Expectancy Violations of Instructor Communication as Predictors of Motivation and Learning: A Comparison of Traditional and Nontraditional Students

Utilizing Burgoon's expectancy violations theory, this study compared traditional and nontraditional students' prescriptive expectations and experiences with instructor immediacy, clarity, and affinity-seeking to determine the effects on cognitive learning and state motivation. Results revealed that significantly higher levels of state motivation and cognitive learning existed for nontraditional students. Negative violations of instructor clarity expectations for traditional and nontraditional students had negative predictive value of cognitive learning and state motivation; positive violations of instructor affinity-seeking had negative predictive value of learning and motivation for nontraditional students.

[1]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal expectancy violations and conversational involvement , 1988 .

[2]  Marian L. Houser,et al.  The revised learning indicators scale , 1999 .

[3]  Janet Mancini Billson,et al.  Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 1989 .

[4]  Roseanna Ross,et al.  Implications and Strategies for Instruction of the Nontraditional Student in the Conventional Basic Speech Communication Course. , 1984 .

[5]  J. Burgoon.  A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and an Initial Test. , 1978 .

[6]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors , 1988 .

[7]  Karen A. Kim.  ERIC Review: Exploring the Meaning of "Nontraditional" at the Community College , 2002 .

[8]  Joe F. Donaldson,et al.  A Triangulated Study Comparing Adult College Students' Perceptions of Effective Teaching with Those of Traditional Students. , 1993 .

[9]  D. Morgan.  The Focus Group Guidebook , 1997 .

[10]  Catherine A. Thompson,et al.  Perceived teacher affinity‐seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility , 1992 .

[11]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning , 2001 .

[12]  Joseph L. Chesebro.  Effects of Teacher Clarity and Nonverbal Immediacy on Student Learning, Receiver Apprehension, and Affect , 2003 .

[13]  The somatic marker as a “short cut” to verbal immediacy , 2002 .

[14]  Cheri J. Simonds.  Classroom understanding: An expanded notion of teacher clarity , 1997 .

[15]  C. Miglietti,et al.  Learning Styles, Classroom Environment Preferences, Teaching, Styles, and Remedial Course Outcomes for Underprepared Adults at a Two-Year College , 1998 .

[16]  M. Houser.  We Don't Need The Same Things! Recognizing Differential Expectations of Instructor Communication Behavior for Nontraditional and Traditional Students , 2004 .

[17]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior , 1993 .

[18]  Ann Bainbridge Frymier,et al.  The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior , 2001 .

[19]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning , 2001 .

[20]  Susan J. Messman,et al.  Effects of communication environment, immediacy, and communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning , 2001 .

[21]  Diane M. Christophel,et al.  A test‐retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes , 1995 .

[22]  K. Roach,et al.  A cross‐cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and German classrooms , 2001 .

[23]  M. Knowles.  The adult learner : a neglected species , 1979 .

[24]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the college classroom , 1997 .

[25]  Howard R. Pollio,et al.  Making sense of college grades , 1986 .

[26]  Jean M. Civikly,et al.  Clarity: Teachers and students making sense of instruction , 1992 .

[27]  Marian L. Houser,et al.  The development of a learner empowerment measure 1 , 1996 .

[28]  Ann Bainbridge Frymier.  A model of immediacy in the classroom , 1994 .

[29]  Laura J. Christensen,et al.  The Linear Relationship between Student Reports of Teacher Immediacy Behaviors and Perceptions of State Motivation, and of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Learning. , 1998 .

[30]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy , 1984 .

[31]  Are We Violating Their Expectations? Instructor Communication Expectations of Traditional and Nontraditional Students , 2005 .

[32]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy Behaviors and Cognitive Learning , 1987 .

[33]  Marjorie A. Jaasma,et al.  The relationship of student‐faculty out‐of‐class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation , 1999 .

[34]  Jennifer Berktold,et al.  Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-96. With an Essay on Undergraduates Who Work. Statistical Analysis Report. , 1998 .

[35]  Psychometric Properties of the Learning-Orientation Grade-Orientation Ii Scale , 1992, Perceptual and motor skills.

[36]  J. Gorham.  The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning , 1988 .

[37]  Malcolm S. Knowles,et al.  The adult learner: A neglected species, 2nd ed. , 1978 .

[38]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning , 1986 .

[39]  V. Richmond.  Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation , 1990 .

[40]  Scott A. Myers,et al.  The relationship between college student information‐seeking behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors , 2001 .