• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Effects of Student Responsiveness on Teachers Granting Power to Students and Essay Evaluation

Posted on: Monday, 3 October 2005, 12:01 CDT

By Mottet, Timothy P; Beebe, Steven A; Raffeld, Paul C; Paulsel, Michelle L

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of student responsiveness on teachers granting relational power to students, and to determine if this power influenced how teachers evaluated student essays. Rather than student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness interacting, student nonverbal responsiveness significantly impacted the coercive, reward, and referent power that teachers granted students. Student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness affected the expert power that teachers granted students. Nine to 18% of the variance in relational power was attributed to student responsiveness. Additionally, student referent power significantly predicted teachers' evaluation of student essays accounting for 11% of the variance.

Keywords: Student verbal responsiveness; Student nonverbal responsiveness; Student power; Essay evaluation

Instructional communication researchers have been examining how teachers use relational power to manage student behaviors that influence affective and cognitive learning for the past two decades (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004; Plax & Kearney, 1992; Richmond & McCroskey, 1984). Power as a relational phenomenon is "an individual's potential to have an effect on another person's or group of person's behavior" (Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, & Koontz, 1980, p. 38). How teachers use relational power to remain influential in the classroom received considerable attention in the 1980s and early 1990s (Plax & Kearney, 1992). Richmond and McCroskey's (1992) book, appropriately titled, Power in the Classroom surveyed several programs of research, which focused on how teachers communicate power to manage student behavior.

Three general conclusions can be drawn from Richmond and McCroskey's (1992) survey of research, which serve as the basic tenets of the theory of relational power and instructional influence (Mottet, Frymier, & Beebe, 2006). First, a teacher's ability to influence student learning is dependent upon the teacher having power. second, power is rooted in the teacher-student relationship. Power is not an attribute that a teacher possesses. Instead, it is a property of a relationship whereby the student grants power to the teacher. Third, the quality of the teacher-student relationship is dependent upon the verbal and nonverbal messages that teachers and students create and exchange with each other.

Although the Power in the Classroom program of research yielded a number of important research conclusions and instructional prescriptions (Plax & Kearney, 1992), the research did not examine the other half of the teacher-student relationship-the power that teachers grant to their students or student power. If teaching and learning is a relational process, as many instructional communication researchers purport (Frymier & Houser, 2000), and power is the property of a relationship (Hartnett, 1971), then the power that is granted in the teacherto-student relationship should also be granted in the student-to-teacher relationship. Given the on- going pedagogical shift from "teacher-centered" to "student- centered" models of instruction, which is occurring in all levels of education (Weimer, 2002), students are increasingly perceived to be powerful agents in the classroom (Boice, 1996, 2000). Knowing that students benefit in terms of motivation and learning from teachers who use their relational power effectively (Kearney & Plax, 1992; Plax & Kearney, 1992), it seems reasonable to conclude that teachers would also benefit in terms of understanding student power and its impact on their teaching.

The purpose of this study is to examine how students' verbal and nonverbal responsiveness may interact to impact the relational power that teachers grant to their students and how this power may impact how teachers evaluate student work, particularly student essays. Although it is believed that most teaching professionals try to grade student essays in a fair and consistent manner, research suggests that student characteristics and behaviors influence the grading process (Bennett, Gottesman, Rock, & Cerullo, 1993; Bernard, 1979; Harari & McDavid, 1973; Harper & Hushey, 1986; Scott, 1995; Wade 1978).

Review of Literature

Student Power

French and Raven's (1959) conceptualization of relational power has been examined extensively in the instructional communication research literature (Plax & Kearney, 1992; Richmond & Roach, 1992; Roach, Richmond, & Mottet, 2006). French and Raven argued for five bases of social power (legitimate, coercive, reward, referent, expert) all of which are rooted in relational perceptions. The agent (the individual trying to exert power) must be perceived as powerful or influential by the target (the person to whom the influence is directed). Using French and Raven's (1959) five bases of power, Golish (1999) examined student power. She argued that if compliancegaining or instructional influence is truly a dynamic and relational process, then students must also be considered as sources or agents of influence.

