Instructor Conflict Management Style, Instructor Immediacy, and Student Motivation: Exploring the relationships.

Purposes and Objectives

This study seeks to quasi-replicate the study done by Wheeless and Reichel (1990). Previous research has not investigated two potential relationships: between instructor immediacy behaviors and instructor conflict management style and between instructor conflict management style and student motivation. This study will also investigate the previously researched relationship between instructor immediacy and student motivation.

Hypothesis and Research Questions

Wheeless & Reichel (1990) examined the relationship between supervisor conflict management style and supervisor social style, and this study postulates that a similar relationship will be found between perceived instructor conflict management style and perceived instructor immediacy. Based on Wheeless & Reichel's results, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1: Conflict management style variables are significantly related to instructor immediacy behavior such that

H1a: Non-confrontation is negatively related to instructor immediacy

H1b: Solution-orientation is positively related to instructor immediacy

H1c: Control is negatively related to instructor immediacy

Wheeless & Reichel (1990) also examined the relationship between task attraction and supervisor conflict management style. Again, this study postulates that similar relationships will be found between student motivation and perceived instructor conflict management style. Based on Wheeless & Reichel's results, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H2: Conflict management style variables (non-confrontation, solution-orientation, control) are significantly related to student motivation such that

H2a: Non-confrontation is negatively related to student motivation

H2b: Solution-orientation is positively related to student motivation

H2c: Control is negatively related to and student motivation

Wheeless and Reichel (1990) further found a relationship between supervisor social style and task attraction, thus it is anticipated that this study will find a similar relationship between instructor immediacy and student motivation. Further, it is anticipated that this study will support the positive relationship between instructor immediacy behaviors and student motivation (Brophy, 1987; Gorham & Millette, 1997; Keller, 1983; Wlodkowsi, 1978). Thus the following hypothesis is proposed

H3: Instructor immediacy behavior is positively related to student motivation

Finally, Wheeless and Reichel (1990) did not look at the impact of gender, but this study poses the following research question.

RQ1: What, if any, is the impact of instructor gender on instructor conflict management style?

Methods

The study replicated the ideas of Wheeless and Reichel (1990) with an emphasis on relationships in the classroom environment. As in the original study, Putnam and Wilson's (1982) OCCI was used to determine student perceptions of instructor conflict management style. Regarding the two variables not in the Wheeless and Reichel study, instructor immediacy behaviors (nonverbal and verbal) were student reported on a 34-item instrument (Christophel, 1990) while student state motivation was measured using a portion of the Student Motivation Scale (Christophel) (see Appendix B).

Wheeless and Reichel (1990) compiled the results of 227 completed surveys received from ten businesses that varied in size and function. Their survey was conducted in a mid-west city with a population of about 270,000 people. This study compiled the survey results from 117 students at a medium sized community college (11,000 enrolled students), located in a mid-west city with a population of about 54,000.

Participants and Instruments

Surveys were given during week six of a sixteen-week semester to 350 students at a mid-west community college (11,000 enrolled students); 154 surveys were returned, and 117 were complete and able to be used. Students were asked report on an instructor whom they had seen handle a conflict in the past. Students were directed to first read the following definition of conflict that was on the survey before starting. "Conflict can be seen as a disagreement of views, and conflict occurs in almost all classes. Conflict can take many forms: students grumbling about tests/homework, students questioning grades given to them by the teacher, teachers instructing students to stop talking, teachers questioning a student's honesty, students arguing with each other, and teachers giving unpopular assignments." The survey further indicated that students needed to have a particular instructor in mind who they had seen handle conflict in the classroom, with the disclaimer that it did not have to be a instructor with whom they had a conflict. This situation allowed for the possibility of a large sampling of instructors from a wide background of student experiences. The survey recorded if the instructors reported on taught in college, high school, church, or other. The students were told not to complete the surveys if they had done so in previous classes.

Data Analysis

In the following sections, the measures for perceived immediacy, perceived instructor conflict management styles, and student motivation will be explained, and the alphas will be given for each scale. Then an explanation of the type of statistical analysis performed will be followed by the Results and Discussion section.

Measures

Perceived Instructor Immediacy. This variable was not measured by Wheeless and Reichel (1990), but like most recent studies, this study used the instrument developed by Christophel (1990) to measure both nonverbal and verbal instructor immediacy behaviors. The Christophel instrument asked students to rate how often the instructor engaged in 14 nonverbal and 20 verbal immediacy behaviors on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Verbal and non verbal immediacy were treated separately. The scores on the items from each portion of the Christophel instrument were summed, and the sums represented the nonverbal and the verbal immediacy of the individual instructors. Christophel reported a Cronbach's alpha of .84 for the verbal immediacy portion and .77 for the nonverbal. In this study, Cronbach's alpha was .86 for the verbal scale and .77 for the nonverbal.

Student Motivation. This variable was not measured by Wheeless and Reichel (1990), and again following the lead of most recent studies, this study used Christophel's (1990) Motivational Scale. This scale is a semantic differential using 12 bipolar adjectives and a scaling of 1-7. While the directions are different for trait and state motivation, these same scaling items are used to measure both. This study only measured state motivation, so Christophel's scale was modified to only include the directions for state motivation. Christophel's reported reliability on the state motivation portion of the scale was .95, and this reliability was drawn from the pilot and the resulting full study. In this study, Cronbach's alpha for the motivational scale was .91

Perceived Instructor Conflict Management Style. Like Wheeless and Reichel (1990), this study used the scores on the OCCI (Putnam & Wilson, 1982) to determine instructor scores on the three conflict management styles of non-confrontation, solution-orientation, and control. The OCCI has 18 items - six items for each of the three conflict management styles. Initially, instructor scores for each of the three sets of six items were individually summed, but upon checking the alphas of the individual scales, item 12 (see Appendix B) was removed due to poor results, so the category of non-confrontation had only 5 items. Wheeless and Reichel reported a Cronbach's alpha of .86 for control, .89 for non-confrontation, and .90 for solution-orientation. In this study, Cronbach's alpha was .93 for control, .73 for non-confrontation, and .85 for solution-orientation.

A Pearson R correlation analysis was done to investigate the potential relationships between perceived instructor immediacy, perceived instructor conflict management style, and student motivation. A t-test was used to investigate the potential relationship between instructor gender and perceived instructor conflict management style. The standard alpha of .05 was used in both analyses.

Results

A relationship between perceived instructor immediacy and perceived instructor conflict management style was detected. Further, the predictions of all three components of H1 were confirmed by the data (see Table 1).

Table 1

Intercorrelations between immediacy and conflict management style (N = 117)

Variable Non-confrontation Solution-orientation Control

Perceived Instructor

Verbal Immediacy -.43* .69* -.41*

Perceived Instructor

Non-verbal Immediacy -.33* .57* -.41*

*p< .001

Non-confrontation was negatively related to perceived instructor verbal and non-verbal immediacy. Solution-orientation was positively related to perceived instructor verbal and non-verbal immediacy. Control was negatively related to perceived verbal and non-verbal instructor immediacy. With solution orientation, the results indicated that as instructor immediacy rose so did scores for solution orientation and vice versa. With non-confrontation and control, the results indicated that when scores on instructor immediacy increased, scores for non-confrontation and control decreased and vice versa. Furthermore, the relationship was more significant for verbal immediacy than it was for non-verbal immediacy with regard to the conflict management styles of non-confrontation and solution-orientation while the relationship was equally significant for verbal immediacy and non-verbal immediacy with regard to the conflict management style of control.

A relationship between perceived instructor conflict management style and student motivation was also detected, and the predictions of all three components of H2 were confirmed by the data (see Table 2).

Table 2

Intercorrelations between student motivation and conflict management style (N = 117)

Variable Non-confrontation Solution-orientation Control

Student Motivation -.34* .51* -.32*

*p< .001

Non-confrontation and control were negatively related to student motivation. Solution-orientation was positively related to student motivation. The results indicated that as scores for solution orientation rose so did scores for student motivation and vice versa. With non-confrontation and control, the results indicated that when scores for these two conflict management styles increased, scores for student motivation decreased and vice versa.

With regard to H3, a positive relationship between student motivation and instructor immediacy behaviors was detected (see Table 3).

Table 3

Intercorrelations between immediacy and student motivation (N = 117)

Variable Student Motivation

Perceived Instructor Verbal Immediacy .65*

Perceived Instructor Non-verbal Immediacy .56*

*p< .001

The analysis indicated that student motivation varied significantly and positively across levels of instructor immediacy. Furthermore, the relationship was more significant for verbal immediacy than it was for non-verbal immediacy. The data indicated that as perceived immediacy increased student motivation increased and vice versa.

Instructor gender did not have a significant impact on perceived instructor conflict management style. The results of a t-test were as follows: non-confrontation (t (115) = -.376, p < .708); solution- orientation (t (115) = -.483, p < .630); and control (t (115) = -.591, p < .556).

Discussion

The quasi-replication of Wheeless and Reichel's (1990) study found the three aforementioned significant relationships. These relationships could be a result of a moderating effect between the two independent variables, and both field theory and attribution theory could aid in understanding this potential moderating relationship.

First, as previously discussed, the data revealed significant relationships between perceived instructor conflict management styles, perceived instructor immediacy, and student motivation. However, to truly understand the relationship between these three variables, future research is needed. This study did not seek to determine the precise nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Two models of the relationship are possible: the Direct Model and the Moderated Model.

The Direct Model proposes a direct relationship between the independent variables of instructor immediacy and instructor conflict management styles and the dependent variable of student motivation (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Direct Model of Variable Interaction

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Instructor Student

Immediacy ? motivation

Instructor Conflict Student

Management style ? motivation

This model posits that changes in instructor immediacy are responsible for changes in student motivation and changes in instructor conflict management style are responsible for changes in student motivation. There is no allowance made for a moderating variable.

The Moderated Model proposes a moderating relationship between the independent variables of instructor immediacy and instructor conflict management style and the dependent variables of student motivation (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Moderated Model of Variable Interaction

Perceived Instructor Perceived Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Conflict Management Style

Student

Motivation

This model posits that student perceptions about one variable influence student perceptions about the other variable, and it is this combination of effects that results in the reported significant relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable of student motivation. Thus, perceived instructor immediacy behaviors would influence student perceptions about instructor conflict management style and perceived instructor conflict management style would influence student perceptions instructor immediacy behaviors. Further, it is the interaction effect between the perceptions of the two independent variables that is responsible for the change in student motivation. More research into the potential moderating relationships, if any, between the independent variables could help establish the true nature of the relationship found in this study and determine if the direct model or the moderated model is most appropriate.

Field theory, with its concepts of life space and climate, could give insights into why the two variables may have an interaction on each other. Life space is subjectively determined by the individual's perceptions of important goals and barriers and requirements necessary to attain them (Oss, 1995) while climate is characterized by the specific needs, atmosphere, amount of freedom, social relations, goals, and stimuli of the situation, and climate pervades all thought and action in the situation (Folger & Poole, 1984). In field theory, individuals' interdependence is a critical contextual feature (Folger & Poole; Oss; Tjosvold, & Cheng, 1989), and interdependence could also be seen as a key feature in the classroom. Interdependence is people's perceptions of how their goals and barriers interact with the goals and barriers of another person (Folger & Poole; Tjosvold, & Cheng). It would seem logical that in classroom conflict situations, the way instructors view their interdependence with their students could be categorized as either promotive (student gain/loss is instructor gain/loss and vice versa) or contrient (student gain is instructor loss and vice versa). Promotive interdependence leads to cooperative interaction while contrient interdependence leads to competition (Folger & Poole; Tjosvold, & Cheng), and there is a cyclical flow between climate and interaction (Folger & Poole). These differing environments could impact student perceptions of instructor immediacy (see Appendix C for a detailed scenario). If additional research into the potential moderating relationship between the independent variables helps to determine or refute an interaction effect, and if it is determined that the moderated model is most appropriate, field theory could help explain the nature of this moderated relationship.

Attribution theory might also prove insightful in understanding a potential moderating relationship between the independent variables. Attribution theory states that attributions affect how individuals define conflict and how they interpret the behaviors of others (Donohue & Kolt, 1992; Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Peterson, 2002). The basic tenet is that attributions and perception influence how individuals manifest their biases in conflict (Donohue & Kolt, 1992; Wall & Hayes, 2002). With regard to student roles in the classroom, the theory would further state that these biases are the strongest in the following situations: when the action of the instructor is perceived as a constraint to student action, when the students think the instructor is behaving with intention to harm them, when students think instructor behavior is abnormal or illegitimate, and when stress levels increase (Donohue & Kolt; Peterson). One way bias and attribution could impact perceived conflict management style and perceived teacher immediacy is as follows. A instructor with high immediacy could create a classroom environment where the four bias-enhancing situations were minimized or absent. Because student bias is low due to instructor immediacy, the same students could make positive attributions about the instructor conflict management style, and in turn these positive attributions could enhance student motivation. If there is additional research into the relationship between the independent variables, and if it is determined that the moderated model is most appropriate, attribution theory could provide insight into the nature of this moderating relationship.

