944265

research-article2020
JMCXXX10.1177/1077695820944265Journalism & Mass Communication EducatorAloia

Research Article
Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

Student Learning: The

1­–14
© AEJMC 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Influence of Instructor and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1077695820944265
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695820944265
Student Confirmation, http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jmc

Classroom Connectedness,
and Self-Efficacy

Lindsey S. Aloia1

Abstract
Previous research demonstrated the importance of a healthy instructional environment
characterized by institutional support and positivity for student learning. Furthermore,
classroom climate is impacted by the qualities of the students and the other individuals
in the classroom. Accordingly, the goal of this article was to investigate the independent
and collective influence of instructor and student confirmation (i.e., communication
of value and significance), classroom connectedness (i.e., perceptions of support and
cooperation), and self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs about personal capabilities) on student
learning. Three hundred and fifty-five students provided responses to measures of
instructor confirmation, student confirmation, classroom connectedness, self-efficacy,
and learning. Results indicated that classroom connectedness mediated the associations
between instructor and student confirmation, and learning. In addition, self-efficacy
moderated the association between classroom connectedness and learning.

Keywords
student learning, instructor confirmation, student confirmation, classroom
connectedness, self-efficacy

Two explanations linking instructional communication to student learning are promi-

nent within the literature. The relational approach suggests that student learning occurs
as a result of positive connections between instructors and students facilitated by bidi-
rectional communication (McCroskey et al., 2004). An alternative account delineates

1
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA

Corresponding Author:
Lindsey S. Aloia, Department of Communication, University of Arkansas, 434 Kimpel Hall, Fayetteville,
AR 72701, USA.
Email: aloia@uark.edu
2 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

instructors as primary sources of information intended to stimulate students’ curiosities

(Mottet & Beebe, 2006). Whereas a relational approach explains student learning as
grounded in an affirmative community, a rhetorical perspective suggests that student
learning is explained by instructors’ dissemination of material. Underscoring the utility
of both relational and rhetorical explanations, McCroskey et al. (2004) advanced a
model that distinguished six components of instructional communication: (a) teachers,
(b) students’ perceptions of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors,
(c) students’ perceptions of the teachers’ source credibility and task attractiveness,
(d) instructional outcomes, (e) students, and (f) instructional environment.
The primary objective of extant research on instructional communication is to pro-
mote student learning. Made clear by this research, student learning is influenced by
attributes of the learning environment. Further highlighted by McCroskey et al.’s (2004)
model, the instructional environment is impacted by the qualities of the students and the
other individuals in the classroom. These components that contribute to student learning,
however, are rarely examined in unison. Accordingly, the goal of this article is to inves-
tigate the independent and collective influence of instructor and student confirmation
(i.e., communication of value and significance), classroom connectedness (i.e., percep-
tions of support and cooperation), and self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs about personal capabili-
ties) on student learning. In the sections that follow, research reviews the importance of
classroom connectedness for students’ academic achievements. Then, literature exam-
ines both instructors’ and students’ roles in the instructional environment. Finally, stu-
dents’ self-efficacies are integrated into a predictive model of student learning.

Classroom Climate
Dwyer and colleagues (2004) defined classroom connectedness as students’ percep-
tions of support and cooperation within learning environments. Relatedly, Hanusch
et al. (2015) argued that connection within the classroom is a form of collegiality
between instructors, peers, and students. A number of studies demonstrated the impor-
tance of classroom connectedness for scholastic and personal growth in students. There
is a robust association between positive classroom environments characterized by
encouragement and collaboration, and students’ academic advancements, such as aca-
demic performances, internal academic motivations, and affinities for school (Battistich
et al., 1995). In addition to the educational benefits of classroom connectedness, stu-
dents are more likely to develop prosocial psychological profiles, including concern for
others, self-esteem, and altruism (Battistich et al., 1995). Correspondingly, the absence
of support within the classroom limits students’ academic performances (Cutrona et al.,
1994), increases transfer rates (Mitchell & Renaud, 2001), and reduces students’ likeli-
hood to continue their education (McGrath et al., 2000). Disconnected students are also
more likely to develop psychological problems, such as loneliness (Thomas & Smith,
2004), anxiety, and depression (Bond et al., 2007). The first hypothesis reflected the
expected effect of classroom connection on students’ scholastic achievements.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Classroom connectedness is positively associated with student

learning.
Aloia 3

The extent to which students perceive their learning environments as supportive

and cooperative is likely influenced by the specific communication behaviors of the
individuals within their classrooms. Research consistently validated the influence of
instructors’ communication on classroom environments (e.g., Witt et al., 2004). Mazer
and Graham (2015), however, criticized education scholarship for fixating on the com-
munication behaviors of instructors and ignoring peer communication. Subsequent
work preliminarily established student-to-student communication as integral to the
instructional environment (e.g., LaBelle & Johnson, 2018).

Instructor Influence
As stated previously, findings invariably demonstrate the importance of effective
instructors’ communication on students’ outcomes. Some scholars suggested that stu-
dents are best served when instructors actively engage students in the learning process
(Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Other perspectives locate the roots of student learning in
instructors’ verbal and nonverbal immediacies (Witt et al., 2004). In addition, the heu-
tagogical (i.e., self-determined) theory of learning demonstrated the importance of
autonomous student development with little engagement from the instructor (Hase &
Kenyon, 2000). Because scholars posited the fundamental importance of confirmation
within satisfying relationships (Buber, 1957; Sieburg, 1985), there is utility in explor-
ing how instructor confirmation may contribute to the learning environment.
Instructor confirmation is defined as the process by which instructors communicate
to students the students’ value and significance (Ellis, 2000). Ellis (2000, 2004) identi-
fied three dimensions of instructor confirmation, specifically responding to questions,
demonstrating interest, and teaching style. Instructors confirm students by communi-
cating enthusiasm when responding to questions and by demonstrating availability
outside of class time for additional questions. In addition to responding to questions,
instructors confirm students by exhibiting interest in and care for students both inside
and outside the classroom. Finally, instructors use a variety of teaching techniques and
classroom exercises to confirm students.
Previous research established the significance of instructor confirmation for stu-
dents’ academic achievement and satisfaction within the classroom. More specifically,
Ellis (2000) found that perceived instructor confirmation powerfully influences stu-
dents’ affective learning (i.e., emotional and attitudinal engagement) and students’ cog-
nitive learning (i.e., knowledge and intellectual skills). Instructor confirmation is also
associated with heightened classroom participation (Goodboy & Myers, 2007) and aca-
demic motivation (Ellis, 2004). In addition, instructor confirmation reduced challenge
behavior directed at instructors (Goodboy & Myers, 2007) and students’ communica-
tion anxieties (Ellis, 2004). Consistent with previous research, H2 posited,

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Instructor confirmation is positively associated with student

learning.

Moreover, Ellis (2000) specified psychological closeness between instructors and

students as an outcome of instructor confirmation. Accordingly, instructor confirmation
4 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

is posited to increase classroom connection, subsequently motivating student learning.

Formally stated:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Classroom connectedness mediates the association between

instructor confirmation and learning.

Student Influence
Early instruction scholarship largely ignored the communication behaviors of peers in
the classroom. Following decades of research on instructor confirmation, Johnson and
LaBelle (2016) defined student confirmation as the process by which students com-
municate to other students the value and significance of their peers. Research revealed
three dimensions of student confirmation, specifically acknowledgment, assistance,
and individual attention. Students confirm other students by acknowledging their posi-
tive attributes or behaviors. In addition to acknowledging other students, peers con-
firm each other by either requesting or providing assistance related to the course.
Finally, students use messages that convey the unique value and significance of other
students in the classroom.
Limited research examined the value of student confirmation for other students’
scholastic achievements; however, two studies demonstrated robust benefits associ-
ated with peer confirmation. Johnson and LaBelle (2016) found that student confirma-
tion inspired students to attend and perform well in class. In addition, acknowledgment,
assistance, and individual attention were positively associated with affective and cog-
nitive learning (LaBelle & Johnson, 2018). Accordingly, H4 hypothesized,

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Student confirmation is positively associated with student

learning.

Furthermore, Johnson and LaBelle (2016) described closer interpersonal relation-

ships and connections between students as an outcome of confirmation. As such, it is
suggested that student confirmation increases classroom connection, subsequently
encouraging student learning. Formally advanced:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Classroom connectedness mediates the association between

student confirmation and student learning.

Student Self-Efficacy
Beyond the impact of others’ communication behaviors within classrooms, students
bear responsibilities for their academic performances. As illustrated in McCroskey
et al.’s (2004) model, qualities of students are essential components of learning envi-
ronments. Self-efficacy is defined as individuals’ beliefs about their personal capa-
bilities to attain designate levels of performance (Bandura, 1994). According to
Bandura (1986), individuals’ attitudes about personal efficacy are cultivated through
Aloia 5

mastered experiences, vicarious experiences of similar others, social persuasion, and

tempered stress reactions. Earlier work highlighted the cognitive and affective pro-
cesses that illustrate self-efficacy’s influence on behavior. Cognitive perspectives
suggested that self-appraisals of capabilities influence personal goal setting, such that
individuals with higher perceived self-efficacies set more challenging goals than
individuals with lower perceived self-efficacies (Lent et al., 1987). Subsequent to
goal setting, self-efficacy cognitively emboldens individuals to expend effort, perse-
vere through difficulties, and recover from failure (Schunk, 1985). Building from
cognitive perspectives, affective frameworks demonstrated that coping with hardship
and defeat requires emotional regulation (Maier & Curtin, 2005). As such, affective
approaches emphasized mitigating individuals’ anxious arousals in response to
threatened goal achievement.
A substantial body of evidence indicated the benefits of academic self-efficacy
for student motivation and achievement. In fact, Mega et al. (2014) modeled aca-
demic self-efficacy as a latent indicator of motivation in their theoretical frame-
work for self-regulated learning. Students with higher self-efficacy work harder and
persevere longer when tackling a challenging assignment (Collins & Bissell, 2002).
In addition, the four sources of self-efficacy (i.e., mastered experiences, vicarious
learning, social persuasion, tempered stress reactions) were significantly associated
with bolstered perceptions regarding personal capabilities, which in turn influenced
academic success (Hampton & Mason, 2003). Taken together, meta-analytical tests
found that academic self-efficacy significantly influences students’ academic persis-
tence and students’ academic performances (Multon et al., 1991). Consistent with
previous research, H6 stated,

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Self-efficacy is positively associated with learning.

Finally, self-efficacy may be especially relevant to perceptions of support and

cooperation within learning environments. Fredricks et al. (2004) argued that self-
efficacy and connectedness facilitate student engagement and learning. The height-
ened impact of classroom connection for self-efficacious individuals may, in turn,
elicit more student learning. Formally stated:

Hypothesis 7 (H7): There is an interaction between classroom connectedness and

self-efficacy, such that the association between classroom connectedness and learn-
ing is stronger when self-efficacy is high, rather than low.

Method
The research protocol was judged by an Internal Review Board to be in accordance
with ethical standards for the treatment of human research participants. The hypoth-
eses were tested using self-report data collected from college students in 2019. During
the final month of the semester, participants were emailed an URL that directed them
to an online survey hosted by Qualtrics. To track participation, all individuals received
6 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

a code number. All of the data provided by the participants were attributed to the code
number to ensure the confidential nature of the research. The survey collected demo-
graphic information (e.g., sex, age) and items to capture the variables of interest.
Participants were instructed to respond to the variables of interest in reference to the
class they most recently attended that day. The survey was available to participants
for a 4-week period.

Participants
Three hundred and fifty-five students from a large public Southern university were
recruited from a general education communication course to participate in the study as
part of a class assignment. The sample consisted of 219 women (61.69%) and 136 men
(38.31%). Ages ranged from 18 to 25 (M = 20.00, SD = 1.32). Students primarily
identified as sophomores (n = 124, 34.93%), but also included juniors (n = 92,
25.92%), seniors (n = 80, 22.54%), and freshmen (n = 59, 16.61%). The majority of
the sample identified as White (n = 255, 71.83%); individuals also identified as mul-
tiracial (n = 30, 8.45%), Latinx (n = 27, 7.61%), Black (n = 23, 6.48%), and Asian/
Pacific Islander (n = 20, 5.63%). Participants referenced courses taught primarily by
male instructors (n = 242, 68.17%; female instructors: n = 113, 31.83%). The courses
were most often 2,000 level (n = 192, 54.08%), but also included 1,000 level (n =
103, 29.01%) and 3,000 level (n = 60, 16.91%) courses.

Measures
Participants provided responses to measures of instructor confirmation, student confirma-
tion, classroom connectedness, self-efficacy, and learning. These scales were subjected
to a confirmatory factor analysis with items representing each scale loaded on separate
factors and all factors allowed to covary. To assess the confirmatory factor analysis, the
following criteria was used: comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.85, and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kline, 1998).
The data fit the measurement model, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08.

Instructor confirmation.  Ellis’s (2000) teacher confirmation scale assessed the process
by which instructors communicate to students their value and significance. Partici-
pants responded to 16 statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale where higher num-
bers reflected more confirmation, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The response to questions subscale (five items) measured instructor receptive-
ness and alertness to student needs; it included items such as “Takes time to answer my
questions fully” and “Listens attentively when I ask questions or make comments
during class” (M = 3.97, SD = 1.03, α = .89). The demonstrated interest subscale (six
items) measured instructor care and concern for students; it included items such as
“Communicates that she or her is interested in whether I am learning” and “Commu-
nicates that she or her believes that I can do well in the class” (M = 4.04, SD = 1.01,
Aloia 7

α = .91). Finally, the teaching style subscale (five items) measured instructor engagement
and flexibility with instruction; it included items such as “Uses an interactive teaching
style” and “Uses a variety of teaching techniques to help me understand course mate-
rial” (M = 3.48, SD = 1.17, α = .86).

Student confirmation. LaBelle and Johnson’s (2018) student-to-student confirmation

scale assessed the process by which students communicate to other students their value
and significance. Participants responded to 25 statements using a 5-point Likert-type
scale where higher numbers reflected more confirmation, ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). The acknowledgment subscale (nine items) measured gar-
nering recognition from fellow students; it included items such as “My classmates tell
me that I am smart” and “My classmates acknowledge my ability in class” (M = 3.09,
SD = 0.99, α = .89). The assistance subscale (six items) measured other students will-
ingness to provide help; it included items such as “My classmates help me study if I
need it” and “My classmates are willing to help me do my best on course assignments”
(M = 3.47, SD = 1.12, α = .91). Finally, the individual attention subscale (10 items)
measured interpersonal relationship development with classmates; it included items
such as “My classmates take time to talk with me about things not related to the course”
and “My classmates try to get to know me” (M = 3.50, SD = 1.13, α = .95).

Classroom connectedness. Eighteen items were used from Dwyer and colleagues’

(2004) connected climate inventory to evaluate rapport within university classrooms.
Participants responded to statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale where higher
numbers reflected greater classroom connectedness, ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items such as “I feel a sense of security in my class” and
“The students in my class feel comfortable with one another” were included (M =
4.08, SD = 0.84, α = .92).

Self-efficacy.  The self-efficacy subscale (nine items) from Pintrich and DeGroot’s
(1990) motivated strategies for learning questionnaire measured individuals’ beliefs
about their personal academic capabilities. Participants responded to statements using
a 5-point scale where higher numbers reflected greater academic self-efficacy, ranging
from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very true of me). Items such as “Compared with
other students in this class, I expect to do well” and “I am certain I can understand the
ideas taught in this course” were included (M = 4.03, SD = 0.99, α = .91).

Learning.  One item was used from Richmond et al.’s (1987) single-item measure of
perceived learning. Participants responded to “How much did you learn in this class?”
using a 5-point Likert-type scale where higher numbers reflected more perceived
learning, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). In addition, participants
reported their expected grade in the course, ranging from 1 (F) to 5 (A). Both items
were summed and divided by two to create a measure of student learning (M = 4.22,
SD = 0.65, α = .96).
8 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

Table 1.  Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. IC—Response to —  
questions
2. IC—Demonstrated .75*** —  
interest
3. IC—Teaching style .72*** .73*** —  
4. SC—Acknowledgment .19*** .22*** .13* —  
5. SC—Assistance .22*** .23*** .15** .58*** —  
6. SC—Individual .32*** .35*** .21*** .70*** .65*** —  
attention
7. Classroom .37*** .45*** .40*** .52*** .56*** .60*** —  
connectedness
8. Self-efficacy .42*** .40*** .44*** .39*** .13* .23*** .35*** —  
9. Learning .38*** .34*** .39*** .20*** .14** .17*** .25*** .47*** —

Note. IC = instructor confirmation; SC = student confirmation.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results
Table 1 reports the correlations among all of the variables of interest. Consistent with
H1, classroom connectedness was significantly and positively associated with learn-
ing. In addition, response to questions, demonstrated interest, and teaching style (i.e.,
instructor confirmation) were significantly and positively associated with student
learning (H2). Furthermore, acknowledgment, assistance, and individual attention
(i.e., student confirmation) were significantly and positively associated with student
learning (H4). Relevant to H3 and H5, the dimensions of both instructor confirmation
and student confirmation were significantly and positively associated with classroom
connectedness. Self-efficacy was significantly and positively associated with learning
(H6). Finally, classroom connectedness was significantly and positively associated
with self-efficacy as related to H7.
The predicted pattern of mediation specified in H3 and H5 was tested using struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) procedures (MacKinnon et al., 2002). To create the
structural model, paths were specified from response to questions, demonstrated inter-
est, and teaching style to the higher-order construct, instructor confirmation. Similarly,
paths were specified from acknowledgment, assistance, and individual attention to the
higher-order construct, student confirmation. Paths were then specified from instruc-
tor confirmation and student confirmation to classroom connectedness, and from
classroom connectedness to learning. These paths represent the extent to which class-
room connectedness mediates the associations between both instructor and student
confirmation, and learning. Two paths from instructor confirmation and student con-
firmation to learning were also specified to evaluate the direct associations between
Aloia 9

Figure 1.  A model linking teacher and student confirmation, classroom connectedness, self-
efficacy, and learning.

confirmation and learning after accounting for the variance explained by classroom
connectedness.
Results indicated that the original structural model fit the data adequately, CFI =
0.90, RMSEA = 0.08 (see Figure 1). The standardized path coefficients demonstrated
that instructor confirmation and student confirmation were significantly and positively
associated with classroom connectedness. In addition, classroom connectedness was
significantly and positively associated with learning (H1). Neither instructor confir-
mation nor student confirmation were directly associated with learning. These results
suggest that classroom connectedness mediates the relationships between instructor
(H3) and student (H5) confirmation, and learning.
To test the moderating relationship specified in H7, a hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analysis was employed with learning as the dependent variable. On the first step
of the analysis, classroom connectedness and self-efficacy were entered. The second
step evaluated the product term that represented the two-way interaction between
classroom connectedness and self-efficacy. The results of this analysis are reported in
Table 2. On the first step of the analysis, significant positive coefficients for both
classroom connectedness and self-efficacy were observed. On the second step of the
analysis, results revealed a significant interaction between classroom connectedness
and self-efficacy. To determine the form of the significant interaction between class-
room connectedness and self-efficacy, the regression of learning on classroom con-
nectedness was plotted at different levels of self-efficacy. Consistent with H1,
classroom connectedness was positively associated with learning at all levels of self-
efficacy; this association increased as self-efficacy increased from low (−1SD, p <
.05) to moderate (−1SD, p < .001) and high (−1SD, p < .001) levels.
10 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

Table 2.  The Regression of Learning Onto Classroom Connectedness and Self-Efficacy.

