Basic Communication Course AnnualVolume 21 Article 112.docx

Basic Communication Course Annual
Volume 21 Article 11
2009
Connected Classroom Climate and
Communication in the Basic Course: Associations
with Learning
Marshall Prisbell
University of Nebraska - Omaha
Karen Kangas Dwyer
Robert E. Carlson
Shereen G. Bingham
Ana M. Cruz
Follow this and additional works at:
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca
Part of the Higher Education Commons, Interpersonal and Small
Group Communication
Commons, Mass Communication Commons, Other
Communication Commons, and the Speech
and Rhetorical Studies Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the
Department of Communication at eCommons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Basic
Communication Course Annual by an authorized administrator
of eCommons. For more information, please contact
[email protected],
[email protected]
Recommended Citation
Prisbell, Marshall; Dwyer, Karen Kangas; Carlson, Robert E.;
Bingham, Shereen G.; and Cruz, Ana M. (2009) "Connected
Classroom
Climate and Communication in the Basic Course: Associations
with Learning," Basic Communication Course Annual: Vol. 21,
Article
11.
Available at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol21/iss1/11
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca?utm_source=ecommons.uday
ton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol21?utm_source=ecommon
s.udayton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_medium=
PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol21/iss1/11?utm_source=e
commons.udayton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_
medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca?utm_source=ecommons.uday
ton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1245?utm_source=ec
ommons.udayton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_m
edium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/332?utm_source=eco
mmons.udayton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_me
dium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol21/iss1/11?utm_source=e
commons.udayton.edu%2Fbcca%2Fvol21%2Fiss1%2F11&utm_
medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:[email protected],%[email protected]
mailto:[email protected],%[email protected]
151
Volume 21, 2009
Connected Classroom Climate and
Communication in the Basic Course:
Associations with Learning
Marshall Prisbell
Karen K. Dwyer

Robert E. Carlson
Shereen G. Bingham
Ana M. Cruz
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Establishing a positive classroom climate that fos-
ters student learning is an important goal for instruc-
tors. It is particularly important in the basic course be-
cause students often take this course at the beginning of
their careers in higher education. At this stage, students
are more likely to drop out of college (McGrath &
Braunstein, 1997) or may feel disconnected and isolated
from others (Christie & Dinham, 1991; Harrison, 2006).
The basic course provides an opportunity to foster a
supportive environment that may assist with student
learning, retention, and satisfaction in the course, as
well as in college.
Previous research has found a positive relationship
between classroom climate and student learning. How-

ever, most of this research has examined the instruc-
tor’s role in creating an environment that promotes
learning (Finnan, Schnepel, & Anderson, 2003; Hyman
& Snook, 2000; Nunnery, Butler, & Bhaireddy, 1993)
and has not focused on the impact of student behaviors
on the learning environment. A classroom in which stu-
dents actively participate and develop a sense of cama-
1
Prisbell et al.: Connected Classroom Climate and
Communication in the Basic Cours
Published by eCommons, 2009
152 Connected Classroom Climate and Learning
BASIC COMMUNICATION COURSE ANNUAL
raderie through communication behaviors may help to
create a positive environment where learning is en-
hanced.
One classroom climate variable that may be associ-
ated with student learning is classroom connectedness,

defined as “student-to student perceptions of a suppor-
tive and cooperative communication environment in the
classroom” (Dwyer, Bingham, Carlson, Prisbell, Cruz, &
Fus, 2004, p. 5). Greater connectedness among students
may foster learning because when students work to-
gether and support each other, they become more aca-
demically engaged (Kuh, 2001). Therefore, this study
explores the relationship between students' perceptions
of classroom climate in the basic course and perceptions
of learning.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Classroom Connectedness
In the 1970s, scholars began to adopt Gibb’s (1960)
conceptualization of supportive versus defensive com-
munication climate and apply it to the classroom setting
(Hays, 1970; Rosenfeld, 1983). These researchers que-
ried supportive classroom climate and student percep-
tions of their instructor’s communication behaviors.

They found that a variety of specific teacher behaviors
can be associated with supportive climate, including
teacher humor (Stuart & Rosenfeld, 1994), affinity-
seeking (Myers, 1995), and argumentativeness (Myers &
Rocca, 2001). In addition, Nadler and Nadler (1990) ex-
amined student perceptions of instructor supportive and
dominant communication behaviors and found that in a
2
Basic Communication Course Annual, Vol. 21 [2009], Art. 11
http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol21/iss1/11
Connected Classroom Climate and Learning 153
Volume 21, 2009
supportive communication climate, “students felt more
comfortable participating in class, disagreeing with in-
structors, and meeting with faculty outside of class”
(Nadler & Nadler, 1990, p. 61).
Educational researchers have also examined stu-

dents’ sense of supportiveness and connection. For ex-
ample, they have investigated the impact of teacher-to-
student behaviors on classroom climate (Fraser,
Treagust, & Dennis, 1986), student perceptions of being
connected to the larger campus community (i.e., stu-
dents’ feelings about belongingness, companionship, and
affiliation) (Lee & Robbins, 1995), social supportiveness
among college students in their social networks
(McGrath, Gutierrez, & Valadez, 2000), and classroom
community among elementary school students (Schaps,
Lewis & Watson, 1997).
Based on the communication and educational litera-
ture, it is apparent that classroom climate is an impor-
tant area to study. However, previous research has fo-
cused almost entirely on a teacher’s impact on climate
and has rarely investigated student behaviors that fos-
ter a supportive classroom climate and learning.
To address the concept of a classroom climate that is

created through communication among students, Dwyer
et al. (2004) developed the Connected Classroom Cli-
mate Inventory (CCCI). They conceptualized classroom
climate as students’ perceptions that the students in a
particular classroom are supportive and cooperative. As
Dwyer et al. (2004) explained, the definition of a con-
nected classroom climate integrates many constructs
related to interpersonal support, including supportive
climate (Gibb, 1960), cohesiveness (Fraser, et al., 1986;
Malecki & Demaray, 2002), belongingness (Lee & Rob-
3
bins, 1995), social support (McGrath et al., 2000) and

classroom community (Schaps, et al., 1997).
In previous studies, classroom connectedness has
been found to be associated with lower communication
anxiety levels in the public speaking course (Carlson,
Dwyer, Bingham, Cruz, Prisbell, & Fus, 2006) and
higher degrees of teacher verbal and nonverbal immedi-
acy (Bingham, Carlson, Dwyer, Prisbell, Cruz, & Fus,
2004). However, the association between student per-
ceptions of connected classroom climate and student
learning has not been explored.
Student Learning
According to Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey (1978), “it
is generally acknowledged that there are three broad
domains of learning: a cognitive domain, an affective
domain, a psychomotor domain” (p. 28). The two do-
mains examined most often in the instructional commu-
nication literature are the cognitive and affective do-
mains (Mottet & Beebe, 2006).

Based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy and Anderson
and Krathwohl’s (2001), along with their colleagues, re-
vised taxonomy, cognitive learning involves “the proc-
esses by which information is converted into knowledge
and made meaningful” (Mottet, Richmond, & McCros-
key, 2005, p. 8). Cognitive learning has been operation-
alized by communication researchers to include both
how much students think they learned in a class and
how much they could have learned if their instructor
had been ideal. The difference between how much stu-
dents perceived they learned and how much they per-
ceived they could have learned is referred to as “learn-
4
Volume 21, 2009

ing loss” (Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax,
1987).
Affective learning, on the other hand, focuses on
“addressing, changing, or reinforcing students’ atti-
tudes, beliefs, values, and underlying emotions or feel-
ings as they relate to the knowledge and skills they are
acquiring” (Mottet & Beebe, 2005, p. 8). When students
engage in affective learning, they are self-motivated to
learn and appreciate what they learn. Affective learning
has been operationalized by communication researchers
to include attitude toward content, attitude toward in-
structor, and attitude toward communication behaviors
that are recommended in a course (Richmond, 1990).
Another component of affective learning is affective
behavioral intent (Mottet & Richmond, 1998). Affective
behavioral intent in the classroom has been operation-
alized by communication researchers to include the
likelihood of enrolling in another course in the same

subject area or a course with the same teacher, or using
the behaviors recommended in the class (Richmond,
1990).
Previous research has found a positive relationship
between classroom climate and student learning. How-
ever, most of this research has emphasized the instruc-
tor’s role in creating a climate that promotes learning
(Finnan, Schnepel, & Andersen, 2003; Hyman & Snook,
2000; Nunnery, Butler, & Bhaireddy, 1993). For exam-
ple, cognitive and affective learning have been associ-
ated with teacher immediacy (Anderson, 1979; Christo-
phel, 1990), perceived caring (Teven & McCroskey,
1996), clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001), humor
(Gorham, 1988; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), interest and
engagement cues (Titsworth, 2001), affinity-seeking,
5

(Richmond, 1990; Roach, 1991), and communicator style
and disclosiveness (Nussbaum & Scott, 1979). The im-
pact of student behaviors on the learning environment
has been largely overlooked in the communication lit-
erature.
The purpose of this study is to examine the associa-
tion between student-to-student classroom connected-
ness and student learning. We address the following re-
search question:
Are student perceptions of classroom connectedness
related to student perceptions of cognitive learning, af-
fective learning, and affective behavioral intent?
METHOD
Participants
Participants in the present study were 437 under-

graduate freshman and sophomore students at a large
Midwestern university. These students were all enrolled
in the basic public speaking fundamentals course repre-
senting a total of 30 different sections (maximum
enrollment of 25 students per section). The course used
a standard syllabus and the same textbook and student
workbook in all the sections. It required all students to
deliver at least four formal speeches, engage in class-
room activities, and take two exams. All instructors
were given a course manual that included weekly lesson
plans, class policies, and additional instructional train-
ing materials.
This study was part of a series of studies designed to
examine the impact of the basic course on relationships
among several variables that potentially could affect
6

Volume 21, 2009
student retention and overall success in college. Since
the basic course fulfills a general education requirement
of the university, a wide variety of majors was repre-
sented. Participants in the present study included 177
males, 259 females (1 missing data). There were 313
freshmen and 124 sophomores ranging in age from 17 to
35 with a mean age of 19.09 (SD =1.97).
Procedures
Basic public speaking course instructors were asked
by the course director to participate in this study. Par-
ticipating instructors administered the survey during
the last two weeks of a fall semester. The survey con-
sisted of demographic items (gender, age, year in school)
and instruments designed to measure perceptions of
classroom connectedness, cognitive learning, affective

learning, and affective behavioral intent. All question-
naires were completed during class time, and students
were instructed to focus on their fundamentals of public
speaking course when completing the instruments. In-
structors read a script that assured students of confi-
dentiality and invited them to voluntarily participate in
a research project that would ultimately help professors
improve instruction in the basic course. The students
placed the surveys in an envelope and instructors re-
turned it to the basic course director. Approval from the
University Institutional Review Board was obtained.
Instrumentation
Connected Classroom Climate Inventory (CCCI). The
CCCI is an 18-item Likert-type instrument (1=strongly
7

