COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AND APPREHENSION WITHIN THE
LEARNING COMMUNITY CONTEXT
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Communication Studies
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Communication Studies
by
Rachel McQueen
SPRING
2012
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AND APPREHENSION WITHIN THE
LEARNING COMMUNITY CONTEXT
A Thesis
by
Rachel McQueen
Approved by:
, Committee Chair
Mark Stoner, Ph.D.
, Second Reader
Elaine Gale, Ph.D.
, Third Reader
Marcellene Watson-Derbigny, Ph.D.
Date
ii
Student: Rachel McQueen
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
, Graduate Coordinator
Michele Foss-Snowden, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Communication Studies
iii
Abstract
of
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AND APPREHENSION WITHIN THE
LEARNING COMMUNITY CONTEXT
by
Rachel McQueen
This study assessed how participation in a learning community connected with a
basic communication studies course might result in changes in students’ communication
competence and communication apprehension levels. The pre-, post-test design of this
study allowed students enrolled in an Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) connected
to a basic communication studies course to complete the Self-Perceived Communication
Competence Scale (SPCC) and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension
(PRCA) at the beginning and end of the semester. Survey results indicate a considerable
increase in competence levels and decreased apprehension levels from beginning
semester scores to end of semester scores. Implications of findings and future research
are discussed.
, Committee Chair
Mark Stoner, Ph.D.
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Tim, my loving husband…thank you for all of the support you have given me
during this long journey-a magic hug, an ear, a shoulder, a look of encouragement, these
things went a long way.
Baby Arie, thank you for being my cheerleader-a sounding board, a review panel
and listening to me time and time again about my frustrations. Lady, your words of
reassurance were vital to the success and completion of this thesis. Pop, thank you for
being you.
I love all of you to pieces and could not have done this without your love and
support!
Thank you for everything!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE ....................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 4
Learning Communities........................................................................................... 4
Communication Competence ................................................................................ 10
Communication Apprehension ............................................................................. 18
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 25
Participants ............................................................................................................ 25
Measures ............................................................................................................... 26
Procedure .............................................................................................................. 28
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 33
Discussion ............................................................................................................. 33
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 36
Future Research .................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 39
Appendix A. Consent to Participate as a Research Subject .............................................. 41
vi
Appendix B. Pre- and Post-surveys .................................................................................. 42
Appendix C. Follow-up Survey ........................................................................................ 45
References ......................................................................................................................... 46
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Table 1 SPCC Scores Beginning and End of Semester ............................................31
2.
Table 2 PRCA-24 Scores Beginning and End Semester ..........................................32
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
Scholars consider human communication of great importance because
communication is a necessary component of everyday life. Whether non-verbal, oral, or
written, it is an essential trait every individual possesses. The expertise and comfort level
of an individual’s communication abilities vary from person to person and many people
consider oral communication apprehensive and challenging.
The phenomena of communication competence, communication apprehension,
and learning communities are three distinct areas of scholarly research. Communication
competence is the study of the correct communication behavior for a given situation
(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Communication apprehension is the construct of fear
related to communication in various settings (McCroskey, 1970, 1978). Learning
communities are learning environments that foster intellectual interaction and shared
inquiry (Washington Center News, 1995). Communication competence, communication
apprehension, and learning communities have been examined extensively in academic
literature but have yet to be examined in combination with one another inside the
communication discipline.
Extensive research into apprehension, competence, and learning communities has
involved students in classroom settings. Researchers who have examined communication
competence and apprehension in educational settings have recognized the impact of
instruction on reducing apprehension and improving competence and success
2
(McCroskey, 1984). Communication scholarship to date has virtually ignored one such
specific community, the learning community context.
Thus, there is very limited research on learning communities within the
communication discipline, despite the fact that learning communities have been around
for more than 60 years (Smith, 1991). The limited research that does exist includes
Waldron and Yungbluth’s (2007) longitudinal study, which offers insight into improving
student communication processes in a communication intensive learning community.
Similarly, Edwards and Walker (2007) utilized public speaking learning communities to
reduce communication apprehension. Most recently, Piland (2011) deemed that learning
communities reduce students’ hesitancy to participate, as there is more focus on working
in dyads, student learning teams, and even including personal narratives within the
curriculum. All the experiences “enhance students’ knowledge of their communication
skills and their ability to articulate course content” (Piland, 2011, p. 15).
Non-communication scholars have determined many benefits associated with
learning communities, including increased communication, socialization, student
attendance, and participation (Smith, 1991). Mitchel and Renaud (2001) deemed that in
practice, a learning community’s holistic approach integrates social and academic aspects
of student life and provides a support system necessary for many students to make the
huge academic and social adjustment from high school. They argue that, moving away
from the one-size-fits all approach to education, the learning community provides a
workable alternative to traditional undergraduate education (Mitchel & Renaud, 2001).
3
The benefits learning communities provide undergraduates are examined more
thoroughly to include the communicative aspects that take place within this context.
Accordingly, the present study examines what literature currently exists relating to
communication competence, communication apprehension, and learning communities.
To tease out specific communicative connections between learning communities,
apprehension, and competence, it is necessary to examine both historical and current
literature on the above concepts. This study delves deeper into what communicative
relationship may exist between learning communities and communication apprehension
and communication competence.
4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Learning Communities
Learning communities come in all shapes and sizes and include professional,
social, religious, and academic communities (including elementary, middle, high school,
and collegiate learning communities). The term learning community is utilized in our
education institutions today as a set of classes linked together possibly sharing common
assignments, having the same students, and fostering collaboration among the students
and faculty of the linked courses (Love & Tokuno, 1999). Though content may vary,
nearly all learning communities have one thing in common: shared knowledge. Shared
knowledge is achieved in the learning community setting because learning communities
seek to construct a shared, coherent educational experience that is not just an
unconnected array of courses. In doing so, they seek to promote higher levels of
cognitive complexity that cannot easily be obtained through participation in unrelated
courses (Tinto, 1998).
Education analysts have described traditional means of instruction as a learning
environment often suffering from such problems as disconnected courses, large classes,
distant faculty, and limited coordination among instructors, academic advisors, and
student support staff. The result is an unengaged, alienated, and under-achieving student
body (Waldron & Yungbluth, 2007). Student participation in college classrooms is often
relatively passive, where “learning appears to be a ‘spectator sport’ in which faculty talk
5
dominates” (Fischer & Grant, 1983, p. 53) and where there are few active participants
(Karp & Yoels, 1976; Nunn, 1996; Smith, 1983). Most college classrooms are not
involving, and students continue to take courses as detached, individual units, one course
separated from another in both content and peer group (Tinto, 1997). Student learning is
enhanced when students are actively involved in learning and when they are placed in
situations in which they have to share learning in some positive, connected manner
(Astin, 1987). Such involvement in learning can be accomplished by participating in a
learning community.
In an effort to address the sorts of instructional problems described above,
learning communities seek to create cooperative active learning, strive to integrate the
social and academic aspects of students’ lives, and foster the social creation of knowledge
(Laufgraben & Shapiro, 2004; Smith, MacGregor, Mathews, & Gabelnik, 2004; Stefanou
& Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Students in learning communities have significantly higher
reported grade point averages and higher retention levels than those similar students not
participating in a learning community (MacGregor, 1991). Learning communities also
provide increased opportunities for conversation and interaction between students and
faculty, students and students, and faculty and faculty (Killacky, Thomas, & Accomando,
2002).
A growing body of literature suggests that for undergraduate students, powerful
educational settings are the result of factors beyond the form and content of the
curriculum. Learning communities provide for a rich, rigorous learning environment,
6
active participation on the part of students and faculty members, and a sense of
community making a positive often profound difference in fostering student success
(Astin, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Light 1990; Mathews & Smith,
1996; Tinto, 1997). Waldron and Yungbluth’s (2007) study
confirmed that students and faculty assigned to the learning community
conditions perceived more opportunities to communicate with colleagues and
instructors. The results suggest that the learning community design created such
communicative advantages as increased opportunities for interaction among
faculty, staff, and peers; enhanced feelings of social integration; and increased
access to student services. (p. 285)
Reduction of ambiguity and an increase in predictability of the communication situation
should be a natural outcome of learning communities (Edwards & Walker, 2007).
Learning communities have targeted mainstream students, first-generation college
students, honor students, and the underprepared. They may be launched to address a
particular issue on campus, such as retention of first-year students, general education, the
teaching of writing, student success in gateway courses, developmental or basic skills
courses, honors programs, or coherence in the major or minor (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al.,
1991; Light, 1990; Mathews & Smith, 1996; Tinto, 1987).
First-year learning communities seem to have evolved as an antidote to the
problems of poor retention and student learning (Waldron & Yungbluth, 2007, p. 286).
As such, literature has currently been centered around the programmatic levels and has
focused on student retention, student satisfaction, student growth, educational goals, and
learning outcomes (James, Bruch, & Jehangir, 2006; Malnarich, 2005; Mitchell &
Renaud, 2001; Smith, 1991; Taylor, Moore, MacGregor, & Lindblad, 2003; Tinto,
7
Goodsell-Love, & Russon, 1993; Tinto, 1998); attrition and low graduation rates
(Howels, 2009; Tinto, 1989, 1998, 1987); involvement, student persistence, and
integration (Astin, 1984; Engstrom & Tinto, 2008; Mallette & Cabrera, 1991; Nora,
1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1977; Tinto, 1997; Tinto &
Froh, 1992); student engagement (Zhao & Kuh, 2004); and has mainly been studied by
non-communication scholars.
Learning communities vary considerably, but as noted by the National Learning
Communities Project (2005), they all share three common commitments to (a) foster
coherence and connections among first-year courses, (b) create more meaningful and
sustained interaction among students and teachers, and (c) rearrange curricular time and
space of both students and teachers. The commitments, particularly the first two, clearly
highlight the role communication plays in developing attachments in relationship to the
students’ university experiences. Communication presumably also facilitates better
instruction through the collaboration of the university staff that comprises the learning
community (LC) model employed (Waldron & Yungbluth, 2007, p. 287).
Given that students in learning communities learn together, study together, and
socialize with one another, they have the opportunity to become a tight-knit group and
that opens the door to a supportive network of peers (Lippert, Tittsworth, & Hunt, 2005,
p. 15). “Learning communities are attractive because they address, in a myriad of ways,
issues of curricular coherence, civic leadership, student retention, active learning,
8
education reform and faculty development” (Gabelnik, MacGregor, Mathews, & Smith,
1990, p. 10).
The attraction of a learning community environment is often sought after by firstyear undergraduate students, many of whom are right out of high school and seeking a
structured learning environment to increase their academic success. According to Tinto
(1998), learning communities have been proven to promote both academic and social
integration, which can lead to overall satisfaction of the college experience, especially for
those students from minority cultural backgrounds. Learning communities have been
effective in assisting often culturally diverse first-generation college students with
multiple ways of socializing, adapting, and contributing to the university as a whole. The
intent of the learning community experience is to give students multiple views about
themselves and those around them within the larger university realm (James et al., 2006).
When students are part of a cohort or community of peers, their attendance and
participation improve, and the groups formed in class often meet outside of class to study
and socialize. In addition, when students are exposed to intellectual and cultural diversity
through multiple teaching methods and classroom activities, they feel encouraged to
explore their own identity and their academic performance and persistence increase. The
intent of the learning community experience is to give students greater insight about
themselves within larger social and cultural contexts and to increase their confidence in
their ability to take charge of their own learning. Tinto et al. (1993) had similar
conclusions to that of Quinlisk (1998) who identified that the multicultural environment
9
of linked courses within a learning community offered culturally diverse first-generation
college students means to use multiple ways to present ideas, further enabling them to
contribute to the intellectual life of the university.
Research has shown that first-generation, low-income college students experience
both isolation and marginalization, especially during their first-year of college (Jehangir,
2009; Law, 1995). Recently, Engstrom and Tinto (2008) revealed that first-generation,
low-income students who participated in learning communities were more engaged and
more likely to persist from freshman to sophomore year than their institutional peers
citing that “the average difference in persistence between learning-community and
comparison-group students in the four-year institutions was nearly 10 percent” (p. 2).
Learning communities have been implemented to attract many types of students
(i.e., first-generation college students, honor students, mainstream students, etc.) and as
“a curricular structure, they can be applied to any content and any group of students”
(Tinto, 1998, p. 3). For this thesis, I am concerned with undergraduate Educational
Opportunity Program (EOP) learning communities. EOP learning communities are
comprised of a set of core courses that groups of freshman students are required to enroll
in together. Students of an EOP learning community are often first-generation college
students right out of high school who may be educationally disadvantaged, but
demonstrate academic potential and motivation to succeed (California State University,
Sacrament, n.d.).
10
Many benefits are provided to undergraduates who are part of a learning
community environment. These benefits could also include the communicative aspects
that take place within this context. Speculating on this, an interesting question arises:
would it not stand to reason that students in learning community courses may also have a
different outlook/perspective regarding communication competence and communication
apprehension?
There may be a strong positive correlation between participation in a learning
community and reductions of the communication barriers that limit many students’
learning. Studying communication and its impact on learning communities may help
students and faculty develop strategies to combat communication fears and competencies.
Communication Competence
Communication competence research is diverse and has been studied by scholars
from Communication, Education, Psychology, Sociology, etc. and, therefore, does not
have a permanent home discipline nor a grounding comprehensive theory, but has been a
widely written about topic in the communication field since the 1960s (Spitzberg, 1991).
Currently, communication competence literature within our discipline has focused on
classroom effectiveness (Canary & McGregor, 2008; Strohner & Richheit, 2008),
immediacy (Madlock, 2006), organizational competence (Hilgerman, 1998; Monge,
Backman, Dillard, & Eisenburg, 1982), learning (Canary & McGregor, 2008; Kenny &
Cooper, 2003; Strohner & Richheit, 2008), job satisfaction (Madlock, 2006; Sharbrough,
Simmons, & Cantrill, 2006), goal setting (Hilgerman, 1998), and leadership style
11
(Sharbrough et al., 2006). I provide a background of the concept of competence, as well
as a brief review of the differing views of the construct.
There are many definitions of communication competence. McCroskey and
McCroskey (1988) note, “in the case of communication competence, the words have been
forced to serve many masters; so many, in fact, that no consensual constituent delineation
of the construct has yet evolved” (p. 108). Nonetheless, it is still reasonably feasible to
identify certain distinguishing advances in research about communication competence.
Traditionally, there have been two core contributors to conceptualizing
communication competence: Chomsky (1965) and Hymes (1971). Chomsky has been the
most significant contributor to the cognitive perspective of competence, which is
indicative of potential performance or capability. Chomsky’s view of linguistic
competence gives attention to the nature of linguistic knowledge and avoids aspects of
performance (Weimann & Backlund, 1980, p. 187). Linguistic competence is generally
defined as an individual’s understanding of the structure of the language (p. 187), and
Chomsky placed great emphasis on the appropriate rules of communication and the
ability to apply those rules in order to communicate effectively.
Hymes (1971) developed the behavioral perspective of competence and
challenged Chomsky’s (1965) original notions of the concept. The behavior-orientation
of competence emphasized performance and is understood to be dependent on two things:
(tacit) knowledge and (ability for) use (Hymes, 1971, p. 16).
12
Habermas (1979) entered the debate in the late 1970s, further challenged
Chomsky’s (1965) view of linguistic competence, and created a theory of universal
pragmatics, which “presupposed the notion of literal meaning and gave account to the
more pragmatic meaning, which pertains to the interpersonal relation established through
the illocutionary element of a speech act” (Scharp, 2003, p. 6). According to Habermas
(1979), communicative competence (speech-act theory) describes the fundamental
system of rules one must master to fulfill a successful utterance, no matter the language
or the contexts the utterances have embedded in them. Speakers and hearers share a
common language (explained in terms of being able to produce grammatically well
formed sentences in accordance with rules they both master) and assume they use their
terms (within the common language they share) with identical meanings (Scharp, 2003,
p. 7).
In order to utter a sentence, the speaker must fulfill general presuppositions (prior
condition) of communication. In being uttered, a sentence is placed in relation to
the three general pragmatic functions of the utterance: to represent something, to
express intention, to establish a legitimate interpersonal relation. A successful
utterance must also satisfy three additional validity claims: it must count as true
for the participants-represent something in the world; it must count as truthful as
it must express something intended by the speaker; and it must count as right as it
conforms to socially recognized expectations. (Habermas, 1979, p. 28)
Habermas’s (1979) view of competence is an explanation of synchronized properties of
language that allows contributors to mutually pursue their goals,
by communicative competence I understand the ability of a speaker oriented to
mutual understanding to embed a well formed sentence in relations to reality, so
that the hearer can share the knowledge of the speaker; the hearer can trust the
speaker; and the hearer can be in accord with the speaker in shared value
orientations. (p. 29)
13
Consequently, Habermas (1979) supposes that speakers and hearers, inherently possess
the communicative competence to bring about this mutual understanding.
According to McCroskey (1985), communication literature provided three
primary approaches to communication competence: as cognitive understanding, as a
capability of performing certain communication skills, and as achieving effective
communication (p. 3). Competence as cognitive understanding is achieved when an
individual can “demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate communication behavior in a
given situation” (Larson, Backlund, Redmond, & Barbour, 1978). Evaluation of
cognitive understanding may be demonstrated either textually or orally (i.e., performance
on an exam or a speech, etc.). Interaction involvement is a cognitive dimension of
communication competence (Cegala, 1984) and is considered to be a characteristic way
individuals process information and respond to messages during fact-to-face
communication (Cegala, 1989). Interaction involvement consists of three dimensions:
responsiveness, perceptiveness, and attentiveness. According to Myers and Bryant
(2002), responsiveness is the “tendency to react mentally to one’s social circumstances
and the ability to adapt by knowing what to say and when” (p. 17). Perceptiveness is the
ability to assess individuals’ knowledge of what meaning to assign others’ behavior.
Attentiveness is the extent a person is aware of stimuli that encompass the immediate
environment.
Communication skill performance, according to Allen and Brown (1976), holds
that performing the actual behavior is necessary, knowing the correct behavior is not
14
enough. Rubin, Graham, and Mignerey’s (1982) Communication Competency
Assessment Instrument demonstrates this view. Rubin et al. (1990) revealed that
communication competence was linked to success in college; high school communication
competence was related to higher grade point averages and higher communication
competence ratings.
Achieving effective communication, advanced by Wiemann (1977), stresses the
successful accomplishment of a person’s communicative goals as a critical attribute of
the competent communicator. This view of competence requires one to accomplish one’s
goals (effectiveness). Relational communication competence has also been recognized in
terms of goal achievement and is seen as the ability to choose a communication behavior
that is both appropriate and effective for a given situation. Interpersonal competency
allows one to achieve communication goals without causing the other party to lose face
(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Relational communication competence is composed of five
major components for each individual in an interaction: motivation, knowledge, skill,
context, and outcomes (p. 152). According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), to be
perceived as a competent communicator, one needs to be motivated to communicate,
knowledgeable about how to communicate, skilled in communicating, and sensitive to
the expectations of the context in which the communication occurs (p. 152).
McCroskey (1985) further identifies four broad aspects of the communication
competence concept: trait-like communication competence, context-based
communication competence, receiver-based communication competence, and situational
15
communication competence (see also McCroskey, 1981, 1982b, 1984). The trait view of
communication competence holds that people, not behaviors, are competent. A
competent communicator will behave competently in a wide variety of communication
situations, including newly encountered ones. Trait perspective researchers believe that
not all competent communicators behave the same way in the same situations, but they
may still be equally effective (McCroskey, 1985, p. 7). Other researchers have argued
that competence can and will change from one situation to another (Rubin, 1982;
Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). The environment, education, experiences, communication
partners, and perceived expectations of the situation can all affect perceptions of
communication competence (McCroskey, 1985).
Wilmot (1979) argues, “communication competence is inherently a transaction in
which meanings are ascribed between participants in a specific context” (pp. 8-9). A
person with context-based competence is typically competent in communication within a
given type of context across receivers and time. This type of person may lack
competence in another context or even all other contexts (McCroskey, 1985).
A person who has receiver-based communication competence is usually
competent in communication with a given receiver or group of receivers across contexts
and time. This type of person may lack competence with any other receiver or group of
receivers (McCroskey, 1985). Competent communication is a process through which
interpersonal impressions are shaped and satisfactory outcomes are derived from an
interaction (Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984).
16
The situational view holds that behaviors, not people, are competent. Thus, a
person may behave competently in one situation and incompetently in another
(McCroskey, 1985). Redding (as cited in Hecht, 1978) concluded communication traits
could not be isolated; instead, effective communication was found to be situation-bound.
Larson et al. (1978) also hold a situational view of competence as their definition of
communicative competence states, “the ability of an individual to demonstrate
knowledge of the appropriate communicative behavior in a given situation” (p. 16). The
behavioral view of competence, on the other hand, seeks an idealized set of rules and
focuses on a range of skills appropriate to a variety of relationships and contexts
(Weimann & Backlund, 1980, p. 188).
Research suggests that communication instruction makes a difference for
students. Rubin et al. (1990), for instance, noted significant increases in communicative
competence over four years of college. In addition, Rubin, Welch, and Buerkel (1995)
found that communicative skills of high school students improved over a semester,
especially in those areas in which they received instruction. Thus, instruction seems to
make a difference in competence levels. After instruction has occurred, the expectation
of students is for them to become both more willing and better able to communicate
(McCroskey, 1982; Pearson & Daniels, 1988; Rubin, Rubin, & Jordan, 1997).
One of the earliest, and still continuing, areas of research relating to the role of
communication in instruction is that which focuses on traits related to communication
that impact student orientations and behaviors in the instructional environment (Hurt,
17
Scott, & McCroskey, 1978). Communication traits have been determined to have a direct
association with student learning. Two of the four main communication traits that have
received primary consideration include: 1) communication apprehension (CA; “an
individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated
communication with another person or persons”) (McCroskey, 1977, p. 5) and 2) Selfperceived communication competence (SPCC; “how communicatively competent an
individual perceives her-/himself to be”) (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988, p. 12). The
SPPC scale asks subjects to estimate how competent they are in four settings (i.e., dyadic,
group, meeting, and public) and/or in three stages of a relationship (i.e., stranger,
acquaintance, and friend) on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 (McCroskey & McCroskey,
1988).
Accordingly, the present research touches upon a variety of views within the
realm of communication competence but is centered around interpersonal communication
competence, specifically the trait view of competence because this view encompasses
multiple facets of the construct, ideally the range of communication knowledge all
students should possess. As previously mentioned, the trait view of communication
competence is defined as a person who is “generally competent in communication across
contexts, receivers, and time” (McCroskey, 1985, p. 9). This view posits that competent
communicators are inclined to choose proper communication behaviors without prior
training more so than incompetent communicators are. However, it is not to suggest that
both competent and incompetent communicators are incapable of learning how to
18
become more competent with training. Trait-like communication competence was
measured in this study utilizing McCroskey and McCroskey’s (1988) Self-Perceived
Communication Competence Scale (SPCC). By focusing on the trait view of
competence, I wanted to determine whether or not the following research question could
be advanced:
RQ 1: Will students in an introductory-level communication studies course
connected with an EOP learning community have considerably higher
communication competence scores at the end of the semester when compared
with beginning semester scores?
Communication Apprehension
While early research in communication apprehension focused on CA in terms of
public speaking (Lomas, 1937), subsequent research has illustrated the utility of the CA
construct in understanding multiple communication contexts and experiences (Chen,
1993; Daly, 1987; McCroskey & Beatty, 1984; Toale & McCroskey, 2001) and has since
1970 been a major focus in communication research. Communication apprehension is a
construct built upon an oral focus and is defined as “an individual’s level of fear or
anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or
persons” (McCroskey, 1982b, p. 127). While many consider communication as natural
and necessary for daily behavior, not everyone is comfortable engaging in it.
Approximately 20% of the United States student and adult population are apprehensive
about communication (McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2002). Individuals who
experience anxiety and nervousness, or are often fearful of communication, are
commonly identified as communication apprehensive.
19
CA has proven to pervade multiple areas of an individual’s life, including school,
work, friendship, and job satisfaction (Butler, Pryor, & Marti, 2004; McCroskey et al.,
1986; Richmond & McCroskey, 1985). Research also indicates that in the United States,
students with high levels of CA are prone to exhibit overall low academic achievement
(McCroskey et al., 1986; McCroskey et al., 2002). The consequences of CA, in general,
are negatively associated with students’ overall educational accomplishments
(McCroskey et al., 1986), and students who have difficulties communicating are often
evaluated inaccurately by their teachers (McCroskey et al., 2002).
Trait versus State Approach to CA
Trait CA is conceptualized as high fear or anxiety about potential or actual oral
communication encounters (McCroskey, 1977). Such apprehension generally takes the
form of approach or avoidance behaviors across a variety of communication situations
(Kearney & McCroskey, 1980, p. 534). Spielberger (1966) advanced the concept of trait
anxiety. A state refers to a transitory condition varying over time, whereas a trait is seen
as a more stable individual difference or personality characteristic. Essentially, this
translated down to “how do you feel right now” and “how do you generally feel” (p. 85).
The measuring instruments include a specific event or time period under concern.
Generally, the trait orientation (commonly measured with the Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension: PRCA) (McCroskey, 1970, 1978, 1982b) operates from a
predispositional orientation while the state orientation (commonly measured with a
20
variation of Spielberger's state anxiety measure, 1966) operates from a situational
orientation (McCroskey & Beatty, 1984).
State CA refers to anxieties in particular oral communication situations (Lamb,
1972; McCroskey, 1977; Richmond, 1978; Spielberger, 1966). State CA has been
associated with both public speaking situations, dyadic interactions, and can even result
during normal communication situations with a specific target individual (McCroskey,
1980a). Certain characteristics of the speaking situation trigger public speaking anxiety.
Previous research has identified several variables that contribute to state anxiety reactions
i.e., the size and composition of audiences (Beatty & Behnke, 1991; Beatty & Payne,
1983; Gray & McNaughton, 2000), novelty or ambiguity of the speaking situation (Buss,
1980; Beatty, 1988; Beatty, Balfantz, & Kuwabara, 1989; Beatty & Friedland, 1990;
McCroskey, 1984; Thompson & Rapee, 2002; Sawyer & Behnke, 2009).
Sawyer and Behnke (2009) posit that trait anxiety is a better predictor of state
anxiety when both measures refer to more specific and focused communication situation,
both in time and format (p. 92). A trait anxiety measure should be able to predict, at least
at a modest level, the level of state anxiety the subject will experience in a given situation
(McCroskey & Beatty, 1984, p. 1).
The Effect of CA
Implications of high and low CA in relation to difference settings (i.e.,
organizational, intercultural, and academic) have been researched (Boening, Anderson, &
Miller, 1997; Francis & Miller, 2008; McCroskey, 1983; McCroskey & Richmond,
21
1979). Despite the setting, current research concludes that CA has an “internal impact”
on the individual’s psychology and emotions and an “external impact” in the form of
behavior and the creation of social relationships (McCroskey, 1997, pp. 99-100).
Because CA is experienced internally, the only potentially valid indicant of CA is the
individual’s report of that experience—self-reports provide the only potentially valid
measures of CA (McCroskey & Beatty, 1998, p. 223). McCroskey’s PRCA-24 has been
the most widely employed and reliable self-report measurement of CA (Levine &
McCroskey, 1990; McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985).
The external effects of CA have been widely documented. The three major
behavioral reaction patterns include communication avoidance, communication
withdrawal and communication disruption (Daly, McCroskey, Ayers, Hopf, & Ayres,
1997; McCroskey, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1997; Phillips, 1997). Researchers have agreed that
the effects of high CA, as opposed to low CA, are progressively negative in a person’s
life (Francis & Miller, 2008). For example, one may attempt to avoid an uncomfortable
communication situation, rather than confronting it. However, when avoidance is not an
option, communication withdrawal is the next feasible alternative. The withdrawal
alternative may be complete or partial silence and can be seen in a variety of contexts
such as in a public speaking setting, in a meeting, class or small group, or dyadic
discussion (McCroskey & Beatty, 1998, p. 224).
Communication apprehension is conceptualized as a causal agent in student
success, both academically and interpersonally. CA has been found to be related to
22
overall grade point average and standardized achievement scores. Interpersonal effects of
CA generally indicate: high CA people experience emotional distress during or
anticipating communication, prefer to avoid communication, and are perceived by others
and themselves as less competent, skilled, and successful (McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield,
& Payne, 1989, p. 101).
The high CA student is less likely to become involved with campus activities and
less likely to communicate with peers, advisors, counselors, or professors who may offer
social comfort and academic support. CA typically elicits anxiety, which leads to
avoidance behaviors, cognitive deficits, and performance failures. In academic settings,
high CA students receive lower grade point averages and have higher dropout rates than
low CA students (McCroskey et al., 1989). Oral communication apprehension can
impede an individual’s communication and social opportunity (Francis & Miller, 2008)
as well as diminish the opportunity for communication-skill development (Daly et al.,
1997; McCroskey, 1983).
Communication apprehension (CA) in the classroom has been widely studied and
found to have numerous debilitating effects upon student success potential in the college
environment, including a decrease in the quantity and quality of interaction with
instructors. Students with high CA tend not to remain in an academic environment as
long as students with low CA (Ericson & Gardner, 1992). High CA students tend to
enroll in classes requiring little interaction with the instructor or other students and tend
to drop out of those classes having such requirements (McCroskey & Sheahan, 1978;
23
Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). High-CA students are “less likely to communicate with
peers, advisors, counselors, or professors who could offer social comfort and academic
assistance” (Jordan & Powers, 1983, p. 22; McCroskey et al., 1989, p. 101).
Exhibiting high CA can hinder an individual’s communication ability and social
opportunities. Implications of high and low CA in relation to difference settings (i.e.,
organizational, intercultural, and academic) have also been researched (Boening et al.,
1997; McCroskey, 1983; McCroskey & Richmond, 1979). Regardless of the situation,
CA has an “internal impact” on the individual’s psychology and emotions and an
“external impact” in the form of behavior and the creation of social relationships
(McCroskey, 1997, pp. 99-100). According to McCroskey (1983), high CA is seen as a
potential inhibitor of the development of both communication competence and
communication skill and as a direct precursor of negative communication affect. Low
CA, on the other hand, is seen as a facilitator of the development of communication
competence and communication skills and as a precursor of positive communication
affect (p. 18).
Students with high CA often struggle to connect with instructors and other
students and, as a result, may not fully engage in the learning process, which is
problematic. By identifying individuals or groups (i.e., learning communities, firstgeneration students, or non-first-generation students, etc.) with CA and developing
strategies to alleviate their CA, new opportunities can be created that will allow and
encourage them to improve their ability to communicate (Francis & Miller, 2008, p. 41).
24
Since students with high CA are often at risk for academic failure, it is important to
promote awareness of the impact of communication and to help students develop
communication skills (McCroskey & Payne, 1986). Research shows that students who
are academically at-risk have higher levels of communication apprehension in certain
contexts (Chesboro et al., 1992) and that students who are high in communication
apprehension are at a distinct academic disadvantage in typical classrooms (Lippert et al.,
2005; Rosenfield, Grant, & McCroskey, 1995).
There appears to be less research on the relationship between students with high
or low CA and their first-generation collegiate status. As Francis and Miller (2008) posit,
to date there is minimal and insufficient research conducted within the realm of
communication apprehension that focuses on first-generation college students. Thus, the
learning community context, specifically first-generation learning community
participants and their social-communicative needs, warrants further exploration and
understanding.
CA has been proven to be a monumental concept within the communication
discipline. This concept should now seek to include addressing the learning community
context, as the following posed research question may help to enhance the CA construct
and/or aid in the development of implementing best practice approaches for reducing
and/or minimizing the levels of CA of learning community students:
RQ2: Will students in an introductory-level communication studies course
connected with an EOP learning community have considerably lower
communication apprehension scores at the end of the semester when compared
with beginning semester scores?
25
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The current study was an investigative assessment of communication competence
and communication apprehension (CA) within a learning community context. The
research questions sought to examine the level of students’ communication competence
and communication apprehension within a learning community context, specifically
seeking to determine what relationship, if any, existed between levels of competence and
apprehension among students who had participated in a basic communication studies
course while connected with a learning community. The literature reviewed in the
previous sections suggest a potential relationship of increased levels of competence and
decreased levels of apprehension at the end of the semester in students who had
participated in a basic communication studies course connected with a learning
community. This section presents the method used in this study.
Participants
The current study employed a survey research method. Surveys from 80
participants were administered and collected. Of those, 14 surveys were eliminated
because they were deemed incomplete. Of the 66 usable questionnaires, there were 41
(62.1%) from female participants, 24 (36.4%) from male participants, and one from a
participant (1.5%) not indicating gender. Participant ages ranged between 16 and 20 with
a mean age of 17.91 (SD=.655). The first-generation collegiate status of the participants
included the following: 43 (65.2%) were the first in their family to attend college; 24
26
(36.4%) were not; and one (1.5%) declined to state. All 66 (100%) of the participants
had the class standing of freshman level.
Measures
The survey instrument was self-administered and included a “consent to
participate” form indicating to participants that this survey was part of a master’s thesis
and the information gathered would only be used in this particular study and would be
kept anonymous and confidential (see Appendix A). The Likert-type items in this survey
were used to measure communication competence (12 items), communication
apprehension (24 items), and included four social demographic questions requesting
participants to provide information on age, gender, class standing, and first-generation
collegiate status (see Appendix B). The entire instrument included a total of 36 Likerttype questions and four demographic questions.
The SPCC
The Self Perceived Communication Competence (SPCC) scale was administered
to the participants in the current study to answer the research question pertaining to
students’ perceptions of their own competence as communicators in different contexts.
Self-Perceived Communication Competence (SPCC) (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988)
was used as in previous research where it yielded reliability estimates above .90. The
SPCC also has high face validity in that it is a self-report measure that directly asks the
subjects to estimate their own communication competence in 12 contexts on a scale of 0
to 100. The contexts are generated by crossing four types of communication settings
27
(public speaking, talking in meetings, talking in small groups, talking to one other
person) with three types of receivers (strangers, acquaintances, and friends) (p. 110).
Self-report measures are the more commonly utilized approaches to measuring
communication competence (Duran, 1983; McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988; McCroskey
& Payne, 1986; Rubin & Rubin, 1985; Spitzberg, 1983; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984;
Weimann, 1977) and have been found to be reliable when used with college student
populations (alpha reliability= .92) (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989). The use of selfreport measures is also a legitimate and appropriate research strategy within the discipline
of communication (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988, p. 109). Chronbach’s alpha
reliability in this study ranged from .68 to .90 for each of the four contexts: speaking in
interpersonal conversations, .70; speaking in groups, .69; speaking in meetings, .72;
speaking in public, .82; speaking to strangers, .90; speaking to acquaintances, .88; and
speaking to friends, .84 with a combined total reliability of .92 (M=2.18, SD =.83).
The PRCA-24
The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) scale was
administered to the participants in the current study to answer the research question
pertaining to learning community students’ perceptions of their own fears of
communicating in different learning contexts. McCroskey’s (1970) Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) is the most frequently applied CA assessment
scale. The PRCA-24 contains 24 items designed to assess an individual’s level of
apprehension regarding communication in four speaking contexts – meeting, dyad,
28
public, and group – and is a Likert-type self-report measure. The PRCA-24 offers the
advantage of “(1) easiness and inexpensiveness, (2) usefulness to assess anxiety response
across various communication contexts, and (3) high reliability” (McCroskey, 1970, p.
70). The PRCA-24 was selected because it is one of the most widely used measures of
communication apprehension and has well established reliability and validity rates that
have ranged from .93 to .95 (Levine & McCroskey, 1990; McCroskey et al., 1985). The
reliability in this study ranged from .69 to .85: speaking in interpersonal conversations,
.74; speaking in groups, .69; speaking in meetings, .78; speaking in public, .85, speaking
to strangers, .84; speaking to acquaintances, .83; and speaking to friends, .77. Alpha
reliability for the total score was .89 (M=1.95, SD =.76).
Procedure
Sample Selection
A convenience sample was employed in this study. I administered two surveys
(see Appendix B) along with a consent form (see Appendix A) to students in three
separate sections of an undergraduate basic communication studies course (i.e., two
Communication Experience sections and one Introduction to Public Speaking section)
connected with an EOP learning community at California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS). Students in an EOP learning community at CSUS enrolled in a basic
communication studies were given two pre-test surveys, the SPCC and the PRCA-24, at
the beginning of the semester and two post-test surveys, again the SPCC and the PRCA24, at the end of the semester. These surveys were administered to compare the
29
differences, if any, in participants’ CA and communication competence levels between
the beginning and the end of the semester. Ultimately, this research helped determine
whether or not there was a significant increase in communication competence levels and
a decrease in CA levels after students’ exposure to a communication course connected
with a learning community.
In an effort to tease out the specific effects of the learning community on
diminution of communication apprehension and increased competence among students, a
brief follow-up survey was sent to the students during the following semester via an
online survey tool Survey Monkey. Time reflect and separation of context of the
community from the students may have provided needed perspective on the students’
perceptions in regard to the value of and role learning communities play in student
support, student experience, and communication. The survey was brief to focus attention
on the learning community experience and to minimize student effort and increase
response rates (see Appendix C).
Data Analysis
The data gathered from the questionnaires was entered into and processed via
analysis software SPSS (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 18.0.
Upon receipt of completed surveys, the data was manually transferred from the original
surveys into the software program. To investigate the research questions, analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the difference in scores for both apprehension
and competence.
30
Results
Research question 1 asked whether students in an introductory communication
studies course connected with an EOP learning community would have increased
communication competence scores at the end of the semester when compared with
beginning semester scores. Previous research established that differences exist in both
context and relationships (Rubin et al., 1997). Repeated measure ANOVAs were used
separately in this study for context (dyad, group, meeting, and public) and relationship
(stranger, acquaintance, friend) for all responses for pre- and post-test scores. Results
from ANOVA indicate a considerable increase in communication competence levels
from beginning semester scores to end of semester scores. Specifically, results in the
group context increased significantly as well as in the relationship with strangers. Results
were similar for the other contexts (dyad, meeting, and public) and relationships
(acquaintance and friend). The total increase from beginning to end of the semester also
showed a significant increase and are statistically significant in all contexts and
relationships (r =.58, p=≤ .001). See Table 1 for a summary of results.
31
Table 1
SPCC Scores Beginning and End of Semester
Total SPSS
Context
Dyad
Group
Meeting
Public
Relationship
Stranger
Acquaintance
Friend
Beginning
Semester
77.22
End
Semester
83.69
F
73.59
Df
1,510
P
0.001
84.69
73.93
73.99
80.5
88.99
80.01
79.47
84.25
34.59
87.3
41.91
44.9
1,515
1,513
1,513
1,513
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
62.1
81.5
91.29
70.16
85.51
92.45
95.42
41.03
6.39
1,512
1,512
1,514
0.001
0.001
0.012
*SPCC scores range from 0.00 to 100.00.The higher the SPCC score, the greater
the competence.
Research question 2 sought to determine whether end of semester apprehension
scores of students in a basic communication studies course connected with an EOP
learning community would decrease from beginning semester scores. Repeated measures
ANOVAs were also used separately for context and relationship responses. Results
indicate that scores in all contexts (dyad, group, meeting, and public) significantly
decreased from beginning semester scores. Total PRCA scores also decreased
significantly and are found to be statistically significant (p=≤ .001). See Table 2 for a
summary of these results. To summarize, a positive relationship was shown between
participation in an EOP learning community connected with a basic communication
studies course and increased competence levels, as well as reduced apprehension levels
among participants.
32
Table 2
PRCA-24 Scores Beginning and End Semester
Beginning
Semester
Total
PRCA
End
Semester
F
df
P
67.08
63.72
37.69
1,487
0.001
Dyad
14.25
14.03
3.33
1,506
0.06
Group
15.91
15.08
20.94
1,507
0.001
Meeting
16.89
15.82
34.11
1,505
0.001
Public
19.11
17.82
34.15
1,502
0.001
Context:
*PRCA scores for context range from 6.00 to 30.00 and total scores range from 24.00 to 96.00.
The higher the PRCA score, the greater the apprehension.
The follow-up survey sent to participants during the following semester revealed
a positive relationship between participation in a learning community and feeling
supported as a learner; 78% deemed their experience in the learning community was very
supportive; 73% of participants revealed their learning community was the main element
having the most positive effect on their communication competence; and 65% believed
their learning community helped the most in reducing their fears about communicating in
class or campus activities.
33
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter reviews the results of the statistical analysis reported in the previous
section and provides a discussion of the findings in this study. Potential limitations and
suggestions for future research are also provided.
Discussion
The results confirm a strong relationship between communication competence
and communication apprehension, specifically showing that after participation in a
learning community and exposure to a basic communication studies course, students’
communication competence levels increase and apprehension levels decrease. It is no
surprise to say then that communication instruction does make a difference, and at the
end of the semester, the attainable goal is that of increased competence levels and
decreased apprehension levels, allowing for the possibility of a student population
showing the more competent the communicator, the less apprehensive the communicator.
Research question 1 was “Will students in an introductory-level communication
studies course connected with an EOP learning community have considerably higher
communication competence scores at the end of the semester when compared with
beginning semester scores?” Results of this study show that yes, end of semester
competence scores increased when compared with beginning semester scores. The
overall total competence levels increased from beginning to end of semester, which is
significant. However, the most notable increase in competence levels was found in the
34
group context and stranger relationship. There are a number of explanations for the
results that occurred. The design of the learning community and the nature of a basic
communication studies course can both help explain this increase. Learning communities
are designed to facilitate more interaction among students often including working in
groups with other students who may or may not be strangers and “have proven to provide
a richer communication environment, including more contact with students and faculty”
(Waldron & Yungbluth, 2007, p. 296). The same can be said about participation in a
communication studies course, as many introductory level courses touch upon a variety
of areas within communication (i.e., group, dyad, public, interpersonal, etc.). These areas
offer increased exposure to different communication situations and allow for students to
gain experience in different communicative settings (Rubin et al., 1997). Students may
start out as strangers but do not stay that way for long due to the constant interaction with
others both in a basic communication studies course and within the learning community
context.
Learning communities open the door to a supportive network of peers; as students
learn, study, and socialize with one another, they have the opportunity to become a tightknit group. These strong ties with peers are developed through frequent communication
within the learning community (Lippert & Associates, 2005). An important outcome of
this research question is the significant relationship between increased communication
competence and student participation in a learning community. If it could be shown with
additional analysis that participation in a learning community is a predictor of change in
35
competence levels of students, then teachers can have more options to adopt attributes of
a learning community design in their pedagogy. With a better understanding of this
relationship, this study can offer insight to teachers about student perceptions of
communication they can use to increase their classroom effectiveness while maximizing
students’ competence levelsResearch question 2 was, “Will students in an introductorylevel communication studies course connected with an EOP learning community have
considerably lower communication apprehension scores at the end of the semester when
compared with beginning semester scores?” Results of this study suggest a strong yes, as
all contexts of PRCA (dyad, group, meeting, and public) scores significantly decreased
from beginning to end of semester scores. These findings may be indicative of course
exposure to both a basic communication studies course and participation in a learning
community. Results help to re-confirm similar findings of reduced apprehension due to
communication studies course experience (Rubin & Associates, 1997) and provide a
much needed look at the connection of communication in the learning community
context.
Communication is a vehicle for learning and can only help connect individuals in
culture and in community. The social support received by participating in a learning
community program may make communication in all contexts (dyad, group, meeting, and
public) more feasible for students who have any sort of apprehension about
communicating. This social support may have a cultural connotation between members
of a learning community, as learning communities foster social, albeit communicative
36
support between peers. According to Waldron and Yungbluth (2007), learning
communities resulted in communication enhancements in a variety of situations,
specifically demonstrating that “learning community students were more inclined to
communicate with peers, faculty and university support staff” (p. 295). Similarly,
Frymier and Houser (1997) deemed that when students receive supportive
communication from and discuss course content with peers, they report less apprehension
about communicating, as well as learn more.
Given a positive correlation between participating in a learning community and
reduction of communication barriers that limit many students’ learning, the results of
research question 2 also help support research question 1, as competence and
apprehension levels have been shown to have an inverse relationship (Chesbro et al.,
1992; Rubin et al., 1997). Knowing that this inverse relationship exists will allow
teachers to enhance and develop different strategies to combat communication fears and
competencies, ideally finding a model that matches the student population (i.e., a learning
community framework, etc.).
Limitations
Although this thesis expands the existing knowledge about communication
competence skills and communication apprehension levels of students, several limitations
should be noted. This thesis does offer insight about communication and the learning
community context. However, the results of this thesis were obtained via a single college
campus measurement and from one specific type of learning community context (EOP)
37
and may not be reflective of all learning communities or college campuses. In addition,
the results may have proven to be a stronger predictor of increased competence and
decreased apprehension levels coupling participation in a learning community and
exposure to a basic communication studies course had there been a comparison of
students in similar courses not connected to a learning community. Future research
should seek to include such comparisons.
Lastly, the follow-up survey used in this research was extremely brief and
neglected to pose a larger variety of questions related to the value of the learning
community and the role it played in supporting students as learners. To avoid this in
future studies, a more detailed survey should be sent to the students either with the initial
pre- and post-test instruments or again as a follow-up survey during the following
semester. This would allow for a more detailed explanation of teasing out the specific
effects of the learning community on diminution of communication apprehension and
increase of communication competence among students.
Future Research
This thesis did measure students’ self report outcomes of communication (i.e.,
more confidence, less communicative anxiety) within the learning community context,
but it is still unknown what longitudinal effect communication skill and increased
confidence levels will have with students who participate in a learning community and
continue their college careers. Future research should seek to examine a larger
population of students over a longer period of time, ideally throughout their collegiate
38
careers, but at least through the sophomore and/or junior year. Yee and Niemeier (1996)
deemed, “the benefits of longitudinal analysis include increased statistical power and the
capability to estimate a greater range of conditional probabilities” (p. 6). Allowing for a
longitudinal study would also provide an opportunity to involve other college campuses,
and in turn, being able to study a larger student body would also provide a more diverse
population of students.
Future research could also examine what role competence levels and teacher
apprehension and teacher expectations may play in the learning community context.
Instructors play an important role in student perceptions and expectations. Frymeir and
Weser (2001) examined the expectations students have of instructors and how those
expectations influence “students’ reactions and classroom communication” (p. 314) and
determined that highly apprehensive students had lower expectations for instructor
communication behavior in regard to immediacy, clarity, and humor. Are students’
perceptions and/or expectations of their teachers’ communication behavior related to their
perceptions of competence or apprehension? It may be worthwhile to determine if
student perceptions of instructor communication behavior alter their communication skill
and confidence levels.
Finally, expanding on the current study to include the comparison of students in
similar courses not connected with a learning community should be another line of
research considered. Examining both student populations, learning community and nonlearning community participants in similar courses, would help develop a deeper
39
argument for the important role of communication and learning community based
learning. This expansion could be the next opportunity to determine a more precise role
learning communities play in combating students’ communicative barriers and increasing
their communicative competencies.
Conclusion
A clearer understanding of the relationship between communication competence
and communication apprehension should be the ultimate goal of educators. In this study,
the introduction of communicative concepts within the learning community context has
been added to the discussion among communication scholars. Participation in a learning
community coupled with a basic communication studies course has shown to decrease
apprehension levels and increase competence levels among students. With this richer
understanding of the levels of CA and communication competencies of EOP learning
community students, teachers, learning community faculty, and all those involved in the
community, creation, implementation, and success could enhance and develop more
effective best practice approaches for reducing and/or minimizing CA levels of students.
Educators will also be able to maximize the full potential of communication
competencies of learning community students. Best practices should be able to
determine those things facilitating competence and diminish CA.
40
APPENDICES
41
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
You are invited to participate as a research subject for a thesis conducted by Rachel
McQueen, a graduate student in the Communication Studies Department here at
Sacramento State. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of
communication in different learning contexts. This information is important because it
may help us better understand students’ classroom communication behaviors. The goal is
to learn how to help students communicate better in classroom or training contexts.
You will be given two short surveys. The first survey consists of a 12 item question and
scale response. The second survey consists of a 24 item question and scale response and
four demographic questions. Together, they will take no more than 10 minutes to
complete.
You are asked to PRINT your name and date below if you are willing to participate in
this survey. All information you provide for this study will only be used in this
particular study and will be anonymous and confidential.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact my advisor:
Mark R. Stoner, Ph. D.
Professor, Communication Studies, CSUS
(916) 278-6668
Your participation in this research is voluntary. Printing your name below indicates that
you have read this page and agree to participate in this research.
-----------------------------------------------(Print) Name
----------------------------------Date
42
APPENDIX B
Pre- and Post-surveys
Survey 1
Directions: Below are twelve situations in which you might need to communicate.
People’s abilities to communicate vary a lot, and sometimes the same person is more
competent to communicate in one situation than in another.
Please specify how competent you believe you are in each one of the situations described
below. Indicate in the space provided at the left of each item your estimate of your
competence.
Please specify any range from 0 to 100. Presume that:
(0) =not competent at all
(100)= completely competent
There are no right or wrong answers. Please work quickly and simply record your first
impression.
___ 1. Present a talk to a group of strangers.
___ 2. Talk with an acquaintance.
___ 3. Talk in a large meeting of friends.
___4. Talk in a small group of strangers.
___5. Talk with a friend.
___6. Talk in a large meeting with acquaintances.
___7. Talk with a stranger.
___8. Present a talk to a group of friends.
___9. Talk in a small group of acquaintances.
___10. Talk in a large meeting of strangers.
___11. Talk in a small group of friends.
___12. Present a talk to a group of acquaintances.
43
Survey 2
Directions: This section is composed of 24 statements concerning feelings about
communicating with others. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to
you by marking whether you :
(1) Strongly Agree
(2) Agree
(3) Are Undecided
(4) Disagree
(5) Strongly Disagree
There are no right or wrong answers. Many of the statements are similar. Please work
quickly and simply record your first impression.
___1. Dislike participating in group discussions.
___2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
___3. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
___4. I like to get involved in group discussions.
___5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous.
___6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
___7. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
___8. Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a meeting.
___9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a
meeting.
___10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
___11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.
___12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.
___13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very
nervous.
___14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.
___15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.
Please continue answering the following questions indicating the degree to whether you:
(1) Strongly Agree
(2) Agree
(3) Are Undecided
(4) Disagree
(5) Strongly Disagree
44
___16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.
___17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.
___18. I’m afraid to speak up in conversations.
___19. I have no fear of giving a speech.
___20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech.
___21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
___22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
___23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.
___24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
Social Demographic Data
25. Age:______
26. Gender: Male______
Female_______
27. Class Standing:
___A. Freshman
___B. Sophomore
___C. Junior
____D. Senior
___E. Unclassified ___F. Other (Specify) ___________________________
28. Are you the first in your family to attend college? ____Yes _____No
Thank you for your time.
45
APPENDIX C
Follow-up Survey
1. Learning communities are intended to support you as a learner. Comparing your
experience in your learning community with your experience in courses not in learning
community, how supportive is a learning community?
A
B
C
D
E
very supportive
somewhat supportive
about the same
less supportive
very unsupportive
2. Which of the following elements of your academic experience here would you rate as
having the most positive effect on your communication competence?
A
B
C
D
E
my learning community
my advisor
one of my instructors
one of my peers
nothing has had a positive impact
3. Everyone has some fear or apprehension about talking in class or giving presentations
more or less. Which of the following has helped the most in reducing your fear of
communicating in class, or campus activities?
A
B
C
D
E
one of my peers
my advisor
one of my instructors
my learning community
nothing has had a positive impact
46
REFERENCES
Allen, R. R., & Brown, K. L. (1976). Developing communication competence in children.
Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. (1987). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Beatty, M. J. (1988). Situational and predispositional correlates of public speaking
anxiety. Communication Education, 37, 28-39.
Beatty, M. J., & Behnke, R. R. (1991). Effects of public speaking trait anxiety and
intensity of speaking tasks on heart rate during performance. Human
Communication Research, 18, 147-176.
Beatty, M. J., & Friedland, M. H. (1990). Public speaking state anxiety as a function of
selected and pre-dispositional variables. Communication Education, 39, 142-147.
Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. K. (1983). Speech anxiety as a multiplicative function of
audience size and social desirability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 792-794.
Beatty, M. J., Balfantz, G. L., & Kuwubara, A. Y. (1989). Trait-like qualities of selected
variables assumed to be transient causes of performance state anxiety.
Communication Education, 38, 277-289.
47
Boening, C. H., Anderson, L. A., & Miller, M. T. (1997). Writing apprehension and
academic achievement among undergraduate honor students. Retrieved from
ERIC. (ED414775)
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
Butler, J., Pryor, B., & Marti, S. (2004). Communication apprehension and honors
students. North American Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 293-296.
California State University, Sacramento. (n.d.). Student academic success & educational
opportunity program. Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/eop/
Canary, D. J., & MacGregor, I. M. (2008). Differences that make a difference in
assessing student communication competence. Communication Education, 57, 4163.
Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement
during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communication Monographs,
51, 320-338.
Cegala, D. J. (1989). A study of selected linguistic components of involvement in
interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 53, 311-326.
Chen, G. (1993). Social desirability as a predictor of argumentativeness and
communication apprehension. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 433-438.
48
Chesbro, J. W., McCroskey, J. C., Atwater, D. F., Bahrenfuss, R. M., Cawelti, G.,
Gaudino, J. L., & Hodges, H. (1992). Communication apprehension and self
perceived communication competence of at-risk students. Communication
Education, 41, 345-360.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and directions.
In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal
communication (pp. 13-41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Daly, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Ayres, D. M. (Eds.). (1997).
Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension
(2nd ed.). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Duran, R. L. (1983). Communication adaptability: A measure of social communication
competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320-326.
Edwards, C., & Walker, S. (2007). Using public speaking learning communities to reduce
communication apprehension. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 32, 65-79.
Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, 40,
46-50.
Ericson, P. M., & Gardner, J. W. (1992). Two longitudinal studies of communication
apprehension and its effects on college students’ success. Communication
Quarterly, 40, 127-137.
49
Fischer, C. G., & Grant, G. E. (1983). Intellectual levels in college classrooms, In C. L.
Ellner & C. P. Barnes (Eds.). Studies of college teaching (pp. 47-60). Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath.
Francis, T. A., & Miller, M. T. (2008). Communication apprehension: Levels of firstgeneration college students at 2-year institutions. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 32, 38-55.
Frymeir, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1997, November). The role of communication in
learning: Does talk make you learn more? Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Frymeir, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student
expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education,
50, 314-326.
Gabelnik, F., MacGregor, J., Mathews, R., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning communities:
Building connections among disciplines, students, and faculty. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, D. N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry
into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. (R. McCarthy, Trans.).
Toronto, Canada: Beacon Press.
50
Hecht, M. L. (1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication
Research, 4, 350-368.
Hilgerman, R. (1998). Communication satisfaction, goal setting, job satisfaction,
concertive control, and effectiveness in self managed teams. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 59, 1661.
Howell, R. P. (2009). Communication opportunities. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Hurt, H. T., Scott, M. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Communication in the classroom.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E.
Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. New York: Academic
Press.
James, P. A., Bruch, P. L., & Jehangir, R. R. (2006). Ideas in practice: Building bridges
in a multicultural learning community. Journal of Developmental Education, 29,
10-18.
Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First generation students seek full academic
citizenship in multicultural learning communities. Innovative Higher Education,
34, 33-49.
Jordan, W. J., & Powers, W. G. (1983). Development of a measure of student
apprehension toward communicating with instructors. Human Communication,
10, 20-32.
51
Karp, D., & Yoels, W. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning
of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439.
Kearney, P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1980). Relationships among teacher communication
style, trait and state communication apprehension and teacher effectiveness.
Communication Yearbook, 4, 533-551.
Kenny, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Introduction: Occupational stress and its management.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 275-279.
Killacky, J., Thomas, C., & Accomando, A. (2002). Learning communities and
community colleges: A case study. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 26, 763-775.
Kuh, G., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lamb, D. (1972). Speech anxiety: Toward a theoretical conceptualization and
preliminary scale development. Speech Monographs, 39, 62-67.
Larson, C. E., Backlund, P. M., Redmond, M. K., & Barbour, A. (1978). Assessing
communicative competence. Falls Church, Va: Speech Communication
Association and ERIC.
Laufgraben, J. L., & Shapiro, N. S. (2004). Sustaining and improving learning
communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52
Law, C. L. (1995). Introduction. In C. L. Law & C. L. B. Dews (Eds.), This fine place so
far from home: Voices of academics from the working class (pp. 1-10).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension:
A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication
Monographs, 57, 62-72.
Light, R. J. (1990). The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Explorations with students and
faculty about teaching, learning, and student life. Cambridge: Harvard University
Graduate School of Education.
Lippert, L. R., Titsworth, B. S., & Hunt, S. K. (2005). The ecology of academic risk:
Relationships between communication apprehension, verbal aggression,
supportive communication, and students’ academic risk status. Communication
Studies, 56, 1-21.
Lippert, L. R., Titsworth, B. S., & Hunt, S. K. (2005). The ecology of academic risk:
Relationships between communication apprehension, verbal aggression,
supportive communication, and students’ academic risk status. Communication
Studies, 56, 1-21.
Lomas, C. W. (1937). The psychology of stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 23,
35-44.
53
Love, A. G., & Tokuno, K. A. (1999). Learning community models. In J. H. Levine
(Ed.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning (pp.
9-18). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for
The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
MacGregor, J. (1991). What difference do learning communities make? Washington
Center News, 6(1), 4-9. Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Improving the
Quality of Undergraduate Education.
Madlock, P. E. (2006). Do differences in displays of nonverbal immediacy and
communicator competence between male and female supervisors effect
subordinate’s job satisfaction? Ohio Communication Journal, 44, 61-77.
Mallette, B. I., & Cabrera, A. (1991). Determinants of withdrawal behavior: An
exploratory study. Research in Higher Education, 32, 179-194.
Malnarich, G. (2005). Learning communities and curricular reform: Academic
apprenticeships for developmental students. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 129, 12-17.
Mathews, R., & Smith, B. L. (1996). Learning communities: A structure for educational
coherence. Liberal Education, 82, 4-10.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech
Monographs, 37, 269-277.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
54
McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication
apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192, 203.
McCroskey, J. C. (1981). Communication competence and performance: A research and
pedagogical perspective. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
International Communication Association, Minneapolis, MN.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982b). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. In
M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 136-170). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1983). The communication apprehension perspective. Communication,
12, 1-25.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication competence: The elusive construct. In R.
Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1985). A trait perspective on communication competence. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association
(35th), Honolulu, HI, May 23-27.
McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension,
and self-perceived communication competence: Conceptualizations and
perspectives. In D. M. Ayres, J. A. Daly, T. Hopf, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension
(2nd ed., pp. 191-216). Cresskill, NJ; Hampton Press.
55
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1984). Communication apprehension and
accumulated communication state anxiety experiences: A research note.
Communication Monographs, 52, 1-6.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication apprehension. In J. D. J.
McCroskey, M. Martin, & M. Beatty (Eds.), Communication & personality: Trait
perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self -report as an approach to measuring
communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5, 108-113.
McCroskey, J. C., & Payne, S. K. (1986). The impact of communication apprehension on
student retention and success: A preliminary report. ACA Bulletin, 56, 65-69.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of communication
apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 27, 5561.
McCroskey, J. C., & Sheahan, M. E. (1978). Communication apprehension, social
preference, and social behavior in a college classroom. Communication Quarterly,
26, 41-45.
McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity
of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across
communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165-173.
56
McCroskey, J. C., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Payne, S. K. (1989). The impact of
communication apprehension on college student retention and success.
Communication Quarterly, 37, 100-107.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). One on one: The
foundation of interpersonal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCroskey, J. C. (1980). On communication competence and communication
apprehension: A response to Page. Communication Education, 29, 109-111.
McCroskey, L. L., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). The scholarship of
teaching and learning: Contributions from the discipline of communication.
Communication Education, 51, 383-391.
Mitchell, N., & Renaud, J. (2001). Building a learning community for journalism and
mass communications: The Nebraska experience. Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator, 17, 72-83.
Monge, P. R., Backman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenburg, E. M. (1982). Communicator
competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development.
Communication Yearbook, 5, 505-528.
Myers, S. A., & Bryant, L. E. (2002). Perceived understanding, interaction involvement,
and college student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 19, 146-155.
National Learning Community Project. (2005). Learning Communities National Resource
Center. [On-line] Retrieved from
http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/pResources.asp?pid=73
57
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students. Research in
Higher Education, 26, 31-59.
Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom. Journal of Higher Education,
67, 243-266.
Pacarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1980). Predicting persistence and voluntary dropout
decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75.
Pearson, J. C., & Daniels, T. D. (1988). Oh what tangled webs we weave: Concerns about
current conceptions of communication competence. Communication Reports, 1,
95-100.
Phillips, G. M. (1997). Reticence: A perspective on social withdrawal. In J. A. Daly, J. C.
McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopft, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.). Avoiding communication:
Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed., pp. 129-150).
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Piland, J. A. (2011). The role of communication scholars in learning community
initiatives. Spectra, 47(1), 11-15.
Quinlisk, C. C. (1998). Communicator status and expectations in intercultural
communication: Implications for language learning in a multicultural community.
Communication Research Reports, 21, 81-91.
Richmond, V. P. (1978). The relationship between trait and state communication
apprehension and interpersonal perception during acquaintance stages. Human
Communication Research, 4, 338-349.
58
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,
and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,
and effectiveness (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Rosenfield, L. B., Grant, C. H., III, & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Communication
apprehension and self perceived communication competence of academically
gifted students. Communication Education, 44, 79-86.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication:
A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.
Rubin, B. R., Rubin, A. M., & Jordan, F. F. (1997). Effects of instruction on
communication apprehension and communication competence. Communication
Education, 46, 104-114.
Rubin, R. B. (1982). Assessing speaking and listening competence at the college level:
The communication competency assessment instrument. Communication
Education, 31, 19-32.
Rubin, R. B., Graham, E. E., & Mignerey, J. T. (1990). A longitudinal study of college
students’ communication competence. Communication Education, 39, 1-14.
Rubin, R. B., Welch, S. A., & Buerkel, R. (1995). Performance based assessment of high
school speech instruction. Communication Education, 44, 30-39.
59
Sawyer, C. R., & Behnke, R. R. (2009). Communication state anxiety. In J. A. Daly, J. C.
McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopft, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.). Avoiding communication:
Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.). Creskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Scharp, K. (2003). Communication and content: Circumstances and consequences of the
Habermas-Brandom debate. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11, 131.
Sharbrough, W. C., Simmons, S. A., & Cantrill, D. A. (2006). Motivating language in
industry: Its impact on job satisfaction and perceived supervisor effectiveness.
Journal of Business Communication, 43, 322-343.
Smith, B. L. (1991). Taking structure seriously: The learning community model. Liberal
Education, 77, 42-48.
Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Mathews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning
communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, D. G. (1983). Instruction and outcomes in an undergraduate setting. In C. L.
Ellner & C. P. Barnes (Eds.), Studies in college teaching (pp. 83-116). Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath.
Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.) (1966). Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
60
Spitzberg, B. H. (1991). Assessment options for interpersonal competence. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of Speech Communication Association-Atlanta,
GA.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). Component model of relational competence.
Human Communication Research, 10, 575-599.
Stefanou, C. R., & Salisbury-Glennon, J. D. (2002). Developing motivation and cognitive
learning strategies through an undergraduate learning community. Learning
Environments Research, 5, 77-97.
Strohner, H., & Richheit, G. (2008). Handbook of communication competence. Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gryer Gmblt & Co.
Taylor, K., Moore, W. S., MacGregor, J., & Lindblad, J. (2003). Learning community
research and assessment: What we know now. National Learning Communities
Project Monograph Series. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College,
Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, in
cooperation with the American Association for Higher Education.
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1977). Voluntary freshman attrition and patterns of
social and academic integration in a university: A test of a conceptual model.
Research in Higher Education, 6, 25-43.
61
Thompson, S., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). The effect of situational structure on the social
performance of socially anxious and non-anxious participants. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 33, 91-202.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1989). Research on student persistence, The Review of Higher Education, 21,
167-177.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The review of higher education, 21, 167-177.
Tinto, V., & Froh, R. (1992). Translating research on student persistence into
institutional policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Chicago.
Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A., & Russon, P. (1993). Building community. Journal of
Liberal Education, 19, 16-21.
Toale, M. C., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). Ethnocentrism and trait communication
apprehension as predictors of interethnic communication apprehension and use of
relational maintenance strategies in interethnic communication. Communication
Quarterly, 49, 142-159.
62
Waldron, V. R., & Yungbluth, S. C. (2007). Assessing student outcomes in
communication-intensive learning communities: A two-year longitudinal study of
academic performance and retention. Southern Communication Journal, 72, 285302.
Washington Center News. (1995). Learning communities. Retrieved from
http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/project.asp?pid=73
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence.
Communication Research, 3, 195-213.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communication
competence. Review of Higher Educational Research, 50, 185-199.
Wilmot, W. W. (1979). Dyadic communication (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: AddisonWelsley.
Yee, J. L., & Niemeier, D. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages: Longitudinal vs.
repeated cross-section surveys. Retrieved from
http://ntl.bts.gov/data/letter_am/bat.pdf
Zhoa, C., & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.