01.3

ClassroomjConsequences OfCommunication Apprehension

James C. McCroskey

ly sighted, or blind. Each of these youngpeople presents a problem to the class-room teacher. These "special children"need special help in order to maximizetheir learning potential. Fortunately,most school districts recognize these prob-lems and provide special programs forthese individuals, albeit often not fullyadequate programs. .

Another group of handicapped chil-dren is not included in the HEW figures.

D ' [ C osk.

P f d Cl.

P fnor are thev Provided the Special atten-

,.. IVC r t:)' IS ro essor an lair erson o. '.tilt: Departlllent of Speech Communication, West tlOn they need In our schools. These areT'irginia University. the thousands probably millions of chil-

l A. S. :'rCetz,Number of Pupils with Handi- . . ..caps in Local Public Schools, Spring, 19iO, De- dren and young people who are com-partment of Health, Educati(;Jn, and 'Welfare munication apprehensives."pub. no. (OE) 73.11107 (Washmgton: U.s. Gov... .. . "ernment Printing- Office, 1973). CommUnIcatIon apprehensIOn re-

COM~ruNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 26, Januarv 1977

.\ recent report from the U.S. Depart-ment of He:llth, Education, and 'Welfare

estimates that about 4,752,000 (almosteleven percent) of the 44,389,000 youngpeople in public elementary and sec-ondary schools are handicapped.1 Thesefigures include young people who are'speech impaired, learning disabled, men-tally retarded, emotionally disturbed,hard of hearing, deaf, crippled, partial-

28 COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

fers to an anxiety syndrome :l;ssociatedwith either real or anticipated ,communi-cation with another person or persons.Apprehension about communication maytake many forms, only a few of whichhave yet been carefully measured andtheir effects studied.

Apprehension about oral communica-tion is probably the most common formof communication apprehension, and itis the one which has received the mostattention in scientific research. Fear of

oral communication was reported as thenumber one fear of Americans in a re-

cent nationwide survey of adults.:! Re-sults from data collected from nearly20,000 college stUdents at Mi'chigan StateUniversity, Illinois State University, and\Vest Virginia University over the pasteight years, suggest that between 15 and20 percent of American college stUdentssuffer from debilitating communicationapprehension. By "debilitating" is meantapprehension of sufficient magnitUde tointerfere seriously with the individual'sfunctioning in normal human encoun-ters. Figures provided by colleagues inother colleges and universities, both largeand small, indicate that what has beenobserved in the three universities noted

above is typical, although some schoolsseem to have an even higher percentageof apprehensives. .

Over the past two years another formof communication apprehension has be-gun to receive attention. This is appre-hension about written communication.3

'While apparently not quite as common

2 "'What Are Americans Afraid of?" TheBmskin Report, 1973, No. 53.

, 3 John A. Daly and Michael D. Miller, "TheEmpiricai Development for an Instrument toMeasure Writing Apprehension," Research inthe Teaching of English, 9 (1975), 242-249; JohnA. Daly and Michael D. Miller, "Apprehensionof \\Triting- as a Predictor of Message Intensity,"Journal of Psychologj', 89 (1975), 175-177; .T. A.D.aly and M. D. Miller. "Further StUdies on'Vriting- Apprehension: SAT Scores, SuccessExpectations, \\'illingness to Take, AdvancedCourses and Sex Differences," Research in theTeaching of English, 9 (1975), 250.256.

as oral communication apprehension, ap-prehension aboUt writing is also a prob-lem for many college stUdents. Judgingfrom data from over 1800 stUdents at

West Virginia University, it appears that10 to 15 percent of college students sufferfrom severe apprehension about writing.

More recently a special variant of oralcommunication apprehension has beenisolated and measured, apprehensionabout singing.4 While normative dataare not yet available, preliminary resultsfrom both college students and adultssuggest that 5 to 10 percent of the popu-lation may suffer from severe levels ofsinging apprehension.

It is clear that many young people suf-fer from the various forms of communi-

cation apprehension, at least 15 to 20percent from oral communication ap-prehension alone. If all of the forms ofcommunication apprehension were high-ly correlated, we might be able to con;clude that the 15-20 percent figure ex-hausts the size of the problem. Unfor-tunately, that is not the case. The threeforms isolated to date have low correla-

tions. Oral and written apprehension arecorrelated at approximately .35, whileoral and singing apprehension have onlya .10 correlation. Thus, while many in-dividuals suffer from more than one

form of communication apprehension,others suffer from only one. At this pointit is not possible to make a precise esti-mate of how many people in the popula-tion suffer from communication appre-hension, bUt the percentage clearly rep'-resents at least a large minority.

Before we examine the impact of com-munication apprehension on learning,we need to make at least two distinctions

clear. First, oral communication appre-hension is not just a new term for "stage

4 Janis F. Andersen, Peter A. Andersen" .andJohn P. Garrison, "Measurement of Sing-ing- Ap-prehension," unpublished paper, West Virg-iniaUniversity, 1975.

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION 29

fright." While oral communication ap-preherisives will. usually s~ffer stagefright in public performances, not every-one who suffers from stage fright is anoral communication apprehensive. Oralcommunication apprehension refers to abroad-based apprehension about oralcommunication, from talking to a singlepeer to giving a speech on television. Toexperience nervousness while giving apublic speech is normal, but to have asimilar experience when talking to apeer or participating in a bull sessionis not. The oral communication appre-hensive has both problems.

Second, apprehension about writtencommunication is not just fear of turningin a required theme for English. Thewritten communication apprehensivefears all forms of writing to various de-grees, just as the oral communication ap-prehensive fears all forms of oral com-munication.

EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATION

ApPREHE.~SION IN THE CLASSROOM

.While communication apprehension isclearly a severe personal problem for theindividual suffering from it, our majorconcern here is with its impact, if any,in the learning environment. If no effectcould be found, it would be a problemthat the individual classroom teacher

might safely ignore. Unfortunately, com-munication apprehension does have animpact on learning, and that impact isnegative.

The most obvious effects are those in

classes specifically related to one form ofcommunication apprehension, e.g., pub-lic speaking for oral communication ap-prehensives, English composition for writ-ten communication apprehensives, vocalmusic for singing apprenhensives. Twothings should be expected. First, the stu-dent will seek to avoid the class, if pos-sible. Second, the student's apprehensionwiIl interfere with successful completion

of assignments, if he or she cannot avoidthe class. Obviously, in the elementaryschool every. apprehensive will be inclasses that will cause problems. But, ourattention should not be restricted to

these special cases. Rather, let us con-sider the more general indicants of a pos-sible effect.

Standardized Achievement Tests. Oneof the least biased methods of determin-

ing a stUdent's level of learning is by useof standardized achievement tests. Suchtests are routinely administered duringthe final two years of secondary school.Two stUdies have been reponed that in-dicate that a person's level of communi-cation apprehension has a major impacton general achievement. McCroskey andAndersen found that communication stu-

dents who were highly apprehensivescored significantly lower than less ap-prehensive students on the AmericanCollege Test (ACT), both on the overallor composite score and on the four in-dividual subs cores for social science, nat-ural science, mathematics, and English.1SSimilar effects were observed by Bashoreon the ACT, as well as the Illinois StateHigh School Test, the verbal portion ofthe College Entrance Examination BoardTest, and the Preliminary Scholastic Ap-titude Test.6 Taken together, these stud-ies clearly indicate that high communi-cation apprehensives learn less than lowcommunication apprehensives through-out their elementary and secondary ed-ucation:-

Grade Point Average. A stUdy of 1,454college stUdents examined the impact ofcommunication apprehension on gradesawarded by teachers. The students stud-

1\.Tames C. McCroskey and Janis F. Ander-sen, "The Relationship Between Communica.tion Apprehension and Academic AchievementAmong- Colle~e Students," Human Communi-cation Research (in press).

6 David N. Bashore, "Relationships AmongSpeech Anxiety, Trait Anxiety, I.Q., and HilthSchool Achievement," unpublished M.s. thesis,Illinois State University. 1971.

30 COM.\£UNlCA TION EDUCATION

ied had completed from one.. to fouryears of college at the time the -data werecollected. The results indicated a sharpdistinction betWeen students who were

high communication apprehensives andthose who were low communication ap-prehensives. The low communication ap-prehensives had GPA's across all coursestaken that were approximately one-halfgrade point higher than the high com-munication apprehensive stUdents on afour.point scale (0.0 to 4.0).1

Achie-Jement in Small Classes. Fromthe stUdies noted above it is evident that

high communication apprehension is as-sociated with lower overall studentachievement. Other research has investi-

gated the effect of communication appre-hension in particular types of instruc-tion. Two studies have examined the im-

pact of communication apprehension insmall classes with enrollment of from 20to 30 stUdents. High communication ap'prehensives were found to receive lowerscores on both objective tests and in-structor.evaluated written projects thanlow communication apprehensives insmall college classes.s A similar result wasobserved on grades in small classes atthe junior high school leve1.9

Personalized Instruction. In recent

years there has been increased emphasison personalizing and individualizing in-struction. A variety of instructionalmethods, sometimes referred to as "Per-sonalized Systems of Instruction," or"PSI," have been implemented at alllevels of education. Crucial character-

11fcCroskey and Andersen.8 M. D. Scott and L. R. Wheeless, "An Ex-

ploracory Investij<ation of Three Types of Com-municauon Apprehension on Student Achieve-ment," unpublished paper, West Vir~inia Uni-versity, 1976. .

9 H. T. Hurt, R. Preiss. and B. Davis, "TheEffects of Communication Apprehension ofMiddle-School Children on Sociometric Choice,Affective and Co~itive Leamin~:' paper pre-sented at the annual convention of the Inter-national Communication Association, Portland,Ore~on. 1976.

istics of most of these systems includecriteria-referenced testing and grading,multimedia dissemination of informa-

tion (often through a learning center),and individual contact with an instruc-

tor or tutor. While the primary learningof information in such systems is nor-mally dependent on the mediated ma-terials, students with problems have ac-cess to the instructOr or tutor for indi-

vidual help. 'While the advantages ofsuch instructional systems have beenstrongly promoted in educational circles,it is clear that one-to.one communicationwith the instructor or tUtOr is vital for

students with problems in mastering theinformation in the course. It might beexpected, therefore, that communicationapprehension could have an impact onthose students.

A stUdy reported by Scott, Yates, and'Wheeless confirmed that expectation.1°The study found that high communica-tion apprehensives, as compared to lows,not only were taking the tests on themodules more times (repeated testing todemonstrate mastery was permitted inthe course) but also they were completingfewer modules. Thus, it was concluded,

the PSI system was not proving effectivefor stUdents with high communicationapprehension.

Lecture Classes. vVhile small classes

and PSI systems not only allow stUdent-teacher interaction but also require it inmany cases, the typical mass lecture classdoes neither. Thus, while communica-

tion apprehension has been found to im-pact learning in other instructional sys-tems, there is little reason to expect suchan impact in a mass lectUre course. Thus,it is not surprising that in a study of 709

10 M. D. Scott, M. P. Yates, and L. R.\Vheeless. "An Exploratory Investi~tion of theEffects of Communication Apprehension in .\1-temative Systems of Instruction," paper pre-sented at the annual convention of the Inter-national Communication Association, Chica!1;o.Illinois, 1975.

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION 31

students in a mass lecture course, no re-

lationship between: communication ap-prehension and achievement whatsoeverwas observed.ll

CACSES OF CLASSROOM EFFECTS

It is clear from the research noted

above that communication apprehensionhas a very negative impact on learningin most instructional environments. It

is important, therefore, to examine thepossible causes of the effects observed.

Intelligence. Since it is well estab-lished that intelligence and achievementare strongly associated, intelligence mustbe considered to be a potential cause forany achievement differences observed. Inthis case, however, intelligence must berejected as a causal agent for two reasons.First, intelligence and communicationapprehension have not been found to becorrelated.12 Second, even if there were acorrelation between the two, since highcommunication apprehensives werefound to achieve less than low communi-

cation apprehensives in some instruc-tional environments but not in others,that correlation could not account forthe differential results.

Teacher Expectation. Since the publi-cation of Pygmalion in the Classroom,13considerable attention has been directedtoward the correlation between the ex-

pectation a teacher has for a student andthat student's actual achievement. The

correlation appears to be substantial. Ina number of studies it has been observed

that the teachers' expectations predictdifferential achievement betWeen stu-dents even when there is no difference in

11 McCroskey and Andersen.12 Tames C. McCroskey, John A. Daly, and

Gail A. Sorensen, "Personalitv Correlates o(Communication Apprehension:; Human Com-munication Research ~ (1976), 376-380.

13 R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson. Pygmalionin the Classroom: Teacher Exf}ectation andPupils' Intellectual Development (New York:Holt, Rinehart. and Winston, 1968).

the students' actual abilities.H Thus, atleast in some situations, teachers' expec-tations become self-fulfilling prophecies.The relevant question here, therefore, iswhether teachers form differential ex.pec-tations for hIgh arid low communicationapprehensive students.

Research on the expectations teachershave of high and low communication ap-prehensive elementary school studentsshows a major difference in expecta-tions.15 This research indicated that

teachers expect low communication ap-prehensive students, as opposed to highs,to do better in all academic subjects, tohave a much more promising future ineducation, and to have much better re-lationships with their peers.

Although other research already notedindicates that the teachers' expectationsare more than likely correct, the causalrelationship is elusive. While the expec-tations of the teachers may be a majorcontributor to the eventual effects, it

may be that the expectations are the.product of the teachers having seen theeffects occur in the past and would oc-cur inevitably whether the teachers ex-pected them to or not. Very probably,however, we have an instance of recipro-cal causality, not unlike that of thechicken and the egg.

Student Attitudes. Since communica-

tion apprehension has such a major im-pact on people's behavior, it is reason-able to expect that it would also havean impact on many attitudes. As almostany teacher can testify, students' atti-tudes toward school in general and thosetoward specific classes can have an im-pact on their achievement. It is impor-tant, therefore, to consider whether com-

H T. B. Dusek, "Do Teachers Bias Children'sLearnin,,?" Review of Educatz'Otlal Re.~earclt, 45(1975), 661-684.

15 J. C. McCroskey and J. A. Daly, "Teachers'Expectations of the Communication Apprehen-sive Child i~ the Elementarv Schonl," Hlll1lanCO/lll1lllnicatirJrr. Rl'.~ellrch (in' pres.-).

32 'COMMUNICATION EDUCATION:

munication apprehension has an impacton stUdents' school-related' :attitudes.

Three studies have been reported in this'area. "? :,: .

In a study of junior high'school stu-dents, Hurt, Preiss, and Davis found asubstantial correlation between com-

munication apprehension and attitudetoward school in general.16 As level ofcommunication apprehension increased,the attitude toward school became more

negative. A study of college studentsfound the same pattern.n In a study ofstUtlent attitudes toward specific typesof classes, McCroskey and Andersenfound that low and moderate communi-

cation apprehensives preferred smallclasses to mass lecture classes, but the

exact oppo~it~ pattern was observed forhigh communication. apprehensives.18

The relationship between attitudesand achievement is clear in these studies.

High communication apprehensivesachieve less and like school less than low

communication apprehensives. Both highand low communication apprehensivesindicate a preference for the type of classthat they do best in. But, once again,the causal agent is elusive. Does com.munication apprehension cause negativeattitudes which result in lower achieve-ment? Does communication apprehen-sion cause lower achievement which re-

sults in negative attitudes? It is clear thatcommunication apprehension is associ-ated with both negative attitudes andlower achievement, but the research not-

ed above does not explain why.Student Withdrawal. With the excep-

tion of the mass lectUre class, most in-structional methods require the studentto communicate, with teachers and/orpeers, in order to learn. Research clearly

16 Hurt, Preiss, and Davis. ,-'17 McCroskey and Sheahan, "Communication

Apprehension, Social Preference. and Social Be-havior," unpublished paper, West ViI'Kinia Uni-versity, 1976.

18 McCroskey and Andersen.

indicates that people who suffer from-high commuriieation apprehension' con-sistently withdraw from communicationin settings outside the classroom: If asimilar pattern can be found within theinstructional setting, this would providethe best causal explanation for the rela-tionship between communication appre.hension and student achievement.

, -

Two studies have been reported thatindicate such is the case. In the Scott,Yates, amI "Wheeless study of communica-tion apprehension in a PSI course notedabove, a record was kept of how manytimes each student went to a tutor for

help in the course. Tutors were availableall day and evening during the semester,and students were encouraged but notrequired to seek assistance. Analysis ofthose data indicated that, although highcommunication apprehensives were hav-ing much more difficulty mastering themodules in the course, low communica-

tion apprehensives sought help from thetutors almost three times more often

than highs.19Research reported on interaction in

typical small classrooms has indicatedthat there are certain seats from which

most of the student participation ema-nates, generally in the center of the roomtowards the front. Teachers call on stu-dents in these seats more, and studentsin these seats volunteer more comments

and questions than do other students.:!oThus, stUdents in these seats are more

likely to determine their deficiencies andcorrect them, as well as to request neededinformation, than are students sitting inother parts of the room.

Recent research indicates that while

low communication apprehensives aretwice as likely to sit in this high interac.tion area (20 percent of the total seats)as they are to sit anywhere else (80 per-

19 Scott, Yates, and Wheeless.20 R. Sommer, Persrmal Space (Englewood

Cliffs, :'-l.J.: Prentice. Hall, 1969).

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION 33

cent of the total seats), high communica-tion apprehensives'are four times as like-ly to sit outside this interaction area asthey are to sit in it.21

These studies suggest, therefore, thatthe causal link between communication

apprehension and achievement is thecommunication withdrawal behavior of

high communication apprehensives incomparison with the communicationseeking behavior of the low communica-tion apprehensives. Students must com-municate to learn. Those who commu-nicate less, learn less.

bIPLICATIONS FOR THE

CLASSROOM TEACHER

The implications of the research on .

communication apprehension are of con-siderable importance to all classroom in-structors, and even more central to teach-

ers of speech. No instructor, with thepossible exception of the teacher of avoluntary class in public speaking, islikely to ever face a class that contains nohigh communication apprehensive stu-dents. The traditional interaction-ori-

ented instructional system presents a se-vere handicap to these students. An ob-vious answer to the problem is to teachall classes as mass lecture classes, butthat solution is unsatisfactory because itwould penalize all those students whoare not high communication apprehen-sives. Some other approach is needed.

Little can be done to cure communi-

cation apprehension in the regular class-room. Requiring the student to partici-

21.T; C. McCroskey and M. E. Sheahan, "Seat-ing Position and Participation: An alternativeTheoretical Explanation," paper presented atthe annual convention of the InternationalCommunication Association, Portland, Ore~on,1976. This study involved coIle~e students. Theobserved relationship was replicated in a studyof high school students. See James C. McCroskeyand Thomas Knutson, "Seating Choices andCommunication Apprehension Among- HighSchool Students," unpublished paper, West Vir-~nia University, 1976.

pate will only aggravate the stUdent'sproblem. Requiring the student to giveformal presentations could have disas-terous results. But the classroom teachercan avoid hurting the communicationapprehensive student. The teacher caneliminate grading on "participation";he or she can provide options for assign-ments other than formal presentations;the teacher can permit voluntary seat-ing choices so that the communicationapprehensive student can be comfortablein the classroom; he or she can avoid call-

ing on communication apprehensive stu-dents and forcing involuntary participa-tion; and, most important, the teachercan attempt to structUre the course sothat students can obtain all necessary in-

.formation without having to seek extracommunication contact with either the

. teacher or peers.While all of the suggestions noted

above are relatively simple to implementand should be helpful, the real solutionto the problems of communication ap-prehension is treatment. Several methodsof treating communication apprehensionhave been developed and can be imple-mented in any school system.2:! The con-cerned teacher should push for imple-mentation of such programs- Betweennow and the time such programs arewidely available, it is vital that the pro-fessional training of teachers include in-struction in the natUre and effects of

communication apprehension in theclassrom. Both pre-professional and in-service training programs for teachersneed to include such instruction.

. .

22 See, for example, J. C. McCroskey, D. Ralph,and T. E. Barrick, "The Effects of SystematicDesensitization on Speech Anxiety," SpeechTeacher, 19 (1970), 32-36; J. C. McCroskey, "TheImplementation of a. Large Scale Prof7am ofSystematic Desensitization for CommunicationApprehension," Speech Teacher, 21 (1972), 255-264; and W. J. Fremouw and :\L G. Harmatz."A Helper MOdel for Behavioral Treatment ofSpeech Anxietv," Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 43 (1975), 652-660.