Perceived teacher credibility and students’ affect as a function of instructors’ use of PowerPoint and email

References

• Abdous, M., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55, 733–741. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
   Google Scholar
• Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Affective learning, teacher clarity, and student motivation as a function of attributional confidence. Communication Research Reports, 18, 345–353. doi: 10.1080/08824090109384815
   Google Scholar
• Benschoter, R. P., & Charles, D. C. (1957). Retention of classroom and television learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 253–256. doi: 10.1037/h0043126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
   Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The Role of Interactivity, Active Collaborative Learning and Engagement in Learning Performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkan, S. (2015). Students’ affective learning as affective experience: Significance, reconceptualization, and future directions. Communication Education, 64, 502–505. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1067401 doi: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1058963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., & Akcaoglu, M. (2014). “I see smart people!”: Using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning in the university mass lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, C. F., & Young, S. L. (2016). Exploring communication and course format: Conversation frequency and duration, student motives, and perceived teacher approachability for out-of-class contact. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2561/3863 doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20, 67–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou, P.-N., Chang, C.-C., & Lu, P.-F. (2015). Prezi versus PowerPoint: The effects of varied digital presentation tools on students’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 91, 73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test–retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292–306. doi: 10.1080/03634529509379020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• de Reuver, M., Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2016). Domestication of smartphones and mobile applications: A quantitative mixed-method study. Mobile Media & Communication, 4, 347–370. doi: 10.1177/2050157916649989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denker, K. J. (2013). Student response systems and facilitating the large lecture basic communication course: Assessing engagement and learning. Communication Teacher, 27, 50–69. doi: 10.1080/17404622.2012.730622
   Google Scholar
• Duran, R., Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. (2005). College faculty use and perceptions of electronic mail to communicate with students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 159–176. doi: 10.1080/01463370500090118
   Google Scholar
• Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 26–47. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.725132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2014). Teacher verbal aggressiveness and credibility mediate the relationship between teacher technology policies and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 63, 210–234. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2014.919009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K. A., & Larson, L. M. (2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 516–537. doi: 10.1080/03634520903131154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314–326. doi: 10.1080/03634520109379258
   Google Scholar
• Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 921–950. doi: 10.2307/256641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Ryu, D. (1995). Cognitive elements in the social construction of communication technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 259–288. doi: 10.1177/0893318995008003001
   Google Scholar
• Haleta, L. L. (1996). Student perceptions of teachers’ use of language: The effects of powerful and powerless language on impression formation and uncertainty. Communication Education, 45, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassini, E. (2006). Student-instructor communication: The role of email. Computers & Education, 47, 29–40. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haworth, B. (1999). An analysis of the determinants of student email use. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 55–59. doi: 10.1080/08832329909598991
   Google Scholar
• Hill, A., Arford, T., Lubitwo, A., & Smollin, L. M. (2012). “I’m ambivalent about it”: The dilemmas of PowerPoint. Teaching Sociology, 40, 242–256. doi:10.1177/0092055×12444071 doi: 10.1177/0092055X12444071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28, 27–38. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2014.867697
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. A. (2011). The effect of twitter posts on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 21–38. doi:10.1080/174398842010534798 doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.534798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Conclusion: Making meaning of mobiles – a theory of apparatgeist. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 301–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, M. W. (1999). Motivation to reduce uncertainty: A reconceptualization of uncertainty reduction theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 305–316. doi: 10.1177/0893318999132007
   Google Scholar
• Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 241–251.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62, 233–252. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2013.767917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2013). Teacher technology policies and online communication apprehension as predictors of learner empowerment. Communication Education, 62, 301–317. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2013.794386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2016). Why do students use mobile technology for social purposes during class?: Modeling teacher credibility, learner empowerment, and online communication attitude as predictors. Communication Education, 65, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1064145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luckiesh, M., & Moss, F. K. (1940). Effects of classroom lighting upon educational progress and visual welfare of school-children. Illuminating Engineering, 35, 915–938.
   Google Scholar
• Mazer, J., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on “facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/03634520601009710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazer, J., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 175–183. doi: 10.1080/17439880902923655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the classroom V: Behavior alteration techniques, communication training and learning. Communication Education, 34, 214–226. doi: 10.1080/03634528509378609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24–34. doi: 10.1080/10510978109368075
   Google Scholar
• Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, S. A., & Goodbody, A. K. (2015). Reconsidering the conceptualization and operationalization of affective learning. Communication Education, 64, 493–497. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1058489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00004.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruppel, E. K., & Burke, T. J. (2015). Complementary channel use and the role of social competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 37–51. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating internet resources into classroom practice: Pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers & Education, 44, 1–34. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. (2005). The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 53, 177–196. doi: 10.1080/01463370500090399
   Google Scholar
• Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/03634520500343335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Communication apprehension, student attitudes, and levels of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 188–198. doi: 10.1080/10570317709389611
   Google Scholar
• Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., McMullen, A. L., & Nyeste, M. C. (2015). Academic and social integration in the basic communication course: Predictors of students’ out-of-class communication and academic learning. Communication Studies, 66, 63–84. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.856807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2017). Record shares of Americans now own smartphones, have home broadband. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 8, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/
   Google Scholar
• Strausheim, C. (2014, August 27). Don’t email me. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/27/sake-student-faculty-interaction-professor-bans-student-email
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50, 1228–1239. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szabo, A. & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187. doi: 10.1016/s0360-1315(00)00030-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2009). College student ratings of student academic support: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education, 58, 433–458. doi: 10.1080/03634520902930440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2005). The influence of instructional technology use on students’ affect: Do course design and biological sex make a difference? Communication Studies, 56, 109–129. doi: 10.1080/00089570500078726
   Google Scholar
• Waldeck, J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). Teacher email message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 54–70. doi: 10.1080/00909880128099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, F.-Y. F., Wang, T. K., & Klausner, M. (2012). Rethinking college students’ self-regulation and sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive learning? Communication Education, 61, 185–204. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.672755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, P. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2006). Anticipatory speech anxiety as a function of public speaking assignment type. Communication Education, 55, 167–177. doi: 10.1080/03634520600566074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, P. L, & Schrodt, P. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 19, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/08934210500309843
   Google Scholar
• Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 633–659. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0028 doi: 10.1080/00221546.2014.11777343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, J. R. (2010). Teaching with twitter: Not for the faint of heart. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 75, 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Young, S., Kelsey, D., & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of email communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60, 371–388. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2011.563388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar