Comm 156I Coopman, T.M.

Instructor
Comm 156I Qualitative Communication Inquiry
Final Narrative Project (v1)
For complete assignment directions see the Assignments list on Canvas.
Name(s): Elvis Mendoza and Nicole Dang
San Jose State University Teacher-Student nteraction
Introduction
As a new semester awns on stuents! t"e #eelin$ o# an%iety an uncertainty also comes alon$ wit" it. It
is a #eelin$ t"at most stuents $et at t"e t"ou$"t o# not &nowin$ "ow strin$ent or rela%e t"eir #uture 'ro#essors
will (e. For a lot o# stuents t"ese 'ro#essors will (ecome li#elon$ acquaintances an even #riens! w"ile #or
ot"ers t"ey will sim'ly (e a 'erson t"ey s"are a classroom wit". )"e way stuents an teac"ers interact insie
an outsie t"e classroom can (e very tellin$ o# w"at &in o# relations"i' t"ey will (uil. *ome stuents #eel
com#orta(le raisin$ t"eir "ans an as&in$ questions irectly! w"ile ot"ers re#rain #rom oin$ t"is an will wait
until a#ter class to as& questions. )"ese ty'es o# i##erences (rin$ u' queries o# w"y some stuents #eel
com#orta(le aroun t"eir 'ro#essors w"ile ot"ers stru$$le to interact wit" t"em. )"e su(tleties t"at $o into
(uilin$ a teac"er + stuent relations"i' can (e very com'le%. For t"is reason! we ecie to e%'lore t"e
'"enomenon (e"in it all. ,ur researc" question was "ow o stuents communicate an (uil relations"i's
wit" teac"ers #rom t"eir classes-
)"e researc" conucte in t"is 'roject ealt wit" t"e $eneral to'ic o# teac"er.stuent relations"i's in
classes. )"is to'ic was c"osen ue to t"e #act t"at it was a common t"eme seen t"rou$"out t"e acaemic
community. )"e (ons (uilt in i##erent 'arameters (ecame evient as t"e researc" evolve an we were a(le
to iscover #ascinatin$ e%'lanations o# w"y t"is was. ,ur "y'ot"esis was t"at stuents woul "ave to 'ut more
e##ort into t"eir class 'artici'ation in orer to (uil a (on wit" t"eir teac"er. /e soon learne t"at t"is was not
always t"e case. )"e overall sentiment o# our #inin$s was t"at some 'ro#essors come o## as eit"er (ein$ close
or istant. )"e result o# 'ro#essors (ein$ eit"er close or istant is t"at stuents reci'rocate t"at attitue (ac& to
t"em. In our researc" you will learn more a(out some o# t"e #actors t"at "el'e us come to t"is conclusion. )"e
an%iety an uncertainty t"at many stuents #eel (e#ore meetin$ t"eir 'ro#essors many times $oes away as t"ey
(uil a close (on wit" t"e instructor! "owever #or some stuents t"is #eelin$ an (on never unravel. )"e
researc" conucte in t"is 'a'er will $ive you a (etter unerstanin$ to w"y t"at is.
Literature Review
)"e relations"i' teac"ers an stuents (uil t"rou$"out a semester many times "ave i##erent routes it
ta&es to $et t"ere. For some stuents in colle$e "avin$ a (on wit" a 'ro#essor is vital! w"ile #or ot"ers it is
sim'ly a istraction to t"eir acaemic $oals. /"atever t"e case may (e o# w"y some stuents ecie to 'ursue
relations"i's wit" teac"ers! or not! t"e #acts are t"at t"ere are reasons w"y t"is "a''ens. /it" t"e sco'e o# a
colle$e cam'us an t"e culture o# *an 0ose *tate! t"ere are styles o# communication an levels o# interaction
t"at can (e e%amine. )o eci'"er w"at are t"ose 'atterns o# communication! it is $reat to e%'lore more a(out
t"e e##ects o# t"e communication #or teac"er.stuents! t"e styles o# communication t"at are availa(le! an t"e
ynamic o# aut"ority in t"e classroom
1any times t"e "arest 'art o# (uilin$ a (on is actually ta&in$ t"e #irst ste'. )a&in$ initiative to reac"
out an tal& wit" a 'ro#essor many times never "a''ens #or some stuents. )"e reasons vary "owever some
'ro#essors "ave ta&en it u'on t"emselves to start a iscourse wit" t"eir stuents. Co"en (2312) (elieves many
times! loose conversations allow #or stuents to #eel easily more connecte to t"eir #aculty. )"is (rin$s into li$"t
t"e i##erent ways a stuent can (on wit" t"eir teac"er. )"e im'ortance o# maintainin$ involve relations"i's
wit" your instructors is vital in #urt"erin$ your learnin$ outsie o# t"e classroom curriculum an success in t"e
'ro#essional worl. )eac"ers ta&e away certain 'ositive attri(utes #rom stuents w"o t"ey #oster a relations"i'
wit". )eac"ers many times value t"eir inter'ersonal e%'eriences wit" stuents! #osterin$ less mis(e"avior in
t"ese stuents. (*'lit! 4oomen 5 )"ijs 2311). It is im'ortant to reco$ni6e t"e emotional as'ect t"at lies (e"in
1
1
Comm 156I Coopman, T.M. Instructor
t"e motives o# connectin$ wit" instructors. *tuents an instructors now use email #requently #or out.o#.class
communications (,CC) an t"e more t"e mec"anism is use7 t"e more satis#ie stuents seem to (e. 8.mail
,CC (etween teac"er.stuents leas to more #ace.to.#ace interactions ue to t"e tas&.oriente! non.t"reatenin$
nature o# t"e communication. (Qian! A"n! 1eyers! )immermam! 5 Fonner! 4. 9.! 2312). *ince many stuents
#eel more com#orta(le tal&in$ to t"eir instructors in t"is manner! we were a(le to loo& into t"is $rowin$ tren.
Alt"ou$" out.o#.class communication "as (ecome more accessi(le an common! in.class communication still
'lays a "u$e role.
:uilin$ a stron$ relations"i' wit" instructors may seem li&e a sim'le tas&7 "owever! t"ere are
numerous #actors t"at can in#luence w"at ty'e o# (ons are create. )"e manner in w"ic" a classroom is run
can stimulate t"e $rowt" o# t"e teac"er.stuent connection or "iner it. )"e 'ositive relations"i's #orme (y t"e
(alance o# 'ower in t"e classroom coul eit"er lea t"e stuent to success in class! yet also lea to a less
success#ul outcome. ;arious stuies s"ow t"at eac" classroom also "as a 'ower structure! in w"ic" sometimes
t"ere is a (alance! (ut ot"er times an im(alance. /"en t"ere is an im(alance! one 'erson! suc" as t"e teac"er
will #eel entitle to ictate t"e learnin$ e%'erience. (Cornelius! 5 <erren&o"l! 233=). ,n t"e ot"er "an! a
(alance o# 'ower w"ere eac" 'arty s"ares a level o# res'ect #or one anot"er woul (e ieal #or a stuent w"o
esires a sense o# owners"i' o# t"eir own learnin$ e%'erience in t"e classroom. (*'lit! 4oomen! 5 )"ijs! 0.
2311). /"ile t"e 'ower structure wit"in a classroom may ictate w"et"er a 'ro#essor may "ol t"e sense o#
control in t"e class or not! t"ese are all elements t"at e#ine t"e environment o# eac" classroom.
I# t"e stuents enjoye a meanin$#ul! conce'tual en$a$ement in t"e classroom! t"e relations"i' is li&ely
to $row stron$er. )"e quality o# t"e class can irectly encoura$e or iscoura$e t"e li&eli"oo o# stuents
'artici'atin$ an reac"in$ out to teac"ers. )"e more carin$ an res'onsive teac"ers are to t"eir stuents! t"e
more t"ey will $arner similar res'onses (1alac"ows&i! 5 1artin! 2311). A stuent many times (ecomes a
re#lection o# w"o t"e teac"er is. Claus.:oot".:utter#iel an C"ory (2312) ar$ue t"at stuent 'artici'ation is
'ositively correlate wit" instructor immeiacy! crei(ility! "umor orientation! an inter'ersonal attraction. )"e
way a teac"er carries t"emselves in a classroom! many times sets t"e tone #or "ow t"e stuents will res'on to
t"em. As'ects o# a teac"er>s role in $ivin$ #ee(ac& to stuents an #ollowin$ t"rou$" wit" t"eir commitments in
class illustrate instructor immeiacy an (uil t"eir crei(ility. All o# t"ese #actors a to meanin$#ul e%'eriences
#or stuents an to stuy it will allow us to unerstan "ow stuents are a(le to evelo' t"e most #ul#illin$
connection wit" t"eir teac"ers.
Methods
For our researc" 'roject! we utili6e t"ree i##erent met"os! w"ic" inclue o(servations! interviews!
an #ocus $rou's involvin$ *an 0ose *tate ?niversity stuents. /e o(serve a total o# #our u''er ivision
classes! incluin$ a C,11 12=P "y(ri class w"ic" meets on )uesay at 13@A3 am.11@=5 am! an AB; 12A
class w"ic" meets on 1onay ni$"ts #rom 6.C@=5 'm! a C,11 1=5i class #rom 12.1@15'm an anot"er C,11
155i class. /e o(serve eac" site t"ree se'arate times e%ce't #or t"e C,11 1=5i class! w"ic" was #our times
sim'ly (ecause t"ere was anot"er o''ortunity to o(serve t"e class. /e o(serve 'reominantly at t"e
(e$innin$ an at t"e en o# class sessions w"ere a lot o# irect teac"er.stuent interaction too& 'lace as well as
moments urin$ class sessions t"at went t"rou$" "i$" levels o# iscussion or communication. /e create ma's
#or our sites! o(servin$ a lar$e num(er o# stuents! an narrowe own our 'ool as we (e$an to notice 'atterns
o# interaction wit"in class. /e trie to o(serve stuents t"at woul (e o# i##erent $eners! i##erent a$es! an
i##erent styles o# en$a$in$ in class suc" as ta&in$ notes or listenin$ intently to t"e teac"ers> lectures.
:y reviewin$ t"e stuies #oun in re#erences! we also create our own researc" questions in "o'in$ to
$arner res'onses a(out "ow stuents interacte wit" t"eir teac"ers! t"in$s t"at encoura$e or iscoura$e a
closer (on! an t"e attitues stuents "a towars t"eir teac"ers res'ectively. /e c"ose caniates as
'artici'ants on t"e (asis o# t"eir level o# interaction urin$ our res'ective classes (ecame were t"e $rouns o#
our o(servations. /e aime to try to $et at least a #ew 'artici'ants to interview t"at we also o(serve more o#ten
urin$ class sessions to $et a (etter unerstanin$ o# our visual ata. )"is meant t"at t"ey are all currently
enrolle *0*? stuents w"o are also ta&in$ t"e classes t"at we o(serve. ?nintentionally! we were also a(le to
inclue a #ew 'artici'ants t"at were international stuents! w"ic" $ave us i##erent 'ers'ectives on "ow t"eir
own cultures as well as institutions (ac& "ome may "ave cause to view t"eir relations"i' i##erently to
American stuents. Followin$ will (e t"e recor o# all o# our interviewees! in orer o# w"en t"ey were
interviewe. /e #irst interviewe Ale%is! a 22.year.ol #emale! /illiam! a 1D.year.ol male! 9yia! a 22.year.ol
#emale! *imon! a 2A.year.ol male! 9eo! a 21.year.ol male! :ranon! a 23.year.ol male! Bonita! a 23.year.ol
#emale! an )i##any! a 25.year.ol #emale.
2
2
Comm 156I Coopman, T.M. Instructor
Conuctin$ #ocus $rou's were quite c"allen$in$ in motivatin$ stuents to #ollow t"rou$". )"e criteria we
use were t"e same as t"e interviews. <owever! (y our secon an latter #ocus $rou'! we ecie to e%'an
t"e criteria so t"at our 'artici'ants were colle$e stuents or w"o "ave (een in sc"ool in t"e 'ast year. )"is
woul allow us! even urin$ critical times! to $arner relevant an current res'onses to our questions leain$ u'
to t"e main researc" question. 8ven wit" 'ersonali6e invitations written to nearly all o# our classmates! a small
amount was a(le an willin$ to 'artici'ate. As a result! we "a #our to #ive 'artici'ants! w"ic" #ollowe t"rou$" in
eac" o# our two #ocus $rou's. ,ur #irst #ocus $rou' involve 5 'artici'ants w"ic" were 0ose'"! a 21.year.ol
male! )alal! a 2=.year.ol male! 4en! a 2A.year.ol male! 4rystle! a 2A.year.ol #emale! an C"ris! a 2=.year.ol
male. For our secon #ocus $rou'! we "a anot"er $rou' o# #our 'eo'le. )"e 'artici'ants we "a #or t"is
$at"erin$ inclue 0omar! a 22.year.ol male! Eeni&a! a 21.year.ol #emale! ,mar! a 2A.year.ol male! an
Any! a 22.year.ol male.
Burin$ t"e coin$ 'rocess #or o(servations! our cate$ories inclue classi#yin$ t"e ata or stuent
reaction to a closeFo'en versus istant style o# teac"in$ o# t"e stuents. :y close we mean t"at t"e 'ro#essors
are o'en to stuents an #eel com#orta(le tal&in$ wit" t"em one on one. )"ey o not act su'erior to t"e stuents
(ut treat t"em wit" res'ect an encoura$e ialo$ue. )"is woul inclue iscussion as well. :y istant! we mean
t"at some 'ro#essors act as i# t"ey are sim'ly t"ere to o a jo( an s"ow little interest in oin$ more t"an t"at.
A#ter t"at! we ecie w"et"er t"e reaction was 'ositive or ne$ative! nonver(al or ver(al communication. It truly
is 'ower#ul! t"e tool o# interview 'eo'le to $et t"eir o'inions an #eelin$s out into t"e o'en. Anot"er set o# &ey
cate$ories t"at were use in our coin$ sc"eme were satis#action an issatis#action! w"ic" was meant to
correlate to "ow t"e stuents woul res'on to t"eir teac"ers> style o# teac"in$.
Findings and Discussion
)"e $eneral consensus a#ter conuctin$ our researc" was t"at some 'ro#essors come o## as eit"er
(ein$ close or istant. :y close we mean t"at t"e 'ro#essors are o'en to stuents an #eel com#orta(le tal&in$
wit" t"em one on one. )"ey o not act su'erior to t"e stuents (ut treat t"em wit" res'ect an encoura$e
ialo$ue. :y istant we mean t"at some 'ro#essors act as i# t"ey are sim'ly t"ere to o a jo( an s"ow little
interest in oin$ more t"an t"at. )"e result o# 'ro#essors (ein$ eit"er close or istant is t"at stuents $ive (ac&
t"at attitue to t"em. /"en t"ere is an im(alance! one 'erson! suc" as t"e teac"er will #eel entitle to ictate t"e
learnin$ e%'erience. (Cornelius! 9. 9.! 5 <erren&o"l! 9. 233=). ,nce t"is occurs many times t"e stuents are
turne o## #rom (uilin$ relations"i's wit" t"e 'ro#essor. In return! many stuents actually #eel as t"ou$" t"eir
acaemics are a##ecte (y t"e lac& o# relations"i' t"ey "ave wit" istant 'ro#essors. )"is sentiment was
e%'resse (y many 'artici'ants urin$ (ot" our interviews an #ocus $rou's. In some o# t"e interviews
'artici'ants "a varie o'inions. 9yia! a$e 22! #elt t"at! GAcaemically you are a(le to $et ee'er
unerstanin$ o# t"e material i# you are a(le to "ave (on wit" t"e teac"er!H w"ile *imon! a$e 2A! state!
G)eac"er comes late an leaves ri$"t a#ter class! attitue! an vi(e is o##.'uttin$ so I o not want to (uil a
relations"i'.>> )"ese actions are irectly connecte wit" t"e researc" question o# t"is stuy! on "ow teac"er.
stuent relations"i's are (uilt in classes.
)"e ne$ative attitue o# a teac"er can (e etrimental to 'ossi(le teac"er.stuent relations"i's! <owever
an out$oin$ an 'ositive attitue can also $o a lon$ way. )"e more carin$ an res'onsive teac"ers are to t"eir
stuents! t"e more t"ey will $arner similar res'onses (1alac"ows&i! C. C.! 5 1artin! 1. 1.! 2311). /e #oun
t"at small t"in$s li&e t"e 'ro#essor &nowin$ t"e stuents name can $o a very lon$ way. As we e%'erience
#irst"an in one o# t"e o(servation sessions o# t"e C,11 1=5i class! Pro#essor )o "a a routine w"ere s"e
woul recite stuents> names #rom "er memory w"ile ta&in$ attenance. *"e woul loo& aroun t"e class! an
state t"e stuents> name! alon$ wit" a 'ersonal #act a(out t"em t"at "a "el'e "er remem(er t"e stuent. /e
notice t"e stuents w"o were 'resent to witness t"is seeme more en$a$e in t"at 'articular session. )"is
coul "ave (een cause (y t"e #act t"at some stuents #eel a teac"er>s level interest encoura$es t"em to (e
more o'en. 8ven t"ou$" Pro#essor )o was strict an close at times urin$ instruction! "er carin$ 'ersonality
ultimately "el'e (uil relations"i's wit" stuents. 1any times a#ter t"e class session "a ene! stuents
woul line u' to as& "er questions or just sim'ly "ave conversations wit" "er. *tuent 'artici'ation is 'ositively
correlate wit" instructor immeiacy7 crei(ility! "umor orientation! an inter'ersonal attraction (Claus! C. 0.!
:oot".:utter#iel! 5 C"ory! E. 1.! 2312). A$ain! a lot o# t"ese t"ou$"ts an #eelin$s were ec"oe (ac& to us an
more urin$ t"e #ocus $rou's. GIou on>t e%'ect it #rom teac"ers (ut w"en t"ey remem(er your name it ma&es
you #eel li&e you matter">> 9yia escri(e. *imilarly! :ranon! e%'resse! G,nce t"e teac"er &nows your name
you "ave (uilt a (on an you #eel as t"ou$" you o not want to isa''oint t"em. )"e #eelin$ t"at t"e 'ro#essor
"as 'ut a name to t"e stuents #ace encoura$es t"ese stuents to (e more stuious in t"e class! an #eel
com#orta(le interactin$ wit" t"e 'ro#essor. ?ltimately t"ese #actors an attri(utes contri(ute to a (on (ein$ (uilt
3
3
Comm 156I Coopman, T.M. Instructor
(etween (ot" 'arties.
Alt"ou$" many stuents ta&e "y(ri classes #or t"e convenience o# t"eir sc"eules! a majority o# t"e
'artici'ants 're#erre interactin$ wit" t"eir teac"ers #ace.to.#ace com'are to email or Canvas. *ome sai
online! a teac"er mi$"t not (e as t"orou$" in t"eir e%'lanations a(out questions. Also! t"ey mi$"t just say GEe#er
to t"e materialsH or Gt"e moules 'osteH rat"er t"an $o in.e't" li&e t"ey woul #ace.to.#ace. ,n t"e contrary!
Qian! J.! A"n! *.! 1eyers! E. A.! )immerman! C.! 5 Fonner! 4. 9. (2312) iscusse t"e more #requent
mec"anisms suc" as email was use! t"e more satis#ie stuents are wit" t"e ,CC (outsie.o#.class
communication). 8.mail ,CC (etween teac"er.stuents tens to lea to more #ace.to.#ace interactions ue to
t"e tas&.oriente! non.t"reatenin$ nature o# t"e communication. <owever! in our own researc"! 'artici'ants "a
varie o'inions in t"e tec"nolo$y! suc" as email o# Canvas usa$e. /"en as&e "ow i# t"ey #elt t"at emailin$
t"eir teac"ers woul yiel $oo res'onses! one 'artici'ant! Ale%is! state t"at! GIt really e'ens on t"e teac"er.
*ome are stron$er usin$ #ace.to.#ace! w"ile some are a(le to o well in (ot".H In retros'ect! t"is 'artici'ant
res'one t"at i# t"at 'articular instructor was a(le to $ive a t"orou$" an timely 'resence online as well! t"ey
mi$"t consier email or Canvas as a $o.to met"o o# communication. ,t"erwise! #ace.to.#ace communication
was 'reominantly 're#erre to (e t"e most (ene#icial #orm o# contact. )"at>s (ecause! as 4en 'ointe out!
G<uman interaction is im'ortant.H )"is allows #or t"e "uman touc" an to reuce t"e amount o# am(i$uity t"at is
sometimes le#t in an email res'onse. In retros'ect! t"ou$" t"e online communication mi$"t "ave increase t"e
c"ance o# stuents meetin$ wit" t"eir instructors #ace.to.#ace! it i not lea to more satis#ie stuents.
GNonver(als may $et con#use!H 4rystle sai. )"e act o# c"oosin$ to #ollow u' wit" a 'ro#essor a#ter an email o#
Canvas conversation is sometimes ue to t"e am(i$uity an con#usion t"at email.(ase communication "as yet
to overcome.
/"en entering a new class, teachers and students both have a set of expectations towards each other
to be met. The interpersonal experiences that come along with both parties are ultimately for the students to
succeed in their classes and on the other hand, gratification to their instructor who can feel that they performed
their job well. Students are more motivated to do well in their classes given that their teachers meet the
students expectations of being organized, informational, and yet engaging. However, it is easy to disregard the
mental processes that tae place with the teacher initially. ! good number of participants didnt expect their
teachers to go out of their way for them. However, it seems that after analyzing our responses in both interviews
and focus groups, we learned that the students view about the communication echoes the findings of the study
by *'lit! 0.! 4oomen! <.! 5 )"ijs! 0. (2311). )eac"ers want to succee in teac"in$ e##ectively to satis#y t"eir
stuents just as muc" as stuents want to o well to ma&e t"em unerstan t"at t"ey are $oo stuents. It
seems to (e an e%c"an$e o# e%'ectations. I# you o t"is! I will react t"e way you want me to. *tuents were
e#initely more unerstanin$ towars t"eir 'ro#essors t"an we ori$inally woul "ave sus'ecte. /"en as&e
a(out "ow t"ey #elt a(out a teac"er t"at woul $o out o# t"eir way to interact wit" t"eir stuents! 0ose'"
res'one t"at! GAvera$e teac"er eals wit" "unres o# stuents a semester. Bon>t $et 'ai to $o out o# t"eir
way. )"ey>re (usy. I on>t e%'ect any o# t"at.H ,nce a$ain! "ow eac" 'arty t"in&s an reacts to one anot"er in
t"e classroom in#luence t"e &in o# relations"i' t"ey will #orm.
In t"e course o# our researc"! we saw unanimously t"at stuents rarely vocali6e concerns a(out t"e
class or teac"in$ style unless t"ey #ace t"e c"ance o# #ailin$. /"en questione on t"e to'ic o# teac"er
evaluations! t"e majority o# 'artici'ants reveale t"at t"ey woul c"oose not to s'ea& u' a(out to 'ro(lem
urin$ t"e semester (ut (e "onest in t"e teac"er evaluation $iven at t"e en o# a course. As an alternative! a
#ew res'onents 're#erre to $o to t"eir classmates as a resource o# clari#ication. )eac"er evaluations ta&en (y
stuents are su$$este to (e t"e ominant an most relia(le source o# #ee(ac& in orer to im'rove t"e
success o# t"e course. (4yria&ies! 9.! 2335). <owever! w"at i# all t"e revisions are one a#ter t"e matter! a#ter
t"e course is alreay over an $raes are su(mitte- Future stuents may rea' t"e (ene#its (ut 'resent
'ro(lems will only a##ect t"e environment o# t"e classroom an 'rouctivity o# stuents. Concernin$ t"e to'ic o#
aressin$ concerns or im'rovements #or t"e classroom! C"ris commente t"at GI# it>s not suc" a (i$ 'ro(lem.
I> rat"er not "ave t"em "ave a ne$ative view towars me!H w"ile )alal sai! "I> only answer i# t"ey as&e. I#
t"ey care to as& ("ow we are oin$ in class)! I> $ive 'ositive #ee(ac& (ut on>t want t"em to $et e#ensive. #t
4
4
Comm 156I Coopman, T.M. Instructor
was actually very common for students to feel threatened that their grades might be in jeopardy if they were to
bring up problems during the course. )"e quality o# teac"er inter'ersonal relations"i's im'acts t"e views o#
w"at stuents consier e##ective in t"eir co$nitive evelo'ment w"ic" will (e re#lecte in t"e evaluations
(4yria&ies! 9.! 2335). For e%am'le, $oseph, who was %uestioned how the level of interaction and
communication with instructors would benefit him, reasoned, "#t would help your cause. &ecause when theyre
grading, theyll now your situation, rather than find out youre failing. 'verall, there were a few varied
approaches( one was to resolve the concerns indirectly through peers and the other, building upon the
interpersonal relationship with their teachers to develop understanding.
Limitations and Future Research
For limitations in t"is researc" 'roject! we #oun t"at some o# our interview questions coul "ave (een
im'rove. )"ey seeme to wor& quite well #or 'artici'ants w"o tene to meet wit" t"eir teac"ers more o#ten or
communicate wit" t"em eit"er (e#ore or a#ter class. <owever! #or t"ose t"at in>t 're#er irect interaction wit"
t"eir teac"ers! even wit" t"e use o# 'ro(es! it was i##icult to $et t"em to res'on wit" more insi$"t#ul or
escri'tive answers. /e woul c"oose to revise t"e worin$ o# some o# our questions to irect t"e res'onses to
(e closer to t"e in#ormation we neee to answer our researc" question. )o'ics t"at coul "ave (een e%'lore
more inclue t"e amica(le nature o# t"e relations"i's t"at were (uilt (etween t"e teac"er.stuents. /e
$arnere some res'onses t"at woul stan out suc" as a stuent w"o #elt a near.'arental relations"i' wit" t"eir
'ro#essor. 1ore s'eculation an attention in t"e coin$ sc"eme #or t"ese &ins o# elements coul "ave 'ave
t"e way #or a wier sco'e o# #inin$s #or t"e researc" question. <owever! we ecie a$ainst coin$ certain
elements suc" as t"ose (ecause t"ey seeme to (e uncommon outliers t"at mi$"t s&ew our ata. Anot"er area
o# #ocus we coul "ave use to evelo' #urt"er questions woul (e "ow t"e ynamic o# 'ower in t"e classroom
woul in#luence t"e interaction o# t"e stuents wit" t"eir teac"ers. /e t"in& our outcome coul "ave (een (etter
"a we loo&e #urt"er into t"is area an 'rie t"e 'artici'ants a(out t"eir t"ou$"ts on t"at.
)"ere are a num(er o# questions t"at continue to sur$e as we went alon$ our 'roject (ut we "a to (e
care#ul not to start #ocusin$ on t"e wron$ elements. )o'ics t"at woul (e $reat #or #urt"er researc" woul (e to
e%'lore closer t"e 'ower ynamics (etween teac"ers an t"eir stuents. Are t"ere reasons (e"in w"y
teac"ers c"oose to structure t"eir class in a lecture.only environment or a iscussion.(ase settin$- *ome
stuents tene to #eel intimiate to vocali6e t"eir uncertainties towars t"eir teac"ers (ecause some teac"ers
seem to communicate t"at t"ey are t"e e%'ert! t"e Gall.&nowin$H source o# in#ormation.
Also! a #ew 'artici'ants w"o $rew u' in ot"er countries ot"er t"an America seeme to "ave a lot more
res'ect #or t"eir 'ro#essors an viewe t"eir teac"ers more as teac"ers o# li#e! mentors! w"ic" coul ee'en t"e
actual (on t"ey create. )"ey were more o'en to t"e iea! even a#ter aa'tin$ an (ecomin$ in#luence (y t"e
American institutions! t"at t"eir teac"ers! t"ou$" #rienly! s"oul "ol a "i$"er status an sense o# aut"ority. ,n
t"e ot"er "an! t"e American stuents! 'er"a's $roune wit" t"e conce't o# equality an iniviualism!
seeme to lac& t"is element o# t"in&in$. ?nanimously! t"e 'artici'ants #rom collectivistic societies suc" as in
8ast Asia an t"e 1ile 8ast woun u' (ein$ t"e only ones w"o re$are t"eir teac"ers in a su'erior li$"t.
/it" t"is! it woul (e e%tremely interestin$ to #in out "ow i##erent cultures view t"eir teac"ers an w"at role
teac"ers 'lay in t"e stuents> lives.
5
5
Comm 156I Coopman, T.M. Instructor
References
)lease place in alphabetical order. )lace an * next to all re%uired scholarly sources.
K Claus! C. 0.! :oot".:utter#iel! 1.! 5 C"ory! E. 1. (2312). )"e relations"i' (etween instructor mis(e"aviors
an
stuent antisocial (e"avioral alteration tec"niques@ )"e roles o# instructor attractiveness! "umor! an
relational closeness. +ommunication ,ducation! -.(2)! 161.1CA.
K Co"en! 1. (2312). 9etLs tal&@ 8n"ancin$ teac"in$ an learnin$ t"rou$" stuent.#aculty ialo$ues. Teaching
,nglish in the two/year college! 01(=)! A55.A6A.
K Cornelius! 9. 9.! 5 <erren&o"l! 9. (233=). Power in t"e classroom@ <ow t"e classroom environment s"a'es
stuents> relations"i's wit" eac" ot"er an wit" conce'ts. +ognition 2 #nstruction, 33 456, =6M.=DC.
oi@ 13.123MFs15A26D3Nci223=O=
K 1alac"ows&i! C. C.! 5 1artin! 1. 1. (2311). InstructorsL 'erce'tions o# teac"in$ (e"aviors! communication
a''re"ension! an stuent nonver(al res'onsiveness in t"e classroom. +ommunication 7esearch
7eports! 38(2)! 1=1.153. oi@13.13C3F3CC2=3D6.2311.5652M5
K Qian! J.! A"n! *.! 1eyers! E. A.! )immerman! C.! 5 Fonner! 4. 9. (2312). 8%'lorin$ stuentsL use o# e.mail #or
out.o#.class communication@ Frequency! satis#action! an learnin$ sel#.e##icacy. $ournal 'n ,xcellence
#n +ollege Teaching! 30(=)! 5.A2.
K *'lit! 0.! 4oomen! <.! 5 )"ijs! 0. (2311). )eac"er well(ein$@ )"e im'ortance o# teac"er.stuent relations"i's.
,ducational )sychological 7eview.=5M.=MM
oi@ 13.133MFs136=C.311.D1M3.y
6
6