This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 12 November 2014, At: 18:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

Communication apprehension andacademic achievement amongelementary and middle schoolstudentsMark E. Comadena a & Diane T. Prusank ba Associate Professor in the Department of Communication ,Illinois State University , Normal, Illinois, 61761b Doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication ,University of Oklahoma , Norman, Oklahoma, 73019Published online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: Mark E. Comadena & Diane T. Prusank (1988) Communication apprehensionand academic achievement among elementary and middle school students, CommunicationEducation, 37:4, 270-277, DOI: 10.1080/03634528809378728

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378728

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 whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 APPREHENSIONAND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

AMONG ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLESCHOOL STUDENTS

Mark E. Comadena and Diane T. Prusank

This study examined the relationship between communication apprehension(CA) and academic achievement (AA) among 1053 elementary and middle schoolstudents in a midwestern community. CA was operationally defined as scores on theMeasure of Elementary Communication Apprehension (Garrison & Garrison,1979). AA was operationally defined as scores on the Stanford Achievement Test. CAand AA were found to be significantly and negatively related. On three tests ofachievement (mathematics, language, and reading), students high in CA demon-strated the lowest levels of learning. In the case of mathematics, students low in CAhad achievement scores that were 23% higher than students high in CA.

Communication apprehension (CA) refers to fear or anxiety associated with eitherreal or anticipated communication with another (McCroskey, 1984). Since 1971, anumber of research projects (Bashore, 1971; Comadena & Comadena, 1984;Davis & Scott, 1978; Garrison, Seiler & Boohar, 1977; McCroskey & Andersen,1976; Powers & Smythe, 1980; Scott & Wheeless, 1977; Scott, Wheeless, Yates &Randolph, 1977) have demonstrated that CA and academic achievement (AA) aresignificantly and negatively related. This inverse relationship is based on the notionthat students high in CA, compared to students low in CA, either avoid or fail toparticipate meaningfully in classroom communications with teachers and peers inorder to avoid experiencing the anxiety they have learned to associate withcommunication. Since the essence of instruction is communication, fear or anxietyabout participating in classroom communication results in low levels of learning.Students must actively participate in classroom communication (as both source andreceiver of messages) for effective learning (Bloom, 1976; Lysakowski & Walberg,1982).

While numerous studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between CAand AA, one must exercise some caution when generalizing the results of thesestudies. Conspicuously missing from this developing body of literature are studies ofelementary and middle school students. At the present time, we have no evidence toindicate that CA is related to or significantly interferes with classroom learning inthese students.

That researchers have failed to systematically examine the relationship betweenCA and AA among students in the early grade levels is unfortunate. This research isneeded to better inform elementary and middle school teachers of the effects CA mayhave in their-classrooms. If CA and AA are found to be negatively related at these

Mark E. Comadena (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1981) is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCommunication, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 61761. Diane T. Prusank (M.S., IllinoisStale University, 1985) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication, University ofOklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 73019.

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 37, October 1988

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT—271

early grade levels, teachers may be more easily encouraged to adopt instructionalstrategies and classroom management techniques that are sensitive to the socialconcerns of communication apprehensive children. Research on elementary andmiddle school students may suggest the need to develop techniques that can be easilyemployed by teachers to reduce CA in children. If CA develops early in life and if CAis found to predict negative academic outcomes in the elementary and middle school,then the obvious time to treat CA would be the elementary school years (or earlier).But since most school districts do not have the resources to permit large numbers ofhigh communication apprehensive children to be treated through established clinicaltechniques, such as systematic desensitization or cognitive restructuring, an effectivealternative, one that can be implemented in the classroom, may be needed. Thepurpose of this study, then, is to examine the relationship between CA and AA inelementary and middle school students. The following section offers a theoreticalrationale for this study.

There are at least two reasons why one would expect a negative relationshipbetween CA and AA among elementary and middle school students. First, theoryand research concerning the development of CA indicates that one's level of CA isestablished in early childhood. A study by McCroskey, Andersen, Richmond andWheel ess (1981) revealed that substantial changes in self-reported CA occurs inkindergarten and between grades 3 and 4, and that CA remains relatively stable fromgrade 4 through college. Reinforcement patterns for communication received at homeand school appear to be the primary causal factors in development of CA in children(Beatty, Plax & Kearney, 1984; Daly & Friedrich, 1981; McCroskey & Beatty,1986). Theory and research on other forms of social anxiety also indicate that socialinhibition may be established in early childhood (Asendorpf, 1986). Plomin andDaniels (1986) maintain that shyness, a form of social anxiety closely related to CA,may even have a genetic component. Existing theory and research suggests, then, thathigh levels of CA may be established early in life. Thus, if active involvement inclassroom communication is necessary for learning at the elementary and middleschools, and if CA causes elementary and middle school students to avoid meaningfulclassroom communications with teacher and classmates, then one would expect anegative relationship between CA and AA in these students.

A second reason why CA may be related to AA among elementary school studentsconcerns teacher expectations. A considerable amount of educational researchindicates that teacher expectations may have a profound effect on student learning;low achievement expectations may cause low achievement (Dusek, 1985; Levine &Wang, 1983; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). A study by McCroskey and Daly (1976)indicates that student level of C A may influence teacher achievement expectations. Inthat study (McCroskey & Daly, 1976), 462 teachers were asked to evaluate twohypothetical elementary school children, one high in CA and the other low in CA, interms of achievement potential, deportment and relationships with others. CA wasoperationally defined in terms of behaviors associated with low and high CA. Thelow communication apprehensive child was described as an outgoing individual whosits in front of the class and who frequently participates in class discussions. The highcommunication apprehensive child, on the other hand, was described as a very quietindividual who sits in the back of the room and who seldomly participates in classdiscussions. Results indicated that teachers expected the student low in CA,compared to the student high in CA, to have higher achievement, better relationshipswith others, and greater success in future education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

272—COMADENA AND PRUSANK

The present study, then, examined the relationship between CA and AA amongelementary and middle school students. Since students may enter the elementaryschool with levels of CA that cause them to avoid meaningful classroom communica-tions with teachers and peers, and since the pattern of behaviors characteristic of thehigh communication apprehensive student has been shown to elicit negative achieve-ment expectations in teachers, CA was expected to be significantly and negativelyrelated to AA among elementary and middle school students. Specifically, thefollowing hypothesis was tested:

Among elementary and middle school students, there is a significant inverse relationship between CAand AA.

METHOD

SubjectsSubjects for this study were 1053 elementary and middle school students in amidwestern community. The following is a breakdown of the number of studentsobserved at each grade: 2,113; 3, 93; 4, 93; 5,106; 6,115; 7, 267; and 8, 266.

Measurement & proceduresThe independent variable in this study is communication apprehension (CA). CAwas operationally defined as scores on the Measure of Elementary CommunicationApprehension (MECA; Garrison & Garrison, 1979). The MECA is a measure oftrait CA composed of twenty questions that address a student's fears aboutcommunication in the school environment. MECA items are framed in languageappropriate for younger children and incorporates a progression of smiling andfrowning faces for response options (Garrison & Garrison, 1979). The smiling andfrowning faces were dropped from the MECA instrument administered to studentsin grades 7 and 8; these students responded to each MECA item by circling a word(s)that best represented their feelings (i.e., very happy, somewhat happy, undecided,somewhat unhappy, very unhappy). The scale was orally administered to students ingrades 2-6 by students' teachers. Students in grades 7 and 8 completed the scale intheir social studies class. All teachers were given detailed written instructions foradministering the MECA instrument.

Evidence regarding the reliability and validity of the MECA instrument isreported in Garrison and Garrison (1979). In the present study, reliability (Cron-bach's alpha) ranged from .76 (grade 4) to .84 (grade 8). The average reliability was.79.

Since the hypothesis guiding this research posited a linear relationship betweenCA and AA and since a relatively large sample of subjects was available for analysis,six levels of CA were examined. These levels were created by using the mean CAscore for the sample (mean = 54.47) and the sample standard deviation (stddev = 9.73) to create 6 intervals with approximately equal numbers of subjects.Level one (Low CA; n = 160) was defined as a score below one standard deviationfrom the mean for the sample. Level 2 (n = 157) was defined as a score between —1standard deviation and —.5 standard deviation from the mean. Level 3 (n = 204)was defined as a score between the mean and —.5 standard deviation from the mean.Level 4 (n = 212) was defined as a score between the mean and .5 standard deviationfrom the mean. Level 5 (n = 159) was defined as a score between .5 and 1 standarddeviation from the mean. Finally, level 6 (High CA; n = 161) was defined as a score1 standard deviation above the mean.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT—273

TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR CA ACROSS GRADE LEVELS

Grade Levels

2 3 4 5 6 7 8Mean 49.51 51.40 51.65 53.12 53.41 56.46 57.74StdDev 9.52 9.78 9.99 8.93 8.84 8.96 9.58

The dependent variable in this study is academic achievement (AA). AA wasoperationally defined as scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). Threesubtests of the SAT—mathematics, reading, and language—were examined.National percentile-rank scores were utilized in statistical tests. The nationalpercentile-rank score reflects a student's achievement in relation to every 100students who took the test.

Data collection occurred over a 6 month period. In October, students completedthe SAT. In March, students were administered the MECA. Achievement scoreswere then recorded from students' permanent school records.

Data analysisTo test the theoretical hypothesis, subjects' achievement test scores in mathematics,reading and language were submitted to multivariate analysis of variance. Follow-upcomparisons were conducted according to the recommendations of Winer (1971).Alpha was set a .05 for all tests of significance.

RESULTS

Preliminary analysesPrior to calculating a test of the hypothesis, subjects' CA scores were examined todetermine if CA was related to student grade level. Prior research (Garrison &Garrison, 1979; McCroskey et al., 1981) has demonstrated that CA significantlyincreases with grade level. A similar finding in the current sample would permit us totreat grade level as a covariate in tests of the hypothesis. Thus, a one-way ANOVAwas performed on subjects' CA scores with student grade level serving as theindependent variable. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect for grade level(F = 16.46, df = 6,1031, p = .000). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for CA foreach grade level. Thus, in tests of the hypothesis, student grade level was treated as acovariate.

Primary resultsTable 2 presents correlations among the three achievement tests. The correlationsreveal that the three tests were highly and positively correlated. Given the highdegree of association among the three achievement tests, a multivariate analysis ofvariance was deemed appropriate for this study.

The MANOVA for CA was significant (Wilk's lamda = .969, F = 2.18, df = 15,

CORRELATIONS

ReadingLanguage

TABLE 2

AMONG DEPENDENT

Mathematics

.554

.549

VARIABLES

Language

.696

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

274—COMADENA AND PRUSANK

2882, p < .005). Univariate ANOVAs confirmed the multivariate results. Signifi-cant ANOVAs were obtained for mathematics achievement (F = 3.59, df = 5,1046,p < .003, omega2 = .01), reading achievement (F = 4.31, df = 5, 1046, p < .001,omega2 = .02), and language achievement (F = 3.46, df = 5, 1046, p < .004, ome-ga2 = .01). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the three achievement tests forthe six levels of CA. Power for the F-tests reported in this section was estimated at.71 for a small effect size, .98 for a medium effect size, and .99 for a large effect size(Cohen, 1977).

The results of follow-up tests (Winer, 1971; See Table 3) provide partial supportfor the hypothesis. The linear relationship suggested by the hypothesis was notobserved for each achievement test; only in the case of mathematics achievement werethe means in the hypothesized direction. Results revealed, however, that studentshigh in CA (students with a MECA score greater than one standard deviation abovethe mean MECA score for the sample) demonstrated the lowest level of AA on allthree achievement tests. For mathematics and reading achievement, the level ofachievement demonstrated by students high in CA was significantly lower than thelevel of achievement displayed by students low (a MECA score greater than one stddev below the mean) and moderate in their level of CA (a MECA score between themean and —.5 std dev from the mean). For language achievement, several significantdifferences among means were observed. Although the pattern of observed meanswas not consistent with the hypothesis that guided this study, results do indicate thathigh CA is associated with low AA.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationship between communication apprehension (CA)and academic achievement (AA) among 1053 elementary and middle school students.Results indicate that CA and AA (as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test)are significantly and negatively related in these students. On three achievement testsfrom the Stanford Achievement Test (mathematics, language, and reading), studentshigh in CA, compared to students low and moderate in CA, demonstrated the lowestlevels of learning. In mathematics, students low in CA had achievement scores thatwere 23% higher than students high in CA (See Table 3). Students low and moderate

TABLE 3

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES ACROSSLEVELS OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (CA)

CA Mathematics Reading Language

Low CA 1n - 160n - 157 2

n - 204 3

n - 2 1 2 4

n - 159 5

High CA 6

n - 161

Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Means with a common superscript are significantly different.

68.29al>(24.13)67.20e

(25.59)63.12d

(25.51)61.56(26.89)60.50>>(26.75)55.43**(28.68)

70 .71 '(23.34)

72.80a b a i

(23.87)6 6 . 4 ^(24.16)

64.29e

(24.96)64.04b

(24.97)596 6arf

(26.38)

70.43(22.57)74.30abc

(22.95)68.46(25.21)64.81b

(25.96)67.52e

(24.80)63.96a

(26.56)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT—275

in CA were not significantly different in their levels of AA. It is clear, from the datareported in this study, that these two variables are meaningfully related amongelementary and middle school students. It appears that debilitating levels of CA areindeed established early in life.

This research also revealed a significant increase in CA over the 7 grade levelsstudied. Table 1 reveals a 17% increase in CA from grade 2 to grade 8. That CA wasfound to increase with grade level is not surprising. As children grow older, theybecome increasingly more self-conscious of their social image (Buss, 1986; Elkind &Bowen, 1979). An increase in self-consciousness and concern for interpersonalevaluation causes them to experience more fear or anxiety about communicatingwith others. The relationship between CA and grade level suggests a couple ofinteresting relationships between CA and AA.

First, since CA appears to increase with grade level, CA may have a more negativeeffect on AA in the higher grade levels (i.e., high school and college) than in the earlygrade levels. A review of the effect sizes in studies of the relationship between CA andAA may reveal such a pattern.

Second, the increase in CA with grade level has implications for the causalrelationship between CA and AA. The rationale for this study maintained that highCA causes low achievement because CA causes students to withdraw from classroomcommunication. While existing theory and research strongly suggests that CA maycause low AA, we should note that low AA may cause a loss in self-esteem and resultin high CA. Research has revealed strong negative correlations (r = —.54 tor = — .72) between CA and self-esteem among samples of adults (McCroskey, Daly,Richmond & Falcione, 1977). At the middle school where students are more sensitiveabout their social image, low AA may contribute significantly to the development ofCA. However at the elementary school, low academic performance may have asmaller effect on CA because self-esteem in these students is not dependent, in largepart, upon perceptions of academic success. The design of the present study does notpermit one to make unqualified statements about the causal relationship betweenthese two variables. Research that seeks to clarify the causal relationship betweenthese two variables is needed.

The results of this study suggest several implications for teachers. Since CA ismeaningfully and negatively related to student achievement, teachers should learn toidentify students with high CA and adopt classroom management techniques thatencourage these students to participate in classroom communications. And sincereinforcement patterns appear to be a significant factor in the development of CA(McCroskey & Beatty, 1986), teachers must reward and not punish these studentsfor their communication attempts (McCroskey, 1980). Teachers should also developteaching strategies and evaluation methods that do not unfairly punish childrenbecause they possess a fear of communication (McCroskey, 1980).

Teachers should be sensitive to the complex relationship that may exist betweenCA and AA. As noted above, the causal arrow can be pointing in both directions here.That is, while low CA most likely causes a number of children to achieve at lowlevels, low levels of AA may cause high CA to develop. Research on adults hasrevealed a strong relationship between self-esteem and CA; individuals low inself-esteem tend to have high CA. Low AA, especially in the middle school, maycause a loss in self-esteem and increase CA. This increase in CA may, in turn, causethe student to withdraw from classroom communication, resulting in even lowerlevels of achievement. Teachers must be sensitive, then, to the esteem needs of their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

276—COMADENA AND PRUSANK

students. In general, teachers must be sensitive to the effects their teaching practicesand social style may have on the development of CA in their students.

While a substantial amount of research has examined the relationship betweenCA and AA, there is the need for additional research in this area. Especially neededare studies that seek to clarify the causal relationship between these two variables.Does high CA cause low AA, does low AA cause high CA, or do both CA and AAvary as a function of some third variable? In addition to studies that utilize trueexperimental designs, the systematic observation of high and low communicationapprehensive children in the classroom may offer some insight here. For example, ifhigh CA indeed causes low AA, one would expect high communication apprehensivechildren to demonstrate patterns of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that account fortheir low levels of learning. Much descriptive work is needed here. Sex differences inthe correlation between CA and AA should also be explored. We have data on asample of elementary school students that indicates that the correlation between CAand AA may be more negative for males than for females, even though males andfemales in that sample did not differ significantly in their levels of CA. There are atleast two explanations for this finding, both of which should be explored in futureresearch. First, it may be that females in the early grade levels learn to compensatefor their CA. It is reasonable to assume that CA does not adversely affect allindividuals. Some individuals with high CA may learn to avoid feelings of anxiety insocial situations by refining other social skills, such as their listening skills and/ornonverbal receiving abilities. A second explanation for the sex difference incorrelations involves teacher expectations. While the McCroskey and Daly (1976)study revealed that teachers form more negative expectations of students high in CA,compared to students low in CA, that study did not manipulate student sex. It may bethat teachers develop more negative expectations of quiet boys than quiet girls.Continued research in this area will enhance our understanding of the classroomconsequences of CA and suggest specific instructional practices that teachers may useto create a learning environment that is sensitive to the social concerns of thecommunication apprehensive child.