Golish (1999) found that students perceived themselves as having more power with graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) than with professors. Specifically, students perceived themselves as having prosocial forms of power with their GTAs including expert, referent, and reward power. Prosocial forms of power have been shown to enhance relational development and stem from messages of respect and reward (Plax & Kearney, 1992). Students who are granted prosocial forms of power are students who develop quality relationships with their instructors. Students perceived themselves as having expert power in that GTAs can learn from them. Students have referent power in that GTAs can more easily identify with them since they are also students. Additionally, students perceived themselves as having reward power in that they can reward the GTA with positive teacher evaluations, which will enable the graduate student to remain employed.

In the same study, Golish deductively generated a typology of student compliance gaining strategies similar to the behavior alteration technique (BAT) and behavior alteration message (BAM) typology developed by Kearney, Plax, Richmond, and McCroskey (1984, 1985). Students indicated using primarily prosocial messages and using antisocial messages only when necessary (Golish, 1999). Antisocial messages have been shown to retard relational development and stem from messages of threat and punishment (Plax & Kearney, 1992). According to Golish (1999), rather than damaging the student- teacher relationship, students appeared to use more caution when exercising their power.

In a similar study, Golish and Olson (2000) reported students as using influence strategies that were indirect and less face threatening. Additionally, they found that student overall power use (combined legitimate, coercive, reward, expert, and rfrent), was positively related with teacher overall power use (r = 0.43, p <0.001). The strongest correlation between student and teacher power use was with referent power (r = 0.40, p <0.001). Analysis of the relationships between teacher and student power revealed that the more instructors used coercive power (antisocial) on students, the more likely students were to use antisocial influence messages on their instructors. Conversely, the more instructors used reward and referent power (prosocial) on their students, the more likely students were to use prosocial influence messages on their instructors.

Knowing that power is rooted in the relationship (Hartnett, 1971), and that relationships are rooted in the verbal and nonverbal messages that individuals create and exchange with each other (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967), this study examines whether students' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors interact to influence the relational power that teachers grant to their students. This examination may allow researchers to better understand how student power develops in the student-teacher relationship.

Communication theory and research suggests that verbal messages function differently than nonverbal messages in social interactions (Burgoon, 1994; Mehrabian, 1971; Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). Verbal messages function to convey the content of the message, whereas nonverbal messages function to establish the relationship (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). Additionally, verbal messages appear to have their primary impact on cognitive responses, whereas nonverbal messages have their primary impact on affective responses (Burgoon, 1994). Knowing that the verbal and nonverbal message systems serve different functions in social interactions and elicit different human responses, the following research question was advanced:

RQ1: Do students' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors interact to affect the relational power that teachers grant to their students?

Teachers' Evaluation of Student Essays

At all levels of education, teachers' evaluation of students' written work remains a sensitive and important dynamic in the teacher-student relationship, where relational power may play a role in the evaluation process (Branthwaite, Trueman, & Berrisford, 1981). Several researchers have documented the unreliabilityof marking essays and essay-style examinations (Beard, 1976; Cox, 1967; Elbow, 1993; Seraydarian & Busse, 1981); others have attempted to locate the source of variance contributing to the unreliability (Babad, 1985; Bernard, 1979; Wade, 1978). Wade (1978) found instructors to be influenced by students' first names, the attractiveness and sex of the student author, as well as students' handwriting. Bernard (1979) concluded that irrespective of the sex of teacher or student, or the course of study, students who were perceived as having a masculine gender orientation were evaluated more highly than students who were perceived as having a feminine gender orientation. Harari and McDavid (1973) found that student essays with desirable first names were given higher grades by female elementary teachers than essays written by students with undesirable names. Additionally, Babad (1985) reported an expectancy bias (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) in that teachers evaluated an allegedly excellent student's handwritten worksheet significantly better than an allegedly weak student's handwritten worksheet.

Another source of variance for the unreliability of essay evaluation may stem from the student-teacher relationship and the power that is yielded from the relationship. In addition to the student power reported in Golish (1999) and Golish and Olson (2000), Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Paulsel (2004) found students' nonverbal responsiveness to affect student power in the classroom. Mottet et al. (2004) found that students' nonverbally responsive behaviors affected teachers' liking of students and their willingness to comply with students' requests. Specifically, 66% of the variance in teachers' liking of students and 32% of the variance in teachers' willingness to comply with students' requests were attributed to students' nonverbally responsive classroom behaviors.

Knowing the many factors that have been shown to affect teachers' evaluation of students' written work, and knowing that students' responsive behaviors have been shown to yield influence in the classroom, the following research question was asked:

RQ2: Does the relational power that teachers grant to their students affect how teachers evaluate student essays?

Method

Teacher Participants

The convenience sample for this study included 112 instructors at a comprehensive university in the Southwest. Approximately 925 instructors received a letter in their campus mailboxes inviting them to participate in a study examining communication in the classroom. Nine per cent (N = 10) of the teacher participants identified themselves as full professors, 11% (N = 12) identified as associate professors, 19% (N = 21) were assistant professors, 23% (N = 26) were instructors/lecturers, and 36% (N = 40) identified themselves as graduate teaching assistants. Three subjects did not indicate their academic rank. On average, subjects had 10.51 (SD = 11.31) years of teaching experience with a range of one to 45 years of experience.

Research Design

Using a 2 2 research design, teacher participants who volunteered for this study were exposed to one of four treatment conditions. The first independent variable manipulated student nonverbal responsiveness (High Nonverbal = upright posture, positive facial expressions, eye contact, taking notes, and vocal assurances; Low Nonverbal = moderately slouched posture, neutral facial expressions, moderate to low eye contact, no note taking, no vocal assurances). The second independent variable manipulated student verbal responsiveness (High Verbal = students asked a number of questions, students responded to all of the teacher's questions; Low Verbal = students asked few questions, students responded to few of the teacher's questions). Student power and teachers' evaluation of student essays served as dependent variables.

To create the four treatment conditions, four 10-minute simulated classroom videos were produced showing an instructor teaching seven students how to conduct library research and how to critically evaluate library sources. The teacher and students who appeared in the video were actors. The teacher was a paid actor and the student actors were recruited from an upper-division nonverbal communication course. Student actors received extra-credit for their participation.

The simulated classroom video was filmed looking over the shoulder of the teacher actor. When teacher participants were exposed to the simulated classroom video, they saw the back of the teacher actor and the fronts of the seven student actors who were sitting in desks arranged in a traditional seating arrangement. Although teacher participants could hear the teacher actor, they could not see the actor's face. Teacher participants could both see and hear the student actors.

Manipulation Check

To ensure that the four simulated classroom video treatment conditions were perceived as different with respect to how the student actors manipulated their nonverbal and verbal behaviors (high vs. low), the lead researcher used four classes in the college of education where senior education majors were shown one of the four treatment conditions. Each class averaged 24 student participants.

After viewing one of the four videos, participants were instructed to complete a survey containing two measures, which served as dependent variables for the manipulation check. The first was the Nonverbal Responsiveness Measure (Mottet, 2000), which assessed student participants' perceptions of the amount of nonverbal responsive behaviors that were depicted in the simulated classroom. With a scale ranging from O to 48, this 12-item measure had a mean of 21.04, SD = 14.29, and a Cronbach's α of 0.95. The second dependent measure was a three-item talk measure, designed specifically for this manipulation check study. It assessed student participants' perceptions of the amount of verbal responsiveness or talk behavior depicted in the simulated classroom. With a scale ranging from 3 to 12, this three-item measure had a mean of 6.51, SD = 3.24, and a Cronbach's α of 0.91.