Independent variables b R2 R2 change F change

Step 1  
  Classroom connectedness .19*** .36 — 10.81***
 Self-efficacy .28***  
Step 2  
  Classroom Connectedness × Self-Efficacy .18*** .41 .05 2.89**

Note. F(3, 351) = 11.93, p < .001.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion
Building on McCroskey et al.’s (2004) model that demonstrated the impact of qualities
of students and other individuals in the classroom on the instructional environment, this
study examined the influence of instructor and student confirmation, classroom con-
nectedness, and self-efficacy on student learning. The zero order correlation, structural
equation modeling (SEM) procedures, and regression analysis indicated that classroom
connectedness is positively associated with student learning. This finding demonstrates
the importance of support and security within learning environments, and its influence
on academic achievement. The results of this study add strength to the argument that
student learning requires an appropriate learning environment. Drawing from the prem-
ises of the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994), classroom con-
nection may reduce anxiety, doubt, and pessimism within students. Consequently,
connected students may be better adjusted and more educationally receptive.
It was also hypothesized that the specific communication behaviors of the individu-
als within students’ classrooms are associated with learning. The zero-order correla-
tions found that instructor confirmation and student confirmation are positively
associated with student learning. Using social support literature as a foundation, both
instructors (through responding to questions and varying their teaching style) and
classmates (through allocating assistance) provide informational support intended to
promote problem-solving. Beyond informational support, instructors confirm students
using different communicative techniques than those employed by other students.
Instructors provide emotional support by exhibiting interest in and care for students.
Other students in the classroom, however, provide a unique manifestation of emo-
tional support referred to as esteem support. Esteem support intends to enhance indi-
viduals’ feelings of worth and acceptance (Holmstrom & Burleson, 2011). Perhaps due
to propinquity (Korzenny, 1978), other students are better suited to convey personal
strength, value, and significance. Taken together, this study provides a more compre-
hensive understanding of the students’ received messages within the classroom.
The structural equation modeling procedures demonstrated that the relationship
between both instructor and student confirmation, and student learning is mediated by
classroom connectedness; the direct associations between confirmation and student
Aloia 11

learning were not significant when classroom connectedness was covaried.

Accordingly, the results suggest that classroom connectedness is a sufficient proximal
predictor of student learning. Furthermore, classroom connectedness subsumes the
variance in student learning that corresponds with instructor and student confirmation.
The findings invite questions regarding additional predictors of classroom connected-
ness. In particular, future work may investigate the influence of attendance and will-
ingness to participate on students’ perceptions of support and cooperation within
learning environments.
Finally, academic self-efficacy was posited as an essential quality related to the
learning environment and students’ educational successes. Both the zero-order corre-
lation and regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy is positively associated with
student learning. Confirming earlier work (e.g., Multon et al., 1991), students’ percep-
tions regarding their academic capabilities are connected to achievement. Beyond
global self-efficacy, future research should consider individuals’ beliefs about their
personal capabilities to performance specific educational tasks, such as writing and
data analysis (Lingwall & Kuehn, 2013). Initial efforts to understand the influence of
self-efficacy ignored the concerted influence of self-efficacy and the classroom cli-
mate (Zimmerman, 2000). The results of this study demonstrated a stronger positive
relationships between classroom connectedness and learning when self-efficacy was
high rather than low. Acknowledging the importance of both the communication
within the classroom and characteristics of the students for the instructional climate,
prospective research should examine additional components of McCroskey et al.’s
(2004) model in concert. For example, is there an interaction between instructors’
nonverbal immediacy and students’ openness predicting perceived safety within the
classroom environment?
The results are contextualized by the limitations of the study. The cross-sectional
data precluded causal claims; longitudinal research would address this concern. In
addition, students’ reports regarding instructor and classmate confirmation introduced
self-report and retrospective biases. Observational data would correct this disadvan-
tage. Furthermore, the restricted age range, limited racial diversity, and single geo-
graphic location reduce the generalizability of the findings. Primary and secondary
school data, a racially representative sample, and geographically diverse evidence
would move this line of inquiry forward. Despite these limitations, the findings of this
study contribute to the literature on student learning and demonstrate support for an
integrative model that considers the effects of both qualities of the students and the
other individuals in the classroom on the instructional environment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
12 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behav-
ior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities,
poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and performance:
A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627–658. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312032003627
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social
and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance
use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 357.e9–357.
e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, D.C.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Buber, M. (1957). Distance and relation. Psychiatry, 20, 97–104.
Collins, S. J., & Bissell, K. L. (2002). Student self-efficacy in a media writing course. Journalism &
Mass Communication Educator, 56, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769580205600403
Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived
parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.66.2.369
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional
security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.116.3.387
Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004).
Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected
classroom climate inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21, 264–272. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08824090409359988
Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument
and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication
Research, 26, 264–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00758.x
Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension,
motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0363452032000135742
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2007). Student communication satisfaction, similarity, and
liking as a function of attributional confidence. Ohio Communication Journal, 45, 1–12.
Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-
efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 41, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00028-1
Aloia 13

Hanusch, F., Mellado, C., Boshoff, P., Humanes, M. L., DeLeon, S., Pereira, F., & Yez, L.
(2015). Journalism students’ motivations and expectations of their work in comparative
perspective. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70, 141–160. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077695814554295
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase, 5, 1–10. https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/6943/54f3d221cb98e307014d0ef4e1ae561b1b9e.pdf
Holmstrom, A. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2011). An initial test of a cognitive-emotional the-
ory of esteem support messages. Communication Research, 38, 326–355. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093650210376191
Johnson, Z. D., & LaBelle, S. (2016). Student-to-student confirmation in the college classroom:
An initial investigation of the dimensions and outcomes of students’ confirming messages.
Communication Education, 65, 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1058961
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communication in organi-
zations. Communication Research, 5, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027800500101
LaBelle, S., & Johnson, Z. D. (2018). Student-to-student confirmation in the college class-
room: The development and validation of the Student-to-Student Confirmation Scale.
Communication Education, 67, 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1427879
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived
variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence,
and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 293–269. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.3.293
Lingwall, A., & Kuehn, S. (2013). Measuring student self-perceptions of writing skills in
programs of journalism and mass communication. Journalism & Mass Communication
Educator, 68, 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695813506991
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A com-
parison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological
Methods, 7, 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Maier, S. R., & Curtin, P. A. (2005). Self-efficacy theory: A prescriptive model for teaching
research methods. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59, 351–364. https://doi.
org/10.1177/107769580405900405
Mazer, J. P., & Graham, E. E. (2015). Measurement in instructional communication research:
A decade in review. Communication Education, 64, 208–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/036
34523.2014.1002509
McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of
instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01463370409370192
McGrath, P. B., Gutierrez, P. M., & Valadez, I. M. (2000). Introduction of the college student
social support scale: Factor structure and reliability assessment. Journal of College Student
Development, 41, 415–426.
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions,
self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546
Mitchell, N., & Renaud, J. (2001). Building a learning community for journalism and mass
communications: The Nebraska experience. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator,
56, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769580105600304
14 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 00(0)

Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P.

Mottet, V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communica-
tion: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 3–27). Allyn & Bacon.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning compo-
nents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCrosky, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected
immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 10. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22,
208–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:2<208::AID-PITS2310220215>
3.0.CO;2-7
Sieburg, E. (1985). Family communication: An integrated systems approach. Gardner Press.
Thomas, S. P., & Smith, H. (2004). School connectedness, anger behaviors, and relationships
of violent and nonviolent American youth. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 40, 135–148.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2004.tb00011.x
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship
between teach immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/036452042000228054
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

Author Biography
Lindsey S. Aloia (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is an associate professor in the
Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas.