We examine whether teachers' communicator style relates to student engagement, teacher-student relationships, student perceptions of teacher immediacy, as well as observer ratings of delivery skills during the implementation of All Stars, a middle school-based substance use prevention program. Data from 48 teachers who taught All Stars up to 3 consecutive years and their respective seventh-grade students (n = 2,240) indicate that having an authoritative communication style is negatively related to student engagement with the curriculum and the quality of the student-teacher relationship, while having an expressive communicator style improves teachers' immediacy to student needs. Adaptations made by a subsample of teachers (n = 27) reveal that those who were more expressive asked students more questions, used more motivational techniques, and introduced more new concepts than authoritarian teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottR. D.O'DonnellI.HawkinsD.HillK. G.KostermanR., & CatalanoR. F. (1998). Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 542–552.
2.
AndersonJ. F.NortonR. W., & NussbaumJ. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30, 377–392.
3.
BackerT. E. (2001). Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention. A state-of-the-art review. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
4.
BarreraM.CastroF., & SteikerL. (2011). A critical analysis of approaches to the development of preventive interventions for subcultural groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 439–454.
5.
BishopD. C.PankratzM.HansenW. B.AlbrittonJ.AlbrittonL., & StrackJ. (2013). Measuring fidelity and adaptation: Reliability of a instrument for school-based prevention programs. Evaluation & The Health Professions. doi: 10.1177/0163278713476882
6.
BotvinG. J.DusenburyL.BakerE.James-OrtizS., & KernerJ. (1989). A skills training approach to smoking prevention among Hispanic youth. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(3), 279–296.
7.
BotvinG. J., & GriffinK. W. (2007). School-based programmes to prevent alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. International Review of Psychiatry, 19(6), 607–615.
8.
CastroF. G.BarreraM., & SteikerHolleran L. K. (2010). Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 213–239.
9.
CastroF. G.BarreraM., & MartinezC. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5(1), 41–45.
10.
CuijpersP. (2003). Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1009–1023.
11.
RouxDiez A. (2002). A glossary for multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(8), 588–594.
12.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.FalcoM., & HansenW. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256.
13.
EnnettS. T.HawsS.RingwaltC. L.VincusA. A.HanleyS.BowlingJ. M. (2011). Evidence-based practice in school substance use prevention: Fidelity of implementation under real-world conditions. Health Education Research, 26(2), 361–371.
14.
EnnettS. T.RingwaltC. L.ThorneJ.RohrbachL. A.VincusA.Simons-RudolphA. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1–14.
15.
FaganA.HansonK.HawkinsJ., & ArthurM. (2008). Bridging science to practice: Achieving prevention program implementation fidelity in the Community Youth Development Study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 235–249.
16.
Fearnow-KenneyM.HansenW. B., & McNealR. B. (2002). Comparison of psychosocial influences on substance use in adolescents: Implications for prevention programming. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11(4), 1–24.
17.
GendrinD. M., & RuckerM. L. (2007). Student motive for communicating and instructor immediacy: A matched-race institutional comparison. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(1), 41–60.
18.
GilesS. M.HarringtonN. G., & Fearnow-KenneyM. (2001). Evaluation of the All Stars program: Teacher and student factors that influence mediators of substance use. Journal of Drug Education, 31(4), 385–397.
19.
GilesS. M.PankratzM. M.RingwaltC.HansenW. B.DusenburyL., & Jackson-NewsomJ. (2010). Teachers' delivery skills and substance use prevention program outcomes: The moderating role of students' need for cognition and impulse decision making. Journal of Drug Education, 40(4), 395–410. PMID: 21381465.
20.
GilesS. M.Jackson-NewsomJ.PankratzM. M.RingwaltC. L.HansenW. B., & DusenburyL. (2008). Measuring quality of delivery in a substance use prevention program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(6), 489–501. PMID: 19030993.
21.
HansenW. B. (1996). Pilot test results comparing the All Stars program with seventh grade D.A.R.E.: Program integrity and mediating variable analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 31(10), 1359–1377.
22.
HansenW. B.GrahamJ. W.WolkensteinB. H., & RohrbachL. A. (1991). Program integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results for fifth-grade students in the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 568–579.
23.
HansenW. B., & McNealR. B. (1999). Drug education practice: Results of an observational study. Health Education Research, 14(1), 85–97.
24.
HarachiT. W.AbbottR. D.CatalanoR. F.HaggertyK. P., & FlemingC. B. (1999). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(5), 711–731.
25.
HarringtonN. G.GilesS. M.HoyleR. H.FeeneyG. J., & YungbluthS. C. (2001). Evaluation of the All Stars character education and problem behavior prevention program: Effects on mediator and outcome variables for middle school students. Health Education & Behavior, 28(5), 533–546.
26.
HirschsteinM. K.EdstromL. V. S.FreyK. S.SnellJ. L., & MacKenzieE. P. (2007). Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial impact of the Steps to Respect program. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 3–21.
27.
JacobB. A., & LevittS. D. (2003, August). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.
28.
KumpferK. L.PinyuchonM.de MeloA. T., & WhitesideH. O. (2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemination of the Strengthening Families Program. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 31(2), 226–239.
29.
LeeS.AltschulI., & MowbrayC. (2008). Using planned adaptation to implement evidence-based programs with new populations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 290–303.
30.
MacKinnonD. P., & DwyerJ. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.
31.
McNealR. B.HansenW. B.HarringtonN. G., & GilesS. M. (2004). How All Stars works: An examination of program effects on mediating variables. Health Education and Behavior, 31(2), 165–178.
32.
MorrisonD. M.HoppeM. J.GillmoreM. R.KluverC.HigaD., & WellsE. A. (2009). Replicating an intervention: The tension between fidelity and adaptation. AIDS Education & Prevention, 21(2), 128–140.
33.
MyersS. A., & HorvathC. W. (1997). A further examination of teacher communicator style and college student learning. Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association, 38, 37–48.
34.
MyersS. A., & KnoxR. L. (2001). The relationship between college student information-seeking behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education, 50(4), 343–356.
35.
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.
36.
MyersS. A.MottetT. P., & MartinM. M. (2000). The relationship between student communication motives and perceived instructor communicator style. Communication Research Reports, 17(2), 161–170.
37.
MyersS. A., & RoccaK. A. (2000). The relationship between perceived instructor communicator style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 1–12.
38.
NortonR. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In RubenB. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 525–542). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
39.
NortonR. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99–112.
40.
NortonR., & NussbaumJ. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. In NimmsD. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 4, pp. 565–582). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
41.
NussbaumJ. (1981). Effective teaching: A communication nonrecursive causal model. In BurgoonM. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 737–752). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
42.
OzerE.WanisM., & BazellN. (2010). Diffusion of school-based prevention programs in two urban districts: Adaptations, rationales, and suggestions for change. Prevention Science, 11(1), 42–55.
43.
PentzM. A.TrebowE. A.HansenW. B.MacKinnonD. P.DwyerJ. H.JohnsonC. A. (1990). Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior. Evaluation Review, 14(3), 264–289.
44.
RaudenbushS., & ByrckA. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
RingwaltC. L.PankratzM. M.HansenW. B.DusenburyL.Jackson-NewsomJ.GilesS. M. (2009). The potential of coaching as a strategy to improve the effectiveness of school-based substance use prevention curricula. Health Education & Behavior, 36(4), 696–710.
46.
RoccaK. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53(2), 185–195. doi: 10.1080/03634520410001682447
47.
RohrbachL. A.GrahamJ. W., & HansenW. B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22, 237–260.
48.
RubinR. B.PalmgreenP., & SypherH. E. (2004). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
SchroederA. B., & LeberR. L. (1993). Communicator style perceptions of “best” and “worst” teachers. Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, 78, 11–15.
50.
ShenJ.HuilanY.HonggaoC., & WarfieldC. (2008). The fidelity-adaptation relationship in non-evidence-based programs and its implication for program evaluation. Evaluation, 14(4), 467–481.
51.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8–11.
52.
SnavelyW. B., & McNeillJ. D. (2008). Communicator style and social style: Testing a theoretical interface. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 219–232.
53.
SobolD. F.DentC. W.GleasonL.BrannonB. R.JohnsonC. A., & FlayB. R. (1989). The integrity of smoking prevention curriculum delivery. Health Education Research, 4(1), 59–67.
54.
TevenJ. J. (2005). Teacher socio-communicator style and tolerance for disagreement and their association with student learning in the college classroom. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 30(1), 23–35.
55.
ToblerN. S. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group. Journal of Drug Issues, 16(4), 537–567.
56.
ToblerN. S. (2000). Lessons learned. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4), 261–274.
57.
ToblerN. S.LessardT.MarshallD.OchshornP., & RoonaM. (1999). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs for marijuana use. School Psychology International, 20(1), 105–137.
58.
ToblerN. S.RoonaM. R.OchshornP.MarshallD. G.StrekeA. V., & StackpoleK. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4), 275–336.
59.
ToblerN. S., & StrattonH. H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(1), 71–128.
60.
WilsonD. B.GottfredsonD. C., & NajakaS. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(3), 247–272.
61.
WittP. L.WheelessL. R., & AllenM. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184–207.
62.
YangH.ShenJ.CaoH., & WarfieldC. (2004). Multilevel evaluation alignment: An explication of a four-step model. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(4), 493–507.
