19th MELTA International Conference 2010
Kuantan, June 11-12, 2010
A study on the communication competence and
communication apprehension
of English and Communication Skills students at a
private university
Fung Lan Yong, Lecturer
Swinburne University
of Technology , Sarawak
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the
communication competence and communication apprehension of English and
Communication Skills students at a private university in Malaysia
Keywords: Communication competence, communication
apprehension, English and Communication Skills, university students
Introduction
Communication
competence
Communication competence enables university
students to attain their academic and social goals through effective and
appropriate interaction. Wilson and
Sabee (2003) stated that communication competence has cognitive and social
dimensions. Cognitively, competent communicators are able to process
information to produce new messages. They actively and accurately perceive,
identify, and recognize important messages.
They attend to non-verbal messages to make adaptable responses or to produce
effective messages. Socially, competent communicators
are aware of the personal, relational, and cultural aspects of communication in
particular settings.
Wiemann and Backlund (1980) maintained that
communication competence is the ability of people to choose communicative behaviors
to successfully accomplish their own interpersonal goals while maintaining the
face and line of others. On the other
hand, Spitzberg (1988) defined communication competence as the ability to
interact well with others. Competent
communicators are able to deliver their messages with accuracy, clarity,
comprehensibility, coherence, expertise, effectiveness, and appropriateness.
According to Burgoon, Stern, and Dillman
(1995), adaptation is a crucial aspect of communication competence. Competent communicators possess the
communication patterns that allow them to use their knowledge and skills in a
culturally appropriate manner. Exhibiting culturally appropriate behavior
enables communicators to achieve synchronicity, complementarity, and compensation
while interacting with others. Friedrich
(1994) added adaptive communicators have the situational ability to set realistic
goals. In brief, they are able to
maximize their achievement by using knowledge of self, others, and context.
Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) conceptualized communication
competence as the interdependency of cognition, behavior, and affect. Cognition is concerned knowledge and
understanding of the communication process, while behavior is associated with
the behavioral skills required of competent communicators. Finally, affect is related to the attitudes
toward the knowledge and behavioral skills needed for competent communication.
Parks (1985) emphasizes three
interdependent themes of communication competence, including control, responsibility,
and foresight. For instance, competent
communicators know how to communicate as well as what they have
communicated. Besides being able to
achieve their goals in given social situations they are also capable of pursuing
more subjective goals.
Overall, communication competence comprises
several aspects. It reflects the ability
to adapt effectively to differing social constraints and the surrounding
environment. It also enables individuals
to demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate communicative behavior in specific
situations.
Communication
apprehension
Communication apprehension is an individual
level of fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with
another person or persons (McCroskey, 1977).
It is a pattern of anxiety that can seriously affect a student’s oral
communication, social skills, and self-esteem.
Research shows that at least 11 percent of the elementary students
experience communication apprehension, while another 20 percent may experience
enough anxiety to warrant treatment (Garrison & Garrison, 1979; Harris,
1980; Wheeless, 1971).
Communication apprehension is the tendency
to be anxious when communicating in certain settings or it may be genera l trait that affects many aspects of an
individual’s life (McCroskey, 1977). For instance, it may inhibit students’
participation and the acquisition of effective communication skills, resulting
in academic failure (Witherspoon, Long, & Nickell, 1991). Friedman (1980) added that communication
apprehension is associated with such certain personality traits. Although they may be able and desire to
participate in discussions, communication apprehensive individuals are unable
to verbalize due to quietness, shyness, or reticence.
According to Bond (1984) and McCroskey
(1980), communication apprehension is associated with seven factors, including
low intellectual skills, speech deficiencies, voluntary social introversion,
social alienation, communication anxiety, low social self-esteem, and cultural
divergence in communication norms.
However, Glaser (1981) postulated that communication apprehension is
caused by negative cognitive appraisal:
Individuals who have been criticized for their poor language performance
may learn to expect negative reactions and subsequently avoid oral
communication situations.
