The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college student in-class and...

This study explored the relationship between perceived instructor credibility (i.e., competence, character, caring) and student in-class (i.e., willingness to talk) and out of class communication. Participants were 158 college students enrolled in an introductory communication course at a Mid-Atlantic

university. Results indicate (a) perceived instructor character and caring, but not perceived instructor competence, are positively related to student willingness to talk and (b) perceived instructor competence, character, and caring are positively related to student participation in student out-of class communcation. Future research should explore the specific attributions made by students considered to constitute perceived instructor competence. character, and caring.

**********

In the college classroom, students' perceptions of instructor credibility have important ramifications. Instructor credibility, which is defined as "the attitude of a receiver which references the degree to which a source is seen to be believable" (McCroskey, 1998, p. 80), consists of three dimensions: competence, character, and caring (Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Competence centers on an instructor's perceived knowledge or expertise in a subject matter (McCroskey, 1998). Character refers to the "goodness" (i.e., honesty, trustworthiness) of an instructor (Frymier & Thompson, 1992). Caring focuses on whether an instructor expresses concern about students' welfare (McCroskey, 1998). Although an instructor may exhibit one dimension more so than the other two dimensions, a highly credible instructor exhibits all three dimensions (McCroskey, 1998).

Generally, perceived instructor credibility is positively associated with perceived teaching effectiveness. Instructors who demonstrate competence, character, and/or caring are perceived to engage in a variety of effective instructional communication behaviors such as argumentativeness (Schrodt, 2003), verbal and nonverbal immediacy (Johnson & Miller, 2002), affinity seeking (Frymier & Thompson, 1992), and assertiveness and responsiveness (Martin, Chesebro, & Mottet, 1997). Moreover, credible instructors are perceived to be low in verbal aggressiveness (Martin, Weber, & Burant, 1997; Myers, 2001; Schrodt, 2003) and less likely to use behaviors that interfere with student learning (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998).

At the same time, students enrolled in courses with instructors whom they perceive as credible are motivated (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Martin, Chesebro et al., 1997) and report gains in affective and cognitive learning (Johnson & Miller, 2002; Russ, Simonds, & Hunt, 2002; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Furthermore, students recommend these instructors to their friends (Nadler & Nadler, 2001), have respect for these instructors (Martinez-Egger & Powers, 2002), evaluate these instructors highly (Teven & McCroskey, 1997), feel their instructors understand them (Schrodt, 2003), and plan to take an additional course from these instructors (Nadler & Nadler, 2001).

Together, the findings obtained in the aforementioned studies suggest instructor credibility results in favorable outcomes for both instructors and students. Yet, what is missing from this body of research is whether perceived instructor credibility is related to students' communication with their instructors. One way in which students communicate with their instructors occurs during class and revolves around communicating for functional reasons. These functional reasons include asking questions (West & Pearson, 1994), seeking information (Myers & Knox, 2001), and challenging course policy and procedure (Simonds, 1997). But aside from communicating for these functional reasons, little research has focused solely on whether students are willing to talk in class. Although a host of structural variables such as class size, the physical arrangement of the classroom, the time of day, and the length of class impact student participation (Berdine, 1986), student willingness to talk (WTT) is also influenced by student interest and involvement in the subject matter and the discussion topic (Christensen, Curley, Marquez, & Menzel, 1995). Subsequent research has found student WIT is positively related to perceived instructor immediacy (Carrell & Menzel, 1998; Menzel & Carrell, 1999) and student state motivation (Carrell & Menzel, 1998), but is negatively related to student state and trait anxiety (Carrell & Menzel, 1998).

Yet, it is not known whether perceived instructor credibility influences student WTT. Instructors who are perceived to be competent, to have character, and to be caring may exert a positive influence on student WIT because perceived instructor credibility acts as a source of motivation for students. For instance, instructors who provide students with feedback, show students respect, and express concern about student learning are viewed by students as a motivating factor behind their classroom participation (Gotham & Christophel, 1992; Gorham & Millette, 1997). Conversely, instructors who are perceived to lack either competence or character and/or are not considered to be caring may have a negative influence on student WTT if students view the classroom climate as defensive, if students' participation is a required component of the course, or if students have an intrinsic need to demonstrate knowledge of the course material. Because the impact of perceived instructor credibility on student WTT is unclear, the following research question is posed:

RQ1: Is WIT related to perceived instructor competence, character, and caring?

Another way in which students communicate with their instructors is outside the classroom. Out-of-class communication (OCC) is considered to be the communication encounters that occur both formally (i.e., students' use of scheduled or impromptu office visits, e-mail messages, telephone calls) and informally (i.e., students running into faculty on campus or at campus events, stopping to speak with faculty in the corridor, seeing faculty off campus) between instructors and students outside of scheduled class time (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Fusani, 1994). When students engage in OCC, they usually do so to inquire about course-related information, to engage in self-disclosure and small talk, to seek advice, to ask instructors for favors, to discuss future career plans, and to share intellectual ideas (Jaasma & Koper, 2001; Theophilides & Terenzini, 1981). Not all students, however, engage in OCC nor is the time spent in OCC lengthy. For example, Bippus, Kearney, Plax, and Brooks (2003) reported that over the course of a semester, the median number of student-initiated OCC encounters is two with a median length of five minutes per OCC encounter.

According to Theophilides and Terenzini (1981), perceived instructor ability, concern, and preparation impact whether students engage in OCC. As such, instructors who are perceived as being competent, having character, and being caring should have a positive impact on students' participation in OCC. However, these three dimensions of instructor credibility may not all equally impact whether students participate in OCC. On one hand, because the bulk of OCC is course-related (Bippus et al., 2003), students may be more motivated to engage in OCC if their instructors are deemed knowledgeable and therefore able to aid students in their quest to satisfy course-related inquiries. Conversely, because instructor character and caring are rooted in students' perceptions of their instructors' interpersonal communication behaviors, students may be more motivated to engage in OCC if they perceive their instructors as immediate, empathic, and responsive (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 1999). Although all three dimensions of instructor credibility may be positively related to student participation in OCC, it is possible that one (or more) dimension may be more central to whether students participate in OCC. To investigate this notion, the following research question is posed:

RQ2: is OCC related to perceived instructor competence, character, and caring?

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 158 students (92 male, 66 female) enrolled in an introductory communication course at a large Mid-Atlantic university. The ages of the participants ranged from 17 to 40 years (M = 20.00, SD = 2.73). Eighty-one (n = 81) participants were first year students, 28 participants were sophomores, 28 participants were juniors, 20 participants were seniors, and one participant was a post-undergraduate.

Procedures and Instrumentation

Participants completed the Measure of Source Credibility (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), the Willingness to Talk scale (Christensen et al., 1995), and the Out of Class Interaction scale (Knapp, Martin, & Myers, 2003). To control for order effects, the order of the instruments was varied. Using the methodology advocated by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986), participants completed the instruments in reference to the instructor of the course they attended immediately prior to questionnaire completion. To ensure anonymity, participants were not required to identify the instructor or the course; thus, it is not possible to determine whether participants were reporting on the same instructor. Given that the data were collected in a service course enrolling students from across the university, it was assumed students were reporting on a number of instructors representing a variety of subject areas. Data were gathered toward the end of the semester.

The Measure, of Source Credibility scale is an 18-item instrument that asks respondents to report their perceptions of an individual's competence, character, and caring. Six items measure each dimension. In this study, students were asked to report their perceptions of their instructors' competence, character, and caring. Responses are solicited using a 7-point bipolar semantic differential scale. Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .86 to .95 have been reported for each dimension (Myers, 2001; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). In this study, a reliability coefficient of .84 was obtained for competence (M = 34.22, SD = 6.42), a reliability coefficient of.72 was obtained for character (M = 32.03, SD = 5.57), and a reliability coefficient of .78 was obtained for caring (M = 30.63, SD = 6.75).

The Willingness to Talk scale is a 19-item scale that asks respondents to indicate their level of willingness to participate in class discussion. Responses are solicited using a 5-point scale ranging from very often (4) to never (0). Previous reliability coefficients of .92 and .93 have been reported for the summed scale (Carrell & Menzel, 1998; Menzel & Carrell, 1999). In this study, a reliability coefficient of .83 was obtained (M = 37.22, SD = 12.51).

The Out of Class Interaction scale is a nine-item scale that asks respondents to indicate the frequency with which they engage in OCC with their instructors. Responses are solicited using a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Myers, Martin, and Knapp (2003) obtained a reliability coefficient of .81 for this scale. In this study, a reliability coefficient of .80 was obtained (M = 23.89, SD = 7.10).

RESULTS

The first research question inquired about the relationship between perceived instructor competence, character, and caring and student WIT. A significant relationship was observed between perceived instructor character and student WTT (r = .29, p < .001) and between perceived instructor caring and student WTT (r = .30, p < .001), but not between perceived instructor competence and student WTT (r = .04, p > .60).

The second research question inquired about the relationship between perceived instructor competence, character, and caring and student participation in OCC. A significant relationship was observed between perceived instructor competence and student participation in OCC (r = .23, p < .001), between perceived instructor character and student participation in OCC (r = .30, p < .001), and between perceived instructor caring and student participation in OCC (r = .36, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between perceived instructor credibility (i.e., competence, character, caring) and student in-class and out-of-class communication. When interpreting these results, however, it is important to note the relationships obtained between perceived instructor credibility and student participation in communication (i.e., WTT, OCC) are correlational and not causal; therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution.

That being said, the results obtained in this study are relatively straightforward and offer two general conclusions. The first conclusion is perceived instructor competence is not related to whether students communicate in class, but is related to whether students communicate out of class. There may be two reasons behind this conclusion. First, in regard to the lack of a significant correlation obtained between perceived instructor competence and student WTT, perceived instructor competence may not be a salient issue of concern for college students. Beginning with the first day of class, students arrive at the classroom with expectations their instructors will be knowledgeable, professional, helpful, and organized (Hayward, 2000, 2003)--in short, competent. If students initially assume their instructors are competent, they may not pay as much attention to these particular instructor behaviors as they might to other instructor communication behaviors (e.g., behaviors that reflect character and/or caring). Second, in regard to the positive correlation obtained between perceived instructor competence and student participation in OCC, the intangible rewards associated with perceived instructor competence may be the reason some students choose to participate in OCC. Bippus et al. (2003) reported students attach a positive value to engaging in OCC when their instructors are perceived to possess career mentoring ability (i.e., providing advice and guidance about job and career possibilities) and course mentoring ability (i.e., helping students better understand course and assignment expectations). In the advisee advisor relationship, Nadler and Nadler (2001) reported perceived instructor competence is a reason students engage in OCC. Thus, students may be motivated to engage in OCC when they perceive their instructors as competent because they perceive instructor competence as vital in helping them navigate career, course, and (perhaps) personal obstacles.

The second conclusion is instructors who are perceived as possessing character and demonstrating caring have a positive impact on student participation, both in- and out-of-the classroom. Unlike instructor competence which centers on instructors' perceived expertise (McCroskey, 1998), instructor character and caring are rooted in students' perceptions of their instructors' interpersonal communication behaviors. According to the results of this study, when instructors exemplify the qualities of character (i.e., kind, virtuous, good) and caring (i.e., empathic, understanding, responsive), students report a greater likelihood of communicating with them. Indeed, instructors who convey character exhibit referent power (Teven & Herring, 2002) and instructors who convey caring reveal warmth, engage in supportive communication behaviors, and create a positive learning environment (Edwards, 2002; Teven & Gorham, 1998; Teven & Hanson, 2004). Together, these findings implicitly support Frymier and Houser's (2000) contention that the instructor-student relationship is interpersonally driven. As such, it makes sense that instructors who are perceived as having character and being caring have students who are likely to communicate with them.

There are two limitations associated with this study. One limitation is the data for this study were gathered toward the end of the semester. Based on McGlone and Anderson's (1973) finding that students' perceptions of instructor credibility change during the semester, it is possible student WTT and OCC may be tied somehow (in terms of frequency, purpose, or channel) with perceived instructor competence, character, and/or caring at different points in time. A second limitation is the lack of demographic information collected on the participants, their instructors, and the course. Collecting this information might not only provide additional insight into students' perceptions of instructor credibility, but why students choose to participate in instructor-student interaction.

Future research should take one of two directions. First, researchers should examine whether students' communication behaviors impact instructors' communication with their students. It is possible that when students engage in particular communication behaviors, instructors might be more inclined to engage in both in-class and out-of-class communication with them. It might also prove fruitful to explore whether instructors' perceptions of their own credibility (i.e., Powers, Nitcavic, & Koerner, 1990) influence whether they choose to engage in either in-class communication or OCC with their students. Second, researchers should explore the specific attributions made by students that constitute perceived instructor competence, character, and caring. Exploring these attributions would complement the research conducted to date on perceived instructor credibility in the college classroom.

In sum, the findings of this study suggest perceived instructor competence, character, and caring are positively associated with (albeit modestly) student communication, both in- and out-of-the classroom. Instructors who are concerned with whether students communicate with them, either in class or out of class, may want to reconsider the role their own in-class communication behaviors play in students' willingness or likelihood to communicate with them. Moreover, instructors who are interested in how students perceive their competence, character, and caring should examine how their in-class communication behaviors contribute to these perceptions. By doing so, instructors may find students are more willing, likely, or interested in communicating with them.

REFERENCES

Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education, 52, 122-134.

Berdine, R. (1986, July 18). Why some students fail to participate in class. Marketing News, 20 (15), 23-24.

Bippus, A. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Brooks, C. F. (2003). Teacher access and mentoring abilities: Predicting the outcome value of extra class communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 260-275.

Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998, November). Gender, cognitive style, anxiety, academic ability, and professor behavior as predictors of a student's willingness to talk in class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New York City, NY.

Christensen, L. J., Curley, K. E., Marquez, E. M., & Menzel, K. E. (1995, November). Classroom situations which lead to student participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

Edwards, C. C. (2002, November). Teacher social support: The development and validation of the supportive teacher scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.

Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399.

Fusani, D. S. (1994). "Extra-class" communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232-255.

Gotham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40, 239-252.

Gorham, J., & Millette, D. M. (1997). A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of motivation and demotivation in college courses. Communication Education, 40. 245-261.

Hayward, P. A. (2000, April). Student impressions of instructors on the first day of class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Detroit, MI.

Hayward, P. A. (2003). Effectively approaching the first day of class. Communication Teacher, 17(3), 3, 15-16.

Jaasma. M. A. & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41-47.

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2001, May). Talk to me: An examination of the content of out-of-class interaction between students and faculty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the international Communication Association, Washington, DC.

Johnson, S. D., & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility., and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280-292.

Knapp, J. L., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2003). The out-of class communication scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Martin, M. M., Chesebro, J. L., & Mottet, T. P. (1997). Students' perceptions of instructors' socio-communicative style and the influence on instructor credibility and situational motivation. Communication Research Reports, 14, 431-440.

Martin, M. M., Weber. K, & Burant, P. A. (1997, April). Students' perceptions of a teacher's use of slang and verbal aggressiveness in a lecture.. An experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.

Martinez Egger, A. D., & Powers, W. G. (2002, November). Student respect for a teacher: Measurement and relationships to teacher credibility, and classroom behavior perceptions Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

McCroskey, J. C. (1998). An introduction to communication in the classroom (2nd ed.). Acton, MA: Tapestry Press.

McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.

McGlone. E. L, & Anderson, L. J. (1973). The dimensions of teacher credibility. Speech Teacher, 22, 196-200.

Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31-40.

Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 356-374.

Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2001). The relationship between college student information-seeking behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education, 50, 343-356.

Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Knapp, J. L. (2003, April). The relationship between student participation in out of class communication and perceived instructor interpersonal communication behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Washington, DC.

Nadler, L. B., & Nadler, M. K. (1999). Faculty and student expectations/perceptions of the adviser-advisee relationship. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 28, 47-59.

Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-class communication between faculty and students. Women's Studies in Communication, 24, 241-261.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.

Powers, W. G., Nitcavic, R., & Koerner, D. (1990). Teacher characteristics: A college level perspective. Communication Education, 39, 227-233.

Russ, T. L., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2002). Coming out in the classroom ... An occupational hazard: The influence of sexual orientation on teacher credibility and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 51, 311-324.

Schrodt, p. (2003). Students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121.

Simonds, C. J. (1997). Challenge behavior in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 481-492.

Teven, J. J., & Gorham, J. (1998). A qualitative analysis of low-inference student perceptions of teacher caring and non caring behaviors within the college classroom. Communication Research Reports. 15, 288-298.

Teven, J. J., & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived teacher caring on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39-53.

Teven, J. J., & Herring, J. E. (2002, April). Teacher power in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of instructor power, perceived credibility, and student satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Milwaukee, WI.

Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. (2. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.

Theophilides, C., & Terenzini, P. T. (1981). The relation between nonclassroom contact with faculty and students' perceptions of instructional quality. Research in Higher Education, 15, 255-269.

Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358.

West, R., & Pearson, J. C. (1994). Antecedent and consequent conditions of student questioning: An analysis of classroom discourse across the university. Communication Education, 4.3, 299-311.

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, P.O. Box 6293, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293, (304) 293-3905 office, (304) 293-8667 fax, smyers@mail.wvu.edu.