Relevance starategies

Relevance starategies

• 1.
  Communication Studies Vol. 60,No. 2, April–June 2009, pp. 130–146 What is Relevant? Student Perceptions of Relevance Strategies in College Classrooms Ashley Muddiman & Ann Bainbridge Frymier The operationalization of relevance has been problematic, raising concerns about the conceptualization of relevance. The current study inductively examined relevance by asking college students to generate relevance-increasing strategies used by instructors. Responses were grouped into five categories: ‘‘Outside Course Relevance,’’ ‘‘Methods and Activities Relevance,’’ ‘‘Teaching Styles Relevance,’’ ‘‘Inside Course Relevance,’’ and ‘‘No Relevance.’’ The results support previous relevance-increasing strategies suggested by Keller (1983) but also suggest that relevance may be an outcome of teacher behaviors, rather than a predictor of motivation. Keywords: Learning; Motivation; Relevance A constant battle is waged in every college class as instructors, passionate about their subjects, struggle to encourage often-ambivalent students to learn course material. In an effort to win this war, some instructors search for tactics to relate class content to students who may not see the relevance of the course to their own lives. Past survey research has found that students who perceive course content as relevant to their needs, goals, and interests are more motivated to study for the course and to see more value in the material than students whose instructors are not perceived as commu- nicating the relevance of the content (Frymier & Shulman, 1995; Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). However, experimental studies on the topic have faced difficulty in Ashley Muddiman (BA 2007, Miami University) is an MA student in Communication at Wake Forest Univer- sity. Ann Bainbridge Frymier (EdD, 1992, West Virginia University) is a Professor of Communication and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. This paper was previously presented at the 2008 ECA Convention in Pittsburgh, PA. Correspondence to: Ann Bainbridge Frymier, 160 Bachelor Hall, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA. E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2009 Central States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10510970902834866
• 2.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 131 manipulating relevance (Behrens, 1999; Frymier & Houser, 1998). This difficulty may stem from an inadequate conceptualization of relevance. In an effort to better understand what behaviors lead to perceptions of relevance, this study asks students to report strategies instructors use to make content relevant to their students’ lives. Since past research has generated strategies based on researcher and instructor perceptions, a study examining relevance from a student perspective may both support previous tactics for increasing relevance and illuminate approaches that researchers have overlooked. The study’s inductive approach seeks to uncover issues related to content relevance that may have hindered past efforts to manipulate relevance in experiments. Student-generated strategies provide an alternate perspective of relevance that will help researchers manipulate the concept and instructors utilize tactics to increase the course relevance to students. Relevance Relevance is a concept that has been defined in various ways. The current study is based on Keller’s (1983) definition of relevance as a student’s perception of whether course content satisfies personal needs, personal goals, and=or career goals. Keller (1983, 1987a) discussed relevance as one component of student motivation. In his view, students who perceived course material as related to their own needs become motivated to learn the course material. Keller’s (1983, 1987a) motivational model involved four major components: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (ARCS). The first step, Attention, suggests that teachers must gain the interest of their students. Relevance, the second step, is ‘‘the learner’s perceptions of personal need satisfaction in relation to the instruction, or whether a highly desired goal is perceived to be related to the instructional activity’’ (Keller, 1983, p. 395). Motivation, therefore, requires students to perceive that the learning situation meets personal needs. The third step of the ARCS model, Confidence, refers to the expecta- tions a student holds concerning the course material (Keller, 1983). Students who believe they have the ability to receive high marks on an assignment, for example, will be more motivated to learn the content than students who do not believe they can succeed in the course. The final step, Satisfaction of Outcomes, recognizes that the outcome of the situation will influence whether the student will want to repeat the behavior in the future (Keller, 1987b). As such, if students study extensively for an exam and receive As, they are likely to repeat the behaviors for the next exam. According to the ARCS model, relevance is enhanced by instructor communica- tion strategies encouraging students to perceive course content as meeting some unfulfilled need or goal. Keller (1983) identified strategies that fall into three categories: personal-motive value (offer satisfaction of a particular need or motive including power, affiliation, and achievement), instrumental value (current informa- tion is required to complete a future goal), and cultural value (desired goal is con- sistent with the values of cultural reference groups such as parents, organizations, etc.). Although Keller (1983) postulated that these strategies could help teachers increase perceptions of relevance in their students, the strategies have not been
• 3.
  132 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier compared to students’ own perceptions regarding content relevance. In another approach to relevance, Weaver and Cottrell (1988) provided a number of relevance strategies they used in their classrooms, including using dramatic situations, games, and student relationships with other students. Both of these approaches assume that proper use of the strategies by a teacher will result in students perceiving course content as relevant. Another theory that emphasizes the importance of relevance is Petty and Cacioppo’s (1981, 1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM). Petty and Cacioppo (1981) explain that people find information relevant when they expect a situation ‘‘to have significant consequences for their own lives’’ (p. 81). When a person feels that information is relevant, that person is more motivated to think deeply, or elabo- rate, upon that information. According to the ELM, high amounts of elaboration can lead to longer lasting attitude change and information retention. When students perceive that course content is relevant, they may become motivated to think about the material and may retain the information for longer time periods. This suggests that making content relevant may help students experience long-term learning rather than simply forgetting information after an exam. While Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986) provide a theoretical explanation of relevance, they do not provide any guidance on what communication strategies stimulate perceptions of relevance. Relevance and Learning Early research on relevance indicated a connection to learning. A study of first-year teachers found that, although the teachers used relevance strategies just 7.49% of the time, those strategies were correlated with the amount of student on-task behavior (Newby, 1991). Recent studies have examined the ARCS approach, specifically in relation to e-learning (Keller, 1999; Keller & Suzuki, 2004). Keller (1999) detailed a systematic instructional approach utilizing the ARCS model to highlight narrow motivational techniques that would work effectively with a specific class. His study also illustrated the utility of the ARCS model in distance-learning and multicultural classrooms. Although Keller (1999) stressed the success of the ARCS model as a whole, he did not examine relevance strategies individually. Similarly, Keller and Suzuki (2004) reviewed a series of studies examining the ARCS model in relation to e-learning settings, where students often feel ‘‘isolated’’ and unmotivated (p. 230). The authors claimed that relevance was most effective when course material could be connected to intrinsic goals and needs of a student. However, the conclusions drawn from the Keller and Suzuki (2004) study involve the success of the ARCS model as a whole in increasing motivation without analyzing the relevance stage specifically. Although these studies confirmed the effectiveness of the ARCS model, neither specifically focuses on relevance. Relevance as an instructional communication strategy was examined by Frymier and Shulman (1995) who developed a scale based on the work of Keller (1983, 1987a, 1987b), Sass (1989), and Weaver and Cottrell (1988). The scale contained 12 Likert items written to reflect teacher behaviors. Frymier and Shulman (1995)
• 4.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 133 found that students who reported that their instructors used several relevance strategies (e.g., examples, relation to career goals, personal experiences, etc.) were more motivated to study than students whose teachers used few relevance strategies. A second study led to similar results, illustrating a positive relationship between the number of relevance behaviors in a classroom and student empowerment (Frymier et al., 1996). Both studies demonstrated that the extent to which an instructor used and communicated relevance behaviors in a course was related to the level of student motivation. Despite the relationship between relevance and motivation found in previous survey research by Frymier and her colleagues, this relationship was not validated in two experimental studies that attempted to manipulate relevance by utilizing high-relevance and low-relevance examples. Frymier and Houser (1998) hypothe- sized that that students exposed to high-relevance and high-immediacy behaviors by a guest lecturer in class would have greater motivation than those students who were not exposed to the high-relevancy and high-immediacy behaviors. However, the researchers were not able to satisfactorily manipulate relevance. Frymier and Houser (1998) based the strategies used in the experiment on those recommended by Keller (1983, 1987a, 1987b), Sass (1989), Weaver and Cottrell (1988), and Frymier and Shulman (1995). Students’ perceptions of relevance did not seem to align with the strategies that supposedly led to perceptions of relevance. Increased motivation was associated with high levels of immediacy only. In a second experiment, Behrens (1999) attempted to manipulate relevance stra- tegies recommended by Keller (1987b) to create high- and low-relevance conditions. Behrens (1999) presented students with transcripts of lectures containing strategies such as connecting content to the current, future, and past experiences of the students to manipulate students’ perceptions of relevance. Despite numerous attempts, Behrens was unable to satisfactorily manipulate relevance. Behrens’ results along with Frymier and Houser’s raised concerns with the conceptualization of rele- vance. When students perceived their instructors as using relevance strategies, they reported increases in motivation and learning, consistent with both the ARCS model (Keller, 1983) and elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986); however, when researchers attempted to manipulate relevance using the same strategies, they could not reliably stimulate relevance. Did the so-called ‘‘relevance strategies’’ really result in perceptions of relevance? Was there something missing from the conceptua- lization of relevance? Were teachers doing something else that stimulated relevance? These questions are the basis of the present research. The relevance strategies presented by Keller (1983, 1987a, 1987b), Sass (1989), Weaver and Cottrell (1988), and Frymier and Shulman (1995) have been primarily deductively developed and therefore have been from instructors’ rather than students’ perspectives. Previous research has found relatively little overlap in teacher and student perceptions of teacher compliance-gaining strategies (McCroskey & Richmond, 1983; McCroskey, Richmond, Plax, & Kearney, 1985), thus relevance strategies reported by instructors and students’ perceptions of relevance may also have limited overlap. Examining students’ perceptions of what makes course content
• 5.
