This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 07 October 2014, At: 07:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

Effects of communication responsiveness uponinstructor judgment grading and student cognitivelearningBena H. Harper a & Jim D. Hughey aa Faculty of the Speech Communication Department , Oklahoma State University ,Published online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: Bena H. Harper & Jim D. Hughey (1986) Effects of communication responsiveness upon instructorjudgment grading and student cognitive learning, Communication Education, 35:2, 147-156, DOI: 10.1080/03634528609388333

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EFFECTS OFCOMMUNICATION

RESPONSIVENESS UPONINSTRUCTOR JUDGMENTGRADING AND STUDENT

COGNITIVE LEARNINGBena H. HarperJim D. Huqhey

The administration of multi-sectioned courses presents a number of problems,among which is insuring uniform instruction and evaluation across all sections. Someuniformity can be imposed if all sections use the same text, syllabus, and tests, but ina performance course, objective methods of evaluation are difficult to achieve. Giventhe possibility that certain teacher/student combinations make for better instructionand learning, this study examined judgment and test grades as a function ofinstructor and student communication responsiveness.

INFLUENCES ON GRADING AND LEARNING

Research concerning grading, the act of making judgments about students' work, isusually approached from the teacher's perspective, since grading is the teacher'sprerogative. Teachers' grading orientations are said to be expressions of their valuesystems (Thorndike & Hagen, 1969). In the application of these value systems, anumber of variables come into play. These range from one's sensitivity and empathyto people in general (Smith, 1966) to types of judgment tendencies such as one's useof level and spread (Smith, 1966) and constant rating errors such as errors of severity,leniency, and central tendency (Kerlinger, 1973). That these judgment tendenciesare personal is evident in the lack of agreement between raters when evaluating thesame stimulus, a phenomenon which has been studied since before Knower in 1929and after Bernardin and Walter in 1977. Possibly inter-rater unreliability is affectedby errors of similarity and contrast which Murray identified in 1938. Errors ofsimilarity and contrast have been studied more recently in communication literatureunder the notion of homophily (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; McCroskey &Wheeless, 1976). Rogers and Shoemaker posit the possibility that a teacherpossessing a particular communication attribute would be more attracted to orreceive more favorably the communication performances of students who possesssimilar communication attributes. Further, such a similarity might affect a teacher'ssubjective evaluation of performance work. McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) assertan additional interaction:

Homophily has a major impact in communication, particularly on affinity, information acquisition[italics added], and influence outcomes. Simply put, we tend to be more attracted to people similar tous than to others; we tend to learn more from such people [italics added], and they are a great influenceon us. (p. 109)

Bena H. Harper and Jim D. Hughey are on the faculty of the Speech Communication Department atOklahoma State University.COMMUNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 35, April 1986

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

148—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

If homophily or any other interaction among communication attributes was foundto have the significant impact on instructors' evaluations or on students' ability tolearn from a teacher, the finding would be important in the administration ofmulti-sectioned courses.

In considering students' ability to learn from a teacher, many studies have beendesigned to determine what teacher behaviors effect the greatest learning. Sinceteaching is communication, these studies tend to focus on some particular communi-cation behavior to examine its impact on one or more of three types of studentlearning: affective, behavioral, and cognitive.

Rosenshine and Furst (1973) examined over fifty studies dealing with therelationship between teaching behaviors and various types of student achievementand found that most of the studies surveyed dealt with affective, rather thancognitive, growth. Subsequent studies continue to find that teaching behaviors havean affective impact on student achievement (Power, 1977; Norton, 1977; Meier &Feldhusen, 1979; Nussbaum & Scott, 1979; Andersen, 1979; Elliot, 1979; Norton &Nussbaum, 1980; Scott & Nussbaum, 1981; Nussbaum, 1982; Hughey, Harper &Harper, 1982; Harper & Hughey, 1983). It is much more difficult to demonstrate aconnection between how teachers communicate and student cognitive growth.Cognitive learning has been correlated to the use of praise (Rosenshine & Furst,1973), to more direct interaction between teacher and student (Travers, VanWagen-en, Haygood, & McCormick, 1964; Solomon, Rosenberg, & Bezdek, 1964), to amoderate amount of psychological and physical closeness between teacher andstudent (Nussbaum & Scott, 1980), and to a teacher's supportive mode of communi-cation (Hughey & Harper, 1983). However, it should be noted that Brophy (1979)argued that such efforts are misleading because there are no generic teaching skillsthat will insure learning. He stated that "few, if any, specific teaching behaviors areappropriate in all contexts." (Brophy, 1979, p. 33.) Brophy and Good (1974) calledfor a closer examination of the interaction between teacher and student because eachaffects the other.

Rather than examining particular communication behaviors, this study focused onthe interaction between teachers' and students' general communication responsive-ness modes to learn if they affected teachers' subjective judgment of the students andthe students' ability to learn cognitively from the teacher. This examination evolvedfrom the concept of homophily and sought to test if the nature of teacher/studentcommunication responsiveness affected course outcomes.

METHODThe hypothesis that student grades are, in part, a function of the interaction betweeninstructor and student communication responsiveness was examined using thefollowing data and methods.

SUBJECTS

The data were provided by 27 graduate teaching assistants and their 3,548 studentsin the basic speech communication course at Oklahoma State University from the fallof 1980 through the spring of 1983. Fourteen of the teaching assistants were femaleand 13 were male; all but two were in their twenties. Their teaching experience atthe time they entered the study ranged from zero to two semesters. All the teachingassistants had attended a week-long presemester training session, which emphasized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS: GRADING AND LEARNING—149

grading criteria for each project and comparative grading sessions for all assign-ments. The 3,548 students were undergraduate non-majors enrolled in the sixundergraduate colleges of the university.

MEASURES

Two measures were used in this study:

1. The subjects' communication responsiveness patterns as determined by theConversation Self-Report Inventory.

2. The grades that the student received on each of the projects and tests in the course(as opposed to the terminal course grade).

Communication Responsiveness MeasureCommunication responsiveness for both instructors and students was assessed withthe Conversation Self-Report Inventory, an instrument devised in 1969 by Hughey.The seventh revision—Form 980AB—was used in the current study. Based on an nof 2,305, Form 980AB has reliability coefficients of .86 for the Mastery scale, .75 forthe Flexible scale, and .88 for the Neutral scale (Hughey & Harper, 1983):

Since its inception in 1969 the CSRI has been found to significantly correlate withexpected scales on the California Psychological Inventory and Gordon's Survey ofInterpersonal Values (Neal & Hughey, 1979). The Flexible scale has distinguishedbetween high and low insight subjects (Neal, 1970) and American and Thai students(Leesavan, 1977). The Flexible scale has also produced significant correlationsbetween communication sensitivity and greater interview satisfaction (Neal, 1970;Evans & Hughey, 1984), and between communication sensitivity of the judge andcorrect prediction of similarities in zero-history dyads (Lyzenga, 1978). The Neutralscale has significantly correlated communication apprehension and telephone appre-hension (Steele, 1983). The Mastery scale was found to predict instructors who gothigher teacher/course evaluations from their students (Hughey & Harper, 1983).

Description of the Communication Responsiveness MeasureForm 980AB of the CSRI allows respondents to identify the nature of communica-tion responsiveness they exhibit by making a forced choice among the three ways thateach of the 60 items can be completed. The 60 items are divided into six ten-itemgroups: the way the person (a) views the purpose of communication, (b) creates acommunicative climate, (c) transmits information, (d) receives information, (e)sequences messages, and (f) copes with communication barriers. Respondentsindicate the type of communication responsiveness they believe is characteristic ofthemselves. Each choice indicates either a Mastery Responsive, Flexible Responsive,or a Neutral Responsive attitude, value, or behavior.

With the Mastery Responsive (MR) mode, a person chooses to control theconversation. This is done by being competitive, speaking in a verbal-dynamic way,and listening only to that information that helps him/her form rebuttals. Coherenceis achieved by getting others to adopt his/her organization. This person will dealwith problems in conversations once they occur but does little in advance to keepthese situations from occurring.

For the Flexible Responsive (FR) mode, a person chooses to adapt to theconversation. This person focuses on understanding others and being supportive.He/she speaks with an emphasis on nonverbal output, listens to anything the other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

150—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

person has to say, adapts to the organizational pattern of others, and preventsconversation problems from occurring.

With the Neutral Responsive (NR) mode, a person chooses to detach him/herselffrom the conversation. Such a person is uninvolved, seldom speaks, listens to verylittle, fails to follow the conversation, and avoids coping with problems that arise inconversations.

Since Brophy (1979) argued that there are few, if any, specific communicationbehaviors that are universally effective in the classroom, this study used the CSRI, aninstrument which measures respondents' general communication orientations, toinvestigate communication homophily.

Course Grade MeasuresGrades used in this study were earned in a multi-sectioned basic hybrid speechcourse planned by a basic course director. The course introduces students to threelevels of human speech communication: interpersonal, small group, and public.Students participate in six speech communication projects and earn sixteen gradesduring the course of the semester. These sixteen grades were partitioned into twogroups: instructor-determined grades and course-determined grades.

Judgment GradesFourteen grades were considered instructor-determined since they were awarded bythe instructors as they applied specific criteria. These included the delivery, content,planning, and evaluation of oral projects, instructor-prepared and -graded quizzes,and the evaluation of attendance and participation. All of these involved theinstructor's subjective interpretation of established criteria for each grade. Since theyrequired the instructor's judgment, they were labeled judgment grades.

Cognitive GradesTwo grades were considered course-determined grades since they were handled in anidentical manner across all sections and allowed no instructor subjectivity orinterpretation. This group included the midterm test and the final course examina-tion. Both tests were multiple choice, and one grading scale, based on the total N whotook the test, was used in all sections. Reliability scores for the 50-item midterm testranged from .68 to .80. Reliability scores for the 100-item comprehensive final testranged from .87 to .94.

DESIGN

PARTITIONING OF THE SUBJECTS

Each student was partitioned into one of three responsiveness groups according to thepreferred mode of communication responsiveness indicated in his/her compositescore on the CSRI. Consequently, 1,132 students were designated as FlexibleResponsive; 1,148 students were designated as Mastery Responsive; 1,268 studentswere designated as Neutral Responsive.

Originally there were 29 teaching assistants whose communication responsivenessscores were examined to determine the instructor norms. Admittedly, the teachingassistants were more difficult to partition. As a group they were more responsivethan were the students. This was to be expected since people who are nonresponsivecommunicatively would be less inclined to enter a graduate communication program.The task, therefore, was to find which teaching assistants were more mastery or more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS: GRADING AND LEARNING—151

flexible or more neutral responsive than the others. The instructor norms wereestablished by examining the component scales of each person's communicationresponsiveness score. This was done by ranking each person three ways fromstrongest to weakest orientations on each of the three scales. In this three-wayranking, two teaching assistants held the same position on two different scales. Sincethey did not show a clear preference, they were removed from the analysis. Theremaining 27 instructors were placed into three groups: the nine who expressed thestrongest Neutral orientation, the nine who expressed the strongest Masteryorientation, and the nine who expressed the strongest Flexible orientation.

ARRANGEMENT OF DATA AND OVERALL DESIGN

All instructors were divided into one of three groups according to the strength ofpreferred communication responsiveness each reported—flexible, mastery, andneutral. All sixteen grades for each student were converted into z scores. The z scoresearned by each instructor's students were grouped according to the three studentresponsiveness modes.

These data were set up into a repeated measures design. The instructors weremeasured three times: as they evaluated their Flexible, Mastery, and NeutralResponsive students. An appropriate mixed design analysis of variance wasconducted. Finally, significant differences were subjected to a Duncan New MultipleRange Test to determine exactly where the significances lay. The degree ofsignificance was set at the .05 level.

PROCEDURE FOR JUDGMENT GRADE ANALYSIS

The midterm and final test grades were removed from the grades considered in thisanalysis. For the remaining fourteen instructor-determined grades, a mean wasdetermined for each student responsiveness mode, so that each instructor had threejudgment scores: the mean given to the Flexible Responsive students, the mean givento the Mastery Responsive students, and the mean given to the Neutral Responsivestudents.

