“psst … what do you think?” the relationship between advice prestige, type of advice, and...
TRANSCRIPT
‘‘Psst . . . What Do You Think?’’ TheRelationship between Advice Prestige,Type of Advice, and AcademicPerformanceRachel A. Smith & Brittany L. Peterson
This study investigates the relationship between classmates seeking out a student for
advice (advice prestige) and that student’s academic performance. Students’ conversa-
tions could inhibit or encourage their academic performance depending on the
conversation’s topic. Specifically, it is hypothesized that as more classmates report asking
a student for general advice, then the student would perform less well. In contrast, it is
hypothesized that as more classmates report asking a student for class advice, then the
student would perform better. Hypotheses (n�139) were supported. Even after
controlling for sex and GPA, less general-advice prestige and higher class-advice prestige
relates to higher academic performance.
Keywords: Networks; Academic Performance; Advice; College Student Interaction;
Student Information-Seeking
For 20 years, researchers have acknowledged that students’ interactions influence
their achievement, independent of course work or instruction (Johnson & Johnson,
1993). Knowledge is not constructed in an individual vacuum, but in the
communication and the exchanges embedded in social networks (Haythornthwaite,
2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Numerous studies consistently demonstrate that
improving students’ ability and motivation to process information leads to greater
recall (e.g., Norris & Colman, 1992). It also leads to meaningful cognitive engagement
(e.g., Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006) in specific disciplines, such as mathematics
Rachel Smith (Ph.D., Michigan State, 2003) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Arts
& Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University. Brittany Peterson (M.A., University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
2005) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Texas, Austin. The
authors would like to thank Wendi Miller for her insights and Dr. Patricia Kearney for her constructive
suggestions. Rachel Smith can be contacted at [email protected]
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2007 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03634520701364890
Communication Education
Vol. 56, No. 3, July 2007, pp. 278�291
(Stevens, Olivarez, & Hamman, 2006), and in overall academic performance (Ortiz,
Hoyos, & Lopez, 2004). Classmates may ask a student for advice about a class because
that student is performing well (e.g., Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004). It is also
possible that being sought out for class advice helps the student to continue to
process the course material, advantaging that student’s performance.
Sometimes, however, studies find that students’ conversations correspond to
greater satisfaction in a class, but not to their performance (e.g., Baldwin, Bedell, &
Johnson, 1997; Thomas, 2000). One might hope that students seek class-related
advice from their classmates; however, that is not always the case. The effects of being
sought for general advice (i.e., not about the class itself) have not been investigated.
One could argue that serving as a source of general advice may be related to poorer
academic performance. For example, if a student is fielding many questions from
their classmates, then they may not have a chance to concentrate during class. The
purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between general and class
advice prestige and academic performance in a large classroom. Scholars note that
large classrooms often set up a distance between instructors and students (Kuh,
Schuh, & Whitt, 1991), which should provide a relevant context for advice-seeking
between students.
Literature Review
Scholars suggest that students’ interactions can improve performance in at least two
ways: (a) improving cognitive processing, and (b) creating a favorable climate for
learning (Baldwin et al., 1997). For example, by telling another classmate what the
professor covered in class, the student has an opportunity to further process the
information, even restructuring it within their thoughts (Baldwin et al., 1997).
Repetition and restructuring both improve learning (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Ebbin-
ghaus, 1913; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
A favorable climate may also promote learning. For example, a student may
reassure their classmates that they will do well on a quiz, thereby lowering a
classmate’s anxiety enough to allow for better performance (e.g., Webb, 1982).
Previous studies have shown that undergraduates’ networks positively influence their
persistence in undergraduate courses (Thomas, 2000) and their reception of social
support through school (Bogat, Caldwell, Rogosch, & Kriegler, 1985). One form of
social support is sharing information, such as one sees in groups of people facing a
common dilemma or challenge (e.g., Arnold, 2005; Finfgeld, 2000; Muncer, Burrows,
Pleace, Loader, & Nettleton, 2000; Selwyn, 2000; Tardy & Hale, 1998). Social support
may include sharing and supporting emotions as much as providing task-related
information. In fact, research shows that more task and emotionally related
conversations within groups are lia are nked to higher final grades (Yuan, Gay, &
Hembrooke, 2006). One may learn about information sharing and social support in
network research.
Advice Prestige 279
Networks
Network scholars describe a phenomenon known as the strength of weak ties
(Granovetter, 1973). Granovetter (1973) describes two types of connections in a
network: strong ties, such as those found in close relationships or between friends,
and weak ties associated with distant acquaintances. Granovetter argues (1973) that
strong ties are more integrated, developed, and perceived as closer than weak ties.
Through closeness and frequent interaction, strong ties reinforce beliefs, provide sup-
port required to face life’s challenges, and carry an assumption of reciprocity. During
times of crises, strong ties provide more psychosocial and tangible support than weak
ties (e.g, Granovetter, 1973; Krackhardt, 1992). Granovetter (1973, 1982) explains
that in some circumstances, strong ties may not be as effective as weak ties in achi-
eving a desired outcome. For example, strong ties can dampen exposure to new ideas.
In contrast, weak ties can provide people access to new ideas; weak ties tend to be
more open to new ideas and lack a norm of reciprocity (Granovetter, 1973). Scholars
describe advice networks as connections through which people share information,
tips, ideas, and guidance (e.g., Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). As
students ask each other for advice, they may provide themselves the opportunity to
access new ideas. For these reasons, advice networks, generally made of weak ties, are
provided as examples of the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1982). Weak and
strong connections may explain how much and what type of information a person
may access. Another key concept is that of centrality.
Centrality. Scholars suggest that centrality provides people with greater access to a
variety of resources which facilitate success (Brass, 1981; Sparrowe et al., 2001). For
example, students with more sources of advice have less dependency on any single
person (Cook & Emerson, 1978). This affords them a better ability to validate
information, such as their class notes on a lecture, to learn the quirks of different
professors, and generally to stay well informed about the details of a class. According
to Baldwin et al. (1997), students with more extensive advice networks also may be
exposed to a broader range of perspectives, which provide greater access to a larger
quantity and better quality of information. As predicted, Baldwin et al. (1997) found
that students who are more embedded in advice networks report more class
satisfaction and exhibit better individual performance.
Identifying key actors in social networks leads to the development of measures of
centrality (e.g., Wasserman & Faust, 1994). One of those measures is degree centrality,
which refers to the number of links a person has to others within the network
(Freeman, 1979).1 Previous studies find that a higher degree of centrality relates
positively with performance, such as higher assignment and test scores (Baldwin et
al., 1997), as well as task mastery and role clarity (Morrison, 2002).
Prestige centrality. Let us consider an example of an advice-seeking network. One
student, John, reports that he has obtained advice from Sarah, but Sarah may not
report that she has received advice from John. These connections are called
280 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
directional (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Directional ties allow for the calculation of
two different types of degree centrality. A student’s prestige (in-degree, Knoke & Burt,
1983) indicates the number of classmates who claimed a connection to them, whereas
reach (out-degree) indicates the number of classmates with whom the student
claimed connections.
Directional estimates allow one to distinguish between (a) influence, a student
generating connections to others, and (b) support, students receiving connections
from others (Batagelj, 1993). In contrast, without this directional information, one
may estimate centrality but not know who generated the relationship or if it is
symmetrical. Scholars argue that reach centrality suffers more than prestige centrality
from the limitations of self-reports (Sparrowe et al., 2001). For this reason, this study
focuses only on prestige centrality.
Prestige derives from an assumption that prominent actors are generally the object
of relational ties (Knoke & Burt, 1983), but they may reach out to few people. As
more classmates may ask a student for advice, they provide them high prestige
centrality in the advice network. When a classmate seeks out students for advice, the
students gain a chance to reconsider, reframe, or elaborate on their existing
knowledge as they provide advice. A student may learn simply by verbalizing. For
example, in problem-solving activities, the act of verbalizing one’s thoughts aloud
facilitated students’ learning of thinking skills (Bandura, 1986, 1997). It is possible,
then, that discussion in and of itself facilitates academic performance.
Advice and Academic Performance
Although most scholarship on peer interactions is focused on its ability to improve
performance, empirical findings are mixed. In previous research, greater prestige
accounted for students earning more points in a course (Russo & Koesten, 2005). In
other studies, prestige centrality corresponded to persistence to stay in classes, but did
not relate to students’ year-end grade point average (GPA; Thomas, 2000). In a
related context, prestige centrality in advice networks has been related to better job
performance (Sparrowe et al., 2001).
Types of advice. Classmates may ask each other for advice about a class, which should
improve their academic performance. It is also possible that classmates may ask each
other for advice about things that have nothing to do with the class. For example,
friends often share values, habits, and other characteristics, and bond through mutual
reinforcement of those similarities (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Friendships can
suppress successful learning, because the friendships lock students away from
developing new relationships and being exposed to new ideas (Cho, Lee, Stefanone,
& Gay, 2005; Granovetter, 1973). Too much intimacy can create barriers to new ideas
and constructive critiques (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Limiting access to
different views and critiques may inhibit academic performance; indeed, some
scholars believe that students must struggle with a variety of opposing viewpoints on
the same idea in order to construct knowledge (Perkins, 1991). Researchers propose
Advice Prestige 281
that in-class discussions may compensate for the rigid homogeneity in friendship
networks (McDevitt & Kiousis, 2006).
Friendships take time and energy, and people have limits as to how many strong,
interconnected relationships they can maintain (Burt, 1992; Scott, 1991). The time
and energy needs of friendships and memberships in social groups may compete with
the effort it takes to perform academically.
Friends may talk about issues pertaining to bonding, such as ‘‘did you see what
Samantha was wearing?’’ Classmates may seek general advice, especially from friends,
about issues pertaining to relationships instead of the class. Studies show that advice
sought from acquaintances more than from friends led to the reception of useful
knowledge and contributed more to project outcomes (Levin & Cross, 2004). In
addition, although centrality in friendship networks corresponded to greater
satisfaction in a class, centrality was uncorrelated with individual performance
(Baldwin et al., 1997).
The type of advice sought from classmates, then, may explain why sometimes scho-
lars find that having advice prestige leads to higher performance and sometimes it does
not. When classmates seek advice about the class from a student, that student should
show higher academic performance. When classmates seek general advice from a
student, these questions may serve to distract the student from learning, so they would
show lower academic performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are offered:
H1: As students’ prestige centrality due to class advice rises, they should exhibithigher academic performance.
H2: As students’ prestige centrality due to general advice rises, they should exhibitlower academic performance.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 139 students enrolled in an upper-level, large lecture course
at a large southwestern university. The students (70% women and 30% men) were
21 years old (M�21.11, SD�3.56). Most students self-identified as White (70%),
followed by Hispanic (13%), Asian (12%), African American (3%), and Middle
Eastern (2%). On average, students had a 3.26 grade point average (SD�.40) on a
4-point scale.
Procedures
The course met for 15 weeks. During the sixth week, students were asked to
participate in an online survey for another study. Within this online survey, students
were shown the roster of classmates and asked to mark anyone from whom they
sought class advice and from whom they sought general advice as well as other
information.2 After the course concluded, information about students’ academic
performance was gathered from the course’s instructor.
282 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
Measurement
Classroom performance. In this course, students completed two quizzes and three
short papers. These scores were summed into one score to index their academic
performance (M�86.15, SD�5.37, a�.61).
Network indicators. In order to gather network indicators, students were shown the
entire roster of students (e.g., Erickson, Nosanchuk, & Lee, 1981 who find that rosters
of 150 names or less function well). Students were then asked to indicate what type of
advice, if any, they solicited from each classmate listed. Specifically, they could mark
next to a classmate’s name if they agreed that, yes, ‘‘I have gotten advice about this
class from this person.’’ Additionally, students could mark in a different place next to
a classmate’s name if they agreed that, yes, ‘‘I have gotten general advice (not about
the class) from this person.’’ The roster of names appeared in the rows, and the two
questions appeared at the top of each column. Students could place a check mark in
each column for any given classmate, indicating that they received class advice and/or
general advice from the same classmate.
A student’s prestige (in-degree) centrality indicates the number of classmates who
claimed a connection to them. On average, students reported seeking class advice
from one student (M� .92, SD�1.26, Maximum�6). They reported seeking
general advice from two students (M�2.44, SD�3.76, Maximum�18). These
nominations are used to calculate a given student’s prestige in each network. On
average, students were nominated by one classmate as a source of class advice (M�.92, SD�1.08, Maximum�4). Students were nominated by two classmates as a
source of general advice (M�2.44, SD�2.90, Maximum�12).
Two estimates were calculated for each student’s prestige in class advice and general
advice networks using Freeman’s (1979) definition in UCINET 6.0 for Windows
spreadsheet (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). This program allows one to
calculate estimates that have been standardized for the maximum possible number of
connections (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).3 Descriptive statistics and correlations
among all variables can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Sex 1.70 .462. GPA 3.26 .40 .063. Class-advice Prestige .92 1.08 .02 .004. General-advice Prestige 2.43 2.90 �.06 �.05 .73*5. Academic Performance 86.15 5.34 .17* .38* .11 �.06
Note : N�139.*pB .05.
Advice Prestige 283
Results
Descriptive Statistics
On average, students earned 86.15 out of 100 points (SD�5.37) on the class
assignments, equivalent to a ‘‘B’’ on the course’s grading scale. Of 139 students, half
had at least one classmate report that they sought them out for general advice (51%,
n�71). The other half (49%, n�68) had not been reported as sources of general
advice (49%, n�68). Slightly more than half (55%, n�76) had at least one classmate
report that they sought them out for advice specifically pertaining to the class. The
other students had not been reported as sources of class advice (45%, n�63).
The largest proportion of students received nominations as sources of general
advice and class advice (44%, n�63) followed by those who were not nominated at
all (38%, n�53). Smaller proportions of students were nominated as a source of class
advice, but not a source of general advice (11%, n�15) or a source of general but not
class advice (7%, n�10).
Hypothesis Testing
H1 proposed that serving as a source of class advice would correspond to a higher
academic performance. H2 proposed that serving as a source of general advice would
correspond to a lower academic performance. The independent effects of student sex,
GPA, class-advice prestige, and general-advice prestige were regressed onto students’
academic performance. The regression was statistically significant, F(4, 134)�8.82,
p B.05, R2�.21. Table 2 provides a summary of the regression analysis.3 Upon
inspection of the beta weights, all variables except for sex were significant at p B.05.
Students with higher GPAs, more class-advice prestige, and less general-advice
prestige showed better performance. H1 and H2 received support.
We checked for a possible interaction between serving as a source of class advice
and general advice and academic performance. Dummy variables were created for
both types of advice and run in an ANOVA after controlling for students’ sex and
GPA. The entire model was statistically significant, F(5, 133)�8.23, p B.001, R2�.24. Figure 1 shows the estimated means of academic performance based on serving as
Table 2 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Academic
Performance
Variable B SE B b
Student Sex 1.51 .90 .13$
GPA 4.81 1.02 .36*Class-advice Prestige 1.42 .55 .29*General-advice Prestige �.45 .21 �.24*
Note : F(4, 134)�8.82, pB .05, R2�21.*p B.05.$p B.10.
284 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
a source of general advice and/or class advice, after controlling for sex and GPA. The
interaction was not statistically significant, F(1, 133)�.90, ns , h2�.01.4 This
nonsignificant interaction suggests that the prestige effects for class advice and
general advice are additive, rather than interactive.
Discussion
Previous studies have shown both positive and negative effects of interstudent advice-
seeking on academic performance. This study attempted to explain the conflicting
results by examining types of advice. As predicted, when students were sought by
more of their classmates for advice about the class, the students exhibited a higher
academic performance. In contrast, students who were sought by more classmates for
general advice exhibited a lower performance. The effects appeared after controlling
for students’ GPAs. In addition, the effects seem to be additive, instead of interactive.
These results coincide with a phenomenon known as the strength of weak ties
(Granovetter, 1973). That is, in some circumstances, strong ties may not be as
effective for some types of outcomes as weak ties. Strong ties, because they dampen
new ideas and focus on relational functions, tend to inhibit performance. Baldwin
and colleagues (1997) suggested that friendships should improve a student’s direct
access to late-breaking information about a class because friends would seek each
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
No Yes
Sought out for Class-Advice
Est
imat
ed M
argi
nal M
eans
No
Yes
Sought outfor General-
Advice
Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of academic performance based on class and general
advice prestige.
Advice Prestige 285
other out to transmit such important information. However, class friendships have
not shown positive effects on performance (Baldwin et al., 1997). Taking pre-existing
friendships into the classroom and maintaining many memberships in campus
groups may provide constructive social support to survive college, but they also may
be an academic liability (Cho et al., 2005).
In contrast, weak ties facilitate performance, because they provide greater access to
new ideas and fewer distracting social obligations. In previous research, advice sought
from acquaintances, in contrast to friends, has been shown to contribute to better
knowledge and project outcomes (Levin & Cross, 2004). Moreover, as students feel
more willingness to communicate with classroom acquaintances, they also explore
additional social ties (Cho, Gay, Davidson, & Ingraffea, in press).
This study, however, did not ask students to qualify if they sought advice from
acquaintances or friends. Advice and friendship networks may blur expressive and
instrumental goals, and although both ties predicted information-seeking in previous
studies (Chia, Foo, & Fang, 2006), this study did have the information to discriminate
between the tie’s function (expressive) and the tie’s label (friendship). Future research
should include both types of networks to further understand the dialectical tension
between garnering social support and new ideas and their impacts on academic
performance and remaining in school.
The explanations provided so far focus primarily on how networks may influence
performance. It is also possible that classmates select students who perform well for
class advice, and those with street smarts for general advice. Prior studies have shown
that people who want to improve their competence in course-related tasks pursue
opportunities to acquire knowledge and to perfect skills (Yi & Hwang, 2003). Social
exchange theory (e.g., Blau, 1964; Molm & Cook, 1995) suggests that people seek
relationships out of self-interest. There is evidence that people may select advisors
who exhibit particular qualities. For example, people with a higher activity preference
(or strong work ethic) hold more central positions in advice networks (Klein, Lim,
Saltz, & Mayer, 2004). These relationships deserve further theoretical explanation and
empirical inquiry.
Limitations
A few issues limit this study’s results, including sampling, content, timing, and
personal characteristics. This network analysis relies on the dynamics within one
class. It is possible that the network and its characteristics developed uniquely within
this class, perhaps due to their teacher. Previous research (e.g., Myers & Knox, 2001)
shows that students’ reported information-seeking practices vary by perceptions of
their teachers. The class studied herein covered communication content. Although we
predict that the relationships will hold in classes covering other material with other
teachers, and only the mean levels of network size and/or advice seeking practice will
vary, this remains an empirical question. Future research may benefit from testing
these predictions with students majoring in other topics, in courses covering other
issues.
286 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
Next, this study looked at students’ networks at one point in the class, which was
late enough into the semester for networks to have developed. Networks, however,
can play different roles in different stages (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Earley & Mosakowski,
2000). Future research would benefit from longitudinal tracking of these networks
and their influence on classroom performance. In addition, individual attributes
impact evolution of structural relationships (e.g., Salancik, 1995), and deserve further
inquiry. Last, and most critically, this study did not gather information on study
practices, which may very well (as one might hope) mediate or moderate the
relationships between communication networks and educational performance. It is
possible that class and general advice prestige served as proxies for time on task.5
Future research into advice networks and academic performance would benefit from
including distraction and time on task to further understand these relationships.
The findings do not seem to be limited by culture; however, there is reason to
suspect cultural differences. For example, Asian American students are less likely to
seek support from friends in times of stress (Oliver, Reed, Katz, & Haugh, 1999).
Although our findings did not show differences by ethnicity, sex differences existed.
Future research should continue to monitor how culture and/or sex may mediate or
moderate these relationships.
The implications for understanding the connection between networks and
education extend outside the classroom. In a study of deliberative learning, students
with greater participation in in-class discussions and debates about politics had more
discussions with parents and friends about politics and larger discussion networks
outside the classroom (McDevitt & Kiousis, 2006). These discussions had impacts on
students’ learning. In-class networks may affect students’ participation in class and
the diffusion of such involvement to friendship and family networks afterwards.
Future research should investigate these findings with different networks before
implementing new programs. Scholars (e.g., Easton, 2003; Vess, 2005) question
whether online course tools can replace in-class participation. Even before these
programs can be evaluated, other extensions are already underway. For example,
some schools, like the University of Alabama, are looking to extend the impact of
students’ online opportunities to create an online networking site for parents of first-
year students (‘‘Alabama creates parents’ facebook,’’ 2006). Unfortunately, studies find
that parent networks, that is, parents spending more time with other students’
parents, negatively influenced student performance (e.g., John, 2005). This is a
concern because web-based portals, such as UPeers , already provide parents of college
students’ opportunities to network. Future research also should consider the impact
of adversarial networks, which have shown negative relationships to course
satisfaction (Baldwin et al., 1997).
This work carries implications for the design of online courses, where technology
may provide the opportunity to seek advice from other classmates. Vess (2005) found
that asynchronous online discussions enhanced students’ involvement and elabora-
tion on course materials. Just because the technology can allow for seeking, sharing,
and distributing advice does not mean it automatically occurs (Yuan et al., 2006). In a
discussion board, for example, a few students may seek advice and receive advice
Advice Prestige 287
from a few classmates while most other students lurk *read messages sent between
those two actors without ever contributing themselves. This type of communication
behavior may lead to the network’s collapse (Kollock & Smith, 1999). It also may
complicate the analysis of networks, as those lurkers may not list that they are
receiving advice. Many of these considerations for generating an effective online
environment have been raised (Sandars, 2005; Vess, 2005) and deserve research
efforts.
Finally, this research may provide further import for investigating the role of cell
phones within college classrooms. Cell phones provide another method to maintain
social networks. Cell phones in class are no longer uncommon and could benefit
students by providing them access to support and resources or distract them (for a
review, see Campbell, 2006). Campbell (2006) found that college students and their
professors strongly felt that cell phones ringing within a class were distracting.
Policies to ban cell phones from class rooms altogether are under development
(Campbell, 2006), but perhaps further research should distinguish between the
contact and content before blanket decisions are made.
Conclusion
These findings present a cautionary tale. When students receive advice requests from
another classmate, they may do well to consider if the advice pertains to the class or
not. On the other hand, students who make themselves available to answer a
classmate’s questions about the class may perform better than if they avoided such
conversations. The concern has been raised, and deserves further elaboration, on
when, and if, communities and the communication within them become an ‘‘ideal
structure for avoiding learning’’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 141).
Notes
[1] Although other estimates for centrality, such as betweenness and closeness (Wasserman &
Faust, 1994), are available, degree centrality is robust to isolates in a network, those people
who have no ties to anyone. In addition, it represents a stress of more people.
[2] The course’s instructor did not see information about the students’ networks.
[3] Students’ advice prestige estimates were highly correlated, r (137)�.73, p B.05. According to
Kline (1998), multicolinearity is present when the correlation between two independent
variables is greater than .85 so both estimates were retained in this analysis.
[4] No differences appeared by race, F B1, or age, r (137)�.02, ns . In addition, a second
ANOVA was computed with sex as a factor to test for interactions between sex and the advice
effects. The interactions between sex and serving as a source of advice were not statistically
significant.
[5] Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management
Review, 27 , 17�40.
288 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
Alabama creates parents’ facebook to boost freshman persistence. (2006). Recruitment & Retention
in Higher Education , 20 , 3.
Arnold, L. B. (2005). Don’t you know what causes that? Advice, celebration, and justification in a
large families bulletin board. Communication Studies , 56 , 331�351.
Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A.
program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management
Journal , 40 , 1369�1397.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman.
Batagelj, V. (1993). Centrality in social networks. In A. Ferligoj & A. Kramberger (Eds.),
Developments in statistics and methodology (pp. 129�138). Ljubljana, Slovenia: University
of Ljubljana.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York: Wiley.
Bogat, G., Caldwell, R. A., Rogosch, F. A., & Kriegler, J. A. (1985). Differentiating specialists and
generalists within college students’ support networks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 14 ,
23�35.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows 6: Software for social
network analysis . Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 , 331�348.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Press.
Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and
classroom policies. Communication Education , 55 , 280�294.
Chia, H. B., Foo, M. D., & Fang, R. L. (2006). Workplaces as communities: The role of social
networks in who seeks, gives, and accepts information on justice issues. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34 , 363�377.
Cho, H., Lee, J. S., Stefanone, M., & Gay, G. (2005). Development of computer-supported
collaborative social networks in a distributed learning community. Behavior & Information
Technology, 24 , 435�447.
Cho, H. C., Gay, G., Davidson, B. D., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Communication styles, social
networks, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Journal of Computers and
Education , 49 , 309�329.
Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks.
American Sociological Review, 43 , 721�739.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal , 43 , 26�49.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication
Education , 52 , 87�105.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology . (Columbia University,
Trans.) New York: Columbia University. (Original work published in 1885).
Erickson, B. H., Nosanchuk, T. A., & Lee, E. (1981). Network sampling in practice: Some second
steps. Social Networks , 3 , 127�136.
Finfgeld, D. L. (2000). Therapeutic groups online: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing , 21 , 241�255.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks , 1 ,
215�239.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 , 1360�1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. W.
Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 106�130). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Advice Prestige 289
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. Information
Society, 18 , 385�401.
John, P. (2005). The contribution of volunteering, trust, and networks to educational performance.
The Policy Studies Journal , 33 , 635�656.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Structuring groups for cooperative learning. In C. M.
Vance (Ed.), Mastering management education: Innovations in teaching effectiveness (pp. 187�198). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Klein, K. J., Lim, B-C, Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination
of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal , 47 ,
952�963.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Press.
Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network
analysis (pp. 195�222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.),
Communities in cyberspace (pp. 3�25). London: Routledge.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N.
Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 216�239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering
student learning and development outside the classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust
in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science , 50 , 1477�1490.
McDevitt, M., & Kiousis, S. (2006). Deliberative learning: An evaluative approach to interactive
civic education. Communication Education , 55 , 247�264.
Molm, L. D., & Cook, K. S. (1995). Social exchange and exchange networks. In K. S. Cook, G. A.
Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 209�235).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during
socialization. Academy of Management Journal , 45 , 1149�1160.
Muncer, S., Burrows, R., Pleace, N., Loader, B., & Nettleton, S. (2000). Births, deaths, sex and
marriage . . . but very few presents? A case study of social support in cyberspace. Critical
Public Health , 10 , 1�18.
Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2001). The relationship between college student information-seeking
behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education , 50 , 343�356.
Norris, C. E., & Colman, A. M. (1992). Context effects on recall and recognition of magazine
advertisements. Journal of Advertising , 21 , 37�47.
Oliver, J. M., Reed, C. K. S., Katz, B. M., & Haugh, J. A. (1999). Students’ self-reports of help-
seeking: The impact of psychological problems, stress, and demographic variables on the
utilization of formal and informal support. Social Behavior and Personality, 27 , 109�128.
Ortiz, M. G. R., Hoyos, J. R. C., & Lopez, M. G. R. (2004). The social networks of academic
performance in a student context of poverty in Mexico. Social Networks , 26 , 175�188.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31 ,
19�21.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (vol. 19, pp. 123�205). New
York: Academic Press.
Russo, T. C., & Koesten, J. (2005). Prestige, centrality, and learning: A social network analysis of an
online class. Communication Education , 54 , 254�261.
290 R. A. Smith & B. L. Peterson
Salancik, G. R. (1995). Wanted: A good network theory of organization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40 , 345�349.
Sandars, J. (2005). Work based learning: A social network perspective. Work based Learning in
Primary Care , 3 , 4�12.
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook . London: Sage.
Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a ‘‘connected’’ community? Teachers’ use of an electronic discussion
group. Teachers College Record , 102 , 750�778.
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the
performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 316�425.
Stevens, T., Olivarez, A. Jr., & Hamman, D. (2006). The role of cognition, motivation, and emotion
in explaining the mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic and White students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 28 , 161�186.
Tardy, R. W., & Hale, C. L. (1998). Bonding and cracking: The role of informal, interpersonal
networks in health care decision making. Health Communication , 10 , 151�173.
Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student
integration and persistence. Journal of Higher Education , 71 , 591�615.
Vess, D. L. (2005). Asynchronous discussion and communication patterns in online and hybrid
history courses. Communication Education , 54 , 355�364.
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/
extrinsic motivations, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and
Individual Differences , 16 , 1�12.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interactions and learning in small groups. Review of Educational
Research , 52 , 421�445.
Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. C. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide
to managing knowledge . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy,
enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International
Journal of Human�Computer Studies , 59 , 431�449.
Yuan, Y. C., Gay, G., & Hembrooke, H. (2006). Focused activities and the development of social
capital in a distributed learning ‘‘community’’. The Information Society, 22 , 25�39.
Received January 23, 2007
Accepted March 25, 2007
Advice Prestige 291