TEACHER LEADERSHIP SKILLS: AN ANALYSIS OFCOMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

DOUGLAS E . ROB Y

Associate Professor of Educational LeadershipWright State University

This study involved 107 teachers assessing their apprehension incommunicating within group settings, one-to-one, in meetings,and in large public speaking circumstances. Those involved inthe study were teachers pursuing graduate degrees in teacherleadership. School administrator's acknowledging the talentsand gifts of teaching faculty, and their potential positive influ-ence in the school will gain insight on one very importantteacher leadership skill - communication.

The assessment instrument administered is referred to as the Per-sonal Record of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24).Teachers involved in the study completed the PRCA-24 surveyinstrument designed by McCroskey (1982). The study analyzedthe level of fear or anxiety associated with real and anticipatedoral communication encounters teachers experience on a dailybasis. The scoring instrument assessed communication appre-hension in the four specific domains mentioned above, and thenan overall communication apprehension score was computed.Teachers involved in the study used the results to focus on spe-cific target areas for improving speaking skills.

The analysis includes mean scores, standard deviations, and zratios for the study group. Results for the study group werecompared to national norms, and individual results were givento each teacher for initiating an improvement plan for weakareas. Communication strengths were also highlighted, so theteachers involved in the study were conscious of their speakingeffectiveness.

Becoming aware of leadership skill cation with another person or persons."strengths and weaknesses is crucial for (McCroskey, 1978). Beatty( 1988) deflnedgrowing as teachers, and for leading this fear as" anticipatory audience anxi-coworkers to higher levels of contribution ety", the anxiety experienced by a speakerat the workplace. As part of the require- before an oral presentation,ments for a graduate class in leadershipbehav io r , s tudents comple ted the Review of LiteraturePersonal Record of Communication Witt and Behnke (2006) investigatedApprehension, commonly referred to as anticipatory public speaking anxiety to thethe PRCA-24 (McCroskey, 1985). This nature of speech assignments in commu-survey was used to measure communica- nication courses. The studies were basedtion apprehension of the teachers in the on uncertainty reduction theory, whichcourse, which is defined as "an individ- focuses on communicators' level of com-ual's level of fear or anxiety associated fort speaking in unfamiliar or unpredictablewith either real or anticipated communi- contexts. Anticipatory speech anxiety was

608

Teacher Leadership Skills... / 609

detected during informative speeches thatwere impromptu, extemporaneous, andcompleted by reading a manuscript. In astudy conducted by Limon and La France(2005), communication traits of teammembers in workplaces were examined.Those emerging as leaders were associat-ed with argumentativeness and com-munication apprehension, and combinedwere better predictors of leadership thaneither communication trait individually.

There is research citing the relationshipof listening style preferences and verbalaggressiveness (Worthington, 2005). Inthis empirical study, specific focus was onthe relationship between a person's ten-dency to engage in verbal aggressivenessand listening style preferences. Results ofthe study indicate there is an inverse rela-tionship between verbal aggressivenessand content listening. Berger (2004) notedin his study of speechlessness that emo-tions experienced before and after theevent, along with the social consequencesand lack of knowledge affected levels ofcommunication apprehension.

In a research study by Heningsen andHeningsen (2004) it was discovered thatgroup decision-making was more suc-cessful when they considered groupmembers' cognition, social desirability,and apprehensiveness to communicate.Sharing information in group discussionsled to more openness for all members toshare, thus reducing communication appre-hension and increasing the frequency ofcommunicating. Bartoo and Sias (2004)identified a positive relationship betweensupervisor communication apprehensionand the information load reported byemployees. As the information load from

supervisors increased, apprehensivenessto communicate increased. Too muchinformation tended to lower the chances ofverbal communication between employ-ees and supervisors.