These data were then subjected to a two-factor mixed design analysis of variancewith repeated measures on one factor to see if there were variances in gradesaccording to the instructor mode of responsiveness, student mode of responsiveness,and/or the interaction between instructors and students.

PROCEDURE FOR COGNITIVE GRADE ANALYSIS

The second portion of this study concerned the course-determined grades, the gradesreceived on two multiple-choice, objectively-scored tests. The midterm test wasconsidered baseline data. The cognitive measure was the amount of gain or lossbetween that midterm test grade and the final test grade. Again, means weredetermined for each student responsiveness mode. Each instructor had three scoresfor each student group: the means earned by the Flexible, Mastery, and NeutralResponsive students on the midterm test, the final test, and the amount of gain or lossbetween the two.

These data were subjected to a three factor mixed design analysis of variance withrepeated measures on two factors in order to determine variance due to theinstructors' responsiveness mode, the students' responsiveness mode, the tests, andthe interaction among the three.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

152—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

TABLE 1

DISPLAY OF JUDGMENT DATA BY CELL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS GROUPS

Flexible InstructorsMastery InstructorsNeutral InstructorsMarginal Means

RESULTS

FlexibleStudents

-.001+ .140+ .159+ .100

MasteryStudents

- .076- .013+ .031-.019

NeutralStudents

- .163- .111-.043-.106

MarginalMeans

-.080+ .005+ .049

JUDGMENT GRADE ANALYSIS

The judgment analysis focused on the fourteen grades awarded by the instructorsthat were grounded in the instructors' subjective evaluation of student work. Themeans by cell group used in this analysis are displayed in Table 1. The analysis ofvariance produced one significant effect. The difference in judgment grades wasattributable to student responsiveness (F [2, 48] = 30.103, p < .000). This studentresponsiveness effect accounted for 15.9% of the variance. The Duncan NewMultiple Range Test that was conducted on the student responsiveness marginalmean scores indicated that Flexible Responsive students had judgment grades thatwere significantly higher than those earned by the Mastery and Neutral Responsivestudents.

COGNITIVE GRADE ANALYSIS

The cognitive analysis examined the difference between the midterm and final testgrades. The means by cell group are displayed in Table 2. The analysis of varianceproduced two significant effects: student responsiveness (F [2, 48] = 17.980, p <.000), and teacher responsiveness by test by student responsiveness (F [4, 48] =3.446, p < .015). The student responsiveness effect accounted for 13.2% of thevariance, and the three-way interaction effect accounted for 0.09%. The DuncanNew Multiple Range Test that was conducted on the student responsivenessgain/loss scores indicated that, once again, the variance was due to the Flexible

TABLE 2

DISPLAY OF COGNITIVE DATA BY CELL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS GROUPS

Flexible InstructorsMidtermFinalDifference

Mastery InstructorsMidtermFinalDifference

Neutral InstructorsMidtermFinalDifference

Mean Gain/Loss

FlexibleStudents

+ .107+ .227+ .120

+ .232+.153-.079

+ .046+ .119+ .073+ .038

MasteryStudents

-.107+ .027+ .134

-.057-.067-.012

-.025-.220-.195-.024

NeutralStudents

- .040-.008+.032

-.092-.099-.006

-.131-.262- .131- .035

MeanGain/Loss

+ .095

-.032

-.084

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS: GRADING AND LEARNING—153

Responsive students, who showed a significant cognitive gain over the other twostudent responsiveness groups.

The three-way interaction effect, however, is not so simply explained. In order tohelp interpret the teacher by test by student interaction, Figure 1 presents all of thecell means used in the Duncan New Multiple Range Test. Lines running from left toright indicate changes for particular instructor/student combinations between themidterm and final. Heavier lines indicate those changes significant at the .05 level.

