SELF-ESTEEM, COMMUNICATOR STYLE AND CLASSROOM SATISFACTION Angela J. Sisson Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of Communication Studies, Indiana University May 2011 Accepted by the Faculty of Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. ______________________________________ Elizabeth M. Goering, Ph.D., Chair ______________________________________ Ronald M. Sandwina, Ph.D. Master’s Thesis Committee ______________________________________ Nancy Rhodes, Ph.D. ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to a wide range of supportive, inspirational individuals: to the faculty and staff of the IUPUI Department of Communication Studies, who are generally not only generous but also typically tireless in offering inspiration and encouragement to one another and to students (including me); to students who know or even suspect the value of learning more about themselves for the purpose of having more successful learning experiences; and to my personal support crew, including Kevin Matthew, Janine Andrews, Jennifer Batchelor, and Dana Battin. In the aforementioned groups, I could endlessly cite the particulars as to why each deserves a spotlight in dedication. Rather than do an inadequate job of covering that, however, let me say the dedications are symbolic of those who enlightened this student and of those who are tireless in the dedication they bring to positive and pure progress – particularly as I’ve had the experience of it from Dr. Elizabeth Goering, an incomparable advisor and instructor; Dr. Nancy Rhodes, a sunny dispositioned, pragmatic volunteer with a dogged commitment to follow-through in statistics and more; the ever-supportive Dr. Ronald Sandwina; Stephen LeBeau, a tireless and inspirational course director with an unerring vision for responding to student needs; and, Kevin Matthew – an irrepressibly critical, challenging supporter. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the many people who made this possible. When a fairly direct project takes on a long life, it’s with a sigh of relief that I point to supporters who make it possible to complete it! I am especially grateful to my patient, insightful committee members: Dr. Elizabeth Goering, Dr. Nancy Rhodes, and Dr. Ronald Sandwina. Without their patience, TLC, and expertise, this would simply not be possible; please know your continuous work is appreciated. In this case, Dr. Goering and Dr. Sandwina shaped my thinking in the program from my first classes, and it’s a privilege to have benefited from their insights. Dr. Rhodes, on the other hand, only recently made my acquaintance but brought her sociological savvy to develop statistical analytical strategy in a positive ploy to frame factual findings of this project. (I stress to you that the propensity for alliteration is of the author’s own flavor.) Simply put, there are not enough ways to thank these individuals; as an instructor myself, I know they are giving a lot day-to-day and giving more when they offer critical feedback for projects like mine! I am also grateful to those who professionally inspire and support me, including many instructors of communication studies. A few key people in this category include the following: Dr. John Parrish-Sprowl, who shares vast expertise in both health and corporate realms; Dr. Kim White-Mills, who is a tremendous example of juggler as professor, administrator, researcher, and personal goals; and Stephen LeBeau, Mike Polites, Jan DeWester, Rusty Handlon, and Kate Thedwall – each of whom has been an excellent role model, offering encouragement, advice, and opportunity. Likewise, iv Jennifer Cochrane offered meaningful advice. On a personal level, the inspiration to devote ‘me time’ to graduate school came with more than a nudge from my stubbornly kind partner in life, Kevin Matthew. Kevin deserves tremendous thanks for being supportive during trying times for the both of us. He encouraged my return to school after years away, and it is only with his help through a traumatic burglary, lack of air conditioning with no operable windows and thus 90+ temperatures, surgeries, vehicle sharing, and much more that we reach a point to create a more prosperous future. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables..............................................................................................................vii Introduction..................................................................................................................1 Literature Review and Development of Research Questions......................................6 Communicator Style Literature..............................................................................6 Self-Image Literature.............................................................................................11 Research Methods.......................................................................................................16 Subjects..................................................................................................................16 Data Collection......................................................................................................16 Results.........................................................................................................................21 Discussion...................................................................................................................30 Limitations of the Study........................................................................................35 Questions for Future Study....................................................................................35 Concluding Remarks.............................................................................................36 Tables..........................................................................................................................38 Appendices Appendix A: Communicator Style Measure..........................................................42 Appendix B: Current Thoughts (State Self-Esteem Scale)....................................47 Appendix C: Course Satisfaction Questions..........................................................50 References...................................................................................................................53 Curriculum Vitae vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Communicator Styles...................................................................................38 Table 2: Self-Esteem Styles........................................................................................38 Table 3: Interaction in and Satisfaction with Public Speaking Class.........................39 Table 4: Rotated Component Matrix for Factor Analysis..........................................40 Table 5: Communicator Style Regression Coefficients..............................................41 Table 6: Self-Esteem Style Regression Coefficients..................................................41 vii INTRODUCTION Educators recognize several concerns when focusing on ways to meet student needs. Among these are concerns about student retention and the ability to adapt to student learning styles as students arrive with different technological backgrounds and even with different generational perceptions of education. To further understand the significance of this, consider that as many as one in three freshmen may fail to return for a sophomore year (“Best Colleges,” 2010). The prevalence of these concerns has inspired much research into details of incoming students’ lives and the factors which might connect with their retention – research often prioritized campus by campus. Researchers have sought to maximize understanding of typical factors impacting retention rates, including such factors as whether or not students were from rural or urban communities, whether or not they declared majors, parental education levels and socio-economic status, academic ability, social integration and more. In Florida, for example, a doctoral candidate looked at student retention as connected to a single common academic experience, the public speaking course (Gaythwaite, 2006); while Indiana University-Bloomington completed a much more comprehensive, multi-year examination of its first-year students and included factors such as social integration and academic integration (Office of Institutional Research, 2002). Overall, the issues surrounding student experiences and academic success have become crucial to college attendance growth, and factors which could improve student success are imperative considerations for programs across the board. 1 A consistent element in first-year student experience – and therefore a stepping- stone in the process toward retention – is student course experiences and what commonalities may be used to attract retention. At many universities, few courses are as common to first-year students as public speaking. Factors which influence this include schools’ desire to require public speaking as a foundation before other courses requiring research and oral presentation. In addition, while students generally test into different introductory English or math courses based on ability, such testing is not typical for public speaking classes. Because it is common ground in the freshman experience, the public speaking course is an ideal place to identify what factors may contribute to success or termination of students’ academic careers. Retention concerns have led to various changes on college campuses. Many have focused on attracting students’ return by enhancing student comfort and success on campus, usually through linked courses called learning communities (Hotchkiss et al., 2005). For example, many have created learning communities for incoming students designed to help students build networks. At Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), for example, learning communities bring together students of like majors so they may get to know one another, faculty, and advisors during foundational courses. Others – usually generically referred to as first-year seminar communities – may simply ensure incoming students are in multiple classes together (usually for the first semester) to bridge gaps between high school environs and university ones, helping students by teaching them of campus resources as well as making sure they develop connections with students and instructors who encourage their success (Evenbeck, 2010). 2 For some time, researchers have recognized that students consider numerous factors when identifying courses to take; these have ranged from gender-based values (Wilson et al., 1994) to those endorsed by family (Valadez, 2002) to instructor and compatibility with major field (Kerin et al., 1975). Students, professors, and college administrators have recognized that the factors influencing a student’s college choices often impact the value which is placed on a student’s education in the long term (Light, 2001). Such analyses open the door to analyze factors involving the students themselves – likely factors which the students may not recognize, including self-image and communicator style. As self-image and communicator style are each foundations for our interaction with others, the potential for impact of these influences on student retention appears worthy of examination. The potential to understand students and their experiences better can broadly enhance educators’ abilities to improve success and retention. Students’ interactions and choices are connected not only to instructors and educational motives but also to their perception of their possibility to excel. This perception may have a relationship with students’ self-image, ranging from self-esteem to views of physical appearance. Likewise, the students’ awareness of their communication characteristics may also relate to choices of venue – whether concerning large or small campuses, on-campus experiences, or online ones. In a very basic way, students’ self-image may influence expressed communication styles. Either communication style or self-image might impact students’ preferences for dealing with others. For example, one might expect that individuals with certain communication styles would prefer to take their public speaking class in the midst of a large campus while others would prefer an off-campus 3