Byrnes (1984) postulated that communication
apprehensive students tend to be introverted.
Their shyness and passivity often discourages them from participating in
activities that require oral communication.
Reserved and thoughtful, introverted students often remain unnoticed by
lecturers and peers, making them invisible during classroom discussions (Myers,
1995).
Phillips, Smith, & Modaff (2001) found
that communication apprehension was a significant indicator of classroom
participation and was also strongly correlated with classroom
participation. They concluded that even
when freshmen are motivated to contribute, familiar with the discussion topics,
or interested in the topics, they may be still inhibited by communication
apprehension.
Communication apprehension has academic
consequences among university students (McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, &
Payne, 1989). Due to their lack of
participation in class, communication apprehensive students are often perceived
as less capable or unenthusiastic. Preferring classroom seating that offers the
least amount of interaction, they tend to obtain lower grade point averages
compared to their more communicative peers. In their attempt to avoid
communicating with peers and lecturers, many fail to complete their
assignments. Due to their greater need to avoid failure, they also tend to
exhibit lower achievement motivation than their more communicative peers.
Besides academic consequences,
communication apprehension also has a social impact upon university students. Communication apprehensive students tend to
avoid extracurricular activities, limiting the opportunities for peer
interaction and interpersonal skills development. Since they establish few close relationships
with faculty and advisors, they tend to experience less satisfaction with the
college environment (McCroskey & Sheahan, 1978). Due to their shyness and reticence, communication
apprehensive students tend to confine themselves to careers that require low
levels of communication (Friedman, 1980; Richmond, 1984).
Previous research on communication
apprehension mainly focused on the Anglo-American culture that might be biased
against the more silent cultures (Sallinen-Kuparinen, McCroskey, &
Richmond, 1991), such as Malaysia
Communication apprehension may be related
to various socio-cultural variables, such as the role of talk in society and
values placed on communication. For
instance, high tolerance for silence is not only socially acceptable but also
respected among some Malaysian communities.
Hence, communication competence of many Malaysian students may not
predominantly rely on verbal behavior but rather on active listening. Since the Malaysian culture tends to
appreciate and tolerate silence, Malaysian students may hold a low communicator
image of themselves. Nevertheless, their
reticence should not be perceived as a restrictive dispositional response to
oral communication or unwillingness to communicate.
Significance
of the study
To do well in English and Communication
Skills, university students have to demonstrate effective oral presentation
skills in front of their lecturers and peers.
They need to exhibit both communication competence and the ability to
overcome communication apprehension to pass the course. Communication
competence not only allows them to perform well academically but also to enter
the job market. It is important for
university students to develop communication competence as a soft skill; the
higher their communication competence, the less communication apprehension they
will experience in the classroom and the boardroom in future.
Purpose
of the study
The purpose of the study was to examine the
communication competence and communication apprehension of English and
Communication Skills students at a private university in Malaysia
Method
Subjects
The sample consisted of 151 English and
Communication Skills students enrolled in a private university in Malaysia
Instruments
Two self-report measurements were used in
the study: Communication competence and
communication apprehension were assessed by using the Self-Perceived
Communication Competence Scale (SCCS) and Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA), respectively.
The SCCS is one of the best measures of
self-perceived communication competence (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988). The requested responses are direct, low
inference estimates of competence. The
decision as to what makes an individual competent or incompetent depends on the
respondent and not imposed by the instrument.
The SCCS has high reliability and face validity, together with fair
predictive and construct validity (Richmond, McCroskey, & McCroskey,
1989).
The PRCA has been widely used and shows
high reliability and validity (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). It includes six items for each of the four
contexts – public speaking, talking in meetings or classes, talking in small
groups, and talking in dyads. The PRCA
has been used in many studies around the world reflecting its high reliability
and validity (McCroskey, 1982).
Procedure
The researcher distributed the instruments
with the assistance of some moral studies lecturers. She waited outside the classroom for about 20
minutes for students to complete each instrument. On both occasions, all completed instruments
were returned to her within 25 minutes.
Responses on both instruments were coded using Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets.
Data
analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS, Version
17.0 (SPSS Inc., 2010). A three-way
analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Age) was run based on students’
responses on each item. Items with high
percentages were noted. Means for items
that yielded significant group, gender, or age differences were also
calculated. Finally, implications and recommendations in relation to the
teaching and learning of English and Communication Skills of tertiary students
were made based on the significant findings.
Results
Percentages
on communication competence
Results indicated that less than 45% of the
students believed that they were competent to communicate in English in eight
situations (see Table 1). Only 38.4%
believed that they were competent to talk in a large meeting of strangers in
English. Barely 39.1% believed that they were competent to present a talk to a
group of acquaintances.
Three-way
analysis of variance on communication competence
A three-way analysis of variance showed
significant group differences between engineering and business students on one
item: Talking in a large meeting of strangers in English, F(1,149) = 4.18, p
<.05.
For this item, engineering students (n =
86) had a higher mean score of 3.27 (SD =1.12) than business students (n = 65)
with a mean score of 2.92 (SD = 1.07).
The three-way analysis of variance revealed
significant age differences on one item: Talking with a friend in English, F(2, 148) = 3.19, p < .05.
For this item, 19-year-old students (n =
32) had higher mean score of 4.03 (SD = 0.93) than 18-year-old students (n =
108, mean score = 3.53, SD = 1.07) or 20-year-old students (n = 11, mean score
= 3.55, SD = 0.69).
Significant course and age interactions
were found on one item: Talking in a
large meeting of strangers in English, F(2,
148) = 3.65, p < .05.
Significant group, gender, and age
interactions were found on one item:
Presenting a talk to a group of friends in English, F(1, 149) = 4.55, p <
.05.
Table
1: Percentages on Competence to Communicate in English
Communication competence
Items Agreement (%)
Present a
talk to a group of strangers in English 45.1
Talk with
an acquaintance in English 45.7
Talk in a
large meeting of friends in English 45.7
Talk in a
large meeting of acquaintances in English 42.4
Present a
talk to a group of friends in English 42.4
Talk with
a stranger in English 45.0
Talk in a
small group of acquaintances in English 43.0
Talk in a
small group of friends in English 46.4
Talk in a
large meeting of strangers in English 38.4
Present a
talk to a group of acquaintances 39.1
Talk in a
small group of strangers in English 57.0
Talk with
a friend in English 57.7
Communication
apprehension
Results showed that many English and
Communication students experienced communication apprehension (Table 2). For instance, at least 40% felt nervous in
terms of participating in group discussions in English or having a group
discussion with new people in English.
Another 40% were afraid to express themselves at meetings using English
or forgot familiar facts due to anxiety while giving speech in English.
Results also showed that low percentages
(36 to 42 percent) of the students were calm and relaxed in terms of participating
in group discussions in English, expressing opinions at meetings using English,
answering questions in English at meetings, or giving speeches in English. Again, these findings reflected high
communication apprehension among English and Communication students.
Three-way
analysis of variance on communication apprehension
A three-way analysis of variance on
communication apprehension revealed significant group differences between
engineering and business students on four items:
(1) Having a group discussion with new
people in English makes me nervous, F(1,
149) = 7.42, p < .01; (2) Genera lly,
I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting held in English, F(1, 149) = 4.12, p < .05; (3) I am afraid
to speak up in conversations using English, F(1,
149) = 6.91, p < .05; and (4) My
thoughts become confused when I am giving a speech in English, F(1, 149) = 4.21, p < .05.
For the item “having a group discussion
with new people in English makes me nervous” business students (n = 65)
obtained a higher mean score (mean = 3.49, SD = 1.17) than engineering students
(n = 86, mean = 3.06, SD = 1.11).
For the item “genera lly
I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting held in English” business
students obtained a higher mean score (mean = 3.00, SD = 1.03) than engineering
students (mean = 2.81, SD = 1.26)
For the item “I am afraid to speak up in
conversations using English” business students obtained a higher mean score
(mean = 2.85, SD = 1.15) than engineering students (mean = 2.51, SD = 1.22).
For the item “my thoughts become confused
when I am giving a speech in English” business students obtained a higher mean
score (mean = 2.74, SD = 1.12) than engineering students (mean = 2.55, SD =
1.20).
The three-way analysis of variance revealed
significant gender differences on one communication apprehension item: I like participating in group discussions
held in English, F(1, 149) = 4.35, p < .05.
Female students (n = 57) obtained a higher
mean score (mean = 3.75, SD = 0.89) than male students (n = 94, mean = 3.51, SD
1.24).
The three-way analysis of variance revealed
significant age differences on two communication apprehension items: (1) Genera lly,
I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting held in English, F(1, 149) = 3.50, p < .05; and (2) I feel relaxed while giving a speech in
English, F(1, 149) = 3.65, p < .05.
For the item “genera lly
I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting held in English”
18-year-old students (n = 108) obtained a higher mean score (Mean = 3.06, SD =
1.17) than 19-year-old students (n = 32, mean = 2.59, SD = 1.04) and
20-year-old students (n = 11, mean = 2.09, SD = 1.04).
For the item “I feel relaxed while giving a
speech in English” 19-year-old students obtained a higher mean score (mean =
3.56, SD = 0.95) than 18-year-old students (mean = 3.08, SD = 1.10) and
20-year-old students (mean = 3.45, SD = 0.93).
Significant group, gender, and age
interactions were found on three communication apprehension items: (1) I like participating in group discussions
held in English, F(1, 149) = 6.85, p < .05; (2) I am calm and relaxed while participating
in group discussions held in English, F(1,
149), p < .05; and (3) While
conversing with a new friend in English, I feel very nervous, F(1, 149) = 4.09, p < .05.
Table
2: Percentages on Communication Apprehension
Feelings
about
communicating
with others
Items Agreement (%)
I like
participating in group discussions held in English 69.6
I am
comfortable while participating in group discussions using English 61.0
I like to
get involved in group discussions in English 60.3
I feel
nervous while participating in group discussions in English 40.0
Having a
group discussion with new people in English makes me nervous 45.7
I am
usually very tense and nervous in conversations using English 41.1
I am
afraid to express myself at meetings using English 40.0
While
giving speech in English, I forget familiar facts due to anxiety 40.0
I am calm
and relaxed while participating in group discussions in English 40.4
I am very
relaxed when expressing an opinion at a meeting using English 37.8
I am very
relaxed when answering questions in English at a meeting 41.7
I feel
relaxed while giving a speech in English 40.4
I face
the prospect of giving a speech in English with confidence 35.8
Genera lly I am nervous when participating in a meeting
held in English 33.1
Usually I
am calm while participating in meetings held in English 45.0
Communicating
at meetings in English usually makes me uncomfortable 29.2
While
conversing with a new friend in English, I feel very nervous 35.8
I have
confidence to speak up in conversations using English 48.4
While
conversing with a new friend in English, I feel very relaxed 47.7
Usually I
am very calm and relaxed in conversations held in English 47.7
I am afraid
to speak up in conversations using English 29.2
I have
confidence to give a speech in English 47.0
I feel
tense while I am giving a speech in English 35.7
My
thoughts become confused when I am giving a speech in English 27.1
Discussion
Implications
on communication competence
Results showed that many English and
Communication Skills students lacked communication competence. For instance, less than 40 believed that they
were competent to talk in a large meeting of strangers in English or present a
talk to a group of acquaintances. Barely
42 percent admitted that they were competent to talk in a large meeting of
acquaintances or present a talk to a group of friends in English. Findings imply that English and Communication
Skills students need to improve their public speaking skills not only for classroom
presentations but also as a graduate attribute.
Communication competence of English and
Communication Skills students is influenced by various factors. For instance, many of them rarely use English
outside the classroom as they feel more comfortable and convenient in using
their own native language or dialects. Others may be reluctant to use English
to communicate due to low assertiveness, negative self-esteem, passivity, or
fear of rejection. Nevertheless, more
research is needed to examine why many English and Communication students lack
communication competence.
Communication competence requires adaption
to different settings (Duran, 1992; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), knowledge of
appropriate communicative patterns or behaviors (Larson, Backlund, Redmond,
& Barbour, 1978; McCroskey & Beatty, 1998), and intercultural
dependence (Shockely-Zalabak, 1988; Wiseman, 2002).
To become competent communicators,
university students should learn how to adapt to differing social constraints
and to the surrounding environment. In
other words, they should acquire and demonstrate knowledge of various
appropriate communicative patterns or behaviors required in specific situations.
One effective way is by observing various
communication situations and identifying behaviors that would be appropriate
for those situations. In addition, they
should demonstrate intercultural dependence by having the knowledge, motivation,
and skills to interact effectively and appropriately with people from different
cultures. Besides showing sensitivity or
concern and respect for others, they must also have commitment or the desire to
avoid previous mistakes and find better ways of communicating through self-monitoring.
Canary and Cody (2000) provided six
criteria for assessing communication competence. To become competent communicators, university
students should demonstrate (a) adaptability or ability to change their
behaviors and goals to interact with others, (b) social composure or ability to
maintain calmness through accurate perception, (c) social confirmation or
ability to acknowledge others’ goals, (d) appropriate disclosure or sensitivity
toward the amount and type of information, (e) articulation or ability to express
ideas through language, and (f) wit or ability to use humor to ease tensions in
various social situations.
Rowley (2002) maintained that communication
competence is the ability to send messages that promote attainment of goals
while maintaining social acceptability.
To achieve this, university students should learn how to align
themselves with other’s goals to produce meaningful dialogue. Alignment requires commitment, empathy, flexibility,
and sensitivity to consequences.
To be committed communicators, university
students should care about the others and relationships, accept their
perspectives and needs as legitimate, and ensure that the communication outcomes
are satisfying to all involved. To be empathetic
communicators, they should view a situation from another person’s perspective,
thereby experiencing how that person feels. They should appreciate the other person’s
opinions and have a realistic understanding of what is possible to achieve with
others.
To be flexible communicators, university
student should develop a wide range of communication abilities that have a different
value in any given situation; they should be able to choose a response that
promotes the attainment of mutual goals.
To be communicators who are sensitive to consequences, students must
acknowledge that any given communication choice may not be applicable in all
situations; however, they can get to know the consequences of different communication
skills in different situations through experience and exposure.
Implications
on communication apprehension
Results showed that many English and
Communication Skills students experienced communication apprehension. For instance, at least 40 percent admitted
that they were nervous while participating in group discussions, having group
discussions with new people, or expressing themselves at meetings using English.
Kelly and Keaten (2000) maintained that communication
apprehension is mainly caused by three variables: Social anxiety, communication novelty, and
threat of punishment. These three
variables can be reduced through skills training (ST). Through ST communication, students
experiencing social anxiety can acquire skills that enable them to communicate
competently. Competent performance in
turn promotes successful goal attainment and social approval, raising
confidence while reducing anxiety.
ST reduces communication novelty through
proper speech organization. For
instance, communication apprehensive students can use visual aids, note-cards,
and PowerPoint slides to decrease the novelty associated with oral
communication.
Through ST, communication apprehensive students
can reduce the threat of punishment associated with unpleasant stimuli (for
example, negative feedback) and reward cessation (for example, social disapproval
or negative evaluation). Lecturers
should help students redefine their notions of punishment and rewards in the
oral communication context. ST can
include practice speeches before audiences that lead to positive peer and lecturer
feedback.
The threat of punishment can also be
reduced by providing structure to the oral communication experience. Structure in speaking assignments enables
students to know what rules to follow in order to avoid negative consequences. For instance, an interesting introduction,
pertinent main points, and an effective conclusion helps reduce the threats of
punishment and reward cessation.
Kelly and Keaten (2000) offered some useful
tips for communication apprehensive individuals to reduce their social anxiety,
communication novelty, and threat of punishment. To reduce social anxiety, students can be
gradually exposed to public speaking. Lecturers can begin by simply asking them
to answer questions from their seats.
From there, students can give mini-speeches in a circle, followed by
giving them in front of the class. The
next step is to encourage them to present short speeches just to the lecturer,
then to a small group, and finally to the entire class.
Communication novelty can be overcome by
reducing uncertainty about oral communication and its requirements. For instance, students can watch videotapes
provided by textbook publishers to gain greater exposure to oral communication,
which in turn helps to reduce novelty.
Threat of punishment can be reduced by providing
students with highly structured communication assignments. For example, guidelines can give students a
greater chance to meet the lecturer’s expectations, which in turn reduces the
likelihood of punishment. Assignments and
options should range from the highly structured to the more flexible types. While communication apprehensive students can
benefit from high structure, low structure ensures that the more communicative
students are not stifled by too many rules.
In addition, lecturers should provide regular feedback about students’
choice of topics, sources, and outlines throughout the speech process to reduce
the threat of negative evaluation.
Students are less likely to perceive lecturer
or peer evaluation as punishing during a rehearsal. Hence, students should rehearse individually
to their lecturer or peers before presenting to the actual audience. Nevertheless, peer or lecturer evaluation
should be carefully planned and monitored, focusing on the positive aspects of
a student’s speech while providing specific suggestions for improvement.
Besides skills training (ST), communication
apprehension among university students can be overcome through a four-phase
strategy advocated by Bond (1984).
First, lecturers should know how to modify or reinforce the
communication behaviors of students.
Second, university students should take a basic communication course
(for example, public speaking) that provides ample opportunities for oral
presentation and peer interaction. Third, shy or overly quiet students should be
encouraged to have specialized treatment, for instance, public speaking, drama,
or simulation. Finally, various
university courses should incorporate activities that promote oral
communication among students; for instance, business or engineering courses
should allocate marks for group projects as well as group presentations.
Friedman (1980) maintained that the
learning environment plays a crucial role in reducing communication
apprehension. Reticence or social
introversion can be decreased by (a) creating a warm, easygoing climate in the
classroom, (b) encouraging students to get to know one another at the beginning
of the course, (c) using drama and role-playing activities to elaborate complex
concepts, (d) requiring students to do group projects and presentations, (e) implementing
group activities such as jigsaw reading, and (f) providing students with
developmental/sequential communication activities.
Suid (1984) recommended some activities
that communication apprehensive students can benefit. Aimed to reduce anxiety and improve
communication skills, these activities include (a) asking students concerning
topics that they are familiar with, (b) requiring students to read speech
transcripts, (c) encouraging students to listen to good speakers, (d) playing
charades during class break, (e) presenting speeches with little eye contact at
first, and (f) and illustrating a speech.
Friedrich, Goss, Cunconan and Lane (1997)
designed a treatment package for communication apprehension based on systematic
desensitization. It includes (a)
training in deep muscle relaxation, (b) construction of anxiety-eliciting
stimuli, and (c) graduated pairing, through imagery, of the anxiety-eliciting
stimuli with the relaxed state.
Systematic desensitization encourages communication apprehensive
students to associate relaxation with specific stimuli, replacing their learned
anxious response to those stimuli.
Public speaking lecturers can begin
systematic desensitization by simply asking communication apprehensive students
to respond to questions from the seats.
From there, students can give mini-speeches seated in a circle, followed
by having them say a few sentences in front of the class. The following step may require students to
present short speeches just to the lecturer, then to a small group, and finally
to the whole class. All these steps help
to reduce the novelty effect of public speaking, leading to a gradual decrease
in communication apprehension (Kelly, Keaten, & Phillips, 1995).
Cognitive restructuring (Meichenbaum, 1977)
is another method to reduce communication apprehension. Communicative apprehensive students can try
to replace their irrational beliefs with rational or coping beliefs. They should strive to change their cognitions
about public speaking or oral communication.
For instance, instead of assuming that they will bore people
communication apprehensive students should reassure themselves that they have
something interesting to offer to an appreciative audience. Instead of worrying that their grades or
being rejected by an unfriendly audience, they should tell themselves that they
will do well if they try their best and treat failure as a learning experience.
Ayres, Hopf, and Ayres (1997) recommended
performance visualization to reduce communication apprehension. This approach
uses public speaking scripts that enable communication apprehensive students to
envision themselves speaking competently and being praised by the audience. Most students tend to calm down and speak more
assertively when they start visualizing themselves being rewarded for their
speech performance.
To promote oral communication in English
among university students is a monumental task.
Nevertheless, acknowledging communication apprehension as a common
phenomenon can be a spur toward helping university students to eliminate the
factors that cause them to avoid oral communication (Taylor
Since communication apprehension is most
common among first- and second-year students (McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield,
& Payne, 1989), it is important for foundation and undergraduate students
to pass an oral communication course before proceeding to higher level courses
in which oral presentation is inevitable.
All university staff should create a supportive environment to help
alleviate communication apprehension among students while encouraging them to
speak English inside and out of class.
References
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C.
(1988). Interpersonal communication as a temperamental expression: A
communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, &
M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and
personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill , NJ : Hampton
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., &
Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A
communibiological paradigm. Communication
Monographs, 65, 197-219.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., &
Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal
adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York :
Cambridge University
Duran, R. L. (1992). Communicative
adaptability: A review of conceptualization and measurement. Communication Quarterly, 40, 253-268.
Larson, C. E., Backlund, P. M., Redmond Falls Church , VA
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication
competence: The elusive construct. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication. Beverly
Hills , CA
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J.
(1998). Communication apprehension. In J. C. Mccroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M.
Martin, & M. J. Beatty, Communication and personality trait perspectives. Cresskill , NJ : Hampton
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication
competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education, 32,
323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R.
(1984). Interpersonal communication
competence. Beverly Hills ,
CA
Feel nervous while participating in group
discussions 40.0
Nervous to have a group discussion with new
people 45.7
Very tense and nervous in conversations 41.1
Afraid to express opinions at meetings 40.0
Forget familiar facts during speech due to
anxiety 40.0
Generally nervous when participating in a
meeting 33.1
Feel uncomfortable to communicate in
English at meetings 29.2
Feel nervous while conversing with a new
friend 35.8
Afraid to speak up in conversations using
English 29.2
Feel tense while I am giving a speech in
English 35.7
Thoughts become confused when giving a
speech in English 27.1
Like participating in group discussions 69.6
Comfortable while participating in group
discussions 61.0
Like to get involved in group discussions
in English 60.3
Calm and relaxed while participating in
group discussions 40.4
Very relaxed when expressing an opinion at
a meeting 37.8
Very relaxed when answering questions at a
meeting 41.7
Feel relaxed while giving a speech 40.4
Face the prospect of giving a speech with
confidence 35.8
Usually calm while participating in
meetings 45.0
Have confidence to speak up in
conversations 48.4
Feel relaxed while conversing with a new
friend 47.7
Usually very calm and relaxed in
conversations held in English 47.7
Have confidence to give a speech in English 47.0
No comments:
Post a Comment