Like previous studies (Gorham, 1988; Keller, 1983; Richmond, 1990; Rodriquez et al., 1996), the data found that perceived instructor immediacy behaviors positively correlate with student motivation. In other words, as instructors use more immediacy behaviors, students become more motivated in class. These findings continue to be important for most classrooms, and they may prove to be even more significant in certain classroom contexts where student motivation may be intrinsically low, such as post-secondary general requirement courses as opposed to post-secondary courses in the students' majors. Student motivation impacts student ability to learn ((Christophel, 1990; Wlodkowsi, 1978), and a motivational instructor can help foster student ability to construct meaning from the course content and to strengthen student critical thinking skills (Frymier, et al., 1996). Future research into these specific contexts where instructor-fostered motivation is essential to student learning could prove useful.

Finally, despite the findings of no significant relationship, additional research into the potential connection between the gender of the instructor and instructor conflict management style could be beneficial because this study could have had confounding variables that obscured the results.

Limitations

As mentioned, several items could have confounded the results. First, it is unclear if all participants understood the survey directions to evaluate an instructor they have seen handle conflict. Some may have mistakenly evaluated their classroom instructor. The researcher did not distribute the surveys, and even though the instructors who did distribute the survey all said they read from the directions sheet (see Appendix D), it is not possible to verify their self-reports. Second, survey fatigue was a problem. The survey had 72 items, and several students verbally commented that it was too long. Survey fatigue is also evidenced by the fact that 24% of the returned surveys were not useable because not all scales had been completed. A third potential confounding variable is trait motivation, which this study opted not to measure. Trait motivation is an intrinsic trait regarding students' predisposition toward learning (Christophel, 1990). Naturally unmotivated students may have reported a lack of motivation with regard to an instructor with a control conflict management style not because of the instructor conflict management style but because the students were naturally not motivated to learn even before coming to class. Likewise, students who are highly motivated to learn may have had an instructor with high immediacy behaviors, but it was not instructor behavior that caused the high ratings for student motivation; it was the natural trait motivation of the students that caused the high motivation ratings. A fourth potential confounding variable is related to the expectancy violations theory (EVT). According to the EVT, people have engrained expectations about the ways others will communicate (Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Mongeau, & Carey, 1996; Zorn, 1991), and these engrained expectations could have played out in two ways in the study: student attributions regarding instructor immediacy behaviors and student attributions regarding instructor conflict management styles. The communication expectations students bring to the classroom could have impacted the scores they gave on instructor immediacy behaviors, and these same expectation could have biased how the students evaluated instructor conflict management style. For example, if a student expects instructors to be standoffish, and that student has a instructor with middle of the road immediacy behaviors, the student might rate that instructor high in immediacy due to EVT as opposed to the medium immediacy rates that instructor might get from the majority of other students in the same class. An example of how EVT might confound the conflict management variable might be if a student expects instructors to clearly take charge in class (control), but the instructor prefers to seek a mutually agreeable solution to a conflict (solution-orientation), then the student might see the instructor as sidestepping conflict (non-confrontation) because the student expected a more aggressive response. Thus this student would perceive the instructor as avoiding conflict when the majority of the class may perceive the same instructor as using a solution-oriented approach. EVT could have confounded student perceptions of instructor conflict management style and instructor immediacy behaviors in a manner that strongly biased the data. The first two limitations could be easily overcome in a replication. For the second two limitations, it would be beneficial to do further research on their impact on the relationships between perceived conflict management style, perceived instructor immediacy, and student motivation that were reported by this study.

Conclusion

This study looked at three potential relationships: 1) student motivation and perceived instructor immediacy behaviors, 2) student motivation and perceived instructor conflict management style, and 3) perceived instructor conflict management style and perceived instructor immediacy behaviors. With regard to the first relationship, non-confrontation and control was found to be negatively related to perceived instructor immediacy while solution-orientation was found to be positively related to perceived instructor immediacy. For the second relationship, both non-confrontation and control were found to be negatively related to student motivation while solution-orientation was found to be positively related to student motivation. With the third relationship, the data indicated that student motivation varied significantly and positively across levels of instructor immediacy. To truly understand the nature of the aforementioned relationships, further research is needed into the potential moderating influences between the independent variables. Finally, study looked at the impact of instructor gender on perceived instructor conflict management style, and no influence was found.

