The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor credibility

Communication Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 177-196

  Schrodt, Paul ^a   Turman, Paul D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Caring; Competence; Course type; Credibility; Instructional technology; Trustworthiness

Indexed keywords

EID: 31844451620     PISSN: 01463373     EISSN: 17464102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01463370500090399     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Albion, PR, and Ertmer, PA. (2002). Beyond the foundations: The role of vision and belief in teachers’ preparation for integration of technology. Tech Trends, 45(5): 34-38.
2. Althaus, SL. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46: 158-174.
3. Bailey, EK, and Cotlar, M. (1994). Teaching via the Internet. Communication Education, 43: 184-194.
4. Basow, SA, and Distenfeld, MS. (1985). Teacher expressiveness: More important for male teachers than female teachers?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 45-52.
5. Basow, SA, and Howe, K. (1987). Evaluations of college professors: Effects of professors’ sex-type and sex, and students’ sex. Psychological Reports, 60: 671-678.
6. Basow, SA, and Silberg, NT. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79: 308-314.
7. Bennett, SK. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74: 170-179.
8. Brandon, DP, and Hollingshead, AB. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48: 109-126.
9. Burgoon, JK, and LePoire, BA. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20: 67-96.
10. Canary, DJ, and Hause, KS. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?. Communication Quarterly, 41: 129-144.
11. Carrell, LJ, and Menzel, KE. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50: 230-240.
12. Clark, RA, and Jones, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional and online formats in a public speaking course. Communication Education, 50: 109-124.
13. Dobos, JA. (1996). Collaborative learning: Effects of student expectations and communication apprehension on student motivation. Communication Education, 45: 118-134.
14. Downing, J, and Garmon, C. (2001). Teaching students in the basic course how to use presentation software. Communication Education, 50: 218-229.
15. Ertmer, PA, Conklin, D, Lewandowski, J, Osika, E, Selo, M, and Wignall, E. (2003). Increasing pre-service teachers’ capacity for technology integration through the use of electronic models. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30: 95-112.
16. Freitas, FA, Myers, SA, and Avtgis, TA. (1998). Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education, 47: 366-372.
17. Frymier, AB, and Thompson, CA. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41: 389-399.
18. Groves, MM, and Zemel, PC. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 21: 57-65.
19. Jackson, S, and Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9: 169-181.
20. Jackson SA, Madison C, (1999) Instruction by design: Technology in the discourse of teaching and learning In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W. Friedrich's (Eds.) Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods 2nd ed. pp. 393-408 Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
21. Jackson, S, and Wolski, S. (2001). Identification of and adaptation to students’ preinstructional beliefs in introductory communication research methods: Contributions of interactive web technology. Communication Education, 50: 189-205.
22. Lane, DR, and Shelton, MW. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom computer-mediated communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50: 241-255.
23. Martin, MM, Chesebro, JL, and Mottet, TP. (1997). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ socio-communicative style and the influence on instructor credibility and situational motivation. Communication Research Reports, 14: 431-440.
24. McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43: 159-170.
25. McCroskey, JC, and Young, TJ. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32: 24-34.
26. McHenry, L, and Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance: A study of interaction in a distance education classroom. Communication Education, 44: 362-371.
27. Myers, SA. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18: 354-364.
28. Olaniran, BA, Savage, GT, and Sorenson, RL. (1996). Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussions. Communication Education, 45: 244-259.
29. Patton, TO. (1999). Ethnicity and gender: An examination of its impact on instructor credibility in the university classroom. The Howard Journal of Communication, 10: 123-144.
30. Plax, TG, Kearney, P, and Tucker, KL. (1986). Prospective teachers use of behavior alteration techniques on common student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 35: 32-42.
31. Rubin, AM, and Rubin, RB. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2: 36-53.
32. Schrodt, P. (2003). Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52: 106-121.
33. Smith, RA, Levine, TR, Lachlan, KA, and Fediuk, TA. (2002). The high cost of complexity in experimental design and data analysis. Type I and type II error rates in multiway ANOVA. Human Communication Research, 28: 515-530.
34. Spotts, TH, Bowman, MA, and Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and the use of instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34: 421-436.
35. Survey: Math, computers more important than reading to teens (1993, November 16) Ogden Standard Examiner 1A
36. Teven, JJ, and McCroskey, JC. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46: 1-9.
37. Thweatt, KS, and McCroskey, JC. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47: 348-358.
38. U.S. Department of Education (1996) Getting America's students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge Retrieved July 19, 2003, from, http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/
39. Wajcman J, (1991) Feminism confronts technology University Park PA Pennsylvania State University
40. Wheeless, LR. (1971). The effects of comprehension loss on persuasion. Speech Monographs, 38: 327-330.
41. Wheeless, LR. (1974a). The effects of attitude, credibility, and homophily on selective exposure to information. Speech Monographs, 41: 329-338.
42. Wheeless, LR. (1974b). The relationship of attitude and credibility to comprehension and selective exposure. Western Speech Journal, 38: 88-97.
43. Wheeless, LR. (1975). Relationship of four elements to immediate recall and student-instructor interaction. Western Speech Communication, 39: 131-140.
44. Witmer, DF. (1998). Introduction to computer-mediated communication: A master syllabus for teaching communication technology. Communication Education, 47: 162-173.
45. Witt, PL, and Wheeless, LR. (1999). Nonverbal communication expectancies about teachers and enrollment behavior in distance learning. Communication Education, 48: 149-154.
46. Witt, PL, and Wheeless, LR. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50: 327-342.