Citation
Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course

Material Information

Title:
Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course trends and relationships
Creator:
Ellis, Kathleen S
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 83 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Arts)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Communication, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Communications
Committee Chair:
Morley, Donald D.
Committee Members:
Shockley, Pamela S.
Morreale, Sherwyn P.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Public speaking ( lcsh )
Teachers -- Training of ( lcsh )
Public speaking ( fast )
Teachers -- Training of ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1994. Communication
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves [76]-83).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Communication.
General Note:
Department of Communication
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kathleen S. Ellis.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
31250655 ( OCLC )
ocm31250655

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
APPREHENSION, SELF-PERCEIVED COMPETENCY, AND
TEACHER IMMEDIACY IN THE LABORATORY-SUPPORTED
PUBLIC SPEAKING COURSE: TRENDS AND RELATIONSHIPS
by
Kathleen S. Ellis
B. A., University of Colorado, 1989
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Communication
1994


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Kathleen S. Ellis
has been approved for the
Department of
Communication
by
9//r/9y
Da^e /


Ellis, Kathleen S* (M. A., Conmunication)
Apprehension, Self-perceived Competency, and
Teacher Immediacy in the Laboratory-supported
Public Speaking Course Trends and Relationships
Thesis directed by Professor Donald D. Morley
ABSTRACT
This study examines trends and relationships
among public speaking anxiety, self-perceived public
speaking competency, and teacher immediacy for
students with high, moderate, and low coiranunication
apprehension in the laboratory-supported public
speaking course. Public speaking anxiety and self-
perceived competency were measured at three points
during the semester. Trends in anxiety and self-
perceived competency for high, moderate, and low
apprehensives were examined using two 3x3 mixed-
model factorial ANOVAs (one-between and one-within
factors), All three apprehension groups perceived
significant gains in competency and significant
decreases in anxiety* Analyses failed to find
significant differences among high, moderate, and low
apprehensives in the amount of perceived improvement


and anxiety decrease. Correlations revealed a
significant negative relationship between anxiety and
self-perceived competency at all three test times.
Correlations also revealed a significant positive
relationship between teacher iTtimediacy and anxiety
decrease for high apprehensives, but not for moderate
nor low apprehensives. Implications for educators
are discussed.
The form and content of this abstract are approved.
IV


CHAPTER
CONTENTS
1. RATIONALE......................................1
Communication Apprehension and
Public Speaking Anxiety ..................... 3
Self-perception and
Public Speaking Anxiety. , _...............10
Public Speaking Instruction for
Students with High Communication
Apprehension.................................13
Trends in Public Speaking Anxiety and
Self-perceived Competency .................18
Teacher Immediacy ...........................19
2. METHOD........................................24
Respondents and Course Design .............. 24
Measurement..................................26
Data Analyses................................28
3. RESULTS.......................................31
4. DISCUSSION....................................44
Public Speaking Anxiety and
Self-perceived Competency ................. 44
Public Speaking Anxiety and
Teacher Immediacy . ....................50
Limitations..................................55
Implications ............................... 56


APPENDIX
A. PERSONAL REPORT OF
COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA-24) . ... 59
B. PERSONAL REPORT OF
PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY (PRPSA) ..............61
C. PERSONAL REPORT OF PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY
SHORT FORM (PRPSA)............................64
D. SELF-PERCEIVED PUBLIC SPEAKING
COMPETENCY (SPPSC) .......................... 66
E. THE COMPETENT SPEAKER:
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT.......................68
F. IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOR SCALE .................... 73
REFERENCES...........................................76
vi


FIGURES
Figure
3.1 Trends in public speaking apprehension
(PRPSA) for students with high, moderate,
and low communication apprehension .......... 33
3.2 Trends in self-perceived public speaking
competency (SPPSC) for students
with high, moderate, and low
communication apprehension .................. 37
VI1


TABLES
Table
3.1 Descriptive Statistics for
High, Moderate, and Low CA
Students on PRPSA.............................34
3*2 Summary of ANOVA for PRPSA . ...............35
3.3 Descriptive Statistics for.
High, Moderate, and Low CA
Students on SPPSC.............................38
3 *4 Summary of ANOVA for SPPSC.....................39
3.5 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Between Teacher Iranediacy and Change
in PRPSA and PRCA for High, Moderate, and
Low CA Students................................... 41
*
vm


CHAPTER 1
RATIONALE
Although some public speaking anxiety is
necessary for peak performance, anxiety can be of
such a high level that it seriously interferes with
the overall performance of the speaker (Booth-
Butterfield, 1988 Glaser, 1981 Richmond &
McCroskey, 1989 Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990).
The pervasiveness of this occurrence suggests the
need to identify factors that influence anxiety and
anxiety change* A speaker's perception of his/her
expertise in public speaking may be one influencing
factor. Exposure to a public speaking course is
expected to be related to change in students' self-
perceived public speaking competency and, therefore,
might also be related to change in their public
speaking anxiety level.
However, as students and teachers of public
speaking go about the tasks of learning and teaching,
a variety of factors influence both the process and
the product. The strength and direction of the
relationship between anxiety and self-perception
could differ at various points during the semester.


Nonetheless, it is expected that by the end of the
semester, most students will report an increase in
self-perception of competency as well as a decrease
in anxiety.
In addition, the uniqueness of both students and
instructors suggests that all students may not
experience similar trends. For example, research has
repeatedly demonstrated that individuals who
initially report high levels of traitlike
communication apprehension (CA) generate different
perceptions concerning their progress in public
speaking courses than their less apprehensive
counterparts (Kinzer, 1985 Newburger & Daniel, 1985
Stacks & Stone, 1982). In fact, research has
indicated that traditional public speaking courses
may actually have a negative impact on highly
apprehensive students (Kinzer, 1985 McCroskey, 1977,
1980 Newburger & Daniel, 1985).
To date, however, researchers have not
investigated relationships among initial apprehension
level, changes in anxiety, and changes in self-
perceived competency in public speaking courses that
are supported by a communication laboratory. Hence,
one purpose of this investigation was to examine
relationships between and trends in public speaking
2


anxiety and self-perceived public speaking competency
for students with high, moderate, and low CA in the
laboratory-supported course *
Teacher behaviors may also influence student
public speaking anxiety and anxiety change, yet
little attention appears to have been given to this
possibility. Accordingly, a second purpose of this
study was to investigate the influence of one
behavioral strategy of teachers--immediacy.
Specifically, this study probed the possibility that
a significant, relationship exists between teacher
immediacy and change in student public speaking
anxiety.
Communication Apprehension and
Public Speaking Anxiety
Communication apprehension (CA) has been a
subject of major concern to communication scholars
for many years. In fact, McCroskey (1984), speaking
of communication apprehension, suggested that "no
other area within the communication discipline has
generated as much continuing interest and
investigation" (p. 81)*
McCroskey (1977) has defined CA as "an
individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with
3


either real or anticipated communication with another
person or persons" (p. 78). McCroskey further
clarified by conceptualizing CA on a ^four-point
continuum (a) CA as a trait, (b) CA.in a generalized
context, (c) CA with a given audience across
situations, and (d) CA with a given individual or
group in a given situation (McCroskey, 1984), The
present investigation was concerned with both
traitlike and context-based CA.
Traitlike CA has been defined as 11 a relatively
enduring personality-type orientation toward a given
mode of communication across a wide variety of
contexts" (McCroskey, 1984, p.16). Studies have
indicated that about 20% of the population have high
traitlike CA (McCroskey, 1977,1980,1984). This
type of CA has been found to remain about the same
across time unless specifically treated.
Context-based CA has been defined as "a
relatively enduring, personality-type orientation
toward communication in a given type of contextn
(McCroskey,1984, p.16) Prevalence of high
communication apprehension in the context of public
speaking is noteworthy. For example, of several
thousand college students who have completed
McCroskey^ Personal Report of Public Speaking


Anxiety (PRPSA, Appendix B) ., 40% reported high
anxiety 30%, moderately high anxiety 20%, moderate
anxiety 5%, moderately low anxiety and 5%,low
anxiety (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989, p. 41).These
findings suggest that it is "normal" for students to
experience a fairly high degree of anxiety in the
public speaking context since 70% of the student
population score in the moderately high to high
categories.
Overall,three lines of research have been
pursued concerning the causes and alleviation of
debilitating anxiety in the public speaking context.
Some researchers focus on behaviors others on
affect and still others on cognition.
The Behavioral Approach
The behavioral approach argues that people are
reticent because they lack behavioral repertoires
(Fremouw & Zitter, 1978 Phillips, 1968, 1977).
Proponents of the behavioral model treat public
speaking anxiety with two major behaviorally oriented
procedures--rhetoritherapy and skills training.
Rhetoritherapy takes the position that students need
to consider speaking behavior holistically.
Consequently, rhetoritherapy involves a consideration
5


of communication goals, content of speech,
organization of speech, delivery, and observation of
results (Phillips, 1984). The second procedure,
skills training, focuses primarily on speech
delivery, including instruction in eye contact,
gestures, movement, and so on {Fremouw & Zitter,
1978). Rhetoritherapy and/or skills training are
generally used to treat public speaking anxiety when
it is believed that the person receiving treatment
lacks the behavioral skills necessary to perform
competently. Glaser (1981),in her comprehensive
review of CA treatment literature, points out that of
the major methods of anxiety treatment, only skills
training and rhetoritherapy have been found to
produce change in actual public speaking behavior as
well as anxiety level.
The Affective Approach
The affective approach emphasizes feelings
associated with apprehension* This approach regards
excessive anxiety, expectation of adverse
consequences of public speaking, and/or impending
doom to be the chief cause of public speaking
anxiety. The major method of treatment is systematic
desensitization. This method is based on the
6


principle of reciprocal inhibition (Wolpe, 1958) and
holds that fear is reduced by pairing aversive
stimuli with relaxation. Proponents of this theory
assert that it is not possible to feel simultaneously
tense and relaxed. Hence, by teaching people to
relax in the presence of anxiety stimuli, it has been
argued that anxiety will be markedly reduced and
subsequent performance enhanced (McCroskey, 1972).
Research has indicated that of all the methods of
anxiety treatment, systematic desensitization is the
most widely used and documented procedure (Friedrich
& Goss, 1984). Although there is some debate over
why systematic desensitization is effective, there is
general agreement that the method does help people
reduce anxiety {Allen, Hunter, & Donohue, 1989 Ayres
& Hopf, 1993 Glaser,1981)*
The Cognitive Approach
Cognitive theorists (e.g., Ellis, 1962
Meichenbaum, 1985) posit that conscious, identifiable
thoughts and images occur as a form of internal
dialogue that interrupts public speaking behavior.
This dialogue incorporates, among other things,
attributions, expectations, and evaluations of self
and/or task or task-irrelevant thoughts and images.


From a cognitive perspective, the thoughts and
attributions made about public speaking drive
feelings of fear. Advocates of this school of
thought employ two major methods of treatment for
public speaking anxiety--cognitive restructuring and
visualization techniques.
Cognitive restructuring developed from a method
known as rational-emotive therapy (Ellis, 1962).
This method is based on the idea that people are
apprehensive because they entertain irrational
thoughts about themselves and their communicative
behaviors due to previous negative experiences.
Treatment consists of first having apprehensive
persons identify their irrational beliefs. Then each
belief is logically examined in an attempt to
demonstrate to apprehensive individuals that they
should change their thinking. The assumption is that
as irrational thoughts are eliminated, apprehension
will be reduced- Further, an attempt to replace
irrational thoughts with more appropriate beliefs is
often incorporated into the treatment (Richmond &
McCroskey, 1989), Research on cognitive
restructuring has indicated that the method is
successful when carried out on an individual or small
group basis and when the speaker frequently engages
8


in negative, irrational self-evaluation in
communication situations (Watson & Dodd, 1984).
Visualization, the second major cognitive
treatment, involves asking speakers to imagine
themselves composing and delivering an effective
speech (Ayres,1986 Ayres & Hopf, 1991, 1993). This
is the same technique used by athletes and manaqers
to improve their performances (Anthony, Maddox, &
Wheatley, 1988 Garfield, 1984, 1986). A study by
Ayres and Hopf (1987) indicated that visualization is
as effective in reducing public speaking anxiety as
either rational-emotive theraDV or systematic
desensitization.
Although the three explanations of and
treatments for speech anxiety have different foci,
the elements are interrelated and reciprocal.
Indeed, research has shown that none of the
intervention procedures has been established as
clearly superior, and all have been effective in
reducing the fear of public speaking (Allen et al.,
1989; Glaser, 1981 Watson & Dodd, 1984). The key to
treatment choice, according to Glaser (1981),is to
choose the treatment method chat most clearly
addresses the particular needs of the apprehensive
individual. Overall, however, in a meta-analysis of
9


ill studies involving the use of various treatment
methods (Allen et al. > .1989.)., skills training alone
was the least effective method. Most effective was a
combination of behavioral, affective, and cognitive
methods.
The preceding literature review concerning the
three approaches to the causes and treatment for high
CA provides important insight for the current study,
which combines elements of the behavioral and
cognitive approach. Specifically, the study probes
the possibility that students7 thoughts about their
public speaking behavior (competency) influence
and/or moderate their level of public speaking
anxiety.
Self-perception and Public Speaking Anxiety
An individual^ perception of self has been
examined widely for more than half a century. The
overwhelming conclusion from both research and theory
is that the perception an individual has of self
significantly affects attitudes, behaviors,
evaluations, and cognitive processes (Cattell, 1950;
Freud,1943; Goffman, 1961 Lewin,1936; Maslow,
1954 Mead, 1934 Rogers, 1951).
10


Pertinent to the present investigation is the
finding that there is an emphatic liilk between
self-concept and behavior. As early as 1945, Lecky
suggested that people behave in ways that are
consistent with their self-views. Similarly, Rogers
(1951) theorized that individuals react to their
environment as it is perceived. Research by Combs
and Snygg (1959) identified self-concept as the most
important single factor affecting behavior, Felker
(1974) suggested that self-concept determines how
individuals behave in a wide range of situations.
Further, Crowell, Katcher, and Miyamoto (1955) argued
that self-images play an important part in the nature
of individuals' communicative behavior regardless of
whether the images are realistic or unrealistic.
Similarly, McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) maintained
.* many of the most important decisions
people make concerning communication are made on
the basis of self-perceived competence rather
than actual competence. In short, we believe
often it is more important to know what a person
believes his/her competence level is than to
know what the person's actual competence level
is. (p.110)
Relatively few studies have investigated the
relationship between students' self-perceptions of
public speaking competency and their level of public
speaking anxiety* Miller (1987) demonstrated that
11


increases in public speaking anxiety were associated
with less positive self-ratings on 22 speech skills
typically cited in public speaking textbooks and
speech rating forms* Other researchers have
investigated the relationship between different types
of thoughts and anxiety level. For example, Ayres
(1986} found that the more one's perceived
communication ability falls below one^ perception of
other's expectations in a given public speaking
situation, the higher one's level of stage fright.
Similarly, Schlenker and Leary (1982), in their
extensive review of the literature on social anxiety,
concluded that apprehension develops when an
individual has a self-presentation goal but does not
expect to be able to accomplish that goal.
Overall, previous research has indicated that
perceptions of communicative ability may be central
to apprehension. Specifically, the research has
suggested that public speaking anxiety decreases as
self-perception of expertise in public speaking
increases *
Hi Public speaking anxiety is negatively
related to self-perceived public speaking
competency.
12


Public Speaking Instruction for Students
with High Communication Apprehension
Although CA has not been linked to intelligence
nor aptitude (McCroskey & Richmond,1979}, students
who report high traitlike CA have consistently
exhibited several characteristics that may interfere
with positive outcomes in public speaking courses.
Specifically, high CA has been linked to the
following (a) low self-esteem (Lustig, 1974;
McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione, 1977
McCroskey, Daly, & Sorensen, 1976 McCroskey &
Richmond,1975,1977; Snavely, Merker, Becker, &
Brook, 1976 Stacks & Stone, 1982) (b)lack of
confidence (McCroskey et al.,1976) c)lack of
assertiveness {Richmond & McCroskey, 1989) (d)
lowered interaction (Wells & Lashbrook, 1970) (e)
avoidance of communication with others (Richmond &
McCRoskey, 1989) (f) seating choice in classrooms
(McCroskey & Sheahan, 1976) (g) feelings of
isolation and ineffectiveness in social relationships
(Low &. Sheets, 1951)and (h) poorer academic
outcomes such as negative attitudes toward school,
lower grades and SAT scores, and tendency to drop out
of school {McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, & Payne,
1989; Scott & Wheeless, 1977 Smythe & Powers, 1978),
13


Of particular importance to the present
investigation is the consistent finding that
traitlike communication apprehension and self-esteem
are negatively related. For instance, a study by
McCroskey et al.(1977) posited and obtained a series
of significant negative correlations (r = -.52 to r =
~.12) between CA and self-esteem across a number of
different samples of varying ages and occupational
types. Other studies have produced similar findings,
consistently indicating that the presence of either
high communication apprehension or low self-esteem is
"highly" predictive of the other (Lustig, 1974;
McCroskey et al.,1976 McCroskey & Richmond, 1975;
Snavely et al.,1976 Stacks & Stone, 1982).
The finding that CA and self-esteem are
negatively related is particularly troubling for
public speaking students when the consequences of low
self-esteem are considered. Research has
demonstrated that individuals with low self-esteem
(a) have difficulty believing positive feedback
{Kinzer, 1985), (b) engage in negative distortions of
self-perception (McCroskey et al., 1977), (c) view
low evaluations of themselves from others as more
believable than high evaluations (Deutsch & Solomon,
1959), (d) have low expectations of success in
14


communicative acts (Stacks & Stone, 1982), and (e)
find that attention focused on them greatly
intensifies anxiety (Stacks & Stone, 1982}. These
characteristics may seriously interfere with positive
outcomes in public speaking courses. Indeed, Foss
(1982) concluded an examination of programs for
highly anxious students with the concern that .
highly anxious students may be hurt rather than
helped by required oral presentations, the assignment
of grades for class participation, and the like" (p.
200).
With regard to public speaking training, the
problems highly apprehensive students face may be
further compounded by the use of video feedback.
Although several enpirical studies have indicated
that video feedback increases both satisfaction with
instruction and public speaking skills for the
general population of students (Miles,1981Mulac,
1974), research has also demonstrated that this
effect may not be present for highly apprehensive
students, who represent 20% of the student
population* For example, a study by Kinzer (1985)
demonstrated that video feedback for high CA students
prompts deleterious intensification of anxiety* and
substantially interferes with learning objectives.
15