The study's main contribution to the research community is the finding of two significant relationships: between student motivation and perceived instructor conflict management style and between perceived instructor conflict management style and perceived instructor immediacy behaviors. Less significant is the reinforcement of the relationship between student motivation and perceived instructor immediacy behaviors and the finding that instructor gender did not impact perceived instructor conflict management style. Perhaps most important is the call for future research into the potential moderating effect between perceived instructor conflict management style and perceived instructor immediacy behaviors.

References

Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D.C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to instructors (pp. 201-245). New York: Random House.

Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of instructor immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82-90.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among instructor immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.

Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, instructor immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306.

Donahue, W. A. & Kolt, R. (1992). Face saving. Managing interpersonal conflict. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, valued, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-133. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

Folger, J. F. & Poole, M. S. (1984). Working through conflict: A communication perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of instructor immediacy on students' motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41, 454-464.

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

Frymier, A.B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 43, 356-363.

Frymier, A.B., Shulmam, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The Development of a Learner Empowerment Measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal instructor immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.

Gorham, J., & Millette, D. M. (1997). A comparative analysis of instructor and student perceptions of sources of motivation. Communication Education, 46, 245-261.

Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of instructor and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39, 354-368.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R. & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of instructor immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education, 37, 54-67.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of the current status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lewicki, R. J., Barry B., Saunders D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2002). Negotiation. Boston: McGraw Hill.

McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266.

Mongeau, P. A., & Carey, C. M. (1996). Who's wooing whom II? An experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation. Western Journal of Communication, 60 (3), 195-203. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

Oss, M. E. (1995, May/June). Shawnee Hills: A case study in outcomes assessment. Behavioral Health Management, 15 (3), 31-32. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

Peterson, C. W. (2002, November). Recruiting for the choral ensemble by emphasizing skill and effort. Music Educators Journal, 89 (2), 32-35. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

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, 53, 43-55.

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982) Communication strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 629-652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1979). Management communication style, tolerance for disagreement and innovativeness as predictors of employee satisfaction: A comparison of single factor, two factor, and multiple factor approaches. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 359-374). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rodriguez, J., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305.

Tjosvold, D., & Cheng, C. L. (1989, April). Conflict between managers and workers: The role of cooperation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 129 (2), 235-247. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

Wall, T. N., & Hayes, J. A. (2002). Depressed clients' attributions of responsibility for the causes of and solutions to their problems. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78 (1), 81-86. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from <http://web4.epnet.com/search.asp.>

Wheeless, L. R., & Reichel, L. S. (1990). A reinforcement model of the relationship of supervisors' general communication styles and conflict management styles to task attraction. Communication Quarterly, 38 (4), 372-387.

Wlodkoswi, R. J. (1978). Motivation and teaching. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Zorn, T. E. (1991). Measuring motivation-to-communicate in the classroom. Communication Education, 40, 385-395.

Appendix A

Correspondence with Dr. Wheeless

Bud Wheeless

Department of Communication Studies

UNT Box 305268

University of North Texas

Denton, Texas 76203-5268

Dr. Wheeless:

I am a graduate student in the Western Michigan University Communication Department.

For one of my graduate courses, I wish to replicate "A Reinforcement Model of the

Relationships of Supervisors: General Communication Styles and Conflict Management Styles to Task Attraction." Communication Quarterly, 38, Fall 1990, 372-382.

I sent an email on January 13, 2003, with this same request.

Your Methods section indicates that your questionnaire contained measures of the following: Management Communication Style (MCS)

Social Style (Social Style Profile)

Conflict management Style (OCCI)

Task Attraction, and

retest of MCS.

Would you be able to provide me a copy of the measures you used?

I have been able to locate the first two scales, and your explanation of the remaining measures is good, so I could extrapolate from your text.

My major problem is that my interlibrary loan cannot locate a copy of The statistical adequacy social style profile by Lashbrook, Lashbrook, & Buchholz. I would like my replication to be accurate as possible, and obtaining the original measures from you would be best.

I realize this project was published 13 years ago, and you have since changed universities. I also realize this is the start of a new semester, which may make you extra busy.

Any time you could take out of your busy schedule to help me would be greatly appreciated. If you are unable to help me, let me know. Thank you for your time and effort on my behalf.

Sincerely,

Lin Marklin

English Instructor

Kellogg Community College Home address

450 North Avenue 6409 Sturbridge Drive

Battle Creek, MI 49017 Kalamazoo, MI 49004

269-965-3931 ext 2281 269-381-8088

[email protected]

Appendix B

Survey Instrument

Perceptions of How Instructors Handle Conflict.

All survey responses are confidential; you will not be identified in any way, nor can your name be linked to your responses.

Conflict can be seen as a disagreement of views, and conflict occurs in almost all classes. Conflict can take many forms: students grumbling about tests/homework, students questioning grades given to them by the teacher, teachers instructing students to stop talking, teachers questioning a student's honesty, students arguing with each other, and teachers giving unpopular assignments.

To complete this survey, you need to think of a instructor you have seen handle conflict in the classroom.

It does not have to be a instructor with whom you had a conflict. It would be best if you were to evaluate a instructor who you have seen handle a few conflict situations. Please answer a few questions about the instructor you plan to evaluate.

Where did the class taught by this instructor you plan to evaluate take place? College High School Church Other

Was the course required? Yes No

What was the instructor's gender? Female Male

What is the format of the class? Circle ONE only Large Lecture Small Lecture Discussion Lab Work Other

Please respond to the questions in terms of the instructor in the class named above. Below are a series of descriptions of things some instructors have been observed doing when a disagreement or conflict arises in class. Please indicate how often the instructor you are evaluating engages in this type of behavior.

Scale: Never = 0 Rarely = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Very Often = 4

. Sidesteps disagreements when they arise 0---1---2---3---4

2. Will try to use everyone's ideas to generate solutions to problems 0---1---2---3---4

3. Will argue insistently for his/her stance 0---1---2---3---4

4. Shies away from topics that are sources of disputes 0---1---2---3---4

5. Will assert his/her opinion forcefully 0---1---2---3---4

6. Will suggest solutions that combine a variety of viewpoints 0---1---2---3---4

7. Will frequently give in a little if the other person will meet him/her halfway 0---1---2---3---4

8. Keeps quiet about his/her views in order to avoid disagreements 0---1---2---3---4

9. Will raise his/her voice when trying to get another person to accept his/her position 0---1---2---3---4

0. Will go fifty-fifty to reach a settlement 0---1---2---3---4

1. Will insist that his/her position be accepted during a conflict 0---1---2---3---4

2. Will ease conflict by claiming that differences are trivial 0---1---2---3---4

3. Will suggest that everyone work together to create solutions to disagreements 0---1---2---3---4

4. Will stand firm in his/her viewpoints during a conflict 0---1---2---3---4

5. Will steer clear of disagreeable situations 0---1---2---3---4

6. Will meet the opposition at a midpoint of their differences 0---1---2---3---4

7. Will avoid a person when he/she suspects that person of wanting to discuss a disagreement 0---1---2---3---4

8. Will dominate arguments until the other person understands his/her position 0---1---2---3---4

On the given scale, evaluate your feelings toward the assignments in the course taught by the instructor you are evaluating,

Scale: Never = 0 Rarely = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Very Often = 4

. I enjoyed the work related to the course 0---1---2---3---4

2. I would grudgingly complete the assigned readings/writings 0---1---2---3---4

3. I was neutral in my feelings toward completing the assigned readings/writings 0---1---2---3---4

4. I would happily complete the assigned readings/writings 0---1---2---3---4

5. I hated the work related to the course 0---1---2---3---4

Below are a series of character descriptions. Indicate on the given scale your judgment of the instructor you are evaluating.

Scale: Never = 0 Rarely = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Very Often = 4

. I think s/he could be a friend of mine 0---1---2---3---4

2. It would be difficult to meet and talk with her/him 0---1---2---3---4

3. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other 0---1---2---3---4

4. I would like to have a friendly chat with her/him 0---1---2---3---4

5. S/he is probably a goof - off when assigned a task to do 0---1---2---3---4

6. I have confidence in her/his ability to get the job done 0---1---2---3---4

7. If I wanted to get things done, I could probably depend on her/him 0---1---2---3---4

8. He would not be a good problem solver 0---1---2---3---4

These items are concerned with how you feel or how you felt while in the class taught by instructor you have been evaluating. Please circle the number toward either word that best represents your feelings.

Note that in some cases the most positive score is " 1 "while in other cases it is "7."

. Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unmotivated

2. Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninterested

3. Involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolved

4. Not stimulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated

5. Don't want to study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Want to study

6. Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninspired

7. Unchallenged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Challenged

8. Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Excited

9. Aroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Aroused

0. Not fascinated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fascinated

Below are a series of descriptions of things some instructors have been observed doing or saying in some classes.

Please respond to the questions in terms of how often the instructor you have been evaluating does these things.

Scale: Never = 0 Rarely = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Very Often = 4

. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had outside of class. 0---1---2---3---4

2. Asks questions or encourages students to talk. 0---1---2---3---4

3. Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn't

seem to be part of his/her lecture plan. 0---1---2---3---4

4. Uses humor in class. 0---1---2---3---4

5. Addresses students by name. 0---1---2---3---4

6. Gets into conversations with individual students before or after class. 0---1---2---3---4

7. Has initiated conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 0---1---2---3---4

8. Refers to class as "my" class or what "I" am doing. 0---1---2---3---4

9. Refers to class as "our" class or what "we" are doing. 0---1---2---3---4

0. Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, oral discussion, etc. 0---1---2---3---4

1. Calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated that they want to talk. 0---1---2---3---4

2. Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or discussion topic. 0---1---2---3---4

3. Asks questions that have specific, correct answers. 0---1---2---3---4

4. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 0---1---2---3---4

5. Praises students' work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4

6. Criticizes or points out faults in students' work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4

7. Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students or

with the class as a whole. 0---1---2---3---4

8. Is addressed by his/her first name by the students. 0---1---2---3---4

9. Sits behind desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4

20. Gestures while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

21. Uses monotone/dull voice when talking in class. 0---1---2---3---4

22. Looks at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4

23. Smiles at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4

24. Has a very tense body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

25. Touches students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4

26. Moves around the classroom while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4

27. Sits on a desk or in a chair while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4

28. Looks at board or notes while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

29. Stands behind podium or desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4

30. Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

31. Smiles at individual students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4

32. Uses a variety of vocal expressions when talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

Background information - This section asks some basic questions for background information and demographic purposes. Your answers to these and all other questions in the survey will remain confidential.

What is your gender? female male

What is your age group? 17-20 21-25 26-31 32-38 39-49 50+

What is your present year in college? 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Other

What is your ethnicity? Caucasian Asian African-American Latino

Native American Other

What is your estimated GPA? _________________

Thank you for your time!

If you wish to know the results of this survey, do not forget to sign the notification request sheet.

Appendix C

Affect of climate on the relationships between perceived conflict management styles, perceived instructor immediacy, and student motivation

Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Koets are both high school instructors who scored similarly on immediacy behaviors when rated by an outside observer. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Koets have radically different ways of dealing with conflict. Mr. Koets is a veteran of 20 years and has a laid back approach to conflict management. He has developed a promotive interdependence with his students where each party tries to find a mutually agreeable solution to any disagreements they may have. In contrast, Ms. Rodriguez is a new instructor, and she reacts strongly to challenges to her authority. In conflict situations, Ms. Rodriguez has developed contrient interdependence with her students, and when a conflict occurs, she asserts her place as leader in the classroom, and she will not budge from her stand. It is conceivable that the students of these two instructors might report radically different perceptions of each instructor's immediacy despite the fact that an independent observer rated the instructors as being similar in immediacy behaviors. Extending this idea into the impact on student motivation, Mr. Koets' promotive environment and solution orientation style increased student perceptions of his classroom immediacy, and these both worked together to increase student motivation. Conversely, Ms. Rodriguez's contrient environment and control style decreased student perceptions of her classroom immediacy, and these both worked together to decrease student motivation.

Appendix D

Instruction Sheet for Participating Instructors

Thank you for helping me.

Please return any un-used survey forms to me ASAP. You could also return this instruction sheet.

Please read to the students:

You are invited to participate in a survey regarding how instructor behavior impacts student motivation. Your participation is strictly voluntary. All responses to this survey are confidential, you will not be identified in any way, nor can your name be in any way linked to your responses.

You will be asked to give information about a instructor who you have seen handle conflict in the classroom. You are not evaluating this class. Please carefully read the instructions prior to filling out the survey.

Information collected in this survey will be analyzed and reported in a paper submitted fro a graduate class at WMU. This paper might be considered for presentation or publication at a future date. If you wish to learn the results of this analysis, you are asked to sign this sheet.

Student Name Student Email or Phone Number

Instructor Conflict Management Style, Instructor Immediacy, and Student Motivation 1