INSTRUCTORS AS CONNECTIONS:

FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS’ INTEGRATION THROUGH OFFICE HOURS

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies of

Angelo State University

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

by

STEPHEN HENRY

May 2014

Major: Communication

INSTRUCTORS AS CONNECTIONS:

FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS’ INTEGRATION THROUGH OFFICE HOURS

by

STEPHEN HENRY

APPROVED:

_______________________________

Derek M. Bolen, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Flor Leos Madero, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Daniel J. Simmons, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Joe Erickson, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Date

APPROVED:

___________________________________

Dr. Susan E. Keith Date

Dean of the College of Graduate Studies

INSTRUCTORS AS CONNECTIONS:

FIRST GENERATION STUDENTS’ INTEGRATION THROUGH OFFICE HOURS

by

STEPHEN HENRY

APPROVED:

Derek M. Bolen

Flor Leos Madero

Daniel J. Simmons

Joe Erickson

APPROVED:

Dr. Susan E. Keith

Dean of the College of Graduate Studies

iii

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my fellow graduate students at Angelo State University:

past, present, and future. Those who influenced me, those who walk alongside me, and those

who will come after me. Each of you played a crucial role to my writing process. I write this

in acknowledgment of your importance to me and in hopes that my work can be of benefit to

you.

iv

Acknowledgments

From a social constructivist perspective, this page should include the name of every

individual I have ever interacted with. As that is not feasible, I instead offer three lists of

influential people in this journey.

Educators: Those who entered my life as professionals, charged with guiding me. I hope I

have shown your efforts to be worthwhile, and know that I continue learning from you.

M(r)s/Mr/Dr: Adams, Anderson, Askari, Barret, Battaglia, Blair, Bolen, Boone,

Brignac, Carr, Collins, DeLeon, Erikson, Hart, Holloway, Kelly, Kornasky, Madero,

Marquess, Martin, Muelsch, Nelson, Pacheco, Polster, Rodriguez, Simmons, Sitzer, Smith,

Trawick, Tune, Peters, Pierce, Wahl, Ward, Wilson, Wolfgang, Valle Brown, Villareal, and

Young

Family: Those who I was born to, you have been my backbone. I always hope to make you

proud.

Donna, Richard, Brendan, Ashlee, Gavin, Peter, Kelly, Scott, Teresa, Cindi, Ross,

Dabney, Lynn, Carl, Kris, Jo, Randy, Rebecca, Spencer, and Carole

Friends: Those who buoyed my spirits endlessly, every one of you are a ray of

sunshine in my heleophiliac eyes. Even as we fall out of touch on occasion, you never leave

my heart.

v

Dario, Jessica, Lauren, Kayla (x2), Devin, Scott, Jennifer, Rachel, Beatrice,

Elizabeth, Terrill, Sylvia, Brooke, Anne Rose, Annie, Kelsey, Katie, Cory, Larissa, Emily,

Skiler, Kristin, Molly, Maria, Kennan, Jamie, Stephanie, David, Bryan, Julianna, Tilson,

Amanda, Manda, Danyelle, Kandice, Steph, John Marc, @DrunkGrad, and @McAlistersDeli

vi

Abstract

Utilizing office hours as a means to building interpersonal student-instructor

relationships is seldom considered by students or proactively promoted by instructors. First

generation students, those who are the first in their family to seek a degree of higher

education, enter into the university system without knowledge of it or supporters who can

provide relevant mentoring. Building strong interpersonal connections with representatives of

the university can be a method of integration. By engaging first generation students on an

interpersonal level, instructors can likely create an attachment between the students and the

academic world. This research engages first generation students in discussion and highlights

current detractors from engagement out-of-class, and unveils suggestions for encouraging

students. Following (re)presentation of student voices, there are theoretical and practical

suggestions for meeting the students’ requests.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................ III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... IV

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS….………………….…………………………......……………VII

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................. 7

LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................... 7

First Generation Students .................................................................................................. 9

Out-of-Class Communication ......................................................................................... 13

Detractors from engagement. ...................................................................................... 14

Effects of out-of-class communication. ...................................................................... 17

Current norms. ............................................................................................................ 19

Office Hours.................................................................................................................... 19

Ritual of office hours .................................................................................................. 20

Student participation. .................................................................................................. 21

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 27

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 27

Methodological Framework ............................................................................................ 27

viii

Focus Groups .................................................................................................................. 30

Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 35

Autoethnography............................................................................................................. 37

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 41

FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 41

Discouraging Factors ...................................................................................................... 42

Intimidation. ................................................................................................................ 42

Busy instructors. ......................................................................................................... 45

Instructors not willing to help. .................................................................................... 49

Lack of knowledge during freshman year. ................................................................. 56

Acts to Engage in ............................................................................................................ 60

Make them feel safe, rather than judged. .................................................................... 60

Show interest in having students visit ......................................................................... 65

Make students a priority.............................................................................................. 69

Take steps in relationship building ............................................................................. 71

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................... 79

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................. 79

The Ever-Caring Instructor ............................................................................................. 82

Genuine Caring Communication .................................................................................... 84

ix

Communicating Kindly ................................................................................................... 85

Limitations and Future Implications ............................................................................... 87

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 89

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................... 107

APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................... 111

APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................... 112

APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................... 115

VITA ..................................................................................................................................... 117

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

I glance down at my phone again, checking the syllabus pulled up on my screen. I

know the room number, but looking down gives me the chance to seem busy. Mustering my

courage, I head toward the door…and walk right past it once again. This failure is one too

many, and the anxiety causes me to leave the hall of offices and go back into the main part of

the building. Passing by classrooms, I make my way to the water fountain.

It really should not be this big of a deal. I should not be freaking out so much about

this encounter. All I want to do is go in and talk to my instructor about a speech topic. I can’t

ever catch him at the end of class. Well, I don’t really try. I always imagine he’s unhappy

with how little the class participated in discussion by the end of the hour, and I don’t want to

go talk to him after not being very engaged myself.

Do I really need to talk to him about this topic? I know I am smart, so I know the

topic is okay to talk about. I also know I am not a great speaker, so it’s not like getting his

help will cause me to get a better grade even if I tried really hard.

Lifting my head from the faucet, I decide to just leave and take the chance on the

work myself. After all, it’s just an intro class. If I have to ask for help on this stuff, I really

don’t belong in college. And besides, he probably doesn’t want to be interrupted by some

freshman asking him to do his work for him anyway.

Walking away from instances where I could have used help became a common theme

of my undergraduate career as a first generation student, and through the pages of thesis I

2

will share personal narrative storying experiences that have influenced me and guided my

interest in the subject of office hour communication.

***

In this ever-changing age of education, instructors are lamenting the loss of the

traditional classroom and its seemingly implicit interpersonal connections, which

increasingly popular online classes do not allow. While distance learning offers students the

ability to further their education without being physically present in a classroom, there is

much room for criticism from instructors. Instructors argue that they will not be able to

recognize standout students, help those who struggle, or advance the curriculum through

human connection (Youngberg, 2012). The classroom is understood to be a place where

instructors can forge incredible minds, and many doubt the ability for such to occur over an

electronic medium (Falk, 2012).

This concern is at least partially overstated, as the widely accepted ideal of

interpersonal connectedness has generally gone unrealized in face-to-face classrooms (Wulff

& Wulff, 2004). At universities of all sizes, students are unlikely to receive much personal

one-on-one attention from their instructors in the classroom environment. In larger

universities with class sizes reaching into the hundreds, such individualized attention is going

to be diminished. But even in a smaller university with classes of 30 or less, there is only so

much time an instructor gets with a class each week that he/she can possibly further

subdivide into individual time. This limitation is assuming that an instructor makes the effort

to grant each individual student attention specialized for his/her particular academic progress

3

and needs in the first place. Wulff and Wulff (2004) demonstrated the faulty assumptions of

communicative action on the part of instructors, showing that many feel that simply lecturing

is an act of shared communication with students. For an instructor who lectures at his/her

podium for the entirety of every class period, there is little room to criticize the change of

channel for his/her message to be delivered. Yet, even instructors who engage the class in

discussion are still most likely to contain the discussion to the material of the course

(Cayanus & Martin, 2008).

While students and instructors may have a relationship within the bounds of the

course, seldom is there interaction outside the context of the curriculum (Myers et al, 2009).

This is understandable, as the classroom is prioritized toward instruction and learning. When

a student engages with an instructor in communication, the likely topic will be pertaining to

the course content or the coursework assigned. An instructor has neither the time, nor

possibly the inclination to create bonds of friendship with his/her students during class

periods. Therefore, students who may benefit most from interpersonal relationships may be

left wanting.

It is strange to think of students seeking interpersonal contact with instructors as a

means of becoming better students, and this strange concept is at the heart of this thesis. Over

the course of this project, I intend to explore the concept of the student/instructor

relationship. On a theoretical level, I will claim that such a connection should be central to all

academic relationships for all students. In order to facilitate a move toward this philosophy, I

4

will look to present voices of first generation students who currently have the desire to craft

interpersonal relationships with their instructors.

First generation students are, perhaps, those who move through the university system

most alone. Lack of social support is common—even in the case of a supportive family

structure there is a distinct lacking of college know-how, making crucial the creation of

university-centric programs to provide such support systems (Madero, 2012). There can be

no totalizing statements proclaiming families with parents who completed college to be more

caring for their students and more supportive. However, it is difficult for a similarly caring

family of a first generation student to provide the same kinds of support needed to survive the

educational system. This creates a need for first generation students to obtain supportive role

models who can help guide them through their education, a role they might attempt to fill

with an instructor.

Focus on first generation students is necessary because such a large number of

students can be identified as first generation. Within higher education, 47% of all students

were classifiable as first generation (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). With nearly half the

student body being first generation but only 12% obtaining a bachelor’s degree (Berkner &

Chavez, 1997; Chen, 2005), there need to be more initiatives aimed at providing resources to first

generation students so they can persist and complete their degrees.

Students who desire relationships often must make do with the divided attention

instructors have while trying to engage an entire classroom. Each day in the classroom is a

stressful one for any given instructor. In fact, Jackson’s (1968) germinal work has suggested

5

that instructors are involved in 1,000 interpersonal interactions in a day. This communicative

effort displays the intense pull on an instructor’s attention that occurs in any class.

Experimental models of learning are growing with relation to noticing the many

methods upon which different students ideally learn, but the impetus remains on the student

to engage in studying practices best suited to them. Instructors are primarily free to continue

with their regular teaching methods, perhaps offering a shift in lecturing through PowerPoint

or some newer technology. Even where instructors make the effort to incorporate additional

methods for the sake of students, the question of interpersonal connection is still left

unanswered. Innovation with PowerPoint may help students who learn best through sight do

better, practical lab assignments may be beneficial to those that learn through doing, and

lectures can continue to work well for students who prefer auditory retention. Alternative

schools have experimented with student centric learning as opposed to teacher centric, but in

the university system class sizes simply prohibit such models. The difficulty of incorporating

more student centric modes of teaching leaves a void of interpersonal communication that

may potentially be filled by out-of-class communication, particularly by engaging in office

hour communication (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004).

The aim of this thesis is to connect research on out-of-class communication and its

potential for social integration with the currently unmet needs of first generation students,

attempting to show the potential benefit that can be gained by the students, instructors, higher

education, and culture as a whole as a result of strong communicative practices and

relationship building between students and instructors. This thesis endeavors to suggest

6

radical shifts to the practices of the academy as a theoretical ideal. Knowing that this does

little to benefit participants currently, I will ground such theoretical propositions in a more

immediately applicable framework of actions and practices. I do this in hopes that this thesis

can be of benefit to students and instructors in the short term and within the bounds of the

current system.

7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

“I have to take out a loan. There’s no way around it.” I say these words dejectedly,

finally letting the truth of it settle. I’ve crunched the numbers time and time again, compared

the work study options with other jobs I could get, thought about changing my major to get

certain scholarships, and in the end just had to accept it the unfair reality. I, the whiz kid who

learned everything there was to know about the financial aid process—even helping all my

friends fill out their paperwork—was going to have to go into debt for college. It didn’t

matter that my family was below poverty level, that our only income was, in fact, the loans

my mom got for her education. I turned to her, begging for help with my glance.

“I’m truly sorry. I thought that program we looked at would take care of whatever

your grants and scholarships didn’t.”

A promise to pick up whatever financial aid didn’t take care of… of the cost of

tuition, at least. We learned this caveat too late, discovered what we later would warn people

about with cynical understanding. It’s good and all for the school to promise to pick up the

slack left over from deficient financial aid, but only so long as you didn’t need room and

board. Add that on the list, and suddenly the school that looked the cheapest out of the

options becomes just as big a monster as any other you looked at. Heaven forbid I had tried

to go somewhere with a higher tuition. Who knows what housing would have cost there.

It’s only been a few weeks since I was accepted and my family celebrated me going

to college. I met my dad for our weekend visit last night, and he took me to dinner where he

8

told me all about the bragging he had done to coworkers and family friends. My sister had

posted a congratulatory message on her Facebook, and it had gotten 12 likes. In the

comments, a friend nagged her to reenroll, and she assured him that I was the smart one in

the family.

It has only been a few weeks, but my mom and I have been ecstatic the entire time.

Within a year into her own return to college after 30 years, we thought we could conquer the

beast as a team. She reminded me over and over about the best ways she had learned to buy

books after her horrendous first semester of buying everything new. EBay was the way to go,

she just knew it. The next semester she would shift to Amazon, and the one after that to

Chegg rentals. None of these methods ended up fitting my needs, and they weren’t the only

difference we found between her education and my own.

She was so proud of me for my certainty that I wouldn’t have to go into debt like her,

and when my certainty came crashing down, she couldn’t take back her words. We learned

today, and would learn many times in the future, that having a mother in college is not the

same as having a mother who has already graduated.

***

This chapter reviews extant research and synthesizes voices examining the current

state of out-of-class communication practices, drawing on them to suggest the need for

engagement in practices that will deviate from the culture they describe. The literature review

is divided into three primary sections: (a) first generation students, (b) out-of-class

communication, and (c) office hour communication. The first section contextually definines

9

and locates first generation students, situating the need for focusing research on them in

current understandings and current problems they face. Next, a section divided into multiple

subsections explains the research done on out-of-class communication, with each subsection

tying the extant literature back in importance to first generation students. This section begins

with an overview of Kuh’s (1995) definition of out-of-class communication as the other

curriculum. The subsections cover initial, internal detractors from engagement before

implicating instructor practices for their role in office hour meeting infrequency. From there,

I tie in research that problematizes the lack of out-of-class communication by showing the

effects it has. The last subsection explains current norms in out-of-class communication.

Finally, the third section narrows out-of-class communication focus to the office hours

setting, and shows what research has been done over the topic in order to set the stage for my

thesis’s contribution to the field. Subsections address the ritual practices of office hours,

followed by research looking into reasons why students choose to participate in office hours.

The last subsection leading up to the summary addresses where understandings of office

hours need to be taken, and how this thesis contributes to the body of knowledge on out-of-

class communication.

First Generation Students

First generation students, those who have no parents or family members who have

previously obtained a college degree (Ishitani, 2006), enter the university system without

knowledge base of those who have had parents or other family members who both attended

and graduated with a four year degree. Where continuing-generation students have grown up

10

with tales of the university system and an understanding support system to fall back on, this

is missing in the first-generation students’ upbringing.

The expected ins and outs of navigating instructor-student relationships are nuances

first generation students must come to understand on their own (Pascarella, Pierson,

Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). Often times this is a daunting task, one that many students

seldom choose to engage under more comfortable circumstances.

First generation students are often examined on the basis of poor academic

achievement, which is generally how they are characterized in research. For example, they

are less likely to attend full time (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998) and twice as likely to

drop out before their second year (Choy, 2001). Ramsey and Peale (2010) found that first

generation students, making up nearly 30 percent of entering freshman, have numerous

concerns to cope with unique to their particular backgrounds. Often times struggling

financially or with balancing a family that is not understanding of the difficulties of school

life and the unanticipated hardship of a college workload in such a “a highly interrelated,

web-like series of family, interpersonal, academic, and organization pushes and pulls”

(Terernzini et al., 1994, p. 61), first generation students have difficulty acclimating and

succeeding in the culture of education (Cabrera & Padilla, 2004).

First generation students are often unconsciously segregated from other students both

through their own actions and the actions of those surrounding them. There is a cultural

divide present in the mindset between many first generation and continuing generation

students, demarcating a clear difference in understanding of purpose behind attending college

11

and obtaining a degree (Lowery-Hart & Pacheco, 2011). While this divide can simply create

a barrier of understanding to overcome in some instances, in others it is so serious that it

causes students to feel their cultural heritage is endangered and devalued (Simmons, Lowery-

Hart, Wahl, & McBride, 2013). Silencing is not solely isolated to student-student interaction.

Henson and Denker (2009) examined the ways political and cultural perception differences

led to instructors engaging in acts of silencing within the classroom. Opoku-Amankwa

(2009) noted that perceived instructor acts of favoritism worked to silence students.