The data were analyzed using two, two-way ANOVAs in which student actors' nonverbal responsive behaviors (high vs. low) and verbal responsive behaviors (high vs. low) served as independent variables. The first two-way ANOVA assessed the nonverbal responsiveness dependent variable and the second two-way ANOVA assessed the verbal responsiveness dependent variable. Sample sizes, means, and standard deviations are reported in Table 1.

In order for the two independent variables to be manipulated accurately, it was predicted that each two-way ANOVA would yield one significant main effect for each dependent variable. When assessing the nonverbal responsiveness dependent variable, only the main effect for the nonverbal independent variable should be significant. Similarly, when assessing the verbal responsiveness dependent variable, only the main effect for the verbal independent variable should be significant.

Table 1 Manipulation Check Sample Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Independent Variable Main Effects on the Nonverbal and Verbal Responsiveness Dependent Variables

Manipulation check results for nonverbal responsiveness dependent variable

The two-way ANOVA yielded two main effects. While it was anticipated that only the main effect for the nonverbal independent variable would be significant [F (1, 90) = 497.05, p < 0.001, η^sup 2^ =0.79], the analysis also yielded a main effect for the verbal independent variable [F (1, 90) =39.22, p <0.001, η^sup 2^ =0.06]. Although the main effect for the verbal independent variable was significant and not predicted, it accounted for minimal variance. Researchers continue to advocate effect size rather than significance level as a criterion when determining the meaningfulness of an effect (Levine & Hullett, 2002). The effect sizes clearly suggest that the majority of the variance in the dependent measure was attributable to the nonverbal independent variable rather than the verbal independent variable.

Manipulation check results for verbal responsiveness dependent variable

The two-way ANOVA yielded a significant interaction effect [F (1, 90) =9.12, p < 0.05, η^sup 2^ =0.02] and two significant main effects for the verbal [F (1, 90) = 355.93, p<0.001, η2 =0.68] and nonverbal [F (1, 90) =66.53, p <0.001, η^sup 2^ = 0.12] independent variables. Although the significant interaction effect and main effect for the nonverbal independent variable were not predicted, the magnitude of the effect size warrants closer examination (Levine & Hullett, 2002). The effect sizes clearly suggest that the majority of the variance in the dependent measure was attributable to the verbal independent variable rather than the nonverbal independent variable or the interaction effect. Based on the magnitude of the effect size, the manipulation check was sufficiently successful to justify moving forward with the experiment.

Dependent Variables

Student power measure

To measure student power or the power that teachers' grant to their students, the power measure initially developed by Student (1968) and later modified and validated by Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, and Koontz (1980) was used. With the exception of legitimate power, which was considered inappropriate for the design of this research study, teacher participants were provided with a description for each type of relational power. After reading the descriptions, participants responded to the following statement by completing five seven-point, bipolar scales for each type of power. "If I were the teacher in the video, these students would influence me because of their ______ power." The appropriate name for each power base was inserted in the blank. The bipolar scales included the following labels: agree-disagree, truefalse, correct-incorrect, right-wrong, and yes-no. Each power base scalehad a range from 5 to 35. Means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients are reflected in Table 2.

Students' essay exam

To assess teachers' evaluation of student essays, an essay exam containing four shortanswer essay questions and hand-written answers was developed. The essay exam reflected the content that was covered in the simulated classroom video, which taught students how to conduct library research and how to evaluate library sources. Teacher participants were informed that the essay exam was completed by one of the students they saw in the simulated classroom video. Each of the four short-essay questions contained a hand-written response, an answer key, and the points possible for each essay question. Teacher participants were instructed to read the hand- written response and to evaluate the response using the answer key that was provided to them. The four-item essay exam had a range from 0 to 50. The essay exam yielded a mean score of 32.83, a standard deviation of 6.83, and a Cronbach's α of 0.66. Although below average, the reliability for the exam was not all together surprising given that the essay exam only contained four items. On its face value, the essay exam resembles those used in today's college classrooms.

Table 2 Student Power Base Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities

Data Analysis

To answer the first research question, four separate two-way ANOVAs were computed to determine if the four videotaped classroom treatment conditions, which manipulated student actors' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors, interacted to influence the relational power that teacher participants granted to the students in the simulated classrooms. Four separate two-way ANOVAs were computed rather than a MANOVA since the dependent variables in this study were conceptually independent (Newton & Rudestam, 1999, p. 242). The significance level was set at 0.01. Student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness served as the independent variables and student power (coercive, reward, expert, referent) served as the dependent measures. To answer the second research question, a multiple regression analysis was computed with the four power bases serving as the predictor variables and the teacher participants' scores on the essay exam serving as the criterion variable.

Results

The first research question asked if students' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors interacted to affect the relational power that teachers grant to their students. Results for each power base follow.

Coercive power. The two-way ANOVA for coercive power yielded an insignificant interaction effect [F (1, 110) =0.10, p >0.01], and one significant main effect for the nonverbal independent variable[F (1, 110) =10.01, p <0.01, η^sup 2^ =0.09]. Sample sizes, main effect means, and standard deviations for all power bases are reported in Table 3. Teacher participants granted significantly more coercive power to nonverbally unresponsive students than to students who were nonverbally responsive.

Reward power. The two-way ANOVA for reward power yielded an insignificant interaction effect [F (1, 110) =0.50, p >0.01], and one significant main effect for the nonverbal independent variable [F (1, 110) =9.70, p <0.01, η^sup 2^ =0.09]. Teacher participants granted significantly more reward power to nonverbally responsive students than to students who were nonverbally unresponsive.

Referent power. The two-way ANOVA for referent power yielded an insignificant interaction effect [F (1, 110) =0.41, p >0.01], and one significant main effect for the nonverbal independent variable [F (1, 110) =14.11, p <0.001, η^sup 2^ =0.12]. Again, teacher participants granted significantly more referent power to nonverbally responsive students than to students who were nonverbally unresponsive.

Table 3 Sample Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Independent Variable Main Effects on Student Power

Expert power. The two-way ANOVA for expert power yielded an insignificant interaction effect [F (1, 110) =1.54, p >0.01], a significant main effect for the nonverbal independent variable [F (1, 110) =14.90, p <0.001, η^sup 2^ =0.12], and a significant main effect for the verbal independent variable [F (1, 110) =6.60, p <0.01, η^sup 2^ =0.06]. With this power base, teacher participants granted significantly more expert power to nonverbally and verbally responsive students than to students who were nonverbally and verbally unresponsive.

The second research question asked if the relational power that teachers grant to their students affected how teachers evaluate student essays. To answer this research question, a multiple regression analysis was computed. The multiple regression model was significant [F (4, 110) =3.34, p <0.05, -R =0.11], with referent power being the only significant predictor (r = 0.31, β =0.24, p <0.05) of how teacher participants scored students' essay exams. The data suggest that student power (referent) accounted for 11% of the variance in the scores teachers assigned to their students' essays.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine student power or the relational power that teachers grant to their students. It was argued that the relational power that teachers grant to their students would be similar to the relational power that students grant to their teachers (Kearney & Plax, 1992). Specifically, this study focused on whether students' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors interacted to impact the relational power that teachers grant to their students and whether this relational power impacted teachers' evaluation of student essays. Knowing that students selfreport learning more from teachers who use their relational power effectively, it seemed that teachers, too, might benefit from understanding how student power impacts them and their teaching.

