COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACHIEVEMENT IN A PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED BASIC COMMUNICATION COURSE

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACHIEVEMENT IN A PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED BASIC COMMUNICATION COURSE

WILLIAM POWERS MARY JEANETTE SMYTHE North Texas State University University of Missouri-Columbia

The study of communication apprehension (CA) impact in the instructional environment is extended through examination of all three CA levels relative to various performance situations in a basic communication course. Results indicate significant differences in achievement indices between all three CA groups on final course grade and the first two of four performance assignments. Moderate and high CA groups were not significantly different from each other on the third and fourth performance tasks. Low and high CA groups were significantly different in all performance areas. No differences were indicated between CA groups on the final examination. Results are discussed relative to the naturalistic nature of the study.

This role of communication apprehension in shaping educational outcomes has emerged as a major concern of instructional communication re- searchers. An ever-increasing body of evidence has accumulated, indicating that there is a pervasive relationship between this communication variable and various aspects of the academic experience. Recent research has demonstrated that communication apprehension is related to (1) academic achievement, as measured by standardized tests or GPAs (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976; Scott & Wheeless, 1977; Scott, Wheeless, Yates, & Ran- dolph, 1977); (2) student attitudes toward education (Hurt & Preiss, 1978; McCroskey & Sheahan, 1978); (3) various classroom behaviors of students (McCroskey & Sheahan, 1976; McCroskey, 1977b); (4) student preferences for instructional strategies and settings (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976; Scott & Wheeless, 1977); and ( 5 ) teacher expectations for achievement levels of elementary students (McCroskey & Daly, 1976), high-school

William G . Powers (Ph.D., University ofOklahoma, 1973) is an assistant professor of communication at North Texas State Uni- versity, Denton, Texas 76203. Mary Jeanette Smythe (Ph.D., Florida State University, 1973) is an assistant professor of communication at University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65201. This study accepted for publication June 4, 1979.

students (Powers & Dunathan, 1978), and college students (Smythe & Powers, 1978a). Taken together, these studies invite the conclusion that high levels of communication apprehension yield negative academic outcomes. So pronounced is the trend that McCroskey has likened the communication apprehensive student to the learning impaired or dis- abled student (McCroskey, 1977a), although there appears to be no strong relationship between communication apprehension and intelligence (Bashore, 1971; McCroskey, Daly, & Sorensen, 1976).

Communication apprehension (CA) refers to an anxiety or fear syndrome experienced in relation to either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons. Based on documented cases alone, McCroskey estimates that severe communication apprehension affects some 15-20 percent of the college student population (McCros- key, 1977a). Despite the magnitude of the problem, and the proliferation of research efforts aimed at revealing the antecedents and consequences of the phenomenon, significant issues remain unresolved. One of the most perplexing and conceptually salient of these involves the relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement. The findings noted earlier, revealing that high levels

Powers and Smythe 147

of CA have a generally negative impact on student learning and grades, may be, in light of recent findings, less clear-cut than originally thought. Three areas are of particular relevance.

Most CA research has proceeded on the tacit assumption that any course which places a high premium upon oral performance will be more dif- ficult for the high CA student, thereby increasing the probability of a poor academic performance. Studies summarized by McCroskey (1977b), while supporting this assumption, might be criticized to the extent that most have focusd on courses which are characterized by the “lecture-discussion’’ instructional mode. Other instructional strategies, in- cluding individualized instruction systems (Scott, Wheeless, Yates, & Randolph, 1977), large lecture (communication-restricted) strategies (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976), or basic performance courses, have been only slightly investigated or ignored al- together. Given the pervasive effects of instructional settings upon other communication variables, further exploration is warranted. It seems logical to argue that a basic public-speaking course is a po- tentially vital arena for such probes. For many students, a basic performance course is not only an academic requirement, but also represents the only systematic communication instruction they ever receive. Moreover, the characteristic teaching strategies, assignments, and activities associated with these courses should, according to current con- ceptualizations, provide precisely the type of environment in which CA effects on achievement would emerge for unambiguous assessment. Thus, the present study examines whether the achievement effects associated with CA in one instructional system, in which the communicative demands placed on students might be described as moderate, gener- alize to another in which highly specific communication demands direct student performance.

In addition, the bulk of CA research might be characterized as theoretically myopic in pursuing the relationship between communication apprehension and achievement largely on the basis of com- parisons between only high and low communication-apprehensive students. The liability inherent in this approach is obvious. In the absence of data representing the achievement of those students who

display what could be labeled “average” or “nor- mal” levels of communication apprehension, how may any differences between those students either high or low in level of communication apprehension be meaningfully assessed? Indeed, the findings from the two studies, which included moderate communication-apprehensive students in their populations, question the presumably disabling effects of high CA on student achievement (McCros- key, 1977a). Further research designed to probe the relationship between all levels of CA and achievement is clearly necessary. On that basis, the moder- dte CA group was included as an independent variable in all analyses.

On the basis of previous research, the following hypothesis was developed:

HI: Low CA students will receive significantly higher final course grades than high CA students in an oral performance basic communication course.

In light of the lack of a consistent body of literature regarding the potential educational impact of moderate CA on student achievement, the following corollary researeh question was fonnulated

QI: To what extent are moderate CA students differentiated from low and high CA students on the final course grade in an oral performance basic communication course?

Secondly, the vast majority of CA studies operationalize achievement in terms of final grades awarded to students (as above), rather than at- tempting to examine the progression of grades ac- quired across an entire semester or school year. While such data are indicative of the deleterious effects on achievement associated with high levels of CA (McCroskey, 1977b), the operations of the variable in the actual learning situation will remain obscured so long as final course grades or overall GPAs are used as the principle indices of achievement. It may seem reasonable to infer that these indices are adequate reflections of class performance, but the assumption is largely unsubstan- tiated. The relationship between CA and perfor-

148 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 6, No. 2, WINTER 1980

mance on various learning activities, as well as final course grades, requires investigation. Previous findings suggest that students who are highly apprehensive about oral communication might be ex- pected to perform less adequately in public speaking (Freimuth, 1976), on certain types of classroom projects, and on achievement tests (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976). These results, however, are generally less persuasive than they might initially ap- pear. Scott and associates, investigating the relationship between CA and achievement in per- sonalized systems of instruction (PSI), found that high CA students not only performed as well as their low CA peers on required examinations, but also appeared to learn more efficiently (Scott, Wheeless, Yates, & Randolph, 1977).

A second concern in this study, then, was to explore the relationship between CA and achievement in different performance situations within an oral performance basic communication instructional system. Three situations are commonly utilized: individual speeches, a group symposium presentation, and an objective final examination. Current understanding of CA effects on achievement suggests that highly apprehensive students would experience the greatest difficulties with individual speeches, but might perform more effec- tively in a group setting or on a written examination. These indices of student performance, in combina- tion with final course grades, provide a fairly complete profile of student achievement across a single semester.

Concomitant with the literature associated with Hypothesis 1, the following hypothesis was formu- lated:

Hz: Low CA students will receive significantly higher evaluations on performance elements in the basic communication course than will high CA students.

Additionally, on the basis of the preceding discussion, the following corollary research question was generated:

Q 2 : To what extent are moderate CA students differentiated from low and high CA students on

performance elements in the basic communication class?

Each of the foregoing issues is of substantial importance to an accurate vision of communication apprehension as a predictor of academic achievement. It seems apparent that more information should be gathered concerning the effects of all levels of CA on student achievement in a variety of performance situations within the basic communication course. The current study was undertaken to meet this need.

METHOD

Data for this study were collected from the enrollment in a multisection basic speech communication course. In most salient aspects, the course could be described as typical of the fundamentals of speech communication courses in colleges and universities (Gibson, Kline, & Gruner, 1974). Briefly, the course entailed the fol!owing elements and procedures:

1, Students attended a weekly lecture which COV-

ered various topics related to units covered in the text and laboratory section.

