1
An Argument for Communication Centers as Potent Sites for College Student Growth
and Retention
Eunkyong Lee Yook
University of Mary Washington
1301 College Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 22401
eyook@umw.edu
Presented at the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX, November,
2006
2
An Argument for Communication Centers as Potent Sites for College Student Growth
and Retention
Introduction
Few academicians will deny that retention is one of the most urgent issues
facing institutions of higher learning in the United States today. College student
attrition rates have increased, from 32% in 1983, to 40% in 1990; over 20,000 students
per year do not return for their sophomore year (Cravatta, 1997; Deberard, Speilmans,
& Julka, 2004). While it is evident that college student success and retention benefit
not only the student, but also college administrators and society at large as well,
conversely the stark retention statistics highlight the importance of this issue as a critical
one that direly affects all of society in the short and long-term. Nothing less than a welleducated society that can work together effectively and engage in civic affairs cogently
and thoughtfully is at stake.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretically and empirically
supported argument for stating that there is one potent force for retention of college
students that has been as yet largely unmined: Communication centers.
Relatively new
to the field of academia, communication centers have the goal of enhancing
communication, which is arguably one of the most important skills for career success
3
and civic participation. Communication centers have been making their appearances
on campuses nationwide and research on their potential impact on achieving their
respective campus missions, as well as other areas of concern are beginning to gain the
interest of academia. However, possibly due to their relatively recent ascent, they have
till now been overlooked as an important site for fostering student success and retention.
The argument for the utility of communication centers as sites for student growth and
retention will be based on a psychological approach of how communication centers can
be a strong force in promoting retention through enhancing self-efficacy through
communication skills development.
Review of the Literature
The centrality of communication skills to a successful college education is
becoming inevitably clearer to academia. On the one hand, mandates from members of
society to reduce “mall speak” and incoherence in college graduates, and to increase
communication effectiveness (Dannels, 2001; Hobgood, 2002; Schneider, 1999; Zernike,
1999) are increasing pressure on academicians and college administrators to focus their
attention on improving students’ communication skills. On another front, clear
communication is not only considered one of the most important skills in the corporate
world, according to a survey of Fortune 500 companies (Spectra, 1996), but it is also
4
considered central in preparation for professional life (Parvis, 2001) as well as in
fostering skills necessary for citizenship and participation in the democratic process
(NCA, 2002). Additionally, a body of scholarship within academia itself also has shifted
the paradigm from that of viewing communication as merely the vehicle of content
matter to that of regarding it as an important part of the learning process that enables
and furthers students’ critical thinking abilities (Palmerton, 1992). The increasing
awareness among various societal entities extolling communication’s role as central to a
college education has resulted in institutions of higher learning focusing new attention
and being charged with being accountable for teaching effective communication skills
to college students.
In response to this mandate, many academic institutions of higher learning are
creating communication-across-the-curriculum programs and communication
laboratories, or communication centers as they are alternately called (Garside, 2002).
Although a relatively young field of academia, these burgeoning centers have begun to
develop a systemic way of sharing information, mentoring, and fostering excellence,
through the birth of the National Association of Communication Centers (NACC) as
well as the Communication Center Section of the National Communication Association
(NCA). Communication Centers, in their various shapes and forms, literally span the
5
north American continent, from San Jose California to Washington D.C. (Morello, 1995;
Morreale, Shockley-Zalabak & Whitney, 1993; Palmerton, 1990; Von Till, 2002; Weiss,
1988). Their goals vary, depending on the institutional missions of the respective
universities in which they are housed, but typically include goals such as fostering an
appreciation for oral communication competence and increasing student communication
skills, among others (Von Till, 2002). Communication centers provide services or
support for oral communication activities in students’ course work at a college or
university (NCA, 2002). Most of the course work that is supported at the centers is from
communication-across-the-curriculum courses or communication courses.
However,
besides for supporting these particular categories of courses, communication centers
service many other courses as well.
Given that almost all college courses require some
kind of communication performance or activity such as presentations, reports, debates,
or role plays, the center’s role in improving students’ communicative competence
becomes even more significant.
Furthermore, empirical studies linking
communication competence and college success and withdrawal from college all point
to the essential role that a communication center can play in determining the success or
frustration in a student’s college experience, which inevitably affects retention (Hawken,
Duran, & Kelly, 1991; Rubin, Graham & Mignerey, 1990).
In fact, a study by
6
McCroskey and Booth-Butterfield (1989) shows that students who have high
communication apprehension are significantly more likely to drop out and attain lower
grade point averages when compared to low communication apprehension students,
leading them to argue for communication programs that help students to overcome such
apprehension.
Besides for the relatively new research linking communication competence
with retention rates for college students, scholars have proposed other variables that
affect retention. Academic performance, as indicated by a student’s GPA has been
found to be a factor that affects retention either directly or indirectly (Cone, 1991;
McGrath & Braunstein, 1997; Payne, Pullen, & Padgett, 1996).
Other important
variables include social interaction with other students (Cleave, 1996; McGrath &
Braunstein, 1997), interaction with faculty (Perrine, 1998), mentoring and peer support
(Johnson, & Romanoff, 1999), and involvement in campus activities (XXXCollege
Student Journal, 2005).
The communication center can play a significant role in all of the variables
found to impact college student retention, namely communication competence,
academic performance, interaction with students and faculty, and involvement in
campus activities. Beginning with the most obvious, increasing a student’s
7
communicative competence is directly in line with the mission of communication
centers. Even with a relatively short history, assessments of communication centers
show that they are fulfilling their missions and exceeding expectations for their success
(Neher, 2003; Yook, 2006). Student comments at one institution of higher learning
reflect that they felt the communication center was helpful in building their
communicative competence. Students stated: “The Speaking Center is very helpful in
helping me to prepare my presentations”; “…helped me iron out the flow, helped me
with transitions and organization”; “…extremely helpful with organization and gave me
ideas for visuals” and “… very helpful, gave me ideas of how to make speech cleaner
and more professional”.
Besides for student impressions, assessment of actual speech
performance indicates that communication centers actually help to make speeches more
coherent and cogent (Kangas-Dwyer, 2006; Neher, 2003). In this manner,
communication centers can play a direct role in increasing communicative competence,
a variable identified as important to retention by scholars. Additionally, given that as
stated earlier most courses include some form of communicative activity such as a
speech or presentation, a communication center can additionally play an indirect, but
nonetheless significant, role in increasing retention rates by helping to boost academic
performance in subject courses outside of the field of communication studies too.
8
The communication center can also play an important role in boosting self
confidence in communication, thereby leading to better social integration with peers as
well. Comments received by the communication center at one institution of higher
learning shows that their confidence was indeed boosted by coming to the center.
Students comments such as “Helpful in a positive way, a good confidence boost”; “First
time visiting but it was very helpful and informative, got my nerves out.
I will
definitely visit again”; “Made me feel confident and prepared”; “…having speaking
center makes life easier” indicate that their confidence was boosted by visiting the
center. Concomitant with increasing confidence is the lowering of communication
apprehension, which has been found to be a result of communication training at
communication centers and communication education (Kangas-Dwyer, 2006). This
increased confidence and lowered apprehension can only be beneficial to student
interactions with each other.
Increased confidence is something that can be observed
not only in the students coming in for consultations to improve their communication
skills, but also by the staff as well.
A journal by a communication staff member also
attests to the increased confidence of a new staff member as she progresses through
training at the center and its resulting improvement in relations among the new and
existing staff members (Paxton, personal communication, 2006). The new staff
9
member’s journal also sketches out her journey during the training process, from that of
apprehension, to an increased confidence in communicating with other staff members
(Roberts, 2006).
Besides for the variables of communicative competence, academics, and social
interactions with other students, research has found that interaction with faculty is also
an important variable in retention.
Communication centers can address this variable in
at least two ways. Although the majority of the students come in to practice speeches
and presentations, some also want guidance on class discussions, interviews, and
managing communication apprehension, all of which can affect communication with
faculty. As stated before, communication centers’ missions center around improving the
communicative competence of students.
As such, an increase in communication
competence will translate to being able to interact with faculty appropriately and clearly.
On another level, the staff at communication centers can play a valuable role in
being the “medium” between the professor and the peer. Communication center staff
members have to evaluate speeches by critically assessing them and providing feedback
in a positive or neutral manner, i.e. not destroying self-confidence in the student while
giving valuable and honest information.
They also supply reports to professors about
the consultation to validate student visits to the center, which is often linked with
10
mandatory points that affect their GPAs. As such, communication center staff are
somewhere in between the level of a peer, and that of a professor, although admittedly
closer to the former than the latter. Therefore, visits to the communication center can
fulfill the need of the student, who may be too intimidated to speak to a faculty member
directly (Perrine, 1998), but who may need someone trained in providing feedback to
assist them with communication-related questions. In fact, these visits may even provide
the positive vicarious experience of seeking information and receiving feedback that
will prepare them to seek help of professors when needed later on in their academic
careers. More directly, mentoring and peer support has been found to increase
academic success and retention (Johnson & Romanoff, 1999; Tinto, Good-sell & Russo,
1993).
Finally, as mentioned earlier, studies have found that involvement in campus
activities has been found to affect the academic success of college students.
Most
communication centers provide extra-curricular events for student participation, though
providing individual feedback for communication activities is their main mission.
Events such as a speech contest, workshops, and community activities or presentations
for residence life organizations or admissions “ambassadors” also give students another
way for them to become more integrated into the campus life.
11
Till now the author has discussed the various factors that the literature on
retention cites as affecting it; communication competence, academic standing, student
interactions with other students and faculty, and student involvement in campus
activities. The argument created based on this literature review is that communication
centers can help increase retention through by positively affecting the aforementioned
variables. Then what is the micro-level mechanism by which this works?
How can
we explain the links between these variables, communication centers, and retention?
The author’s second argument is that communication centers aid retention by creating
not only objective competence, but mainly through increasing the psychological coping
abilities of the student in the various academic fields as it relates to communication
skills.
By vicarious experience of practicing communication skills before actually
being evaluated by faculty in classes, and through developing a sense of self-efficacy,
communication centers can positively impact academics, which has been found to affect
retention.
Specific assistance on managing communication anxiety and context-
specific communication guidance can also help build the self-efficacy of students to
cope with apprehension-provoking situations, and build effective relations with peers
and faculty.
12
Conclusion
This paper has provided an argument to consider the links between a campus
communication center and college student retention. The literature on college student
retention shows that there are many variables that affect it.
Theoretical as well as
empirical support has been provided to show the links between communication centers
and student success and retention. Although a relatively new field of academia, the
future is bright for communication centers to provide a fertile ground for future research,
especially on its role in college student academic performance, satisfaction, and
retention.
With more empirical research and continued development of ways to assess
the various facets of the communication center and what it can do for the college
student, the argument contained in this paper can be further clarified, sharpened, and
developed. We live in an era where the leaders of society need to be better educated to
make wise decisions and where citizens can learn to practice their civic duties more
effectively. What better way is there than to increase the number of those who will
persist to succeed in obtaining a degree of higher learning for the betterment of all in
our society?
13
References
Cleave, S. (1996). Residence Retention: Reasons Students Choose to return or
Not to Return. College student Journal, 30, 187-99.
Cone, A. (1991). Sophomore Academic Retention Associated with a Freshman
Study Skills and College Adjustment Course. Psychological Reports, 69, 312-314.
Cravatta, M. (1997). Hanging on to Students: College Student Attrition Rate
After Freshman Year. American Demographics, 19.11, 41.
Deberard, M. Spielmans, G. & Julka, D. (2004). Predictors of Academic
Achievement and Retention Among College Freshmen: A Longitudinal Study. College
Student Journal, 38.1, 66-81.
Garside, C. (2002). Seeing the Forest Through the Trees: A Challenge Facing
Communication Across the curriculum Programs. Communication Education, 52.1, 5164.
Hawken, L. Duran, R. & Kelly, L. (1991). The Relationship of Interpersonal
Communication Variables to Academic Success and Persistence in College.
Communication Quarterly, 39.4, 297-309.
Hobgood, L. (2002). The Pursuit of Speaking Proficiency. Communiction
Education, 49.4, 339-51.
14
Johnson, J. & Romanoff, S. (1999). Higher Education Residential Learning
Communities: What Are the Implications for Student Success? College Student
Journal, 33.3, 385-99.
Kangas-Dwyer, K. (2006)
McCroskey, J. & Booth-Butterfield, S. & Payne, S. (1898) The Impact of
Communication Apprehension on College Student Retention and Success.
Communication Quarterly, 37.2, 100-8.
McGrath, M.& Braunstein, A. (1997). The Prediction of Freshmen Attrition: An
Examination of the Importance of Certain Demographic, Academic, Financial, and
Social Factors. College Student Journal, 31, 396-408.
Morello, J. (1995). The Speaking Intensive Program at Mary Washington
College. A Report Submitted to the Committee on General Education, August.
Morreale, S., Shockley-Zalabak, P. & Whitney, S. (1993). The Center for
Excellence in Oral Communication : Integrating Communication Across the Curriculum.
Communication Education, 42.1, 10-21.
NCA (2002). NCA 2001 Summer Conference: “Engaging 21st Century
Communication Students.
http://www.natcom.org/Instruction/summerconf/commlabs.htm. Accessed 7/6/2002.
15
Neher, W. (2003). Assessment of the Speakers Lab at a Small Private University.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association,
Miami, FL, November.
Palmerton, P. (1990). Speaking Across the Curriculum: The Hamline
Experience. Paper presented at the Conference for College Composition and
Communication, Chicago Illinois, March.
Palmerton, P. (1992). Teaching Skills or Teaching Thinking? The Journal of
Applied Communication Research, August, 335-41.
Paxton, H. (2006). Speaking Consultant Journal. University of Mary
Washington, Fredericksburg, VA.
Payne, B. Pullen, R. & Padgett, J. (1996). An Examination of Student Attrition
at a Medium-sized Southern University. Psychological Reports, 78, 1035-1038.
Perrine, R. (1998). Students’ Views of the Characteristics of Instructors’
Approachability. Psychological Reports, 82, 519-525.
Roberts, S. (2006). Speaking Consultant Journal. University of Mary
Washington, Fredericksburg, VA.
Rubin, R. Graham, E. & Mignerey, J. (1990). A Longitudinal Study of Students’
Communication Competence, Communication Monographs, 39, 1-13.
16
Schneider, A. (1999). Taking Aim at Student Incoherence: Spread of Speech
Programs Across the Curriculum Irks Some Communication Professors. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, March, A16-A18.
Spectra (1996).
Tinto, V., Good-sell-Love, A. & P. Russo (1993). Building Learning
Communities for New College Students, Liberal Education, 79.
Von Till, B. (2002). Tutor Handbook for the Communication Studies Lab and
Resource Center. Paper presented at the Vision at the Center Annual Conference,
Indianapolis, IN, April.
Weiss, R. (1988). A Program for Speaking and Listening Across Disciplines,
Bulletin for the Association of Communication Administration, 65, 79-84.
Yook, E. (2006). Assessment Tools for the Speaking Center. Presentation at the
annual conference of the National Association of Communication Centers, Omaha, NE,
April.
Zernike, K. (1999). Talk Is, Like, You Know, Cheapened. The Boston Globe,
January 31.