This article was downloaded by: [Robert J. Sidelinger]On: 28 December 2014, At: 04:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

Academic and Social Integration in theBasic Communication Course: Predictorsof Students' Out-of-Class Communicationand Academic LearningRobert J. Sidelinger a , Derek M. Bolen b , Audra L. McMullen c &

Meghan C. Nyeste d

a Department of Communication , Journalism at Oakland Universityb Department of Communication and Mass Media , Angelo StateUniversityc Department of Mass Communication and Communication Studies ,Towson Universityd Oakland UniversityPublished online: 28 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Robert J. Sidelinger , Derek M. Bolen , Audra L. McMullen & Meghan C. Nyeste(2015) Academic and Social Integration in the Basic Communication Course: Predictors of Students'Out-of-Class Communication and Academic Learning, Communication Studies, 66:1, 63-84, DOI:10.1080/10510974.2013.856807

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.856807

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Academic and Social Integration inthe Basic Communication Course:Predictors of Students’ Out-of-ClassCommunication and AcademicLearningRobert J. Sidelinger, Derek M. Bolen,Audra L. McMullen, & Meghan C. Nyeste

Drawing from Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theory, we examined academic and socialintegration in the basic communication course classroom and students’ continued learn-ing activities outside of the classroom, which Kuh (1995) identified as the other curricu-lum. A total of 427 undergraduate students enrolled in 24 sections of public-speakingcourses reported on their perceptions of instructor clarity and rapport, classroom connect-edness, out-of-class communication (OCC), and out-of-class self-regulated and peerlearning. Overall, results revealed instructor rapport and connectedness were positivelyassociated with students’ OCC, self-regulated learning, and peer learning. In contrast,instructor clarity was negatively related to students’ reports of OCC and peer learning.These results suggest social integration in the classroom may facilitate students’ contin-ued learning activities outside of the classroom.

Keywords: Connected Classroom Climate; Instructor Rapport; Instructor Clarity;Out-of-Class Communication; Peer Learning; Self-Regulation

Robert J. Sidelinger (EdD, West Virginia University, 2008) is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCommunication and Journalism at Oakland University. Derek M. Bolen (PhD, Wayne State University,2012) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Mass Media at Angelo StateUniversity. Audra L. McMullen (PhD, Ohio University, 2000) is a Professor in the Department of MassCommunication and Communication Studies at Towson University. Meghan C. Nyeste is a graduate studentat Oakland University. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented the 2013 InternationalCommunication Association annual meeting. Correspondence to: Robert J. Sidelinger, 316 Wilson Hall,Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, USA. E-mail: sideling@oakland.edu

Communication Studies

Vol. 66, No. 1, January–March 2015, pp. 63–84

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2015 Central States Communication AssociationDOI: 10.1080/10510974.2013.856807

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Public speaking is a common general education experience for many collegestudents in the United States (Morreale, Hanna, Berko, & Gibson, 1999; Pearson,DeWitt, Child, Kahl, & Dandamudi, 2007). For just over 50% of 2- and 4-year schools,public speaking serves as the basic communication course (Morreale, Worley, &Hugenberg, 2010). The basic communication course (BCC) is often students’ firstexposure (Darling, 2010) and introduction to the communication major and to com-munication faculty (Morreale, Hugenberg, & Worley, 2006). Consequently, the basiccourse is situated as an important course for students, faculty, and communicationprograms. This study addresses a call to continue to increase our understanding ofthe importance of the BCC (Sellow & Martin, 2010). Using interactionalist theoryas a frame, we examine the relationship of in-class experiences on students’ othercurriculum—continued learning activities outside of the classroom (e.g., joining astudy group, reading assigned chapters, talking to an instructor during office hours).Applying Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theory to the basic course further highlightsits importance in that integration within the basic course classroom may fosterstudents’ active involvement outside of the classroom and facilitate academic success.We investigated the associations of instructor clarity and rapport and student-to-student connectedness with students’ outside of the classroom communication withinstructors, and self-regulated and peer learning in the BCC.

Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theory emerged from a theoretical synthesis ofresearch on student persistence in higher education. In an effort to further thebreadth of research considering factors affecting college students dropping out, Tintoforwarded a model of student persistence that began with students’ individual andvarying backgrounds. These backgrounds (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status,etc.) give rise to varying types and levels of commitment to goals and college asstudents experience and interact in academic and social systems of higher education.Tinto argued that initial commitment upon entry to college was associated with stu-dents’ positive or negative experiences in academic and social integration.

Successful integrations generally increased commitment, while failed integrations gen-erally decreased commitment (Berger & Braxton, 1998; Tinto, 1975). Because the BCC isoften dominated by first-year students (Morreale et al., 2010) and the classroom can bepositioned as, ‘‘the center of educational activity structure of institutions of higher edu-cation’’ (Tinto, 1997, p. 599), Tinto’s theory lends a particularly apt frame for examiningintegration in various capacities; both in the BCC classroom and its probable resultingimpact on what occurs outside of the classroom. In the vein of Frymier, Shulman,and Houser’s (1996) student motivation and learner empowerment work, the currentstudy engages principal tenets of Tinto’s interactionalist theory, social and academic inte-gration, as a frame to suggest in-class communication variables are influential in stu-dents’ continued learning activities outside of the classroom—the other curriculum.

Framing the Other Curriculum with Interactionalist Theory

Kuh (1995) dubbed students’ experiences outside of the classroom as the othercurriculum. The other curriculum includes contact with peers and instructors, as well

64 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

as their involvement in continued learning activities (e.g., reading assigned chapters,joining study groups, etc.). Students in Kuh’s study reported that life outside ofthe classroom (the other curriculum) was an extension of their formal academicprograms or in-class experiences. The other curriculum provides students withopportunities for synthesizing and integrating knowledge introduced inside the class-room outside of the classroom (Baxter Magolda, 1992). Social and academic inte-gration in the classroom may foster student involvement in campus life outsidethe classroom (Milem, 1997). Therefore, it is useful to examine the associationsbetween basic course students’ in-class communication experiences (i.e., instructorclarity and rapport, and student-to-student connectedness) and their continuedlearning activities outside of class (i.e., outside of the classroom communication withinstructors and self-regulated and peer learning).

Tinto (1975) asserted that academic and social integration fosters success inschool. Academic integration ‘‘can be measured in terms of both . . . grade perfor-mance and . . . intellectual development during the college years’’ (p. 104), whilesocial integration ‘‘occurs primarily through informal peer group associations,semi-formal extracurricular activities, and interaction with faculty and adminis-trative personnel within the college’’ (p. 107). The classroom is a space for poten-tial academic and social integration. Social integration is of particular interest tothe current study because the BCC classroom incites interaction among studentsand between students and instructor. Positive classroom interactions increasepersistence through increasing commitment because such interactions can fosterpositive behavior, including communication outside of the classroom (Tinto,1997).

Social integration leads to ‘‘social communication, friendship support, facultysupport, and collective affiliation’’ (Tinto, 1975, p. 107). Successful integration meansthat a student will be more likely to remain in college and experience success. Of thefour types of social interaction Tinto elaborated, peer-group interactions weredescribed as being ‘‘most directly related to individual social integration’’ (p. 110).Interaction with faculty and extracurricular activities were of equal, secondaryimportance. Indeed, positive experiences with peer and faculty interactions increasecommitment and persistence (Berger & Braxton, 1998).

Instructor clarity and rapport in the classroom represent potential for students toexperience effective communication with a faculty member, potentially increasingacademic and social integration. Likewise, student-to-student connectedness repre-sents the potential for students to experience positive social interactions with eachother in the classroom. This may further foster social integration. Therefore, student-to-student connectedness provides a frame where student interactions in the class-room have the possibility of forming relationships that extend beyond the classroomwalls. To that end, it is also important to consider the impact in-class interactionsand experiences have on students’ out-of-class communication and behaviors. Whathappens in the classroom is linked with students’ experiences outside of theclassroom, and what happens outside of the classroom also contributes to students’success in higher education (Tinto, 1975).

Academic and Social Integration 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Out-of-class communicationOut-of-class communication (OCC) includes structured and unstructured instructor-student interactions. These out-of-class interactions include discussions before orafter class, meetings during office hours, and e-mails to the instructor (Fusani,1994). Students who are academically competitive and want to establish personalrelationships with instructors are more likely to seek OCC (Shimotsu-Dariol,Mansson, & Myers, 2012). Therefore, some students may view OCC as anotheropportunity to develop a connection with their instructors. In general, studentswho engage in OCC with their instructors report a greater sense of belonging,career-specific knowledge, networking, enhanced academic performance, and persist-ence in college (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Dobransky & Frymier, 2004; Keeshan, 2000).Interactionalist theory positions OCC as an opportunity to further students’integration.

Academic integration can be accomplished through positive interactions withinstructors where the OCC encourages intellectual development and=or is in regardsto life after completing college (Tinto, 1975). OCC with instructors can further stu-dents’ knowledge acquisition and academic skill development (Kuh, 1995). This leadsto higher levels of learning indicators, shared control, and intimacy (Dobransky &Frymier, 2004), more cognitive flexibility (Martin & Myers, 2006) and can be a cata-lyst for motivation (Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Jones, 2008). In addition to academicbenefits for students, feelings of affirmation, confidence, and self-worth were moreprevalent among students who had informal interactions with faculty outside ofthe classroom (Kuh, 1995). Ultimately, supporting Tinto’s (1975) model, effectiveinstructor-student interactions outside of the classroom may enhance students’ activeinvolvement in the other curriculum.

Self-regulated and peer learningSelf-regulation and peer learning center on behaviors and activities students engagein that indicate learning (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). Self-regulated learning representsactive involvement in one’s own learning outside of the classroom (McCombs &Marzano, 1990). Self-regulated learners can be viewed as involved participants whoeffectively control their own learning experiences and environments in a variety ofways (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). They are likely to organize and rehearse infor-mation to be learned, to have positive perceptions about their learning capabilities,and to value learning in general. For example, Schmeichel and Baumeister (2010)reported a positive association between students’ self-regulated learning and cogni-tive learning. Overall, self-regulated learning is a proactive, self-initiated action thatrequires learners to set goals, to monitor themselves and their environments, and tomanage social interactions (Zimmerman & Risenberg, 1997). As noted previously,students who engage in self-regulated learning also likely have high commitmentto their goals and=or college. Interactionalist theory states that integration throughpositive experiences of social (or academic) interaction is one of the primary waysthat such commitments are increased and renewed (Tinto, 1975). Self-regulated

66 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

learning is reflected in interactionalist theory through students’ active involvementand commitment to college life.

Peer learning is also a part of out-of-class involvement. It includes working withfellow students outside of the classroom to complete assignments or to study forexams without instructor assistance. Zimmerman (1994) included students’ abilityto seek academic support and help on campus in the framework of academicself-regulation. Seeking support and help includes asking peers for assistance witha learning task. Likewise, Ackermann and Morrow (2007) found positive associationsbetween joining a study group and students’ perceptions of coping with college anddeveloping a sense of belonging. Peer learning enables students to seek assistancefrom their peers outside of the classroom; which, in turn, serves as a foundationfor autonomous achievement (Karabenick, 1998). However, as Chen (2002) noted,limited research is available on students’ use of peer learning. Instructional com-munication research typically focuses on students’ out-of-class communication withtheir instructors, not peers. Therefore, it is warranted to include peer learning as anextension of current OCC instructional research.

OCC with instructors is an integral part of the other curriculum for studentsenrolled in the BCC. It may assist students as they engage in self-regulated and peerlearning. Tinto (1975) situated faculty interaction as a potentially positive forcetoward academic integration. Seeking OCC with instructors may assist students intheir own learning as well as with learning activities with their peers. Hence, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

H1: There will be positive relationships between OCC with instructors andstudents’ self-regulated and peer learning.

Moreover, Tinto (1975) positioned the classroom as the center of formal college lifefor students, so it is warranted to consider the potential influence that in-class com-munication behaviors may have on students’ other curriculum. Extending the scopeof study to include the influence and role instructors play from inside of the class-room, where it is most often studied, to outside of the classroom moves beyondTinto’s initial considerations.

Instructor and Classroom Communication

Bean (2005) argued that social and academic factors are the primary components of astudents’ likelihood to persist in college. Social factors include both feeling connectedwith peers and with instructors (Milem & Berger, 1997) and lead to perceptions ofsocial integration and affiliation within the campus community (Braxton, Jones,Hirschy, & Hartley, 2008). Braxton et al. stated instructors were critical in creatingfeelings of social integration for students. Further, students who were academicallyengaged with faculty members reported that their college education was enriched(Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Similarly, Tinto (1975) found that meaningfulinteractions between a student and the formal and informal dimensions of a college

Academic and Social Integration 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

or university are central to student persistence and academic success. In addition,Tinto positions social integration and academic integration as the primary factorsthat contribute to student success.

Likewise, Kendrick and Darling (1990) stated effective classroom communicationis essential to student success. Kendrick and Darling stated, ‘‘Communication enablesteachers and students to engage in instructional tasks, facilitates social activity, andhelps individuals to coordinate actions’’ (p. 15). In addition, Mottet and Beebe(2006) asserted classroom instruction should include both rhetorical and relationalperspectives. The rhetorical perspective refers to the quality and clarity of instruc-tional messages, while the relational perspective includes instructors’ and students’mutual engagement of effective and appropriate relational communication in theclassroom. Therefore, this study included instructor clarity to represent the rhetoricalperspective and demonstrated effective teaching. Because the relational perspectivefocuses on developing close bonds and satisfying relationships in the classroom(Frymier & Houser, 2000; Mottet & Beebe, 2006), we included instructor rapportand student-to-student connectedness. Both rapport and connectedness address theoverall emotional tone of the classroom and students’ perceptions of instructor-student(s) and student-student relationships.

