STUDENT QUESTION-ASKING BEHAVIOUR: AN INVESTIGATION AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL by Judith L. Russell B.Sc., University ofNorthem British Columbia PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION m CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY of NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA LIBRARY Prlaee Georp, B.C., THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2005 © Judith L. Russell, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 ............ ...... ... ... ... ....... .. ..... ..... ..... .......... ...... ....... ......... .............. ...... ....... .......... .... . 1 Introduction ..... .... ......... ....... ..... ..... .......... .... ... ....... ......... .......... .......... ....... .............. 1 Chapter 2 .... ..... .... ........ .. .. ......... ....... ..... .............. .................. ..... ........... .......... ..... ...... .... ...... 9 Review of Literature ........... ........... .... .... .... .... ......... ....... ...................... .............. ..... 9 Historical Overview .............. ...... ............ .... ....................... ....... .... ........... ... 9 Research and Theory .................... ............ .................... .......... .... ....... ........ 12 Past Experience .............. ...... ............ .... ......... ...... ........ ................... ... 13 College/University Classroom Factors .............. .... .. .. .... ..... ........... ... 15 Gender Factors ........ ............. ..... ........ ......... ........ ................. ........ 16 College/University Instructor Factors .... ..... ... ...... ... ...... ........ ...... 18 Implications for Present Study ....... .......... ............. ..... .... ... ......... _. .......... .... 20 Summary of Literature Review ...... .... ....................... ....................... ...... ... 24 Contribution to Literature ........ ...... ...... .. ........ ....... ........... ..... ........ ... ......... 28 Chapter 3 ... ....... .............. ...... ........ .... ..... ............... ... ........ ...... ........ ......... ........... ........ 30 Method ... ........ .... .... ................. ... ... ......... ........................... .......... ........ ...... ........ .... 30 Participants ...... ... ... .... ... .......................... ................................ ... ..... .. ...... ... 30 Materials ....................... ... ..... .............. ...... ............................. ........ .......... .. 31 Procedure ....... .... .......... .................................... ....... ...................... ...... ...... 39 Analysis of Data ..... ................. ....... ...... .. ......... ...... ..... ... ..... ... .... ............... . 39 Sections A, B, C and D ............................................. ........ ....... .... ..... 39 Section E ...... ..... ...... .. ...... ...... .......... .... ...... .... ........... ......... ................ 40 Subsection a ........ ............. ........ ................... ...... .......... ........ ........ 40 Subsection b ... ... ....... ........ ........ .... ........... ....... ..... ..................... .. . 40 Subsection c ..... .... ... ....... .. ........... ..... .............. ...... .......... .. ........... 41 Subsection d ........ ............. .... ...... ......... ................ .... ........ .......... .. 41 Section F .............. ...... .... ....... ........ ............. ............. ..... ... .............. .... 41 Chapter 4 ..... ...... .... ......... ........... ... ..... ....... ..... .. ...... ........ ........ ..... .......... .. ...... ............. 42 Results ......... ........ ........... ..... .......... ............... ....... .... .. ...... ................. ....... .. ... ......... 42 Section A - Shyness Scale ..... ..... ....... .............. ........... ....... ............... ..... ... 42 Section B- PRCF .... .... .................................................................. ..... ....... 43 Section C - WTC ...... ..... .......... ................... ..... ............ ....... .... .............. .... . 44 Group Discussion .... ... ... ......... ..... .... ..... ... ... ......... ............. ...... ...... ..... 45 Classroom Participation ... ..... ..... ....... .............. ........................... ....... 46 Section D - PRCA .. .............. ........... ..... .......... ............... .... ..... ..... ......... .... 49 Group Discussion .......... ........ ........ .... ....... ........ ........ ......................... 50 Classroom Participation .... ............ ............... ....... ..... ......................... 51 Distinctive Grouping of Scores ....... ............................... ........ ........... 53 Relationships among the Results of the Four Communication Measures - Sections A, B,C, and D .. .... ..................... ...... ... ... ........... 54 Relationship between WTC and PRCA across Group Discussion and Classroom Participation Contexts .... ... ........ .... .... ....................... 55 11 Relationships between Personal Information (Section F) and the Four Communication Measures ................. ....... ... ... ... .............. ......... 56 Section E- Question Asking Behaviour ............. .......... .......... ... .... .... .. ... .. 58 Subsection a ...................................................................................... 58 Subsection b ...................................................................................... 59 Relationship between the Three Questions in Subsection b ... .. 61 Subsection b Comparisons toSS , WTC, and PRCA ... ..... ... ..... 62 Subsection b Comparison to Personal Information from Section F ................ .......... ... ........................................... ... ... .... . 64 Subsection c .... ...... ..... ......... ......... .... ............................................ ..... 66 Frequency of types of Question asked over the six queries In Subsection c ...... ................. ........ ................. .... ........ ..... .. ....... 67 Comparative to Edwards and Bowman (1996) ..... ...... ..... ........ . 69 Subsection d ........ ................ ..... ...................... ... .. ... ........... ..... ........... 71 Chapter 5 .... ... ...... ... .. ... .. .............. .. .... ...... .. ... ....... .... .................................................. 73 Discussion .................... .................. ......... ........... ...... ......... ...... ........ .................. .... 73 Survey Outcome ........................................................................................ 73 Sections A, B, C, D- Four Communication Measures ..... .. ....... ....... 73 Section E - Students Assessment of Question-asking Behaviour ..... 76 Subsection a ... .... ..... .......... ........... ............................................ ... . 76 Subsection b .... ....................... ............ ......... ...... ............. ....... ....... 76 Subsection c ...... ... ........... ........ ..................................................... 80 Subsection d ................................................................................. 82 Limitations ....... .............................. ..................... .... .... ........ .......... ..... 87 Future Research .... ... ........... ......... ........ ............................... ......... ...... . 89 Conclusion ..... .. ........ ..... ... ... ... ... ....... .......... ............................. ... ........ ..... ...... ....... . 90 References ... ...... .... .... .......... ........ ..... ...... .... ................................. ................................ 93 Appendix A: Informed Consent Form ....... ........................... ..... .... .......... .............. ........ ... 97 Appendix B: Personal Communication Survey ................................................................ 99 Appendix C: The Categorized Remarks for Section E- Subsection d .................... ....... 109 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Present post-secondary educational institutions advocate the consumer model of education. Education is seen as a banking transaction in which the students make withdrawals from knowledge made available by a course instructor but seldom make contributions to the knowledge available within a classroom (Arnett, 1992). These institutions do not encourage student participation - a "heuristic for exploring knowledge and encouraging critical thinking"- in their classrooms (Morgenstern, 1992, p. 9). The students therefore develop a limited ability to ask thoughtful, innovative questions and to assess critically the information obtained within the post-secondary educational setting (Morgenstern, 1992). This persistent limitation on student' s ability to think critically and to ask creative questions will eventually limit the growth of knowledge and the expansion of inventions and ideas (Arnett, 1992). Consequently, the lack of student participation in classroom discourse in post-secondary institutions presents a noticeable dilemma for classroom instructors wishing to see an expansion and extension of knowledge. The continued growth of knowledge and the expansion of ideas necessitate changes to college and university instruction that facilitate, not just the training of excellent stenographers but the development of critical thinkers (Arnett, 1992). At present, students' demonstration of mastered facts or learned responses simply illustrates the instructor' s expertise at transmitting information to students (Arnett, 1992). However, any future development of knowledge requires that students be discouraged from simply reproducing information by copying the instructor's choices or resources (Hauser, 1992). Arnett (1992) states that instructors need to develop guidelines for 2 student learning that require students to think about their responses and encourage them to demonstrate their understanding of the knowledge they have assimilated during classroom lectures, reading and note-taking. Therefore, it will be necessary to deviate from the traditional lecture format in college and university undergraduate classrooms (further references to university and/or college classrooms will be designated by the word classrooms) and utilize other methods to encourage and promote the development of critical thinking (Hauser, 1992). The lack of critical thinking and creative extension in relation to information received from instructors in the modem classroom may derive from the practices of transmission of material in classrooms, which does not encourage student involvement in spoken discourse or language use in classrooms (Gleason, 1997). The transmission approach to instruction does not promote an inquiry-oriented classroom which limits the use of language to mediate the construction of meaning through social functions such as group work and class discussions. These limitations on language use within transmission classrooms reduce the development of ideas through "real student dialogue" (Hauser, 1992, p. 1). In addition, teacher-student discourse is often limited to dialogues about course organization which also restricts the students' use of language to increase their understanding and develop their intellectual capacities (Wells, 1992). Vygotsky argued that language use mediates learning and that the use of speech is a tool of language acquisition that influences the development of students' thought processes (Fowler, 1994). Speech is the psychological tool that allows participation in the discourse found in social contexts and consequently social interaction informs the development of language, one of the higher psychological functions of the brain (Vygotsky, 1987). The classroom, particularly the inquiry-oriented classroom, is a social 3 context that promotes the use of language through continual discourse of various kinds. Therefore, this classroom setting influences the expansion of language abilities, increases the acquisition of language and supports cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that cognitive development evolved through the use of language in the classroom. Language is a mental tool that develops through speech and increases forms of higher thought (S. Beaumont, personal communication-lecture on Liederman, March 15, 1999). Speech is the psychological tool of higher functioning that promotes the development of inner speech (Vygotsky, 1987). Inner speech uses the operations of reflection and self-regulation, which are keys to cognitive development or higher thinking functions (Fowler, 1994). The development of inner speech through language use in the classroom increases students ' cognitive development through the utilization of the reflection and self-regulation functions. Thus, the use of external speech or language promotes language acquisition that supports inner speech functions, which increases cognitive development within the student. Vygotsky believed that the use of speech to develop language and thought is a higher function of development that is caused by cultural influences found in social settings such as the classroom (Fowler, 1994). The social interaction of the classroom produces cultural influences on students that informs their higher functioning in language use and thus increases their cognitive development. Allowing opportunities within the social context of the classroom to develop the higher functions increases the students ' use of those skills and functions that inform their inner speech and thus their cognitive development. Classrooms that provide social interactions that improve the students' use of language give them the tools to develop their natural abilities and acquire higher mental 4 functions such as reading, grammar and math. This is top-down processing as the context--consisting of the classroom, teacher, students and materials-- makes processing of new information easier (Fowler, 1994). The student will develop cognitive abilities through experiences with the tools of language and speech, allowing them to acquire higher thinking functions such as reading. As most curriculums are literacy based, the acquisition of the ability to read allows the student to access knowledge in all disciplines and Vygotsky (1987) believed there was an automatic transfer of knowledge between subjects. Vygotsky maintained that cognitive abilities did not need to be developed as the student would develop cognitively through the continued use of constructivist learning tools within the classroom setting. These learning tools are arranged environments that allow the teacher to ask probing questions that stimulate reflection and force the student to explain, thus stimulating discussion and developing the student's critical thinking skills.(Fowler, 1994). Another higher cognitive ability that is developed through the use of speech is the imagination (Vygotsky, 1987). Vygotsky stated that the development of imagination is similar to the development of the other higher mental functions as it is linked fundamentally to the mastery of speech. Speech, particularly inner speech, gives the student the ability to disassociate the intensity of the immediate impression and transcend the limits set by this impression. Thus, there is a departure from the immediate cognition of reality to a reality above the perceptual level. This transcendence is imagination, a complex mental activity produced from connections and relationships among the higher cognitive functions which increases students' understanding of reality. The connection between cognition and imagination is provided by the use of inner speech or the complex thought processes that are governed by self-regulation and 5 reflection. Imagination becomes a form of cognition that is an integral part of realistic thinking. An essential feature of imagination is the new impression each student builds from a series of experiences (Vygotsky, 1987). The classroom provides opportunities to use discourse and manipulate language to increase understanding and develop intellectual ability. These opportunities create an infinite number of experiences that can be combined into new impressions. This type of classroom encourages students to ask questions that promote inquiry and produces a series of experiences that allows for the development of imagination. Wells (1992) stated that students in the inquiry-oriented classroom are motivated by the use of inquiry to construct meaning from classroom experiences. This type of classroom induces students to pursue the answer to an inquiry and thus, increases the amount learned in the process. However, the process must originate with the asking of a "real question", defined as a question that indicates a desire to understand something (Bettencourt, 1991; as cited in Wells, 1992). An inquiryoriented classroom requires students to ask questions and these student-asked questions form the basis for enterprising and productive inquiries within the classroom that inform the students' thinking and fire their imagination. Questions can be defined lexically as a "command, or interrogative expression used to elicit information or a response, or to test knowledge" (Lynch, 1991 , p. 201 ). Questions are defined psychologically as instances of stimuli that entail cognitive processes, expressive techniques, social manners and interactional discourse (Dillon, 1982). In answering a question, the student utilizes cognitive activities that include simple recall and recognition, analysis, elaboration, and evaluative inferences depending upon the information solicited by the type of question utilized in the query 6 (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Answering questions supports some learning by the student; however, asking questions enhances the students' comprehension and learning as their questions comprise a metacognitive activity that encourages the retention of knowledge and the development of new ideas (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Student questions function as an important aspect of the student's thinking processes and a motivating force for inquiry (Dillon, 1982). Therefore, student question-asking behaviour reflects the students' willingness and ability to engage in inquiry-oriented questions and to ignore the negative psychological dynamics of the traditional question and answer relationship within the classroom (Dillon, 1982). Communication in the classroom and students' involvement in the discourse of the classroom through question-asking may be limited by the fact that some 70% of all classroom discourse is executed by the teacher (Makin, 1996). Classroom communication includes several types of discourse; however, the main type of discourse found in the classroom is teacher question-asking, a widely-used instructional strategy (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Therefore, question-asking within the classroom consists of the teacher asking questions for which the student produces "suitably-apt answers" (Aitken & Neer, 1991, p. 3). This question-asking method demonstrates the students' ability to answer questions but does not demonstrate the student's ability to ask questions or to produce reflective and thoughtful questions about the material taught by the teacher (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Research has found that inadequate question-asking behaviour by students restricts their educational development and hampers their potential for greater creativity and productivity in the future (Wells, 1992). McCroskey and Richmond (1991) established, through years of research, that children who do not communicate in the 7 classroom obtain lower grades throughout high school and college. University students, who show this lack of ability to communicate, participate, or both in classroom discourse over the first two years of college/university reveal a decrease in academic achievement (Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990). In addition, these noncommunicative students develop more negative attitudes towards schooling than do more communicative students (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Pearson and West ( 1991) state that student question-asking behaviour is a crucial part of participation in the classroom; however, it was found that the frequency of student questions was only 3.3 questions per hour (Pearson & West, 1991 ). Student question-asking behaviour becomes a critical factor in the development of dialogue and discussion within the classroom and the ability and willingness of students to participate in classroom discourse becomes an essential component of the learning process (Hauser, 1991 ). Thus student learning and the development of critical thinking skills is influenced by the student's ability to communicate and effective communication in the classroom is influenced by the student's question-asking behaviour (Hauser, 1991). In addition, any advances in knowledge will need to be found in the question-asking behaviour of those students enrolled in college/university classrooms (Arnett, 1992). As student learning is influenced by their ability to communicate and effective communication in the classroom is influenced by the student's question-asking behaviour, further research into this type of behaviour for specific groups of university students could provide greater understanding of student question-asking behaviour in post-secondary education. The purpose of this study is to broaden the knowledge base about student questions-asking behaviour and provide information that may lead to the development and design of inquiry-oriented curriculum at the college/university level 8 as it has been suggested that this development will ultimately have an influence on the growth of knowledge. Thus, the earlier the development of student question-asking through the use of inquiry-oriented classroom experiences, the earlier an increase in critical thinking can be found in the modem college/university classroom and the greater the likelihood that a growth of knowledge through creative ideas will be developed in these educational institutions (Arnett, 1992). 9 CHAPTER2 Review of Literature Historical Overview Historically, learning consisted of dialogues between teacher and students, which guided students through a construction of knowledge. Socrates considered questions the quintessential aspect of learning and encouraged his students to, through reasoned thought, utilize their thought processes to answer questions (Perez, 1986). Socrates also insisted that his students present questions resulting from their reasoned thought (Gliessman, 1985). His best-known student, Plato, envisioned education as more than the acquisition of basic facts and ideas (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 1991 ). Plato proposed a system of education, based on the Socratic method of learning, which encouraged continued development of a person's thinking processes and abilities over their lifetime (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 1991 ). Later, Aristotle concluded that all knowledge could be classified as thinking and reasoning that encompassed four basic questions. Questions were considered an important part of developing thinking and reasoning abilities in those early classrooms. The development of thinking through the use of questions within a dialogue in earlier Socratic-type classrooms has been replaced by lecture and notetaking methods in the modem undergraduate classroom (Hauser, 1991). Research into student behaviour in modem day classrooms has a limited history. The earliest investigations in the 1960s were primarily concerned with the atmosphere in a classroom or "classroom life" as described by teachers in those classrooms (Karp & Yoels, 1976, p. 423). However, research conducted near the end ofthe decade began to examine the college classroom from other viewpoints and eventually an interactional approach to classroom dynamics became common (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). 10 Examinations of language use in the classroom led to the discovery that different contexts require the use of distinct discourse conventions and that specialized discourse conventions were used within the classroom setting (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). The discourse of the classroom was described as speech events that were governed by the type and quantity of communicative interactions within that setting and influenced by the norms of participation found within the classroom context (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). Further investigations of classroom discourse examined teachers ' and students' participation rates in the discourse of the classroom and found that there was limited student participation in the discourse of college/university classrooms. Karp and Yoel ' s ( 197 6) investigation of the verbal behaviour of college students found that classes with fewer than 40 students had four or five students who accounted for 75% percent of the interaction in classroom discourse and classes with over 40 students had as few as two or three students participating in the discourse of the classroom. The results of this study indicated that students themselves perceived classroom participation as the job of a small select group of students (Karp & Yoels, 1976). Moreover, the normally silent students in a class often acknowledged the students who usually did the talking by physically orienting themselves towards the verbal students after the instructor asked a question. Karp and Yoels (1976) suggested that this orienting behaviour is based on expectations; that is, the silent students presume that the speakers of the class will be speaking directly after a question is asked in class. They concluded that the responsibility for classroom discourse is assigned to a few students and this "consolidation of responsibility" (p. 430) permits the other students to passively record the instructor' s information without needing to participate in the class and relieves them of the responsibility of reading assignments before class (Karp & Yoels, 11 1976). Consequently, college classrooms become a compromise situation for students as their classroom behaviour maintains the allusion of attention without indicating any interest in direct involvement in the discourse of the classroom. Follow-up research on this study investigated student discourse behaviour in classrooms using linguistic analysis. The investigation of student question-asking behaviour began by assessing the types of questions asked by students and then the characteristics of the student asking those questions (Good, 1981 ). Good found that students are reluctant to ask questions if the procedure or question has previously been commented on by the teacher. In general, all the students in the surveyed classes showed some degree of reluctance in approaching teachers with their questions . He concluded that this reluctance indicated that students avoided any negative feedback from questionasking by determining that there is less risk in making errors than there is in asking questions that may facilitate their learning. These students became and remained as passive learners in the classroom. Vander Meij (1988) found that students were conditioned in earlier years to wait for attention from the teacher and to wait for answers to their questions. He indicated that this early training developed an independence norm in the better students who learned to find the answers to their questions rather than to wait for an answer as waiting interfered with their personal learning progress (van der Meij, 1988). The development of these classroom rules inhibited student question asking and van der Meij (1988) found that students learned to ask questions only if they felt that the advantages of asking the questions outweighs the disadvantages of asking and the disadvantages of not asking the questions. Lynch (1991) suggested that the conventional pattern of 12 classroom discourse gives the teacher control over the discourse and this control guides students towards submissive learning that does not include question asking. The dynamics of communication within the classroom setting became more important with the investigation of the effects on student question-asking behaviour of students' gender (Allen, O' Mara, & Long, 1987; Pearson & West, 1991), personality (Aitken & Neer, 1991), and communication competence (Kendrick & Darling, 1990; Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990). However, the results ofthese studies did not impact the participation rates of students in college classroom. Morgenstern' s (1992) investigation of students' roles in college classroom discourse found similar rates and participation levels to those found by Karp and Yoels' 197 6 study. The rate of student participation in classroom discourse was still approximately 13% in this later study (Morgenstern, 1992). Pearson and West (1991) suggest that past experience and the implicit rules of the college/university classroom form a practical norm within the classroom that discourages student question-asking behaviour. Research and Theory Pearson and West (1991) suggest that students' failure to ask questions at the university/college level restricts the development of their own potential as the ability and willingness to use questions usually opens the mind towards learning and increases the achievement of the student. Research has indicated that the ability and willingness to ask questions in the classroom is positively correlated to increased comprehension, greater retention of material and successful task completion (Rees-Miller, 1994). The student's ability and willingness to ask questions is essential to their learning; however, several factors may interfere with their question-asking behaviour in the classroom. 13 Past Experience One factor that may influence the student' s ability and willingness to ask questions is past experience. Past experience with question asking may have trained students to not ask questions within classroom settings. Aitken and Neer (1991) suggest that the classroom management techniques utilized in pre-college classrooms usually demonstrate to the students that student-initiated talk and student question-asking are negative behaviours. As a method of controlling impulsivity and the asking of unnecessary questions, teachers have subtly discouraged question asking over the years. As students fear a negative reaction to question-asking behaviour, students may become reluctant to ask questions in classroom settings (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Consequently, several years of negative teacher feedback and continued adherence to classroom rules that inhibit student question-asking behaviour may eventually condition students against asking any questions in the classroom (van der Meij , 1988). Those students entering college/university may have been conditioned through years of negative question asking experiences, developing classroom behaviour patterns that constrain their questionasking behaviour in any educational setting. Another component of the student' s past experience is communication apprehension or anxiety about one's ability to communicate in a classroom which is the most common form of student' s unwillingness to communicate in any classroom setting (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991 ). Some students enter school seemingly unable to communicate as their preschool environment has not encouraged, nurtured or modeled verbal activity. Other students are reluctant communicators; they have acceptable communication skills but are afraid to talk with other people. The classroom environment that includes exposure to teachers who are low in verbalization skills, 14 assessments that depend upon verbal communication skills and situations that reinforce withdrawal from communication appear to contribute to the intensification of these inabilities and possibly to the development of communication apprehension. The incidence of communication apprehension appears to double by the fifth grade with the combination of heredity, preschool environment, and classroom environment (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991 ). Furthermore, Holbrook (1987) discovered that a pattern of anxiety about communication developed over the students' years in elementary school, usually peaking in the fifth grade and then, remaining stable throughout the rest of the school years, including the undergraduate and graduate years in university. Therefore, a student who has not received specific interventions to overcome this communication problem in an earlier educational setting may demonstrate this inability in the college/university classroom, which will negatively impact any learning at the post-secondary level of education (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991 ). In addition, an independence factor may condition students against asking questions. The instruction to seek an answer from a source other than the teacher is a common direction given to academically capable students in many elementary classrooms (van der Meij , 1988). These students are guided to assume personal responsibility for their own learning and thus, their inquiries are addressed by a hierarchy of solutions, which assumes their own efforts to solve the problem come before inquiring from a teacher or other expert (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Therefore, the student who attends college/university is likely the student who has been conditioned to seek answers to questions from sources other than the classroom instructor. 15 College/ University Classroom Factors The student who is already conditioned to not ask questions in the classroom setting may be further influenced by several factors found in the college/university classroom setting. The overall environment in a college/university classroom may actually inhibit questions asking, as fear of appearing unintelligent and being embarrassed by their incompetence is a genuine obstacle to participation in these higher learning classrooms (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Students in college classrooms assess their own knowledge and understanding before participating in classroom discourse and they often decide that they lack knowledge about the topic under discussion and they therefore choose to not participate in the discourse of the classroom (Morgenstern, 1992). In addition, college/university students feel that a certain level of intellectual ability is required to participate in classroom discussions as comments and questions in these settings must be phrased articulately and intelligently (Karp & Yoels, 1976). Therefore, students are unwilling to ask unrehearsed questions which are questions that are not logically, systematically and completely formed. The students feel that unrehearsed questions will make them appear stupid or ignorant before their classmates and the instructor (Morgenstern, 1992). This was effectively demonstrated by the frequency of questions in settings outside the classroom. It was found that student questions were 240 times more frequent in tutoring settings supervised by teaching assistants or graduate students than in classroom settings with the instructor (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Morgenstern (1992) states that an unwritten rule, which directs that only the most knowledgeable students have a right to speak in the formal college/university classroom, appears to govern students' verbal participation in college/university classrooms. 16 In addition, Kendrick and Darling (1990) found that questions in classrooms, even college and university classrooms, are utilized by teachers and students to obtain information of different kinds and the majority of student questions indicate confusion, misunderstanding, or both about the information presented during the class. Similarly, Aitken and N eer (1991) found that the fifty-one percent who asked questions occasionally or regularly in undergraduate classrooms only asked direct questions during class time. Furthermore these direct questions were most frequently clarification questions; that is, those questions which are interrogatives that elicit information or a response (Lynch, 1991). However, the same students were willing to ask indirect questions either before or after class and preferred this method of inquiry approximately 70% of the time (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Aitken and Neer suggested that students preferred to ask those questions that displayed their own thinking; that is, either divergent or evaluative questions, in circumstances that did not display their lack of knowledge or poor verbal skills to the whole class. This type of question-asking pattern does not encourage communication or the development of a dialogue within the classroom nor does it promote the use of critical thinking skills within the classroom discourse (Lynch, 1991). Gender Factors. Another factor that affects students' willingness to ask questions is gender. The gender of the student and the gender of the instructor influences question-asking behaviour in college/university classrooms. Pearson and West (1991) found that the gender of the student did not influence the frequency of questions asked in the classroom. However, the student's rating on the masculinity measure of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (P AQ) significantly influenced their frequency of questions. Those students, male and female, who had a higher masculine orientation on the P AQ, 17 were more likely to ask questions in the classroom. The difference was 2.4 questions per class for those students high on the masculine measure as compared to .9 questions per class for those who were low on the masculine measure. Conversely, Aitken and Neer ( 1991) found no significant gender effects for student question-asking behaviour. They found that male and female students showed preferences for certain types of instructional interventions used by their instructors. The instructional interventions were based on the instructors' discussion style, interaction style and motivation styles. Females preferred sitting in a circle and tolerance towards questions asked by the student and males preferred serious, formal instruction; however, none of the interventions had a positive affect on either male or female students' intentions to ask questions in the classroom situation. Thus, gender may not affect the student' s question-asking behaviour. However, the gender of the instructor appears to influence significantly the frequency of questions asked in classrooms. Pearson and West (1991) found that male students asked more questions (24) than did female students (11) in classes taught by male instructors. However, the frequency of question asking in classes that had female instructors was not significantly affected by the gender of the students. Furthermore, Aitken and Neer (1991) found that female instructors influenced students ' intentions to ask questions. Female instructors positively increased students' intentions to ask questions even though these female instructors did not ask for questions from the students in the class and may not have wanted students to ask questions in their classrooms (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Students, regardless oftheir gender, are less inhibited in their question-asking behaviour with female instructors; overall, the gender of the instructor does influence student question-asking behaviour. 18 College/ University Instructor Factors. Although gender did influence the question asking behaviour of college/university students, several other factors surrounding the instructor have an impact on the student' s willingness to ask questions in classrooms. One factor related to the perceived guideline that only the most knowledgeable may speak is the belief that the instructor is considered the most expert in the hierarchy of most knowledgeable people (Morgenstern, 1992). Therefore, the instructor is assumed to be the one person qualified to do the majority of the talking in the classroom setting. This student assumption of superiority presumes that student question-asking wastes valuable class time and that student speech provides minimal learning opportunities for the other students. In addition, the instructor may assume they are the most knowledgeable on the topic and feel that student question-asking interferes with their authority and slows down their lecturing or dispensing of knowledge (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Student beliefs about the instructor's expertise and role may interfere with student question-asking, resulting in low rates of student questionasking even in those classes taught by instructors striving to facilitate student participation (Morgenstern, 1992). Another factor that influenced student question-asking behaviour was the overall responsiveness of the instructor to student question-asking. Aitken and Neer (1991) investigated the effects of encouragement on students' question-asking behaviour. Instructor encouragement, which included thanking the student for the question, not passing judgement on the question, and asking questions themselves, resulted in higher student ratings on the item intentions to ask questions in class on the survey. Conversely, some instructor behaviours restrained students' question-asking behaviour. Perceiving the instructor as a very serious person and as someone not wanting questions 19 from the students negatively influenced students' question-asking behaviour. In addition, the student's observations about the instructor's temperament combined with the gender of the instructor were found to significantly influence students' intentions to ask questions. Male instructors perceived to be very serious and non-encouraging were asked the least number of questions by students of both genders, although, female instructors who were perceived to have the same characteristics still received more questions than their male counterparts. Students' increased intentions to ask questions in the classroom appear to be strongly influenced by the student's perceptions of instructors' temperament and the instructors' use of encouraging behaviours. In addition to various combinations of temperament, gender and encouragement, both method ofpresentation and format of the lecture appear to influence the questionasking behaviour of college/university students. Edwards and Bowman (1996) investigated variations in the number of student questions asked during different lecture presentation formats. They found that students asked the most questions after media presentations and exams, fewer questions during the regular lecture format and the least questions after student presentations. A similar proportion of questions for each type of presentation format was found during lecture sessions that included more than one presentation format. It was concluded that student questioning behaviour was strongly influenced by the instructional format of each lecture session. In addition, the type of question asked was related to the presentation format of the lecture. Edwards and Bowman (1996) designed a checklist of question types ranging in cognitive difficulty from routine thinking through evaluative thinking. The least complex questions are routine management questions that allow for the completion of routine classroom activities. The next complex questions are cognitive memory or 20 simple recall questions and convergent memory or analysis questions that access information that is already known to answer a literal question or solve a problem or summarize material. The most complex questions are divergent thinking or elaborate implicative synthesis questions and evaluative thinking or judgment and valuation questions which are questions developed by the student through the use of critical thinking processes. The first three types of questions do not expand student thinking processes or enhance critical thinking skills; however, the last two types of questions are known to develop critical thinking processes in students (Mahlios & Angelo, 1983). This list of question types was examined across presentation formats. Edwards and Bowman (1996) found that students would ask divergent thinking questions during lectures and media presentation formats, however, students only asked significant numbers of evaluative questions during the media presentation format. Lecture classes showed no significant difference between the convergent and cognitive memory questions asked by students, although evaluative questions were the least frequently asked type of questions in the lecture format. In addition, pre-exam discussions were highly correlated with routine questions (r = .842), cognitive questions (r = .889), and convergent questions (r = .932). Edwards and Bowman (1996) concluded that instructional format has a direct affect on question-asking behaviour and suggested that the number of questions and types of questions asked by an instructor influenced the number and types of questions asked by students. Implications for Present Study The conclusion found in Edwards and Bowman's (1996) research suggested that an investigation of teacher question-asking behaviour would be appropriate to this 21 review. Teacher's question-asking has remained a primary feature of all classroom discourse with teacher' s utilizing 67% of their talking time to ask questions oftheir class, averaging between two and five questions per minute (Makin, 1996). Hyman (1980) stated that teacher questioning was essential as it is directly tied to student's thinking; however, 69% of the time teachers use literal questions that require a short or single word answer that focuses on knowledge and comprehension. The use of these lower level cognitive questions is the least effective for producing critical thinking responses in students (King, Wolf, Huck, Ellinger & Gansneder, 1969). Hyman (1980) suggested greater use of higher level cognitive questions - that is, evaluative or divergent questions- to engage the student's creativity and develop their critical thinking skills. However, Gall (1984) found that only 20% ofteacher's questions are higher level questions that promote thinking processes in students. Furthermore, a survey of teachers' questions showed that their questions are mainly used to assess students' comprehension of written material, followed by clarification and procedural questions utilized in the management of classrooms and finally the use of a few questions that would encourage the development of thinking processes in students (Walter, 1983). Support for the conclusion that teachers' constantly use lower cognitive levels of questions in classrooms was found in Makin's ( 1996) review of past studies about teacher's question-asking behaviour. It was found that the behavioural norm for elementary teachers' question-asking, regardless of content area, was described as an overwhelming use of literal or "low level questions, requiring short answers" (Makin, 1996, p. 2). Her follow-up study showed that present-day teachers used question-asking to prompt a display of information already known to the teacher and that the questions asked hy the teacher utilized a short-answer format that required only a word or short 22 sentence answer from the student. She concluded that the frequency of teacher's question-asking indicates that teachers consider question-asking activities to be central to the process of teaching and learning in the classroom; however, the type of questions most frequently utilized by teachers does not demonstrate an understanding of the importance of question-asking activities in the development of critical thinking skills (Makin, 1996). In addition, teacher' s perceptions of question-asking behaviour within classroom discourse indicate an underestimation of the number of questions asked by themselves and an overestimation of the number of questions asked by students (Makin, 1996). Past studies indicated that students asked less than 15% of the total number of questions asked in a high school classroom (Susskind, 1969; as cited in Daly, Kreiser and Roghaar, 1994). More recently, Alexander, Jetton, Kulikowich and Woehler (1994) investigated teacher' s use of higher cognitive level questions in high school classrooms. They found that teachers still asked more questions than did students in these classrooms and that the majority of teachers' questions remained text-based and convergent, utilizing a "cover-the-content" strategy. Research has shown that the continual use ofthese types of less cognitively challenging questions can shape the student' s question asking and answering behaviour and ultimately affect the student's leaning. Makin (1996) found that students' learned to not ask questions in the classroom and when answering a question, they learned to give a brief response that gives the teacher the expected answer. In addition, Alexander et al. (1994) found that high-school students become cognizant of the teacher' valuation of a text or its instructional importance and allow their learning and understanding to be guided by their awareness of the information that will be tested. This conclusion held 23 true even when the information was structurally unimportant and conveyed the particulars of some character or historical figure ' s lifestyle. The use of questions that relate to different cognitive levels of thinking appears to affect learning outcomes for students (Makin, 1996) although schema activation theory (LeNoir, 1993) suggests that the placement ofthe teachers' questions is as important a factor in the effectiveness of teacher's questions. This theory states that questions activate specific schema. The positioning of teachers' questions in the prepost- and intra-reading orientations of schema activation will assist students to learn information (LeNoir, 1993). However, Andre, Mueller, Womack, Smid and Tuttle ( 1980) questioned the utilization of pre, post and intrareading questions as techniques to facilitate high school students' understanding of written material. They found no significant difference in the student' s ability to apply the knowledge activated by the questions at the pre-post and intra orientations of reading schema activation. Roger ( 1987) suggested that teachers' lower level questions in all orientations may be inhibiting the student's depth of responses as they impose external criteria created by the text-based questions on the student's cognitive levels of understanding throughout the learning process. As the development of students' critical thinking skills are not assisted by numerous literal or convergent questions, those students consistently exposed to lower level questions will not develop those skills. Research shows that higher cognitive levels of questioning will provide higher scores in achievement for students and thus, teachers' questions can be shown to influence the quality and quantity of student achievement (Mahlios & Angelo, 1983). El-Koumy (1997) investigated the proposition that exposure to higher cognitive levels ofteachers' questions would affect students' academic 24 achievement, thus the cognitive levels of student-generated questions may have an effect on students achievement as well. A comparison of teachers' questions, student-generated questions and reciprocally-generated questions and their effects on learning and retention of information showed that student-generated questions increased comprehension above that obtained with the teacher's questions (El-Koumy, 1997). Summary of Literature Review Participation rates for students in college/university classrooms have remained remarkably similar over several decades. Morgenstern's (1992) investigation of students' roles in college classroom discourse found similar rates and participation levels to those found in the Karp and Yoels' (1976) study. The rate of participation in this later study was approximately 13% as Morgenstern (1992) found that a class of 33 students had four to six students who generally accounted for 70- 80% of the student speech acts in that classroom. Specific studies of question-asking behaviour in classrooms have shown that undergraduate college students averaged only 3.3 questions per hour or approximately 4% of the questions asked in the classroom (Pearson & West, 1991 ). In addition, Aitken and Neer (1991) found that the questions asked in college/university classrooms are limited in number and produced by a small select group of students. Conversely, Edwards and Bowman (1996) found a higher percentage of student questions in their study (40%); however, this class had a high proportion of graduate students and the participant group consisted of 15 graduate students and only five undergraduate students. The presence of graduate students increases the number of questions asked in a classroom (Darling, 1989); however, classes composed entirely of undergraduate students continue to record minimal student question-asking behaviour in these 25 classrooms. Pearson and West ( 1991) suggested that past experience and the implicit rules of the college/university classroom form a practical norm within the college classroom that discourages student question-asking behaviour. Past experience with question asking may have trained students to not ask questions within classroom settings. Aitken and N eer ( 1991) suggest that questions have been subtly discouraged by classroom management techniques utilized in pre-college classrooms. Students have been taught to perceive question-asking behaviour as negative and thus, have become reluctant to ask questions in classroom settings, fearing a negative reaction to their behaviour (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Morgenstern's (1992) study found that college students avoided the negative consequences of asking questions in a classroom by applying four primary rules to any thought of involvement in classroom discourse behaviour. The rules identified by the student/participants are: 1) "Don't ask stupid questions; 2) don't waste the teachers' time; 3) don't waste class time; 4) try to find answers before asking the teacher" (Morgenstern, 1992, p. 7). Consequently, college/university students conditioned through negative question-asking experiences have developed classroom behaviour patterns and rules that constrain question-asking behaviour in any educational settings. The student who is already conditioned to not ask questions in the classroom setting may also find several circumstances inherent in to the classroom affecting their discourse behaviour in those settings. Pearson and West (1991) studied the influences of student and instructor gender on the frequency of questions asked in the classroom. The gender ofthe students did not significantly affect their question-asking behaviour; however, the gender of the instructor significantly influenced the frequency of questions asked in college/university classrooms (Pearson and West, 1991 ). Students, regardless of 26 their gender, were less inhibited in their question-asking behaviour with female instructors and overall the gender of the instructor did influence student question-asking behaviour. Although gender does influence the question asking behaviour of college/university students, several other factors surrounding the instructor and classroom have an impact on the student's willingness to ask questions in college/university classes. Student's assumption of instructor superiority infers that student question-asking wastes valuable class time and that the instructor should do the majority of talking during class time (Morgenstern, 1992). In addition, student' perceptions about the instructors willingness or unwillingness to entertain questions also affects the students' intentions to ask questions in class (Aitken & Neer, 1991). Edwards and Bowman's (1996) investigation of cognitive question types and formats used to present information in college/university classrooms found that instructional format has a direct affect on student question-asking behaviour. This finding suggested that that the number and types of questions asked by an instructor influenced students' question-asking behaviour. Thus, a brief investigation of teacher question-asking behaviour seemed relevant. A survey of teachers' questions showed that their questions are primarily used (a) to assess student's comprehension of written material, (b) to clarify and identify procedures in classroom management, and (c) to develop thinking processes in students (Walter, 1983). Makin' s (1996) review of past studies about teachers' question-asking behaviour concluded that teachers constantly use lower cognitive levels of questions in classrooms. Gall's (1984) study found that only 20 % of high school teacher' s questions are higher level questions that promote thinking processes in students. 27 Research has shown that teachers ' questions influence the quality and quantity of student achievement (Mahlios & Angelo, 1983) as those students consistently exposed to higher cognitive levels of questioning attain higher scores in achievement (Gall, 1984). Teachers' continuous use of lower cognitive level questions at all levels of education does not assist student achievement. The use of questions that do not require higher cognitive reasoning impedes the development of students' critical thinking skills (Makin, 1996). El-Koumy (1997) suggested that teacher's questions were only effective in promoting learning and classroom interaction if they were open-ended, challenging and interpretational. El-Koumy's (1997) study recommend that teachers ofhigh school and college age students encourage student-generated questions as these types of questions appeared to increase comprehension levels above the levels obtained with teacher's questions. In addition, a comparison of teacher's questions, student-generated questions and reciprocally generated questions showed that student-generated questions produced greater effects on student learning and retention of information. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate student-generated questions by surveying the student's feeling and observations about their own question-asking behaviour. The limited research available on the topic of student question-asking asking behaviour in large undergraduate courses makes it very difficult to develop an understanding of the situational, perceptual and personal factors influencing student question-asking behaviour. Thus, an investigation of the question-asking behaviour of undergraduate students in large, first-year, undergraduate classrooms would provide specific information on undergraduate communication behaviour through the 28 relationships between the undergraduate student's feelings, behaviour and personal characteristics. Contribution to Literature As student question asking is an essential component of the learning process and ultimately affects the student's academic achievement and critical thinking development (Pearson & West, 1991 ), the inadequate question-asking behaviour shown by college/university students will be detrimental to their educational development and hamper their potential for greater creativity and productivity in the future (Wells, 1992). However, students' participation in classroom discourse appears to be challenged by factors that influence the students' ability to ask questions and their willingness to make inquiries in these classrooms. Research has shown that student question asking behaviour is influenced by past experience with questions, a student assumed hierarchy of knowledge, beliefs that only the most knowledgeable may speak in a classroom of higher learning, reactions to the gender of the instructor, reactions to the perceived responsiveness of the instructor, the encouragement behaviour of the instructor and the presentation format of the lecture sessions. Thus the formation of a practical norm that discourages student questionasking behaviour due to a past experience in pre-college classrooms and the implicit rules of the college/university classroom impact the students' question-asking behaviour (Pearson & West, 1991 ). Therefore, instructors wishing to increase student participation, especially question-asking behaviour, need to become cognizant of the factors influencing this behaviour. Moreover, knowledge of those factors influencing student question-asking behaviour will provide information that could be utilized in developing interventions to 29 counteract the influence of past experience and classroom norms in large undergraduate college/university classrooms. Further, the development of course outlines, course requirements and lesson plans that ensure greater involvement of all students in large classes could be informed by the results of studies that gather details of student questionasking behaviour in large undergraduate classrooms. The ultimate development and design of inquiry-oriented classrooms at the college/university level could evolve from a comprehensive understanding of student question-asking behaviour and the generation of strategies to increase the use of student-questioning, ultimately fostering the development of critical thinking skills and encouraging the exercise of the imagination in the college/university student. Any development and design of an inquiry-oriented curriculum at the college/university level necessitates greater understanding of student question-asking behaviour within the undergraduate classroom. Thus, research that provides evidence for the type of question-asking behaviour found in present day large, undergraduate classrooms would provide a foundation for future research and subsequently, the development and design of inquiry-oriented lessons at the university/college level. As student questions-asking behaviour influences participation in discussion and dialogue within the classroom and student learning is influenced by the student's ability to use effective communication in the classroom and effective use of communication in classrooms promotes critical thinking skills, a survey that investigates student's feelings and observations about their own question-asking behaviour and the relationships between the undergraduate student's feelings about question-asking, their questionasking behaviour and personal characteristics will provide more specific information on undergraduate communication behaviour in large, first-year, undergraduate classrooms. 30 CHAPTER3 Method Participants The participants were 72 undergraduate university students from two first-year psychology courses at the university in which this study took place. The participants were given course credit for their participation according to university compensation rules. The participants were 20 males and 52 females between 17 and 40 years of age (mean age= 20.6 years). The 18-year-olds were the largest single group of participants (43%) in this survey. Seventy-two percent of participants were registered in their first year of study, 17% were registered in their second year and 12% were evenly split between third-and fourth-year registrations. Those participants concurrently in their first year of study and 18 years of age represented 38% of the participants. Participants represented twenty of the major disciplines within the university with the largest group (17%) being psychology majors (see Table 1 below). This information has been compiled from personal data given in Section F ofthe survey. 31 Table 1 Number ofparticipants per area of study in the studied sample. N N Area of Study Area of Study Psychology 12 Environmental Studies Other - undecided or not listed 10 Geography Chemistry 7 Anthropology Commerce 7 Math English 5 Business Administration 4 Biology-Chemistry 10 History .) '"' English - Psychology 10 Biology 2 Political Science-International Studies 3 Nursing 2 First Nations Studies- History Social Work 2 English - Political Science International Studies 2 First Nations Studies Woman's Studies Political Science 2 Joint Areas of Study Total 72 Materials The survey package consists of an informed consent form (see Appendix A) and a 10-page Personal Communication Survey comprised of six section (A-F) (see Appendix B for a complete copy of the survey) that assessed personal communication through diverse methods. One of the sections (E) contains four subsections (a-d). 32 Section A is the Shyness Scale (SS) measure. This measure was designed to assess an adult's oral/verbal behaviour. McCroskey and Richmond (1991) state that this scale will indicate an adult's normal oral activity levels. The range of shyness, for purposes of the Shyness Scale Measure (> = greater than; < = less than) are defined as not shy (RS = <32), moderately shy (RS =32-52) and very shy (RS =>52) (McCroskey and Richmond (1991)). These levels are usually consistent across communication contexts as levels of communication are often determined by shyness. The format for this scale, the instructions for scoring and interpreting the Shyness Scale are provided in McCroskey and Richmond (1991). Section B is The Personal Report of Communication Fear (PRCF) measure. This measure was developed for students in the elementary and secondary school classrooms and provides a valid indicator of the level of communication apprehension felt by the student. This measure is highly correlated with the Personal Report of Communication Fear (PRCA) measure that was developed specifically for college students and has consistently yielded valid results in over 500 studies (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). This measure states the questions about communication in a simple and straight forward style and its implementation in a university/college classroom will provide students with a clear introduction to the topic and encourage them to assess their personal communication style. The range of communication fear, for purposes ofthe Personal Report of Communication Fear Measure is defined as very low communication apprehension (RS = <28), normal (RS = 28-47) and high communication apprehension (RS = >48) (McCroskey and Richmond, 1991). The scoring and interpretation is included with the measure (McCroskey & Richmond, 199, p. 43). 33 Section C is comprised of fifteen questions taken from the Willingness to Communicate Scale (WTC). The format for the questions is provided by McCroskey and Richmond (1991 ). The fifteen questions used for this survey specifically assess the willingness to communicate verbally with audiences at various levels of familiarity; that is acquaintances, friends and strangers. Each level of familiarity is assessed across two communication contexts: group discussion and classroom settings. The last two questions were developed by the author using the rules of question development (Babbie, 1995) and added to assess the individual's willingness to communicate in more complex communication contexts. Classroom settings at the university/college level are rarely composed solely of audiences with a single level of familiarity, particularly during the early undergraduate years. A separate scoring category for these questions will provide some statistical evidence for the willingness to communicate in complex communication contexts. Three filler questions that assess communication in contexts outside of the classroom context are included in the survey to defuse the focus on specific contexts within the survey and to avoid bias in the answers to the questions (Babbie, 1996). These questions are not included in the scoring and do not affect the final interpretation of the scores (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991 ). The overall range of willingness to communicate, for purposes of the Willingness to Communicate Measure is defined as low willingness to communicate (RS = >52), moderate willingness to communicate (RS = 52-82) and high willingness to communicate apprehension (RS = >82 (McCroskey and Richmond, 1991). McCroskey and Richmond ( 1991) defined the overall range of willingness to communicate, for purposes of the Group Discussion Context of the Willingness to Communicate Measure; as low willingness to communicate (RS = >39), moderate willingness to communicate 34 (RS = 39-89) and high willingness to communicate (RS = >89). McCroskey and Richmond ( 1991) defined the overall range of willingness to communicate, for purposes of the Classroom Participation Context of the Willingness to Communicate Measure; as low willingness to communicate (RS = >39), moderate willingness to communicate (RS = 39-80) and high willingness to communicate apprehension (RS = >80). This scale provides information about an individual's ability to communicate with diverse receivers across a variety of contexts. Willingness to communicate is considered a mediating variable in communication competence as heightened communication apprehension will generally decrease willingness to communicate (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Correlations between this score and the scores from the Shyness Scale and Personal Report of Communication Fear will provide a comprehensive look at an individual's overall communication process. Scoring and interpretation of the WTC is available in the same publication as the survey (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Section D comprises questions 1 -1 2 from the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) which was developed for use with college students. These questions assess personal communication apprehension in group or classroom settings (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). The remainder ofthe questions included in the PRCA-24 assesses communication apprehension in public speaking situations and in conversation. These questions were omitted from the survey as they are not relevant to the topic being investigated by this survey and do not affect the validity of the scale as each section of questions is scored independently. The range of communication apprehension, for purposes of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension Measure is defined as low communication 35 apprehension (RS = >25), normal communication apprehension (RS = 26-33) high communication apprehension (RS = 34-40) and very high communication apprehension (RS => 40). The range of communication apprehension, for purposes of the Group Discussion Context of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension Measure is defined as low communication apprehension (RS = > 16), normal communication apprehension (RS = 17-20) high communication apprehension (RS = 21-30) The range of communication apprehension, for purposes of the Classroom Participation Context of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension Measure is defined as low communication apprehension (RS = > 16), normal communication apprehension (RS = 17-20) high communication apprehension (RS = 21-3 0) (McCroskey and Richmond, 1991). The format for this scale, the instructions for the separate scoring and interpretation of several common communication contexts was found in McCroskey and Richmond (1991). Sections A, B, C, and D have established reliability and validity as they have been utilized in previous research (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). These measures are all scored utilizing scoring formulas that provide numerical subscores for each context within the scale and a numerical total score for each scale. The scoring instructions, formula and interpretation norms are provided in McCroskey and Richmond (1991). Section E is an arrangement of questions designed to examine the university/college students' assessment of their individual communication habits and provide some overall assessment of their perception of communication habits within a classroom setting. Aitken and N eer ( 1991) investigated the effect of teacher behaviour on student question-asking by surveying student question-asking habits in specific classroom situations. The style and format of the questions in this section are based on 36 those questions in the participant observations by Morgenstern (1992) and observations by Edwards and Bowman (1996) that specifically assess student question-asking behaviour. Self-report of this type of behaviour can be correlated with the information on age and gender found in Section F. Subsection a of Section E estimate the individual's question-asking behaviour and provide an overall picture of the question-asking behaviour of students. The format ofthese questions is taken from Aitken and Neer (1991); however, the assessment is numerical rather than a checklist of statements with an indeterminate assessment of question-asking behaviour. The numerical format was utilized to give specific data that indicated the student's question-asking behaviour. Morgenstern ( 1992) found that the information given by students in interviews indicated their ability to provide specific assessment of that behaviour Subsection b of Section E comprises a set of questions that examines student's emotions or feelings towards their question-asking behaviour. Satisfaction with one's personal question-asking behaviour may indicate some reasons for the numerical date in Subsection a and the graphic data in Subsection d. A comparison of the Section E subdivisions will provide a greater composite picture of the students' question-asking behaviour. Further comparisons with the WTC and SS measures would match student question-asking behaviour to meaningful measures of communication willingness. The Likert scale format of these questions provides direct descriptive statistics, thus increasing the efficiency of the survey and the comparability of this part to the other parts of the survey (Babbie, 1995). Subsection c of Section E provided an in-depth look at the student's questionasking behaviour as it has been found that students can recognize and identify their 37 classroom communication behaviour (Morgenstern, 1992). The questions allow students to assess the type of questions asked in the classroom by themselves and others. The initial utilization of questions about classroom behaviour provides a comfort zone for the student based on the Bogardus Social Distance Scale that provides a "logical structure of intensity inherent among the items" in a survey (Babbie, 1995, p. 176). The social distance format of this part could avoid contamination of data by the Actor-Observer Effect and provide data that may indicate the presence of this cognitive process. This subsection will be scored by assessing the frequency of each type of question in each of the six queries. The classification of question types and the examples for each classification are found in Edwards and Bowman (1996). The classification was based on the Gallagher and Aschner (1963) categorical system of questions developed from the operations of intellect described in Guilford's Structure oflntellect model (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Past utilization of the question classification in interview research with university students should nullify any requirement for enhanced comprehension that may be required by the written classification system (Edwards & Bowman, 1996). Subsection d of Section E comprised an open-ended question that allows the respondents to provide their own answers. Some respondents feel frustrated by closeended questions that do not address their concerns and are more comfortable with indepth answers that describe their feelings in their own words. The utilization of an openended question at this point in the survey allows students to feel they are making a direct contribution to the information pool and increases the chances that responses important to the student will be acknowledged and recorded by the survey (Babbie, 1995). The written remarks in this subsection will be transcribed and coded for gender, age and year 38 of study. The remarks will be sorted by six category classifications: Shyness, Nervousness and Anxiety, Classroom Characteristics, Class/Course Characteristics Student Assumptions and Other. The remarks in each category will be counted and tabulated for number of remarks in the category. In addition, the information provided by this question could be compared easily to the information collected in the personal interviews in Morgenstern's (1992) study. Section F consisted of Personal information that provides descriptive statistics for the participants in the study. These statistics would be useful in comparing this study to other question-asking behaviour studies by Pearson and West (1994) and by Edwards and Bowman (1996). The questions in this section are personal information questions formatted in accordance with the rules for question construction and the sample questionnaire provided in Babbie (1995). The specific answers to questions 1 through 3 were designed to access the expected responses of the participants in the study. The means and frequencies of the answers will be calculated. The answers to questions 4 and 5 were chosen from the listing provided by the 2003-2004 undergraduate calendar for the university in which this study occurred. Questions 4 and 5 may be useful in a comparison with WTC and other measures in this study as there is some research that indicates that specific subjects taught in schools and universities do not encourage question-asking behaviour in students (Aitken & Neer, 1991 ). There are some drawbacks to using self-report measures that require participants to provide data about themselves; however the ease of administration to a large number of people and the resulting data which is comparable to other studies on the subject makes this survey a good choice for this study (Babbie, 1995). Further, some details 39 specific to small university classrooms may be found in this data and provide useful information about student question-asking behaviour. Procedure The survey was given to two classes during a one-week period in March, 2005 . The classes were provided with a brief verbal introduction to the study and then those students who wished to participate were asked to fill out an informed consent sheet. Each participant read and signed an informed consent form and then received a numbered survey. The participants took the surveys with them to fill out. The surveys were returned to the researcher at the participants' next class session. The researcher provided the participants with debriefing. Analysis of Data The results of this survey were analyzed using descriptive statistic techniques. Comparisons between means were made among the four communication measures. The probability of a Type I error was maintained at .05 for all comparisons were made between measures. Sections A, B, C and D The communication measures in these four sections of the survey were scored and interpreted according to McCroskey and Richmond (1991 ). A mean and standard deviation were established for each measure. Frequencies for each group of scores within the measure were determined for each measure. Subsequently, the four Communication Measures were compared to each other and a Pearson's productmoment correlation coefficient was established for each of these relationships. Further, personal information was compared to the four communication Measures. 40 Age was compared to the four communication measures and a Pearson's productmoment correlation coefficient was established for each of these relationships. The four communication measures were analyzed for the frequency of each Gender within the scoring categories of each measure. The resulting data was tabulated to provide some indication of gender influences on the communication measures in this study. In addition, the WTC and PRCA communication measures were divided into two specific contexts (Group Discussion and Classroom Participation) and analyzed separately to establish a mean and standard deviation for each context. Frequencies for each group of scores within the contexts were also determined. Subsequently, the two contexts were compared to each other and a Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient established for these relationships Section E The question-asking behaviour in Section E of the survey was analyzed in separate subsections. Subsection a. This subsection of Section E assesses the question asking frequency of the participants and a mean and standard deviation were computed for each of the three questions in this subsection. Frequencies were established for each of the three questions in this subsection. Subsection b. This subsection of Section E assesses emotions about question asking and a mean and standard deviation were computed for each of the three questions in this subsection. Frequencies were established for each answer of the five answer choices in the three questions of this subsection. The three questions in this subsection were compared and a Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients 41 were established for these relationships. Further relationships were established by computing a Pearson' s product-moment correlation coefficient for the relationships among the three questions in this subsection and Age and three of the Communication Measures (SS , WTC, and PRCA). The frequencies ofthe relationships between Gender and the three questions in this subsection will be calculate and graphed. Subsection c. This subsection of Section E investigates the types of questions asked in class and were analyzed by computing the mean and standard deviation for each query in this subsection. Frequencies were established for the number of responses concerning each of the five types of questions across the six queries in this subsection. The established frequencies for the five types of questions were evaluated with regards to the frequencies for these questions as found in Edwards and Bowman (1996). Subsection d. This subsection of Section E assesses the reasons for not asking more questions in class. The participants' personally recorded remarks were collated and transcribed by the researcher. The remarks were recorded after being sorted into six categories. Coded personal information was coordinated with each remark. Remarks were tabulated for numerical incidence and frequency within each category of remarks. Section F Participants' personal information data from Section F were analyzed to establish a mean, standard deviation and frequency for the questions about age and year of study at the university. The data about gender were analyzed to establish the number of males and females in the study. The question concerning Major area of study at the university was tabulated to indicate the number of participants in each major area of study. 42 CHAPTER4 Results The survey data was complied from the 72 surveys returned to the researcher from a purposeful sample. The completed and remitted surveys represented a 72% response rate of those surveys distributed to students. This percentage of returned surveys is considered a very good response rate (Babbie, 1995). Section A - Shyness Scale (SS) Measure The Shyness Scale measure produced a mean of 4 3 .22, SD = 11 .34 for the studied sample. The range of Shyness Scale scores are shown in Figure 1. The results of this study indicated that 47 of the participants (65%) fell within the moderate range (32-52) which is defined as students who may be shylike in some situations but not in others (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991 ). There were 14 participants (19%) who scored above 52 on the measure and could be defined as being likely shy and probably do not talk a lot. There were 11 participants (17%) who scored below 32 on the measure and could be defined as being likely not shy and probably talk a lot. 43 Figure I. Range of Shyness Scale scores for the studied sample. :. (.) 18 16 we.. c: :::s 14 tiJ 12 ns c e (.!) ~~ ·c::; 0 ·(.) t::CI'J ns tn a.. tiJ - 0 Q) c: .... >. a>:. 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Not Shy ,.-r- n n-n- I-- I""" I-- I-- - r- rr- EJSHY 1!., 1-- ,;v - r- I--- r- I • rvbderate ,.; 1::. I-I n .CCI) E :::s z Shyness Scores by Groups Section B - Personal Report of Communication Fear (PRCF) Measure The studied sample produced a mean of 4.29, SD = 9.1 for this measure. The range of Personal Report of Communication Fear scores are shown in Figure 2. The results of this study indicated that 49 of the participants (68%) were within the normal range of scores (28-4 7) for this measure. There were 18 participants (25%) who scored above 4 7 on this measure and are "most likely communication apprehensive" as defined by McCroskey and Richmond (1991 , p. 43). There were 5 participants (7%) who scored below 28 on this measure and therefore have a very low level of communication apprehension. 44 Figure 2. Range of PRCF scores for the studied sample. ~ (.) ~ :I ns o ~ (5 25 .-----------------------------------------------, 20 -+----------------------- ~ 8 15 -+----------------------~ ·-u ...ns 10 -+----------------------·- Q) ~ ns r:: ~ .!2 O';Q ~ EE :I 0 zu Olow • Normal 0 High 5 + - - - - ----1 0 +-------,--L--L-,-_..__._...,------,- v ~ Communcation Fear Scores by Groups Section C - Willingness to Communicate (WTC) Measure The studied sample produced a mean of 64.11, SD = 18.11 for this measure. The range of Willingness to Communicate scores are shown in Figure 3. The results of this study indicted that 41 ofthe participants (57%) fell within the moderate range ofthe measure (52-82). There were 20 participants (28%) who scored below 52 on the measure and could be defined having a low willingness to communicate. There were 11 participants (15%) who scored above 82 on the measure and could be defined as having high willingness to communicate (McCrosky and Richmond, 1991). 45 Figure 3. Range of WTC Scores for the studied sample. 16 14 12 w r::: c.. 10 Ill :I c: e 8 .=. (,) ca [e> ·u e 6 4 (,) 2 0 :;::; ... ~ 0 -u 0 ..... ;3: .c E v bJ Low • Moderate D 0 0 -{} I I fr{H} OHigh ~ :I z Willingness to Communciate (WTC) Scores by Groups Group Discussion (GD) The results from this section of the measure produced a mean of 6.74, SD = 21 .81 . The range of WTC - Group Discussion Context scores are shown in Figure 4. The results ofthis study indicated that 47 of the participants (65%) fell within the moderate range for this context of the measure (39-89). There were 9 participants (13%) who scored below 39 on the measure and could be said to have a low willingness to communicate in the group discussion context. There were 14 participants ( 19%) who scored above 89 on the measure and could be said to have a high willingness to communicate in the group discussion context. 46 Figure 4. Range of WTC scores for GD context for studied sample. - 16 (,) 14 ns w c. 12 c: ::I 10 .r::. e 'EC> 111 8 6 4 2 0 ns C1l c. ... ·- 0 ~ (,) 'tCJ) "'c a.. C) -I....... 0() ' ' ' - - olow - - • Moderate ---,- ---,- cHigh ' ~ E ::I z Classroom Participation The results from this section of the measure produced a mean of 6. 74, SD = 21.81. The range ofWTC- Classroom Participation Context scores are shown in Figure 5. The results ofthis study indicated that 50 of the participants (69%) fell within the moderate range of the measure (39-89). There were 15 participants (21 %) who scored below 39 on the measure and could be said to have a low willingness to communicate in the classroom participation context. There were 7 participants (1 0%) who scored above 89 on the measure and could be said to have a high willingness to communicate in the classroom participation context. 47 Figure 5. Range of WTC scores for CP Context for the studied sample. 16 ·= e~ 1214 U) ~ C'CI C1) a. ... ·u o ·-e(l) (.) C'Cia.. a..(.) - oo I '-I- ~ E..s::::: :::::sU zta w r-- 10 8 6 - 4 2 ,..... Hl- 0 ~ 'vv ~ ro' r---r---r---r---- v ~ >0' '1.-:>'><' WTC-Ciassroom Participation (CP) Context Scores by Groups A comparison of the Group Discussion context and the Classroom Participation context within the Willingness to Communicate measure indicated that the number of participants willing to communicate is much greater in the group discussion context than in the classroom participation context. 48 Figure 6. Comparison of Group Discussion and Classroom Participation Contexts of WTC measure. ~ ca w s:::: c.. ..!!! ::s 16 14 12 e 10 s:::: nl(!) .e- ... Cl) ...cacn (.) :;:; 0 (.) a.. -u 01-~ .c E ::s - 8 - 6 - 4 2 0 D Group Discussion Context - --- - II I I - I-- ~ • Classroom Participation Context z WTC- GD Context and WTC- CP Context by Groups Several individual questions in the measure were analyzed for specific information about choosing to talk in university classrooms. It was found that 76% of the participants would choose to talk in a classroom of friends (Question 4), 62% of the participants would choose to talk in a classroom of acquaintances (Question 7) and 29% of the participants would talk in a classroom of strangers (Question 11). In addition, it was found 48% of the participants would choose to talk in a class of acquaintances and strangers (Question 14). The class of acquaintances and strangers was assessed over two communication contexts as well. It was found that 48% of the participants would choose to talk within the classroom participation context with a mixed audience of acquaintances and 49 strangers (Question 14); however, 52% ofthe participants would choose to talk within the group discussion context with a mixed audience of acquaintances and strangers (Question 15). Section D- Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) Measure The studied sample produced a mean of 36.07, SD = 9.36 for this measure. The range of Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scores are shown in Figure 7. The results of this measure indicated that 12 of the participants (17%) scored within the low range on the measure and could be defined as having no measurable degree of communication apprehension. There were 16 participants (22%) who scored within the normal range for the measure and could be said respond with varying amounts of communication apprehension depending upon the situation. There were 19 participants (26%) who scored within the high range on the measure and could be said to experience more communication apprehension than the average person. There were 25 participants (35%) who scored in the very high range for the measure and could be said to have a very high level of communication apprehension. 50 Figure 7. Range of scores for PRCA for the studied sample . .r:. (.) 30 w 25 ns c: c. J!l g 20 c Low- 15-25 Q) 15 • Normal- 26-33 ·t:: 0(.) 10 o High- 34-40 ~ 5 t!!1 Very High- 40-60 .c 0 c: ... nst!> .e- ... (.) ns(J) a.<( 00::: ~ E :I z Low- 15-25 Normal26-33 High- 34-40 Very High40-60 PRCA Scores by Group Group Discussion (GD) The studied sample produced a mean of 17.38, SD= 5.27 for this measure. The range ofPRCA- Group Discussion Context scores are shown in Figure 8. The results of this section of the measure indicated that 36 of the participants (50%) scored in the low range for the measure and can be said to have little or no degree of communication apprehension in the group discussion context. There were 18 participants (25%) who scored in the normal range for the measure and can be said to respond with varying amounts of communication apprehension in the group discussion context. There were 18 participants (25%) who score in the high range of the measure and can be said to more generally apprehensive about communication in the group discussion context than the average person (McCrosky & Richmond, 1991). 51 Figure 8. Range of scores for PRCA - Group Discussion context for the studied sample. c Low- 6-16 • Norm- 17-20 o Low- 6-16 Norm- 17-20 ~ 21-30 High- 21-30 PRCA - GO Context Scores by Group Classroom Participation (CP) The studied sample produced a mean of 18.60, SD = 5.07 for this measure. The range ofPRCA- Classroom Participation Context scores are shown in Figure 9. The results of this section indicted that 25 of the participants (35%) scored in the low range for the measure and can be said to have a low degree of communication apprehension in the classroom participation context. There were 17 participants (24%) who scored in the normal range on the measure and can be said to respond differently in different situations and show varying amounts of communication apprehension in the group discussion context. There were 30 participants (42 %) who scored in the high range on the measure and could be said to be more generally apprehensive in the classroom participation context then the average person (McCrosky & Richmond, 1991). 52 Figure 9. Range of Scores for PRCA-Classroom Participation context for the studied sample. 35 .---------------------------------. 30 25 ~~~~ ~~ C Low- 6-16 ~ 20 • Norm- 17-20 15 o High-:- 21-30 10 5 0 ~ Low- 6-16 Norm- 17-20 High- 21-30 PRCA- CP Context Scores by Groups A comparison of the Group Discussion context and the Classroom Participation Context within the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension measure (see Figure 10 below) indicates that the number of participants with high communication apprehension is greater in the classroom participation context than in the group discussion context. 53 Figure I 0. Comparison of Group Discussion and the Classroom Participation Contexts in PRCA measure . .s:::: (.) cu w c::: 40 ~ Q. 35 :::s J!) 0 30 0 Group Discussion Context ·-[ ~... 25 ~ 8 20 cu en 15 a..<( ~ ~ ~ ~ a.. E • Classroom Partcipa 10 Context 5 :::s z Low- 6--16 Norm- 17--20 High- 21--30 PRCA-GD and PRCA-CP by Group Scores Distinctive Grouping of Scores Seven participants (10%) scored high on the Shyness Scale; they also scored high on the PRCF and are "most likely communication apprehensive" as defined by McCroskey and Richmond (1991 , p. 43). There participants also scored high on the PRCA-24 and could be said to experience a greater degree of communication apprehension than the average person (McCrosky & Richmond, 1991) and also scored low on the WTC and could be said to have a low willingness to communicate (McCrosky and Richmond, 1991). 54 Relationships among the Results of the 4 Communication Measures - Sections A, B, C, D (see Table 1 below) The Shyness Scale (Section A) and the Personal Report of Communication Fear (Section B) in this survey had a positive relationship of r (70) = .46, p < .05 as shyness increases so does the personal fear of communication. The Shyness Scale (Section A) and the Willingness to Communicate Scale (Section C) in this survey had a negative relationship ofr (70) = -.44, p < .05 as shyness increases the willingness to communicate decreases. The Shyness Scale (Section A) and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Section D) in this survey had a positive relationship of r (70) = .3 7, p < .05 as shyness increases so does apprehension about communication. The Personal Report of Communication Fear (Section B) and the Willingness to Communicate Scale (Section C) in this survey has a negative relationship ofr (70) = -.64, p < .05 as communication fear increases the willingness to communicate decreases. The Personal Report of Communication Fear (Section B) and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Section D) in this survey had a positive relationship ofr (70) = .74, p < .05 as communication fear increases so does communication apprehension. Although both of these scales are said to measure the same concept, the use of only part of the one survey may account for this correlation not being a 1.00. In addition, measurement error may account for this correlation. The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Section D) and the Willingness to Communicate Scale (Section C) in this survey had a negative relationship of r (70) = -.51 , p < .05 as communication apprehension increases the willingness to communicate decreases. 55 Table 1 The relationships among the 4 communication measures for the sample studied by this survey. Communication Measures ss PRCF ss PRCF WTC PRCA .46* -.44* .37* -.64* .74* -.51* WTC PRCA * p < .05 Relationship between WTC and P RCA across Group Discussion and Classroom Participation Contexts The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Section D) and The Willingness to Communicate Scale (Section C) and across Group Discussion Context had a moderate negative relationship of r (70) = -.34, p < .05 as communication apprehension increases the willingness to communicate in group discussion decreases. The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Section D) and The Willingness to Communicate Scale (Section C) across the Classroom Participation Context had a moderate negative relationship of r (70) = -.4 7, p < .05 as communication apprehension increases the willingness to communicate in the classroom participation context decreases. 56 Relationships between Personal Information (Section F) and the Four Communication Measures - Sections A, B, C, D. Although, the relationships between Year of Study and Age and the four communication measures were examined, the resulting relationships were non significant and will not be discussed further in this study. A comparison of Gender and the four communication measures provided frequency data that indicated gender differences within the scoring categories of these measures for this study. The Shyness Scale measure showed a higher percentage of males in normal scoring category and a higher percentage of females in the shy and not shy scoring categories (see Table 2). Table 2 The frequency of each gender within the three scoring categories of the Shyness Scale. Scoring Categories of Shyness Scale Percentage of Gender Not shy Normal Shy Male .10 .75 .15 Female .17 .62 .21 The Personal Report of Communication Fear (PRCF) measure showed a higher percentage of males in normal scoring category and the not communication apprehensive (Not CA) scoring category. A higher percentage of females were found in the communication apprehensive (CA) scoring category of this measure (see Table 3). 57 Table 3 The frequency of each gender within the three scoring categories of the P RCF. Scoring Categories of PRCF Percentage of Gender NotCA Normal Male .10 .75 .15 Female .06 .67 .27 CA The Willingness to Communicate (WTC) measure showed a higher percentage of males in normal scoring category and the not communication apprehensive (Not CA) scoring category. A higher percentage of females were found in the communication apprehensive (CA) scoring category of this measure (see Table 4). Table 4 The frequency of each gender within the three scoring categories of the WTC. Scoring Categories of WTC Percentage of Gender Low Moderate High Male .15 .85 .00 Female .31 .50 .19 58 The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) measure showed a higher percentage of males in normal scoring category and the low communication apprehension scoring category. A higher percentage of females were found in the high communication apprehension and very high communication apprehension scoring category of this measure (see Table 5). Table 5 The frequency of each gender within the four scoring categories of the P RCA. Scoring Categories of PRCA Percentage of Gender Low Normal High Very High Male .25 .20 .30 .25 Female .12 .17 .33 .38 Section E - Question-Asking Behaviour Subsection a The question-asking behaviour of survey participants was estimated in their first year psychology classes/courses during the Winter Semester. The estimates of questionasking behaviour over the semester (M = 3.0, SD = 12.2) showed that 49 of the 72 participants or 68% did not ask any questions during the semester. The number of questions asked each week -over 2 class sessions (M = .4, SD = 2.1) showed that 58 59 participants in each class session (M = 1.0, SD = 2.7) showed that 50 out ofthe 72 or 69% did not ask questions during any class session this semester. The overall results suggest that very few questions were asked by the participants in this survey during their two classes/courses. The open-ended question in subsection d provides some reasons for student' s reluctance to ask questions in class. Subsection b Emotions regarding question-asking behaviour were indicated on a graphical Likert scale converted to numerical data for analysis. The five emotional states were converted to numerical data by having All the Time represented by the number 5, Many Times by the number 4, Sometimes by the number 3, Almost Never by the number 2 and Never by the number 1. The scores from the three questions in this section of the survey are shown in Figure 11. In response to the question "Indicate your willingness to ask questions in class" (M = 2.6, SD = 1.0), forty-three percent of the students or 31 out of 72 indicated that they would ' sometimes' be willing to ask questions in class. Twenty-six percent of the participants or 19 out of 72 indicated that they would ' almost never' be willing to ask questions in class. Fifteen percent or 11 out of 72 indicated that they are 'never' willing to ask questions in class. Thirteen percent or 10 out t of 72 indicated that they are 'many times' willing to ask questions in class. One Percent or 1 out of 72 indicted that they are 'all the time' willing to ask questions in class. In response to the question "Do you feel that you would like to ask more questions in class?" (M = 2.7, SD = 1.1 ), forty-one percent or 30 out of 72 indicated that they ' sometimes' feel that they would like to ask more questions in class. Twenty-five percent or 18 out of 72 indicated that they ' almost never' feel like asking more questions 60 in class. Fourteen percent or 10 out of72 indicated that they 'never' feel that they would like to ask more questions in class. Fourteen percent or 10 out of 72 indicated that they 'many times' feel that they would like to ask more questions in class. Five percent or 4 out of72 indicated that they 'all the time' feel that they would like to ask more questions in class. In response to the question "Are you satisfied with the number of questions you ask in class?" (M = 3 .2, SD = 1.2), 26% or 19 out of 72 indicated that they are 'sometimes' satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class. Twenty-five percent or 18 out of 72 indicated that they are 'many times' satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class. Twenty percent or 15 out of 72 indicated that they are 'almost never' satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class. Eighteen percent or 13 out of 72 indicated that they are 'all the time' satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class. Nine percent or 7 out of 72 indicated that they are 'never' satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class. 61 Figure 11. Results from the three questions in Subsection b - Participants' feelings about question asking in class .J::. ~ ~~ -2ai C1l ~ ~~ ~ ~~ "0 :::JC) en= -<11 0 .._ LL C1l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -a- Liking to Ask More ~~ ~ ~ .c E :::J z ~ Never Almost Never -+-Willingness to Ask --.--Satisfaction with Asking Sometimes ManyTimes All the Time Personal Descriptions of Feelings Relationship between the Three Questions in Subsection b. The relationship between Willingness to Ask Questions in class (Question 1) and Liking to Ask More Questions in Class (Question 2) is r (70) = -.03 , p > .05 and was not significant. The relationship between Willingness to Ask Questions in class (Question 1) and Satisfaction with the Number of Questions Asked in class (Question 3) is r (70) = .39, p < .05. This moderate positive correlation suggests that as the students' willingness to ask question increases so does their satisfaction with the number of questions they ask in class. The relationship between Liking to Ask More Questions in class (Question 2) and Satisfaction with the Number of Questions Asked in class (Question 3) is r (70) = 62 -.46, p < .05. This moderate negative correlation suggests that as students liking to ask more question increases their satisfaction with number of question asked decreases. Subsection b Comparisons to SS (Section A), WTC (Section C) and P RCA (Section D). There are several relationships among these sections of the survey. The relationship between Liking to Ask More Questions (Question 2-subsection b) and the Shyness Scale measure (SS-Section A) was r (70) = 0.04, p <.05. This very weak positive correlation suggests that as shyness increases the students' feeling that they would like ask more questions increases. The relationship between Liking to Ask More Questions (Question 2-subsection b) and the Willingness to Communicate measure (WTC-Section C) was r (70) = 0.09, p < .05. This very weak positive correlation suggests that as willingness to communicate increases the students' feeling that they would like ask more questions increases. The relationship between Liking to Ask More Questions (Question 2-subsection b) and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension measure (PRCA24-Section B) was r (70) = 0.04, p < .05. This very weak positive correlation suggests that as the students' feelings of personal apprehension about communication increases the students' feeling that they would like ask more questions increases. The relationships between "Liking to ask more questions in class" question of Subsection b and Sections A, C and D were weak or non significant and will not be discussed in this study. However, the relationships between the "Willingness to ask questions in class" question of Subsection b and "Satisfaction with question asking" question of Subsection b are more substantial and indicative of the student question-asking behaviour for the sample investigated in this study and are listed below. 63 The relationship between Willingness to Ask Questions (Question 1- Subsection b) and Shyness Scale measure (SS- Section A) is r (70) = -.36, p < .05. This moderate negative correlation suggests that there is a decrease in a students' willingness to ask questions with an increase in their shyness. The relationship between Willingness to Ask Questions (Question 1-Subsection b) and the Willingness to Communicate measure (WTC-Section C) was r (70) = .33 , p < .05. This moderate positive correlation suggests that students' willingness to ask questions increases as their willingness to communicate increases. The relationship between Willingness to Ask Questions (Question 1Subsectinb) and Personal Report of Communication Apprehension measure (PRCA24 Section D) is r (70) = -.53, p < .05 . This moderate negative correlation suggests that there is a decrease in a students' willingness to ask questions with an increase in their report of personal apprehension about communication. The relationship between Satisfaction with Question Asking (Question 3Subsection b) and Shyness Scale measure (SS-Section A) was r (70) = -.25, p < .05. This weak negative correlation suggests that there is a decrease in student's satisfaction with their question-asking with the higher the level of shyness. There was no relationship between Satisfaction with Question Asking (Question 3-Subsection b) and Willingness to Communicate measure (WTC-Section C) is r (70) = .05, p > .05. The relationship between Satisfaction with Question Asking (Question 3-Subsection b) and Personal Report of Communication Apprehension measure (PRCA24-Section D) is r (70) = -.27, p < .05. This weak negative correlation suggests that a student's satisfaction with their question-asking decreases as the students' feeling of personal apprehension about communication increases. 64 Subsection b comparison to Personal Information from Section F. Although, research has suggested that age and year of study may be a factor in the participants' question-asking behaviour (Morgenstern, 1992), the relationships found in this survey's results between the questions asked in Subsection b and Age and Year of Study (Section F) were very weak or weak and will be briefly discussed in this study. However, the association between the questions asked in Subsection band Gender (Male and Female) are indicative of student question-asking behaviour as determined in past research (Aitken & Neer, 1991). The relationship between "Willingness to Ask Questions in Class" (Question 1Subsection b) and Gender shows that there is a difference in the frequency of each feeling about the question depending on gender (see Figure 12). Females are more likely to be "Never" or "Almost Never" willing to ask questions in class. Males are more likely to be "Almost Never" or "Sometimes" willing to ask question in class. Figure 12. .... ~ g Ill C) Ill Willingness to ask questions by gender. 0.60 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 0.50 -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - :.._- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 ~~ 0.40 0.30 ~ Q) c:n ::: .f! := 0.20 ---+--male ~ ~ --- female ~ ~ 3: 0.10 -t-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '"""-<;;:::--- - --1 Q; a.. 0.00 ~ Never Almost Never Sometime 1\Aany Times Willingness to Ask Questions All the Time 65 The relationship between "Liking to ask More Questions in class" (Question 2Subsection b) and Gender shows that there is a difference in the frequency of each feeling about the question depending on gender (see Figure 13). Females are more likely to feel that they would "Many Times" or "All the Time" like to ask more questions in class. Male are more likely to feel that they would "Never" or "Almost Never" like to ask more questions in class. Figure 13. Cl c ..:.:: 0.50 ...1 0.40 ... Cl) "C c.:.:: Cl) In Feelings about liking to ask more questions by gender. 0.30 ~ (!)<( - - Female 0.20 oo - -... Cl) Cl cu Cl) c (.) Cl) a. 0.10 0.00 Ne'ver Almost Ne'ver Sometimes Many Times All the Time Liking to Ask More Questions The relationship between Satisfaction with Question Asking (Question 3Subsection b) and Gender shows that there is a difference in the frequencies of each feeling about the question depending on gender (see Figure 14). Males were more likely to indicate that they are "Many Times" or "All the Time" satisfied with the number of 66 questions asked in class. Females were more likely to indicate that they were "Almost Never" or "Sometimes" satisfied with the number of question asked in class. Figure 14. ~ "'C ; Satisfaction with number of questions asked by gender. 0.50 - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . , 0.40 +------------------------1 ~~ ~ o;;:: ~ ~ nsns ~ Cl:b.1 0 (1) ~ (1) c... ~ ~ -a- Female ~ ~ 0.00 -1----...,..-----,------,------,-------i Never Almost Never Sometimes 1\Jlany Times All the Time Satisfaction with Question-Asking Behaviour Subsection c Participants in this study responded to queries that determined which type of questions was a) most often asked by others, b) least often asked by others, c) most often asked by you (the participant), d) least often asked by you (the participant), e) most helpful to your (the participant's) learning and f) least helpful to your (the participant's) learning (Numerical results are shown in Table 6 below). 67 Table 6 Number ofparticipants for each type of question across the six queries listed above Types of Questions Survey Questions 1 p CM c D E NC Total Most asked by others 32 14 7 17 2 0 72 Least asked by others 9 12 13 7 31 0 72 Most asked by self 36 17 6 7 2 4 72 Least asked by self 10 6 7 5 40 4 72 Most helpful to learning 7 27 13 22 3 0 72 Least helpful to learning 31 6 2 8 25 0 72 Note 1: P =Procedural; CM =Cognitive Memory; C =Convergent; D =Divergent; E =Evaluative; NC =No Choice Frequency of types of questions asked over the six queries in Subsection c and comparative to Edwards and Bowman (1996). (The frequency scores for Subsection care shown in Figure 15. The comparative frequency scores are shown in Figure 16.) The survey query "type of question most often asked by others in class" resulted in 44% of the participants indicating that the answer was a procedural question. 68 Nineteen percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question and 9% indicated that it was a convergent question. Twenty-three percent indicated that that the answer was a divergent question and 2% indicated that it was an evaluative question. The survey query "type of question asked least often by others in class" resulted in 12% of the participants indicating a procedural question. Sixteen percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question and 18% indicated that it was a convergent question. Nine percent indicated that the answer was a divergent question and 43% indicting that it was an evaluative question The survey query "type of question you ask most often in class" resulted in 50% of the participants indicating a procedural question. Twenty-four percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question and 8% indicated that it was a convergent question. Ten percent indicated that the answer was a divergent question and 3% indicated that it was an evaluative question. There was 5% who indicated no choice as the answer to this question. The survey query "type of question you ask least often in class" (M = 3. 7, SD = 1. 7) resulted in 13% of the participants indicating a procedural question. Eight percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question and 10% indicated that it was a convergent question. Seven percent indicated that the answer was a divergent question and 2% indicated that it was an evaluative question. There was 5% who indicated no choice as the answer to this question. The survey query "type of question that you find most helpful to your learning" resulted in 10% of the participants indicating a procedural question. Thirty-seven percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question 69 and 18% indicated that it was a convergent question. Thirty percent indicated that the answer was a divergent question and 4% indicated that it was an evaluative question. There was 5% who indicated no choice as the answer to this question. The survey query "type of question that you find least helpful to your learning" resulted in 43% of the participants indicating a procedural question. Eight percent of the participants indicated that the answer was a cognitive memory question and 3% indicated that it was a convergent question. Eleven percent indicated that the answer was a divergent question and 35% indicated that it was an evaluative question. Figure 15. Percentage oftypes of questions asked by self and others in a large-sized classroom setting. 0.70 - ~ others 0.60 ·=,- 0.50 C)s:::: ....,.._ least others 0 ..:lll:·- ~ -t1- most personal -:::! OCJ 0.40 Q)- 0)0 ~ s::::C.. 0.30 -t1-least personal Q)>- 0.20 .... Q)<( ul-- a.. ....,.._most helpful 0.10 0.00 procedural cognitive memory convergent divergent Types of Questions Asked evaluative -least helpful 70 The results ofthis survey differ substantially from Edwards and Bowman (1996) observational research on these types of questions. They found that cognitive memory and then convergent questions were the types of questions most frequently asked by students. This survey found that procedural questions and then cognitive memory questions were considered the most frequently asked questions by self and others. However, evaluative questions were the least frequently asked question in both studies. Figure 16. Comparative between survey results and observational results ofEdwards and Bowman (1996). 0.70 - - , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , -+-most others -+- least others - most personal -least personal procedural cogntive memory convergnet divergent Type of Questions Asked evaluative -Edwards and Bowman 71 Subsection d Answers to the open-ended question in this subsection give the participants' reasons for not asking questions in their classes (see Appendix C). There were 46 participants who replied to this question resulting in 87 remarks describing participants' reasons for not asking questions in their classes. Seventy-four percent of the replies were from female participants and 26 % were from male participants. Participants' written remarks from this question were transcribed and collated by the researcher. Each remark was identified by number only. Personal information was coded and coordinated with each remark. The remarks were provided with a first, second, third or fourth to designate year of study, a number to indicate age of the participants and an M or F to designate gender of the writer. The remarks were sorted into six categories: Shyness (e.g. I'm too shy to speak up (105)); Nervousness and Anxiety - comfort level (e.g. I get nervous (1 06), Nervous about speaking up(64) and intelligence level (e.g. don't want to sound stupid (86), I always think peers will judge me ifl ask a stupid question (58)); Classroom Characteristics (e.g. the class is too big (61)); Student Assumptions (e.g. assume other people will ask the question ifthe question is not stupid (105)); Class/Course Characteristics (e.g. Teacher movers on with the lesson + (sic) I do not wish to make the class backtrack on my behalf (64) ); Other (e.g. I always ask a question when I am not certain about something (24)). The number of remarks in each category of subsection d varied noticeably, with some categories such as Nervousness and Anxiety having thirty-nine remarks and others such as Classroom Characteristics having only seven remarks about this question. The number of remarks per category are shown in Table 3. 72 Table 3 Number of remarks per category for Subsection d - Written reasons for not asking questions Results of Open-ended Question Categories of Remarks Number Male Number Female Total Number %of Remarks Shyness Nervousness and Anxiety 2 6 1 8 9 39 45 - Comfort Level 6 16 (22) (25) - Intelligence Level 3 14 (17) (20) Classroom Characteristics 0 7 7 8 Student Assumptions 8 13 21 24 Class/course Characteristics 2 9 11 13 Other Total 1 1 1 21 66 87 100 The Nervousness and Anxiety Category Total Number comprises Comfort Level and Intelligence Level Subtotals 73 CHAPTERS Discussion The survey provided some preliminary data on the question-asking behaviour of students in large first-year classes in a small university. The group surveyed consisted of all undergraduate students and was made up of primarily first-year and second-year students which provided data concentration. Further standardization was indicated by thirty-eight percent of the group surveyed being 18 years of age and registered in their first-year of study at the university. Although, this was listed as a first-year psychology class, less than a quarter of the participants were registered as psychology majors and the surveyed group represented the majority of the majors available for study at the university. The information gathered from this survey provides a unique point of view on the question-asking behaviour of students as a large portion of the students were new to university methods of teaching and learning. This broad range of students from many disciplines provides a greater range of students' question-asking behaviour than past research into single discipline (Morgenstern, 1992) or specialty classes (Edwards & Bowman, 1997). Survey Outcome Sections A, B, C, D - Four Communication Measures The four communication measures (Shyness Scale, Willingness to Communicate Scale, Personal Report of Communication Fear and Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) provided detailed self-report information about students' personal views and feelings about their communication behaviour. The survey results indicated that the majority of participants fell in the moderate or normal range, a much smaller percentage fall in the concerned end of the distributions- shy, reporting communication fear, and 74 not willing to communicate and a smaller again portion fell in the assertive end -not shy, willing to communicate and reporting no fear of communication. There was a small group of students who scored within the concerned end of the distribution on all four measures. This distribution of participants' scores on the four measures was skewed, which is typical for the distributions resulting from these four communication measures (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Further information was found in the relationships between the four communication measures and participant's personal information as recorded in Section F ofthe survey. Very little statistical relationship was shown between Age and Year of Study and the four communication measures for this group of participants. Lack of significant relationships is unusual as past research has indicated significant relationships between these areas (Morgenstern, 1991). The gender differences within the scoring categories for the four communication measures were noted as they showed a distinct pattern across gender and were related to past research on question-asking behaviour (Pearson & West, 1991). These gender differences will be discussed later in the chapter. The WTC and PRCA measures contained separate sub-categories of measurement for a group discussion context and a classroom participation context. The relationships between these two categories across these two measures indicated that communication apprehension was far greater in the classroom participation context than in the group discussion context and there was a greater reluctance in willingness to communicate within the classroom participation context than in the group discussion context. The actual condition within a specific classroom participation context or group discussion context may be greater than that shown. The inclusion ofthose students who 75 are not specifically defined as communication apprehensive or unwilling to communicate but are found at one end of the moderate group as defined by McCroskey and Richmond (1991) may accentuate an unwillingness to communicate within a specific situation. An understanding of students' reluctance to communicate in the classroom participation context has supported the use of group discussion to provide students with an opportunity to communicate with peers in a less intimidating venue (Good, 1981). However, the results ofthis survey suggest that students still feel some degree of communication apprehension and an unwillingness to communicate even in the group discussion context. Further analysis of several individual questions in the survey provided expected results. Students were most likely to talk in a large classroom of friends than in any other type of large classroom grouping. Specifically, they were more likely to talk in a classroom of friends than in a classroom of acquaintances and in a classroom of acquaintances than in a classroom of strangers. However, talking in a mixed classroom of acquaintances and strangers was less likely than in a classroom of acquaintances only but more likely that in a classroom of strangers only. The large classroom of mixed acquaintances and strangers, the usual combination found in most large university classrooms, showed similar discrepancies between the classroom participation context and the group discussion context as did each single type of classroom grouping (strangers, acquaintances or friends) found in the analysis. Students were more likely to talk in the group discussion context than in the classroom participation context even in a mixed classroom grouping, although, these differences were less disparate than for the single type of classroom grouping. This outcome suggests that familiarization with other classmates may be beneficial to students and increase classroom participation. The 76 development of procedures to familiarize students with each other would ultimately help to promote an increase in students' question-asking behaviour in large university classrooms. Section E- Student Assessment of Question-asking Behaviour Subsection a. Student communication behaviour that involves an increase in communication apprehension and a decrease in willingness to communicate in the group discussion and classroom participation contexts as found in these large, surveyed classes may provide some explanation for the indication of negligible questionasking in this survey. The survey results indicated that even though the participants came from two classes that were held at different times of the day with different instructors, very few questions were asked by the survey participants during the entire semester. These results are distinctly different from the results found in Edwards and Bowman's (1996) research on student question-asking behaviour. They found that students asked over 170 questions during a seven week period. However, this result may be due to the composition of the group investigated by their study as the studied group was composed of undergraduate and graduate students. Research has found that willingness to communicate increases, communication apprehension decreases and the number of questions asked increases with the number of years that a student has studied at university (Rubin, Graham, & Mignerey, 1990). Subsection b. Further examination of the participants' question-asking behaviour was derived from the three in-depth follow up questions that assessed students emotions surrounding question-asking across several feeling categories. Students' willingness to ask questions showed a biased distribution of the feeling categories. The students' indicated a greater likelihood of feeling that they would 'never' or 'almost 77 never' be willing to ask questions than a likelihood that they would be willing to ask questions 'many times' or 'all the time'. Students' feeling that they would like to ask more questions presented a similar biased distribution of the feeling categories. Students indicated that there was a greater likelihood that they would not feel like asking more questions in class than they were doing at present than a likelihood that they would 'many times' or 'all the time' feel like asking more questions in their classes than they were doing at present. Student's satisfaction with the number of questions that they were presently asking in class was a fairly evenly balanced distribution of the feeling categories. There was still some greater likelihood that they were 'many times' or 'all the time' satisfied with the number of questions asked in class than they were 'never' or 'almost never' satisfied with the number of questions asked in class. Further investigation of the relationships among the three follow-up questions, comparisons of the three questions with the four communication measures and comparison of the three questions with participants' personal information (Section F) provided some interesting data about participants' question-asking behaviour. The relationships among the three questions indicated that a willingness to ask questions was positively related to the students' satisfaction with the number of questions they there were asking in class and negatively related to their feeling the need to ask more questions in class. These significant relationships suggest that increasing a student's willingness to ask questions by providing an environment that fosters question-asking behaviour may increase the number of questions asked in a class. In addition, even if very few questions were asked by a student, they still indicated their satisfaction with the number of questions they were asking by stating that they had no interest in increasing the number of questions that they were asking at the 78 present time. This moderate relationship suggests that a student' s reasons for expressing satisfaction with their question-asking behaviour, even if it is minimal, may be complex and simply fostering a question-asking environment may not enhance student' s willingness to ask questions in their classes. The answers to the open-ended questions in subsection d indicated that for this group of participants' personal characteristics may be as important as the mechanics of the course/class and classroom dynamics in questionasking behaviour. The integrated relationships among the three questions and a review of the remarks in subsection d suggested that increasing students ' question-asking behaviour may require an understanding of more than willingness and liking to ask more questions. To provide greater understanding of these results the three questions were compared to three of the communication measures (SS , WTC, and PRCA-24) used in the survey. The results of these comparisons showed that a students' willingness to ask questions and satisfaction with their personal question-asking behaviour was negatively affected by the students' level of shyness and degree of communication apprehension. As the personal characteristics of shyness and communication apprehension affect a person's oral activity level, the higher the level of these personal characteristics the less willing a student will be to ask questions and the less satisfied a student will be with their question-asking behaviour. Further understanding was gained by comparing students' willingness to ask questions, liking to ask more questions and satisfaction with question-asking behaviour to personal information obtained on the survey. Research has suggested that students begin to develop an understanding of the impact that question asking has on their learning the longer they continue with their studies (Aitken & Neer, 1991). An increase 79 in Age and Year of Study producing an increase in the student's willing to ask questions, feeling like asking more questions and dissatisfaction with question-asking behaviour the longer a student had been studying towards their university degree was not found in this study. Further investigations that utilized different measures or number of participants may provide some reasons for the present study's outcome and aid in the development of some instructional practices that can be applied at the earlier years of study. Gender showed some effects on the question-asking behaviour of the students in this survey. The three queries in this subsection showed a distinct frequency pattern for each gender. The willingness to ask questions in class query indicated that males were more likely to be willing to ask questions in class than were females. This pattern of male willingness to ask questions has been found in previous research on questionasking behaviour in lecture settings, even lectures that deal with topics directly relevant to women and have a greater proportion of women in the audience (Tannen, 1990). The liking to ask more questions in class query showed that females are more likely to feel that they would like to ask more questions in class than are males. This result was observable in the written reasons for participants' question-asking behaviour found in subsection d. The males indicated that they felt no need to ask more questions; however, females expressed a desire to increase their question-asking. Further consideration of this topic can be found in the discussion of subsection d. The satisfaction with the number of questions asked in class query indicated that males are more satisfied with the number of questions that they ask in class than are females. This was an unexpected result as the number of males who completed the survey comprised only twenty-eight percent of the total participants in the survey. This 80 result suggests that consideration may need to be given to other factors than gender. The factor involved may be related to the course and the type of person who would take a certain course. In this case, a first-year psychology course and the type of males who would take a first-year psychology course. Further investigation of gender and its relationship to question-asking behaviour in specific courses could inform the development of environments that foster question-asking behaviour in the university classroom. Subsection c. The development of environments that support question-asking can be enhanced further by understanding students' perceptions of their own questionasking behaviour and their observations of other students' question-asking behaviour. Participants were given a detailed description of the five types of questions used in observational research of students' question-asking behaviour (Edwards and Bowman, 1996). According to these researchers, these questions have an ascending potential for enhancing a student's learning from a procedural question that provides little enhanced learning through cognitive memory, convergent and divergent questions to an evaluative question that provides the most learning enrichment. The survey data indicated that participants determined that other students were much more likely to ask a procedural question than any other type of question and least likely to ask an evaluative question. Further the students determined that they were themselves most likely to ask procedural question and least likely to ask an evaluative question. Participants also determined that the next likely question to be asked by them was a cognitive memory type of question then a convergent type question. However, they determined that the next likely question to be asked by others was a divergent question closely followed by a cognitive memory question. 81 These observations by survey participants were inconsistent with past observational research into student's question-asking behaviour (Edwards and Bowman, 1996). Their study found that students were most likely to ask cognitive memory questions rather than procedural questions and that the next likely question to be asked by students was a convergent question. Some explanation can be found for this disparity as the configuration of the groups studied was markedly different. This survey was conducted with a strictly undergraduate group whereas Edwards and Bowman's (1996) research was conducted on a mixed undergraduate and graduate group. It was also noted that this mixed undergraduate and graduate group put the most effort into asking questions that are higher up the hierarchy of questions that enhance learning. Although research states that the most helpful questions are those posed at the evaluative level (Edwards & Bowman, 1996), the participant's data from this survey did not support this deduction. Participants stated that they found evaluative questions to be the least likely to help them with their learning. The participants also indicated that they found procedural questions to be the next least helpful to their learning. This understanding ofthe non-helpfulness of procedural questions agrees with the research into the effectiveness of certain question types in enhancing learning (El-Koumy, 1997). The participants in the survey indicated that they received the most help with their learning from cognitive memory questions followed by divergent questions and then convergent questions. An assessment of those questions that participants found most helpful and an evaluation of their effectiveness in supporting learning could provide some material for designing group discussion and presentation topics. A comprehensive investigation of the reasons behind participants' choices of certain types of questions could provide valuable information for the development of an environment 82 that fosters effective question-asking in the university classroom and provide some supplementary material for course planning. Subsection d. Students' question-asking behaviour was further investigated by a query that utilized the open-ended question format. This format allowed the students to offer 'ATitten reasons in their own words for their question-asking behaviour and provided essential data that supplemented and supported the information found in the other subsections of Section E - Question- Asking Behaviour. The remarks in this section indicated that classroom characteristics and course/class characteristics are definitely part of the student's reasons for their question-asking behaviour; however, these characteristics may not be the entire explanation for their behaviour in larger classroom settings. Specifically, the remarks referring to the course/class or classroom characteristics categories comprised only twenty percent of the total whereas those remarks referring to the student assumptions and personal characteristics such as shyness, nervousness and anxiety comprised eighty percent of the remarks. Classroom characteristics (Category 3) emphasized a single theme, large class size. Some first-year participants remarked that they found "The class is too big" (61) and they did not like speaking "in front of a large group of people" (58). Although the classes surveyed are some of the largest classes at the university, the classes are relatively small in comparison to classes in many other institutions. The students may be referencing past experiences with class size and making comparisons to other classes they were attending at the university. Past research found that students considered class size to be a very important factor in their class participation behaviour, although data did not support the students' supposition (Pearson & West, 1976). Present results indicate similar discrepancies. 83 Participants stated that they found the characteristics of the course/class (Category 5) inhibited there question-asking as well. They stated that "I don't feel like I get an opportunity to ask sometimes" (2) and "Teacher moves on with the lesson+ I do not wish to make the class backtrack on my behalf' (64). These remarks indicate that students presume that question-asking is a disruptive process within the classroom and not a constructive process that enhances learning and augments their individual learning process. The absence of planned discourse elements that encourage students to ask questions during a lecture may reinforce the concept that question asking is not a constructive way to improve learning (Morgenstern, 1992). Participants also made assumptions about the usefulness and necessity of asking questions (Category 4). One stated that "I think someone else will usually ask the question" (7). The assumptions made by participants about the students' need to personally ask questions in a classroom setting may be contributing to the restraint on the question-asking behaviour of the entire class. Participants also felt that they "Need to do more background reading to look for answer in text first" (93) or "Unless I'm interested I will just ask the question to one of my friends" (61). These disclosures indicate that students may have some encoded rules for the management of their questions. Aitken and N eer ( 1994) suggest that the system used in elementary and secondary school may actually discourage question-asking and train students to deal with questions using methods similar to those indicated in the remarks above. Further, Morgenstern (1992) found four unwritten rules for questionasking behaviour in the classroom. All of these unwritten rules were expressed by the participants in this study. 84 Some participants indicated their willingness to ask questions; however, they stated a preference for asking questions under conditions that do not occur during the class lecture. They stated that they didn't want to waste the time of teachers and classmates as they could "simply ask after class" (61).This type of behaviour counteracts the benefits to themselves and other students of in-class question-asking (El-Koumy, 1997). In addition, the students are making an assumption about the instructor's availability and patience. A non-available instructor may leave the student without the answers to their questions which may result in deficits to their learning (Aitken & Neer, 1991). There was a distinct gender difference in the remarks within this category. All the remarks made by males in this category (Category 4: Student Assumptions) suggested that they did not feel the need to ask questions as they either understood the information being presented about the topic as in or they were not interested in any extra information on the topic. Conversely, only 3 ofthe 13 remarks made by females suggested that they did not feel the need to ask questions about the information being presented on the topic or were not interested in extra information on the topic. Although, one female participant stated that: "I do not have a reason to ask any questions - I comprehend what the prof ( sic) is saying" (1 04 ), most of the remarks by females indicated that the female students felt more need to ask questions about the material presented in their classes. However, the remarks by the female students in Category 4 also indicated a reluctance to ask these questions in the large classroom setting and a preference for a more private setting such as 'after class' . This preference may be the result of socialization as research indicates that women are less likely to talk in public settings than in private settings (Tannen, 1990). 85 Personal characteristics and their effects on question-asking behaviour can be found in the other two categories of remark (Category 1: Shyness and Category 2: Nervousness and Anxiety). Several participants stated that they were "shy" (88) and one participant stated that she would "let other ppl. [people] ask the questions" (6). Research has found that the shyer a person is, the less talkative they are and the more likely that they are quieter than most people (McCrosky & Richmond, 1991). Thus, the shyer a person is, the less likely that they will ask questions. Further evidence of personal characteristics that effect question-asking behaviour can be found in Category 2- Nervousness and Anxiety, which had the largest number of participants' remarks. The participants' nervousness and anxiety was reported in two different forms as they were either concerned about their comfort level that is the intensity of their discomfort when speaking in an exposed setting or their intelligence level that is their implicit thinking ability. Comfort level statements indicated that participants felt nervous about asking questions in large classrooms and were often worried about others looking at them or laughing at them. Participants also indicated that their comfort level was impacted by a perceived nuisance factor. They did not "want others to be annoyed because I and making them stay in class longer because I am asking questions" (94). The remarks made about comfort level in the large classroom may reveal the role of students' past experiences with class size and class management rules (Morgenstern, 1991) when responding in the large university classroom setting. Northern students who are often from small, interconnected communities where students know most of the people would most likely be very familiar with all of the other students in their classrooms. However, the large university classroom will include many unfamiliar faces 86 and this may impact the students' comfort level in this particular type of classroom. In addition, Morgenstern (1992) has suggested that students have been trained to not waste teachers ' and other students' time with their questions. The remarks in the intelligence level of the category stated that students were most anxious about their fellow students' perceptions of their implicit thinking ability based on the questions that they ask in class. Participants stated that they did not (62) "don' t want to look stupid asking something that is very obvious to the rest of the class" or they were "afraid to appear unintelligent or like a failure" (82). Research on group processes suggests that the large, first-year university classroom may be unfamiliar to students which creates the necessary amount of physiological arousal that will decrease the students' private self-awareness (SA), a state of awareness in which a person attends to personal thoughts, attitudes and values. Decreased private Self-Awareness increases a person' s conformity to group norms and makes them more responsive to the use of situational factors to inform their behaviour. The situational factors in the large, firstyear university classroom would consist of an ambiguous situation for the students as they are new to the university environment and the presence of an "expert" as they would logically regard the professor of the course as an expert in the subject area. Thus, the students' behaviour in this unfamiliar situation will be determined by their increased anxiety about other's opinions and deliberate attention to the situational factors within the environment, which could impact the students' willingness to ask questions in the large, first-year university classroom (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1980, 1989). Furthermore, the presence of others can negatively impact a person's ability to perform a task, particularly if the task is a 'not-so-wellleamed' task (Zajonc, 1980). Research into question-asking behaviour has shown that student's past experience with 87 question-asking may have been unconstructive or negative. Students are not taught the necessary skills with which to ask those types of questions that could enhance their learning and they are taught to not ask questions unless they have exhausted their own resources (Aitken & Neer, 1994). Thus, the students may be trying to perform a difficult or 'not-so-well' learned task in the presence of others in an unfamiliar setting- the large university classroom and in the presence of an expert -the instructor in the course. Basically, the written remarks in this section of the survey suggest that classroom and class/course characteristics impact students' question-asking behaviour. However, student assumptions about question-asking and the personal characteristics of students such as their shyness, nervousness and anxiety about question-asking in a large classroom appear to have had a greater impact on the question-asking behaviour of the participants in this survey. These results are analogous to those found in the participant observations and follow-up interviews of Morgenstern (1992). This complex network of situational and personal characteristics suggests that the development of students' question-asking behaviour in large university classrooms may require some detailed curriculum modifications that include discussing the value of question-asking and designing strategies that develop question-asking skills in these classrooms. Limitations In general, the results of this survey have provided some interesting, complex and informative data; however, the data must be understood within the limitations of the survey. The survey consisted of self-report measures. The disadvantages of self-report measures such as bias in responses, poor rate of return of questionnaires and biases in the scoring procedures can be managed by careful preparation of the measures and rigorous scoring techniques. Although, most of the self-report measures in this survey 88 had documented reliability and validity from past research (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991), some questions were constructed exclusively for this survey. These questions were derived from past research on question-asking behaviour and designed following the guidelines for question development as outlined in Babbie (1995). The use of selfreport measures is advantageous for this research project as it provides anonymity and time to think about responses for participants and economy in design, implementation and scoring for researchers (Babbie, 1995). Further concerns may be found with the survey' s participants. Previous research has been limited to assessments of question-asking behaviour within upper undergraduate courses or combined graduate and undergraduate courses in a specific academic discipline. Purposeful sampling was used to provide a group of participants that were representative of a large, first-year classroom and many of the major disciplines studied at the university in which the study took place. However, the classes chosen to satisfy the requirements were first-year psychology classes which may have produced some bias in responses as students who take a psychology course may be representative of a group of students with specific characteristics. This was a suitable sample for this study as the participants were available for research purposes, they represented a wide range of academic disciplines and their classes were two of the largest first-year classes at the university. The size of the university in which the study took place may also limit the information from the study. Although, the first-year classes in the sample were considered large by the university' s standards, the university is a small, primarily undergraduate institution in a northern setting. The specific university setting may influence students' responses to survey questions. The students may be attending this 89 type of university due to relatively smaller class sizes that provide a greater chance of personal involvement with their classmates and instructors and reasonable access to materials and equipment or they may be attending due to proximity to home or relatives. In addition, this was a first-year university course, which means that interactions with past educational institutions may influence the student's responses. The completion of the survey in the later part of the semester means that participants will have had new educational experiences that should have reduced the influence of past educational institutions and increased their ability to respond with knowledge about their reactions to a specific educational environment. Although, statistical analysis did provide numerous significant relationships among and within the sections of the survey, a larger number of participants could provide greater relationships among the survey data. In addition, the participants in the survey were not counterbalanced by gender which may have influenced some of the results from the collected data. This lack of counterbalancing was due to the type of sampling procedure used with this survey as the classes chosen are usually skewed with respect to gender. Future Research Although, this small study was intended to investigate the utility of the survey design and the communication and question-asking behaviour of a group of mainly firstyear students in a large class at a small university; future research that includes more detailed information could inform the development of environments that foster questionasking behaviour in the university classroom. Research that utilizes a larger group of participants and investigates the relationships between student's personal information and question-asking behaviour in specific courses could provide greater understanding 90 of question-asking behaviour. A comprehensive investigation of the reasons behind participants' choices of certain types of questions and the utility of questions from the student's point of view could provide valuable information for the development of an environment that fosters effective question-asking in the university classroom and provide some supplementary material for course planning. These future investigations could provide a more detailed description of personal characteristics, classroom characteristics, course characteristics and their affects on studnets' question-asking behaviour. Conclusion The results of this Personal Communication Survey provided some detailed information on the relationships between communication, class size and question-asking behaviour in a large classroom in a small university. Specifically, the data provided results that were similar to other research in the area of classroom communication. The sampled group showed similar indications of shyness, willingness to communicate, communication fear and communication apprehension in the classroom setting as found in McCrosky & Richmond (1991). In addition, the data permitted comparisons with the observational data that resulted from Edwards and Bowman (1997) study on the question-asking behaviour of university students. The frequency of questions, types of questions asked and frequency of certain types of questions asked revealed very different rates to that found in Edwards & Bowman (1991). Further, the quantitative and qualitative examination of participants' feelings about their question-asking behaviour revealed that students' understood their question-asking behaviour and were able to provide many considered reasons for this behaviour. These reasons corresponded to those found in the observations and interviews of Morgenstern (1992). As the small 91 university setting allows for greater interaction among students and between students and instructors, it was interesting to note that results showed a predictable group of students still experienced the low levels of willingness to communicate and high levels of communication apprehension in a relatively large classroom and these personal characteristics influenced their question-asking behaviour. Although, large classrooms appear to sustain transmission based instruction, this survey of question-asking behaviour could support the development of a constructive curriculum to establish an environment that promotes student question-asking behaviour within an inquiry-oriented university classroom. The survey's detailed information about the types, frequencies and effectiveness of questions asked by students in a specific environment gives a foundation for developing procedures that encourage effective question-asking within that environment. Students' ability to understand and utilize information about the different types of questions needed to complete this survey suggest that instruction on types of questions and their relationship to student' s learning would promote students' understanding of questionasking in the classroom. In addition, this instruction could emphasize the importance of productive thinking questions such as convergent, divergent and evaluative questions to student' s learning. Specifically, first-year university courses often provide participation marks for students to earn and some of these marks could be designated for students' productive question-asking. A small discussion group format in which each group is required to meet and then develop and submit one productive thinking question on each chapter of their text for a portion of their participation marks could be an effective strategy for increasing question-asking behaviour. The benefits ofthis strategy would be the 92 reduction of communication apprehension surrounding questions asking in the classroom participation context, improvement of student relationships from strangers to acquaintances, implementation of instruction on questions and practice in designing productive thinking questions. A strategy that produces an increase in group discussion question-asking behaviour would be useful in increasing classroom participation question-asking behaviour and encourage general student participation in classroom discourse. An improvement in students' ability to develop and ask productive thinking questions will develop their critical thinking skills and provide for an increase in their knowledge base and ultimately, result in an increase in universal knowledge (Arnett, 1992). This research can be traced through those questions formatted in various discussions and interactions with numerous university instructors over several years. The revelation of these queries, personal experiences in various types of university classrooms, subsequent research into several topics surrounding these queries, and succeeding personal instructor-type contacts with a large variety of students in the university classroom culminated in this constructive and rewarding investigation. The results of this investigation into student question-asking behaviour have developed personal understanding of the minimal interactions between students and instructors personally experienced in the large university classroom. In addition, this research has provided some expectation that the university classroom can become the type of inquiryoriented classroom that has provided the most satisfying personal learning experiences. 93 References Andre, T. , Mueller, C. , Womack, S., Smid, K. , & Tuttle, M. (1980). Adjunct application questions facilitate later application or do they? Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (4), 533-543 . Aitken, J. E. & Neer, M. R. (1991). Variables associated with question-asking in the college classroom. Atlanta, GA: Seventy-seventh Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 337 832). Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L. , Kulikowich, J. M. & Woehler, C. A. (1994). Contrasting instructional and structural importance: the seductive effect of teacher questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26_(1 ), 19-45. Arnett, R. C. (1992). Dialogic Education: Conversation about ideas and between persons. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Civikly-Powell, J. (1999). Can we teach without communicating? Teaching and Learning on the Edge of the Millennium, 80, 61-67. Civikly-Powell, J. (1986). Communicating in College Classrooms. InK. Elbe (Ed.), New Directions in Teaching and Learning. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cook-Gumperz, 1. & Gumperz, 1. 1. (1982). Communicative competence in educational perspective. In L. C . Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the Classroom (pp.13-25). Toronto: Academic Press. Daly, J. A., Kineiser, P. 0. & Roghaar, L.A. ( 1994). Question-asking comfort: Explorations of the demography of communication in the eighth grade classroom. Communication Education, 43, 27-41 . 94 Dillon, J. T. (1982). The multidisciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 147-165. Ebenstein, W. & Ebenstein, A. 0. (1991). Great Political Thinkers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Edwards, S. & Bowman, M.A. (1996). Promoting student learning through questioning: A study of classroom questions. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching,_ L 3-24. El-Koumy, A.S.A. (1997). Review of recent studies dealing with techniques for Classroom interaction. Information Analyses. Based on the paper The effects of three questioning strategies on EFL reading comprehension presented at Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 415 688). Fowler, R. C. (1994) . Piagetian versus Vygotskyian perspectives on development and education. New Orleans, LA: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers' questioning. Educational Leadership, 40-47. Gleason, J. B. (1997). The development of language. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon. Good, T. L. (1981 ). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Educational Leadership, 32, 417-421. Holbrook, H. T. (1987). Communication apprehension: The quiet student in your classroom. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 315). 95 Hyman, R. T. (1980). Parents, children and teachers questioning/or improved reading. Lawrenceville, NJ: Reading/Language Arts Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 189 542). Karp, D. A. & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439. Kendrick, W. L. & Darling, A. L. (1990). Problems ofunderstanding in classrooms: Students clarifying tactics. Communication Education, 39, 15-29. Lynch, T. (1991). Questioning roles in the classroom. ELT Journal, 45, 201-21. Makin, L. (1996). Is the salad sandwich blue?: Teacher questions and children's learning. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21, 1-5. Mahlios, M. & D'Angelo, K. (1983). Teacher questions: An experimental analysis of the question effect hypothesis. Orlando, FL: Annual Meeting ofthe Association of Teacher Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 062). McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Quiet children and the classroom teacher. Annadale, VA: Speech Communication Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 628). Morgenstern, L. (1992). Action and inaction: Student and teacher roles in classroom participation. Cincinnati, OH: Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 346 534). Pearson, J. C. & West, R. (1991). An initial investigation of the effect of gender on student questions in the classroom: Developing a descriptive base. Communication Education, 40, 22-32. 96 Perez, S. A. (1986). Improving learning through student questioning. The Clearing House, 60, 63-65. Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the selfregulation of behaviour. In Paulus, P. B. (ED.), Psychology of Group Influence (pp.87109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. Roger, T. (1987). Exploring the socio-cognitive perspective on the interpretive processes of junior high school students. English Quarterly, 20, 218-23. Rubin, R. B., Graham, E. E. , & Mignerey, J. T. (1990). A longitudinal study of college students' communication competence. Communication Education, 39, 1-14. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don 't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books Vander Meij, H. (1988). Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 401-405. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.) Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. Walter, E.L. (1985). A study offour teachers ' questioning strategies. Austin TX: Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 325). Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175 . 97 Appendix A Informed Consent Form Hi, my name is Judith Russell and I am doing this survey to complete the project requirements for my Master's of Education degree. This survey is called Student Classroom Communication and looks at the verbal communications of students in large first-year classrooms. Informed Consent Form All research involving human participants at UNBC falls under the authority of the Office of Research, UNBC. The university and those conducting this research subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and confidentiality which protects the students' best interests at all times. If you have any questions regarding this consent form or any other questions or complaints pertaining to this study please contact the Vice-President Research, Office of Research, UNBC. Participants: Participants were chosen from two classes of students in large firstyear undergraduate classes. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to survey students' behaviour regarding their participation in verbal interactions in classroom settings. Requirements: Participants willing to participate will be asked to fill out an informed consent form and then collect a ten-page survey from the investigator. The participants will be asked to fill out the ten-page survey and return it to the next scheduled class. Compensation of Participants: Participants recruited from the subject pool will be compensated for their participation with class credit that will be assigned according to the rules outlined for compensation. Potential Risks: There are no anticipated risks for this type of research. Potential Benefits: This study will provide valuable information about the verbal interactions of students in large first-year undergraduate classrooms. Confidentiality: All surveys will be numbered and no names will be used at any time to refer to participants' surveys or individual data. All raw data collected from this survey will be examined by the researcher and researcher's supervisor only. All surveys collected will be stored in a locked file drawer until such time 98 as they are no longer needed for the project and then the surveys will be shredded. The data will be transferred to disc and will be retained in a locked file drawer until such time as the data is no longer needed for completion of the degree. Completion of this project is expected by August 31, 2005 and the disc will then be destroyed. Any presentation of this data will be in the form of group statistics (e.g. means, standard deviations). Right to Withdraw: Any member of the subject pool has the right to refuse to participate at any time. All participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Access to Data: All participants will have access to the information they have provided on the surveys on demand. The final results of this research will be available to participants through a summary of results that will be available upon completion of the project in August 31, 2005. I have read the description of the study and the information about the study provided by the investigator and I am willing to participate in order to receive course credit. Printed Name of Research Participant Signature of Research Participant Date I believe that he person signing this form understands what is involved in this study and voluntarily agrees to participate. Signature of Investigator Date 99 Appendix B Personal Communication Survey Introduction Do not put your name, student number or other personal information (phone, address or email) on the survey The following survey investigates personal communication in university classrooms. Please indicate your answers to the questions in the survey by reading and following the specific instructions included in each section of the survey. There are no wrong answers, simply your answer to each question. Section A: Directions The following fourteen statements refer to talking with other people. If the statement describes you well, circle "YES." If it describes you somewhat, circle "yes." If you are not sure whether it describes you or not, or if you do not understand the statement, circle"?". If the statement is a poor description of you, circle "no." If the statement does not describe you at all, circle "NO." Remember there are no right or wrong answers. Answer quickly; record you first . . 1mpress10n. 1. I am a shy person. YES yes ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO 2. Other people think I talk a lot. YES yes 3. I am a very talkative person. YES yes 4. Other people think I am shy. YES 5. I talk a lot. yes 100 YES ? no NO yes ? no NO yes ? no NO yes ? no NO yes ? no NO yes 6. I tend to be very quiet in class. YES 7. I don ' t talk much. YES 8. I talk more than most people. YES 9. I am a quiet person. YES 10. I talk more in a small group (3-to-6) than others do. YES yes ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO 11. Most people talk more than I do. YES yes 12. Other people think I am very quiet. YES yes 13. I talk more in class than most people do. YES yes 14. Most people are more shy than I am. YES yes 101 Section B: Directions The following 14 statements concern feelings about communicating with other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by circling you response. Mark "YES" if you strongly agree, "yes" if you agree, "?" if you are unsure, "no" if you disagree, or "NO" if you strongly disagree. There are no right or wrong answers. Answer quickly; record your first . . 1mpress10n. 1. Talking with someone new scares me. YES yes ? no NO ? no NO no NO no NO 2. I look forward to talking in class. YES yes 3. I like standing up and talking to a group of people. YES yes ? 4. I like to talk when the whole class listens. YES yes ? 5. Standing up to talk in front of other people scares me YES yes ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO no NO 6. I like talking to teachers. YES yes 7. I am scared to talk to people. YES yes 8. I like it when it is my tum to talk in class. YES yes ? 102 9. I like to talk to new people. YES yes no NO no NO no NO ? no NO ? no NO ? no NO ? 10. When someone asks me a question, it scares me. YES yes ? 11. There are a lot of people I am scared to talk to. YES yes ? 12. I like to talk to people I haven't met before. YES yes 13. I like it when I don't have to talk. YES yes 14. Talking to teachers scares me. YES yes 103 Section C: Directions In these twelve situations one might choose to communicate or not to communicate. Presume that you have completely free choice. Estimate the likelihood of how often you would choose to communicate in each type of situation, and indicate that percentage of frequency in the space at the left on a scale from 0% (=Never) to 100% (=Always). 1. Present a talk to a group of strangers. 2. Talk with an acquaintance while standing in a line. 3. Talk with a salesperson in a store. 4. Talk in a large classroom of friends. 5. Talk in a group of strangers. 6. Talk with a friend while standing in line. 7. Talk in a large classroom of acquaintances. 8. Talk with a stranger while standing in line. 9. Talk with a secretary. __ 1. Talk in a group of acquaintances, 11. Talk in a large classroom of strangers. 12. Talk with a friend. 13. Talk in a group of friends. 14. Talk in a large classroom of both acquaintances and strangers. 15. Talk in a group of both acquaintances and strangers. 104 Section D: Directions This instrument is composed of 12 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. There are no right or wrong answers. Answer quickly; record you first . . ImpressiOn. 1. I dislike participating in group discussions. 2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions. 3. I am tense and nervous 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 class. 8. Usually, I am calm and relaxed while participating in a class. 9. I am calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion in a class. 1. I am afraid to express myself in a class. 11. Communicating in classes usually makes me uncomfortable. 12. I am relaxed when answering questions in a class. 105 Section E: Directions: The following questions refer to in-class communication. There are no right or wrong answers and each answer is simply your personal estimation of in-class communication. Please follow the specific directions for each segment of this section. a.) Place answers on the line supplied for the questions in this segment. 1. Indicate the approximate number of questions you have asked in this class during the Winter 2005 semester. 2. Indicate the approximate number of questions you have asked per week in this class. 3. Indicate the approximate number of questions you have asked in each class session this semester. b.) Please indicate the degree to which each statement describes YQ.!!_by circling the appropriate answer on the scale provided with each question. 1.) Indicate your willingness to ask questions in class. All the Time Many times Sometimes Almost Never Never 2.) Do you feel that you would like to ask more questions in class? All the Time Many times Sometimes Almost Never Never 3.) Are you satisfied with the number of questions you ask in class? All the Time Many times Sometimes Almost Never Never 106 c.) Each letter below represents a type of question that may be asked in class. (a) is a Procedural Question. example- What kind of format will be used on the exam? (b) is a Cognitive Memory Question. example - What do you mean by "adaptation"? (c) is a Convergent Question. example - What is the analysis of adaptive behaviour in personality? (d) is a Divergent Question. example- If the adaptive behaviour continues, what is the impact on personality? (e) is an Evaluative Question. example - What studies have been conducted to evaluate the reliability of the impact of adaptive behaviour on personality? On the line provided beside each question on the next page place the letter that best describes your answer to the question. 1. The type of question that is asked by others most often in class. 2. The type of question that is asked by others least often in class. 3. The type of question you ask most often in class. - - - - 4. The type of question you ask least often in class. _ _ _ __ 5. The type of question that you find most helpful to your learning. 6. The type of question that you find least helpful to your learning. 107 d.) If not satisfied with the number of questions you ask in class, indicate on the lines below two reasons for not asking more questions in class. 108 Section F: Directions: The following questions provide some information about you. This information indicates the various ways that different types of people feel about the issues discussed in this survey. Please circle the appropriate answer to the following questions. 1.) Your current academic year of study at this university. 3 4 1 2 5 2.) Your age at this time. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 3.) Your gender. Male Female 4.) The type of course in which you are filling out this survey. Anthropology Biology Business Administration Chemistry Science Economics Education Studies First Nations Geography English Computer Environmental Science Environmental History International Studies Natural Resource Management Nursing Tourism Commerce Political Science Mathematics Psychology Social Work Women's Studies Other 4.) Your MAJOR area of study at this University. Anthropology Biology Business Administration Chemistry Science Economics Education Studies First Nations Geography Natural Resource Management Social Work Tourism English Commerce Environmental Science Environmental History International Studies Nursing Women's Studies Computer Political Science Other Mathematics Psychology 109 Appendix C The Categorized Remarks from Section E- Subsection d Category 1: Shyness (105) I'm too shy to speak up (first-18-F) (96) shy and scared (second-19-F) (88) shy (first-18-M) (86) shyness (first-18-F) (62) I'm shy (first-18-F) (48) Shy (first-18-M) (28) Too shy (first-17-F) (6) Usually shy, I'll let other ppl. (sic) -people ask the questions (first-18-F) Category 2: Nervousness and Anxiety This category was divided into two different forms of nervousness and anxiety. a) Comfort level- the intensity of uneasiness with the situation (1 06) I get nervous (first-18-F) I don't want everyone looking at me. (first-18-F) (96) feel pressured (second -19-F) (94) Don't want others to be annoyed because I an making them stay in class longer because I am asking questions (second-20-F) (82) I'm afraid that I might take up everyone's time or be a bother (first-34-F) (79) Don't like speaking in class (first-18-F) (68) people keep their eyeballs on you when you asked=> it's annoying (fourth-22-F) (67) going red and being embarrassed (second-20-F) 110 (64) Nervous about speaking up in class (first-20-F) (62) Don't feel comfortable (first-18-F) (53) not a talkative person (first-20-M) (48) dislike public speaking (first-18-M) (47) People look at me funny (first-18-M) I have no tongue (first-18-M) (46) I am nervous during asking (first-21-F) I don't wanna outstand (sic) (first-21-F) (33) nervousness (second-20-F) (25) Afraid to talk in the class (first-19-F) (23) Hope that someone else will ask the question (Second-19-M) someone else already did (Second-19-M) (21) afraid people will laugh (first-18-F) scared (first-18-F) b) Intelligence level- the implicit thinking ability. (94) Sounding stupid (second-20-F) (88) scared my question is stupid (first-18-M) (86) don't want to sound stupid (first-18-F) (84) Sometimes I think the question might be dumb. (first-18-M) (82) I'm afraid to appear unintelligent or like a failure (first-34-F) (73) I am not very outspoken in class, afraid to ask a dumb question (first-40-F) (68) afraid that the questions that I ask are stupid (fourth-22-F) 111 (67) what if people think it's a stupid question (second-20-F) (62) and don' t want to look stupid asking something that is very obvious to the rest of the class (first-18-female) (58) I always think that peers will judge me ifl ask a stupid question (first-18-F) (43) the response by the teacher and/or classmates (first-18-F) (33) feeling that I'm the only one with that question (second-20-F) (32) I feel kike I do not have enough background information to form questions (first-18-F) (30) fear of asking a question that has already been asked (hearing impaired) (first-28-M) (28) think the question are dumb or maybe already been asked but I missed it. (first-17-F) (19) no one else asks questions (first-20-F) (6) Worried my questions would sound stupid (first-18-F) Category 3: Classroom Characteristics (1 04) the class is large- possibly a bit intimidating (first-18-F) (89) I don' t' like speaking in front oflarge groups (first-18-F) (61) The class is too big (first-18-F) (58) and I do not liking speaking in front of a large group ofpeople (first-18-F) (43) the size of the class- I have a soft voice (quiet)-> hard to project (first-18-F) (27) Not comfortable in larger classes (third-20-F) (19) Class size too big (first-20-F) 112 Category 4: Student Assumptions (1 05) assume other people will ask the question if the question is not stupid (first-18-F) ( 104) I do not have a reason to ask any questions - I comprehend what the prof (sic) is saying. (first -18-F) (1 03) I feel like I'll be judged ifl ask questions. (first-18-F) I can always look up the answer in the textbook. (first-18-F) (102) not any questions at that time (second-20-F) (93) Material makes sense (fourth-21-M) Need to do more background reading to look fro answer in text first (fourth-21-M) (79) I'll ask a friend to explain what I don't understand or ask the prof (sic) after class (first-18-F) (73) Like to have one on one tutors. (first-40-F) (61) Unless I'm interested I will just ask the question to one of my friends (first-18-F) (54) Not interested in the information or topic (second-19-M) (53) I just listen not talk (first-20-M) (49) I hate it when people ask stupid questions in class (first-18-F) I don't want to waist (sic) the time of my classmates by asking a question that I can simply ask after class. (first-18-F) (45) Wouldn't say I'm dissatisfied, I'm indifferent. (first-22-M) Don't ask many Questions cause I don't feel I need to. Prefer to listen (first-22-M) (37) I am satisfied asking no questions. (first-21-M) (30) disability- hearing impaired-makes following lectures difficult (first-28-M) I -- 113 (25) Willing to ask question after class not during class (first-19-F) (7) I think someone else will usually ask the question (first-18-F) I don't want to hold up the class (first-18-F) Category 5: Class characteristics (102) didn't want to disrupt the lecture (second-20-F) (83) profs are impatient (first-18-F) and suck at answering questions (first-18-F) (73) Feel intimidated by some professors (first-40-F) (69) Prof does not facilitate opportunities for questions. (second-20-M) Students are not engaged in the lecture (second-20-M) (64) Teacher moves on with the lesson+ I do not wish to make the class backtrack on my behalf (first-20-F) (35) lack oftime for more questions (third-20-F) too many other students ask questions too (third-20-F) (32) the opportunities are limited in many classes. (first-18-F) (2) I don't feel like I get an opportunity to ask sometimes. (first-26-F) Category 6: Other (24) I always ask a question when I am not certain about something. (first-19-F)