	Gesture	4.32	0.69
Behavior	3.54	0.60	Eye contact	4.34	0.60
Time on task	3.55	0.63	Look directly	4.40	0.63
Patient	3.61	0.64	Use variety vocal	4.47	0.64

Note. Teachout items: 1 = somewhat important, 2 = important, 3 = very important, 4 = extremely important; Immediacy items: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very often.

Immediacy and Sex of Instructor

Significant differences in overall immediacy scores by sex were found. Females reported higher overall immediacy scores (M = 105.45, SD = 8.44) than males (M = 101.23, SD = 8.41), p < .001, d = .50 (see Table S1 in the online version of the article). Among the three immediacy-related Teachout items, females rated move toward and among students as more important than males (p = .04, η² = .008; see Table S2 in the online version of the article). Additionally, among all positively worded immediacy behavior items, females reported significantly more use of touch (p < .001, η² = .05), sit/stand close (p < .001, η² = .03), use vocal variety (p = .04, η² = .009), animated (p = .01, η² = .01), move toward (p = .002, η² = .02), lean toward (p = .001, η² = .02), and smile (p < .001, η² = .03) behaviors than males. All other immediacy items were nonsignificant by sex. Overall, females reported more use of all immediacy behavior than males, including the four proximity-related behaviors that were ranked least overall (see Table S3 in the online version of the article).

Researchers have traditionally assumed linear relationships between teacher immediacy and student outcomes. However, Comstock and colleagues (1995) found a curvilinear relationship (inverted-U) between teacher immediacy and several student outcomes. Although there were no student outcome variables in the present study, I explored the prospect of curvilinear relationships between teacher immediacy and other variables of interest. Accordingly, I sorted teachers by their immediacy scores from lowest to highest and divided them approximately into thirds, resulting in low, medium, and high immediacy groups, for further analysis.

Males and females were disproportionately represented in the low, medium, and high immediacy groups (p = .002, V = .17). More females (44%) were in the high immediacy group than males (28%), and fewer females (26%) were in the low immediacy group than males (39%); (see Table S4 in the online version of the article). These results indicated possible biases by sex given the overrepresentation of females in the high immediacy group (and slight underrepresentation in the low immediacy group) and slight overrepresentation of males in the low immediacy group (and slight underrepresentation in the high immediacy group). Accordingly, it should be noted that instead of controlling for sex in the remaining analyses, sex was included as a factor to further explore the interactions between sex and other variables of interest where appropriate.

Immediacy and Teaching Position

I used G*Power 3.1 to identify the minimum sample size necessary for detecting a moderate to large effect when conducting a 2 × 3 ANOVA and determined the sample in the present study (N = 436) to be sufficient. A 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects of sex (female, male) and ensemble taught (band, orchestra, or both) and the interaction effect between sex and ensemble taught on overall immediacy scores. The main effect of sex was significant, F(1, 411) = 20.47, p < .001, but neither the main effect of ensemble taught, F(2, 411) = 1.56, p = .211, nor the interaction were significant. Similarly, I conducted a 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA to compare the main effects of sex (female, male) and ensemble levels taught (young, junior/senior or high, combination) and the interaction effect between sex and ensemble levels taught on overall immediacy scores. Again, the main effect of sex was significant, F(2, 411) = 12.17, p = .001; however, neither the main effect of ensemble level, F(2, 411) = 2.25, p = .10, nor the interaction was significant. Although the F ratio for the main effect of ensemble levels taught was nonsignificant, a post hoc Bonferroni test indicated a significant mean difference (p = .03) in immediacy scores between teachers of young ensembles (M = 103.81, SD = 8.37) and teachers of junior/senior or high school ensembles (M = 101.54, SD = 8.99).

Results indicated significantly more junior/senior or high school teachers (42%) had low immediacy scores when compared to young (28%) and combination (22%) teachers. (p = .01, V = .12; see Table S4 in the online version of the article). When exploring ensemble level and immediacy groups by sex, females’ reports were found to largely contribute to this significant result. Among low immediacy females, 17% were in young ensemble positions, and 22% were in combination positions; 41% of junior/senior or high school female teachers were in the low immediacy group. In contrast, among low immediacy males, 39% were in young ensemble positions, 43% were in junior/senior or high school ensembles, and 23% were in combination positions.

Ensemble Setup

When asked which setup they used most frequently (or “primary setup”), 292 teachers (68%) indicated “Setup A: Arcs.” The next most frequent setup indicated by 63 teachers (15%) was “Setup B: Arcs with Aisle,” followed by 34 teachers (8%) who indicated “Setup F: Arcs & Rows.” No teachers reported using “Setup E: Across the Way” or “Setup I: Pods” as their primary setups. There were only three teachers (< 1%) who indicated “Setup J: Other.” The remaining 35 teachers (8%) indicated using one of the remaining setups. Teachers reported using their primary setup for a large percentage of the school year (M = 88.76, Mdn = 95.00, SD = 17.45, interquartile range = 90–100).

Among these three “other setup” teachers, one teacher indicated “a combination of pods and arcs.” The participant seemed to describe pods of instruments (e.g., a pod of flutes, a pod of clarinets, etc.) that were organized in arcs instead of rows, as depicted in the setup diagram. Another teacher described using “the wedge.” The participant explained, “It is like arcs, but not all the way out to the horizontal. The outside chairs in each row are maybe 30 degrees in from being parallel to the front of the room.” The third participant seemed to describe a variation on “Setup C: Rectangle,” but further details were unclear from their description.

When teachers were asked how often (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) they used other setups depicted in the diagram, 83% indicated often or always using Setup A: Arcs, whereas 9% reported never or rarely using the setup. Twenty-seven percent of teachers indicated often or always using Setup B: Arcs with Aisle, whereas 53% indicated never or rarely using the setup. Setup F: Arcs & Rows was used often or always by 13% of teachers, whereas 75% indicated never or rarely using the setup. The remaining setups were often or always used by .7% to 7% of teachers, whereas 74% to 96% never or rarely used these setups. Teachers were also asked how frequently they changed their setup. Twenty-three percent of teachers indicated never changing their setup. The most common response, indicated by 33% of teachers, was once or twice a year. Similarly, 30% of teachers indicated changing their setup once or twice every few months. The remaining teachers indicated once or twice a month (11%), once a week (3%), and more than once a week (<1%).

When teachers were asked how much flexibility they had to change their setups and to explain why they did or did not change their setups, teachers most frequently cited physical limitations of their rooms, including small or unusual-shaped rooms and built-in risers/levels. Other common issues included sharing rooms, too much equipment, and lack of time.

Ensemble Setup and Sex of Instructor

Results indicated no significant differences between closed/opened setups by sex. However, there was a significant difference between traditional/nontraditional setups by sex, in which 8% of females indicated using a nontraditional setup as their primary setup compared to 3% of males (p = .04, V = .09; see Table S5 in the online version of the article).

Ensemble Setup and Teaching Position

Nonsignificant results were found when exploring whether the primary use of closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional primary setups varied by type of ensemble(s) taught (band, orchestra, or both; see Table S6 in the online version of the article). The relationship between ensemble level(s) taught (young, junior/senior or high school, and combination) and traditional/nontraditional setups was also nonsignificant. However, there was a significant result between ensemble level(s) taught and closed/opened setups (p = .001, V = .18; see Table S7 in the online version of the article). Twenty-nine percent of young ensemble teachers used opened setups as their primary setup, whereas 13% of junior/senior or high school ensemble teachers and 17% of combination positions used opened setups. When exploring ensemble level(s) taught and closed/opened setups by sex, males largely contributed to observed significant difference (Table S8 in the online version of the article). In particular, 34% of males teaching young ensembles used an opened setup as their primary setup, whereas 24% of females teaching young ensembles used opened setups.

Ensemble Setup and Immediacy

Analyses indicated no significant differences between closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional setups and overall teacher immediacy (see Table S9 in the online version of the article). Furthermore, the result for immediacy groups by traditional/nontraditional setups was not significant. However, the result for low, medium, and high immediacy groups by opened/closed setups was found to be significant, where more medium immediacy teachers (28%) used opened setups compared to low (16%) and high (17%) immediacy teachers (p = .02, V = .13; see Table S10 in the online version of the article).

Several significant differences were found between responses of (a) teachers who used closed/opened or traditional/nontraditional setups and (b) teacher ratings for the move toward and among the group item (from the adapted Teachout questionnaire) and the four proximity-related items (touch, lean toward, sit/stand close, and move toward, from the immediacy instrument). Specifically, there were significant differences between teachers who primarily used closed (M rank = 206.53) and opened (M rank = 236.30) setups for the move toward and among the group item (p = .03, η² = .01). Additionally, there was a significant difference between teachers who primarily used closed (M rank = 202.69) and opened (M rank = 231.46) setups on the move toward immediacy item (p = .03, η² = .01; see Table S11 in the online version of the article).

Classroom Space

Similar to Research Questions 1 and 2, several statistical procedures were used to explore the third research question. Central to this research question was how teachers used classroom space, which was expressed as a percentage of time teachers believed they spent during a typical rehearsal in various locations around the room (continuous data). Data related to amount of time spent teaching from the podium or behind the conductor’s stand (on podium) and teaching toward or among students (toward/among) were relatively normal (see Table 2). However, data related to amount of time seated in a student chair within the setup (in chair), standing at the board (at board), and other locations (other) were not normally distributed (see Table 2). Accordingly, t tests and ANOVAs were used when exploring on podium and toward/among variables; Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for in chair, at board, and other locations as appropriate. Where appropriate, only significance and effect size for these results are presented in the following. Complete statistical information is presented in the Supplemental Material included in the online version of the article.

Table 2.

Percentage of Time in Typical Rehearsal in Locations Throughout Classroom.

Location	M	Mdn	SD	Interquartile Range	Skew	Kurtosis
On podium	65.94	70.00	19.80	50.00–80.00	−0.87	0.72
Toward/among	19.02	16.00	12.61	10.00–30.00	1.02	1.81
In chair	5.97	5.00	8.34	00.00–10.00	3.22	16.94
At board	6.97	5.00	7.19	02.75–10.00	3.00	16.95
Other	2.14	0.00	8.05	00.00–00.00	6.75	54.86

Classroom Space and Sex of Instructor

Females (M = 62.25, SD = 20.46) reported significantly less on podium time than males (M = 68.02, SD = 19.19, p = .004, d = .29). Females also reported significantly more at board (p = .03, η² = .01) and other (p = .04, η² = .009) time than males. There were no significant differences between females and males for the toward/among and in chair variables, although females did report higher overall percentages of time than males for each variable (see Tables S12 and S13 in the online version of the article).

Classroom Space and Teaching Position

No significant differences between ensemble(s) taught (band, orchestra, or both) were found for on podium, toward/among, in chair, and at board. Although there were significant differences for other, H(2) = 6.79, p = .03, it should be noted that just 71 teachers indicated any use of other space, and when the single most significant outlier (a teacher who indicated using other space 90% of the time) was eliminated, the analysis for other was not significant.

A significant difference between ensemble level(s) taught was found for the on podium variable (p = .005, η² = .02; see Table S14 in the online version of the article). Further analysis indicated a significant mean difference between young ensemble teachers (M = 62.26, SD = 20.29) and teachers of junior/senior or high school ensembles (M = 69.04, SD = 19.16). Additionally, a significant difference (p < .001, η² = .03) for toward/among was found between young ensemble teachers (M rank = 235.64), junior/senior or high school teachers (M rank = 182.32), and combination teachers (M rank = 209.47). Post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between young ensemble teachers and junior/senior or high school teachers (p < .001). The remaining in chair, at board, and other variables by level(s) taught were all nonsignificant (see Table S15 in the online version of the article).

Classroom Space and Ensemble Setup

There was a significant difference for on podium between teachers using primarily closed (M = 67.69, SD = 19.53) and opened (M = 58.59, SD = 19.60) setups (p < .001, d = .46). There was also a significant difference for on podium time between teachers using primarily traditional (M = 66.33, SD = 19.56) and nontraditional (M = 56.32, SD = 23.85) setups (p = .03, d = 1.08).

Teachers who used primarily closed setups reported significantly less toward/among (M = 18.06, SD = 12.92) than teachers who primarily used opened setups (M = 23.17, SD = 10.39, p = .001, d = .28). There was not a significant difference for the toward/among variable between teachers who used primarily traditional or nontraditional setups (see Table S16 in the online version of the article).

Regarding the at board variable, a significant difference for both closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional setups was found. Specifically, less rehearsal time was reported to be spent at the board by teachers who used primarily closed (M rank = 198.64, p = .01, η² = .01) and traditional setups (M rank = 202.97, p = .04, η² = .01) than teachers who primarily used opened (M rank = 232.93) and nontraditional setups (M rank = 257.47). There were no significant differences between the in chair and other variables among closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional setups (see Tables S17 and S18 in the online version of the article).

Classroom Space and Immediacy

No significant differences between low, medium, and high immediacy groups for on podium, in chair, at board, and other variables were found. However, a significant difference between the low (M rank = 182.67), medium (M rank = 211.44), and high (M rank = 228.52) immediacy groups for the toward/among variable was found (p = .005, η² = .02; see Table S19 in the online version of the article). Post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between low and medium (p = .04) and between low and high (p = .001) immediacy groups.

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this study was to survey secondary band and orchestra teachers in Colorado and Indiana regarding their self-reported immediacy behaviors, ensemble setups, and use of classroom space when teaching. The research questions guiding this investigation sought to explore relationships among immediacy, ensemble setups, use of space when teaching, and how these interests varied by teacher demographics and teaching responsibilities.

Immediacy

Consistent with the findings of Teachout (1997) and Davis (2006), teachers in the present study rated teaching skills related to eye contact, body language, and move toward/among the group as being relatively less important than other teaching skills. In particular, the move toward and among the group attribute was ranked as the least important teaching skill from the provided list. When teachers were asked about their own immediacy behaviors, teachers reported engaging in all four proximity-related behaviors (touch, lean toward, sit/stand close, and move toward) the least.

Also consistent with prior research (Richmond et al., 2003), females in the present study reported higher overall immediacy scores than males. It is important to note that it is unknown whether females were actually more immediate than males or if females perceived themselves as being more immediate than males. Furthermore, females viewed the three immediacy-related teaching skills as more important than males and reported engaging in immediacy behaviors (including all proximity-related behaviors) significantly more than males.

Differences in immediacy and attitudes toward proximity-related behaviors by sex could be due to socialization and social expectations, instructional traditions, teacher training, widespread concerns about appropriate teacher-student interactions, or numerous other reasons. These results might suggest that music teacher educators should help preservice teachers to comfortably and appropriately navigate the use of immediacy behaviors broadly and proximity-related behaviors when teaching.

The results also indicate that immediacy scores among band teachers, orchestra teachers, and teachers who teach both ensembles do not significantly differ. There did, however, appear to be a significant difference in immediacy scores by ensemble level(s) taught. In particular, teachers of young ensembles had significantly higher immediacy scores than teachers of junior/senior or high school ensembles. It is unclear from the data collected if these teachers were naturally more immediate or become more comfortable with immediacy behaviors over time due to the nature of their work or if some other reason explains the finding.

Ensemble Setup

The results indicate that most teachers had a single preferred setup and remained in their preferred setup for the majority of the year. Specifically, 68% of teachers indicated using the traditional/closed setup arcs as their primary setup. Additionally, they used their preferred primary setup for approximately 89% of the year. When asked how frequently they change their setup in a school year, 56% of teachers reported never or once or twice a year.

Among teachers with opened setups, most are teachers of young ensembles. Although it is unclear based on the data collected in the present study, it is plausible that this preference for opened setups among young ensemble teachers is pedagogical in nature. For example, physical access and proximity to students, which is particularly important early in the process of learning an instrument, is better facilitated by opened setups than closed setups.

There are many reasons why teachers might maintain a particular setup for the majority of the year, including tradition, comfort, limited classroom space, acoustics, classroom management, or a lack of time to change setups. Based on findings in prior research (Brewer & Rickels, 2014), I suggest it may also be that teachers are relatively unaware or unconcerned with organizing physical space. Accordingly, in-service and preservice teachers might be encouraged to explore alternative setups for musical, pedagogical, or student-centered purposes.

When comparing the relationships between use of closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional setups by overall immediacy score, no significant differences were found. However, when comparing the relationships between closed/opened and traditional/nontraditional setups by low, medium, and high immediacy groups, a significant result was found for use of closed/opened setups. Specifically, 28% of medium immediacy teachers used opened setups, in contrast to just 16% and 18% of low and high immediacy teachers, respectively. As described previously, teachers were sorted into low, medium, and high immediacy groups for the present study due to prior evidence of a curvilinear relationship (inverted-U) between teacher immediacy and student outcomes (Comstock et al., 1995). Although student outcomes were not measured in the present study, this seemingly curvilinear relationship between levels of immediacy and use of opened setups is interesting. It may be that teachers with low and high levels of immediacy do not feel compelled to further increase or enhance their immediacy behaviors through opened setups. For example, perhaps the low immediacy teachers were unconcerned with increasing immediacy, whereas high immediacy teachers may have felt their existing immediacy behaviors were sufficient. In both cases, an opened setup might be seen as unnecessary. In contrast, perhaps teachers with medium levels of immediacy were concerned with or sensitive to increasing immediacy-related behaviors and thus were more inclined to use opened setups as a strategy to increase their immediacy.

Furthermore, when looking at proximity-related behaviors as captured by the Teachout (1997) and Richmond et al. (2003) instruments, teachers who primarily used opened setups rated the items move toward and among the group and I move closer to students when I talk to them higher than teachers who primarily used closed setups. Although it seems likely that a teacher who is more inclined to use proximity-related behaviors also may be more inclined to organize his or her ensemble to facilitate closer proximity with students, the nature of the relationship between these variables warrants further investigation.

Although there were no significant differences in use of closed/opened setups as the primary setup between females and males, there was a significant difference (with a small effect size) in traditional/nontraditional setups by sex, with females reporting slightly more use of nontraditional setups. Results also indicated no significant differences between closed, opened, traditional, and nontraditional setups between teachers of band, orchestra, or both ensembles. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in use of traditional/nontraditional setups by ensemble level(s) taught.

Interestingly, despite having higher overall immediacy scores and reporting greater use of proximity-related behaviors, females teaching young ensembles reported using opened setups somewhat less than males in the same position. With higher immediacy scores and greater perceived use of proximity behaviors, it might seem that females would be more likely to use opened setups. However, as I speculated previously about teachers in the high immediacy group not seeking opened setups to improve immediacy, females specifically may not be seeking opened setups to improve immediacy. Rather, males with overall lower levels of immediacy who are teaching younger ensembles might be seeking opened setups as a strategy to improve their immediacy.

Classroom Space

When asked to describe how much time the teachers believed they taught in various locations in the room during a typical rehearsal, teachers reported teaching primarily while on the podium or behind the conductor’s stand (66% of the time), and less time was reported toward/among students (19%). Similar to findings by Hesler (1972), there were differences in use of space by sex. Hesler found that males tended to occupy the space near the teacher desk or lectern and that females tended teach away from this space. Similarly, in the present study, females reported less time on the podium or behind the conductor’s stand compared to males and more time at the board.

There was a significant difference in use of space between teachers of young ensembles and teachers of junior/senior and high school ensembles. Specifically, teachers of young ensembles spent less time at the podium and more time toward/among students than junior/senior and high school teachers. The present study also found that teachers who used primarily opened setups spent less time on the podium and more time toward/among students; teachers of nontraditional setups also reported more time toward/among students. The latter findings are similar to those by Martin (2002), who found that teachers who used nontraditional classroom setups tended to occupy space among students more than teachers who used traditional setups.

The results of this study suggest that large ensemble teachers teach primarily from the podium or behind the conductor’s stand; however, teachers of young ensembles and female teachers tend to spend less time teaching from the podium. Results also indicated that teachers of young ensembles and teachers who use opened setups were more mobile than junior/senior or high school teachers and teachers of closed and traditional setups.

In combination with improving immediacy skills and exploring alternative setups, teachers might also be encouraged to teach away from the podium and toward/among students. This may have the effect of positively promoting perceptions of teacher immediacy among students and help facilitate the exploration of different setups. Taken together, and if findings in general education are true in music education contexts, these efforts may promote higher levels of affect and motivation among students.

Limitations

In the course of the investigation, additional considerations were identified that limit the findings of the present study. For example, the questionnaire did not collect data related to physical dimensions of the classroom (size and shape) or features of the classroom (like tiers built into the floor) or account for acoustical considerations. The relationship between these variables and classroom setup or use of space is unknown. It is plausible that some teachers did not use opened setups or consider opened setups because their classroom space is too small. It is also plausible that some teachers would prefer to use varying setups throughout the school year but tiers built into the floor impede these efforts. Further exploration of these considerations is warranted.

Reducing the original Teachout questionnaire from 40 items to 10 items for the present study may have compromised the reliability and validity of the original measure. Accordingly, direct comparisons between the Teachout items in the present study and prior research should be interpreted with some caution.

Future Research

As described previously, the physical features of large ensemble classrooms were not captured in the present study. A survey study designed to capture these details may provide additional insights into how teachers organize and occupy their classroom spaces. Additionally, this proposed survey study might also be used to identify creative solutions to common challenges to ensemble setup and use of space.

Martin (2002) suggested that teachers in general education organized their classrooms based on their philosophies and beliefs about teaching. For example, teachers who described themselves as “student-centered” were more inclined to use nontraditional setups and move through the classroom space. Therefore, a mixed methods investigation designed to explore music teacher philosophy, classroom setup, and educational practices might reveal interesting implications for teaching and learning in large ensemble classrooms.

The impact of immediacy behaviors broadly and proximity behaviors specifically in large ensembles appears to be unexplored. Future research might explore the relationships between immediacy and student affect, motivation, or learning, as found in general education research. Employing an experimental design in which teachers are provided with strategies to increase their immediacy behaviors in a treatment condition might also be valuable.

It is unclear to what degree the use of immediacy behaviors and the attitude toward proximity behaviors differ by varying teacher populations. For example, what differences exist between secondary ensemble teachers and elementary general music teachers? Are there differences between music teachers and general education teachers? Further survey research that compares the practices, attitudes, and classroom environment of general education teachers and music educators might reveal some of these relationships.

The purpose of this study was to survey secondary band and orchestra teachers in Colorado and Indiana regarding their self-reported immediacy behaviors, ensemble setups, and use of classroom space when teaching. Most teachers reported using a traditional closed setup for the majority of the school year and remaining on the podium for the majority of the time in a typical rehearsal. Given that our immediacy, classroom setup, and proximity to students may have important implications for teaching and learning, ongoing evaluation of these issues may be warranted.

Supplemental Material

3970.R3_Roseth_Supplemental_Tables_FINAL – Supplemental material for A Survey of Secondary Instrumental Teachers’ Immediacy, Ensemble Setup, and Use of Classroom Space in Colorado and Indiana

Supplemental material, 3970.R3_Roseth_Supplemental_Tables_FINAL for A Survey of Secondary Instrumental Teachers’ Immediacy, Ensemble Setup, and Use of Classroom Space in Colorado and Indiana by Nicholas E. Roseth in Journal of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nicholas E. Roseth

Supplemental Material

The Supplemental Appendix and Tables S1 through S19 are available in the online version of the article at

Notes

Author Biography

Nicholas E. Roseth is visiting assistant professor of music (music education) at Bucknell University. His research interests include LGBTQ studies, music teacher education, educational policy, and nonverbal behaviors in teaching and learning.

References

Andersen

J. F.

(1978). The relationship between teacher immediacy and teaching effectiveness (UMI No. 7900859) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Andersen

J. F.

Norton

R. W.

Nussbaum

J. F.

(1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30(4), 377–392. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378493

Axelrod

Hall

R. V.

Tams

(1979). Comparison of two common classroom seating arrangements. Academic Therapy, 15(1), 29–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/105345127901500103

Baringer

D. K.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication Education, 49(2), 178–186. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379204

Brewer

W. D.

Rickels

D. A.

(2014). A content analysis of social media interactions in the Facebook band directors group. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 201, 7–22. http://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.201.0007

Burgess

Kaya

(2007). Gender differences in student attitude for seating layout in college classrooms. College Student Journal, 41(4), 940–947.

Byo

J. L.

Austin

K. R.

(1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An approach to the analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Band Research, 30(1), 11–34.

Christophel

D. M.

(1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

10.

Comstock

Rowell

Bowers

J. W.

(1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44(3), 251–266. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379015

11.

Daugherty

J. F.

(1999). Spacing, formation, and choral sound: Preferences and perceptions of auditors and choristers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(3), 224–238. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345781

12.

Davis

V. W.

(2006). Beginning music education students’ and student teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Contributions to Music Education, 33(1), 27–40. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24127198

13.

Ekholm

(2000). The effect of singing mode and seating arrangement on choral blend and overall choral sound. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(2), 123–135. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345571

14.

Fritz

C. O.

Morris

P. E.

Richler

J. J.

(2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

15.

Frymier

A. B.

(1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 454–464. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369905

16.

Hamann

D. L.

Baker

D. S.

McAllister

P. A.

Bauer

W. I.

(2000). Factors affecting university music students’ perceptions of lesson quality and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(2), 102–113. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345569

17.

Hesler

M. W.

(1972). An investigation of instructor use of space (UMI No. 64125687) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

18.

Kurkul

W. W.

(2007). Nonverbal communication in one-to-one music performance instruction. Psychology of Music, 35(2), 327–362. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607070385

19.

Lambson

A. R.

(1961). An evaluation of various seating plans used in choral singing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 9(1), 47–54. http://doi.org/10.2307/3344394

20.

Levasseur

S. J.

(1994). Nonverbal communication in the applied voice studio (UMI No. 9432541) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

21.

Martin

S. H.

(2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 139–156. http://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0239

22.

Marx

Fuhrer

Hartig

(1999). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249–263. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009901922191

23.

Parker

Hoopes

Eggett

(2011). The effect of seat location and movement or permanence on student-initiated participation. College Teaching, 59(2), 79–84. http://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.538766

24.

Price

H. E.

Winter

(1991). Effect of strict and expressive conducting on performances and opinions of eighth-grade band students. Journal of Band Research, 27(1), 30–43.

25.

Richmond

V. P.

McCroskey

J. C.

Johnson

A. D.

(2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–517. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170

26.

Schwebel

A. I.

Cherlin

D. L.

(1972). Physical and social distancing in teacher-pupil relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(6), 543–550. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0034081

27.

Teachout

D. J.

(1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 41–50. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345464

28.

Tomczak

(2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 1(21), 19–25.

29.

VanWeelden

(2002). Relationships between perceptions of conducting effectiveness and ensemble performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 165–176. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345820

30.

Wang

(2001). Verbal versus nonverbal communication in music performance instruction. Contributions to Music Education, 28(1), 41–60. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24126965

31.

Wheldall

Morris

Vaughan

Y. Y.

(1981). Rows versus tables: An example of the use of behavioural ecology in two classes of eleven-year-old children. Educational Psychology, 1(2), 171–184. http://doi.org/10.1080/0144341810010206

32.

Yarbrough

(1975). Effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 134–146. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345286

33.

Yarbrough

Price

H. E.

(1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness based on rehearsal activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(3), 209–217. http://doi.org/10.2307/3344994

34.

Zhukov

(2012). Interpersonal interactions in instrumental lessons: Teacher/student verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Psychology of Music, 41(4), 466–483. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611430434

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB