Chapter 2

Factors Influencing Learning

and Communication
Powell, R., & Powell, D. (2010). Classroom Communication and Diversity:
Enhancing instructional practice (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Enrique and Danielle are in the teachers lounge savoring the last drops
of their coffee before scurrying off to their first period class. Rosa Parks
Middle School, where Enrique and Danielle teach, is located in a lowincome ethnically diverse community. For many students, English is not
their first language and the verbal skills of many other students are
below grade level. The test scores at Rosa Parks have been low and the
Principal has made it very clear that she expects substantial improvement. Teachers like Enrique and Danielle face a daunting taskthey
must meet state standards, raise test scores, and excite the students about
learning. It is in this context that teachers can easily forget their fundamental chargeto help students learn.
Learning is a complex process entailing a number of interrelated factors. Enrique and Danielle will be more effective in the classroom when
they have a deep understanding of these factors, then they can develop
teaching strategies to meet their instructional goals and address the needs
of students. In this chapter we will define the learning context and examine three areas that are related to the teaching learning process: student
abilities, student motivation and classroom communication.

Reflection
What role does communication play in the learning process?
How can a teacher motivate a student to learn?

The Learning Context

Our definition of communication states that people act upon the meanings they construct. Our view of learning follows from our definition of
communication. It is not fruitful to believe that students are empty vessels
to be filled with intellectual fluid. Rather, students are active agents in the

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

27

creation and management of educational material. Constructivism, a perspective that has been studied in communication and education, resonates
with our view. Kellys (1955) Personal Construct Theory, Piagets (1955)
Developmental Theory, and Meads (1934) Theory of Symbolic
Interactionism provide the conceptual basis for this perspective. Brooks
and Brooks (1993) summarized constructivist processes when they stated:
Each of us makes sense of our world by synthesizing new experiences
into what we have previously come to understand. Often we
encounter an object, an idea, a relationship, or a phenomenon that
doesnt quite make sense to us. When confronted with such initially
discrepant data or perceptions, we either interpret what we see to
conform to our present set of rules for explaining or ordering the
world, or we generate a new set of rules that better accounts for what
we perceive is occurring. Either way our perceptions and rules are
constantly engaged in a grand dance that shapes our understandings.
(p. 4)
Thus, learning occurs through the continuous building, integration,
organization, and rebuilding of material. At the core of this perspective
is the recognition that language, culture, home, and community play
important roles in the knowledge structures students possess. Consider,
for example, the way that a class discussion on music would be impacted
by culture. One family may listen to rancheras, corridos, cumbias, and
marriachi music. Another may listen to country western, bluegrass, and
gospel. The discussion of music will be intimately tied to the students
experiences.
Culture also influences the constructs that students have for managing
social situations. An Iranian student new to America went shopping for
clothes at a department store. After selecting the shirt he wished to purchase, he haggled with the clerk over the price. The Iranian student
equated buying a shirt in a department store with buying a shirt in the
open marketplace in Tehran where negotiating the price is the common
practice.
Constructivist approaches recognize that students come to the instructional context with different levels of competencies, interests, and experiences. Unfortunately, much of our educational curriculum is based on
a one size fits all metaphor. As students move through the system, little
effort is spent on tailoring instructional cloth to better fit each student.
Unfortunately learning does not follow this pattern. Students come to
class in many different shapes and sizes.
Indeed, students draw upon a range of interpersonal and educational
constructs to learn instructional material and manage classroom relationships. Garcia (1999) stated that meaningful instruction accounts for

28

Foundations

the socio-cultural, linguistic, and experiential background of students.

While an instructor may have jurisdiction over curriculum, ultimately
the student has jurisdiction over what it means (Wenger, 1998). In other
words, students use their experiences and abilities to make sense out of
the instructional material.
Because learning entails the negotiation of instructional material, it is
difficult to isolate the specific ways that teaching influences learning.
Some theorists go as far to contend that teaching plays a rather minor
role in learning (e.g. the Coleman Report, 1966; Heath & Nielson, 1974;
Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972). The findings of this early research indicated that family socio-economic status, ethnicity, and family background are more important predictors of achievement than teaching.
Think about arguments teachers like Enrique and Danielle make when
they try to explain the low scores of their students on state achievement
tests. These teachers recognize that there are significant factors outside
of the school that influence learning. At the same time, we do not want
to argue that teachers do little to influence learning process. Friedrich
(1982) argued that three sets of interrelated variables account for classroom learning: student ability, student motivation, and the quality of
classroom communication are the primary factors influencing achievement. These three areas provide a useful starting point for our discussion
of the relationship between teaching and learning.
Student Ability
We argued earlier that students enter the classroom with a wide range of
abilities and competencies. Friedrich (1982) contended that these abilities
account for a substantial amount of variance on a range of cognitive outcome assessments (i.e. achievement tests, aptitude tests, general intelligence
measures, unit measures). The scores that students receive on standardized
assessments, such as multiple choice tests, may have more to do with the
intellectual predilections of the student than with the classroom instruction.
Recent developments in cognitive psychology give insight into the
intellectual capacities that students possess and bring to the instructional
scene. Gardner (1983, 1993, 1999) proposed a provocative framework
that has dramatically influenced educational practices. In his original
work, Frames of Mind, Gardner outlined seven intelligences and in The
Disciplined Mind, he added an eighth intelligence. Following is a brief
discussion of these intelligences:

Linguistic Intelligence entails the ability to use words effectively in

both oral and written modes for a variety of purposes such as debate,
poetry, prose writing, story telling, and persuasion. Individuals with
highly developed linguistic intelligence enjoy verbal jousting, puns,

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

29

and other forms of word play. These individuals achieve best when
they can speak, listen, read, or write.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence involves the capacity to reason, to
think atomistically, and linearly. People who employ logical-mathematical intelligence are effective at finding patterns, establishing
causal relationships, and working through formulas. Among the
processes that emerge with this intelligence are categorization, classification, hypothesis testing and generalization.
Spatial Intelligence addresses the ability to perceive, create, and recreate visual images and pictures. Individuals who are strong in spatial intelligence, perceive small details, and are sensitive to color,
tone, composition, shape, and form. This intelligence entails the
capacity to visualize and represent ideas graphically or spatially.
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence involves the ability to use ones body
to express ideas and feelings. Among the defining features of this
intelligence is heightened tactile competence, coordination, balance,
dexterity, and flexibility.
Musical Intelligence is the ability to understand, create, interpret and
discriminate among musical forms. Musically intelligent people have
the ability to sing in key, keep tempo, and are sensitive to rhythm,
pitch, and melody.
Interpersonal Intelligence requires individuals to be socially and personally perceptive. These individuals are able to perceive the moods
and feelings of others and adapt messages to the demands of social
situations. Interpersonally intelligent people enjoy social settings and
work well with other people.
Intrapersonal Intelligence entails the ability to be in touch with ones
emotional state and predispositions. Individuals who are aware of
their inner moods, intentions, motivations, temperaments, and
desires and have the capacity for self-discipline are intra personally
intelligent. This intelligence helps individuals create a realistic
view of their strengths and weaknesses.
Naturalist Intelligence is the capacity to be attuned to natural world
of plants and animals. Individuals who possess this intelligence enjoy
the outdoors, are aware of patterns in nature and have a deep appreciation for the environment.

It should not be surprising that students will be drawn to academic tasks

where they feel most competent. Students with logical-mathematical
intelligence will enjoy and perform well in math and science and students
with linguistic competence will enjoy and perform well in language arts.
Gardner cautioned against viewing these intelligences as fixed and discrete. Individuals possess each of the intelligences to a degree but one or
two may be particularly dominant.

30

Foundations

Reflection
What are your strongest intelligences?
How are these intelligences manifested?
How can teachers build on student intelligences?

A number of recent educational textbooks discuss ways to integrate multiple intelligences into educational practice (Armstrong, 2000; Carrozza,
1996; Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000). Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000),
for example, outlined strategies for realigning the curriculum to account
for learning style and multiple intelligences (MI). The authors also provided guidelines for developing authentic assessments. Armstrong (2000)
discussed ways to develop a MI portfolio. He identifies what should be
included in such a portfolio and ways to evaluate it. The instructional
approaches using multiple intelligences are concerned with measuring
student growth and development, not with indexing student deficit.
Building and extending student strength is one way to create more
engaged and enthused learners.
Emotional Intelligence
Goleman (1995) extended Gardners work into the area of emotional
ability. Individuals who are emotionally intelligent are tuned into their
affective states. There is growing interest in the area of emotion and
learning. Goleman identified five dimensions of emotional intelligence:

Knowing ones emotions: Recognizing a feeling as it happens. The

ability to monitor feelings is crucial to psychological insight and selfunderstanding.
Managing emotions: Appropriately handling feelings. The ability to
work through anxiety or gloom is central to success.
Motivating oneself: Marshalling emotions in service of a goal is
essential to paying attention, for self-motivation and mastery.
Recognizing emotions in others: Empathy is a fundamental social
skill. People who are empathic are attuned to subtle social signals
indicating how people feel.
Handling relationships: Skill in managing relationships, popularity,
leadership and interpersonal effectiveness.

Emotional intelligence plays an important role in the classroom. The way

in which students manage their emotions influences their approach to
academic tasks and their ability to work with other students. Healy

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

31

(1998) argued that social-emotional factors are important predictors of

academic and lifetime success. She described a study that investigated
preschoolers ability to delay immediate gratification. The preschoolers
were given one marshmallow and told that if they could wait 1520 minutes, they would get two marshmallows. These students were evaluated
14 years later. The results indicated that the students who could delay
gratification scored higher on the SAT, were better liked by teachers and
peers, and were more emotionally stable.
The research on emotional intelligence is compelling. Encouraging
students to work before play, to be diligent in the face of adversity, to be
respectful and caring, helps foster an attitude of self-efficacy, which in
turn positively impacts academic achievement.

Perspectives on Motivation
Student interests, attitudes, and self-views relate to how motivated and
engaged they are in the learning material. Maehr and Meyer (1997)
argued, motivation is at the heart of teaching and learning (p. 372).
Adolescents spend tremendous amounts of time e-mailing friends, connecting on networks such as My Space, and talking on the telephone.
Redirecting these energies to academic tasks is more challenging. To better
understand the role of motivation it is helpful to review the perspectives that
have been used to explain how motivation works in educational settings. In
the next section we will examine some of the contemporary perspectives on
motivation in education.
Seifert (2004) argues that four major theoriesself-efficacy, attribution theoryself-worth theory, and achievement goal theory are prominent in education. Each of these perspectives offers important insight
into the factors that influence students academic investments.
Self-Efficacy Theory
The key theorist of self-efficacy theory is Albert Bandura (1981, 1986,
1991, 1997). He argued that individuals develop judgments about their
personal effectiveness which he labeled self-efficacy. Individuals who
believe that they can successfully complete a task will expend the necessary effort to accomplish it. When individuals have low expectations,
they are less likely to expend the time and effort on the task.
Bandura (1997) discussed four factors that influence a persons judgments of self-efficacy. The first factor is enactive influences. These judgments result from the way in which a person performs certain tasks.
According to Bandura (1997), enactive experiences are the most powerful because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether the individual can access what it takes to succeed. Success leads to a strong belief

32

Foundations

in ones personal efficacy. However, efficacy does not always follow from
success. Individuals who only succeed at easy tasks may come to lose
patience and not persist when the tasks become more troublesome.
A second factor influencing self-efficacy is vicarious experience.
Individuals continually compare their own competencies with others.
Modeling, then, serves as another way to achieve personal efficacy. The
most powerful effect is based on peer comparisons. An individuals selfefficacy is not affected by comparisons with substantially younger, older,
or substantially more talented others.
Miller (2000) examined the effects of internal and external comparisons on self-regulated learning. Self-comparisons (internal) occur when
students compare their ability in one area, such as English, with their
ability in another area such as math. External comparison occurs when
students compare their performance in an academic area with that of
their peers. The results indicated that students gave more weight to external comparisons than self-evaluations. This tendency, although understandable, is also problematic. Individuals do not always have
information to make accurate comparisons. Skill levels, the amount of
time on task, and interest can vary from student to student and are frequently ignored when comparisons are made. Miller (2000) suggested
that educators should help students develop more balanced constructs of
their abilities.
The third way that individuals develop self-efficacy is through persuasion. Bandura (1997) argued that persuasion has its greatest impact on
those who have some reason to believe that they can achieve their goals.
Persuasive information focusing on the targets ability and effort seems
to positively influence efficacy. Persuasive messages focusing only on
effort, however, can be counterproductive to the development of efficacy.
If an individual does not have the necessary skills, no amount of effort
will impact self-efficacy. Simply telling a student to work harder will not
be an effective strategy.
Two additional features play an important role in the effects of persuasion. One involves the credibility of the source and the second entails
the discrepancy between what individuals are told and their view of
themselves. Research in persuasion clearly indicates that source credibility is one of the most powerful features of persuasive communication
(Bostrom, 1983). Information from a low credible source, even when it
is accurate, may be distorted or discounted. The persuasive effects on
self-efficacy are directly related to the credibility of the sender.
Self-efficacy is also related to the degree of disparity between the information received and the individuals view of self. Bandura (1977b) noted
that information might differ minimally, moderately, or markedly from a
persons view of self (p. 105). For example, one high school baseball
player had a successful season in his senior year in high school and

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

33

received an offer to play baseball at a major university. The youngsters

coach encouraged him to consider taking this opportunity, but the young
man did not believe that he had enough talent, regardless of the statistics
and the arguments from his coach. Rather than going to the large school,
he decided to attend a local community college where he believed that
there was a better fit for his talent.
The final factor influencing self-efficacy involves physiological and affective states. Arousal states can vary from falling asleep in class to suffering
panic attacks. Some tasks create great anxiety for students, which influences
their ability to complete the task. For example, many students have tremendous fear of public speaking (communication apprehension) and the anxiety
attached to this activity negatively affects performance. High apprehensive
students break out in hives, their voice quivers, and their stomach aches
in anticipation of a five-minute presentation. Other students enjoy public
speaking and channel their energy and excitement into dramatic delivery.
Self-efficacy is impacted by the way individuals work through these
affective states. Bandura (1997) stated that an understanding of emotional states is developed through a process of social labeling that is coordinated with lived events. Children may experience an internal state
(anger) and behave in a way that is connected to the emotion. Parents,
teachers, and peers help identify the emotional state (e.g. Youre mad
because you didnt get your way, Are you too embarrassed to read?).
The effects on self-efficacy relate to the way in which individuals learn
to label and manage these emotional states. The manifestation of these
emotions and the way they are processed, explained, negotiated, and
managed has a great deal to do with the development of efficacy. Students
with higher levels of emotional intelligence are better able to stay focused
on a task and persist through difficult situations.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory builds on many of the assumptions of self-efficacy
theory and also provides important insight into the factors influencing
motivation. The conceptual foundation of attribution theory comes from
Heider (1958), Jones and Davis (1965), and Kelley (1967). These theorists proposed that individuals are nave scientists who search for
causal reasons that explain behavior. Heider (1958) contended that a
task outcome might be attributed to four attributional variables: the
degree of ability possessed by the actor, the amount of effort expended,
the difficulty of the task, and chance factors in the environment.
Weiner (1984, 1985) contended that attributions invoke emotions
which influence task engagement. For example, an outcome such as failing or passing a test may result in an emotional reaction. To assess this
emotional response, the individual turns to three primary characteristics:

34

Foundations

locus of causality (the cause resides in the individual or the situation),

stability (the cause is always present, or the cause varies), and controllability (the agent can affect the cause or the outcome is out of the agents
control). Research on attribution theory suggests that individuals who
are successful tend to attribute success to internal cause (ability, effort)
and individuals who are unsuccessful tend to attribute failure to external
causes (unclear instructions, lack of time).
Seifert (2004) stated that students who attribute success and failure to
internal, controllable causes have higher self-esteem, will engage in more
difficult tasks, and will persist in the face of adversity. On the other
hand, students who attribute success to external forces (luck, the task
was easy) are less likely to experience positive emotions such as pride or
confidence. And learned helplessness, the most problematic attribution,
occurs when students feel that no amount of effort will make a difference
because they do not have the ability to control or influence an outcome.
Heidi and Harackiewicz (2000) argued that interest also influences
attributional processes. Interest was conceptualized as the interactive
relation between individuals and certain aspects of their environment
(Heidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Some individuals are interested in social
studies, some soccer, others fashion. Interest can be considered a state
and a disposition of the individual and has cognitive and affective features. Research suggests that interest plays an important role in academic performance. It stands to reason that students will be more attentive
to and expend more effort in subject areas that interest them.
Researchers differentiate between two types of interest. Individual
interest is a stable internal disposition that develops over time in relation
to a particular topic or subject area. A student, therefore, may develop
an interest in history that lasts throughout his or her educational experience. Situational interest, on the other hand is generated by certain features of the environment that draw attention and focus to a particular
area. The interest fostered in this context, may or may not last. For
example, a dramatic lecture or a novel experiential activity may activate
student interest in a topic that was previously considered boring.
Heidi and Harackiewicz (2000) noted that individual and situational
interests may be distinct but they are not bi-polar. Individual interest can
serve as a filter for situational interest and situational interest may feed
individual interest. The authors contended:
individual interest in a particular topic may help students persevere through boring presentations or text about that topic, and situational interest elicited by presentations or texts may maintain
motivation and performance when individuals have no personal
interest in particular topics.
(p. 155)

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

35

We can see how interest is also related to intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic

motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in activities for their
own sake (ibid.). This definition incorporates both individual and situational interest. Some students may inhale the Harry Potter novels
because they are positively disposed to reading. Interest in reading may
also be promoted for situational reasons. Individuals may be assigned a
Harry Potter novel for a class assignment and become so interested in it
that they read the entire series.
Self-Worth Theory
Covington (2000) argued that that academic goals embraced by students
represent an attempt to create and maintain self-worth in a culture that
values competency and success. He contended that grades play a dominant role in the way a student judges self-worth. He further argued that
while grades are important, they are only one measure of success. Some
students attempt to be the best they can be and do not compare their performance to others. These students are likely to take on difficult tasks
and feel comfortable with academic challenges. Other students see ability as a function of status and thus compare their performances with others.
These students are more likely to avoid failure rather than strive for success. Students who are driven to avoid failure employ several selfprotective mechanisms, according to Covington (2000).
Self-worth protection involves withholding the effort when risking failure.
When this strategy is invoked, the self-concept appears to be protected
because the cause of failure remains ambiguous. Students who are reprimanded by friends, teachers or parents for not trying are receiving an external message that they are incompetent. They failed because they did not try.
A second strategy is self-handicapping. Here the student creates a real
or imagined barrier which provides a convenient excuse. According to
Covington, procrastination and setting unrealistic goals are typical tactics that failure-avoiding students employ. The student who studies at the
last minute and fails cannot be criticized for not having the ability. And
the student who succeeds is perceived to be especially talented. Another
tactic is to establish unrealistic goals. A student cannot be blamed for
failing at a difficult task. Finally, a student may state a worthy goal, such
as claiming he or she will do better on the next exam without a reasonable analysis of how to achieve it.
According to Covington (2000), the third strategy is defensive pessimism. Students using this defensive strategy maintain low expectations
of ever succeeding or trivialize the importance of the assignment.
Defensive pessimism helps the student manage the anxiety that may
occur when the student takes an assignment seriously but knows they do
not have the ability to fulfill it.

36

Foundations

Effort is a key feature of self-worth theory. Failure-avoidant students

link effort with ability. Because successful students are bright, they dont
have to work hard. People who work hard are not considered to be
bright. Seifert (2004) stated that success that comes from ability results in
pride. Success that comes from low effort implies ability and also results
in pride. Failure that is a function of low effort results in guilt but failure
that results from low ability results in humiliation. Covington (2000) contended that students would rather experience guilt than humiliation.
Thus, rather than work hard and fail (leading to humiliation), they will
not work hard and fail (guilt). Self-worth theory helps teachers understand the choices students make. According to Covington (2000), the central issue for students is to protect their sense of self-worth.
Achievement Goal Theory
Dweck (1986) contended that motivation is related to the way students
conceptualize their learning goals. He specified two sets of goals.
Learning goals refer to increasing an individuals competence, understanding, and insight. Intelligence and learning for these individuals is
malleable. Success or failure does not have a substantial effect on the
learners identity or sense of self-worth. Performance goals, in contrast,
are those in which individuals seek a favorable evaluation of their competence. Intelligence following from a performance goal orientation is
considered fixed and static. According to Dweck (1986), these different
cognitive sets take students in vastly different directions. The individual
who is competency oriented is more likely to attribute success to persistence and effort. Failure is not viewed as a reflection on personal identity. The individual who is performance oriented and sees intelligence as
fixed does not see that effort and ability lead to success and, therefore,
may take on academic tasks that are less challenging. They ask for a
great deal of guidance on assignments, may avoid certain classes or
teachers and may be more inclined to cheat.
Each of the perspectives reviewed above offer important insights into
the processes influencing motivation. Each perspective addresses the role
of perceived competence. That is, a student is likely to invest in an academic task when they feel they can successfully accomplish it. When they
do not feel that they can be successful, they use strategies to protect their
personal identities. The other common thread is the important role that
emotions play in motivation. How students feel about their abilities and
the meaningfulness of the task they are performing are what Weiner
(1984, 1985) labeled motivational catalysts. The affective orientation
can serve to bolster or constrain effort and learning.
Seifert (2004) identified five major patterns that are reflected in the
perspectives used to study motivation. The first pattern is concerned with

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

37

mastery. Students who have learning goals or who are internally motivated, will have positive affect, will persist in tasks, are resilient and
learn from their mistakes (e.g. Dweck, 1986; Weiner, 1984, 1985).
A second pattern is failure avoidance. These students have performance
goals, are externally motivated, and are driven to protect their individual
identities. According to Seifert (2004), these students believe that outcomes are beyond their control and as tasks grow in difficulty, they are
likely to engage in failure-avoiding behaviors to reduce threat to self.
The third pattern is learned helplessness. These students will not
expend the effort because they believe it will result in success. Such
students make internal, stable and controllable attributions for failure
but make external attributions for success. In other words, this student
will say, I failed because I am incompetent or I succeeded because
I was lucky. Students with this orientation are particularly challenging
for teachers.
The fourth pattern involves students who are bright but bored. These
students do not see meaning or value in the task and spend only the necessary effort to fulfill minimal expectations. Seifert contended that the
student with learning goals would seek out meaning in the task while the
bored student expects the teacher to make the task meaningful.
The fifth is the hostile work avoidant pattern. Seifert stated that the
hostile student does not engage in academic tasks as a way to punish the
teacher. This strategy may be another way the student protects selfworth. They may resent the work required and therefore refuse to do it.
Several years ago one of the authors had an athlete in class who refused
to complete a required assignment. When asked why, he stated, I dont
have to do this crap, Im on the basketball team. This response is typical of hostile students.
What then can teachers do with this information on motivation? This
is a difficult question but the literature reviewed above suggests that
student motivation is enhanced when they develop mastery over the
tasks they are required to perform. Gettinger and Stoiber (1999) provided recommendations that may enhance motivation. They suggested
that teachers should assign tasks that are moderately challenging but
within the students ability. Second, teachers should link student success
to the effort they put forth. When this occurs, students are more likely to
take control of their academic engagement. Third, teachers should create
opportunities for students to be successful.
Consider the following example. George is struggling with algebra.
He studies but continues to fail the examinations at the end of the week.
He questions his ability and spends less time studying. For George, it is
too painful to work hard only to fail. One day, while grading the tests,
the teacher discovers that George transposes numbers when he is writing the algebra formulas. Rather than writing down the number 23 in a

38

Foundations

formula he writes the number 32. The teacher reviews all of Georges
previous quizzes and finds that this is a consistent pattern. The teacher
has a conference with George and carefully explains this error. In the
next quiz, the teacher continues to remind George to make sure that he
has not transposed any numbers. After George turns in the quiz, the
teacher checks his answers and tells him that his scores have improved
significantly. After this intervention, George continues to show improvement in algebra and his spending more and more time in this subject.
In this example, the teacher used a strategy that would directly influence Georges mastery over the content. He is frustrated with his math
scores and wants to understand why he is having a problem. His interest is piqued when the teacher explains why his answers have been incorrect. She encourages George and states, Hey bud, you can do this, but
make sure you dont flop your numbers. I will watch to see if you make
this mistake during the quiz.
George now understands his error and corrects it, and as a result his
test scores improve. When he corrected the problem and improved his
quiz scores, his feelings of competence increased because he felt more
control over the outcome. This scenario is designed to illustrate the subtle ways that teachers can help students increase their competence which
will also increase their motivation.
So far we have examined two areas that are related to academic performance, student ability and motivation. In the next section we will turn
our attention to the communication processes that occur in the classroom context. First, we will describe the dominant features of instructional communication and then we will explore the communication
behaviors that have been linked to academic performance.

Reflection
Identify and discuss teaching strategies that increase
student interest.
What are your academic goals and how do they influence
your motivation in a class?
Which perspective on motivation best explains your
approach to academic tasks?
Identify and discuss your favorite academic subjects.

Communication Processes
Thus far, we have discussed the effects of student ability and motivation
on learning. We will shift our focus to the third factor component of the

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

39

learning model explicated by Friedrich (1982)the quality of classroom

communication. The effects of classroom communication are circular
and their impact on learning and achievement are difficult to determine.
Further, differences in contexts and the methodological variations used
to study communication make comparisons problematic. Nevertheless,
there are some trends that have been identified and in the next section
we will review the dominant communication patterns occurring in
instructional contexts.
Instructional Patterns
Belleck, Kliebard, Hyman, and Smith (1966) characterized classroom
interaction as a game with rules that teachers and students follow.
Four communication moves are used in the game. Structuring moves are
used to establish the context for appropriate student behavior. Teachers
might say, This morning we are going to discuss the reading assignment I made yesterday. Soliciting moves seek to elicit a verbal response
from the students. Did you bring your cultural artifacts for todays discussion? Responding moves follow from soliciting moves. They consist
of the responses to student answers. Reacting moves are statements used
to modify, or evaluate what students have said. When classroom communication is defined in this fashion, the teacher is expected to do most
of the talking. In most classrooms, teachers talk approximately 70% of
the time.
Haslett (1987) stated that instructional communication entails three
language functions. One function involves directing students. This type
of communication is concerned with giving students the information necessary to complete an instructional task. A second language function,
informing, involves giving students new content. The third language
function, eliciting, involves soliciting student responses. Asking students
if they understand a task is an example of eliciting.
Cazden (1988) stated that the fundamental pattern of classroom interaction is the three-turn unit called the IRE. In this pattern, the teacher
initiates a communication exchange, (I) a student responds, (r) and then
the teacher comments on the response (E). Cazden stated that the initiation usually comes in the form of a question. Teacher questioning, then,
is one of the dominant forms of communication used in the classroom.
The research cited above suggests that teachers engage in a limited
range of behaviors. They give information, they ask for information, and
direct student behavior. These descriptions, while informative, do not
provide insight into the effects of these communication patterns on
student learning and achievement. Research shows that the use of questions, and teacher clarity, impact learning (Brophy & Good, 2000;
Kindsvatter, Wilen, & Ishler, 1996).

40

Foundations

Questions
Questions are used by teachers to invite student participation and engage
them in learning. Brophy and Good (2000) stated that research spanning
30 years shows that frequent questioning by teachers correlates positively with student achievement. Maximum effects on learning, however,
are related to the clarity of the question and the way it is managed.
Kindsvatter, Wilen, and Ishler (1996) stated that student achievement is
enhanced when teachers ask clearly phrased questions, probe student
responses, redirect questions to non-participating students, wait for student
responses, and provide feedback on the accuracy of student responses.
Learning is not linked to the difficulty of the question. Teachers can ask
a series of lower order questions and then build to higher level ones.
Asking only one type of cognitive question (all low or all high) does not
appear to promote learning. We discuss the use of questions in more detail
in Chapter 9.

Clarity
Teacher clarity has also been linked to academic achievement. Clarity is
facilitated when the teacher uses communication strategies to enhance
understanding of instructional material. Bush (1977) conceptualized
teacher clarity in terms of seven behaviors: (1) gives examples and
explains them; (2) explains the work to be done, and how to do it; (3)
gives written examples; (4) uses common examples; (5) gives explanations that the students understand; (6) speaks so that all the students can
hear; and (7) takes time when explaining. Behaviors that detract from
clarity include ambiguity, vagueness, hedging, bluffing, insufficient
examples, and mazes (false starts, halts in speech, redundancy in spoken
words). Bush, Kennedy, and Cruickshank (1977) used factor analysis to
identify the underlying dimensions of teacher clarity. They found that
clear teachers: (1) explained ideas; and (2) used ample illustrations while
explaining ideas; and giving directions.
Hines, Cruickshank, and Kennedy (1985) examined teacher clarity
and its effects on student achievement and satisfaction. Three types of
clarity behaviors were examined: (1) teacher stresses important aspects
of content; (2) teacher explains content by use of examples; and (3)
teacher assesses and responds to perceived deficiencies in understanding.
The results indicated that cognitive achievement and satisfaction with
the instruction was positively related to teacher clarity.
After a systematic review of the literature Brophy and Good (1986)
stated that achievement is maximized when teachers actively present
material, structure it with overviews, provide internal summaries, and
signal important main ideas. These communication strategies require

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

41

teachers to use examples that connect with the experiences of

students.
Although the behaviors reviewed above may facilitate understanding,
we want to emphasize that clarity is unlikely to occur when a teacher
uses low inference clarity behaviors. Students process information in
terms of their own frames of reference and signal their understanding or
lack of understanding of the material to the teacher. Ultimately, clarity is
the result of these negotiated processes. Think for a moment of the
teacher who uses an example the students do not understand. According
to research by Darling (1989), students signal their lack of understanding in one of three ways. They provide specific information on what they
do not understand and request clarification (focused/directive strategy).
Here the student is very direct (How is self-efficacy different from internal locus of control?). A second strategy (focused non-directive) signals
a lack of understanding but the student does not ask for clarification (I
dont understand what you mean by multiple intelligence). The third
strategy (personally qualified) entails a series of questions or mazes that
the teacher must work through to provide clarification (Why am I
wrong, I said the same thing that Lindsey said?).
The research by Darling (1989) and Kendrick and Darling (1990) suggests that clarity is relational. These findings resonate with Civikly
(1992a) and Eisenberg (1984) who argued that clarity is embedded in a
relational context. Understanding is negotiated between teachers and
students in instructional episodes. Teachers or students introduce concepts which are discussed, critiqued, and clarified. Clarity is compromised when closure is not brought to these episodes. The nature of the
studentteacher relationship also plays a role in the way these episodes
unfold. Some teachers can read the nonverbal behavior of students and
recognize that an example does not make sense. From this feedback a
new example is introduced and the information continues to be negotiated. In our judgment, then, it is best to consider clarity an episodic and
relational process.
Teacher Immediacy
An extensive body of literature has examined the effects of teacher
immediacy on learning. After summarizing the literature Rodriguez,
Plax, and Kearney (1996) claimed: No other teacher communication
variable has been so consistently associated with increases in both
students affective and cognitive learning in the classroom (p. 293). This
claim, while compelling, may be overstated. The role of immediacy in
learning is a bit cloudy.
Teacher immediacy is anchored in the research of Mehrabian (1969a,
1969b, 1970a, 1970b, 1971) who argued that people move toward those

42

Foundations

they like and away from those they dislike. It is important to emphasize
that Mehrabian believed that immediacy was communicated through
implicit nonverbal codes. Immediacy is primarily signaled through nonverbal behavior. Andersen (1979) extended the immediacy construct to
the instructional setting. She reasoned that the nonverbal behaviors that
reduce physical and psychological distance between teachers and
students would positively impact learning. Behaviors such as smiling, eye
contact, a relaxed body posture, and movement toward students, signal
immediacy. Andersen found that nonverbal immediacy positively influenced student affect or their feelings about the teacher and the course but
did not influence how well students did on a standardized measure of
cognitive learning.
After the publication of Andersens original article, a number of studies explored the effects of immediacy on learning. These studies have
consistently reported positive correlations between measures of immediacy (nonverbal and verbal) and affective learning (e.g. Christensen &
Menzel, 1998; Gorham, 1988; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988;
Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Kelly & Gorham, 1988; Moore,
Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996; Powell & Harville, 1990;
Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). However, this program of research has not
been successful in explaining the effects of immediacy on cognitive learning. At best, these studies reveal that students believe they learn more
from immediate teachers. However, no study demonstrates that test
scores or other cognitive measures are impacted by immediacy in any
clear and consistent way.
Hess and Smythe (2001) contended that four models have been used
to explain the relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning.
The learning model was initially advanced by Andersen (1979) and proposed that immediacy directly influences learning. The teacher who
engages in positive immediacy will engender positive student outcomes.
Studies testing this assertion have found no association between immediacy and test scores. Andersens seminal investigation found positive
associations between immediacy and affective orientations to the class
and teacher but there was no impact on test scores.
The motivation model, hypothesized that immediacy facilitates an
indirect affect on learning (Christophel, 1990; Richmond, 1990).
Immediacy engenders state motivation (how students feel about a particular class and teacher) and as a consequence students study harder, go
to class, increase their study time and learn more.
Rodriguez, Plax, and Kearney (1996) advanced the affective learning
model which also hypothesized an indirect relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning. In this model, affective learning serves as a
trigger or mediator for cognitive learning. Immediacy primes affective
learning which is a precursor to cognitive learning.

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

43

The arousal model twists the previous explanations and argues that
immediacy creates arousal which increases attention and learning.
Comstock, Rowell, and Bowers, (1995) proposed that the relationship
between immediacy and cognitive learning is curvilinear. They found
that moderate amounts of teacher immediacy had the greatest impact on
cognitive learning. The teacher who displays no immediacy puts students
to sleep and the teacher who has too much immediacy may create anxiety or tension.
According to Hess and Smythe (2001), the studies testing these models
have several flaws. First, the studies have not provided cognitive explanations of immediacy. The studies show patterns of association between
immediacy and a number of outcomes such as affective learning, but
they do not explain why these associations exist.
The measure of immediacy is the second flaw identified by Hess and
Smythe (2001). The authors contend that too many studies have relied
on self-reports rather than actual teacher behavior. The danger with selfreport is that student judgments of immediacy might be confounded with
other factors. For example, teachers might be considered immediate
because they are an easy grader, bring food to class, or meet student
needs. What is driving the student evaluation of immediacy is difficult to
determine. In addition, extant instrumentation has departed from the
original conception of immediacy. Gorhams (1988) measure of verbal
immediacy, for example, is predicated on a presumed relationship
between teaching effectiveness and immediacy. Immediacy and teaching
effectiveness may be correlated but they are different constructs.
The third flaw concerns the measures of cognitive learning. A number
of studies have used student reports of learning. In a typical study,
students are asked to estimate what they have learned rather than to
specifically measure what they learned. Hess and Smythe (2001) argued
that students are not able to accurately measure what they learned.
Students may vary in terms of their personal orientations to learning and
how the teacher facilitates it. Judgments of learning may also be influenced by the relationship between a teacher and student. Students may
inflate what they learn from a teacher they like and may deflate what
they learn from a teacher they dislike.
Hess and Smythe contended that previous studies attempting to delineate the relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning have
been misdirected. They argued that immediacys primary function is to
promote a positive relationship with the student. To test their contentions, the authors designed a study to assess the impact of teacher
immediacy on student affect and cognitive learning. The results indicated
that immediacy was positively related with perceived learning and liking
for the instructor. A positive relationship between teacher affect and
reported learning was also found. However, immediacy did not impact

44

Foundations

test performance. Finally, the results indicated that students were motivated by self-interest rather than teacher behavior. Grades were the
primary motivating factor for the students.
The results of this investigation support the theory advanced by Hess
and Smythe (2001). Immediacy played a substantial role in student perceptions about the teacher, the course and their perceived learning. It had
little to do with how they performed on tests.
What can we say then about immediacy and its role in classroom learning? We agree that the primary impact of immediacy is to cultivate a positive relationship with the student. In terms of motivation, immediacy
probably has its most pronounced impact on situational interest. This interpretation is closest to the arousal model explicated by Comstock, Rowell,
and Bowers (1995). Test scores and other standardized assessments have
more to do with student skill and academic engagement time (amount of
time studying for a test) than with teacher communication behavior.
We are hesitant to completely abandon the role that immediacy plays
in cognitive learning. Lets return to Mehrabians initial contention that
people move toward those they like and away from those they dislike
and consider its role in cognition. The research clearly indicates that
immediacy teachers are perceived to be approachable. Immediacy helps
shape an environment where students feel comfortable to seek clarification and help on academic tasks. Students probably do not think much
about their teacher at night when they are studying for a quiz or deliberating on the assignments they should complete. Previous research has
not found a link between academic engagement time and immediacy
(Powell & Aston 1994; Sine 1995), self-interest, levels of motivation,
parents, and the significance of the assignment will influence how much
time students spend on academic tasks.

Reflection
What role does teacher immediacy play in learning?
What are some negative aspects of teacher immediacy?

Communication Apprehension
The previous section examined the communication behaviors and
processes that are positively associated with learning. We will conclude
this chapter by discussing communication apprehension (CA), a construct
that has been found to constrain leaning in the classroom. Communication
apprehension is one of the most researched constructs in the discipline of
communication but has not been discussed much in education. Literally

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

45

hundreds of studies have been done and the results have been rather
consistent. In terms of the instructional context, the research indicates
that students who experience communication apprehension have more
difficulty in school than students who are low in communication
apprehension.
McCroskey and McCroskey (2002) identified four major effects of communication apprehension: internal discomfort, communication avoidance,
communication withdrawal, and overcommunication. The one universal
finding is that individuals with high CA experience internal discomfort and
negative arousal when they face an event that requires communication.
Frequently these feelings are connected with fear. These states may range
from a warm flush to terror. Because individuals have such negative
responses to the communication events related to the negative states, they
frequently attempt to avoid them. Because an oral report may be terrifying, the apprehensive student will do everything to avoid giving it. If it is
impossible to completely avoid the situation, a communication apprehensive student may try to physically or psychologically withdraw from it. The
student who is scheduled to do a report may say, I didnt do it, or may
respond to a teachers question by saying, I dont know. Both strategies
allow the student to step back from communication involvement.
According to McCroskey and McCroskey (2002), on rare occasions, a
student with communication apprehension may attempt to deal with the
negative arousal by overparticipating in communication. These students
may attempt to talk through their anxiety. In these circumstances, the
individual may be more concerned with the quantity rather than the quality of the interaction.
There are significant academic consequences for students with high
communication apprehension. They obtain lower grade point averages
and have poorer attitudes about school (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976).
Because of their feelings about communication, apprehensive students
are less likely to seek help from teachers and are less likely to articulate
their instructional needs. These students also have fewer peer friendships. In a study designed to assess college student retention and academic success, McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, and Payne (1989) found that
high communication apprehensives were more likely to drop out of
school than low apprehensives. The effects of communication apprehension had its greatest effect in the first two years of college.
Similar findings have been observed in elementary and middle school.
Comadena and Prusank (1988) assessed the relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among elementary
and middle school students. The findings indicated that students who
had high communication apprehension received the lowest scores on all
measures of academic achievement. The authors also found that communication apprehension increased with grade level. Communication

46

Foundations

apprehension increased 17% from the second grade to the eighth grade.
The data do not indicate if these shifts are related to academic success or
other factors. Whatever the reason, communication apprehension seems
to increase with grade levels and is associated with academic success.
Chesebro et al. (1992) conducted an extensive study on the potential
role of communication apprehension for at risk students. At risk
students were those failing to achieve in school or dropping out of
school. The authors collected data at 14 urban, large predominantly
minority middle and junior high school. A total of 2,793 students participated in the study. The results indicated that at risk students are
substantially more apprehensive about speaking in groups and speaking
in dyads. The authors noted that these data are troubling because so
much of instruction occurs in these contexts.
The results also indicated that at risk students perceived themselves
to be less competent in communication. The data indicated that nearly
all of the differences were related to communication with acquaintances
and strangers. The at risk students did not feel competent in these settings. Once more, these data are distressing because students frequently
work in groups or teams. Their feelings about communication in these
contexts may have deleterious effects on their academic performance.
Rosenfeld, Grant, and McCroskey (1995) reasoned that if communication apprehension negatively affects at risk students, it should have
the opposite effect for academically talented students. The authors studied (710th grade) who were accepted into a gifted program at Duke
University and found that gifted students had lower apprehension than
the at risk students assessed by Chesebro et al. (1992). Further, the
findings indicated that gifted students had less apprehension in the small
group setting than at risk students.
Causes of Communication Apprehension
The data showing the negative effects of communication apprehension
are rather consistent. There is controversy about its causes. Daly and
Friedrich (1981) stated that communication apprehension might be
caused by genetics, skill acquisition, modeling, and reinforcement.
The genetic explanation proposes that communication apprehension is
related to factors such as sociability, physical appearance, body shape,
and competence in motor skills. Each of these predispositions are
enhanced or constrained by environmental factors.
Another way that communication apprehension may emerge, according to Daly and Friedrich (1981), involves the way in which social skills
are acquired. Skills such as language use, sensitivity to nonverbal communication interaction management skills may be lacking in the communication apprehensive student. The protypical geek or nerd may
be the student who lacks social skill and cannot fit into the flow of