NOTES1 The authors wish to thank Mr. Benjamin Cattone and the teachers of McLean County Unit District 5 Schools in

Normal, Illinois for their support and assistance in executing this research. The authors also wish to thank membersof the Communication Education editorial board for the helpful comments they provided us on this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Asendorpf, J . (1986). Shyness in middle and late childhood. In W. H. Jones, J . M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 91-103). New York: Plenum Press.

Bashore, D. N. (1971). Relationships among speech anxiety, IQ, and high school achievement. M.S. thesis, IllinoisState University.

Beatty, M. J., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1984). Reinforcement vs. modeling theory in the development ofcommunication apprehension: A retrospective analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SpeechCommunication Association, Chicago.

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Buss, A. H. (1986). A theory of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J . M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives

on research and treatment (pp. 39-46). New York: Plenum Press.Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised edition). New York: Academic

Press.Comadena, M. E. & Comadena, P. M. (1984). Communication apprehension and elementary school achievement: A

research note. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, SanFrancisco, May.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT—277

Daly, J . A. & Friedrich, G. (1981). The development of communication apprehension: A retrospective analysis ofcontributory correlates. Communication Quarterly, 29, 243-255.

Davis, G. F. & Scott, M. D. (1978). Communication apprehension, intelligence, and achievement among secondaryschool students. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook II (pp. 457-472). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books, Inc.

Dusek, J . B. (Ed.). (1985). Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Elkind, D. & Bowen, R. (1979). Imaginary audience behavior in children and adolescents. Developmental

Psychology, 15, 38-44.Garrison, J . P. & Garrison, K. R. (1979). Measurement of communication apprehension among children: A factor

in the development of basic speech skills. Communication Education, 28, 119-128.Garrison, J . P., Seiler, W. J. & Boohar, R. K. (1977). The effects of talking apprehension on student achievement:

Three empirical investigations in communication-restricted and traditional laboratory classes in the life sciences.In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp. 513-524). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, Inc.

Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J . (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation, and corrective feedback: Aqualitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 559-578.

Levine, J . M. & Wang, M. C. (1983). Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCroskey, J. C. (1980). Quiet children in the classroom: On helping, not hurting. Communication Education, 29,239-244.

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehensive perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),Avoiding communication (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

McCroskey, J. C. & Andersen, J . A. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension and academicachievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3, 73-81.

McCroskey, J. C., Andersen, J. A. Richmond, V. P. & Wheeless, L. R. (1981). Communication apprehension ofelementary and secondary students and teachers. Communication Education, 30, 122-132.

McCroskey, J. C. & Beatty, M. J. (1986). Oral communication apprehension. In W. H. Jones, J . M. Cheek, & S.R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 279-293). New York: Plenum Press.

McCroskey, J. C. & Daly, J . A. (1976). Teacher's expectations of the communication apprehensive child in theelementary school. Human Communication Research, 3, 67-72.

McCroskey, J . C., Daly, J. A., Richmond, V. P., & Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the relationship betweencommunication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269-277.

Plomin, R. & Daniels, D. (1986). Genetics and shyness. In W. H. Jones, J . M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 63-80). New York: Plenum Press.

Powers, W. & Smythe, M. J. (1980). Communication apprehension and academic achievement in a performance-oriented basic communication course. Human Communication Research, 6, 146-152.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil's intellectualdevelopment. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Scott, M. D. & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). The relationship of three types of communication apprehension to classroomachievement. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 42, 246-255.

Scott, M. D., Wheeless, L. R., Yates, M. P. & Randolph, F. L. (1977). The effects of communication apprehensionand test anxiety on three indicants of achievement in an alternative system of instruction: A follow-up study. In B.D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I (pp. 543-554). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, Inc.

Winer, B. J . (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

18:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014