  134 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier relevant may bring the concept of relevance into focus, explaining why Frymier and Houser (1998) and Behrens (1999) could not successfully manipulate it, and provide more useful direction for teachers on enhancing students’ perceptions of content relevance. As such the current study seeks to examine relevance from the student perspective to gain a more complete understanding of this construct and poses the following research question: RQ1: What teaching strategies, tactics, and other behaviors do undergraduate students perceive as increasing content relevance of material presented in their college courses? Method Participants In order to address the research question, 184 undergraduate students were surveyed at a midsized Midwestern university. The participants included 127 women and 50 men, 72 of which were first-year students, 83 were sophomores, 11 were juniors, and 11 were seniors. Five respondents did not provide demographic information. The participants were recruited from lower-level communication courses, in which a diverse group of students were enrolled and received extra credit for their participation. Procedure An email containing a link to an online survey was sent to students enrolled in one of three introductory communication courses during the fifth week of the spring 2007 semester. After responding to a consent form, respondents read the following definition of relevance and answered the question at the end of the definition: When something is relevant, we perceive that ‘‘thing’’ to be related to and impor- tant to our needs, interests, or goals. Think of the teachers you had during the fall 2006 semester. What strategies, techniques, and=or behaviors did your teachers use to make the content relevant to your needs, goals, and=or interests? Participants were given no time limit and could list as many behaviors as they recalled from their fall 2006 courses that made the content relevant to them. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university where data were collected. After responses were gathered, the first stage of analysis included a coder (coder one) reading each response and unitizing the data by separating each individual technique and=or behavior found in the responses. This ensured that each unitized phrase, sentence, or paragraph contained a conceptually distinct response. Any response that included more than one conceptually distinct technique or behavior was separated to yield two or more unitized responses. For instance, when a partici- pant explained that teachers used ‘‘real-life examples’’ and ‘‘current events’’ to relate the course content to students, this response was separated into two units. The
• 6.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 135 unitizing procedure yielded 542 distinct instructional behaviors used to make content relevant to students. A number of responses were not analyzed because they were too vague or were irrelevant to the research question. Twenty-five unitized responses (5%) were discarded because they included irrelevant information, leaving 517 responses to be analyzed. Examples of disregarded responses included instructors utilizing ‘‘ideas’’ and ‘‘gestures,’’ which were vague and did not make sense as answers to the posted question. In a second phase of analysis, coder one used analytic inductive techniques to sort the unitized responses into categories (see Baxter & Wilmot, 1984; Dolin & Booth- Butterfield, 1993; Vangelisti, Daly, & Rudnick, 1991). Coder one placed each unitized response onto an index card and grouped the responses into conceptually similar categories. Responses were placed into one of five categories: ‘‘Outside Course Relevance,’’ ‘‘Methods and Activities Relevance,’’ ‘‘Inside Course Relevance,’’ ‘‘Teaching Style Relevance,’’ and ‘‘No Relevance.’’ The same coder further grouped the responses within the broad categories into smaller subcategories. Subcategories were identified for four of the five categories. The ‘‘Outside Course Relevance’’ category included 10 subcategories, ‘‘Methods and Activities Relevance’’ included 5 subcategories, and ‘‘Inside Course Relevance’’ and ‘‘Teaching Style Relevance’’ each included 7 subcategories (see Appendix). After coder one sorted the unitized responses into the appropriate category and subcategory, 25% of the usable 517 responses were randomly selected with the Research Randomizer online program to be cross-coded by two additional coders: coders two and three (Urbaniak & Ploushttp, 2007). Intercoder agreement among all categories and subcategories was computed using Scott’s pi (1955), with pi values greater than .80 indicating agreement beyond chance. Results of pi for the intercoder reliability between coders one and two was .87 and between coders one and three was .89, indicating a high percentage of agreement beyond chance. Results The research question asked students to list strategies and tactics their college instruc- tors used to increase content relevance. Participants responded with 517 unitized examples of strategies relating course content to their goals, needs, and interests that were separated into five categories. The largest category (47%), ‘‘Outside Course Relevance,’’ contained strategies that involved instructors using examples or situa- tions to draw parallels between the course material and student needs, interests, and=or desires outside of the classroom. There were 10 subcategories in the ‘‘Outside Course Relevance’’ group, including the three largest: ‘‘current life and interests’’ (20%), ‘‘popular culture and media’’ (19%), and ‘‘future lives and careers’’ (14%). The other seven subcategories (‘‘current events,’’ ‘‘real world,’’ ‘‘personal stories,’’ ‘‘examples,’’ ‘‘time=place proximity,’’ ‘‘future studies,’’ and ‘‘guest speakers’’) comprised the remaining 46% of category’s responses (see Table 1). The second category, ‘‘Teaching Style Relevance,’’ consisted of strategies involving an instructor’s personality and teaching style that made students feel the material was
• 7.
