The NIS-S was used to survey perception of the participants of their nonverbal immediacy over the four year period. The NIS-S was developed to measure how nonverbally immediate individuals perceive themselves to be when interacting with others. Participants completed the reports every year during the first semester. The nonverbal immediacy self-report survey was administered on a longitudinal basis in order to (a) identify student teachers’ views of their nonverbal immediacy levels and (b) to establish if there were any changes in their perceived nonverbal immediacy over the four-year period as they were exposed to real-life teaching in schools during scheduled practical teaching sessions.
The measure is suited to various contexts with high reliability and validity (Richmond et al.
2003). The measure comprises of 26 Likert items which range from one (never) to five indicating (very often). Scores should range between 26 and 130 (Wrench et al. 2008) with lower scores indicating a lower perception of levels of nonverbal immediacy and higher scores pointing to a stronger perception of levels of nonverbal immediacy behaviours. The alpha reliability35 for the NIS-S measure in this study was 0.80; M = 94.49, SD = 10.08 (Addendum 4.2, Table 1).
35 The Crohnbach’s alpha is used to estimate the reliability of a measure and according to Wrench et al.
(2008:195), scores between 0.80 and 0.90 can be considered good with regard to the measures reliability. Scores between 0.70 and 0.80 can be described as respectable.
124 Figure 4.1 indicates that the perception of participants relating to their nonverbal immediacy remained constant over time (F (3, 145) = .29, p = 0.83). A significant change of the results would be indicated by a p value smaller than 0.05 (Babbie 2010:482).
Figure 4.1: NIS-S: 2009 to 2012
The y-axis of the graph in Figure 4.1 represents the average score for the group for NIS-S over the years and the x-axis indicates the years of data collection. The descriptive statistics (Addendum 4.2, Table 2) indicates that the mean in this study is at 94.49. This means that on the one hand the scores are in the range of the average category, however, it is at a very low point of what is regarded as average, considering that a score of 92, according to Richmond et al. (2003), indicates a low NIS-S score.
The data on the NIS-S of participants shows the following:
The participants’ self-reported levels of nonverbal immediacy remained constant over the period of study. From this can be inferred that after a considerable time period little would change in the perceived level of nonverbal immediacy behaviours.
A small proportion of the participants scored high. In fact, after four years 47% of the population remained in the average group and 46% scored low. This is particularly
125 4.3.2 Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA – 24)
The PRCA-24 measures the typical response of a person to oral interaction with others (Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond 2008:55). The report measures total CA as well as CA across the contexts of public speaking, interpersonal, meetings and group discussions (Section 3.6.1.1). However, in order to remain focussed the two contexts that are most relevant to the development of the student teachers, namely the public speaking and interpersonal contexts, will be analysed. Group discussions and meetings are not as relevant to the teaching practice context as some schools allow student teachers to be part of such discussions and other schools prefer not to include them. Furthermore, the interpersonal nature of the relationship between the student teacher and the mentor teacher is particularly relevant to this study. Lastly, because the practice of the student teacher is evaluated the context of public speaking needs to be included in the later discussion. This pertains to all further discussions.
McCroskey (1982) developed the PRCA-24 in order to determine the level of fear individuals experience regarding either real or anticipated communication with others. He used a 24-item Likert scale which consists of statements related to feelings about communication.
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the statement applies to them by indicating: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4 and Strongly Agree = 5. The alpha reliability for the measure in this study was 0.86; M = 70.63, SD = 15.70 (Addendum 4.2, Table 3). Low scores indicate low anxiety and high scores imply that the person is very anxious about communication in general. An average score (between 50 and 80) is considered normal, because most people experience some form of anxiety at some or other stage (Wrench et al. 2008:64). Scores for the other three surveys (NIS-S, WTC &
SPCC) also represent positions on a continuum from low to high, e.g. a score of 90 for NIS-S indicates low NIS and 115 high NIS. However, the interpretation of the PRCA-24 scores has an additional dimension to consider, because the measure includes a normative range which is considered average and acceptable. Scores that fall above and below this range are considered to be deviant of the norm.
126 4.3.2.1 Progression of Total CA
Figure 4.2 shows that although no significant differences (p=0.10) were found over the years for communication apprehension, the data did indicate a trend for a decrease from 2010 to 2011. This could be attributed to, as mentioned in the limitations to this study (see Section 6.6), a number of factors such as nonresponse, but also the subjective nature of people’s thinking (F(3, 146) = 2.1562, p = 0.10). It is important to note however that the results indicated no difference between 2009 and 2012.
Figure 4.2: Total PRCA progression: 2009 to 2012
The letters annotated on the graph indicate possible significant differences between individual years. Overlapping letters indicate no significant difference (p>0.05) whereas no overlapping letters (e.g. 2010 vs 2011) indicated significant differences (p<0.05).
Additionally, the average score for the group can be regarded as above normal as the mean is indicated as 65.5. The scores presented on the y-axis indicate that the participants in this study represent what is considered a significantly ‘high’ normal. Wrench et al. (2008) argue that a score between 70 and 80 is high for the average population, which means that these participants probably experience slightly higher levels of CA than the average population.
year; LS Means
127 In other words, the level of communication apprehension is likely to remain stable over time.
This seems to support the trait perspective on CA as discussed in chapter 2 (Section 2.3.2), which maintains that CA is a stable trait that does not change over time. One can therefore argue that participants, who are highly apprehensive about communication when they enter the four-year B Ed degree programme, will most probably exit the programme highly apprehensive about communication in general.
4.3.2.2 Progression of CA across various contexts Public speaking
Figure 4.3 below indicates statistically no change in the levels of communication apprehension related to public speaking (F (3, 146) = 1.0108, p = 0.38986).
Figure 4.3: Progression of PRCA public speaking: 2009 to 2012
In general, this group of participants can be described as highly apprehensive regarding public speaking. Wrench et al. (2008) indicate that scores above 18 are considered high for the different contexts and scores above 23 indicate extremely high levels of CA. The mean score for the measure is 19.83 (Addendum 4.2, Table 5) and Figure 4.3 shows that this group showed no significant change over time. As mentioned previously, a significant change of the results would be indicated by a p value smaller than 0.05 (Babbie 2010:482).
year; LS Means
128 Interpersonal
Figure 4.4 shows that although there was a slight change in levels of interpersonal PRCA (F (3, 146) = 2.4179, p = 0.07) over the years, it is not significant at 5% (p=0.07). The trend indicated a decrease from 2010 to 2011. However, in general the average level of CA related to the interpersonal contexts is higher than average (scores above 18 are regarded as high as explained in the previous section), indicating that participants are more apprehensive in this context than most people would be.
Figure 4.4: Progression of interpersonal PRCA: 2009 to 2012
As mentioned in Section 4.3.2.1 the letters annotated on the graph indicate possible significant differences between individual years. Overlapping letters indicate no significant difference (p>0.05), however no overlapping letters (e.g. 2010 vs 2011) indicated significant differences (p<0.05). Therefore, anxiety related to interpersonal communication did not improve over time and participants are slightly higher in their apprehension in this regard
129 In summary, the data on the PRCA of participants show the following:
There were very slight changes in the levels of CA of participants over time which means that if one is highly apprehensive in general, one is likely to remain highly apprehensive, but can also possibly experience high levels of communication anxiety in a variety of contexts.
There was a slight improvement in the level of CA related to interpersonal contexts, however it is still statistically noticeable at 10%, however not significant at 5% (p = 0.07).
4.3.3 Willingness to communicate (WTC)
As explained in Section 2.3.2.3, willingness to communicate (WTC) refers to a tendency to initiate and sustain communication and interactions. People who are highly willing to communicate find it easy to initiate and sustain interaction with others whereas individuals with low levels of WTC tend to avoid the initiation of such interaction as far as possible. The WTC measure indicates the participants’ choice to communicate or not across various contexts and with various types of receivers36, such as strangers, acquaintances and friends.
This is because not only the context, but also the person with whom the interaction should take place could affect the level of WTC. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the measure in this study is .81; M = 189.148; SD = 50.91 (Addendum 4.2; Table 7).
4.3.3.1 Progression of total WTC
Figure 4.5 displays the results of the various waves of data collection over the four years. The results show no change in levels of WTC from the first to the final year (F (3, 142) = 1.2148, p= 0.30663). A significant change in results would be represented by a p value smaller than 0.05 (Babbie 2010:482); also, the omission of letters annotated in the graph underlines the fact that no significant changes were reported.
36 The receiver type ‘friend’ is not specifically relevant to the teacher education context and will therefore not be included in the discussion.
130 Figure 4.5: Progression of total WTC: 2009 to 2012
The total WTC for this group remained in the lower average range as the mean = 63.04 (Addendum 4.2; Table 8). McCroskey et al. (2006) consider scores of between 52 and 82 as average. A score of 63.04 should then be interpreted as rather low within the average range.
What is particularly significant is that more than 25% of the participants indicate that they are in general not willing to communicate (see Addendum 4.1)
4.3.3.2 Progression of WTC across various contexts
A person may be more or less willing to communicate depending on the specific context.
This section briefly describes the development of WTC across the various contexts.
Public speaking WTC
Although Figure 4.6 seems to suggest some movement, results of levels of WTC of participants related to public speaking over the four-year period indicate no statistically significant changes (F (3, 142) = 0.99, p = 0.39830).
year; LS Means
Current effect: F(3, 142)=1.2148, p=.30663 Type III decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
2009 2010 2011 2012
year 56
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
WTC total
131 Figure 4.6: Progression of public speaking WTC: 2009 to 2012
What is interesting is that the group mean is 58.63 (see Addendum 4.2, Table 9) with regard to public speaking and this remained stable throughout the study. McCroskey et al. (2006) indicate that scores between 33 and 78 indicated average WTC.
Interpersonal WTC
Figure 4.7 shows that in general participants' WTC related to interpersonal contexts did not change over time.
Figure 4.7: Progression of interpersonal WTC: 2009 to 2012
year; LS Means
132 The descriptive statistics (Addendum 4.2, Table 10) indicate that the mean in this study is at 67.57. This means that on the one hand the scores are in the range of the average category, however, it is in the lower range of what is regarded as average, considering that a score of 64, according to McCroskey et al. (2006), indicates low WTC in interpersonal contexts.
Furthermore, a very small proportion of the group scored high with regard to WTC in an interpersonal context. After four years, only 11% indicated that they are very willing to communicate interpersonally (see Addendum 4.1). As mentioned previously, when applied to the specific nature of the interpersonal context within which a student teacher functions, it involves interaction with different parties, namely the learners, mentor teachers, as well as external evaluators.
The interpersonal WTC profile of this specific group is very interesting. From the discussion in Chapter 2 (see Section 2.2) it is clear that interpersonal communication is an essential part of teaching. Given the fact that all students have 12 years of exposure to teaching before they start the degree programme, one would have expected that they understood the interpersonal nature of the classroom and that they would therefore have been more willing to interact on an interpersonal level in general. However, results indicate that in the fourth year 35% of participants have low levels of WTC on an interpersonal level.
4.3.3.3 Progression of WTC with different receiver types
As stated earlier, for the scope of this study the focus is only on strangers and acquaintances as receiver types.
Strangers
Figure 4.8 indicates that there was a change in the levels of WTC when communicating with strangers from the first to the third year, thereafter, however, it remained stable (F (3, 142) = 3.5898, p = 0.01534). As mentioned in Section 4.3.2.1 the letters annotated on the graph indicate possible significant differences between individual years. Overlapping letters (e.g.
2009 vs 2010; 2010 vs 2011) indicate no significant difference (p>0.05), however no overlapping letters (e.g. 2009 vs 2011) indicated significant differences (p<0.05). The repeated use of the ‘a’ (e.g. 2011 and 2012) suggest no further change.
133 Figure 4.8: Progression of WTC with strangers: 2009 to 2012
In general the group scored average (scores between 18 and 63 according to McCroskey et al.
2006) with regard to their WTC with strangers (mean = 44.31- Addendum 4.2; Table 11).
From the first to the fourth year there was an increase, so that in their final year 26% of the participants indicated that they were highly willing to communicate with strangers.
Acquaintances
There were no changes in the level of WTC with acquaintances (F (3, 142) = .43720, p = .72672) as indicated in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9: Progression of WTC with acquaintances: 2009 to 2012
year; LS Means
134 Results indicate that in general the participants in this study had an average score for WTC with receivers who can be described as acquaintances (M = 61.85) – Addendum 4.2; Table 12. Although this group falls within what is considered an average range, scores were particularly low for the range, as was the case with interpersonal WTC. McCroskey et al.
(2006) consider scores between 57 and 92 as average WTC in this context. What is worth noting is that 44% of participants reported low levels of WTC with acquaintances in 2012 and only 9% indicated that they were very willing to communicate with acquaintances.
In summary, the data on WTC of participants shows the following:
The levels of total WTC of participants did not change over time.
There was an improvement in the level of WTC with strangers, however, there was no change in level of WTC regarding communication with acquaintances.