093

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEACHER COMMUNICATION STYLE,TRAIT AND STATE COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

PATRICIA KEARNEY

California State University-Sacramento

JAMES C. McCROSKEY.West Virginia University

The empirical model tested in this stUdvexamined the effects of teacher communicationstvle (TCS) on students' affect and behavioral commitment in collel!e classes.Additionally, the model posited a mediational function for teachers' and st~dents' traitand state communication apprehension for perceptions of teacher style and teachereffectiveness. Multiple regression and commonality analyses indicated that only studentperceptions of all three dimensions of TCS were related to teacher effectiveness.Students who perceived teachers as highly versatile and responsive also reported lowerfears about communicating in cIass--regardless of students' trait communication ap-prehension level.

Granted: effective teaching requires competentknowledge of subject matter. Yet. instructionaltechnologists define teaching as more than infor-mation dissemination from a central source (Var-gas, 1977; Wittich & Schuller. 1973; Skinner.1968; Corey, 1967). Nevertheless, teacher creden-tials traditionally emphasize content competenciesto the exclusion of competencies applicable to therelational teacher-student communicative-exchange process. The impact of such neglect isshown in students' perceptions of their own nega-tive experiences with teachers. Branan (1972) dis-covered that teachers were targeted as the largestrole group who negatively impacted students' lives.Students reported situations with teachers that in-volved '"humiliation in front of a class. unfairnessin evaluation. destroying self-confidence. per-sonality conflicts. and embarrassment" (p. 82).

To suggest that teaching involves effective relat-ing as well (Combs, 1959). requires the identifica-tion of teacher communicative behaviors or stu-dents' perceptions of teacher characteristics thatserve to enhance learning. This study seeks to iso-late variables impacting teacher effectiveness. Thatis, what communicative behaviors idiosyncratic to ateacher's style of presentation produce positive stu-dent affective orientations and behavioral commit-ment toward the course. instructor. and contentarea'?Further. what is the nature of the relationship

between teachers' and students' trait and ~communication apprehension (CA) on studtperceptions of their teachers' communicativehaviors in the classroom and teacher effectiven

An effective teacher. as operationalized instudy, is one who elicits positive orientations fstudents. The criterion of affective learningcomes is critical to the entire learning process,relates to increased student involvementcommitment to learning (Andersen. 1979b; El1979;Keller & Sherman. 1974; Wittich & Schu1973; and Bruner, Goodnow & A,!stin. 19Promoting positive attitudes toward learning nindeed. be the primary role of teachers inclassroom-learning environment. Engenderir.'"Iove-for-Iearning" orientation may enable ngeneralized approach orientations toward leanboth within and outside the classroom (cf, Sbecker, 1974;Furth. 1969;and Ginsburg & Op1969).

TEACHER COMMUNICATION STYLE

Teacher communication style (TCS) refers tecollective perceptions of others and/or sperceptions of a teacher's relational image inclassroom (Kearney-Knutson, 1980). While,lated instrument. communicator style, has Iused to assess such perceptions of teachers (No)

534 Communication YeaI:book 4

1977). the CS construct is not based on instructionalcommunication theory. Similarly. social style(Merrill. 1974; Buchholz, Lashbrook & Wenburg,1975), designed for organizational contexts, doesnot focus on behaviors specifically relevant toteachers in classroom environments.

Yet the construct of social style does identifybasic dimensions that are particularly relevant toinstructors-assertiveness, versatility, and respon-siveness. Assertiveness refers to perceptions ofteacher control in the classroom. Such control maybe demonstrated by the teacher's ability to maintainstudents' selective attention toward instruction, topromote desirable learning environments, and toensure student activity and productivity. Relying onthe instructional literature, effective teachers arethose who serve as controllers and who providestructure in the classroom (Deshpande, Webb, &Marks, 1970).Effectiveteachersare initiators;theyexude self-confidence, and they direct classroomdiscussion (Ryans, 1960). They engage student at-tention through dynamic delivery, vocal variety,and frequent gestures and movement (Wyckoff,1973).

Versatility, the second dimension of teacherstyle, refers to perceived adaptiveness of the in-structor to the needs and characteristics of students.

Highly versatile teachers are those who adapt to thecommunicative behaviors of their students. Adapt-ing to individual needs or learning histories andentry levels are espoused as requisites for manyinstructional paradigms (Vargas, 1977; Holland etal. 1976; Keller & Sherman, 1974; Davies, 1973;Wittich & Schuller, 1973; Kemp, 1971; Furth,1969). Such technologies of teaching recognize thestudent as an individualized learner who requiresthe teacher to accomodate appropriately.

Teaching styles that are indicative of high re-sponsiveness are characterized as emotional, sensi-tive, social, understanding, and approachable. TheKeller Plan or Personalized System of Instruction(Keller & Sherman, 1974) incorporates strategiesfor emitting positive feedback, supplying rewards,and minimizing frustration or failure for the stu-dents. Rogers (1969) asserts that teachers shouldopenly express their own feelings and accept feel-ings from students. Empirically, students' percep-tions of instructors' immediacy or psychologicalcloseness have been found to be significant pre-

dictors of affective learning and behavioral com-mitment (Andersen, 1979b).

Effective teachers, as suggested by the in-structional communication literature. are those who

are perceived as highly assertive. versatile, andresponsive. From a relational perspective, it is in-teresting to note both the way in which a teacherviews himself as a communicator in the classroom

and the ways in which students perceive the teach-ing style of the communicator in that same envi-ronment. While Norton (1977) found that collegeteachers and their students viewed the com-

municator style (CS) of the teacher similarly,Kearney-Knutson (1980) was unable to obtain defi-nitive consensual perceptions bet\veen teachers andstudents for TCS. If, as this literature review indi-cates, assertiveness, versatility. and responsivenessare predictive of teaching effectiveness. is it teacherperceptions of their own TCS or student perceptionsof it that provide the most meaningful predictor?(The overall a priori empirical model is presentedprogressively in five stages and reported in "Re-sults".)

PERCEPTIONS OF TCS MEDIA TEDAS A FUNCTION OF

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

If consensus between self and others' perceptionsof TS is not indicated, a teacher's or student's ownstate or trait level of communication apprehensionmay impact such consistency. Trait CA is concep-tualized as high fear or anxiety about potential oractual oral communication encounters (McCros-key, 1977). Such apprehension generally takes theform of approach or avoidance behaviors across avariety of communication situations.

In contrast to generalized apprehension towardall communication encounters. state CA refers toanxieties in particular oral communication situ-ations (Spielberger, 1966; Lamb, 1972; McCros-key, 1977; Richmond, (978). Traditionally, stateCA has been referred to as stage fright that is associ-ated with public-speaking situations (McCroskey,1977). That is, most people experience a conditionof high-state CA when confronted with publicpresentations. However, state CA also can occur asa function of dyadic interactions during the ac-quaintance process (Richmond, 1978). Such state

communicati vecommunicationindividual.

Teachers in classroom environments may experi-ence trait as well as state (i.e.. when communicatingwith students in a particular class) communicativeanxiety levels that in turn may affect their ownperceptions of their teacher style. High-CA teachersmay engage in avoidance behaviors that result inperceptions of less assertiveness. responsiveness.and versatility. Conversely. low state and/or traitapprehensives may perceive themselves as mGreassertive. responsive. and versatile. as is evidencedby more approach behaviors that are associated withthose dimensions of TCS.

Students' CA (trait or teacher-specific state) maymediate perceptions of the teacher's style as well.Andersen ( 1979a) reported differential perceptionsof another's communicator style as a function of theperceiver's own communicative anxiety, High-CAstudents perceived- their teachers as less animated.impression-leaving. dramatic. friendly. and openthan students low in trait CA, Further. high-CAstudents perceived their teacher as less immediate orless affiliative in their classroom interactions.

Teacher's level of trait CA may also impact stu-dents' perceptions of the instructors' communica-tive behaviors. (See McCroskey. 1977 for a reviewof the literature addressing others' perceptions to-ward CA's). Trait and/or state anxiety associatedwith teaching in a particular.classroom environmentmay produce differential communicative behaviorsthat are perceived by students as higher or lower inassertiveness. responsiveness. and versatility of a

.particular teacher style. Richmond (1978) foundthat for interpersonal perceptions in dyads. individ-uals' state level of CA was a much more powerfulpredictor than trait levels of CA. Given such per-ceptual indices as a function of another's CA level(state and/or trait), it is plausible that teachers ex-hibiting behaviors indicative of levels of CA will beperceived differentially.

It appears. then. that teacher and student percep-tions ofTCS may be mediated by both the teacher'slevel of trait and state CA and the student's trait and

state CA. While it is posited in this research thathighly assertive, responsive. and versatile teacherstyles will be evaluated as more effective teachers.not all students may perceive teacher styles simi-

".;'f'

~

N

IN;:') (KU\.: rl~"'u" '

536 Communication Yearbook 4

ramento. College teachers from numerous and di-verse departments (e.g., physical education, busi-ness, communication studies, foreign languages,etc.) were selected to increase the likelihood of awide range of teacher styles. Classes were chosenthat reflected a traditional instructional format withclass size ranging from 10-45 students (ave. classsize = 15.46). Over 300 college teachers wereinterviewed and asked to participate. Approxi-mately one-half agreed, while 96 actually com-pleted the study. The student sample consisted of atotal of 1484 individuals.

Procedures

Both teachers and students completed an initialself-report instrument that measured trait CA at thebeginning of the semester. Approximately sixweeks later, the same teachers and students com-pleted two questionnaires at the beginning of a reg-ular class period. These instruments measured stateCA and TCS. At the end of that same class period,student affect and behavioral commitment were as-

sessed through students' self-report measures.Subjects were told that the purpose of data collec-tion was to learn more about teaching in the collegeclassroom. All responses were confidential andanonymous.

Measuring Instruments

Teacher Communication Style. TCS was measuredby a 36-item Likert-type instrument developed byKearney-Knutson (1980). The TCS instrument wasadministered to teachers with directions that indi-cated a self-report assessment of their communica-tion behaviors with students "in this particularclass." While the students were given the samemeasure, their instructions required an assessmentof their teacher's communicative behaviors" in thisparticularclass." Split-halfreliabilityestimatesforassertiveness were .84 for the teacher sample and.85 for students. Versatility yielded. 74 for teachersand .89 for students, while responsiveness yielded.85 for teachers and .89 for students. Measures ofskewness and kurtosis indicated that all scores werenormally distributed for both teacher and studentsamples, except for teachers' self-reported asser-

C'

tiveness (skewness = - .87;kurtosis= 1.45).

Trait Communication Apprehension. Communica-

tion apprehension (trait) was measured by the 25-item, Likert-type instrument developed byMcCroskey (1970). Split-half reliability estimatesfor student Personal Report of'Communication Ap-

prehension (PRCA) was. 93 and. 91 for the teacherPRCA. Measures for skewness and kurtosis indi-cated that for the teacher sample a leptokurtic dis-tribution for teacher PRCA scores was indicated(skewness = .86; kurtosis = 1.48). More impor-tantly, when compared to the student sample ofPRCAscores(X =69.34), themeanforthe teachersample (X = 54.95) was considerably lower. Con-sequently, the teacher sample was comprised ofpredominantly moderate to low apprehensiveteachers. While one may conclude that perhaps thecollege-teaching profession includes moderate tolow CA's, a better interpretation based on this par-ticular research design was that primarily moderateto low apprehensives chose to participate in thisevaluative project. High CA' s may, instead, havechosen not to participate because of an unwilling-ness to have their communication behaviors evalu-

ated by others.

State Communication Apprehension. State CA wasmeasured by the 20-item state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (A-State) that was devel-oped by Spielberger (1966) and modified byRichmond (1978). For purposes of this study, theA-State instrument was adapted to anxieties associ-ated with interactions with "this particular in-structor in this class most of the time" (studentversion), or interactions associated with this partic-ular class (teacher version). Teachers in this samplewere comprised of predominantly moderate to lowstate apprehensives in the classroom (skewness =1.31, kurtosis = 1.64). Scores for students' stateCA indicated a normal distribution.

Affect and Behavioral Commitment. Affect con-sisted of student attitudes toward behaviors recom-mended in the course, content or subject matter,and the instructor. Each specified affect was fol-lowed by four semantic-differential-type scales.Students' behavioral commitment toward behaviors

!i~,

i~.

~'

I

I

I

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 537

recommended in the course and the likelihood of

enrolling in a similar class were additionally asses-sed as indicants of teaching effectiveness. Again.these items were followed by four semantic-differential-type scales. Both scales have been usedrepeatedly in communication research to measureteacher effectiveness (cf. Andersen. 1978b; Scott.Yates. & Wheeless. (975).

Factor analysis of all affect and behavioral com-mitment measures. employing an oblique rotationand forcing five factors. resulted in an interpretablefive-factor solution. For the tive-factor solution.

items in each set of scales had their primary loadingson the intended factors. A two-factor solution (withoblique rotation) indicated an affective factor and abehavioral commitment factor. with an inter-factorcorrelation of .63. The single-factor. unrotated sol-ution had all items with their primary loadings onthe first factor (these tables are available from theauthors upon request). A parsimonious interpreta-tion of the affect and behavioral commitment meas-ures indicated a single-factor solution. Con-sequently, the criterion measures of affect andbehavioral commitment were treated as a singlefactor for hypothesis testing.

The analyses reported here include a teachersample of96 subjects and a student sample of 1484.While preliminary analyses were based on the entirestudent sample (i .e., means. standard deviations,factor structures, reliability estimates. etc.). meanstudent responses in individual classes for everymeasure were used for tests of hypotheses. Thisprocedure reduced an inflated N-size of 1484 to 96.As a result, teacher and student class effects couldbe represented best for interpretable results.

All tests for significance were set at alpha level.05. A priori statistical power for all correlationanalyses was .85, assuming a medium-effect crite-rion. Employing the same medium-effect criterion.a priori statistical power for two, three. four. andfive variable multiple-regression analyses were. 92,.89. .86, and .84. respectively (Cohen. 1977). Fi-nally. tests for nonlinearity indicated all relation-ships were linear.

..

.'

iI

I

~

.

'

.

.

.

"

~.

i'"g~

iRf'~;;~

TEST OF HYPOTHESES: RESULTS

Each successive stage of the empirical model.

hypotheses. and research questions are outlinedbelow with appropriate statistical analyses de-lineated.

FIGURE1

TCSt~ Affect and Behavioral Commitment

Step I:HI: Teachers' self-reported communication style

is positively correlated with students' affect& behavioral commitment.

H1a:Teachers' perceptions of their own as-sertiveness are positively correlatedwith students' affect and behavioralcommitment.

H1b:Teachers' perceptions of their own ver-sarilit}' are positively correlated withstudents' affect and behavioral com-mitment.

Hie: Teachers' perceptions of their own re-sponsiveness are positively correlatedwith students' affect and behavioralcommitment.

Hypothesis I was tested by a multiple-regressionanalysis with teachers' perceived assertiveness.versatility. and responsiveness as the three pre-dictors, and affect and behavioral commitment as

the single criterion. Hypothesis I failed to receiveconfirmationat the .05 level (F = 1.18;nsd). Sim-ple correlations between teachers' asserti veness(r = .08; nsd), versatility (r = .04; nsd), and re-sponsiveness (r = .04; nsd). with students' affectand behavioral commitment further demonstratedthe conclusion that Hypothesis I failed to be con-firmed.

Because teacher and student perceptions ofteacher communication style were determined to beseparate variables for the same data sets (Kearney-Knutson. 1980), the next analyses were based onstudents' perceptions of the teachers' communica-tion styles.

FIGURE2

TCS AffectandBehavioralCo~itments

H~: Students' perceptions of teacher communi-cation style are positively correlated withstudents' affect and behavioral commitment.

538 Communication Yearbook 4

Hza: Students' perceptions of their teacher'sassertiveness are positively correlatedwith stUdents' affect and behavioralcommitment.

HZb:Students' perceptions of their teacher'sversatility are positively correlated withstudents' affect and behavioral com-mitment.

Hz,,:Students' perceptions of their teacher'sresponsiveness are positively correlatedwith students' affect and behavioralcommitment.

Hypothesis 2 was tested by a multiple regressionanalysis with students' perceptions of their teach-er's assertiveness, versatility, and responsivenessas predictors and students' affect and behavioralcommitment as the criterion. Hypothesis 2 was sup-ported. Students' perceptions ofTCS accounted for38 percent of the variance in students' affect andbehavioral commitment (F = 18.62; P < .0001).Commonality analysis was employed to decomposeR2 (R2 for assertiveness, versatility, and respon-siveness = .3778) into its unique and common com-ponents of predictor variables (Siebold & McPhee,1979; McPhee & Siebold, 1979). This analysis in-dicated that while unique variance was attributableto each variable (assertiveness = .0416; versatility= .0283; and responsiveness = .0050), combi.nations of variables contributed substantially moreexplained variance in the criterion. The primarypredictors were combinations of responsiveness andversatility (.1193) and all three predictors (.1457).Summary Table I provides these results.

Consequently, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c weresupported with the interpretation that all three vari-ables in combination were meaningful predictors ofstudents' affect and behavioral commitment.

FlGURE 3

PRrt~ TeStStatSt

Step 2:H3: A linear combination of teachers' trait

(PRCAt) and state (Statt;) communicationapprehension significantly predicts each of

the following three dimensions of teachers'self-reported communication style (TCSt):H3a: AssertivenessH3b: VersatilityH3(': Responsiveness

To test Hypothesis 3, a series of three multipleregression analyses were employed with teachers'trait and state CA as predictors and teachers' self-reported assertiveness, versatility, and responsive-ness as three independent criterion variables. Re-sults indicated confirmation of Hypotheses 3a, 3b,and 3c. Teachers' trait and state CA explained 27percent of the variance for assertiveness (F = 17.22;P < .000 I); 15percent of the variancefor versatility(F = 8.23, P < .0008); and 16 percent of thevariance for responsiveness (F = 9.28, P < .0004).Pearson r correlations indicated that teachers'PRCA (trait) was significantly correlated withteachers self-reported assertiveness (- .46, P <.0001), versatility (-.20, p < .05), and respon-siveness (-.31, p < .01). Teachers' state CA wassignificantly correlated with teachers' assertiveness(-.43, p < .0001), as well. However, it is impor-tant to note that teachers' PRCA was significantlycorrelated with teachers' state CA (.46; P < .0001).Decomposition of predictable variance unique andcommon to PRCA and state apprehension enabled amore precise estimate of the contribution of eachpredictor.

Commonality analysis determined that for asser-tiveness (R2 = .2702), teachers' trait CA explained8.71 percent of the variance and state CA explained6.03 percent of the total variance. PRCA and stateCA jointly accounted for 12.28 percent of the var-iance in assertiveness. The best interpretation fortotal variance explained in assertiveness, then, wasthe combined predictors of teachers' trait and statecommunication apprehension.

As for versatility, variance unique to teachers'PRCA was .06 percent while state apprehensioncontributed 11.07 percent unique variance (totalR2 = .1504). Combined trait and state measuresyielded an additional 3.91 percent explained var-iance. Teachers' state apprehension, then, was thebest predictor of total explained variance for versa- .tility.

Finally, commonality analysis demonstrated thatfor teachers' self-reported responsiveness, variance

~._--

J;

~'",

i~.

'

.

.

.

'

I

~.~

.,

:

.

:.

.

i

I

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 539

TABLE 1Commonality Analysis Summary Table

Perceived Teacher Style as Predictor of Students'Affect and Behavioral Ccmmitment

Unique & Cammon Effects

Unique to Assertiveness

Unique to Versatility

Unique to Responsiveness

,:< Cammon to Assertivenessand Versatility

Cammon to Assertivenessand Responsiveness

Cammon to Versatilityand Responsiveness

Cammon to Assertiveness,Versatility andResponsiveness

Totals

Squared Multiple Correlation: .3778

I

&

't,

.

,:

~,

~.

'.'

!~~"

f',"

~,:1

,540 Communication Yearbook 4

communication apprehension and students' per-ceptions of each of the three dimensions of TCSinvolved a series of three multiple regressionanalyses. Teachers' trait and state CA served aspredictors with assertiveness, versatility, and re-sponsiveness as separate criterion variables. Multi-ple regression analysis showed that for students'perceptions of assertiveness, teachers; PRCA was asignificant predictor of the sequentials (F = 7.59;P < .05), while state was not (F = 1.42, nsd). Forversatility and responsiveness, neither teachers'PRCA nor state CA was a significant predictor.

F1GURE5

PRCAt~l ~ TCSt-- Affect and BehavioralState~ Commitmentt

Step 3:Research question I: Will the addition of teach-ers' state and trait apprehension be more predict-ive than teachers' self-reported teacher com-munication style (TCSt) alone in explaining stu-dents' affect and behavioral commitment?

Multiple-regression analysis was employed toanswer Research Question I with teachers' PRCA,state. assertiveness, versatility. and responsivenesscomprising the predictor set and students' affect andbehavioral commitment as the single criterion vari-able. Nonsignificant results were obtained (F = .53;nsd). The next analysis was based on students'perceptions of TCS.

F1GURE6PRCAt

l ~. TCS Affect and Behavioral~ 5 CommitmentStatet

Research question 2: Will the addition of teach-ers' PRCA and state apprehension be more pre-dictive than students' perceptions of teachercommunication style (TCSs) alone in,explainingstudents' affect and behavioral commitment?

Research Question 2 was answered bymultiple-regression analysis with teachers' PRCAand state CA as well as students' perceptions ofteacher assertiveness. versatility. and responsive-ness as predictors and students' affect and behav-

ioral commitment as the single criterion variable.Results indicated a significant relationship (F =11.23, P < .0001). However, partial-regressionanalysis demonstrated that only students' percep-tions of teacher assertiveness significantly predictedstudents' affect and behavioral commitment (F =6.33, p < .01). Additionally, total explained var-iance was not increased with the addition of teach-ers' trait and state CA (R2 = .382 in both analyses).In response to Research Question 2, the addition ofteachers' PRCA and state apprehension failed to bemore predictive than students' perceptions of TCSalone in explaining students' affect and behavioralcommitment.

F1GURE7

PRCAt~ Affectand BehavioralI ~ TCSt/TCSs Commitment~ J~ /Statet Str~

PRCAs

Step 4:H:;: A linear combination of students' self-

reported trait and state communication ap-prehension will be negatively correlated withstudents' affect and behavioral commitment.

Multiple-regression analysis was employed totest Hypothesis 5. Students' trait and state CA com-prised the predictor set with students' affect andbehavioral commitment as the single criterion vari-able. Hypothesis 5 was confirmed (F = 18.76; P <.0001). Commonality analysis dt-monstrated thatvariance unique to students' PRCA was 2.45 per-cent and variance unique to state apprehension was28.65 percent. Combined trait and state measuresacted as suppressor variables. reducing explainedvariance by 2.35 percent (total R2 = .2875). Thebest interpretation for total variance explained instudents' affect and behavioral commitment, then,

was students' s'tate apprehension.

F1GURE8

I d BehavioralAffect anPRCA~ TCS/TCSs~ Commitment

,L~. t \'r/PRCAs

1:Hif.,.~

I

'",$::

"

~-

~~,k11~t;.

~

~"

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

Step 5:H6: A linear combination of srudents' trait and

stare communication apprehension will sig-nificantly predict each of the following di-

0 mensions of students' perceptions of TCS:H6a: AssertivenessH6b: VersatilityH6C:Responsiveness

To test Hypothesis 6(a, b, and c), a series of threemultiple-regression analyses were employed withstudents' PRCA and state apprehension as pre-dictors and students' perceptions of each dimensionofTCS (i.e., assertiveness, versatility, and respon-siveness) as separate criterion variables. Hypoth-eses 6a, 6b, and 6c were supported. Students' traitand state CA accounted for 8.54 percent of thevariance in students' perceptions of assertiveness(F = 4.34. P < .0 I); 46 percent of the variance inversatility (F = 40.14, P < .0001); and 43 percentof the varance in responsiveness (F = 34.78,p < :0001).

Commonality analysis indicated that for stu-dents' perception of teacher assertiveness (R2 =.0854), unique variance contributed by students'PRCA was .03 percent; students' state apprehen-sion was 7.78 percent; and the combination of bothPRCA and state apprehension was. 73 percent of thetotal explained variance. Consequently, students'state apprehension was the most meaningful pre-dictor of students' perceptions of their teacher'sassertiveness.

For students' perceptions of versatility (R2 =.4633), variance unique to PRCA was .01 percent;unique to state apprehension was 41.03 percent; andthe combination of both PRCA and state apprehen-sion contributed 5.29 percent of the total explainedvariance. Again, students' state apprehension wasthe most meaningful predictor of students' percep-tions of their teacher's versatility 0

For students' perceptions of responsiveness(R2 = .4279), variance uniqueto PRCA was 1.33percent; unique to state apprehension was 41.43percent and the combination of both PRCA and statewas .03 percent of the total explained variance. Likeassertiveness and versatility, students' state ap-prehension was the most meaningful predictor ofstudents' perceptions of their teacher's responsive-ness.

"

,~

if,

,;"-

if'"

,

I

I~f~R!Iirt;.1

~Ii!t~

~

I

54!

Consequently, Hypothesis 6 was supported withthe interpretation that srudents' state apprehensionwas a more meaningful predictor of students' per-ceptions of their teacher's communication style thanstudents' tniit communication apprehension.

Research Question 3: Will students' perceptionsof teacher assertiveness, versatility, and respon-siveness significantly predict students' state ap-prehension?

Multiple-regression analysis was employed toanswer Research Question 3. Students' perceptionsof their teacher's assertiveness, versatility, and re-sponsiveness served as predictors with students'state CA as the single criterion. Results indicatedthat students' perceptions of their teacher's com-munication style significantly predicted students'state apprehension (F = 29.41, P < .0001).

Commonality analysis indicated that whileunique variance was differentially attributable toeach variable, the primary predictors were a combi-nation of versatility and responsiveness (.3238,total R2= .4896). InresponsetoResearchQuestion3 then, it appears that the combination of students'perceptions of their teacher's versatility and respon-siveness were the most meaningful predictors ofstudents' state apprehension (see Summary Table 2).

Research Question 4: Will the addition of stu-dents' trait and state CA be more predictive ofstudents' affect and behavioral commitment than

srudents' perceptions of TCS alone?

Multiple-regression analysis was employed toanswer Research Question 4. Students' PRCA andstate apprehension as well as students' perceptionsof teacher assertiveness, versatility, and respon-siveness served as predictors with students' affectand behavioral commitment as the single criterionvariable. Results indicated that the predictor setsignificantly predicted students' affect and behav-ioral commitment (F = 13.61, P < .0001) andaccounted for 43.05 percent of the total explainedvariance. However, when students' PRCA was en-tered first into the regression analysis, neither thesequential nor partial correlation was significantlyrelated to students' affect and behavioral commit-ment.

542 Communication Yearbook 4

TABLE 2Commonality Analysis Summary Table

Perceived Teacher Style as Predictor of Students'State Co~unication Apprehension

Unique and Cammon Effects

Unique to Assertiveness

Unique to Versatility

Unique to Responsiveness

Common to Assertivenessand Versatility

Cammon to Assertivenessand Responsiveness

Common to Versatilityand Responsiveness

Cammon to Assertiveness,Versatility, andResponsiveness

Totals

Squared Multiple Correlation: .4896

A second multiple-regression analysis was em-ployed with students' PRCAoinitted from the pre-dictor set. Instead, students' perceptions of teacherassertiveness, versatility, and responsiveness aswell as students' state CA served as predictors withstudents' affect and behavioral commitment as thesingle criterion variable. Results indicated that thenew predictor set accounted for 41 percent of thetotal explained variance (F = 15.75, P < .OOI)-adecrease of only 2 percent of explained variancewhen students' PRCA wasomitted from the analy-sis.

Commonality analysis indicated that whileunique variance was attributable to each variable(R2 = .4091; assertiveness = .0462; versatility =.0 I07; responsiveness = .00 II ; and state apprehen-

Components in PerceivedTeacher Style

Assert-iveness

Versa-tility

Respon-siveness

.0022

.0576

.0231

.0152

.0011

.0666

.0851

sion = .0313) and the combinations of variable sets(see Summary Table 3), a combination of all fourpredictor variables contributed substantially moreexplained variance in the criterion (.1083). In re-sponse to Research Question 4 then, it appears thatthe combination of students' state CA and students'

perceptions of the teacher's communication stylewere the most meaningful predictors of students'affect and behavioral commitment.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES

In an effort to determine the significant pre-dictor(s) of students' state apprehension in theclassroom, the following additional analyses wereemployed. Pearson r correlations demonstrated that

.0152

.0011

.3238 .3238

.0666

.4632 . .4146

. .;"Co,. ;..,,,' :.-,,\ H.,. .",'H' ""f'~:;;':" .;;:;:(!f.\W"':1

T A8LE 3

Commonality Analysis Summary Table

Perceived Teacher Style and Students' State Apprehension as Predictorsof Affect and Behavioral Commitment

Unique & Common Effects Assertiveness Versatili ty Responsiveness State

Unique to Assertiveness .0462-Zen

Unique to Versatility .0107-I

c:

Unique to Responsiveness .0011n-I0

Unique to State Apprehension .0313Z>r-

Common to Assertivenessn

-.0088 -.0088 0and Versatility 3:

3:

Common to Assertivenessc:

and Responsiveness .0406 .0406?:n>

Common to Assertiveness-I-

and State -.0046 -.00460Z

Common to Versatilityand Responsiveness .0189 .0189

Common to Versatilityand State .0176 .0176

Common to Responsivenessand State .0039 .0039

(continued) VI+:-v.>

t..

f

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Unique and Common Effects Assertiveness Versatility ResponsivenessState

Common to Assertiveness,Versatility, and .0374 .0374 .0374

Responsiveness

Common to ssertlveness,Versatility and State -.0080 -.0080

-.0080

Common to Assertiveness,

Responsiveness, and .0141.0141 .0141

State

Common to Versatility,

Responsiveness, and .1004 .1004.1004

State

Common to Assertiveness,Versatility, Respon- .1083 .1083 .1083 .1083

sivenes, and State

Totals .2252 .2765 .3247 .2630

Squared Multiple Correlation: .4091

'0

<

fJ

fi:'"~;~.,',~~;f;

~',.t~,.,>;'

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

none of the teacher variables (teachers' PRCA, stateapprehension, or teachers' self-reported communi-cation style) was significantly correlated with stu-dents' state apprehension. However, students' per-ceptions of their teacher's communication stylewere significantly correlated with students' stateapprehensi~n (asserti veness, r = -.29, p < .a I;versatility, r = -.68, p < .0001; and responsive-ness. r = -.64, p < .0001). Further, commonalityanalyses referenced in Research Question 3 indi-cated that the combination of all three perceivedteacher communication-style variables were sig-nificant predictors of students' state apprehension

. (R2 = .49, F = 29.41, P < .0001).The model, however, suggests that students'

state apprehension is additionally derived from stu-dents' t~aitcommunication apprehension. Pearsonrcorrelations indicated that students' state apprehen-sion and PRCA were significantly correlated (r =.35, p < .01). By adding stUdents' PRCA to thepredictor set of students' perceived TCS, total ex-

. plained variance of students' state may be signifi-cantly increased.

A multiple-regression analysis was employedwith students' PRCA and students' perceptions oftheir teachers' assertiveness, versatility. and re-sponsiveness as the predictors, and students' stateapprehension as the single criterion variable. Re-sults indicated that the new predictor set accountedfor 54 percent of the total explained variance (F =26.7, p < .000 I)-an increase of 5 percent of totalexplained variance for students' state apprehension.

Results of commonality analysis for students'state apprehension (R2 = .5400) indicated thatunique variance was differentially attributable toeach variable as well as the various combinations ofvariable sets (see Summary Table 4). According tothis analysis, the most meaningful predictors ofstudents' state apprehension in the classroom werethe combined predictors of students' perceptions ofteacher versatility and responsiveness-accountingfor 28.44 percent of the total expllained variance.

A second supplementary analysis examined therelationships among teachers' PRCA, teacher andstudent perceptions of teacher assertiveness. andstudents' affect and behavioral commitment.

Kearney-Knutson (1980) reported that teachers'and students' perceptions of teacher communication

545

style were found to have some association-at leastfor the assertiveness dimension of teacher com-munication style (r = .27, p < .005). However,partial correlations demonstrated that teachers'PRCA is negatively correlated with students' per-ceptions of teachers' assertiveness (r = - .27,P <.005). Given the identical correlations betweenteachers and students' perceptions of assertivenesswhen compared to teachers' PRCA and students'perceptions of assertiveness, it appears that stu-dents' perceptions of teachers' assertiveness may bea function of the behaviors with which teachers

engage that are directly attributable to teachers' traitcommunication apprehension. Further, students'perceptions of teacher assertiveness was associatedwith students' affect and behavioral commitment.Yet the relationship between teachers' PRCA andstudents' affect and behavioral commitment wasnonsignificant (r = - .02. nsd). Wheneitherteach-ers' trait or state was added to a regression modelpredicting affect and behavioral commitment. totalexplained variance was not increased (see dataanalyses referenced in Research Question 2). It ap-pears then, that teachers' PRCA does not directlyimpact students' affect and behavioral commit-ment, but instead. is indirectly associated with thatcriterion based on teacher behaviors of assertive-

ness that students perceive.

DISCUSSION

The empirical model tested in this study exam-ined the effects of teacher communication style-asperceived by either teachers or students-on stu-dents' affect and behavioral commitment in collegeclasses. Additionally. the model posited a media-tional function for teachers' and students' trait andstate CA for perceptions of teacher style, affect. andbehavioral commitment. The following illustrationdepicts these hypothesized relationships. The re-sults of this investigation demonstrated that TCS,while a meaningful predictor of students' affect andbehavioral commitment, relies on students' percep-tions rather than teachers' self-assessments of theirown teaching style.

Assertiveness. Teacher assertiveness. the firstdimension of TCS, reflects perceptions of teachercontrol in the classroom. Students who perceived

TABLE 4Commonality AnalysisSummary Table

. V1~Q\

Perceived Teacher Style and Students' PRCA as Predictors of Students'State Communication Apprehension

Unique & Common Effects PRCA Assertiveness Versatili ty Responsiveness

Unique to PRCA .0504

Unique tD Assertiveness .0048\)

Unique to Versatility .0304033c

Unique to Responsiveness .0347::1(=)'§,

Commonto PRCAand Assertiveness -.0026 -.0026 0::I-<

Common to PRCA and Versatility .0272 .0272 (1).,c:r

Commonto PRCAand Responsiveness -.0116 -.011600:>':"

Common to Aseertiveness andVersatility .0142 .0142

Common to Assertiveness andResponsiveness -.0017 , -.0017

Commonto Versatility andResponsiveness .2844 .2844

Common to PRCA,Assertiveness,and Versatility .0010 .0010 .0010

Commonto PRCA, Versatility,and Responsiveness .0394 .0394 .0394

-, INSTR UCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 547

':;

'" .Il)r-4Il)CJ.

C{)'C\J

00 .

r-4Il)r-40.

\J).;rr-4.;r.

teachers as decisive. deliberate. challenging, anddynamic also reported greater affect and behavioralcommitment toward the teacher. class. and subjectcontent. Model II illustrates these interrelationshipsamong critical variables relevant to the assertive-ness dimension of teacher communication stylewith Pearson r intercorrelations inserted. Wherezeroes appear in the diagram. nonsignificanrcorre-lations were obtained.

These results further suggest that teachers' traitCA (PRCAt). rather than state CA. was a significantpredictor of those perceptions of assertiveness.Teachers who were perceived highly assertive alsoself-reported low trait CA. Examination of the as-sertiveness construct reveals that assertiveness maybe indicative of a type of state apprehension. Teach-ers high in assertiveness may engage in behaviorscharacteristic of the low-state CA. That is. highlyassertive teachers may be perceived as avoiders ofresponsibility, indecisive. reserved, and uncom-municative. Similarly. low-trait CAs areapproach-oriented in their communication encoun-ters. while high-trait CA's engage in avoidance ofreal or potential communication situations(McCroskey. 1977).

The conclusion that dynamic. assertive teacherswere well-liked by their students, and promotedgreater affect and behavioral commitment towardthe teacher and course is already well-supported inliterature (Roberts & Becker, 1976;Wyckoff, 1973;Deshpande, Webb, & Marks. 1970; Ryans, 1960).However. the conjecture that highly challenging.aggressive teachers may simultaneously createanxiety toward communicating in the classroomwas examined in this investigation as well. Theseresults suggest that student perceptions of highteacher assertiveness were associated with lowerstudents' state apprehension in the classroom.(Note: No causal relationship is asserted here orelsewhere in this study. One can only suggest asso-ciations.) Based on this investigation, teacherassertiveness-training may indeed promote positivestudent affect and behavioral commitment withoutcorrespondingly reducing students' communicativeinvolvement in the classroom.

Versatility. Versatility, the second dimension ofTCS style, refers to perceived adaptiveness of theinstructor to students' needs and characteristics.

!~,

r~L,f.~Mr:":~

~f~'..',",t" Il)

r-4Il)0 .

r-4lI)r-40.

C\J""\J).;r.

'>,~if,Ii:

if;,.

fftIl)r-4Il)CJ.

C{)C\J00.

r-4lI)r-40.

r-4Il)C{)0.

~~:a

i»tt

~

iriI-f:!~~p,fI,ifR~.~,

~i:,:.':i:c.;,i'I'

C{) r-4 r--C\J lI) r-40 r-4 C\J 00 0 r-4 CJ. . . .;r

Il)...e

CD 0CD .....OJ +:Ie CD 10

I OJ CD CD I r-4::> OJ CD e OJ

OJ..... e OJ 0::> to OJ e c.

e ::> OJ UJ 0O "'" ::> OJ U

CD C. +:I to .....a::CD to CD +:IOJ ID ID OJ "C OJea:: (/] e OJ e r-4ID UJ OJ CD 10 C.::>"C c:x:::> III .....

.....e ..... c:x: - +:I+:I 10 -1lI :>- r-4

c:x:e -+:I ::JID - UO c:x:..... :0:CD:>- a::c. Ur-4CDCD+:I c..CD a::......CD "Cc:r:..... OJ c..+:IID III OJ

r-4 0 a:: 10 e r-40...... +:I OCD ID 10 10+:I +:I "C +:I::> +:I ::J

10 e OJ...... 0 [J'e CD e 10 e ::> CD I- en0 0 0E

E0 0 0

U U U

548 Communication Yearbook 4

PRCAt-----I' ~ rcs Ircs - --Affect and Behavioral~ ~ t \

8

\Commitment

Statet Y.

State

1 8

PRCA8

MODEL 1Relationships Among Teacher Communication Style, Communication Apprehension, and Affect and

Behavioral Commitment

.00

~~At~ 1-,

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

.00

j .00.00 l !

Responsi'Jen8SSt~ Responsiveness ~. S7 --Affect and Behavioral

.'0 - ~ ~ Y"~' Coni:1itr.1entState. 1 s00 ~ 0°PRCA .s

PRCA~.:J t ---...,..~.Y--

Statet

549

MODEL 4Responsiveness Dimension of Teacher Communication Style

Students who perceived their teacher as encourag-ing student input. flexible, accommodating, andinfonnal also self-reported greater affect and be-havioral commitment toward the class, content, andinstructor. Model III illustrates intercorrelationsamong those critical variables relevant to the versa-tility dimension of TCS.

While a direct relationship was reported betweenstudent-perceived teacher versatility and studentaffect and behavioral commitment, an indirect re-lationship wa:; noted as well. Versatility was sig-nificantly related to students' state CA in the class-room. In turn, students' state CA was directly re-lated to students' affect and behavioral commit-

ment. These results suggest that not only do ac-commodating, flexible, adaptive, or versatileteaching styles predict greater student affect andbehavioral commitment, but they may also serve toreduce students' fears of communicating in theclassroom. Relaxed, approach-oriented com-municators in the classroom tend to like the classand instructor, and they report higher effect andbehavioral commitment as well.

Responsiveness. Responsiveness, the third di-mension of TCS, refers to emotive, approachable,sensitive, and uninhibited teachers in the class-

room. Like assertiveness and versatility, studentswho perceived their teachers as responsive alsoself-reported greater affect and behavioral com-mitment. Model IV illustrates significant intercor-relations among critical variables relevant to re-sponsiveness.

Coupled with versatility, responsiveness alsopredicted an indirect relationship with students' af-fect and behavioral commitment. Those classes of

students who reported lower levels of state ap-prehension aboUt participating in classroom in-teractions with the instructor also perceived theirteachers to be highly responsive. Correspondingly,low state apprehensive students reported greateraffect and behavioral commitment. These resultssuggest that teachers perceived to be highly ac-cessible, self-disclosive, and open in their interac-tions with students in class may also reduce stu-dents' anxieties about communication, whilesimultaneously promoting greater student affect andbehavioral commitment.

However. the results indicated also that students'

trait CA was a predictor of their own state apprehen-sion. These results do not imply that teacher be-haviors in the classroom are insensitive or irrelevant

to students' potential willingness to participate inclassroom interactions. Instead. this investigationsuggests that students' perceptions of teacher ver-satility and responsiveness were more meaningfulpredictors of students' state apprehension in theclassroom than students' level of trait CA. Con-

sequently, teachers perceived as highly versatileand responsive may enhance student participationby reducing students' state apprehension-regardless of students' trait CA level.

The obvious benefit for the teacher in reducingstudents' state apprehension may be the corre-sponding increase in student feedback to instruc-

550 Communication Yearbook 4

tion. Student feedback is a potential source ofpeer-teaching and modeling. Feedback also servesto promote fidelity of communication in the in-structional process. Finally. earlier investigationsreported that students were perceived differentiallyby teachers as a function of student levels of traitCA. Teachers predicted higher achievement levelsfor the more talkative student (McCroskey & Daly,1976) and expected low CA students to establishbetter interpersonal relationships with others; toenjoy greater success in their careers; and to per-form better in educational endeavors than highlyapprehensive students (Smythe & Powers. 1978).The results of these studies suggest that reduced CAin the classroom and, correspondingly, increasedstudent participation and involvement may lead tomore positive teacher perceptions and expectanciesfor students' performance and achievement in class.

Finally, previous research reported that students'trait CA predicted attitudes toward school in general(Hurt & Preiss, 1978). Perhaps trait CA is nega-tively associated with generalized or traitlike at-titudes toward school, but this investigation foundno such relationship for specific attitudes toward aclass. Instead. students' state CA predicted stu-dents' affect and behavioral commitment. Futureresearch designed to investigate students' affect andbehavioral commitment in instruction should con-

trol for students' state CA for increased precision inprediction and interpretation. (See Kearney-Knutson, 1979, for a detailed critical assessment of

selection procedures, internal and external validity,measures employed, and further suggestions forfuture research.)

NOTE

Special thanks to those who offered guidance in this researchendeavor: Lawrence R. Wheeless and Michael D. SCOII of West

Virginia University: and Lawrence J. Chase of California StateUniversity at Sacramento.

REFERENCES

ANDERSEN. 1. Perceptions of immediacy and communicationstyle as ahered by communication apprehension level. Paperpresented to the annual meeting of the Western SpeechCommunication Association. Los Angeles. 1979a.

ANDERSEN, 1. The relationship between teacher immediacyand teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo. (Ed.), Communi-

cation Yearbook 3. New Brunswick. N. 1.: Transaction-International Communication AssociiJlion. I'.I7'.1b.

BRANAN. 1.M. Negative human interaction. Journal ofCou,,-seling Psychology. 1'.172.1'.1.81-82.

BRUNER. 1.S... GOODNOW. 1.1.. & AUSTIN, G.A. A study(if thinking. New York: lohn Wiley & Sons, 1956.

BUCHHOLZ. S.. LASHBROOK. W.B.. & WENBURG. 1.R.Toward the measurement and processing of social style.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the InternationalCommunication Association. Chicago. 1975.

COHEN. J. Statistical power analysis for the behal'ioral sci-ences. New York: Academic Press. 1977.

COMBS. A. W. Individual behavior. New York: Harper. 1959.COREY. S.M. Definition of instructional design. In P.c.

Lange. (Ed.). Programmed Instruction: NSSE 66th Year.book. Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1967.

DAVIES. G.F. & SCOTT. M.D. Communication apprehen-sion. intelligence. and achievement among secondary schoolstudents. In B.D. Ruben, (Ed.). Communication Yearbook2. New Brunswick, N. 1.: Transaction-International Com-munication Association. 1978.

DAVIES. I.K. Competency based learning: technology. man-agement, and design. New York: McGraw-Hili. 1973.

DESHPANDE.A.S.. WEBB. S.C.. & MARKS. E. Students'perceptions of engineering instructor behaviors and theirrelationships to the evaluation of instructors and courses.American Educational Research Journal. 1970. 7.289-305.

ELLIOT. S. The relationship between background. allitude andcompetence homophily and cognitive, affective and bebav-ioral learning. In D. Nimmo, (Ed.), Communication Year-book 3. New Brunswick. N. 1.: Transaction-InternationalCommunication Association. 1979.

FURTIi. H.G. Piaget and knowledge: theoretical foundations.Englewood Cliffs. N. 1.: Prentice-Hall. Inc., 1969.

GINSBURG. H. & OPPER. S. Piagee's theory of intellectualdevelopment: an introduction. Englewood Cliffs. N. 1.:Prentice-Hall. 1969.

HOLLAND. 1.G.. SOLOMON. D.. DORAN, J., & FREZZA.D.A. The analysis (if behal'ior in planning instrucrion.Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976.

HURT. H.T. & PREISS, R Silence isn't necessarily golden:communication apprehension. desired social choice. andacademic success among middle-school students. HumanCommunication Research. 1978.4.315-27.

KEARNEY-KNUTSON. P.K. Relationships among teachercommunication style. trait and state communication ap-prehension, and teacher effectiveness. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. West Virginia University. 1979.

KEARNEY-KNUTSON, P.K. Perceptual discrepancies inteacher communication style: both sides now. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Western SpeechCommunication Association. Portland. Oregon. 1980.

KELLER. F.S. & SHERMAN, 1.G. The Keller Plan handbook.Menlo Park, Calif.: W.A. Benjamin Co., 1974.

KEMP. 1.E. Instrucrional design: a plan for unit and coursedevelopment. Belmont. Calif.: Fearon Publishers. 197/.

LAMB. D.H. Speech anxiety: Towards a theoretical concep-tualization and preliminary scale development. SpeechMonographs, 1972.39.62-67.

McCROSKEY. 1.C. Oral communication apprehension: a sum-mary of recent theory and research.,Human CommunicationResearch. 1977,4. 78-96.

McCROSKEY. 1.C. Measures of communication bound anxi-ety. Speech Monographs. 1970.37.269.77.

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

McCROSKEY. J.e. & ANDERSEN. J.F. The relationship be-tween communication apprehension and academic achieve-ment among college srudents. Human Communication Re-search. 1976. J. 73-81.

McCROSKEY. J.e. & DAL Y. J.A. Teacher expectations of mecommunication apprehensive child. Human CommunicationResearch. 1976.3.67-7'2.

McPHEE. R.D. & SEIBOLD. D.R. Rarionale. procedures. andapplications for decomposition of explained variance in mul-tiple regression analyses. Communication Research. 1979.6. 345-84.

MERRILL. D. Reference sun.'ey profile. Denver: Personal Pre-dictions and Research. Inc.. 1974.

NORTON. R.W. Foundarion of a communicator style construct.Human Communication Research. 1978.4.99-112.

NORTON. R. W. Teacher effectiveness as a function of com-municator style. In B.R. Ruben. (Ed.). CommunicationYearbook I. New Brunswick. N. 1.: Transaction-International Communication Association. 1977.

RICHMOND. V.P. The relationship between trait and statecommunication apprehension and interpersonal perceptionsduring acquaintance stages. Human Communication Re-search. 1978.4.338-49.

ROBERTS. C.L. & BECKER. S.L. Communication andteaching effectiveness in industrial education. American Ed-ucarional Research Journal. 1976. 13. 181-97.

ROGERS. e.R. Freedom to learn. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E.Merrill. 1969.

RY ANS. D.G. Characteristics of teachers: their description.comparison. and appraisal. Manasha. Wis.: George BantaCo.. Inc.. 1960.

SCOTT. M.D. & WHEELESS. L.R. Toward a reconceptuali-

551

zation of the relationship between communication apprehen-sion and learning: a critical review. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the International Communication Associ-ation. Chicago. 1978.

SCOTT. M.D'..' YATES. M.P.. & WHEELESS. L.R. An ex-

ploratory investigation of the effects of communication ap-prehension in alternative systems of instruction. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the International Com-munication Association. Chicago. 1975.

. SEIBOLD. D.R. & McPHEE. R.D. Commonality analysis: amethod for decomposing explained variance in multiple re-gression analysis. Human Communication Research. 1979.5. 355-365.

SKINNER. B.F. The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs.N. J.: Prentice-Hall. 1968.

SMYTHE. M.J. & POWERS. W.G. When Galatea is apprehen-sive: the effect of communication apprehension on teacherexpectations. In B.D. Ruben. (Ed.). Communication Year.book 2. New Brunswick. N. J.: Transaction-InternationalCommunication Association. 1978.

SNELBECKER. G.E. Learning theory. instructional theory,and psychoeduCGtional design. New York: McGraw-HiliBook Co.. 1974.

SPIELBERGER. e.D. (Ed.) Anxiety and behavior. New York:Academic Press. 1966.

VARGAS. J.S.Behal'ioralpsychologyforteachers. New York:Harper & Row. 1977.

WITTICH. W.A. & SCHULLER. C.F. Instructional technol-ogy: its nature and use. New York: Harper & Row. 1973.

WYCKOFF. W.L. The effects of stimulus variation on learninefrom lecture. Journal of £~perimental Education. 1973. 41~85-90.