Participants indicated the regularity with which their instructors showed selective attention to

student opinions, effectively rendering silent those whose voices did not please them.

First generation students are less likely to imagine the possible benefits of personally

engaging one-on-one and creating rapport with an instructor. This is a great loss, as research

has shown that good instructor-student communication can lead to increased focus in class

and a greater drive toward graduation as a result of better personal feelings of the university

system (Jones, 2008; Tinto, 1975).

Students who have had family members previously enrolled in a university have the

benefit of life narratives to help guide them along the path, providing empathetic and

knowledgeable support when things are rough. Without a similar support system and

corresponding cultural values with regards to education, it seems unreasonable to expect first

generation students to perform on the same level. This is where the possibility of instructor-

student rapport holds such potential.

12

Wang (2012) identified memorable messages mentors were able to provide to first

generation students, noting that five primary identifiable messages were related directly to

college and another three were specifically related to family. To those who enter the

university system with no support from family members, there are not strong social ties and

loyalties committing them to remain. It may make sense for first generation students to leave

the unfamiliar system and return to ones they are used to if no solid relationships with

university system members are established. By engaging first generation students on an

interpersonal level outside the classroom, instructors may create an attachment between the

students and the academic world (Jones, 2008). Wang (2013) further specified

communicative turning points that interpersonal relationships between instructors and first

generation students allowed students to experience and better connect with the university

system.

***

The start of a new semester, it’s just another pointless first day of handing out and

discussing the syllabus. Maybe some of my wackier new instructors will have us do an

icebreaker to learn each other’s names. Every class will start with a heavily rehearsed or

obviously nonchalant greeting. This is followed by a serious or mocking reminder of what

class is being taught so as to warn those potentially in the wrong room.

After hearing it so many times, I could recite the syllabus process in my sleep. In fact,

when I start teaching college classes while in graduate school, I’ll find that I have to stop

myself from falling into the rote pattern. A quick restatement of the course name, another

13

affirmation of the instructor’s identity, and a passing remark on office hours that somehow

falls on deaf ears before the body of the syllabus is leapt into. “This is history 1302, my name

is Dr. Blankenhorn, my office is in Academic 101, and my office hours are from 9-12

Monday and Wednesday. Come see me if you have questions. Now, onto the course

objectives…”

Office hours. They are always listed right below the instructor’s name and contact

number and beside his/her office room number. Typically abbreviated, never meant to stand

out. I have my paper heading that I write at the top of my papers before turning them in. It’s

the same one I was taught back in elementary school: Top left hand corner, name on one line,

subject on next, and date on third. It’s so regular for me that seeing another student put his or

her heading on the right hand side and in a different order disorients me. It’s so normal as to

go unnoticed, even as I’m in the act of writing it. In the same way, I am used to seeing a

general one used by instructors at the top of each syllabus. The verbal acknowledgment of

office hours is as miniscule as the written. A quick aside, sandwiched between repeated titles

and the stuff that the instructor really wants to talk about.

Out-of-Class Communication

In this section—and its subsections—I present an overview of relevant literature

surrounding out-of-class communication. To orient consideration, I start with social

possibilities upon which I engage out-of-class communication in this thesis. Subsections

explain the situation currently surrounding out-of-class communication practices and why it

is so underutilized.

14

Trends in instructional communication have analyzed the benefit out-of-class

communication provides on a social level, increasing student-instructor rapport and engaging

students in the other curriculum. This other curriculum is the learning process that occurs in

a student’s life outside of the classroom (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003; Kuh, 1995).

Encompassing learning that occurs alone, with peers, and occasionally with classroom

instructors outside the bounds of the class, the “other curriculum” seeks to acknowledge that

students do not learn solely in the classroom. Kuh argues that such learning is just as

valuable, if not more so, than curriculum learning. Instructors guided by this idea and

wishing to engage with students out-of-class face considerable challenges.

Detractors from engagement. Regardless of the intent of an instructor to be

available and willing to participate in a student’s out-of-class learning process, the

relationship cannot occur if the student does not feel comfortable with the thought of

communicating with him/her. Martin and Myers (2006) showed that out-of-class

communication was negatively affected by communication apprehension. Mansson & Myers

(2011) obtained similar reports from Swedish students, showing a lack of cultural variation

so long as the existence of communication apprehension is present. This problem is one that

students are responding to in their own ways. In an increasingly digital world, many have

attempted to circumvent such anxiety-filled meetings through non face-to-face interaction.

Kelly, Keaten, and Finch (2004) found that students rating high on the reticence scale were

less comfortable with face-to-face interaction and more willing to utilize other

communicative channels for questions. Though valuable for allowing apprehensive students

15

to engage with instructors, email dependency fits the institutional worry about loss of

interpersonal communication.

While there has been an increase in student use of email to contact instructors, there is

still a recognized prioritization of face-to-face dialogue on the part of instructors. Wdowik

and Michael (2013) noted students were interested in engaging with virtual office hours

through email and instant messaging. Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007) found that strong

participation of instructors on social media sites actually provided increased motivation to

learn and comfort in the classroom on students’ parts. Harris and Rea (2009) recognized this

phenomenon, arguing students will expect their learning to happen along the same mediums

as they interact in their daily lives.

A desire on the part of students, however, does not necessarily mean a desire on the

part of instructors. Wang and Beasley (2006) note in particular the worry instructors develop

of the “24 hour professor syndrome” and examine the ways they then discourage online

communication through in-class lecture discourse. Bruss (2009) demonstrated that even

graduate teaching assistants new to the profession are taught to balance approachability and

accountability in answering student emails, learning to question whether they should simply

answer questions students could easily research themselves or provide robotic responses

instructing the students to be self-reliant. Such suggestions lead one to imagine that the way

an instructor communicates with a student can have an effect on the student. This leads into

discussion of the particular influence instructor behavior has on student out-of-class

communication efforts.

16

Instructor behavior. Among many others, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) argue

again and again that an individual cannot be understood as a contained and autonomous self.

Interaction with others factors just as importantly into our identity and formations of self as

our own thoughts and beliefs. Where students may enter into the university system with

intentions one way or another to engage in communication with instructors, it is not until

they begin to view the instructors’ behavior and interact that they can truly know how they

will engage.

The particular focus an instructor has toward fostering an inviting atmosphere for

students while in the classroom is a key element of potential student willingness to come visit

them outside of class. Myers (2004) found that instructor character and caring were strong

points of consideration for students who were asked why they did or did not engage in out-

of-class communication. Lee and Schallert (2008) found instructors were deemed caring if

they displayed trust in students’ efforts to revise work and see students as desiring to do

better in the class. Cayanus and Martin (2008) also emphasized the strong effects teacher

trust had on the classroom, showing that acts of self-disclosure as a display of trust and

camaraderie between instructors and student have a powerful effect on student motivation.

Their research argues that acts of trust and camaraderie are overlooked and under practiced.

These findings, and indeed this particular subject, hearken back to my initial claim of

unfounded concern over loss of interpersonal connection due to online courses. This research

is so crucial to my thesis, as is shows that instructors who fear the effects of online classes in

destroying communication have in fact fallaciously centered their concerns on a red herring.

17

We in the academy cannot say that online classes will ruin interpersonal communication

when research currently shows that there is a deficiency of nurturing and successful

interpersonal communication in the classroom. As this literature review highlights, and as my

thesis addresses, there are ways instructors are failing in face-to-face engagement that need to

be addressed before discrediting the internet as a new teaching medium.

Myers, Edwards, Wahl, and Martin (2007) found that perceived instructor

aggressiveness often prevented student involvement, creating a breakdown in communication

before even initiated properly. Where instructors may claim that a shift to online courses

would lessen connection with students, research already shows that students feel there is a

lacking of instructor care, leading to reduced out-of-class communication.

Expanding on the idea of instructor caring, Myers, Martin, and Knapp (2005) found

ego support, sensitivity, self-inclusion, and inclusion of others were particularly influential in

students’ decisions to speak with instructors out-of-class were. Sidelinger, Bolen, Nyeste,

and McMullen (in press) furthered this in demonstrating the negative relationship between

instructor clarity and out-of-class engagement. The more impersonally professional and clear

an instructor was, the less a student felt he/she needed to seek help outside of class.

Effects of out-of-class communication. Just as instructors influence students to

communicate outside of class with their behavior in class, their behavior out of class will

create effects on students’ future in-class activity. Fusani (1994) found that sufficiently

attentive immediacy (perceived availability and responsiveness) during office hours and

other out-of-class interactions led to improved in-class performance, suggesting that out-of-

18

class communication “should be used as part of a comprehensive teaching strategy” (p. 249).

Jones (2008) argues that instructors are uniquely situated to help students cope with

academic stress through out-of-class support, a significant claim that I intend to advance.

This research could potentially be cited to argue that out-of-class communication

provides benefits to a student’s academic progress solely within the bounds of a particular

instructor’s course. Focusing the research in that manner, however, would be contrary to

Kuh’s (1995) definition of the other curriculum, a curriculum of life that expands beyond

academic matters. Frazee (1997) claims that mentoring is crucial to successful integration,

and Egan (1994) spoke of the importance of mentor flexibility to match the mentee best. It is

worthwhile to seek out-of-class communication so instructors can support the life needs of

their students in ways they are specially positioned to as teachers.

Instructor interaction with students cannot be seen as solely functional, or relating to

the success of a student in one class. McKay and Estrella (2008) argue that the success of

social integration into the classroom and the more libratory means of education some classes

engage in—such as service learning—are based on the connection an instructor makes with a

student. Waldeck (2007) found that the most important and frequently cited cause of

students’ feeling that their instructors provided personalized education were the instructors’

acts of engaging them outside of class and providing counsel. Mortenson (2008) is clear in a

call for pedagogy to provide spaces for moments of personal transformation. This takes the

impetus off the student to seek out knowledge from the instructor, and instead asks the

19

instructor to invest time into the student so as to act as a trustworthy source that students can

hope to learn from.

Current norms. While many scholars emphasize the good done by engaging students

outside the classroom in terms of increased in-class participation and furtherance of student

learning goals (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Morganett, 1995; Terenzini, Pascarella, &

Blimling, 1996; West, 1994), research has yet to instigate or even call for a proactive

outreach from professors regarding office hour visitation. For first generation students

especially, there may not be structural connections in place that grant students an audience

with instructors outside of the formal class setting. Where students may most likely

encounter instructors in relation to the other curriculum is in office hour meetings. Proactive

outreach could demonstrate instructors’ desire to speak with students outside of class and

reduce anxiety students may feel in considering visits (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003; Cayanus,

Martin, & Myers, 2008). As the literature discusses that first generation students are not

benefiting from this because they are not attending office hours, this thesis aims to answer

the question: what factors, if any, discourage first generation students from engaging in

office hour visitation with their instructors?

Office Hours

In their current form, office hours are primarily intended to serve the academic needs

of students who have questions or need help with certain aspects of the class that necessitates

longer frames of attention than the few minutes after a class is dismissed (Axelson &

Madden, 1994). University instructors, unlike K-12 teachers, are not always present on

20

campus for the entirety of a school day. Some choose to clock in at a regular time each

morning and leave later in the evening as is typical of other, more structured professions.

Others might divide time between their offices, classrooms, and various research sites and

labs. Another common preference is to set up classes on specific days during a condensed

time frame and remain away from the campus during the remainder of the week. With such a

variety of availabilities, it is difficult for students to know they can speak with an instructor

unless there is some mandated time for them to be present. As a result, universities create

varying guidelines requiring instructors to set aside and inform students of times during

which they will be present in their offices and open to speaking. Subsections in this chapter

cover the scope of office hours, examine student motivations for attending, and reviews

transformative pieces whose ideas inform the study in this thesis.

Typically, instructors use their office hours to work on research or other duties

(Knapp, 2008). If students stop by or schedule an appointment, then the purpose of the office

hours are fulfilled. If students do not visit, which is the overwhelming norm Nadler and

Nadler (2000) described, then instructors will use the time for their own projects. After

detailing their schedule at the start of the semester and inviting students to come by, many

instructors will become passive in their role with office hours. They will show up to do their

time, ready and willing to speak with students should they wish to come by, but aware that

visits will potentially be few and far between.

Ritual of office hours. Limberg (2007; 2008) painstakingly set out a comprehensive

stage by stage analysis of the ritual surrounding office hour meetings. Through Limberg’s

21

conceptualization, office hour communication has acquired ritual as a practice where both

parties are aware of the contributions they each carry into meetings and have expected of

them. In Limberg’s (2008) outlined ritual, there is little open and spontaneous conversation

preceding the introduction of academic concerns and little room for other discussion

following addressing of such concerns. Students make their presence known and receive

permission to enter, make typical introductions, engage in niceties as they are invited in,

present their concern, have discussion over it, receive advice and listen as the instructors

address administrative and organizational concerns that they will need to address in dealing

with the issue, and then finish by exchanging typical goodbyes (Limberg, 2008). Nadler and

Nadler (2000) suggest that instructors—especially male instructors—are perceived as too

busy and less willing to spend much time with students, as students rarely come across an

instructor not engaged in other work or research. Some instructors choose to take a somewhat

proactive stance, requiring occasional visits from students for the purpose of discussing

topics relevant to the field or to speak about grades and in-class progress.

Student participation. Many students use office hours to consult their instructors

about projects and future endeavors in the field, inquire about grades, or ask for leniency on

certain matters (Nadler & Nadler, 2000). In examination of different educational orientations,

Milton, Pollio, and Eisen (1986) identified two primary motivations for engaging in course

work: grade oriented, those who sought education as a means to an end, and learning

oriented, those who enter higher education for intellectual development. In further

examination of predisposal to utilize varied educational resources, other studies aimed to

22

explain the effect educational orientation had on students. Alexitch (2002) noted that learning

oriented students are likely to utilize office hours because seeking help is an understandable

and important aspect of the learning process. On the other hand, grade oriented students were

characterized through research as reticent to ask for help and prone to viewing such outreach

as threatening to their self-worth (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). Although instructors may

prefer visitation by students of one orientation over the other (discussed further in Chapter 4,

Findings), their duty with office hours is to assist both types of students.

Moving from educational orientations, Martin, Myers, and Mottet (1999) created a

list of five motives students of either orientation have for communicating with their

instructors: relational, functional, participation, excuse making, and sycophancy. The latter

three are motives grounded in a desire to avoid punishment. The functional motivation is

aimed at discussion of curriculum and course content; the definitive reason office hours are

institutionally mandated. Relational motivation, the desire to communicate for the purpose of

building student/instructor relationships, is what this research aims to examine and promote.

In an effort to synthesize the above described orientations and motives, Williams and

Frymier (2007) sought to attach particular methods to orientations. A clear connection

between grade orientation and participation, excuse making, and sycophancy motives arose,

while learning orientation predictably aligned with relation motivation, showing a link

between desires to engage in education for self-advancement with personal connection to the

ones teaching. Surprisingly, no strong connection from either learning or grade orientations

to functional motives was discernible. As institutions–and subsequently instructors—

23

conceive of office hours as existing for functional purposes (discussed further in Chapter 4,

Findings), this is a very significant finding.

Where to go next. On occasion, instructors will make office visits a part of their

grading structure, making it a point to have each student visit with them to discuss matters

relevant to the class and his/her interests. This can promote greater thought on the subject

matter, but more importantly it can serve to increase student-teacher connectedness (Nadler

& Nadler, 2001). While this is a step in the right direction, there is still a primarily functional

and operative reasoning behind these select visits that research shows students are not

motivated by.

Visits solely aimed at socializing or relationship building remain rare (Fusani, 1994).

Functional visits may serve to create rapport and strengthen the social bond of the class

environment, but they also send the message that quick-and-to-the-point visits are

appreciated and preferred by instructors. Both the traditional passive methods (conveying

when office hours are and being available) and the semi-radical proactive stances (requiring

occasional visits from students during office hours) combine with the rigid professionalism

assumed by instructors to create the image of a stiff and unpleasant atmosphere for office

hour visits (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003).

This is problematic in any context, but especially so in regards to first generation

students. For the first generation student who has no previous familial understandings of the

university system, unrealistic expectations about college (Brooks-Terry, 1988), and a lack of

knowledge of the university system (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991), a single visit with a

24

disinterested or distracted instructor may be enough to create a bad impression of student-

instructor interaction overall. To potentially create an environment where these concerns are

addressed, this thesis driven by the following question: in what communication acts, if any,

can instructors engage in order to encourage first generation students to interact with

instructors out-of class and in office hours?

Summary

Research examined in this chapter has highlighted numerous areas in which

instructors are missing opportunities to engage with students effectively out-of-class.

Orienting the objectives and purpose of a university instructor from the belief in the other

curriculum changes the call for responsibility and effectiveness that characterizes traditional

examination of instructional engagement.

Definition and research surrounding first generation students was explored, in order

to ground the importance of this thesis’s contribution to the field of out-of-class

communication research. Much examined in the sections over out-of-class communication

and office hour communication is applicable to both first and continuing generation students.

