Clarity and Credibility in Student Learning and Instructor Evaluations
Introduction
The purpose of this research is to identify the relationship of a student’s expected grade and whether there is a correlation between clarity and credibility of a students’ evaluation of instructors. Clarity is how instructors effectively present information whether written or oral and the effectiveness of students to understand the information presented (Myers et al, 2018). Credibility is the instructor’s knowledge of a subject and their ability to demonstrate the knowledge of the subject (Obermiller et al, 2012). This study will attempt to determine how clarity and credibility are associated with student expected grade and their perceived ability to communicate effectively.. Also, in this study, the research will be evaluated for differences in clarity and credibility related to student’s perceived level of communications based on the McCroskey Communication Competence Measure.
The object of the evaluation will be to determine how clarity and credibility are perceived by the student in an instructors’ evaluation. Furthermore, previous studies include the Clarity Indicators Scale (Bolkan, 2017) and the Measure of Ethos/Credibility scale (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). These studies will help form a basis for the research work in this paper. The ultimate goal of this research is to correlate future student evaluation results to determine the material being taught to students and student outcomes for the course based on clarity and credibility. The results of this study are important to both students and instructors in that it identifies areas of effectiveness and deficiency as to how the material is presented to students. Further by identifying these areas, it will help instructors in evaluating how they present material to students. At the conclusion of this study, the other than the correlation between student outcomes and the clarity and credibility of the information presented.
Conceptualization and Hypothesis
Existing research on clarity defines it as how instructors effectively present information whether written or oral and the effectiveness of students to understand the information presented (Myers et al, 2018). Based on this study clarity is linked to a student’s perception of their instructor’s credibility. Clarity also is a central behavior that is preferred by students which enhances their ability to retain and recall course content.[unique_solution]
Credibility is assessed within this research as three dimensions, which include competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill. Competence is defined in the research as skills and knowledge that enable successful instructors. Trustworthiness is defined in the research as honesty and compassion towards students. Goodwill is defined as caring and understanding towards students.
Learning is based upon the ability to communicate in various ways with various types of people or groups. McCroskey’s Communication Competence Measure (1986) is used to measure perceived communication within different situations in which you may need to communicate. These measures of self-perceived ability to communicate within the different situations can be used to look for positive or negative results in correlation to clarity and credibility. One would expect that those who are more competent at communicating would have a higher perception of their instructor’s clarity and competency than those that are less competent at communicating.
Clarity and the correlation to a students’ ability to retain information was studied by (Bolkan, 1996.) in order to prove a positive correlation between clarity and student learning. Results of this study show a clear link to clarity and student learning or the ability to retain knowledge.
Substantial correlations were found within this research that show the three dimensions of clarity that are usually independent of each other and researchers state the need for further investigation as there have been inconclusive results among previous studies.
Students who believed their instructors to be credible display a higher level of retention and satisfaction along with higher evaluations of their instructor’s performance within the classroom (Obermiller et al. 2012). This research looks at the construct of instructor credibility across various disciplines. It is hypothesized that instructor credibility varies among disciplines on factors related to an individual discipline for example an instructor who teaches business management will have different factors of credibility than an instructor who teaches chemistry (Obermiller et al. 2012). Students presume their instructors know their discipline and should be able to relay their knowledge to their students while being able to effectively communicate in and out of the classroom. This study is limited based on generalizations of empirical data results in that the sample size is small as some tests only had 25 students in one condition and results are based upon research from a public and a private business school. Also, demographic and lifestyle differences were not considered in this research..
Enhanced learning and positive instructor evaluations are related to increased instructor clarity (Sidelinger et al. 1997). Prior research has stated that clarity is related to student learning and instructor effectiveness. To measure clarity a Likert scale on a 5-point system was used in conjunction with 22 questions that represent students’ perceptions of their instructor’s oral and written communications. Based on the research there demonstrates a high correlation between teaching clarity and positive teaching evaluations comparatively there is also a high correlation between clarity and student learning. The study proves the research question posed that there is a link between positive teaching evaluations and clarity within the classroom. When separating communication into written and oral communication with teaching clarity there is a higher correlation with oral communication than there is with written communication based upon the findings in this study. Teacher clarity has a significant effect on student understanding and learning outcomes to establish student effect for the instructor and course content.
Based on prior research this study looks to prove a high correlation between positive instructor evaluations by students who perceive a high level of clarity from the instructor. Also, this study expects to prove a high correlation between positive instructor evaluations based on instructors’ clarity and credibility. Based on (Sidelinger et al. 1997) and (McCroskey 1966, 1986, 1992, 1997) research this study I will look for a high correlation between student learning and positive instructor evaluations that correlate with students who have higher perceived clarity of an instructor. Also, this study looks to see if there is a high correlation between student learning and positive instructor evaluations that correlate with students who have higher perceived credibility of an instructor.
H1: A student’s expected grade will correlate highly with a higher communication competency in the McCroskey Communication Competence Measure and a positive evaluation of instructor clarity.
H2: A student’s expected grade will correlate highly with a higher communication competency in the McCroskey Communication Competence Measure and a positive evaluation of instructor credibility.
RQ1: Does a student’s expected grade and higher competency on McCroskey Communication Competence measure have a higher correlation with instructor clarity and/or credibility?
Method
This research uses a survey with a sample of N=92 participants. The survey contains sections on clarity and credibility, getting help, ethos, and communication. The first section clarity and credibility used a combination of Sidelinger & McCroskey’s Teacher Clarity Survey (1997) which consists of twenty-two questions and McCroskey’s Ethos and Credibility (1997). When looking at clarity and credibility there are 25 total items that have an alpha reliability 𝞪=.92 which shows high reliability within the results. The mean μ=3.96 on the 5 point likert scale. The standard deviation for this measure σ = .56. The next series of questions consisted of four questions to see where students go for help. This section of questions has an alpha reliability of 𝞪 = .67 which does not show a high reliability of measure and are below the acceptable measure of .70 to .90 anything over .90 is considered redundant. The mean for this measure is μ =3.67. The standard deviation for this measures in this section σ = .8. The next section consisted of ethos with consisted of 18 items that have an alpha reliability of 𝞪 = .81. While these results fall within Cronbach’s acceptable value. The mean of this measure is μ =5.07 that has a standard deviation of σ = .76.
Sample
Following approval from the Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB), The online survey was distributed to university students in the communication department via email. Students were distributed the survey link to those students 18 years of age or older (N). The sample looks at various demographics including age, gender, income, college level, race, and whether students live on or off campus.
Procedure
The first page of the survey contains the consent form. The second page includes questions pertaining to instructor evaluations and course grades. The survey next uses the clarity measure by using the teacher clarity measure (Sidelinger et al. 1997) and the next section of the survey uses the measure of ethos/credibility (McCroskey et al. 1997). Finally McCroskey’s Communication Competence Measure (1986) is used to measure a student’s perceived level of communication within public speaking, group, and dyad areas of competence. These three sections measure students’ perception of an instructor’s clarity and credibility, ethos and communication. Finally the last section measures demographics.
Measures
This survey consists of three scales used to measure students’ perception of their instructors’ clarity, credibility, the grade they expected to receive. Each scale was summed up and averaged to create a composite score. This survey also looks at what grade a student expected to receive. It is a variable used to discover any positive or negative results based on expected grade.. The questions regarding grades are measured A thru F on a scale of 1 to 5.
Clarity and Credibility
Clarity was measured using a 5-point Likert scale to determine how clear the instructor was in presenting information to students. In order to measure clarity Sidelinger et al.(1997) survey was used in which some questions previously used in research were deemed to be valid and used in a survey combined with other questions deemed to be necessary to determine clarity. These questions look at students’ evaluation of their instructors’ teaching and communication of information based on written, oral, and printed communications within a classroom setting over the course of a class. Based upon prior research included in this study this measure was created based upon previous research (Sidelinger et al. 1997) into instructor clarity. Response options include 5 for Strongly Agree, 4 for Agree, 3 for Neutral, 2 for Disagree, and 1 for Strongly Disagree.
Credibility was measured using a 7-point Likert scale that measured the three components of credibility. Those components include competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness. This scale is based upon the research McCroskey et al. (1997) that developed the ethos/credibility scale. This set of questions uses a different scale than clarity. This scale works by choosing a number that is closer to one of the two adjectives given. Choosing a 4 for example would indicate a neutral or no preference toward either choice. Choosing a 1 would indicate a preference for the adjective on the left and choosing a 7 would indicate a preference for the adjective on the left.
Ethos and Communication
Ethos is based on questions from clarity and credibility scales that pertain to ethos or belief. There are 18 items from the two surveys that compromise ethos questions. The second basis for learning uses McCroskey’s Communication Competence Measure (1986) to assess self-reporting measures of communication; this is proper when looking at perception or affect where the respondent has no fear of negative consequences when answering. This measure also looks at communication effectiveness within different environments.
Overall Evaluation
By using the measures of clarity, credibility, ethos, and communication we can verify previous research. By surveying YSU communication students and using the results of those surveys to compare with previous research results to verify the correlation between this research and previous research. Myers et al. (2017) study used a group of 7 types of surveys with two ways to participate the first being the informing of students to a designated research team member who would administer then seal the participant surveys in an envelope. The second way to participate was an informational session and complete the survey under the same requirements as the first option. The surveys included in the research include Measure of Ethos/Credibility scale; Clarity Indicators Scale; Teacher Confirmation Scale; Revised Nonverbal Immediacy Measure; Instructor Humorousness Scale; Measure of Perceived Homophily; task attraction and social attraction subscales of the Measure of Interpersonal Attraction. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on the Measure of Ethos/Credibility scale and Clarity Indicators Scale to identify the relationship between students’ assessment of their instructor based on their perceived clarity and credibility of the instructor. This study will take previous research a step further by evaluating students’ perception of instructor clarity and credibility using the research scales of Sidelinger and McCroskey while taking it a step further by looking for correlations with student’s expected grade based on survey results. By doing this the results can be compared to a students’ perception of instructors’ clarity and credibility to determine if there is a positive or negative correlation between measured clarity and credibility and the grade expected to be received.
REFERENCES
, S. (2016). The importance of instructor clarity and its effect on student learning: facilitating elaboration by reducing cognitive load. Communication Reports, 29:3, 152-162, DOI: 10.1080/08934215.2015.1067708
Bolkan, S. (2017). Development and validation of the clarity indicators scale. Communication Education, 66(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1202994
Linvill, D. L., & Cranmer, G. A. (2017). Students’ perceptions of teacher clarity: the role of cognitive traits across contexts. Communication Research Reports, 34(4), 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1356279
McCroskey, J.C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
McCroskey, J., & McCroskey, L. (1986). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. In annual meeting of the central states speech association. Cincinnati, Ohio.
McCroskey, J.C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN. Burgess
International Group.
McCroskey, J.C. (1997). An introduction to rhetorical communication. (7th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct
and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
Myers, S. A., Baker, J. P., Barone, H., Kromka, S. M., & Pitts, S. (2017). Using rhetorical/relational goal theory to examine college students’ impressions of their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 35(2), 131–140. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1406848
Obermiller, C., Ruppert, B., & Atwood, A. (2012). Instructor credibility across disciplines: identifying students’ differentiated expectations of instructor behaviors. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911434826
Powell, R. G. & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: an intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 368-379.
Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/08824099709388640
Appendix A
The scale used above has been reversed in my study
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
Appendix B
McCroskey et al. 1997
Appendix C
Questions
For the learning questions on expected grade and actual grade choose the correct answer.
The scale used for the two questions relating to grades are 1-5 listed A to F choose only one.
1 – A
2 – B
3 – C
4 – D
5 – F
Based upon the last communications class you completed, what grade did you EXPECT to receive as you worked your way through the semester?
1 – A
2 – B
3 – C
4 – D
5 – F
Based upon the last communications class you completed, what grade did you ACTUALLY receive at the end of the semester?
1 – A
2 – B
3 – C
4 – D
5 – F
The questions listed below use a 5-pt likert scale.
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
If you need help with information given to you by your instructor would you ask the instructor to clarify the information?
If you need help with information given to you by your instructor would you ask a classmate to clarify the information?
If you need help with information given to you by your instructor would you ask a tutor on campus to clarify the information?
If you need help with information given to you by your instructor would use the library to clarify the information?
Instructor evaluations are important in identifying instructor credibility?
Instructor evaluations are important in identifying instructor clarity?
Appendix D
fix formatting in the references
i’ll fix these this weekend. I also added my scale as Appendix C.