Ethos and Pedagogical Communication of HCDC

Faculty: Implications to Policy Formulation

By Danilo L. Mejica, PhD

dlm_1850@yahoo.com
danilomejica@rocketmail.com

Are faculty members credible in their pedagogical communication? Answers to

this question were explored in this study which focused on the four “ethos” or
credibility dimensions of pedagogical communication used by college teachers in
an archdiocesan institution, namely: trust, competence, dynamism and
immediacy behavior. Generally, students saw their teachers as credible in their
competency in four situations: organized lesson presentation, control and
command of the subject matter, and prepared of instructional materials. They
also believed that their teachers are sincere and honest in their presentation of
lessons. On the other hand, competencies of faculty members are observed by
students as colored with vocal styles cluttered with verbal hesitancies, hedges
and intensifiers, and verbal verbosity. Students agree that faculty members have
low credibility in their immediacy behavior such as in the use of smiling to disarm
and relax students, moving comfortably and meaningfully in the classroom and in
taking time to know students’ feelings about the lessons. Faculty members,
however, accepted that they need to develop and maintain specific trusting
behaviors to students like accepting their errors as part of their learning process,
giving directions for other sources of information to students, encouraging them
to actively participate in dialogues related to .lessons and listening to conflicting
opinions without being judgmental to fully cultivate their trust. Credibility in
pedagogical communication of faculty is differentiated by age – the younger the
teachers, the less credible they are in the areas of trust, competence and
immediacy behavior. Faculty members with in specializations in Education,
Psychology and Science have high level of credibility in pedagogical
communication. Those with master’s degree (or its equivalents) and have
earned doctoral units were observed to have high level of credibility in terms of
trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior; those with doctoral
degrees were perceived by students as less dynamic but nevertheless scored
very high in competence, trust and immediacy behavior. Implications to policy
formulation were expounded to improve instructional delivery of the faculty.

Key words: credibility, pedagogical communication, trust, competence,

dynamism, immediacy behavior, implications, policy formulation
 Introduction

Today's teachers face a variety of reactions from their students and other
sectors: from simple praise to national awards, from insults to dismissal, from
pushing and shoving to physical violence. No matter what the reaction, at the
core of the response is the student’s perception of the teacher's credibility.
Whether at the conscious or unconscious level, the student’s perception of
the teacher's credibility has a tremendous impact on both how he or she reacts to
the teacher and on how effective the teacher will be as an educator and
communicator (Frymier & Thompson, 1992). Erosion of a teacher's credibility can
quickly spell disaster in the classroom; worse yet, violence may quickly erupt in a
climate where the student has little respect for the credibility of teachers or other
individuals.
It is not enough that teachers prepare for their time in class. Much
preparation should also be given to how the lesson is expounded, interacted with
students, related to current issues, and evaluated. In all of these processes,
communication takes center stage – and the kind of communication is focused
on the sincerity, credibility and authenticity of the teacher and his/her message.
Teachers of Holy Cross of Davao College are known for their being
outspoken, articulate and verbally assertive. In the words of Dr. Doroteo O.
Amora, former Dean of College and Dean of the Graduate School, “one’s fluency
and verbal aggressiveness does not necessarily mean credibility and sincerity –
it takes more than a great knowledge of the English language to project
authenticity.”
The roles of the teacher today has transcended the traditional definition
where teachers are suppose to be the “fountain” and “source” of knowledge to
that of being facilitator and manager of the learning process. Hence, the
teacher’s style of communication – gestures, body language, choice of words,
organization of ideas, and dynamism should contribute to his/her facilitative and
communicative roles. The teacher’s credibility takes on the parameters of
“character” as seen in his/her pedagogical communication.

This study focuses on the “ethos” or credibility of the pedagogical

communication used by HCDC teachers. It explores the components of “ethos”
or credibility - trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior as
practiced by teachers in the classroom. According to the Greeks, a speaker who
registered a strong moral character and a sense of goodwill established a strong
credibility and could have a powerful persuasive influence on an audience. They
called this quality ethos (Burgoon & Pfau, 2000).