However, the particular difficulties faced by first generation students make the call for

instructor engagement out-of-class much more relevant. As first generation students enter

higher education without experienced familial and community support, there are additional

hurdles to obtaining a degree that they must overcome. Instructors have the potential to ease

some of the difficulties first generation students face. In order to do so, they must alter some

25

of their behaviors and become proactive in their attempts to engage. It cannot be enough for

instructors to be passive and await attempts by students.

Out-of-class communication, as described in its section, should be explicitly viewed

through the lens of the other curriculum. Communicating with students outside the classroom

is not something to be avoided or endured during its awkwardness. Instead, it is an

opportunity for instructors to promote their students’ growth without direct relation to course

content the relationship is traditionally confined to. Recognition of the effects that an

instructor’s behavior has on a student’s willingness to engage out-of-class can allow him/her

to empathetically enter out-of-class interactions. Understanding the potential apprehension

students feel can influence an instructor to guide interactions until his/her students are

comfortable interacting regularly. While the extant literature examines many crucial concepts

and offers strong suggestions for instructors, there is still a distinct disconnect between the

current reasons for out-of-class communication practices and the hope for social integration

of first generation students through office hour interactions that I call for in my thesis. This is

a call that in many respects will parallel what can already be found, but the particular

intentions behind it will be shown to be severely different. The following chapter will detail

how I expect to conduct inquiry into these questions:

RQ1: What factors, if any, discourage first generation students from engaging in

office hour visitations with their instructors?

26

RQ2: In what communication acts, if any, can instructors engage in order to

encourage first generation college students to interact with instructors out of class and

in office hours?

27

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Finding temporally and geographically specific truths, rather than the answer, is

paramount to my orientation toward this thesis and what I would suggest a reader holds at the

forefront of his/her mind in reading the truths I aim to (re)present. There are five distinct

sections to this chapter, the latter three being description of methods. The first section

presents the epistemological and axiological leanings that inform my thesis. In the second, I

present Ellingson’s (2009) model of crystallization as a methodological guide for my

research. The last three sections (focus groups, interviews, and autoethnography respectively)

detail the various research methods that work together to create my crystallized thesis.

Methodological Framework

In selecting a methodological framework to conduct my inquiry within, questions of

validity and the ability to speak on the behalf of first generation students both arise.

Operating under the moniker of qualitative inquiry, and with an epistemological leaning

toward postmodernism, I purposefully eschew any hope for true representation or universal

truth. The authoritative understanding I seek to convey is both liminal in temporality and

geographical situatedness.

Although I freely admit to the lack of universality to my truth, in writing this thesis I

cannot avoid communicatively attempting to place my comprehension and reading of this

particular truth on a pedestal as representative of other such truths. In relation to questions of

my place as a researcher to speak on behalf of a group of marginalized individuals with

28

limited power or means to present their own story, I engage reflexivity in my position as an

engaged narrator committed to the duty of representing faithfully for their benefit in addition

to my own.

While speaking on the behalf of others is problematic when a researcher gets more

out of the end result than the participants do, I cannot avoid speaking for others out of

concern for overstepping boundaries (Alcoff, 1991). The commitment to service must always

be paramount. Such is the maxim I obeyed in the process of this research. With these

understandings resolutely secured as epistemic of my study, the framework that best lends

itself to my goals is that of crystallization.

Crystallization

Methodologically, crystallization aims to combine a host of qualitative tools ranging

along a spectrum from social scientific methods traditionally founded in postpositivism,

through a middle ground primarily defined by postmodern methods, to arts based

representations steeped in personal and un-generalizable narrative (Ellingson, 2009).

Conceptualized as a postmodern answer to triangulation, crystallization aims for depth of

subject matter rather than breadth, in hopes of created a more faceted and dynamic version of

a truth. Triangulation, in a similar methodological if not epistemological manner, intertwines

multiple qualitative methods additively to increase the (postpositive) validity of a conclusion.

This concept presupposes the ability to reach an ultimate truth of some kind on a subject

matter.

29

Paradigmatically, postmodernism rejects any manner of ultimate truth, so the

application of triangulation would be contrary to such a philosophy. Crystallization,

recognizing the worth in mixing genres, instead aims to reveal different sub-truths present in

any given situation through the application of different methodologies that operate in

different paradigms. The combination of these methodologies works to both display the

weaknesses inherent in each and compensate for them. Although there is no attempt to create

a correct picture by erasing all of the flaws, the end goal of engaging in crystallization is to

present as many facets of separate truths and as many voices speaking on their personal

truths as possible.

Operating in this manner can appear very wishy-washy and indecisive from some

viewpoints, both paradigmatically and personally for some researchers. I feel that rather than

being unable to choose which method will best represent, and thus trying to use a number of

them in order to compensate, I utilize crystallization out of recognition that there is no best.

Each method–despite their potentially competing ideologies of representation–will serve to

strengthen one another.

Of primary importance in preparing this research is the goal of working with rather

than on the behalf of participating first generation students. Engaging in postmodern

qualitative inquiry, I move away from an idea of universal truth. Instead, I aim to convey

truths of the participants in this study. While speaking on behalf of others is problematic

when a researcher gets more out of the end result than those participating in the study, Alcoff

(1991) warns that a researcher should not become paralyzed into inaction by fear of this

30

result. To attend to these ethical concerns, I utilized crystallization as my methodological

framework.

While recognizing the divide between researcher and participants, I also saw existing

ties between participants and myself. As I was raised in the same Southern US region, with

similar dialects and background understandings (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999), there were

benefits to me conducting research in a system I was familiar with. Having eschewed the

desire for universally applicable data, I could engage with students and instructors using

specific region-specific codes to increase their comfort without hurting comparative value for

other universities.

Beginning in the center of what Ellingson (2009) describes as the qualitative

spectrum, I performed focus groups and unstructured, grounded interviews. These comprised

my participant-focused research methods, and gave me the opportunity to both formulate the

ways in which I would attempt to (re)present the opinions of the population I wrote on behalf

of, and also to obtain the words of participants themselves. Institutional Review Board (IRB)

approval was obtained for this study (See Appendix A).

Focus Groups

I entered this research believing, as Hollander (2004) does, that “the participants in a

focus group are not independent of each other, and the data collected from one participant

cannot be considered separate from the social context in which it was collected” (p. 602).

With this, I acknowledged that the research would be, by nature, always already “tainted”

and removed from objectivity. Also, I explicitly hoped for “insider-oriented talk rather than

31

outsider-oriented explanations” (Agar & McDonald, 1995, p. 82). This created the possibility

of gaining more nuanced, intersubjective information. It also met with ethical goals I have as

a researcher for my project to effect change through praxis.

These focus groups were centered on pre-formed groups. Normally, focus group

research creates groups during discussion. Pre-formed groups are already existing groups

that a researcher approaches in order to work with people who already know each other and

have established group norms and values. I chose to approach such groups in order to explore

how individuals will speak about phenomena “within the various and overlapping groupings

within which they actually operate” (Kitzinger, 1994, p. 104). In a university setting, the

topics of instructors, instructor interactions, and methods for obtaining better grades are

common discussion subjects, and I hoped to draw on the group memory of students in pre-

formed groups to stimulate recall and opinion elaboration (Lofland & Lofland, 1984).

The use of focus groups is not without criticism. Lunt (1996) pointed out that “it is

often argued that the group context of a focus group discussion biases the data so strongly as

to render it worthless” (p. 93). Indeed, scholars criticize the groupthink and peer pressure that

occurs in such settings (Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Gonzalez, 1990; Paulis, 1989). In

choosing to work with pre-formed groups, I risked so-called “outcome contamination” in

ways many scholars would argue to be unacceptable.

In looking for pre-formed groups of first generation students, I approached

organizations on campus that primarily serves the needs of first generation students. Groups

situated in formations like mentor/mentee, up and coming scholars, and host family

32

arrangements all provide purposefully active groups that encourage social or academic

success in first year, first generation students, which positions inquiry into methods for

improving college experience as important and worth engaging. Organizations were first

approached as a whole to try and schedule focus groups sessions in lieu of regular meeting

times. With such arrangements proving inconvenient with complex schedules, I then asked

organization heads to act as an institutional contact to begin snowball sampling to find

individual participants for the sessions (Patten, 2012). Per IRB allowance, I informed

students that their contribution would remain anonymous. Use of pseudonyms helped retain

humanized appearance in sharing my findings without sharing actual identities (See

Appendix B). The focus groups ran an hour in length and met on campus grounds. I

conducted three focus group sessions, with a total of 22 participants; 12 in the first and 5

each in the second and third.

The results of the discussions are the primary focus for the thesis, concerned with

recognizing general feelings and/or perceptions toward office hours and student-professor

interaction held by first year students. This range of discussion fulfills the limited and

limiting purpose of a traditional focus group (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Focus groups are not

meant to cover the entirety of any given field of study, hence the very naming of “focus”

groups.

During the focus groups, I engaged with the students in conversation while using a

digital audio recorder to capture the discussion. I chose not to take notes while facilitating the

discussion, as I hoped to engage in conversation more than examine the participants as a

33

researcher (See Appendix C). Following each group, I would transcribe the recording, adding

noted thoughts certain lines prompted me to consider. This was done to help recognize key

concepts from discussion that related to my research questions, and perhaps connected

directly with findings of extant literature.

As a primary method of coding, I engaged in open coding, seeking to note distinct

concepts and categories in the verbatim transcripts (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Open coding

examines transcriptions and sets up primary units of analysis. I did not insert field notes with

nonverbals marked down, as I verbally recognized significant nonverbal displays by students

in the recording in order to avoid taking field notes. Following open coding, I began to move

through in vivo coding as a secondary transcription for each focus group (Lindof & Taylor,

2011). In vivo uses participant words as labels for overall themes. I used in vivo not to

differently categorize the students’ words, but to make more sense of them in my mind so I

would be better prepared to (re)present them and engage with them in future focus groups.

After each coding process for the three individual groups, I would begin searching for

emerging themes. Themes I noted from open coding were those that were explicitly stated,

while the ones I noted from in vivo were more subtly addressed. I discovered more themes

from each in vivo coding than open coding, but the number of each decreased in subsequent

focus groups. To hone my participation as discussion leader, and begin working toward

broad headings for my findings, I utilized the constant comparative method for narrowing

themes (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In the initial focus group, I noted 6 themes through

open coding and 13 through in vivo. From open coding, I noted themes of: intimidation, busy

34

instructors, instructors not willing to help, freshman year vs sophomore year, office as safe

space, and student-instructor relationship. In vivo coding also presented possible themes of:

rapport, student rights, online classes, syllabuses, tutoring, professional vs casual, and

Facebook communication. With each following focus groups and coding process, I was

guided by the findings of the one before it and altered my questioning and analysis of

transcriptions as a result. After the second group, I had 7 themes from open coding (adding

students as a priority) and 15 from in vivo (adding relationship building and cluelessness

freshman year). With the third focus group, I narrowed to 4 themes from open coding–with

numerous themes subsumed within the larger ones–and 8 themes from in vivo. The open

coding themes became the ones discussed in my findings, and the in vivo themes became

bases from which to consider discussion and implications.

My focus was primarily on presenting the words of the participants exactly as they

themselves defined them according to importance. As Rubin and Rubin (2012) explain,

however, there do exist subtle, less obvious themes that require analysis in order to connect

ideas not explicitly categorized by speakers. At no point did I pull quotes that I felt would be

juicy out of context, but there were instances where discussion had focused on one topic

while a particular participants comments fit best with another. Each transcription was

compared and eventually all combined into emergent themes found commonly among them

all. I was confident that I reached saturation as defined by Glasser and Strauss (1967) while

conducting the third focus group and noting responses very similar to those in the first two,

and the transcription and categorization confirmed that assumption.

35

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with instructors, questioning their feelings toward office

hours as an institutional requirement. These sessions are of complementary importance to the

focus groups. Obtaining perspective from instructors who have dealt with office hours and

forged student-instructor relationships is beneficial to a study such as this, but the

experiences and observations of instructors are not the central focus in my thesis. In

interviewing instructors, I was open to receiving narratives regarding office hour

communication. However, the primary goal of these interviews was to obtain good themes to

approach the focus group discussions.

To best facilitate this, I approached the interviews as unstructured and with a minimal

interview schedule, working in a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). Utilizing this

approach involves the centering of research focus and power in the interview process on the

participant rather than the researcher (Charmaz, 2011). These interviews broke from the

stated goals of grounded theory in that they did not seek to create a theory from concepts

brought up during interviews, but uncover themes to be addressed in interaction with

students. This use is comparable to Holstein and Gubrium’s (2003) method of active

interviewing. Participants are understood to be a source of knowledge, but not complete

representations of their cultures, who are encouraged to think aloud and elaborate on the

ideas in each question to examine their ideas and the ideas they know others within their

group hold that differ.

36

Instructors participating in the interviews were contacted via mass email across the

University for an unbiased sample (Patten, 2012). Drawing entirely from instructors of one

particular college or academic department would have increased the likelihood of

homogenous orientation toward office hours. Although I did not enter the research expecting

any sort of simplistic, dichotomously different opinions between such groups as the hard

sciences and liberal arts, I wanted to interview instructors from each in acknowledgment of

the diversity students have in selecting either for the majority of their academic career.

Participants were contacted via email, told briefly of the research goals, and presented

a list of dates to choose from if they wished to participate. From the initial outreach, I

received 15 replies from interested instructors, and I ended up conducting 10 interviews.

Participants were offered the option of meeting during their office hours or other times that

might suit them best, as well as a selection of location. Each instructor felt it most

appropriate to conduct the interview during their office hours and in their office. Mirroring

the typical rituals of office hour communication, each meeting began with customary

greetings and small talk (Limberg, 2008) before one of us eventually called the matter at

hand to attention. I chose to take notes in these interviews rather than record and transcribe.

Each interview was intended not for the purpose of building themes or obtaining quotable

lines, but to gain a variety of instructor perspectives that could be referenced in focus groups.

Each interview started with explicit acknowledgment of my desire to hear an instructor’s

story as they most desired to tell it, and my intent to help move him/her toward topics his/her

might wish to elaborate on by asking questions (See Appendix D).

37

Following each interview, I transcribed my written notes to electronic form. After

each transcription, I began moving findings into themes. These themes informed the probing

questions I would ask in future interviews in order to create comprehensive overviews of a

variety of beliefs held by different instructors on particularly important topics that I could

then bring to discussion with the focus group participants. As Rubin and Rubin (2012)

advise, I began transcription quickly after each focus group in order to retain as much

contextual memory as possible. While postmodern approaches to interviewing frowns on the

attempt to maintain a fact/fiction border in transcribing the words of others (Rosenblatt,

2003), with some scholars even going so far as to represent transcriptions poetically or in

other nontraditional forms (Richardson, 2003), I maintained an ethical commitment to

(re)presenting the students’ words as they spoke them, and contextualized as they were with

other speakers.

In order to characterize this study as crystallized, and, indeed, to provide a thesis that

I feel seeks to humanize the topic and show multiple facets of truths, I seek throughout to

aesthetically insert personal narrative. These narratives are informed by the field of

autoethnography.

Autoethnography

Autoethnographic work makes use of my own personal “body of lived experienced”

(Spry, 2011, p. 34). Spry suggests that autoethnographic writing results from “critical

reflection upon one’s experiences within specific social/cultural/political locations” (p. 129).

Autoethnography can be most easily defined by etymologically examining the word itself

38

(Ellis, 2004; Holman Jones, 2005): auto (self) + ethno (culture) + graphy (to write).

Autoethnography is writing about the other through the lens of the self. This is accomplished

by treating one’s self and one’s own personal narratives as (re)presentations of narrative

truths and seeking to define the surrounding culture through the way that you perform.

In this thesis, autoethnographic personal narrative adds a layer of lived experience,

my lived experience, to the overall informative value of the project. When I include the

words of focus group and interview participants, their (re)presentations of culture are always

already filtered through both their reticence at speaking openly about themselves with others

and my own understanding of their words. With autoethnography, I examine the reality that I

understand myself to exist in. In doing this, I ask how cultural influences work to situate and

resituate me, and how the process of writing uncovers new understandings of my narrative

truth. Autoethnography is heavily implicit in its form of conveying messages, presenting

personal understandings and value-assignment to narratives, but also allowing room for the

audience to interpret the narratives poststructurally through their own lens of understanding

(Berry, 2013).

Having been recently both a first generation student new to the university system

attempting to engage with instructors, I can add my voice to the students. As a new instructor

hoping to provide good service to students outside of the classroom, I am able to show how

the results of this research can be practiced. Through both lenses, I have experiences

influential to my interest in this research that I draw on to add to the work I am producing.

39

Autoethnographic vignettes, as defined by Humphreys (2005), will act to provide a

zone where I situate my interpersonal stake in each section throughout the thesis. A strong

tenet of postmodern research is the elimination of the so-called “disengaged and impartial”

researcher (Bochner, 2002). This method explicitly draws forth, rather than attempts to hide,

my personal opinions and experiences with the questions and situations explored within the

thesis.

I weave together research genres, each sufficient for a paper of its own, through the

course of my thesis. There are not four separate and self-contained sections of research in this

project. Autoethnographic narratives enter each chapter at various points, re-grounding the

theoretical in the personal or creating an initial baseline for comprehension, creating a flow

and continuity of subjectivity within this piece. The interviews with instructors are presented

as foregrounding the ideas elaborated on in focus groups, sometimes in counter or in

conjunction with input from students. As previously stated, the focus groups comprise the

central method of my research.

Summary

Explicit discussion of the philosophical grounding of my epistemological approach to

this thesis is central to recognizing any new information from my findings. With a

postmodern stance characterizing the research orientation of the thesis, learning from it under

a more postpositive understanding of research would not easily occur. The research is

specifically presented in a way that acknowledges the fallibility of both the participants and

researcher (me). Such a recognition calls for further research in the same vein in other

40

contexts, as this thesis will not provide a universal set of findings that can describe all

situations.

The methodological framework of crystallization is not utilized in order to reduce

subjectivity, but instead to increase it. The (re)presentation of different facets of subjective

truths aims to show multiple, differently faceted perceptions on the subject of this thesis.

Unlike triangulation, which utilizes different methods in order to narrow in on the truth,

crystallization is undertaken with the intent to show a lack of definitive truth while

simultaneously providing numerous frames from which to see the truth.

Focus groups, interviews, and autoethnographic narrative combine together in Ellis

and Berger’s (2003) concept of their story/my story/our story. I (re)present the words of

participants and my personal narrative truths in distinct sections. However, my acts of

formatting their words consciously into sections that I feel are most appropriate and writing

my narratives have been influenced by interactions with them. This creates a blended story,

objectively neither fully theirs nor mine alone. With this understanding of my thesis, I feel

ethically situated to begin describing the findings of my research. In my next chapter, I

present the themes I created upon analyzing transcriptions. Student voices are present and

guiding of the themes, showing the creative interplay between participant and researcher.

41

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

The themes discussed in this chapter were solidified and discussed with student

participants. As I entered the focus groups having already conducted interviews, I was able to

let the students consider themes I saw emerging in conversation with instructors and decide if

they were applicable issues. While some themes were issues both instructors and students

discussed, others were a concern to one group and not the other. I assured both instructors

and students this thesis did not intend to pit competing ideas against each other, but the

situation seldom arose where there were divergent enough thoughts on a subject that

combative comparison could have worked.

This chapter is divided into two sections: (a) factors that discourage students from

engaging in out-of-class communication and (b) acts instructors could potentially engage in

as a means to promote participation. Findings will be presented grouped into themes of

messages delivered, displayed in separate subsections, with further explanation and

exploration given to each under their headings. In each category, the views presented will

have been the express words of particular focus group participants, with acknowledgement in

my own words of other concurring opinions. As there was no recorded transcription of the

instructor interviews, their views will be presented in my words, with intention to be as true

to the spirit they were presented as possible.

The structuring of each subsection actively reflects the process by which the themes

arose in the research process. Interviews with instructors brought to light issues, and when

42

questions were fielded to students, they had the opportunity to agree or explain their differing

thoughts on the subject. Each subsection opens with instructor interview, delves into the

students’ responses and elaboration on their views of the subject, and occasionally returns to

connect other ideas presented by instructors that show sites of agreement or

misunderstanding between the two groups. As the first generation students are the voice I

(re)present most heavily in this thesis, I position their words as the truth to be recognized and

learned from in this chapter.

Discouraging Factors

Both students and instructors were able to talk at length about problems they saw with

out-of-class communication. While there were not many interviews wherein instructors tried

to take responsibility for the lack of attendance, when asked to consider the students’

thoughts and emotions, many were able to reflect on reasons they thought students might

understandably avoid office hours. Discussion in the focus groups dealt with problems

students faced in engaging in out-of-class communication and office hours early in each

group. Although some students attempted to avoid speaking negatively, they were willing to

talk about difficulties they faced in speaking with instructors out-of-class. The discussion in

the three groups brought a several prevalent themes to light: (a) intimidation, (b) busy

instructors, (c) instructors not willing to help, and (d) lack of knowledge during freshman

year are the themes that I synthesized through examination of transcripts.

Intimidation. Each instructor interview agreed that students likely were intimidated

when they entered an office for a meeting. Some instructors claimed they felt relaxed and

43

tried to ease the students, while others spoke about being anxious as well. Regardless, every

instructor talked at length about the fear they felt students had of them. When I presented the

idea of fearing instructors to the students in discussion groups, there was immediate and

vehement agreement. Jeremy’s response echoed concerns found in previous research

covering apparent instructor aggressiveness (Myers et al, 2007):

One professor, off the top of my head, I always talk with him for long hours, but at

first it was like aw damn I’m gonna go in. He’s an intimidating guy just because he

doesn’t sugar coat anything, straight up how it is. Some will tell it like it is and you’ll

look at them like, “you just said that? And they’re like yea.” So yea he’s that kind of

guy.

In listening to Jeremy’s response, I heard him connecting his desire to engage outside of class

with the outward attitude his/her instructor put off in the classroom. Numerous students

echoed this concern, talking about fearing visiting an instructor just because of the

personality she/he displayed in class. As first generation students have no past tales of

instructors as kind from family members, they can be influenced more quickly by any one

instructors bad personality (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Instructors in certain

disciplines noted that their field in the hard sciences carried particular stigmas and came

across to students as strict and mean. Some students spoke about instructors who seemed

very strict and would likely be uncomfortable to speak with. Other students, like Kayla,

mentioned concerns about being upbraided by intimidating instructors:

44

I feel like that when a teacher says something in class and you don’t really understand

it and they say, “You should know this by now,” and if you don’t know it it’s like,

“Oh I can’t go talk to her about this ‘cause it’s like I should already know,” so then I

just text my friend like, “Do you know?” and then we get together and study and

figure it out together.

Students worried about instructors thinking they were stupid for not knowing curriculum

concepts from previous classes or earlier in the semester, and thus did not want to go ask and

appear stupid or unfocused. This is directly opposite to a theme of encouragement presented

later, where some students spoke about feeling safer in asking questions privately rather than

in front of the class of their peers.

For first generation students trying to balance appearing intelligent both to their

instructors and new peers they may not feel on the same level with, not wanting to look dumb

either in-class or out-of-class creates a no-win situation. Cabrera & Padilla (2004) discuss

this issue, saying that first generation students face difficulties learning to acclimate and

succeed in the culture of education. Yet, even those who spoke of feeling better asking a

question one-on-one still spoke about times where they did not approach an instructor during

office hours because they thought the concept in question was too trivial to address even in a

safe zone. Some instructors mentioned this fear, recognizing that students thought that

instructors saw them as stupid. Some students attributed this feeling of inadequacy to

perceived instructor superiority. Kayla spoke with a mixture of reverence and annoyance in

describing one instructor:

45

My prof is a genius, so smart, so if I asked her a question she would strike me with a

bolt of lightning. I know I could read the book and find the answer. I don’t need to

annoy her.

Kayla’s response received a lot of nonverbal agreement in the form of nods and

affirmative grunts, which I noted verbally in discussion for the sake of my transcripts. Where

it may normally be considered important for instructors to be intelligent in order to teach

students well, with regards to interpersonal communication it can be harmful for instructors

to appear too smart. Students sometimes feel that instructors are too smart to do anything

except lecture and tell them what they should be learning. This idea matches with Sidelinger

et al’s (2015) findings that clarity in-class detracted from out-of-class interaction. Direct

communication with instructors who students talk about seeing as geniuses is perceived as a

waste of instructor time.

Dr. Martin hit on this problematic divide, noting that students were intimidated

entering his office and seeing all of the books on his shelves. With such a nonverbal and

powerful display of the instructor’s intelligence, students felt inadequate asking him simple

questions. By using the talk in groups or mentioning the talk from other groups over the

feeling of difference of intelligence between instructors and students that some participants

felt, I moved discussion next to how instructors seemed to have so much going on all the

time.

Busy instructors. Addressing busy schedules with instructors was a simple topic to

elicit responses from. Some took the time to try and advise me on how best to deal with the

46

stresses that many differing duties put on their time (Ziker, 2014), but once I redirected

conversation toward office hours there was little discussion. Many felt that they were doing

well in being available during their office hours, as they sat there for many hours without

students visiting them. Students, rather, spoke about how instructors seemed to have a very

busy schedule that they felt bad about that they felt bad interrupting with dumb questions.

Tyler articulated well an anxiety similar to the one I presented in my opening

narrative to this thesis, “I try not to be [interrupting them], cause I know they have things to

do, and class afterwards.” Tyler highlighted a concern many others also tried to express. He

felt that even when an instructor was in office hours, it was a bother on them to have students

confront them with questions. Some students perceived instructors as always in a rush, and

even the slightest distraction was a burden. Martin and Myers (2006) discussed this

apprehension in their research, focusing more on basic communication apprehension than

situational apprehension. This worry of being a bother is a crucial concern in seeing ways to

assist first generation students.

Where continuing generation students will have heard narratives encouraging them to

make use of the resources available and talk with instructors when they need help, first

generation students are often lacking in such advice. Because discourse surrounding higher

education is often intimidating and focused on self-advancement through self-reliance, first

generation students enter college attempting to take care of too many issues without help.

This problem was discussed by Terernzini et al. (1994) in the literature review. Even when

some are willing to step outside their comfort zones and approach instructors despite

47

knowing them to be busy, they can be dissuaded from visiting again without the instructor

intending to do so. Colby illustrated this point:

And the thing is, it just depends on the professor as well, ‘cause some of them—even

though they offer office hours—whenever you go in to talk to them they really don’t

help you as much. They’re either in a rush or on their computer doing other work.

After initial recognition of a hectic schedule by some students and their concern about being

a bother, other students chose to share anecdotes of instances where they were, indeed,

rushed out of the office by an instructor. Knapp (2008) talks about how instructors use office

hours to do other work, and here the students complain that there is no recognition of shifting

between free office hours and engaged office hours. When asked about the time at which

they visited to see if their experiences showed instructors being unresponsive during

scheduled office hours, some did admit that they stopped by their instructors office outside of

listed hours. Others, however, were firm in confirming that they visited during listed times

and were still treated as unimportant and hurried out. This line of conversation became bitter,

leading me to try and gauge what students thought of their instructors’ jobs. When asked to

detail what they knew of an instructor’s schedule and workload, there were few answers.

While the students talked a good deal about how they perceived instructors to be busy, they

did not have direct descriptions of what they thought were an instructor’s job duties.

I prompted discussion over this section by stating, “Let’s say we base office hour

interaction off concerns that profs are busy. Do you see profs as having a busy job?”

Tyler quickly responded, “They talk about it like they do.”

48

Nodding along to this, I asked for clarification. “Like, over exaggeration?”

Jeremy grunted and shrugged, saying “Like before you even go to office hours, they

come across like they have so much going on and it’s just a hassle. They ask for

appointments when they aren’t in office hours. They make it sound like meetings

outside their designated hours are inconvenient.”

This short exchange led to a long discussion. Some tried to backtrack on that statement for

my sake by noting that they know instructors are only supposed to be available during their

listed hours. This lead to some disagreement where participants mentioned that instructors

who talk about being available only during certain times, rather than coming across as setting

firm boundaries, appear confrontational and unwelcoming. For them, an instructor going out

of their way to detail their unavailability was a way to say that they had to be there for certain

times but certainly did not want to be bothered otherwise. This attempt to clearly set limits is

indicative of the fear Wang and Beasley (2006) suggest instructors have of “24 hour

professor syndrome.” Some student’s expressed the idea that instructors did not seem to like

the time they were required to be there at all. First generation students who have to face the

challenges of the university system for the first time in their family may potentially reel from

the ways higher education harms them, like the confusing financial aid game for example. In

knowing the ways that the university system harms students, recognizing the harms

perpetrated upon instructors and choosing not to make their lives more difficult could be seen

as a kindness. This problem mirrors research done by Pascarella et al (2007).

49

Some instructors noted in interviews that they were happy to help students during

scheduled times, but acknowledged that if students did not respect their schedule then it

could be very difficult to get work done. While instructors saw taking this position as being

fair and respectfully treating students as adults, some participants, such as Leslie, perceived

such inflexibility as a hidden sign of malice: “Some say they’ll be there other times and

students are welcome, others say they will not be there and that’s not inviting.” Leslie

surprised me with this, she seemed to show different perceptions of the same idea. While

instructors talked about being open and happy to help during certain times but setting limits

for their own mental health, students focused more on the limits that they heard than the

openness to engage during certain times that instructors intended. Because instructors did not

talk about their openness much from the start, there was not room to contextualize the limits

as of secondary importance. From discussion about instructors being too busy to help and

annoyed with students taking up their time, I asked students in each group if they dealt with

instructors who explicitly did not want to help during office hours.

Instructors not willing to help. The first line of responses in this theme consisted of

instructors who were confrontational when students visited office hours with questions

deemed unimportant, as Kayla characterized, “They’re just like, ‘You’re supposed to know

this stuff already.’ They’re expecting you to know it even though you are going to ask them.”

Kayla’s words presented a sore point for many students. They argued that visiting office

hours was not something they should be harassed for. Instructors, when asked about what

they would fix about office hours, replied with: students should come prepared, read the

50

syllabus before visiting and asking, and have course materials on hand to reference in

discussion. Where instructors saw these as reasonable expectations, students saw fielding

even trivial questions as part of instructors’ jobs. Tyler articulates this disjuncture:

Well some of them say, “It’s on the syllabus you’re supposed to know better.” And

now it’s more based on my professor’s personality. My lab professors get offended

about that, so even though they say, “Office hours, come if you have a question,” then

you remember in class [how they got mad about a student asking a question they

thought [he/she] should know the answer to], and wonder why you should go.

This was a long-running theme in all of the discussion groups. Students had numerous

incidents where they had an instructor berate them for showing up to office hours

unprepared. Martin et al (2007) demonstrated this fear of aggressiveness in their research. In

response to these types of statements, I asked occasionally if the student could see the

instructor’s point of view and empathize with his/her frustration. Some admitted to seeing

where an instructor was coming from, but others remained firm on it not mattering. Jessica

acknowledged that there were students who misused office hours, but said she should not be

treated like those students just because he/she did not understand a concept that an instructor

considered simple.

Instructors offered examples of students they felt were not willing to work on their

own who expected things to be “spoon fed” to them. This idea, when disseminated to first

generation students, reaffirms unrealistic expectations of self-reliance many enter the

university system with (Brooks-Terry, 1988). Dr. Nelson, in discussing a lack of bad

51

incidents, mentioned off hand that “Some students are not prepared, and I just send them

right back out. But I’ve never really had any horrible experiences.” For this instructor, it was

not a bad thing to tell unprepared students they needed to leave and come back when they are

better ready to engage. Sharing this viewpoint to the focus group students led to a discussion

on instructors not being able to understand the signals they send in their instructions,

“Professors make the offer on day one. But it’s so formulaic [that] it doesn’t seem genuine,”

Leslie observed. Other students were excited when Leslie said this, as she was able to put

words to how the initial invitation to office hours did not feel right. Students hear the same

first-day-of-class-syllabus-run-through multiple times each semester, and there does not feel

like there is any authentic desire on the part of instructors to have students visit during office

hours. Most instructors said that they mentioned their availability on the first day and could

not recall bringing it up other times throughout the semester. This topic was not discussed

again until near the end of each session, with the topic of student/instructor relationships

coming into play. Continuing with talk of instructors not genuinely wanting to talk to

students, some noted the favoritism they observed and how that kept them from engaging

with instructors.

Jeremy initiated the subject, telling a short story. “There’s one professor I know, I

have never really been able to hold a long conversation with him like others, he’s just really,

not strict, just strict to the point. And favoritism a little bit, cause he talks about, like I’ve

seen him talk with others comfortably, but when I’m in there with him…”

52

Tyler jumped in as Jeremy trailed off, trying to suggest an answer for him, “I guess

some professors, you are not going to be their favorite.”

Where some instructors were happy to have a few very regular and involved students,

this was read as favoritism by students in the focus groups. Although instructors cannot force

every student to attend office hours, and it can be seen as unfair to judge them for enjoying

those who do visit, students talked about perceiving favoritism nonetheless.

This disconnect in understanding was further displayed with instructors noting that

students become more active in the classroom when they visit, and students complaining that

instructors called them out more in class if they did visit. Jessica, who is involved on campus,

spoke supportively of student/instructor relationships noting the perception she recognized

other students held, “It can be awkward to have relationships and see them outside of class.”

After she confided this, the other students talked out loud about the way that their feelings of

hurt and their reactions to them were detrimental to other students’ education as well. While

there was still conversation about the way some instructors were blatantly obvious in their

favoritism, there was also reflection that students made others feel like they could not have a

relationship with their instructors without being judged.

Online classes were a sore point that a good deal of time was spent on. Natasha and

Sam’s discussion sprung from talking about some instructors not being available at all.

“Except for the ones online, ‘cause you don’t get, you never meet up with them,”

Natasha said.

Sam followed with, “‘Cause they’re always off campus.”