  136 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier Table 1 Results Number of Category responses % of Category Outside Course Current Life and Interests 48 20 Popular Culture and Media 47 19 Future Lives and Interests 35 14 Current Events 30 12 Real World 30 12 Personal Stories 18 7 Examples 9 4 Time=Place Proximity 9 4 Future Studies 9 4 Guest Speakers 7 3 Total 242 Teaching Style Instructor Consideration 19 20 Variety and Interest 18 19 Enthusiasm and Knowledge 15 16 Personalization 12 13 Availability 11 12 Humor 11 12 Student Choice and Control 9 9 Total 95 Methods and Activities Discussion and Participation 32 35 Applications 25 27 Group Activities 18 20 Visual Activities 12 13 Field trips 4 4 Total 91 Inside Course Note-Taking 28 34 Assignments 14 17 Grades 14 17 Study Help 11 13 Emphasizing Material 7 8 Connect to Themes 6 7 Current Material 3 4 Total 83 No Relevance 6 100 Grand Total 517
• 8.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 137 related to their needs, goals, and=or interests. This category contained 18% of the student responses and was comprised of seven subcategories. Three subcategories, including ‘‘instructor consideration’’ (20%), ‘‘variety and interest’’ (19%), and ‘‘enthusiasm and knowledge’’ (16%), made up the majority (55%) of the student- generated responses in this category. The remaining 46% of the responses were included in four additional subcategories: ‘‘personalization,’’ ‘‘availability,’’ ‘‘humor,’’ and ‘‘student choice and control’’ (see Table 1). The third category, ‘‘Methods and Activities Relevance,’’ consisted of 18% of the student-generated responses and contained strategies that involved instructors using teaching methods and activities in class, apart from examples and situations, that encouraged students to perceive content as relevant to their needs, interests, and=or goals. Two subcategories comprised over half (62%) of the responses included in this category: ‘‘discussion and participation’’ (35%) and ‘‘applications’’ (27%). The remaining three subcategories, including ‘‘group activities,’’ ‘‘visual activities,’’ and ‘‘field trips,’’ comprised the remaining 37% of the responses in this category (see Table 1). The fourth category, ‘‘Inside Course Relevance,’’ included 16% of the total responses. This category contained strategies instructors used to relate course mate- rial to students’ needs, interests, and=or goals within one specific course, as opposed to teaching methods that pertained to students’ goals in other courses, or life outside academia. For instance, instructors emphasized material students needed to know to receive a passing grade on a test. Three subcategories consisted of 68% of the responses in this category: ‘‘note-taking’’ (34%), ‘‘assignments’’ (17%), and ‘‘grades’’ (17%). Four subcategories, including ‘‘study help,’’ ‘‘emphasizing material,’’ ‘‘connect to themes,’’ and ‘‘current material,’’ comprised the remaining 27% of the student-generated responses in the category (see Table 1). The final category, ‘‘No Relevance,’’ included responses stating that instructors did not attempt to relate content to students and contained only six responses, or 1% of the total student-generated responses (see Table 1). All of these responses involved the participants stating that their instructors did nothing to make the content relevant. Discussion The goal of this research was to identify teacher behaviors that increased student per- ceptions of content relevance from the student perspective. The study succeeded in answering the research question, since students were able to generate a large number of behaviors their instructors used to increase the connection between course material and student needs, interests, and goals. Student-generated responses both supported current relevance-increasing strategies and highlighted areas that may have complicated the manipulation of relevance in experimental research. The study produced four categories of strategies (‘‘Outside Course Relevance,’’ ‘‘Teaching Style Relevance,’’ ‘‘Methods and Activities Relevance,’’ and ‘‘Inside Course Relevance’’) instructors can utilize to increase the relevance of the course material to students.