Significant Literature

Ethos is how well the speaker convinces the audience that he or she is
qualified to speak on the particular subject. It can be done in many ways: by
being a notable figure in the field in question, such as a college professor or an
executive of a company who's business is that of the subject; by having a vested
interest in a matter, such as being related to the person in question; and by
showing impressive logos that shows the audience the speaker is knowledgeable
on the topic (Nussbaum, 2002).

To develop one's ethos, a teacher must communicate effectively with his

or her students in the classroom (Frymier & Thompson, 1992). Part of the
teacher's pedagogy must exhibit itself through a pedagogical communication
process that helps the teacher to be perceived as credible by the students
(McCrosky & Richmond, 1992; Nussbaum, 1992).
Much of the work of ethos goes to establish credibility (Trenholm, 1999). It
doesn't matter who the speaker is speaking to - whether to a group of a thousand
crowd, a radio or television audience, or one person in the privacy of his/her
office, much depends on the speaker’s ability to come across in a credible and
honest fashion. Good intentions are not enough. Many the honest, open speaker
has created an impression of shiftiness and dishonesty due to a lack of
understanding on how to structure content, and how to use language and
speaking style to come across in a credible manner.
A speaker will be perceived as credible when he/she appears relatively
unbiased; appears similar to the audience; communicates in ways the audience
understands; demonstrates understanding of the audience's opinions; does not
sound defensive or aggressive; and does not over react to criticism. Credibility is
the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer
to believe that statement.
In public speaking, Verderber & Verderber (1999) stated that forms of
proof are the credibility of the speaker and his character. Contemporary social
science research has generally found that there are several dimensions of
credibility. Berlo and Lemert (2001) noted three: competence, trustworthiness
and dynamism..
The study of Teo, Chang, & Kheng Leng (2002) defined pedagogy as
requiring teachers to understand how students learn and must have the capacity
and autonomy to design, implement and assess educational activities that meet
the needs of individual and all students. Pedagogy applies to all types of
learning. Pedagogy is broadly defined as the art and science of teaching and is
anchored strongly at the heart of learning.
Another concept of pedagogy is it’s being an interactive and
communicational work. Pedagogy is an instrumental activity – a technology of
human interactions which bears the mark of human communications. Within this
context, it is possible to study the diverse interactions between teachers and
students and of the work performed in the classroom (Tardiff & Lessard, 1999).
When we observe teachers working in their classroom, what stand out
are the strong language-related aspects and, more generally, the
communicational facets of their interactions with students.
 For purposes of this study, pedagogical communication is defined as a
process of communication used by teachers to advance educational subject
matter. Such behaviors as vocal variation (e.g., changes in rate, inflection,
volume, movement) or visual variation (e.g., change in facial expressions, eye
contact, gestures) teachers use to help communicate subject matter are
examples of pedagogical communication. And more, research suggests that
these behaviors may increase students' cognitive and affective learning
(Gorham, 1998; Richmond, Gorhan, & McCrosky, 1997). Pedagodical
communication operates simultaneously on three levels that are constantly
intertwined: interpretation, imposition and communication itself.
Interpretation. As shown in many studies on teacher thought (Clandinin
and Connelly, 1995; Handal and Vaaage, 1999; Tochon, 1993) teachers are
interpreters of what takes place in the classroom. But this interpretation activity is
not limited to oral or written discourse. Teachers must constantly “read and
interpret” the class, how students move, their reactions, their progress, their
motivations, etc. In this regard, most of what we call pedagogy pertains to work
stemming from interpretations: the teacher has expectations, preconceptions
(referred to by cognitive psychology as previous knowledge), from which he/she
interprets or understands what is happening in the classroom.
Teaching, therefore, is to interpret the activity undertaken that allows for
meaning to be attributed to what is taking place. A teacher, in a certain sense, is
a “reader of pedagogical situations”; someone constantly vigilant with regard to
any deviations that could occur, requiring the improvisation of an immediate
response. This improvisation depends on the teacher’s experiences, knowledge
of students and classroom history (Sternberg and Horvath, 1995).
Imposition. Teachers, however, do not only interpret, they also impose
meaning, direct pedagogical communication, and contribute in this way to guide
the current action program, depending on the meaning they wish to put across.
From this standpoint, pedagogical communication is always biased and calls
upon power relations: contrary to the idea that teaching is exclusively a
procedure of data processing, a process of knowledge construction, we believe
that it is greatly a process for the imposition of meaning. The teacher works with
the realization that he/she knows something that the students do not and must
learn, and are thus responsible for imposing this particular something (rules,
knowledge, etc.) in the classroom. As an imposition process, didactic
pedagogical communication acts upon the forms and codes of communication as
well as on its contents and the norms at stake (Bourdieu, 1998).
The imposition of meaning is even more important when we consider that
the teacher is a worker whose tools and professional mandate are, to a great
extent, composed of meaningful materials and significant goals (Durand, 1996). A
doctor also imposes meaning on his patient, for instance on telling him that he is
afflicted with a particular disease. But the teacher, in a sense, works with a
meaning on a meaning, thanks to meaning. A teacher’s basic teaching materials
are discourse, knowledge, rules, meaning to say, all realities permeated with
meaning.
 Communication. The teacher not only interprets and imposes meaning,
but verbalizes and shares it as well when communicating something to others.
Communication is constantly at the heart of pedagogical action. It is not added to
action, it is action in itself as experienced by teachers and students. This simple
fact enables us, in particular, to understand why the expressive and
communicative qualities of teachers’ personalities play such a big role in
teaching: these are qualities (empathy, humor, etc.) that lead us back to the
communicative nature of pedagogical action, within which the teacher’s
personality becomes a true means of communication, a kind of work tool.

