* Dr. Michael W. Corrigan is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology and Human Development at Marshall University. Corrigan currently is a co-primary investigator of three U.S. Department of Education grants studying the effects of character education in Ohio, North Carolina, and West Virginia, as well as a NSF grant collaborating with NASA that studies the impact of science-based inquiry on academic achievement of at-risk youth. Corrigan is also the Director of Research for Marshall University's June Harless Center for Rural Educational Research and Development.
** Paul Chapman is an associate professor of leadership studies in the College of Human Resources and Education at West Virginia University. His main research interest is public school leadership. He is also engaged in research on character education, 21 st century teaching, learning, and leadership, computer mediated communication as a pedagogical tool, organizational theory as it applies to school leadership, and teaching techniques for the enhancement of student achievement.
Trust is an integral component for culturally sensitive pedagogy (Jackson, 1994). This study sought to support that gains in teaching effectiveness can be obtained by sharing responsibilities with students, and working together to build trustful bonds. The participants for this study were 200 college students enrolled in an introductory communication studies course at a large mid-Atlantic university. Participants completed a multiple scale survey to help clarify the relationship between one’s level (during high school) of trust in teachers, learner empowerment, and motivation to learn. Results of a Pearson correlation supported numerous positive relationships between trust, motivation, and empowerment.
“Trust is a fundamental element in the pursuit of higher learning for it is only through a sense of trust that students will embrace an empowering sense of freedom, and the exercise of this freedom requires a risk on behalf of students and their teacher.” (Curzon-Hobson, 2002, p. 266).
Past research in instructional communication has led to many discoveries as to the elements most beneficial to building stronger instructor-student relationships. However, improving the effectiveness of one’s instructional techniques has often rested firmly upon the shoulders of the instructor. Such instructor communication behaviors include (yet are not limited to) affinity seeking (Dolin, 1995; Frymier, 1994; Frymier & Thompson, 1992), clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey 2001; Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997), functional communication skills (Frymier & Houser 2000), humor (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), and immediacy (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Frymier & Houser, 2000). Yet there is at least one element considered beneficial to building stronger relationships that does not rely solely upon the instructor’s efforts. This dyad-dependent, mutually beneficial element to the instructor-student relationship is trust. As to the role that trust plays in instructor-student relationships, and student learning, are the concerns of this study.
Trust is a “process of holding certain relevant, favorable perceptions of another person” (Wheeless & Grotz, 1977, p.251). “Trust provides a sensation of collegiality that rebels from the bland acceptance of the ideas and values of the ‘public’ and challenges each student and teacher to formulate, discover and test, through dialogue, their personally transforming relationships to knowledge, self and the other” (Curzon-Hobson, 2002, p. 268). According to Erikson (1963) trust begins to develop at birth and progresses through eight sequential stages dependent upon one’s psychosocial experiences. The development of interpersonal trust is believed to be an initial step to forming healthy human relationships (Mitchell, 1990). Unfortunately, interpersonal trust (in general) can be underdeveloped due to childhood experiences or undermined later in life (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985).
However, regardless if trust is underdeveloped, undermined, or perfectly refined, trust provides the guiding framework for making causal connections, and acts as a “filter” through which events and others’ motives are perceived and interpreted (Holmes & Rempel, 1989, Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Thus, trust plays an important role in one’s decision making process (Shore, 2003), and understanding human behavior (Tsfati, 2003). Furthermore, trust seems to be a crucial element in the ongoing maintenance of relationships (Holmes& Rempel, 1989, Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988).
Therefore, building trust is an integral component for culturally sensitive pedagogy (Jackson, 1994). Past research identified trustworthiness to be positively correlated to student satisfaction and positive evaluations of the teacher (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). When a student feels that the instructor has a sincere interest in the student’s welfare and viewpoints, an excellent catalyst is provided for higher education performance and contributions to knowledge (Govindarajan, 1991). Students’ trust for teachers is very important for stimulating purposeful interactions between the teacher and student (Govindarajan, 1991). When the instructor and student consistently experience positive dyadic interactions, trust should increase over time (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994).
Additionally, trust increases when we self-disclose (Wheeless, 1978). Wheeless and Grotz (1977) found trust and self-disclosure to be related, and that there is a tendency to trust those who self-disclose. By communicating with students, instructors reduce uncertainty that in turn increases trust (Holmes& Rempel, 1989, Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988). Therefore, it is “relational” and “individualized” trust that is recommended for our education system in hopes of creating complex instructor-student dynamics in which parties can depend upon one another with a shared vision for success (Gewertz, 2002).
From the mass of research purporting the benefits of trust to positive communication outcomes in instruction, it would seem that trust most likely performs a significant role in inspiring students to learn. Yet, it appears as if instructional communication has looked more often at what the instructor must do to be considered effective and not as much at what the instructor and student might accomplish together. This study sought to support that gains in teaching effectiveness also can be obtained by sharing responsibilities with students, and working together to build trustful bonds. Therefore the following research question is proposed:
Research Question One (RQ1): What is the impact of students’ trust in teachers to student motivation to learn, and learner empowerment?
Participants
The participants for this study were 200 college students enrolled in an introductory communication studies course at a large mid-Atlantic university. The representative sample of the student population offered past experiences from many diverse states, cities, neighborhoods, and primary educational settings. The mean age of the sample was 22.11 with a range from 18 to 53. There were 110 males and 89 females with 1 non-report.
Procedure
Participants completed a multiple scale survey to help clarify the relationship between one’s level (during high school) of trust in teachers, learner empowerment, and motivation to learn. Further demographic data regarding age and sex was collected. Participants were asked to respond to the survey questions by reflecting on previous experiences relating to the school that they belonged to during their secondary school years. The survey was administered during class in accordance with guidelines for research with human participants (American Psychological Association and the institution involved).
Measures
Individualized Trust Scale (ITS) (adapted for teachers) . The Wheeless and Grotz (1977) Individualized Trust Scale (ITS) originally was developed to measure the level of trust held for a specific person (alpha = .92). Reliability ratings of .92 (Wheeless & Grotz, 1977), .97 (Wheeless, 1978), .95 (Snavely, 1981), and .72 (Buller, Stryzewski, & Comstock, 1991) have been reported for the ITS. The ITS has a strong conceptual base, and evidence supports that the ITS is valid and reliable (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994). For the purpose of this study, ITS achieved an alpha of .94. The original scale was a 7-point semantic differential scale consisting of 15 bipolar items. For this study, the 15-item scale was kept as a 7-point semantic differential scale, but was adapted to measure more exclusively the feelings of trust for the participant’s 9th-12 th grade teachers. See Appendix A for the ITS scale used in this study.
Learner Empowerment Measure (LEM) . The Learner Empowerment Measure (LEM) is a three dimensional measurement that assesses the empowered state of the student. Being empowered in this context refers to an internal condition that an individual experiences toward learning (Frymier-Bainbridge & Shulman, 1996). The LEM (alpha = .93) developed by Frymier-Bainbridge & Shulman (1996) contained 29 items that loaded on to three dimensions of (1) impact, (2) meaningfulness, and (3) competence. In hopes of creating a shorter, yet equally valid and reliable measure of student interest, Weber, Martin, and Cayanus (2003) created an 18-item version of the LEM that achieved an alpha of .91. The 18-item 7-point Likert-type scale (1 being “strongly disagree” to 7 being “strongly agree”) for this study achieved an alpha of .90. The LEM for this study served as a highly reliable index to determine the participants’ level of empowerment in relation to trust. See Appendix A for the LEM scale used in this study.
Student Motivation Scale (SMS) . Brophy (1987) defined student motivation to learn as “a student’s tendency to find academic activities meaningful and worthwhile and to try to derive the intended academic benefits from them” (p. 205). This study used the Richmond (1990) Student Motivation Scale (SMS) to measure the state of a student’s motivation to learn, which is believed to be intrinsically motivated. The scale consists of 5, seven-step bi-polar adjectives (7-point semantic differential scale) with reported alpha coefficients of .94 (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994). For the purpose of this study, SMS achieved an alpha of .94. See Appendix A for the SMS scale.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were obtained for sex, and age. Cronbach’s alphas were employed to determine reliabilities of the scales. Pearson correlation was performed to analyze the relationship between trust in teachers, learner empowerment, and motivation to learn.
Research Question One (RQ1) inquired as to what impact students’ level of trust in teachers has upon student motivation to learn, and learner empowerment. Results of a Pearson correlation supported numerous positive relationships between trust, motivation, and empowerment. Results of a Pearson correlation supported a significant positive relationship ( r= .42, p< .0001) between trust in teachers (M= 81.41, SD= 13.88, N=199) and motivation to learn (M= 21.99, SD= 7.39, N= 200). Results of a Pearson correlation supported a significant positive relationship ( r= .48, p< .0001) between trust in teachers and learner empowerment (M=84.71, SD= 15.98, N= 198). Furthermore, results of a Pearson correlation supported a significant positive relationship ( r=.51, p< .0001) between motivation to learn and learner empowerment.
Although the participants answered the scales from a retrospective view on high school, the results offered rather compelling support that trust most likely was associated with more motivated and empowered students. The fact that all of these students made it to college could suggest that trust in teachers might have helped create the empowerment and motivation that propelled them to higher education. The results would suggest that the gains to motivating and empowering students seem well worth the risks experienced when we open up and self disclose to our students. Furthermore, if the practice of teacher immediacy positively impacts the views of trustworthiness of the teacher and teacher misbehaviors negatively impact trustworthiness (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998), it would suggest that instructional communication techniques are beneficial to building the desired level of trust.
However, trust is a condition that often requires the work of both individuals in the interpersonal relationship. Therefore, the underlying circumstance is that one must ask their students to share in the development of a relationship that could increase greatly the success of their education. Such relationships do not necessarily mean that one must become a best friend with each student. Some instructors have experienced greater success when students view them as having higher status. So whether your students see you as a superior or love you like an equal should not matter. Therefore, the issue that does matter is that you have a trustable agreement with your students that you will deliver said product if they promise to hold their end of the bargain. Either way, when one builds a trusting relationship with one’s students it seems to make coming to work a bit easier.
One possible way to define the trustworthy instructor/student relationship would be to develop a syllabus or agreement that serves as more of an introduction to you, and your perceived responsibility as the instructor (not just your class), and use this tool to start the relationship immediately. Furthermore, we know that a little self-disclosure can go a long way (Wheeless, 1978), as long as that self-disclosure is not negative or depressing. Studies have also found that more frequent informal meetings lend to building trust (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). Therefore, in order to build the benefits of trust in your instruction, communicate with your students.
Limitations and Future Uses
One limitation to this study might have been the sample that was utilized. The convenience sample of college aged students provided a measurement of diverse individuals from many different states, cities, and types of neighborhoods. However, these participants were asked to reflect back on their community and educational experience in high school. If the goal of this research was to provide support for the need to nurture our youth with supportive, healthy communities, then most likely such research could benefit by measuring not just the memories of those who made it to college, but also those who did not achieve higher learning.
Another limitation might be considered the heavy reliance upon correlational measures. The repeated use of the Pearson correlation within this research might seem ultra simplistic and not worthy of merit. However, the Pearson correlation is not that different from the variety of other techniques sometimes considered superior or more impressive. Similar to an analysis of variance, Pearson r cannot identify patterns of causality and effect without experiments and repeated observation. Comparable to regression and canonical analysis Pearson r cannot predict with perfection. Even if one used Pearson r to calculate z-scores or t-scores to test whether two independent correlation coefficients are significantly different from each other, the only direction of the relationship to be determined is positive or negative. Just like the majority of statistical techniques practiced in the social sciences, the results of the Pearson r provide us with a description or conceptualization of the relationship between variables. Such was the case for the correlation results identified within this research.
Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talk to teachers (pp. 201—245), New York: Random House.
Buller, D. B., Stryzewski, K. D., & Comstock, J. (1991). Interpersonal deception: Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs, 58, 1-24.
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.
Curzon-Hobson, A. (2002). A pedagogy of trust in higher learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7 , 265-277.
Dolin, D. (1995). An alternative form of teacher affinity-seeking measurement. Communication Education, 50 , 59-68.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2 nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Frymier, A. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87-105.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
Frymier-Bainbridge, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1996). The development of the learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199.
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Received teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399.
Gewertz, C. (2002). Trusting school community linked to student gains. Education Week, 22 , 8-9.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46-62.
Govindarajan, G. (1991). Enhancing oral communication between teachers and students, Education, 112 , 183-186.
Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp.187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jackson, F. R. (1994). Seven strategies to support a culturally sensitive pedagogy. Journal of Reading, 37 , 298-304.
Jaasma, M.A., Koper, R.J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication-Education, 48, 41-47.
Mitchell, C. E. (1990). Development or restoration of trust in interpersonal relationships during adolescence and beyond. Adolescence, 25, 847-855.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 14, 516-547.
Rempel, J. K, Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 , 95-112.
Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39 , 181-195.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shore, D. A. (2003). Communicating in times of uncertainty: The need for trust. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 13-15.
Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of eacher clarity in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1-10.
Snavely, W. B. (1981). The impact of social style upon person perception in primary relationships. Communication Quarterly, 29, 132-143.
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358.
Tsfati, Y. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Communication Research, 30, 504-530.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and student’s report of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48-62.
Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Cayanus, J. (2003). Why do students communicate with their instructors: A multiple study test of student interest . Paper submitted to the 2004 International Communication Association convention, New Orleans, LA.
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication, 3, 250-257.
ITS
On the scales that follow, please indicate your reaction to your 9-12 grade teachers. Place an “X” in the space between the colons that represents your immediate “feelings” about teachers. Check in the direction of the end of the scale that seems to be most characteristic of your opinion of your 9-12 teachers as a whole. Mark only one “X” for each comparison.
LES
While we still have you thinking about high school, please respond to the following questions based on how much you agree or disagree with regard to your normal high school classroom experience. Please indicate in the space provided the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) moderately disagree (4) are undecided, (5) moderately agree (6) agree, or (7) strongly agree with each statement. There are no right or wrong answers. Work quickly and record your first impression.
SMS and Demographics
Place an “X” in the space between the colons that represents your immediate “feelings” about school work. Check in the direction of the end of the scale that seems to be most characteristic of your opinion of your 9-12 teachers as a whole. Mark only one “X” for each comparison.
© Radical Pedagogy