CAPS

Neer (1987) developed an instrument to measure communication apprehension in a

classroom setting. The Classroom Apprehension Scale (CAPS) is a 20-item survey that

measures classroom apprehension along four dimensions; communication competence,

avoidance, apprehension, and confidence.

Initially, Neer did not believe CAPS was a viable instrument to measure classroom

apprehension. After further research, Neer amended that position, after findings from

studies showed the reliability of the instrument (Neer & Kircher, 1989.)

CAPS is a reliable tool to measure Classroom Communication Apprehension, which built

off of McCroskey’s PRCA-24. (Jaasma, 1998)

PRCA-24 was an update to previous instruments developed by McCroskey to measure

communication apprehension, with six items asked across four main contexts; public

speaking, meetings, small groups, and conversations (McCroskey et al, 1985; McCroskey,

Simpson, & Richmond, 1982).

Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension is one of the most heavily researched concepts in

communication over the last sixty years (McCroskey, 2009).

Communication Apprehension is, “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with

either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons,” (McCroskey,

1977).

McCroskey (1977) believed that communication apprehension can be analyzed from a

trait-like and state-like CA.

Communication Apprehension often affects a student’s willingness to interact with

instructors and with their peers (Martin, Valencic, & Heisel, 2002).

Students with a high level of communication apprehension experience anxiety during the

speaking process (Beatty, 1987).

- Students with a high level of CA prefer to learn in smaller, individualized classroom

settings (Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001).

o Which contradicts with findings that high CA’s are more likely to prefer

larger class sizes to avoid interpersonal communication (McCroskey, 2009).

- Students with a high level of CA are able to conceal their fears / anxieties from

students and professors alike (McCroskey, 2009).

This phenomenon is experiential, and is understood by students who have and have not

studied in the communication field (Bowers, 1986).

Communication Apprehension can be thought of as an accumulation of anxiety experiences

(McCroskey & Beatty, 1984).

////

How CA manifests itself

 - Students high in communication apprehension are less likely to communicate with

their instructors (Martin, Valencic, & Heisel, 2002).

- Students measuring high in CA pay less attention in class, and feel less comfortable

knowing how to respond to others (Neer & Kircher, 1989).

- When given a choice between a speaking and non-speaking option, students with a

high level of CA will choose the non-speaking route (Beatty, 1987).

- Highly apprehensive students find less value in course content (Messman & Jones-

Corley, 2001), and these students are less motivated to participate.

- Students with lower CA score better on cognitive tests and enjoy the courses they

take more (Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001).

- Students with higher CA scores are more likely to drop out of college than students

with low CA scores (Dwyer, 1998).

- Students with higher CA believe attendance is more important than active

participation in class (Bippus & Young, 2000).

- Students feel CA most acutely when their environment is new to them (Zakahi,

Jordan, & Christophel, 1993).

- Simply put, humans with high CA are shackled by their apprehensiveness, whereas

humans with low CA benefit (McCroskey, 2009).

How Widespread is CA?

- In Bowers’ (1986) study, two out of three students are occasionally affected by

classroom apprehension, with one out of five students suffering from high CA

(McCroskey, 2009).
 - CA is most acutely felt when individuals find themselves in a situation in which they

do not know the people around them (Zakahi, Jordan, & Christophel, 1993).

Communication Avoidance

Communication avoidance is a by-product of communication apprehension.

Such behaviors are commonplace in students displaying communication avoidance

behaviors; sitting in the back of the classroom, actively avoiding to offer information to the

class or avoiding class structures that require active participation, (Booth-Butterfield &

Thomas, 1995).

Gender

Gender neutrality is difficult to achieve (Franzwa & Lockhart, 1998).

- College students are influenced by instructor communication patterns (Rocca,

2010). Male and female college instructors have different communicative styles, and

have different communication values (Holmstrom, 2009).

- Male and female students perceive their classroom environments similarly (Brady &

Eisler, 1999).

- Gender differences are socially constructed (Canada & Pringle, 1995). Mixed-

gender groups, speaking styles clash in ways that favor boys’ dominance of group

interaction (Canada & Pringle, 1995).

- The social context in classrooms dictate whether female or male students interact

more often (Canada & Pringle, 1995).

 - There is some association between classroom apprehension and a woman student’s

learning style preference anticipated from an instructor (Dwyer, 1998).

- Jaasma (1997) suggested that female students have higher CCA than male students

do.

- In previous literature, the linkage between CA and gender/sex is rarely clear-cut

(McCroskey et al, 1982).

o McCroskey et al, (1982) found that males and females do not differ with

regard to a baseline level of CA.

Classroom Participation

- Classroom participation can differ among students based on the characteristics of

each student, such as race and gender (Jaasma, 1997).

- The majority of classroom time is characterized by lecture (Brady & Eisler, 1999).

- Men and women participate and volunteer at similar rates, there was no gender

difference in seating in the first two rows of class (Brady & Eisler, 1999).

Variables that can affect CCA

Bowers (1986) found that class size relates to classroom communication apprehension, with

class sizes of 25 or fewer are more likely to be rated as comfortable than uncomfortable.

Student’s perceive their classrooms differently based on size of class (Brady & Eisler,

1999).

Bowers (1986) found frequency of CCA is consistent across a wide range of demographic

variables.
Hypothesizing about CCA has brought many conflicting results, such as finding that

perceived verbal aggressiveness does not influence a students’ CCA (Kelly & Rocca, 2001).

Although verbal aggressiveness does not increase CCA, how instructors set up a course and

classroom environment and establish communicative expectations between students does

(Kelly & Rocca, 2001).

Changes in CA do not affect cognitive learning (Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001).

How to Reduce CCA

Confidence gained by classroom experience can help reduce CCA (Rocca, 2010).

Participation in a classroom can help reduce CA (Rocca, 2010). Classroom participation

and course involvement are terms that can be interchangeable (Bippus & Young, 2000).

Capping classes at 35 can help reduce CCA and increase student participation. (Rocca,

2010).

The more students know about communication processes, the more likely they are to

experience reduced CA (Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001).

Students benefit from a clearer understanding of what defines classroom participation

when expectations are explicitly outlined and defined by the instructor (Bippus & Young,

2000).\

/////

Cultural backgrounds influence college students’ communication traits, behaviors, and

learning motivations (Mansson & Myers, 2009).
“All human behavior may have some genetic basis, but behaviors that do not find an

environmental niche cannot survive,” (Franzwa & Lockhart, 1998)

--------------------------

////

Possible future research links: whether there is a linkage between a student’s self-reported

confidence level and their level of CCA.

Instructor’s self-reported understanding of climate and students’ reports of instructor

effectiveness.

--------------------------------------