INSTRUCTORS’ AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR, POWER
DISTANCE, AND COMMUNICATION CLIMATE IN RELATION TO STATE
MOTIVATION AND INFORMATION SEEKING STRATEGY: AN INVESTIGATION
OF COLLEGE CLASSROOMS IN GHANA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Kwaku A. Yeboah
May, 2018
INSTRUCTORS’ AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR, POWER
DISTANCE, AND COMMUNICATION CLIMATE IN RELATION TO STATE
MOTIVATION AND INFORMATION SEEKING STRATEGY: AN INVESTIGATION
OF COLLEGE CLASSROOMS IN GHANA
Kwaku A. Yeboah
Thesis
Approved: Accepted:
______Advisor Dean, Buchtel College of Arts & Sciences Dr. Yang Lin Dr. John C. Green
______Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Andrew S. Rancer Dr. Chand Midha
______Committee Member Date Dr. Kathleen D. Clark
______School Director Dr. Heather L. Walter
ii
ABSTRACT
This study investigated communication patterns in college classroom in Ghana.
Participants were 314 undergraduate students from a university in Ghana. Results indicated that perceived instructor argumentativeness was positively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate but was not significantly related to their perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate. Perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate and positively related to a defensive climate. There was no significant relationship between perceived instructor argumentativeness and students’ state motivation but perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was related negatively to students’ state motivation. Student’s perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate were related positively with their use of overt information seeking strategies. However, students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom climate and their use of information seeking strategies had no significant relationship and nor was student’s perceptions of power distance and students’ use of information seeking strategies. The findings suggest that instructors’ communicative behaviors which create a supportive communication climate should be upheld in the classroom since they convey a perception of approachability and openness to students.
Keywords: argumentativeness; verbal aggressiveness; classroom communication climate; state motivation; overt information seeking strategies,
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those individuals who provided me help with my thesis, so many of you I cannot mention all your names here. Joseph Oduro Appiah, I am most grateful for your support at all times. I would like to also thank Claudia Agyemang for her encouragement and inspiration. I would not have been able to complete this thesis without your support and love.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser and committee chair, Dr. Yang Lin, for the time you dedicated to guide and support me through this thesis. Your acts of kindness, patience and motivation have brought me this far and I will forever be grateful.
Again I would also like to thank the rest of my committee members: Dr. Andrew
Rancer and Dr. Kathleen Clark for their guidance, insightful feedback and motivation in assisting me complete this thesis.
Lastly, I would thank the faculty and staff of the School of Communication for their unflinching support and willingness to help at all times. You made my stay at The
University of Akron wonderful.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I.INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………...5
Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness ………………………………….5
Argumentativeness ……………………………………………………….6
Verbal Aggressiveness ………………………………………………….7
Classroom Communication Climate ……………………………………………..8
Student State Motivation ………………………………………………………...10
Overt Information Seeking Strategy …………………………………………….12
Perceived Power Distance ………………………………………………………14
III. METHODS ………………………………………………………………………….19
Participants and Procedure ………………………………………………………19
Measures ………………………………………………………………………...20
IV. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………...25
V. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………..28
v
Limitations and Future Research ………………………………………………32
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….35
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………….40
Appendix A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL…………….41
Appendix B: PERMISSION APPROVAL LETTER...………………………….42
Appendix C: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER……………………………….43
Appendix D: QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………………………….44
Appendix E: MEASURING SCALES ………………………………………… 50
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE
1. Pearson Correlation Among Variables ……………………………………... 27
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Instructors’ communication behaviors in the classroom have been identified as playing a crucial role in student learning. Over the past few decades, researchers of instructional communication have studied how some of these behaviors related to student learning in college classrooms (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Lin, Durbin, & Rancer,
2017; Myers, 1995; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Two such behaviors that have caught the attention of researchers are instructors’ “argumentativeness” and “verbal aggressiveness”
(Infante & Rancer, 1982). These two communication behaviors are viewed as aggressive communication. However, there is a difference in their manifestation, thereby making one constructive and the other destructive. This difference lies in their locus of attack. An argument involves presenting and defending positions on a controversial issue and at the same time attacking another’s position on the issues. On the other hand, verbally aggressive communication attacks a person’s self-concept instead of, or together with, their position on an issue (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986). In view of this, verbally aggressive messages tend to hurt, inflict psychological pain and bring embarrassment to the victim (Infante & Wigley, 1986).
Generally, argumentative behavior is considered a constructive form of communication while verbal aggression is considered destructive. The reason is that, during an argument, the locus of attack is not on the individual’s self-concept hence it
1 facilitates relational understanding which leads to an increase in communication satisfaction. Since verbal aggression attacks not only the position but also the self- concept of the individual, it negatively impacts relational understanding and produces dissatisfaction. Obviously, the use of aggressive communication behaviors can have extreme consequences on interpersonal relationships.
As such, it is expected that in the college classroom, students will relate differently when they perceive their instructor to be exhibiting these two communication behaviors. Thus, these communication behaviors may have the tendency to impact the classroom communication climate. Rosenfeld (1983) explained that communication climate is determined by the social or psychological context of a relationship. In the college classroom, the communication climate is created by the interaction between the teacher and students. Since instructors are seen as authority figures in the classroom, their communication behaviors are most likely to influence the climate.
An instructor’s communication behavior creates an impression of a supportive or a defensive climate in the minds of the students. A supportive climate is mostly characterized by constructive communication behaviors while a defensive climate is characterized by destructive communication behaviors. Studies have associated argumentativeness with constructive communication and have suggested it leads to a supportive climate, while verbal aggressiveness has been tagged as a destructive communication which creates a defensive climate (Lin et al., 2017; Myers & Rocca,
2001). Students’ perceptions of classroom communication climate are influenced by both their perceptions of instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (Lin et al.,
2017).
2
In addition, instructor’s communication behaviors have also been found to relate to student’s state motivation (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Lin et al., 2017; Myers,
Goodboy & COMM 600, 2014; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Motivation is the internal process that drives behavior (Dembo & Seli, 2012). In the classroom, motivation drives students to process and make sense of information during the acquisition of knowledge and skills and be able to demonstrate such knowledge and skills after acquiring them. Unlike trait motivation, state motivation is situation-specific. Student state motivation is stimulated by a number of factors including teacher’s communication behaviors. Brophy (1987) insisted that as active agents of socialization, teachers contribute to student motivation towards learning. In view of this, a supportive climate as suggested by Brophy is a precondition for student state motivation. Therefore, teacher use of verbally aggressive communication behaviors will negatively impact motivation since it will make students feel anxious. However, argumentativeness, which has been described as constructive communication, creates a supportive climate which in effect impacts student motivation positively. Thus, students’ perception of the classroom communication climate impacts their state motivation. Consistent with Myers and Rocca (2001), Lin et al. (2017) found that student state motivation is influenced by those instructor communication behaviors.
In the classroom, just as in an organization, students proactively seek information from the instructor in order to understand and increase task mastery (Myers & Knox,
2001). In doing so, students may engage in either overt or monitoring information seeking strategies. Unlike monitoring strategies, overt strategies involve direct interaction between the information seeker and the source. Research has reported that overt strategy is the most frequently used strategy both in the classroom and in an organization (Myers
3
& Knox, 2001; Miller, 1996; Teboul, 1994). Similar to student state motivation, students’ use of overt strategies have been found to be influenced by instructor communication behaviors. A student is less likely to use an overt strategy to seek information from an instructor when the instructor is perceived to be verbally aggressive rather than argumentative (Myers, Edward, Wahl, & Martin, 2007).
The underlying assumption is that instructor communication behaviors, classroom communication climate, student state motivation and overt information seeking strategy are interrelated. Instructor communication behavior influences communication climate which can impact student state motivation and their use of overt strategies to seek information. However, it is worth noting that most of the existing literature concerning the relationship among these variables has come from studies conducted in the United
States of America. In order to examine the generalizability of these findings, this proposed study focuses on instructor and student interaction in the Ghanaian college classroom. In addition, according to Hofstede’s (2001) dimension of cultural variability,
Ghana can be considered a collectivist, high power distance culture. This suggests that power in the college classroom in Ghana is not shared but teacher-centered. As such, students’ perception of power distance will be explored in this study to see how it is related to student-teacher interaction in the Ghanaian college classroom.
4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness
Communication traits play a vital role in understanding individuals’ communication behaviors. The study of communication traits has taken center stage in theory building for many years now. In the communication trait literature, argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness stand tall on the list of traits that have been studied most (Myers, 2002; Myers & Knox, 1999; Edward & Myers, 2007; Infante &
Wigley, 1996; Infante & Rancer, 1996; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006; Lin et al., 2017). This line of research has received much recognition as researchers are able to understand, explain, predict and attempt to control individuals’ aggressive communication behavior based on the communication traits that those individuals exhibit. Not only have communication traits been studied in instructional communication, but this represents one of the major areas of research in interpersonal, organizational, and intercultural communication as well (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). Labeled as “aggressive communication predispositions”, argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are two communication traits that have yielded a great deal of research, theory, and application in several communication contexts such as in the classroom, teacher-student relations; at the workplace, superior-subordinate relations; and in the family, husband-wife relations
(Infante & Rancer, 1996; Infante & Wigley, 1986). These two communication traits influence the way individuals behave in situations in which disagreement and controversy
5 are prevalent, or advocacy and refutation are called for (Infante & Rancer, 1993).
Individuals who engage in argumentative and aggressive communication often adopt attack and defend modes of thinking and behavior. Both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are identical in their manifestation in that they are aggressive, attacking forms of communication. That being said, the only distinction between them is the locus of attack. Whereas argumentativeness attacks the positions taken by others on an issue, verbal aggressiveness attacks the self-concept and or together with others position on an issue (Infante, 1987; Infante & Wigley, 1986).
Argumentativeness
Infante and Rancer (1982) defined argumentativeness as “a generally stable trait that predisposes the individual in communication situations to advance positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions that other people take on these issues” (p. 72). Thus, individuals who exhibit this trait have the tendency to present and defend their own position, while attacking counter positions on an issue. Infante (1987) argued that argumentative communication is constructive because arguments are content focused, not person focused. Research has consistently shown that individuals who are rated higher in argumentativeness differ from those individuals who are rated lower in argumentativeness. Higher argumentative individuals are more motivated to argue, perceive an argument to be enjoyable and have a greater number of positive beliefs about arguing than low argumentative individuals (Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985; Rancer &
Infante, 1985; Rancer, Kosberg, & Bankus, 1992). Several other communication behaviors have been linked to high argumentative individuals. Higher rank argumentative individuals are perceived as communicatively competent, more involved in an interaction
6 and more trustworthy than lower ranked individuals (Onyekwere, Rubin, & Infante,
1991). Rancer and Avtgis (2014) discovered that individuals who were high in argumentativeness reported greater relational satisfaction, more favorable perceptions of communicator credibility, and have been identified as less prone to employ physical aggression. In the workplace, subordinates report a higher level of satisfaction with superiors and other aspects of organizational life when the superiors are high in argumentativeness and low in verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Gorden, 1985).
Verbal Aggressiveness
Verbal aggressiveness is a form of aggressive communication which is considered destructive in contrast to trait argumentativeness. It is defined as the tendency to attack the self-concept of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their position on an issue to deliver psychological pain (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Infante (1987) argued that verbal aggressiveness is a subset of hostility in that the intention of a verbally aggressive message is to hurt another person. Verbally aggressive communication has been found to often result in a decrease of relational satisfaction. Numerous studies have shown verbally aggressive messages to be destructive to relationships, such as between a superior and subordinate, partner and partner, and teacher to student (Rancer & Avtgis,
2014; Infante & Rancer, 1986).
Research has revealed that in the college classroom, perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are related to student learning outcomes and perceptions of instructor communication behavior (Myers, 2002; Myer & Knox, 2000).
The basic premise is that teacher and student trait argumentativeness yield constructive outcomes, while teacher and student verbal aggressiveness yield destructive outcomes. In
7 a study conducted by Myers and Rocca (2000) it was found that “when instructors are perceived as argumentative, students also perceived their instructor as being impression leaving, contentious, open, dramatic, dominant, precise, relaxed, attentive, and animated”
(p. 7). All these communicator styles are attributed to competent communicator behaviors. Again, the researchers also found that when instructors were perceived as verbally aggressive, they were also being seen as contentious.
Classroom Communication Climate
Rosenfeld (1983) defined communication climate as “the social/psychological context within which relationships occur” (p. 167). In a college classroom setting, both verbal and non-verbal communication behaviors of instructor and student tend to influence the climate formed. Based on Gibb’s (1961) categorization, Rosenfeld (1983) indicated that climate may be viewed as having two main dimensions: supportive and defensive. Darling and Civikly (1987) explained that a supportive climate is marked by efficient communication which consists of effective listening behaviors, few distractions, and clear message transmission. Supportive classroom climate may be characterized by teacher behaviors that are predominantly empathic. That includes offering help and friendship to the students, being straightforward and honest with students, expressing interest in their ideas, and proving confirming responses (Pearson, 1986; Rosenfeld,
1983). These behaviors tend to build up students’ confidence and increase their liking for their teacher.
In contrast to a supportive classroom communication climate, a defensive classroom communication climate tends to be very tense. It is characterized by disconfirming verbal and non-verbal behaviors that are threatening and punishing which
8 make students feel threatened and anxious about communicating with the teacher (Gibb,
1961). “In a classroom with a defensive communication climate, one characterized by defensive behaviors and disconfirming responses, the level of personal threat is high; and resistance, rebellion, and defiance are the students’ natural interaction. In such a climate, students may be expected to engage in a variety of coping mechanisms” (Rosenfeld, 1983 pp 167-168). Although classrooms that exhibit supportive characteristics are usually liked by students, Rosenfeld (1983) found that both “like and dislike classes share a comparable degree of defensiveness” (p. 167). That is to say no matter how confirming a teacher may be towards students, there will always be something the student will find threatening. The researcher attributed this finding to how the college classroom is structured; “its reliance on examinations, graded papers and other forms of evaluations provoke some defensiveness” (p. 172). When it comes to liked and disliked classes,
Rosenfeld (1983) concluded that supportiveness is more important than defensiveness for assessing communication climate in the college classroom.
There is a plethora of research that has examined the relationship between perceived instructor communication behaviors and student perceptions of classroom communication climate (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Lin, et al., 2017; Myers & Rocca,
2001). In a study to explore how teachers’ use of affinity-seeking strategies affected students’ perception of classroom climate, Myers (1995) examined 147 undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university. The researcher found a positive relationship between the two constructs. Nineteen out of the twenty-five strategies were correlated with classroom climate. Students in the study perceived classroom communication climate to be favorable when teachers engaged in affinity-seeking behaviors which were
9 consideration supportive. Mazer and Hunt (2008) found that teacher use of positive slang appeared to have a greater impact on classroom climate than the use of negative slang.
Consequently, positive slang influenced classroom climate, which in turn positively related to student outcomes such as student motivation and affective learning. Stuart and
Rosenfeld (1994) observed that the amount and type of humor used are equally important in assessing how humor relates to classroom communication climate. When a teacher uses little or no humor, students perceived the classroom climate as low in supportiveness, defensiveness and innovation and high in order and organization.
Avoidance of humor may lead students to perceive the climate as boring. On the other hand, students perceived the classroom climate as more defensive and less supportive when instructor use hostile humor, regardless of the amount.
With regards to the relationship between classroom climate and perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, Myers and Rocca (2001) observed that perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to perceived classroom climate. However, the researchers could not find any statistically significant correlation between instructors’ argumentativeness and student perception of classroom climate. In addition, Lin et al. (2017) found that perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness directly affected perceptions of classroom climate. Consequently, students viewed instructor verbally aggressive messages as threatening and unfavorable and hence, defensive while instructor argumentativeness was perceived as supportive.
10
Student State Motivation
Motivation plays a crucial role in explaining how people behave, predicting effects of actions, and directing behavior to achieve goals (Kosgeroglu et al., 2008).
According to Dembo and Seli (2012), motivation is the internal process that stimulates behavior, its energy, and direction. These internal processes comprise an individual’s goal, beliefs, perceptions and expectations. Brophy (1987) argued that “motivation to learn refers not just to the motivation that drives later performance but also to the motivation underlying the covert processes that occur during learning” (p. 41). Brophy conceptualized student motivation to learn as either trait or state. He explained trait motivation to learn as an enduring disposition to strive for content knowledge and skill mastery in learning situations, while state motivation to learn exists when the student engagement in a particular activity is guided by the intention of acquiring the knowledge or mastering the skill that the activity is designed to teach. Christophel and Gorham
(1995) contended that a student state motivation, unlike trait, may change in the course of the semester. That contention holds because state motivation is influenced by situation.
Given that student motivation to learn is a competence that is acquired and developed through experiences but stimulated mostly through modeling, communication of expectation, and direct instruction or socialization, the communication behavior of the instructor can have a great impact on student motivation (Brophy, 1987). In the classroom, teachers do not just act as “merely reactors but rather as active socialization agents capable of stimulating” or dissimulating student motivation to learn (p. 41).
Gorham and Christophel (1992) observed that state motivation can be attributed to several factors, some which are centered on the teacher and some centered on the student.
11
The researchers noted that students attributed their motivation to factors such as their interest in the subject, general achievement motivation, or their desire to receive a particular credit or grade. Students perceived teacher centered factors as being organized, competent, and enthusiastic.
Studies have shown that there is a link between students’ perception of instructor communication behaviors and students state motivation (Lin et al., 2017; Myers &
Rocca, 2001). While some instructor behaviors demotivate students, others motivate them. Instructor argumentativeness is one such communication behaviors perceived to motivate students. On the other hand, verbally aggressive messages are perceived by students as demotivating (Myers & Rocca, 2001). In a study by Myers (2002) which examined the relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication
(argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness) and student outcomes (state motivation, affective learning, cognitive learning, and satisfaction), the researcher found that in addition to students reporting high levels of satisfaction, they reported greater positive affect towards the course, and showed greater perceptions of cognitive learning. They also reported higher state motivation when they perceived their instructor to be both high in argumentativeness and low in verbal aggressiveness. Verbal and non-verbal immediacy teacher behaviors have also been found to influence student state motivation.
For example, Christensen and Menzel (1998) found a positive linear relation between teacher use of verbal and nonverbal immediacy and student state motivation. In a similar study, Myers, at al. (2014) noted that “highly motivated students were influenced by instructors who communicated with clarity, used humor and nonverbal immediacy, and showed caring” (p. 21). These findings suggest that, as active socialization agents,
12 teacher communication and relational behaviors simultaneously impact student state motivation.
Overt Information Seeking Strategy
In the college classroom, students seek information from teachers to get a better understanding of the content through different ways, some of which may be direct and some indirect. Brown and Levinson (1978) argued that individuals are more likely to engage in the overt information seeking strategy when they anticipate a slim chance of being embarrassed by a source for obtaining the information. This is obvious because embarrassment is discomfiting and a threat to face. Menzel and Carrell (1999) observed that instructor verbal immediacy behavior was positively related to students’ willingness to talk in class. In the classroom, students are afraid to engage in overt information seeking when they have had a negative experience from the same or other teachers in the past (Dillon, 1981). Myers et al. (2007) found that students’ reports of instructor verbal aggressiveness were negatively related to their use of overt information seeking.
The concept of information seeking in the classroom was borrowed from the organizational setting. In an attempt to understand how employees obtain information from their superiors and other co-workers, organizational communication scholars have widely examined information seeking strategies used by employees (Donielson, 2000;
Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993). Most of the studies have focused primarily on how newcomers in an organization seek information from other members of the organization (Miller & Jablin 1991; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Teboul, 1995). Studies have revealed five main strategies that are commonly used by organizational newcomers
(Miller, 1996). According to Miller and Jablin (1991), these strategies include overt,
13 indirect, third party, testing, and observing. Ashford and Cummings (1983) contended that out of the five strategies, the overt strategy is the only one which involves direct interaction between the information seeker and the source. The remaining four are considered to be monitoring strategies which means they do not involve direct interactions with others. Miller and Jablin (1991) explained that the overt strategy is used when the information seeker is comfortable soliciting information from the source. This tactic involves direct interaction with the target and it is commonly used when the target is open and the information seeker anticipates a conducive milieu. With the indirect strategy, information is sought without explicitly asking for it. For instance the third party strategy is used when information is solicited from a secondary source other than the primary source. This strategy is commonly used when the information seeker feels uncomfortable seeking information from the primary source. When a newcomer intentionally violates a written rule in order to evoke a response from a target the person engages in the testing strategy. With the observation strategy, information is acquired with little or no interaction with the target. Newcomers typically use the observation strategy when they want to unobtrusively obtain information about how a task is performed.
Miller (1996) found that a large number of organizational newcomers reported using the overt strategy more frequently as compared to the other strategies. Miller’s observation of newcomers in an organization can be likened to students in the classroom.
In an exploratory study, Myers and Knox (2001) tested the relationship between college students’ information seeking strategies and their perceptions of instructors’ communication behaviors. It was reported that students used overt information seeking
14 strategies more than any other strategy when they perceived their instructors as being clear, verbally immediate and verbally receptive.
Other studies have shown students’ perceptions of instructor communication behaviors influence students’ use of information seeking strategies. Specifically, students’ overt information seeking strategy, which involves direct interaction with an instructor, is largely impacted by instructor communication behaviors. As explained by
Miller and Jablin (1991) the likelihood of information seekers using an overt strategy depends on their perception of the source’s approachability and openness.
Perceived Power Distance
Hofstede (2001) defined power distance as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (p.98). In a society with high power distance cultural practices, there is usually a high regard for authority. On the other hand, societies with low power distance tend to exercise personal responsibility and autonomy. Although inequality exists within any culture, power distance is manifested in the degree to which the inequality is accepted by members of a culture (Hofstede, 1984).
According to Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of cultural variability, Ghana can be classified as a collectivistic and a high power distance culture. This is in contrast to the
United States where much of the research in aggressive communication has been conducted. The United States is classified as an individualistic and low power distance culture. Collectivistic cultures are those that promote a sense of collectiveness.
Collectivistic cultures exhibit communication characteristics such as being implicit, indirect and face-saving in order to maintain group harmony. The respect for hierarchy in
15 collective cultures is an endorsement of inequality in such cultures. Age, education, gender and financial wealth are but some of the determinants of power. In some social groups, skin color and body type are also elements of power (Remland, Jones, Foeman &
Arevalo, 2015). In a high power distance culture, there is a strong acceptance and respect for hierarchy in the society. As a result, it will be disrespectful for students to refer to instructors by their first name and argue with them as though they were their peers.
As a former British colony, Ghana inherited the educational system of their colonial masters. The public school system in Ghana is divided into: six years of compulsory primary education, six years of secondary education – three for junior high and three for senior high and, four years of tertiary education (Daniels & Goodboy,
2014). Since the fourth republic, the system of education in Ghana has experienced significant reforms. Ghanaian teachers operate as agents of change in the classroom and outside of the classroom. They do not only provide informed intellectual input to students, but also to the families of the students and community at large (Osei, 2006).
This shows the extent to which the Ghanaian culture places expert power in teachers.
In the educational systems of high power distance societies, teachers are treated with respect, even outside the classroom. The educational process is teacher centered with strict order in the classroom. Teachers are the main initiators of classroom communication. Students only talk when they are invited to do so by the teacher.
Likewise, students never contradict or criticize their teachers. Students perceive teachers as authority figures who know it all, so challenging their views is seen as challenging their authority (Hofstede, 2001). This sense of high power distance and hierarchy is acknowledged in the educational system in Ghana. Gervedink, Pieters and Voogt (2013)
16 found among other things a more teacher-centered curriculum implementation in polytechnic education in Ghana. The findings of their study provide evidence of high power distance in the Ghanaian classroom. Zhang (2005) found that a large power distance between instructors and students in the Chinese classroom creates greater hierarchy which leads to less interaction and participation and hence higher classroom communication apprehension among Chinese college students. McCroskey and
Richmond (1983) posited that “the use of power is an inherent part of the teaching process” (p. 178). In one way or another, instructors use power to exert influence in the classroom in order to enhance student learning. Daniels and Goodboy (2014) found that instructor immediacy is not likely to reduce psychological distance between instructors and students because power distance is greatly respected in the Ghanaian college classroom. Looking at Ghana through the lens of Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural variability, students will be likely to perceive instructors as authority figures and therefore give them respect. This sign of respect may manifest in the students and instructors in-class and out of class communication. Despite this cultural variability, trait- like behavior should remain consistent with previous findings though there may be some cultural variability in its expression.
A synthesis of the above literature suggests a relationship between student perceptions of instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and how students perceive classroom communication climate, and student state motivation (Lin et al.,
2017; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Consequently, student motivation and perception of classroom communication climate may also be related to the use of overt information seeking strategies to obtain information from an instructor. As members of a collectivist,
17 high power distance culture, Ghanaian college students’ perception of power distance may influence their use of overt information seeking strategies. This proposed study therefore offers the following hypotheses and a research question:
H1a: Perceived instructor argumentativeness will be positively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate. H1b: Perceived instructor argumentativeness will be negatively related to students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate. H2a: Perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness will be negatively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate. H2b: Perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness will be positively related to students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate. H3a: Perceived instructor argumentativeness will be positively related to students’ state motivation. H3b: Perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness will be negatively related to students’ state motivation. H4a: Students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate will be positively related to their use of overt information seeking strategies. H4b. Student perception of a defensive classroom communication climate will be negatively related to their use of overt information seeking strategies. RQ: What is the relationship between students’ perceptions of power distance in the classroom and their use of overt information seeking strategies?
18
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 416 undergraduate students from a public university in the southern part of Ghana. Of the 416 returned questionnaires, 102 were excluded from further data analysis because participants did not complete at least one full measure of variables on the survey. Among the participants whose returned questionnaires were included for further data analysis (n = 314), there were 151 males and 161 females with two participants not indicating gender. Among them, 202 majored in a program in Social
Sciences, 76 majored in a program in Humanities, 16 majored in a program in Sciences, and the remaining 20 did not report their major. The ethnicity of the participants varied widely. There were 222 Akans, 25 Ewes, 18 Ga-Dangmes, 7 Nzemas, 7 Mole Dagbon, and 35 who did not identify with any of the ethnic groups. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 37 years (M = 19.71, SD = 2.60).
Data Collection
After an approval was obtained from the host institution in Ghana, human subject approval was also obtained from the University of Akron Institutional Review Board.
The survey questionnaires were sent to a personal contact of the principal researcher in
Ghana who administered them to the participants. The participants were directed to complete the paper-pencil survey questionnaire which contained a series of instruments.
19
The instruments contained items which measured their perceptions of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness for the instructor of the class they attended immediately prior to the class in which they completed the survey questionnaire.
Participants’ perceptions of classroom communication climate, state motivation, power distance and overt information seeking strategy were also measured. Students who did not attend any class on the day of the data collection were asked to refer to the last class they had prior to the class in which the survey was completed. This method of data collection was advocated by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey and Richmond (1986). The survey did not require participants to reference the instructor by name or course. 290 participants reported their instructor as “male” and 20 participants indicated their instructor as “female”. Four participants did not report the gender of their instructor. The term “lecturer” was used in the survey instead of “instructor” because that is the generic name for college professors in Ghana.
Measures
Perceived Instructor Argumentativeness
Perceived instructor argumentativeness was measured using the 10-item Short
Form Argumentativeness Scale (Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herington, & Kim, 1993).
This scale comprised of items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the original
Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982) which is a 20-item scale. For example, one item stated “During the class, the lecturer tried to avoid getting into arguments” and another stated “The lecturer seemed to enjoy defending his/her point of view on an issue.” Responses were solicited from participants using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1= almost never true to 5= almost always true). Participants were
20 directed to indicate how often they perceived each of the statements of the instrument were true for the instructor they had in the class immediately before the class in which they completed the survey. Higher scores on the scale indicated higher level of perceived argumentativeness. The initial Cronbach’s alpha for the revised Short Form
Argumentativeness Scale in the current study was .54 (M = 37.50, SD = 5.73). Due to the low Cronbach’s alpha value, item 4 “The lecturer appeared to prefer being with students who rarely disagreed with her/him” was excluded. The Cronbach’s alpha for the remaining 9 items was .65 (M = 33.95, SD = 5.94). See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
Perceived Instructor Verbal Aggressiveness
Perceived verbal aggressiveness was measured using the 10-item Short Form
Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Infante et al., 1993). This scale comprised of items 1, 2, 3,
6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 18 of the original Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Infante & Wigley,
1986) which is a 20-item scale. For example, one item stated “When students were very stubborn, the lecturer used insults to soften their stubbornness” and another stated “When the lecturer tried to influence a student, she or he made a great effort not to offend the student.” Responses were solicited from participants using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1= almost never true to 5= almost always true). The Scale has extensively been used in many studies (see Lin, et al., 2017; Myers, 1998; Myers & Rocca, 2000b,
2001). In this study, higher scores on the scale indicated higher level of perceived verbal aggressiveness. The Cronbach’s alpha for the revised Short Form Verbal Aggressiveness
Scale in the current study was .58 (M = 22.29, SD = 5.58). See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
21
Classroom Communication Climate
Classroom communication climate was measured using Rosenfeld’s (1983)
Classroom Communication Climate Scale. The 17- item Classroom Climate Scale in a 5- point Likert-type format (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) asked participants to respond to survey items by indicating how the items are reflective of their instructor’s communicative behavior. Eight items (1,4,5,6,9,12,14,16) on the scale reflected communicative behaviors that create a supportive climate and the remaining 9 items
(2,3,7,8,10,11,13,15,17) were communicative behaviors that create a defensive climate.
An example of the supportive item was, “My lecturer makes me feel he/she understands me.” An example of the defensive items was, “My lecturer uses ‘psychology’ on us, that is he/she manipulates us.” The defensive items were reversed scored. The measure has been extensively used in many studies (see Lin, et al., 2017; Myers, 1995; Myers &
Rocca, 2001; Rosenfeld & Jarrard, 1985; Staurt & Rosenfeld, 1994). Cronbach’s alphas for each of the classroom climates, supportive (M = 31.43, SD = 5.23) and defensive (M
= 24.29, SD = 4.58) were .78 and .50, respectively. The higher the summed score for the supportive items, the higher the perceived supportiveness of the classroom communication climate. The defensive items were calculated such that a higher score meant a higher perceived defensive classroom communication climate. See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
Student State Motivation
Christophel’s (1990) State Motivation measure was used to assess student state motivation. The scale was a 12-item, 7-point bi-polar (semantical differential format) instrument that asked participants to report their feelings toward a class they took
22 previously. For example, participants were asked to report how they felt about their previous class from “Motivated” to “Unmotivated” and from “Inspired” to “Uninspired”.
The scale has been used previously in many studies (Lin, et al., 2017; Liang, 2015; Myer
& Rocca, 2001) to assess level of student state motivation. In the current study,
Cronbach’s alpha for the Student State Motivation Scale was .88 (M = 56.08, SD =
16.08). See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
Overt Information Seeking Strategy
Overt information seeking strategy was measured using the Information Seeking
Strategy Subscale, a four-item instrument of the original 20-item scale that asks respondents to report their use of an overt strategy in obtaining information. The instrument used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = to a very little extend to 5 = to a very great extent). The wording of some items on the scale was changed from an organizational focus of the original scale to a classroom focus. For example, one item on the Subscale, “I would go directly to my supervisor or coworkers and ask for information about the matter”, was changed to “I would go directly to my lecturer and ask for information about the course.” The subscale has been used previously by Myers and
Knox (2001). Cronbach’s alpha for the Information Seeking Strategy Subscale was .77
(M= 13.54, SD = 4.10). See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
Perceived Power Distance
Perceived power distance was measured using an eight-item scale (Earley & Erez,
1997). This scale uses a 5-point Likert-type response format (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The scale has been used in many studies (see Oetzel, et al., 2001; Zhang,
2005). The wording of the items was changed from the managerial focus of the original
23 scale to a classroom focus. For example, in item number one, “In most situations, managers should make a decision without consulting their subordinates”, the word
“managers” was changed to “lecturers”. Item number five, “Employees should not express disagreements with their manager”, was also changed to “Students should not express disagreement with their lecturers”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the Power Distance
Scale for the current study was .65 (M = 20.61, SD = 4.93). See Appendix E for a copy of this instrument.
24
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The first hypothesis predicted that perceived instructor argumentative would be positively related to student perception of a supportive classroom climate (H1a) and negatively related to a defensive classroom communication climate (H1b). In order to test these hypotheses, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between the variables.
H1a was supported, but H1b was not supported. The results of the correlation test showed a significant positive correlation between perceived instructor argumentativeness and students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate (r = .33, p <
.01). However, perceived instructor argumentativeness was not significantly related to students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate (r =.-07, p = ns).
(See Table 1 below).
The second hypothesis predicted that perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness would be negatively related to student perception of a supportive classroom climate
(H2a) and positively related to a defensive classroom communication climate (H2b). In order to test these hypotheses, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between the variables. The predictions of the hypotheses (H2a & H2b) were supported. The results of the correlation test demonstrated a significant negative correlation between perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness and student perception of a supportive classroom communication climate (r = -.44, p < .01). The results also showed a significant positive
25 correlation between perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness and student perception of a defensive classroom communication climate (r = .22, p < 01). (See Table 1 below).
The third hypothesis predicted that perceived instructor argumentativeness would be positively related to student state motivation (H3a) and perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness would be negatively related to student state motivation (H3b). In order to test these hypotheses, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between the variables. The results of the correlation test showed perceived instructor argumentativeness was not significantly related to student state motivation (r = .08, p = ns). Thus, H3a was not supported. However, the results demonstrated a significant negative correlation between perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness and student state motivation (r = -.16, p < .01). Therefore, H3b was supported. (See Table 1 below).
The fourth hypothesis predicted that students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate would be positively related to the use of overt information seeking strategies (H4a) and students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate would be negatively related to the use of overt information seeking strategies (H4b). In order to test these hypotheses, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between the variables. The results of the correlation test showed a significant positive correlation between student perception of a supportive classroom climate and the use of overt information seeking strategies, (r = .41, p < .01). Therefore,
H4a was supported. There was no significant correlation between student perception of a defensive classroom communication climate and their use of overt information seeking strategy, (r =.-02, p = ns). Thus, H4b was not supported. (See Table 1 below).
26
The research question posed in this study inquired whether there is a relationship between students’ perceptions of power distance in the classroom and their use of overt information seeking strategies. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted in order to answer this research question. The correlation test showed no significant correlation between students’ perceptions of power distance in the classroom and the use of overt information seeking strategies, (r = -.07, p = ns). (See Table 1 below).
Table 1. Pearson Correlation among the Variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. PARG - 2. PVA -.37** - 3. SCC .33** -.44** - 4. DCC -.07 .22** -.12* - 5. MOT .08 -.16** .18** -.15** - 6. OVET .20** -.33** .41** -.02 .16* - 7. PWD .03 -.00 .06 .19** .03 -.07 - M 33.95 22.29 31.43 24.29 56.08 13.54 20.61 SD 5.94 5.58 5.23 4.58 16.08 4.10 4.21
PARG = Perceived Instructor Argumentativeness PVA = Perceived Instructor Verbal Aggressiveness SCC = Supportive Communication Climate DDC = Defensive Communication Climate MOT = Student State Motivation OVET = Overt Information Seeking Strategies PWD = Perceived Power Distance M = Mean SD = Standard Deviation
*p < .05; ** p < .01
27
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to examine whether perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are related to students’ perceptions of classroom communication climate, and state motivation in Ghanaian college classrooms.
In addition, the study also explored the impact of students’ perceptions of the classroom communication climate and their use of an overt information seeking strategy while also considering their perceptions of power distance in the classroom.
For many years now, research on instructional communication has sought to investigate the impact of instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on teacher-student interaction and more importantly student learning outcomes (Myers,
2002; Myers & Knox, 1999; Edward & Myers, 2007; Infante & Wigley, 1996; Infante &
Rancer, 1996; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006; Lin et al., 2017). However, all these studies were conducted using college students in the United States of America. The current study, therefore, added to the existing knowledge of the aggressive communication line of research by examining the Ghanaian college classroom. Four hypotheses and one research question were constructed in order to gain a greater understanding of the subject.
The findings of the study contribute to existing literature in a number of ways. Although most of the hypotheses were supported and therefore consistent with previous findings, some however, were not supported.
28
The first hypothesis explored the relationship between perceived instructor argumentativeness and students’ perceptions of the classroom communication climate.
Two predictions were made. The first one (H1a), which was supported, found that perceived instructor argumentativeness was positively related to student perception of a supportive classroom climate. In the second prediction (H1b), there was no significant correlation between perceived instructor argumentativeness and students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate, hence the hypothesis was not supported.
These findings, particularly as related to H1a, appear not to be surprising since argumentativeness is expected to be associated with positive relational outcomes and also considered to be a constructive trait (Onyekwere et al., 1991; Infante, 1987). It also suggests that in the Ghanaian college classroom, students view instructor argumentativeness favorably. This perhaps reinforces Rancer and Avtgis’ (2014) finding which links high argumentativeness to greater relational satisfaction. If Ghanaian college students’ perceptions of their instructor argumentativeness are related to the students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate, then it can be speculated that they somehow find their instructor’s argumentative communication behavior satisfactory.
With the second hypothesis, the study attempted to explore the relationship between perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness and students’ perceptions of the classroom communication climate in the Ghanaian college classroom. As expected, perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was correlated negatively and significantly with student perception of a supportive classroom communication climate and correlated positively with students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate.
29
The confirmation of the two predictions (H2a & H2b) of the second hypothesis is parallel to previous findings reported in studies using US American college students (Lin, et al.,
2017; Myers and Roca 2001; Myers, et al., 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha value of the verbal aggressiveness scale for this study was not as high as expected, but the significance of the correlation is still important. The findings also indicate that students’ perceptions of instructors’ verbally aggressive communication behaviors transcend cultures. The findings suggest that students perceive the classroom communication climate as defensive when they perceive their instructor to be verbally aggressive. Again, this clearly articulates that the “social/psychological context” in which instructor verbal aggressiveness builds negatively impacts relation building in the classroom (Rosenfeld,
1983). Hence, verbally aggressive behaviors by college instructors should not be encouraged in the classroom in Ghana. Moreover, verbally aggressive communication messages tend to inflict psychological pain, embarrassment, and the feeling of humiliation on students (Infante, 1987). All these experiences make students feel threatened and anxious about communicating with the instructor (Gibb, 1961; Infante,
1987). Therefore it is extremely crucial that instructors be mindful and cautious of their verbal communication behaviors in the classroom.
The third hypothesis sought to explore the potential relationships between perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and students’ state motivation. The results showed no significant correlation between students’ state motivation and their perceptions of instructor argumentativeness (H3a). This finding is baffling considering the fact that argumentativeness is considered a constructive communication behavior. Also studies (Lin et al., 2017; Myers & Rocca, 2001; Myers,
30
2002) conducted using US American college students have shown significant relations between argumentativeness and students’ state motivation. However, following Infante and Rancer’s (1996) contention that argumentative abilities is somehow dependent on the situation, it is possible that students in this study may not have perceived their instructor’s argumentativeness as constructive in a given classroom situation while in some situations, students may find instructor’s argumentativeness as a constructive communication behavior. In addition, Rancer et al., (1985) asserted that individual’s beliefs shape their perception of argumentativeness, so it could be speculated that certain cultural elements may have influenced the beliefs of students in this study about arguing with their instructor. Hence, they may not necessarily be motivated by an instructor’s argumentative capabilities.
However, H3b, which was supported, indicated that perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness correlated negatively to students’ state motivation. This finding suggests there is a significant relation between instructors’ use of verbally aggressive communication behaviors and students’ state motivation. As argued by Infante (1987), verbal aggressiveness is a subset of hostility and a destructive form of communication.
Obviously, if students are being targeted by their instructor through his/her verbal communication behaviors, then students’ state motivation is more than likely to be affected negatively. Unlike trait motivation, state motivation is dependent on the present environment and so if the communication climate of that environment appears to be hostile, it will be difficult for student motivation to thrive.
The fourth and final hypothesis also had two predictions. The first one, H4a, sought to test a link between students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom
31 communication climate and their use of overt information seeking strategies. As expected, the results of the study suggested a positive correlation. This means that when
Ghanaian college students perceive the classroom communication climate to be supportive, they tend to use direct or overt means to seek information from their instructor. For example, students may ask specific, straight-to-the-point questions to get the information they want from an instructor instead of resorting to a third party or using indirect means. Consequently, this finding may be attributed to the comfort level that students experience in a classroom with a supportive communication climate. According to Brown and Levinson (1978), an information seeker is more likely to resort to using an overt strategy when the information seeker anticipates a slim chance of being embarrassed by the target. Miller and Jablin (1991) contended that an overt strategy will be mostly used when the information seeker feels comfortable approaching the source.
An implication of this finding is that instructors’ communicative behaviors which create a supportive communication climate should be upheld in the classroom since it creates a perception of “approachability and openness” in students. This perception further ignites students to seek information from instructors directly and not resort to indirect means.
Finally, the research question posed by this study sought to determine whether there was a relationship between students’ perceptions of power distance in the classroom and students’ use of overt information seeking strategies. Based on the rationale that in the Ghanaian classroom, a high power distance between instructors and students creates a hierarchy, it was expected that this structure of hierarchy would suppress or subdue students’ interactions with the instructor, especially students’ use of overt information seeking strategies. However, the results showed no significant correlation. Therefore this
32 study cannot conclude that a relationship exist between the use of overt information seeking strategies and students’ perceptions of power distance in the Ghanaian college classroom.
Limitations and Future Research
Like many studies, the current study has limitations. First, the data was collected near the end of a semester. At this time of the Ghanaian college semester, most students may tend to pay less attention to activities that are not directly related to their impending exams and hence it is possible that they rushed through the questionnaire when answering thereby affecting their responses to the instrument.
Secondly, the degree of reliability and generalizability of some of the scales in the
Ghanaian culture should be looked at with caution since the construct it measures relates more to the US individualistic culture than to Ghanaian collectivistic culture. For instance, the US culture encourages equality and decreases hierarchy. In the US, challenging authority is not necessarily deemed disrespectful, however, in Ghana, it is mostly deemed disrespectful. Hence the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale recorded a lower
Cronbach’s alpha for this study.
The current study has showed some significant relations between perceived instructor aggressive communication behaviors, classroom communication climate and student state motivation. A previous study (Lin et al., 2017) using US American college students, also indicated a causal relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication behaviors, classroom communication climate, and student state motivation. Future studies should consider using the model used by Lin et al., (2017) to examine similar causal relationships in the Ghanaian college classroom.
33
Future studies should also consider a further critical examination of student’s perceptions of power distance in the classroom in relation to students’ perceptions of instructor classroom communication behaviors using a mixed method approach. Again, this study has set the path for future studies in aggressive communication in the African cultural context. Researchers should direct their attention to the exploration of cultural elements that impact students’ perceptions of their instructor’s argumentative and verbal aggressive behaviors in the classroom.
34
REFERENCES
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-398. Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45, 40-48. Brown, P., & Levinson, S, 1978, Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 260-289). London: Cambridge University Press. Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82–90. doi:10.1080/03634529809379112 Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813 Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test‐retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306. doi:10.1080/03634529509379020 Danielson, M. A. (2000). Making transitions: New job, new organization, new challenges. In T. C. Russo & D. J. Ford (Eds.), Handbook for effective business communication (2nd ed) (pp. 47-49). New York: McGraw- Hill. Daniels, R., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Transformational leadership in the Ghanaian university classroom. Intercultural Communication Studies, 23, 90-109. Darling, A. L., & Civikly, J. M. (1986). The effect of teacher humor on student perceptions of classroom communicative climate. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 22, 24-30. Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2012). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus on self-regulated learning. New York: Routledge. Dillon, J. T. (1981). A norm against student questions. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 55, 136-139. doi:10.1080/00098655.1981.10113676
35
Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. New York: Oxford University Press. Gervedink Nijhuis, C. J., Pieters, J. M., & Voogt, J. M. (2013). Influence of culture on curriculum development in Ghana: an undervalued factor? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 225-250. doi.10.1080/00220272.2012.737861 Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141-148. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates' satisfaction and perceptions of superiors' compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307-326. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117-125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00069.x Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 19, 319-352. doi:10.1080/23808985.1996.11678934 Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1993). Relations between argumentative motivation, and advocacy and refutation on controversial issues. Communication Quarterly, 41, 415-426. doi:10.1080/01463379309369902 Infante, D. A., & Wigley III, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communications Monographs, 53, 61-69. doi:10.1080/03637758609376126 Kosgeroglu, N., M. B. Acat, U. Ayranci, N. Ozabaci and S. Erkal. (2009). An investigation on nursing, midwifery and health care students’ learning motivation in Turkey. Nurse Education in Practice, 9, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2008.07.003 Liang, Y. (2015). Responses to negative student evaluations on RateMyProfessors.com: The effect of instructor statement of credibility on student lower-level cognitive learning and state motivation to learn. Communication Education, 64, 455-471. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1047877
36
Lin, Y., Durbin, J. M., & Rancer, A. S. (2017). Perceived instructor argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and classroom communication climate in relation to student state motivation and math anxiety. Communication Education, 66, 330- 349. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1245427 Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). The effects of instructor use of positive and negative slang on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Research Reports, 25, 44-55. doi:10.1080/08824090701831792 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175-184. doi:10.1080/03634528309378527 Menzel, K. E., Si Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy of willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31- 40. doi:10.1080/03634529909379150 Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1–24. doi:10.1080/10510979609368460 Miller, V. D. & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120. doi:10.2307/258608 Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.173 Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589. doi:10.2307/256592 Myers, S. A. (1995). Student perceptions of teacher affinity‐seeking and classroom climate. Communication Research Reports, 12, 192-199. doi:10.1080/08824099509362056 Myers, S. A. (1998). Instructor socio‐communicative style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 141-150. doi:10.1080/08824099809362108 Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113-121. doi:10.1080/08934210209367758 Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 495-508. doi:10.1080/03634520701466398
37
Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of, COMM 600. (2014). College student learning, motivation, and satisfaction as a function of effective instructor communication behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 79, 14-26. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2013.815266 Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000). The relationship between perceived instructor communicator style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 17, 1-12. doi:10.1080/08824090009388745 Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 65, 113-137. doi:10.1080/10570310109374696 Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299- 309. doi:10.1080/08824090009388777 Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2001). The relationship between college student information-seeking behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education, 50, 343-356. doi:10.1080/03634520109379260 Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235- 258. doi:10.1080/03637750128061 Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B., & Infante, D. A. (1991). Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego‐ involvement. Communication Quarterly, 39, 35-47. doi:10.1080/01463379109369781 Osei, George M. (2006). Teachers in Ghana: Issues in training, remuneration and effectiveness. International Journal of Development, 26, 38-51. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.07.015 Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. doi:10.1080/03634528609388318 Remland, M., Jones, T., Foeman, A, & Arevalo, D. (2015). Intercultural communication: A peacebuilding perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37-47. doi:0.1080/03634528509378581
38
Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management. Communication Education, 41, 375-387. doi:10.1080/03634529209378899 Rosenfeld, L. B. (1983). Communication climate and coping mechanisms in the college classroom. Communication Education, 32, 167-174. doi:10.1080/03634528309378526 Rosenfeld, L. B., & Jarrard, M. W. (1985). The effects of perceived sexism in female and male college professors on students’ descriptions of classroom climate. Communication Education, 34, 205-213. doi:10.1080/03634528509378608 Schrodt, P. (2003). Students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121. doi:10.1080/03634520302468 Stuart, W. D., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1994). Student perceptions of teacher humor and classroom climate. Communication Research Reports, 11, 87-97. doi:10.1080/08824099409359944 Teboul, J. C. B. (1995). Determinants of new hire information-seeking during organizational encounter. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 305–325. doi:10.1080/10570319509374524 Zhang, Q. (2005). Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 109- 124. doi:10.1080/01463370500056150
39
APPENDICES
40
APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
41
APPENDIX B
PERMISSION APPROVAL LETTER
42
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
43
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE
GENERAL INSTRUCTION: These items are designed to provide information about your perceptions of your lecturer’s communication behaviors in the classroom. When responding to the following items, please refer to the Lecturer in the class you had immediately before this class. If you have not taken any other class today, refer to the lecturer in the last class you attended before today’s class. There are no right or wrong answers and your responses will be entirely confidential. NB: Do not refer to this current class or Lecturer when responding to this questionnaire.
Directions: Please answer by writing in a response for item 1 & 2 and check (“”) one response option for items 3 to 6.
1 What is your major? ______
2 What is your age? ______What is your gender? 3 _____ Male _____ Female
4 What range is your current CWA? _____ 70 or Above _____ 60 - 69 _____ 50 – 59 _____ 49 or below What is your ethnic identification? 5 _____ Ewe _____ Ga-Dangme _____ Akan _____ Nzema ____ Mole Dagbon ____ Other
What is your Lecturer’s gender 6 _____ Male _____ Female
Directions: For the following statements about arguing controversial issues, indicate how often you perceive that each of the following statements was true for the lecturer you had in the class immediately before this class. Please a check (“”) in the appropriate cell to indicate your response.
Almost Almost never Rarely Occasionally Often always true true true true true
While in an argument during class, the 7 lecturer seemed to worry that the student he or she was arguing with
44
would form a negative impression of him or her. The lecturer in that course was energetic 8 and enthusiastic when she/he argued. The lecturer seemed to enjoy a good 9 argument over different approaches or solutions to a problem. The lecturer appeared to prefer being 10 with students who rarely disagreed with her/him. The lecturer seemed to enjoy defending 11 his/her point of view on an issue. When the lecturer finished arguing with a 12 student, the lecturer appeared nervous and upset. The lecturer appeared to consider an 13 argument an exciting intellectual challenge. During an argument with a student, the 14 lecturer appeared unable to think of effective points.
15 The lecturer had the ability to do well in an argument.
16 During the class, the lecturer tried to avoid getting into arguments.
Directions: This next set of items are concerned with how lecturers try to get students to comply with their wishes. Based on your perceptions of the lecturer you had in the class immediately before this class. Please indicate (“”) how often each statement is true for that lecturer when he/she tried to influence students.
Almost Almost never Rarely Occasionally Often always true true true true true
The lecturer was extremely careful to 17 avoid attacking students’ intelligence when they attacked her/his ideas. When students were very stubborn, the 18 lecturer used insults to soften their stubbornness. The lecturer tried very hard to avoid 19 having students feel bad about themselves when they tried to influence her/him.
45
If students whom the lecturer tried to 20 influence really deserved it, the lecturer attacked their character. The lecturer tried to make students feel 21 good about themselves even when their ideas appeared to be stupid. When students simply did not budge on 22 a matter of importance, the lecturer would lose her/his temper and say rather strong things to them. When students insulted the lecturer, 23 she or he seemed to get a lot of pleasure out of really telling them off. When the lecturer attacked a student’s 24 ideas, she or he tried not to damage the student’s self-concepts. When the lecturer tried to influence a 25 student, she or he made a great effort not to offend the student. When nothing seemed to work in trying 26 to influence students, the lecturer yelled and screamed in order to get some movement from them.
Directions: This next set of questions are designed to provide information on how you seek information from your lecturer or your classmate(s). Refer to the class you had immediately before this class when responding to the following statements. Please check (“”) in the appropriate cell to indicate the extent you go in seeking information regarding the class.
To a To a To To a To a very Little Some Great very little extent Extent Extent Great extent Extent 27 I would ask specific, straight-to-the-point question to get the information I wanted from my lecturer. 28 I would identify what I did not know and ask for the information from my lecturer. 29 I would talk directly to my lecturer and ask for information about a topic. 30 I would not beat around the bush in asking for information from my lecturer. I would ask specific, straight-to-the point 31 question to get the information I want from my classmate(s). I would identify what I did not know and ask 32 for information from classmate(s). I would talk directly to my classmate(s) and 33 ask for information about a topic. I would not beat around the bush in asking 34 for information from my classmate(s).
46
Directions: The following statements are about your impression of behaviors your lecturer may exhibit during lecture. Refer to the class you had immediately before this class when responding to the following statements. Please check (“”) in the appropriate cell to indicate your level of agreement with each statement.
Strongly Neither Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree Agree Disagree
35 My lecturer helps me understand the reasons for his/her opinions.
36 My lecturer has favorite students.
37 My lecturer is neutral and detached when a dispute arises.
38 My lecturer is straightforward and honest.
39 My lecturer makes me feel he/she is interested in the problems I face.
40 My lecturer focuses his/her attention on the problems which have to be solved.
41 My lecturer uses “psychology” on us, that is he/she manipulates us.
42 My lecturer is very certain of his/her ideas.
43 My lecturer can see the subject we’re studying as we see it.
44 My lecturer judges us by what kind of motives and values we have.
45 My lecturer makes us feel we are not intelligent.
46 My lecturer can change subjects as questions are asked.
47 My lecturer frequently does not tell us his/her purpose for an assignment.
47
48 My lecturer makes me feel he/she understands me.
49 My lecturer doesn’t like to discuss controversial ideas.
50 My lecturer treats us as equals with him/her.
51 My lecturer very infrequently changes his/her mind.
Directions: The following questions are about your learning habits towards the class you had immediately before this class. Answer the questions by writing your responses
52. On the average, how many hours in a week do you spend on studying for that class? ______Hours
53. To the best of your estimate, what will be your grade for that class by the end of the semester? ______/ 100
Directions: These following items are concerned with how you felt about the class you had immediately before this class. Please circle the number toward either word which best represent your overall feelings. Note that in some case the most positive score is “1” while in other cases it is “7”.
54 Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unmotivated
55 Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninterested
56 Involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolved
57 Not stimulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated
58 Don’t want to study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Want to study
59 Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninspired
60 Unchallenged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Challenged
61 Not energized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Energized
62 Unenthused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enthused
63 Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Excited
64 Aroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Aroused
48
65 Not fascinated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fascinated
Directions: Please read the following statements and indicate how much you agree or disagree with them.
Strongly Neither Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree Agree Disagree In most situations lecturers should 66 take decisions without consulting their students. In school related matters, lecturers 67 have a right to expect obedience from their student. Students who often question authority 68 sometimes keep their lecturers from being effective. 69 Once a lecturer makes a decision, students should not question it. 70 Students should not express disagreements with their lecturers. 71 Lecturers should be able to make the right decisions without consulting with students. 72 Lecturers who let their students participate in making decisions lose power. 73 A university’s rules should not be broken, not even when the student thinks it is in the University’s best interest.
49
APPENDIX E
MEASURING SCALES
Short Form Argumentativeness Scale
5 = almost always true for you 4 = often true for you 3 = occasionally true for you 2 = rarely true for you 1 = almost never true for you
1. _____While in an argument, I worry that the person I'm arguing with will form a negative impression of me. 2. _____I am energetic and energetic and enthusiastic when I argue. 3. _____When I finish arguing with someone I feel nervous and upset. 4. _____I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue. 5. _____I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue. 6. _____I prefer being with people who rarely disagree with me. 7. _____I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge. 8. _____I find myself unable to think of effective points during an argument. 9. _____I have the ability to do well in an argument. 10.____I try to avoid getting into arguments.
Short Form Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
1 = almost never true 2 = rarely true 3 = occasionally true 4 = often true 5 = almost always true
__1. I am extremely careful to avoid attacking individuals’ intelligence when I attack their ideas. __2. When individuals are very stubborn, I use insults to soften their stubbornness. __3. I try very hard to avoid having other people feel bad about themselves when I try to influence them. __4. If individuals I am trying to influence really deserve it, I attack their character. __5. I try to make people feel good about themselves even when their ideas are stupid.
50
__6. When people simply will not budge on a matter of importance I lose my temper and say rather strong things to them. __7. When individuals insult me, I get a lot of pleasure out of really telling them off. __8. When I attack a person's ideas, I try not to damage their self-concepts. __9. When I try to influence people, I make a great effort not to offend them. __10. When nothing seems to work in trying to influence others, I yell and scream in order to get some movement from them.
Communication Climate Scale
1= I strongly disagree. 2= I slightly disagree. 3= I neither disagree. 4= I slightly agree. 5= I strongly agree.
1. My teacher helps me understand the reasons for his/her opinions. _____ 2. My teacher has favorite students. _____ 3. My teacher is neutral and detached when a dispute arises. _____ 4. My teacher is straightforward and honest. _____ 5. My teacher makes me feel he/she is interested in the problems I face. _____ 6. My teacher focuses his/her attention on the problems which have to be solved. _____ 7. My teacher uses “psychology” on us, that is he/she manipulates us. _____ 8. My teacher is very certain of his/her ideas. _____ 9. My teacher can see the subject we’re studying as we see it. _____ 10. My teacher judges us by what kind of motives and values we have. _____ 11. My teacher makes us feel we are not intelligent. _____ 12. My teacher can change subjects as questions are asked. _____ 13. My teacher frequently does not tell us his/her purpose for an assignment. _____ 14. My teacher makes me feel he/she understands me. _____ 15. My teacher doesn’t like to discuss controversial ideas. _____ 16. My teacher treats us as equals with him/her. _____ 17. My teacher very infrequently changes his/her mind. _____
Information Seeking Strategy Subscale
1 = to a very little extent 2 = to a little extent 3 = to some extent 4 = to a great extent 5 = to a very great extent
51
1. I would ask specific, straight-to-the-point questions to get the information ____ I wanted from I wanted.
2. I would identify what I did not know and ask for the information. ____
3. I would talk directly to my supervisor or coworkers and ask ____ for information about the matter.
4. I would not beat around the bush in asking for information from my. ____
Power Distance Scale
1= I strongly disagree with this statement. 2= I slightly disagree with this statement. 3= I neither disagree nor agree with this statement. 4= I slightly agree with this statement. 5= I strongly agree with this statement.
1. In most situations managers should make decisions without consulting their subordinates.
2. In work-related matters, manager have a right to expect obedience from their subordinates.
3. Employees who often question authority sometimes keep their managers from being effective.
4. Once a top-level executive makes a decision, people working for the company should not question it.
5. Employees should not express disagreements with their managers.
6. Managers should be able to make the right decisions without consulting with others.
7. Managers who let their employees participate in making decisions lose power.
8. A company’s rules should not be broken, not even when the employee thinks it is in the company’s best interest.
52
State Motivation Scale
1. Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unmotivated 2. Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninterested 3. Involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolved 4. Not Stimulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated 5. Don’t want to study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Want to study 6. Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninspired 7. Unchallenged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Challenged 8. Uninvigorated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Invigorated 9. Unenthused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enthused 10. Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Excited 11. Aroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Aroused 12. Not Fascinated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fascinated
53