INSTRUCTORS’ AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR, POWER DISTANCE, AND COMMUNICATION CLIMATE IN RELATION TO STATE MOTIVATION AND INFORMATION SEEKING STRATEGY: AN INVESTIGATION OF COLLEGE CLASSROOMS IN GHANA A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Kwaku A. Yeboah May, 2018 INSTRUCTORS’ AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR, POWER DISTANCE, AND COMMUNICATION CLIMATE IN RELATION TO STATE MOTIVATION AND INFORMATION SEEKING STRATEGY: AN INVESTIGATION OF COLLEGE CLASSROOMS IN GHANA Kwaku A. Yeboah Thesis Approved: Accepted: _________________________________ _______________________________ Advisor Dean, Buchtel College of Arts & Sciences Dr. Yang Lin Dr. John C. Green _________________________________ ________________________________ Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Andrew S. Rancer Dr. Chand Midha _________________________________ _________________________________ Committee Member Date Dr. Kathleen D. Clark ________________________________ School Director Dr. Heather L. Walter ii ABSTRACT This study investigated communication patterns in college classroom in Ghana. Participants were 314 undergraduate students from a university in Ghana. Results indicated that perceived instructor argumentativeness was positively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate but was not significantly related to their perceptions of a defensive classroom communication climate. Perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate and positively related to a defensive climate. There was no significant relationship between perceived instructor argumentativeness and students’ state motivation but perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness was related negatively to students’ state motivation. Student’s perceptions of a supportive classroom communication climate were related positively with their use of overt information seeking strategies. However, students’ perceptions of a defensive classroom climate and their use of information seeking strategies had no significant relationship and nor was student’s perceptions of power distance and students’ use of information seeking strategies. The findings suggest that instructors’ communicative behaviors which create a supportive communication climate should be upheld in the classroom since they convey a perception of approachability and openness to students. Keywords: argumentativeness; verbal aggressiveness; classroom communication climate; state motivation; overt information seeking strategies, iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all those individuals who provided me help with my thesis, so many of you I cannot mention all your names here. Joseph Oduro Appiah, I am most grateful for your support at all times. I would like to also thank Claudia Agyemang for her encouragement and inspiration. I would not have been able to complete this thesis without your support and love. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser and committee chair, Dr. Yang Lin, for the time you dedicated to guide and support me through this thesis. Your acts of kindness, patience and motivation have brought me this far and I will forever be grateful. Again I would also like to thank the rest of my committee members: Dr. Andrew Rancer and Dr. Kathleen Clark for their guidance, insightful feedback and motivation in assisting me complete this thesis. Lastly, I would thank the faculty and staff of the School of Communication for their unflinching support and willingness to help at all times. You made my stay at The University of Akron wonderful. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I.INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………...5 Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness ………………………………….5 Argumentativeness ……………………………………………………….6 Verbal Aggressiveness ………………………………………………….7 Classroom Communication Climate ……………………………………………..8 Student State Motivation ………………………………………………………...10 Overt Information Seeking Strategy …………………………………………….12 Perceived Power Distance ………………………………………………………14 III. METHODS ………………………………………………………………………….19 Participants and Procedure ………………………………………………………19 Measures ………………………………………………………………………...20 IV. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………...25 V. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………..28 v Limitations and Future Research ………………………………………………32 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….35 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………….40 Appendix A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL…………….41 Appendix B: PERMISSION APPROVAL LETTER...………………………….42 Appendix C: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER……………………………….43 Appendix D: QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………………………….44 Appendix E: MEASURING SCALES ………………………………………… 50 vi LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. Pearson Correlation Among Variables ……………………………………... 27 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Instructors’ communication behaviors in the classroom have been identified as playing a crucial role in student learning. Over the past few decades, researchers of instructional communication have studied how some of these behaviors related to student learning in college classrooms (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Lin, Durbin, & Rancer, 2017; Myers, 1995; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Two such behaviors that have caught the attention of researchers are instructors’ “argumentativeness” and “verbal aggressiveness” (Infante & Rancer, 1982). These two communication behaviors are viewed as aggressive communication. However, there is a difference in their manifestation, thereby making one constructive and the other destructive. This difference lies in their locus of attack. An argument involves presenting and defending positions on a controversial issue and at the same time attacking another’s position on the issues. On the other hand, verbally aggressive communication attacks a person’s self-concept instead of, or together with, their position on an issue (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986). In view of this, verbally aggressive messages tend to hurt, inflict psychological pain and bring embarrassment to the victim (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Generally, argumentative behavior is considered a constructive form of communication while verbal aggression is considered destructive. The reason is that, during an argument, the locus of attack is not on the individual’s self-concept hence it 1 facilitates relational understanding which leads to an increase in communication satisfaction. Since verbal aggression attacks not only the position but also the self- concept of the individual, it negatively impacts relational understanding and produces dissatisfaction. Obviously, the use of aggressive communication behaviors can have extreme consequences on interpersonal relationships. As such, it is expected that in the college classroom, students will relate differently when they perceive their instructor to be exhibiting these two communication behaviors. Thus, these communication behaviors may have the tendency to impact the classroom communication climate. Rosenfeld (1983) explained that communication climate is determined by the social or psychological context of a relationship. In the college classroom, the communication climate is created by the interaction between the teacher and students. Since instructors are seen as authority figures in the classroom, their communication behaviors are most likely to influence the climate. An instructor’s communication behavior creates an impression of a supportive or a defensive climate in the minds of the students. A supportive climate is mostly characterized by constructive communication behaviors while a defensive climate is characterized by destructive communication behaviors. Studies have associated argumentativeness with constructive communication and have suggested it leads to a supportive climate, while verbal aggressiveness has been tagged as a destructive communication which creates a defensive climate (Lin et al., 2017; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Students’ perceptions of classroom communication climate are influenced by both their perceptions of instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (Lin et al., 2017). 2 In addition, instructor’s communication behaviors have also been found to relate to student’s state motivation (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Lin et al., 2017; Myers, Goodboy & COMM 600, 2014; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Motivation is the internal process that drives behavior (Dembo & Seli, 2012). In the classroom, motivation drives students to process and make sense of information during the acquisition of knowledge and skills and be able to demonstrate such knowledge and skills after acquiring them. Unlike trait motivation, state motivation is situation-specific. Student state motivation is stimulated by a number of factors including teacher’s communication behaviors. Brophy (1987) insisted that as active agents of socialization, teachers contribute to student motivation towards learning. In view of this, a supportive climate as suggested by Brophy is a precondition for student state motivation. Therefore, teacher use of verbally aggressive communication behaviors will negatively impact motivation since it will make students feel anxious. However, argumentativeness, which has been described as constructive communication, creates a supportive climate which in effect impacts student motivation positively. Thus, students’ perception of the classroom communication climate impacts their state motivation.