Teacher Power Mediates the Effects of Technology Policies on Teacher Credibility

Communication Education

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 26-47

  Finn, Amber N ^a   Ledbetter, Andrew M ^a  

^a TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Antisocial; Prosocial; Teacher Credibility; Teacher Power; Technology Policies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872550989     PISSN: 03634523     EISSN: 14795795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2012.725132     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. 2006. The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63-72. doi:10.1080/03634520500343400
2. Beatty, M. J., & Zahn, C. J. 1990. Are student ratings of communication instructors due to "easy" grading practices?: An analysis of teacher credibility and student-reported performance levels. Communication Education, 39, 275-282. doi:10.1080/03634529009378809
3. Campbell, S. W. 2004. Normative mobile phone use in public settings, Chicago: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. November
4. Campbell, S. W. 2006. Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55, 208-294. doi:10.1080/03634520600748573
5. Campbell, S. W., & Russo, T. C. 2003. The social construction of mobile technology: An application of social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70, 317-334. doi:10.1080/0363775032000179124
6. Chory, R. M. and Goodboy, A. K. 2010. "Power, compliance, and resistance in the classroom". In The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction, Edited by: Fassett, D. L. and Warren, J. T. 181-199. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
7. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32: 554-571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
8. Farman, J. 2012 February 9. Encouraging distraction? Classroom experiments with mobile media. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/encouraging-distraction-classroom-experiments-with-mobile-media/38454
9. Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Brown, N., Jernberg, K. A. and Larson, L. M. 2009. A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and it's associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58: 516-537. doi:10.1080/03634520903131154
10. French, J. R. P. Jr. and Raven, B. 1959. "The bases of social power". In Studies in social power, Edited by: Cartwright, D. 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
11. Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. 1992. Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399. doi:10.1080/03634529209378900
12. Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. The Academy of Management Journal, 36: 921-950. doi:10.2307/256641
13. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. and Ryu, D. 1995. Cognitive elements in the social construction of technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 8: 259-288. doi:10.1177/0893318995008003001
14. Goodboy, A., & Bolkan, S. 2011. students' motives for communicating with instructors as a function of perceived instructor power use. Communication Research Reports, 28, 109-114. doi:10.1080/088240962011541368
15. Goodboy, A., Bolkan, S., Myers, S. A., & Zhao, Z. 2011. Student use of relational and influence messages in response to perceived instructor power use in American and Chinese college classrooms. Communication Education, 60, 191-209. doi:10.1080/036345232010502970
16. Johnson, K. A. 2011. The effect of Twitter posts on students' perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning Media and Technology, 36, 21-38. doi:10.1080/174398842010534798
17. Johnson, S. D., & Miller, A. N. 2002. A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280-292. doi:10.1080/03634520216514
18. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P. and McCroskey, J. C. 1984. "Power in the classroom IV: Alternatives to discipline". In Communication Yearbook 8, Edited by: Bostrom, R. N. 724-746. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19. Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Guilford.
20. Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. 2001. The centrality of communication education in classroom computer-mediated-communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241-255. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251
21. Ledbetter, A. M. 2009. Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Communication Monographs, 76, 463-486. doi:10.1080/03637750903300262
22. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
23. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. 2009. The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning Media & Technology, 34, 175-183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655
24. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. 1983. Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175-184. doi:10.1080/03634528309378527
25. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. 1985. Power in the classroom V: Behavior alteration techniques, communication training and learning. Communication Education, 34, 214-226. doi:10.1080/03634528509378609
26. McCroskey, J. C. and Teven, J. J. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66: 90-103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
27. McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. 1979. The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 5, 375-382. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00651
28. McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M. and Richmond, V. P. 2004. Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52: 197-210. doi:10.1080/01463370409370192
29. McCroskey, J. C. and Young, T. J. 1981. Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32: 24-34. doi:10.1080/10510978109368075
30. Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B. and Beebe, S. A. 2006. "Theorizing about instructional communication". In Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives, Edited by: Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P. and McCroskey, J. C. 255-282. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
31. Myers, S. A. 2001. Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18: 354-364. doi:10.1080/08824090109384816
32. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. 2000. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-196. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2
33. 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. doi:10.1080/03634528609388318
34. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
35. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. 1984. Power in the classroom II: Power and learning. Communication Education, 33, 125-136. doi:10.1080/03634528409384729
36. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. 1987. Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavioral alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36, 1-12. doi:10.1080/03634528709378636
37. Roach, K. D., Richmond, V. P. and Mottet, T. P. 2006. "teachers' influence messages". In Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives, Edited by: Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P. and McCroskey, J. C. 117-139. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38. Rosseel, Y. 2011 June 14. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more: Version 0.4-9 (BETA). Retrieved from http://users.ugent.be/~yrosseel/lavaan/lavaanIntroduction.pdf
39. Schrodt, P. 2003. students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121. doi:10.1080/03634520302468
40. Schrodt, P. and Turman, P. D. 2005. The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students' initial perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 53: 177-197. doi:10.1080/01463370500090399
41. Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. 2006. Student perceptions of teacher power as a function of perceived teacher confirmation. Communication Education, 55, 265-297. doi:10.1080/03634520600702570
42. Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. 2006. students' attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students' expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1-20. doi:10.1080/03634520500343335
43. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. 2008. Learner empowerment and teacher evaluations as functions of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 57, 180-200. doi:10.1080/03634520701840303
44. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Turman, P. D. 2007. Reconsidering the measurement of teacher power use in the classroom. Communication Education, 56, 308-332. doi:10.1080/03634520701256062
45. Smith, A., Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. 2011. College students and technology. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-technology/Report.aspx.
46. St. Joseph's University. 2007 October 5. Faculty compete with classroom cell phone and laptop use. Retrieved from http://www.sju.edu/news/tips/phones.html.
47. Stephens, K. K. and Davis, J. 2009. The social influences on electronic multitasking in organizational meetings. Management Communication Quarterly, 23: 63-83. doi:10.1177/0893318909335417
48. Teven, J. J. 2001. The relationship among teacher characteristics and perceived caring. Communication Education, 50, 159-169. doi:10.1080/03634520109379241
49. Teven, J. J. and Hanson, T. L. 2004. The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52: 39-53. doi:10.1080/01463370409370177
50. Teven, J. J., & Herring, J. E. 2005. Teacher influence in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of perceived instructor power, credibility, and student satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 22, 235-243. doi:10.1080/00036815000230685
51. Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. 1997. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9. doi:10.1080/03634529709379069
52. Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. 1998. The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358. doi:10.1080/03634529809379141
53. Tibbles, D., Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Weber, K. 2008. Organizational orientations in an instructional setting. Communication Education, 57, 389-407. doi:10.1080/03634520801930095
54. Turman, P. D. and Schrodt, P. 2005. The influence of instructional technology use on students' affect: Do course design and biological sex make a difference?. Communication Studies, 56: 109-129. doi:10.1080/00089570500078726
55. Wei, R. and Leung, L. 1999. Blurring public and private behaviors in public space: Policy challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone. Telematics and Informatics, 16: 11-26. doi:10.1016/S0736-5853(99)00016-7
56. Wei, F. F., & Wang, Y. K. 2010. students' silent messages: Can teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy moderate student use of text messaging in class?. Communication Education, 59, 475-496. doi:10.1080/036345232010496092
57. Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. 2006. The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 19, 1-15. doi:10.1080/08934210500309843