This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 18 October 2014, At: 12:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

The impact of sex, gender, and cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of teacher communication skills
a
Brooks Aylor
a
Assistant Professor of Communication, Department of Communication , La Salle University , Philadelphia, PA, 19454‐1199 Phone: (215) 951‐1844 Fax: (215) 951‐1844 E-mail:
Published online: 22 May 2009.

To cite this article: Brooks Aylor (2003) The impact of sex, gender, and cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of teacher communication skills, Communication Studies, 54:4, 496-509, DOI: 10.1080/10510970309363306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970309363306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Communication Studies, 54(4) (Winter 2003), 496-509

THE IMPACT OF SEX, GENDER, AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY

ON THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
BROOKS AYLOR

The current study examines student perceptions of the importance of selected communication skills for the
teacher-student relationship. Seven of eight communication skills identified in previous research (Burleson
& Samter, 1990; Frymier & Houser, 2000) were perceived by students to be important in the teacher-
student relationship. These included referential, ego supportive, regulative, persuasive, conversational,
narrative, and conflict management skills. This study sought to explain differences in student perceptions by
examining student biological sex, psychological gender, and cognitive complexity. Psychological gender was
superior to biological sex as a predictor of six of eight communication skills. Masculine/instrumental
individuals reported expectations for teachers' use of persuasive, conversational, and narrative communi-
cation skills, while feminine/expressive individuals perceived ego supportive, regulative, and referential
skills as important to effective teaching. Finally, cognitive complexity was positively associated with
regulative skill and negatively related to narrative and persuasive skills. Implications for instructional
research and effective teaching are discussed.

f j esearchers have increasingly examined teacher behaviors with the assumption

_L\» that the teacher-student relationship is interpersonal in nature and shares simi-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

larities with other interpersonal relationships. For example, Frymier and Houser
(2000) argued that, despite differences in status and the time constraints associated with
teacher-student relationships, these relationships are similar in development and
maintenance to other interpersonal relationships. They noted, specifically, that teach-
er-student relationships begin with uncertainty reduction via information exchange,
embody behavioral expectations for the teacher and the student, must be developed
and maintained, utilize interpersonal communication to achieve goals, and contain
both content and relational dimensions.
The work of Frymier and Houser (2000) is particularly valuable because it
underscores the transactional nature of teacher and student interaction. As Nussbaum
(1992) noted, too often research has viewed this relationship as one in which teachers
affect students. That is, teachers are often viewed as the sources and students the
receivers in instructional communication research, generating much research on how
teacher behaviors (e.g., verbal and nonverbal immediacy, compliance gaining, self-
disclosure, antisocial behaviors, humor orientation, affinity-seeking, perceived caring,
etc.) affect students. On the other hand, recent research has also focused on student
behaviors and how these impact teacher behaviors in the classroom, including stu-
dent's use of information-seeking behaviors (Myers & Knox, 2001), immediacy be-
haviors (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000), affinity-seeking behaviors (Wanzer, 1998), and
challenge behaviors (Simonds, 1997).
A third approach recognizes the value of both students and teachers by examining
student characteristics and how these influence student perceptions of teacher behav-
iors. For example, Frymier and Weser (2001) examined the impact of student predis-
positions (communication apprehension, learning and grade orientation, and humor
orientation) on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Research

Brooks Aylor, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Communication, Department of Communication, La Salle

University, Philadelphia, PA 19454-1199. (215) 951-1844; fax (215) 951-5043. [email protected].
The author would like to thank the Editor and anonymous reviewers for instructive feedback, Marianne Dainton
for generous advice, and Jenna Katits for assistance with data entry and coding.
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 497

by Myers, Mottet, and Martin (2000) underscored the importance of focusing on

student motives for communicating with their teachers, and how these motives affect
perceptions of teacher communication style. It is important to examine personality and
social cognitive characteristics that students bring to the classroom, and how these
influence student perceptions of what should happen in the classroom. Research has
established that in a variety of communication situations individuals' perceptions of
what should happen in a situation affect motivation, evaluation, and behaviors (Bur-
goon & LePoire, 1993; Dobos, 1996). Dainton and Stafford (2000) argued that, in any
interpersonal relationship, an individual's perceptions of how the other person will
behave are often, more important in predicting behavioral, responses than the person's
actual behavior. Indeed, Duck (1986) wrote that an individual's "mental creations" of
a relationship may be more important than, actual behaviors.
By focusing on student perceptions of communication skills associated with
effective teaching, the current study seeks to extend our knowledge of the interper-
sonal, nature of teacher-student relationships by clarifying similarities between teacher-
student relationships and other interpersonal relationships (Frymier and Houser,
2000), to provide explanations for any observed similarities based on specific student
characteristics, and to allow teachers to reexamine teaching styles and interactions with
students to maximize student learning, motivation, and retention. Specifically, the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

current study replicates and extends the work of Frymier and Houser by examining
student perceptions of communication skills used by effective teachers, and by inves-
tigating the role of biological sex, psychological gender, and cognitive complexity of
students as predictors of student perceptions.

Communication Skills

Frymier and Houser (2000) examined student perceptions of teacher behaviors in

an attempt to observe any similarities between, the teacher-student relationship and
other Interpersonal relationships. These researchers utilized Burleson and Samter's
(1.990) Communication Functions Questionnaire (CFQ), originally designed to mea-
sure the value of specific communication skills In same-sex friendships. The CFQ^
measures eight communication skills: conversational skill (the ability to initiate and
maintain enjoyable conversations), referential skill (the ability to convey information
clearly and. concisely), ego supportive skill (the ability to make a person feel good, about
themselves, their goals, and their ideas), comforting skill (the ability to help a person in
times of emotional distress), conflict management skill (the ability to reach mutually
satisfying solutions to conflicts), persuasive skill (the ability to change a person's atti-
tudes, beliefs, and/or behaviors), narrative skill (the ability to entertain through story-
telling), and regulative skill (the ability to help someone realize their mistakes and
correct them).
Researchers (e.g., Burleson & Samter, 1990; Burleson, Samter, & Lucchetti, 1992)
have classified these behaviors as 1) skills primarily focused on managing the feelings
of another (e.g., comforting, ego supportive, regulative, and conflict management
skills) or 2) skills primarily focused on managing behavior or the act of communication
itself (e.g., persuasive, narrative, referential, and conversational skills). The former
classification is consistent with. Allen's (2002) discussion of "affective perspective taking
skills," or the ability of a person to "feel for" another person (p. 231). It is also
important to note that these classifications are not exclusive. For example, conversa-
tional ability might result in greater perspective taking ability, but the primary focus of
 498 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

this skill is not necessarily the management of a person's feelings. On the other hand,
the primary focus of behaviors such as comforting or ego support is the management
of feelings,
Frymier and Houser (2000) reported that all of the communication skills, with the
exception of comforting, were perceived as more important than unimportant by
students. Of those seven skills, the means were rank-ordered and subjected to paired
t-tests, resulting in the following ranking of importance: 1) Referential skill, 2) ego
support skill, 3) conflict management skill, 4) regulative skill, 5) conversational skill, 6)
narrative skill, and 7) persuasive skill. Given that this was the first examination of
student expectations using the CFQj the current study seeks to replicate these findings
to further examine similarities between the teacher-student relationship and other
interpersonal relationships. Appropriately, the following research question is posed:
RQ1: What communication skills do students perceive to be associated with effective teaching?
Biological Sex versus Psychological Gender
The current study seeks to not only examine student perceptions of communica-
tion skills used by effective teachers, but also to explain observed differences in student
perceptions of these communication skills. In so doing, the relative importance of
biological sex and psychological gender as predictors of student perceptions of teacher
communication skills will be explored. Previous research has identified differences in
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

the value men and women place on communication skills in interpersonal relation-
ships. For example, Burleson et al, (1992) noted that men, more than women, value
narrative and persuasive skills in same-sex friendships. Women, however, have been
found to place more value on comforting and ego-support skills. Similarly, Westmyer
and Myers (1996) found that women more than men valued conflict management, ego
support, and comforting in same-sex friendships. Frymier and Houser (2000) reported
sex differences in student perceptions of these communication skills in the teacher-
student relationship. Specifically, females viewed referential, ego support, conversa-
tional, comforting, and narrative skills as more important than did men.
However, research suggests that sex differences in communication are typically
small, and that psychological gender may be a better predictor of behavior in many
communication situations (Wood & Dindia, 1998), Canary and Hause (1998) con-
ducted a meta-analysis representing over 1,200 studies. They concluded that there are
small differences in communication due to sex, and that these differences accounted
for an average of only 1% of the variance. Moreover, they questioned whether the
interest of researchers who study sex differences in communication behavior is actu-
ally an interest in variations due to biological sex, or whether the ultimate interest is in
variations due to gender. While sex refers to biological differences, Wood and Dindia
described gender as a "social, symbolic construction that expresses the meanings a
society confers on biological sex. . . . Unlike sex differences, gender differences are
cultivated, but not determined, by the distinct conditions of the lives of men and
women as groups" (p. 20). Gender differences, then, are personality variables based on
the masculine and feminine experiences of individuals in the social construction of the
sexes (Allen, 1998).
The use of gender in research has generated occasional controversy. For example,
it has been argued that standard measurements of gender do not necessarily assess the
participants' self-concept in terms of their masculinity or femininity, but rather other
tendencies such as dominance and nurturance or self- and other-orientation (Blan-
chard-Fields, Suhrer-Roussel, & Hertzog, 1994; Stern, Barak, & Gould, 1987; Wiggens
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 499

& Pincus, 1992). Indeed, researchers have noted relationships between the masculinity
and femininity of an individual and that individual's propensity to respond to situa-
tions with instrumental or expressive communication. The expressive communicator
focuses more on relational aspects of messages, while the instrumental communicator
focuses on achieving a goal or completing a task (Fitzpatrick & Indvic, 1982). A history
of research has suggested strong associations between masculinity and instrumentality,
and between femininity and expressiveness (Bakan, 1966; Bern, Martyna, & Watson,
1976; Huston & Houts, 1998). Given this research, in the current study gender roles
are referred to as masculinity/instrumentality and femininity/expressiveness.
Although gender has been found to explain more variance than sex in a variety
of communication situations, no studies have examined the relative importance of sex
and gender in student perceptions of communication behaviors used by effective
teachers. It is plausible that these perceptions vary based on the masculinity/instru-
mentality and femininity/expressiveness of individuals. This is important because
teachers may be attributing differences in student perceptions to biological sex—an
easily observable variable—when in reality many of these differences may reflect a
student's psychological gender style independent of biological sex. Such knowledge
would allow teachers to more accurately perceive, and interact with, students. Thus,
the following research questions are posed.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

RQ2: Do males and females differ in their perceptions of communication skills associated with
effective teaching?
RQ3: Is there a relationship between masculinity/instrumentality or femininity/expressiveness
and student perceptions of communication skills associated with effective teaching?
RQ4: Is psychological gender a better predictor than biological sex of student perceptions of
communication skills associated with effective teaching?

Cognitive Complexity

Constructivism, may provide additional explanations for observed differences in

student perceptions of communication skills associated with effective teaching. Ac-
cording to constructivist theory, the set of personal constructs an individual uses serves
as the cognitive structure through which situations and individuals are perceived,
interpreted, and understood (Crockett, 1965). Constructivist research suggests that an
individual's cognitive processes affect relational perceptions and interpretations. This
view proposes that a person's construct system influences how an individual makes
sense of situations. Individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity view rela-
tionships in a more multidimensional fashion relative to their lower complexity
counterparts (Burleson, 1987). As Burleson and Waltman (1988) noted, research has
consistently supported the idea that cognitive differentiation influences the experience
and interpretation of messages and situations. For example, higher levels of complex-
ity have been found to be associated with an ability to better discriminate between and
remember relational experiences and to conceptualize experiences in relationships
more abstractly (Martin, 1990).
Specifically, individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity are better able
to understand the perspectives of others (Allen, 2002). In his meta-analysis of con-
structivist research on comforting behaviors, Allen presented a causal model indicating
that the essential outcome of cognitive complexity is the ability to understand the
perspective^ of others. Specifically, cognitive differentiation was positively associated
with perspective taking ability, which in turn positively influenced comforting message
quality. This perspective is important to the current study because it helps explain why
 500 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

cognitively complex individuals view and use communication differently relative to

less complex individuals. Individuals with higher levels of complexity should view the
teacher-student relationship in a more multidimensional fashion relative to less com-
plex individuals and place greater importance on teachers' use of perspective taking
skills.
Burleson and Samter (1990) examined the extent to which perceptions of com-
munication skills in same-sex friendships varied based on cognitive complexity. They
noted that, "Cognitively complex individuals are likely to have highly differentiated,
psychologically centered views of the friendship relation and their friends. Moreover,
cognitively complex individuals are more likely than less complex individuals to orient
spontaneously to social situations in terms of their implications for feelings, relation-
ships, and face wants of interactants" (p. 168). With regard to the eight communication
skills represented by the CFQ^ Burleson and Samter reported that highly complex
individuals were more likely than their lower complexity counterparts to value skills
of ego support and comforting in friendships. Burleson and Samter referred to these
skills—as well as regulative and conflict management skills—as affectively oriented,
noting that the primary goal in these activities is to understand and manage the feelings
of others. As noted earlier, this is consistent with Allen's (2002) description of affective
perspective taking skills. For example, when one attempts to make another person feel
good about themselves (ego supportive skill) or help a person in times of emotional
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

distress (comforting skill), the perspective of the person in need is central.

Likewise, Burleson and Samter (1990) found that less complex individuals were
more likely to value skills that were not primarily focused on the management of
feelings, including narrative and persuasive skills. While affect may be an indirect
result of these behaviors, narrative, persuasive, conversational, and referential skills
are not primarily focused on the management of feelings. Instead, the primary goal of
these behaviors is the management of behavior or of communication itself.
Whereas Burleson and Samter (1990) focused on communication skills in same-
sex friendships, an objective of the current study is to examine the influence of
cognitive complexity on student expectations of communication skills necessary in the
teacher-student relationship. Given a history of constructivist research suggesting that
individuals' with higher levels of cognitive complexity are more likely to focus on the
affective dimensions of messages and relationships (for a review, see Applegate, 1990)
and messages that reflect affective perspective taking ability (Allen, 2002), the follow-
ing hypotheses are proposed:
HI: Cognitive complexity is positively associated with student perceptions of ego supportive,
comforting, regulative, and conflict management skills in teacher-student relationships.
H2: Cognitive complexity is negatively associated with student perceptions of persuasive, refer-
ential, narrative, and conversational skills in teacher-student relationships.

METHOD
Respondents
A total of 227 participants enrolled in an introductory communication course at
a small, private university completed questionnaires at the beginning of a class session.
Respondents, representing 14 majors, were told that participation was voluntary and
responses were confidential. The average age of the respondents was 19.1, with a range
from 17 to 47 (sd = 3=29). There were 105 males and 120 females. Most participants
were European American (n = 195, 87%), with 7% African American (n = 14), 4%
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 501

Asian American (n — 8), and 3% Hispanic (n = 7). Regarding year in school, 51%
were first-year students (n = 115), 32% were sophomores (n = 72), 12% were juniors
(n = 26), and 5% were seniors (n = 12).

Instrumentation
Communication skills. Communication skills were measured using Burleson and
Samter's (1990) Communication Function Questionnaire (CFQ). The 31-item, measure
assesses the importance of eight communication skills. A five-point scale, anchored
"very unimportant" and "very important," was used. Reliabilities for the eight sub-
scales in previous research ranged from. .69 to .84 and construct validity was demon-
strated through factor analysis (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Means, standard deviations,
and alpha reliabilities for the eight subscales in the current study follow: regulative skill
alpha = .70 (item M = 4.27, sd = .14), narrative skill alpha = .85 (item M = 3.87,
sd = .29), referential skill alpha = .79 (item M = 4.74, sd = .32), persuasive skill
alpha = .83 (item M = 3.36, sd = .21), comforting skill alpha = .91 (item M = 2.70,
sd = .10), ego supportive skill alpha = .86 (item M — 4.63, sd— .03), conversational
skill alpha = .84 (item M = 4.11, sd = .16), and conflict management skill alpha =
.91 (item M = 3.93, sd = .04).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

Gender. Gender was measured using the revised short form, of Bern's Sex-Role
Inventory (Bern, 1974; Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981). The items included have
been found consistently to load as factors in previous research, (e.g., Ballard-Reisch &
Elton, 1992; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1994). Scale means and reliabilities were as
follows: femininity/expressiveness alpha = .88 (M = 5.60, sd = .36), masculinity/
instrumentality alpha = .88 (M = 4.80, sd = .75). Masculinity /instrumentality and
femininity/expressiveness were treated as continuous variables, consistent with the
notion that gender roles are social constructed traits that vary along a continuum. That
is, analyzing masculinity/instrumentality and femininity/expressiveness scores as con-
tinuous variables provides more information relative to analyzing gender roles as
dichotomized variables (Bern, 1977; Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 1981).
Interpersonal cognitive differentiation. Participants were given 1.0 minutes to complete
the two-role version of Crockett's (1965) Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ). Sub-
jects were instructed to describe a liked (five minutes) and disliked (five minutes) peer,
and. each, impression was scored for the number of attributes following procedures
outlined by Crockett, Delia, Press, and Kenney (1974). An index of interpersonal
construct differentiation was obtained (M = 20.0, range = 6-71, sd = 8.33) for each,
subject by summing the number of attributes in each, of the two impressions they
provided (for coding and scoring procedures, see Applegate, 1990, and Burleson and
Waltman, 1988). Although, disagreement exists concerning the utility of the RCQto
measure differences in complexity (Allen, 2002; Allen, Mabry, Banski, & Preiss, 1991;
Burleson, Applegate, & Delia, 1991), the index is designed, to provide a measure of the
breadth of an individual's construct development system. That is, those with higher
R C Q scores should have more developed construct systems than, those with lower
R C Q scores. In the current study, reliability was assessed as the author and a second
coder trained in RCQ, procedures independently coded 25% of the responses. Inter-
coder reliability was acceptable in the current study (r = .92) and. consistent with
previous research purporting the high reliability of the coding method (Applegate,
1990; Burleson & Waltman, 1988).
 502 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

TABLE 1
UNIVARIATE EFFECTS OF BIOLOGICAL SEX ON STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Communication Behavior Male Mean Female Mean F Sig. Eta-sq

Regulative 12.74(1.95) 12.87(1.57) .33 .564 .005
Narrative 15.71 (3.17) 15.31 (3.53) .77 .381 .002
Referential 18.55 (1.96) 19.31 (1.16) 12*36 .001 .049
Persuasive 9.95 (2.99) 10.21 (2.73) .46 .499 .002
Comforting 10.78 (2.81) 10.81 (2.82) .00 .952 .000
Ego Supportive 18.10 (2.20) 18.85 (1.73) 7.87 .004 .041
Conversational 16.47 (2.93) 16.41 (2.96) .02 .899 .000
Conflict Management 19.16(4.04) 20.04(3.81) 2.76 .089 .014

Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Bold represents significant differences at least/? < .05.

RESULTS
The first research question focused on the communication skills that students
perceived to be associated with effective teaching. Seven of the eight communication
skills had means above the midpoint (3.0), Indicating that they were rated as more
important than unimportant Following the methodology prescribed by Frymier and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

Houser (2000), the item means of each of the communication skills were rank-ordered
and compared using paired t-tests. Examining the item means in order, referential skill
was significantly more important than ego support, i(217) = 3.61, p < .001; ego
support was significantly more important than regulative skill £(218) = 7.9, p < .001;
regulative skill was significantly more important than conversational skill £(217) =
2.67, p < .01; conversational skill was significantly more important than conflict
management £(216) = 3.28, p < .001; conflict management and narrative skills were
not significantly different £(218) = .82, ns; narrative skill was significantly more
Important than persuasive skill £(218) = 7.14, p < .001; and persuasive skill was
significantly more Important than comforting skill £(218) = 9.19, /><.001.
The second research question explored sex differences In student expectations of
teacher communication skills. ANOVAs Indicated two sex differences among the eight
communication skills. Females were more likely than males to expect effective teach-
ers to utilize ego supportive [F[l, 219) = 12.36, p < .001) and referential [JF[1,
216) = 7.87, p < .01) skills. Complete results are reported in Table 1.
The third research question asked If there were associations between masculinity/
Instrumentality or femininity/expressiveness and student perceptions of teacher com-
munication skills (see Table 2). Pearson correlations revealed that masculinity/instru-
mentality was positively associated with narrative (r = .23, j& < .001), persuasive (r =
.35, p < .001), and conversational (r = .33, jb < .001) skills. Conversely, femininity/
expressiveness was positively associated with ego supportive (r = .27, p < .001),
referential (r = .19, p < .01), regulative (r = .17, p < .01), and comforting skills (r =
.14, p < .05) and negatively associated with persuasive skill (r = —15, p < .05).
The fourth research question sought to determine the relative strength of sex and
gender as predictors of student perceptions of teacher communication skills. For each
communication skill, two separate hierarchical regressions were run with each com-
munication skill as the dependent variable. In one regression equation, sex was
entered In the first block and gender in the second block, and for one equation gender
was entered In the first block and sex in the second block. In this manner, one could
assess If order of entry was important when considering the relative contribution of
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 503

TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES FOR GENDER, COGNITIVE DIFFERENTIATION,
AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

(i) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Fem/Expr 1.00
Masc/Inst — 20** 1.00
Differentiation .16* _ 24*** 1.00
Regulative skill .l / -.13 1.00
no*** — .24*** - . 1 0
Narrative skill -.06 1.00
Referential skill .19** .01 .21** .23** .04 1.00
or*** 1 7* DO***
Persuasive skill -.15* -.06 .12 1.00
Comforting skill .14* - . 1 2 .09 .12 .16* .10 .19** 1.00
Ego supportive skill ny*** .04 .10 .27*** .08 .53*** .05 .42*** 1.00
DO***
Conversational skill -.03 -.06 .01 42*** .21** .45*** .24*** .26*** 1.00
on*** jn***
Conflict Mgmt skill .07 .07 -.01 .17* .16* .17* .43*** 1.00
Mean 5.60 4.80 20.00 4.27 3.87 4.74 3.36 2.70 4.63 4.11 3.93
Std. Deviation .36 .75 8.33 .14 .29 .32 .21 .10 .03 .16 .04
Alpha Reliability .88 .88 .70 .85 .79 .83 .91 .86 .84 .91

*p < .05; **p < . 0 1 ; ***/> < .001.

each independent variable. Sex was dummy coded so that positive betas reflected
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

femaleness and negative betas reflected maleness. Results are reported in Table 3.
Gender was superior to sex as a predictor of six communication skills. Sex was the
stronger predictor of one communication skill The combination of these variables
explained between 3% and 22% of the variance in these seven skills. Specifically,
regardless of order of entry, gender was a superior predictor of the perceived impor-
tance of regulative, narrative, persuasive, comforting, ego supportive, and conversa-
tional skills. Femininity/expressiveness represented the largest beta weight for regu-
lative, comforting, and ego supportive skills. Masculinity/instrumentality represented
the largest beta weight for narrative, persuasive, and conversational skills. Sex was the
stronger predictor for referential skills only. Being female was associated with greater
expectations for teachers9 use of referential skills.
Finally, the hypotheses predicted that cognitive complexity would be positively
associated with communication skills that illustrate affective perspective taking ability,
and that complexity would be negatively associated with skills that are primarily
focused on the management of behavior or communication rather than the feelings of
others. Both hypotheses were partially supported (see Table 2). A significant, positive
correlation was found between cognitive complexity and regulative skills (r = .22,
p < .001). Significant, negative correlations were found between complexity and
narrative (r = — .24, jb < .001) and persuasive (r = — .17, jfr < .01) skills. Counter
to predictions, complexity was positively related to referential skills (r = .21, p < .01).

DISCUSSION
The first goal of this study was to examine student perceptions of communication
skills used by effective teachers. Results suggest that students perceived seven of the
eight communication skills that have been found to be important in same-sex friend-
ships (Burleson & Samter, 1990) and romantic relationships (Burleson, Kunkel, &
Birch, 1994) to be important in the teacher-student relationship. Although the order of
importance of individual skills may vary between teacher-student relationships and
other interpersonal relationships (e.g., comforting may be more important in friend-
 504 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES ASSESSING EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL GENDER AND
BIOLOGICAL SEX ON STUDENT PERCEFIIONS OF TEACHER COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

Beta R-sq. change F

Dependent = Regulative skill
After Block 1
Sex -.02 .02 (.00) 5.17* (21.6***)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. -.18** .21 (.23) 21.6*** (32.5***)
Femininity/Exp. on***
Adj. R-sq .22
Dependent = Narrative skill
After Block 7
Sex -.06 .01 (.00) 1.43 (3.06*)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. .20** .03** (.03*) 3.06* (4.29*)
Femininity/Exp. .06
Adj. R-sq .03
Dependent = Referential skill
After Block 1
Sex .22** .05*** (.04**) 11.40*** (4.84**)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. .12 .02 (.01) 4.84** (2.14)
Femininity/Exp. .08
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

Adj. R-sq .05

Dependent = Persuasive skill
After Block 7
Sex .11 .00 (.01) .001 (12.16***)
After Block 2
i A * * * / i pr***\
Masculinity/Inst. .36*** 12.16*** (16.75***)
Feminity/Exp. -.09
Adj. R-sq .13
Dependent = Comforting skill
After Block 7
Sex .01 .00 (.00) .02 (.07)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. -.03 .00 (.00) (.07) (.11)
Feminity/Exp. -.01
Adj. R-sq -.01
Dependent = Ego supportive skill
After Block 1
Sex .17* .05** (.02*) 9.97** (6.83***)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. .13 .06*** (.04**) 6.83*** (7.25***)
Femininity/Exp. .22**
Adj. R-sq .08
Dependent = Conversational skill
After Block 7
Sex .01 .00 (.00) .39 (5.63***)
After Block 2
Masculinity/Inst. .22** ny*** 1 Ay***\ 5.63 (8.47***)
Femininity/Exp. oir***
Adj. R-sq .06
Dependent = Conflict
management skill
After Block 1
Sex .09 .03** (.01) 7.58** (8.40***)
After Block 2
i A*** / Ay***\
Masculinity/Inst. .01 8.40*** (11.74***)
Femininity/Exp. on***
Adj. R-sq .09

Values in parentheses are from the second hierarchical regression equation where order of entry was reversed.
Fis the F a t step of entry. Betas axe taken from the final regression equation. ***jfr < .001; **jfr < .01; */> < .05.
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 505

ships than, it is in teacher-student relationships), it is important to note that the same set
of communication skills was viewed as Important for both relational types. Specifically,
results suggest that students expect effective teachers to use (in order of importance):
referential, ego supportive, regulative, conversational, conflict, narrative, and persua-
sive skills.
The results of the current study are largely consistent with the work of Frymier
and Houser (2000). They also reported that seven of the eight skills represented by the
CFQ^were rated by students as more important than unimportant. As in the current
study, they found comforting to be the only skill perceived by students to be more
unimportant than important for effective teachers. The order of importance of these
skills varied slightly between the current study and Frymier and Houser's (2000) study.
For example, in the current study, regulative skill was perceived as more important for
effective teachers than conflict management, while the reverse was found in the
Frymier and Houser study. However, one should note that the majority of findings in
the two studies were consistent.
Together, results of the current study and the work of Frymier and Houser (2000)
underscore the interpersonal nature of the teacher-student relationship. Most of the
communication skills previously used to study friendships and romantic relationships
can be used to study the teacher-student relationship. The one exception may be
comforting behavior. Both studies suggest that many students do not perceive com-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

forting to be an essential skill for teachers. In the current study, only feminine/
expressive individuals evaluated this skill as very important. One explanation for this
finding is that students do make some distinctions between the teacher-student rela-
tionship and other interpersonal relationships. Although similarities clearly exist,
students may place some boundaries on the teacher-student relationship that do not
exist in romantic relationships or peer friendships. In this case, behaviors designed to
"cheer up" students may be more expected of their romantic partners or friends who
are peers rather than of teachers.
Despite this difference, a key implication of the findings is that teacher-student
relationships, like other interpersonal relationships, consist of both content and rela-
tional dimensions. In the current study, two of the four communication skills perceived
as most important for effective teachers were relational in. nature, including a teacher's
ability to make a student feel good about themselves (ego supportive skill) and the
ability to help students realize mistakes and correct them (regulative). This suggests
that students expect more from their teachers than knowledge of course material and
interesting teaching methods. They also expect effective teachers to be concerned with
their feelings, self-image, goals, and emotional stability. These findings are consistent
with recent work by Teven (2001) and Teven and McCroskey (1997) regarding the
importance of perceived teacher caring. Students who perceived their teacher to care
about their well-being were more likely to report cognitive and affective learning and
to evaluate the teacher positively. Clearly, content-driven skills such as referential,
persuasive, and narrative skills are important parts of the teacher-student relationship.
However, given evidence that a teacher's content and relational skills were both
positively associated with student learning and motivation, it seems reasonable that
future investigations examine both relational and content dimensions of teacher-
student relationship.
A major contribution of this study is the explanation it provides for the observed
differences in student perceptions of teacher communication skills. That is, the value
of the current study lies largely in its ability to explain why students vary in their
 506 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

perceptions of communication skills used by effective teachers. Results suggest that

psychological gender—rather than biological sex—was the stronger predictor for six of
the eight communication skills in the CFQ. Sex was the superior predictor for only one
skill Indeed, gender accounted uniquely for as much as 21% of the variance in the
seven communication skills. This is consistent with previous research in a variety of
interpersonal contexts that suggests that the gender role one is socialized to represent
is more important in explaining many communication behaviors (e.g., relational
maintenance, communication competence, dominance and submissiveness, and emo-
tional expression) than one's biological sex (Aylor & Dainton, 2001; Canary & Hause,
1993; Reeder, 1996; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000).
Research has established that masculine/instrumental individuals tend to view
effective communication as completing a task or achieving a goal (Fitzpatrick & Indvic,
1982). In contrast, feminine/expressive individuals focus more on relational compo-
nents of messages and view communication primarily as a means of establishing
relational bonds. In the current study, masculine/instrumental individuals were more
likely to perceive task-oriented skills (e.g., persuasive, narrative, and conversational
skill) than relational skills as important for effective teachers. In other words, mascu-
line/instrumental individuals associated content-based teacher behaviors with effective
teaching, but they did not associate relational-based teacher behaviors with effective
teaching. This makes sense given previous gender research. Masculine/instrumental
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

individuals (whether biologically male or female) are more likely to adopt a concrete,
task-oriented, problem-solving view of interpersonal interactions (Burleson & Samter,
1990).
On the other hand, feminine/expressive individuals in the current study evalu-
ated communication skills focused on the management of feelings (e.g., regulative,
comforting, and ego supportive skill) as important to the teacher-student relationship.
Previous gender role research supports the findings, suggesting that feminine/expres-
sive individuals are more likely to view interpersonal interactions based on the
perspectives and face needs of the participants (Delia, O'Keefe, & O'Keefe, 1982).
The focus on cognitive complexity in the current study provides a theoretical lens
through which to explain the observed differences in student perceptions. Construc-
tivist research has established that individuals with higher levels of cognitive complex-
ity are better able to understand the perspectives of others and place greater value on
affective perspective taking skills in a variety of relationships. Conversely, cognitive
complexity has been found to be negatively associated with communication skills that
do not focus primarily on affect management in interpersonal relationships (Burleson
& Samter, 1990). These patterns emerged in the current study of the teacher-student
relationship. Specifically, individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity were
more likely to perceive regulative skill, or the ability to help a student understand and
correct mistakes, to be important in the teacher-student relationship. Cognitive com-
plexity was negatively associated with the importance of narrative skills and persua-
sion, both of which focus primarily on the management of behavior rather than
feelings. Constructivism provides an important explanation for these differences.
Students with higher levels of complexity should view the teacher-student relationship
in a more multidimensional manner and value a teacher's ability to understand the
perspectives of students. Thus, these students expect both content and relational
dimensions to be a part of the teacher-student relationship. Counter to predictions,
however, cognitive complexity was positively associated with referential skill, a mea-
sure of teacher clarity. One possible explanation for this finding lies in the almost
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 507

universal expectation that effective teachers will clearly present information to stu-
dents. Although clarity is not affectively oriented, it may be that because this skill is
such a fundamental element of effective teaching, students—regardless of complexity
levels—view it as a necessity in the teacher-student relationship.
To summarize, the current study suggests that students perceive the teacher-
student relationship to consist of both communication behaviors focused on the
management of behavior and communication (e.g., clarity in explanations, stimulating
lectures, the ability to get students to accomplish tasks), and behaviors focused on the
management of feelings (e.g., concern for student's esteem needs, assistance in achiev-
ing goals, and assistance in overcoming challenges). This study contributes to knowl-
edge of the teacher-student relationship by providing explanations for observed
differences in student perceptions. Specifically, results suggest that one's gender role
orientation (rather than biological sex) and his or her level of cognitive complexity
influences the value that students place on content-related skills and affectively related
skills in the teacher-student relationship.
A limitation of this study is the homogeneity of the sample. The majority of
respondents were young and Caucasian. Further, all respondents were attending a
relatively small university where class sizes are typically small. Future research should
explore student perceptions of the value of teacher communication skills among
respondents at larger universities and enrolled in larger classes. It may be that the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

importance of relational and content aspects of the teacher-student relationship varies

based on class size. Specifically, one might hypothesize that as class size increases,
content dimensions become more important to the teacher-student relationship and
relational aspects become less important.
The current study provides several implications for GTA and teacher training
programs, instructors wishing to improve interaction with students, and instructional
communication researchers. First, it is important that teachers view both content and
relational dimensions as central to the teacher-student relationship and strive to
acknowledge both in attempts to improve teaching and teacher-student interactions.
To maximize teaching effectiveness, teachers should understand that the two dimen-
sions are interdependent. Thus, for example, when a teacher attempts to assist a
student with a personal problem., it is likely that such attention to relational aspects of
the teacher-student relationship would increase student motivation and focus on
content issues in the classroom. Second, both gender role orientation and complexity
levels are easily measurable in the student population. Teachers should be encouraged
to explore these issues with students—formally through survey measures or informally
through class discussions or assignments—to better understand student needs and
perceptions. Finally, future research in instructional communication should focus on
teacher-student interactions as an interpersonal process. Too often, researchers have
viewed the teacher as the source and the student as the receiver, ignoring the
transactional nature of the relationship. By examining the teacher-student relationship
through the lens of interpersonal communication theory, researchers will be able to
further acknowledge and understand this complex relationship.

REFERENCES
Allen, M. (1998). Methodological considerations when examining a gendered world. In D. J. Canary & K.
Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, M. (2002). A synthesis and extension of constructivist comforting research. In M. Allen, R. Preiss, B.
Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
 508 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Banski, M., Preiss, R. (1991). Valid and constructive thoughts: Continuing the dialogue
about the RCQ. Communication Reports, 4, 120-125.
Applegate, J. L. (1990). Constructs and communication: A pragmatic integration. In G. Neimeyer & R.
Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology (pp. 203-230). London: JAI Press.
Aylor, B., & Dainton, M. (2001). Antecedents in romantic jealousy experience, expression, and goals. Western
Journal of Communication, 65, 370-391.
Ballard-Reisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the Bern Sex Role Inventory: A psychological
construct revisited. Sex Roles, 27, 291-306.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Baringer, D., & McCroskey, J. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication
Education, 49, 178-186.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
42, 155-162.
Bern, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196-205.
Bern, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the
expressive domain. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 34, 1016-1023.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Suhrer-Roussel, L., & Hertzog, C. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Bern Sex
Role Inventory: Old questions, new answers. Sex Roles, 30, 423-457.
Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and
interpersonal communication (pp. 305-349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burleson, B., & Samter, W. (1990). Effects of cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of commu-
nication skills in friends. Communication Research, 17, 165-182.
Burleson, B. R., & Waltman, M. (1988). Cognitive complexity: Using the Role Category Questionnaire. In
C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014

and assessing communication processes, (pp. 1-35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Burleson, B., Applegate, J., & Delia, J. (1991). On validly assessing the validity of the Role Category
Questionnaire: A reply to Allen et al. Communication Reports, 4, 113-119.
Burleson, B., Kunkel, A., & Birch, J. (1994). Thoughts about talk in romantic relationships: Similarity makes
for attraction (and happiness, too). Communication Quarterly, 42, 259-273.
Burleson, B., Samter, W., & Luchetti, A. (1992). Similarity in communication values as a predictor of
friendship choices: Studies of friends and best friends. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 260-276.
Burgoon, J., & LePoire, B. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and
expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Com-
munication Research, 20, 67-96.
Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. H. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?
Communication Quarterly, 41, 129-144.
Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in
experimental personality research (pp. 47-90). NY: Academic.
Crockett, W. H. Delia, J. G., Press, A. N., & Kenny, C. T. (1974). Structural analysis of the organization of written
messages. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Kansas.
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (2000). Predicting maintenance enactment from relational schemata, spousal
behavior, and relational characteristics. Communication Research Reports, 17, 171-180.
Delia, J., O'Keefe, B., & O'Keefe, D. (1982). The constructivist approach to communication. In F. E. Dance
(Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 147-191). NY: Harper and Row.
Dobos,J. (1996). Collaborative learning: Effects of student expectations and communication apprehension
on student motivation. Communication Education, 45, 118-133.
Duck, S. (1986). Human Relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, M., & Indvik, J. (1982). Implicit theories in enduring relationships: Psychological gender
differences in perception of one's mate. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 311-325.
Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship.
Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
Frymier, A., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor
communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314-326.
Huston, T., & Houts, R. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The role of
personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In T. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital
dysfunction (pp. 114-151). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, R. (1990). Relational cognition complexity and relational communication in personal relationships.
Communication Monographs, 59, 150-163.
Myers, S., & Knox, R. (2001). The relationship between college student information-seeking behaviors and
perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education, 50, 343-356.
Myers, S., Mottet, T., & Martin, M. (2000). The relationship between student communication motives and
perceived instructor communication style. Communication Research Reports, 17, 161-170.
Nussbaum,J. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180.
 TEACHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS 509

Reeder, H. (1996). A critical look at gender difference in communication research. Communication Studies, 47,
318-330.
Simonds, C. (1997). Challenge behavior in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14,
481-492.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic maintenance: Scale revision, sex
versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306-323.
Stern, B. B., Barak, B., & Gould, S.J. (1987). Sexual Identity Scale: A new self-assessment measure. Sex Roles,
17, 503-519.
Teven, J. (2001). The relationships among teacher characteristics and perceived caring. Communication
Education, 50, 159-169.
Teven, J., & McCroskey,J. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and
teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.
Wanzer, B. (1998). An exploratory investigation of student and teacher perceptions of student generated
affinity-seeking behaviors. Communication Education, 47, 373-382.
Westmyer, S., & Myers, S. (1996). Communication skills and social support messages across friendship levels.
Communication Research Reports, 13, 191-197.
Wheeless, V., & Dierks-Stewart, K. (1981). The psychometric properties of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory:
Questions concerning reliability and validity. Communication Quarterly, 28, 173-186.
Wiggens, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,
505-529.
Wood, J. T., & Dindia, K, (1998). What's the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities
between women and men. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 12:15 18 October 2014