by AM Lavin · 2010 · Cited by 21 — including casual, business casual and professional attire, are used to assess business student opinions regarding the academician’s credibility and the students’
151 KB – 12 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 51 The Impact Of Instructor Attire On Student Perceptions Of Faculty Credibility And Their Own Resultant Behavior Angeline M. Lavin, University of South Dakota , USA Thomas L. Davies, University of South Dakota , USA David L. Carr, University of South Dakota , USA ABSTRACT Prior studies suggest that f aculty members who are credible are more effective in the classroom in that they are evaluated more highly and their students achieve greater learning. This paper or her perceived credibility, and how th corresponding perception of instructor credibility impacts the student self – described behavior. Questionnaires depicting instructors of both genders each wearing three different outfits, including cas ual, business casual and professional attire , are used to assess business student resultant effort and learning. The results indicate that faculty members can take comfort in that their level of preparation, knowledge and ability to prepare students for a career do impact their credibility in the eyes of the students , no matter their choice of attire . Instructor c redibility, in turn, was found to have a significant positive relati onship with all ten student effort a nd behavior variables that were examined. class, attentiveness, appreciation for instructor effort, and respect for the instructor . P ositive significant relationships were also found between credibility and student evaluations of both the class and the instructor. Key words: Student effort, student behavior, student perceptions, faculty credibility, faculty attire INTRODUCTION ollege professors today are expected to engage students and motivate them to take an active role in their own learning. Through their own academic preparation and subsequent scholarly efforts, most instructors are experts in the fields in which they teach. However, there is no guarantee that these expert s will be able to impart this knowledge in such a way that students become more competent . Most would agree that the use of long oratories and less – than – inspired extended l ectures as the primary source of knowledge transfer is less prevalent today. S tudents now expect engaging classroom environments, and academic institutions feel pressured to ensure that their faculty deliver what students want . Now , more than ever , the focal poi nt of education is on student learning, and , fortunately, However, professors must adapt to changes in the learning environment in order to ensure that their message is relevant and accomplishes the transfer of knowledge. his/her ability to inspire learning . Whether this is appropriate remains subject to debate. Nevertheless, t he instructor traits and characteristics which translate into this requisite inspiration are subject to considerable d iscussion and study. At most colleges and universities, students are afforded the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the profes sor through course evaluations. W hile th e input obtained through course evaluations is weighted differently across academic institutions, it behooves all faculty members to gain some insight as to what he or she can do to positively impact the perceptions of th e students enrolled on college campuses today , for his own bene fit and that of C
PAGE – 2 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 52 the institution . point of view of the students, and then to study how this credibility impacts the effort put forth by those students a s well as their own learning – oriented behavior during the knowledge transfer process. PRIOR RESEARCH Student perceptions of faculty, typically formally captured through cour se evaluations, play a significant and growing role in academia. It is now commonplace for universities to utilize student ratings as part of the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Chen and Hoshower (2003) report that student evaluations serve as both formative and summative measurements of teaching. Formative uses are more instructional – based, providing feedback to instructors who wish to change their teaching methodology or improve course content, format or structure. Summative uses are more administrative in nature; evaluations provide information relevant to and courses. While prior studies have shown that properly designed student evaluations can provide valuable remains over their overall validity and ultimate value. Nonetheless Given the importance and inevitability of student evaluations, faculty should be aware of those factors that potentially impact them since so much ca n be riding on the ir outcome . Studies have shown that perceived instructor credibility positively impacts perceptions of teachin g effectiveness (Myers, 2004). According to McCroskey and e of communication held at a given time by a Perhaps not surprisingly, credibility is thought to be one of the most important variables affecting the instructor – student relationship (Myers, 2001). According to Cooper (1932), Aristotle believed ethos (i.e., credibility) consisted of three dimensions: intelligence, character and good will. Along th is same line, Teven and McCroskey (1997) more recently postulated that credibility was comprised of three primar y components, specifically competence, trustworthiness and perceived caring. Competence focuses on the tter expertise (McCroskey, 1998 ) . Trustworthiness centers around the goodness (e.g., honesty) of the professor (Frymier and Thompson, 1992), while caring involves the 1998). Research has shown that instructor credibility benefits both the professor and student. Students who pe rceive their teacher as credible tend to be more motivated (Martin, Cheesebro, and Mottet, 1997) , and report increased affective and cognitive learning (Johnson and Miller, 2002). In other words, Thweatt and McCroskey instructors to others (Nadler and Nadler, 2001), respect them (Martinez – Egger and Powers, 2002), and evaluate them highly (Teven and McCroskey , 1997 ). Further, students perce ive that these instructors better understand them (Schrodt, 2003), and are likely to take additional courses from them (Nadler and Nadler, 2001). Certain instructor behaviors and strategies have been identified as enhancing student perceptions of teache r credibility in the classroom. For instance, those instructors who use appropriate amounts of technology (Schrodt and Turman, 2005), engage in out – of – classroom communication with their students (Myers, 2004), and are assertive and responsive (Martin et. al., 1997) are perceived to be more credible. Other studies have shown that faculty can increase their credibility by employing affinity – seeking strategies in their classes. Affinity, according to McCroskey techniques to aid in affinity development: controlling physical appearance, increasing positive self – disclosure, stressing areas of positive similarity, providing positive reinforcement, express ing cooperation, complying with most frequently used strategies to enhance student affinity were physical attractiveness, sensitivity, elicit dis closure, trustworthiness and nonverbal immediacy. Witcher, Onquegbuzie, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier, and Moore (2003) suggested that college students believe effective college teaching involves the following nine characteristics, listed in order of impor tance: (1) student – centered; (2) knowledgeable about the subject matter; (3) professional; (4) enthusiastic about teaching ; (5)
PAGE – 3 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 53 effective at communication; (6) accessible; (7) competent at instruction; (8) fair and respectful; and (9) provider of adequate performance feedback. With little effort, many of these characteristics can be linked to one of the aforementioned three dimensions of credibility. As a result, instructors likely possess the ability to modify their own behavior and utilize pedagogical tools in such a way to improve their credibility as well as student perceptions of their teaching prowess. As mentioned, physical a ppearance , attractiveness and professionalism ha ve been identified as factor s that ha ve the potential to impact student perceptions of the instructor. These prior studies raise the specific question of credibility and, thus, their teaching effectiveness. Molloy (1975, 1977) postulated that clothing impacts or influences four kinds of judgments, including credibility, likeability, interpersonal attractiveness, and dominance, and, thus, acts as a primary impression management tool. Impression management i attempt to exercise conscious control over selected communicative behaviors and cues – particularly nonverbal cues, for purposes of making a 1992). In academia, studies generally have found th at instructors who dress more formally are perceived as being knowledgeable, organized and well – prepared , while more casually dressed instructors are generally perceived as being friendly, flexible and sympathetic (Rollman, 1980). Lukavsky, Butler and Har den (1995) studied the impact of attire on the personal characteristics of approachability, flexibility, and respect. They found significant differences in student perceptions of those three characteristics based on whether the instructor was formally or informally dressed. The instructor who dressed informally was rated most approachable and flexible , but at the same time commanded the least amount of respect. A few other studies have considered various aspects of attire in an academic setting, and the overall conclusion that can be reached is that formal or professional attire is generally the most positively perceived by students (e.g., Harris et al., 1983; Bassett, 1979). A study of 318 college students by Kwon and Johnson – Hillery (1998) indicated t hat the students rated individuals who were dressed in formal business attire more positively on a variety of occupational attributes (such as knowledgeable, competent, credible, businesslike, responsible, trustworthy, and efficient) than individuals who w ere dressed either semi – formally or informally. Sebastian and Bristow (2008) found that students attribute more expertise to professors who are dressed formally, but they also rank formally dressed professors lower in terms of likeability than casually dre ssed professors. This study has several purposes. It seeks to determine what instructor traits or characteristics influence student perceptions of instructor credibility , and whether the attire of the faculty member influences these attire – dependent perceived credibility impacts student behaviors. A two – stage least squares approach is employed , where the first stage examines the determinants of perceived credibility, and the second stage explores how this perceived credibility affects student behavior. PRESENT STUDY Students taking select classes at a mid – sized Midwestern university business school were asked to clothing choice in the classroom might imp , and how this perception would impact their own effort and behavior. The first page of the survey was a cover sheet that included three high quality color photos of either the same female or male instru ctor wearing three different outfits representing professional, business casual and casual attire. The model s depicted w ere not actual faculty member s so as to prevent any potential bias based on personal familiarity with the instructor. Two different vari ations of each of the surveys were used to change the order in which the attire was presented. In one case the instructor was depicted wearing casual, business casual and professional dress (Version 1) respectively, while in the second version the same in structor was depicted wearing professional, business casual and casual clothing (Version 2). Both variations of each version of the survey (male or female model) were randomly administered in each class section to obtain a cross section of responses.
PAGE – 4 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 54 Stud with respect to several instructor and instruction – related questions. Survey questions were patterned after three different student evaluation forms used at one time was not meant to be an evaluation of any particular instructor. As part of the survey, it was stipulated that the could depend upon a number of factors including classroom conditions (e.g., heating, cooling and ventilation), the class setting (e.g., evening class, length of class session), delivery mode (e.g., face to face versus distance) and his or her individual pr eferences and comfort. It should be noted that while faculty are encouraged to dress professionally when teaching at this university, no dress code exists. So while some variation does exist, faculty attire does tend to fall on the more professional side . The survey instrument consisted of several parts including multiple substantive and demographic questions. qualifications and ability to teach , as well as the overall quality of the course, program and institution. Specific questions were as follows: Instructor Characteristics that May Impact Credibility Q1. His/her level of preparation for class. Q2. His/her knowledge of the material (i.e., subject matter). Q3. His/her ability to present information clearly and in an understandable manner. Q4. His/her ability to relate course material to the real world. Q5. His/her ability to stimulate students to intellectual effort beyond what is typ ically required. Q6. His/her concern for student learning. Q7. His/her willingness to answer questions and listen to student opinions. Q8. His/her ability to prepare students for a career. Q9. His/her professionalism. Instructor Credibility Q10. His/her credibility. Student Effort and Behavior Q11. His/her level of participation for each class. Q12. His/her attentiveness in class. Q13. His/her level of participation in class discussions. Q14. His/her class attendance. Q15. His/her willingness to ask th e instructor questions during class. Q16. His/her amount learned from class. Q17. Q18. His/her appreciation for the importance of the material. Q19. His/her desire to take additional classes from the ins tructor. Q20. His/her level of respect for the instructor. Q21. His/her overall evaluation of the class. Q22. His/her overall evaluation of the instructor. In addition , students were asked a number of demographic questions, including whether they were gra duate or undergraduate students, their program of study or major, and their year in school (e.g., freshman, sophomore, etc.) as well as their grade point average, gender, age, and personality type. In all, 15 business instructors, including five female and 10 male faculty members administered the survey in their classes. The faculty members were selected in part on the basis of both their discipline and their gender in order to provide a cross – section of courses being evaluated. Classes chosen included those at the 100 (first year), 200 (second year), 300 (junior level), 400 (senior level) and graduate (700) level. C ourses were selected from several
PAGE – 5 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 55 majors offered by the business school , including accounting, finance, and management at the undergraduate level as well as from the MBA and MPA (Master of Professional Accountancy) programs. T he survey was administered in and in a satellite loc ation, resulting in a total of 23 sections being studied. The survey was administered near the midpoint of the fall 2008 semester. Since it was probable that there was some overlap in enrollment for these classes, students were asked to complete the same version of the survey only once , as it was not designed to be course dependent. However it was possible for the same student to answer multiple versions of the questionnaire (i.e., different gender of the model as well as the order of presentation of the model) if enrolled in different classes included as part of the study . F aculty members who participated were asked to devote class time to allow students to complete the survey due to the predicted positive impact on the response rate. In total, 454 usab le responses were obtained from undergraduate business students , the focus of this particular study . A summary of the demographic information is presented in Appendix A at the end of the article. The genders of the business students who responded were fairly evenly split between female and male, with 216 (47.6%) female respondents and 237 (52.2%) male respondents ; o ne of the 454 students left the question blank. About 72% of the respondents were 21 years old or younger, and 78.4% of the respondents indi cated that they were students. Forty percent of the respondents were freshmen or sophomores, and about 60% of the respondents were from rural areas. Nearly 60% of the respondents reported a grade point average above 3.0. RESULTS The purpose of this paper is threefold. The study seeks to determine what instructor traits or characteristics influence student perce ptions of credibility . In addition, the project also seeks to determine whether the attire of the facul ty member (casual, business causal or professional) influences these perceptions. The authors also attempted attire – dependent credibility impacts student effort and behavior . A two – stage least squares approach is employed, where the first stage examines the determinants of perceived credibility, and the second stage explores how perceived credibility affects student behavior. First Stage Factors that Impact Credibility Each of the 454 survey respondents was asked to indicate how the style of faculty attire might impact the – 10 above. The responses were first disaggregated by type of dress, resulting in 424 responses to the picture of the faculty memb e r dressed in casual attire, 427 responses to the picture of the faculty member dressed in business casual attire, and 431 responses to the faculty member dressed in professional attire. Surveys that had no response for the relevant questions were dropped. The data collected for questions 1 – 9 above for each of the three samples (casual, business casual and professional) were tested for multi – collinearity. Multi – collinearity (correlations above 0.70) was found in all three samples among the variables repre sented by questions 3, 5, and 9, which ask ed , stimulate intellectual effort beyond what is typically required , and his/her professionalism. The multi – collinearity resulted from the similarity of the questions. For example , respectively. Question 3, which asked about the lear and understandable manner , was highly correlated with question real world). The d ata for questions 3, 5 and 9 were then removed from each of the three samples, and each sample was again tested for multi – collinearity. Th is second test showed that all remaining correlations were below 0.7 for the data from questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Therefore, those questions wer e included as the independent variables in the OLS regression model and are represented by the variable Q in the equation below. The dependent variable, Q 10 , is credibility. The beta coefficients explain the relationship between each of the included instru ctor characteristics and credibility. + +
PAGE – 6 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 56 The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 1. The R 2 measure reported for each model suggests that the independent variables or traits included in the casual dress sample explain approximately 50 % of the variability in the credibility, the dependent variable, while the variables or traits explain more than 60% of the variability in credibility for the business casual and professional attire samples. Furthermore, the intercept is significant for the casual sample , which suggests that there are other traits which would help explain credibility in the case of casually dressed instructor . The intercepts for the business casual and professional samples were not significant. Table 1: Instructor Characteristics that Impact Credibility Casual Sample Coefficient Business Casual Sample Coefficient Professional Sample Coefficient R 2 0. 499 0.6 26 0.6 31 Intercept 0.371 * 0.0 81 0.0 23 Q1 Level of preparation 0.141 * 0.082 *** 0.083 ** * Q2 Knowledge of the subject matter 0.218 * 0.123 * 0.269 * Q4 Ability to relate course material to the real world 0.0 24 0.166 * 0.0 71 Q6 Concern for student learning 0.0 10 0.082 *** – 0.00 4 Q7 Willingness to answer questions and listen 0.113 * 0.099 ** 0.0 52 Q8 Ability to prepare students for a career 0.391 * 0.395 * 0.502 * * Significant at the 1% level ** Significant at the 5% level *** Significant at the 10% level According to the results presented in Table 1, the traits that have significant impact on credibility regardless ct matter, and mem ber was dressed in casual attire, but it was significant at only the 10% level for the business casual and professional attire much more important for a casually dressed instructor than for one dressed in business casual or professional attire. In other words, instructors who dres s in casual attire may need to be better prepared in order to achieve the same level of credibility as an instructor dressed in business casual or professional attire. The instructor s knowledge of the subject matter and ability to prepare students for a career were significant at the 1% level across all three samples, which suggests that of all the traits used in this model, th e se are the most significant predictors of instructor credibility. It is interesting to note that two additional instructor trai ts, the ability to relate course material to the real world and concern for student learning, were significant predictors of credibility only in the case of the instructor dressed in business casual attire. Also of interest, the ability to relate course m aterial to the real world was significant at the 1% level for the business casual sample , but was not significant for the casual or professional samples. he 5% level for the casual attire sample and at the 10% level for the business casual sample, but it was not significant for the professional sample. This result suggests that instructors who dress more casually are more credible if they are willing to an swer questions and listen to student opinions. The explanation of this finding may be that casually dressed instructors are perceived by the students to impart knowledge via discussion , while professional dressed instructors are perceived to impart knowle dge in the more traditional lecture setting. This finding is interesting in light of previous studies by the authors of this paper which suggest that students perceive that instructors dressed in more casual attire are more willing to answer questions and listen to student opinions. To summarize, the three traits that have the most impact on instructor credibility are their level of preparation, knowledge of the subject matter, and ability to prepare students for a career. Additionally, the results of the first stage of this regression analysis suggest that attire does , as the
PAGE – 8 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 58 Table 2: The Relationship between Student Effort/Behavior Variables and Instructor C redibility Casual Sample Business Casual Sample Professional Sample Question Coefficient R 2 Coefficient R 2 Coefficient R 2 Q11 Level of Preparation for Each Class 0.781* 0.325 0.737* 0.418 0.672* 0.394 Q12 – Attentiveness 0.806* 0.343 0.759* 0.430 0.607* 0.315 Q13 Level of Participation in Class Discussions 0.614* 0.179 0.624* 0.334 0.377* 0.129 Q14 Attendance 0.569* 0.184 0.628* 0.318 0.560* 0.297 Q15 Willing to Ask Questions 0.514* 0.103 0.570* 0.265 0.309* 0.085 Q16 Amount Learned 0.561* 0.235 0.563* 0.303 0.506* 0.293 Q17 Appreciation for Instructor Effort 0.760* 0.320 0.814* 0.444 0.749* 0.434 Q18 Appreciation of Material 0.612* 0.267 0.622* 0.335 0.579* 0.332 Q19 Desire to take Additional Classes in Subject Matter 0.776* 0.331 0.675* 0.369 0.511* 0.256 Q20 – Respect for Instructor 0.757* 0.306 0.798* 0.397 0.759* 0.419 Q21 – Overall evaluation of the class 0.580* 0.247 0.652* 0.338 0.582* 0.330 Q22 – Overall evaluation of the instructor 0.645* 0.231 .0.707* 0.350 0.689* 0.379 * Significant at the 1% level Table 3 provides a ranking of the R 2 values for each student behavior/effort variable in each of the three samples (Questions 11 through 20) . The ranking goes from the highest R 2 value (#1) to the lowest R 2 value (#10). As can be seen, c for both the business ca sual and professional samples. Credibility explains the Looking at the results in more detail, instructor credibility consistently explained the most variability in the following four student behavior/effort variables across all three samples: Q11 Level of Preparation for Each Class Q12 Attentiveness Q17 Appreciation for Instructor Effort Q20 Level of Your Respect for the Instructor Alternatively stated, credibility has the most impact on student class preparation, student attentiveness, uctor. These findings are consistent with Martinez – Egger and Powers (2002) who found that students respect credible instructors and tend to be more motivated by credible teachers (Martin, Cheesebro, and Mottet, 1997). In contrast, instructor credibility consistently explains the least variability and, therefore, has the least impact on the following four student behavior/effort variables across all three samples: Q13 Level of Participation in Class Discussions Q14 Attendance Q15 Willing to Ask Ques tions Q16 Amount Learned It is interesting to note that students do not seem to perceive that instructor credibility impacts the amount n for class and attentiveness. Studies including Thweatt and McCroskey (1998) and Johnson and Miller (2002) did find that credible faculty members do have a positive impact on learning. In contrast, the student perceptions captured in this study are not s trongly in agreement with that relationship.
PAGE – 9 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 59 Table 3: Relative Explanatory Ability of Credibility on Student Effort and Behavior Casual Sample Business Casual Sample Professional Sample Question R 2 Rank Question R 2 Rank Question R 2 Rank Q12 – Attentiveness 1 Q17 Appreciation for Instructor Effort 1 Q17 Appreciation for Instructor Effort 1 Q19 – Desire to Take Additional Classes in the Subject Matter 2 Q12 – Attentiveness 2 Q20 – Respect for Instructor 2 Q11 Level of P reparation for Each Class 3 Q11 Level of Preparation in Each Class 3 Q11 Level of Preparation in Each Class 3 Q17 Appreciation for Instructor Effort 4 Q20 – Respect for Instructor 4 Q18 Appreciation of Material 4 Q20 – Respect for Instructor 5 Q19 – Desire to Take Additional Classes in the Subject Matter 5 Q12 – Attentiveness 5 Q18 Appreciation of Material 6 Q18 Appreciation of Material 6 Q14 Attendance 6 Q16 Amount Learned 7 Q13 Level of Participation in Class Discussions 7 Q16 Amount Learned 7 Q14 Attendance 8 Q14 Attendance 8 Q19 – Desire to Take Additional Classes in the Subject Matter 8 Q13 Level of Participation in Class Discussions 9 Q16 Amount Learned 9 Q13 Level of Participation in Class Discussions 9 Q15 Willing to Ask Questions 10 Q15 Willing to Ask Questions 10 Q15 Willing to Ask Questions 10 importance of the falls within the middle in all three samples (Question 19) is quite high for the casual sa mple, somewhat lower for the business casual sample, and near the bottom for the professional sample. In summary, the analysis conducted in the second stage of this model found significant positive relationships between credibility and all ten student ef fort/behavior variables across all three attire samples. Furthermore, the R 2 class, attentiveness, appreciation for instructor effort, and respect for the instructor. CONCLUSION This study suggests that certain instructor – related traits have a significant impact on credibility regardless of the attire of the faculty member . However, there is a difference in the significance level of some the traits depending on how formally or informally the professor dresses. The a nalysis conducted in the second stage of this model found significant positive relationships between credibility and all ten student effort/behavior variables across all three attire sa mples. Therefore, the credibility of the faculty member in the eyes of the students does ha ve an impact on the way they act in class as well as their behavior both inside and outside the classroom. The R 2 values suggest that credibility explains the most variability nd respect for the instructor. Furthermore, there are also significant positive relationships between credibility and student evaluations of both the class and the instructor. For the professional and business casual samples, credibility explains between 33 and 37% of class and instructor evaluation.
PAGE – 10 ============
American Journal of Business Education June 2010 Volume 3, Number 6 60 The results of this study are based only on data collected at one business school at a small Midwestern university and may not be generalized to broader populations of students. However, this initial works lays the groundwork for further study at other un iversities or across other colleges within this university. Faculty members can take comfort that their level of preparation, knowledge and ability to prepare students for a career do positively impact the ir credibility . Credibility, in turn, positively impacts student effort and behavior. AUTHOR INFORMATION Angeline Lavin Beacom School of Business. She received her Ph.D. in finance from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and she also holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. Her current research interests, in addition to pedagogical issues, include the signaling value of independent auditors’ opinions, earnings restatements, and exchange traded funds (ETFs). She has published in the Journal of Financial Services Research , the Journal of Economic Education , the Journal of Financial Research , the Journal of Real E state Finance and Economics , and Financial Practice in Education. Thomas Davies received his J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law and LL.M. in Taxation from the University of Missouri Kansas City. He also holds the Certified Public Account (CPA) designation. His current research interests, in addition to pedagogical issues, include tax policy implications and earnings restatements. He has rec ently published in the Journal of Forensic Accounting , the Journal of Accounting and Finance Research, and the College Student Journal . David Carr School of Business. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado – Boulder. His current research interests include the economics of multinational firms and environmental regulations, the impact of market structure on industry competition, and peda gogical issues. He has published in the American Economic Review and has articles forthcoming in the International Journal of Management and the College Student Journal. REFERENCES 1. Bassett, R., Effects of Source Attire on Judgments of Credibility, Centra l States Speech Journal , Vol. 30, pp. 282 – 285, 1979. 2. Chen, Y. and and L. Hoshower, Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: as assessment of student perception and motivation, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 71 – 87, 2 003. 3. Cooper, L. The Rhetoric of Aristotle . New York: Appleton – Century – Crofts, 1932. 4. Frymier, A. and C. Thompson. Perceived Teacher Affinity Seeking in Relation to Perceived Teacher Credibility, Communication Education , Volume 41, pp. 388 – 399, October 1 992. 5. Harris, M., J. James, J. Chavez, M. Fuller, S. Kent, C. Massanari, C. Moor, and F. Walsh, Clothing: Communication, Compliance and Choice, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 13, pp. 88 – 97, 1983. 6. Johnson, S. and A. Miller, A Cross – Cultural Stud y of Immediacy, Credibility, and Learning in the U.S. and Kenya, Communication Education , Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 280 – 292, 2002. 7. Kwon, Y. and J. Johnson – Formality of Business Attire, Perceptual and Motor Skills , Vol. 87, pp. 987 – 994, 1998. 8. Leathers, D., Successful Nonverbal Communication , Macmillan, New York, New York, 1992. 9. Percep tual and Motor Skills , Vol. 81, pp. 231 – 240, 1995. 10. – Communicative Style and the Influence on Instructor Credibility and Situational Motivation. Communication Research Repor ts , Vol. 14, pp, 431 – 440, 1997. 11. Martinez – Egger, A. and W. Powers, Student Respect for a Teacher: Measurement and Relationships to Teacher Credibility and Classroom Behavior Perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication A ssociation, New Orleans, LA, 2002.
151 KB – 12 Pages