4 Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Instructional Communication

Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle 4 Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Instructional Communication

Abstract: The instructional communication literature is rich with a number of theoretical frameworks and innovative research protocols. This chapter provides a review of the instructional communication literature, with an emphasis on publica- tions since 2010. In an effort to assess the state of the field in terms of theoretical and methodological innovation, this chapter (1) provides a summary and analysis of the theories employed in investigations of instructor communication variables, student communication variables, communication among students, out-of-class and mediated interactions, and mentoring and advising relationships; (2) offers a constructive critical analysis of the research designs that characterize the state of the art in instructional communication; and (3) lists and briefly discusses the original measures published since 2010, analyzing one as an exemplar. Based on our review, we offer several areas for reconsideration and/or development in the areas of theory, research design, and measurement for instructional communication.

Keywords: communication theory, research methods, learning measurement, instructor variables, student variables, out-of-class communication, mediated instruction, mentoring

Since instructional communication (IC) was first recognized as a distinct area of study in 1972, the serious, focused academic inquiry into communication as it relates to teaching and learning has developed and flourished. The first author of this chapter contributed to state of the discipline reviews published in 2001 and 2010 in which agendas were set, progress tracked, and weaknesses discussed. For example, Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax (2001a) encouraged IC researchers to take up projects investigating the interactive nature of instruction and learning; in 2010, they noted an encouraging response to that call, and that work has continued over the past five years. The study of relational constructs and a focus on the kinds of interactions that occur in educational systems, rather than just individual behaviors, have expanded the breadth and depth of what we know about IC. Further, since 2001, the field’s research, on balance, has become much more programmatic and theory informed than the variable analytic work that had represented a young, growing discipline. In 2010, Waldeck, Plax, and Kearney concluded that the field had “continued to mature” in terms of the heuristic value of scholarship being published, the bearing of communication theory on IC inquiry, and preliminary efforts to build IC theory based on empirical research. The authors noted that

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 68 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

IC researchers had “employed increasingly sophisticated thinking, research designs, and data analyses in interpreting findings” (p. 168). In this chapter, we examine the state of the art in the theories and methodolo- gies associated with instructional communication as it has emerged since the 2001 and 2010 reviews. We provide an overview of the primary theories that have framed IC research, discuss preliminary efforts toward a theory of IC, review research methods characteristic of this area of study, and discuss recent original measurements of IC variables. In all these areas, we emphasize work published since Wald- eck et al.’s 2010 review but provide older context where helpful. Our review of this literature shows strong, steady development. Research informed by theory is the norm, rather than the exception; we are no longer the stereotypical researchers “equipped with questionnaire … hot on the chase of the isolated and meaningless statistic” (Merton, 1957, p. 102). Some IC studies are characterized by innovative research designs, and the sophistication of the analytic procedures reflected across the literature is impressive. A growing corpus of theoretically informed research places instructional communication on the precipice of great influence not only within the communication field, but across the academy, and in applied settings where instructors and learners are communicating. Several methodological and measurement issues linger, however, and will hinder IC until they are addressed. Although we still have some scholarly distance to travel before we can build, test, and develop an original theory of IC, this chapter, overall, reveals a healthy state of instructional communication scholarship.

Major Theoretical Frameworks

The following theories are representative of those traditionally employed by researchers in the field: arousal theory, Keller’s model of instructional design, French and Raven’s bases of power and relational power and instructional influence theory, attribution theory, expectancy or learned helplessness, arousal valence theory, approach-avoidance, information-processing theory, social cognitive/learning theory, and cultivation theory. In an effort to provide an updated review of the use of these theories in instructional communication (IC), the focus of this chapter is primarily on research published after 2010. For a more comprehensive review of their use as well as of theories used in older IC scholarship, see Waldeck et al. (2001a), Wald- eck, et al. (2010), and Waldeck (2014). In a review of the extant IC literature, we also found recent developments in the use of theory and model testing including emotional response theory, instructional humor processing theory, psychological reactance theory, mentoring enactment theory, predicted outcome value theory, goals plans actions theory, relational dialectics theory, leader member exchange theory, and rhetorical and relational goals theory. IC researchers have also developed theoretical models, such as the general model of instructional communication

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 69 and the instructional beliefs model. We review each of these theories and models briefly below and provide representative examples of how they are used in IC research. These examples illustrate early uses of the theory with an emphasis on more recent applications.

Keller’s Model of Instructional Design

Keller’s (1983, 1987) ARCS Model of Motivational Design posits that instructors who make material relevant to students’ lives or goals increase their motivation to learn. The model delineates four concepts which, in sum, define learners’ motivation: attention focused on the subject matter, relevance of the content or instructional medium to students’ personal goals or interests, confidence or self-efficacy in mas- tering the material, and satisfaction with the outcome of the learning experience. Frymier and Shulman (1995) found that the more effectively instructors communi- cated relevance in their instruction, the more motivated students were to learn. Waldeck and Dougherty (2012) demonstrated that when students attend to the reasons for using course-related technology, perceive the relevance of the technology to the course, have confidence using the medium, and are satisfied with the outcome, their motivation to learn ensues. Given the increasing attention paid to student motivation as an explanatory mechanism for student performance in and outside of the classroom (e.g., Bolkan, 2015; Bolkan, Goodboy, & Griffin, 2011; Gold- man, Bolkan, & Goodboy, 2014; Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2012; Trad, Katt, & Miller, 2014), the utility of the ARCS in understanding this construct cannot be understat- ed for IC researchers.

French and Raven’s Power Bases/Relational Power and Instructional Influence Theory

French and Raven (1959) conceptualized five power types: coercive, referent, legitimate, reward, and expert. This perspective inspired one of the most influential lines of research in IC, which focused on teacher use of behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and behavior alteration messages (BAMs) to gain student compliance (cf., Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984). Researchers have examined how teachers communicate their power resources, student and teacher perceptions of teacher power, and the relationship between teachers’ selective power use and student learning across a variety of samples and contexts. French and Raven’s power bases continue to provide the theoretical framework from which increasingly complex statistical models of power in the classroom have been derived (e.g., Schrodt et al., 2008). For instance, Finn and Ledbetter (2013) found that teacher power mediates the relationship between perceived technology polices and perceived instructor credibility.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 70 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Integrating the work of French and Raven (1959) and Kelman’s (1961, 1974) model of social influence, Mottet, Frymier, and Beebe (2006) presented the relational power and instructional influence theory (RPII). Together, the three propositions of RPII argue that when instructors use more relational forms of power, the instructor-student relationship is enhanced, and it is more likely that instructors will achieve long-term influence. Although this theory has yet to be empirically tested, it suggests that IC researchers need to consider the complex ways in which persuasion and social influence operate as transactional phenomena in the classroom, as opposed to furthering the outmoded perspective that only instructors have power, and that students will be responsive to their uses of it. Further, the focus on relational constructs will move the field away from an earlier variable- analytic tendency.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory elucidates the process through which individuals make inferen- ces about the causes of their own and others’ behavior (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1986). People are more forgiving of another’s negative behavior when the cause is attributed to external forces, and likewise are more judgmental of behaviors they believe are caused by internal factors, or attributed to the person (Weiner, Amirk- han, Folkes, & Verette, 1987). In an examination of student attributions for their own behavior, Sabee and Wilson (2005) found that students with learning as a primary goal were more likely to attribute responsibility for disappointing grades to themselves; conversely, students who made an external attribution for a bad grade (i.e., blaming the instructor) were more aggressive in discussing the grade. Research in IC indicates that students also tend to make biased assessments regarding instructors’ negative behavior by attributing internal causes (Kelsey, Kearney, Plax, Allen, & Ritter, 2004; McPherson & Young, 2004). Such attributions of instructor internality, in turn, are more likely to result in students’ rhetorical, expressive, and vengeful dissent following a disagreement or difference of opinion (LaBelle & Martin, 2014). Overall, attribution theory has been used to illuminate how student attributions of their own, and their instructor’s, behaviors are related to subsequent communication. The theory appears to be an appropriate and insightful framework for continued investigations of IC; researchers should consider extending its use to examine the relationship of instructor attributions of student behavior to corresponding communication behaviors both in and outside the classroom environment. Additionally, attribution theory might prove fruitful in investigations of student-student communication and corresponding outcomes. Students’ perceptions of one another’s behavior are associated with their subsequent communication in a given course (e.g., Frisby & Martin, 2010; Johnson & LaBelle, 2015, 2016; Sol-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 71 litto, Johnson, & Myers, 2013); these associations might be further understood from a theoretical perspective.

Expectancy or Learned Helplessness

This perspective suggests that people learn to expect positive or negative outcomes of their own behavior over time, and that learned helplessness results when consequences are random and impossible to predict. McCroskey and Richmond (1987) used this theoretical framework in examining communication apprehension and anxiety as learned behaviors in the educational context. When peoples’ experiences with and resulting expectations about communication are unpredictable, they lose confidence and become anxious; when outcomes are negative, they become fearful. These learned responses have negative influences on affective, cognitive, and psychomotor learning. More recently, expectancy learning has illuminated the experiences of learning to use new technologies (Turner, Turner, & Van de Walle, 2007) and adapting to perceived “difficult” subjects in school, such as math and computer science (Wilson & Schrock, 2001). Learned helplessness has been used to explain the academic and behavioral deficits that characterize students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Sutherland & Singh, 2004). Based on an examination of the minimal research on learned helplessness in the college classroom, this perspective could be valued and utilized profitably in IC research. Re- searchers might consider how the expectations of struggling students inform, guide, and potentially inhibit their experiences in the classroom. Perhaps such investigations might shed light on why students struggling with depression, anxiety, and stress report significantly less involvement and interaction in their courses than students without such ailments (Carton & Goodboy, 2015).

