- Email: [email protected]
Academic achievement at the cost of ambition: The mixed results of a supportive, interactive environment on socially anxious teenagers
Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Academic achievement at the cost of ambition: The mixed results of a supportive, interactive environment on socially anxious teenagers Kyla A. Machell a, Dan V. Blalock a, Todd B. Kashdan a,⁎, Mantak Yuen b a b
George Mason University, United States University of Hong Kong, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 July 2015 Received in revised form 23 September 2015 Accepted 6 October 2015 Available online 22 October 2015 Keywords: Social anxiety Academic achievement Classroom climate Ambition
a b s t r a c t Social anxiety impacts functional impairment in several life domains; in children, the most notable effect is a decline in academic performance. Socially anxious children report that communicating with peers and teachers, as well as public speaking are their biggest fears in academic settings. Prior research has shown that these children attribute a lack of academic achievement to difficulties communicating interpersonally or publicly. For apprehensive children, many resources are devoted to interventions at the individual level, with little consideration given to their environment — the classroom. The current study examined the association between communication apprehension, social features of the classroom environment, and academic outcomes — current achievement and future ambitions. Three out of four classroom environmental factors (promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support) buffered the negative effects of communication apprehension on current academic achievement. Interestingly, these same factors increased the negative effects of communication apprehension on future academic ambition (intentions to attend college). Implications for the mixed results of a classroom environment that encourages communication are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The ability to communicate confidently and effectively is one of the driving forces of academic and occupational success. As social beings, communication is essential for navigating and extracting benefits from the world around us. When communication is impaired, it is more difficult to excel in social contexts such as the school environment (McCroskey, 1977). In this paper, we explore the impact of communication apprehension on adolescents' academic achievement and ambition, and consider how features of the classroom might influence these relationships. 1.1. Communication and academics Impaired social interactions are characteristic of social anxiety disorder (Alden & Taylor, 2004), one of the most prevalent psychological conditions among adolescents (Merikangas et al., 2010). Social anxiety is linked to impairment in multiple domains, but perhaps most importantly for adolescents, causes dysfunction in the school environment. In a sample of individuals with social anxiety disorder, 91% reported school impairment, citing poor grades due to lack of participation,
avoidance of classes that require public speaking, and even instances of transferring to another university to avoid presentations (Turner, Beidel, Borden, Stanley, & Jacob, 1991). In another sample of patients with any anxiety disorder, 49% reported leaving school prematurely, and of those that left, 24% indicated anxiety as the primary reason. “Problems speaking in front of the class” and “feeling too nervous in school and in class” were the two most highly endorsed reasons for not enjoying school (Van Ameringen, Mancini, & Farvolden, 2003). This research suggests communication apprehension may be one mechanism for academic impairments associated with anxiety disorders. Communication apprehension is an “internal cognitive state centered around the fear of communicating with others” (Richmond & McCrosky, 1985, p.29). This apprehension can interfere with academic functioning in several ways. Students with communication apprehension prefer larger classes with less interaction, are less likely to speak with teachers, enjoy school less, and earn lower grades than their non-apprehensive peers (McCroskey, 1977). Communication apprehension is also associated with increased rates of school dropout (Monroe, Borzi, & Burrell, 1992). Communication apprehension in the classroom setting appears to negatively affect both academic achievement (i.e., grades) and ambition (i.e., desire/plans to stay in school). 1.2. Classroom environment and academics
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, MS 3F5, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.B. Kashdan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.018 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Given the evidence demonstrating the academic impairments linked with communication apprehension, it is essential to explore potential
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
buffering factors. The classroom environment may be one such factor. The classroom is an inherently social environment with students learning alongside peers. Arguably, impairments in communication disrupt social processes linked to standardized learning and result in decreased academic achievement and ambition. It is possible that classroom environmental factors could minimize this disruption, leading to greater achievement and ambition. Indeed, research suggests that certain qualities of classrooms and teachers can promote healthy student outcomes. Classrooms that promote social self-efficacy (defined as confidence about communicating with teachers/students) are linked to academic engagement (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). Overall, positive classroom environment is also associated with academic and social self-efficacy, engagement, and motivation (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Four specific features of the classroom may influence social processes involved in learning and student performance and persistence on academic tasks (Ryan & Patrick, 2001): promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, promoting performance goals, and teacher support. Of these dimensions, teacher support has received the most scientific attention. Student perceptions of teacher support are linked with more interest and enjoyment in schoolwork and greater academic achievement (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011) and motivation (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Supportive teachers may be especially important for apprehensive students, who struggle with school engagement and enjoyment. Research also suggests that promoting interaction and mutual respect lead to better academic outcomes, while promoting performance leads to worse outcomes. In classrooms that promote positive interactions, students are more engaged (Patrick et al., 2007), report a greater sense of belonging, and view school as more valuable (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Alternatively, students who perceive their classrooms to emphasize competition and performance place less value on school, report less school belonging, and participate less, which in turn leads to lower academic achievement (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Promoting positive interactions and respect, rather than competition and performance, may be a key classroom feature that can improve academic outcomes for apprehensive students.
1.3. The present study The present study examined relationships between communication apprehension, classroom social environment, and academic achievement and ambition in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents. We explored whether a positive classroom environment mitigates the adverse effects of communication apprehension on academic achievement and ambition. Specifically, 1) when students perceive their classrooms as supportive and promoting interaction and respect, we expect a weaker, negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic outcomes; 2) when students perceive their classrooms to promote performance and comparison, we expect a stronger, negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic outcomes.
2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample was obtained from 13 classes in Hong Kong secondary schools. In international comparisons, the scores of Hong Kong students are among the highest for mathematics, reading, and science (PISA; OECD, 2013). Participants included 407 high school students (43% female; mean age = 16.8, SD = 1.30).Seventy-three percent of the students were born in Hong Kong. The majority of students (89%) came from schools that taught in Chinese, with the remaining (11%) from schools that taught in English.
167
2.2. Measures Scales were adapted using translation and back-translation procedures by the fourth author and a team of professional translators. The items were further refined by an expert panel of school psychologists, counselors, and teachers with experience working with high school students. 2.2.1. Predictors 2.2.1.1. Communication apprehension. Communication apprehension was measured using the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PCRA; McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985), a 24-item scale assessing trait apprehension about communicating with others. The PCRA produces subscales assessing communication apprehension in four contexts: group discussions, meetings, interpersonal conversations, and public speaking. The original validation studies indicated sufficient evidence for construct and predictive validity (McCroskey, 1978). Only the interpersonal conversation and public speaking subscales were used. The group discussion and meeting subscales were omitted, both because they are less relevant to the classroom, and because previous research has not supported these factors as separable in Asian samples (Pribyl, Keaten, Sakamoto, & Koshikawa, 1998). The interpersonal conversation subscale consists of the three positively worded items from the original PCRA (three reverse-scored items were omitted; see results section for details). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to three items: 1) While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous; 2) Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations; 3) I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. Similarly, the public speaking subscale's three positively worded items were: 1) Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech; 2) My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech; 3) When giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. 2.2.1.2. Classroom social environment. The Classroom Social Environment Scale (My class-teacher version, Ryan & Patrick, 2001) measured student perceptions of classroom social environment. This 24-item scale assesses student perceptions of four aspects of the classroom: the degree to which the class teacher promotes interaction, respect, performance, and levels of teacher support. Students responded on a 5-point Likert scale to items such as, “My class-teacher would like my classmates to respect each other.” Each subscale has been shown to be reliable and valid across different samples of US adolescents (Patrick & Ryan, 2005). 2.2.2. Outcomes 2.2.2.1. Academic achievement. Students completed face-valid items about their academic performance. Students were asked to review their recent report card prior to responding. First, using a 6-point Likert scale, students provided information on their grades with “6” representing an “A”, “5” representing a “B”, and so on. This variable was normally distributed, with the majority of students (65%) reporting their recent grades as “C” or “D”. Second, they rated their overall academic performance by placing themselves in one of five categories when compared to their classmates: top 10%, above average, about average, lower than average, and bottom 10%. Responses to this question were normally distributed, with most students placing themselves in the “average” categories (81%), and fewer students rating themselves in the top (5%) or bottom (14%) categories. 2.2.2.2. Academic ambition. Students reported on their intentions to attend university by answering either “yes” or “no” to: “Do you have
168
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
plans to study at university?” Two hundred six students (51%) responded affirmatively. 2.2.3. Covariates 2.2.3.1. Overall school quality. Students reported on perceptions of school quality by rating the degree to which schools “valued and offered academic challenges” using a 6-point Likert scale. This variable was normally distributed, with the majority of students (63%) rating the overall academic quality of their school as “slightly bad” or “slightly good.” 2.2.3.2. Self-efficacy. The 10-item generalized self-efficacy scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) assessed students' global sense of personal competence and ability to cope effectively with a variety of demanding situations. Students responded to items such as “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” on a 4-point Likert scale. Previous studies established construct validity through associations between GSE and constructs such as behaviorspecific self-efficacy, well-being, and coping strategies (e.g., Kashdan & Yuen, 2007). These associations remain consistent across countries and samples (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). 2.3. Procedure Approval to collect data was secured through school principals and letters of consent sent to parents. Classes were randomly selected from each of the three participating schools. Students didn't receive extra credit or compensation for participation, and were informed that the purpose of the study was to investigate adolescent development. Classroom teachers administered survey questionnaires in Chinese during regular class time. 3. Results Table 1 displays descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and alpha coefficients. 3.1. Measurement models We evaluated the psychometric properties of the translated scales by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of classroom social
Table 1 Descriptive statistics. Mean
SD
α
2.66 3.24
0.72 0.80
.67 .76
3.39 3.39 2.97 2.96
0.55 0.61 0.53 0.71
.78 .76 .65 .78
Covariates General self-efficacy Overall school quality
23.32 3.23
5.41 1.11
.90 NA
Outcomes Overall academic performance Recent grades
2.74 2.95
1.07 1.01
NA NA
N
%
206 182
51% 45%
Predictors Interpersonal CA Public speaking CA Classroom social environment Promoting interaction Promoting respect Promoting performance Teacher support
Intentions to attend university Yes No
environment (CSE), and general self-efficacy (GSE). In addition, we conducted an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of communication apprehension (CA). The measurement models yielded good fit for both the CSE (RMSEA = .07, 95% CI [.03, .08]; CFI = .88) and GSE (RMSEA = .09, 95% CI [.06, .12]; CFI = .95), suggesting that they are appropriate for this sample. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Table 1). Initial EFA results using oblique (Promax) rotation confirmed that previous research suggesting group discussion and meeting subscales were not separable factors in cross-cultural samples (Pribyl et al., 1998). Two factors emerged: one factor represented the meeting, group discussion, and interpersonal conversation subscales (31% variance explained), and another representing the public speaking subscale (7% variance explained). Interpersonal conversations and public speaking should be more relevant to the classroom experiences of this student sample, and thus were the only subscales used. Although the original PCRA contained reverse-coded items, research has shown reverse-coded items reduce the validity of responses (Schriesheim & Hill, 1981), especially when measuring constructs like anxiety, where reverse-scored items show questionable reliability and validity for the absence of anxiety (Rodebaugh, Woods, & Heimberg, 2007). Thus, we retained only positively-scored items. A CFA on the 2factor structure of these six positively-scored items confirmed excellent fit (RMSEA = .00, 95% CI [.00, .02]; CFI = 1.00). Even with only three items, the Interpersonal Conversation and Public Speaking subscales both demonstrated good internal consistency (Table 1). 3.2. Communication apprehension and classroom social environment as predictors of academic achievement and ambition With satisfactory measurement models, we examined bivariate relationships (Table 2) between CA, CSE, and academic outcomes. As expected, the two CA subscales were positively related (r = .41, p b .01) and both were significantly negatively related to academic outcomes. Of the four CSE subscales, only promoting interaction and teacher support were positively related to academic outcomes. We also considered the potential role of overall school quality and general self-efficacy: because both are conceptually and statistically linked with both our predictors and some outcomes of interest, all models control for these variables to provide a conservative test of the effects of classroom environment on the relationships between communication apprehension and academics. 3.2.1. The student-classroom interaction We examined whether classroom social environment moderated relations between communication apprehension and academic achievement and ambition. The data were conceptualized as hierarchically nested (e.g. students within classrooms) and analyzed with multilevel models using HLM 6.08 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004). Analyses followed procedures recommended by Nezlek (2011). All models included overall school quality and general self-efficacy as covariates, meaning significant moderation effects are above and beyond the contributions of school quality and self-efficacy. For the binary academic ambition variable, we conducted logistic regressions using Bernoulli models. For convenience and comparison, for all statistically significant moderation effects, the probing of simple effects (as recommended by Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006) are displayed in Table 3.1 3.2.1.1. When the classroom promotes interaction. Student's perceptions of the extent to which their teachers promoted interaction moderated
NA
CA = Communication Apprehension; higher scores indicate more apprehension. Higher scores on academic variables indicate better performance. α = Cronbach's alpha.
1 As gender often interacts with classroom variables, we also tested separate models with only gender and it's interaction with the effects we were interested in. Even with these very liberal models, allowing gender and any interactions to explain the most variance possible, neither the main effect of gender nor interaction with any of our predictors was significant.
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
169
Table 2 Bivariate correlations. 1
2
3
4
5
6
Predictors 1 Interpersonal CA 2 Public speaking CA 3 CSE: promoting interaction 4 CSE: promoting respect 5 CSE: promoting performance 6 CSE: teacher support
7
8
– .41⁎⁎ −.07 −.05 .09 −.03
– −.01 −.07 −.02 −.12⁎
– .69⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎
– .19⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎
– .15⁎
–
Covariates 7 General self-efficacy 8 Overall school quality
−.20⁎⁎ −.06
−.28⁎⁎ −.12⁎
.11⁎ .25⁎⁎
.10 .16⁎⁎
.25⁎⁎ .11⁎
.13⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎
– .05
–
Outcomes 9 Overall academic performance 10 Recent grades 11 Intentions to attend university
.01 −.06 −.18⁎⁎
−.01 −.12⁎ −.06
.02 .09 .14⁎⁎
.10⁎ .08 .04
−.09 −.04 −.09
.09 .13⁎⁎ .09
.03 .15⁎⁎ −.02
.08 .29⁎⁎ .03
9
10
11
– −.57⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎
– .19⁎⁎
–
CA = Communication Apprehension; CSE = Classroom Social Environment. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .08, t = 1.67, p = .050), overall academic performance (β = .13, t = 2.78, p = .006), and intentions to attend university Table 3 Simple effects for significant moderated regressions. CSE moderator
Relationship moderated
Promoting interaction −1SD +1SD Promoting interaction
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
−1SD +1SD Promoting interaction −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD
β
se
−0.15† 0.08
.09 .09
−0.17† 0.20†
.10 .10
−0.27 −0.87⁎⁎⁎
.20 .23
−0.17† 0.09
.09 .09
−0.20† 0.21⁎
.10 .10
−0.26 −0.87⁎⁎⁎
.20 .23
−0.20⁎ 0.03
.09 .08
−0.12 0.11
.10 .09
−0.22⁎ 0.14
.09 .09
−0.13 0.14
.10 .10
−0.15 −1.05⁎
.20 .23
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Public Speaking CA–Recent grades
Public Speaking CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Note. The probing of each simple effect included general self-efficacy and overall school quality as covariates. CA = Communication Apprehension; CSE = Classroom Social Environment. ^ = Bernoulli models. † p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
(β = −.25, OR = .78, p = .027), controlling for school quality and selfefficacy. Promoting interaction did not impact relationships between public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .10). 3.2.1.2. When the classroom promotes respect. Promoting respect moderated the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .10, t = 2.11, p = .035), overall academic performance (β = .15, t = 3.00, p = .003), and intentions to attend university (β = −.27, OR = .76, p = .021). Promoting respect also moderated the relationship between public speaking apprehension and recent grades (β = .10, t = 2.12, p = .034) and overall academic performance (β = .10, t = 1.97, p = .049). Promoting respect did not affect the link between public speaking apprehension and students' intentions to attend university (p = .22). 3.2.1.3. When the classroom promotes performance. Promoting performance did not impact relationships between interpersonal conversation apprehension or public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .10). 3.2.1.4. When the classroom teacher is supportive. Teacher support moderated the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .13, t = 3.09, p = .003), overall academic performance (β = .10, t = 2.04, p = .002), and intentions to attend university (β = −.30, OR = .74, p = .002), controlling for school quality and self-efficacy. Teacher support did not affect relationships between public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .20). Three aspects of the classroom environment seem to be important for reducing the adverse effects of communication apprehension: promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support. Although separating the classroom environment into four categories increased the number of interactions, 46% of these analyses were