The Duncan New Multiple Range test produced four significant change scores.Both Flexible Responsive and Mastery Responsive students taught by the moreflexible responsive instructors gained cognitively; these student groups postedrespective gains of + .12 and +.13. Mastery Responsive and Neutral Responsivestudents taught by the more neutral responsive instructors both posted significantcognitive losses. Neutral Responsive students showed a —.13 loss; the MasteryResponsive students posted an even greater loss value of —.19.

DISCUSSION

This study attempted to answer the question, does the communication responsivenessof the teacher and/or student influence the awarding of judgment grades and theearning of cognitive grades in a communication class. The analyses of variance thatwere conducted produced three main effects.

JUDGMENT GRADE MAIN EFFECT

Of the variance in the judgment grades, 15.9% was due to student communicationresponsiveness. Since the amount of instructor grading variance was not significantin those grades where teachers' personal judgments could influence them, instructorsapparently were not awarding judgment grades on the basis of some relationshipwith their own communication responsiveness style. Presumably they awardedgrades on the basis of how students measured up to a standard because all threeinstructor groups rated their Flexible, Mastery, and Neutral Responsive students ina similar fashion. All three instructor groups felt that Flexible Responsive studentsperformed best, Mastery Responsive students next, the Neutral Responsive studentsleast well.

COGNITIVE GRADE MAIN EFFECTS

Student Responsiveness Main EffectThis study indicates that the biggest difference in cognitive achievement is a functionof the student responsiveness style. As a group, student responsivenss accounted for13.2% of the variance in the cognitive grades. Flexible Responsive students made thehighest grades. This study was not designed to discover why they did so, but onemight speculate that students who put priority on understanding, who listen well,who adapt to the ways that others sequence messages, and who strive to keepmisunderstandings from occurring would probably learn well cognitively.

Teacher by Test by Student Main EffectThere was a small, but significant, interaction effect among teacher responsivenessby test by student responsiveness, which accounted for 0.9% of the variance in thecognitive grades. Of the nine teacher/student groups, four groups produced signifi-cant change scores: two groups produced higher cognitive scores (Flexible teachers/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

154—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

r+3

Midterm

Mean

Score

Final

Mean

Score

First Letter = Instructor Responsiveness Orientation

Second Letter = Student Responsiveness OrientationFIGURE 1

TEACHER RESPONSIVENESS BY TEST BY STUDENT RESPONSIVENESS INTERACTION EFFECT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNICATION RESPONSIVENESS: GRADING AND LEARNING—155

Flexible students and Flexible teachers/Mastery students), and two groups pro-duced lower cognitive scores (Neutral teachers/Mastery students and Neutralteachers/Neutral students).

The pattern of this interaction effect, at first glance, appears to express both ahomophilous interaction (Flexible Responsive students of the more flexible respon-sive teachers made significant cognitive gains) and a heterophilous interaction(Neutral Responsive students of the more neutral responsive teachers made sig-nificant cognitive losses). However, nothing in the notions of homophily andheterophily explains why Mastery Responsive students with the more flexibleresponsive teachers gained even more than the Flexible Responsive students or whyMastery Responsive students with the more neutral responsive teachers lost morethan the Neutral Responsive students. This suggests that the more neutral responsiveinstructors are not effective teachers of cognitive material for the majority of theirstudents.

IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that instructors do not make judgment evaluations based on ahomophilous relationship with their own communication responsiveness mode.Hopefully, they made judgment evaluations according to a standard that they weretrained to recognize, since the only significant effect rested with the students. Thisstudy adds to the growing body of evidence that uniformity of grading can beachieved with careful training.

This study further suggests that students' ability to learn cognitively is related tothe students' communication responsiveness orientation and, in smaller part, isrelated to the interaction between teacher, test, and student. The Mastery Respon-sive students seemed to be the most affected by teacher responsiveness patternsdifferent from their own. With more flexible responsive teachers, they posted thelargest gain, but with more neutral responsive teachers, they posted the largest loss.