There is research indicating visualiza-tion has been affective in reducingcommunication apprehension (Ayers &Ayers, 2003; Ayers, 1996). Using a com-bination of words and images, it was notedthat this became the most effective way tohelp coworkers reduce public speakingapprehension (deñned as very large groupspeaking; McCroskey, 1982). Those in thestudy exposed to text accompanied by visu-al drawings reported lower public speakingapprehension and envisioned themselvesas public speakers who were positive,vivid, and in control. McCroskey et al(2002) note in their article that the studyof instructional communication, pedagogy,and subject matter are of equal importancein preparing effective educators, thusreducing communication apprehension.

Kelly and Keaten (2000), Beatty,McCroskey and Heise (1998), and Beattyand Valencic (2000) investigated the rela-tionship between heredity andcommunication anxiety. Personality fac-tors were reviewed for potential speechapprehensiveness, especially public speak-ing. These research studies found novelstimuli and the threat of punishment to bekey factors triggering communicationapprehension. The demand for speechpreparation skills was noted, as speakingapprehension significantly predicted antic-ipatory anxiety.

Impromptu speech exercises reducedcommunication apprehension, accordingto a study by Rumbough (1999). Trait

610/EducationVol. 129NO. 4

communication apprehension was mea-sured using McCroskey's PRCA-24instrument. Rumbough noted that studyparticipants who completed the impromp-tu speech significantly lowered theirapprehension to communicate effectively.When eliminating the speech evaluativefactor, students had a greater opportunityto control their apprehensiveness to speak,thus improving their speaking skills insteadof having concern about their grade. Theimportance of working on speaking skillsto reduce communication apprehension isalso supported in a study by Robinson(1997). He noted that a skills-trainingapproach was necessary during regularclass time, which created a supportive andpositive classroom environment for reduc-ing feelings of apprehension.

Dyer (1998) studied communicationapprehension as it relates to gender andlearning style preference. Students enrolledin a speaking course at a large midwest-ern university were part of the study.Apprehensive speaking was significantlycorrelated with learning style preferencefor women, but not for male students. Inanother public speaking course, studentswere required to videotape themselves forassessing their communication skills. Theexperiment noted that levels of apprehen-sion about communicating at meetingsdecreased after using videotape feedback.However, the greatest speech improve-ment was in classroom settings.

A meta-analytic review of communi-cation apprehension studies noted there isa consistent negative relationship betweenthe level of communication apprehensionand communication skills (Allen andBourhis, 1996). The researchers noted that

as a person becomes more apprehensiveabout speaking, both the quality and quan-tity of communication behaviordiminishes. Virtually no research hasfocused on communication apprehension'simpact on the day-to-day communicationof teachers in the field of education.

PurposeAs school administrator's become more

reliant on the gifts and talents of teachersthat are considered informal leaders, it willbe crucial to become aware of speakinganxieties that may inhibit teacher leaders.Those teachers recognized as leaders intheir schools would ideally possess lowcommunication apprehension (CA).Speaking fluently and without anxiety toparents, administrators, educators, com-munity members, and students is aleadership quality and skill worth pursu-ing. It is essential for seeking the highestlevel of contribution to the school. Asteachers continue to grow through profes-sional development opportunities andcontinued graduate work, it is noted thatspeaking skills, and specifically speakinganxieties, need to be addressed and devel-oped. This study focuses on thatdevelopment, through an analysis of speak-ing anxiety ofthe teachers participating.

Methodology

ParticipantsThe subjects of this study were K-12

teachers in rural, suburban, and urban Ohioschool districts pursuing graduate degreesin teacher leadership. They were enrolledin the Wright State University, College ofEducation and Human Services Teacher

Teacher Leadership Skilis... / 611

Leader Program. They completed a com-munication apprehension survey as aself-analysis technique, specifically gearedtoward discovering and enhancing lead-ership strengths and weaknesses. Themajority of the teachers worked at ele-mentary schools, between the ages of26-35, and were female (Table 1). Mostwere Caucasian, early in their teachingcareer (1-5 years).

InstrumentThe Personal Record of Communica-

tion Apprehension (PRCA-24) was used toattain the level of fear or anxiety experi-enced by the subjects. It consists of 24Likert-type statements, with 12 of the state-ments reversed to avoid response bias. ThePRCA-24 is based on four communica-tion contexts suggested to be the mostrelevant to speaking anxiety: speaking insmall groups, speaking in meetings, inter-personal speaking, and public speaking(McCroskey, 1982).

