First-Year College Students' Attitudes toward ...

14 downloads 424475 Views 2MB Size Report
Nov 3, 2014 - How to make correc ons to your proofs using Adobe Acrobat/Reader. Taylor & Francis offers ... This is the simplest and best way for you to ensure that your correc ons ...... Attached to technology and paying a price. The New ...
PROOF COVER SHEET Author(s): S. Morreale et al. Article title: First-Year College Students’ Attitudes toward Communication Technologies and Their Perceptions of Communication Competence in the 21st Century Article no: RCED 978799 Enclosures: 1) Query sheet 2) Article proofs

Dear Author, 1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for publication. Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make trivial changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. You may be charged if your corrections are excessive (we would not expect corrections to exceed 30 changes). For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please paste this address into a new browser window: http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp Your PDF proof file has been enabled so that you can comment on the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat. If you wish to do this, please save the file to your hard disk first. For further information on marking corrections using Acrobat, please paste this address into a new browser window: http://journalauthors.tandf. co.uk/production/acrobat.asp

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Sequence

Prefix

Given name(s)

Surname

1

Sherwyn

Morreale

2

Constance

Staley

3

Carmen

Stavrositu

4

Maja

Krakowiak

Suffix

Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs, and you can also click the hyperlinks below.

AUTHOR QUERIES General points: 1. Permissions: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in your article. Please see http:// journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/permissions/usingThirdPartyMaterial.asp. 2. Third-party content: If there is third-party content in your article, please check that the rightsholder details for re-use are shown correctly. 3. Affiliation: The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that address and email details are correct for all the co-authors. Affiliations given in the article should be the affiliation at the time the research was conducted. Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/ writing.asp. 4. Funding: Was your research for this article funded by a funding agency? If so, please insert ‘ This work was supported by ’, followed by the grant number in square brackets ‘[grant number xxxx]’. 5. Supplemental data and underlying research materials: Do you wish to include the location of the underlying research materials (e.g. data, samples or models) for your article? If so, please insert this sentence before the reference section: ‘ The underlying research materials for this article can be accessed at / description of location [author to complete]’. If your article includes supplemental data, the link will also be provided in this paragraph. See for further explanation of supplemental data and underlying research materials. 6. The CrossRef database (www.crossref.org/) has been used to validate the references. Changes resulting from mismatches are tracked in red font. AQ1 AQ2 AQ3

Please check the biography and address details in the footnote. “Hardy, 2011, p. 752” has been cited. Please provide full details in the References section, or amend/delete the citation as appropriate. Ditto “Souza, 2013”

How to make correcons to your proofs using Adobe Acrobat/Reader Taylor & Francis offers you a choice of opons to help you make correcons to your proofs. Your PDF proof file has been enabled so that you can edit the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat/Reader. This is the simplest and best way for you to ensure that your correcons will be incorporated. If you wish to do this, please follow these instrucons: 1. Save the file to your hard disk. 2. Check which version of Adobe Acrobat/Reader you have on your computer. You can do this by clicking on the “Help” tab, and then “About”. If Adobe Reader is not installed, you can get the latest version free from hp://get.adobe.com/reader/. 3. If you have Adobe Acrobat/Reader 10 or a later version, click on the “Comment” link at the right-hand side to view the Comments pane. 4. You can then select any text and mark it up for deleon or replacement, or insert new text as needed. Please note that these will clearly be displayed in the Comments pane and secondary annotaon is not needed to draw aenon to your correcons. If you need to include new secons of text, it is also possible to add a comment to the proofs. To do this, use the Scky Note tool in the task bar. Please also see our FAQs here: hp://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/ producon/index.asp. 5. Make sure that you save the file when you close the document before uploading it to CATS using the “Upload File” buon on the online correcon form. If you have more than one file, please zip them together and then upload the zip file. If you prefer, you can make your correcons using the CATS online correcon form. Troubleshoong Acrobat help: hp://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat.html Reader help: hp://helpx.adobe.com/reader.html Please note that full user guides for earlier versions of these programs are available from the Adobe Help pages by clicking on the link “Previous versions” under the “Help and tutorials” heading from the relevant link above. Commenng funconality is available from Adobe Reader 8.0 onwards and from Adobe Acrobat 7.0 onwards. Firefox users: Firefox’s inbuilt PDF Viewer is set to the default; please see the following for instrucons on how to use this and download the PDF to your hard drive: hp://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-pdf-files-firefox-without-downloadingthem#w_using-a-pdf-reader-plugin

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:37 CE: A.R.; QA: V.J.

Communication Education Vol. 00, No. 00, Month 2014, pp. 1–25

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes toward Communication Technologies and Their Perceptions of Communication Competence in the 21st Century 5

10

15

Sherwyn Morreale, Constance Staley, Carmen Stavrositu & Maja Krakowiak

The purpose of this study is to better understand new college students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of communication media and technology and themselves as communicators in the context of communication competence. Building on the results of a previous qualitative study, the researchers developed a survey focused on communication competence in the technologically rich 21st century and collected responses from 223 entering college freshmen. Among other findings, results of this investigation provide a picture of Generation C students’ (born after 1990) descriptions of how they actually and prefer to communicate, in formal and more personal situations and relationships. The students indicated a preference for face-to-face communication in all of 10 communication situations, with some differences observed based on sex of students. Keywords: Communication Competence; Communication Skills; Communication Technologies; Generation C; Technology and Communication

20

25

Over some time, scholars have worked to define communication competence conceptually and theoretically, and to identify the components that comprise it (Rubin, 1990; Spitzberg, 1983; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984; Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). The importance of the notion of competence is emphasized by the recent development of an international volume devoted entirely to communication competence in various contexts and situations (Hannawa & Spitzberg, in press). Pointedly, one chapter in that volume explores the nature of computer-mediated communication competence, Sherwyn Morreale, Constance Staley, Carmen Stavrositu and Maja Krakowiak are at Department of Communication, University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Correspondence to: Sherwyn Morreale, Department of Communication, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150, U.S.A. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2014 National Communication Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978799

AQ1

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:37

2

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

S. Morreale et al.

that is, what it means to communicate competently in a digitized, technologically mediated world (Bunz & Montez, in press). Other researchers have examined how to assess communication competence, generally and contextually (Morreale, Backlund, Hay, & Moore, 2011), whereas still others have summarized what student communication competence is (Morreale, 2013) and why it is important (Morreale & Pearson, 2008). One theoretical description explains communication competence as the extent to which people achieve their desired goals using communication considered acceptable in the situation (Spitzberg, 2000). Thereby, competence involves the use of verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors to effectively accomplish preferred outcomes in ways perceived as appropriate to the context and by the communicators. Effective means the communicators are able to achieve the most desirable objectives in the context. Appropriate means the communicators act in ways suitable to the norms and expectations of the situation. This description also describes three components of communication as critical to being perceived as appropriate and effective (Spitzberg, 2000). First, the communicators must be motivated to communicate competently. Motivation involves the extent to which communicators want to communicate. Second, they must be knowledgeable about the communication situation and the kinds of messages expected, permitted, or prohibited in the situation. Knowledge helps communicators understand what to say and do. Third, they must be skilled at actually communicating messages in the situation. Skills are the repeatable and goaldirected behaviors of the communicators. Accordingly, competent communicators in the 21st century should demonstrate motivation, knowledge, and skills in their use of a multiplicity of communication technologies. If that is competence, then students’ attitudes toward using communication technologies and their perceptions of their own communication competence clearly are of interest to communication scholars. This description of communication competence provides a theoretical framework for the present study and informs the study’s method. Indeed, the ability of college students to communicate competently is impacted by how they use the newer communication technologies now ubiquitous in their daily lives (Lederman, 2012; Levine & Dean, 2012; Spitzberg, 2006). Studies like those conducted by the Pew Research Center have reported effectively on the general use of communication technology among college students (Jones, 2002; Pew Research Internet Project, 2012). The Pew reports tell us what percentage of college students use the Internet, social networking sites, and cell phones. But those reports don’t tell us what college students think about their communication choices and self-perceived competence. Communication researchers have not yet adequately explored what our newest, and often youngest, students think it means to communicate competently in a highly technological society. What does effective and appropriate communication mean to them, as they choose among the myriad communication technologies available today? It may be effective to cancel an important date by text messaging, but is it appropriate? It may seem effective and appropriate to use email to tell a professor you cannot be in class or turn in an assignment, but is that always competent?

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:37

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 3 70

75

80

85

The students who have some answers to these types of questions go by many different generational nicknames, though they are sometimes referred to as Generation C: connected, communicating, content-centric, computerized, communityoriented, and continually clicking (Friedrich, Peterson, & Koster, 2011; Jones, Ramanau, Cross, & Healing, 2010). The characteristics that make this generation of college students unique, as indicated by the Cs for which they are named, can make them difficult to categorize. For example, there is debate about the timeframe during which members of Generation C were born. Most agree they were “born after 1990 and lived their adolescent years after 2000” (Moeller et al., 2013, p. 7). Others argue that this generation should not be confined by a timeframe, but instead should be categorized by their digitally focused mind-set and behavioral habits (Hardy, 2011, p. 752). Unlike previous generations, this is the first generation that has never known any reality other than one that is facilitated by the Internet, mobile devices, and social networking (Friedrich et al., 2011). Those belonging to Generation C will “live ‘online’ most of their waking hours,” and this dependence on technology sets them apart from every generation that preceded them (Moeller et al., 2013, p. 1; Souza, 2013); and they are now our newest students. This Study’s Purpose

90

95

100

The definitional debate about Generation C aside, what we do not know, perhaps to the extent that we should, is what these digital native students think about their day-to-day use of communication and communication technologies, their communication choices, and their self-perceived competence. The sheer numbers of these students in our college classrooms suggest a need to examine their opinions and propensities regarding communication. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to develop a better understanding of Generation C college students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of communication media and technology and themselves as communicators, in the context of communication competence. The results of this study may prove useful in two ways. They should be helpful to educators and administrators in developing communication and pedagogical strategies for this new generation of college students. They also may provide more insight into the critical role of communication technologies in our scholarly understanding of communication competence. To better appreciate this study’s purpose, a sampling of the many studies of college students and their involvement with communication technology is now provided.

Literature Review 105

In the U.S., 18–24 year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35% in 2000 to 41% in 2010 (Center for Education Statistics, 2013). For these students, web-based communication technologies, like email, texting, and social media, have always been a part of their lives (Friedrich et al., 2011). In fact, among young Americans in the U.S., media use of all types, in any typical day, has increased significantly over the last 10 years

AQ2

AQ3

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

4 110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

S. Morreale et al.

(Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). This communication revolution appears to be transforming the daily lives of college students in many ways. Research by the Pew Research Center reports that 83% of 18–29-year-olds are actively engaged with social media, often using their cell phones; moreover, the most popular social networking site platform used by college students is Facebook (Madden, 2013). Facebook is a social media platform that “operates somewhat like a personal website, but within a defined community of users and with functions that allow users to locate and interact with each other” (Yang & Brown, 2013, p. 404). The average college student in the U.S. has 241 Facebook friends and tends to use Facebook to feel connected to others, though some also report having feelings of isolation related to that usage (Lederman, 2012; Levine & Dean, 2012). Terms such as “social isolation,” “the Internet paradox,” and “Facebook depression” (a term coined in a 2011 edition of Pediatrics) are now recurring themes in the literature (O’Keefe, Clarke-Pearson, & The Council of Communications and Media, 2011). However, other researchers point out that people who maintain social networks using email and the Internet may feel more connected with others, not less connected, as a result of using new communication technologies (Horrigan, Boase, Rainie, & Wellman, 2006). Somewhat more negatively, the academic work of Generation C students may be impacted by the extent to which they are digitally involved and distracted by being “tangled in an endless web of distractions” (Jan, 2011). The findings of a recent study about mobile phone usage during class lecture illustrate the impact of these distractions (Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). Students who were not using their mobile phones took more detailed notes, wrote down more information, and scored a letter and a half grade higher on a test than those actively using their mobile phones. Other ongoing research explores the deleterious effects of multitasking, like text messaging, while attempting other tasks with a heavy cognitive load (Staley, 2015; Wang, Wei, & Klausner, 2012), and the negative, cumulative effects of long periods of exposure to technology use, including brain fatigue (Carr, 2010; Richtel, 2010). Some research is beginning to demonstrate that digital natives, like our Generation C students, are slow to notice nonverbal cues (Mullen, 2012), and brain scientists fear they are not developing the neural pathways necessary for the development of social skills (Mullen, 2012). Other studies suggest that many college students prefer texting over talking, and their communication choices often reflect a lack of consideration for the medium chosen and its impact on the receiver of their message (Levine & Dean, 2012; Turkle, 2011). Still another researcher found that most college students describe themselves as highly tech-savvy, at least with media like social networking (Read, 2009). Yet, in several studies, college students significantly overestimated their software skill levels. Although they perceived their skills as average or high, when tested, their technology performance did not measure up (Grant, Malloy, & Murphy, 2009; Hendry, 2009; Staley, 2015; Thacker, 2006). These same college students also may only accept adults’ use of new communication media to a certain point (Hosein, Ramanau, & Jones, 2010; Robinson & Stubberud, 2012). They may see a teacher or school administrator’s presence within

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 5

155

160

165

170

newer communication platforms as invasive, unwanted contact; sometimes such attempts to enter students’ electronic social worlds are described as the “creepy treehouse” phenomenon (Jones, 2010). Other studies suggest that competent electronic interactions between faculty and students, and among students, are not only preferred but also possibly beneficial (Rubin, 2013). Bolkan and Holmgren (2012) examined the impact of polite student emails on instructors’ motivation to work with students and their perceptions of students’ competence and potential for success. Across academic disciplines, students’ effective use of politeness strategies resulted in instructors’ higher positive levels of affect toward those students. DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, and Fiore (2012) likewise found that students who used social media platforms to communicate with one another about academic topics found these interactions beneficial to understanding and preparing for their first-year experience. Clearly, Generation C students’ attachment to communication technology has been examined from multiple perspectives, yielding some interesting though inconclusive findings. Still, we have not asked these students, in a comprehensive manner, what they themselves think about competently navigating the complex communication world of the 21st century. Answers to this study’s research questions will tell us more about these students’ attitudes and use of communication media and technologies, and their self-perceived communication competence. As we contemplate the presence of Generation C students in classrooms across higher education, the following research questions are worth investigating. Research Questions

175

RQ1: What are Generation C college students’ reported general patterns when using communication media and technology? RQ1a: How often do they use the various communication technologies? RQ1b: How often do they use various media and websites available on the Internet?

