Are We Violating Student Expectations? Availability,Workload,Class Time Use,and Technology Policies in Undergraduate Courses

Abstract

The goal of this study was to better understand what students expect from their college instructors in four areas: availability for out-of-class communication (OCC), student workload, in-class time use, and technology policies. Data from 606 participants were collected using an online survey design. Results showed that students’ expectations for OCC are being met, but that expectations for workload are being violated. Results also suggest that students prefer engaging in instructor-led activities during class time and want to be able to use their technological devices for educational purposes during class, but not for social purposes.

Keywords

in-class time use out-of-class communication student workload technology policies violation of expectations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angelo

T. A.

Cross

K. P.

(1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arum

Roksa

(2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Bain

(2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bergmann

Sams

(2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in class every day. Arlington, VA: International Society for Technology in Education.

Biggs

(1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 8, 7-25. doi:10.1080/0729436890080102

Bippus

A. M.

Brooks

C. F.

Plax

T. G.

Kearney

(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.

Bippus

A. M.

Kearney

Plax

T. G.

Brooks

C. F.

(2003). Teacher access and mentoring abilities: Predicting the outcome value of extra class communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 260-275. doi:10.1080/00909880305379

Bligh

D. A.

(2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bui

D. C.

Myerson

Hale

(2012). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299-309. doi:10.1037/a0030367

10.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129-142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x

11.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1995). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violation theory. In Wiseman

R. L.

(Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 194-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Burgoon

J. K.

Hale

J. L.

(1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79. doi:10.1080/03637758809376158

13.

Eiszler

C. F.

(2002). College students’ evaluations of teaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher Education, 43, 483-501. doi:10.1023/A:1015579817194

14.

Epting

L. K.

Zinn

T. E.

Buskist

(2004). Student perspectives on the distinction between ideal and typical teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 181-183. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3103_5

15.

Fink

L. D.

(2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Finn

A. N.

Ledbetter

A. M.

(2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 1-22. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.725132

17.

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

18.

Finn

Inman

J. G.

(2004). Digital unity and digital divide: Surveying alumni to study effects of a campus laptop initiative. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 297-317. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782417

19.

Gallup & Purdue University. (2015). Great jobs, great lives: The relationship between student debt, experiences and perceptions of college worth. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/185924/gallup-purdue-index-2015-report.aspx

20.

Hersh

R. H.

Merrow

(Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

Jaasma

M. A.

Koper

R. J.

(2002). Out of class communication between female and male students and faculty: The relationship to student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Women’s Studies in Communication, 25, 119-137. doi:10.1080/07491409.2002.10162443

22.

Katz

J. E.

(2005). Mobile phones in educational settings. In Nyiri

(Ed.), A sense of place: The global and the local in mobile communication (pp. 305-317). Vienna, Austria: Passagen.

23.

Kearney

Plax

T. G.

Hays

E. R.

Ivey

M. J.

(1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309-324. doi:10.1080/01463379109369808

24.

Kember

(2004). Understanding how students perceive workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 165-184. doi:10.1080/0307507042000190778

25.

Kuznekoff

J. H.

Munz

Titsworth

(2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Examining the effects of texting, twitter, and message content on student learning. Communication Education, 64, 344-365. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727

26.

Kuznekoff

J. H.

Titsworth

(2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62, 233-252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.767917

27.

Leach

R. B.

Wang

T. R.

(2015). Academic advisee motives for pursuing out-of-class communication with the faculty academic advisor. Communication Education, 64, 325-343. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1038726

28.

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:10.1080/03634523.2015.1064145

29.

Lenhart

Ling

Campbell

Purcell

(2010). Teens and mobile phones. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx

30.

Lizzio

Wilson

Simons

(2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27-52. doi:10.1080/03075070120099359

31.

McCormick

A. C.

(2011). It’s about time: What to make of reported declines in how much college students study. Liberal Education, 97. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/its-about-time-what-make-reported-declines-how-much-college

32.

Mottet

T. P.

Parker-Raley

Cunningham

Beebe

S. A.

(2005). The relationships between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student course workload and teacher availability expectations. Communication Research Reports, 22, 275-282. doi:10.1080/000368105000317482

33.

Mottet

T. P.

Parker-Raley

Cunningham

Beebe

S. A.

Raffeld

(2006). Testing the neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on student course workload expectancy violations and tolerance for instructor unavailability. Communication Education, 55, 147-166. doi:10.1080/03634520600565886

34.

Nadler

M. K.

Nadler

L. B.

(2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out of class communication between faculty and students. Women’s Studies in Communication, 24, 241-261. doi:10.1080/07491409.2001.10162436

35.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2015). Promoting rigorous courses for all students. Retrieved from https://www.nassp.org/who-we-are/board-of-directors/position-statements/promoting-rigorous-courses-for-all-students

36.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). A fresh look at student engagement. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2013_Results/pdf/NSSE_2013_Annual_Results.pdf

37.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2015). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2015_Results/pdf/NSSE_2015_Annual_Results.pdf

38.

Ross-Gordon

J. M.

(2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/research-adult-learners-supporting-needs-student-population-no

39.

Sana

Weston

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

40.

Sander

Stevenson

King

Coates

(2000). University students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 309-320. doi:10.1080/03075070050193433

41.

Selingo

J. J.

(2015, September 30). Is college worth the cost? Many recent graduates don’t think so. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/30/is-college-worth-the-cost-many-recent-graduates-dont-think-so/

42.

Sperber

(2005). How undergraduate education became college lite—And a personal apology. In Hersh

R. H.

Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 131-143). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.