Willingness to Participate: Validating Menzel & Carrel (1999).

University Degree Education and Teaching

Psychological Gender

RUNNING HEAD: WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE

Willingness to Participate: Validating Menzel & Carrel (1999)

Lin Marklin

Shannon Wonnacott
Western Michigan University

Communication 670

11 April 2002

Abstract

Study investigates relationship between student willingness to talk and teacher immediacy behaviors via partial study replication (Menzel & Carrell, 1999). The relationship between perceived instructor gender and student speech and the relationship between perceived instructor gender and instructor immediacy are also investigated by adding variable of perceived teacher gender. This is conceptualized as sex-role type (masculine, feminine, and androgynous) (Bem, 1974) and student-reported via shortened Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). Instructor immediacy behaviors were positively related to student willingness to talk, complimenting previous research (Menzel & Carrell, 1999). Student willingness to talk did not vary significantly as a function of perceived instructor gender. There was no significant relationship between perceived instructor gender and instructor immediacy behaviors.

Introduction

As educators, we are always looking for ways to increase the amount of learning that takes place in the classroom. Researchers who focus on the educational sphere are interested in what students learn, how students learn, and what educators learn from their students (Gorham, 1988; Jordan, McGreal, & Wheeless, 1990; Keller, 1983; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). One of the ways students and educators learn is through student speech (Menzel & Carrell, 1999) because oral student participation is linked to active learning (Steinert & Snell, 1999) and decreased misconceptions about the academic content of the course (Roser & Keehn, 2002). Discussions can be used to improve student interpersonal skills (Olaniran, Savage, & Sorenson, 1996), develop critical thinking skills (Garside, 1996), and improve students’ communication competence (Zorn, 1991). Student discussion is connected to student ability to construct meaning out of the course content (Coulter, Konold, & Feldman, 2000) and discussions can help individual students define and acknowledge the common goals of the class, and thus can be a motivational tool when students are able to identify with a collective desire to attain a specific outcome (Miller, & Nunn, 2001). In short, student participation is important to study because it is one method educators use to enhance and evaluate student learning (Menzel & Carrell, 1999).

Teacher immediacy is a variable that could influence student willingness to participate. Teacher immediacy behaviors impact a wide variety of student behaviors: research has shown that teacher immediacy behaviors positively correlate with student learning (Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Plax et al., 1986; Richmond et al., 1987) and with student motivation (Brophy, 1987; Keller, 1983; Wlodkowksi, 1978) . Teacher immediacy behaviors also impact student time on task (Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen 1988), teacher credibility (Frymier & Thompson, 1992), and teacher effectiveness (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Gorham, 1988). Menzel and Carrell found a positive correlation between teacher verbal immediacy behaviors and student willingness to participate.

The final variable we were interested in studying was teacher gender, with teacher gender being defined as psychological gender and reported by students on a shortened Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). We wanted to see if there was a relationship between student perceptions of instructor gender and student willingness to participate. In addition, we wanted to investigate the potential relationship between instructor immediacy behaviors and student perception of instructor gender.

We chose to replicate Menzel and Carrell’s (1999) study because it addressed our interest in student classroom participation and also would enable us to look at the variables of instructor immediacy and student perception of instructor gender. Menzel and Carrell (1999) researched student perceptions of learning, instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy behavior, student willingness to talk in class, and the relationships between those three variables. The data was also analyzed in terms of its relationship to instructor gender and student gender, with gender being operationally defined as biological sex. The goal of replicating this study is to provide additional insight into variables that could influence how much students are willing to participate in class. Student participation may be influenced by instructor immediacy behavior and/or by student perception of instructor gender traits as student-reported on a BSRI. By re-examining the relationship between instructor immediacy behavior and student willingness to participate, it will be possible to add more support for the positive correlation between these variables. By adding the variable of student perceptions of instructor gender traits, it will be possible to better understand two relationships that Menzel and Carrell (1999) did not investigate: the relationship between perceived instructor gender traits and student classroom speech, and the relationship between perceived instructor gender traits and instructor immediacy.

Literature Review

There are several relevant variables and concepts that need to be defined. In the following literature review, non-verbal and verbal teacher immediacy, willingness to talk, and psychological gender will be defined. Existing research will be reviewed as case is made for the importance of studying these three variables together.

Teacher immediacy

Immediacy can be described as psychological and physical closeness to another human (Gorham, 1988). Traditionally, immediacy has two components, non verbal and verbal. Non-verbal immediacy behaviors have been categorized into items such at smiles, eye contact, communicating at short distances, body positions that are forward leaning and/or relaxed, positive gestures, touch, and variety in vocalizations (Christophel, 1990; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorenson, 1988). Verbal immediacy would include self-disclosure, use of "we," calling on students by name, and humor (Gorham, 1988; Kearney et al., 1988). It is clear that teacher immediacy impacts teacher effectiveness, student motivation, and student learning (Gorham, 1988; Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996). What is unclear is the link between teacher immediacy, perceived teacher gender, and student willingness to participate. For this study, the variable of instructor nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors will be student reported on a 34-item measure (Christophel, 1990).

