This study examines students’ motives for communicating with their instructors when the instructor exhibits inappropriate or unprofessional online behavior. To understand the relationship between what we call instructors’ digital expectancy violations and students’ motives for communicating with instructors, students’ levels of task, social, and physical attraction are measured. Pearson correlations were used to assess relationships among the presence of digital expectancy violations, motives to communicate, and attraction. Results revealed that students’ motivation to communicate with instructors who commit digital expectancy violations differs based on preexisting social, physical, and task attraction to the instructor.
AtayA. (2009). Facebooking the student–teacher relationship. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 6, 71-74.
2.
BanfieldS. R.RichmondV. P.McCroskeyJ. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63-72. doi:10.1080/03634520500343400
3.
BerkosK. M.AllenT. H.KearneyP.PlaxT. G. (2001). When norms are violated: Imagined interactions as processing and coping mechanisms. Communication Monographs, 68, 289-300.
4.
BippusA. M.BrooksC. F.PlaxT. G.KearneyP. (2001). Students’ perceptions of part-time and tenured/tenure-track faculty: Accessibility, mentoring, and extra-class communication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 30, 13-23.
5.
BippusA. M.KearneyP.PlaxT. G.BrooksC. F. (2003). Teacher access and mentoring abilities: Predicting the outcome value of extra class communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 260-275.
6.
BrumbergerE. (2011). Visual literacy and the digital native: An examination of the millennial learner. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30, 19-47.
7.
BurgoonJ. K.HaleJ. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
8.
CayanusJ. L.MartinM. M.GoodboyA. K. (2009). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student motives to communicate. Communication Research Reports, 26, 105-113.
9.
ClausC. J.Booth-ButterfieldM.ChoryR. M. (2012). The relationship between instructor misbehaviors and student antisocial behavioral alteration techniques: The roles of instructor attractiveness, humor, and relational closeness. Communication Education, 61, 161-183. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.647922
10.
DobranskyN. D.FrymierA. (2004). Developing teacher–student relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211-223.
11.
DuranR.KellyL.KeatenJ. (2005). College faculty use and perceptions of electronic mail to communicate with students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 159-176. doi:10.1080/01463370500090118
12.
GoodboyA. K.BolkanS. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects on student communication behavior and traditional learning outcomes. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 204-219. doi:10.1080/10570310902856089
13.
GoodboyA. K.MyersS. A.BolkanS. (2010). Student motives for communicating with instructors as a function of perceived instructor misbehaviors. Communication Research Reports, 27, 11-19. doi:10.1080/08824090903526604
14.
HoweN.StraussW. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
15.
JaasmaM. A.KoperR. J. (1999). The relationship of student–faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41-47.
16.
JonesA. C. (2008). The effects of out-of-class support on student satisfaction and motivation to learn. Communication Education, 57, 373-388. doi:10.1080/03634520801968830
17.
KearneyP.PlaxT. G.HaysE. R.IveyM. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309-324.
18.
KelseyD. M.KearneyP.PlaxT. G.AllenT. H.RitterK. J. (2004). College students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53, 40-55.
19.
ManssonD. H.MyersS. A. (2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral student–advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61, 309-334. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.708424
20.
MartinM. M.MyersS. A.MottetT. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155-164.
21.
MazerJ. P.MurphyR. E.SimondsC. 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
22.
McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P.McCroskeyL. L. (2005). An introduction to communication in the classroom: The role of communication in teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
McCroskeyL. L.McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1-31. doi:10.1080/01463370500270322
24.
McPhersonM. B.KearneyP.PlaxT. G. (2003). The dark side of instruction: Teacher anger as classroom norm violations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 76-90.
25.
MyersS. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college student in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17, 129-137.
26.
MyersS. A.HuebenerA. D. (2011). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and perceived instructor credibility, attractiveness, and homophily. College Student Journal, 45, 84-91.
27.
MyersS. A.MartinM. M.KnappJ. L. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class communicative behaviors as a predictor of student participation in out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 53, 437-450.
28.
MyersS. A.MartinM. M.MottetT. P. (2002). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors: Considering instructor socio-communicative style, student socio-communicative orientation, and student gender. Communication Education, 51, 121-133.
29.
OswaldD. L.ClarkE. M. (2003). Best friends forever? High school best friendships and the transition to college. Personal Relationships, 10, 187-196.
30.
ParsloeS.BentonA.DavisD.Strang-WolfN. (2010, June). Preferred communication channels between students and faculty within extra class interactions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec City, Singapore.
31.
PlaxT. G.KearneyP.McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.
32.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6.
33.
SheerV.FungT. (2007). Can e-mail communication enhance professor–student relationship and the evaluation of a professor?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 289-306.
34.
StephensK. K.HouserM. L.CowanR. L. (2009). R u able to meat me: The impact of students’ overly casual email messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58, 303-326. doi:10.1080/03634520802582598
35.
StephensK. K.HouserM. L.CowanR. L. (2012). How can students craft more competent emails to professors? In GoodboyA. K.ShultzK. (Eds.), Introduction to communication studies: Translating scholarship into meaningful practice (pp. 227-241). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
36.
TevenJ. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect and perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 55, 433-450. doi:10.1080/01463370701658077
37.
WaldeckJ. H.KearneyP.PlaxT. G. (2001). Teacher e-mail message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 54-70.
38.
WeissS. D.HouserM. L. (2007). Student communication motives and interpersonal attraction toward instructor. Communication Research Reports, 24, 215-224.
39.
ZhangQ. (2007). Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Education, 56, 209-227. doi:10.1080/03634520601110104