Arousal Valence Theory

Closely aligned with expectancy theory, arousal valence theory has been used to explain students’ responses to instructor behavior (Andersen, 1985; Neuliep, 1995; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Specifically, arousal valence theory indicates that individuals hold expectations for their environments. Such expectations are influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural background, past experiences, individual differences, and contextual characteristics. Exposure to stimuli inconsistent with an individual’s expectations result in arousal – a heightened state of emotional and cognitive attention. Once arousal occurs, the individual assigns either a positive or a negative valence to the experience. The direction of the valence, then, influences the person’s reactions to the experience. For instance, Vallade and Myers (2014) found that students view instructor misbehaviors as relational transgressions, and base their decision to forgive on factors such as transgression severity and trans-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 72 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle gressor blameworthiness. Further, there is a growing body of evidence that student communicative reactions to differences in opinion or disagreements in the classroom are largely related to varying individual differences and situational characteristics (e.g., Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013; Goodboy & Bolkan, 2013; Goodboy & Frisby, 2014). Notably, these studies did not directly apply arousal valence theory. Rather, their inclusion in this review speaks to the potential to develop a theoretical understanding of the student expectations we now know to be influential in their communicative decisions. IC researchers are discovering fascinating relationships among such constructs, but variable analytic tests of such relationships do little to forward our comprehensive theoretical understanding of these processes. A related framework, expectancy violations theory (EVT; Burgoon, 1978) has been used to examine the role of student expectations in and outside the classroom. In an examination of the expectancies of traditional and nontraditional students, Houser (2006) found that negative violations of instructor clarity had negative implications for both groups’ cognitive learning and motivation, whereas positive violations of affinity seeking were associated with negative outcomes for nontraditional students. This theory has been underutilized given its potential to examine both student and instructor expectations, and subsequent reactions to behavioral violations, in and outside of the classroom context. EVT might offer a fruitful lens for more in-depth examinations of the student expectations of instruct- or technology policies (and reactions to such policies). In an ever-evolving technological culture, how do students regard strict instructor technology policies that prohibit the use of personal computers or cellular devices? In this context, which factors might lead to (un)favorable reactions of instructor classroom management policies? Together, the arousal and expectancy theories outlined in this chapter offer a number of possibilities to respond to these (and other) inquiries.

Approach-Avoidance Theory

Approach/avoidance theory proposes that individuals gravitate toward what they like, evaluate positively, and prefer; and they avoid what they dislike, evaluate negatively, and do not prefer (Mehrabian, 1971). As the theoretical basis for investigating immediacy in the classroom (Andersen, 1979), approach/avoidance theory is arguably the most fundamental and frequently used perspective in the field of IC. Researchers have illuminated how approach/avoidance may predict the impact of teacher immediacy and student communication apprehension on student outcomes. For instance, apprehensive students are more likely to avoid classroom dis- cussions than students who have low communication apprehension (Neer, 1990). Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax (2001b) used approach/avoidance theory in a study of digital out-of-class communication and found that students who evaluate digital media positively, even if they had not used them to communicate with instructors, were likely to use it to contact professors outside of class. Witt and Kerssen-Griep

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 73

(2011) interpreted their conclusions about student perceptions of instructor feedback through the lens of approach/avoidance theory, and made recommendations for encouraging student “approach” reactions to instructional feedback, including avoiding or mitigating (through the use of immediacy cues, for instance) feedback that may be face-threatening to students.

Emotional Response Theory

Emotional response theory (ERT; Mottet et al., 2006) addresses the role of student emotions in the instructional context. The theory has three key components: instructor communicative behavior, student emotional responses, and students’ subsequent approach-avoidance behaviors. Specifically, ERT argues that students’ emotional responses mediate the relationship between instructor verbal and nonverbal communication and student behavioral outcomes (Mottet et al., 2006). The theory goes on to predict that enhanced feelings of pleasure, arousal, and domi- nance result in students’ approach behaviors. These include increased engagement with the content being presented in the course and more positive affect for the material. On the other hand, decreased levels of these emotional responses will result in disengagement or avoidant behaviors, which are indicative of lower motivation and decreased learning. In a test of ERT, Horan, Martin, and Weber (2012) found partial support for the theory: Although relationships were found among students’ perceptions of instructor power use and classroom justice, emotional responses, and approach/avoidance behaviors, direct tests of the causal relationships predicted in ERT did not yield significant results. As the authors note, the failure of ERT to predict student outcomes in this study should be interpreted within the scope of the particular instructor communication behaviors examined, as opposed to being viewed as evidence that the propositions of the theory are errone- ous. Further tests of the theory’s predictive capabilities in the context of other instructor behaviors, and using more direct measures of those behaviors, are still necessary.

Instructional Humor Processing Theory

Instructional humor processing theory (IHPT; Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010) in- corporates elements of incongruity-resolution theory, disposition theory, and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion to explain why some types of instruct- or-generated humor result in increased learning, whereas other types do not. Spe- cifically, IHPT predicts that appropriate and related incongruous messages will lead to increased learning and retention, as these messages provoke effortful message processing. Although Wanzer and colleagues found preliminary support for the proposed relationships of the IHPT, a test of the full causal model (Bolkan &

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 74 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Goodboy, 2015) indicated that IHPT does not adequately explain the impact of humor on student learning. Rather, they found that self-determination theory offered a stronger explanation for the link between instructor humor and student learning. According to this perspective, instructor humor creates a positive climate that ful- fills students’ psychological needs in the classroom, which in turn leads to heightened motivation and desire to do well in the course. An important conclusion can be drawn from Bolkan and Goodboy’s (2015) work. Namely, it is imperative that IC researchers subject theories, both the well-worn and recently developed, to rigorous empirical investigations of their utility in explaining and predicting communicative phenomena. Such investigations are crucial to the continued improvement of our comprehensive understanding of the teaching-learning process, particularly when building original theory.

Psychological Reactance Theory

Psychological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981) posits that when individuals receive a persuasive message they perceive to threaten, re- duce, or eliminate their behavioral freedom, they experience a state of psychological, emotional, or motivational arousal. This arousal, or reactance, manifests itself in a desire to restore the threatened behavioral freedom. This theory has played an influential role in the study of persuasion and social influence and was first adapted to the instructional context by Zhang and Sapp (2013), who studied student responses to instructor requests. They found that instructor use of politeness strategies, high legitimacy requests, high instructor credibility, and close instructor-student relationships lowered students’ experience of reactance and subsequently lowered intentions to resist the request. Later, Ball and Goodboy (2014) found positive associations between instructor use of unclear and forceful language and students’ reports of perceived threat, which resulted in increased psychological reactance; this reactance in turn mediated the relationship between perceived threat and intention to engage in both instructional dissent and challenge behaviors. Con- tinued investigations applying and testing PRT in the instructional context would help to illuminate the nuanced ways in which instructors and students interface as mutual agents of persuasion in the classroom.

Mentoring Enactment Theory

Mentoring enactment theory (MET; Kalbfleisch, 2002) explains what motivates individuals to enter mentoring relationships, how they express interest in initiating such relationships, and why these relationships are maintained and repaired. Mansson and Myers (2012) tested two of the nine propositions of MET in their examination of ongoing mentoring relationships among graduate students and their

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 75 academic mentors. Although there were no significant sex differences in mentee enactment of relational maintenance (as was predicted per MET), Mansson and Myers did find that mentees’ reports of the relational maintenance behaviors they enact with their advisors were positively related to both mentee and mentor reports of mentoring support. The researchers noted that the partial support obtained for MET may have been due to methodological limitations (e.g., small sample size); thus, continued tests of MET are warranted. As the strategies that advisees use to maintain relationships with their advisor have been uncovered (i.e., appreciation, tasks, protection, courtesy, humor, and goals; Mansson & Myers, 2012), instructional researchers are now capable of achieving a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which these messages contribute to both advisor and advisee satisfaction, efficacy, and success across varied academic disciplines, levels of study, and communication channels.

Predicted Outcome Value Theory

Predicted outcome value theory (POV; Sunnafrank, 1986) asserts that individuals engage in uncertainty reducing techniques in initial interactions to determine the perceived outcome value of the relationship and ultimately maximize rewards over costs. Research indicates that students form both positive and negative POV judgments of instructors in initial interactions based on instructor communication (Ho- ran, Houser, Goodboy, & Frymier, 2011), and that these judgments are associated with students’ subsequent enactment of either prosocial or antisocial communicative behaviors (Horan & Houser, 2012). Using POV as a theoretical framework, Young, Kelsey, and Lancaster (2011) examined the association of students’ predicted outcome values with instructor and student-instructor communication via email. The frequency of instructor-student email exchanges was positively associated with the students’ perceptions of relational development with the instructor. As noted above, there is a still a need to uncover the communicative processes involved in selecting an academic mentor and initiating a mentoring relationship; scholars interested in these interactions could examine how individuals engage in uncertainty reduction in potential mentee-mentor relationships as well as the influence of POV judgments made in the early stages of these pivotal relationships.

Goals Plans Actions Theory

The goals-plans-action (GPA) theory of message production (Dillard, 1990; 2004) posits that the interplay of goals, plans, and actions between two interactants is useful in understanding not only influence attempts but also a wider array of interpersonal phenomena. GPA has received support in the instructional context as a means of understanding student academic decision-making. In the context of ap-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 76 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle proaching an instructor regarding a disappointing grade, Henningsen, Valde, Rus- sell, and Russell (2011) found that students’ activated goals elicited planning, which led to the decision to engage in an influence attempt, which ultimately predicted students’ decision to engage in a discussion with the instructor. In an experimental study, Henningsen, Valde, and Denbrow (2013) found that students’ primary and secondary goals could be used to predict their decision to either ex- plicitly confront or report a peer suspected of academic misconduct. To date, the majority of research conducted on instructor and student influence attempts has been grounded in theoretical assumptions regarding the five power bases (see above for descriptions of these and the recently developed RPII theory). The suc- cessful application of GPA in understanding students’ decision making is indicative of the increased efforts of IC researchers to understand traditionally studied phenomena in increasingly complex ways.

Relational Dialectics Theory

Relational dialectics theory (RDT; Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) posits that tensions sustain and challenge all relationships; these tensions manifest as oppositional forces. RDT has been used to examine the African-American student experience in higher education (Simmons, Lowery-Hart, Wahl, & McBride, 2013) as well as the identity negotiation and relationship formation of nontraditional students (O’Boyle, 2014). Although RDT might best be described as a metatheoretical perspective, as it has neither the axiomatic structure nor the predictive ability of a true theory (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996), there are a number of research implications that can be drawn from applying RDT to the instructional context. In their essay outlining a research agenda for utilizing the epistemological underpinnings of RDT to examine teacher-student relational development, Rudick and Golsan (2014) highlight its promise in (re)examining the sociocultural and contextual elements of major lines of research in IC. The authors appropriately end their essay by calling for a wider appreciation of varied epistemological perspectives, method- ologies, and paradigms in the quest for a theory of instructional communication.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) is rooted in the assumption that superiors form unique relationships with their subordinates ranging on a continuum from high to low quality. The formation of such relationships supports the construction of in-groups and out-groups in the organization, the classification of which predicts individual and organizational outcomes for both superiors and subordinates. The more productive, trustworthy, and competent subordinates form an “in-group” with their supervisors and subsequently tend to have relatively informal ex-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 77 changes. On the other hand, the less productive, less trustworthy, and less competent subordinates comprise an out-group in the organization, and tend to communicate formally with supervisors (Bauer & Green, 1996; Krone, Kramer, & Sias, 2010). Horan, Chory, Carton, Miller, and Raposo (2013) found that students’ perceptions of LMX have both mediating and moderating effects on their perceptions of justice in the classroom and intentions to engage in antisocial communication. The use of LMX in instructional contexts represents an important effort to apply theories as appropriate across contexts and situations. Instruction and learning take place across the lifespan in a number of contexts, and the nature of leadership communication in those contexts will have an impact on participant perceptions of their experiences.

Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory

Grounded in the rhetorical and relational traditions in IC, this theoretical perspective suggests that students enter the classroom with both academic and relational needs (Mottet et al., 2006). Academic needs are related to a student’s desire to acquire information and ideas, and achieve goals such as learning or obtaining a particular grade. Relational needs involve feeling confirmed as a student and a person, and they are met through interactions with instructors and other students. Similarly, instructors have both rhetorical (content-related) and relational goals, and may emphasize one of these over the other through their communication with students. Effective teaching, then, occurs when teachers set appropriate goals and are able to employ communication strategies to achieve those goals; further, student learning and motivation are increased by having their needs met in the classroom. IC researchers are particularly interested in the interplay between a focus on academic content and the benefits of context-appropriate interpersonal relationships between instructors and students. In an application of rhetorical and relational goals theory, Claus, Booth-Butterfield, and Chory (2012) found that students’ positive perceptions of their instructors reduced the likelihood of student enactment of antisocial communication with the instructor. However, instructor misbehaviors (i.e., actions that interfere with the instructional process, such as boring lectures, giving unfair tests, or being late to class) increased the likelihood of antisocial instructor-student interactions, regardless of the degree to which an instruct- or was perceived as interpersonally attractive, humorous, or relationally close with students. As the authors note, the negative influence of instructor behaviors that disrupt students’ academic need fulfillment are rarely overcome by instructor behaviors that promote an interpersonal relationship with students. The propositions of rhetorical and relational goals theory have not been subjected to a comprehensive empirical investigation. However, Finn and Schrodt (2012) provided evidence supporting one proposition – that when students’ aca-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 78 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle demic and relational needs are met, students will be more satisfied with their classroom experience. More specifically, they found that when students perceived teachers as straightforward in their teaching and nonverbally immediate, they rated those teachers as understanding. Subsequently, students experienced heightened feelings of competence relative to the course, viewed the content of the course as valuable, and felt appreciated as contributing and valued class members. Finn and Schrodt’s work represents the recent efforts of IC scholars to investigate the underlying mechanisms that connect widely studied teacher behaviors such as nonverbal immediacy and clarity to valued student learning, relational, and communicative outcomes. Although rhetorical and relational goals theory provides an effective lens for examining the association of teacher goals and student needs in the classroom, there is still a need for the development of reliable and valid measurements of the theory’s key variables. As noted by the authors, the development of rhetorical and relational goals theory (along with the aforementioned emotional response theory and theory of relational power and instructional influence) was meant to initiate a more in-depth conversation on the theoretical knowledge of instructional communication, not to finish it.

Theoretical and Statistical Models

In addition to the aforementioned theories, several models have been used to examine the relationships among variables of interest to IC researchers. These include models specifically developed for IC research, such as the General Model of Instructional Communication (McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004) and the Instructional Beliefs Model (Weber, Martin, & Myers, 2011).

The General Model of Instructional Communication

The General Model of Instructional Communication (McCroskey, Valencic, & Rich- mond, 2004) offers a framework to examine the associations among teacher traits, teacher communication behaviors, student perceptions, and student learning outcomes. In forwarding the General Model, McCroskey and colleagues (2004) found support for the hypothesized relationships among these variables using canonical correlations; however, Katt, McCroskey, Sivo, Richmond, and Valencic (2009) were unable to find support for the predictions of the structural model in further tests. Although the General Model offers an attempt to synthesize research in IC, its repli- cability and parsimony fall short.

Instructional Beliefs Model

The central premise of the Instructional Beliefs Model (IBM; Weber, Martin & My- ers, 2011) is that teacher behaviors, student characteristics, and course-specific

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 79 structural issues combine to influence students’ instructional beliefs, which in turn affect learning outcomes. Specifically, first-order constructs (i.e., teacher behaviors, student characteristics, and course specific structural issues) are mediated by a second-order construct of students’ instructional beliefs in their impact on the students’ learning outcomes, which constitute the third-order constructs in the model. The three first-order constructs are considered equally influential in their effect on students’ instructional beliefs; instructors and students, as well as course- specific structural issues, all serve to influence students’ cognitive and affective beliefs about the class. The IBM has been used successfully to examine student learning and communicative outcomes in the context of instructional dissent (La- Belle, Martin, & Weber, 2013), student-student connectedness (Johnson & LaBelle, 2015), and student academic entitlement (Vallade, Martin, & Weber, 2014). In addition to these original models of IC, researchers have designed models to explain the mechanism through which teacher immediacy affects student outcomes (Frymier, 1994; Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996; Zhang, Oetzel, Gao, Wil- cox, & Takai, 2007), the sources of influence in online education (Carr, Zube, Dick- ens, Hayter, & Barterian, 2013), and information technology continuance (Lin & Rivera-Sanchez, 2012). Other work has applied models of reciprocal causation to examine the associations among student traits, student-teacher communication, and student achievement (Charalampous & Kokkinos, 2014). There have also been a number of statistically based models developed to understand the teaching-learning process in more complex ways (e.g., Finn & Ledbetter, 2013; Mazer, 2013; Side- linger, Bolen, Frisby, & McMullen, 2011). However, although these models test important mediating and moderating relationships, they are not always based in theoretical reasoning or used to build theory. Although the use of these theoretically based and statistical models further the understanding of IC in important ways, these models do not meet the requirements of true theory. Specifically, at this time, no theory of IC demonstrates the criteria of logical consistency, testability, and falsifiability (Chaffee & Berger, 1987). Fur- ther, many of the studies highlighted in this review apply theories as a framework for variable selection and study rationale, but do not make efforts to test or develop theory. In all, there continues to be a lack of original theory development in IC. As the review of theoretical approaches provided in this chapter indicates, the majority of theories applied and tested in IC continue to be adapted from other disciplines or areas of the communication field. However, before IC researchers can begin to use our empirical findings to build true theory, there are several methodological and measurement issues that the field must address.

Research Design and Measurement Issues

A review of the instructional communication literature published since the last comprehensive “state of the discipline” chapter (Waldeck et al., 2010) reveals a

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 80 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle diversity of methodological approaches. Although survey designs still predominate the literature, scholars in this area have embraced experimental designs and a range of qualitative methods, and provide compelling rationales for their designs. These practices, we believe, reflect the movement toward greater methodological diversity in the communication field at large and represent an effort to capture the nature of teaching and learning in a complex era. Additionally, ten original measures of instructional communication constructs have been published since 2010. One significant measurement problem that has received much attention over the past three decades lingers: the assessment of cognitive learning. Thus, in this sec- tion, we address each of these areas in turn as they relate to the state of IC research.

Methodological Issues

Primary unit of analysis and setting for IC research

Our understanding of instructional communication to date is based primarily on research designed to evaluate student perceptions of teacher behavior, the overall communication climate associated with the class, motivation, students’ own behaviors, and learning outcomes. For instance, Johnson and LaBelle (2015) assessed college students’ perceptions of classmates’ self-disclosure and classroom connectedness as predictors of their own enactment of instructional dissent. Elsewhere, Holmgren and Bolkan (2014) examined students’ reports of how instructors respond to their rhetorical dissent (i.e., students’ efforts to persuade the instructor to change something that they perceive as unfair), and how these responses influence a range of student outcomes. In a study of how instructors’ communication behaviors might influence students’ emotional experiences in the classroom, Tits- worth, McKenna, Mazer, and Quinlan (2013) assessed student reports of their emotional valence, emotion work, and instructor emotional support associated with the class. In contrast, we identified very few studies based on instructor samples. One focused on instructor perceptions of student email politeness (Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012). Another investigated instructor self-reports of nonverbal immediacy, confirmation, and caring behaviors and their impact on perceptions of student nonverbal responsiveness (Malachowski & Martin, 2011). Finally, Frisby, Goodboy, and Buck- ner (2015) studied the effects of instructor-reported student dissent behavior on teacher burnout, commitment, satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Looking further back to the seminal IC work, there are few examples of research assessing instructor perceptions of students or of the teaching and learning experience. One notable exception is Gorham and Millette’s (1997) study of the congruency of teacher perceptions and student self-reports of student motivation (and its predictors). We view the overall scarcity of work based on instructor perspectives as a shortcoming and as an opportunity for development and expansion of the field.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 81

Because the important role of instructors on student outcomes is well established, we believe that the time has come to pay systematic attention to their experiences with, beliefs about, and perceptions of the instructional environment. The lack of communication research on instructors indicates that perhaps communication researchers have an implicit bias that teachers are, by nature, competent communicators whose experiences need not be studied outside of their impact on the student experience. By extension, there might be an assumption that if we determine what behaviors students like and learn from, and disseminate these findings, instructors will use them and become more effective. However, we cannot allow ourselves to continue to use this tunnel vision. Not all instructors value communication, are skilled communicators, and/or are motivated to communicate effectively with students – and many have biases and experiences preventing them from developing a positive attitude toward competent communication. For instance, Waldeck has given faculty development workshops to national interdisciplinary audiences from a communication perspective and been asked by bewildered participants, “Why should I care if my students like me or my teaching style?” Addition- ally, this attitude appears to be common among instructors from countries other than the United States, where there is often minimal cultural emphasis placed on instructional relationships or communication competence within teaching and learning activities. Instructors in our own and other disciplines have inadequacies, insecurities, and challenges related to communication and instruction that can negatively impact their experience and, by extension, the student experience. As Weimer (2010) has suggested, teachers’ motivation, skills, and weaknesses ebb and flow over the course of their careers – impacting “students [and] how well they learn” (p. 174). Thus, it is imperative that we extend the study of communication, teaching, and learning to address instructors’ own perceptions and reports of their experiences. We have two additional concerns related to the units of analysis chosen by instructional communication researchers. First, our review revealed that most research is based on fairly homogenous samples and that many authors mention this as a limitation of their work. Researchers should continue to strive for culturally diverse participant pools and continue to use qualitative methods where appropriate to tap the unique experiences of specific cultural groups. As Pettegrew (2016) argued, cultural phenomena impact the communication context and situation in critical, but sometimes subtle, ways. For instance, the cultural beliefs and practices of first-generation college students’ families of origin contribute to those students’ ongoing experiences in distinct ways (Wang, 2014b). Students’ and instructors’ eth- nicity, native language, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion may be other examples of cultural variables impacting IC in ways that could be explored more meaningfully than by t-tests. The second concern is related to the preoccupation with college students and the traditional, face-to-face college teaching and learning experience. In a chapter

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 82 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle on the lifespan nature of learning, Waldeck (2014) “firmly established learning as a developmental process typically facilitated by … activities that occur within child- hood and post-secondary institutionalized learning, and through adulthood work- place training and development” (p. 148), and noted that the learning experiences of older adults are understudied. We argue, too, that IC researchers have largely excluded the K-12 (kindergarten to twelfth grade) setting from their work. Notable exceptions include Boster, Meyer, Roberto, Inge, and Strom’s (2006) study of video streaming and Strom and Boster’s examination of family communication and high school matriculation (2011). Other developmental work has emerged from the health communication area on the impact on adolescents of educational messages regarding drug and alcohol abuse (cf., Pettigrew et al., 2012). However, the focus on K-12 education is small. Perhaps researchers simply are not interested in the instructional process as it relates to children; alternatively, the scant literature on children might be due to the difficulties associated with gaining access and IRB approval. However, convenience should not govern our research activities. Further, the college students whom we typically study are mostly reporting on traditional instructor-led courses that afford them opportunities to build relationships with instructors and peers through face-to-face communication. However, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2012, 26 % of all postsec- ondary students in the United States were enrolled in at least some distance education courses. Thus, instructional communication scholars should take up Waldeck et al.’s (2010) call to take a greater leadership role in exploring the growing phe- nomenon of online teaching and learning. Our review indicates that although researchers have continued to study email, social media, and cell phone communication as they relate to learning in traditional classrooms (cf., Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012; Deverniero & Hosek, 2011; Finn & Ledbetter, 2014; Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013; Waldeck & Dougherty, 2012; Young et al., 2011), little has been done to study online learning specifically or other classroom structures including flipped instruction, team-based learning, and active learning. We note an important exception to the concern that instructional communication research is limited to college classrooms: a 2010 special issue of Communica- tion Education that showcased education and health promotion. Similar to the intention of Kearney’s 2006 special issue of the same journal focused on training and development, these studies examined how instructional interventions are useful outside of traditional classrooms and “can be used to promote public health and enhance the quality of care for targeted populations” (Kreps, Sparks, & Villagran, 2010, p. 215) and to train healthcare providers and administrators. For instance, LeGreco, Hess, Lederman, Schuwerk, and LaValley (2010) reported on the use of instructional communication technology, such as personal response “clickers” to encourage learning related to health-related risk prevention. Avtgis, Pollack, Mar- tin, and Rossi (2010) explored the impact of communication training modules created using established instructional design principles on healthcare provider

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 83 efficiency during trauma interventions. Taken as a whole, this journal issue demonstrates how teaching and learning are lifespan processes not limited to college classrooms, often with life-altering or life-saving implications. In addressing these issues, we urge scholars to consider a useful framework offered by Pettegrew (2016) of context, sub-context, setting, and situation. He argues convincingly that social scientists tend to use these terms interchangeably and imprecisely, which negatively impacts the clarity and substance of our work. When we do so, he writes, we overlook subtle dynamics that enable and constrain effective communication. Within the larger instructional context, then, it is important to identify the sub-context in which we are working for a particular research project (e.g., higher education, K-12, public or private institution, research-oriented university or liberal arts focus) and to theorize about the effects of sub-context on our variables of interest. He goes on to define the setting as the actual place where communication takes place (in instructional contexts and sub-contexts, examples would include online, classrooms, and out-of-class communication venues). Set- ting has clear implications for the process and product of instructional communication, and within the setting for communication is the situation, which he defines as the exigency for communication. IC can be routine or novel, confirming or dis- confirming, immediate or non-immediate based on situational factors; additionally, instructors are sometimes faced with situations in which they need to discipline students and have other kinds of difficult conversations. The reason for a particular interaction has unique effects on its outcome that cannot be overlooked. As we study instructional constructs in a growing variety of sub-contexts and settings (e.g., health, corporate training, higher education, and K-12), and as we learn more about the range of communicative situations learners and instructors face (and the cultural phenomena that operate as they do), it becomes increasingly important to be mindful of Pettegrew’s admonition as we systematically theorize and design our research protocols. IC researchers, in the quest for generalizable research findings, may not be attentive enough to these fundamental distinctions to draw the kinds of groundbreaking conclusions that should be hallmarks of our work.

Research designs and procedures

Surveys remain the most commonly used research design (exemplars include Goodboy and Myers’s 2015 update of the teacher misbehaviors literature and Thompson, Mazer, and Flood Grady’s 2015 study of parent-teacher communication). However, authors have used other unique strategies for studying the teaching and learning process. Because they have allowed researchers to uncover rich, deep, and valid perspectives on various instructional constructs and to study the unique experiences of specific understudied groups, these methods have enhanced

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 84 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle the literature in substantive, interesting ways. For example, in a line of research that relies on interviews with first-generation college students (FGC), Wang (2012, 2014a, 2014b) explored the memorable messages they receive from parents, on- campus mentors, and teachers who socialize, prepare, and aid them through the transition to college. Wang argued that the interpretive paradigm framing her research produced “an in-depth understanding” (2014a, p. 68) of how FGC students make sense of communication with various groups about making the transition to college. Through qualitative techniques, she elicited rich, detailed accounts of how interactions with others aided FGC students in navigating the college experience. Using established protocol for thematically analyzing her data, she validated her results using member checking and interactive data conferencing. Wang’s work is a solid example of selecting an appropriate paradigm based on the focus of her research and using data collection and analytic techniques consistent with her qualitative design. Her methods allowed her to uncover nuances of her sample’s experience that would be difficult to collect through a survey design and quantita- tive measurement techniques. In another study, Simmons et al. (2013) employed interviews and focus groups to investigate African-American students’ experiences in predominantly white uni- versities. This methodology was appropriate because it allowed the researchers to create “a climate in which African-American students would openly and honestly discuss issues related to their experiences as minority students in higher education” (Simmons et al., 2013, p. 380). Participant narratives were analyzed using content analytic procedures, and the emergent constructs were validated using the constant comparative method. The results allowed the researchers to identify the “discourse and meaning-making of participants” (Simmons et al., 2013, p. 388) related to their efforts to participate in a predominantly white learning environment. The deeply personal and complex struggles that participants expressed in this study were enabled by the methodology the researchers selected. Another method would have constrained the researchers’ ability to gain insight into the unique internal and external conflicts African-American students often encounter. Additionally, our review revealed a number of innovative experimental designs. Appropriate use of experimental manipulations can afford researchers heightened confidence that their findings will be uncompromised by the biases associated with indirect (participant) reports. For example, in their study of feedback, mentoring, face threat mitigation, and teacher nonverbal immediacy (TNI), Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2015) responded to previous critiques of existing TNI measures that rely on student perceptions and recollections of instructor behaviors. Spe- cifically, they manipulated TNI through the use of two video scenarios (greater and lesser immediacy conditions) rather than use the checklist procedure typically employed in TNI research. By exerting experimental control over the teachers’ immediacy, the authors were able to conclude that their design contributed “further behavioral … evidence to complement the mainly perceptual data otherwise avail-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 85 able about these variables’ roles in educational outcomes” (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2015, p. 17). In another example of the use of experimental methods, Edwards and Edwards (2013) investigated the impact of computer-mediated word of mouth (WOM) student reviews of professors (e.g., ratemyprofessor.com) on students’ evaluations of instructor credibility and attraction, and student motivation and affective learning. They created three sets of Rate My Professor ratings for a hypothetical instructor, manipulated for instructor quality (positive, negative, mixed). They asked student participants to read the ratings, then watch a videotaped lecture by the rated professor (the same video was used in each condition) and finally, complete an evaluation of instructor credibility and attractiveness. Although the authors note limitations of ecological validity, their choice was an appropriate exploratory step for investigating online ratings of instructors and their impact on student expectancies, perceptions, and outcomes. The design held the instructor’s lecture performance constant, and the experimental rating conditions parsed out other influences on student experiences with professors (e.g., real-time discussion with friends, prior history with the instructor). As a result, Edwards and Edwards were able to establish a valid connection between mediated WOM about professors and student experiences with those professors and their courses, concluding “… student computer-mediated WOM … explained 10 % of the variance in student ratings … this study shows that peer-to-peer opinions are consequential in educational encoun- ters” (Edwards & Edwards, 2013, p. 422). The next logical step in this research should be to examine mediated student ratings in natural conditions. Other representative experimental work includes studies by Ball and Goodboy (2014), who manipulated instructor clarity and use of forceful language as antecedents of students’ psychological reactance and communication; Bromme, Brum- mernhenrich, Becker, and Jucks (2012), who created scenarios depicting varying levels of tutor politeness in an investigation of clarity in expert-layperson tutorial interactions; and Li, Mazer, and Ju (2011), who designed conditions involving international teaching assistants with differing degrees of language proficiency and self-disclosure about their language inadequacy to determine their effects on student perceptions of teacher clarity and credibility.

Original Instructional Communication Measures

In reviewing the instructional communication literature published since 2010 (see Kearney & Beatty, 1994; Rubin, 2009; and Waldeck et al. 2010 for previous reviews), we identified ten original measurements designed to assess classroom emotions (Titsworth et al., 2010), student intellectual stimulation (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010) student perceptions of student understanding (Schrodt & Finn, 2011), instructional dissent (Goodboy, 2011), student engagement and student interest (Mazer, 2012),

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 86 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle parental academic support (Thompson & Mazer, 2012), teacher technology policies (Finn & Ledbetter, 2014), cognitive learning (revision; Frisby, Mansson, & Kauf- mann, 2014) and revised teacher misbehaviors (Goodboy & Myers, 2015). Additionally, our review reveals the sophistication of instructional scholars’ efforts to create psychometrically sound scales and further demonstrate their validity. In particular, Schrodt and Finn’s (2011) student perceptions of instructor understanding measure serves as an exemplary model for scale development. We have selected it as an ideal representative of the measures reported in the contemporary literature for analysis. Working from the relational theoretical perspective (Mottet & Beebe, 2006), Schrodt and Finn (2011) first reasoned that students evaluate their efforts to communicate with instructors based on teachers’ behavioral indicators of understanding. Thus, the study met a foundational criterion for measurement: a solid theoretical base (Barker, 1989). Next, concerned with content validity, they generated a large number of items following well-established and widely-accepted social scientific protocols. The scope of their item pool and the systematic procedure they used for creating it allowed them to adequately operationalize their variable of interest’s complex conceptual underpinnings. Their inventory was informed by published instrumentation, the previously mentioned theoretical foundation, and the authors’ deductive reasoning. Because the scale was designed to reference students’ perceptions of specific teacher behaviors, it requires a minimal degree of inference on the student participant’s part and, therefore, meets the criterion of high measur- ability (Barker, 1989). The authors paid careful attention to the clarity and format- ting of the scale’s statements: They used a rigorous pilot test procedure with 35 student focus group participants to determine the extent to which items represented the construct under study, and to collect any additional verbal and nonverbal behaviors not included in the initial item pool and delete those which did not appear to be representative. As a final step in developing items, two instructional communication experts reviewed their 54 items. Next, Schrodt and Finn used the well-established prior class data collection technique (Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor, 35-item scale that measured students’ perceptions of instructor understanding and misunderstanding with excellent reliability for both factors (Cronbach’s α = .96). Their analyses further yielded only moderate correlations between the new scale and the existing scale they sought to improve, indicat- ing that theirs is “empirically consistent, but not redundant” (Schrodt & Finn, 2011, p. 238) with the previous one. Thus, their scale improved upon earlier measures related to student feelings of being understood/misunderstood that relied on students’ affective evaluations of instructors, rather than their observations and reports of actual teacher behaviors. With a subsequent sample, using CFA procedures, the authors verified their scale’s structure. Finally, they offered ample evidence of the scale’s concurrent and

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 87 discriminant validity. Schrodt and Finn acknowledged the limitations of their work, including homogenous samples and a cross-sectional design, and made recommendations for overcoming them in future work. Importantly, their work is heuristic and programmatic. Finn and Schrodt (2012) used the measure to test a structural equation model of the mediating effects of student perceptions of instructor understanding on the relationship between teacher clarity/nonverbal immediacy and learner empowerment. Because of their careful attention to detail, systematic approach, appropriate development steps and analyses, and the resulting sound psy- chometric properties of their measure, we urge instructional communication scholars and students to model Schrodt and Finn’s excellent work in the area of scale development.

Measurement of Cognitive Learning

According to the paradigm of learning advanced by Bloom (1956) and Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964), cognitive learning (CL) involves acquiring, understanding, synthesizing, evaluating, and using information or knowledge. It is one of three domains of learning typically studied by communication researchers, the to- tality of which is long considered to be the standard by which learning outcomes are assessed. The remaining two include affective learning (the development of positive attitudes, beliefs, and values relative to the knowledge and behaviors being learned), and psychomotor (behavioral) learning (which is concerned with one’s ability to perform specific physical behaviors as a result of the learning process). All three domains of learning have been employed as dependent variables in communication research, and the latter two, affective and psychomotor learning, with little debate about measurement validity. However, cognitive learning has proven to be a challenging construct to assess. In early learning research, cognitive learning indicators included student test scores, recall measures, and course grades. However, these presented reliability and validity problems in making knowledge claims regarding the role of communication in instruction across disciplines. Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, and Plax (1987) were concerned with the “lack of comparability across cognitive learning measures … across disparate fields” and the “crude estimates” (p. 6) of learning provided by grades. They also wrote about an even bigger validity problem posed by student-estimated grades (another technique that researchers had previously employed). Consequently, they developed the often-used Learning Loss (LL) assessment. This two-item student self-report scale assesses student perceptions of their CL as a function of instruction in a particular class. Although numerous findings are based on this measure, there are compelling problems with its continued use as a solitary measure of CL. The authors cautioned in their original publication of the measure that scores “do not represent perfectly valid measures of cognitive learning” (Richmond et al., 1987, p. 6) and advised a

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 88 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle conservative approach in interpreting findings based on this measure. The LL measure was never offered as a panacea. Thirteen years later, noting its continued use, Waldeck et al. (2010) characterized it as an “important initial contribution” but called for “better models” (p. 173). Specifically, they noted the inability to calculate reliability estimates on a two-item measure, as well as validity concerns. The outcry for an improved measure has been loud and strong from many cor- ners of the field. Hess, Smythe, and Communication 451 (2001) were among the first to document the shortcomings of CL research. In particular, they pointed to the lack of theoretical foundation for the LL tool, and its reliance on students’ perceptions of their own learning. Although Chesebro and McCroskey (2000) had provided evidence of a moderate correlation between LL scores and performance on a recall quiz, Hess et al. dismissed their work as suffering from “eroded” (2001, p. 203) ecological validity due to its experimental design. Hess et al.’s study yielded no meaningful relationship between student perceptions of learning (as recorded by the learning loss measure) and exam performance over time in naturally occur- ring classes with nine instructors and standardized structure and materials. Specu- lating that students inflate self-reports of CL when they have positive affect toward the teacher, they called the practice of using the LL instrumentation “into question … and underscore[d] the need for more evidence of validity” (Hess et al., 2001, p. 214). Subsequently, Witt, Wheeless, and Allen’s (2004) meta-analysis offered even more evidence of the weaknesses of the LL procedure. Across 81 studies, the overall correlation between immediacy and CL measured by the LL instrument was significantly higher (r = .63) than the relationship between immediacy and CL measured through grades and recall performance (r = .12). As King and Witt (2009) note, because nonsignificant findings are rarely published (Levine & Asada, 2007) and therefore are not included in meta-analytic calculations, even the very small .12 correlation may be inflated. In an attempt to avoid asking students to report high-inference perceptions of their learning and create a low-inference rating scale of behavioral indicators of learning, researchers developed the Learning Indicators (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996) and Revised Learning Indicators (Frymier & Houser, 1999) scales. Based on the assumption that time spent engaged with learning leads to learning, in the first study, Frymier and colleagues generated an inventory of behaviors that students engage in when they are learning (e.g., “I actively participate in class discussion,” “I think about the course content outside of class,” “I explain course content to other students”) and produced evidence of “modest validity” and reliability for the instrument (Frymier et al., 1996, p. 3). The follow-up study, which resulted in the revised scale, was concerned with the high proportion of items focused on communication behaviors. Reasoning that the 9-item Original Learning Indicators Scale (OLIS) might be confounded by students’ predispositions to communicate or be apprehensive, Frymier and Houser (1999) attempted to balance the scale by adding four items unrelated to communication. The resulting two-factor

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 89 solution indicated a dimension reflective of learning activities and one consistent with oral class participation behavior. Thus, the items loading on the oral class participation factor were discarded, and the Revised Learning Indicators Scale (RLIS) was determined to consist of the seven items loading on the remaining factor. Interestingly, two items that involved communication, albeit low-risk forms of communication about the course outside of class (versus in-class participation), loaded on the retained factor, along with other non-communication behavioral indicators of learning. Frymier and Houser (1999) provided evidence of the validity of the RLIS, determined it to be more reliable and valid than the OLIS, and suggested it could “be used alone or in conjunction with other measures of learning” (p. 11). One obvious problem remaining with the RLIS is its reliance on student reports of their behavior; further, it is a measure of learning indicators rather than actual learning. Thus, it is not an isomorphic measure of CL. As a result of the problems associated with all extant methods of measuring CL, two additional lines of research have pursued a more useful measure – but with minimal success. In 2009, King and Witt adapted a procedure from the fields of psychology and education known as confidence testing, which requires students to answer a test question and then provide an estimate of their confidence in the answer they gave. They found a modest positive association between confidence testing, learning loss (r = .37), and course grades (r = .33), ultimately concluding that the measure be “regarded with a degree of skepticism” (King & Witt, 2009, p. 118). Later, based on Chesebro and McCroskey’s (2000) evidence that there is some validity to student assessments of their learning, Frisby and Martin (2010) created a cognitive learning measure (CLM) to assess four dimensions of CL extracted from Ellis’s (2004) interpretation of Bloom’s original taxonomy: recall, knowledge, understanding, and development of skills – arguing that developing items based on the definition of learning would strengthen the link between the conceptualization and operationalization. Further, the 10-item scale would overcome the reliability estimation problems attached to the LL measure. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a unidimensional structure accounting for 50 % of the variance and high internal reliability. Seeing promise in the new instrument, but recognizing the need to further vali- date it, Frisby et al. (2014) reported results of confirmatory factor analysis and a number of correlation tests (with out-of-class communication, prosocial communication motives, affective learning, learning loss, participation, interest, and antisocial communication motives). Their study indicated a three-factor model comprised of acquisition, retention, and application, and evidence of the scale’s concurrent, divergent, and construct validity.1 However, Mansson’s (2014) investigation re-

1 We note a lack of conceptual clarity between the Frisby and Martin (2010) and the Frisby et al. (2014) reports. The Frisby and Martin 10-item measure was based on a conceptual definition of learning advanced by Ellis (2004) that has four dimensions: recall, knowledge, understanding, and

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 90 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle vealed a poor factor structure for the CLM, reducing it to three items loading on one reliable factor (knowledge acquisition). Mansson recommended that the wording of CLM items be reevaluated and that the scale be subjected to further validity testing. We concur that, like the measures developed before it, there are both conceptual and operational problems inherent in the Frisby and Martin (2010) and Frisby et al. (2014) instrumentation. Most striking are the constitutive definitions of learning used in these two studies. As we noted, the second set of authors altered the conceptual definition articulated by the first. Additionally, by addressing only select cognitive skills that contribute to knowledge (and in some cases, labeling them differently), neither study relies on Bloom’s comprehensive, hierarchical taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (1956) or Anderson et al.’s (2001) revised taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluating, creating. While none of the instruments created to measure cognitive learning by instructional communication researchers does so, the authors claim to base their work on that of Bloom. In this way, none of these instruments is isomorphic, and all of them have considerable “slippage” between their theoretical roots, conceptual definitions, and measurement items. Thus, the measurement of cognitive learning remains a vexing issue. Wanzer et al. (2010) speculated that CL may simply be too complex to measure with a single instrument; we agree that to truly capture the hierarchical series of cognitive tasks necessary for true knowledge acquisition, multiple measures are most likely in order. Overall, CL is a high-inference variable difficult to operationalize and measure, and to date, the “best” attempts rely on the controversial (and for some, unaccept- able) practice of collecting students’ perceptual judgments about their learning. Mazer and Graham (2015) even argue that the validity issues inherent in this technique call much of our collective knowledge about CL into question. Our review of the state of the art in instructional communication research suggests that far fewer studies are employing CL as an outcome than has been histori- cally typical, and we believe that the measurement problems summarized here may account for the shift in focus. It is plausible that communication research is simply better suited for investigating the affective domain; we have long asserted that

the development of skills. In an apparent inaccuracy, Frisby et al. stated that “the conceptualization used to develop the CLM includes three distinct dimensions of learning (i.e., acquisition, retention, application; Clark, 2002)” (p. 165). Using the same 10 items created by Frisby and Martin, Frisby et al. tested a three-factor model based on the Clark conceptualization. Personal communication with the first author of these studies helped illuminate the researchers’ process, but we are concerned about the lack of clarity in the reporting. Essentially, the second group of authors changed the conceptual definition of the construct but retained the measurement instrument. Further, the rationale for this is not reported in the second study. We encourage researchers working on the development and improvement of measures to be detailed, disciplined, and clear in their explication of the variables under study, as well as their research procedures (cf., Chaffee, 1991).

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 91 affect should be a primary outcome of both teacher communication variables and student interaction patterns (with numerous studies substantiating that claim). For example, Rodriguez et al. (1996) produced evidence of the central role of affect in the instructional process, clarifying it as a critical means to an end. Although that statement is accurate in view of their research (which identified affective learning as a central causal mediator between instructor immediacy and cognitive learning), we would qualify it. Affective learning is a learning outcome. If communication is the primary predictor of student affect, perhaps affective learning is the dependent variable, the “end,” in which we should be most interested. In fact, McCroskey et al. (2006) convincingly offered that almost all of our long-term goals for education are based on affective learning, and that “cognitive learning … [is] vitally important … but not enough to come close to meeting the long-term objectives of educational systems” (p. 56). A compelling need exists to widely disseminate evidence of why affect is so critical in education – many teachers simply do not accept its importance, and their practices reflect that disregard. If instructional communication is to have true interdisciplinary implications and impact, the time has come for IC researchers to move beyond the fear that the affective domain is the “soft” side of education, be confident in the large body of research suggesting its importance, and embrace our role as experts in this crucial, communication-based aspect of instruction. However, we should not shirk from investigating cognitive learning simply because it is difficult to do so. We are not suggesting that communication researchers ignore the variable, but only use it with continued, focused attention to improving its measurement. Blalock (1974) noted a cyclical pattern in the social sciences in which researchers “tend to place too much faith in the potential of some specific technique and then become disillusioned by the quality of available data” (p. 1) – a pattern that seems to describe cognitive learning research in communication. Thus, we are encouraged by the continued efforts by communication researchers to refine the operationalization and measurement of cognitive learning (so as to improve the quality of the data obtained) and to employ complex, advanced analyses to account for problems associated with (what will most likely always be) data representing an imperfectly measured construct. This work should not be aban- doned.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reviewed a number of theories that have been used to frame and drive research in instructional communication. Further, we have described several models that have been advanced as preliminary efforts toward a theory of IC. In so doing, we have offered some analysis and made recommendations for future work that could strengthen and develop the IC literature, and pro-

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 92 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle mote the reflexive relationship between empirical research and theory. Additional- ly, we have discussed the methodology – sampling practices, measurement design, data collection procedures, and data analyses – characteristic of instructional communication work, highlighting exemplary studies. We noted the need for more diverse samples, attention to a wider variety of settings for instructional communication, and the need for vigilance in adhering to the principles of sound measurement design. In particular, we noted the lingering deficiencies of cognitive learning measurements employed in communication research. Generally, we conclude that the area has continued to develop, and although instructional researchers are clos- er to being ready to develop a theory of IC, we are not there yet. We noted the need for more research on the instructor perspective, correction of the aforementioned methodological weaknesses, and continued work to clarify the measurement of learning before a true theory can be developed and tested. Without attention to these key areas, theoretical development will be inhibited. Williams and Vogt (2011) argued that “the landscape of [social] research is probably more conducive to innovation than it has been for the past quarter century … the output of research and arguably the methodological quality of that output, is greater than it has ever been” (pp. 3–4) due to diminished “lines in the sand” between epistemological paradigms (and the resulting use of mixed methods approaches), advanced computing technologies for data analysis, general developments in science and statistics, and a broader set of opportunities to publish (and much more quickly) than the 20th century afforded. Their observation reflects the state of instructional communication but also illuminates some of the opportunities for improvement we have discussed in this chapter. Learning is a complex activity that most IC researchers still approach with relatively simple designs and examine in a fairly superficial way by keeping the focus on homogenous groups of college students and using some outmoded instrumentation. A “normal science” paradigm (Kuhn, 2012) is insufficient for studying a human activity that is subject to an evolving set of social, cultural, and technological forces. The time is now to embrace Williams and Vogt’s “landscape of innovation” and realize its potential for all as- pects of our work – including theorizing, design, and both statistical and practical interpretations of our findings. As well, IC researchers should seek to publish their work more broadly in open source, interdisciplinary, and popular press outlets (almost all of the work reviewed in this chapter was published in a single journal) in order to reach broader audiences that would benefit from its implications. Attend- ing to these recommendations relative to theory, research methods, and dissemina- tion will further strengthen instructional communication as a legitimate, influential social science discipline.

References

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 93

Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy and interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Avtgis, T. A., Polack, E. P., Martin, M. M., & Rossi, D. (2010). Improve the communication, decrease the distance: The investigation into problematic communication and the delays in inter-hospital transfer of rural trauma patients. Communication Education, 59, 282–293. doi:10.1080/03634521003606194 Ball, H., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). An experimental investigation of the antecedents and consequences of psychological reactance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63, 192–209. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.918634 Barker, L. L. (1989). Evaluating research. In P. Emmert & L. L. Barker (Eds.), The measurement of communication behavior (pp. 68–83). White Plains, NY: Longman. Bauer, T. N., & Green, G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. doi:10.2307/257068 Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 181–192. doi:10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130 Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Blalock, H. M. (Ed.). (1974). Measurement in the social sciences: Theories and strategies. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay. Bolkan, S. (2015). Intellectually stimulating students’ intrinsic motivation: The mediating influence of affective learning and student engagement. Communication Reports, 28, 80–91. doi:10.1080/08934215.2014.962752 Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the classroom: The development and validation of the Student Intellectual Stimulation Scale. Communication Reports, 23, 91–105. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511399 Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2013). No complain, no gain: Students’ organizational, relational, and personal reasons for withholding rhetorical dissent from their college instructors. Communication Education, 62, 278–300. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.788198 Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). Exploratory theoretical tests of the instructor humor–student learning link. Communication Education, 64, 45–64. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978793 Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Griffin, D. J. (2011). Teacher leadership and intellectual stimulation: Improving students’ approaches to studying through intrinsic motivation. Communication Research Reports, 28, 337–346. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.615958 Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. L. (2012). “You are such a great teacher and I hate to bother you but …”: Instructors’ perceptions of students and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61, 253–270. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.667135 Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A. J., Inge, C., & Strom, R. (2006). Some effects of video streaming on educational achievement. Communication Education, 55, 46–62. doi:10.1080/03634520500343392 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press. Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 94 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Bromme, R., Brummernhenrich, B., Becker, B. M., & Jucks, R. (2012). The effects of politeness- related instruction on medical tutoring. Communication Education, 61, 358–379. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.691979 Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x Carr, C. T., Zube, P., Dickens, E., Hayter, C. A., & Barterian, J. A. (2013). Toward a model of sources of influence in online education: Cognitive learning and the effects of Web 2.0. Communication Education, 62, 61–85. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.724535 Carton, T., & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). College students’ psychological well-being and interaction involvement in class. Communication Research Reports, 32, 180–184. doi:10.1080/08824096.2015.1016145 Chaffee, H. (1991). Explication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chaffee, H., & Berger, C. R. (1987). What communication scientists do. In C. R. Berger & H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99–120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Charalampous, K., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2014). Students’ big three personality traits, perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior, and mathematics achievement: An application of the model of reciprocal causation. Communication Education, 63, 235–258. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.917688 Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. M. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49, 297– 301. doi:10.1080/03634520009379217 Clark, R. A. (2002). Learning outcomes: The bottom line. Communication Education, 51, 396–404. doi:10.1080/0363452021653 Claus, C. J. Booth-Butterfield, M., & Chory, R. M. (2012). The relationship between instructor misbehaviors and student antisocial behavior alteration techniques: The roles of instructor attractiveness, humor, and relational closeness. Communication Education, 61, 161–183. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.647922 Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13, 46–78. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7 Deverniero, R. A., & Hosek, A. N. (2011). Students’ perceptions and communicative management of instructors’ online self-disclosure. Communication Quarterly, 59, 428–449. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.597275 Dillard, J. P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick. Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. Seiter & R. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance (pp. 185–206). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Edwards, A., & Edwards, C. (2013). Computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication: The influence of mixed reviews on student perceptions of instructors and courses. Communication Education, 62, 412–424. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.800217 Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi:10.1080/0363452032000135742 Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 26–47. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.725132

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 95

Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2014). Teacher verbal aggressiveness and credibility mediate the relationship between teacher technology policies and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 63, 210–234. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.919009 Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61, 111–130. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.656669 French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Frisby, B. N., Goodboy, A. K., & Buckner, M. M. (2015). Students’ instructional dissent and relationships with faculty burnout, commitment, satisfaction, and efficacy. Communication Education, 64, 65–82. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978794 Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. doi:10.1080/03634520903564362 Frisby, B. N., Mansson, D. H., & Kaufmann, R. (2014). The cognitive learning measure: A three- study examination of validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 163–176. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.903389 Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922 Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50, 1–12. doi:10.1080/10510979909388466 Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?”: Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–51. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996 Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048 Goldman, Z. W., Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Revisiting the relationship between teacher confirmation and learning outcomes: Examining cultural differences in Turkish, Chinese, and American classrooms. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 43, 45–63. doi:10.1080/17475759.2013.870087 Goodboy, A. K. (2011). The development and validation of the instructional dissent scale. Communication Education, 60, 422–430. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.569894 Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, (2013). Instructional dissent as a function of student conflict styles. Communication Research Reports, 30, 259–263. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.763027 Goodboy, A. K., & Frisby, B. N. (2014). Instructional dissent as an expression of students’ academic orientations and beliefs about education. Communication Studies, 65, 96–111. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.785013 Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, A. (2015). Revisiting instructor misbehaviors: A revised typology and development of a measure. Communication Education, 64, 133–153. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978798 Gorham, J., & Millette, D. M. (1997). A comparative analysis of instructor and student perceptions of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 46, 245–261. doi:10.1080/03634529709379099 Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143– 166). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 96 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Henningsen, M. L. M., Valde, K. S., & Denbow, J. (2013). Academic misconduct: A goals–plans– action approach to peer confrontation and whistle-blowing. Communication Education, 62, 148–168. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.752509 Henningsen, M. L. M., Valde, K. S., Russell, G. A., & Russell, G. R. (2011). Student–faculty interactions about disappointing grades: Application of the goals–plans–actions model and the theory of planned behavior. Communication Education, 60, 174–190. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.533378 Hess, J. A., Smythe, M. J., & Communication 451. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197–219. doi:10.1080/10510970109388554 Holmgren, J. L., & Bolkan, (2014). Instructor responses to rhetorical dissent: Student perceptions of justice and classroom outcomes. Communication Education, 63, 17–40. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.833644 Horan, M., Chory, R. M., Carton, T., Miller, E., & Raposo, P. C. (2013). Testing leader–member exchange theory as a lens to understand students’ classroom justice perceptions and antisocial communication. Communication Quarterly, 61, 497–518. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.799511 Horan, M., & Houser, M. L. (2012). Understanding the communicative implications of initial impressions: A longitudinal test of predicted outcome value theory. Communication Education, 61, 234–252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.671950 Horan, M., Houser, M. L., Goodboy, A. K., & Frymier, A. B. (2011). Students’ early impressions of instructors: Understanding the role of relational skills and messages. Communication Research Reports, 28, 74–85. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.541362 Horan, M., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2012). Understanding emotional response theory: The role of instructor power and justice messages. Communication Quarterly, 60, 210–233. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.669323 Houser, M. L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of motivation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 54, 331–349. doi:10.1080/01463370600878248 Johnson, Z. D., & LaBelle, S. (2015). Examining the role of self-disclosure and connectedness in the process of instructional dissent: A test of the Instructional Beliefs Model. Communication Education, 64, 154–170. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978800 Johnson, Z. D., & LaBelle, S. (2016). Student-to-student confirmation in the college classroom: An initial investigation of the dimensions and outcomes of students’ confirming messages. Communication Education, 65, 44–63. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1058961 Kalbfleisch, P. J. (2002). Communicating in mentoring relationships: A theory for enactment. Communication Theory, 12, 63–69. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00259.x Katt, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Sivo, A., Richmond, V. P., & Valencic, K. M. (2009). A structural equation modeling evaluation of the general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 57, 239–258. doi:10.1080/01463370903107196 Kearney, P., & Beatty, M. J. (1994). Measures of instructional communication. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds)., Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 7–20). New York, NY: Guilford. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV: Alternatives to discipline. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 724–746). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–429). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 97

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383– 434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. doi:10.1086/266996 Kelman, H. C. (1974). Attitudes are alive and well and gainfully employed in the sphere of action. American Psychologist, 29, 310–324. doi:10.1037/h0037623 Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Allen, T. H., & Ritter, K. J. (2004). College students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53, 40–55. doi:10.1080/0363452032000135760 Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perceptions?. Communication Studies, 63, 498–517. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.632660 Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2015). Instructional feedback III: How do instructor facework tactics and immediacy cues interact to predict student perceptions of being mentored? Communication Education, 64, 1–24. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978797 King, P., & Witt, P. L. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58, 110–123. doi:10.1080/03634520802511233 Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of education objectives: Handbook II. Affective domain. New York, NY: McKay. Kreps, G. L., Sparks, L., & Villagran, M. M. (2010). Editors’ introduction: Communication education and health promotion. Communication Education, 59, 215–219. doi:10.1080/03634521003657734 Krone, K. J., Kramer, M. W., & Sias, P. M. (2010). Theoretical developments in organizational communication research. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 165–180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62, 233–252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 LaBelle, S., & Martin, M. M. (2014). Attribution theory in the college classroom: Examining the relationship of student attributions and instructional dissent. Communication Research Reports, 31, 110–116. doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.846257 LaBelle, S., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2013). Instructional dissent in the college classroom: Using the instructional beliefs model as a framework. Communication Education, 62, 169– 190. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.759243 LeGreco, M., Hess, A., Lederman, L. C., Schuwerk, T., & LaValley, A. G. (2010). An innovative dialogue about college drinking: Developing an immediate response technology model for health promotion. Communication Education, 59, 389–404. doi:10.1080/03634521003649764 Levine, T. R., & Asada, K. J. K. (2007, May). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated in meta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against nonsignificant findings. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Li, L., Mazer, J. P., & Ju, R. (2011). Resolving international teaching assistant language proficiency through dialogue: Challenges and opportunities for clarity and credibility. Communication Education, 60, 461–478. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.565352 Lin, J., & Rivera-Sánchez, M. (2012). Testing the information technology continuance model on a mandatory SMS-based student response system. Communication Education, 61, 89–110. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.654231

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 98 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Malachowski, C. C., & Martin, M. M. (2011). Instructors’ perceptions of teaching behaviors, communication apprehension, and student nonverbal responsiveness in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 28, 141–150. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.565275 Mansson, D. H. (2014). Students’ expressed academic concern, learning outcomes, and communication motives. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 247–286. doi:10.1080/10570314.2014.904521 Mansson, D. H., & Myers, A. (2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral student–advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61, 309–334. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.708424 Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student interest and engagement scales. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 99–125. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679244 Mazer, J. P. (2013). Student emotional and cognitive interest as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student engagement: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Communication Education, 62, 253–277. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.777752 Mazer, J. P., & Graham, E. E. (2015). Measurement in instructional communication research: A decade in review. Communication Education, 64, 208–240. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.1002509 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). An introduction to communication in the classroom: The role of communication in teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson. McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi:10.1080/01463370409370192 McPherson, M. B., & Young, L. (2004). What students think when instructors get upset: Fundamental attribution error and student-generated reasons for instructor anger. Communication Quarterly, 52, 357–369. doi:10.1080/01463370409370206 Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure: Revised and enlarged edition. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press of Glencoe. Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P., Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication (pp. 3–32). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication (pp. 255–285). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Fast facts: Distance learning. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80. Neer, M. R. (1990). Reducing situational anxiety and avoidance behavior associated with classroom apprehension. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 49–61. doi:10.1080/10417949009372815 Neuliep, J. W. (1995). A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44, 267–277. doi:10.1080/03634529509379016 O’Boyle, N. (2014). Front row friendships: Relational dialectics and identity negotiations by mature students at university. Communication Education, 63, 169–191. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.903333 Pettegrew, L. S. (2016). The importance of context, situation, and setting in consulting. In J. H. Waldeck & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Consulting that matters: A handbook for scholars and practitioners (pp. 49–62). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 99

Pettigrew, J. Miller-Day, M., Shin, Y., Hecht, M. L., Krieger, J. R., & Graham, J. W. (2012). Describing teacher-student interactions: A qualitative assessment of teacher implementation of the 7th grade keepin’ it REAL substance abuse intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 43–56. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9539-1 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 Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36, 1–12. doi:10.1080/03634528709378636 Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059 Rubin, R. B. (2009). Measurement in instructional communication. In R. B. Rubin, A. M. Rubin, E. E. Graham, E. M. Perse, & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp. 43–56). New York, NY: Routledge. Rudick, C. K., & Golsan, K. B. (2014). Revisiting the relational communication perspective: Drawing upon relational dialectics theory to map an expanded research agenda for communication and instruction scholarship. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 255–273. doi:10.1080/10570314.2014.905796 Sabee, C. M., & Wilson, R. (2005). Students’ primary goals, attributions, and facework during conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 54, 185–204. doi:10.1080/03634520500356154 Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived affective, cognitive, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341–353. doi:10.1080/03634529009378814 Schrodt, P., & Finn, A. N. (2011). Students’ perceived understanding: An alternative measure and its associations with perceived teacher confirmation, verbal aggressiveness, and credibility. Communication Education, 60, 231–254. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.535007 Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. (2008). Learner empowerment and teacher evaluations as functions of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 57, 180–200. doi:10.1080/03634520701840303 Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2011). When instructors misbehave: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as a mediator in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60, 340–361. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.554991 Simmons, J. Lowery-Hart, R., Wahl, T., & McBride, M. C. (2013). Understanding the African- American student experience in higher education through a relational dialectics perspective. Communication Education, 62, 376–394. Sollitto, M., Johnson, Z. D., & Myers, A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of college classroom connectedness, assimilation, and peer relationships. Communication Education, 62, 318–331. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.813631 Strom, R. E., & Boster, F. J. (2011). Dropping out of high school: Assessing the relationship between supportive messages from family and educational attainment. Communication Reports, 24, 25–37. doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.554623 Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13, 3–33. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00092.x Sutherland, K. S., & Singh, N. N. (2004). Learned helplessness and students with emotional or behavioral disorders: Deprivation in the classroom. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 169–181. doi:10.1177/10634266070150020101

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM 100 Jennifer H. Waldeck and Sara LaBelle

Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development of the parental academic support scale: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education, 61, 131–160. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.657207 Thompson, B. C., Mazer, J. P., & Flood Grady, E. (2015). The changing era of parent-teacher communication: Mode selection in the smartphone era. Communication Education, 64, 187–207. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1014382 Titsworth, S., McKenna, T. P., Mazer, J. P., & Quinlan, M. M. (2013). The bright side of emotion in the classroom: Do teachers’ behaviors predict students’ enjoyment, hope, and pride? Communication Education, 62, 191–209. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.763997 Trad, L., Katt, J., & Miller, A. N. (2014). The effect of face threat mitigation on instructor credibility and student motivation in the absence of instructor nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 63, 136–148. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.889319 Turner, P., Turner, S., & Van de Walle, G. (2007). How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26, 287–296. doi:10.1080/01449290601173499 Vallade, J. I., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2014). Academic entitlement, grade orientation, and classroom justice as predictors of instructional beliefs and learning outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 62, 497–517. doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.949386 Vallade, J. I., & Myers, A. (2014). Student forgiveness in the college classroom: Perceived instructor misbehaviors as relational transgressions. Communication Quarterly, 62, 342–356. doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.911767 Waldeck, J. H. (2014). Communication and learning. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), The handbook of lifespan communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waldeck, J. H., & Dougherty, K. (2012). Collaborative communication technologies and learning in college courses: Which are used, for what purposes, and to what ends? Learning, Media, and Technology, 36, 1–24. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.592497 Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001a). Instructional and developmental communication theory and research in the 1990s: Extending the agenda for the 21st century. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 24 (pp. 207–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001b). Instructor email message strategies and student willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 54–70. doi:10.1080/00909880128099 Waldeck, J. H., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (2010). Theoretical and methodological foundations of instructional communication research. In D. Fassett & J. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of instructional communication (pp. 161–179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wang, T. R. (2012). Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from on-campus mentors. Communication Education, 61, 335–357. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.691978 Wang, T. R. (2014a). Formational turning points in the transition to college: Understanding how communication events shape first-generation students’ pedagogical and interpersonal relationships with their students. Communication Education, 63, 63–82. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.841970 Wang, T. R. (2014b). “I’m the only person from where I’m from to go to college”: Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 270–290. doi:10.1080/15267431.2014.908195 Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238 Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Myers, A. (2011). The development and testing of the instructional beliefs model. Communication Education, 60, 51–74. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.491122

Brought to you by | Texas Christian University - TCU Authenticated | [email protected] Download Date | 1/25/17 7:30 PM Theoretical and Methodical Approaches 101

Weimer, M. (2010). Maintaining instructional vitality: The midcareer challenge. In M. Weimer (Ed.), Inspired college teaching: A career-long resource for professional growth (pp. 171–198). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naïve theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316–324. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.52.2.316 Williams, M., & Vogt, W. P. (2011). Introduction. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of innovation in social research methods (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, B. C., & Schrock, (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. Proceedings of The Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education (pp. 184–188). Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ perception of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60, 75–94. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.507820 Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054 Young, S., Kelsey, D., & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of e-mail communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60, 371–388. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.563388 Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Gao, X., Wilcox, R. G., & Takai, J. (2007). Instructor immediacy scales: Testing for validity across cultures. Communication Education, 56, 228–248. doi:10.1080/03634520601089092 Zhang, Q., & Sapp, D. A. (2013). Psychological reactance and resistance intention in the classroom: Effects of perceived request politeness and legitimacy, relationship distance, and teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 1–25. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.727008