Table 1 Demographics (N=107)

Grade Level TeachingElementaryMiddle/Junior HighSecondary

Age25 or younger26-3536-4647-5555+

EtlinicityCaucasianAfrican-AmericanHispanicOther

GenderMaleFemale

Teaching Experience1-5 Years6-10 Years11-2020+

N631529

21551614

1

101321

2087

6226154

%58.914.027.1

19.651.415.013.0

1.0

94.42.81.8I.O

18.781.3

58.024.314.03.7

612 / Education Voi. 129 No. 4

Six items on the survey instrument rep-resent each area. Those completing thesurvey receive sub-scores in small groupspeaking, speaking at meetings, one-on-one speaking, and public speaking. Eventhough the sub-groups have proven to bereliable, they are less consistent because ofthe reduced number of items as comparedto the total PRCA-24 score.

ResultsThose completing the PRCA-24 will

have total scores falling within a range of24-120 points. National norms reveal thattotal scores below 51 points indicate verylow CA. Total scores in the range of SI-SO points are considered moderate.PRCA-24 scores of 81 points and higherare congruent with a high level of anxietywhen communicating. Results can be bro-ken down into four sub-categories, basedon the type of speaking venue. Group (3-15 people) sub-scores more than 20 pointsindicate a high level of CA, while thosewith scores under 11 points have low CAin this type of setting. The Meeting sub-

group (approximately 16-30 people) dis-closes a high level of CA for the speakerif the score is more than twenty. Thosewith sub-scores less than 13 have high CA.Dyad, defined as one-on-one speaking,finds norms higher than 18 points beingconsidered high CA, and scores less than11 are indicative of low CA in this sub-category. The final sub-score of thePRCA-24 is Public (very large audience).Speakers scoring more than 24 points havehigh CA. Those scoring less than 14 pointsare determined to have low CA.

Table 2 lists the compiled results of thestudy group (N=107) with establishednational norms. Overall results illustratethe study group participants have less CAin all sub-categories of the PRCA-24, whencompared with the national norms in eacharea. Statistically significant differences(p<.01) are noted in Group, Meeting, andPublic speaking venues. The total PRCA-24 mean scores reveal a significantdifference (p<.05) between comparisongroups.

Table 2 PRCA-24 Results

Natiotial

Norms

Study

Group

z ratio

N

25,000

107

GroupM SD

15.4

13.9

4.8

4.6

3.36*

MeetitigM SD

16.4

15.1

4.8

5.2

2.57*

DyadM SD

14.5

14.4

4.2

4.3

0.24

PublicM SD

19.3

18.3

5.1

5.2

3.90*

OverallM SD

65.6

61.7

15.2

16.4

2.44**

p<.05

Teacher Leadership Skills... / 613

ConclusionGraduate students participating in the

study have specific focus areas to addressto reduce CA in group settings, meetings,one-to-one dialogue, and public speakingsituations. Graduate teachers that foundspeaking skills to be a target area forimprovement developed a plan to addressweaknesses. Leadership courses will becontinually modified to accommodate andassess those working on specific CA skillareas, for comparison analysis. Contin-ued research is needed to evaluatedifferences (if any) in CA between maleand female teachers, the effects of work-place culture on CA (e.g., employee/supervisor relationships), relationshipsbetween teaching experience and CA, andthe relationship of CA to listening aware-ness.

ReferencesAllen, M. & Bourhis, J. (1996). The relationship

of communication apprehension to communi-cation behavior: A meta-analysis. Commun-ication Quarterly, 44(2) 214-226.

Ayres, J. (2005). Performance visualization andbehavioral disruption: A clarification. Commu-nication Reports, 18(1), 55-63.

Ayers, J. & Ayers, T. (2003). Using images toenhance the impact of visualization. Commu-nication Reports, 16(\), 45-55.

Ayers, J. (1996). Speech preparation processes andspeech apprehension. Communication Educa-tion, 45(3), 228-235.

Bartoo, H. & Sias, P. (2004). When enough is toomuch: Communication apprehension andemployee information experiences. Communi-cation Quarterly, 52(1), 15-26.

Beatty, M. & Valencic, K. (2000). Context-basedapprehension versus planning demands: Acommunibiological analysis of anticipatorypublic speaking anxiety. Communication Edu-cation, 49(1), 5S-71.

Beatty, M., McCroskey, J. & Heisel, A. (1998).Communication apprehension as tempera-mental expression: A communibiological para-digm. Communication Monographs, 65 (3),197-220.

Beatty, M., Balfantz, G., Kuwabara, A. (1989).Trait-like qualities of selected variablesassumed to be transient causes of performanceanxiety. Communication Education, 38, 211-289.

Beatty, M. (1987). Communication apprehensionas a determinate of avoidance, withdrawal andperformance anxiety. Communication Quar-terly, 35, 202-217.

Berger, C. (2004). Speechlessness: Causal attribu-tions, emotional features and social con-sequences. Journal of Language and SocialPsychology, 23(2), 147-179.

Duff, D., Levine, T. & Beatty, M. (2007). Testingpublic anxiety treatments against a credibleplacebo control. Communication Education,56(1), 72-88.

Dwyer, K. (1998). Communication apprehensionand learning style preference: Correlations andimplications for teaching. CommunicationEducation, 47(2), 137-150.

Heningsen, D. & Heningsen, M. (2004). The effectof individual difference variables on informa-tion sharing in decision-making groups.Human Communication Research, 30(4), 540-555.

Hinton, J. & Kramer, M. (1998). The impact ofself-directed videotape feedback on students'self-reported levels of communication compe-tence and apprehension. CommunicationEducation, 47(2), 151-161.

Kelly, L. & Keaten, J. (2000). Treating communi-cation anxiety: Implications of the commun-ibiological paradigm. Communication Educa-tion, 49(1), 45-51.

614/Education Vol. 129 No. 4

Limon, M. & La France, B. (2005). Communica-tion traits and leadership emergence: Examin-ing the impact of argumentativeness, commu-nication apprehension, and verbal aggress-iveness in work groups. Southern Communi-cation Journal, 70(2),123-133.

McCroskey, J., Richmond, V. & Johnson, A.(2004). Organization orientations theory andmeasurement: Development of measures andpreliminary investigations. CommunicationQuarterly, 52(1), 1-14.

McCroskey, L., Richmond, V. & McCroskey, J.(2002). The scholarship of teaching and learn-ing: Contributions from the discipline ofcommunication. Communication Education,57(4), 383-391.

McCroskey, J. et al. (1985). The content validityof the PRCA-24 as a measure of Communi-cation apprehension across communicationcontexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165-173.

McCroskey, J. (1982). An Introduction to Rhetor-ical Communication (4th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McCroskey, J. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as anindex of oral communication Apprehension.Communication Monographs, 45 (192-203).

Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E. & Mayo, C. (2007).The spiral of silence and fear of isolation.Journal of communication, 57{3), 450-468.

Robinson, T. (1997). Communication apprehen-sion and the basic public speaking course: Anational survey of in-class treatment tech-niques. Communication Education, 46(3),188-197.

Rumbough, T. (1999). The effects of impromptuspeech exercises in reducing trait and situa-tional communication apprehension. NewJersey Journal of Communication, 7(2), 206-215).

Witt, P. & Behnke, R. (2006). Anticipatory speechanxiety as a function of public speaking assign-ment type. Communication Education, 55(2),167-177.

Worthington, D. (2005). Exploring the relation-ship between listening style preference andverbal aggressiveness. International Journalof Listening, 79, 3-11.

Zhang, Q. & Oetzel, J. (2006). Constructing andvalidating a teacher immediacy scale: A Chi-nese perspective. Communication Education,55(2), 218-241.

(1997). Avoiding communication shy-ness, reticence, and communicationapprehension. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.