disagree to 5=strongly agree) measuring students’ per-
ceptions of student-to-student behaviors and feelings
that create a supportive, cooperative classroom envi-
ronment. Sample items include, “The students in my
class are supportive of one another,” “The students in
my class cooperate with one another,” and “The stu-
dents in my class respect one another.” Research has
found the CCCI to be a unidimensional scale with a high
overall reliability of alpha =.94 and evidence of validity
(Carlson et al., 2006; Dwyer et al., 2004).
Cognitive learning. Perceptions of cognitive learning
were measured using student responses to two items
(Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987). The
first item asked students to indicate on a ten-point se-
mantic differential-type scale how much they felt they

learned in their basic public speaking class (i.e.,
0=learned nothing to 9=learned more than in any other
class you’ve had). The second item asked students to in-
dicate how much they believed they could have learned
if they had the ideal instructor for the class. A learning
loss score was calculated by subtracting the scores on
item one from the scores on item two.
Affective learning and affective behavioral intent.
Perceptions of affective learning were assessed by ask-
ing students to complete three subscales which meas-
ured student attitudes toward 1) the class content, 2)
the instructor, and 3) the public speaking behaviors rec-
ommended in the course. Each subscale consisted of four
seven-point semantic differential-type items (i.e.,
good/bad, valuable/worthless, fair/unfair, negative/
positive). Reliabilities for these subscales have been
reported above alpha = .90 (McCroskey, 1994; Rich-
mond, 1990).

8
Volume 21, 2009
Perceptions of affective behavioral intent were as-
sessed by asking students to complete three subscales
measuring intent to 1) enroll in another course of re-
lated content, 2) enroll in another course with the same
teacher if time and schedule permit, and 3) use the
public speaking behaviors recommended in the course.
Each subscale consisted of four seven-point semantic
differential-type items (i.e., unlikely/likely, impossi-
ble/possible, improbable/probable, would not/would).
Reliabilities for these subscales have been reported
above alpha = .90 (McCroskey, 1994; Richmond, 1990).
Previous research has examined the three subscales

of affective learning (12 total items) and the three sub-
scales of affective behavioral intent (12 total items)
separately as well as by summing across all six sub-
scales to obtain an overall instructional affect score
(Richmond, 1990). For the overall instructional affect
score, Richmond (1990) reported a reliability of alpha =
.96.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,
and alpha reliabilities for the Connected Classroom
Climate Inventory (CCCI); the three subscales of affec-
tive learning (measuring class content, the instructor,
and the public speaking behaviors recommended in the
course); the three subscales of affective behavioral intent
(measuring intent to use the public speaking behaviors
recommended in the course, intent to enroll in another
course of related content, and intent to enroll in another
course with the same teacher if time and schedule

9
permit); and overall instructional affect (which is the
sum of the 24 total individual items that made up the
affective learning and affective behavioral intent
subscales). All these scales had acceptable reliabilities
greater than alpha = .88.
In addition, Table 1 contains the means and stan-
dard deviations for the three items which comprised
cognitive learning. The first item (how much the stu-
dents felt they learned in their basic public speaking
class) and the second item (how much the students be-
Table 1
Classroom Connectedness (CCCI, Affective Learning,

Affective Behavioral Intent, Overall Instructional
Effect, and Cognitive Learning Means, Standard
Deviations, and Reliabilities (N=437)
M SD Alpha
CCCI 72.22 10.12 .94
Affective Learning
Class Content 23.86 3.68 .88
Instructor 25.31 3.98 .94
Public Speaking Behaviors 24.36 3.72 .95
Affective Behavioral Intent
Enroll in related course 23.74 4.60 .96
Enroll in another course with same
instructor
17.68 6.25 .97
Use Public Speaking Behaviors 20.44 7.27 .96
Overall Instructional Affect 135.39 22.31 .96
Cognitive Learning
Learned in class 6.26 1.61

Learned if had “ideal” instructor 6.24 1.87
Learning Loss –.02 1.83
10
Volume 21, 2009
11
lieved they could have learned if they had the ideal in-
structor for the class) each had a range of 1 to 9. The
third item (learning loss) ranged from –7 to +7.

Table 2 presents the Pearson product-moment cor-
relations between the CCCI, the three subscales of affec-
tive learning, the three subscales of affective behavioral
intent, overall instructional affect, and the three meas-
ures of cognitive learning.
For cognitive learning, the item measuring how
much the students felt they learned in their basic public
speaking class was positively correlated (r = .24, p <
.001) with the CCCI. The item also was positively cor-
related with all of the affective learning, affective behav-
ioral Intent, and overall instructional affect measures,
and the item measuring how much the students be-
lieved they could have learned if they had the ideal in-
structor for the class, but was negatively correlated (p <
.001) with learning loss.
The cognitive learning item measuring how much
students believed they could have learned if they had
the ideal instructor for the class did not correlate with

the CCCI. This item also was not correlated with affect
toward the class instructor, but was significantly corre-
lated (p < .001) with all of the other affective learning,
affective behavioral intent, overall instructional affect
measures, and with learning loss.
Learning loss was negatively correlated with the
CCCI (r = -.13, p < .001). It was also negatively corre-
lated with the three affective learning items, desire to
enroll in another course with the same instructor, and
overall instructional affect, and was positively correlated
with how much students believed they could have
learned if they had the ideal instructor for the class.
12
Volume 21, 2009

Learning loss was not correlated with intended use of
the public speaking behaviors recommended in the
course or intent to enroll in another course of related
content.
For affective learning and affective behavioral intent,
the CCCI was positively correlated with the three affec-
tive learning subscales, including student affect toward
the class content (r = .34, p < .001), the instructor (r =
.29, p < .001), and the public speaking behaviors rec-
ommended in the course (r = 24, p < .001); and with the
three affective behavioral intent subscales, including in-
tent to use the public speaking behaviors recommended
in the course (r = .24, p < .001), intent to enroll in an-
other course with related content (r = .12, p < .05), and
intent to enroll in another course with the same instruc-
tor (r = .22, p < .001). The CCCI was also positively cor-
related with overall instructional affect (r = .30, p <
.001).

DISCUSSION
This study examined the association between stu-
dent-to-student classroom connectedness and student
learning. The results showed that there is an associa-
tion between university students' perceptions of stu-
dent-to-student connectedness in the classroom and
cognitive learning, affective learning, affective behav-
ioral intent, and overall instructional affect. Thus, stu-
dents who feel a stronger bond and report that they
praise one another, show support and cooperation, share
stories, and engage in small talk, report they learned
more in the course. They also report more affect toward
13

the course content, the instructor, and the public
speaking behaviors taught in the course and they say
they are more likely to enroll in another course with
related content as well as with the same instructor.
Student perceptions of cognitive learning were
measured by both how much they felt they learned in
their public speaking class and how much they felt they
could have learned if they had the ideal instructor for
the class. The findings showed a significant correlation
between student-to-student connectedness and how
much students perceived they learned in the class. A
learning loss score was calculated by subtracting how
much students felt they learned from how much they
could have learned from an ideal instructor. The results
were surprising in that essentially no learning loss was
reported on average (M=.02, SD=1.83). A small, signifi-
cant inverse correlation was found between CCCI and
learning loss. Although the magnitude of the correlation

was minuscule, the direction suggests that students who
reported feelings of connectedness in the classroom re-
ported less learning loss.
Taken together, these findings on cognitive learning
indicate that when students experienced greater con-
nectedness, they also felt they learned more and they
perceived their classroom learning to be similar to what
it would have been if they had an ideal instructor. These
findings supplement previous research on classroom
climate and learning by suggesting that students’ per-
ceptions of the climate-related communication behaviors
of their classmates—not just of their instructor—are as-
sociated with their perceptions of how much they
learned in a class.
14

Volume 21, 2009
Perceptions of affective learning were assessed by
three subscales which measured student attitudes to-
ward the class content, the instructor, and the public
speaking behaviors recommended in the course. The
correlations between CCCI and the subscales were all
significant and positive. These findings indicate that
students who experienced greater classroom connected-
ness tended to evaluate the class content, the instructor,
and the pubic speaking behaviors recommended in the
course to be “good,” “fair,” “valuable,” and “positive.”
Therefore, when students felt more connected, overall
affective learning was enhanced.
Perceptions of affective behavioral intent were as-
sessed by three subscales measuring intent to 1) enroll
in another class of related content, 2) enroll in another
course with the same instructor, if time and schedule

permit, and 3) use the public speaking behaviors rec-
ommended in the course. Again, the correlations be-
tween CCCI and the affective behavioral intent sub-
scales were significant and positive. These findings indi-
cate that students who experienced greater classroom
connectedness also tended to report a higher likelihood
of enrolling in another course of related content, enroll-
ing in another course with the same teacher, and using
the public speaking behaviors in the course. Not sur-
prisingly, students who experienced greater connected-
ness also reported higher overall instructional affect
scores.
Pedagogical Implications
Basic course instructors should continue to foster
cognitive and affective learning and affective behavioral
15

intent among their students by incorporating instruc-
tional strategies that give students opportunities to de-
velop a sense of connectedness. Since the items consti-
tuting the CCCI are associated with the cognitive and
affective learning domains, basic course instructors
need to encourage students to use behaviors measured
by those items, such as engaging in small talk, sharing
stories, supporting and praising one another, taking
part in class discussions, and communicating mutual
respect.
There are numerous instructional strategies that are
likely to promote both classroom connectedness and
learning in the basic course. These strategies include:
getting-to know-you exercises (e.g., human scavenger

hunts), introductory speeches (e.g., dyadic interviews
and class presentations), impromptu speeches (e.g.,
about current news events, movies, or weekend activi-
ties), and group mini-speeches in which students col-
laborate to develop and present short speeches. Interac-
tions resulting from these types of activities may en-
hance interpersonal relationships among students, thus
fostering their sense of connectedness.
Basic course instructors can also teach students
how to listen empathically as audience members and
give one another supportive feedback on speeches and
class discussion. For example, instructors can encourage
students to rephrase what they heard other students
say and acknowledge others’ responses before giving
their own opinions. Instructors should serve as role
models by demonstrating empathic listening and sup-
portive feedback behaviors.
16

Volume 21, 2009
Limitations and Future Research
Generalizations from this study are limited because
data were collected during one semester at one univer-
sity in multiple sections of the basic public speaking
fundamentals course. Future research is needed to de-
termine whether the results can be replicated in differ-
ent types of basic courses. Another concern involves the
nature of the instructors teaching the course. Many of
these instructors were trained in instructional commu-
nication in their master’s programs and were taught to
display immediacy, which could have impacted student
perceptions of connectedness. Future research needs to
involve instructors with different levels of preparation

at other institutions.
Another limitation involves the scales measuring
cognitive learning in this study. This measure focused
on students’ perceptions of their cognitive learning in-
stead of on actual learning that occurred. The relation-
ship between a connected classroom climate and more
direct measures of students’ cognitive learning should
be investigated (e.g., test scores, speech grades, and
other graded assignments) in future research.
The findings on the relationship between student-to-
student connectedness and learning add to the body of
literature on student learning and classroom climate.
Again, the findings suggest that instructors are not the
only ones whose behavior is associated with classroom
climate and student learning; certain student-to-student
behaviors also are associated with a supportive, coop-
erative classroom climate in which learning is en-
hanced. Other measures of student-to-student behaviors

such as immediacy, affinity seeking, self-disclosure,
trust, and perceived caring, deserve more attention in
17
the communication, classroom climate, and learning lit-
erature.
REFERENCES
Andersen, J.F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor
of teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Com-
munication yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Bruns-
wick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A tax-
onomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revi-
sion of Blooms’ taxonomy of educational objectives.

New York: Longman.
Bingham, S., Carlson, R., Dwyer, K., Prisbell, M., Cruz,
A. & Fus, D. (2004, November). Connected classroom
climate and teacher immediacy: relationships to
change in anxiety levels during a public speaking
course. A paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Communication Association, Chicago.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objec-
tives: Handbook I cognitive domain. New York:
McKay.
Carlson, R., Dwyer, K., Bingham, S.,M., Cruz, A., Pris-
bell, M, & Fus, D. (2006). Connected classroom cli-
mate and communication apprehension: Correla-
tions and implications for the basic course. Basic
Communication Course Annual 18, 1-27.
Chesebro, J.L., & McCroskey, J.C. (2001). The relation-
ship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student
state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive

learning. Communication Education, 50, 59-68.
18
Volume 21, 2009
Christie, N.G., & Dinham, S.M. (1991). Institutional and
external influences on social integration in the
freshman year. Journal of Higher Education, 62 (4),
412-436.
Christophel, D.M. (1990). The relationships among
teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation,
and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-
340.
Dwyer, K., Bingham, S., Carlson, R., Prisbell, M., Cruz,
A. & Fus, D. (2004). Communication and climate:
Development of the connected classroom climate in-

ventory. Communication Research Reports, 21, 264-
272.
Finnan, C., Schnepel, K.C., & Anderson, L.W. (2003).
Powerful learning environments: The critical link
between school and classroom cultures. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 391-418.
Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F., & Dennis, N.C. (1986). De-
velopment of an instrument for assessing classroom
psychosocial environment at universities and col-
leges. Studies in Higher Education, 11, 43-54.
Gibb, J. (1960). Defensive communication. Journal of
Communication, 11, 141-148.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal
teacher immediacy behavior and student learning.
Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Harrison, N. (2006). The impact of negative experiences,
dissatisfaction and attachment on first year under-
graduate withdrawal. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, 30 (4), 377-391.
19
Hays, E.R. (1970). Ego-threatening classroom communi-
cation: A factor analysis of student perceptions.
Speech Teacher, 19, 43-48.
Hurt, H.T., Scott, M.D., & McCroskey, J.C. (1978).
Communication in the classroom. Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley.
Hyman, I.A., & Snook, P.A. (2000). Dangerous schools
and what you can do about them. Phi Delta Kappa,
81, 488-501.
Kuh, G.,D. (2001). The national survey of student en-

gagement: Conceptual framework and overview of
psychometric properties. Retrieved January 17, 2007,
from http://www.indiana.edu/~nsse/nsse_2001/pdf/
framework-2001.pdf
Lee, R.M., & Robbins, S.B. (1995). Measuring belong-
ingness: The social connectedness and the social as-
surance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
42, 232-241.
McCroskey, J.C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward
communication and affect toward instruction in com-
munication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.),
Assessing college student competency in speech
communication (pp. 56-71). Annandale, VA: Speech
Communication Association.
McGrath, M. & Braunstein, A. (1997). The prediction of
freshmen attrition: An examination of the impor-
tance of certain demographic, academic, financial
and social factors. College Student Journal, 31(3),

396-408.
McGrath, P., Gutierrez, P.M., & Valadez, I.M. (2000).
Introduction of the college student social support
20
Volume 21, 2009
scale: Factor structure and reliability assessment.
Journal of College Student Development, 41 (4), 415-
426.
Malecki, C.D., & Demaray, M.K. (2002). Measuring per-
ceived social support: Development of the child and
adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology
in the Schools, 39 (1), 1-18.
Mottet, T.P., Beebe, S.A. (2006). Foundations of instruc-
tional communication. In T.P. Mottet, V.P. Rich-

mond, & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.) Handbook of instruc-
tional communication. New York: Allen & Bacon.
Myers, S. A. (1995). Student perceptions of teacher af-
finity-seeking and classroom climate. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 12, 192-199.
Myers, S.A., & Rocca, K.A. (2001). Perceived instructor
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the
college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of
climate, apprehension, and state motivation. West-
ern Journal of Communication, 65, 113-137.
Nadler, L.B., & Nadler, M.K. (1990). Perceptions of sex
differences in classroom communication. Women’s
Studies in Communication, 13, 46-65.
Nunnery, J.A., Butler, E.D., & Bhaireddy, V.N. (1993,
April). Relationships between classroom climate, stu-
dent characteristics, and language achievement in
the elementary classroom: An exploratory investiga-
tion. Paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Nussbaum, J.F., & Scott, M.D. (1979). Instructor com-
munication behaviors and their relationship to
classroom learning. InD. Nimmo (Ed.), Communica-
21
tion yearbook 3 (pp. 561-583). New Brunswick, N. J.:
Transaction Books.
Richmond, V.P. (1990). Communication in the class-
room: Power and motivation. Communication Edu-
cation, 39, 181-195.
Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C., Kearney, P. & Plax,
T.G. (1987). Power in the classroom: VII. Linking
behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning.

Communication Education, 36, 1-12.
Rosenfeld, L.B. (1983). Communication climate and
coping mechanisms in the college classroom. Com-
munication Education, 32, 167-174.
Schaps, E., Lewis, C., & Watson, M. (1997). Building
classroom communities. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 27, 14-18.
Stuart, W.D., & Rosenfeld, L.B. (1994). Student percep-
tions of teacher humor and classroom climate.
Communication Research Reports, 11, 87-97.
Teven, J.J., & McCroskey, J.C. (1996). The relationship
of perceived leachier caring with student learning
and teacher evaluation. Communication Education,
46, 1-9.
Wanzer, MB., & Frymier, A.B. (1999). The relationship
between student perceptions of instructor humor
and students’ reports of learning. Communication
Education, 48, 48-62

22
Basic Communication Course Annual2009Connected Classroom
Climate and Communication in the Basic Course: Associations
with LearningMarshall PrisbellKaren Kangas DwyerRobert E.
CarlsonShereen G. BinghamAna M. CruzRecommended
CitationConnected Classroom Climate and Communication in
the Basic Course: Associations with Learning
Assessment Details
Industry Analysis Report & Oral Presentation
In groups of Two, you are asked to conduct an Industry
Analysis for one of the following Industries; Clothing retailing,
Prepared meals production or Sugar manufacturing
The written report and oral presentation are part of the one
Assessment.
You will also find further explanation regarding the report
requirements in the power point presentation in BlackBoard.
There is also a report template available on BlackBoard and it is
recommended that you use this when writing the report.
It is highly recommended that you make yourself familiar with
both the report requirements and the marking guide.
Due: Week 5 (Date and time will be confirmed later
by the Convenor)
Worth: 40% Total(Report 30% & Oral presentation
10%)
Team: 2 members per group
It is expected that the hard copy of the report will be bound and
include a front and back cover. Do ensure that all Appendices

have been included before binding. Binding gives a
“Professional” polished look to your group report.
Details of the Report
You are asked to analyse an Industry (which will be provided to
you within the teaching period).
Your analysis needs to include the following:
Part A: Industry Analysis
· Market Definition –Define and describe the market
· Market History - Provide an overview of the main factors that
have impacted upon this industry in the past. You will only be
able to answer this after conducting extensive research on the
industry.
· Market Size – describe the size of the Industry for the most
recent year available
· Market Growth – describe the trend in the market over a
period of time. This can include the growth over the past 5-10
years, as well as forecasted growth for the future.
· Key Competitors – List and describe the key competitors
operating within the market. Your discussion needs to include at
least a one-two paragraph discussion for each competitor.
Identify the Competitors, their product offering and a general
description of their operations
Part B: Environmental Analysis
Critically evaluate and discuss two (2) environmental factors
that have impacted this industry from 1st December 2014 to
date. Describe environmental factors that are currently
affecting the Australian market or likely to affect it in the near
future. You will need to provide evidence attached to the
Appendices that support your discussion. This evidence will be
printouts of actual Newspaper or Journal articles that can be
sourced from one of the databases available through the
Swinburne library. e.g. Proquest, Factiva, Ebscohost etc. Your

teacher may run through access details to these databases within
a Lab session. Please remember to correctly acknowledge
sources of information for each article included.
The environmental factors should be a combination of both
micro and macro environmental factors.
Part C: Secondary Data Analysis
Select at least three different types of sources of Secondary data
collected for this report and evaluate each in terms of its
relevance, accuracy, currency and impartiality.
Part D: Marketing Mix
You are asked to select one brand or product within the Industry
being discussed and provide an overview of the Marketing Mix.
You will include a description for the Product, Price, Promotion
and Place for this brand or product. Your discussion should
include at least one to two paragraph description for each of
the 4P’s.
Research & Referencing:
To complete this task successfully, students need to engage in
extensive research.
Sources such as journal articles, websites, industry magazines
and newspaper articles will be relevant to gather information.
You will be asked to provide a ‘Reference List’ (not a
bibliography)
In-text referencing:
You MUST have a minimum of 8 references which include
academic and newspapers. If you have not referenced your
information correctly, your overall grade will be affected for
this assessment.
Word Limit: 3500 words (excluding Executive Summary & the
Reference list)

Format:
This document MUST follow the structure of a formal report.
Students have been provided with a Report Template which is
available on BlackBoard and this shows how to correctly lay out
the report. To access the Template, please login to the unit in
Blackboard.
Located on the left hand side of the screen, select “Analysis
Report” and then “Report Template”. There are also PowerPoint
slides that provide further description for each section.
(You can also refer the Communications Skills Handbook for
additional information on how to correctly write a Business
Report).
Grammar and written report:
It is expected that the report will be prepared and presented in a
professional manner. Grammar and spelling will be assessed in
this report.
A copy of the report MUST be uploaded on “Blackboard” and
the hard copy submitted to the teacher by the due date & time
specified by the convenor
If the Turnitin copy (from Blackboard) is not uploaded a 10%
penalty maybe applicable.
The report is marked out of 60 and scaled back to a mark out of
30.
RATIONALE for the Assignment
This assignment will help you develop the following skills in
addition to learning the relevant marketing concept topics:
1. Analysis skills / Problem solving skills – the assignment
requires you to research and evaluate an industry and how the

industry has changed. You are required to review and assess the
information that is necessary for the assessment.
You will develop skills such as logical thinking, gathering and
analysing information, verbally and visually articulating this
information.
2. Communication / Team work skills – the assignment requires
you to work in groups of three members. In the real world, team
work is unavoidable. As such learning to work harmoniously
and effectively within a team of your peers is important. This
assignment will help you develop communication within the
same and different knowledge levels and cultural backgrounds.
It will also develop team work skills, such as dividing
workloads, completing assigned tasks, collaborating information
and presenting one final document as a team.
Oral Presentation
Due: Week 6 (Date and time will be confirmed later by the
Convenor)
Worth: 10%
Team: 2 members per group (same group as per the
report)
Time: 10 minute presentation
Dress Code: Professional (the presentation will be conducted
in a business scenario).
You will be doing this Oral Presentation in the same group as
for the report.
The content for the presentation will come from the analysis
report that you completed.
You are to summarise the important aspects of your report in
this presentation.
You do not have to try and cover all areas from the report.

Each presentation will be awarded marks based on content,
creativity of presentation and professionalism.
NOTE: If all members of a group do not contribute or actively
participate equally as the other members of a group, then they
may be marked separately from the other members.
Please note it is a professional courtesy that you are present for
all group presentations. You must be present from the start of
all presentations, please do not disrespect your fellow students,
and arrive late. Penalty marks will be applied if your group is
not present from the start of the class presentations.
RATIONALE for the Assignment
Communication / Team work skills – the assignment requires
you to work in groups of three members. In the real world, team
work is unavoidable. As such learning to work harmoniously
and effectively within a team of your peers is important.
This assignment will help you develop communication within
the same and different knowledge levels and cultural
backgrounds. It will also develop team work skills, such as
dividing workloads, completing assigned tasks, collaborating
information and presenting one final document as a team.
HOW TO WORK IN A GROUP
Group / Team work is an important aspect of working in any
field. As such this assignment will give you an opportunity to
learn and develop some skills in this area
1. Choose group members carefully – members that do not share
the same approach to your studies/ assessment goals can impact
on the quality of the work you produce in the end. So it is
important to ascertain each group member’s goals at the

beginning of your collaboration.
2. Once you have chosen the group members – it is important to
share contact details. This includes phone numbers, email
address, or even setting up a group Facebook page. It is the
group’s responsibility to ensure that each member is contactable
quickly and explanations such as they did not come to class or I
haven’t seen them on campus - is not a valid excuse.
3. However, there are times that a group member may become
sick or experience difficulties throughout the assessment. If this
occurs, then it is courtesy to advise the other group members
that you are experiencing difficulty and whether this likely to
impact on your participation in the group. If the difficulty is
likely to be for an extended period of time, then it is also very
important that you contact your teacher.
4. Clearly outline expectations and task that will help complete
the assignment and achieve the best outcome possible. It is very
worthwhile planning a schedule that outlines what will be
undertaken each week. This will help keep you on track. Your
tutor will provide you with time in one of the classes, for your
group to ask questions.
5. Finally as adults, it is your responsibility to get the job done,
as such focus on the task at hand and note the deadline for
submission
GROUP PROBLEMS
Group Problems?
Group work is a necessary part of marketing. However, there
are occasions when some members do not take their
responsibilities towards the group and task seriously. In the
event this occurs, please follow the following steps:
A. Address the problem with the relevant group member and
inform them they need to contribute equally and effectively to
the group work
B. In the event the non-participating group member still does

not participate in the group work, the group MUST email the
teacher and the convenor of this problem.
The teacher and convenor will review this situation and in the
event agree with the group, the non-participating group member
may be assessed separately.
Analysis Report Marking Guide
Criteria
Weight
Not Satisfactory (Fail)
Pass
Credit
Distinction
High Distinction
Executive Summary
2.5
More of an introduction. Does not summarise the key content of
the report.
Section not included.
A sound summary of the report’s major purpose and key content
of the report.
A good summary of the report’s major purpose and key content
within the report
A very good summary of the report’s major purpose, the
benefits and analytical processes and the findings.
Concise and succinctly provides the major purpose of the
report, the benefits and analytical processes and the findings.
Industry analysis
20
A minimal attempt. Extremely limited discussion of the market
background, size and growth. Superficial analysis of
competitors. Little sign of analysis
A sound attempt at discussion and evaluating the overall

industry. Some of the important time lines were highlighted.
Sound discussion of the market background, market size, growth
and Major competitors. Information supported by good sources
A good attempt at discussion and evaluating the overall
industry. Important time lines were highlighted. Good
discussion of the market background, market size and growth. A
good analysis of the Major competitors. Information supported
by good sources
A very good attempt at discussion and evaluating the overall
industry. Important time lines were highlighted. Very Good
discussion of the market background, market size and growth. A
very good analysis of the Major competitors. Information
supported by good sources
The industry and market are very clearly explained. An
excellent discussion of the major events which shaped the
industry and its evolution. Market size, growth and key
competitors are very well described. Well researched and
supported with in-text references.
An excellent evaluation of the industry is provided.
Environmental factors
10
Discussion was descriptive and theoretical. Minimal research
has been undertaken.
Newspaper/ Journal articles not included in the Appendices
Demonstrates a sound understanding of how any two
environmental factors impacted the industry. Information
supported by reasonable sources
Some Newspaper/ Journal articles included in the Appendices
A good attempt at discussion and evaluating two environmental
factors influencing the industry. Demonstrates a good
understanding of how the factors impacted the industry.
Information supported by good sources
Some Newspaper/Journal articles included in the Appendices
A very good attempt at discussion and evaluating two
environmental factors influencing the industry. Demonstrates a

very good understanding of how the factors impacted the
industry. Information supported by good sources
Newspaper/Journal articles included in the Appendices
Discussion demonstrates in-depth knowledge, study, exploration
and synthesis of information for each of the two factors. Well
researched and supported. Cited evidence.
Newspaper/ Journal articles included in the Appendices
Secondary Data Analysis
5
Weak analysis of Secondary Data
Section not included
A sound analysis of Secondary data using some of the criteria of
relevance’ currency, impartiality and accuracy
A good analysis of Secondary Data using the criteria of
Very good analysis of Secondary Data using the criteria of
Excellent analysis of Secondary Data using the criteria of
Marketing Strategy
10
The discussion does not include a description for each of the
4P’s: Product, Price, Promotion, Place
Section not included
A sound description for each of the 4P’s; Product, Price,
Promotion, Place
Good description for each of the 4P’s; Product, Price,
Promotion, Place
Very good description for each of the 4P’s; ; Product, Price,
Place, Promotion
Excellent description for each of the 4P’s; Product, Price,
Promotion, Place
Conclusion
2.5
Introduces new information. Weak conclusion.

A sound attempt to summarise the main points/findings of the
report.
A good attempt to summarise the main points/findings of the
report. Satisfactory finishing argument to the report
A very good attempt to summarise the main points/findings of
the report. A good finishing argument to the report.
Section summarises the main points/findings effectively. Does
not introduce new information. Strong finish to the document.
Research &Referencing
5
Insufficient references used. Sources are not credible.
Information not reference adequately. Over use of quotes.
Incorrect referencing style.
Reference list not included
Sufficient references used (5-8 academic/industry sources).
Some attempt to paraphrase and use in-text referencing.
Reference List included many inaccuracies. Does not follow the
Harvard approach.
Mostly well paraphrased and citied. Reference list included with
an attempt evident to follow the Harvard Style Guide. A few
inaccuracies in the Reference List
Well paraphrased and citied. Good referencing style throughout
the report. Reference List included with most References
correctly listed according to the Harvard Style Guide.
Excellent range of sources used both industry and theory (more
than 8). Sources consistently referenced to support discussion.
Reference list correctly presented of all the sources. Excellent
reference style throughout the report using the Harvard
approach.

5
Casual/ informal/personal language used. Report written in the
first person. Quotes instead of paraphrasing information. Poor
grammar and spelling. Over the word limit Numerous
grammatical and spelling errors.
Report written in the third person. Several spelling/
grammatical errors. Not Within word limit
Good sentence structure with only a few spelling/ grammar
errors. Within word limit. A good An attempt has been made to
ensure that Vocabulary and sentence construction are
appropriate to a professional document.
Very good sentence structure. Grammar and spelling very good.
Good use of word count. Vocabulary and sentence construction
nearing a professional document standard.
Excellent sentence structure, grammar and no spelling mistakes.
Very good use of word count. Vocabulary and sentence
construction consistent to a professional document. Grammar
and spelling exceptional.
TOTALS
60
General Comments:
Oral Presentation Marking Guide
Criteria
Weight
Not Done / Below standard
Pass
Credit
Distinction

High distinction
Verbal &nonverbal communications
4.0
Speakers did not speak or were completely inaudible and made
no eye contact
Speakers were fairly clear, however referred to the notes a little
too much.
Fairly good engagement and good eye contact with the
audience.
Speakers were clear. Good modulation of voice. Minimal use of
notes. Attempts to build rapport with the audience.
Exceptionally clear. Little reference to notes. Complete
engagement with the audience. All the speakers are familiar
with the total presentation.
Confident and professional speech.
Excellent eye contact with the audience. Outstanding
presentation.
Power point slides (PPTs) - creative
1.5
No PPTs or a very poor attempt has been made but it is below
standard.
Fairly basic PPTs. Overcrowded or too little information.
Minimal creativity. Basic organisation and compilation of PPTs.
Well organised and fairly good structure to the presentation.
Good use of graphics and good attempt creativity.
Exceptionally well organised and very good structure. Very
creative PPTs and good used of graphics
Professional PPTs. Excellent use of graphics. Outstanding,
creative and original PPTs.
Content delivered
2.0
Very poor link between report and PPTs. Below standard.
Content presented is basic and superficial.
Relevant and informed presentation. Satisfactory connection
between report and PPTs

Very good selection of information from the report is presented.
Exceptional content and analysis. Excellent examples citied
Professional appearance and time management
2.5
No effort/ dressed inappropriately. Timing -very poor.
Dressed casually- little effort towards appearance. Timing needs
to improve.
Dressed smart/casual and timing was satisfactory.
Dress appropriately and timing was very good.
Professional attire and impeccable timing of the presentation.
Total
10
Less than 5
(5 to 5.9)
(6 to 7)
(7 to 7.9)
(8 to 10)
ABC124_Unit Outline_TPx_yyyy Page 2 of 7
Version: Unit of Study Outline_V1.4_20140213

Basic Communication Course AnnualVolume 21 Article 112.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Basic Communication Course AnnualVolume 21 Article 112.docx

Similar to Basic Communication Course AnnualVolume 21 Article 112.docx (20)

More from JASS44

More from JASS44 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Basic Communication Course AnnualVolume 21 Article 112.docx