The Conversation Self-Report Inventory might be used in the selection ofgraduate students for teaching assistantships; however, the type of communicationresponsiveness of the teacher was by far less important than were the types ofcommunication responsiveness expressed by the student. There were no significantdifferences attributable to teachers alone. But 15.9% of the variance in judgmentgrades and 13.2% of the variance in cognitive achievement were due to students. Lessthan 1% of the variance in cognitive grades related to the interaction betweenstudents, teachers, and tests. Less than 1% of the variance in only 12.5% of the gradesearned in a class would probably not be worth the administration problems thatteacher/student matching would create. The negative effects of this interaction couldbe reduced more easily by awarding teaching assistantships to the more flexibleresponsive graduate students. On a very practical level, it is good to have found such aslight interaction effect. It is comforting to know that judgment grades are given onthe basis of a student's performance rather than on the proclivities of the instructor.

REFERENCESAndersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),

Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Bernardin, H. J . & Walter, C. S. (1977). Effects of rater training and diary keeping on psychometric error in ratings.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 64-69.Brophy, J . E. (1979). Teacher behavior and student learning. Educational Leadership, 37, 33-38.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

156—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Elliot, S. (1979). Perceived homophily as a predictor of classroom learning. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communicationyearbook 3 (pp. 587-602). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Evans, J. R. & Hughey, J. D. (1984). Interview satisfaction and commitment as a function of interviewercommunication responsiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association,San Francisco.

Harper, B. H. & Hughey, J. D. (1983, February). Cognitive and affective aspects of teacher effectiveness. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Midwest Basic Course Directors' Conference, Amana, IA.

Hughey, J. D. & Harper, B. H. (1983, May). Instructor responsiveness and outcomes of the basic course. Paperpresented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas.

Hughey, J. D., Harper, B. H., & Harper, P. D. (1982, November). The effectiveness of graduate teaching assistantsand patterns of communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association,Louisville, KY.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Knower, F. H. (1929). A suggestive study of public-speaking rating-scale value. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 15,

30-41.Leesavan, A. T. (1977). Cultural differences in communication patterns: A comparison of Thais and Americans.

Unpublished master's thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Lyzenga, T. J . (1978). A multiple regression analysis of predictive accuracy: The effects of communication sensitivity,

estimatabilily, and selected demographic variables in zero-history dyads. Unpublished master's thesis. OklahomaState University, Stillwater, OK.

McCroskey, J. C. & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Introduction to human communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Meier, R. S. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1979). Another look at Dr. Fox: Effect of stated purpose for evaluation, lecturer

expressiveness, and density of lecture content on student ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,339-345.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford Press.Neal, W. P. (1970). Demographic, personality, and nonverbal perception correlates of communication sensitivity.

Unpublished master's thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Neal, W. P. & Hughey, J. D. (1979). Personality correlates of communication sensitivity and general sensitivity.

Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.Norton, R. W. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.),

Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 525-542). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Norton, R. W. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),

Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 565-579). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Nussbaum, J. F. (1982). A communicative nonrecursive causal model. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication

yearbook 5 (pp. 737-749). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Nussbaum, J. F. & Scott, M. D. (1979). Instructor communication behaviors and their relationship to classroom

learning. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 561-583). New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionBooks.

Nussbaum, J. F. & Scott, M. D. (1980). Student learning as a relational outcome of teacher-student interaction. InD. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 553-564). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Power, C. N. (1977). Effects of student characteristics and level of teacher-student interaction on achievement andattitudes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 265-274.

Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York:The Free Press.

Rosenshine, B. & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.)Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Scott, M. D. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Student perceptions of instructor communication behaviors and theirrelationship to student evaluation. Communication Education, 30, 44-53.

Smith, H. C. (1966). Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-Hill.Solomon, D., Rosenberg, L., & Bezdek, W. E. (1964). Teacher behavior and student learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 55, 23-30.Steele, C. M. (1983). The validity of the telephone apprehension measure. Unpublished master's thesis. Oklahoma

State University, Stillwater, OK.Thorndike, R. L. & Hagen, E. (1969). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.Travers, R. M. W., VanWagenen, R. K., Haygood, D. H., & McCormick, M. (1964). Learning as a consequence of

the learner's task involvement under different conditions of feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55,167-173.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 07:

10 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014