53

Natasha responded, saying, “With online professors it’s hard. I have an online music

professor and it wouldn’t let me access my test, and I emailed him and told him it wouldn’t

let me access it and he didn’t respond so I emailed him again and said, ‘Since this is an

online class I thought that was the best way to get a hold of you was email, but I guess not so

if you could email me back and let me know the best way to deal with this technical issue

that caused me to get a zero on a test grade.’ If you say anything, if you tell them about it,

they just think you’re making up an excuse so you won’t have to take it.”

Their discussion touched on two key points in student perception of office hours. On

one hand, students reiterated previous feelings of being automatically labeled as bad students.

Some spoke about their quick movement through difficult programs, and others mentioned

failing a class multiple times with the same instructor. From either background, however,

students felt that they were good students as they tried to engage and wanted to pass. They

resented having instructors dismiss their concerns or take them less seriously because they

appeared to be bad students.

On the other hand, the discussion over difficulties with online classes showed student

frustration with distance learning set ups. The manner of talk that students engaged in with

regards to face-to-face classes and online classes differed greatly. When talking about online

courses, students did not have any positive examples of communication with their instructors.

Instructors were described more as content managers and technology troubleshooters than

guiding mentors and/or teachers. There were no positively or negatively described feelings of

connection between student and instructor as there had been with face-to-face classes. Talk

54

of difficulty in getting instructors to believe a student’s claim that there were technical issues

led to the topic of instructor fallibility. I asked about specific instances where the instructors

were unclear or gave students wrong information.

Tyler spoke up first, tentatively offering. “One was like the due date on a paper…”

Kayla jumped in at this, vehemently stating, “All of my syllabuses are off. You know

how they give you a syllabus the first day of class, like none of the due dates now match up

with the original syllabus. So those are like out the window. The only things I look at those

for are office hours and email.”

Colby frowned as he nodded, saying “All my classes, I’ve never had one where it just

follows the syllabus, there’s always changes–”

Tyler laughed, finishing the sentence, “Last minute.”

Kayla waited for them to settle down before beginning another story. “My physiology

professor this semester didn’t even put dates on it. He’s like ‘I don’t know the date, whenever

we finish covering it, that’s when we’ll have the test.’”

Tyler continued with his self-chosen role of explaining what others said, offering that

“Tests are usually off, quizzes are off. They tell us in class when they change it, they give it

to us. They expect us to be responsible and write it down.”

Students shared stories of syllabus difficulties. They were firm in stating that bad

syllabuses turned them away from engaging in out-of-class communication with instructors

or trying to form a relationship. This line of conversation displayed a serious lack of trust in

instructors. It is contradictory that in one instance they consider instructors too intelligent to

55

be bothered by questions, but the next they position instructors as constantly incorrect and

people who could not be counted on. Students connected their distaste for being stereotyped

as bad students with claims that instructors made mistakes too, and did not have everything

together and perfect either. Instructors had a different view of the student’s valuing of the

syllabus. When asking who was likely to attend office hours, instructors said that those who

did not read the syllabus were least likely to come in. I brought this thought up to the focus

groups, and tried to get their opinion.

I cautiously outlined the differing ideas, saying “Instructors think, ‘It’s on the

syllabus, so they should damn well know it,’ and you I’m hearing you say that the syllabus

isn’t always correct?”

Leslie was quick to respond to this misunderstanding, quickly saying, “Well that, and

most of us—if you take full time you have at least five classes. That’s five syllabuses, are

you supposed to memorize them? Carry them around in your backpack all the time? They

have a really cool thing now where you can save the syllabuses to your home screen and

that’s really handy.”

Her quick response, and the agreement from other group members showed this to be a

sore point that students think of often. In other groups, the difficulties of keeping up with

instructor expectations while balancing work and school was also discussed. Sam made a

comment during his group, trying to acknowledge that school should come first, but

instructors act like school is the only thing students have in their lives.

56

Having entered this topic after discussing the way students did not have a full

comprehension of how busy the instructor’s schedule is, they wanted to make it clear that

they felt instructors did not know how busy a student’s schedule is. Students felt that it was

too much to ask of them to memorize everything about their classes and syllabuses, and

therefore it was understandable for them to drop by office hours to ask simple questions.

They also felt that such simple questions did not take much effort on the part of instructors to

answer, and it is their job anyways.

The direction of this discussion could be potentially irritating for instructors to read,

so in each group I attempted to lead conversation toward reflexivity as to why students might

also be at fault for bad office hour communication. In discussion over why there were

problems with out-of-class communication that instructors were not responsible for, a theme

that emerged was lack of knowledge on the students’ part.

Lack of knowledge during freshman year. In asking the groups to reflect on the

ways that they failed to use office hours properly, or why they did not ever use them,

students began to speak about learning the value of office hours gradually as they took more

classes. Jeremy shared,

Well for my basics, I can’t even think of too many times I went in for office hours. I

mean, very few times I would go in just to meet with a professor for my basics. Just

because I took it on myself to know it, to find out the answers. Just basic courses.

What is there to ask?

57

Jeremy’s idea was similarly stated by other students, leading to discussion over

misperceptions held when students first entered college. Office hours are for getting

questions answered. If it is a basic class and everything is simple, there is no need to go to

office hours. Instructors typically shared this sentiment, describing office hours as being

there for the purpose of helping with curriculum. Few mentioned the possibility of office

hours being relationship-building spaces. Consistent with the idea that instructors would

think badly of students who asked simple questions, there was a sense that any question

about an introductory course was unacceptable. Tyler characterized this idea, “Particularly,

when I first started college I had this idea that you’re supposed to know basically everything

so I didn’t really go talk to my professor after class.” This is one of the first generation-

specific misconceptions.

Having entered the university system informed primarily by popular discourse and

representational rhetoric in the form of films, television, and superstitious advice given in

public schooling as described by Benson (2003), first generation students have a

misconception of how “smart” they are expected to be already (Hertel, 2002). The students

displayed a concern for being seen as less capable in numerous instances and showing that

they were not prepared for university difficulty. These feelings seem to contribute to them

not engaging in out-of-class communication. Instructors showed that they reaffirmed this

expectation through their discourse in describing what kind of students used office hours.

Various instructors claimed that they knew good students did not use office hours

because they did not need it, that those who came in were the highest over-achievers

58

typically, or that those students who really needed it and struggled to keep up did not attend

office hours. Dr. Pouncey went so far as to say, “They don’t want to be in the classroom, why

would they want to be in our offices?” In response to this conception, students talked about

ways they found the help they needed without turning to out-of-class communication with

their instructors.

Kayla started this topic, trying to explain her way of making do without instructor

help. She said, “I’m a psych major and we have peer mentors and that helps tremendously

too. It’s a little frightening to go one on one with professors. The university has so many first

year resources that replace instructors.”

Leslie tagged onto this idea, saying with confidence. “I wouldn’t ask prof to proof

read a paper; I’d go to the writing center.”

Sam agreed, offering “Yea, I basically live at the math lab.”

There was some joking after this exchange about the way responses seemed almost

promotional of school programs. Kayla is very engaged and active, so she assured us she was

not just plugging the school initiatives because she had to.

During discussion, I saw both positive and negative views to be obtained from this

line of reasoning. I tried to acknowledge that it was good that first generation students found

ways to survive in higher education despite fearing their instructors, seeking out assistance

for their learning efforts. However, I still wanted to try and present to the students the

conundrum that there is an intimidation factor and feeling of distance between students and

instructors. Specifically, I wanted to be able to present quotes that showed that students do

59

not feel they can/should approach the person whose job and calling it is to teach them in

order to get help. More competing discourses cropped up from instructors in relation to this

topic. Instructors shared how they encouraged students to “take control of their education”

and lamented that “responsibility doesn’t always happen in the classroom.” These sorts of

messages appear to be construed as telling students they have to learn on their own, without

the guidance of an instructor. For instructors, there did not appear to be a link between those

ideas and the results they saw, as few were able to articulate reasons they thought students

might not be attending office hours. Dr. Askari noted that “even upper levels don’t come

unless forced,” perhaps showing that many students retain the message of self-dependency

throughout their college career.

These factors that discouraged students from engaging in out-of-class communication

show areas where instructors have made themselves appear unapproachable. Also, in

recognizing where fault was not attributable to instructors, students discussed where they

have been influenced by misleading discourse about the sort of intelligence and work ethic

expected of new college attendees. There is room for instructors to change certain actions,

but also opportunity for open dialogue to help inform students of the differing values and

expectations that exist.

While I was happy to allow students to describe their issues at length, I also presented

to them my desire to find some possible solutions to the problems they saw. Tyler jokingly

acknowledged in his group that coming up with solutions was going to be much harder than

complaining, but each group was willing to move from simply explaining what instructors do

60

wrong to coming up with particular methods instructors can engage in to promote out-of-

class communication.

Acts to Engage in

The next section emerged primarily from asking students (a) what they liked about

their best office hours experiences and (b) how they think office hours interactions would be

conducted in an ideal world. There were some instances where students were able to describe

solutions best by saying what instructors should stop doing, but there were also productive

solutions offered in each group that were similarly thematizable. Themes that emerged from

analysis were: make them feel safe and not judged, show interest in having students visit,

make them a priority, and take steps to build a relationship.

Instructors who felt passionately about office hours, which was common in my

interviews, spoke about advice they give to other faculty often. In describing how they felt

qualified to do this, they talked about what they felt they learned about engaging with

students through what they perceived as successful and unsuccessful out-of-class

interactions.

Make them feel safe, rather than judged. In asking for solutions, I brought up talk

about perceived inferiority some students expressed above as a discouraging factor. Students

arrived at what they thought instructors should do while defining what office hours were

ideally and why they exist. Jeremy offered:

I think they’re good ‘cause during class you don’t really want to ask a question and

feel dumb, so having that opportunity and you get the answers that you want like one

61

on one, without getting shy or without thinking someone else is gonna ask, “Why did

you just ask that question? It’s dumb.” And the professor is not gonna think that.

A perspective outlined by Jeremy that some others shared was that instructors can potentially

make office hours a more open place for learning than the classroom. Myers et al (2005)

paralleled these suggestions, showing ego support made students feel more welcome.

Students may feel a separation between students and instructors, but that turns out to be

something that students suggested could be used beneficially.

Where students have to maintain certain relationships with their peers and form their

identity performance while paying attention to norms of laziness (as Natasha described. “You

can’t look like you’re taking stuff too seriously, cause then you’re a nerd”), they can possibly

put that aside and be a curious and confused student if an instructor behaves in a way that

allows them to feel safe. This is in agreement with Jones (2008), arguing that instructors are

uniquely positioned to help students.

Some instructors recognized this potential, saying that there is less formality than in

the classroom and that some students feel more comfortable talking in office hours. Dr.

Loveland joked about this, prompting some students to speak more in a single visit than they

had all semester in class. Fusani (1994) demonstrated that instructor immediacy led to

improved in-class participation. Positive responses with this topic lead me to try and suggest

more radical conceptions of the student-instructor relationship and see how the students felt

about them. I described to them the typical discourse about college instructors not caring,

which I assumed they had heard numerous times growing up and preparing to enter college.

62

I started introducing the topic with “So you know the whole ‘college is real world’

idea, right? They say in high school that once you hit college, it’s gonna be so much harder.”

Natasha laughed at this explanation, and corrected me. “They say that every year.”

She added in a deep, mocking voice “When you finish third grade, fourth grade isn’t going to

be as easy.”

I smiled as the rest of the group laughed, and tried to rearticulate. “Yea, exactly. But

particularly with college, your high school teachers and counselors tell you that college

instructors won’t baby you anymore. They won’t email you and remind you that you have

homework due or that you missed a test. They are there to give you instruction. And if you

fail, it is your fault. They don’t have to justify a failing percentage or get in trouble for

holding students back. It isn’t their job to care.” I paused for a bit to let them think about this

before tentatively asking, “How would you feel if profs did care?”

The group sat quiet for a while, thinking, before Natasha simply stated, “It would be

easier to come for help.”

After that comment, the group got enthusiastic with the idea. Jessica said, “If there

was no definite line between student and instructor? We wouldn’t feel dumb, or in the

shadow.”

Sam agreed, saying “If it wasn’t a hierarchy thing, you wouldn’t feel stupid or so bad

if you asked them a question.”

In this conversation, students talked about enjoying the idea of instructors not just

avoiding assertion of power, but openly denying the existence of it. McKay and Estrella

63

(2008) described the importance of open relationships to in-class success for first generation

students. There was debate when it came to discussing whether or not student/instructor

relationships should be functional or relational, but most were in agreement that a clear line

demarcating students as less important and instructors as more important was harmful. Dr.

Askari was clear on her commitment to not come across as above students, claiming that

“intimidation is a form of bullying” regardless of the institutional beliefs that makes it

acceptable and normal.

Instructors typically agreed that they wanted to come across as open and welcoming

as possible to ease nerves and tension. Two instructors provided contradictory examples of

their practices: Dr. Holloway saying that by closing the doors a student could feel insulated

from the rest of the offices and students around them, and Dr. Nelson saying it was best to

keep the doors open so students do not feel trapped. Dr. Talley spoke on explicit ways to

avoid subconsciously drawing on power when talking with students, saying that instructors

need to make sure they do not become defensive with students, and equally should avoid

making a student defensive. Once it turns from a conversation to a competition, there is no

beneficial communication occurring. To try and get students to consider how they could

potentially also make office hours better through their own actions, I started talking to them

about what instructors might enjoy.

I suggested that instructors want students to come to office hour meetings fascinated

with the subject, and I asked how the students felt about that expectation. They were willing

to acknowledge the value that each subject had to university scholars. However, they wanted

64

to make clear again that they were not bad students who took advantage of office hours if

they attended office hours without being totally in love with the subject. Kayla explained,

“Just going to office hours shows a level of care for the course material.” With this comment,

we talked about there being a very different understanding of engagement between

instructors and students. The students in focus groups felt that just by visiting office hours

they were showing that they cared enough about the class to take steps to pass. Instructors

tended to note the small instances of seeking help in passing, focusing more heavily on all

the big and obvious things students could do to increase their chances of passing that angered

instructors when they did not. Dr. Talley and Dr. Holloway both said they saw visits for

small problems as only beneficial in building student courage for longer visitation.

Students reached the conclusion that instructors need to be the ones to bend more in

order to accommodate. Students agreed that it was fair for instructors to want them to enter

an office hours meeting with respect for the subject matter and understand that instructors

dedicate their lives to their subjects. However, students felt instructors should be more aware

that students are attending college for a professional degree. They may be taking the class as

an introductory level, and it will be the only course in the department that they choose to

enroll in. Kayla was very insistent that instructors should realize this and readjust their

expectations of commitment to subject matter based on that. Dr. Dorn confirmed her

recognition of the situation, saying, “People should do what they are comfortable with.”

In one group, my talk of instructors wanting students to be excited about the subject

led to Tyler suggesting that instructors should display their excitement at having students

65

come to office hours. I mentioned this possibility in other groups, and discussion blossomed

from it, allowing the theme to emerge and be elaborated on in each group.

Show interest in having students visit. While Tyler started discussion on this topic

in his group, I opened discussion in another by telling them that some instructors I

interviewed talked a about how they enjoy office hour instruction more than in-class

instruction. Dr. Nelson said he likes how can tell when a student is understanding the

concepts, Dr. Martin said she was better able to see the effects of her teaching, and Dr.

Trawick is more satisfied after a successful meeting than a normal class. This surprised some

students, while others were able to relate anecdotes showing that they had experience with

such excitement from instructors. Tyler had a story about an instructor whose excitement

clearly caught him off guard:

Sometimes I feel like professors are a completely different person when you go visit

them in their office, and completely different and I’m like “Whoa.” In the classes you think

they don’t even know your name, and you go in their offices and they’re like “Hey!” and I’m

like “Ohhh I didn’t know you knew I was in your class.” I mean, I know that they know I’m

in their classes but whenever you go visit them in their offices they’re usually like super

excited that you came.

Tyler said he was surprised that he was able to make an instructor happy just by

dropping in to ask a question. Some instructors (Drs. Dorn, Talley, Nelson, and Pouncey)

said that even if there were not mandated office hours, they would still want to interact with

students out-of-class regularly. The particular philosophy surrounding out-of-class

66

communication held by faculty members in one department on campus was: the university is

just a bricks and mortar institution, mentoring and relationship is what makes it real and

makes learning happen. Dr. Holloway told long stories about the students who came in with

the best questions and topics for discussion, prompting long talks that she found fulfilling.

She also suggested that her understanding was that students would visit multiple times and

keep in touch after the class was over if they felt like an instructor showed a genuine interest

in them.

With discussion about instructor excitement, I asked the students how they describe

reactions as genuine. As we discussed formulaic invitations and apparently unwelcoming

performances by instructors earlier in the sessions, I asked the students for particular

instances when they felt instructors were happy to see them and made them feel invited.

Kayla gushed, telling us she had a great story. “My history prof my first semester had

us make those turkey hands and he hung those on his door and I thought that was special. We

got extra credit. I thought, ‘this is the best class ever.’ We had to turn it in, he was like ‘this is

gonna go on the door’ and he put it right on the door while I was there. Like, if you just drew

your hand, he wouldn’t put it up but I put on feathers and a little beak so he put it on the

door. It was really cute.”

I told her I really enjoyed that story, and talked about how I do the same in my classes

before asking for other examples.

Jeremy, who had been quiet for a while at this point, chose to speak up. “No details

on the top of my head, but I can remember having that feeling before. And it counts on the

67

professor, some I can be there talking with them for hours, we aren’t really talking about the

subject, just going off on something else.”

Other students did not have instances where they felt an instructor was overjoyed, but

said they could tell that an instructor was grateful when they visited.

Colby offhandedly summed up the rest of the groups comments, saying “They

appreciate people coming ‘cause they set aside that time, and if they waste that time it’s no

good.”

I was excited to hear this comment, and asked them if they had any more ideas on the

topic. When the group indicated they all agreed with the overall idea, I told them I really

connected with what they said about instructors, as I had the same feeling myself when I held

office hours.

***

“Dude, it’s hell sitting in my office for four hours waiting for people to come by, and

not having anyone come in. It’s like I’m holding up a free hugs sign and not getting any

hugs.” I tell this sob story to a colleague as we stand by the water cooler. He laughs at my

fake pain, but empathizes as he knows that I really am unhappy.

“You gotta remember what it was like being an undergraduate. I never visited a

professor when I was getting my bachelors.”

I agree with him, but it doesn’t make the rest of the semester any easier. I’m explicitly

studying office hours communication, so I can’t be that instructor that skips out on office

hours, right? I try to make invitations multiple times a week in classes, ask students to come

68

by if they want their exact grade, and a dozen other methods that research makes me think

will suddenly flood my office with visits. I try to find the silver lining in not having visitors

and get work done with all the free time available. I know I should be pleased, I have the

opportunity to make my hectic schedule less difficult, but I can’t seem to focus.

I’m poised at the edge of my seat all the time. If feet are walking down the hall, I’m

trying to see if I recognize the cadence or heel click, or if it may be a new pair of feet

belonging to a student who wants to speak with me. I don’t spread all my articles and papers

out on my desk, thinking that a clear desk shows that I’m not too busy and have no pressing

matters demanding I get back to work soon.

When the footsteps get close enough, I switch my computer screen to some

webcomic. Like a teenager hiding internet pornography, I hide the evidence of my studies so

students aren’t intimidated or worried they are interrupting. I spin my chair away from my

desk and sit facing them mostly but also somewhat at an angle so they don’t feel pressured. I

keep my phone on silent and flipped upside down so no notification alerts them to others

asking for my attention. As they start wrapping up conversation, I remind them multiple

times that they are welcome to drop in again if they have questions.

I want to speak out to students in class and say, “Please. I’m here 12 hours a week in

office hours. I’m here even more often just working. I’d love to talk to you then. I’m dying to

have conversation about public speaking, I really do enjoy it. Come to me excited about your

speech topics, come to me to complain about being signed up on the first day, come to me

and tell me that you are going to be withdrawing from the class. Come visit, come hug me.

69

Please.” But instead, I just wait until a student asks what their grade is before I mention

office hours again.

***

Make students a priority. In the themes of discouraging factors, instructors who

seemed too busy was a reason students listed for avoiding speaking with them out-of-class.

This show of instructor busyness was done in a number of both obvious and accidental ways,

Students felt, though, that if an instructor was showing that they made students a priority, the

attempt was hard to fake or do without intending to. I asked them to describe some instances.

Tyler was quick to jump in with a simple description, “They are doing research, they stop

what they are doing to talk with me. One turns his chair away from his desk completely.”

While discussion above talked about instructors rushing them out of meetings as quick as

possible, other students agreed that this method, as described positively by Tyler, would

show students that they have an instructor’s full attention. Students spoke about how they

disliked instructors who stayed somewhat faced toward their computers while talking with

them or kept the internet tab they were working on open. Dr. Nelson, who talked about being

cognizant of what such actions communicated, said he turned off his computer monitor and

did not answer phone calls while students were in the office. He would occasionally interject

in the flow of a conversation to add to the topic students came in to discuss, but tried to never

rush a student. Dr. Linden pointed out that he uses the larger office afforded to him by

department head position to always move away from his bureau and sit with students away

from all his work.

70

Instructors spoke most heavily in relation to this theme, providing me ample

examples to go into focus groups with to run the ideas past students and get their perceptions.

The most powerful line I heard in a few interviews was, “Office hours are a student’s right.”

Instructors who espoused this idea felt that communicating with students out-of-class was a

part of their career, even if the spirit that they understood it in was beyond what university

rules mandated of them in office hour involvement. When I asked instructors what they

would want to say to students directly about office hours, there were many who said students

should feel empowered to utilize office hours however is necessary to get the support in

whatever area of life required. Dr. Loveland said he did not want to “just draw his check and

go home.” He wanted engagement with students outside of class just as much as he wanted

engagement in class.

Students also suggested in discussion that instructors should be willing to adapt for

each student. This idea came from talk of instructors having to work to bend for the sake of

students and recognize their goal as a professional degree. Discussion revolved around the

need for instructors to know that some students entering their offices looking for help do so

in order to pass the class and make more money in life. For first generation students, who

feel isolated from regular cultural values of college students, this ability to adapt is very

important (Lowery-Hart & Pacheco, 2011).

Kayla, who joked about always being the first to respond, said she knew “Profs care

about their subject. Certain fields know it won’t be hard for students to get a job. I know a

71

manager at Walgreens with a Ph.D. ‘cause she will make more money from that than

teaching. They need to be okay with students wanting money and not just knowledge.”

Leslie asserted, “Profs realize that not everyone taking class cares about subject, so

they have to move toward student’s desires.” Just as instructors spoke about how it is

important for students to enter office hours meetings fascinated with the subject, students

spoke about how it is important for instructors to engage with students realistically and

understand the student’s needs. The students felt it possible to be primarily interested in the

professional degree and still have a desire to do well in the course, even if they did not feel

passionately about the subject matter. This supports current research over differing cultural

values between first generation and continuing generation students (Lowery-Hart & Pacheco,

2011). In the final bit of discussion with each group, I asked students to move away from

balancing competing desires and toward considering what it would be like to form bonds

between students and instructors.

Take steps in relationship building. This final point of discussion reconnected with

an earlier factor that discouraged out-of-class communication: instructors not wanting to

help. In that theme, students felt discouraged when instructors made invitations (perceived by

students to be) insincere to attend office hours, as they felt the instructors did not actually

want them to come in. Some instructors spoke about how they saw it as their responsibility to

constantly stress the importance of out-of-class communication. Dr. Loveland said that he

endeavors to display his sincere desire to have students visit. Students in focus groups liked

this feeling of responsibility. Natasha confirmed the importance of such attempts, “If they

72

consistently show interest and desire for relationships, it shows care.” With her words, I felt

it was necessary to discuss who is responsible for creating the relationship between student

and instructor. To contextualize the topic I was asking them to deliberate on, I briefly

recounted earlier discussion about instructors’ hectic schedules and the ways students feel

intimidated and inferior. Students took this topic and began presenting reasons why they felt

like instructors should be the ones to initiate. In her group, Natasha said she feared that an

instructor would turn her down if she attempted to build a relationship. I suggested that

instructors face that fear with hundreds of students a semester, and this exchange was drawn

forth:

Natasha firmly argued, “It has to be mutual. Students want relationships, but feel an

instructor isn’t making the outreach. [Students] won’t make the first move.”

Jessica disagreed, suggesting “It’s the student’s responsibility to initiate relationships.

If a professor doesn’t respond positively, or makes the student feel like they’re in the way,

then the student might give up. It’s the student’s responsibility to initiate, and professor’s

responsibility to nurture it.”

Other groups expressed similar sentiments, but this was a definitive conversation for

this theme and my further pursuance of it. Students were quick to agree with this

assessment—offering up numerous anecdotes of putting themselves out there and having an

instructor make them feel unwelcome. Much research from my literature review agrees that

proactive outreach is beneficial (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003; Cayanus, Martin, & Myers,

2008). Natasha’s group discussed, in depth, the ethical dilemma that instructors face, and

73

they gave great feedback on the need for instructors to be open to nurturing relationships any

time they communicate with a student. They recognized that they were asking a lot from

instructors. However, they felt that instructors were in the best position to know that they

could make such a leap. First generation students have no way of knowing when they enter

higher education that they should try to reach out to instructors. Many students may end up

rejecting relationships with instructors, but instructors are still the ones who know the

possibilities of having a student/instructor relationship. Some instructors explicitly indicated

they wanted to know how best to take on such a role, claiming that out-of-class

communication is an opportunity for both parties. Dr. Dorn said that she learns from students

as much as they learn from her, and she wants to enhance the students’ lives holistically

through academic relationships.

Conversation over student/instructor relationships worked to reveal reasons students

wanted to form relationships with professors. In one group, the idea of a relationship was

based around furthering the student’s academic career:

Jeremy offered his thoughts on why office hours are important, starting a

conversation. “For me, I could talk with them online, but I’m more face to face with

professors. Once I was in my more major classes, once I was geared toward my major, I went

more times. It’s good to go in just so they can know your name, understand your situation, I

had a big problem with getting late to class, so when your professors know what’s going on

they can be a little more lenient at times.”

Tyler added to this, “Not just curriculum, I mean, I want rapport with the professor.”

74

I joked about him using the fancy word rapport, and he laughed and brushed it off

before continuing with, “When you’re looking to get yourself a nice good relationship

working with them—you know especially the ones you are gonna see a couple times, that

you have multiple classes with—it’s the best time.”

This conversation connected with Williams and Frymier (2007), who suggested

students pursue out-of-class communication more for relational than functional purposes.

In relation to these ideas, instructors talked about what they considered to be a key

role in out-of-class communication with students. They commonly saw their jobs as building

relationships for the sake of students’ mental well-being. Dr. Nelson and Dr. Linden

characterized it as giving students confidence in themselves by sharing a passion with them

over a number of semesters. Dr. Loveland saw each visit as being about increasing a

student’s self esteem. Dr. Pouncey and Dr. Talley sought to be in relationships with students

to reduce insecurities they may foster while going through their degree plan. These

instructors saw it as their duty to not only provide their students with the tools to complete

their degree requirements, but also to maintain their students state of mind so they leave with

their degree confident and able to make use of it.

In the last group, discussion focused on the idea of a “relationship.” While all three

groups understood that the idea of the relationship was not connected to any sexual or

romantic undertones, this group spent the most time elaborating on how a student was

supposed to perform at school and build relationships.

75

I took a breath in and held it for a second, letting the group know I was going to ask a

tough question. I raised my eyebrows and asked, “Is school a professional thing?”

Sam replied quickly, “Yes, training on the job. Get recommendations, almost like an

apprenticeship. Going on to something bigger and better, but relationships here and now

dictate that future.”

Kayla shook her head as he was speaking and argued with this, saying “: If it was

professional I wouldn’t wear sweatpants to class. I wouldn’t ask their girlfriend’s name. I

shouldn’t be walking on eggshells every day, so it’s not professional.”

This group displayed the contradicting values that different students attribute to the

university setting. These values are important, as they influence how students build

relationships, and instructors have to learn to engage different orientations with different

students.

Summary

The findings in this chapter reflected problems and possibilities that first generation

college students saw with regards to office hours. With the factors that discouraged

interaction, some themes that emerged were not even purposeful actions on the part of

instructors. Few students characterized instructors as maliciously intimidating or wanting to

scare students. Instead, they spoke about fears they developed for an instructor and never

tried to confront and confirm the reality of. Similarly, students talked more about instructors

seeming too busy, rather than explicitly stating that they were too busy. The topic of

instructors not wanting to help seemed clearly to be an active choice on the instructors’ part.

76

However, once talk of how instructors can appear more welcoming began, that theme too

started to look like it was possibly accidental.

The lack of knowledge first generation students have when they enter higher

education is not something instructors can be blamed for, but knowing about it allows

instructors the opportunity to address it. The solutions that students suggested are minor in

some regards and major in others. Asking instructors to turn off their computer screens while

meeting with students is a simple accommodation, but asking instructors to reach out to each

individual student so students do not have to worry about being rejected is tougher. There is

room for compromise in these suggestions, and this thesis acts as an opening for discussion

between students and instructors.

Many of the themes discussed in this chapter have already been described to some

extent in the extant literature. Research tells instructors that first generation students react

negatively to perceived aggressiveness (Myers et al, 2007), think instructors are busy (Nadler

& Nadler, 2009), dislike instructors having favorites (Opoku-Amankwa, 2009), and do not

know all the rules and workings of the university system when they enter their freshman year

(Pascarella et al, 2004). There are already suggestions to make a student feel welcome

(Myers et al, 2005), focus on students as a priority during out-of-class communication

(Fusani, 1994), and seek to build relationships with them (Mortenson, 2008). Where this

thesis finds relevance in relation to these studies is in the spirit of its approach and the goals

of its suggestions. Additionally, this thesis contributes by way of offering a narrative

description, nuancing and articulating what is missing from the previous research.

77

The existing literature cited directly above, and much of the remainder I cited in my

literature review, were written in the hopes of increasing instructor effectiveness and

performance. By discovering the ways students react to aggressiveness or perceive trust

exercises, researchers are able to tell instructors how to perform better in their role as a

teacher. This is a goal I share, but it is not my primary reason for embarking on this project.

The express goal of conducting this research was to discover what first generation

students needed instructors to do in order to help them integrate into the university system.

Some of the practices described may have no direct effect on how well they perform in class.

In fact, by some estimations, things like “spoon feeding” students information they can find

on their own might make them more dependant and detract from their intellectual growth in a

course.

This thesis approaches learning from a more holistic perspective. Each individual

instructor should not be concerned with how best to help students pass the course they have

together, but instead should aim to add to an environment where students feel connected to

their learning and welcomed to engage in the act of learning alongside their instructors. In

order to work toward this goal, I approached the focus groups hoping to discover how

students felt disconnected from a nurturing learning experience. Each of the themes is not

presented to allow instructors to avoid or engage in certain isolated behaviors, but instead to

suggest an overall pedagogical approach. The field that my intentions are influenced by—

critical communication pedagogy (cf, Fassett & Warren, 2006)—is discussed at length in the

following, final chapter.

78

In the next chapter, I discuss ways that instructors can begin engaging with the

complaints and suggestions made by the students in the focus groups from this chapter.

While this chapter stated actions that students want to see instructors perform, the next

chapter offers theoretical lenses to allow conceptualization of complete identity as a

pedagogue rather than isolated actions that act as a checklist. I do not suggest that the next

chapter should be read as a more important take away from this thesis, but instead offer it as

a way to understand how to handle the requests and demands made in this chapter.

79

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

“Hey, do you have a minute?” I ask this question while I rap the door three times,

despite the welcome he has already given.

“Sure, come on in. You emailed me about talking career path, right?”

“Yea, we joked about poor little comm students not having any applicable skills in

class the other day, and you were pretty quick to squash that joke. Sooo I wanted to talk to

you about graduate school and what my prospects are.”

He gives a quick nod, and gestures for me to sit down. I’m in my second class with

him, this is my first time in his office, and this is also my first time talking to an instructor

outside of class besides three advising appointments over the course of my two years at

school. I had quit the “life plan” I was so sure of when I first entered college and was sure of

everything. For two years I floated. I passed my classes, I studied abroad one summer, and I

was on track to finish my degree in three years. All in all, I was a rousing success story. But,

I had no clue what I was going to do with life after my degree. My mother was finishing her

degree a year before me, but she was going to grad school. If I didn’t go too, I’d have to be

the first one to face the post-grad job search and attempts to define my life.

He asks me questions, and they aren’t the ones I’m used to answering. “What makes

you happy?” “Do you like dealing with other intelligent people?” “Do you want to be a part

of your community?” “How do you best express yourself?”

80

I respond without the regular fallback answers I have practiced to perfection so I can

whip out any time I’m grilled at a holiday gathering. There are no “I’m getting my degree in

three years, so I’m doing well” or “Communications is a very applicable degree, I intend to

be a customer service consultant.” I stumble, and I admit to concerns that keep me from

considering certain paths. He allays those with the sweep of a hand and a quick frown.

“I think you are brilliant. In class, you do such a great job critically analyzing the

content you work with, and I would love to see how you do in a graduate program. I’ll help

you get used to it and advise you with whatever career path questions you have, but I’m

confident you can acclimate to the climate easily and thrive in it.”

My heart thumps, and I’m speechless. I grow embarrassed at my inability to respond

to this, and I worry that I’m wasting his time being foolish. He leans back in his chair and

smiles at me while my mind continues to attempt to restart. I never knew I stood out to him

in class in the slightest. Sure, I got A’s on my assignments, and in our discussion of my

performance he complimented me after each project. But that was just methodical practice

and following the steps necessary to fulfill the rubric requirements. Not only was he

reassuring me that such practices are actually indicative of intelligence, but he’s making

himself available as a longstanding resource. I came in to figure out how to use my degree

for professional purposes, and I gained an advisor. He is my first college advisor, thankfully

far from my last as I continue this journey, and he continues to play a pivotal role enough

when I work more directly with others once I reach latter parts of graduate school.

81

When I finally leave the office after another half hour of discussion, my mind is

spinning with possibilities. I want to go to grad school. I want to get a Ph.D. I want to be a

university professor. I… wanna talk to other professors and see what I have been missing out

on.

From that moment on, I become a nuisance to my instructors. Not a week goes by that

I don’t pop in on at least one instructor to discuss some concept or ask them questions about

the field and discipline. I start making my rounds of past instructors, quizzing French

instructors on locations I should visit next and the dialects I’ll need to be prepared for,

showing off my rock collection to Geology instructors, and discussing papers over the

Comanche war tactics with previous History instructors. My attitude toward instructors

changes, and my attitude toward school and the pursuit of knowledge along with it. I change

dramatically, and all it took was the willingness of one instructor to advise someone who

didn’t know they needed advising.

***

In the findings chapter, I grouped statements from student participants of focus

groups and instructor participants of interviews into themes. One section addressed ways that

instructors err in discouraging out-of-class communication. In the other, I presented solutions

offered by students that instructors can engage in to better be of assistance. Many of the

complaints students put forward and their accompanying opinions were ones that instructors

may disagree with or refuse to comply with for valid reasons. This chapter forwards

suggestions as to how instructors can alter practices to fit the needs of students and presents

82

research supporting why they should listen to what could be dismissed as the “selfish ideas”

of students who are “just looking out for themselves.”

From my findings chapter, the applicability of my thesis that I suggest is in the

particular viewpoint from which the research can be accessed and utilized. This thesis was

not conducted in order to teach instructors how to promote better immediate in-class

participation. Rather, this thesis and this chapter explicitly suggest overarching ways to

engage as an instructor in order to meet the needs stated by students in focus groups.

This chapter will be divided into five sections. As the purpose of this thesis is to

suggest instructors arrange pedagogical orientations toward being nurturing and supportive of

students, the first section, The Ever-Caring Instructor, addresses the idea of such an outlook.

From there, I discuss methods available in Genuine Caring Communication. This section

presents epistemological outlooks to build the framework of an overall caring instructor. The

third section, and last of discussion, looks at practices that can be engaged in to meet the

needs of students and interact well with the overall attitude being suggested. Following

discussion, the next section addresses limitations of this thesis, as well as presenting future

directions I and other scholars may go based on this research. Finally, I close this chapter and

thesis with a conclusion section.

The Ever-Caring Instructor

The particular base of transformative change that the students call for is the need for

instructors to be perpetually welcoming and nurturing to students. While the themes analyzed

in the findings chapter called for specific actions that instructors can engage in, in a broader

83

sense students asked for more caring instructors. Why is it the instructor’s job to be caring,

sensitive, and inclusive of students? It could be traditionally argued that education is the

student’s responsibility, that instructors work to disseminate knowledge and students should

work to learn it. If a student needs help, he/she should take charge of his/her learning and

seek help. It does not matter if the instructor attempts to encourage interaction, right?

Williams (1976) notes the origins of the word education lies in child up-bringing, and proper

rearing on the part of the institutional system responsible for educating them. Bennett,

Grossberg, and Morris (2005) expanded on Williams’ examination of the meaning of

education by linking back to the two Latin roots it derived from: educare (drawing out) and

educere (leading forth). In both of these instances, education is not defined by the student,

but by the instructors’ responsibility.

Within the field of critical communication pedagogy (cf, Fassett & Warren, 2006), the

call for sensitivity on the part of instructors is strong. Under such epistemological leanings, it

is crucial for educators to be emotionally attached to the advancement of their students.

Hooks (2003) states that “at its best, teaching is a caring profession” (p. 86). It falls on the

instructor’s shoulders to lead the learning process and attempt to ensure students have

available the best tools and support for obtaining the education they deserve. Instructors

cannot pass the responsibility onto the students and expect to be seen as a separate, venerate

force of knowledge impartment. Freire (1970) claims “the trust of the people in the leaders

reflects the confidence of the leaders in the people” (p. 150). It is from the instructor’s efforts

that classroom unity and learning occur. This is a contentious position, as it puts expectations

84

upon the instructor that are radical in comparison to regular parameters of a teacher’s duty.

Hooks (2010) takes the position that teachers are not therapists, but not in the spirit of

agreeing that such duties fall outside their calling. She argues, instead, that instructors do not

have the professional training to be therapists, and thus despite situations that call upon them

to be therapists; they cannot be seen as a failure when they prove insufficient for the needs of

a student. This position recognizes the call on the part of the students, but still excuses

instructors from perpetually engaging in caring action.

Genuine Caring Communication

When a student’s perception of an instructor and higher education as a whole can be

affected by even one dismissal of an attempt to connect, there is great weight on each

interaction an instructor has with students. Austin (1962) argues that words not only deliver

messages, but in being spoken actually do things themselves. For each communicative

interaction an instructor has with a student, he/she does not just convey information—he/she

acts on the student and forces the student to reorient his/herself in relation to the instructor.

Sheppard (2006) claims that communication is always the process of two individuals

transcending their previous identities through interaction with each other and acquiring new

understandings that will guide their future actions. This section discusses the reasons that

instructors should take the findings of this thesis, and other similar research, seriously. The

students participating in this thesis are positioned as experts able to describe their own needs,

and this theoretical overview reaffirms the need for them to be listened to and have their

needs attended.

85

If every communicative interaction should be seen as identity changing, then

instructors should be ethically devoted to encouraging students according to what holistic

educational values they feel are the most important to instill. A good basis of ethical

engagement to go off of—and one that fits the focus group participants wish to feel like their

instructor is interested in talking with them—is Johnstone’s (as cited in Johannesen, Valde,

& Whedbee, 2008) basic imperative: “So act in each instance as to encourage, rather than

suppress, the capacity to persuade and be persuaded, whether the capacity in question is

yours or another’s” (p. 40). Following this in each interaction can be frustrating, but as

Butler (1997) points out, one cannot help but respond to the hailing of another, and thus

instructors must always be aware of the identities they seek to ascribe to their students during

conversation.

Communicating Kindly

A point that I wish to discuss more heavily is the meaning of the theme “Make them

feel safe, rather than judged.” While this request from students, as articulated in Findings,

seemingly falls under the same considerations as the above sincerity in communication, there

are special considerations to this need of first generation students. Suinn (2006) warns

instructors that teaching in a multi-cultural classroom makes it difficult to hold generalized

expectations about the best way to interact with every student. The variations of cultural

values, even within a seemingly homogenous group of individuals create spaces for intense

misunderstanding and potential alienation of in-group members; this has the potential to turn

86

first generation students who are already new in the culture of higher education into strangers

within the system (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999).

Instructors may be best guided by the Communication Accommodation Theory.

Harwood and Giles (2005) discuss cultural differences that turn even apparently intragroup

communication into intergroup communication, necessitating performative accommodation,

or divergence on the part of each party through speaking in a dialect and manner similar or

different to the other individual. This theory is ontologically post positivist, as the creators

aim for it to be used as a way to objectively approach a given situation and create the right

response. Objective leanings goes against the postmodern methodology and epistemology of

this thesis, but the terms utilized in the articulation of this theory are still useful for

understanding phenomenon and attempting to move in new directions. I do not advocate full

association with the views this theory represents, but I do choose to make use of the theory.

Its accessibility can be good for explaining concepts I wish for instructors unused to critical

pedagogy to be able to hear.

Instructors may traditionally attempt to perform divergence, upholding the position of

academia that they represent. The desires of the students in this thesis, however, show that

accommodation by communicating with students as people and in ways that make them feel

safe is the better option for a caring instructor who wishes to be a bridge through which

students integrate into the university system.

In addition to initial orientation to communicating with students, instructors must

monitor how they communicate while a conversation is occurring out-of-class. Rosenberg’s

87

(2003) model of nonviolent communication offers a path that may help an instructor center

conversation around the concerns of his/her students and avoid the pitfall of defensive

communication. Savage (1996) offers methods of listening and confirmation seeking that can

allow students to feel safely in control of the conversation and not being judged for

everything they say, but rather free to explain.

These particular ideological orientations and methods can offer a zone in which

instructors are able to establish groundwork practices of care and empathy. While themes of

discouragement and encouragement differed in specific actions that either harmed or could

help foster out-of-class communication, it all hearkened essentially to the epistemological

view instructors have of first generation students and the role they play in interacting with

them both in-class and out-of-class.

Limitations and Future Implications

Limitations to this thesis range depending on epistemological outlooks on research.

Limitations that would invalidate the research under some paradigms would only need more

attention in others, and as I claim to work under a postmodern paradigm, I run the risk of

judging myself and my work too lightly. From any paradigm, a significant limitation is

population size. Three focus groups with less than twenty five total participants is sparse,

regardless of the non-universal, temporal and geographically located truth I claimed this

thesis would (re)present. More time to connect and schedule meeting times with pre-formed

groups could have made larger sample size possible. Focusing primarily on first generation

88

students or pre-formed groups alone would make it difficult to garner participants, combining

the two requirements proved to be harmful.

The approach to focus group moderating also presents limitations. As I wanted to

approach the student’s views as their own truths, I did not aim to challenge their notions on

many occasions, allowing what they said to stand rather than potentially bully them into

temporary acquiescence. As this pertains to the overall findings of the research, it can be

argued that the design of this study was potentially flawed. The findings of the research

mirrored previous research done, with the difference and value being in the suggestions made

through recognition of student as expert rather than instructor. A longer, and more engaged,

thesis could have conducted focus groups as pilots before engaging in student and instructor

workshops on the topic as an applied thesis.

This particular limitation offers strong future directions through its weaknesses. Other

researchers may seek to gather similar information in their own particular

temporal/geographical location and, once analyzed, make use of it as a campus wide

workshop series. This thesis, with its focus on first generation students, also begs the

question of potential disadvantages that continuing generation students face. By focusing on

first generation students in general, rather than further divided subcategories (ethnicity, class,

nationality, university size) of the identity, this thesis calls for other researchers to examine

those fields as well. While limited and needing future examination in many respects, this

research can still be seen as useful in informing instructors on out-of-class and office hour

communication needs of first generation students.

89

The most critical difference between this thesis and other studies are the voices

(re)presented. Other studies in this field gather student responses and interpret them through

the understanding of an instructor-researcher. I attempt to present the words of the students,

connect them to prevailing themes, and suggest ways that instructors might engage their

wishes. However, I do not reinterpret what the students say and claim to understand their

words better than them. There are some instances where I disagree with the ideas espoused

by the students, but present them anyway as their truth. I work to combine them with my own

narratives in order to present my understanding of the situation both through the eyes of

students and instructors, but am careful to avoid fitting their words to my goals.

Conclusion

This thesis has been a journey through the varied understandings of what roles

students and instructors play in building each other’s identities and the identity of higher

education as a whole. I have examined the ways that the needs of students currently do, and

ideally should influence the identity performance of instructors. I reviewed the literature

surrounding the effects of instructor performance on students and suggested through

portrayal of student narrative that first generation students are heavily shaped by the

communicative interactions they have with instructors. From certain standpoints, higher

education itself is defined by the relationship of the students and instructors, and a

paradigmatic shift from current norms of out-of-class communication to ones suggested in

this thesis could well change the culture of higher education.

90

First generation students are an ever-growing population entering college, and unless

their needs are addressed and their individual persons supported, there will continue to be

freshman class after freshman class of first generation students. For a university instructor,

one who has dedicated his/her life to scholastic pursuits and the education of others, it should

be a desirable outcome that any student, regardless of past family connections to higher

education, feels welcomed and a part of the system of learning. Integration into the university

system, the welcoming of previous outliers into the realm of academia, can be a realistic

dream of instructors everywhere. This possibility only arises, however, when we as

instructors recognize our roles as cultural carriers of academia and work to represent it in a

way that both influences other instructors to do the same and draws outsiders in to realize the

beauty of it that led each of us to devote our lives to it (Campbell, 2005).

Out-of-class communication is a part of the university instructor’s set of duties. While

only explicitly defined by certain institutions in the guise of structured times for assisting in

curriculum, it can and does occur in so many more circumstances and for myriad reasons, not

all of which apply to course content. I sought in this thesis to display the heavy import each

tiny action on the part of an instructor can have on his/her students and their relationship with

the university system. From here I can only attempt to live the praxis I outline in hopes of

affecting my students and colleagues around me.

91

***

I lay the razor down and turn on the faucet to rinse the remaining specks of hair off my neck

and face. While leaning forward to splash water across my face, I catch my phone light up in

my peripheral vision. I watch the LED button in the corner as I grab for a towel to rinse off.

Green.

A snapchat is waiting for me to open it, and I haven’t started any conversations with

anyone already today. I open the application to see a notification from my former student

Mary. Opening the snap, I am greeted with a view of the school library where my office

resides with the text, “Are you here?”

I quickly take a picture of my sink, showing the completion of morning grooming

rituals and enter the text, “Not yet, what’s up?” I start getting dressed immediately, and head

out the door. I normally wouldn’t go into the office to get some work done for another two

hours, and I have no particular office hours on this day. However, I tell my students each

semester that I can be at the office fairly quickly any time they need to chat and I am able to

get there.

Just as I close the door to my apartment, another snap comes in: a selfie of Mary

sitting outside my closed office door fake pouting. I send one back of my stairwell and add,

“Hold on, I’m on my way.” When I arrive, she nonchalantly greets me. I open up the shared

office and we sit down to chat. No particular questions occupy her topics, and she doesn’t

need to open up about any dramatic life circumstances. She is just burning time in between

classes and wanted to talk. This we do, for forty minutes. None of what we talk about resides

92

in my job description. There is no discussion of particular research interests I can help her

with, no specialized talk that she needed to speak with an instructor to accomplish. For the

span of this conversation I see myself as her friend, not her instructor. We talk about her

classes, her boyfriend, the events happening in the university center, and other mundane and

unprofessional things. And yet… we talk about the purpose of a language requirement in a

liberal arts degree, her insecurity with letting her boyfriend see her without makeup, the

value of being involved and socializing despite introverted tendencies, and everything that is

talked about is somehow of great importance. Cultural education, feminist analysis of

discourse, intragroup socialization: these are all subjects I, as an instructor, want to teach my

students about, but I wonder incessantly as to how I could possibly do so.

I realize that these conversations, as mundane as they may be, are the perfect staging

zone for them. In the moments where I choose to be an instructor by caring for my students

as my initial approach, I have the best opportunity to be of value to them and serve their

individual needs, rather than the ones I imagine they have.

93

References

Agar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human

Organization, 54(1), 78-86.

Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20(2), 5-32.

Alexitch, L. R. (2002). The role of helping seeking attitudes and tendencies in student’s

preferences for academic advising. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1) 5-

19.

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P., Carlsmith, J., & Gonzales, M. (1990). Methods of research in

social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Axelson, E. R., & Madden, C. (1994). Discourse strategies for ITAs across instructional

contexts. In C. Madden & C. Myers (Eds.), Discourse and performance of

international teaching assistants (pp. 153-187). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.

Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of

instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication

Education, 52(2), 122-134. doi: 10.1080/0363452032000085090

Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Bennett, T., Grossberg, L., & Morris, M. (2005). New keywords: A revised vocabulary of

culture and society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

94

Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for 1992 high school

graduates. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Bochner, A P. (2002) "Perspectives on inquiry III: The moral of stories" (2002). In Mark L.

Knapp & John A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.,

pp. 73-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brooks-Terry, M. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of first-generation college students: An

application of Sussman's option sequence model. In S. K. Steinmetz (Ed.), Family

support systems across the life span (pp. 121-134). New York, NY: Plenum Press

Bruss, K. (2009). "You've got mail": Addressing effective e-mail communication in new

graduate teaching assistant training. Communication Teacher, 23(4),. doi:

10.1080/17404620903222157

Cabrera, N., & Padilla, A. (2004). Entering and succeeding in the 'culture of college': The

story of two Mexican American heritage students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 26(2), 152-169. doi: 10.1177/0739986303262604

Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and

negativity. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 325-341. doi:

10.1080/01463370802241492

Cayanus, J. L., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationship between perceived

instructor self-disclosure and college student information seeking. Texas Speech

Communication Journal, 33(1), 20-27.

95

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 359-

380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, X. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their

college transcripts. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,

persistence, and attainment (NCES 2001-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf.

Dobransky, N., & Frymier, A. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through out

of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 211-223. doi:

10.1080/01463370409370193

Egan, K. S. (1994). Flexibility makes the difference in mentoring women for academic

success. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 2(5) 87-94.

Ellingson, L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography.

Laynam, MD: AltaMira Press.

96

Ellis, C., & Berger, L. (2003). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher. In J.

F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 157-180).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Falk, E. (2012). Becoming a new instructor: A guide for college adjuncts and graduate

students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2006). Critical communication pedagogy. UK: Sage.

