Improving Communication Style Awareness in a Teacher Preparation Program
Sandy S. Venneman *
School of Arts and Sciences, Departments of Psychology and Biology, University of Houston-Victoria, USA.
Jane Devick Fry
School of Education and Human Development, Assistant Dean, University of Houston-Victoria, USA.
Mary Mayaorga
College of Education and Human Development; Counseling, Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, USA.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Aims: Teacher communication can positively or negatively influence student performance. The ability to be flexible in style increases successful communication but requires a high degree of self-awareness. The purpose of this initial investigation was two fold. First, to examine potential shifts in student teacher’s preferred communication styles dependent upon participation in a Communication Styles Workshop using an existing program (HRDQ). Second, to initiate a dialogue regarding a potential need to infuse Communication Styles awareness into educator preparation program curricula.
Study Design: A quazi-experimental design approved by the University of Houston-Victoria Human Subjects Committee was used to determine if participants changed their communication style preference after exploring the benefits of different styles.
Place and Duration of Study: Two sections of a teacher preparation program conducted at two locations near Houston Texas were employed to create the experimental and control groups.
Methodology: Forty-six student teachers (37 female, 3 male, 6 unspecified, ages 20-60) participated in intact groups, one being the experimental and the second the control group. The Communication Styles Assessment (HRDQ) defined participant’s communication styles the start (pre-test) and end (post-test) of a semester. The experimental group participated in a series of exercises exploring communication styles while the control group participated in the regular curriculum.
Results: Two-tailed paired sample t-tests (p<.05) were employed to examine pre to post-test preference differences for communication style preferences with-in groups. A significant increase in the preference for the most beneficial style (t=2.05 (df 24) p=.05 and a significant decrease in preference for the least efficacious style t=2.35 (df 24) p=.03 was seen in the experimental group, but not in the control group.
Conclusion: Higher education educator preparation programs should consider infusion of research-based communication curriculum into coursework that may help encourage a classroom environment supportive of learning and student achievement.
Keywords: Communication style, educator preparationc, classroom climate, student-teacher relationship, quazi-experiment.