Communication Education

ISSN: 0363-4523 (Print) 1479-5795 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

What do college students want? A prioritization of

instructional behaviors and characteristics

Zachary W. Goldman, Gregory A. Cranmer, Michael Sollitto, Sara Labelle &

Alexander L. Lancaster

To cite this article: Zachary W. Goldman, Gregory A. Cranmer, Michael Sollitto, Sara Labelle &
Alexander L. Lancaster (2016): What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional
behaviors and characteristics, Communication Education

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135

Published online: 14 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rced20

Download by: [Illinois College] Date: 15 December 2016, At: 07:43

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135

What do college students want? A prioritization of

instructional behaviors and characteristics
Zachary W. Goldmana, Gregory A. Cranmerb, Michael Sollittoc, Sara Labelled and
Alexander L. Lancastere
a
Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Illinois College, Jacksonville, IL, USA; bDepartment of
Communication, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA; cDepartment of Communication and Media, Texas
A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA; dCommunication Studies Department, Chapman
University, Orange, CA, USA; eDepartment of Communication, Weber State University, Ogden, UT, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Guided by Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory, this study Received 14 June 2016
examined college students’ preferences for effective teaching Accepted 20 October 2016
behaviors and characteristics. Students (n = 209) articulated
KEYWORDS
qualities in their ideal instructor by prioritizing 10 instructional Effective teaching behaviors;
behaviors and characteristics from the rhetorical and relational instructional communication;
traditions (assertive, responsive, clear, relevant, competent, college student preferences;
trustworthy, caring, immediate, humorous, disclosure). When forced academic entitlement;
to prioritize, students preferred teacher clarity, competence, and rhetorical and relational goals
relevance from their instructors, while self-disclosure and theory
immediacy were considered to be luxury behaviors rather than
necessities. Lastly, academic entitlement significantly influenced
students’ prioritization of effective instructional behaviors.

Higher education is currently experiencing an unprecedented period of change (Lechuga,

2016). Marked by drastic increases in tuition (Jones, 2010), notable differences in expec-
tations associated with millennial students (see Mazer & Hess, 2016), and diversifying edu-
cational opportunities that serve as alternatives to traditional academic degrees
(Rosenbaum, Stephan, & Rosenbaum, 2010), today’s college instructors are facing
increased pressure to help students reach their educational goals, while also instructing
in a manner that is convenient, fun, and enjoyable. Although the goal for many students
is to acquire and understand new skills and information, millennials, who are more likely
to feel entitled and adopt a consumeristic mindset than previous generations, expect their
instructors to care about their individual desires and adapt the classroom around their per-
sonal needs and academic beliefs (see Chowning & Campbell, 2009; Kopp, Zinn, Finney, &
Jurich, 2011; Singleton-Jackson, Jackson, & Reinhardt, 2010). Of course, not all millennials
embody these characteristics; yet, with administrative decisions (e.g., program funding,
tenure and promotion) often resting on student retention and satisfaction, many college
instructors have felt the pressure to modify their classes to give students what they want.
For the last decade, instructional communication researchers have addressed this issue
by using Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory (RRGT; Mottet, Frymier, & Beebe, 2006)

CONTACT Zachary W. Goldman zachary.goldman@mail.ic.edu

© 2016 National Communication Association
2 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

to study students’ needs and objectives in the classroom. One conclusion from RRGT is
that “students have both relational and academic needs; however, not all students are
equally driven by each need” (Mottet et al., 2006, p. 267). In other words, certain needs
may take precedent over others depending on the individual student and his/her academic
beliefs. Whether intentional or not, students assign a rank value to certain needs and fea-
tures of their own education (e.g., through course assessments, reenrollment, etc.), includ-
ing their instructors’ behaviors in the classroom. By investigating how and why students
make these value judgments, communication scholars can further understand college stu-
dents’ wants, needs, and expectations for their instructors and the problems that occur if/
when such perceptions go unmet or become violated (e.g., Conley, 2008; Frymier & Weser,
2001; Senko, Belmonte, & Yakhkind, 2012).
The extent to which students personally value/prefer certain teaching behaviors and
characteristics over others is likely dependent upon the beliefs that college students
have about their education and the role that instructors should play in the teaching–learn-
ing process (Senko et al., 2012). Although millennials differ in many ways from previous
academic cohorts, “the most distinguishing feature of this group, at least in the classroom,
may be their academic entitlement” (Goldman & Martin, 2016, p. 366). Communicatively,
academic entitlement affects how students perceive and react to instructional communi-
cation behaviors in the classroom (see Goldman & Martin, 2014; Goodboy & Frisby,
2014), and it is likely to influence the preferences that students have for instructors and
how they prioritize what is most important to them. Despite the frustrations that may
be associated with academic entitlement, instructors are still expected to adapt their prac-
tices around the needs and beliefs of their students (cf., Sprague, 1999); thus, it is impor-
tant, if not necessary, to determine the behaviors and characteristics students desire most
from their instructors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was twofold. First, this inves-
tigation aimed to determine which of the effective teaching behaviors and characteristics
found in the instructional communication literature were most preferred (i.e., prioritized)
by students in the contemporary college classroom; and second, this study sought to
examine the influence of students’ entitlement beliefs on their preferences for instructional
behaviors and characteristics.

Rhetorical and relational goals theory

According to Mottet et al. (2006), “both teachers and students bring to the classroom their
own knowledge, expectations, experiences, culture, personalities, and intelligence”
(p. 265). These factors contribute to the fulfillment of two objectives known as rhetorical
and relational goals (Mottet & Beebe, 2006). Rhetorical goals encompass the effective dis-
semination of knowledge by focusing primarily on the delivery and retention of course
information in a clear and comprehendible manner (Myers, Goodboy, & Members of
COMM 600, 2014). Relational goals refer to any use of classroom communication to
foster a positive instructor–student relationship and improve affective-oriented outcomes
(e.g., student interest; Mottet & Beebe, 2006). Based upon these goals, Mottet et al. (2006)
forwarded the RRGT, which included six specific propositions: (1) all students have both
rhetorical and relational needs that shape their objectives and behaviors; (2) instructors
have rhetorical and relational goals for their students, which shape the behaviors they
enact to foster learning; (3) effective teaching occurs when instructors utilize appropriate
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 3

communication strategies and behaviors to facilitate rhetorical and relational goals; (4)
students experience greater motivation, satisfaction, and learning when their rhetorical
and relational needs are addressed; (5) instructors’ goals, and the way they seek to
achieve them, are dependent upon context and grade level; and (6) students’ relational
and rhetorical needs vary as they mature throughout their education and are the
product of the academic context (Mottet et al., 2006). RRGT is therefore a useful theoreti-
cal framework for this study given that it recognizes multiple instructional variables as
simultaneously influencing the classroom, and that students’ characteristics alter their
goals and how they perceive instructional variables while learning.
Instructional communication scholars have used RRGT to contextualize and study the
influence of many effective teaching behaviors on students’ rhetorical and relational
needs. Nussbaum (1992) described effective teaching behaviors as those that relate
“directly either to positive student outcomes or positive evaluations of teaching”
(p. 167). Instructional scholars have extensively studied these behaviors throughout the
field’s history and have used the results from this research to prescribe instructional rec-
ommendations to optimize student learning across grade levels (Waldeck, Kearney, &
Plax, 2001). RRGT has also helped to classify and situate the research on effective teaching
behaviors relative to their rhetorical or relational effectiveness (McCroskey & McCroskey,
2006). One noteworthy conclusion from these efforts is that effective instruction can take
multiple forms in the classroom (Kramer & Pier, 1999); that said, the best instructors often
avoid negative behaviors and use effective strategies to help students learn (Nussbaum,
1992).
Although a multitude of effective teaching practices exist, this study incorporated 10
instructional behaviors and characteristics from the rhetorical and relational perspectives.
Each behavior and characteristic included in this study was intentionally chosen on three
criteria. First, only prosocial behaviors and characteristics that increase learning outcomes
were considered, as it seemed unlikely that students would prefer antisocial practices (e.g.,
verbal aggression). Second, an attempt was made to include variables that are historically
prominent in the instructional communication literature. To facilitate this selection, the
authors reviewed chapters devoted to behaviors and characteristics in recent edited collec-
tions of essays about instructional communication research (e.g., Fassett & Warren, 2010;
Mottet, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006; Waldeck et al., 2001), as well as instructional
manuscripts published in peer-reviewed academic journals (e.g., Communication Edu-
cation, Communication Reports, Communication Research Reports, Communication Quar-
terly). Third, an attempt was made to include a wide variety of practices so that the
behaviors and characteristics were relatively representative of both rhetorical and rela-
tional traditions. Based on these considerations, the following behaviors and character-
istics were selected for this study: clarity, caring, competence, trustworthiness,
relevance, assertiveness, responsiveness, immediacy, self-disclosure, and humor.

Instructional behaviors and characteristics

Clarity refers to an instructor’s ability to effectively stimulate the intended meaning of
course content in the minds of students through verbal and nonverbal messages (Chesebro
& McCroskey, 2001). When instructors are clear, they are able to present instructional
messages in a manner that is comprehendible and relatively easy to understand (Chesebro,
4 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

2003). Regarded as one of the strongest predictors of student success (see Titsworth &
Mazer, 2010), clarity is associated positively with numerous outcomes, including
student motivation (Avtgis, 2001), affective learning (Chesebro, 2003), and cognitive
learning (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001).
Instructor credibility refers to a general attitude held by students regarding their percep-
tions of an instructor’s believability (McCroskey & Young, 1981). McCroskey and Teven
(1999) noted that instructor credibility is composed of three dimensions: competence,
character, and caring. Competence refers to perceived instructor knowledge or expertise
in a given subject. Character, or trustworthiness, refers to an instructor’s integrity and
reflects the extent to which students trust their instructor. Caring refers to the extent to
which instructors are concerned about students’ academic and personal well-being
(McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Credible instructors tend to elicit higher levels of student
motivation (Frymier & Thompson, 1992) and affective learning (Zhang, 2009).
Relevance refers to a “student perception of whether the course instruction/content
satisfies personal needs, personal goals, and/or career goals” (Frymier & Shulman, 1995,
p. 42). Instructors communicate relevance by referencing events outside of the classroom,
promoting lively discussion while teaching, and relating the application of material to stu-
dents’ personal lives (Muddiman & Frymier, 2009). These strategies relate positively to
students’ motivation, affect, and empowerment (Frymier & Shulman, 1995; Frymier,
Shulman, & Houser, 1996).
Instructor sociocommunicative style refers to an instructor’s skill in initiating, respond-
ing, and adapting to the communication of students (Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998). Socio-
communicative style comprises two dimensions: assertiveness and responsiveness.
Assertiveness refers to the willingness to take a stand by effectively using communication
to support one’s position (Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998). Responsiveness refers to the will-
ingness to be sensitive and reactive to the needs of others (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996).
Instructors are most effective when they can be assertive and responsive, as both styles are
positively associated with students’ affective learning (Allen, Long, O’mara, & Judd, 2008),
motivation (McCroskey, Richmond, & Bennett, 2006) and communication satisfaction in
the classroom (Frymier, 2005).
Teacher immediacy refers to the verbal and nonverbal behaviors used in the classroom
to promote feelings of psychological closeness (Andersen, 1979). Immediacy is one of the
most often studied, yet controversial behaviors in the field of instructional communication
(Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). Despite the controversy, scholars continue to stress the
importance of verbal and nonverbal immediacy, since these behaviors are associated posi-
tively with affective learning (Witt et al., 2004), student motivation (Frymier, 1994) and
participation (Rocca, 2009).
Instructor self-disclosure refers to “teacher statements in the classroom about self that
may or may not be related to subject content, but reveal information about the teacher
that students are unlikely to learn from other sources” (Sorensen, 1989, p. 260). Instructors
frequently share a variety of information about their family, friends, experiences, or
outside activities to students in an attempt to enhance learning outcomes (McBride &
Wahl, 2005). Appropriate and relevant self-disclosures can positively influence students’
affective learning (Sorensen, 1989), participation (Goldstein & Benassi, 1994), and interest
in the course (Cayanus & Martin, 2008).
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 5