Framework

Theory of Verbal
Intensifiers and Theory of Powerful
Hedges and Powerless
Wright and Hosman Speech of Erickson,
(2000); Eind, Johnson, and
O'Barr (1998)

Teachers’ Credibility in
Pedagogical
Communication in
terms of: Trust
Competence
Dynamism
Immediacy Behavior

Theory of
Credibility in
Pedagogical
Communication
Haskin’s (2000)

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study

 Theories

The study is anchored on three theories: Theory of Verbal Intensifiers

and Hedges of Wright and Hostman (2000); the Theory of Powerful and
Powerless Speech of Erickson, Eind, Johnson, and O'Barr as cited in Lehner
(2006) and Haskin’s (2000) Theory of Credibility in Pedagogical
Communication.
The Theory of Verbal Intensifiers and Hedges states that verbal
uncertainties or hesitations affect the “ethos” of the speaker; the greater the
number of hesitations, the lower the perceived credibility of the teacher (Wright &
Hostman, 2000). Very, certainly, definitely, sort of, perhaps, maybe, kind of –
these are terms that Indicate lack of certainty and surety, thus, they reveal the
degree of teacher’s credibility.
The Theory of Powerful and Powerless Speech of Erickson, Eind,
Johnson, and O'Barr as cited in Lehner (2006) advances the idea that certain
speech style variations are associated with social status and authority;
individuals with higher social status use a more powerful speech style while
those with lower status use more powerless speech style; thus, power in speech
is indicated by a multitude of verbal and nonverbal variables. Individuals with low
social power and low status tended to make frequent use of (1) intensifiers
("so," "very," "surely," as in "I surely did."), (2) hedges ("kind of," "I think," "I
guess," etc.), (3) especially formal grammar (the use of bookish grammatical
forms), (4) hesitation forms ("uh," "well," "you know," etc.), (5) gestures (e.g.
the use of hands and expressions such as "over there" while speaking), (6)
questioning forms (e.g., the use of rising, question intonation in declarative
contexts), and (7) polite forms ("please," "thank you," etc.) These features
tended to occur in the speech of low-power witnesses, and their frequent use
constitutes what is termed as the "powerless” style of speaking.
Theory of Credibility in Pedagogical Communication by Haskin (2000)
expounds the idea that the critical key to teaching effectiveness focuses on the
concept of ethos which is the perceived degree of character or credibility that a
person believes exists in another person or object. Haskin theorized that in
pedagogical communication there are important indicators of credibility that
should be measured – trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy
behavior.
Trust is "placing confidence in the other" (genuine listening; interest in the
sentiments of students; inviting students to dialogue; transparency of goal).
Competence is the state or quality of being adequate or well qualified,
having the skill or facility to perform a specific role or function (mastery of subject
matter, highly organized presentation, error-free communication,
interdisciplinarity, sense of technology).
Dynamism is the “degree to which the audience admires and identifies
with the source's attractiveness, power or forcefulness, and energy" (Larson,
1992). It includes charisma, a high level of energy, a flair for the dramatic (that
moves and excites listeners, presence).

Immediacy Behavior refers to behaviors engaged by teachers to reduce

physical and psychological distance between himself or herself and the student:
"the teacher . . . sitting on the edge of the chair, leaning forward, placing nothing
between himself and the subject, and utilizing head nods” (Gorham & Kelly,
1988); "vocal expressiveness, smiling at the class, and having a relaxed body
position”(Haskins, 2000).

Statement of the Problem

The study explored the credibility of teachers in the context of their

pedagogical communication. Pedagogical communication was measured through
its four components, namely: trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy
behavior.

The researcher sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the level of teachers’ credibility in pedagogical communication
in terms of trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior?
2. Is there a significance difference in the perception of the respondents
when teachers are grouped according to age, sex, subjects taught and highest
degree attained?
3. What policy implications can be derived based on the findings of the
study?
Methods

The study employed the descriptive-exploratory design of research

applying survey and interview techniques. The Pedagogical Communication
Inventory of Haskins (2000) was used applying some modifications due to
cultural limitations. The participants of this study were 76 college faculty
(66.23%) and 635 students of the Holy Cross of Davao College - the three
biggest classes for each college faculty identified were randomly given survey
questionnaires (10 to 15 students for each class). Interviews with faculty and
students were also conducted simultaneously.

Key Findings

The key findings of the study are:

Students observed that teachers are limited in their manifestation of trust
such as in their acceptance of students’ errors, in giving direction to students of
other sources of information, in encouraging students to actively participate in
dialogues related to lessons; and in listening to conflicting opinion of students
without being judgmental.
Teachers are often competent in four situations: highly organized in the
presentation of subject matter; in control of the subject matter; preparation of
instructional materials; and command of the subject matter.
Speaking style of teachers are cluttered with verbal hesitancies like “okay,”
“you know,” “ah, ah” or “as in” and were not deliberate in their use of rate, pitch,
inflection, flexibility and tone of voice which students saw as weaknesses.
There were both strengths and weaknesses observed by students
regarding immediacy behavior of faculty members. They were frequently
observed to be relaxed (whether sitting or standing) when presenting the lesson;
often rearranges seating arrangement of students to be closer to them; and
strong verbal expressiveness to attract students. They were observed by
students to have limited eye contact, inadequate use of body language, less
smiling; wasteful movements in the classroom; rarely taking time to know
students’ feeling about lesson; and seldom use of the blackboard.
Faculty members within the age range of 35 to 50 are seen by students
as credible in all areas of pedagogical communication, namely trust,
competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior.
Students saw a well-defined manifestation of the four pedagogic
dimensions from their female teachers as compared with their male counterparts.
Only three groups of teachers were perceived by students to extensively
possess the four dimensions of pedagogical communication. These are teachers
who belong to the Education, Psychology and Science clusters.
Teachers with master’s degree (or its equivalent) and those with doctoral
units were observed by students to manifest at length the four dimensions of
pedagogical communication. Mentors who have baccalaureate degrees (with MA
units) were observed by students to be less credible because they showed less
competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior while most of those with
doctoral degree were found by students to be lacking in dynamism.

Conclusions

Students believe that HCDC teachers are sincere and honest in their
presentation of lessons. On the other hand, students affirmed that teachers have
to develop and maintain specific trusting behaviors like accepting students’ errors
as part of their learning process, giving directions for other sources of information
to students, encouraging students to actively participate in dialogues related to
lessons and listening to conflicting opinions without being judgmental to fully
cultivate the trust of students.
 Teachers are credible in their competency in four situations: organized in
the presentation, control and command of the subject matter, and preparation of
instructional materials. Teachers need to hone or polish their use of personal
experience to provide insight to students; the use of variety of approaches in
teaching the lesson; improve their command of the English language and the
management of classroom environment.
Vocal styles of teachers are cluttered with verbal hesitancies, hedges and
intensifiers. Thus, the credibility in dynamism of their pedagogical communication
is negatively affected by these mediocre vocal styles. There is verbal verbosity
when the normal pedagogical language is inundated with these ineffective verbal
styles of teachers.
Faculty members have areas of low credibility in their immediacy behavior.
They need improvement in the use of eye contact to establish rapport among
students, the use of smiling to disarm and at the same time relax students,
maximizing meaningful movements in the classroom and in taking time to know
students’ feelings about the lessons. Blackboards should be natural teaching
accessories of the teacher but in today’s digital and technological development,
blackboards are being relegated in the background and are fast replaced by
overhead projectors, film slides, multi-media, etc.
The credibility in pedagogical communication of teachers is differentiated
by age – the younger the teachers, the less credible they are in the areas of trust,
competence and immediacy behavior. Their saving grace, however, is in their
dynamism brought about by their youthful stamina and energy. Inversely, this is
the situation with teachers 50 years old and above – they have gained
confidence and mastery of their craft, thus, trust, competency and immediacy
behavior have become part of their professional expertise. On the other hand,
due to decreasing physical strength, dynamism in the classroom becomes an
issue with these pre-retirement and elderly teachers.
There is a high level of credibility in pedagogical communication among
teachers handling subjects in Education, Psychology and Science. Teachers of
accountancy, business, mathematics, maritime and language subjects were
found out to be lacking in dynamism and immediacy behaviors.
Teachers with master’s degree (or its equivalents) and who have earned
doctoral units were observed by students to have high level of credibility in terns
of trust, competence, dynamism and immediacy behavior. Teachers who have
not completed their master’s degree were less credible in the four dimension of
pedagogical communication. Most teachers with doctoral degrees were
perceived by students as lacking in dynamism.
 Policy implications derived from the findings of the study

The following activities could be made regular components of the faculty

development program (to ensure that teachers develop these skills to make them
a permanent part of their teaching repertoire): a forum on active listening, a
workshop on how to handle dialogues and consultations among students, a
workshop on portfolio development as a tool to establish rapport and at the same
time monitor and document students’ progress.
Teachers still need intensive in-service training on a departmental level (so
they can be monitored and guided exhaustively) on such topics as teaching
techniques, classroom management and refresher course in English for Faculty.
The in-service training could be integrated in the institutional/departmental faculty
development plan on a yearly basis. A review of the “English Zone” policy of the
school can be initiated with the aim of making teachers role models for this
policy.
Teachers need to learn how to control vocal range, pitch, tone, use of
body language and conversational style in lesson presentation. In short, there
should be a seminar for teachers on pedagogical communication and/or public
speaking. Teachers need to understand that rhetoric and elocution have their
place in public speaking but not in classroom teaching.
The HCDC Faculty Manual specific provisions on classroom management
(seating arrangement, checking of attendance, cleaning of blackboards, etc.)
could be constantly monitored vis-a-vis strict observance of teachers. Deepening
of interactions with students (counseling, etc.) is also an important aspect to gain
students’ trust.
A promotional package to attract young graduates with the needed
potential, right aptitude for teaching, and appropriate qualifications to join the
teaching force of HCDC could be designed by the school management. Teaching
competence is generally affected by age, health and environmental conditions
(classroom, sanitation, ventilation, etc.), thus, the regular monitoring of these
elements will help teachers maintain, if not improve, their classroom
performance.
HCDC to plan, design and implement regular workshops and seminar on
teaching strategies for teachers who have no teaching experience or education
degree. Aside from this, teachers can also be encouraged to pursue a degree in
education to compensate for their non-education degrees.
A doctoral degree connotes advance educational training, higher
qualification and mastery, but not necessarily competence and dynamism – thus,
all teachers regardless of degree should maintain a functional level of dynamism
and energy in classroom teaching. This policy could be further pursued through
regular monitoring, reporting and dissemination of classroom evaluation results
with the teacher concerned.
 Recommendations

A synthesized version of the study highlighting the implications for policy

formulation could be submitted to the academic management of the institution for
their consideration and appropriate action.
A review of the current Institutional Faculty Development Program should
be considered with the aim of integrating an intensive in-service training on such
topics as teaching techniques, classroom management and refresher course in
English for Faculty. The in-service training should also include a regular seminar
for teachers on pedagogical communication and/or public speaking so teachers
would learn how to control vocal range, pitch, tone, use of body language and
conversational style in lesson presentation (and not to employ time and time
again rhetoric and elocution which could be taxing and stressful).
The school management should look into the aspect that teaching
competence is generally affected by age, health and environmental conditions
(classroom, sanitation, ventilation, etc.). The regular monitoring of these
elements will help teachers maintain, if not improve their classroom performance.
There is no doubt that teachers have mastered their lessons. But only
those with the appropriate education and training in teaching strategies can
effectively deliver their lesson. Thus, HCDC should do well to conduct regular
workshops and seminar on teaching strategies for teachers who have no
teaching experience or degree.
All teachers regardless of academic qualification should maintain a
functional level of dynamism and energy in classroom teaching. This policy could
be further pursued through regular monitoring, reporting and dissemination of
classroom evaluation results to concerned teachers.

References

Berlo, K. and Lemert, I. (2001). “Competence, trustworthiness and dynamism: an

empirical test of general construct of credibility.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Speech Association of America, New York.

Bourdieu, G. (1998). Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurements
after two decades. Central States Speech Journal, Volume 4, Accessed
September 12, 2006 from www.ethoscredibility.pedcom.html

Burgoon, J., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (2000). nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and
credibility. Human Communication Research, Volume XIV, 2000.University of
Massachussetts, USA. www.speechcompeda.com.org – Accessed
September 18, 2006.

Clandinin and Connelly, 1995; The Dynamics of human communication: a

laboratory approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, USA.
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in
relation to perceive teacher credibility. Communication Education, Volume 41,
1992, University of Southern California, USA.

Gorham, J. & Kelly, D. H. (1998). Effects of immediacy on recall information.

Communication Education, Volume 37. www.speechcompeda.com.org –
Accessed September 18, 2006.

Handal, L. and Vaaage, T. (1999). Principles of speech communication.

Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, USA.

Haskins, W. (2000, March 3). Ethos and pedagogical communication:

Suggestions for enhancing credibility in the classroom. Current Issues in
Education [On-line], 3(4). Retrieved November 12, 208 from
http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume3/number4/.

Wright K. & Hostman, L. (2000). The evaluative consequences of hedges,

hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human
Communication Research, 15, 383-406. McAllyn Publishing Co., Inc. Newark,
New Jersey, USA.

Lehner, J. (2006). The Hierarchy Pardox: Status Rhetoric as a Substitute for

Hierarchy. Paper presented for the 1st Conference on Rhetoric and Narratives
in Management, Barcelona, May 11-13, 2006. Retrieved January 16, 2009
from www.status-management.com/forschung/hlbhiepar1.pdf

McCrosky, J., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influence through

immediacy. Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern. In
V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCrosky (Eds.)

McCrosky & Richmond, (1992). Nonverbal communication systems. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Massachusetts, USA.

Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behavior. Communication Education,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Richmond, Gorhan, & McCrosky, 1997). The relationship between selected

immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.),
Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sternberg and Horvath, 1995). Public speaking in a diverse society (2nd ed.).
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Tardiff & Lessard, 1999). The relationship between teacher’s verbal practices
and student learning. Master’s Thesis. University of Melbourne, Australia.
www.speechcompeda.com.org – Accessed September 18, 2006.
Teo, Chang, & Kheng Leng (2002). Dimensions of source pedagogical
credibility. Research paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association of Education in Journalism. University of Hongkong.

Trenholm, S. (1999). Persuasion and social influence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Tochon, W.(1993) Students’ Perception of Female and Male Speech in a Jury

Trial. McGraw Hill-Kobayashi Publishing, Tokyo, Japan.
www.speechcompeda.com.org – Accessed September 18, 2006.

Verderber, R. F., & Verderber, H. S. (1999). Inter-act: Using interpersonal

communication skills (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.