• 9.
  138 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier Some of the subcategories identified were very much in line with existing concep- tualizations of relevance. For example, the two largest subcategories in ‘‘Outside Course’’ relevance (‘‘current life and interests’’ and ‘‘popular culture and media’’) corresponded with Keller’s (1983) cultural-value strategy. In these subcategories, students reported that instructors related course material to ‘‘beer’’ and ‘‘fast food,’’ their ‘‘lives as college students,’’ ‘‘movie clips,’’ ‘‘YouTube videos,’’ and ‘‘current tele- vision.’’ Examples within both categories illustrated how course material connected to student culture and, therefore, the cultural value Keller (1983) described. Addi- tionally the third largest subcategory in ‘‘Outside Course Relevance,’’ ‘‘future lives and careers,’’ corresponded with Keller’s (1983) instrumental value. The subcategory included instructors who explained that students will ‘‘eventually use [course] information in [their] careers’’ and encouraged students to relate ‘‘boring topics’’ to ‘‘career [positions] down the road after college.’’ The correspondence between the ‘‘Outside Course Relevance’’ category and Keller’s (1983) cultural and instrumen- tal values, as well as the large number of responses in the category, supported Keller’s conceptualization of relevance. Subcategories within the ‘‘Outside Course’’ category also illustrated that instruc- tors may utilize different relevance strategies, such as relevance to the past, the present, and the future, to relate course material to students. This may explain why the Behrens (1999) experiment failed to manipulate relevance: the study’s participants may have perceived as much relevance in the past condition, which was supposed to be low relevance, as in the present and future conditions. The largest subcategory of ‘‘Methods and Activities’’ was ‘‘discussion and partici- pation’’ that contained strategies encouraging students to cooperate with other students and to assert their own control over the classroom. The tactics lend support to Keller’s (1983) affiliation and power motive values. The subcategories ‘‘grades’’ and ‘‘assignments’’ supported Keller’s (1983) achievement motive value by emphasiz- ing the importance of student GPAs and exam grades (‘‘grades’’), as well as the out- of-class readings and other assignments for which students were responsible (‘‘assignments’’). Since the strategies allowed students to achieve success, they overlapped with the achievement motive value. While many of the emergent subcategories supported the existing conceptualiza- tion of relevance, the second largest category, ‘‘Teaching Style,’’ was more in line with other instructional constructs than relevance. The strategies in the ‘‘Teaching Style’’ category seem to include teacher immediacy and confirmation behaviors, which is a bit perplexing. Presumably, students listed these behaviors because they perceive these behaviors as causing relevance. Conceptually, relevance has been viewed as a teacher behavior that could be used in combination with immediacy but was inde- pendent of immediacy. Similarly, the ‘‘humor’’ subcategory comprised 12% of ‘‘Teaching Style’’ and included strategies involving instructors’ use of humor and joking to make content relevant. This subcategory is consistent with Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszcyk, and Smith’s (2006) research that found ‘‘related humor’’ to be the largest category of appropriate forms of humor used by teachers. Humor has been conceptualized as a teacher strategy that enhances immediacy (Gorham &
• 10.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 139 Christophel, 1990), but nothing in the conceptualization of instructional humor would predict humor as a means of increasing relevance. Similarly, the relevance category ‘‘Inside Course’’ seemed more consistent with the construct of clarity than relevance. Inside Course relevance involved strategies an instructor could use to relate course material to student goals and interests within a specific course. The largest subcategory, ‘‘note-taking,’’ included strategies that encouraged students to take notes during class (e.g., ‘‘PowerPoint presentations’’). These strategies overlap significantly with clarity behaviors (Chesebro, 2003; Simonds, 1997). The overlap brings forth the question: ‘‘What is the relationship between clarity and relevance?’’ Does making content clear enhance perceptions of relevance? The ‘‘Teaching Style’’ and ‘‘Inside Course’’ categories conflict with the conceptua- lizations of relevance put forth by Keller (1983) and Frymier and Shulman (1995). The teacher behaviors contained in these categories mirror immediacy, humor, and clarity. There is substantial evidence that immediacy and humor enhance the student-teacher relationship, gaining students’ attention and motivation (Frymier, 1994; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Kelley & Gorham, 1989). However, these teacher behaviors would not be expected to create connections between the content and students needs and goals. In fact, Frymier (1994) stated, ‘‘Use of immediacy behaviors probably does not increase relevance’’ (p. 142). Clarity strategies are thought to help students organize and understand content, but by themselves would not be expected to make connections between content and students goals and needs. Did students list these teacher behaviors because they make the content more relevant or is the perception of relevance a by-product of being motivated and engaged in the learning process? One could argue that all information is relevant to students—certainly most instructors would describe what they teach as being relevant to students. Keller (1983) describes relevance as a necessary requirement for students to be motivated learners. However, the emergence of the ‘‘Teaching Style’’ and ‘‘Methods and Activities’’ categories suggest that perceived relevance is an outcome of effective teach- ing rather than a component of effective teaching. Perhaps when students become motivated to learn and are engaged in the material (a result of effective teaching), they perceive the content as being relevant. Such thinking is consistent with the moti- vation model of immediacy proposed by Frymier (1994) and the empowerment model proposed by Houser and Frymier (in press). These models propose that student motivation is primarily a result of teacher behavior, and that motivation in turn influences student outcomes such as learning. Perceiving the content as relevant may be an additional outcome of being a motivated learner. If it is the case that relevance is an outcome of effective teaching rather than a component of it, then a variety of effective teaching strategies could result in increased perceptions of relevance by students. The previously identified ‘‘relevance strategies’’ would need to be reexamined and redefined as teaching strategies. An implication of this reasoning is that relevance could not be manipulated by changing the nature of examples as Frymier and Houser (1998) and Behrens (1999) attempted to do. These studies also manipulated immediacy (an effective teaching strategy); therefore, motivation and relevance were likely enhanced by the immediacy. This
• 11.
  140 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier would explain why these studies were unsuccessful in manipulating relevance but still found increases in motivation. Such a conceptualization of relevance would indicate that relevance would be best measured as a perception, similar to how credibility is measured (Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Future research needs to examine the condi- tions that result in perceptions of content relevance and address whether students perceive greater relevance when they are more engaged with the content. Limitations Although this study provides researchers with a clearer understanding of content rele- vance, a number of limitations resulted from the methodology. First, the researchers used an open-ended survey that allowed students to produce a wide range of responses without limiting them to strategies suggested by previous research. The benefit of this methodology was that it allowed the researchers to examine student perceptions, unencumbered by the researchers’ preexisting definitions of relevance. The disadvan- tage of this methodology is the lack of control in how students interpreted the question and what they recalled. Evidence of this is the category of ‘‘No Relevance,’’ which consisted of six responses stating that an instructor did not succeed in making content relevant. It is impossible to know if this category was a result of students being unmotivated to complete the survey, unmotivated in general, or truly not experiencing any teachers in fall 2006 that used any type of relevance strategy. As is often the case, the sample used in this study was one of convenience. There- fore, the ability to generalize the results of this study is limited. The majority of participants were female (127 of the 184 participants) and first-year or sophomore students (155 of the 184 participants). The responses these students produced could differ from those generated by an equal number of males and females, or by upper- level students who have more educational experience than younger students. Future research should investigate this issue by including a more diverse sample. Although these questions and issues were not examined in the current study, they merit atten- tion in future research to gain a more thorough understanding of content relevance. While the battle to gain understanding of relevance continues, the present study provides specific categories and strategies that current instructors can utilize to increase student perceptions of relevance. The results of this study also provide the basis to further redefine the construct of relevance as an outcome of effective teaching and motivation rather than as a teacher behavior. Future research needs to examine student perceptions of relevance in relation to a variety of teacher behaviors to better understand the role of relevance in the classroom. References Baxter, L., & Wilmot, W. (1984). ‘‘Secret tests:’’ Social strategies for acquiring information about the state of the relationship. Human Communication Research, 11, 171–201. Behrens, F. H. (1999). Do relevance strategies affect a student’s motivation to learn? Unpublished master’s thesis, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
• 12.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 141 Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135–147. Dolin, D., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1993). Reach out and touch someone: Analysis of nonverbal comforting responses. Communication Quarterly, 41, 383–393. Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1998). Does making content relevant make a difference in learn- ing? Communication Research Reports, 15, 121–129. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relation- ship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). What’s in it for me? Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the class- room to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–63. Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (in press). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviors in students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reogeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1–7. Keller, J. M. (1987b). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 78, 39–37. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and E-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29, 229–239. Kelly, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall information. Communication Education, 37, 198–207. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175–184. 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. Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 195–200. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque: Wm C. Brown Company Publishers. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sass, E. J. (1989). Motivation in the college classroom: What students tell us. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 86–88. Simonds, C. J. (1997). Classroom understanding: An expanded notion of teacher clarity. Commu- nication Research Reports, 14, 279–290. Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9. Urbaniak, G. C., & Ploushttp, S. (2007). Research randomizer. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from http:// www.randomizer.org Vangelisti, A., Daly, J., & Rudnick, J. (1991). Making people feel guilty in conversations. Human Communication Research, 18, 3–39.
• 13.
  142 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A. M., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178–196. Weaver, R. L., & Cottrell, H. W. (1988). Motivating students: Stimulating and sustaining student effort. College Student Journal, 22, 22–32. Appendix Categories and Subcategories Explained I. Outside Course Relevance This category involves instructors using some type of example or situation to draw parallels between the course material and students’ needs, interests, and=or desires outside of the classroom. a. Current Life and Interests Instructors use examples, explanations, and situations to relate material to the current lives of college students and the stereotypical college lifestyle. This also includes students using their own personal stories and generational input to relate their current lives to the material. Example: Our teacher then related that to the [college] stereotype. b. Popular Culture and Media Instructors use examples of popular culture, music, or video to relate material to students. This strategy included movies, TV and Internet clips, documentaries, sports, and other popular culture references. Example: Most of my teachers would give examples about entertainment since we can closely relate. c. Future Lives and Interests Instructors use examples to emphasize how course material will benefit students in their future careers and lives. This includes instructors that give internship and job search advice or point out how students would—as opposed to how students do—use information in their lives or specific jobs. Example: Give examples of how it could=would affect us in the future. d. Current Events Instructors use examples of current news stories, articles, or issues to relate material to students. These current events could relate to politics, business, and environmental issues. This strategy does not include any type of current event quiz. Example: I had a Geography teacher last year who had us read current events for our class. e. Real World Instructors use ‘‘real-world’’ or ‘‘real-life’’ examples, situations, experiences, or comparisons to relate material to students. This strategy occurs when instructors use real life or professional scenarios for students’ benefit, without stressing how students will be able to use the material in their future lives and=or careers. Example: Other teachers using real-life examples.
• 14.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 143 f. Personal Stories Instructors tell students personal stories or examples, from their lives and=or careers. These differ from ‘‘real-world’’ examples in that they are directly related to the instructors, rather than examples from general life. Example: Referencing their work experience during class. g. Examples Instructors use examples to explain the information presented. This category includes student responses of ‘‘examples’’ or ‘‘metaphors’’ without any further description. Example: Another thing he did was use examples of what he was talking about. h. Time=Place Proximity Instructors relate historical course material to current situations or relate course material that takes place in locations far from students to situations in locations closer to students. For instance, an instructor may parallel the issues present in historical paintings to those found in contemporary art, or issues related to far-eastern nations to those found in a nearby town. Example: In one of my classes we discussed theatre plays from past centuries. One good thing my teacher did was to associate these plays with everyday events or ideas that we might could [sic] relate to as college students. i. Future Studies Instructors explain how material will help students learn skills that can benefit them in their future college classes, as well as in their majors or minors. Example: In my Statistics class my professore [sic] gave examples of how things would relate to senior projects. j. Guest Speakers Instructors invite outside speakers or lecturers to class to talk about how the material is relevant to their careers, classes, or life outside of college. This also includes instructors asking other people (not students in the course) to serve as examples to the students. Example: Bringing in guest speakers also helped in my business classes. II. Teaching Style Relevance This category includes strategies involving an instructor’s personality and teaching style that makes students feel that the material is related to their needs, goals, and=or or interests. a. Instructor Consideration Instructors show students that they care by making class comfortable, using infor- mal language, changing grading methods, explaining information until students understand material, giving positive feedback, relating to students, treating them as equals, and doing the best jobs they can as instructors. Example: This teacher also didn’t have a set grading scale instead the course was graded based on improvement throughout the tests.
• 15.
  144 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier b. Variety and Interest Instructors create classes that are not similar lectures each day but rather include a variety of methods to engage students. This category includes students who men- tion the mixture of methods and techniques to create variety, as well as the attempt to make the material interesting. Example: There was a mixture of lectures, readings, and visual aids in order to meet the needs of most students. c. Instructor Enthusiasm and Knowledge Instructors show students their enthusiasm and passion for teaching the material, as well as their knowledge of the material they are teaching. Example: The teachers that I have had in the past are generally enthusiatic [sic] and want to teach. d. Availability Instructors are available outside of class time, through email and during office hours, to provide students with help whenever they need it. This category also includes instructors who are always willing to provide help to students. Example: Open office hours e. Personalize Instructors take the time to learn about a class, or a particular student, and demonstrate flexibility in their classes based on their students. Example: My English teacher got to know us very closely and then designed the class around our personalities. f. Humor Instructors use humor in the form of jokes and=or stories in class. Even if perso- nal stories are noted, the humorous aspect of these strategies places them in the humor category. Example: One teacher used jokes that connected the information more to our age group. g. Student Choice and Control Instructors give students the choice of topic for assignments, which allows stu- dents to write about subjects that are important to them, and let students have control of some portion of the class, for instance by letting the students vote on decisions for the course. Example: Allowed me to choose my own research topic. III. Methods and Activities Relevance This category involves instructors using teaching methods and activities, apart from examples and situations, in class encouraging students to perceive that the content is relevant to their needs, interests, and=or goals not related to the course itself. a. Discussion and Participation Instructors encourage either instructor- or student-led discussion, both in class and online, as well as student questions and input during lectures. Example: Discussion periods
• 16.
  Student Perceptions ofRelevance 145 b. Applications Instructors use ‘‘real-world’’ or ‘‘real-life’’ examples in problems, projects, or other applications they assign. The category includes instructors who require community service or practical work (e.g., building sets for the theater depart- ment), as well as instructors who take actions because their students would=wouldn’t need to do something in the ‘‘real world’’ (e.g., don’t need to memorize formulas, need to act professionally in class). This strategy differs from examples in that students work with ‘‘real-world’’ or professional problems rather than simply hear about them from an instructor. Example: Provided assignments that allowed us to practice for real world experience such as the mock job interview at the career services center. c. Group Activities Instructors use group activities, projects, or evaluations inside or outside of class. This strategy includes group projects, social interactions, and peer evaluations. Example: Created study groups d. Visual Activities Instructors use visual aids, pictures, acting, or skits in class. Visual aids are not labeled as PowerPoint presentations, videos, drawings, etc., but simply as visual aids or pictures. Example: Most of my teachers chose to use visual aids. e. Field Trips Instructors take their students out of the classroom to look at locations around campus or off campus that relate to the material in the course. Example: The same professor took us to different places around campus in order to change the learning environment. IV. Inside Course Relevance This category involves strategies an instructor can use to make course material relate to student goals and interests within one specific course, as opposed to the teaching methods that relate to students’ needs, interests, and=or goals outside of the class- room. These strategies involve the instructor emphasizing and explaining important material that students need to know to be successful in the class, and holding students accountable for this material. a. Note-taking Instructors emphasize the important material they are covering in each class by encouraging students to take notes. This can include PowerPoint presenta- tions, lecture outlines and=or overheads, writing on a whiteboard, and telling students when to write down information. Example: PowerPoint presentation b. Assignments Students have to complete homework, reading, problems, and other projects out- side of the classroom. This strategy is not specific to ‘‘real-world,’’ practical, or
• 17.
  146 A. Muddiman & A. B. Frymier professional applications but instead stresses that students have to complete some type of general assignment. Example: Went over the homework c. Grades Instructors stress that certain material that will help students receive good grades in the class. This also includes instructors giving quizzes or exams. Example: They would also emphasize which material was going to be on the exam, which was very relevant for us because we all wanted to pass. d. Study Help Instructors hold review sessions, create review sheets and syllabi or otherwise help students learn how to best study for the course. Example: Study review sessions before tests e. Emphasizing Important Material Instructors repeat, bold or otherwise make it obvious that students should learn a portion of the material, even though it is not necessarily connected with a grade or exam. Example: Repeated information or general ideas f. Connect to Themes Instructors connect specific material in class to a big picture or overall theme to show how the material all works together. Example: The teacher related the important information to each of the areas and showed how it all worked together. g. Current Material Instructors cover material in class that is up-to-date. Example: Information and course material was up-to-date. V. No Relevance These students commented that one or all of their instructors did not succeed in making content relevant to students. Example: I wouldn’t necessarily say any of my teachers from the fall semester made anything relevant to my needs or interests.