180

RQ2: What are Generation C college students’ reported actual and preferred choices for using communication media, depending on the communication situation and type of relationship? RQ2a: What communication media do they actually use, and what media do they prefer to use, for formal situations and relationships?

185

RQ2b: What communication media do they actually use, and what media do they prefer to use, for more personal situations and relationships? RQ3: How do college students in Generation C perceive their use of communication and technology with regard to these descriptors and components of computermediated communication competence? RQ3a: Effectiveness and appropriateness

190

RQ3b: Motivation, knowledge, and skills RQ3c: Efficiency and general use

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

6

S. Morreale et al. RQ4: How do college students in Generation C describe communication competence in general and themselves as competent communicators?

195

RQ4a: What do they think are the most important qualities of a competent communicator? RQ4b: What characteristic of a competent communicator, do they think they possess?

To investigate these four research questions, the following quantitative methodology was employed. Method 200

205

210

Research Design This study used an online survey to examine how college students who are members of Generation C describe their use of communication media and technology, and how they perceive and describe competent communication. The method for this investigation and the content of the survey were grounded in the theoretical framework of communication competence as appropriateness and effectiveness, which includes the components of motivation, knowledge, and skills (Spitzberg, 2000). The results from an earlier focus group study of Generation C students yielded thematic data that were used to develop a pilot survey for this study (Morreale & Staley, in press). The pilot survey was tested, revised, and then distributed electronically to approximately 1000 students in a freshman seminar course. Participants and Recruitment

215

220

225

230

Volunteers for this study were recruited at a public university, University of Colorado Colorado Springs. At the time of this study, the school’s student population was approximately 10,600. Participants in the online survey were enrolled in the campuswide, freshman seminar course. An electronic invitation to participate, approved by the campus’ institutional review board, was sent to approximately 1000 students in the course. Two qualifications applied for acceptance in the study: currently enrolled in the university’s freshman seminar course, as a full- or part-time student, and, membership in Generation C based on age, born in 1990 or later (Friedrich et al., 2011). Of the 1000 students in the course, 227 completed the survey, and four were disqualified based on age. A total of 223 (N = 223) Generation C students (66.2% female; 33.3% male; .5% transgender) took part in the survey, a response rate of 22.3%, the limitation of which is considered later in the Discussion of Results. Students’ ages ranged from 18 to 22 (M = 18.1; SD = .6), with the majority being freshmen (95.9%), followed by sophomores (2.7%), juniors (.9%), and seniors (.5%). All 223 students, including the few at the junior and senior level, satisfied the two requirements of this study. Of the 223 students, 66.2% identified themselves as Caucasian, 11.4% as Latino, 11% as Multiracial, 5.0% as African American, 3.2% as Asian American, .9% as Native American, and .5% as Other.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 7

Instrumentation

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

Three focus groups, conducted earlier by the researchers, had inquired about how first-year students actually use communication media, their preferences for using communication technologies, and their perceptions of communication competence (Morreale & Staley, in press). Thematic results from that study were used as a foundation for developing a pilot survey for the present study that was administered online to 55 junior teaching assistants in 80 sections of 26 different freshman seminar courses. The formal and personal situations used in the survey instrument were derived from the focus group students’ descriptions of their own communication experiences. Using the results of the pilot test, the survey was revised and administered, as a self-report measure, to approximately 1000 other first-year students in the freshman seminar courses. McCroskey and McCroskey (1988), in examining approaches to measuring communication competence, concluded that self-reports may serve as useful measures of self-perceptions, which may function as precursors of communicative choices. The resulting four-part survey asked questions of first-year students regarding: (1) their general use of media in communication; (2) their actual choices among various communication media, and their preferences for using those communication media in formal and informal situations and relationships; (3) their personal feelings about using technology to communicate; and (4) their perceptions of a competent communicator, and their own personal characteristics as a competent communicator. Part 1 of the study asked students to indicate how frequently they use seven different communication technologies (e.g., cellphone/smartphone, computer, etc.), and 11 different Internet sites (e.g., social networking sites, Twitter, etc.) on a 7-point scale from 1 (frequently all day) to 7 (never). Part 2 of the survey asked students to select which medium they would actually use and prefer to use in six formal (e.g., communicate with instructors or professors) and four informal (e.g., break up with a romantic partner) situations. Part 3 of the survey (personal feelings about communication technology) incorporated an instrument designed to assess perceptions of using communication technology and computer-mediated communication competence (Spitzberg, 2006). In order to eliminate items that were not fully relevant to the current study and to limit the adverse effects of survey length on response rate, an original 77-item instrument was modified by B. H. Spitzberg to produce a reliable 25-item instrument that examines computermediated communication competence, as related to motivation, knowledge, skills, and appropriateness and effectiveness (personal communications, 2013). Reliability analysis statistics, based on a database of over 1,400 students, were used by Spitzberg to modify the instrument, eliminate items, and produce the 25-item scale. Items were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (very true of me) to 5 (not at all true of me). Part 4 of the survey addressed general communication competence using 21 items aimed at assessing perceptions of competent communicators. These items were derived from the earlier focus group students’ descriptions of communication competence and Wiemann’s (1977) Communicative Competence Scale (CCS). Students were asked to

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

8 275

280

285

290

295

S. Morreale et al.

select five of the most important qualities from the 21-item list, and to rank order their choices in order of importance from 1 to 5 (e.g., “Good communicators find it easy to get along with others,” “ Good communicators are interested in what others have to say,” and “Good communicators generally say the right thing at the right time”). Lastly, students were asked a series of questions about their self-perceived communication competence (e.g., “I am a fairly skilled communicator, and “I understand how communication works”), on a 5-point scale from 1 (very true of me) to 5 (not at all true of me). These items also were derived from the earlier focus group students’ descriptions of communication competence and from the Self-Perceived Communicative Competence Scale developed by McCroskey & McCroskey (1988). The results of administering this study’s survey to the student respondents are now presented. Data Analysis and Results The analyses of students’ responses to the survey were performed in two steps. The responses that align with each of the four research questions first were analyzed statistically as reported below. Then, given other evidence about the influence of the sex of college students on various communication variables (Donovan & MacIntyre, 2004), additional analyses were conducted regarding the influence of students’ sex on their responses to several of this study’s research questions. One recent communication education study similarly conducted additional analyses along with the primary results of the investigation (Wright, 2012). When of interest, insights about the effects of students’ sex on their survey responses are reported, following the primary results for each research question. Research Question 1