The first research question asked if students' verbal and nonverbal responsive behaviors interacted to affect the relational power that teachers grant to their students. The results from this study suggest that verbal and nonverbal responsiveness do not interact to affect student power. Students' nonverbal responsive behaviors, however, affected all four bases of relational power accounting for 9% of the variance in each of the coercive and reward power bases, and 12% of the variance in each of the rfrent and expert power bases. These findings lend additional support to the relational nature of the power construct in that nonverbal messages, more so than verbal messages, stimulate relational meanings in others (Watzlawick et al., 1967) and have their primary impact on individuals' affective responses (Burgoon, 1994). It appears that students' nonverbal responsive behaviors impact teachers in ways that are similar to how teachers' nonverbal immediacy behaviors impact students in that they enhance perceptions of relational development (Andersen, 1979). Immediacy is a perception of physical or psychological closeness that is stimulated in the minds of others when the source of a message uses an array of nonverbal behaviors such as forward leans, open body orientation, eye contact, and expressive gestures (Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003).

Although students' verbal responsive behaviors did not affect the reward, coercive, or referent power that teachers grant to their students, it did affect the expert base of power accounting for an additional 6% of the variance. Students' verbal and nonverbal responsiveness accounted for a total of 18% of the variance in teachers granting expert power to their students. In this study, teachers yielded significantly more expert power to students who initiated and responded to questions than to students who were less verbally responsive. This finding continues to support the research literature examining student talk behavior and its impact on teachers' perceptions of student competence (Richmond & McCroskey, 1998).

The second research question asked if the relational power that teachers grant to their students affected how teachers evaluate student essays. Knowing that teachers at all levels of education are responsible for evaluating student work (Branthwaite et al., 1981) and knowing that teachers unreliably evaluate student essays (Elbow, 1993), it was argued that student power may be another variable in the teacher-student relationship that may influence how teachers evaluate student work. In this study, students' referent power significantly predicted teachers' evaluation of student essays accounting for 11% of the variance in the scores they assigned to student essays. Referent power is the power that people yield to others with whom they identify with, like, and respect (French & Raven, 1959). This finding again confirms the impact that liking or affinity has in the student-teacher relationship. In a similar study, Mottet et al. (2004) found teachers' liking of students to account for 40% of the variance in their willingness to comply with their students' requests. Surprisingly, students' reward, coercive, or expert power did not significantly impact teachers' evaluation of student essay. The below average internal consistency of the student essay dependent measure may be one of the reasons why the reward, coercive, and expert student power bases failed to predict teachers' evaluation of student essays.

In summary, teachers grant relational power to their students based on how responsive students remain in the classroom. Approximately 9-18% of the variance in student power is attributable to students' responsive behaviors. With the exception of expert power, students' nonverbal responsiveness impacted the relational power that teachers grant to their students significantly more than students' verbal responsiveness. "Teachers granting expert power to their students" was impacted by student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness making expert power the most susceptiblepower base to student responsiveness. Additionally, student referent power significantly impacted how teachers evaluated student essays accounting for 11% of the variance. Students who were granted referent power received essay grades that were significantly higher than students who were not granted this form of relational power.

Limitations

As with any research study, it is important to view the results of this research in the context of the limitations of the study. First, the convenience sample for this study included teacher volunteers from a single institution of higher education. Caution should be taken when generalizing the conclusions from this sample to the larger teacher population. second, with a convenience sample of only 112 instructors (28 per cell), the study has some statistical power limitations. Results should be interpreted with some degree of caution knowing that there is an increased probability of type II error as a result of the sample size (Cohen, 1977). Third, teacher participants were asked to respond to numerous survey items measuring selfperceptions after viewing a 10-minute videotape of a simulated classroom. Although the videotaped classroom was produced to achieve a level of realism, it remains a simulated classroom and may lack some of the authenticity found in an actual classroom. Claims of generalizability should be interpreted in light of this limitation. Fourth, the internal consistency of the four-item student essay exam, which served as the dependent variable, had a below-average internal consistency. Although this is not surprising given other research examining the reliability of essay exam items (Chase 1979, 1983), this below- average consistency increases measurement error and may decrease the internal validity of the experimental design.

Implications for Teachers and Teaching

With the on-going pedagogical shift from "teacher-centered" to "student-centered" models of instruction (Weimer, 2002), issues of teacher-student relational power will become more salient in the years ahead (Boice, 1996, 2000). First, it is important that teachers become aware of the relational power they grant to their students and the student behaviors that influence this granting of power. Although experienced teachers may understand how teacher and student power can be used to achieve optimal learning outcomes, teachers with less experience may not realize how relational power impacts their ability to reach specific learning objectives. Additionally, less experienced teachers may not fully understand how student responsiveness affects their decision to grant some students power and not others. By becoming more aware of the relational power that teachers grant to their students, teachers may be better able to use this form of instructional influence more strategically.

Second, teachers must learn how to negotiate relational power with students. Some teachers understand the "give and take" balance that is needed to remain effective in the classroom. Other teachers lack the delicate balance and grant either too much or too little power to their students. When too little power is granted to students, they resist (Kearney & Plax, 1992). When too much power is granted to students, they take control of the teacher and the classroom (Boice, 1996, 2000).

Although there are no easy solutions to managing the balance of power in the classroom, McCroskey (1998) and Chesebro and McCroskey (2002) offer a number of prescriptions that teachers may find helpful in equalizing classroom power discrepancies. Some of these recommendations include getting students to like the instructor. Students are more likely to comply with teachers they like vs. teachers they dislike. Teachers who are liked are perceived as approachable and therefore power discrepancies are minimized. Also, research suggests that teachers who like their students are more likely to comply rather than resist their students' influence attempts (Mottet, Beebe, & Fleuriet, 2006). Other prescriptions include having realistic expectations for student behavior and carefully determining the rules. McCroskey warns that every rule established provides another possibility for conflict. Therefore the "general rule" is to establish only those rules that are absolutely necessary. Knowing when to avoid conflict and learning how to lose gracefully are additional ways instructors can minimize perceived power differentials in the classroom.

Third, teachers must understand how the power that they yield to their students influences their evaluation of student work. Although it is believed that most professional educators strive to evaluate student work in a fair and consistent manner, it appears that student referent power influences how lenient teachers are in the grading of student essays. Students may perceive a teacher's inconsistent grading as favoritism. Showing favoritism toward a student or a group of students is considered one of the biggest mistakes a classroom teacher can make (Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991; Orange, 2000; Tantleff-Dunn, Dunn, & Gokee, 2002). Teachers need to understand that the teacher-student relationship, like any other relationship, is susceptible to interpersonal influences (Miller & Turnbull, 1986) whereby favoritism or preferential treatment is a natural outcome of the relationship (Brophy & Good, 1974).

McKeachie (1999), Rubin (1999), and Jacobs and Chase (1992) offer a number of prescriptions to help teachers assess student work, especially papers and essays, in a consistent manner. Some of these prescriptions include using grading rubrics or a key, assessing essays in a blind manner (removing student names from essays), grading each essay item individually, and shuffling the stack of essay/papers to spread the assessment error that is due to graders being more lenient at first and less lenient after assessing a number of essay exam items.

References

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Babad, E. Y. (1985). Some correlates of teachers' expectancy bias. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 175-183.

Beard, R. (1976). Teaching and learning in higher education (3rd ed.). New York: Penguin.

Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L, Rock, D. A., & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers' judgments of students' academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 347-356.

Bernard, M. E. (1979). Does sex behavior influence the way teachers evaluate students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 553-562.

Boice, R. (1996). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37, 453-486.

Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Branthwaite, A., Trueman, M., & Berrisford, T. (1981). Unreliability of marking: Further evidence and a possible explanation. Education Review, 33, 41-46.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

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

Chase, C. I. (1979). Impact of achievement expectations and handwriting quality on scoring essay tests, journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 39-42.

Chase, C. I. (1983). Essay test scores and reading difficulty. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 293-298.

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.). (2002). Communication for teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly, 52, 98- 114.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cox, R. (1967). Examinations and higher education. Universities Quarterly, 21, 292-340.

Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment. College English, 55, 187-206.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150- 167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.

Golish, T. D. (1999). Students' use of compliance-gaining strategies with graduate teaching assistants: Examining the other end of the power spectrum. Communication Quarterly, 47, 12-32.

Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2000). Students' use of power in the classroom: An investigation of student power, teacher power, and teacher immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 48, 293-310.

Harari, H., & McDavid, J. W. (1973). Name stereotypes and teachers' expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 222- 225.

Harper, B. H., & Hughey, J. D. (1986). Effects of communication responsiveness upon instructor judgment grading and student cognitive learning. Communication Education, 35, 147-156.

Hartnett, R. T. (1971). Trustee power in America. In H. L. Hodgkinson & L. R. Meeth (Eds.), Power and authority (pp. 25-28). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Jacobs, L. C., & Chase, C. I. (1992). Developing and using tests effectively: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1992). Student resistance to control. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 85-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don't like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309-324.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom I\V: Alternatives to discipline. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 724-746). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III: Teacher communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19-28.

Levine, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612-625.

McCroskey, J. C. (1998). An introduction to communication in the classroom (2nd ed.). Acton, MA: Tapestry Press.

McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233-256.

Mottet, T. P. (2000). Interactive television instructors' perceptions of students' nonverbal responsiveness and their influence on distance teaching. Communication Education, 49, 146- 164.

Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., & Fleuriet, C. (2006). Students' influence messages. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 143 - 165). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). The effects of student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness on teachers' liking of students and willingness to comply with student requests. Communication Quarterly, 52, 40-51.

Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255-282). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orange, C. (2000). Twenty-five biggest mistakes teachers make and how to avoid them. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1992). Teacher power in the classroom: Defining and advancing a program of research. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 67-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning. Communication Education, 33, 125- 136.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (5th d.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Richmond, V. P., & Roach, K. D. (1992). Power in the classroom: Seminal studies. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 47-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., & Koontz, K. A. (1980). Management communication style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary investigation. Communication Quarterly, 28, 37-46.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504-517.

Roach, K. D., Richmond, V. P., & Mottet, T. P. (2006). Teachers' influence messages. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 117-139). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Rubin, R. B. (1999). Evaluating the product. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W. Friedrich (Eds.), Teaching communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 425-444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scott, E. L. (1995). "Mokita," the truth that everybody knows, but nobody talks about: Bias in grading. Teaching English in the 2 Year College, 22, 211-216.

Seraydarian, L., & Busse, T. V. (1981). First-name stereotypes and essay grading. The Journal of Psychology, 108, 253-257.

Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence on work-group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 188-194.

Tantleff-Dunn, S., Dunn, M. E., & Gokee, J. L. (2002). Understanding faculty-student conflict: Student perceptions of precipitating events and faculty responses. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 197-202.

Wade, B. (1978). Responses to written work. Educational Review, 30, 149-158.

Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W. Norton.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd d.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Timothy P. Mottet (EdD, West Virginia University, 1998) is Associate Professor in Communication Studies at Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666-4616, USA (Tel: +1-512-245-3139; Email: tm15@txstate.edu). Steven A. Beebe (PhD, University of Missouri, 1976) is Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666-4616, USA (Tel: +1-512- 245-2165; Email: sb03@txstate.edu). Paul C. Raffeld (PhD, University of Oregon, 1973) is Professor of Psychology at Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666-4616, USA (Tel: +1-512-245-2165; Email: pr03@txstate.edu). Michelle L. Paulsel (Ed.D., West Virginia University, 2005) is an Assistant Professor at Northwestern State University of Louisiana, College Avenue, Natchitoches, LA 71497. A Faculty Research Enhancement Grant from Texas State University-San Marcos funded this study.

Copyright Eastern Communication Association Oct 2005

Source: Communication Quarterly

More News in this Category