Perceived Gender of the Instructor

Because the students will report on the gender traits of the instructor, this variable is labeled as perceived gender. Sex and gender are not terms that are interchangeable today in communication research (Campbell, Gillaspy, & Thompson, 1997). The term sex usually refers to biological differences between women and men while gender often refers to the social, psychological, and cultural beliefs humans have about themselves as being male or female (Pearson & Davilla, 2001). For this study, gender is defined as the sex type of a person based on the degree to which that person has internalized the traits the society has deemed as masculine and feminine, and these masculine and feminine traits are delineated by the BSRI based on a judgment as to whether American society viewed those characteristics as more desirable in men and women, respectively (Bem, 1974). As educational communication researchers, we are interested in the extent to which our students have internalized society’s standards for being masculine or feminine and how this internalization impacts how students conceptualize and categorize teacher gender traits. One way to measure perception of sex roles is to use the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) created by Sandra Bem (1974). The BSRI treated masculinity and femininity as two separate dimensions and asked respondents to self-rate from a list of personality traits (Auster & Ohm, 2000). Each respondent would be classified into one of four groups: androgynous (high masculine/high feminine), masculine (high masculine/low feminine), feminine (low masculine/high feminine), and undifferentiated (low masculine/low feminine) (Pearson & Davilla, 2001; Wheeless, & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). In the original study, Menzel and Carrel (1999) found no significant relationship between the biological sex of instructors and student willingness to participate. What is unclear is both the relationship between perceived teacher gender and student willingness to participate and the relationship between perceived teacher gender and teacher immediacy behaviors. For this study, the variable of perceived gender of the instructor will be student reported on a 20-item BSRI.
Willingness to Talk

Student willingness to talk is an important component of the classroom environment, but unfortunately it is rare for the majority of students participate in whole class discussion (Green, 2000) Oral student participation is linked to active learning (Steinert, & Snell, 1999), and instructors use class discussions to develop critical thinking skills (Garside, 1996) and to improve student communication competence (Zorn, 1991). Furthermore, student in-class speech is often a way that teachers gauge their pedagogical effectiveness, and instructors also use student speech to evaluate student learning (Cooper, 1995). Despite the importance of student speech in student learning, in a discussion setting that incorporates thirty-five students or less, 15 percent of the students will be responsible for 75 percent of all student speech (Green, 2000). Because of this disparity in student participation, it is important to study variables that could influence student willingness to speak. Menzel and Carrel (1999) found the level of student willingness to talk to be positively correlated with student learning; they also argued that classroom dialogue is important to study because it is a reflection of effective instruction. When measuring willingness to talk in class, it seems reasonable to accept Menzel and Carrel’s (1999) incorporation of the variables of student interest and state motivation, type of participation environment, seating arrangement, and level of discord with ideas discussed, especially since the researchers statistically evaluated their instrument for internal validity and found these variables valuable in studying student willingness to talk. For this study the variable of student willingness to talk in class is self-reported on a 19-item measure incorporating the aforementioned variables (Menzel & Carrel, 1999).

Purposes and Objectives

This study seeks to replicate portions of the original study done by Menzel and Carrell (1999), with biological sex being replaced by gender of instructor, which is defined as psychological gender traits and student reported on the shortened BSRI. As previously discussed, research has positively correlated teacher immediacy behaviors with student willingness to talk (Menzel & Carrell, 1999). Previous research has not investigated two potential relationships: between student willingness to talk and perceived instructor gender traits, and between instructor immediacy behaviors and perceived instructor gender traits.

Hypothesis and Research Questions:

H1: A student's willingness to talk in class will positively vary based on instructor immediacy behavior (verbal and nonverbal combined in one variable).

RQ1: Will a student's willingness to talk in class vary as a function of the student reported perceived gender of the instructor?

RQ2: Is there a relationship between instructor immediacy behavior (verbal and nonverbal combined in one variable) and student reported perceived gender of the instructor?

With regard to our data set, we surveyed community college students while Menzel and Carrell (1999) surveyed university students. Given the differences between the educational plans of some community college students and the educational plans of university students, we wondered if length of planned education could impact how students reported on the three variables of our study. With this in mind, we posed a final research question.

RQ3: Will there be a difference in the data of students in 4-year programs and the data of students in 2-year programs?

Methods

This is a preview of the whole essay

RQ3: Will there be a difference in the data of students in 4-year programs and the data of students in 2-year programs?

Methods

The study replicates portions of the Menzel and Carrel (1999) study with biological gender being replaced with perceived gender as defined by the shortened version of the Bem BSRI developed by Wheeless and Dierks-Stewart (1981). The pilot instrument measured the student reported gender of both the instructor and the student (see Appendix A), while the second survey measured only the student reported gender of the instructor (see Appendix B). The original Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was created by Sandra L. Bem in 1974. From 1977 - 1979 at least six different articles had been published that questioned the way the BSRI was originally structured (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). Wheeless and Dierks-Stewart (1981) state that while three of these published articles had questionable results due to small data sets and concerns with the factors studied, the remaining three studies highlighted potential problems that justified continued examination of the BSRI’s factor structure. Based on this perceived need, Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart (1981), used factor analysis to develop and test a shorter version with more updated terms. This revised BSRI scale uses 2 factors, femininity and masculinity, with 10 items for each factor (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). The researchers reported an alpha of .89 for their scale. Since the development of this shortened BSRI, some researchers have continued to publish comments about potential problems with the original BSRI: some have stated that the BSRI is outdated since it uses traditional stereotypes from the 1970s (Baldwin, Critelli, Stevens & Russell, 1986); others criticize it as unnecessarily lengthy (Campbell et al., 1997) since it incorporates a neutral category and uses twenty items per category; yet others have raised questions about the validity of the masculine and feminine dimensions (Auster & Ohm, 2000; Ward, 2000). All of the above information played a part in choosing the shortened BSRI, but also significant in the choice was the fact that Bem used 100 students in her research while Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart used 882 students in their research. Using the Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart (1981) version of the BSRI was the best choice for our research needs because of both the shorter length and the potential for greater validity.

Menzel and Carrell (1999) surveyed 256 undergraduate students at a small liberal arts university in the Midwest. Dr. Menzel graciously sent us an exact copy of the survey instrument he used (see Appendix B). In our pilot study, we surveyed 65 students at a medium sized community college (11,000 enrolled students) in the mid west, and due to constraints of time and access to statistical software, we randomly chose 21 surveys for our initial analysis. In our study, we surveyed 150 students (no repeats from the pilot study) from the same mid size community college and analyzed the entire dataset.

Pilot Study and Participants

Surveys were given during week four of a sixteen-week semester to 65 students from a mid size Michigan community college (11,000 enrolled students). Students were asked to report on the class they take immediately preceding the class where they filled out the surveys. This allowed for the possibility of a wide sampling of instructors from all departments on campus. The rosters of the three classes surveyed had no students in common, so no student completed the survey twice. Of the 65 collected surveys, 23 were students in two-year degree programs. Because we wished to more closely replicate the original survey, which used students in 4-year programs, we chose to remove the surveys from 2-year students from the data pool. With 43 remaining survey, we chose 21 surveys at random using a method that allowed each survey an equal chance of being chosen all 21 times. We initially analyzed 21 surveys due to constraints of time and access to statistical software. Once it was evident that there were problems with the initial survey instrument, a decision was made to not enter the rest of the data and to simply start over with a better instrument.

Instrument and Design Oversights

We found several problems with our original survey instrument and survey plan. One problem was that we decided at the last minute to differentiate students in 2-year and 4-year degree programs. The result was students had to indicate their degree plans by writing a 2 or 4 in the upper corner of their surveys. This method resulted in three of the collected surveys not containing data regarding student degree program. The second problem was that the wording of the willingness to participant instrument provided by Menzel led to missing data on 4 of the 21 surveys we randomly chose to analyze. Specifically, students were asked how willing they were to participate when they sat in the front of the room, and the three students who did not answer that item wrote in the margins that they never sat in the front of the room; the message in the margin was similar for the student who opted not to answer for sitting in the back of the room. A third problem was a numbering problem that made data entry confusing; we consecutively numbered the items within the two scales measuring student gender and teacher gender when it would have been less confusing to start the numbering a one for each individual scale. The result of the consecutive numbering was incorrectly entered data that had to be re-entered, and occasionally the reentered data required re-entering; the accuracy of the data set was beginning to become questionable. A fourth problem was our concern that surveying during week four might not have given student enough exposure to the classroom and the teacher they were evaluating. The fifth problem was potential survey fatigue. Because of the number of variables, the original survey was three sheets of paper. The final problem was that once we started doing the data analysis, we realized that we had four independent variables with three potential states for each variable; our plan was far too complex and would require an enormous data set for anything meaningful to be decided. Doing the pilot study was enormously educational and enlightening, and we were able to make important revisions as explained below.

Instrument Revision and Final Participants

In our study, we addressed our six concerns and resurveyed a larger student population. First, we added a survey item at the bottom of the survey to differentiate students in 2-year and 4-year degree programs. We placed it last because we felt that placing it first might somehow confound the answers students gave. We addressed the second problem by adding the following sentence to the survey.

“If certain questions seem to not apply to you, answer them as if the
situation did apply. For example, you may never sit in the back of the room, but if you did, how often do you think you would choose to talk.”

This strategy was extremely successful. Of the 152 surveys collected, only two were unusable, and these were unusable due to missing answers on other scales on the survey instrument. This 98.6% rate of usable surveys in the study greatly surpassed the 89.2% rate of usable surveys in the pilot study. With regard to the potential for mis-entered data, we separately numbered the items of each scale for clearer data entry, and as a result we experienced only 3 lines of mis-entered data requiring reentry. To combat survey fatigue, we removed the variable of student reported gender, thus shortening the survey to two sides of one sheet of paper. Furthermore, dropping the variable simplified our design plan and made analysis more manageable. Once all these changes were made, we used the pilot study’s protocol to survey 150 students from the same community college, and in response to the final problem, this time we surveyed during week seven when the students had almost twice the exposure to the classroom and the teacher they were evaluating.

Data Analysis

In the following sections, the measures for perceived immediacy, willingness to talk, and perceived teacher gender 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 Immediacy. Like Menzel and Carrell (1999), we used the instruments developed by Christophel (1990) to measure both nonverbal and verbal instructor immediacy behaviors. While Menzel and Carrell (1999) treated each type of immediacy as a distinct variable to be summed and analyzed separately, we treated immediacy as one variable represented by the sum of the nonverbal and verbal scores. The Christophel (1990) instruments 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). Christophel (1990) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .84 for the verbal immediacy instrument and .77 for the nonverbal. In our study, Cronbach's alpha for the combined scale was .92.

Like Menzel and Carrell (1999), we used the scores on the immediacy instrument to evenly divide instructors into categories of high, moderate, or low in immediacy behavior. With 34 items scored from 0-4, the potential range of instructor immediacy scores was 0-136. Because there were 150 surveys in the data set, 50 instructors were placed in each category based on their immediacy score, with low immediacy being a score less than 79, moderate immediacy being a score between 79-93, and high immediacy being a score greater than 93. Table 1 provides the means for each immediacy category.

Table 1

Mean Immediacy Scores of Instructors

Immediacy categories Cat. Mean

Low immediacy 1 64.14

Moderate immediacy 2 86.90

High immediacy 3 101.78

Willingness to talk. Willingness to talk in class was measured using a scale developed and analyzed in the Menzel and Carrell (1999) study. The scale was modeled after the "Willingness to Communicate" scale prepared by McCroskey (1986). Using a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), students indicated their willingness to participate in class under in 19 specific situations that related to student interest and state motivation, type of participation environment, seating arrangement, and level of discord with ideas discussed. Menzel and Carrell (1999) reported a Cronbach's alpha for the scale .89, and our alpha was .85.

Perceived Teacher Gender. Gender was defined as the sex type of a person based on the degree to which that person has internalized the traits that society has deemed as masculine and feminine (Bem, 1974). This variable was labeled perceived instructor gender because the students reported on the gender traits of instructor. The perceived gender of the instructor was student reported on a shortened BSRI (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981) with 10 items measuring femininity and 10 items measuring masculinity. The standard mathematical formula that accompanies the BSRI was then used to determine the perceived gender category of the instructor. The BSRI allows for five categories: Feminine, Near Feminine, Androgynous, Near Masculine, and Masculine. This study used three categories with Feminine and Near Feminine being the first, Near Masculine and Masculine being the second, and Androgynous being the third. We chose to collapse the gender categories because the relatively small size of our data set (150) made using five categories problematic: in two of the original five categories (Masculine and Near Feminine) there were fewer than 10 instructors represented. If we had had a larger data set, it may have been possible to retain the original 5 gender categories and still have a somewhat balanced data set. Table 2 shows that after we combined Feminine with Near Feminine and Near Masculine with Masculine, there were a fair number of instructors represented in each of the three categories. Cronbach's alpha for our scale was .86, and Menzel and Carrell (1999) did not use this scale.

Table 2

Perceived Gender Categories of Instructors

Instructor gender categories Cat. Number of Teachers

Feminine 1 57

Masculine 2 30

Androgynous 3 63

Analyses

A 3 x 3 analyses of variance was used to assess both the relationship between perceived instructor gender and student willingness to talk in class and the relationship between teacher immediacy and a student willingness to talk in class.. We used the standard alpha of .05. With regard to the variables of perceived instructor gender and teacher immediacy behaviors, we tested the difference between the mean scores using an ANOVA.

Results

A relationship between willingness to talk and instructor immediacy behaviors was detected. The analysis indicated that willingness to talk varied significantly and positively across levels of instructor immediacy (F [2, 141] = 10.237, p =.000).

No relationship between willingness to talk and perceived teacher gender was detected. The analysis indicated that willingness to talk did not vary significantly between the three categories (feminine, androgynous, masculine) of perceived teacher gender (F [2, 141] = .192, p = .826).

There was no significant effect between the two variables of perceived teacher gender and teacher immediacy behaviors (F [2, 141] = .836, p = .504).

No relationship between instructor immediacy and perceived teacher gender was detected. The analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between perceived teacher gender and immediacy behaviors of the instructor (F [2, 147] = .357, p = .700)

Because the original study was conducted at a 4-year university, and our data came from community college students, we also wanted to investigate the potential differences between students planning a 2-year degree and students planning a 4-year degree. We collected 139 surveys from students in 4-year programs and 21 surveys from students in 2-year programs. Using a 3 x 3 ANOVA, we first analyzed the entire data set, and then we analyzed the two subsets of 2 and 4-year students. Table 3 shows the results of our analysis. We found that the 2-year subset was too small to accurately analyze, but because the 4-year subset mirrored the results of the entire data set, we believed that the data collected from the two subsets were similar.

Table 3

Dependent Variable: Willingness to Participate

Source df F Sig. _____________________________________________________________________

Entire data set

Gender of teacher 2 .192 .826

Immediacy of teacher 2 10.237 .000

Gender & immediacy 4 1.129 .504

_____________________________________________________________________

4-year degree

Gender of teacher 2 .561 .572

Immediacy of teacher 2 11.808 .000

Gender & immediacy 4 1.129 .346

_____________________________________________________________________

2-year degree

Gender of teacher 2 1.668 .223

Immediacy of teacher 2 2.562 .115

Gender & immediacy 4 1.590 .236

_____________________________________________________________________

Note. The 2-year analysis was deemed flawed because the data set was too small (21 surveys).

Because the subset of 2-year students was too small for an accurate ANOVA, we further analyzed the two subsets by calculating the mean student response for the one dependent and two dependent variables, and Table 4 shows those means. From the mean scores, it appears that the data from the students in 2-year programs and students in 4-year programs had no significant difference.

Table 4

Mean Student Response for the IV and DV

_______________________________________
Variables M

_______________________________________

2-year students

Perceived teacher gender 0.8

(score on BSRI)

Teacher immediacy score 86.0

Total participation score 50.6

_______________________________________

4-year students

Perceived teacher gender 0.6

(score on BSRI)

Teacher immediacy score 84.0

Total participation score 50.6

_______________________________________

Discussion

Our replication of Menzel and Carrell’s (1999) study produced three key findings. First, like the original study, our study found that the immediacy behaviors of the instructor are positively related to a student’s willingness to talk in class. Second, student's willingness to talk in class did not vary significantly as a function of the perceived gender of the instructor. Third, there does not appear to be a relationship between the perceived gender of the instructor and the instructor’s immediacy behaviors.

Like previous studies (Gorham, 1988; Keller, 1983), we found that immediacy behaviors impact student behaviors. Specifically, we found the same positive relationship between a student’s willingness to talk in class and instructor immediacy behavior as the original researchers (Menzel & Carrell, 1999). These findings help bolster Menzel and Carrell’s (1999) statement that “if oral participation is the outcome sought, then verbal immediacy seems to be a good way to achieve that outcome” (p. 39). In other words, as instructors use more immediacy behaviors, students become more willing to talk in class. These findings become important for most classrooms, and may prove to be even more significant in certain classroom contexts where instructors seek to use oral student participation to generate student learning, to develop student ability to construct meaning from the course content, and to strengthen student critical thinking skills. Future research into these specific contexts could prove useful.

Second, there was no significant relationship between the perceived gender of the instructor and the student's willingness to talk in class. Prior to analysis, we were leaning toward the idea that feminine and androgynous teachers would elicit more in-class student speech, and this inclination was based on anecdotal evidence from our combined seventeen years as classroom instructors and our combined thirteen years as college students. The thought was that masculine instructors would be authoritative and less welcoming of in-class student speech, but the data analysis showed no significant relationship between perceived gender of the instructor and students’ willingness to talk in class. At this point it is important to recognize that our data set did collapse the five BSRI categories into three categories, and that choice could have obscured a potential correlation between perceived gender of the instructor and the student's willingness to talk in class. Additional research using a larger data set and all five BSRI categories could prove useful in answering the question of “Is it true that the feminine traits measured on the BSRI (Understanding, Sensitive to needs of others, Compassionate, Sincere, Eager to soothe hurt feelings, Helpful, Friendly, Tender, Warm, and Gentle) are no more likely to elicit in-class student speech than the masculine gender traits measured on the BSRI (Strong personality, Willing to take a stand, Competitive, Dominant, Acts as a leader, Aggressive, Forceful, Assertive, Has leadership abilities)? To truly understand the potential relationship between perceived teacher gender and student willingness to participate, future research is needed.

Third, there is no significant difference between the perceived gender of the instructor and the instructor’s immediacy behaviors. Again, prior to analysis, we were leaning toward the idea that feminine and androgynous teachers would score higher on immediacy behaviors than masculine instructors, and perhaps we were basing this inclination on anecdotal evidence from experiences as instructors and college students. However, in retrospective, it was a pretty stereotypical belief, and was more tan likely based in our stereotypes of feminine as being more friendly, warm, and open than masculine personalities. The thought was that masculine instructors would be authoritative and not adept at including students in the classroom environment. Upon seeing the analysis, it was obvious how rigid our thinking was. Of course a person can have an authoritative presence and still use immediacy behaviors such as smiles, eye contact, variety in vocalizations self-disclosure, use of "we," calling on students by name, and humor. Despite our findings, additional research into the potential connection between perceived gender of the instructor and the instructor’s immediacy behaviors could be beneficial because our study could have had confounding variables that obscured our results.

Limitations

As mentioned, several items could have confounded our results. First, our survey did not measure biological sex of the instructor: therefore, we were unable to analyze the impact of instructor sex on perceived instructor gender. Whether such an analysis would have proven insightful or not cannot be known, but it might have been nice to have the option to do such an analysis. Second, our surveys made no restrictions on the type of classroom setting that was analyzed, and it is possible that data was elicited from classroom settings were participation is difficult, such as large lecture halls or self-paced technology courses. A third potential confounding variable is the high school experiences of the students. Different high school environments have different expectations regarding participation, and students coming from a high school environment where participation was valued may have high participation in all their college classes regardless of teacher immediacy behaviors and the reverse may be true for students from high schools where participation was not valued. A fourth potential confounding variable related to the expectancy violations theory (EVT). According to the EVT, people have engrained expectations about the ways others will communicate, and these engrained expectations could have played out in two ways in our study: female/male communication and student/teachers communication. The communication expectations students bring to the classroom could have impacted their willingness to participate regardless of teacher immediacy behaviors or perceived teacher gender. A fifth potential confounding variable might be the individual personalities of the students. Extroverts may have high participation regardless of teacher immediacy behaviors, and the reverse may be true for introverted students. It would be beneficial to do further research on the impact of the aforementioned variables on the reported significant positive relationship between student willingness to talk and levels of instructor immediacy behaviors.

Conclusion

Our study looked at three potential relationships: 1) student willingness to talk and teacher immediacy behaviors, 2) student willingness to talk and perceived instructor gender and student willingness to talk, and 3) perceived instructor gender and instructor immediacy. One relationship was found noted: instructor immediacy behaviors were positively related to student willingness to talk, and this finding reinforced the results of the original study (Menzel & Carrell, 1999). It is important that instructors who use oral student participation to enhance student learning recognize the positive relationship between student willingness to talk and teacher immediacy behaviors so such instructors can have a more informed pedagogy. Our data showed no significant effect with regard to the other two potential relationships (student willingness with perceived instructor gender and perceived instructor gender with instructor immediacy behaviors). However, these results in no way preclude future research. To truly understand any potential relationship(s) further research is needed because our data was too small for all five gender categories to be analyzed.

Although unrelated to the variables of our study, this research project may have tacitly raised an important secondary question: “Why is the BSRI so widely used when several studies have seriously questioned the instrument’s ability to accurately measure which traits society views as feminine and masculine?” Perhaps we, as researchers, naively accepted the criticism of the six articles we located in our literature review. However, the research in these six articles was compelling, and given the concerns brought forth, future research into the BSRI could be warranted.

While our study was interesting and educational for the researchers, its main contribution to the research community is to call for future research into the areas previously discussed.

References

Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499-528.

Baldwin, A. C., Critelli, J. W., Stevens, L. C., & Russell, S. (1982). Androgyny and sex role measurement: A personal construct approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1081-1088.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

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

Campbell, T., Gillaspy Jr., J. A., & Thompson, B. (1997). The factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI): Confirmatory analysis of the long and short forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 118-124.

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

Cooper, P. J. (1995). Communication for the classroom teacher. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers.

Coulter, B., Konold, C., & Feldman, A. (2000, October), Promoting reflective discussions: making the most of online resources in your classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28, 44-49.

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

Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45, 212-227.

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

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

Green, T. (2000, July/August). Responding and sharing: techniques for energizing classroom discussions. The Clearing House, 73, 331-334.

Jordan, F. F., McGreal, E. A., & Wheeless, V. E. (1990). Student perceptions of teacher sex-role orientation and use of power strategies and teacher sex as determinants of student attitudes toward learning. Communication Quarterly, 38, 43-53.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R. & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher 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.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. Daly (Eds.) Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park: Sage.

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.

Miller, M., & Nunn, G. (2001, Spring) Using group discussions to improve social problem-solving and learning. Education 121, 470-475.

Olaniran, B. A., Savage, G. T., & Sorenson, R. L. (1996). Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and comprehensive mediated group discussion. Communication Education, 45, 244-259.

Pearson, J. & Davilla, R. (2001). The gender construct: Understanding why men and women communicate differently. In L. P. Arlis & D. J. Borisoff (Eds.), Women and men communicating : Challenges and changes (pp. 3-14). Prospect Heights: IL: Waveland.

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.

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 teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305.

Roser, N., & Keehn, S. (2002, Feburary). Fostering thought, talk, and inquiry: linking literature and social studies. The Reading Teacher, 55, 416-426

Steinert, Y.,& Snell, L. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21, 37-42.

Ward, C. A. (2000) Models and measurements of psychological androgyny: A cross-cultural extension of theory and research. Sex Roles, 43, 499-528.

Wheeless, V. E., & Dierks-Stewart, K. (1981). The psychometric properties of the BEM Sex-Role Inventory: Questions concerning reliability and validity. Communication Quarterly, 38, 173-186.

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 – Pilot Survey

Classroom Communication Survey

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.

Below are a series of character descriptions. Indicate on the given scale how well each of the following characteristics describes you. A 0 means the item is never or almost never true and a 4 means the item is always or almost always true.

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

Assertive 0---1---2---3---4
Understanding 0---1---2---3---4
Sensitive to needs of others 0---1---2---3---4
Strong personality 0---1---2---3---4
Independent 0---1---2---3---4
Compassionate 0---1---2---3---4
Sincere 0---1---2---3---4
Forceful 0---1---2---3---4
Eager to soothe hurt feelings 0---1---2---3---4
Aggressive 0---1---2---3---4
Acts as a leader 0---1---2---3---4
Helpful 0---1---2---3---4
Dominant 0---1---2---3---4
Friendly 0---1---2---3---4
Tender 0---1---2---3---4
Competitive 0---1---2---3---4
Warm 0---1---2---3---4
Willing to take a stand 0---1---2---3---4
Has leadership abilities 0---1---2---3---4
Gentle 0---1---2---3---4

Now you will be asked to rate the instructor of the last class you attended today (or yesterday, if applicable). Indicate on the given scale how well each of the following characteristics describes that instructor. A 0 means that the item is never or almost never true and a 4 means that the item is always or almost always true.

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

Assertive 0---1---2---3---4
Understanding 0---1---2---3---4
Sensitive to needs of others 0---1---2---3---4
Strong personality 0---1---2---3---4
Independent 0---1---2---3---4
Compassionate 0---1---2---3---4
Sincere 0---1---2---3---4
Forceful 0---1---2---3---4
Eager to soothe hurt feelings 0---1---2---3---4
Aggressive 0---1---2---3---4
Acts as a leader 0---1---2---3---4
Helpful 0---1---2---3---4
Dominant 0---1---2---3---4
Friendly 0---1---2---3---4
Tender 0---1---2---3---4
Competitive 0---1---2---3---4
Warm 0---1---2---3---4
Willing to take a stand 0---1---2---3---4
Has leadership abilities 0---1---2---3---4
Gentle 0---1---2---3---4

Classroom Communication Survey

Page 1 of Menzel

Listed below are several situations that might affect whether or not you choose to talk in the last class you attended today (or yesterday, if applicable). For each item, circle the number 0-4 which indicates how often you would choose to talk in class...

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

When the class is engaged in an open discussion 0---1---2---3---4
When I am in a small group in class 0---1---2---3---4
When the professor asks for a response from the class 0---1---2---3---4
When the topic is interesting 0---1---2---3---4
When my views differ from my classmates’ views 0---1---2---3---4
When I am sitting in the back of the class 0---1---2---3---4
When I am prepared for class 0---1---2---3---4
When everyone is talking 0---1---2---3---4
When I am graded on participation 0---1---2---3---4
When the class is engaged in a heated debate 0---1---2---3---4
When I am comfortable with the subject matter 0---1---2---3---4
When an assignment is being discussed 0---1---2---3---4
When no one else is talking 0---1---2---3---4
When I am sitting in the front of the class 0---1---2---3---4
When my views differ from the professor’s views 0---1---2---3---4
When I am angry about a topic 0---1---2---3---4
When I know the correct answer 0---1---2---3---4
When I can really help clarify the discussion 0---1---2---3---4
When I dislike my classmates 0---1---2---3---4

On a scale of 0-9, how much are you participating in this class, with 0 meaning you do not participate at all and 9 meaning you participate more than in any other class you’ve had? (circle one)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

On a scale of 0-9, how much are you learning in this class, with 0 meaning you learned nothing and 9 meaning you learned more than in any other class you’ve had? (circle one)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Our survey omitted the above question.

Classroom Communication Survey

Page 2 of Menzel

Below are a series of descriptions of things some teachers have been observed doing or saying some classes. Please respond to the questions in terms of the last class you attended today (or yesterday, if applicable) with a MALE professor. For each item, circle the number 0-4 which indicates the behavior of the teacher in that class.

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
Asks questions or encourages students to talk. 0---1---2---3---4
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
Uses humor in class. 0---1---2---3---4
Addresses students by name. 0---1---2---3---4
Addresses me by name. 0---1---2---3---4
Gets into conversations with individual students before or after class. 0---1---2---3---4
Has initiated conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 0---1---2---3---4
Refers to class as “my” class or what “I” am doing. 0---1---2---3---4
Refers to class as “our” class or what “we” are doing. 0---1---2---3---4
Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, oral discussion, etc. 0---1---2---3---4
Calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated that they want to talk. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks how students feels about an assignment, due date or discussion topic. 0---1---2---3---4
Invites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks questions that have specific, correct answers. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 0---1---2---3---4
Praises students’ work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4
Criticizes or points out faults in students’ work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4
Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students or with the class as a whole. 0---1---2---3---4
Is addressed by his/her first name by the students. 0---1---2---3---4
Sits behind desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Gestures while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Uses monotone/dull voice when talking in class. 0---1---2---3---4
Looks at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4
Smiles at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4
Has a very tense body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Touches students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Moves around the classroom while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Sits on a desk or in a chair while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Looks at board or notes while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Stands behind podium or desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Smiles at individual students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Uses a variety of vocal expressions when talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

Thank you for your time!

Appendix B – Final Survey Instrument

Classroom Communication Survey

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

Below are a series of character descriptions. Indicate on the given scale how well each of the following characteristics describes the instructor of the last class you attended today (or yesterday, if applicable). A 0 means the item is never or almost never true and a 4 means the item is always or almost always true.

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

Assertive 0---1---2---3---4
Understanding 0---1---2---3---4
Sensitive to needs of others 0---1---2---3---4
Strong personality 0---1---2---3---4
Independent 0---1---2---3---4
Compassionate 0---1---2---3---4
Sincere 0---1---2---3---4
Forceful 0---1---2---3---4
Eager to soothe hurt feelings 0---1---2---3---4
Aggressive 0---1---2---3---4
Acts as a leader 0---1---2---3---4
Helpful 0---1---2---3---4
Dominant 0---1---2---3---4
Friendly 0---1---2---3---4
Tender 0---1---2---3---4
Competitive 0---1---2---3---4
Warm 0---1---2---3---4
Willing to take a stand 0---1---2---3---4
Has leadership abilities 0---1---2---3---4
Gentle 0---1---2---3---4

Listed below are several situations that might affect whether or not you choose to talk in the last class you evaluated above. For each item, circle the number 0-4 which indicates how often you would choose to talk in class.

If certain questions seem to not apply to you, answer them as if the situation did apply. For example, you may never sit in the back of the room, but if you did, how often do you think you would choose to talk.

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

When the class is engaged in an open discussion 0---1---2---3---4
When I am in a small group in class 0---1---2---3---4
When the professor asks for a response from the class 0---1---2---3---4
When the topic is interesting 0---1---2---3---4
When my views differ from my classmates’ views 0---1---2---3---4
When I am sitting in the back of the class 0---1---2---3---4
When I am prepared for class 0---1---2---3---4
When everyone is talking 0---1---2---3---4
When I am graded on participation 0---1---2---3---4
When the class is engaged in a heated debate 0---1---2---3---4
When I am comfortable with the subject matter 0---1---2---3---4
When an assignment is being discussed 0---1---2---3---4
When no one else is talking 0---1---2---3---4
When I am sitting in the front of the class 0---1---2---3---4
When my views differ from the professor’s views 0---1---2---3---4
When I am angry about a topic 0---1---2---3---4
When I know the correct answer 0---1---2---3---4
When I can really help clarify the discussion 0---1---2---3---4
When I dislike my classmates 0---1---2---3---4

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

Please respond to the questions in terms of the instructor you evaluated on the reverse.

For each item, circle the number 0-4 which indicates the classroom behavior of that teacher.

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
Asks questions or encourages students to talk. 0---1---2---3---4
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
Uses humor in class. 0---1---2---3---4
Addresses students by name. 0---1---2---3---4
Addresses me by name. 0---1---2---3---4
Gets into conversations with individual students before or after class. 0---1---2---3---4
Has initiated conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 0---1---2---3---4
Refers to class as “my” class or what “I” am doing. 0---1---2---3---4
Refers to class as “our” class or what “we” are doing. 0---1---2---3---4
Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, oral discussion, etc. 0---1---2---3---4
Calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated that they want to talk. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or discussion topic. 0---1---2---3---4
Invites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks questions that have specific, correct answers. 0---1---2---3---4
Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 0---1---2---3---4
Praises students’ work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4
Criticizes or points out faults in students’ work, actions or comments. 0---1---2---3---4
Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students or with the class as a whole. 0---1---2---3---4
Is addressed by his/her first name by the students. 0---1---2---3---4
Sits behind desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Gestures while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Uses monotone/dull voice when talking in class. 0---1---2---3---4
Looks at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4
Smiles at the class while talking. 0---1---2---3---4
Has a very tense body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Touches students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Moves around the classroom while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Sits on a desk or in a chair while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Looks at board or notes while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Stands behind podium or desk while teaching. 0---1---2---3---4
Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Smiles at individual students in the class. 0---1---2---3---4
Uses a variety of vocal expressions when talking to the class. 0---1---2---3---4

Finally, please circle the category that best represents your current educational plan.

2 year degree (Associate) 4 year degree (Bachelor) 4+year degree (Master or PhD.)

Thank you for your time!

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

Email form Dr. Menzel

These are the appropriate references to use when presenting or discussing the scale in a paper:

Christensen, L. J, & Menzel, K. E. (1996). Willingness to Talk in Class Scale. Greencastle, IN: DePauw University Department of Communication Arts & Sciences.

The scale was modeled after a “Willingness to Communicate” scale prepared by McCroskey and Richmond (1987) which was published by Frey, Botan, Friedman, and Kreps (1991). The scale was first used by Christensen, Curley, Marquez, and Menzel (1995).

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.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., & Kreps, G. L. (1991). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. Daly (Eds.) Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park: Sage.

Note that the gender of student and gender of professor are changed for each set of surveys, so that there are actually 4 versions of the survey, one for each gender combo. This set up makes it easier and more accurate to gather, separate, enter, and interpret data.

Have fun.