Instructor clarityInstructor clarity focuses on the explicitness of instructional messages. Even thoughresearchers differ in their definitions of the concept, a basic definition for instructorclarity is an instructor who is clear and easy to understand, offers examples andincorporates repetition in a presentation (Chesbro & Wanzer, 2006). Extant researchhas demonstrated that clear instruction enhances student in-class learning, leads to agreater sense of student well-being and facilitates effective instructor-student(s) in-class relationships (Chesebro & Wanzer, 2006; Glaser-Zikuda & Fuss, 2008; Houser& Frymier, 2009). In part, instructor clarity offers the potential for students to experi-ence integration in the classroom. Elaborating Tinto’s (1975) model with organiza-tional theory, Berger and Braxton (1998) found that how well students wereinformed regarding academic rules, social rules, and course requirements predictssocial integration. Instructors communicate, in part or entirely, many of these orga-nizational attributes to students (i.e., instructor clarity). In particular, course require-ments fall within the realm of instructors’ classroom communicative responsibilities.In this way, instructor clarity emerges as an important classroom behavior to exam-ine in terms of out of classroom communication.

Perceptions of instructor clarity are influenced by both oral and written communi-cation in the classroom (Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997). Positive associations existbetween instructor clarity and student cognitive learning, perceived instructor effec-tiveness, and student academic success (Goods & Grouws, 1977; Powell & Harville,1990). Clarity in the classroom allows students to better succeed in the educationalenvironment and increases their affect for the instructor and course (Sidelinger &McCroskey, 1997). Furthermore, not only does instructor clarity allow motivated

68 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

students to better understand a course topic or lecture (Chesebro & Wanzer, 2006), italso offers students a sense of emotional support in the classroom (S. Titsworth,McKenna, Mazer, & Quinlan, 2013). Indeed, presenting information clearly is akey instructor communication behavior that may enrich students’ college experienceand foster a sense of integration in the classroom.

Overall, Chesebro and Wanzer (2006) stated that clear instruction enhances stu-dents’ perceptions of instructor competence. As the instructor becomes more explicitin the learning process, student learning is more than likely enhanced. Importantly,instructor clarity is a key component in facilitating student learning and positiveaffect in the classroom. To date, instructional research has focused on the impactof clarity within the classroom. Therefore, this study examines the associationsbetween instructor clarity within the classroom and students’ communication andlearning behaviors outside of the classroom.

Instructor rapportRapport is defined as an overall feeling between two people comprised of trust,personal involvement, and social bonding (Catt, Miller, & Schallenkamp, 2007;Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). Frymier and Houser (2000) stated the instructor-studentrelationship is, in part, interpersonal. This relationship offers the potential to enhancethe BCC experience for students. In general, students report that rapport is an essen-tial relational characteristic of an effective instructor (Catt et al., 2007; McLaughlin &Erickson, 1981). In the classroom context, an instructor who establishes rapportwith a student may facilitate social integration and enhance student perceptions ofthe faculty member’s commitment to students.

Further, building instructor-student rapport can encourage social interaction byreducing anxiety (Coupland, 2003; Jorgenson, 1992). If instructor rapport canincrease social interactions between students, then it can potentially foster social inte-gration. Recall that Tinto (1975) positioned peer-group interactions as most directlylinked to individual social integration. In support, Frisby and Martin (2010) found apositive association between students’ perceptions of instructor rapport and student-to-student connectedness. Instructor rapport, along with student-to-student con-nectedness, may encourage social integration in the classroom.

Effective instructor-student interactions are often a precursor to successful learn-ing experiences (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). However, verbal and nonverbalmessages function differently in the instructional context (e.g., B. S. Titsworth, 2004).Verbal messages convey the content of a message whereas nonverbal messages help toestablish the overall relationship between interactants (Burgoon, 1994). For example,when students perceive their instructors as nonverbally immediate in the classroom,they also report greater affect for the instructor and learning (Witt, Wheeless, &Allen, 2004). Therefore, it is likely students may seek outside of the classroomcommunication with instructors who have established rapport with them. Socialintegration (i.e., instructor rapport) in the classroom may foster OCC. Students seekOCC with instructors when the instructors use effective communication in class.

Academic and Social Integration 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Students engage in OCC with instructors when they also perceive instructors as moreimmediate (Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002), credible (Myers, 2004), empathetic(Nadler & Nadler, 2000), and humorous (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003). Overall, ifinstructors are perceived as approachable in the classroom, students may view themas more approachable outside of the classroom.

In addition, student achievement is also linked to instructional clarity (Goods &Grouws, 1977). However, if instructors are clear and explicit in the classroom,students may be less likely to seek their instructors outside of the classroom. Inthe college classroom, students use a variety of communication behaviors to indicatea lack of understanding and=or confusion about course content or classroom perfor-mance. These behaviors include asking instructors to elaborate on course content, toprovide examples, and to answer specific questions (Kendrick & Darling, 1990).Kendrick and Darling noted students do not ask questions in general because theybelieve it is the role of the instructor to be clear and when they do ask questionsin class, it is for clarification (Dillon, 1982). In support, Labelle, Martin, and Weber(2013) stated students who perceived their instructors as clear in the classroomperceived themselves as more capable and competent students. Hence, studentsmay ask less questions during office hours or via e-mail when instructor clarity ishigh. Therefore, we propose the following:

H2a: Instructor rapport will have a positive effect on students’ reports of OCC.H2b: Instructor clarity will have a negative effect on students’ reports of OCC.

In contrast, instructor clarity may increase students’ self-regulated learning. Whencourse guidelines and expectations are clear and explicit, students may be more pre-pared for their class. For example, when instructors present information clearly in theclassroom, students report higher levels of cognitive learning and state motivation(Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001). Conceptually, instructor clarityrepresents academic integration in the classroom and should relate to students’ aca-demic activities outside of the classroom. Therefore, we propose the followinghypothesis:

H3: Instructor clarity will be a better predictor of students’ self-regulated learningoutside of the classroom than instructor rapport.

Connected classroom climateStudent-to-student connectedness is defined ‘‘as student-to-student perceptions of asupportive and cooperative communication environment in the classroom’’ (Dwyeret al., 2004, p. 267), and both students and instructors impact perceptions of the con-nected classroom climate. Instructors use of confirmation behaviors (Sidelinger &Booth-Butterfield, 2010), rapport (Frisby & Martin, 2010), nonverbal immediacy(Johnson, 2009; Sidelinger, Frisby, McMullen, & Heisler, 2012), and humor(Sidelinger, Frisby, et al., 2012) to enhance student-to-student connectedness. In

70 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

addition, Frisby and Martin found a positive relationship between student rapportand students’ perceptions of a connected classroom climate. In contrast, both studentmisbehaviors (Bingham, Carlson, Dwyer, & Prisbell, 2009) and instructor misbeha-viors (Sidelinger, Bolen, Frisby, & McMullen, 2011) are negatively linked tostudent-to-student connectedness in college classrooms. Ultimately, positiveexperiences with instructor-student(s) and student-student interactions may fosterintegration in the classroom.

