Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2160473
Darrin J. Griffin, Zachary W. Arth, San Bolkan, James N. Gilbreath, Mackenzie P. Pike, Samuel D. Hakim
ABSTRACT This study examined data from the years 2017–2021 in a sample of 24 journals in communication studies to determine normative and exceptional rates of publication. These data were examined using the traditional full counting method to determine research participation by assigning credit to each author, equally, when listed on a research publication. In addition, we examined the data to determine individual research contribution by using a weighted fractional count (WFC) to assign credit based on author order and the number of authors listed on a publication. Results indicated that most scholars in our sample of journals publish infrequently. Across five years, average rates of publication in our sample stand at 1.62 publications per active author with an average WFC of .72. Results also include metrics for central journals in our field where active scholars average 1.47 publications with a WFC of .49. Results are discussed in terms of institutional expectations.
{"title":"Scholarly productivity in communication studies: a five-year review (2017–2021)","authors":"Darrin J. Griffin, Zachary W. Arth, San Bolkan, James N. Gilbreath, Mackenzie P. Pike, Samuel D. Hakim","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2160473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2160473","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examined data from the years 2017–2021 in a sample of 24 journals in communication studies to determine normative and exceptional rates of publication. These data were examined using the traditional full counting method to determine research participation by assigning credit to each author, equally, when listed on a research publication. In addition, we examined the data to determine individual research contribution by using a weighted fractional count (WFC) to assign credit based on author order and the number of authors listed on a publication. Results indicated that most scholars in our sample of journals publish infrequently. Across five years, average rates of publication in our sample stand at 1.62 publications per active author with an average WFC of .72. Results also include metrics for central journals in our field where active scholars average 1.47 publications with a WFC of .49. Results are discussed in terms of institutional expectations.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44693127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2137215
Jennifer H. Waldeck
The communication fi eld has a long history of leadership in many realms beyond the classroom and research lab that, with this forum, I hoped to examine through a lens re fl ective of our life and work in 2022. In general, our knowledge of social science, fl uency in a range of research methods, and ability to teach others the skills so highly valued by employers (e.g
{"title":"Response: the reciprocity of communication scholarship and practice: spotlight on consulting and outreach","authors":"Jennifer H. Waldeck","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2137215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2137215","url":null,"abstract":"The communication fi eld has a long history of leadership in many realms beyond the classroom and research lab that, with this forum, I hoped to examine through a lens re fl ective of our life and work in 2022. In general, our knowledge of social science, fl uency in a range of research methods, and ability to teach others the skills so highly valued by employers (e.g","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43000291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2158353
Dron M. Mandhana, V. Caruso
ABSTRACT Based on the tenets of Flow Theory, the study proposes that in-class activities that have the potential to induce the experience of flow—a state of deep absorption and enjoyment of tasks at hand—among students are likely to increase students’ engagement. Specifically, the study examined the effects of three in-class activity factors (i.e., optimal challenges, immediate feedback, clear goals) on students’ flow experiences and the impact of flow experiences on three classroom engagement behaviors (i.e., silent in-class behaviors, oral in-class behaviors, and thinking about course content). The results of the path analysis conducted on the data collected from N = 213 students revealed that optimal challenges and immediate feedback significantly predicted students’ flow experiences. Additionally, students’ flow experiences influenced students’ engagement behaviors and mediated the relationship between optimal challenges and immediate feedback and the three engagement behaviors. Key findings, teaching implications, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"Inducing flow in class activities to promote student engagement","authors":"Dron M. Mandhana, V. Caruso","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2158353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2158353","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Based on the tenets of Flow Theory, the study proposes that in-class activities that have the potential to induce the experience of flow—a state of deep absorption and enjoyment of tasks at hand—among students are likely to increase students’ engagement. Specifically, the study examined the effects of three in-class activity factors (i.e., optimal challenges, immediate feedback, clear goals) on students’ flow experiences and the impact of flow experiences on three classroom engagement behaviors (i.e., silent in-class behaviors, oral in-class behaviors, and thinking about course content). The results of the path analysis conducted on the data collected from N = 213 students revealed that optimal challenges and immediate feedback significantly predicted students’ flow experiences. Additionally, students’ flow experiences influenced students’ engagement behaviors and mediated the relationship between optimal challenges and immediate feedback and the three engagement behaviors. Key findings, teaching implications, and suggestions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48263480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-06DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2149828
Abraham E. Flanigan, Angela M. Hosek, Brandi N. Frisby, Wayne A. Babchuk, Emily Ray
ABSTRACT The present study investigated how course policies and enforcement strategies designed to curb classroom digital distraction affect undergraduates' perceptions of student-instructor rapport. Data gathered from online surveys completed by undergraduates at four United States universities revealed that student perceptions of rapport can be influenced by digital distraction prevention. Participants endorsed course technology policies that are developed in collaboration between students and instructors and that are targeted at curbing the use of digital devices for social, rather than educational, purposes. Findings indicate that such policies can improve student buy-in and improve student perceptions of rapport. Although participants identified confrontational enforcement strategies (e.g., calling students out, grade reductions, phone confiscation) as most effective for reducing the amount of digital distraction during class when policies are violated, these strategies were also identified as being most harmful to their perceptions of rapport with instructors. Despite regularly using devices for off-task purposes during class, most participants are not worried about getting caught because they do not believe their instructors are particularly concerned about the amount of ongoing digital distraction in the classroom. Recommendations for addressing student digital distraction while protecting the quality of student-instructor rapport are provided through the lens of self-determination theory.
{"title":"Student perceptions of digital distraction prevention and student–instructor rapport","authors":"Abraham E. Flanigan, Angela M. Hosek, Brandi N. Frisby, Wayne A. Babchuk, Emily Ray","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2149828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2149828","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The present study investigated how course policies and enforcement strategies designed to curb classroom digital distraction affect undergraduates' perceptions of student-instructor rapport. Data gathered from online surveys completed by undergraduates at four United States universities revealed that student perceptions of rapport can be influenced by digital distraction prevention. Participants endorsed course technology policies that are developed in collaboration between students and instructors and that are targeted at curbing the use of digital devices for social, rather than educational, purposes. Findings indicate that such policies can improve student buy-in and improve student perceptions of rapport. Although participants identified confrontational enforcement strategies (e.g., calling students out, grade reductions, phone confiscation) as most effective for reducing the amount of digital distraction during class when policies are violated, these strategies were also identified as being most harmful to their perceptions of rapport with instructors. Despite regularly using devices for off-task purposes during class, most participants are not worried about getting caught because they do not believe their instructors are particularly concerned about the amount of ongoing digital distraction in the classroom. Recommendations for addressing student digital distraction while protecting the quality of student-instructor rapport are provided through the lens of self-determination theory.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44628096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2149827
Jayne R. Goode
ABSTRACT While researchers have acknowledged student trauma as a source of stress for graduate students, clinicians, and social workers, little research has grappled with the substantial influence of student trauma on faculty and professionals working in higher education. The support and guidance required by students who have experienced trauma or acute stress now fall largely upon the faculty member. Faculty are often witness to and actors within the unfolding drama of the student experience. This social-scientific inquiry explores faculty exposure to student trauma, the experience of secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma, and coping mechanisms. Faculty report feelings of lower personal accomplishment, worry, and lack of sustained social support. Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies were employed. Analysis suggests institutional recognition of secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma, including education and social support, are immanently necessary.
{"title":"Instruction on the front lines: student trauma and secondary traumatic stress among university faculty","authors":"Jayne R. Goode","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2149827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2149827","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While researchers have acknowledged student trauma as a source of stress for graduate students, clinicians, and social workers, little research has grappled with the substantial influence of student trauma on faculty and professionals working in higher education. The support and guidance required by students who have experienced trauma or acute stress now fall largely upon the faculty member. Faculty are often witness to and actors within the unfolding drama of the student experience. This social-scientific inquiry explores faculty exposure to student trauma, the experience of secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma, and coping mechanisms. Faculty report feelings of lower personal accomplishment, worry, and lack of sustained social support. Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies were employed. Analysis suggests institutional recognition of secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma, including education and social support, are immanently necessary.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46083396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2151638
Ben Brandley, Angela Labador
ABSTRACT In this essay, we move towards theorizing an asexual-affirming communication pedagogy. We position asexual-affirming (or ace-affirming) communication pedagogy as having two core commitments: (1) challenging allonormativity and (2) creating ace-affirming spaces. In developing pedagogical praxis points for these commitments, we address the tensions of challenging allonormativity on stolen land and offer classroom interventions designed to affirm intersectionally diverse asexual-spectrum individuals and communities in popular communication courses including intercultural and gender communication, interpersonal and family communication, mass media, organizational communication, and health communication. We weave interview data from 20 asexual-spectrum individuals to support our theorizing towards our goal of worldmaking radically affirming classrooms, curricula, and communities.
{"title":"Towards an asexual-affirming communication pedagogy","authors":"Ben Brandley, Angela Labador","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2151638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2151638","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this essay, we move towards theorizing an asexual-affirming communication pedagogy. We position asexual-affirming (or ace-affirming) communication pedagogy as having two core commitments: (1) challenging allonormativity and (2) creating ace-affirming spaces. In developing pedagogical praxis points for these commitments, we address the tensions of challenging allonormativity on stolen land and offer classroom interventions designed to affirm intersectionally diverse asexual-spectrum individuals and communities in popular communication courses including intercultural and gender communication, interpersonal and family communication, mass media, organizational communication, and health communication. We weave interview data from 20 asexual-spectrum individuals to support our theorizing towards our goal of worldmaking radically affirming classrooms, curricula, and communities.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41422615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-30DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2149829
M. Hannah, Sophie S. Downing
ABSTRACT This multimethod study was conducted to explore students’ decision-making to approach or avoid interactions with peers about instructors and investigate motivations for instructional dissent. Participants (N = 124 college students) responded to measures of instructional dissent behavior and motivations for social gossip, then responded to an open-ended question about the risks and benefits of talking about instructors with other students. Quantitative results indicated that expressive and vengeful dissent were related to the following motives for gossiping about instructors: information gathering and validation, group protection, negative influence and social enjoyment. Regression analyses revealed negative influence and group protection account for unique variance in expressive dissent, while social enjoyment and negative influence account for unique variance in vengeful dissent. Qualitative results suggest students’ decision-making to engage in interactions with other students about instructors is informed by concerns for self and others, and reflects social motivations for gossip. The implications of these findings on instructor and student communication are discussed.
{"title":"“You can get clarity that other students may feel the same way you do”: exploring students’ decision-making around and motivations for engaging in evaluative talk about instructors","authors":"M. Hannah, Sophie S. Downing","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2149829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2149829","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This multimethod study was conducted to explore students’ decision-making to approach or avoid interactions with peers about instructors and investigate motivations for instructional dissent. Participants (N = 124 college students) responded to measures of instructional dissent behavior and motivations for social gossip, then responded to an open-ended question about the risks and benefits of talking about instructors with other students. Quantitative results indicated that expressive and vengeful dissent were related to the following motives for gossiping about instructors: information gathering and validation, group protection, negative influence and social enjoyment. Regression analyses revealed negative influence and group protection account for unique variance in expressive dissent, while social enjoyment and negative influence account for unique variance in vengeful dissent. Qualitative results suggest students’ decision-making to engage in interactions with other students about instructors is informed by concerns for self and others, and reflects social motivations for gossip. The implications of these findings on instructor and student communication are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43637469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-30DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2145491
Cicely T. Wilson, S. Umi, Alice Reid, K. Hendrix
ABSTRACT This study shines a light where attention is needed; it is an assessment of our progress in our search for and improvement of pedagogical knowledge. More specifically, we address how well we have responded to Hendrix and Wilson’s (2014) call in Virtual Invisibility: Race and Communication Education to move away from the same topics: thereby, seeking new and productive ways to address issues like the diversity that reflect current societal changes and classroom demographics. The results of this blended thematic/content analysis of 262 publications in Communication Education from 2014 to 2019 reveal that, while the body of instructional communication scholarship has evolved and expanded into more complex areas, race is still passed over.
{"title":"Still passed over: race and the forgotten professors and students of color","authors":"Cicely T. Wilson, S. Umi, Alice Reid, K. Hendrix","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2145491","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2145491","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study shines a light where attention is needed; it is an assessment of our progress in our search for and improvement of pedagogical knowledge. More specifically, we address how well we have responded to Hendrix and Wilson’s (2014) call in Virtual Invisibility: Race and Communication Education to move away from the same topics: thereby, seeking new and productive ways to address issues like the diversity that reflect current societal changes and classroom demographics. The results of this blended thematic/content analysis of 262 publications in Communication Education from 2014 to 2019 reveal that, while the body of instructional communication scholarship has evolved and expanded into more complex areas, race is still passed over.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46145343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-27DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2148708
Michaela R. Winchatz, L. Sprain, Saila Poutiainen, Evelyn Y. Ho
ABSTRACT In this article, we use grounded practical theory to develop a practical theory for using “difficult data” in Language and Social Interaction university classes. “Difficult data” are transcribed, audio/video-recorded data that contain language and ideologies that could be offensive, bigoted, or otherwise disturbing. We provide contextual literature for understanding the pedagogical tensions around using these data from communication pedagogy research as well as social theory for handling the language within the data. We base our analysis on various types of data from academia: an international/intercultural pedagogical speech event, student surveys, field notes, interview, and recordings of classroom instruction using difficult data. We provide a practical theory focused on techniques for managing the central problem that instructors want students to analyze the social consequences of interaction without replicating the problematic impacts of discourse that make difficult data difficult. Our theory reveals four techniques including framing the data as difficult, surveying students before the class, using already-published research data, and metacommunicating about these dilemmas. These techniques do not promise inviolability, but instructors can foster deliberative reflection/co-orientation about classroom interaction that considers whether the use of difficult data can help students develop analysis-informed praxis.
{"title":"“We don’t say that word out loud”: a grounded practical theory for analyzing difficult data in language and social interaction classrooms","authors":"Michaela R. Winchatz, L. Sprain, Saila Poutiainen, Evelyn Y. Ho","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2148708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2148708","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we use grounded practical theory to develop a practical theory for using “difficult data” in Language and Social Interaction university classes. “Difficult data” are transcribed, audio/video-recorded data that contain language and ideologies that could be offensive, bigoted, or otherwise disturbing. We provide contextual literature for understanding the pedagogical tensions around using these data from communication pedagogy research as well as social theory for handling the language within the data. We base our analysis on various types of data from academia: an international/intercultural pedagogical speech event, student surveys, field notes, interview, and recordings of classroom instruction using difficult data. We provide a practical theory focused on techniques for managing the central problem that instructors want students to analyze the social consequences of interaction without replicating the problematic impacts of discourse that make difficult data difficult. Our theory reveals four techniques including framing the data as difficult, surveying students before the class, using already-published research data, and metacommunicating about these dilemmas. These techniques do not promise inviolability, but instructors can foster deliberative reflection/co-orientation about classroom interaction that considers whether the use of difficult data can help students develop analysis-informed praxis.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46405534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-13DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2022.2142624
Sara LaBelle, Zac D. Johnson, Jessica Journeay
ABSTRACT The purpose of the current investigation is to examine the self-reported messages and behaviors teachers enact to demonstrate their (in)authentic selves to students. Using a thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses from 51 collegiate instructors, results indicate that teachers demonstrate authenticity through openness and a growth mindset. Further, instructors were motivated to be authentic for four reasons: modeling humility, connection, student empowerment, and bringing course concepts to life. Instructors in the study were also asked about inauthentic communication, and revealed three behaviors they enact in this regard: strategic ambiguity, dishonesty, and displays of negative affect. Inauthentic communication was largely employed to maintain professionalism or because the instructor was uncomfortable with authentic communication on a given topic. The analysis also revealed a series of instructor outcomes for both authentic and inauthentic communication with students.
{"title":"Teacher authenticity in the college classroom: communicative and behavioral expressions of authentic instruction","authors":"Sara LaBelle, Zac D. Johnson, Jessica Journeay","doi":"10.1080/03634523.2022.2142624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2022.2142624","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of the current investigation is to examine the self-reported messages and behaviors teachers enact to demonstrate their (in)authentic selves to students. Using a thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses from 51 collegiate instructors, results indicate that teachers demonstrate authenticity through openness and a growth mindset. Further, instructors were motivated to be authentic for four reasons: modeling humility, connection, student empowerment, and bringing course concepts to life. Instructors in the study were also asked about inauthentic communication, and revealed three behaviors they enact in this regard: strategic ambiguity, dishonesty, and displays of negative affect. Inauthentic communication was largely employed to maintain professionalism or because the instructor was uncomfortable with authentic communication on a given topic. The analysis also revealed a series of instructor outcomes for both authentic and inauthentic communication with students.","PeriodicalId":47722,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47220174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：