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 theo- retical frameworks and innovative research protocols. This chapter provides a re- view 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 origi- nal 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, in- structor variables, student variables, out-of-class communication, mediated in- struction, 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 re- lates 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 behav- iors, 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 prelimi- nary 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 de- signs, 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 measure- ments 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 in- formed 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 char- acterized by innovative research designs, and the sophistication of the analytic procedures reflected across the literature is impressive. A growing corpus of theo- retically 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, re- veals a healthy state of instructional communication scholarship. Major Theoretical Frameworks The following theories are representative of those traditionally employed by re- searchers 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, ap- proach-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 devel- oped 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 re- search. 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 rea- sons for using course-related technology, perceive the relevance of the technology to the course, have confidence using the medium, and are satisfied with the out- come, 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, legiti- mate, reward, and expert. This perspective inspired one of the most influential lines of research in IC, which focused on teacher use of behavior alteration tech- niques (BATs) and behavior alteration messages (BAMs) to gain student compli- ance (cf., Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984). Researchers have exam- ined 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 rela- tional power and instructional influence theory (RPII). Together, the three proposi- tions 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