Extant instructional research indicates a connected classroom climate benefitsstudents. Prior research found positive associations between student-to-student con-nectedness and affective learning (Johnson, 2009), cognitive learning (Prisbell,Dwyer, Carlson, Bingham, & Cruz, 2009), and self-regulated learning (Sidelinger &Booth-Butterfield, 2010). A connected classroom climate is linked to increasedstudent participation (Frisby & Martin, 2010) and decreased communication appre-hension (Carlson et al., 2006). Sidelinger, Myers, and McMullen (2011) found aconnected classroom climate alleviates students’ anxiety and apprehension towardpublic speaking and enhanced perceptions of communication competence over thecourse of the semester in public-speaking courses. Interactionalist theory offers aframe for these phenomena.

A connected classroom climate may ultimately strengthen student involvementand communication outside of the classroom. Interactionalist theory asserts that asocially connected in-class experience, that includes positive instructor-student(s)and student-student interactions, leads students to become academically engagedoutside of the classroom (Tinto, Goodsell Love, & Russo, 1993). Even thoughinstructor behaviors and teaching methods greatly influence the classroom experi-ence, students are part of the classroom community and take part in the responsi-bility for class interactions. Therefore, along with instructor clarity and rapport,student-to-student connectedness has important implications inside the basic courseclassroom and may facilitate effective student communication and academic beha-viors outside the classroom.

Tinto (1975) suggested that positive social interactions could lead to socialintegration, which, in turn, could lead to increased commitment toward achievinggoals. Students who perceive a sense of connection with their peers in the classroommay be more likely to seek contact with them outside of the classroom. Peer learningfocuses specifically on student-to-student interactions outside of the classroom(Chen, 2002). It is likely student-to-student connectedness in the classroom will havea stronger link with peer learning outside of the classroom than instructor rapport. Inaddition, students may not have a need or desire to seek out their peers for questionsor clarification if the instructor is clear in the classroom. Therefore, we predict thefollowing:

H4a: Student-to-student connectedness and instructor rapport will positivelypredict students’ reports of outside-of-the-classroom peer learning.

H4b: Instructor clarity will negatively predict students’ reports of outside-of-theclassroom peer learning.

Academic and Social Integration 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants were 427 (n¼ 255 women, n¼ 163 men, n¼ 9 no response) undergrad-uate students, across academic ranks (n¼ 182 freshmen, n¼ 105 sophomores, n¼ 74juniors, n¼ 29 seniors, n¼ 37 no response), enrolled in 24 sections of public-speaking courses at a public university. These 24 public-speaking courses aresmall-size, standalone classes that are included in the core requirements for the com-munication major and are part of general education requirements for the university.Students’ mean age was 19.68 (SD¼ 2.23), range 18 to 42. Fifteen (n¼ 9 women,n¼ 6 men) part-time instructors taught across the 24 sections of public speaking.There were 280 students who reported on a female instructor and 138 who reportedon a male instructor. Survey administration took place during normal class time, andstudents received minimal course credit for their voluntary participation in thisinstitutional review board (IRB) approved study.

Participants completed the instruments in reference to their public-speakingcourse during the fifteenth week of the spring semester. They were instructed to sealthe survey in an envelope attached to each survey to ensure anonymity. Studentsresponded to demographic questions and survey measures listed below (see Table 1for means, standard deviations, and alphas).

Measures

Instructor clarityThe 10-item Teacher Clarity Short Inventory (TCSI) relates to instructors’ content andprocess clarity in instruction (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998). Capturing oral and writ-ten content and process clarity (e.g., ‘‘My teacher is straightforward in her or his lec-ture’’), the 5-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to stronglyagree (5), previously yielded an alpha reliability of .92 (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998).

Instructor rapportFollowing Frisby and Myers’ (2008) successful adaptation of Gremler and Gwinner’s(2000) 11-item Rapport Measure, we utilized the measure of students’ perceptions of

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Quantitative Measures

Variable a Measure M SD Score M SD

Instructor Rapport .94 6.41 1.48 57.73 13.34

Instructor Clarity .80 4.37 0.63 43.79 6.26

Student-to-Student Connectedness .93 4.13 0.61 53.78 7.88

Out-of-Class Communication .74 2.69 0.69 24.26 6.24

Self-Regulated Learning .78 4.76 1.08 52.40 11.88

Peer Learning .78 2.96 1.66 8.90 4.98

72 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

instructor rapport. The scale measures students’ enjoyable interactions and a personalconnection with an instructor (e.g., ‘‘This instructor relates well to me’’). Theadapted scale was only modified to address an instructor as the target rather thanan employee. Students responded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from stronglydisagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Gremler and Gwinner reported an internal reliabilityranging from .93 to .96.

Classroom connectednessThe Connected Classroom Climate Inventory measured student-to-student connect-edness (Dwyer et al., 2004). Following Johnson’s (2009) validity study, we used anabbreviated version of the measure. Johnson suggested refining the scale to focuson low inference indicators of the communication climate. Therefore, studentsresponded on 13 items about actual student interactions (e.g., ‘‘The students in thisclass praise one another’’) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly dis-agree (1) to strongly agree (5). Johnson reported a .91 reliability coefficient for thisrevised measure.

Out-of-class communicationThe nine-item self-report Out of Class Interaction scale measured students’ frequencyof engaging in OCC (e.g., ‘‘I often talk to my instructor during his=her office hours’’)with an instructor (Myers, Martin, & Knapp, 2005). Student responses were solicitedon a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .80 to .89 have been reported for thisscale (Mansson & Myers, 2009).

Self-regulationThe 12-item Metacognitive Self-Regulation Questionnaire (MSRQ) assessed students’out-of-class behaviors on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7(very true of me). The MSRQ (e.g., ‘‘Before I study new course material thoroughly, Ioften skim it to see how it is organized’’) is a subscale of the 84-item MotivatedStrategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,1991). The researchers stated that the MSLQ is modular and the subscales can beused alone or together. The MSRQ subscale was modified slightly in order to focusonly on students’ out-of-class behaviors (Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Onestatement, ‘‘During class time I often miss important points because I’m thinking ofother things’’ was altered to ‘‘During study=reading time I often miss importantpoints because I’m thinking of other things.’’ The subscale offered a previousreliability of .79 (Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010).

Peer learningAlso included in Pintrich et al.’s (1991) MSLQ is the three-item peer-learning sub-scale. This subscale also assessed students’ out-of-class behaviors on a 7-point scale

Academic and Social Integration 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Peer learning representsseeking assistance from classmates (e.g., ‘‘I try to work with other students from thisclass to complete the course assignments’’) and is a valuable self-regulating, proactivelearning strategy that can provide the foundation for achievement outside of theclassroom (Pintrich et al., 1991). The researchers reported the subscale offered areliability of .76.

Results

Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be positive associations between OCC and stu-dents’ self-regulated and peer learning. A series of Pearson’s correlations revealed apositive correlation between OCC and self-regulated learning, r¼ .203, p< .0001,and OCC and peer learning, r¼ .223, p< .0001. Hypothesis 1 was supported. SeeTable 2 for Pearson’s correlations among all variables.

Hypothesis 2a stated that student perceptions of instructor rapport would bepositively linked with students’ OCC, while H2b stated instructor clarity would benegatively associated with students’ OCC. Results of the multiple regression revealedthat the model including instructor rapport and instructor clarity, F(2, 372)¼ 49.18,p< .0001, accounted for 21% (R2¼ .21) of the variance in reports of students’ OCC.Instructor rapport was positively linked with students’ OCC with instructors,b¼ .483, p< .0001, whereas instructor clarity was negatively associated with students’OCC with instructors, b¼".107, p< .05.

Hypothesis 3 stated that student perceptions of instructor clarity would be a betterpredictor of students’ self-regulated learning outside of the classroom than instructorrapport. A multiple regression revealed that the model including instructor rapportand instructor clarity, F(2, 367)¼ 17.00, p< .0001, accounted for 10% (R2¼ .10)of the variance in reports of students’ self-regulated learning outside of the classroom.Only instructor rapport significantly predicted students’ reports of self-regulatedlearning, b¼ .260, p< .0001. There was no association between instructor clarityand self-regulated learning (p¼ .181). Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Hypothesis 4a predicted that positive perceptions of student-to-student connect-edness in the classroom and instructor rapport would have a positive impact on

Table 2 Pearson’s Correlations between Student Outcome Variables and Predictor

Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Instructor Rapport –

2. Instructor Clarity .37# –

3. Student-to-Student Connectedness .35# .13^ –

4. Out-of-Class Communication .44# ".12^ .18# –

5. Self-Regulated Learning .27# .18# .25^ .20^ –

6. Peer Learning .23# ".16^ .28# .22# .37# –

#p< .0001. ^p< .05.

74 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

students’ outside-of-the-classroom peer learning, whereas H4a stated instructor clar-ity would have a negative association with peer learning. To test this relationship, ahierarchical regression was used, with instructor rapport and clarity entered as thefirst step of the equation and student-to-student connectedness entered as the secondstep, and peer learning entered as the dependent variable. We used a hierarchicalregression model rather than the basic regression model and entered instructor rap-port, instructor clarity, and student-to-student connectedness in separate stepsbecause the students were not independent. They were nested in particular class-rooms with particular instructors. There was a significant main effect for instructorrapport (b¼ .290, p< .0001) and clarity (b¼".207, p< .0001), F(2, 376)¼ 16.80,p< .0001, R2¼ .10. In the second step, rapport (b¼ .198, p< .0001), clarity (b¼".201, p< .0001), and connectedness (b¼ .253, p< .0001) were significant, F(3,375)¼ 20.01, p< .0001, R2¼ .14. The strongest significant positive predictor ofreports of peer learning was student-to-student connectedness, followed by instructorrapport. Also as predicted, instructor clarity was negatively associated with peerlearning. Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Discussion

The college classroom offers an optimal opportunity for integration to occur. Overthe course of a semester, instructors and students develop interpersonal relationshipsthrough communication interactions and common goals (Frymier & Houser, 2000).Indeed, Tinto’s theory offers a useful frame for exploring student integration in vari-ous capacities—both in the BCC classroom and its probable resulting effect on whatoccurs outside of the classroom. Therefore, in this article, we examined the impact ofcommunication interaction associated with academic (i.e., instructor clarity) andsocial integration (i.e., instructor rapport, student-to-student connectedness) on stu-dents’ other curriculum in the BCC. Conceptually, instructor clarity, instructor rap-port, and student-to-student connectedness related to communication interactions inthe classroom while OCC, self-regulated learning, and peer learning related to theother curriculum outside of the classroom. In general, results revealed communi-cation prosocial integration was significantly associated with students’ other curricu-lum. As predicted, instructor rapport was positively associated with students’ reportsof OCC with instructors, as well as their reports of out-of-class self-regulated learningand peer learning. In addition, student-to-student connectedness was positivelylinked with outside of the classroom peer learning. In contrast, instructor claritywas negatively related to students’ reports of OCC with instructors and peer learning.

Overall, the results of this study indicate that communication integration in theclassroom facilitates students’ communication and academic behaviors outside ofthe classroom. This, in many ways, coincides with Tinto’s (1975) assertion that theclassroom is the gateway to the rest of the university. Positive perceptions of instruc-tor rapport (M¼ 57.73, SD¼ 13.34) predicted students’ self-regulation, OCC, andpeer learning. Likewise, student-to-student connectedness (M¼ 53.79, SD¼ 7.88)positively enhanced students’ likelihood to engage in peer learning. Effective

Academic and Social Integration 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

relational communication in the classroom may be a precursor for what happensoutside of the classroom. For example, students comfortably engaging in small talkwith one another or with the instructor may develop a sense of social integrationin the classroom (Dwyer et al., 2004; Frisby & Martin, 2010). In turn, students arelikely to seek communication with their instructors and peers outside of the class-room when social integration is developed within the classroom. These findings alignwith Tinto’s interactionalist theory. Having positive social interactions with facultyand=or peers increases the likelihood of social integration. Increased social inte-gration promotes the subsequent increases in OCC and peer learning—be it a resultfrom instructor rapport (faculty interaction) or student-to-student connectedness(peer interaction). This is congruent with existing instructional communicationresearch. Pogue and Ah Yun (2006) stated instructor immediacy facilitates studentlearning and affect for course subject. Likewise, prior research indicates student-to-student connectedness must be established in the classroom before students are will-ing to respond to instructors’ questions (Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Stu-dents who perceive a sense of rapport with their instructors and with their peers maybe more engaged in their learning (self-regulation) and more likely to communicatewith their instructors (OCC) and their classmates (peer learning) outside of theclassroom.

Indeed, instructors and students need to be aware that their interactions (i.e., rap-port, connectedness) in the classroom are linked to social integration. These interac-tions aid students in developing critical skills needed for collaborative or cooperativetasks (Anderson, 2003). Fassinger (2000) stated students are responsible for the waythey treat one another in the classroom and have the potential to influence oneanother’s in-class participation (Fassinger, 1996). In terms of interactionalist theory,if an instructor or student treats others in the class poorly, then the class will likelyperceive a negative social interaction. Negative social interaction leads to reducedsocial integration, which influences student goal commitment (Tinto, 1975). If nega-tive social interactions lead to reduced goal commitment, students are more likely tonot succeed and=or to leave college.

In contrast, the results also revealed instructor clarity (M¼ 43.79, SD¼ 6.26) wasnegatively linked with OCC and peer learning. Students who reported that theirinstructors were clear (e.g., offered relevant examples, gave explicit directions) inthe classroom were less likely to seek them outside of class. One explanation forthe negative association between instructor clarity and OCC is students may not havethe need for further inquiry. Clear classroom instruction may offer students enoughresources and material to work with on their own outside of the classroom. Instruc-tors who offer easy to follow lectures, provide straightforward feedback and areexplicit in course=assignment guidelines benefit students in many ways (Chesebro& McCroskey, 1998; Chesebro & Wanzer, 2006). Importantly, for this study, wedid not determine if the negative associations between instructor clarity and the othercurriculum have any negative relationships with student learning outcomes.

Students may feel confident that they are fully prepared for an assignment or anexam when instructors are clear in their instruction. As previously stated, Labelle et al.

76 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

(2013) found a positive link between instructor clarity and students’ reports ofacademic self-efficacy. Specifically, students who perceived their instructors as clearalso perceived themselves as capable and competent in the classroom. However,Carpenter, Wilford, Kornell, and Mullaney (2013) found students’ perceptions oflearning are based on the presentational style of an instructor. As a result, studentstend to overestimate what they learned when they perceive the instructor as clear,immediate, and effective. The authors concluded that a more articulate, clear instruc-tor may increase students’ perceptions of learning without increasing their actuallearning. Hence, if students are less likely to seek OCC with instructors who presentinformation clearly in the classroom, this may limit the potential to further students’understanding and knowledge. Therefore, given the literature on OCC and its manybenefits, future research should determine the potential impact this negative relation-ship has on student success and continued learning.

A second explanation for these results is instructors who are precise and clear inthe classroom may appear too formal and rigid; and, therefore, less approachable.Kerssen-Griep, Trees, and Hess (2008) stated instructor clarity may undermine affin-ity in instructor-student(s) interactions. Instructors should deliver content withexpertise and clarity in the classroom, but it must occur in tandem with effectiveand appropriate relational communication. Likewise, Stephens, Houser, and Cowan(2009) found instructors are unreceptive and even critical of students who send themoverly casual e-mail. E-mails are included in OCC. In general, students’ use of tech-nology is more informal than formal. Instructors who are high in clarity are morelikely to engage in explicit feedback and may be more likely to criticize students’use of casual communication in their e-mails to instructors. This, in turn, may dis-courage students to engage in OCC (e.g., send e-mail) with their instructors. Futureresearch should investigate the consequences of instructor clarity to determine if clearand explicit criticisms of students’ casual communication in e-mail exchanges inhibitstudents’ likelihood of continued OCC with instructors. Instructors should balancerhetorical and relational dimensions of communication in the classroom (Frymier& Houser, 2000). Future research should consider that balance outside of theclassroom.

Implications and Limitations

The results of this study offer insight into the BCC and the possible implications ofsocial and academic integration on students’ other curriculum. The BCC is an impor-tant course for colleges and universities in general and communication programsspecifically. For better or worse, student perceptions of instructors affect a varietyof learning outcomes (Punyanunt-Carter & Wagner, 2005). Yet, as a limitation, thisstudy only included 15 instructors across 24 sections of public-speaking courses,therefore the results of this study should be read with caution. However, Sellnowand Martin (2010) noted a major consideration for scholars and communicationprograms is effective instruction in the basic course. Darling (2010) said effectiveinstruction in the basic course is essential because it may be the only communication

Academic and Social Integration 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

course students enroll in, and in turn, the only course where they develop vitalcommunication skills.

Importantly, students’ perceptions of instructor rapport and student-to-studentconnectedness have significant positive implications for students enrolled in theBCC. However, in general, there is a lack of formalized teacher training in highereducation (Maher & Tetreault, 1999). The results of this study point to the needof such training. Prior research has shown that rapport and connectedness in theclassroom benefits students (e.g., Frisby & Martin, 2010; Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Given students’ continued learning activities outside of the BCCwere linked with their perceptions of instructor rapport and student-to-student con-nectedness, instructional researchers and communication programs should considerthe potential benefits of required teacher-training programs. For example, instructorshave opportunities to enhance perceptions of student-to-student connectedness overtime in public-speaking courses (Sidelinger, Frisby, et al., 2012). Specifically, instruc-tors’ use of humor and nonverbal immediacy increases students’ perceptions of con-nectedness in public-speaking courses. Therefore, if instructors are appropriatelytrained to engage in effective relational communication in the classroom, they mayfoster rapport with their students and further foster student-to-student connected-ness in the classroom. Dwyer et al. (2004) stated instructors should gauge the connec-ted classroom climate as a semester progresses to determine if appropriate supportiveconnections exist among students.

Along with teacher training, communication programs need to consider the impli-cations of offering the BCC in other formats than the traditional face-to-face class-room. Overall, higher education institutions continue to increase online courseofferings (Parker, Lenhart, & Moore, 2011), and the National CommunicationAssociation (NCA, 2012) reported that over 60% of communication programsoffered at least one online course to students. Given the rise in popularity of onlinecourses and in light of this study’s results, scholars and course instructors mustconsider the possible lost opportunities for instructor-student and student-studentinteractions in online courses. Students’ in-class interaction involvement is positivelyassociated with students’ affective learning, motivation, and grades (Frymier, 2005),and Bejerano (2008) argued online courses offer students lower levels of interaction;which, in turn, lead to reduced academic and social integration. Therefore, limitedface-to-face interactions may impede students’ continued learning activities outsideof the course. It follows then that communication instructors who adopt an onlineformat for their courses must allow students the opportunity to connect with themand their peers. This study did not include online courses but, as an extension of ourfindings, future research should address the possibilities for academic and social inte-gration in online versus face-to-face courses.

We also did not assess students’ success or academic achievement across coursesections. Even though we found rapport and connectedness were strongly linked tostudents’ out-of-class communication and academic behaviors, we do not knowhow those outcomes are linked to their overall achievement in the BCC or their con-tinued persistence in the university or the major. Future research should address that

78 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

limitation and also should explore the association between trained instructors andstudent success and persistence in college in general and the communication programspecifically.

In general, postsecondary institutions are transforming classrooms from beinginstructor centered to student centered (Huba & Freed, 2000). Hence, it is essentialto implement teacher-training programs that facilitate effective instruction and socialintegration in the college classroom. Communication programs should invest inteacher-training programs and offer necessary resources that will assist instructorsto develop their teaching and pedagogy. Moreover, instructional researchers needto determine if links exist between teacher training and successful student learningoutcomes.

Lastly, based on the outcomes of this study, causal claims cannot be made. Basedon our research design, any inference of causation should be taken with caution.Classroom communication and student learning activities are limited to the studentperspective. Instead of in-class perceptions of instructor rapport and student-to-stu-dent connectedness affecting students’ other curriculum, students who are moreinvolved in their other curriculum may be more likely to develop strong bonds inthe classroom. Therefore, longitudinal and experimental research designs mayprovide insights into causation.

Also, as an extension of this study, researchers should include student charac-teristics and individual motivational factors. For example, Hess, Smythe, andCommunication 451 (2001) asked students what motivated them to study. Theyfound 77% reported grades to be the sole motivating factor. Hess and colleagues alsoindicated other factors outside of the classroom influenced student motivationsuch as parents and job. This is in line with Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theory,which includes students’ demographics and preclass commitment in their overallinvolvement in college life.

Conclusion

In the classroom context, instructors and students develop relationships over timethrough continuous interactions and common goals. Essentially, social forces emergein the classroom that either facilitate or impede learning (Hirschy & Wilson, 2002).Students should benefit when instructors effectively incorporate rhetorical andrelational messages into their instruction (Frymier & Houser, 2000). In addition,appropriate and effective student-student interactions should foster learning.Students’ interactions and experiences in the classroom serve as a foundation forwhat happens outside of the classroom. Using Tinto’s (1975) interactionalist theoryas a frame, we investigated meaningful instructor-student(s) and student-studentinteractions within the classroom to determine their associations with learningprocesses and outcomes outside of the BCC classroom.

Overall, instructional communication research is replete with findings that canassist instructors to create an optimal learning environment. It is important to con-sider what happens in the classroom, but we must also extend our research to what

Academic and Social Integration 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

happens outside of it as well. Socially connected interactions in the classroom providestudents with learning experiences that will enhance their other curriculum. Drawingfrom interactionalist theory, this study supports the notion that social integration inthe BCC is positively linked to student’s communication and academic behaviorsoutside of the classroom. Student’s continued learning activities outside of the class-room are shaped and influenced by their connections within the classroom. Thisstudy contributes to our understanding of interactionalist theory and the usefulnessof social integration in the basic communication course.

References

Ackermann, M. E., & Morrow, J. A. (2007). A principal components analysis and validation of thecoping with the college environment scale (CWCES). Journal of College Student Retention, 9,133–148. doi: 10.2190=CS.9.2.a

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated theoretical rationale for interaction.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 1–14.

Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. A. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions ofinstructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education,52, 122–134. doi: 10.1080=0363452032000085090

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in students’intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College studentretention (pp. 215–243). Westport, CT; Praeger.

Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student departurethrough theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational attributes in the persistenceprocess. Research in Higher Education, 39, 103–119. doi: 10.1023=A:1018760513769

Berjerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for andwhat have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57, 408–414.

Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Dwyer, K. K., & Prisbell, M. (2009). Student misbehaviors,instructor responses and connected classroom climate: Implications for the basic course.Basic Communication Course Annual, 21, 30–64.

Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A. S., & Hartley, H. V. (2008). The role of active learningin college student persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 71–83. doi:10.1002=tl.326

Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofinterpersonal communication (pp. 229–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, R. E., Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Cruz, A. M., Prisbell, M., & Fus, D. A. (2006).Connected classroom climate and communication apprehension: Correlations and implica-tions for the basic course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 18, 1–27.

Carpenter, S. K., Wilford, M. M., Kornell, N., & Mullaney, K. M. (2013, May). Appearances can bedeceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actuallearning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Retrieved from link.springer.com

Catt, S., Miller, D., & Schallenkamp, K. (2007). You are the key: Communicate for learningeffectiveness. Education, 127, 369–377.

Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction toinformation systems course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,20, 11–25.

Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning,receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135–147.

80 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The relationship between teacher clarity and immediacyand students’ experiences of state receiver apprehension when listening to teachers.Communication Quarterly, 46, 446–455. doi: 10.1080=01463379809370114

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacywith student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. CommunicationEducation, 50, 59–68.

Chesebro, J. L., & Wanzer, M. B. (2006). Instructional message variables. In T. P. Mottet,V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication(pp. 89–116). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Cotten, S., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. HigherEducation, 51, 487–519. doi: 10.1007=s10734-004-1705-4

Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36,1–6. doi: 10.1207=S15327973RLSI3601_1

Darling, A. L. (2010). Communication education: A community of radicals. In D. L. Fassett & J. T.Warren (Eds.), Communication education: An association of radicals (pp. 3–10). Los Angeles,CA: Sage.

Dillon, J. T. (1982). The multi-disciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Education Psychology,74, 147–165.

Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships throughout of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211–223. doi: 10.1080=01463370409370193

Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004).Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected class-room climate inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21, 264–272. doi: 10.1080=08824090409359988

Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors’ and students’ perceptions of why students participate in class.Teaching Sociology, 24, 25–33. doi: 10.2307=1318895

Fassinger, P. A. (2000). How classes influence students’ participation in college classroom. Journalof Classroom Interaction, 35, 38–47. doi: 10.1080=87567559709596184

Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in theclassroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. doi: 10.1080=03634520903564362

Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport, student par-ticipation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33, 27–34.

Frymier, A. B. (2005). Students’ classroom communication effectiveness. Communication Quarterly,53, 197–212. doi: 10.1080=01463370500089896

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonalrelationship. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi: 10.1080=03634520009379209

Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowermentmeasure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199.

Fusani, D. S. (1994). ‘‘Extra-class’’ communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, andsatisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 22, 232–255. doi: 10.1080=00909889409365400

Glaser-Zikuda, M., & Fuss, S. (2008). Impact of teacher competencies on student emotions: Amulti-method approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 4, 136–147. doi:10.1016=j.ijer.2007.11.013

Goods, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth-grademathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 49–54.

Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships.Journal of Service Research, 3, 82–104. doi: 10.1177=109467050031006

Hess, J. A., Smythe, M. J., & Communication 451. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related tostudent cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197–219.

Academic and Social Integration 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Hirschy, A. S., & Wilson, M. E. (2002). The sociology of the classroom and its influence on studentlearning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 85–100. doi: 10.1207=S15327930PJE7703_5

Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviors instudents’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58, 35–53.

Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focusfrom teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communi-cation to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. CommunicationEducation, 48, 41–47. doi: 10.1080=03634529909379151

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2002). Out-of-class communication between female and male stu-dents and faculty: The relationship to student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Women’sStudies in Communication, 25, 119–137. doi: 10.1080=07491409.2002.10162443

Johnson, D. I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: A validity study. Communication ResearchReports, 26, 146–157. doi: 10.1080=08824090902861622

Jones, A. C. (2008). The effects of out-of-class support on student satisfaction and motivation tolearn. Communication Education, 57, 373–388. doi: 10.1080=03634520801968830

Jorgenson, J. (1992). Communication, rapport, and the interview: A social perspective. Communi-cation Theory, 2, 148–156. doi: 10.1111=j.14682885.1992.tb00034.x

Karabenick, S. A. (1998). Help-seeking as a strategic resource. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategichelp seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 1–11). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Keeshan, M. (2000). Out of class communication between faculty and students: A faculty perspec-tive. Communication Studies, 51, 176–188.

Kendrick, W. L., & Darling, A. L. (1990). Problems of understanding in classrooms: Students’ use ofclarifying tactics. Communication Education, 39, 15–29. doi: 10.1080=03634529009378784

Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive facework during instructional feed-back: Key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning environment. CommunicationEducation, 57, 312–332. doi: 10.1080=03634520802027347

Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learningand personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123–155. doi: 10.2307=2943909

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creatingconditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

LaBelle, S., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2013). Instructional dissent in the college classroom: Usinginstructional beliefs model as a framework. Communication Education, 62, 169–190.

Maher, F., & Tetreault, M. K. (1999). Knowledge versus pedagogy: The marginalization of teachereducation. Academe, 85, 40–43.

Mansson, D. H., & Myers, S. A. (2009). A reexamination of Swedish and American college students’communicative attributes. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38, 9–22. doi:10.1080=17475750903381622

Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2006). Students’ communication traits and their out-of-classcommunication with their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 23, 283–289.

McCombs, B. J., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self asagent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51–69. doi: 10.1207=s15326985ep2501_5

McLaughlin, M. L., & Erickson, K. V. (1981). A multidimensional scaling analysis of the ‘‘idealinterpersonal communication instructor.’’ Communication Education, 30, 393–398. doi:10.1080=03634528109378494

Milem, J. F. (1997, July=August). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring therelationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure.Journal of College Student Development. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com

82 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: The relation-ship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure. Journalof College Student Development, 38, 387–400.

Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic communicationcourse at U.S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication Course Annual, 11,1–36.

Morreale, S., Hugenberg, L., & Worley, D. (2006). The basic communication course at U.S. collegesand universities in the 21st century: Study VII. Communication Education, 55, 415–437. doi:10.1080=03634520600879162

Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication course at two-and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: Study VIII—the 40th anniversary. Communi-cation Education, 59, 405–430. doi: 10.1080=03634521003637124

Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet,V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication:Rhetorical & relational perspectives (pp. 255–285). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college studentin-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17, 129–137. doi:10.1080=08934210409389382

Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Knapp, J. L. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class communicativebehaviors as a predictor of student participation in out-of-class communication. Communi-cation Quarterly, 53, 437–450. doi: 10.1080=01463370500102046

Nadler, K. H., & Nadler, L. B. (2000). Out of class communication between faculty and students: Afaculty perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 176–188. doi: 10.1080=10510970009388517

National Communication Association (NCA). (2012). Online courses at U.S. colleges &universities. NCA C-Briefs, 2. Retrieved from www.natcom.org

Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: Collegepresidents, public, differ on value of online learning. Retrieved from pewinternet.org

Pearson, J. C., DeWitt, L., Child, J. T., Kahl, D. H., & Dandamudi, V. (2007). Facing the fear: Ananalysis of speech-anxiety content in public-speaking textbooks. Communication ResearchReports, 24, 159–168. doi: 10.1080=08824090701304923

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college class-room. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goalsand self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of theMotivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Pogue, L. L., & Ah Yun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility onstudent motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55, 331–344. doi:10.1080=03634520600748623

Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructionaloutcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 368–379. doi:10.1080=03634529009378816

Prisbell, M., Dwyer, K. K., Carlson, R. E., Bingham, S. G., & Cruz, A. M. (2009). Connectedclassroom climate and communication in the basic course: Associations with learning. BasicCommunication Course Annual, 21, 145–177.

Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., & Wagner, T. R. (2005). Communication based emotional supportdifferences between professors and teaching assistants. Education, 125, 569–574.

Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Effortful attention control. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effort-less attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 29–49).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Academic and Social Integration 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflectivepractices. New York, NY: Guilford.

Sellnow, D. D., & Martin, J. M. (2010). The basic course in communication: Where do we go fromhere? In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The sage handbook of communication andinstruction (pp. 33–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shimotsu-Dariol, S., Mansson, D. H., & Myers, S. A. (2012). Students’ academic competitivenessand their involvement in the learning process. Communication Research Reports, 29,310–319. doi: 10.1080=08824096.2012.723643

Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2011). When instructorsmisbehave: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as a mediator in the collegeclassroom. Communication Education, 60, 340–361. doi: 10.1080=03634523.2011.554991

Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2012). Instructor complianceto student requests: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as power in theclassroom. Communication Education, 61, 290–308. doi: 10.1080=03634523.2012.666557

Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: Anexamination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the collegeclassroom. Communication Education, 59, 165–184. doi: 10.1080=03634520903390867

Sidelinger, R. J., Frisby, B. N., McMullen, A. L., & Heisler, J. (2012). Developing student-to-studentconnectedness: An examination of instructors’ humor, nonverbal immediacy, and self-disclosure in public speaking courses. Basic Communication Course Annual, 24, 81–121.

Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the col-lege classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1–10. doi: 10.1080=08824099709388640

Sidelinger, R. J., Myers, S. A., & McMullen, A. L. (2011). Students’ communication predispositions:An examination of classroom connectedness in public speaking courses. Basic Communi-cation Course Annual, 23, 248–278.

Stephens, K. K., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2009). R U able to meat me: The impact ofstudents’ overly casual email messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58,303–326. doi: 10.1080=03634520802582598

Tinto, V. (1975). Drop out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Reviewof Educational Research, 45, 89–125. doi: 10.2307=1170024

Tinto, V. (1997). Classroom as communities: Exploring the educational character of studentpersistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599–623. doi: 10.2307=2959965

Tinto, V., Goodsell Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79, 16–21.Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students’ notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity.

Communication Education, 53, 305–320. doi: 10.1080=0363452032000305922Titsworth, S., McKenna, T. P., Mazer, J. P., & Quinlan, M. M. (2013). The bright side of emotion

in the classroom: Do teachers’ behaviors predict students’ enjoyment, hope, and pride?Communication Education, 62, 191–209.

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty instudent learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153–184. doi: 10.1007=s11162-004-1598-1

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationshipbetween teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71,184–207. doi: 10.1080=036452042000228054

Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework foreducation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning andperformance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Risenberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning andmotivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Constructional knowledge(pp. 105–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

84 R. J. Sidelinger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [R

ober

t J. S

idel

inge

r] a

t 04:

28 2

8 D

ecem

ber 2

014