Frazee, V. (1997). Execs teach the intangibles to junior employees. Workforce, 76, 19.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal

relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219. doi:

10.1080/03634520009379209

Fusani, D. (1994). "Extra-class" communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and

satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 22, 232-255.

Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Harris, A., & Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on

is education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 137-144.

Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Palomares, N. A. (2005). Intergroup theory and communication

processes. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple

perspectives (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

97

Henson, J. R., & Denker, K. J. (2009). Political differences and perceptions of silencing in

university classrooms. Communication Research Reports, 26(3), 208-214. doi:

10.1080/08824090903084349

Hollander, J. (2004). The social context of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 33(5), 602-637. doi: 10.1177/0891241604266988

Holman Jones, Stacy (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 763-791).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Active interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.

Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 67-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routledge

hooks, b. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York, NY: Routledge

Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting personal reflexivity and auto-ethnographic vignettes.

Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 840-860. doi: 10.1177/1077800404269425

Ishitani, T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation

college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education. 77(5), 861-

885. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0042

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication.

(6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

98

Jones, A. (2008). The effects of out-of-class support on student satisfaction and motivation to

learn. Communication Education, 57(3), 373-388. doi: 10.1080/03634520801968830

Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1991). Relationship of academic help seeking to the use

of learning strategies and other instrumental behavior in college students. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 83, 221-230. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.221

Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., & Cynthia, F. (2004). Reticent and non-reticent college students'

preferred communication channels for interacting with faculty. Communication

Research Reports, 21(2), 197-209. doi: 10.1080/08824090409359981

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction

between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103-121. doi:

10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023

Knapp, J. (2008). The influence of students on instructor out-of-class communication, job

satisfaction, and motivation. Human Communication, 13(3), 171-196.

Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student

learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123-155.

Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Constructing trust between teacher and student through

feedback and revision in an EFL writing class. Written Communication, 25(4), 506-

537. doi: 10.1177/0741088308322301

99

Limberg, H. (2007). Discourse structure of academic talk in university office hour

interactions. Discourse Studies,9(2), 176-193. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075343

Limberg, H. (2008). University office hours: the interactional construction of academic talk

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institut fur Anglistik un Amerikanistik)

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative

observation and analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lowery-Hart, R., & Pacheco, G. (2011). Understanding the first-generation student

experience in higher education through a relational dialectic perspective. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 127, 55-68. doi: 10.1002/tl.457

Lunt, P. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal

of Communication, 46(2), 79-98.

Madero, F. L. (2012). Look at me now!: Exploring identity narratives of first generation,

Mexican-American college students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The

University of Texas at Austin).

Mansson, D. H., & Myers, S. A. (2011). Swedish college students' academic involvement:

Bridging culture, traits, and communicative behaviors. Texas Speech Communication

Journal, 36(1), 1-12.

100

Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2006). Students' communication traits and their out-of-class

communication with their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 23(4), 283-

289. doi: 10.1080/08824090600962599

Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communication

with their instructors. Communication Education, 48(1), 155-164. doi:

10.1080/03634520601009710

Maykut, P., and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and

practical guide, London: The Falmer Press.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll see you on "Facebook": The effects

of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective

learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17. doi:

10.1080/03634520601009710

McKay, V. C., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty

interaction in service learning courses. Communication Education, 57(3), 356-372.

doi: 10.1080/03634520801966123

Milton, O., Pollio, H. R., & Eisen, J.A. (1986). Making sense of college grades. San

Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Morganett, L. (1995). Ten tips for improving teacher-student relationships. Social Education,

59, 27-28.

101

Mortenson, S. T. (2007). Raising the question #7 should we teach personal transformation as

a part of interpersonal communication? If so, how is it done? Communication

Education, 56(3), 401-408. doi: 10.1080/03634520701349198

Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college

student in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17(2),

129-137. doi: 10.1080/08934210409389382

Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between

perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student

involvement. Communication Education, 56(4), 495-508.

doi:10.1080/03634520701466398

Myers, S. A., Horan, S. M., Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Madlock, P. E., Sidelinger, R. J.,

Brynes, K., Frisby, B., & Mannsson, D. H. (2009). The relationship between college

students' self-reports of class participation and perceived instructor

impressions. Communication Research Reports, 26(2), 123-133. doi:

10.1080/08824090902861580

Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Knapp, J. L. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class

communicative behaviors as a predictor of student participation in out of class

communication. Communication Quarterly, 53(4), 437-450. doi:

10.1080/01463370500102046

102

Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2000). Out of class communication between faculty and

students: A faculty perspective. Communication Studies, 51(2), 176-188. doi:

10.1080/10510970009388517

Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-

class communication between faculty and students. Women's Studies in

Communication, 24(2), 241-261. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2001.10162436

Nunez, Anne-Marie, Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin. 1998. First generation students:

Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES).

Opoku-Amankwa, K. (2009). 'Teacher only calls her pets': Teacher's selective attention and

the invisible life of a diverse classroom in Ghana. Language and Education, 23(3),

249-262. doi:10.1080/09500780802582539

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P.T. (2004). First-generation

college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal

of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2004.0016

Patten, M. (2012). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (8th ed.).

Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Paulis, P. B. (Ed.). (1989). Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

103

Ramsey, K., & Peale, C. (2010, 3 29). First-generation college students tay the course. USA

Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-30-

FirstGenDorm30_ST_N.htm?POE=click-refer

Richardson, L. (2003). Poetic representations of interviews. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.

Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 187-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Intercultural communication. Long Grove,

IL.Waveland Press.

Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). Encinitas,

CA: PuddleDancer Press.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (2003). Interviewing at the border of fact and fiction. In J. F. Gubrium & J.

A. Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 225-242). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Savage, J. (1996). Listening and caring skills in ministry: A guide for pastors, counselors,

and small groups. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Sheppard, G. J. (2006). Communication as transcendence. In G. J. Sheppard, J. St. John, & T.

Striphas (Eds.), Communication as... Perspectives on theory (pp. 22-30). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

104

Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Nyeste, M., & McMullen, A. L. (In press). Academic and

social integration in the basic communication course: Predictors of students’ out-of-

class communication and academic learning. Communication Studies, 66(1).

Simmons, J., Lowery-Hart, R., Wahl, S. T., & McBride, M. C. (2013). Understanding the

African-American student experience through a relational dialectic

perspective. Communication Education, 62(4), 376-394. doi:

10.1080/03634523.2013.813631

Spry, T. (2011). Body, paper, stage: Writing and performing autoethnography. Left Coast

Press.

Suinn, R. M. (2006). Teaching culturally diverse students. In M. Svinicki & W. J.

McKeachie (Eds.), McKeachie's Teaching Tips: Strategies, research, and theory for

college and university teachers (13 ed., pp. 151-169). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning.

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class

experiences and their influence in learning and cognitive development: A literature

review. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149-162.

Terenzini,P. T., Rendon, L. L., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, R. L., &

Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories.

Research in Higher Education, 35, 57-73.

Tinto, V. (1975). Drop out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

105

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Web tables: Profile of undergraduate Students 2007-2008. Retrieved April 22, 2014

from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010205.pdf

Waldeck, J. H. (2007). Answering the question: Student perceptions of personalized

education and the construct's relationship to learning outcomes. Communication

Education, 56(4), 409-432. doi:10.1080/03634520701400090

Wang, L. C., & Beasley, W. (2006). Integrating instant messenger into online office hours to

enhance synchronous online interaction in teacher education. International Journal of

Instructional Media, 33(3), 277-287.

Wang, T. R. (2012). Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college

students receive from on-campus mentors. Communication Education, 61(4), 335-

357. doi:10.1080/03634523/2012.691978

Wang, T. R. (2013). Formational turning points in the transition to college: Understanding

how communication events shape first-generation students' pedagogical and

interpersonal relationships with their college teachers. Communication

Education, 63(1), 63-82. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.841970

Wdowik , S., & Michael, K. (2013). International offshore students' perceptions of virtual

office hours. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(3), 212-221. doi:

10.1108/10650741311330393

106

West, R. (1994). Teacher-student communication: A descriptive typology of students'

interpersonal experiences with teachers. Communication Reports, 7, 109-118. doi:

10.1080/08934219409367593

Williams, K. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2007). The relationship between student educational

orientation and motives for out-of-class communication. Communication Research

Reports, 24(3), 249-256. doi: 10.1080/08824090701446625

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Wulff, S. S., & Wulff, D. H. (2004). "Of course I'm communicating; I lecture every day":

Enhancing teaching and learning in introductory statistics. Communication

Education, 53(1), 92-103. doi: 10.10/0363452000135797

York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first-

generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 32, 116-122

Youngberg, D. (2012, August 13). Why online education won't replace college—yet. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-

Online-Education-Wont/133531/

Ziker, J. (2014, 03 21). The long, lonely job of homo academicus: Focusing the research lens

on the professor's own schedule. The Blue Review. Retrieved from

https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/

107

Appendix A

108

109

110

111

Appendix B

IRB Protocol Addendum

In the interest of representing the participants’ voices in a more humanized fashion, I

(Stephen Henry) propose assigning pseudonyms to the transcribed voices from focus groups

and interviews. The participants were initially ensured confidentiality, and I feel that I can

still protect their confidentiality while assigning names to the quotations inserted in the

project. By assigning names, I mean that I will assign popular names to the participants.

Another purpose of the pseudonyms will be to increase the readability and sense of

participation in the results section of the thesis. During the focus groups, the participants

were able to feed off each other’s opinions and trains of thought, and by not representing the

particular performances various members played when presenting their voices, it weakens the

impact of the findings. As this project explicitly aimed to conduct focus groups by recruiting

participants from pre formed groups, it is important to be able to note the different

individuals as formative to the groupculture, rather than any given new acquaintance met for

the first time ever. The names will not be used to indicate particular ethnicity, but gender will

be taken into account.

112

Appendix C

Focus group guide- Student/Instructor relationships and office hours

Introduction- 10 minutes

Welcome and thank you for taking your time to participate in this focus group. My

name is Stephen and I’ll be moderating this discussion.

We are conducting this research to learn about: student/instructor interpersonal

relationships, student engagement in the university system, and student participation

in office hour meetings.

This discussion’s audio will be recorded, and used as an extension of my memory. At

no time will it be played to other individuals or interested parties. Should you feel

uncomfortable being recorded, you are free to leave before we begin or at any point

during the discussion.

Disclaimers

There are no right or wrong answers. All opinions are valid, and will contribute to the

understanding of the topic.

As stated in the consent form you are being given, your comments will be kept

confidential and your identity will not be revealed in any reports.

Ground Rules

In order for this to be successful, I’d like to lay out some expectations for behavior

while participating.

I ask that you remain respectful of others who are talking and speak one at a time.

I don’t want there to be any censoring of comments to avoid hurting feelings or to shy

away from controversy and thus argument. You’re free to speak your opinion in this

group, knowing that there will be many different ways of thinking about any subject.

Should you disagree with someone, that is fine. I do ask that you remain respectful in

your response to their statements.

Method of Discussion

I have a series of short questions. I’ll ask them, sometimes with statements, to prompt

discussion and then let you all go with it.

Feel free to, and please do, talk to each other and not just to me.

I will move discussion to another topic if it seems that we are getting too far away

from purpose of research, or we have exhausted opinions on a certain idea.

I’m more comfortable with silence than most, and am willing to let it stretch on so

others may think. If you feel we’ve exhausted discussion on a topic but I’m still

waiting, feel free to speak up.

Today we have 1.5 hours for discussion with a 10 minute break.

113

Session 1 Office Hour Experiences- 30 minutes

Prompting Questions

Have you ever met with an instructor during office hours?

What are office hours?

o What is the definition of office hours?

o What is their purpose?

How do you feel about them?

What are your experiences with office hours?

o Are there any particularly good?

o Any particularly bad?

How do you think instructors feel about office hours?

What do you think they are thinking during the meetings?

Session 2 Student/Instructor Relationships- 30 minutes

Prompting Questions

What do you think of student/instructor relationships?

Can a student have a human to human relationship with an instructor?

Do you have any?

Is it good to have one?

What are the benefits?

Should you try to form one with every instructor?

Do instructors make it seem like they are open to relationships?

How are relationships with instructors different than ones with bosses?

Are relationships in general important during college?

Which ones do your activities support?

What would student/instructor relationships look like in your ideal world?

What could be changed about office hours?

Conclusion- 10 minutes

Wrap up the conversation with a good closing on a topic.

Summarize what seemed to be the primary ideas, recognize controversy, and ask for their

opinion on the summary.

Ask for any final comments. Is there any advice they’d like to give, any regrets, anything

they plan to do differently as a result of this group discussion?

114

I would ask that as participants in this group who have been promised confidentiality on my

end that you provide it for each other as well. This is certainly a topic I hope you discuss with

other students, but remember that each person presented their opinion today knowing they

were safe from being identified. Is this something that is acceptable and doable?

I want to thank you for your participation. The time, thought, effort, and care that you put

into the discussion is much appreciated and I am excited with the results of it all. If you have

any questions about the research, you are welcome to contact me. As we discussed in the

sessions, you are of course welcome to contact me for any other purpose as well. The final

synthesis of these discussion groups will be open for viewing at the end of the spring

semester. Thank you again for your participation.

115

Appendix D

Instructor Interview Guide

Script

Thank you for speaking with me today. As stated in my email, my research is focused

on student experiences with office hours as an important part of university integration. For

data purposes, my research is centered on focus groups with students to both gauge their

feelings about office hour communication/student-instructor relationships and through

discussion raise awareness on the topic.

The information I gather from these interviews will be used in conjunction with their

opinions. I’m not looking to compare and contrast the opinions, or present both sides to show

misunderstanding. I want to be able to use what is said in these meetings to better inform

students when they express concerns during their discussion. As a result, the manner in

which I’m approaching these interviews is like a trial run for the questions I’ll be asking

them.

I have a list of questions here, and hope to get through many of them. However, I’m

also approaching these interviews willing to go off track from my questions if you should

wish to elaborate on something in relation to the topic that you feel is important to have

understood in such research.

Questions

What are office hours?

o What are they for?

o Why are instructors required to have them?

How do you feel about them?

How do they add to your workload?

Do you encourage your students to visit during office hours?

What are your experiences with office hours?

o Are there any particularly good?

o Any particularly bad?

Why do you think students choose to visit during office hours?

How do you think students feel about office hours?

What do you think they are feeling during the meetings?

How do you feel during meetings?

What would office hours look like in an ideal world?

o Do you feel like you live up to your part in that ideal world?

o Do students properly utilize your office hours?

116

Do your actions outside of the classroom make it seem like you are open to

relationships?

o After class has been dismissed?

o Around the campus?

o In the city?

o During office hours?

117

Vita

Curriculum Vitae

May 2014

STEPHEN T. HENRY

Department of Communication and Mass Media 5827 Timbercrest Dr

Angelo State University Arlington, TX 76017

ASU Station #10895 (817) 360-5249

San Angelo, TX 76909-0895 shenry3@angelo.edu

(325) 486-6086

EDUCATION

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Ph.D., Communication, entry August 2014

Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas

M.A., Communication, anticipated May 2014

Thesis:

Instructors as Connections: First Generation Students’ Integration through

Office Hours

Advisor:

Derek Bolen

Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas

B.A., Communication, May 2012

Minor: History

RESEARCH

Conference Paper Presentations

Henry, S. (2014, February). A communal plea: Putin’s op-ed as constructed agency.

Paper presented at New Voices, New Perspectives Conference, Denton, TX.

Henry, S. (2013, September). The perfect prison for children: Elementary school as a

panopticon. Paper presented at the meeting of the Texas Speech

Communication Association Conference, Corpus Christi, TX.

Henry, S. (2013, February). Deliberations on performance: Combating, discovering,

and negotiating gender roles. Paper presented at Doing Autoethnography

Conference, San Angelo, TX.

118

Manuscripts in Preparation

Bolen, D., & Henry, S. Aesthetic Moments in the Classroom. Data collection.

Invited Lecture / Discussion Engagement

1st and Foremost: Lift Your Voices Convocation. (2013, October 21). Illinois College,

Jacksonville, IL.

TEACHING

Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas

Department of Communication and Mass Media

Graduate Teaching Assistant, August 2013 – present

Instructor of record for:

COMM 2301: Public Speaking

Planning, organizing, and delivering of general platform speeches and speeches for

special occasions.

COMM 4381: Autoethnography and Communication Studies (Co-Instructor)

Discovering the field of autoethnography and practice in crafting reflexive, activist

autoethnographic works.

SERVICE

Department / University Service

President, Communication Graduate Student Association, Angelo State University,

San Angelo, TX (October 2012 – present).

Orientation Leader, Student Orientation, Registration and Advising, Angelo State

University, San Angelo, TX (May 2012- August 2012, May 2013-August 2013).

Community Service

Project Spring Break, Angelo State University, New Orleans, LA. March 2012

AWARDS

Graduate Teaching Assistantship, Department of Communication and Mass Media,

Angelo State University, San Angelo, Tx (August 2009 – August 2011).

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

National Communication Association, Central States Communication Association,

Texas Speech Communication Association