In addition, although video feedback offers
concrete, detailed information about one's
performance,the medium is not an objective report
because video feedback is interpreted by the viewer.
Since high CA students are predicted to have low
self-esteem, it follows that high CA students who
view video replay of their speeches are more likely
than their less apprehensive counterparts to engage
in negative distortions, to make negative self-
statements, and to negatively interpret both positive
and negative information about themselves.
Moreover, highly apprehensive students may
experience additional performance deficits triggered
by elevated arousal due to the reactive anxiety that
the use of video may foster. Kinzer (1985)
explained
An analogous situation would be the highly
anxious child receiving emergency medical
treatment who becomes hysterical at the sight of
a person in a surgical mask (reactive anxiety).
The child might have been able to endure the
frightening treatment if reactive anxiety could
have been avoided* (p* 7)
In sum, the literature has generally
demonstrated that completing a basic course in public
speaking using video is likely to be a punishing
experience for highly apprehensive students.
However, one study produced conflicting findings.
16


Stacks and Stone (1982) reported that .the anxiety
level of high CA students significantly decreased
through a conventional basic course (either public
speaking or group communication), but still remained
one standard deviation above the class mean. Stacks
and Stone indicated, however, that they may have
obtained a different result if their method for
assigning subjects to the "high11 category of
communication apprehension had been more extreme.
They also cited small sample size as a possible
limitation. Therefore, it appears that further
research is needed to explore the fate of highly
apprehensive students in video-based public speaking
classrooms.
H2 Students who initially report high
communication apprehension perceive less
improvement in public speaking competency
than students who initially report low and
moderate communication apprehension.
17


Trends in Public Speaking Anxiety and
Self-perceived Competency
Little longitudinal research has been done to
explore changes that occur in anxiety and self-
perceived competency during the process of public
speaking instruction. It may be that students
public speaking anxiety decreases continuously
throughout the semester as they become comfortable
within the classroom environment. On the other hand,
perhaps the relationship is not clearly defined at
the onset of the semester when students are not yet
fully aware of the complexity of public speaking. As
students progress and their awareness increases,
self-perception of their competency could actually
decrease, accompanied by a temporary increase in
anxiety. Nonetheless, it is expected that by the end
of the semester, most students will report an
increase in self-perceived competency as well as a
decrease in anxiety.
However, since research has suggested that high
CA students may generate different perceptions
concerning their progress in public speaking courses
than their lower CA counterparts (Kinzer, 1985;
McCroskey,1977,1980 Newburger & Daniel, 1985), the
18


trend for high CA students may differ from the trends
for moderate and low CA students.
The following research questions guided this
part of the current study
R01 Over the course of a semester, what changes
in public speaking anxiety occur for
students with high, moderate, and low
communication apprehension?
R02 Over the course of a semester, what changes
in self-perceived public speaking
competency occur for students with high,
moderate, and low communication
apprehension?
Teacher Immediacy
The immediacy construct was conceptualized by
Mehrabian (1971, 1981) as communication behavior that
reduces physical and/or psychological distance
between people. Immediacy behavior can be verbal or
nonverbal. Variables associated with nonverbal
teacher immediacy include smiling, eye contact, vocal
expressiveness, movement about the classroom,
gesturing, and a relaxed body position (Andersen,
1979 Gorham, 1988 Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey,
1987). Variables associated with verbal teacher
19


immediacy include using of humor in class praising
students/ work, actions, or comments frequently-
initiating and/or demonstrating willingness to become
engaged in conversations with students before, after,
or outside of class self-disclosing asking
questions or encouraging students to talk asking
questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions
following up on student-initiated topics referring
to the class as "our11 class and what 11 we11 are doing
providing feedback on students' work asking how
students feel about assignments, due dates, or
discussion topics and inviting students to telephone
or meet outside of class if they have questions or
want to discuss something (Gorham, 1988).
Mehrabian demonstrated that the major
communicative function of immediacy behaviors is that
they reflect a more positive attitude of the sender
to the receiver. He conceptualized immediacy and
liking as ntwo sides of the same coin. That is,
liking encourages greater immediacy and immediacy
produces more liking11 (Mehrabian, 1971,p. 77).
Indeed, research aimed at identifying links
between teacher immediacy and student affective
learning has consistently demonstrated Mehrabian#s
assertions. For example, seminal research by
20


Andersen (1979) found that nonverbal immediacy
predicted 46% of the variance in student affect
toward the course instructor and about 20% of the
variance toward course content. Other studies have
produced similar findings (Christophel, 1990 Gorham,
1988; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey & Richmond,1986;
Sanders & Wiseman, 1990).
Given that immediacy increases liking and liking
increases immediacy, it is intuitively congruent that
immediacy may be associated with reduction of anxiety
since people are generally less apprehensive around
people they like. However, public speaking anxiety
is likely to also be influenced by variables unique
to the public speaking context and the instructional
setting. Moreover, perhaps not all students respond
to immediacy similarly* In particular, since high CA
students find that attention focused on them
intensifies anxiety (Stacks El Stone, 1982) high
levels of teacher immediacy may function to increase
anxiety level. Even so, recent findings by Frymier
(1993) suggest that the impact of teacher immediacy
on high CA students may be positive, at least in some
respects. Frymier found that highly apprehensive
students experienced an increase in motivation to
study when exposed to highly immediate teachers.
21


Therefore, research is needed to discover possible
links between teacher immediacy and change in public
speaking anxiety for students with varying CA levels-
R03 What, if any, is the relationship between
teacher immediacy and change in public
speaking anxiety for students with high,
moderate, and low communication
apprehension?
To further complicate the issue, high CA
students may have difficulty perceiving a teacher's
behavior as immediate since empirical studies have
demonstrated that high CA students are likely to
avoid communication with the instructor and the
instructor is unlikely to have high positive regard
for them (McCroskey et al1976). Consequently,
students with high CA may rate a teacher lower in
immediacy behavior than students with moderate or low
CA* On the other hand, Gorham and Zakahi (1990)
found a high level of intact-class aqreement on
teacher use of immediacy, indicating no significant
differences among student ratings. Therefore, based
on the literature reviewed, no directional hypotheses
could be formulated-
22


R04 Do students with high communication
apprehension perceive teacher lmmeaiacy
differently than students with moderate or
low communication apprehension?
23


CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Within the context of laboratory-supported
public speaking instruction, this study empirically
investigated trends and relationships amonq piiblic
speaking anxiety, self-perceived public speaking
con^etency, and teacher immediacy for students with
high, moderate, and low communication apprehension.
Respondents and Course Design
Respondents for this study were 155
undergraduate students enrolled in 11 sections of a
lower division public speaking course. Of that
number, 20 (12.6%) were first-year students, 57
{35.8%) were second-year students, 48 (30*2%) were
third-year students,19 {11.9%) were fourth-year
students, and 11(7.1%) did not report their class
standing. In regard to academic majors, 46
respondents (28.9%} were communication majors, 43
(27.0%) respondents were business majors, 60 (37*7%)
respondents had majors scattered widely across the
various disciplines, and 6 (3 *9%) respondents had not


declared a major* Ninety-seven respondents (62.6%)
were female and 58 (37*4%) were male121 respondents
(78.1%) were Anglo and 34 (21.9%) were non-Anglo-
Participation was voluntary and students were assured
that responses would not be reported to their
instructors# nor would participation affect students/
grades.
The public speaking course was supported by a
communication laboratory and taught in a
lecture/recitation format, with one instructor
delivering all lectures within the large-group
context. Recitation sections were conducted by
graduate teaching assistants (TAs) and were limited
to 16 students per section. Students were required
to give five prepared speeches during the semester in
their recitation sections. Speeches were videotaped
and students were required to view and critique each
speech in the communication laboratory with the
assistance of a TA. In addition, students were
encouraged to come to the laboratory for help with
speech outlines and/or coaching prior to formal in-
class presentations* Students were also required to
meet with their recitation leaders in the laboratory
for individual entrance and exit interviews to pre-
and post:-assess their communication apprehension and
25


to set and report progress on personal public
speaking goals,
Measurement
Communication Apprehension
Trait like coinruunication apprehension (CA) was
measured using McCroskey^ Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension {PRCA-24, Appendix A),
This 24-item, 5-step, Likert-type scale has been
widely used in apprehension research and has
consistently demonstrated excellent reliability
(usually above .90) and predictive validity
(McCroskey, 1978, 1984), The PRCA-24 was
administered in the communication laboratory to all
public speaking students during the required entrance
and exit interviews held during the first and last
two weeks of the semester.
Public Speaking Anxiety
McCroskey's Personal Report of Public Speaking
Anxiety (PRPSA, Appendix B) was administered three
times during the semester week 1,week 4, and week
16. The PRPSA, a 34-item, 5-tep, Likert-type scale,
is reliable and has been found to maintain
reliability of above .85 with only 15 items (Hensley
26


& Batty, 1974 McCroskey, 1984). The short version
(Appendix C) was used in the present study to avoid
respondent fatigue Alpha reliabilities for the
PRPSA in the current study for times one, two, and
three were .89, *86, and .89, respectively.
Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency
The Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency
Scale (SPPSC, Appendix D) was administered
concomitantly with the PRPSA, The SPPSC is a 23-
item, 5-step, Likert-type self-report measure
developed by the researcher. The instrument is based
on the eight public speaking competencies identified
by the a task force of the Speech Communication
Association's Committee on Assessment and Testing
(Morreale, 1990). The eight competencies were used
to develop course curriculum and to evaluate all
speeches To retain validity, the wording on the
SPPSC closely parallels the wording used to define
the criteria of the eight competencies {Appendix E).
Alpha reliabilities for the SPPSC in the present
study were *88 for time one, .81 for time two, and
*85 for time three.
21


Teacher Immediacy
Students were asked to rate the immediacy of
their recitation leaders on the Immediacy Behavior
Scale (Appendix F) during a lecture period near the
end of the semester. The Immediacy Behavior Scale
consists of the combined Gorham <1988) scale for
verbal inmediacy and the Richmond, Gorham, and
McCroskey (1987) scale for nonverbal iiranediacy. The
30-item, 5-step instrument has been used extensively
in recent immediacy research and has demonstrated
reliabilities ranging from .84 to .92 {Christophel,
1990 Gorham, 1988 Gorham & Zakahi, 1990 Sanders &
Wiseman, 1990) In the current study, alpha
reliability was .89.
Data Analyses
The first hypothesis investigated the
relationship between public speaking anxiety and
self-perceived public speaking competency. The
hypothesis was tested by correlating student scores
on the PRPSA and the SPPSC at each of the three test
times.
The second hypothesis examined self-perceived
improvement of high CA students as compared to
moderate and low CA students. Students were
28


categorized as having high, moderate, and low CA
according to the normative data provided by Richmond
and McCroskey (1989) high CA was determined by a
score of 80 or above on the PRCA-24 moderate CA, a
score of 52-79 and low CA, a score of 51 or below.
A one-between analysis of variance was performed with
change scores on the SPPSC as the dependent variable
and CA level (high, moderate, low) as the independent
variable.
The first and second research questions examined
changes in public speaking anxiety and self-perceived
public speaking competency across time for students
with varying CA levels. Two 3x3, mixed-model
factorial ANOVAs (one-between and one-within factors)
were employed. The between factor for each ANOVA was
level of CA, while the within factor was the three
repeated measures. The dependent measure for the
first ANOVA was public speaking anxiety, and self-
perceived public speaking competency for the second.
Changes in PRPSA and SPPSC over the course of the
semester were tested for both linear and quadratic
trends with polynomials adjusted for the unequal time
intervals between repeated measures.
The third research question investigated the
relationship between teacher immediacy and change in
29


public speaking anxiety. Pearson correlations were
calculated using summed scores on the Immediacy
Behavior Scale and change scores on the PRPSA. Data
were analyzed collectively and by CA level,
The final research question asked whether high
CA students perceive teacher immediacy differently
than moderate or low CA students. A one-between
analysis of variance was performed across the three
levels of CA, with perceived teacher immediacy as the
dependent variable.
30


CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate
trends in and relationships among self-perceived
public speaking competency, public speaking anxiety,
and teacher immediacy for high, moderate, and low
apprehensives in the laboratory-supported course.
The mean PRCA-24 score of the 155 respondents in
this study was 67.2 with a standard deviation of
15.8. Using the apprehension breakdown offered by
Richmond and McCroskey (1989), 33 students (21.2%)
were categorized as high CA students 94 students
(60.6%) were categorized as moderate CA students 28
students (18.1%) were categorized as low CA students.
The first hypothesis predicted that there would
be a negative relationship between public speaking
anxiety and students" self-perceived public speaking
competency. The hypothesis was supported.
Correlations at the three test times were -.42, -.39,
and -.42, respectively (E < *01)-
The second hypothesis predicted that students
who reported high CA would perceive less improvement
over the course of the semester than their lower CA


counterparts. This hypothesis was not supported.
Indeed the opposite was found. High CA students
perceived more improvement than moderate and low CA
students. However, an analysis of variance failed to
find significant differences in the amount of change
that occurred in self-perceived competency of
students with high, moderate, and low apprehension,
F(2, 118)=1.76, e =.18. The mean change scores
for high, moderate, and low CA students were 10.9,
7.5, and 7.7 points, respectively.
The first research question explored the trend
in public speaking anxiety for students with varying
CA levels. Complete data were available for 97
cases. As Figure 3.1 and Tables 3.1 and 3.2 indicate,
students in all apprehension groups continuously-
decreased in public speaking anxiety throughout the
semester. Results of the 3x3, mixed-model factorial
ANOVA demonstrated a significant between-subjects
effect, F(2, 96) = 40.54, 2 < .001.Means for public
speaking anxiety for high, moderate, and low CA
students were 44.5, 38.0, and 26.9, respectively. A
Tukey7 s post hoc test indicated that each CA group
differed significantly from each other CA group on
this variable. A significant within-subjects effect
32


25
20
15
i
Week
1
Week
4
Week
8
Week
12
Week
16
TIME
Figure 3.1 Trends in public speaking anxiety
(PRPSA) for students with high, moderate, and low
communication apprehension.
6
5 0 5 0 5 0
5 5 4 4 3 3
s^ous vwdHd NYW2
33


Table 3.1
Students on PRPSA
CA Group
Hiqh Moderate Low Total
(n=17) (n=56) (n=24) Population (N=97)
Time 1
Mean 51.0 42.2 29.6 42,2
SD 5.7 6.6 7, 9.5
Time 2
Mean 46.2 39.6 2.5 39.1
SD 5.9 7.9 5.8 9.3
Time 3
Mean 36.3 32.1 23.4 31.6
SD 9.2 9,9 6.9 10.1
34


Table 3.2
Summary of ANOVA for PRPSA
Source of Variance df SS MS F eta2
Between Subjects
CA Group 2 9347,3 4673.7 40.5*** .46
Error 94 10836.0 115.3
Within Subjects
Time 2 4272.4 2136,2 64.2^** .21
CA Group X
Time 4 391.4 97.9 2.9* .02
Error 188 6256.8 33.3
* E < .05
** E < 01
*** E < 001
35


was also identified, F(2,192) =64.20, e < -l
Anxiety means for times one, two, and three were
42.2, 39-1, and 31.6, respectively. A Tukey's post
hoc test demonstrated that the mean at time three was
significantly different from the means at times one
and two. Means at times one and two did not differ
significantly. The pattern of decreasing anxiety was
best represented as a linear trend (t = -9.49 g <
* 001)with no significant departure from linearity
found for entry of the quadratic component (t =1.70;
p = .092).
The second research question examined the trend
in self-perceived public speaking competency.
Complete data were available for 99 cases. As
indicated in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.3, students
continuously increased their perceptions of their own
expertise in public speaking.
Results of the 3 x 3, mixed-model factorial
ANOVA that examined self-perceived competency
demonstrated a significant between-subjects effect,
F(2# 96 = 37.72, 2 < *l)* Table 3.4 summarizes the
ANOVA- Means on the SPPSC for high, moderate, and
low apprehensives were 663, 74.6, and 80*0,
respectively, A Tukey^ post hoc test indicated that
each CA group differed significantly from each other
36


60
55
50
W High CA
Moderate CA
Low CA

Week
1
Week
4
Week
8
TIME
Week
12
Week
16
Figure 3.2. Trends in self-perceived public speaking
competency (SPPSC) for students with high, moderate,
and low communication apprehension.
37


Table 3.3
DescriDtive Statistics for Hiah. Moderate, and Low CA
Students on SPPSC
CA Group
High Moderate Low Total
(n=21) (=57) (n=21) Populatior
(N=99)
Time 1
Mean 60.3 70.0 76.7 69.4
SD 7.0 .9 6.7 9.2
Time 2
Mean 65.8 4,9 79.1 73.9
SD 7.2 5.8 7.1 7.7
Time 3
Mean 72.9 78.7 84.1 78.6
SD 6.9 6.0 6.7 7.2
38


Table 3.4
Summary of ANOVA for SPPSC
Source of Variance df SS MS F eta2
Between Subjects
CA Group 2 5998.2 2999.1 37.7* .39
Error 96 7633.3 79.5
Within Subjects
Time 2 3651.7 1825.8 63.9* 24
CA Group X
Time 4 206.5 51.6 1.8 .01
Error 192 5485.7 28.6
* E < .001
39


CA group. A significant within-subjects effect was
also identified, F(2,192) = 63.90e < 001.Means
for times one, two, and three were 69.4, 73.9, and
78.6, respectively.. Again, a post hoc test revealed
that the mean at each test time differed
significantly from the mean at each other test time.
Although a significant linear trend was found (t.=
10.19; e < .001),the addition of a quadratic
component indicated a significant departure from
linearity (£ = -3.26 p < .01). The linear component
indicated that all CA groups significantly increased
their self-perceived competency throughout the
semester. The quadratic component demonstrated that
studentsf self-perceived competency increased at a
more rapid rate during the first four weeks of the
semester than it did during the remainder of the
semester.
The third research question asked whether a
relationship existed between teacher immediacy and
change in studentsf public speaking anxiety. Table
3.5 presents the results. A moderately strong
correlation was found between teacher immediacy and
anxiety decrease for high apprehensives (=.52 £ <
.05; shared variance = 27%) In sharp contrast, no
40


Table 3.5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between
Teacher Immediacy and Change in PRPSA and PRCA for
High, Moderate, and Low CA Students
CA Group
High Moderate Low Total Population
Correlation
PRPSA .52* -.00 .12 -.09
PRCA .45* .19 .04 .15
Immediacy
Mean 86.2 88.8 92.5 88.5
SD 12.1 12.9 10.4 12,4
N = 27 80 22 132
PRPSA
Mean Change 13.7 10.2 6.0 10.4
SD 9.7 10.0 6.1 9.7
N = 28 68 21 118
PRCA
Mean Change 23.0 11.8 7,2 13.3
SD 12.2 10.7 7.7 11.9
N = 32 89 28 149
< .05
41


relationship was found for moderate and low
apprehensives (r = .00 and r =.12, respectively)<
A test for difference between independent
correlations demonstrated, a significant difference
between the correlation for high CA students and the
correlation for moderate CA students (2=2.36, e =
.009)* Analysis failed to find significant
difference between the correlations for high and low
apprehensives (z =1.48, £ = .07) and between the
correlations for moderate and low apprehensives (.z =
.455, e = *32).
Analysis for change in traitlike CA produced
similar results. As Table 3.5 indicates, the
correlation between teacher itninediacy and
apprehension decrease (pretest minus posttest, PRCA-
24) for high CA students was .45 (e < .05, shared
variance = 20.3%). Contrastively, correlations
between teacher immediacy and apprehension decrease
for moderate and low CA students were not significant
(r =.19 and r = .04, respectively), In regard to
these findings, a test for difference between
independent correlations demonstrated a significant
difference between the correlation for high CA
students and the correlation for low CA students (z =
1,63, £ = .05K Analysis failed to find significant
42


difference between the correlations for high and
moderate CAs (z =1,37, 2 = *9) and between the
correlations for moderate and low CAs (z. = 660, e "
.25
Results for the final research question failed
to demonstrate significant differences in how
students with differing CA levels view teacher
immediacy, F(2, 126)=1.63, £ = .20* Itnmediacy
scores as perceived by high, moderate, and low CA
students were 86*1, 88.3, and 92.5, respectively.
43


CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
This study empirically examined trends and
relationships among public speaking anxiety, self-
perceived public speaking competency, and teacher
immediacy for students with high, moderate, and low,
communication apprehension in the laboratory-
supported public speaking course.
Public Speaking Anxiety and
Self-perceived Competency
The first hypothesis predicted that students"
public speaking anxiety would be negatively related
to self-perceived public speaking competency. The
hypothesis was supported, suggesting that a student's
perception of his/her expertise in public speaking is
indeed an important predictor of his/her public
speaking anxiety,
Pedagogically, the finding speaks to the
importance of providing an instructional setting
where increases in self-perception are likely to
occur. Several aspects of the instructional model


used in the present study contributed to such a
setting (a) a clear definition of the specific
public speaking behaviors that constitute public
speaking competency (b) alignment among lecture
topics, recitation activities, criteria for
evaluation of speeches, and feedback strategies (c)
constructive verbal and written feeciback on speeches
(d) small,comfortable recitation sections and,
perhaps most importantly, (e)laboratory support
consisting of goal setting and accountability
interviews, optional coaching in preparation for
upcoming speeches, video feedback, and required,
private feedback sessions with teaching assistants
following each speech.
As a result of this curricular design, the
instructional model used in the current study
incorporated the four components of effective
teaching isolated by Dollard and Miller (1950) and
Bloom (1976)--cues, engagement, corrective feedback,
and reinforcement. Cues show students what is to be
learned and explain how to learn. The quality of
cues depends on the clarity, salience, and
meaningfulness of explanations and directions
provided by the teacher, the instructional materials,
or both* Ideally, as the learners gain confidence,
45


the salience and number of cues can be reduced. In
the laboratory-supported public speaking course
examined in this study, it is likely that the
introductory speech and accompanying feedback, the
introductory lectures, and the discussion generated
during the entrance interview provided a strong cuing
effect for students.
Engagement refers to the extent to which
students actively and persistently participate in
learning until appropriate responses are firmly
entrenched in their repertoires. Engagement was
sustained throughout the semester as students
continually prepared, practiced, delivered, and
evaluated their speeches,
Corrective feedback on all speeches allowed
students to detect difficulties rapidly and then
attempt to remedy the difficulties in the next
speech. Constructive written and oral feedback was
provided in the classroom by instructors and
classmates immediately following each speech. More
comprehensive feedback was given during the assisted
viewing of each speech by a teaching assistant in the
laboratory.
Reinforcement came from acknowledgement or
praise of good public speaking behaviors from both
46


instructors and classmates* Though some may see this
merely as a reward, Walberg (1990), in his review of
the literature about productive teaching, pointed out
that cognitive psychologists have repeatedly
demonstrated that the main classroom value of
reinforcement lies in its capacity to inform students
about their progress. Taken together, corrective
feedback and reinforcement, when timely and clear,
have been found to powerfully affect learning by
signaling students what to do next (Walberg,1990),
In sum, the design of the laboratory-supported
instructional model greatly enhanced opportunities
for cues, engagement, corrective feedback, and
reinforcement. This, in turn, may likely have
enhanced the possibility of student increases in
self-perception of their public speaking competency.
As self-perceptions increased, results of this study
indicated that anxiety decreased.
The second hypothesis predicted that high CA
students would perceive less improvement than
moderate and low CA students. This hypothesis was
not supported, Indeed, the opposite was found,
though difference was not statistically significant
(2 =-18), Over the semester, high CA students made
average gains of 10.9 points in self-perceived
47


competency, while moderate and low CA students made
gains of 7,5 and 7-7 points, respectively. Again, it
is likely that the laboratory-supported instructional
model used in the current study provided a non-
threatening, nurturant environment that helped high
CA students perceive increases in competency.
The first research question explored changes in
public speaking anxiety for each of the three CA
groups, The finding that high CA students reduced
their anxiety in a linear trend similar to moderate
and low CA students was unexpected (Figure 3.1,p,
33) since previous research has generally
demonstrated that public speaking courses hurt,
rather than help, high CA students (Foss, 1982;
Kinzer, 1985; McCroskey,1977,1980 Newburger &
Daniel, 1985}. However, previous research has been
conducted m traditional courses. The additional
one-on-one attention and instruction inherent in the
laboratory-supported course likely influenced anxiety
change for all students, including high
apprehensives.
The large, significant differences in the
anxiety levels among the three apprehension groups
should be recognized. Indeed, the large eta
generated for CA group membership (eta = .68; £ <
48


.001shared variance = 46%) speaks to the profound
influence of traitlike CA on students' public
speaking anxiety level. Although high CA students
significantly reduced their anxiety throughout the
semester, their final anxiety score was well above
the initial anxiety score of low CA students.
The trends in self-perceived public speaking
competency examined in the second research question
indicated that all CA groups showed similar patterns
of increase. Like the anxiety trend, differences
among the CA groups at each test time were
significant. Low CA students consistently perceived
the highest level of competency, and high CA students
consistently perceived the lowest level of competency
(Figure 3*2, p. 37). Again, CA group membership
appeared to markedly influence self-perception of
public speaking competency (eta = .62; 2 < -l;
shared variance = 39%) *
The addition of the quadratic component in the
SPPSC trend indicated that students increased their
self-perceptions of competency at a more rapid rate
during the first four weeks of the semester than they
did during the remaining weeks. This may be
explained, in part, by the natural learning curve,
Like most courses, major emphasis during the early
49


part of the semester was on fundamental principles.
Activities in the classroom and the laboratory
concentrated on the eight competencies for public
speaking. Since students had much to learn as they
entered the course, the concentrated focus may have
resulted in greater gains in self-perceived
competency during the first four weeks than during
remaining weeks. As students progressed throughout
the semester, the basic behaviors may have become
automatic, allowing them to direct their attention to
finite analysis and fine tuning of their skills.
Thus, perceived increases in public speaking
competency were not as pronounced after the first
four weeks of the semester.
Public Speaking Anxiety and Teacher Immediacy
The third research question examined immediacy's
relationship to change in public speaking anxiety for
students with varying CA levels* Results indicated
that for high CA students, the more immediate the
instructor's behavior, the greater the decrease in
public speaking anxiety (r = .52, p < .05) and
overall CA (r = ,45, £ < .05). In sharp contrast,
for moderate and low CA students, decreases in public
50


speaking anxiety and CA were not significantly
related to teacher immediacy.
The identification of this link between teacher
immediacy and anxiety decrease for high CA students
is most encouraging and may provide a useful clue as
to how to help high apprehensives succeed in academic
settings. As previously discussed, the laboratory-
supported instructional model used in the current
study insured frequent and ongoing interaction
between students and their instructors throughout the
semester, thus contributing to well developed,
comfortable relationships. Consequently, student
perception of close physical and psychological
distance was likely. This type of interaction may be
critical to anxiety reduction for high CA. students.
Using Rosenthal and Rubin's ¢1982, p.167) binomial
effect-size display (BESD), the significant
correlation of .52 between teacher immediacy and
anxiety decrease is associated with an increase in
success rate from approximately 25% to 75%. Thus, a
teacher^ high immediacy behavior may make as much as
50% difference in the success rate of high
apprehensives.
One possible explanation for the moderately
strong relationship found in this study is that
51


teacher immediacy may provide something that high CA
students desperately need. Given that high CA and
low self-esteem go hand-in-hand, it is intuitively
congruent that teacher iinmediacy behaviors (e.g.,
praise of students; work frequency of initiating
and/or willingness to become engaged in conversations
with students before, after, or outside of class
teacherfs self-disclosure asking questions that
solicit viewpoints or opinions following up on
student-initiated topics asking how students feel
about assignments and inviting students to telephone
or meet outside of class if they have questions or
want to discuss something) communicate to students
that the teacher genuinely cares about them and
values them as individuals. Perhaps this contributes
to increases in the self-esteem of high CA students.
As a result of increased self-esteem, decreases in
public speaking anxiety and overall communication
apprehension may occur. In other words, teacher
immediacy may well be a catalyst for the success of
high CA students in public speaking courses.
Another possibility is that teachers' high
immediacy may have contributed to increases in
anxiety for high CA students until a certain
threshold was reached. Thereafter, however, high
52


immediacy may have contributed to anxiety reduction.
Given the large amount of teacher-student interaction
inherent in the laboratory-supported course, students
may have crossed over this threshold. Such may not
be possible in the traditional courses examined in
previous research. Data collected in the current
study could not confirm such a phenomenon, but this
appears to be a possibility worthy of exploration in
future research.
Further, perhaps the instructor's high immediacy
behavior made initiation of communication less
necessary for high CA students. As a result, the
principle of "reciprocity may have operated in a way
that reduced anxiety.
In any case, although previous reports have
identified avoidance of and difficulty initiating
immediacy behavior as characteristic of high CA
students (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989), the present
study suggests that high CA students may experience
significant benefits when others exhibit high
immediacy behavior toward them in a supportive
learning environment. Certainly the rinding invites
further investigation.
It should be noted, however, that while an
increase in teacher immediacy was found to be
53


predictive of a decrease in public speaking anxiety
and overall CA for high apprehensives, immediacy was
not found to be the cause" of the decrease.
Certainly other factors such as the ability of the
instructor to provide constructive feedback, the
general classroom climate, and the overall college
experience are expected to contribute to a decrease
in apprehension.
In regard to moderate and low CA students, the
results of this study indicated that teacher
immediacy was not significantly related to change in
public speaking anxiety nor overall CA. In sharp
contrast to the significant correlation of .52 for
high CA students, correlations for moderate and ow
CA students ranged from .00 to .19. A possible
explanation for this significant difference is that
moderate and low CA students have consistently
demonstrated high self-esteem and extroversion.
These characteristics may result in anxiety reduction
in public speaking courses regardless of the
behavioral characteristics of their instructors.
The final research question asked whether high
CA students perceived teacher.immediacy differently
than their less apprehensive counterparts. Although
high CA students rated their teacher's immediacy
54


lower than moderate and low CA students (86.1,88.3,
and 92.5, respectively), no significant differences
were identified (eta2 = .02) This suggests that high
CA students recognize teachers/ immediacy behavior in
ways similar to moderate and low CA students, thus
affirming the clarity with which the immediacy
construct has been operationalized. It appears that
the low-inference behaviors identified in the
construct (e,g., smiling, eye contact, praise, self-
disclosure, initiation) can be recognized by students
of all CA levels. Pedagogically, since research has
demonstrated that immediacy can be developed and
successfully monitored with adequate training and
information (Gorham & Zakahi, 1990), the present
study lends support to the practical utility of the
instructional process-product model suggested in
previous literature on immediacy.
Limitations
Although the rxndings of this study are of
considerable importance, two major limitations are
important to note. The first stems from problems
inherent in trend analysis. Specifically, the only
knowledge about the underlying function of a trend
55


for a population evolves from the limited number of
points selected for the experiment (Keppel, 1982),
In the present study, the choice of specific
intervals (week 1,week 4, and week 16) was based on
an attempt to capture the effect of rapid awareness
gains during the early part of the semester. If
different intervals had been selected, perhaps the
function of the trends would have been different.
However, the differences between the means on both
the PRPSA and the SPPSC scales at time one and time
three were so pronounced that overall significant
linear trends appear likely regardless of the
selection of the interval for time two.
The second limitation has to do with the
mortality rate of respondents in longitudinal
research. Because of student absences on days when
instruments were administered, complete data were
available on only 97 of the 155 students in the total
sample.
Implications
Despite these limitations, the results of this
study, combined with previous research, provide
compelling evidence that an understanding of teacher
immediacy and self^perceived competency may be of
56


serious importance in educational practice. With
regard to high CA students, "how* they are taught may
be as important as Tlwhat11 they are taught, Since
teacher immediacy was found to be significantly
related to anxiety decrease, and since high
apprehensives could recognize immediacy in ways
similar to moderate and low CA students, this study
suggests that teachers of highly apprehensive
students should practice high immediacy behaviors and
create instructional settings that insure frequent
and supportive interaction. Additionally, teachers
of public speaking should consciously develop
instructional models and methods that foster
increases in student self-perceived public speaking
competency for all students.
In light of the vast literature that points to
the many problems associated with high levels of
apprehension, it is encouraging to identify an
instructional setting and a "teacher" communicative
behavior that can be altered to enhance the
likelihood of positive student outcome* More
research is needed to discover other instructional
variables and teacher behaviors that influence
anxiety and anxiety change. Further, research is
needed to discover whether decrease in public
57


speaking anxiety and overall communication
apprehension is sustained for each CA group after
students leave the supportive environment inherent in
the instructional model used in the present study.
58


APPENDIX A
Personal Report of Cotntnunication Apprehension
(PRCA-241
DIRECTIONS This instrument is composed of twenty-
four statements concerning feelings about
communicating with other people. Please indicate the
degree to which each statement applies to you by
marking whether you (1)strongly agree, (2) agree,
are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly
disagree. Please record your nrst impression.
1. I dislike participating in group discussions*
2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
3* I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
4. I like to get involved in group discussions.
5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous.
6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
7, Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
8* Usually I am calm and relaxed while participating in meetings.
9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting.
10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.


I am very relaxed when answering questions
at a meeting.
12.
.13. While participating in a conversation with
a new acquaintance, feel very nervous.
14. I have no fear of speaking up in
conversations.
.15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in
conversations.
.16. Ordinariy I am very calm and relaxed in
conversations.
.17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I
feel very relaxed.
18. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.
.19. I have no fear of giving a speech.
,20 Certain parts of my body feel very tense
and rigid while giving a speech.
21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
.22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled
when I am giving a speech.
23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with
confidence.
24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I
forget facts I really know.
60


APPENDIX B
Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA)
DIRECTIONS This instrument is composed of thirty-
four statements concerning feelings about
communication with other people- Indicate the degree
to which the statements apply to you by marking
whether you (1)strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are
undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly aisagree
with each statement. Work quickly record your first
impression.
1. While preparing for giving a speech, I feel
tense and nervous.
2. I feel tense when see the words "speech"
and public speech5 6 8 10 11 on a course outline
when studying.
3. My thoughts become confused and jumbled
when I am giving a speech.
4 Right after giving a speech I feel that I
have had a pleasant experience.*
5. I get anxious when I. think about a speech
coming up.
6. I have no fear of giving a speech.*
7 Although I am nervous just before starting
a speech, I soon settle down after starting
and feel calm and comfortable.*
8. I look forward to giving a speech.*
9 When the instructor announces a speaking
assignment in class, I can feel myself
getting tense.
10. My hands tremble when I am giving a speech,
11. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.^


_12. I enjoy preparing for a speech.*
-13. I am in constant fear of forgetting what I
prepared to say.
_14. I get anxious if someone asks me something
about my topic that I do not know.
_15. I face the prospect of giving a speech with
confidence.*
16. I feel that I am in complete possession of
myself while giving a speech.*
17. My mind is clear when giving a speech.*
_18. do not dread giving a speech*
19. I perspire just before starting a speech.
20. My heart beats very fast just as I start a
speech.
21. I experience considerable anxiety while
sitting in the room just before my speech
starts'.
22. Certain parts of my body feel very tense
and rigid while giving a speech.
23. Realizing that only a ittie time remains
in a speech makes me very tense and
anxious.
24. While giving a speech I know I can control
my feelings of tension and stress.*
25. I breathe faster just before starting a
speech.
26. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour
or so iust before giving a speech.*
27. I do poorer on speeches because I am
anxious.
28. I feel anxious when the teacher announces
the date of a speakinq assignment.
62


29. When I make a mistake while giving a
speech, I find it hard to concentrate on
the parts that follow.
30* During an important speech I experience a
feeling of helplessness building up inside
me,
31. I have trouble falling asleep the night
before a speech.
32. My heart beats very fast while I present a
speech.
33. I feel anxious while waiting to give my
speech.
34. While giving a speech I get so nervous I
forget facts I really know.
Items reversed for scoring
63


APPENDIX C
Personal Report £ Public Speaking Anxiety
Short Form (PRPSA).
DIRECTIONS This instrument is composed of fifteen
statements concerning your feelings about public
speaking There are no right or wrong answers.
Indicate the degree to which the statements apply to
you by marking whether you (1)strongly agree, (2)
agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5)
strongly disagree with each statement. Work quickly
record your first impression.
1. When an instructor announces a speaking
assignment in class, I can feel myself
getting tense.
I have trouble falling asleep the night
before a speech.
I face the prospect of giving a speech with
confidence,*
I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour
or so just before giving a speech.*
5* I breathe faster just before starting a
speech.
When I make a mistake while giving a
speech, I find it hard to concentrate on
the parts that follow.
1 I feel relaxed while giving a speech.*
My heart beats very fast while present a
speech.
While giving a speech I get so nervous I
forget facts I really know.
10* IViy mind is clear when giving a speech**


11. I am in constant fear of prepared to say. forgetting what I
12* Certain parts of my body and rigid while giving a feel very tense speech.
13. I enjoy preparing for a speech,*
14. I do poorer on speeches anxious, because I am
15, I do not dread giving a speech.*
Items reversed for scoring
65


APPENDIX D
Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency (SPPSC)
DIRECTIONS This instrument is composed of
statements concerning how you see yourself as a
public speaker. Please indicate the degree to which
each statement applies to you by marking whether you
(1)strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) are neutral,
(4) agree, ¢5) strongly agree, or (6) don't know.
Work quickly record your first impression*
1. choose a topic that is appropriate for
the audience.
2. I have excellent posture when giving a
speech.
3. I clearly communicate the specific purpose
of my speech to the audience.
4. I have difficulty using appropriate
gestures.*
5. I choose a topic that is appropriate for
the occasion.
6. Generally, giving an effective introduction
is a problem for me.*
7. I use appropriate facial expressions.
8. Generally, the body of my speech is
logically organized.
9. I use a variety of supporting material
(i.e., examples, expert opinions,
statistics, research findings,
illustrations to enhance my speech.
10* I use supporting material that is of poor
quality.


11. I have troxible maintaining adequate eye
contact.*
12. Generally, my conclusion clearly reflects
the content of my speech.
13. I use language that is extremely clear.
14. Some audience members have difficulty
hearing me.*
15. I use variety in my rate of speech.
16. I have difficulty narrowing the focus of
the topic to fit the time constraints.*
17. I have poor articulation.*
18. I use variety in pitch to enhance my
message.
19. When giving a speech, I sometimes use
language that is inappropriate.*
20. I dress to enhance my credibility.
21. I make frequent errors in grammar when
giving a speech.*
22. I make very few, if any, pronunciation
errors.
.23. Generally, I move smoothly from idea to
idea within my speech.
Items reversed for scoring
67


APPENDIX E
The Competent Speaker Criteria for Assessment
Competency One CHOOSES AND NARROWS A TOPIC
APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker presents a topic and a focus
that are exceptionally appropriate for the purpose,
time constraints, and audience,
[That is, the speaker's choice of topic is
clearly consistent with the purpose, is totally
amenable to the time limitations of the speech, and
reflects unusually insightful audience analysis.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker presents a topic and a
focus that are appropriate for the purpose, time
constraints, and audience.
[That is, the speaker's choice of topic is
generally consistent with the purpose, is a
reasonable choice for the time limitations of the
speech, and reflects appropriate analysis of a
majority of the audience.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker presents a topic and a
focus that are not appropriate for either the
purpose, time constraints, or audience.
[That is, the speaker's choice of topic is
inconsistent with the purpose, the topic cannot be
adequately treated in the time limitations of the
speech, and there is little or no evidence of
successful audience analysis.]
Competency Two COMMUNICATES THE THESIS/SPECIFIC
PURPOSE IN A iVIANNER APPROPRIATE FOR THE AUDIENCE AND
OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker communicates a
thesis/specific purpose that is exceptionally clear
and identifiable.
[That is, there is no question that all of the
audience members should understand clearly, within
the opening few sentences of the speech, precisely
what the specific purpose/thesis of the speech is.]


SATISFACTORY = The speaker communicates a
thesis/specific purpose that is adequately clear and
identifiable.
[That is, at least a majority of the audience
should understand clearly, within the opening few
sentences of the speech, precisely what the specific
purpose/thesis of the speech is.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker does not communicate a
clear and identifiable thesis/specific purpose.
[That is, a majority of the audience may have
difficulty understanding, within the opening few
sentences of the speech, precisely what the specific
purpose/thesis of the speech is.]
Competency Three PROVIDES SUPPORTING MATERIAL
APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE A1TO OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker uses supporting material that
is exceptional in quality and variety.
[That is, supporting material is unarguably
linked to the thesis of the speech, and further is of
such quality that it decidedly enhances the
credibility of the speaker and the clarity of the
topic.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses supporting material
that is appropriate in quality and variety.
[That is, supporting material is logically
linked to the thesis of the speech, and is of such
quality that it adds a measurable level of interest
to the speech.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker uses supporting material
that is inappropriate in quality and variety.
[That is, supporting material is only vaguely-
related to the thesis of the speech, and variety is
either too great or too little to do anything but
detract from the effectiveness of the speech.]
Competency Four USES AN ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN
APPROPRIATE TO THE TOPIC, AUDIENCE, OCCASION, AND
PURPOSE.
EXCELLENT = The speaker uses an exceptional
introduction and conclusion and provides an
exceptionally clear and logical progression within
and between ideas.
69


[That is, the introduction clearly engages the
audience in an appropriate and creative manner, the
body of the speech reflects superior clarity in
organization, and the conclusion clearly reflects the
content of the speech and leaves the audience with an
undeniable message or call to action.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses an appropriate
introduction and conclusion and provides a reasonably
clear and logical progression within and between
ideas.
[That is, the introduction clearly engages a
majority of the audience in an appropriate maimer,
the body of the speech reflects adequate clarity in
organization, and the conclusion reflects adequately
the content of the speech and leaves a majority of
the audience with a clear message or call to action.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use an
introduction or conclusion and fails to provide a
reasonably clear and logical progression within and
between ideas.
[That is, the introduction fails to engage even
a majority of the audience in an appropriate manner,
the body of the speech reflects- lack of clarity in
organization, and the conclusion fails to reflect
adequately the content of the speech and fails to
leave even a majority of the audience with a clear
message or call to action.]
Competency Five USES LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE TO THE
AUDIENCE AM) OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker uses language that is
exceptionally clear, vivid, and appropriate.
[That is, the speaker chooses language that
enhances the audience *s comprehension and enthusiasm
for the speech, while adding a measure of creativity
that displays exceptional sensitivity by the speaker
for the nuances and poetry of meaning.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses language that is
reasonably clear, vivid, and appropriate.
[That is, the speaker chooses language that is
free of inappropriate jargon, is nonsexist, is
nonracist, etc.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker uses unclear or
inappropriate language.
70


[That is, the speaker chooses inappropriate
jargon or language which is sexist, racist, etc.]
Competency Six USES VOCAL VARIETY IN RATE, PITCH,
AND INTENSITY (VOLUME) TO HEIGHTEN AND MAINTAIN
INTEREST APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker makes exceptional use of
vocal variety in a conversational mode.
[That is, vocalics are exceptionally and
appropriately well-paced, easily heard by all
audience members, and varied in pitch to enhance the
message,]
SATISFACTORY The speaker makes acceptable use of
vocal variety in a conversational mode,
[That is, the speaker shows only occasional
weakness in pace, volume, pitch, etc., thereby not
detracting significantly from the overall quality or
impact of the speech,3
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use vocal
variety and fails to speak in a conversational mode.
[That is, the speaker shows frequent weakness in
controlling and adapting pace, volume, pitch, etc.,
resulting in an overall detraction from the quality
or impact of the speech.]
Competency Seven USES PRONUNCIATION, GRAMMAR, AND
ARTICULATION APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AfID
OCCASION.
EXCELLENT = The speaker has exceptional articulation,
pronunciation, and grammar.
[That is, the speaker exhibits exceptional
fluency, properly formed sounds which enhance the
message, and no pronunciation or grammatical errors.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker has acceptable
articulation, with few pronunciation or grammatical
errors.
[That is, most sounds are properly formed, there
are only minor vocalized disfluencies, and a few
(1-2) minor errors in pronunciation and grammar.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use acceptable
articulation, pronunciationf and grammar.
[That is, nonfluencies and disfluencies
interfere with the message, and frequent errors in
71


pronunciation and grammar make it difficult for the
audience to understand the message.]
Competency Eight USES PHYSICAL BEHAVIORS THAT
SUPPORT THE VERBAL MESSAGE.
EXCELLENT = The speaker demonstrates exceptional
posture, gestures, bodily movement, facial
expressions, eye contact and use of dress.
[That is, kinesic (posture, gesture, facial
expressions, eye contact) and proxemic (interpersonal
distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress
consistently support the verbal message and thereby
enhance the speakerr s credibility throughout the
audience.]
SATISFACTORY = The speaker demonstrates acceptable
posture, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact
and use of dress.
[That is, kinesic (posture, gesture, facial
expressions, eye contact) and proxemic (interpersonal
distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress
generally support the message, with minor
inconsistencies that neither significantly distract
from the speaker# s credibility with the audience nor
interfere with the message.]
UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use acceptable
posture, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact
and dress.
[That is kinesic (posture, gesture, facial
expressions, eye contact) and proxemic {interpersonal
distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress
are incongruent with the verbal intent and detract
from the speaker's credibility with the audience as
well as distracting the audience from the speaker's
message.
72


APPENDIX F
Immediacy Behavior Scale
Instructions Below are statements that describe
behaviors that teachers may or may not exhibit.
Please respond to the questions in terms of your
RECITATION section. Please indicate the degree to
which YOUR RECITATION LEADER (TA) exhibits these
behaviors
0 = Never
1=Rarely
2 = Occasionally
3 = Often
4 = Very Often
1. Uses personal examples or talks about
experiences she/he has had outside of
class.
2. Asks questions or encourages students to
3. Gets into discussions based on something a
student brings up even when this doesn^
seem to be a part of his/her lesson plan.
4. Uses humor in class.
5. Addresses students by name,
6. Addresses me by name.
7. Gets into conversations with individual
students before or after class.
8. Has initiated conversations with me before,
after, or outside of class
9. Refers to class as ITour!t class or what Hwe11
are doing.


.10. Provides feedback to my individual work
through verbal and written comments on
speeches and outlines.
11. Calls on students to answer questions even
if they have not indicated that they want
to talk.
12. Asks how students feel about assignments,
due date, or discussion topic.
,13. Invites students to telephone or meet with
him/her outside of class if they have
questions or want to discuss something.
.14. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or
opinions.
.15. Praises studentsf work, actions, or
comments.
16. Will have discussions about things
unrelated to class with individual students
or with the class as a whole.
,17. Is addressed by his/her first name by the
students.
,18. Sits behind desk while teaching.*
,19. Gestures while talking to class.
,20. Uses monotone/dull voice while talking to
class.*
.21. Looks at the class while talking.
,22. Smiles at the class as a whole, not just
individual students.
.23. Has a very tense body position while
talking to the class.*
.24. Touches students in the class.
.25. Moves around the classroom while teaching.
,26. Looks at board or notes while talking to
the class.*
74


27. Stands behind podium or desk while
teaching.*
28 Has a very relaxed body position while
talking to the class.
29, Smiles at individual students in the class.
30. Uses a variety of vocal expressions while
talking to the class
*Items reversed for scoring
75


REFERENCES
Allen, M Hunter, J, E & Donohue, W. A.(1989).
Meta-analysis of self-report data on the
effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment
techniques, Coronunication Education, 38 54-76.
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,
Anthony, W. P., Maddox, E. N., fi Wheatley, W.(1988).
Envisionary management. New York Quorum Books.
Ayres, J,(1986). Perceptions of speaking ability
An explanation for stage fright. Communication
Education, 35, 275-287.
Ayres, J,, & Hopf, T. S(1987). Visualization,
systematic desensitization, and rational emotive
therapy A comparative evaluation. Communication
Education, 36, 236-240.
Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S* (1991)-Visualization
Reducing speech anxiety and enhancing performance.
Paper presented at the Speech Communication
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Ayres, J*, & Hopf, T. S.(1993). Coping with speech
anxiety, Norwood,. NJ Ablex Publishing Company.
Bloom, B.(1976), Human characteristics and school
learning. New York McGraw-Hill *
Booth-Butterfield, S(1988). Instructional
interventions for reducing situational anxiety and
avoidance* Communication Education, 37 214-223,
Cattell,R. B. {1950}. Personality A systematic
theoretical and factorial study. New York
McGraw-Hill.


Christophel,D. M.(1990). The relationships among
teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation,
and learning. Cominunication Education, 39, 325-
340.
Combs, A. W,, & Snygg, D.(1959). Individual
behavior. Boston Houghton-Mifflin.
Crowell,L., Katcher, A., & Miyamoto, S. F.(1955}
Self-concept of communication skill and
performance in small group discussion. Speech
Monographs 22., 20-27.
Deutsch, M., & Solomon, L.(1959). Reactions to
evaluations by others as influenced by self
evaluations. Sociometrv, 22, 93-112.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N,(1950), Personality and
psychotherapy New York McGraw-Hill,
Ellis, A. (1962).
psychotherapy,
Reason and emotion in
New York Stuart
Felker, D* W,(194) Building positive self-
concepts Minneapolis Burgess Publishing
Company.
Foss, K, A. (1982). Communication apprehension
Resources for the instructor. Communication
Education. 31,195-204.
Fremouw, W. J. (1984) Cognitive-behavioral
therapies for modification of communication
apprehension. In J. A. Daly & J* C. McCroskey
(EdsAvoiding communication {pp* 209-218).
Beverly Hills, CA Sage.
Fremouwf W* J.f & Zitter, R. E. <1978}. A comparison
of skills training and cognitive restracturing-
relaxation for the treatment of speech arociety.
Behavior Therapy. 9, 248-259.
Freud, S.(1943). A general introduction to
psychoanalysis Garden City, NY: Garden City
Publishing,
77


Friedrich, G. V & Goss, B.(1984). Systematic
desensitization In J* A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey
(Eds.), Avoiding communication (pp. 173-188)*
Beverly Hills, CA Sage.
Prymier, A. (1993). The relationships among
communication apprehension, immediacy and
motivation to study. Communication Reports, 6,
8-17.
Garfield, C* (1984). Peak performance. Los Angeles
Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Garfield, C.(1986)< Peak performers. New York
William Morrow & Co., Inc.
Glaser, S. R,(1981),Oral communication
apprehension and avoidance The current status of
treatment research Communication Apprehension.
M/ 321-341.
Goffman, E.(1961}* Encounter Two studies in the
sociology of interaction, Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Gorham, J.(1988). The relationship between verbal
teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning.
Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Gorham, J., & Zakaiii, W. R.(1990}. A comparison of
teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and
learning Monitoring process and product.
Communication Education, 39, 355-368.
Hensley, W. E., & Batty, P.(1974). The measurement
of communication anxiety among students in public
speaking courses. Indiana Speech Journal, 7-10.
Keppel,G.(1982). Design and analysis A
researcher^ handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Prentice-Hall,nc
Kinzer, H* J* (1985), Video feedback in the
classroom: Possible consequences for the
coMnunication apprehensive. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication
Association, Fresno, CA,
78


Lecky, P, <1945 Self-consistency, New York
Island Press.
Lewin, K.(1936). Principles of topological
DSVCholQcrv, New York McGraw-Hill *
Low, G. M., & Sheets, B, V.(1951).The relation of
psychometric factors to stage fright. Speech
Monographs18, 266-271.
Lustig, M. W* (1974), Verbal reticence A
reconceptionalization and preliminary scale
development. Paper presented to the
Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Maslow, A, H* (1954). Motivation and personality.
New York Harper.
McCroskey, J C.(1972). The implementation of a
large-scale program of systematic desensitization
for communication apprehension. Speech Teacher,
21,255-264,
McCroskey, J. C.(1977). Oral communication
apprehension: A summary of recent theory and
research. Human Communication Research, 4(1),
78-96*
McCroskey, J* C.(1978). Validity of the PRCA as an
index of oral communication apprehension*
Communication Monocrraphs 45 192-203 .
McCroskey, J. C.(1980). Quiet children in the
classroom On helping not hurting. Communication
Education, 29, 239-244.
McCroskey, J. C.(1984). The communication
apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J, C.
McCroskey (Eds.) Avoidincr communication
Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension {pp* 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA
Sage.
McCroskey, J* C., Booth-Butterfieldf S., & Payne, S.
¢1989). The impact of communication apprehension
on college student retention and success.
Connnunication Quarterly, 37 (2) > 100-107 .
79


McCroskey, J. C,, Daly, J. A.f Richmond, V. P., &
Falcione, R- L.(1977). Studies of the
relationship between communication
apprehension and self-esteem* Human Communication
Research> 3 (3), 264-277 .
McCroskey, J. C Daly, J. A., & Sorensen, G,(1976}.
Personality correlates of communication
apprehension A research note. Human
Communication Research, 2,(4) 376-380.
McCroskeyf J, C & McCroskey, L. L.(1988). Self-
report as an approach to measuring communication
competence. Human Communication Research Reports.
5(2),108-113*
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V, P.(1975). Self-
credibility as an index of self-esteem. Paper
presented at the Convention of Speech
Communication Association, Houston, TX.
McCroskey, J. C*, & Richmond, V_ P.(1977)_ The
effects of conununication apprehension on the
perception of peers. Western Speech Communication
Journal 40,14-21.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P.(1979). The
impact of communication apprehension on
individuals in organizations. Communication
Quarterly, 40,14-21.
McCroskey, J. C., & Sheahan, M. E.(1976). Seating
position and participation An alternative
theoretical explanation Paper presented at the
Convention of the International Communication
Association, Portland, OR.
Mead, G. H.(1934} Mind, self and society,
Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1934.
Mehrabian, A. (1971) Silent tnessacres. Belmont, CA
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mehrabian, A* (1981)* Silent messages Implicit
communication of emotions and attitudes Belmont
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Meichenbaum, D.(1985) Stress inoculation training.
New York Pergamon Press.
80


Milesf P.(1981). Student video self-critiques,
Coimnunication Education, 30 (3) 280-283 .
Miller, M. D.(1987). The relationship of
communication reticence and negative expectations.
Communication Education, 36, 228-235.
Morreale, S(1990) The competent speaker. Speech
Communication Association Conference on Assessment
of Communication Competency, Denver, CO.
Mulac, A, <1974). Effects of three feedback
conditions employing videotape and audiotape on
acquired speech skill. Speech Monographs, 41,
205-214,
Newburger, C. A., & Daniel, A. V.(1985). Self-
concept ,communication apprehension, and self-
confrontation A relational study* Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, Honolulu,
HA.
Phillips, G. M.(1968), Reticence Pathology of the
normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49.
Phillips, G. M.(1977) Rhetoritherapy versus the
medical model Dealing with reticence*
Communication Education, 26, 34-43.
Phillips G. M* (1984). Reticence A perspective on
social withdrawal* In J. A* Daly & J- C.
McCroskey (Eds), Avoiding communication
Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension
(pp. 51-66). Beverly Hills, CA Sage.
Plax, T. G., Kearney, Pw McCroskey, J, Cw &
Richmond, V.P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI
Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and
affective learning. Communication Education, 35
43-55.
81


Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S,, & McCroskey, J. C.
(1987) The relationship between selected
immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M*
McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10
(pp. 574-590) Beverly Hills, CA Sage
Publications,
Richmond, V* P. f & McCroskey, J. C, (1989).
Communication Apprehension, avoidance, and
effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ Gorsuch
Scarisbrick, Publishers.
Rogers, C. R. ¢1951). Client-centered therapy Its
current practice, implications and theory.
Boston Houghton-Mifflin.
Rosenthal,R., & Rosnow, R. L.(1984). Essentials of
behavioral research Methods and data analysis
New York McGraw-HillP
Rosenthal# R.# & Rubin, D. B.(1982} A simple,
general purpose display of magnitude of
experimental effect, Journal £ Educational
Psychology/ 74 (2),166-169.
Rubin, R, B., Graham, E. E., & Mignerey, J. T.
(1990)* A longitudinal study of college students'
communication competence. Communication
Education, 39,1-13
Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L* (1990) The
effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy
on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral
learning in the multicultura classroom.
Communication Education, 39, 341-353.
Schlenker, B, R., & Leary, M. R.(1982), Social
anxiety and self-presentation A
conceptualization and model. Psychological
Bulletin. 92, 641-669.
Scott, M., & Wheeless, L.(1977). The relationship
of the three types of communication apprehension
to classroom achievement among college students.
The Southern Speech Communication Journal.42,
246-255.
82


Smythe, M. J. # & Powers, W. G. <1978). When Galatea
is apprehensive The effect of communication
apprehension on teacher expectations. In B. Rubin
(Ed-), Communication yearbook 2 (pp, 487-491}.
New Brunswick, NJ Transaction Books.
Suavely, W. B., MerJcer, G* E., Becker, L., &
Brook, V,(1976). Predictions of interpersonal
communication apprehension in the acquaintance
context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Speech Communication Association, San
Francisco, CA,
Stacks, D. W., & Stone, J, D.(1982). The effect of
self-concept, self-disclosure, and type of basic
speech course on communication apprehension.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, Louisville,
KY,
Walberg, H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and
instruction Assessing the knowledge base. Phi
Delta Kappan. February, 470-478.
Watson, A. K., Ec Dodd, C, H.(1984) Alleviating
communication apprehension through rational-
emotive therapy: A comparative evaluation.
Communication Education, 33, 257-266.
Wells, J. A., & Lashbrook, W. B.(1970). A study of
the effects of systematic desensitization of the
communication anxiety of individuals in small
groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Wolpe, J. {1958) Psychotherapy bv reciprocal
inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
83


Full Text

PAGE 1

APPREHENSION, SELF-PERCEIVED COMPETENCY, AND TEACHER IMMEDIACY IN THE LABORATORY-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SPEAKING COURSE: TRENDS AND RELATIONSHIPS by Kathleen S. Ellis B. A., University of Colorado, 1989 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Communication

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Kathleen S. Ellis has been approved for the Department of Communication by Donald D:iMOrley Pamela S. Shocklet? Morreale Daj?e /

PAGE 3

Ellis, Kathleen S. (M. A., Communication) Apprehension, Self-perceived Competency, and Teacher Immediacy in the Laboratory-supported Public Speaking Course: Trends and Relationships Thesis directed by Professor Donald D. Morley ABSTRACT This study examines trends and relationships among public speaking anxiety, self-perceived public speaking competency, and teacher immediacy for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension in the laboratory-supported public speaking course. Public speaking anxiety and selfperceived competency were measured at three points during the semester. Trends in anxiety and selfperceived competency for high, moderate, and low apprehensives were examined using two 3 x 3 mixedmodel factorial ANOVAs (one-between and one-within factors) All three apprehension groups perceived significant gains in competency and significant decreases in anxiety. Analyses failed to find significant differences among high, moderate, and low apprehensives in the amount of perceived improvement

PAGE 4

and anxiety decrease. Correlations revealed a significant negative relationship between anxiety and self-perceived competency at all three test times. Correlations also revealed a significant positive relationship between teacher immediacy and anxiety decrease for high apprehensives, but not for moderate nor low apprehensives. Implications for educators are discussed. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Signed Donald D. Morley iv

PAGE 5

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. RATIONALE ........ . . . . 1 Communication Apprehension and Public Speaking Anxiety . . . 3 Self-perception and Public Speaking Anxiety. ..... 10 Public Speaking Instruction for Students with High Communication Apprehension. . . . . . . 13 Trends in Public Speaking Anxiety and Self-perceived Competency 18 Te.acher Immediacy 19 2. METHOD 24 Respondents and Course Design 24 Measurement 26 Data Analyses 28 3. RESULTS 31 4. DISCUSSION 44 Public Speaking Anxiety and Self-perceived Competency . . . . 44 Public Speaking Anxiety and Teacher Immediacy Limitations Implications 50 55 56

PAGE 6

APPENDIX A. PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA-24} . . 59 B. PERSONAL REPORT OF PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY (PRPSA} . . . 61 C. PERSONAL REPORT OF PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY: SHORT FORM (PRPSA} . . . . . 64 D. SELF-PERCEIVED PUBLIC SPEAKING COMPETENCY (SPPSC} . . . . . . 66 E. THE COMPETENT SPEAKER: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT. 68 F. IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOR SCALE 73 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 vi

PAGE 7

FIGURES Figure 3.1 Trends in public speaking apprehension (PRPSA) for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension ..... 3.2 Trends in self-perceived public speaking competency (SPPSC) for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension . . . 37 vii

PAGE 8

TABLES Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for High, Moderate, and Low CA Students on PRPSA . . 34 3.2 Summary of ANOVA for PRPSA 35 3.3 Descriptive Statistics for High, Moderate, and Low CA Students on SPPSC . . 38 3.4 Summary of ANOVA for SPPSC 39 3.5 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Teacher Immediacy and Change in PRPSA and PRCA for High, Moderate, and Low CA Students . . . . . . 41 viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 RATIONALE Although some public speaking anxiety is necessary for peak performance, anxiety can be of such a high level that it seriously interferes with the overall performance of the speaker (BoothButterfield, 1988; Glaser, 1981; Richmond & McCroskey, 1989; Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990). The pervasiveness of this occurrence suggests the need to identify factors that influence anxiety and anxiety change. A speaker's perception of his/her expertise in public speaking may be one influencing factor. Exposure to a public speaking course is expected to be related to change in students' selfperceived public speaking competency and, therefore, might also be related to change in their public speaking anxiety level. However, as students and teachers of public speaking go about the tasks of learning and teaching, a variety of factors influence both the process and the product. The strength and direction of the relationship between anxiety and self-perception could differ at various points during the semester.

PAGE 10

Nonetheless, it is expected that by the end of the semester, most students will report an increase in self-perception of competencyas well as a decrease in anxiety. In addition, the uniqueness of both students and instructors suggests that all students may not experience similar trends. For example, research has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals who initially report high levels of traitlike communication apprehension (CA) generate different perceptions concerning their progress in public speaking courses than their less apprehensive counterparts (Kinzer, 1985; Newburger & Daniel, 1985; Stacks & Stone, 1982). In fact, research has indicated that traditional public speaking courses may actually have a negative impact on highly apprehensive students (Kinzer, 1985; McCroskey, 1977, 1980; Newburger & Daniel, 1985). To date, however, researchers have not investigated relationships among initial apprehension level, changes in anxiety, and changes in selfperceived competency in public speaking courses that are supported by a communication laboratory. Hence, one purpose of this investigation was to examine relationships between and trends in public speaking 2

PAGE 11

anxiety and self-perceived public speaking competency for students with high, moderate, and low CA in the laboratory-supported course. Teacher behaviors may also influence student public speaking anxiety and anxiety change, yet little attention appears to have been given to this possibility. Accordingly, a second purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of one behavioral strategy of teachers--immediacy. Specifically, this study probed the possibility that a significant. relationship exists between teacher immediacy and change in student public speaking anxiety. Communication Apprehension and Public Speaking Anxiety Communication apprehension (CA) has been a subject of major concern to communication scholars for many years. In fact, McCroskey (1984), speaking of communication apprehension, suggested that "no other area within the communication discipline has generated as much continuing interest and investigation" (p. 81) McCroskey (1977) has defined CA as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with 3

PAGE 12

either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons" (p. 78). McCroskey further clarified by conceptualizing CA on a -four-point continuum: (a) CA as a trait, (b) CA.in a generalized context, (c) CA with a given audience across situations, and (d) CA with a given individual or group in a given situation (McCroskey, 1984) The present investigation was concerned with both traitlike and context-based CA. Traitlike CA has been defined as "a relatively enduring personality-type orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide variety of contexts" (McCroskey, 1984, p. 16). Studies have indicated that about 20% of the population have high traitlike CA (McCroskey, 1977, 1980, 1984). This type of CA has been_found to remain about the same across time unless specifically treated. Context-based CA has been defined as "a relatively enduring, personality-type orientation toward communication in a given type of context" (McCroskey, 1984, p. 16). Prevalence of high communication apprehension in the context of public speaking is noteworthy. For example, of several thousand college students who have completed McCroskey's Personal Report of Public Speaking 4

PAGE 13

Anxiety (PRPSA, Appendix B), 40% reported high anxiety; 3Q%, moderately high.anxiety; 20%, moderate anxiety; 5%, moderately low anxiety; and 5%, low anxiety (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989, p. 41). These findings suggest that it is "nonnal" for students to experience a fairly high degree of anxiety in the public speaking context since 70% of the student population score in the moderately high to high categories. Overall, three lines of research have been pursued concerning the causes and alleviation of debilitating anxiety in the public speaking context. Some researchers focus on behaviors; others on affect; and still others on cognition. The Behavioral Approach The behavioral approach argues that people are reticent because they lack behavioral repertoires (Fremouw & Zitter, 1978; Phillips, 1968, 1977). Proponents of the behavioral model treat public speaking anxiety with two major behaviorally oriented procedures--rhetoritherapy and skills training. Rhetoritherapy takes the position that students need to consider speaking behavior holistically. Consequently, rhetoritherapy involves a consideration 5

PAGE 14

of communication goals, content of speech, organization of speech, delivery, and observation of results (Phillips, 1984). The second procedure, skills training, focuses primarily on speech delivery, including instruction in eye contact, gestures, movement, and so on (Fremouw & Zitter, 1978) Rhetoritherapy and/or skills training are generally used to treat public speaking anxiety when it is believed that the person receiving treatment lacks the behavioral skills necessary to perform competently. Glaser (1981), in her comprehensive review of CA treatment literature, points out that of the major methods of anxiety treatment, only skills training and rhetoritherapy have been found to produce change in actual public speaking behavior as well as anxiety level. The Affective Approach The affective approach emphasizes feelings associated with apprehension. This approach regards excessive anxiety, expectation of adverse consequences of public speaking, and/or impending doom to be the chief cause. of public speaking anxiety. The major method of treatment is systematic desensitization. This method is based on the 6

PAGE 15

principle of reciprocal inhibition (Wolpe, 1958) and holds that fear is reduced by pairing aversive stimuli with relaxation. Proponents of this theory assert that it is not possible to feel simultaneously tense and relaxed. Hence, by teaching people to relax in the presence of anxiety stimuli, it has been argued that anxiety will be markedly reduced and subsequent performance enhanced (McCroskey, 1972) Research has indicated that of all the methods of anxiety treatment, systematic desensitization is the most widely used and documented procedure (Friedrich & Goss, 1984). Although there is some debate over why systematic desensitization is effective, there is general agreement that the method does help people reduce anxiety (Allen, Hunter, & Donohue, ::1,.989; Ayres & Hopf, 1993; Glaser, 1981). The Cognitive Approach Cognitive theorists (e.g., Ellis, 1962; Meichenbaum, 1985) posit that conscious, identifiable thoughts and images occur as a form of internal dialogue that interrupts public speaking behavior. This dialogue incorporates, among other things, attributions, expectations, and evaluations of self and/or task or task-irrelevant thoughts and images. 7

PAGE 16

From a cognitive perspective, the thoughts and attributions made about public speaking drive feelings offear. Advocates of this school of thought employ two major methods of treatment for public speaking anxiety--cognitive restructuring and visualization techniques. Cognitive restructuring developed from a method known as therapy (Ellis, 1962). This method is based on the idea that people are apprehensive because they entertain irrational thoughts about themselves and their communicative behaviors due to previous negative experiences. Treatment consists of first having apprehensive persons identify their irrational beliefs. Then each belief is logically examined in an attempt to demonstrate to apprehensive individuals that they should change their thinking. The assumption is that as irrational thoughts are eliminated, apprehension will be reduced. Further, an attempt to replace irrational thoughts with more appropriate beliefs is often incorporated into the treatment (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989). Research on cognitive restructuring has indicated that the method is successful when carried out on an individual or small group basis and when the speaker frequently engages 8

PAGE 17

in negative, irrational self-evaluation in communication situations (Watson & Dodd, 1984) Visualization, the second major cognitive treatment, involves asking speakers to imagine themselves composing and delivering an effective speech (Ayres, 1986; Ayres & Hopf, 1991, 1993) This is the same technique used by athletes and managers to improve their performances (Anthony, Maddox, & Wheatley, 1988; Garfield, 1984, 1986). A study by Ayres and Hopf (1987) indicated that visualization is as effective in reducing public speaking anxiety as either rational-emotive therapy or systematic desensitization. Although the three explanations of and treatments for speech anxiety have different foci, the elements are interrelated and reciprocal. Indeed, research has shown that none of the intervention procedures has been established as clearly superior, and all have been effective in reducing the fear of public speaking (Allen et al., 1989; Glaser, 1981; Watson & Dodd, 1984). The key to treatment choice, according to Glaser (1981), is to choose the treatment method that most clearly addresses the particular needs of the apprehensive individual. Overall, however, in a meta-analysis of 9

PAGE 18

111 studies involving_the use of various treatment methods (Allen et al-.; 1989) skills training alone was the least effective method. Most effective was a combination of behavioral, affective, and cognitive methods. The preceding literature review concerning the three approaches to the causes and treatment for high CA provides important insight for the current study, which .combines elements of the behavioral and cognitive approach. Specifically, the study probes the possibility that students' thoughts about their public speaking behavior (competency) influence and/or moderate their level of public speaking anxiety. Self-perception and Public Speaking Anxiety An individual's perception of self has been examined widely for more than half a century. The overwhelming conclusion from both research and theory is that the perception an individual has of self significantly affects attitudes, behaviors, evaluations, and cognitive processes (Cattell, 1950; Freud, 1943; Goffman, 1961; Lewin, 1936; Maslow, 1954; Mead, 1934; Rogers, 1951). 10

PAGE 19

Pertinent to the present investigation is the finding that there is an emphatic link between self-concept and.behaviar. As.early as 1945, Lecky suggested that people behave in ways that are consistent with their self-views. Similarly, Rogers (1951) theorized that individuals react to their environment as it is perceived. Research by Combs and Snygg (1959) identified self-concept as the most important single factor affecting behavior. Felker (1974) suggested that self-concept determines how individuals behave in a wide range of situations. Further, Crowell, Katcher, and Miyamoto (1955) argued that self-images play an important part in the nature of individuals' communicative behavior regardless of whether the images are realistic or unrealistic. Similarly, McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) maintained: . many of the most important decisions people make concerning communication are made on the basis of self-perceived competence rather than actual competence. In short, we believe often it is more important to know what a person believes his/her competence level is than to know what the person's actual competence level is. (p. 110) Relatively few studies have investigated the relationship between students' self-perceptions of public .speaking competency and their level of public speaking anxiety. Miller (1987) demonstrated that 11

PAGE 20

increases in public speaking anxiety were associated with less positive self-ratings on 22 speech skills cited in public speaking textbooks and speech rating forms. Other researchers have investigated the relationship between different types of thoughts and anxiety level. For example, Ayres (1986) found that the more one's perceived communication ability falls below one's perception of other's expectations in a given public speaking situation, the higher one's level of stage fright. Similarly, Schlenker and Leary (1982), in their extensive review of the literature on social anxiety, concluded that apprehension develops when an individual has a self-presentation goal but does not expect to be able to accomplish that goal. Overall, previous research has indicated that perceptions of communicative may be central to apprehension. Specifically, the research has suggested that public speaking anxiety decreases as self-perception of expertise in public speaking increases. H1: Public speaking anxiety is negatively related to self-perceived public speaking competency. 12

PAGE 21

Public Speaking Instruction for Students with High Communication Apprehension Although CA has not been linked to intelligence nor aptitude .(McCroskey & Richmond, 1979), students who report high traitlike CA have consistently exhibited several characteristics that may interfere with positive outcomes in public speaking courses. Specifically, high CA has been linked to the following: (a) low self-esteem (Lustig, 1974; McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione, 1977; McCroskey, Daly, & Sorensen, 1976; McCroskey & Richmond, 1975, 1977; Snavely, Merker, Becker, & Brook, 1976; Stacks & Stone, 1982); (b) lack of confidence (McCroskey et al., 1976); c) lack of assertiveness (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989); (d) lowered interaction (Wells & Lashbrook, 1970); (e) avoidance of communication with others (Richmond & McCRoskey, 1989); (f) seating choice in classrooms (McCroskey & Sheahan, 1976) ; (g) feelings of isolation and ineffectiveness in social relationships (Low & Sheets, 1951); and (h) poorer academic outcomes such as negative attitudes toward school, lower grades and SAT scores, and tendency to drop out of school (McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, & Payne, 1989; Scott & Wheeless, 1977; Smythe & Powers, 1978). 13

PAGE 22

Of particular importance to the present investigation is the consistent finding that traitlike communication apprehension and self-esteem are negatively related. For instance, a study by McCroskey et al. (1977) posited and obtained a series of significant negative correlations (r = -.52 tor= -.72) between CA and self-esteem across a number of different samples of varying ages and occupational types. Other studies have produced similar findings, consistently indicating that the presence of either high communication apprehension or low self-esteem is "highly" predictive of the other (Lustig, 1974; McCroskey et al., 1976; McCroskey & Richmond, 1975; Snavely et al., 1976; Stacks & Stone, 1982). The finding that CA and self-esteem are negatively related is particularly troubling for public speaking students when the consequences of low self-esteem are considered. Research has demonstrated that individuals with low self-esteem: (a) have difficulty believing positive feedback (Kinzer, 1985), (b) engage in negative distortions of self-perception (McCroskey et al., 1977), (c) view low evaluations of themselves from others as more believable than high evaluations (Deutsch & Solomon, 1959), (d) have low expectations of success in 14

PAGE 23

communicative acts (Stacks & Stone, 1982), and (e) find that attention focused on them greatly intensifies anxiety (Stacks & Stone, 1982). These characteristics may seriously interfere with positive outcomes in public speaking courses. Indeed, Foss (1982) concluded an examination of programs for highly anxious students with the concern that highly anxious students may be hurt rather than helped by required oral presentations, the assignment of grades for class participation, and the like" (p. 200) With regard to public speaking training, the problems highly apprehensive. students face may be further compounded by the use of video feedback. Although several empirical studies have indicated that video feedback increases both satisfaction with instruction and public speaking skills for the general population of students (Miles, 1981; Mulac, 1974), research has also demonstrated that this effect may not be present for highly apprehensive students, who represent 20% of the student population. For example, a study by Kinzer (1985) demonstrated that video feedback for high CA students prompts deleterious intensification of anxiety and substantially interferes with learning objectives. 15

PAGE 24

In addition, although video feedback offers concrete, detailedinformation about one's performance, the medium is not an objective report because video feedback is interpreted by the viewer. Since high CA students are predicted to have low self-esteem, it follows that high CA students who view video replay of their speeches are more likely than their less apprehensive counterparts to engage in negative distortions, to make negative self-statements, and to negatively interpret both positive and negative information about themselves. Moreover, highly apprehensive students may experience additional performance deficits triggered by elevated arousal due to the reactive anxiety that the use of video may foster. Kinzer (1985) explained: An analogous situation would be the highly anxious child receiving emergency medical treatment who becomes hysterical at the sight of a person in a surgical mask (reactive anxiety) The child might have been able to endure the frightening treatment if reactive anxiety could have been avoided. (p. 7) In sum, the literature has generally demonstrated that completing a basic course in public speaking using video is likely to be a punishing experience for highly apprehensive students. However, one study produced conflicting findings. 16

PAGE 25

Stacks and Stone (1982) reported that .the anxiety level of high .CA students significantly decreased through a conventional basic course (either public speaking or group communication) but still remained one standard deviation above the class mean. Stacks and Stone indicated, however, that they may have obtained a different result if their method for assigning subjects to the "high11 category of communication apprehension had been more extreme. They also cited small sample size as a possible limitation. Therefore, it appears that further research is needed to explore the fate of highly apprehensive students in video-based public speaking classrooms. H2: Students who initially report high communication apprehension perceive less improvement in public speaking competency than students who initially report low and moderate communication apprehension. 17

PAGE 26

Trends in Public Speaking Anxietv and Self-perceived Competency Little longitudinal research has been done to explore changes that occur in anxiety and selfperceived competency during the process of public speaking instruction. It may be that students' public speaking anxiety decreases continuously throughout the semester as they become comfortable within the classroom environment. On the other hand, perhaps the relationship is not clearly defined at the onset of the semester when students are not yet fully aware of the complexity of public speaking. As students progress and their awareness increases, self-perception of their competency could actually decrease, accompanied by a temporary increase in anxiety. Nonetheless, it is expected that by the end of the semester, most students will report an increase in self-perceived competency as well as a decrease in anxiety. However, since research has suggested that high CA students may generate different perceptions concerning their progress in public speaking courses than their lower CA counterparts (Kinzer, 1985; McCroskey, 1977, 1980; Newburger & Daniel, 1985), the 18

PAGE 27

trend for high CA students may differ from the trends for moderate and low CA students. The following research questions guided this part of the current study: ROl: Over the course of a semester, what changes in public speaking anxiety occur for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension? R02: Over the course of a semester, what changes in self-perceived public speaking competency occur for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension? Teacher Immediacy The immediacy construct was conceptualized by Mehrabian (1971, 1981) as communication behavior that reduces physical and/or psychological distance between people. Immediacy behavior can be verbal or nonverbal. Variables associated with nonverbal teacher immediacy include smiling, eye contact, vocal expressiveness, movement about the classroom, gesturing, and a relaxed body position (Andersen, 1979; Gorham, 1988; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987) Variables associated with verbal teacher 19

PAGE 28

immediacy include using of humor in class; praising students' work, actions, or comments; frequently initiating and/or demonstrating willingness to become engaged in conversations with students before, after, or outside of class; self-disclosing; asking questions or encouraging students to talk; asking questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions; following up on student-initiated topics; referring to the class as "our" class and what "we" are doing; providing feedback on students' work; asking how students feel about assignments, due dates, or discussion topics; and inviting students to telephone or meet outside of class if _they have questions or want to discuss something (Gorham, 1988) Mehrabian demonstrated that the major communicative function of immediacy behaviors is that they reflect a more positive attitude of the sender to the receiver. He conceptualized immediacy and liking as "two sides of the same coin. That is, liking encourages greater immediacy and immediacy produces more liking" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 77). Indeed, research aimed at identifying links between teacher immediacy and student affective learning has consistently demonstrated Mehrabian's assertions. For example, seminal research by 20

PAGE 29

Andersen (1979) found that nonverbal immediacy predicted 46% of the variance in student affect toward the course instructor and about 20% of the variance toward course content. Other studies have produced similar findings (Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey & Richmond, 1986; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Given that immediacy increases liking and liking increases immediacy, it is intuitively congruent that immediacy may be associated with.reduction of anxiety since people are generally less apprehensive around people they like. However, public speaking anxiety is likely to also be by variables unique to the public speaking context and the instructional setting. Moreover, perhaps not all students respond to immediacy similarly. In particular, since high CA students find that attention focused on them intensifies anxiety (Stacks & Stone, 1982), high levels of teacher immediacy may function to increase anxiety level. Even so, recent findings by Frymier (1993) suggest that the impact of teacher immediacy on high CA students may be positive, at least in some respects. Fryrnier found that highly apprehensive students experienced an increase in motivation to study when exposed to highly immediate teachers. 21

PAGE 30

Therefore, research is needed to discover possible links between teacher immediacy .. and change in public speaking anxiety for students with varying CA levels. R03: What, if any, is the relationship between teacher immediacy and change in public speaking anxiety for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension? To further complicate the issue, high CA students may have difficulty perceiving a teacher's behavior as immediate since empirical studies have demonstrated that high CA students are likely to avoid communication with the instructor and the instructor is unlikely to have high positive regard for them (McCroskey et al., 1976}. Consequently, students with high CA may rate a teacher lower in immediacy behavior than students with moderate or low CA. On the other hand, Gorham and Zakahi (1990} found a high level of intact-class agreement on teacher use of immediacy, indicating no significant differences among student ratings. Therefore, based on the literature reviewed, no directional hypotheses could be formulated. 22

PAGE 31

R04: Do students with high communication apprehension perceive teacher immediacy differently than students with moderate or low communication apprehension? 23

PAGE 32

CHAPTER 2 METHOD Within the context of laboratory-supported public speaking instruction, this study empirically investigated trends and relationships among public speaking anxiety, self-perceived public speaking competency, and teacher immediacy for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension. Respondents and Course Design Respondents for this study were 155 undergraduate students enrolled in 11 sections of a lower division public speaking course. Of that number, 20 (12.6%) were first-year students, 57 (35.8%) were second-year students, 48 (30.2%) were third-year students, 19 (11.9%) were fourth-year students, and 11 (7.1%) did not report their class standing. In regard to academic majors, 46 respondents (28.9%) were communication majors, 43 (27.0%) respondents were business majors, 60 (37.7%) respondents had majors scattered widely across the various disciplines, and 6 (3.9%) respondents had not

PAGE 33

declared a major. Ninety-seven respondents (62.6%) were female and 58 (37.4%) were male; 121 respondents (78.1%} were Anglo and 34 (21.9%} were non-Anglo. Participation was voluntary and students were assured that responses would not be reported to their instructors, nor would participation affect students' grades. The public speaking course was supported by a communication laboratory and taught in a lecture/recitation format, with one instructor delivering all lectures within the large-group context. Recitation sections were conducted by graduate teaching assistants (TAs} and were limited to 16 students per section. Students were required to give five prepared speeches during the semester in their recitation sections. Speeches were videotaped and students were required to view and critique each speech in the communication laboratory with the assistance of a TA. In addition, students were encouraged to come to the laboratory for help with speech outlines and/or coaching prior to formal inclass presentations. Students were also required to meet with their recitation leaders in the laboratory for individual entrance and exit interviews to preand post-assess their communication apprehension and 25

PAGE 34

to set and report progress on personal public speaking goals. Measurement Communication Apprehension Traitlike communication apprehension (CA) was measured using McCroskey's Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24, Appendix A). This 24-item, 5-step, Likert-type scale has been widely used in apprehension research and has consistently demonstrated excellent reliability (usually above .90) and predictive validity (McCroskey, 1978, 1984). The PRCA-24 was administered in the communication laboratory to all public speaking students during the required entrance and exit interviews held during the first and last two weeks of the semester. Public Speaking Anxiety McCroskey's Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA, Appendix B) was administered three times during the semester: week 1, week 4, and week 16. The PRPSA, a 34-item, 5-step, Likert-type scale, is reliable and has been found to maintain reliability of above .85 with only 15 items (Hensley 26

PAGE 35

& Batty, 1974; McCroskey, 1984). The short version (Appendix C) was used in the present study to avoid respondent fatigue. Alpha reliabilities for the PRPSA in the current study for times one, two, and three were .89, .86, and .89, respectively. Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency The Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency Scale (SPPSC, Appendix D) was administered concomitantly with the PRPSA. The SPPSC is a 23-item, 5-step, Likert-type self-report measure developed by the researcher. The instrument is based on the eight public speaking competencies identified by the a task force of the Speech Communication Association's Committee on Assessment and Testing (Morreale, 1990) The eight competencies were used to develop course curriculum and to evaluate all speeches. To retain validity, the wording on the SPPSC closely parallels the wording used to define the criteria of the eight competencies (Appendix E) Alpha reliabilities for the SPPSC in the present study were .88 for time one, .81 for time two, and .85 for time three. 27

PAGE 36

Teacher Immediacy Students were asked to rate the immediacy of their recitation leaders on the Immediacy Behavior Scale (Appendix F) during a lecture period near the end of the semester. The Immediacy Behavior Scale consists of the combined Gorham (1988) scale for verbal immediacy and the Richmond, Gorham, and McCroskey (1987) scale for nonverbal immediacy. The 30-item, 5-step instrument has been used extensively in recent immediacy research and has demonstrated reliabilities ranging from .84 to .92 (Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). In the current study, alpha reliability was .89. Data Analyses The first hypothesis investigated the relationship between public speaking anxiety and self-perceived public speaking competency. The hypothesis was tested by correlating student scores on the PRPSA and the SPPSC at each of the three test times. The second hypothesis examined self-perceived improvement of high CA students as compared to moderate and low CA students. Students were 28

PAGE 37

categorized as having high, moderate, and low CA according to the normative data provided by Richmond and McCroskey (1989) : high CA was determined by a score of 80 or above on the PRCA-24; moderate CA, a score of 52-79; and low CA, a score of 51 or below. A one-between analysis of variance was performed with change scores on the SPPSC as the dependent variable and CA level (high, moderate, low) as the independent variable. The first and second research questions examined changes in public speaking anxiety and self-perceived public speaking competency across time for students with varying CA levels. Two 3 x 3, mixed-model factorial ANOVAs (one-between and one-within factors) were employed. The between factor for each ANOVA was level of CA, while the within factor was the three repeated measures. The dependent measure for the first ANOVA was public speaking anxiety, and selfperceived public speaking competency for the second. Changes in PRPSA and SPPSC over the course of the semester were tested for both linear and quadratic trends with polynomials adjusted for the unequal time intervals between repeated measures. The third research question investigated the relationship between teacher immediacy and change in 29

PAGE 38

public speaking anxiety. Pearson correlations were calculated using summed scores on the Immediacy Behavior Scale and change scores on the PRPSA. I Data were analyzed collectively and by CA level. The final research question asked whether high CA students perceive teacher immediacy differently than moderate or low CA students. A one-between analysis of variance was performed across the three levels of CA, with perceived teacher immediacy as the dependent variable. 30

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to investigate trends in and relationships among self-perceived public speaking competency, public speaking anxiety, and teacher immediacy for high, moderate, and low apprehensives in the laboratory-supported course. The mean PRCA-24 score of the 155 respondents in this study was 67.2 with a standard deviation of 15.8. Using the apprehension breakdown offered by Richmond and McCroskey (1989), 33 students (21.2%) were categorized as high CA students; 94 students (60.6%) were categorized as moderate CA students; 28 students (18.1%) were categorized as low CA students. The first hypothesis predicted that there would be a negative relationship between public speaking anxiety and students' self-perceived public speaking competency. The hypothesis was supported. Correlations at the three test times were -.42, -.39, and -.42, respectively (R < .01). The second hypothesis predicted that students who reported high CA would perceive less improvement over the course of the semester than their lower CA

PAGE 40

counterparts. This hypothesis was not supported. Indeed the opposite was found. High CA students perceived more improvement than moderate and low CA students. However, an analysis of variance failed to find significant differences in the amount of change that occurred in self-perceived competency of students with high, moderate, and low apprehension, E(2, 118) = 1.76, R = .18. The mean change scores for high, moderate, and low CA students were 10.9, 7.5, and 7.7 points, respectively. The first research question explored the trend in public speaking anxiety for students with varying CA levels. Complete data were available for 97 cases. As Figure 3.1 and Tables 3.1 and 3.2 indicate, students in all apprehension groups continuously decreased in public speaking anxiety throughout the semester. Results of the 3 x 3, mixed-model factorial ANOVA demonstrated a significant between-subjects effect, E(2, 96) = 40.54, R < .001. Means for public speaking anxiety for high, moderate, and low CA students were 44.5, 38.0, and 26.9, respectively. A Tukey's post hoc test indicated that each CA group differed significantly from each other CA group on this variable. A significant within-subjects effect 32

PAGE 41

ll:l P::: 0 u Cl) !Cl! CJ) Pol P::: Pol ll:l :E: 55 so 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Week 1 Week 4 Week 8 TIME Week 12 0 High CA M:de:rate CA Low CA Week 16 Figure 3.1 Trends in public speaking anxiety (PRPSA) for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension. 33

PAGE 42

Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for High. Moderate. and Low'CA Students on PRPSA CA Group High Moderate Low Total Cn=17) Cn=56) Cn=24) Population (N=97) Time 1 Mean 51.0 42.2 29.6 42.2 SD 5.7 6.6 7.7 9.5 Time 2 Mean 46.2 39.6 27.5 39.1 SD 5.9 7.9 5.8 9.3 Time 3 Mean 36.3 32.1 23.4 31.6 SD 9.2 9.9 6.9 10.1 34

PAGE 43

Table 3.2 Summary of ANOVA for PRPSA Source of df Variance Between Subjects CA Group 2 Error 94 Within Subjects Time CA Group X Time Error ** *** l2 < .OS l2 < .01 l2 < .001 2 4 188 ss 9347.3 10836.0 4272.4 391.4 6256.8 35 MS E eta2 4673.7 40.5*** .46 115.3 2136.2 64.2*** .21 97.9 2.9* .02 33.3

PAGE 44

was also identified, F(2, 192) = 64.20, R < .001. Anxiety means for times one, two, and three were 42.2, 39.1, and 31.6, respectively. A Tukey's post hoc test demonstrated that the mean at time three was significantly different from the means at times one and two. Means at times one and two did not differ significantly. The pattern of decreasing anxiety was best represented as a linear trend = -9.49; n < .001) with no significant departure from linearity found for entry of the quadratic component = 1.70; R = .092). The second research question examined the trend in self-perceived public speaking competency. Complete data were available for 99 cases. As indicated in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.3, students continuously increased their perceptions of their own expertise in public speaking. Results of the 3 x 3, mixed-model factorial ANOVA that examined self-perceived competency demonstrated a significant between-subjects effect, F(2, 96 = 37.72, R < .001). Table 3.4 summarizes the ANOVA. Means on the SPPSC for high, moderate, and low apprehensives were 66.3, 74.6, and 80.0, respectively. A Tukey's post hoc test indicated that each CA group differed significantly from each other 36

PAGE 45

ril 0 () Cll CJ [/.) PI PI Cll 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 Week 1 Week 4 Week 8 TIME Week 12 High CA 0 Moderate CA Low CA Week 16 Figure 3.2. Trends in self-perceived public speaking competency {SPPSC) for students with high, moderate, and low communication apprehension. 37

PAGE 46

Table 3.3 Descriptive Statistics for High. Moderate. and Low CA Students on SPPSC CA Group High Moderate Low Total Cn=21) Cn=S7) Cn=21) Population (N=99) Time 1 Mean 60.3 70.0 76.7 69.4 SD 7.0 7.9 6.7 9.2 Time 2 Mean 65.8 74.9 79.1 73.9 SD 7.2 5.8 7 .1. 7.7 Time 3 Mean 72.9 78.7 84.1 78.6 SD 6.9 6.0 6.7 7.2 38

PAGE 47

Table 3.4 Summary of ANOVA for SPPSC Source of df ss MS .E eta2 Variance Between Subjects CA Group 2 5998.2 2999.1 37.7* .39 Error 96 7633.3 79.5 Within Subjects Time 2 3651.7 1825.8 63.9* .24 CA Group X Time 4 206.5 51.6 1.8 .01 Error 192 5485.7 28.6 I2. < .001 39

PAGE 48

CA group. A significant within-subjects effect was also identified, (2, 192) = 63.90,. <. 001. Means for times one, two, and three were 69.4, 73.9, and 78. 6, respectively.. Again, a post hoc test revealed that the mean at each test time differed significantly from the mean at each other test time. Although a significant linear trend was found = 10.19; < .001), the addition of a quadratic component indicated a significant departure from linearity = -3.26; < .01). The linear component indicated that all CA groups significantly increased their self-perceived competency throughout the semester. The quadratic component demonstrated that students' self-perceived competency increased at a more rapid rate during the first four weeks of the semester than it did during the remainder of the semester. The third research question asked whether a relationship existed between teacher immediacy and change in students' public speaking anxiety. Table 3.5 presents the results. A moderately strong correlation was found between teacher immediacy and anxiety decrease for high apprehensives = .52; < .05; shared variance = 27%). In sharp contrast, no 40

PAGE 49

Table 3.5 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Teacher Immediacy and Change in PRPSA and PRCA for High. Moderate. and Low CA Students CA Group High t4oderate Low Total Population Correlation PRPSA .52* -.00 .12 -.09 PRCA .45* .19 .04 .15 Immediacy Mean 86.2 88.8 92.5 88.5 SD 12.1 12.9 10.4 12.4 N = 27 80 22 132 PRPSA Mean Change 13.7 10.2 6.0 10.4 SD 9.7 10.0 6.1 9.7 N = 28 68 21 118 PRCA Mean Change 23.0 11.8 7.2 13.3 SD 12.2 10.7 7.7 11.9 N = 32 89 28 149 *P. < .OS 41

PAGE 50

relationship was found for moderate and low apprehensives = .00 = .12, respectively). A test for difference between independent correlations demonstrated. a significant difference between the correlation for high CA students and the correlation for moderate CA students = 2.36, = .009). Analysis failed to find significant difference between the correlations for high and low apprehensives (z = 1.48, = .07) and between the correlations for moderate and low apprehensives = .455, = .32). Analysis for change in traitlike CA produced similar results. As Table 3.5 indicates, the correlation between teacher immediacy and apprehension decrease (pretest minus posttest, PRCA24) for high CA students was .45 < .05, shared variance = 20.3%). Contrastively, correlations between teacher immediacy and apprehension decrease for moderate and low CA students were not significant = .19 = .04, respectively). In regard to these findings, a test for differ.ence between independent correlations demonstrated a significant difference between the correlation for high CA students and the correlation for low CA students (z = 1.63, = .05). Analysis failed to find significant 42

PAGE 51

difference between the correlations for high and moderate CAs = 1.37, = .09) and between the correlations for moderate and low CAs = .660, = 25) Results for the final research question failed to demonstrate significant differences in how students with differing CA levels view teacher immediacy, E(2, 126) = 1.63, = .20. Immediacy scores as perceived by high, moderate, and low CA students were 86.1, 88.3, and 92.5, respectively. 43

PAGE 52

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION This study empirically examined trends and relationships among public speaking anxiety, selfperceived public speaking competency, and teacher immediacy for students with high, moderate, and low_ communication apprehension in the laboratory-supported public speaking course. Public Speaking Anxiety and Self-perceived Competency The first hypothesis predicted that students' public speaking anxiety would be negatively related to self-perceived public speaking competency. The hypothesis was supported, suggesting that a student's perception of his/her expertise in public speaking is indeed an important predictor of his/her public speaking anxiety. Pedagogically, the finding speaks to the importance of providing an instructional setting where increases in self-perception are likely to occur. Several aspects of the instructional model

PAGE 53

used in the present study contributed to such a setting: (a) a clear definition of the specific public speaking behaviors that constitute public speaking competency; (b) alignment among lecture topics, recitation activities, criteria for evaluation of speeches, and feedback strategies; (c) constructive verbal and written feedback on speeches; (d) small, comfortable recitation sections; and, perhaps most importantly, (e) laboratory support consisting of goal setting and accountability interviews, optional coaching in preparation for upcoming speeches, video feedback, and required, private feedback sessions teaching assistants following each speech. As a result of this curricular design, the instructional model used in the current study incorporated the four components of effective teaching isolated by Dollard and Miller (1950) and Bloom (1976)--cues, engagement, corrective feedback, and reinforcement. Cues show students what is to be learned and explain how to learn. The quality of cues depends on the clarity, salience, and meaningfulness of explanations and directions provided by-the teacher, the instructional materials, or both. Ideally, as the learners gain confidence, 45

PAGE 54

the salience and number .of cues can be reduced. In the laboratory-supported public speaking course examined in this study, it is likely that the introductory speech and accompanying feedback, the introductory lectures, and the discussion generated during the entrance interview provided a strong cuing effect for students. Engagement refers to the extent to which students actively and persistently participate in learning until appropriate responses are firmly entrenched in their repertoires. Engagement was sustained throughout the semester as students continually prepared, practiced, delivered, and evaluated their speeches. Corrective feedback on all speeches allowed students to detect difficulties rapidly and then attempt to remedy the difficulties in the next speech. ConstrUctive written and oral feedback was provided in the classroom by instructors and classmates immediately following each speech. More comprehensive feedback was given during the assisted viewing of each speech by a teaching assistant in the laboratory. Reinforcement came from acknowledgement or praise of good public speaking behaviors from both 46

PAGE 55

instructors and classmates. Though some may see this merely as a reward, Walberg (1990), in his review of the literature about productive teaching, pointed out that cognitive psychologists have repeatedly demonstrated that the main classroom value of reinforcement lies in its capacity to inform students about their progress. Taken together, corrective feedback and reinforcement, when timely and clear, have been found to powerfully affect learning by signaling students what to do next (Walberg, 1990) In sum, the design of the laboratory-supported instructional model greatly enhanced opportunities for cues, engagement, corrective feedback, and reinforcement. This, in turn, may likely have enhanced the possibility of student increases in self-perception of their public speaking competency. As. self-perceptions increased, results of this study indicated that anxiety decreased. The second hypothesis predicted that high CA students would perceive less improvement than moderate and low CA students. This hypothesis was not supported. Indeed, the opposite was found, though difference was not statistically significant = .18). Over the semester, high CA students made average gains of 10.9 points in self-perceived 47

PAGE 56

competency, while moderate and low CA students made gains of 7.5 and 7.7 points, respectively. Again, it is likely that laboratory-supported instructional model used in the current study provided a nonthreatening, nurturant environment that helped high CA students perceive increases in competency. The first research question explored changes in public speaking anxiety for each of the three CA groups. The finding that high CA students reduced their anxiety in a linear trend similar to moderate and low CA students was unexpected (Figure 3.1, p. 33) since previous research has generally demonstrated that public speaking courses hurt, rather than help, high CA students (Foss, 1982; Kinzer, 1985; McCroskey, 1977, 1980; Newburger & Daniel, 1985). However, previous research has been conducted in traditional courses. The additional one-on-one attention and instruction inherent in the laboratory-supported course likely influenced anxiety change for all students, including high apprehensives. The large, significant differences in the anxiety levels among the three apprehension groups should be recognized. Indeed, the large eta generated for CA group membership (eta = .68; < 48

PAGE 57

.001; shared variance = 46%} speaks to the profound influence of traitlike CA on students' public speaking anxiety level. Although high CA students significantly reduced their anxiety throughout the semester, their final anxiety score was well above the initial anxiety score of low CA students. The trends in self-perceived public speaking competency examined in the second research question indicated that all CA groups showed similar patterns of increase. Like the anxiety trend, differences among the CA groups at each test time were significant. Low CA students consistently perceived the highest level of competency, and high CA students consistently perceived the lowest level of competency (Figure 3.2, p. 37). Again, CA group membership appeared to markedly influence self-perception of public speaking competency (eta = .62; R < .001; shared variance = 39%) The addition of the quadratic component in the SPPSC trend indicated that students increased their self-perceptions of competency at a more rapid rate during the first four weeks of the semester than they did during the remaining weeks. This may be explained, in part, by the natural learning curve. Like most courses, major emphasis during the early 49

PAGE 58

part of the semester was on fundamental principles. Activities in the classroom and the laboratory concentrated on the eight competencies for public speaking. Since students had much to learn as they entered the course, the concentrated focus may have resulted in greater gains in self-perceived competency during the first four weeks than during remaining weeks. As students progressed throughout the semester, the basic behaviors may have become automatic, allowing them to direct their attention to finite analysis and fine tuning of their skills. Thus, perceived increases in public speaking competency were not as pronounced after the first four weeks of the semester. Public Speaking Anxiety and Teacher Immediacy The third research question examined immediacy's relationship to change in public speaking anxiety for students with varying CA levels. Results indicated that for high CA students, the more immediate the instructor's behavior, the greater the decrease in public speaking anxiety = .52, n < .OS) and overall CA = 45, n < OS) In sharp contrast, for moderate and low CA students, decreases in public so

PAGE 59

speaking anxiety and CA were not significantly related to teacher immediacy. The "identification of this link between teacher immediacy and anxiety decrease for high CA students is most encouraging and may provide a useful clue as to how to help high apprehensives succeed in academic settings. As previously discussed, the laboratorysupported instructional model.used in the current study insured frequent and ongoing interaction between students and their instructors throughout the semester, thus contributing to well developed, comfortable relationships. consequently, student perception of close physical and psychological distance was likely. This type of interaction may be critical to anxiety reduction for high CA students. Using Rosenthal and Rubin's (1982, p. 167) binomial effect-size display (BESD) the significant correlation of .52 between teacher immediacy and anxiety decrease is associated with an increase in success rate from approximately 25% to 75%. Thus, a teacher's high immediacy behavior may make as much as 50% difference in the success rate of high apprehensives. One possible explanation for the moderately strong relationship found in this study is that 51

PAGE 60

teacher immediacy may provide something that high CA students desperately need. Given that high CA and low self-esteem go hand-in-hand, it is intuitively congruent that teacher immediacy behaviors (e.g., praise of students' work; frequency of initiating and/or willingness to become engaged in conversations with students before, after, or outside of class; teacher's self-disclosure; asking questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions; following up on student-initiated topics; asking how students feel about assignments; and inviting students to telephone or meet outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something) communicate to students that the teacher genuinely cares about them and values them as individuals. Perhaps this contributes to increases in the self-esteem of high CA students. As a result of increased self-esteem, decreases in public speaking anxiety andoverall communication apprehension may occur. In other words, teacher immediacy may well be a catalyst for the success of high CA students in public speaking courses. Another possibility is that teachers' high immediacy may have contributed to increases in anxiety for high CA students until a certain threshold was reached. Thereafter, however, high 52

PAGE 61

immediacy may have contributed to anxiety reduction. Given the large amount of teacher-student interaction inherent in the laboratory-supported course, students may have crossed over threshold. Such may not be possible in the traditional courses examined in previous research. Data collected in the current study could not confirm such a phenomenon, but this appears to be a possibility worthy of exploration in future research. Further, perhaps the instructor's high immediacy behavior made initiation of communication less necessary for high CA students. As a result, the principle of "reciprocity" may have operated in a way that reduced anxiety. In any case, although previous reports have identified avoidance of and difficulty initiating immediacy behavior as characteristic of high CA students (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989), the present study suggests that high CA students may experience significant benefits when others exhibit high immediacy behavior toward them in a supportive learning environment. Certainly the finding invites further investigation. It should be noted, however, that while an increase in teacher immediacy was found to be 53

PAGE 62

predictive of a decrease in public speaking anxiety and overall CA for high apprehensives, immediacy was not found to be the "cause" of the decrease. Certainly other factors such as the ability of the instructor to provide constructive feedback, the general classroom climate, and the overall college experience are expected to contribute to a decrease in apprehension. In regard to moderate and low CA students, the results of this study indicated that teacher immediacy was not significantly related to change in public speaking anxiety nor overall CA. In sharp contrast to the significant correlation of .52 for high CA students, correlations for moderate and low CA students ranged from .00 to .19. A possible explanation for this significant difference is that moderate and low CA students have consistently demonstrated high self-esteem and extroversion. These characteristics may result in anxiety reduction in public speaking courses regardless of the behavioral characteristics of their instructors. The final research question asked whether high CA students perceived teacher.immediacy differently than their less apprehensive counterparts. Although high CA students rated their teacher's immediacy 54

PAGE 63

lower than moderate and low CA students (86.1, 88.3, and 92.5, respectively), no significant differences were identified (eta2 = .02). This suggests that high CA students recognize teachers' immediacy behavior in ways similar to moderate and low CA students, thus affirming the clarity with which the immediacy construct has been operationalized. It appears that the low-inference behaviors identified in the construct (e.g., smiling, eye contact, praise, selfdisclosure, initiation) can be recognized by students of all CA levels. Pedagogically, since research has demonstrated that immediacy can be developed and successfully monitored with adequate training and information (Gorham & Zakahi, 1990), the present study lends support to the practical utility of the instructional process-product model suggested in previous literature on immediacy. Limitations Although the findings of this study are of considerable importance, two major "limitations are important to note. The first stems from problems inherent in trend analysis. Specifically, the only knowledge about the underlying function of a trend 55

PAGE 64

for a population evolves from the limited number of points selected for the experiment (Keppel, 1982). In the present study, the choice of specific intervals (week 1, week 4, and week 16) was based on an attempt to capture the effect of rapid awareness gains during the early part of the semester. If different intervals had been selected, perhaps the function of the trends would have been different. However, the differences between the means on both the PRPSA and the SPPSC scales at time one and time three were so pronounced that overall significant linear trends appear likely regardless of the selection of the interval for time two. The second limitation has to do with the mortality rate of respondents in longitudinal research. Because of student absences on days when instruments were administered, complete data were available on only 97 of the 155 students in the total sample. Implications Despite these limitations, the results of this study, combined with previous research, provide compelling evidence that an understanding of teacher immediacy_ and self-perceived competency may be of 56

PAGE 65

serious importance in educational practice. With regard to high CA students, "how" they are taught may be as important as "what" they are taught. Since teacher immediacy was found to be significantly related to anxiety decrease, and since high apprehensives could recognize immediacy in ways similar to moderate and low CA students, this study suggests that teachers of.highly apprehensive students should practice high immediacy behaviors and create instructional settings that insure frequent and supportive interaction. Additionally, teachers of public speaking should consciously develop instructional models and met.hods that foster increases in student self-perceived public speaking competency for all students. In light of the vast literature that points to the many problems associated with high levels of apprehension, it is encouraging to identify an instructional setting and a "teacher" communicative behavior that can be altered to enhance the likelihood of positive student outcome. More research is needed to discover other instructional variables and teacher behaviors that influence anxiety and anxiety change. Further, research is needed to discover whether decrease in public 57

PAGE 66

speaking anxiety and overall communication apprehension is sustained for each CA group after students leave the supportive environment inherent in the instructional model used in the present study. 58

PAGE 67

APPENDIX A Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) DIRECTIONS: This instrument is composed of twentyfour statements concerning feelings about communicating with other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree. Please record your first impression. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. I dislike participating in group discussions. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions. I like to get involved in group discussions. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting. Usually I am calm and relaxed while participating in meetings. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting. I am afraid to express myself at meetings. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.

PAGE 68

12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting. 13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous. 14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations. 15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations. 16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations. 17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed. 18. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. 19. I have no fear of giving a speech. 20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech. 21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech. 22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech. 23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence. 24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. 60

PAGE 69

APPENDIX B Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) DIRECTIONS: This instrument is composed of thirtyfour statements concerning feelings about communication with other people. Indicate the degree to which the statements apply to you by marking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with each statement. Work quickly; record your first impression. ---1. While preparing for giving a speech, I feel tense and nervous. 2. I feel tense when I see the words "speech" and "public speech" on a course outline when studying. 3. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech. 4. Right after giving a speech I feel that I have had a pleasant experience.* 5. I get anxious wheri I. think about a speech coming up. 6. I have no fear of giving a speech.* 7. Although I am nervous just before starting a speech, I soon settle down after starting and feel calm and comfortable.* 8. I look forward to giving a speech.* 9. When the instructor announces a speaking assignment in class, I can feel myself getting tense. 10. My hands tremble when I am giving a speech. ___ 11. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.*

PAGE 70

_____ 12. I enjoy preparing for a speech.* _____ 13. I am in constant fear of forgetting what I prepared to say. _____ 14. I get anxious if someone asks me something about my topic that I do not know. _____ 15. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.* -----16. I feel that I am in complete possession of myself while giving a speech.* _____ 17. My mind is clear when giving a speech.* _____ 18. I do not dread giving a speech.* _____ 19. I perspire just before starting a speech. 20. My heart beats very fast just as I start a -----speech. -----21. I experience considerable anxiety while sitting in the room just before my speech starts .. _____ 22. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech. _____ 23. Realizing that only a little time remains in a speech makes me very tense and anxious. _____ 24. While giving a speech I know I can control my feelings of tension and stress.* _____ 25. I breathe faster just before starting a speech. _____ 26. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour or so just before giving a speech.* 2 7 I do poorer on speeches because I am -----anxious. 28. I feel anxious when the teacher announces -----the date of a speaking assignment. 62

PAGE 71

--29; When I make a mistake while giving a speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the parts that.follow. --30. During an important speech I experience a feeling of helplessness building up inside me. ---31. I have trouble falling asleep the night before a speech. ---32. My heart beats very fast while I present a speech. ---33. I feel anxious while waiting to give my speech. ---34. While giving a speech I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. *Items for scoring 63

PAGE 72

APPENDIX C Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety: Short Form (PRPSA) DIRECTIONS: This instrument is composed of fifteen statements concerning your feelings about public speaking. There are no right or wrong answers. Indicate the degree to which the statements apply to you by marking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with each statement. Work quickly; record your first impression. 1. When an instructor announces a speaking assignment in class, I can feel myself getting tense. 2. I have trouble falling asleep the night before a speech. 3. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.* 4. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour or so just before giving a speech.* 5. I breathe faster just before starting a speech. 6. When I make a mistake while giving a speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the parts that follow. 7. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.* 8. My heart beats very fast while I present a 9. While giving a speech I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. _____ 10. My mind is clear when giving a speech.*

PAGE 73

_____ 11. I am in constant fear of forgetting what I prepared to say. _____ 12. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech. _____ 13. I enjoy preparing for a speech.* 14. I do poorer on speeches because I am -----anxious. -----15. I do not dread giving a speech.* *Items reversed for scoring 65

PAGE 74

APPENDIX D Self-perceived Public Speaking Competency (SPPSC) DIRECTIONS: This instrument is composed of statements concerning how you see yourself as a public speaker. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you: (1) strongly disagree, (2) (3) are neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree, or (6) don't know. Work quickly; record your first impression. 1. I choose a topic that is appropriate for the audience. 2. I have excellent posture when giving a speech. 3. I clearly communicate the specific purpose of my speech to the audience. 4. I have difficulty using appropriate gestures.* 5. I choose a topic that is appropriate for the occasion. 6. Generally, giving an effective introduction is a problem for me.* 7. I use appropriate facial expressions. 8. Generally, the body of my speech is logically organized. 9. I use a variety of supporting material (i.e., examples, expert opinions, statistics, research findings, illustrations to enhance my speech. 10. I use supporting material that is of poor quality.*

PAGE 75

11. I have trouble maintaining adequate eye contact.* 12. Generally, my conclusion clearly reflects the content of my speech. 13. I use language that is extremely clear. 14. Some audience members have difficulty hearing me.* 15. I use variety in my rate of speech. 16. I have difficulty narrowing the focus of the topic to fit the time constraints.* 17. I have poor articulation.* 18. I use variety in pitch to enhance my message. 19. When giving a speech, I sometimes use language that is inappropriate.* 20. I dress to enhance my credibility. 21. I make frequent errors in grammar when giving a speech.* 22. I make very few, if any, pronunciation .errors. 23. Generally, I move smoothly from idea to idea within my speech. *Items reversed for scoring 67

PAGE 76

APPENDIX E The Competent Speaker: Criteria for Assessment Competency One: CHOOSES AND NARROWS A TOPIC APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker presents a topic and a focus that are exceptionally appropriate for the purpose, time constraints, and audience. [That is, the speaker's choice of topic is clearly consistent with the purpose, is totally amenable to the time limitations of the speech, and reflects unusually insightful audience analysis.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker presents a topic and a focus that are appropriate for the purpose, time constraints, and audience. [That is, the speaker's choice of topic is generally consistent with the purpose, is a reasonable choice for the time limitations of the speech, and reflects appropriate analysis of a majority of the audience.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker presents a topic and a focus that are not appropriate for either the purpose, time constraints, or audience. [That is, the speaker's choice of topic is inconsistent with the purpose, the topic cannot be adequately treated in the time limitations of the speech, and there is little or no evidence of successful audience analysis.] Competency Two: COMMUNICATES THE THESIS/SPECIFIC PURPOSE IN A MANNER APPROPRIATE FOR THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker communicates a thesis/specific purpose that is exceptionally clear and identifiable. [That is, there is no question that all of the audience members should understand clearly, within the opening few sentences of the speech, precisely what the specific purpose/thesis of the speech is.]

PAGE 77

SATISFACTORY = The speaker communicates a thesis/specific purpose that is adequately clear and identifiable. [That is, at least a majority of the audience should understand clearly, within the opening few sentences of the speech, precisely what the specific purpose/thesis of the speech is.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker does not communicate a clear and identifiable thesis/specific purpose. [That is, a majority of the audience may have difficulty understanding, within the opening few sentences of the speech, precisely what the specific purpose/thesis of the speech is.] Competency Three: PROVIDES SUPPORTING MATERIAL APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker uses supporting material that is exceptional in quality and variety. [That is, supporting material is unarguably linked to the thesis of the speech, and further is of such .quality that it decidedly enhances the credibility of the speaker and the clarity of the topic.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses supporting material that is appropriate in quality and variety. [That is, supporting material is logically linked to the thesis of the speech, and is of such quality that it adds a measurable level of interest to the speech. ] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker uses supporting material that is inappropriate in quality and variety. [That is, supporting material is only vaguely related to the thesis of the speech, and variety is either too great or too little to doanything but detract from the effectiveness of the speech.] Competency Four: USES AN ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN APPROPRIATE TO THE TOPIC, AUDIENCE, OCCASION, AND PURPOSE. EXCELLENT = The speaker uses an exceptional introduction and conclusion and provides an exceptionally clear and logical progression within and between ideas. 69

PAGE 78

[That is, the introduction clearly engages the audience in an appropriate and creative manner, the body of the speech reflects superior clarity in organization, and the conclusion clearly reflects the content of the speech and leaves the audience with an undeniable message or call to action.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses an appropriate introduction and conclusion and provides a reasonably clear and logical progression within and between ideas. [That is, the introduction clearly engages a majority of the audience in an appropriate manner, the body of the speech reflects adequate clarity in organization, .and the conclusion reflects adequately the content of the speech and leaves a majority of the audience with a clear message or call to action.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use an introduction or conclusion and fails to provide a reasonably clear and logical progression within and between ideas. [That is, the introduction fails to engage even a majority of. the audience in an appropriate manner, the body of the speech reflects, lack of clarity in organization, and the conclusion fails to reflect adequately the content of the speech and fails to leave even a majority of the audience with a clear message or call to action.] Competency Five: USES LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker uses language that is exceptionally clear, vivid, and appropriate. [That is, the speaker chooses language that enhances the audience's comprehension and enthusiasm for the speech, while adding a measure of creativity that displays exceptional sensitivity by the speaker for the nuances and poetry of meaning.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker uses language that is reasonably clear, vivid, and appropriate. [That is, the speaker chooses language that is free of inappropriate jargon, is nonsexist, is nonracist, etc.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker uses unclear or inappropriate language. 70

PAGE 79

[That is, the speaker chooses inappropriate jargon or language which is sexist, racist, etc.] Competency Six: USES VOCAL VARIETY IN RATE, PITCH, AND INTENSITY {VOLUME) TO HEIGHTEN AND MAINTAIN INTEREST APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker makes exceptional use of vocal variety in a conversational mode. [That is, vocalics are exceptionally and appropriately well-paced, easily heard by all audience members, and varied in pitch to enhance the message.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker makes acceptable use of vocal variety in a conversational mode. [That is, the speaker shows only occasional weakness in pace, volume, pitch, etc., thereby not detracting significantly from the overall quality or impact of the speech.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use vocal variety and fails to speak in a conversational mode. [That is, the speaker shows frequent weakness in controlling and adapting pace, volume, pitch, etc., resulting in an overall detraction from the quality or impact of the speech.] Competency Seven: USES PRONUNCIATION, GRAMMAR, AND ARTICULATION APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIENCE AND OCCASION. EXCELLENT = The speaker has exceptional articulation, pronunciation, and gramrriar. [That is, the speaker exhibits exceptional fluency, properly formed sounds which enhance the message, and no pronunciation or grammatical errors.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker has acceptable articulation, with few pronunciation or grammatical errors. [That is, most sounds are properly formed, there are only minor vocalized disfluencies, and a few (1-2) minor errors in pronunciation and grammar.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use acceptable articulation, pronunciation, and grammar. [That is, nonfluencies and disfluencies interfere with the message, and frequent errors in 71

PAGE 80

pronunciation and grammar make it difficult for the audience to understand the message.] Competency Eight: USES PHYSICAL BEHAVIORS THAT SUPPORT THE VERBAL MESSAGE. EXCELLENT = The speaker demonstrates exceptional posture, gestures, bodily movement, facial expressions, eye contact and use of dress. [That is, kinesic (posture, gesture, facial expressions, eye contact) and proxemic (interpersonal distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress consistently support the verbal message and thereby enhance the speaker's credibility throughout the audience.] SATISFACTORY = The speaker demonstrates acceptable posture, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact and use of dress. [That is, kinesic (posture, gesture, facial expressions, eye contact) and proxemic (interpersonal distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress generally support the message, with minor inconsistencies that neither significantly distract from the speaker's credibility with the audience nor interfere with the message.] UNSATISFACTORY = The speaker fails to use acceptable posture, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact and dress. [That is kinesic (posture, gesture, facial expressions, eye contact) and proxemic (interpersonal distance and spatial arrangement) behaviors and dress are incongruent with the verbal intent and detract from the speaker's credibility with the audience as well as distracting the audience from the speaker's message.] 72

PAGE 81

APPENDIX F Immediacy Behavior Scale Instructions: Below are statements that describe behaviors that teachers may or may not exhibit. Please respond to the questions in terms of your RECITATION section. Please indicate the degree to which YOUR RECITATION LEADER (TA) exhibits these behaviors: 0 = Never 1 = Rarely 2 = Occasionally 3 =.Often 4 = Very Often 1. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had outside of class. 2. Asks questions or encourages students to talk. 3. Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn't seem to be a part of his/her lesson plan. 4. Uses humor in class. 5. Addresses students by name. 6. Addresses me by name. 7. Gets into conversations with individual -----students before or after class. 8. Has initiated conversations with me before, after, or outside of class. 9. Refers to class as "our" class or what "we" are doing.

PAGE 82

_____ 10. Provides feedback to my individual work through verbal and written comments on speeches and outlines. _____ 11. Calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated that they want to talk. _____ 12. Asks how students feel about assignments, due date, or discussion topic. -----13. Invites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something. -----14. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 15. Praises students' work,_ actions, or -----comments. 16. Will have discussions about things -----unrelated to class with individual students or with the class as a whole. 17. Is addressed by his/her first name by the -----students. -----18. Sits behind desk while teaching.* -----19. Gestures while talking to class. ----20. Uses monotone/dull voice while talking to class.* -----21. Looks at the class while talking. -----22. Smiles at the class as a whole, not just individual students. -----23. Has a very tense body position while talking to the class.* 24. Touches students in the class. ----------25. Moves.around the classroom while teaching. 26. Looks at board or notes while talking to -----the class.* 74

PAGE 83

-----27. Stands behind podium or desk while teaching.* -----28. Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class. 29. Smiles at individual students in the class. -----_____ 30. Uses a variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class. *Items reversed for scoring 75

PAGE 84

REFERENCES Allen, M., Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication Education, 38, 54-76. 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. Anthony, W. P., Maddox, E. N., &Wheatley, W. (1988). EnvisionakY management. New York: Quorum Books. Ayres, J. (1986). Perceptions of speaking ability: An explanation for stage fright. Communication Education, 35, 275-287. Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. ( 1987) Visualization, systematic desensitization, and rational emotive therapy: A comparative evaluation. Communication Education, 36, 236-240. Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. (1991). Visualization: Reducing speech anxiety and enhancing performance. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S .. (1993) Coping with speech anxiety. Norwood,. NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Booth-Butterfield, S. (1988). Instructional interventions for.reducing situational anxiety and avoidance. Communication Education, 37, 214-223. Cattell, R. B. (1950). __ theoretical and factorial study. New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 85

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 325340. Combs, A. W., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual behavior. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Crowell, L., Katcher, A., &Miyamoto, S. F. (1955). Self-concept of communication skill and performance in small group discussion. Speech Monographs, 22, 20-27. Deutsch, M., & Solomon, L. (1959). Reactions to evaluations by others as influenced by self evaluations. Sociometry, 22, 93-112. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ellis, A. ( 1962) psychotherapy. Reason and emotion in New York: Stuart. Felker, D. W. (1974). Building positive selfconcepts. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company. Foss, K. A. (1982). Communication apprehension: Resources for the instructor. Communication Education, 31, 195-204. Fremouw, W. J. (1984). Cognitive-behavioral therapies for modification of communication apprehension. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication (pp. 209-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fremouw, w. J., & Zitter, R. E. (1978). A comparison of skills training and cognitive restructuringrelaxation for the treatment of speech anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 248-259. Freud, S. (1943). psychoanalysis. Publishing. A general introduction to Garden City, NY: Garden City 77

PAGE 86

Friedrich, G. V., & Goss, B. (1984). Systematic desensitization. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication (pp. 173-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Frymier, A. (1993). The relationships among communication apprehension, immediacy and motivation to study. Communication Reports, 8-17. Garfield, C. (1984). Peak performance. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Garfield, C. (1986). Peak performers. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc. Glaser, S. R. (1981). Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: The current status of treatment research. Communication Apprehension, 30, 321-341. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounter: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53. Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, J2, 355-368. Hensley, W. E., & Batty, P. (1974). The measurement of communication anxiety among students in public speaking courses. Indiana Speech Journal, 7-10. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kinzer, H. J. (1985). Video feedback in the classroom: Possible consequences for the communication apprehensive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Fresno, CA. 78

PAGE 87

Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency. New York: Island Press. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Low, G. M., & Sheets, B. V. (1951). The relation of psychometric factors to stage fright. Speech Monographs, 18, 266-271. Lustig, M. W. (1974). Verbal reticence: A reconceptionalization and preliminary scale development. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. McCroskey, J. C. (1972). The implementation of a large-scale program of systematic desensitization for communication apprehension. Speech Teacher, 21, 255-264. McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 78-96. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203. McCroskey, J. C. (1980). Quiet children in the classroom: On helping not hurting. Communication Education, 29, 239-244. McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCroskey, J. C., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Payne, s. (1989). The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success. Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 100-107. 79

PAGE 88

McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Richmond, V. P., & Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 264-277. McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., & Sorensen, G. (1976). Personality correlates of communication apprehension: A research note. Human Communication Research, 376-380. McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Human Communication Research Reports, 2.(2), 108-113. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1975). credibility as an index of self-esteem. presented at the Convention of Speech Communication Association, Houston, TX. Self Paper McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1977). The effects of communication apprehension on the perception of peers. Western Speech Communication Journal, 40, 14-21. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of communication apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 40, 14-21. McCroskey, J. C., & Sheahan, M. (1976). Seating position and participation: An alternative theoretical explanation. Paper presented at the Convention of the International Communication Association, Portland, OR. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind. self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: Pergamon Press. 80

PAGE 89

Miles, P. (1981). Student video self-critiques. Communication Education, 30(3), 280-283. Miller, M. D. (1987). The relationship of communication reticence and negative expectations. Communication Education, 36, 228-235. Morreale, S. (1990). The competent speaker. Speech Communication Association Conference on Assessment of Communication Competency. Denver, CO. Mulac, A. (1974) Effects of three feedback conditions employing videotape and audiotape on acquired speech skill. Speech Monographs, 41, 205-214. Newburger, C. A., & Daniel, A. V. (1985). Self concept, communication apprehension, and selfconfrontation: A relational study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Honolulu, HA. Phillips, G. M. (1968). Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49. Phillips, G. M. (1977). Rhetoritherapy versus the medical model: Dealing with reticence. Communication Education, 26, 34-43. Phillips G. M. (1984). Reticence: A perspective on social withdrawal. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness. reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 51-66). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V.P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. 81

PAGE 90

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. s., & McCroskey, J. c. (1987) The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors.and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590) .. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1989). Communication: A:g:grehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publishers. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered thera:gy: Its current :gractice. im:glications and theokY. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 166-169. Rubin, R. B., Graham, E. E., & Mignerey, J. T. (1990). A longitudinal study of college students' communication competence. Communication Education, 39, 1-13. Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341-353. Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669. Scott, M., & Wheeless, L. (1977). The relationship of the three types of communication apprehension to classroom achievement among college students. The Southern S:geech Communication Journal, 42, 246-255. 82

PAGE 91

Smythe, M. J. & Powers, W. G. ( 1978) When Galatea is apprehensive: The effect of communication apprehension on teacher expectations. In B. Rubin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 487-491). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Snavely, W. B. Merker, G. E. Becker, L. & Brook, V. (1976). Predictions of interpersonal communication apprehension in the acquaintance context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Stacks, D. W., & Stone, J. D. (1982). The effect of self-concept, self-disclosure, and type of basic speech course on communication apprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY, Walberg, H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base. Phi Delta Kappan, February, 470-478. Watson, A. K., & Dodd, C. H. (1984). Alleviating communication apprehension through rationalemotive A comparative evaluation. Communication Education, 33, 257-266. Wells, J. A., & Lashbrook, W. B. (1970). A study of the effects of systematic desensitization of the communication anxiety of individuals in small groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. -Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pre_ss. 83