Humorous communication refers to the “intentional verbal and nonverbal messages

which elicit laughter, chuckling, and other forms of spontaneous behavior taken to
mean pleasure, delight, and/or surprise in the targeted receiver” (Booth-Butterfield &
Booth-Butterfield, 1991, p. 206). Within the classroom, instructor humor use promotes
a conducive learning climate (Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010). When perceived as
humorous, instructors receive higher teaching evaluations (Bryant, Comisky, Crane, &
Zillmann, 1980) and are able to better promote a positive classroom environment
(Neuliep, 1991). Additionally, when instructors use relevant and appropriate humor, stu-
dents experience increased levels of affective learning, motivation, and perceived cognitive
learning in the classroom (Wanzer et al., 2010).
Taken together, these behaviors and characteristics (clarity, caring, competence, trust-
worthiness, relevance, assertiveness, responsiveness, immediacy, self-disclosure, humor)
represent a broad spectrum of instructional communication practices that teachers use
to meet their own goals in addition to students’ rhetorical and relational needs (Mottet
& Beebe, 2006). Scholars continue to use these behaviors to uncover support for
RRGT’s predictions, specifically that “within any classroom there will likely be an inter-
action between teacher goals and student needs” (Mottet et al., 2006, p. 268). For instance,
Finn and Schrodt (2012) found that instructor clarity (a rhetorical behavior) and nonver-
bal immediacy (a relational behavior) predicted students’ understanding of course
material, which in turn influenced their empowerment. Myers et al. (2014) uncovered
that multiple effective teaching behaviors (clarity, humor, caring, confirmation) predicted
variance in students’ relational and rhetorical outcomes. Such findings support the classi-
fications of rhetorical and relational behaviors in the classroom and provide insight into
how instructors use communication to satisfy students’ needs in the classroom.

Examining student preferences

One way in which instructional scholars have examined students’ goals and needs in the
classroom has been through their expectations (Frymier & Weser, 2001; Houser, 2005,
2006) and evaluations of teaching appropriateness (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk,
2008). Often influenced by expectancy violation theory (Burgoon, 1978), these investi-
gations have discovered that both traditional and nontraditional students experience
some discrepancies between what they expect from their instructors and what they actually
receive (Houser, 2005, 2006). One interpretation for these discrepancies is that students
and instructors have differing views about what students want and/or what they need
to succeed academically. Notably, both researchers and instructors seem uncertain as to
the behaviors and characteristics that students desire most from their teacher. As
Houser (2005) noted, “instructional research has historically identified positive and nega-
tive communicator characteristics, [yet] the greater difficulty has been in establishing the
valence of these characteristics in terms of value” (p. 217). While understanding what stu-
dents think will happen in their classroom (i.e., their expectations) is important, RRGT
may be useful in clarifying how and why students value particular behaviors and charac-
teristics over others. By determining what students prefer and how they prioritize certain
behaviors and characteristics, scholars can further understand the comparative impor-
tance of instructional variables and provide ongoing advice regarding how instructors
should behave.
6 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

Instructional communication researchers have summarized the cumulative results of

effective teaching practices (e.g., Nussbaum, 1992; Waldeck et al., 2001) and have exam-
ined the behaviors that students expect from their instructors (e.g., Frymier & Weser,
2001; Houser, 2005, 2006); however, less is known about how college students prioritize
certain instructional behaviors and characteristics over others. One notable study from
the educational psychology literature that addresses this gap was conducted by Senko
and colleagues (2012) who investigated students’ preferences and prioritization of effective
teaching behaviors by using a “budget” method (see Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeir,
2002). Specifically, Senko et al. (2012) examined students’ prioritization of particular
teacher qualities when given the opportunity to “build” their ideal professor with hypothe-
tical funds. Their findings revealed that when given a “limited budget” to design their own
instructor, students’ spending habits suggested a desire for enthusiastic and entertaining
qualities, clear directions on how to succeed in the course, and expertise in the subject
matter. These findings share many similarities with instructional communication variables
such as immediacy (Andersen, 1979) and teacher clarity (Chesebro, 2003); however,
because the scope of effective teaching in the instructional literature includes numerous
communication behaviors (see Myers & Goodboy, 2014; Nussbaum, 1992), it is uncertain
as to how students will value particular teaching behaviors and characteristics over others
when prioritizing their importance in the classroom. Therefore, using RRGT and the
rhetorical and relational qualities identified from the instructional communication
literature, along with Senko et al.’s (2012) budget method, the first research question
was offered:
RQ1: What behaviors and characteristics (clarity, caring, competence, trustworthiness,
relevance, assertiveness, responsiveness, immediacy, self-disclosure, and humor) do college
students prefer most in their instructors?

An additional purpose from Senko et al.’s study that likely has important implications
for RRGT and instructional communication research was their distinction between neces-
sity and luxury qualities. By using the aforementioned budget method, scholars can
explore this distinction as participants must “prioritize necessary items when constrained
by a small budget, but then spend increasingly more on luxury items as they acquire
additional disposable income” (Senko et al., 2012, p. 426). Put differently, the budget
method uses basic microeconomic principles to determine if certain qualities are perceived
by students to be essential for effective instruction (i.e., necessities) or merely desirable, but
not necessary when prioritizing numerous qualities simultaneously (i.e., luxury; Li et al.,
2002). Within the instructional communication literature, inconclusive evidence exists
in regards to what behaviors and/or characteristics may qualify as necessities versus luxu-
ries. For example, nonverbal immediacy, one of the field’s most studied variables (Witt,
Schrodt, & Turman, 2010), may also be its greatest source of controversy as skeptics
points to its small effect sizes on students’ actual cognitive learning (see Witt et al.,
2004). While such findings do not discourage the use of immediacy or its potential impor-
tance in the classroom, researchers must continue to question if immediacy, or any other
teaching behaviors are considered to be necessities for college students. Moreover, what
qualities, if any, do students value, but regard as luxuries rather than essential beha-
viors/characteristics? To address these questions and further understand how college
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 7

students prioritize instructional behaviors and characteristics with varying resources, the
second research question was offered:
RQ2: What behaviors and characteristics (clarity, caring, competence, trustworthiness, rel-
evance, assertiveness, responsiveness, immediacy, self-disclosure, and humor) are considered
by students to be a luxury rather than a necessity for instructors?

The second objective of this study was to explore if and how students’ academic entitle-
ment influences their preferences for instructional variables. In congruence with RRGT, this
objective sought to recognize ongoing changes to students’ needs and the transition currently
facing higher education (Lechuga, 2016). Specifically, today’s educators face novel challenges
with teaching and managing millennial students (see Mazer & Hess, 2016), who are readily
distinguished from previous cohorts by their academic entitlement (Boswell, 2012).
Academic entitlement is defined as a student “tendency to possess an expectation of aca-
demic success without taking personal responsibility for achieving that success” (Chown-
ing & Campbell, 2009, p. 982). Dubovsky (1986) argued that entitled students believe
knowledge is a right that should be delivered to them in a manner that causes minimal
discomfort. Entitled students attribute learning problems to their instructor or the aca-
demic system, but rarely internalize their own failures (Chowning & Campbell, 2009).
Moreover, students who are high in academic entitlement tend to be associated with a
host of academic issues, including lower self-efficacy and poorer study habits (Greenber-
ger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008).
Growing evidence within the instructional communication literature (e.g., Goldman &
Martin, 2014; Goodboy & Frisby, 2014; Weber, Martin, & Myers, 2011) suggests that
beliefs such as entitlement influence students’ attitudes, behaviors, and decisions. These
beliefs are also likely to affect the rhetorical and relational goals that students establish
and pursue while in the classroom (cf., Mottet et al., 2006). For a variety of reasons, mil-
lennial students are entering the college classroom with previously unseen levels of aca-
demic entitlement (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2010); these beliefs can have a significant
influence on students’ perceptions and reactions to their instructors’ communication
behaviors (Goldman & Martin, 2014; Goodboy & Frisby, 2014). Given that academically
entitled students expect personal and entertaining courses, it is likely that entitled beliefs
alter the behaviors and characteristics that students prefer from the instructors. To further
explore this possibility, the third and final research question was offered:
RQ3: In what ways, if any, does academic entitlement influence the preferences that college
students have for instructors’ behaviors and characteristics?

Method
Participants
Participants for this study included 209 undergraduate students (91 females, 118 males)
solicited from communication courses at a large Mid-Atlantic university. Participants
varied in age from 18 to 31 years (M = 20.4, SD = 2.2) and represented 16 different
majors across the university ranging from communication studies (n = 26) to chemistry
(n = 19). Sixty-five participants were first-year students, 52 were seniors, 48 were sopho-
mores, and 44 were juniors.
8 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

Procedure
As noted above, a budget method was used to investigate the research questions of this
study (see Li et al., 2002). Participants were instructed to design their preferred instructor
by choosing from a list of 10 effective teaching behaviors and characteristics (see Table 1)
and investing hypothetical funds that represented their preferences toward each quality.
Specifically, participants created their preferred instructor by assigning monetary values
to each behavior and characteristic to indicate their individual importance. Participants
were asked to complete this task twice. First, participants were instructed that they had
20 dollars to “buy” attributes and characteristics for their preferred instructor; participants
were told they could invest up to 10 dollars (in one dollar increments) for any single
characteristic. Participants were not limited in how many behaviors they could invest
in, but were routinely reminded that their investment should equal, but not exceed, the
total allotted amount. Second, following the same procedures, participants were then
given an increased budget of 60 hypothetical dollars for which they could again invest
in the behaviors and characteristics they desired for their hypothetical instructor. As
shown in Table 1, each quality was presented with a brief explanation derived from the
literature. These explanations were written so that the majority of participants would
fully comprehend their description. Three versions of the questionnaire were created to
alternate the order in which the teaching behaviors were presented; ideally, this strategy
is useful when conducting research on rank values because it allows researchers to
assess for ordering and/or presentational effects (Bishop, 2004). Additionally, all partici-
pants were asked to self-report on their perceived academic entitlement by completing
the Academic Entitlement Questionnaire.

Instrumentation
The Academic Entitlement Questionnaire (AEQ; Kopp et al., 2011) is an eight-item
measure that elicits responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (7). A sample item includes: “If I don’t do well on a test, the professor

Table 1. Description of instructor qualities.

Assertive This instructor defends their beliefs in the classroom, has a strong personality, and is independent,
competitive, and even forceful or dominant
Responsive This instructor is compassionate, sympathetic, helpful, sincere, friendly, warm, and sensitive to the needs of
students
Clear This instructor presents knowledge in a way that students understand, answers questions clearly, has clear
course objectives, and is straightforward in lectures
Relevant This instructor uses examples, explanations, and exercises to make course content relevant to students’
career and personal goals or needs.
Competent This instructor is an expert in their field, is intelligent, and is well trained in instruction
Trustworthy This instructor is honest and trustworthy to students, works under a set of morals and ethics, and is genuine
Caring This instructor cares about their students, understands their students, and has their students’ best interests
at heart.
Immediate This instructor smiles at students, uses expressive hand and facial gestures when lecturing, nods their head
in understanding when students talk, makes eye contact with students when lecturing, and changes
vocal tones when lecturing
Humorous This instructor uses humor in the classroom frequently, they are funny, and they easily incorporate jokes
into lectures
Discloses This instructor reveals an appropriate amount of positive information about themselves during lectures,
when doing so is relevant to the topic being taught
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 9

should make tests easier or curve grades.” Previous research utilizing the AEQ has pro-
duced reliability coefficients ranging from .71 to .88 (Goodboy & Frisby, 2014; Kopp
et al., 2011). This study produced a Cronbach alpha reliability of α = .77 (M = 23.32,
SD = 7.35).

Results
Prior to analyzing the research questions of the study, a multiple analysis of variance was
conducted to determine if any significant ordering effects existed in the data. Results of the
MANOVA suggested that the order in which students received the instructor qualities on
the questionnaire did not cause any significant differences in response patterns, F(46, 368)
= 1.21, p = .18. Therefore, all three conditions of the questionnaire were analyzed
collectively.
The first research question sought to determine how students prioritize the qualities
(effective teaching behaviors and characteristics) of their ideal instructor. A one-way
repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if significant differences existed
between students’ investments in the 10 behaviors/characteristics. Mauchly’s test of
sphericity revealed that the data violated normality assumptions, χ 2 (44) = 323.07, p < .001;
as a result, the degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh–Feldt’s estimate of spheri-
city (ɛ = .79; see Huynh & Feldt, 1976). The repeated-measures ANOVA yielded a signifi-
cant main effect, F(7.15, 1488.04) = 46.26, p < .001, h2p = .18, indicating that differences
existed between students’ investments in the 10 effective teaching categories. With 20
“dollars” to spend, students varied considerably in their allocation of funds with
investments ranging from .88 (4.4%) in disclosure to 3.84 (19.25%) in clarity. The three
most desired qualities were clarity, competence, and relevance; pairwise comparisons
revealed clarity to be significantly more desirable (p < .001) than any other teacher
quality. Self-disclosure, assertiveness, and immediacy were given the lowest priority as
these qualities were allocated the least amount of funds. Percentages of fund allocations
for all 10 teacher qualities and a summary of the significant pairwise comparisons are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparisons of mean percentages for student investments with limited and luxury budgets.
Allotted funds Paired samples t-tests
Behavior/characteristic $20 budget $60 budget Change in spending t 95% CI (lower, upper)
Assertiveness 4.75%a 5.35%a +0.60% 1.39 −.015, .003
Responsiveness 10.43%bd 10.93%b +0.50% .79 −.017, .007
Clarity 19.23%c 13.50%c −5.73% −7.78^ .043, .072
Relevant 12.15%d 11.35%b −0.80% −1.33 −.004, .020
Competence 13.42%d 11.92%b −1.50% −2.23* .001, .028
Trustworthiness 8.52%e 9.23%d +0.71% 1.21 −.019, .005
Caring 10.17%be 11.21%b +1.04% 1.77 −.022, .001
Immediacy 5.69%a 7.25%e +1.56% 3.57^ −.024, −.007
Humor 11.58%bd 10.45%b −1.13% −1.82 −.001, .024
Disclosure 4.38%a 5.95%a +1.57% 3.92^ −.024, −.008
Note. For each budget column, values with unshared subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. Dollars were converted into
spending percentages (i.e., funds spent/total funds allotted) across both budgets for purposes of comparison. Differences
in spending percentages are flagged for significance, *p < .05, ^p < .001. Positive increases from the limited (i.e., $20) to
the surplus (i.e., $60) budget represent luxury items, whereas decreases merely reiterate necessity classifications due to
spending patterns with excess funds (see Senko et al., 2012).
10 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

The second research question sought to determine if certain instructor qualities were
considered a luxury rather than a necessity for students’ perceived ideal instructor. To
examine this question, the percentages of student spending for both the limited and
luxury budgets were compared using a series of paired samples t-tests. Instructor qualities
were considered to be more of a luxury item when students allocated a significantly greater
percentage of their funds in the 60 dollar budget in comparison with their spending in the
20 dollar budget (Senko et al., 2012).1 Two behaviors experienced positive changes from
the limited to luxury budgets; self-disclosure increased 1.57% (t = 3.92, p < .001) and
immediacy increased by 1.56% (t = 3.57, p < .001).
The third research question sought to determine if academic entitlement influenced
students’ preferred instructor qualities. To answer this question, the sample was split
into groups of low (n = 47) and high (n = 46) entitlement, classified by one standard devi-
ation below and above the mean average of original responses. Dichotomizing continuous
level measures is not ideal; however, it was necessary in this study because students’ allo-
cation of funds violated the assumption of independence needed to perform correlations/
regressions (i.e., spending in one category undoubtedly influenced spending in another as
specified to students in the directions). With numerous issues surrounding median splits,
we separated entitlement by using standard deviations to clearly define the similarities
within groups and the distinctions between them.
Two factorial ANOVAs featuring a within-group (repeated measures factor with the
instructor qualities) and between-group design (low and high levels of entitlement)
were conducted to assess differences in students’ allocation of limited (20 dollars) and
luxury funds (60 dollars). Tests of sphericity revealed that the data violated normality
assumptions for both the limited [χ 2 (44) = 163.59, p < .001] and luxury [χ 2 (44) =
94.51, p < .001] ANOVAs; thus, both models were again corrected using Huynh–Feldt’s
estimate of sphericity (limited budget: ɛ = .81; luxury budget: ɛ = .90). For the limited
budget, a significant interaction effect [F(7.29, 641.99) = 4.46, p < .001, h2p = .05] was
observed, indicating that funds spent across the instructor qualities differed between stu-
dents of low and high levels of academic entitlement. Notably, students with low scores of
entitlement spent significantly (p < .001) more of their limited funds (+7.03%) on clarity
than students with high scores of entitlement. Moreover, a significant within-group effect
existed for spending across the instructor qualities [F(7.29, 641.99) = 20.10, p < .001, h2p
= .19], mirroring the results from research question 1; however, the between-group
effect for entitlement [F(1, 88) = 1.91, p = .17] was nonsignificant. Parallel results were
observed for the luxury budget, as a significant interaction effect existed [F(8.18,
719.74) = 2.43, p < .05, h2p = .03] along with a within-subjects effect for the repeated-
measures variable of instructor qualities [F(8.18, 719.74) = 28.24, p < .001, h2p = .24]. The
between-subject effect for entitlement [F(1, 88) = .68, p = .41] was once again nonsignifi-
cant for the luxury budget. A detailed comparison of the limited/luxury spending percen-
tages for students with low and high levels of entitlement can be found in Figure 1.

Discussion
This study sought to further understand what college students want from their instructors.
Specifically, this investigation examined how and why students prioritize specific teaching
behaviors and characteristics over others by using a method that “compels students to
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 11

Figure 1. Spending percentages in limited and luxury budgets in relation to entitlement.

compare and, importantly, make tradeoffs between different teacher qualities” (Senko
et al., 2012, p. 423). The field of instructional communication, which has an extensive
history of examining numerous effective teaching behaviors (Nussbaum, 1992), has
often overlooked the very real possibility that certain behaviors are more important
than others. Arguably, researchers can address this shortcoming by (a) examining the rela-
tive importance of teacher behaviors when predicting student learning outcomes or (b)
assessing how students evaluate and prioritize certain behaviors in comparison with
others. We focused on the latter objective, while also investigating academic entitlement,
a growing belief among millennials (Chowning & Campbell, 2009), to determine its effects
12 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

on students’ preferences for teaching behaviors. In the context of the instructional com-
munication literature, two important sets of findings emerged from this study.
First, across both limited and luxury budgets, three qualities were consistently priori-
tized as students’ most preferred behaviors/characteristics: clarity, competence, and rel-
evance. In other words, when forced to assign rank values to their desires, students
preferred instructors who are easy to understand, have expertise in their content area,
and deliver course material in a relevant manner. These behaviors suggest that students
place a strong emphasis on their rhetorical needs when prioritizing what they want
from their instructor. Decades of instructional communication research demonstrate
the importance of both rhetorical and relational needs (Fassett & Warren, 2010). This
scholarship has also shown that instructors’ rhetorical and relational behaviors often
work simultaneously to facilitate optimal learning conditions (cf., Mottet et al., 2006).
That said, the intention of this study was to determine which behaviors, if any, students
personally prefer as necessities with limited resources, as it is likely that if given the
choice, students would want instructors to be proficient in all of the effective teaching
behaviors. When forced to prioritize, the current results indicated that students preferred
rhetorical behaviors, specifically those that directly facilitated clear and effective trans-
mission of reliable knowledge in a relevant fashion.
These findings certainly do not indicate that instructors should avoid utilizing rela-
tional teaching behaviors, as these efforts likely engage students on an affective level,
which in turn promotes greater opportunities for learning (Rodríguez, Plax, & Kearney,
1996). Relatedly, two teaching behaviors from the relational perspective were found to
be luxuries in this study (i.e., qualities that significantly increased in importance when
given a larger budget): self-disclosure and immediacy. From an economic perspective,
necessities are essential and become highly favored when budgets are low (Senko et al.,
2012), yet once thresholds for necessities are met, they face “diminishing marginal
utility and receive a decreasing proportion of the budget as … constraints are lifted” (Li
et al., 2002, p. 948). Conversely, luxury items earn increasing proportions of spending
when budgets increase, as these behaviors are also desired, just not to the same extent
as necessities (Senko et al., 2012). In the instructional communication literature, scholars
have found that students enjoy and appreciate instructors’ disclosure attempts (Sorensen,
1989) and experience a host of affective benefits when instructors use immediacy (Witt
et al., 2004). That said, it is possible that these behaviors are still largely considered to
be secondary by students if/when the necessities of their rhetorical needs are unmet. In
an ideal world, students would likely prefer their instructors to use as many rhetorical
and relational teaching behaviors as possible. But, when participants were asked to prior-
itize their preferences, the results indicated that students assign greater personal value to
rhetorical classroom behaviors.
The second takeaway from this study was that academic entitlement influenced student
preferences for effective teaching behaviors and characteristics. To some extent, entitlement
has fundamentally altered how millennial students view their education and the role that
instructors should play in the learning process (Chowning & Campbell, 2009; Kopp et al.,
2011). The current findings indicated that when students are entitled they place greater
value on specific behaviors (e.g., caring, immediacy, responsiveness) that seemingly align
with their beliefs of minimal work and expectations of success (Goodboy & Frisby, 2014;
Kopp et al., 2011). These results offer some preliminary information underlying the
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 13

thought-process behind students’ prioritization of effective teaching behaviors. Entitled stu-

dents may want their instructors to focus more on them, rather than the process of learning
(Chowning & Campbell, 2009). These students seem to specifically prioritize instructional
qualities that emphasize student concern, in addition to enjoyable teaching behaviors
(e.g., humor). These findings may also suggest that if academic entitlement continues to
increase in prevalence, relational teaching qualities may also continue to grow in demand.
Millennial students seem likely to continue the trend of exuding consumeristic and narcis-
sistic tendencies that are associated with academic entitlement (Kopp et al., 2011); as such,
they are likely to desire relationally oriented instruction to satisfy their needs.

Theoretical and practical implications

The findings from this investigation also have important theoretical and practical impli-
cations for researchers using RRGT and instructors of future millennial students. RRGT
recognizes the active contributions of both students and instructors in the learning
process in addition to categorizing rhetorical and relational needs/goals (Mottet et al.,
2006). Yet, one area in which scholars can continue to develop the theory is by examining
the association between relational and rhetorical goals and how they function together in
the classroom. As Mottet and colleagues (2006) noted, the relationship between “relational
goals and rhetorical goals … needs to be examined. Are these two constructs independent
or related? If they are related, how are they related to one another?” (p. 270). At a
minimum, previous research suggests that particular behaviors are certainly capable of
satisfying both students’ rhetorical and relational needs. For instance, teacher clarity not
only serves as one of the strongest predictors for students’ cognitive learning (rhetorical;
Titsworth, Mazer, Goodboy, Bolkan, & Myers, 2015) but also helps to enhance students’
positive emotional experiences (relational; Titsworth, McKenna, Mazer, & Quinlan, 2013).
Yet, as the findings in this study illustrated, students (and likely instructors) prioritize rhe-
torical and relational behaviors differently in the classroom, which may alter the effective-
ness of these behaviors in satisfying students’ and instructors’ goals. Future researchers
should continue to unpack the intersection of rhetorical and relational goals to uncover
ways in which instructors can optimize classroom conditions, even with limited resources.
To accomplish this, we echo Mottet et al.’s (2006) suggestion that future investigations
should continue to evaluate whether historically prominent “variables such as immediacy,
clarity, and affinity-seeking can be used to [simultaneously] achieve both rhetorical and
relational goals” (p. 271).
When comparing these results with previous instructional communication research, the
findings are somewhat surprising, particularly in regard to immediacy. Although instruc-
tional scholars have found strong support for the relationship between immediacy and affec-
tive outcomes (Witt et al., 2004), students in this study surprisingly did not indicate
instructors’ immediate behaviors to be highly prioritized. One explanation for why students
perceived the construct as a luxury rather than a necessity is that the value of immediacy,
based upon the description provided in this study, could have been lost on students who
were unaware of how useful their instructors’ nonverbal behaviors are to their own learning.
This explanation also brings up a significantly larger question: Are wants equivalent to what
students need to succeed academically? The answer to this question is likely a combination of
yes and no. Students sought clarity, as it was determined to be the highest priority, and
14 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

previous research supports the need for clarity as an essential rhetorical behavior (Titsworth
et al., 2015). Yet, students likely did not realize that behaviors such as immediacy help to
sustain their motivation and interest (Witt et al., 2010), even though it enhances their affec-
tive abilities to learn. Regardless, instructors often feel pressured to concede and give students
what they want, particularly during an uneasy time of transition in higher education where
students have become increasingly demanding and often expect consumer-like treatment in
return for their growing investments via tuition (e.g., Jones, 2010; Lechuga, 2016; Rosenbaum
et al., 2010). That being said, instructors are still considered and viewed as experts in their
respective subject area; as such, we do not suggest catering to every desire that students
have, as sometimes these beliefs may be misguided or influenced by their entitlement
(Chowning & Campbell, 2009). Instead, it is our hope that the findings from this investi-
gation are used to further understand the mindset of millennial college students so that
instructors can further cultivate an effective and beneficial working relationship.

Limitations and future research

The findings from this investigation must be weighed in conjunction with the study’s
limitations. First, students were purposively asked to consider the teaching behaviors in
isolation, despite the realistic notion that many of the qualities conceptually overlap
with each other and likely work together to satisfy students’ rhetorical and relational
needs (e.g., a caring instructor is also likely to be responsive and immediate). Students
were also asked to select the behaviors based on written descriptions as opposed to
examples of actual teaching behaviors. The description for immediacy may have been par-
ticularly problematic for students as it relied on more low-inference examples than any
other behavior/characteristic. Although the budget method was strategically selected to
evaluate students’ priorities, it is possible that students would respond differently when
seeing these behaviors in practice. Thus, future research should continue to investigate stu-
dents’ preferences by using alternative methods (e.g., experiments).
Moreover, participants for this study were primarily recruited from large lecture classes,
which may have biased the responses toward particular teaching behaviors. For example, it
is possible that students have fewer relational needs from their instructor in a large lecture
class and therefore may be prone to favoring rhetorical behaviors that help disseminate
important course information (Mottet et al., 2006). As such, future research should repli-
cate the current results by soliciting participants from smaller classes and/or smaller insti-
tutions, as the size and structure of courses (e.g., lecture-oriented, discussion oriented)
may influence how students prioritize particular teaching behaviors and characteristics.
Finally, this study was limited in the sense that it did not fully capture why students pre-
ferred certain teaching behaviors over others. Although academic entitlement seems to
plays some role in this process, it is likely that a host of variables influence students’ pre-
ferences for effective teaching behaviors. Future research should expand on these results
by exploring additional motives behind students’ preferential decisions.
In conclusion, decades of instructional communication research have examined teacher
behaviors that foster student learning in the classroom (Waldeck et al., 2001). This
research may be more important than ever as today’s college students differ from previous
academic cohorts in a variety of ways, most notably by their perceived entitlement
(Goldman & Martin, 2016). As a result of these entitled beliefs, millennial students
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 15

often expect their instructors to adapt around their individual wants and desires (Chown-
ing & Campbell, 2009; Kopp et al., 2011). Millennials, who tend to embrace a consumer-
istic approach toward their education, are also likely to believe that their financial
investments in regards to tuition make them “deserving of certain goods and services to
be provided by their institutions and professors” (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2010, p. 344).
Although instructors may feel differently, it is nonetheless beneficial to understand millen-
nial students’ desires, so that instructors can use this information to foster a more effective
teacher–student relationship that will ultimately improve learning conditions in the
classroom.
This investigation used Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory (Mottet et al., 2006) to
examine millennial students’ preferences for instructional behaviors and characteristics.
When forced to prioritize, students preferred rhetorical behaviors (i.e., clarity, compe-
tence, relevance) more so than relational behaviors (e.g., immediacy, disclosure) from
their instructors. These findings do not discourage the use of relational teaching, as
forming interpersonal connections with students enhances their educational experiences
(cf., Frymier & Houser, 2000). Ideally, instructors should use both relational and rhetorical
behaviors to facilitate learning (Mottet et al., 2006). Yet, in the realities of the classroom,
instructors may find themselves in situations where they are unable to achieve all of their
relational and rhetorical objectives on a daily basis. In these situations, it seems clear that
instructors should first satisfy their rhetorical goals, before fulfilling students’ relational
needs. This strategy aligns with the desires of millennial students but more importantly
reinforces the centrality of learning in the instructor–student relationship.

Note
1. Classification as a luxury behavior/characteristic requires a significant increase (i.e., positive
difference) between spending in the limited budget (20 dollars) and spending in the luxury
budget (60 dollars). When using this methodology, significant decreases from the limited to
the luxury budget do not represent devaluation, but rather are further indicative of a necessity
item because individuals elect to use surplus funds on luxuries (see Li et al., 2002; Senko et al.,
2012).

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Alan Goodboy and Scott Myers from West Virginia University for
their helpful contributions.

Notes on contributors
Zachary W. Goldman (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2015) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Illinois College in Jacksonville, IL.
Gregory A. Cranmer (Ph.D. West Virginia University, 2015) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication at Clemson University in Clemson, SC.
Michael Sollitto (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2014) is an Assistant Professor in the Depart-
ment of Communication and Media at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi in Corpus
Christi, TX.
16 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

Sara Labelle (Ph.D. West Virginia University, 2014) is an Assistant Professor in the Communi-
cation Studies Department at Chapman University in Orange, CA.
Alexander L. Lancaster (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2015) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication at Weber State University in Ogden, UT.

References
Allen, J. L., Long, K. M., O’mara, J., & Judd, B. B. (2008). Students’ predispositions and orientations
toward communication and perceptions of instructor reciprocity and learning. Communication
Education, 57, 20–40. doi:10.1080/03634520701670908
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Affective learning, teacher clarity, and student motivation as a function of attri-
butional confidence. Communication Research Reports, 18, 345–353. doi:10.1080/
08824090109384815
Bishop, G. F. (2004). Order effects. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the communication
of humorous messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 205–218. doi:10.1080/
10417949109372831
Boswell, S. (2012). “I deserve success”: Academic entitlement attitudes and their relationships with
course self-efficacy, social networking, and demographic variables. Social Psychology of
Education, 15, 353–365.
Bryant, J., Comisky, P. W., Crane, J. S., & Zillmann, D. (1980). Relationship between college tea-
chers’ use of humor in the classroom and students’ evaluations of their teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 511–519. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.4.511
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an
initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.
tb00603.x
Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and negativity.
Communication Quarterly, 56, 325–341. doi:10.1080/01463370802241492
Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning,
receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135–147. doi:10.1080/
03634520302471
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with
student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education,
50, 59–68. doi:10.1080/03634520109379232
Chowning, K., & Campbell, N. J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure of academic
entitlement: Individual differences in students’ externalized responsibility and entitled expec-
tations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 982–997. doi:10.1037/a0016351
Conley, D. T. (2008). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can
do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dubovsky, S. L. (1986). Coping with entitlement in medical education. New England Journal of
Medicine, 315, 1672–1674. doi:10.1056/NEJM198612253152609
Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2010). The Sage handbook of communication and instruction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of teacher
clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61, 111–
130. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.656669
Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–
144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922
Frymier, A. B. (2005). Students’ classroom communication effectiveness. Communication
Quarterly, 53, 197–212. doi:10.1080/01463370500089896
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 17

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal

relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/03634520009379209
Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?”: Increasing content relevance to
enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. doi:10.1080/
03634529509378996
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment
measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived
teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388–399. doi:10.1080/03634529209378900
Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wojtaszczyk, A. M. (2008). Assessing students’ perceptions of
inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education, 57, 266–288.
doi:10.1080/03634520701687183
Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for
instructor communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314–326. doi:10.1080/
03634520109379258
Goldman, Z. W., & Martin, M. M. (2014). College students’ academic beliefs and their motives for
communicating with their instructor. Communication Research Reports, 31, 316–328. doi:10.
1080/08824096.2014.924341
Goldman, Z. W., & Martin, M. M. (2016). Millennial students in the college classroom: Adjusting to
academic entitlement. Communication Education, 65, 365–367. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.
1177841
Goldstein, G. S., & Benassi, V. A. (1994). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student
classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 212–217. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2104_2
Goodboy, A. K., & Frisby, B. N. (2014). Instructional dissent as an expression of students’ academic
orientations and beliefs about education. Communication Studies, 65, 96–111. doi:10.1080/
10510974.2013.785013
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students:
Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37, 1193–1204. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9284-9
Houser, M. L. (2005). Are we violating their expectations? Instructor communication expectations
of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 213–228. doi:10.1080/
01463378500090332
Houser, M. L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of motiv-
ation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication
Quarterly, 54, 331–349. doi:10.1080/01463370600878248
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from
sample data in the randomized block and split-plot design. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1,
69–82.
Jones, G. (2010). Managing student expectations: The impact of top-up tuition fees. Perspectives, 14,
44–48. doi:10.1080/13603101003776135
Kopp, J. P., Zinn, T. E., Finney, S. J., & Jurich, D. P. (2011). The development and evaluation of the
academic entitlement questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 44, 105–129. doi:10.1177/0748175611400292
Kramer, M. W., & Pier, P. M. (1999). Students’ perceptions of effective and ineffective communi-
cation by college teachers. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 16–33. doi:10.1080/
10417949909373153
Lechuga, V. M. (2016). The changing landscape of the academic profession: Faculty culture at for-
profit colleges and universities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeir, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of
mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2016). Editor’s introduction. [Forum: Instructional communication and
millennial students.] Communication Education, 65, 356–376. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.
1173715
18 Z. W. GOLDMAN ET AL.

McBride, M. C., & Wahl, S. T. (2005). “To say or not to say:” Teachers’ management of privacy
boundaries in the classroom. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 30, 8–22.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). Instructional communication: The historical perspec-
tive. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional com-
munication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 33–47). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interper-
sonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Bennett, V. E. (2006). The relationships of student end-of-
class motivation with teacher communication behaviors and instructional outcomes.
Communication Education, 55, 403–414. doi:10.1080/03634520600702562
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measure-
ment. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement
after three decades. Communication Studies, 32, 24–34. doi:10.1080/10510978109368075
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 communication: Rhetorical
and relational perspectives (pp. 3–32). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication.
In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communi-
cation: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Handbook of instructional communi-
cation: Rhetorical and relational perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Muddiman, A., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). What is relevant? Student perceptions of relevance strategies
in college classrooms. Communication Studies, 60, 130–146. doi:10.1080/10510970902834866
Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of COMM 600. (2014). College student learning, motiv-
ation, and satisfaction as a function of effective instructor communication behaviors. Southern
Communication Journal, 79, 14–26. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2013.815266
Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers’ humor in the class-
room and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom humor.
Communication Education, 40, 343–355. doi:10.1080/03634529109378859
Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167–180.
doi:10.1080/03634529209378878
Rocca, K. A. (2009). Participation in the college classroom: The impact of instructor immediacy and
verbal aggression. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43, 22–33.
Rodríguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher non-
verbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal
mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059
Rosenbaum, J. E., Stephan, J. L., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2010). Beyond one-size-fits-all college dreams:
Alternative pathways to desirable careers. American Educator, 34, 2–13.
Senko, C., Belmonte, K., & Yakhkind, A. (2012). How students’ achievement goals shape their
beliefs about effective teaching: A ‘build-a-professor’ study. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 420–435. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02036.x
Singleton-Jackson, J. A., Jackson, D. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2010). Students as consumers of knowledge:
Are they buying what we’re selling? Innovative Higher Education, 35, 343–358. doi:10.1007/
s10755-010-9151-y
Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers’ self-disclosive statements, students’ percep-
tions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259–276. doi:10.1080/
03634528909378762
Sprague, J. (1999). The goals of communication education. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W.
Friedrich (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (2nd ed., pp. 15–30).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Titsworth, S., & Mazer, J. P. (2010). Clarity in teaching and learning: Conundrums, consequences,
and opportunities. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The Sage handbook of communication
and instruction (pp. 241–262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 19

Titsworth, S., Mazer, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Myers, S. A. (2015). Two meta-analyses
exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. Communication
Education, 64, 385–418. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998
Titsworth, S., McKenna, T. P., Mazer, J. P., & Quinlan, M. M. (2013). The bright side of emotion in
the classroom: Do teachers’ behaviors predict students’ enjoyment, hope, and pride?
Communication Education, 62, 191–209. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.763997
Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). Instructional and developmental communication
theory and research in the 1990s: Extending the agenda for the 21st century. In W. Gudykunst
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 24 (pp. 207–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between
instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory.
Communication Education, 59, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238
Wanzer, M. B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Teacher socio-communicative style as a correlate of
student affect toward teacher and course material. Communication Education, 47, 43–52.
doi:10.1080/03634529809379109
Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2011). The development and testing of the instructional
beliefs model. Communication Education, 60, 51–74. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.491122
Witt, P. L., Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. (2010). Instructor immediacy: Creating conditions con-
ducive to classroom learning. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The Sage handbook of com-
munication and instruction (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. P., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between
teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.
1080/03645042000228054
Zhang, Q. (2009). Perceived teacher credibility and student learning: Development of a multicul-
tural model. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 326–347. doi:10.1080/10570310903082073