2. Students met in laboratory sections twice weekly, with enrollment per section limited to 24, wherein speaking assignments were completed and course content elaborated by individual instructors.

3. All students were required to complete three speaking assignments and to participate in one group symposium. The speaking assignments were differentially weighted to ensure uniform evaluation across sections and facilitate grading for improvement, as students progressed through instructional segments of the course.

4. A 50-item multiple-choice examination, cover- ing key concepts from the weekly lecture, textbook assignments, and classroom discus- siGns, was completed by all students at the end of the semester.

All students enrolled in the class were asked to complete the 20-item Personal Report of Communi-

Powers and Srnytbe 149

cation Apprehension (PRCA; McCroskey , 1970) approximately two weeks before the conclusion of classes.' The PRCA was among several descriptive instruments concerning the course content, teachers, and materials which students completed during this period. Students and their teachers were told that the data were being gathered by the de- partment for the purpose of determining future cur- ricular and instructional procedures. A total of 723 usable PRCA forms was obtained. Student scores on the PRCA were used to operationally define low, moderate, and high CA students for the purposes of this study.

The PRCA has consistently produced internal reliability indices above .90 and test-retest reliability indices above 30, and predictive validity has been established in numerous studies (McCroskey , 1978). These findings suggested that the PRCA was a sufficiently rigorous instrument for assigning students to CA categories. From the 723 PRCAs a mean was computed (%=58.92). Criteria for inclusion in the high CA or low CA group were deter- mined by scores falling in the array at a point either less than or more than one standard deviation above or below the mzan (SD=12.76). Scores falling within one standard deviation of the mean were classified as representative of moderate CA.

With regard to our hypotheses and research ques- tions, achievement was operationalized in the following way. After completion of the course, the grade books of 12 teachers were obtained. Letter grades for each of the class presentations, the final examination, ana the final course grade were transformed into numerical scores on the following basis: A=4, B=3, C=2, D = l , and F=O. Plus and minus values were not represented. Not all students previously tested for communication apprehension were represented in this analysis due to the unav- ailability of either grade books or teachers. This resulted in 73 students classified as low CA students, 72 students classified as high CA students, and 265 students classified as moderate CA students in the final sample.

Class activities used to compute final course grades are presented in sequential order in Table 1. The method of evaluating class participation varied widely between teachers (i.e., checks, plus and

minus, asterisks, letter grades, and numerical scores), and was therefore excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Internal reliability estimates of the PRCA (split- half r=.93) and the final examination (split-half r= .84) were acceptable. Reliability estimates of performance evaluations were not obtainable due to the naturalistic nature of the study, the changing of criteria for each assignment, and alterations in students' actual performance.

To assess the impact of student CA levels upon achievement, relative to the issues raised previously, grade element data were initially submitted to a MAWOVA across CA groups. This and all additional analyses were conducted with unequal cell size statistical options operative and a probability parameter of .05 established. The MANOVA (using Wilks Criteria j indicated a significant main effectforCAlevel(F=3.860;df=lZ, 796:variance accounted for=. 11 j. On that basis, univariate analysis of variance was utilized in further testing to explore speclfic issues. AsignificantCAeffect(F=9.471;df=2,407)on

final course grades emerged from this analysis. Further comparison using Fisher's Least Squares Difference procedure (see Table 1 j indicated that low CA students achieved significantly more than either moderate or high CA students. Thus. Hy- pothesis 1 was supported. In addition. the moderate CA group achieved significantly more than the high CA group.

Apprehertsiort arid Achiei.enient or1 Performarice Measures

Achievement on four oral assignments and one written examination was then analyzed through a series of 1 x 3 analyses of sariance. Grades achieked by low, moderate. and high CA students on each of the graded elements of the course were found to differ significantly on alloral assignments. Means. F values, and Omega-squared coefficients are displayed in Table 1. On the single written


TABLE 1 Mean Scores and F Values of Graded Elements

Graded Element Low CA Ti Mod CA 51 High CA ?T F Value W2

~~ ~ ~ ~~

1. Informational Speech 3.2a’b 2.8a’C 2.6b’c 11.855* .06

2 . Symposium Presenta t ion 3.3a’b 3 . 1 ~ ’ ~ 2,9b’c 6.749* .03

11.260* .05 b 3 . Persuasive Speech 9.4” t b 9 -0“ 2.9

4. Major Speech 3.7“Bb 3.4“ 3 .2b 8.309* .&

5. F i n a l Examination 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.778

6 . F ina l Course Grade 3.3a’b 2.9b’c 9.471* .06

* p < .O5, d f = 2 , 407

Note: - Means with t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (lower than means f o r low CA group) using F i s h e r ’ s Least Squares Difference procedures.

performance measure, the objective examination, no significant differences emerged as a function of student apprehension level.

Comparison of cell means with Fisher’s Least Square Difference procedures (see Table 1) re- vealed that low CA students were evaluated significantly higher than their high CA peers in each of the oral performances. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. Moreover, their achievement was also significantly higher than that of moderate CA students on all oral assignments. Further, the moderate CA group achievement was significantly higher than that of the high CA group on the first performance (informative speech) and on the second performance (symposium). No differences between the moderate and high CA groups were indicated on either the persuasive speech or the major speech.2

DISCUSSION

Generally, the current research supports the thesis that low CA students are evaluated signifi-

cantly higher than their high CA counterparts. Given that previous contentions regarding evaluations were based primarily upon behavioral de- scriptions, the confirmation of those findings in actual on-going classrooms is a major point of vali- dation concerning CA-related achievement.

Further, the study brings into sharper focus the recently emerging contention that the high CA group is not so deviant from the norm as is the low CA group. The moderate CA group was significantly differentiated from the high and low CA groups on the first two of four class performance evaluations and on the final grade. Such differences were not indicated on the last two performance evaluations. This is interesting in light of the total lack of difference between CA groups on the final examination. The last two performance evaluations were purported to represent 45 percent of the final grade. When the final examination is also consid- ered, 54 percent of the final grade lies in evaluations which found no differences between moderate and high CA groups. Yet the final course grade still

Powers and Smythe 151

reflects the CA differences found in the first two performances. Perhaps the final course grade is subject to a primary effect rather than the recency effect most commonly acknowledged in basic performance classes.

Teachers’ perceptions of increased in-class and out-of-class interaction with low CA students may provide insight into these differences, particularly when combined with the literature positing higher teacher expectancies toward low CA students than toward high CA students (Smythe & Powers, 1978b). It may be possible that “class participation” is indeed a major variable. The theoretical model developed by Smythe and Powers (1978a) posits a significant impact on overall teacher evaluation from the amount and nature of in-class and out-of-class task and social interactions between the teacher and the student.

Following this logic, it seems reasonable to infer that the positive expectancies toward the low CA student, based on their performance in the first two presentations and increased interaction with the teacher, may establish a precedent for future evaluations. In like fashion, the less positive expectancies toward the high CA student based upon the same criteria may result in closer scrutiny of individual performance grades and a more stringent application of the assigned grading system.

The two previous studies reported by McCroskey and Andersen (1976) and Scott, Wheeless, Yates, and Randolph (1977) examined CA and evaluation in learning environments in which the communicative demands placed upon students ranged from moderate to minimal. The absence of deleterious effects associated with high CA in the latter in- stances does not seriously challenge the presumed impact of the CA variable. In an oral-performance- based course like the one examined in this study, the presence of differences between all three CA groups should not be ignored. The finding that low CA students are evaluated at consistently higher levels than both moderate and high CA students on appa- rently critical evaluations supports the positive impact of low CA. It should be noted, however, that high CA students’ average grades on performance are evaluated as lower than moderate or low CA groups; the evaluation is not necessarily negative in

nature. Rather, it may be conceived as less positive. Even with that orientation, however, the thesis un- derlying the CA theoretical framework that low CA is a preferable state to that of moderate or high CA is supported. The preceding comments are made with consideration of current practices associated with grade inflation.

To the extent that these findings are generalizable to other similar classroom settings, some alterations in research perspectives and strategies are indicated. While it seems plausible that if the criteria for inclusion in the high CA group are made more stringent (i.e., 1.5 or 2.0 standard deviations above the PRCA mean), the positivelnegative impact would become more pronounced (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976), the efficacy of using only extreme groups for comparison is limited. Rather, our findings suggest that research attempts be directed toward exploring both behavioral and evaluation differences among the full range of communication apprehensives. The previous research dramatizing the debilitative effects of high CA may, in fact, be realistically interpreted as also illustrating the facilitative effects of low CA relative to the norm of moderate CA. Until the new body of research de- velops, the picture of the full relationship between communication apprehension, teacher evaluation, and behavior will remain unclear.

NOTES

1. With communication apprehension (CA) treated as a trait variable, the need to determine CA scores at various points in the semester was limited. McCros- key (1970) has addressed the issue of CA change as a function of communication class attendance and performance and posited minimal positive impact.

2. As a supplemental post hoc analysis, the individual performance evaluations were regressed on the final grade for each CA classification. Discrepancies in variance accounted for by the models and predictor inclusion in the model were noted. Compfete details of the analysis are available from the authors. Given that the present study does not lend itself to regression analysis techniques, details are not provided hen. Interested parties should contact the authors for further elaboration.


REFEEaENCES

BASHORE, D.N. Relationships among speech anxiety, IQ, and high school achievement. Unpublished Master’s thesis, I1- linois State University, 1971.

FREIMUTH, V.S. The effects of communication apprehension on communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 289-298.

GIBSON, J.W., KLINE, J.A., & GRUNER, C.R. A re- examination of the first courses in speech at U.S. colleges and universities. Speech Teacher, 1974, 3, 206-214.

HURT, H.T., & PREISS, R. Silence isn’t necessarily golden: Communication apprehension, desired social choice, and academic success among middle school children. Humun Communication Research, 1978, 4, 314-328.

McCROSKEY, J.C. Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 269-277.

McCROSKEY, J.C. Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Mono- graphs, 1978, 45, 192-203.

McCROSKEY, J.C. Classroom consequences of communication apprehension. Communication Education, 1977a, 26,

McCROSKEY, J.C. Oral communication apprchension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communi- cation Research, 1977b. 4, 78-96.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & ANDERSEN, J.F. The relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among college students. Human Communica- tion Research, 1976, 3, 73-81.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & DALY, J.A. Teachers’ expectations of the communication apprehensive child in the elementary

27-33.

school. Human Communication Research, 1976,3,67-72. McCROSKEY, J.C., DALY, J.A., & SORENSEN, G.A. Per-

sonality correlates of communication apprehension. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 376-380.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & SHEAHAN, M.E. Seating positionand participation: An alternative theoretical explanation. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Convention, Portland, Oregon, 1976.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & SHEAHAN, M.E. Communication apprehension, social preference and social behavior in a college environment. Communication Quarterly, 1978, 26, 41-45.

POWERS, W.G., & DUNATHAN, A.T. Student teacher success expectancies for communication apprehensive students. Paper presented to the International Communication Asso- ciation Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1978.

SCOTT, M.S., & WHEELESS, L.R. Communication a p prehension, student attitudes and levels of satisfaction. West- ern Journal ofspeech Communication, 1977,41, 188-199.

DOLPH F.L. The effects of communication apprehension and test anxiety on three indicants of achievement in an alternative system of instruction: A follow-up study. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I , New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1977, 543-554.

SMYTHE, M.J., & POWERS, W.G. When Galatea is apprehensive: The effect of communication apprehension on teacher expectations. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I I , New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978a, 487-491.

SMYTHE, M.J., & POWERS, W.G. Communication apprehension and teacher expectations: A classroom model of academic outcomes. Unpublished monograph, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1978b.

SCOTT, M.D., WHEELESS, L.R., YATES, M.P., & RAN-

Documents

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACHIEVEMENT IN A PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED BASIC COMMUNICATION COURSE