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

47

social interaction. As a result, communication is not very rewarding and

new skills are not developed.
The third explanation that Daly and Friedrich (1981) discussed is
modeling. If the child is around communicatively apprehensive individuals, then these are the behaviors modeled. When the individual is asked
to engage in communication behaviors which have no frame of reference,
the result will be anxiety and apprehension.
According to Daly and Friedrich, the most frequently advanced explanation of communication is explained through reinforcement theory. An
individual who receives positive reinforcement for communication will not
develop communication apprehension. The child who is told to be quiet,
and not encouraged to communicate may develop negative attitudes about
communication. McCroskey and Richmond (1978) found that students
from rural areas and small towns reported higher communication apprehension levels than students from medium-sized and urban communities.
The authors argued that this finding is the first theoretically projected
relationship between an environmental factor and communication apprehension that has been empirically verified (p. 247). When comparing the
environmental factors influencing attitudes about communication, urban
children face more communication demands than rural children. For
example, the rural students studied by McCroskey and Richmond
attended small homogenous schools with little ethnic diversity. A common
and narrow set of skills led to communication competence in these communities. In contrast, urban students face a much wider set of communication constraints. As a result, they must develop a broader range of
competencies in order to be successful.
A new perspective, one that challenges the reinforcement explanation
is emerging. Some researchers (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998;
Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001) challenge the reinforcement
explanation and contend that neurobiological processes primarily determine communication apprehension. Beatty, McCroskey, and Heisel
(1998) state that communication apprehension is primarily a function
of two interrelated neurobiological systems, the thresholds of which are
the products of genetic inheritance (p. 224).
Opt and Loffredo (2000) assessed the relationship between communication apprehension and the Meyers-Briggs personality type preferences. The
Meyers-Briggs assessment draws from Jungian psychology, a perspective that
anchors personality in inborn traits. The authors argued that communication apprehension is not something to overcome but is a preference not to
communicate. The participants were assessed on extraversionintroversion,
intuitionsensing, thinkingfeeling, and judgingperceiving and on their level
of communication apprehension. The results indicated that introverts and
sensors scored significantly higher on communication apprehension. The
authors concluded that communication apprehension is perceived as a
problem when it is viewed through the perspective of extroverts. For the

48

Foundations

introvert, it is normal to not openly communicate or seek out communication exchanges. The introvert prefers quiet places and solitary activities. The
authors conclude by suggesting that one way to deal with apprehension is
help them become more complete in their personalities by confronting and
expanding less preferred competencies.
The naturenurture debate of communication apprehension has not
been resolved and the reader is encouraged to read additional literature on
this topic (Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001; Condit, 2000. Whether
communication apprehension is rooted in learning or theory or in biology,
the teacher must have some strategy for dealing with it. The student who
exhibits communication apprehension experiences numerous educational
disadvantages. McCroskey and McCroskey (2002) discussed several ways
that a teacher can prevent and reduce student apprehension. Specifically,
they suggested that teachers:

Reduce oral communication demands

1
2
3
4

Try to be consistent in how you handle student talk.

Be very clear about any rules you must have regarding talking.

Reduce ambiguity, novelty and evaluation

1
2
3

Praise students when they participate.

Try to avoid indicating that any answer is completely wrong.
Try not to punish any student for talking.

Be consistent about communication

1
2

testing through talk.

grading on participation.
alphabetical seating.
randomly calling on students.

Make communication a rewarding experience

1
2
3

Avoid
Avoid
Avoid
Avoid

Make all assignments as clear and unambiguous as you can.

Be clear about your grading system.
Avoid surprises.

Increase student control over success.

1
2

Give the student options.

Be certain that the student can avoid communication and still do
well in the course.

Reflection
How would you deal with communication apprehension in
your class?

Factors Influencing Learning and Communication

49

Summary
This chapter has attempted to explicate the relationship between communication and learning. We have proposed that students bring a rich set
of experiences, language skills, and interests that play an important role
in the learning process. We believe that the relationship between classroom communication and learning is a function of three primary factors:
student ability, motivation, and communication processes. The research
we have reviewed suggests that instructional strategies building on
student strengths positively influence academic performance. We also
examined different perspectives on motivation and suggested ways to
promote self-efficacy and internality. Finally, we examined the communication processes that shape learning experiences. Teacher questions,
clarity and immediacy play important roles in the way instructional
material is presented, processed, and understood.

Learning Activities
Complete an assessment of your multiple intelligences. How do
these preferences influence the way you approach learning
tasks?
Several of your students do not seem interested in reading.
Which perspective on motivation can you use to devise a way to
increase their interest in reading?
Many teachers use external rewards (prizes, stickers, money) to
engage students in learning tasks. What can teachers do to
increase students, learning goals and internal motivation?

Resources
Motivating students to engage in class activities
www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/engage.html
What do students want and what really motivates them?
www.middleweb.com/StdntMotv.html
Encouraging student academic motivation
www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/motivation
/motivation.php