The Effect of Teacher Confirmation on Student Communication and Learning Outcomes

Abstract

A live lecture experiment was conducted where teacher confirmation was manipulated (i.e., not confirming, somewhat confirming, confirming) across three college courses. After the lecture, students completed a post test assessing positive (i.e., student communication motives, student participation) and negative (i.e., challenge behaviors) communication behaviors they might engage in while taking a course with this instructor. Additionally, students reported on traditional learning outcomes (i.e., cognitive learning, affective learning, state motivation, student satisfaction) resulting from the lecture manipulation. Collectively, results indicated that teacher confirmation resulted in (a) more student communication for the relational, functional, and participatory motives and less communication for the excuse-making motive, (b) more student participation, (c) less challenge behavior, and (d) greater cognitive learning, affective learning, state motivation, and satisfaction.

Keywords:

• Teacher Confirmation
• Student Motives to Communicate
• Class Participation
• Challenge Behavior
• Affective Learning

This manuscript is based on the first author's dissertation, which was directed by the second author.

This manuscript is based on the first author's dissertation, which was directed by the second author.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Melanie Booth-Butterfield, Matthew Martin, Keith Weber, and Daniel Hursh for their insightful feedback. The authors would also like to thank the editor, Pat Kearney, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Notes

This manuscript is based on the first author's dissertation, which was directed by the second author.

1. Factor 1 (eigenvalue = 9.24) accounted for 46.18% of the variance with items 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 loading on this factor. Factor 2 (eigenvalue = 1.37) accounted for 6.83% of the variance, with items 2, 3, and 7 loading on this factor. Factor 3 (eigenvalue = 1.14) accounted for 5.71% of the variance with items 1, 4, and 5 loading on this factor. Factor 4 (eigenvalue = 1.01) accounted for 5.05% of the variance with items 8 and 9 loading on this factor. Items 6, 10, 12, and 13 did not load on any factor.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alan K. Goodboy

Alan K. Goodboy (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre Arts at the Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

Scott A. Myers

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University