300

305

310

The first research question, including RQ1a and RQ1b, asked about general patterns of communication technology and Internet use among Generation C college students. To address this question, first the average frequency of use for these two categories were assessed, as described below. Communication technology use among college students. When asked how frequently they use various communication technologies (from 1 = “Frequently all day” to 7 = “Never”), students reported cellphone/smartphone use (M = 1.56; SD = .89) and texting (M = 1.75; SD = 1.14) as their most frequently used communication technology, and portable gaming as their least used technology (M = 5.29; SD = 1.21). Table 1 reports the average level of use for each of the technologies assessed in this study. Internet use among college students. Similarly, when asked how frequently they use various Internet websites (from 1 = “Frequently all day” to 7 = “Never”), students reported social networking sites (M = 2.58; SD = 1.63) and YouTube (for watching) (M = 3.64; SD = 1.62) as their most frequently used Internet websites, and Virtual Worlds websites as their least used (M = 6.68; SD = 1.05). Table 2 reports the means associated with all the Internet websites assessed in this study.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 9 Table 1

M SD

Communication Technology Use Among Generation C College Students

Cellphone/ smartphone

Texting SMS

Computer

iPod/MP3

Game console

iPad/ tablet

Portable gaming

1.56 0.89

1.75 1.14

2.08 0.81

3.54 2.06

3.07 1.18

4.76 1.66

5.29 1.21

Note. Frequency of use was measured on a scale of 1 (Frequently all day) to 7 (Never).

315

320

325

Based on evidence suggesting different patterns of technology use among males and females (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith & Zickuhr, 2010; Lucas & Sherry, 2004; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012), ancillary analyses next were conducted that examined sex differences pertaining to technology use among Generation C college students. A series of subsequent independent-samples t-test analyses revealed several significant differences, based on students’ sex, with regard to technology use (see Table 3) and Internet use (see Table 4). Specifically, when it comes to technology use, males report using computers, game consoles, and portable gaming devices more frequently than females, whereas females appear to use cellphones/smartphones and texting more frequently than males (see Table 3). In terms of Internet use, males report using YouTube (for both watching and uploading videos) and chat rooms more frequently than females. Females report using social networking and photo-sharing websites more frequently than males (see Table 4). Research Question 2

330

335

340

345

The second research question, including RQ2a, RQ2b, and RQ2c, addressed Generation C college students’ reported actual and preferred choices for using communication media, depending on the communication situation, formal or personal, and type of relationship. Formal situations and relationships. When asked to indicate their actual medium of choice for communicating in six different formal situations and relationships (see Table 5), students reported face-to-face as their actual medium for two situations (talking about a problem with an entire group of students that you see occurring with a particular group member; communicating with a boss or superior). In other situations, the reported actual media of choice were texting (for communicating with a group of classmates about an exciting new project), social networking sites (for connecting with a large group of people to raise money for an important campus event; and for letting a lot of students know about a serious campus problem that will negatively affect them), and, finally, email (for communicating with instructors and professors). When asked to indicate their preferred medium of communication in these same six communication situations, students selected face-to-face for every single communication situation (see Table 5). A series of subsequent chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences, based on students’ sex, with regard to the reported actual

10

M SD

Internet Use Among Generation C College Students

Social networking sites

YouTube (watch)

Photo sharing

Video chat

Twitter

Pin board

IM

Blogging

Chat rooms

YouTube (upload)

Virtual worlds

2.58 1.63

3.64 1.62

5.00 2.37

5.30 1.47

5.30 2.30

5.34 1.91

5.38 2.07

6.27 1.60

6.42 1.41

6.64 0.87

6.68 1.05

Note. Frequency of use was measured on a scale of 1 (Frequently all day) to 7 (Never).

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

S. Morreale et al.

Table 2

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

11

Table 3 Sex-based Differences in Communication Technology Use Among Generation C College Students

Females M SD Males M SD t

Cellphone/ smartphone

Texting SMS

1.47 0.82

1.59 0.99

1.73 1.01 −2.05*

2.04 1.32 −2.89**

iPod/ MP3

Game console

iPad/ tablet

Portable gaming

2.23 0.81

3.66 2.07

5.76 1.58

5.45 2.03

6.45 1.24

1.79 0.73 3.92***

3.34 2.03 0.73

4.32 1.85 1.06***

5.23 2.14 5.69

5.97 1.52 2.32*

Computer

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

medium of choice or preferred communication medium for formal situations and relationships.

350

355

360

Personal situations and relationships. In personal situations and relationships (see Table 6), students indicated texting to be their actual medium of choice for two of four different communication situations (communicating with friends; and, sharing some good news with a close friend). Face-to-face was the actual medium of choice for one situation (breaking up with a romantic partner); and phone for one situation (communicating with one’s family). Males and females differed significantly in their actual medium of choice for sharing news with a friend and for communicating with friends. Specifically, females (42.9%) were more likely than males (27.0%) to select phones as their actual medium of choice when sharing news with a friend, χ2 (14, N = 222) = 123.68, V* = .53, p < .001. Females (74.8%) were also more likely than males (59.5%) to report texting as their actual medium of choice for communicating with friends, χ2 (15, N = 222) = 66.01, V* = .39, p < .001. Next, when asked to indicate their preferred medium for these same communication contexts, students again chose face-to-face communication for every single situation (see Table 6). No differences, based on students’ sex, were observed with regard to students’ perceptions of the most preferred communication media in personal situations and relationships.

365

Research Question 3

370

The third research question, including RQ3a, RQ3b, and RQ3c, asked the college students in Generation C about their perceptions of their own use of technology, as it relates to the components of communication competence described in scholarly literature. Spitzberg’s abbreviated computer-mediated communication competence (CMC) 25-item scale assessed students’ self-perceived level of competence in communicating via computer technologies (from 1 = “Very true of me” to 5 = Not at all true of me). An exploratory factor analysis using principal components extraction and varimax rotation was employed to examine students’ perceived level of CMC competence. The

12

Sex-based Differences in Internet Use Among Generation C College Students

Social networking sites Females M 2.38 SD 1.51 Males M 2.92 SD 1.73 t −2.38*

YouTube (watch)

Photo sharing

3.97 1.56

4.27 2.39

2.92 1.54 −0.46***

5.26 2.02 −2.98**

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Video chat

Twitter

Pin board

IM

Blogging

Chat rooms

YouTube (upload)

Virtual worlds

5.34 1.44

5.25 2.34

5.05 2.02

5.41 2.00

6.23 1.67

6.61 1.25

6.73 0.70

6.73 0.87

5.19 1.54 −5.75

5.40 2.30 −0.58

6.51 1.21 4.76

5.28 2.21 1.90

6.36 1.50 0.92

6.03 1.62 0.42**

6.45 1.13 2.71*

6.57 1.35 0.72

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

S. Morreale et al.

Table 4

Table 5 Generation C Students’ Actual and Preferred Use of Communication Media for Six Formal Communication Situations and Relationships Text (%)

IM/chat (%)

Video chat (%)

Social networking sites (%)

2.3

22.5

34.7*

6.3

1.8

16.2

0

0

16.2

0

1.4

8.6

16.2

4.1

0.5

7.7

0

0.5

61.3*

0

2.4

21.5

6.7

0.4

0.9

42.6*

1.3

0

23.8

0

1.3

31.8

15.2

1.3

0

34.5*

1.8

0.4

13.5

0

0.9 9.0

71.3* 17.1

0.4 2.3

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0.4 0

26.0 71.2*

0.9 0

2.3

19.5

10.9

2.7

3.6

6.4

0

0

53.6*

0.9

0.9

5.5

0.9

1.4

0.9

1.8

0

0

87.7*

0.9

2.7

19.2

1.4

0.5

0.5

33.3

1.4

1.4

38.8*

0.9

2.3

30.9

10.5

0.5

0

20.9

1.4

0.5

31.8*

1.4

0.9 6.8

31.5 10.5

0 0

0 0

0.5 0

0 0

0.5 0.5

66.2* 81.7*

0.5 0.5

Note. Percentages with an asterisk indicate the most frequently selected medium for each situation.

0 0

Twitter (%)

Blog (%)

Face-toface (%)

Snail mail (%)

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

Actual Use of Media Communicate with a group of classmates about an exciting new group project Talk about a problem with an entire group of students that you see occurring with a particular group member Connect with a large group of people to raise money for an important campus event Let a lot of students know about a serious campus problem that will negatively affect them Communicate with instructors or professors Communicate with a boss or superior Preferred Use of Media Communicate with a group of classmates about an exciting new group project Talk about a problem with an entire group of students that you see occurring with a particular group member Connect with a large group of people to raise money for an important campus event Let a lot of students know about a serious campus problem that will negatively affect them Communicate with instructors or professors Communicate with a boss or superior

Email (%)

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

Communication situations

Phone (%)

13

14

Actual use of media Break up with a romantic partner Communicate with your friends Share some good news with a close friend Communicate with your family Preferred use of media Break up with a romantic partner Communicate with your friends Share some good news with a close friend Communicate with your family

Phone (%)

Email (%)

Text (%)

IM/ chat (%)

Video chat (%)

Social networking sites (%)

Twitter (%)

Blog (%)

Face-toface (%)

Snail mail (%)

4.0

0.4

0.9

0

0

0

89.2*

0

5.4

0

6.3

0.9

69.5*

1.8

1.8

2.7

0

0

16.6

0.4

37.7

0.4

38.1*

1.3

0.9

2.2

0.4

0

18.8

0

45.2*

0

10.4

0

2.3

0.9

0

0

40.7

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100*

0

10.0

0.5

25.1

0.5

0.9

1.4

0

0

61.2*

0.5

24.1

0.9

7.7

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.5

0

64.5*

0.5

27.5

0

2.3

0

6.0

0

0

0

63.8*

0.5

Note. Percentages with an asterisk indicate the most frequently selected medium for each situation.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

Communication situations

S. Morreale et al.

Table 6 Generation C Students’ Actual and Preferred Use of Communication Media for Four Personal Communication Situations and Relationships

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:38

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

415

15

initial solution of this analysis pointed to five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 accounting for 64.91% of the variance. The first factor, labeled “efficiency and motivation,” included seven items (Cronbach’s α = .88; M = 2.52; SD = .82). Sample items included, “I am more efficient using communication technology than other forms of communication,” “My communication technology interactions are more productive than my face-to-face interactions,” and “I am very motivated to use technology to communicate with others.” The second factor, labeled “knowledge,” included five items (Cronbach’s α = .85; M = 2.13; SD = .77). Sample items included, “When communicating with someone using communication technology, I know how to adapt my messages to the particular technology I am using,” “I know when and how to close down a topic of conversation using communication technology,” and “I always seem to know how to say things the way I mean to say them using communication technology.” The third factor, labeled “effectiveness,” included five items (Cronbach’s α = .86; M = 2.01; SD = .66). Sample items included, “My interactions using communication technology are effective in accomplishing what I set out to accomplish,” “I am effective in my conversations with others using communication technology,” and “I am skillful at being composed and self-confident in my communication technology interactions.” The fourth factor, labeled “appropriateness,” included three items (Cronbach’s α = .82; M = 1.85; SD = .73). Sample items included, “I pay as much attention to the WAY I say things using technology as to WHAT I say,” and “I avoid saying things using technology that might offend someone.” Lastly, the fifth factor, labeled “attentiveness and expressiveness,” included three items (Cronbach’s α = .71; M = 1.82; SD = .66). Sample items included, “I show concern for and interest in the person with whom I’m communicating using technology,” and “I am expressive in my communication technology conversations. “ Two items cross-loaded and were dropped from further analyses. This final factor solution did not match the exact five descriptors and components of CMC competence as proposed by Spitzberg (2000) (i.e., motivation, knowledge, skills, appropriateness, and effectiveness), though they are conceptually similar. Nonetheless, in the absence of empirical support for the theorized conceptual categories in the present dataset, the remaining analyses are based on the five factors detailed above. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA, using a multivariate approach to test the equality of means, was employed to examine differences in the students’ reported personal feelings in regard to themselves and CMC competence (i.e., efficiency and motivation, knowledge, effectiveness, appropriateness, and attentiveness and expressiveness). This analysis revealed significant differences in perceptions of the different factors or dimensions of CMC, Wilks’ Λ = .57, F (4, 216) = 41.39, p < .001, partial η2 = .43. In order from lowest (indicating the highest level of perceived competency) to highest competency scores were attentiveness/expressiveness (M = 1.82, SE = .05), appropriateness (M = 1.85, SE = .05), effectiveness (M = 2.00, SE = 04), knowledge (M = 2.13, SE = .05), and efficiency/motivation (M = 2.53, SE = .06). Perceptions of all of the five different dimensions of CMC competence were significantly different

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

16

420

425

430

435

440

445

S. Morreale et al.

from each other, except for attentiveness/expressiveness and appropriateness (see Table 7). Perceived efficiency and motivation was positively related to cell or smartphone use (r = .20, p < .01), social networking site use (r = .41, p < .001), Twitter use (r = .26, p < .001), photo-sharing site use (r = .17, p < .01), pin board site use (r = .17, p < .01), YouTube video uploading (r = .18, p < .01), instant messaging use (r = .23, p < .001), and chat room use (r = .17, p < .01), indicating that the higher students’ self-perceived efficiency and motivation in CMC communication, the more likely they are to use these technologies and websites. Perceived knowledge of CMC communication was positively related to cell or smartphone use (r = .19, p < .01), game console use (r = .25, p < .001), portable gaming device use (r = .21, p < .01), social networking site use (r = .28, p < .001), Twitter use (r = .23, p < .001), and YouTube video uploading (r = .16, p < .05), indicating that the higher students’ self-perceived knowledge of CMC communication, the more likely they are to use these technologies and websites. Perceived effectiveness of CMC communication was positively related to cell or smartphone use (r = .15, p < .05), game console use (r = .19, p < .01), social networking site use (r = .31, p < .001), and Twitter use (r = .23, p < .001), indicating that the higher students’ self-perceived effectiveness of CMC communication, the more likely they are to use these technologies and websites. Perceived appropriateness of CMC communication was only significantly related to video chat use (r = −.17, p < .01), indicating that the higher students’ self-perceived appropriateness of CMC communication, the less likely they are to use video chat. Lastly, perceived attentiveness and expressiveness of CMC communication was positively related to cell or smartphone use (r = .19, p < .01), social networking site use (r = .25, p < .001), Twitter use (r = .15, p < .05), and YouTube video watching (r = .14, p < .05), indicating that the higher students’ self-perceived attentiveness and expressiveness of CMC communication, the more likely they are to use these technologies and websites. Research Question 4

450

The last research question, including RQ4a and RQ4b, inquired about how college students in Generation C describe communication competence and themselves in regard to competence. Table 7 Students’ Perceptions and Feelings about Their Own Computer-Mediated Communication Competence

M SE

Attentiveness/ expressiveness

Appropriateness

Effectiveness

Knowledge

Efficiency/ motivation

1.82a .05

1.85a .05

2.00b .04

2.13c .05

2.53d .06

Note. Wilks’ Λ = .57, F(4, 216) = 41.39, p < .001, partial η2 = .43. Means with no subscripts in common differ at p < .05 using Bonferroni post hoc comparisons.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

455

460

465

17

Qualities of competent communicators. In response to what constitutes a competent communicator, out of a list of 21 characteristics, five most important characteristics/ qualities emerged: being a good listener (selected by 62.3% of students as one of the five most important characteristics), finding it easy to get along with others (selected by 46.6% of students), being able to adapt to changing situations (selected by 45.7% of students), being relaxed and comfortable when speaking (selected by 41.7% of students), and knowing what one is talking about (selected by 41.3% of students). The characteristic/quality of a competent communicator that was selected the least often by students was using a variety of media to express oneself (selected by 18.4% of students). In general, males and females selected similar qualities as being important. However, more males (54.1%) than females (42.9%) selected finding it easy to get along with others, and more females (39.5%) than males (28.4%) selected being sensitive to others’ needs as one of the five most important characteristics. Students’ rank ordering of the descriptions of the qualities of a competent communicator are presented in Table 8, including rankings based on students’ sex. Self-reported communication competence. Students were asked a series of questions about their own self-perceived communication competence on a 5-point scale from 1 (very true of me) to 5 (not at all true of me). For the statement, “I understand how Table 8

Students’ Perceptions of the Qualities of Competent Communicators

Competent communicators … … … … … … …

are good listeners find it easy to get along with others adapt to changing situations are relaxed and comfortable when speaking know what they are talking about generally know what type of behavior is appropriate at any given time … are interested in what others have to say … treat people as individuals … do not interrupt others … are effective conversationalists … are sensitive to others’ needs of the moment … can deal with others effectively … are not afraid to speak with people in positions of authority … like to use their voice and body expressively … do not mind meeting strangers … let others know they understand them … will not argue with others to prove themselves right … are “rewarding” to talk to … generally say the right thing at the right time … like to be close and personal with people … use a variety of media to express themselves

Percent of students

Percent of females

Percent of males

62.33 46.64 45.74 41.70 41.26 39.91

61.90 42.86 46.94 44.22 42.86 40.82

63.51 54.05 43.24 35.14 37.84 37.84

39.46 39.01 37.22 35.87 35.87 35.43 33.18

42.18 39.46 36.73 38.10 39.46 34.01 33.33

33.78 37.84 36.49 31.08 28.38 37.84 32.43

28.70 26.46 25.56 25.11

28.57 24.49 25.85 25.85

27.03 28.38 24.32 22.97

23.77 22.87 22.42 18.39

21.09 22.45 21.77 18.37

28.38 22.97 21.62 17.57

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

18 470

475

480

S. Morreale et al.

communication works,” 99.1% of students (98.6% of males, 99.3% of females) responded that this was somewhat to very true for them. For the statement, “I am a fairly skilled communicator,” 96% of students (95.9% of males, 95.9% of females) responded that this was somewhat to very true for them. Furthermore, for the statement, “I am never nervous communicating with other people,” 62.8% of students (63.5% of males, 61.9% of females) responded that this was somewhat to very true for them. For the statement, “I am never nervous communicating in a group,” 63.1% (77.0% of males, 51.5% of females) responded that this was somewhat to very true for them, and for the statement, “I am very nervous about giving speeches,” 55.2% (64.9% of males, 49.7% of females) responded that this was somewhat to very true for them. Nonetheless, 72.5% of students (79.7% of males, 68.5% of females) responded that they were effective public speakers. The survey’s results now are discussed in relation to the study’s four research questions. Discussion of Results

485

490

495

500

505

510

The students’ responses on the survey related to Research Question 1, about their general communication patterns, clearly confirm they are members in good standing of Generation C, whether they know the term or not. They use cellphones, smartphones, and text messaging frequently all day, despite some of the concerns expressed in our literature review about the negative effects on academic performance (Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013; Wang et al., 2012) and on cognitive development (Mullen, 2012). Not surprisingly, they also use social media’s networking sites and YouTube frequently all day, confirming the Pew Research Center’s earlier research reports (Madden, 2013). A difference was observed in technology use, based on sex, with females favoring their cellphones and texting and males favoring computers and gaming devices. Research Question 2 probed Generation C students’ choices about how they communicate in six formal situations and relationships and in four personal situations and relationships. The students reported how they actually communicate and how they prefer to communicate in the various situations. In most of the six formal situations, students said they actually use face-face communication, texting, or social network sites. However, they use email to communicate with their instructors and professors, confirming some earlier findings about students’ ability to effectively use email communication with instructors (Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012). In personal situations and relationships, students actually communicate by texting as their choice in two out of the four situations. Interestingly, they demonstrate some rhetorical sensitivity by indicating they would break up with a romantic partner in person, and communicate with their families by phone, not text. This sensitivity is contrary to earlier studies that found students often failed to consider the impact of their medium choice on the message recipient (Levine & Dean, 2012; Turkle, 2011). Moving from students’ reports of how they actually communicate to how they would prefer to communicate, the students indicated they prefer face-to-face communication for all six of the formal situations and relationships and all four of the personal situations and relationships. This unanticipated preference for

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

19

communicating face-to-face, regardless of the situation or relationship, may indicate that students understand the benefits of this type of communication and the richness it provides (Walther & Parks, 2002). Media Richness Theory posits that communication media range from lean to rich, based on the amount of communication codes or cues they afford. In light of findings from other studies employing Media Richness Theory (see Walther, 2011), it is possible that this preference for face-to-face reflects students’ normative beliefs about media choices. Alternatively, this preference may also be explained by a social desirability bias (Paulhus, 1991). Students may think that face-to-face communication is “good behavior” or the right answer, and they want to present themselves in the most desirable light. That said, students’ reported actual use of communication technologies in four out of six formal situations and three out of four personal situations suggests they are willing to forgo the richness benefits of face-to-face communication, most likely in favor of speed and convenience. Of note, no significant differences between male and female students were reported, in actual or preferred media choices in formal situations and relationships, but females tended to use phones and texting more than males in personal situations and relationships. Research Question 3 examined Generation C students’ perceptions of their own use of communication and technology, specifically related to recognized components of communication competence (Spitzberg, 2006). In general, their responses confirmed earlier studies that found college students tend to see themselves as highly skilled at using computer technology, perhaps more skilled than, in reality, they are (Grant et al., 2009; Hendry, 2009; Staley, 2015; Thacker, 2006). Indeed, the college students in this study perceived themselves as high in computer-mediated communication competence. In descending order, they saw themselves as competent using communication technology with regard to attentiveness and expressiveness, appropriateness, effectiveness (subsuming skills), knowledge, and efficiency and motivation. This self-perception indicates that students perceive themselves to be more competent at attending to the ways that communication technologies may affect others’ feelings, in comparison with using technology knowledgeably and efficiently. In addition, these self-perceptions were positively related to their reported actual use of an array of communication technologies, except in one instance in which higher-perceived levels of appropriateness were negatively related to video chat use. Overall these results indicate that students see themselves as technologically competent, and they tend to use many, if not most, of the communication technologies available to them on a regular basis. Research Question 4 inquired about students’ descriptions of competent communication in general and what they think of themselves with regard to communication competence. Choosing from a list of 21 qualities, the students identified the top five most important characteristics of a competent communicator, with a few surprises. Being a good listener far outranked the other qualities. Perhaps the large number of mediated interactions in which students regularly engage results in feeling that they are not sufficiently “listened to.” Being “listened to” electronically can only be implied, if and when a response arrives, which may result in highly valuing this interpersonal aspect of communication competence. Moreover, such valuing aligns with the students’ reported preferences for face-to-face communication. Surprisingly,

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

20 555

560

565

570

575

580

S. Morreale et al.

being able to use a variety of media to express oneself was at the bottom of the list. Given these students are considered digital natives, we might expect that they would rank using media to communicate somewhat higher. On the other hand, perhaps they assume their abilities in this regard are sufficient and therefore of less consequence. They also may deem competence to be about choosing the best medium for a message and then using that particular medium effectively and appropriately. The latter explanation would align with their demonstration of rhetorical sensitivity (Research Question 1), in which they indicated they would break up with a romantic partner in person, and communicate with their families by phone, not text. A more practical explanation might be that the students’ parents may not use text messaging, or they may insist on phone calls in order to talk with and hear their sons’ or daughters’ voices. The only minor differences in ranking of the qualities of a competent communicator, based on students’ sex, related to females’ higher ranking of being sensitive to others’ needs. As part of Research Question 4, the students also were asked to think about their own personal characteristics as communicators. A significant number of them indicated they understand how communication works, they are fairly skilled communicators, and they are effective public speakers. These self-reflections, perhaps overestimations, may be a function of social desirability and a desire to present oneself in the best possible light, like the students’ stated preferences for face-to-face communication (Paulhus, 1991). On the other hand, their statements about communication apprehension indicated some of the students have anxiety about communicating with others, in a group and giving speeches. Both male and female students reported high levels of confidence in their knowledge and skills as communicators. However, males indicated less nervousness than females about communicating in a group and more nervousness about giving speeches than females. Despite that nervousness, the male students see themselves as effective public speakers, more so than the female students do. Limitations of the Results

585

590

595

The above reported results and the survey responses of the 223 college students need to be considered with regard to external validity (Vogt, 2005). The extent to which the findings, the students’ responses, are relevant and generalizable beyond this study may be influenced by two factors. One consideration relates to the administration of the survey electronically. It is possible that students who are competent in the use of communication technology responded in higher proportions than those less competent in the use of such technology. In addition, a response rate of 22.3% may be of some concern. Therefore, the responses of the 223 students may not be fully generalizable to other students at other institutions, to the extent desired by the researchers. Further studies conducted in other academic contexts—from a variety of institutions rather than a single institution, for example—could be used to verify the findings reported here.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

21

Conclusion and Recommendations

600

605

610

615

620

625

630

635

The findings of this study align with past studies, to some extent. Our new college students are immersed in a digital world, and they see themselves as quite competent at navigating the complexities of that world. In addition to supporting some previous scholarship, this study’s results also provide some new ways to think about our pedagogical strategies for communicating with Generation C students. We now offer some observations derived from the responses of our newest students, both in terms of how we communicate with them and in how we can use technology to enhance instruction. First, our Generation C students definitely stated a preference for communicating face-to-face, rather than using technology. One can wonder if their “preference” could more accurately be described as an attempt to give the idealized, “right” answer. For example, we might prefer to wash our hands before meals because we have been taught that this is proper, and yet, we may sometimes fail to do so. However, based on these results, we as instructors should think through our own chosen communication channels. It may not always be possible for instructors to communicate regularly with students in person, but we can keep this preference in mind and honor it when feasible to do so, particularly when messages could be misconstrued when delivered electronically. Then, the clarity and richness of electronic messages become quite important. Conversely, these students tend to communicate with their instructors and professors using email, and that tendency accords with how most of us presently are communicating with large student populations. Email appears to be the student– teacher “language” of choice at many, if not most, colleges and universities. If it is the expected medium of discourse, but if students actually text constantly and check email less frequently, perhaps we should make use of free electronic tools such as remind101.com. This service allows teachers to text students without the option of students’ texting back, and instructors sacrificing their privacy or drowning in text replies. We must also note, however, that using some of their preferred technological platforms may not strike Generation C students as appropriate. For example, requiring students to take part in a course-based Facebook page might be perceived as a “creepy treehouse” phenomenon, if it is not tied to a specific course goal or assignment. We must first examine the content of our courses and then find the best ways to teach and communicate with students, as opposed to infusing the “latest and greatest” technology because it is a tool they may like. Many college instructors do incorporate an array of technology-based pedagogical strategies in classroom instruction. In some college courses, students are gathering on social media sites and topically focused blogs to discuss course content. Clickers and text messaging and online polls (polleverywhere.com) are helping instructors assess student learning and gather students’ opinions in the classroom. The ever-present smartphone can be used as an instructional resource, as students race to find the best definition of a concept or the most relevant statistic online and then report it to the rest of the class. In addition to how we may already be using technology to teach, we

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

22 640

645

650

655

660

665

S. Morreale et al.

can be mindful of the useful research studies in our journals and at conferences, and consider how to make the best use of those pedagogical strategies. With regard to competence, the students’ ranking of good listening as the paramount quality of a competent communicator came as a surprise and certainly has ramifications for instructors. Although we all want to be listened to, in one sense, it is interesting that today’s students see the “best” communication quality as the responsibility of the listener, rather than the shared responsibility of speaker and listener. Perhaps more stress on the transactional nature of the communication process may be a good idea. Regardless, we may need to listen a bit more to what our newest students have to say. We also need to be aware if not vigilant regarding our newest students’ perceptions of themselves as knowledgeable and skilled communicators. Communication education, instruction, and curriculum can and should be used to enhance their knowledge and skills and bring those competencies to a level that matches their perceptions. Finally, scholars whose work focuses on the conceptual nature of communication competence may want to consider how best to incorporate the competent use of technology in that theoretical framework. For example, does the use of communication technology cut across all five of the descriptors and components of competence described by Spitzberg (2000), or should it perhaps stand alone as a sixth component? In a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, fittingly entitled “Confronting the Myth of the Digital Native,” a well-informed scholar/teacher suggested we are making too many assumptions about our Millennial and Generation C students (O’Neil, April 25, 2014). According to this researcher, just growing up with digital media does not mean young people are automatically digitally savvy and, from our perspective, competent communicators. O’Neil’s observations support earlier research, as well as the findings of this study, and illustrate the need for continuing the dialogue about teaching and learning and communication competence in our shared discipline. References

670

675

680

Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. L. (2012). “You are such a great teacher and I hate to bother you but …”: Instructors’ perceptions of students’ and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61, 253–270. Bunz, U., & Montez, D. (in press). Computer-mediated communication competence. In P. Cobley & P. J. Schulz (Eds.), Handbooks of communication science series. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Center for Education Statistics: Fast Facts. (2013). Enrollment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustments to college. Internet and High Education, 15, 15–23. doi:10.1016/j/ojedic/2011.05.009

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes

685

690

695

700

705

710

715

720

725

730

23

Donovan, L. A., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2004). Age and sex differences in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self-perceived competence. Communication Research Reports, 21, 420–427. Friedrich, R., Peterson, M., & Koster, A. (2011). The rise of Generation C. Strategy+Business. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/11110?gko=64e54 Grant, D. M., Malloy, A. D., & Murphy, M C. (2009). A comparison of student perceptions of their computer skills to their actual abilities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8. Retrieved from http://jite.org/documents/Vol8/JITEv8p141–160Grant428.pdf Hannawa, A., & Spitzberg, B. H. (Eds.). (in press). Communication competence. In P. Cobley & P. J. Schulz (Eds.), Handbooks of communication science series. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Hendry, E. (2009, July 20). Students may not be as software-savvy as they think, study says. The Wired Campus: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/ blogPost/Students-May-Not-Be-as/7276 Horrigan, J. B., Boase, J., Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2006). The strength of Internet ties: The Internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.pdf Hosein, A., Ramanau, R., & Jones, C. (2010). Learning and living technologies: A longitudinal study of first-year students’ frequency and competence in the use of ICT. Learning, Media, and Technology, 35, 403–418. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.529913 Jan, T. (2011, April 24). Tangled in an endless web of distractions. Boston.com. Retrieved from http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-24/news/29469460_1_mit-social-networking-laptops Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54, 722–732. Jones, J. B. (2010, March 9). The creepy treehouse problem. The Chronicle of Higher Education: ProfHacker. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-creepy-treehouseproblem/23027 Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2002/PIP_College_Report.pdf.pdf Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, T. (2013) The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning, Communication Education, 62, 233–252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.767917 Lederman, D. (2012, August 21). Confounded by contradictions. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/21/study-examines-contradictions-definetodays-young-people Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_ Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope: A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499–523. Madden, M. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TeensandTechnology2013.pdf McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5, 108–113. Moeller, L., Minasian, P., Cainey, A., Sabbagh, K., Mohssen, T., Wallace, V., … de Souza, I. (2013). The rise of generation c: Implications for the world of 2020. Cleveland, OH: Booze & CO. Retrieved from http://www.prospective.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Rise_Of_ Generation_C.pdf

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

24

735

740

745

750

755

760

765

770

775

780

S. Morreale et al.

Morreale, S., Backlund, P., Hay, E., & Moore, M. (2011). A major review of the assessment of oral communication. Communication Education, 60, 255–278. Morreale, S., & Staley, C. (in press). A qualitative study of first-year college student Perceptions of communication and computer-mediated communication technologies: Implications for faculty, staff, and administrators. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Morreale, S. P. (2013). Student communication competence (revised for online publication). In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Washington, DC: Blackwell Publishing. Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57, 224–240. Mullen, J. K. (2012). Digital natives slow to pick up on nonverbal cues. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/digital_natives_are_slow_to_pi.html?referral= 00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_ daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 107–112. O’Keefe, G. S., Clarke-Pearson, K., & The Council of Communications and Media. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127, 800–804. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800.full.pdf O’Neil, M. (April 25, 2014). Confronting the myth of the “digital native.” The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Digital Campus, pp. B4-B5. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measures and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pew Research Internet Project: College Students and Technology. (July 2012). Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/students-may-not-be-as-software-savvy-asthey-think-studysays/7276 Read, B. (2009, July 20). Students may not be as software savvy as they think, study says. The Wired Campus: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ wiredcampus/students-may-not-be-as-software-savvy-asthey-think-study-says/7276 Richtel, M. (2010, June 6). Attached to technology and paying a price. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (January, 2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http:// www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf Robinson, S., & Stubberud, H. (2012). Communication preferences among university students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16, 105–113. Rubin, R. B. (1990). Communication Competence. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Speech Communication: Essays to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Speech Communication Association (pp. 94–129). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rubin, C. (2013, September 27). Technology and the college generation. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/fashion/technology-and-the-collegegeneration.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1393794425-mRa70DMlEMPZL B0W9vc7iA Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education, 32, 323–329. doi:10.1080/03634528309378550 Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). What is good communication? Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 103–119. Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666.

{RCED}Articles/RCED978799/RCED_A_978799_O.3d 3rd November 2014 15:0:39

First-Year College Students’ Attitudes 785

790

795

800

805

25

Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10, 575 599. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00033.x Staley, C. (2015). FOCUS on college success (4th ed.), Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Thacker, P. (2006, November 15). Are college students techno idiots? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/15/infolit Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Vogt, P. W. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wang, Y. K., Wei, F. Y., & Klausner, M. (2012). Rethinking college students’ self-regulation and sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive learning? Communication Education, 61, 185–204. Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195–213. Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185–199. Wright, C. N. (2012). Educational orientation and upward influence: An examination of students’ conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 611, 271–289. Yang, C., & Brown, B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents. Youth Adolescence, 42, 403–416. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x