significant. We retained this separation to be interpretable to both scientists and practitioners with an interest in particular teacher behaviors. While a latent factor might have led to fewer analyses, the cost would be a decrease in interpretability. For interpersonal conversation apprehension, all of the positive classroom factors were important; for public speaking apprehension, promoting respect was the only protective aspect of the classroom environment. There were no significant interactions between communication apprehension and promoting performance. When observing simple slopes, a negative classroom environment consistently yields a significant or marginally significant negative relationship between communication apprehension and achievement. However, a positive classroom environment consistently yields an absence of this relationship. Interestingly, this same positive classroom environment yielded a
170
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition. A negative classroom environment yielded no relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition. 4. Discussion The current study examined relationships between communication apprehension, classroom social environment, and academic achievement and ambition in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents. Consistent with hypotheses, positive classroom social environment diminished the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic achievement. Contrary to expectations, positive classroom environment did not buffer against the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic ambition. In fact, these positive classroom factors decreased apprehensive students' intentions to pursue further schooling. These findings suggest that a positive classroom environment helps apprehensive students' achievement but harms their ambition. 4.1. When the classroom environment helps achievement The current results indicate that a positive classroom social environment can buffer against the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic achievement. This is consistent with past research suggesting that these positive classroom variables promote student engagement and participation (e.g., Ryan & Patrick, 2001). A positive classroom social environment seems to be especially beneficial for students who are hesitant to communicate with others. While all three aspects of a positive classroom environment (promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support) benefited students with high levels of interpersonal conversation apprehension, promoting respect was the most important for helping students with high levels of public speaking apprehension. A positive classroom social environment may be beneficial for apprehensive students because it may mitigate one of the potential mechanisms of academic impairments — lack of participation (McCroskey, 1977). Environments that are supportive and promote respect may increase participation of apprehensive students, thereby facilitating learning and resulting in better achievement. Importantly, our results indicated that promoting performance in classrooms did not improve apprehensive students' achievement. Taken together, these findings suggest that achievement can be improved in some students with an emphasis on other factors besides performance. In other words, consideration of individual differences can help maximize the learning environment. 4.2. When the classroom environment harms ambition The current results indicate that promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support strengthen the negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition (plans to attend university). At first glance, this is counterintuitive. However, it is possible apprehensive students may be achieving more and at the same time are more distressed. People with social anxiety use avoidance strategies to minimize distress (Kashdan et al., 2013), and often these behaviors lead to poorer academic achievement (Nurmi, Aunola, Salmela-Aro, & Lindroos, 2003). Students with communication apprehension likely use similar strategies to avoid interacting with peers and teachers. If these avoidance strategies are minimized by a classroom environment that promotes interactions among students and teachers, both achievement and distress may increase. This increased distress may cause adolescents to not want to “put themselves through this” again in a future university setting. Does this mean we must choose between classrooms that either promote achievement or ambition? Or can the culture of classrooms work to enhance both? A better understanding of how/why a supportive, interactive classroom decreases ambition among apprehensive students
may offer insight into nuanced interventions. One possibility is that these classrooms remove anxious students' primary strategy for reducing distress (avoidance, lack of participation) without providing replacement coping strategies. In other words, a positive classroom may increase demands on anxious students without providing the tools necessary to manage the associated distress. If so, it makes sense that these students would not have the ambition to voluntarily continue with schooling. However, if adaptive emotion regulation strategies can be taught to apprehensive students, perhaps they would better manage the increased social demands of an interactive classroom without suffering decreases in ambition. There is a substantial literature on school-based programs to promote social and emotional learning (SEL). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that SEL programs have significant positive effects on social– emotional competencies and school adjustment (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Our findings underscore the value of integrated approaches that target both the classroom environment and the coping skills of individual students. If interventions to promote supportive, interactive classrooms were implemented in conjunction with SEL programs to provide students with social–emotional skills, perhaps we would observe increases in anxious students' achievement without decreases in ambition. 4.3. Limitations and future directions Our findings should be interpreted alongside important limitations. First, using self-reported academic variables could result in inflated or inaccurate measurement (Tonetti, Natale, & Randler, 2015). That the self-reported distributions mirror what objective academic data typically looks like (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005) provides some evidence of honest responding. However, future research should replicate these findings with objective academic indicators. The role of culture should also be acknowledged when considering implications of this study. Research has demonstrated that Asian samples tend to report higher levels of communication apprehension than U.S. samples (Hsu, 2004; Zhang, Butler, & Pryor, 1996). Popular explanations for these differences use the framework of individualism–collectivism to suggest that variations in cultural orientations toward extraversion and individuality are responsible for differing levels of communication apprehension, which may result in different levels and types of associated impairment depending on the cultural context (Hsu, 2004). Findings should be replicated in additional samples to increase generalizability across cultures. In addition to establishing generalizability, future research should consider how other classroom and teacher factors, such as teacher gender, might influence these relationships. 4.4. Conclusion This study highlights the influential role of the classroom environment for academic outcomes of apprehensive students. Dimensions of the classroom social context can improve achievement for students who may otherwise struggle to reach their full potential. While results are promising, it seems that we have yet to unlock the key to improving academic ambition for those same students. Tremendous resources are spent on interventions at the individual level for students suffering from anxiety and related conditions, but our findings demonstrate the value of also focusing on improving the classroom climate. Understanding people in context, and adopting a similar contextual lens for interventions, are the most ecologically valid way to change young adult lives. References Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2004). Interpersonal processes in social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 857–882.
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. Hsu, C. F. (2004). Sources of differences in communication apprehension between Chinese in Taiwan and Americans. Communication Quarterly, 52, 370–389. Kashdan, T. B., & Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on the learning environment of their school: A study of Hong Kong adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 260–270. Kashdan, T. B., Farmer, A., Adams, L., Ferssizidis, P., McKnight, P. E., & Nezlek, J. B. (2013). Distinguishing healthy adults from people with social anxiety disorder: Evidence for the value of experiential avoidance and positive emotions in everyday social interactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 645–655. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 439–457. McCroskey, J. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communications Monographs, 45, 192–203. McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173. Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., ... Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980–989. Monroe, C., Borzi, M. G., & Burrell, R. D. (1992). Communication apprehension among high school dropouts. The School Counselor, 39, 273–280. Nezlek, J. B. (2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Nurmi, J. E., Aunola, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lindroos, M. (2003). The role of success expectation and task-avoidance in academic performance and satisfaction: Three studies on antecedents, consequences and correlates. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 59–90. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264190511-en. Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Identifying adaptive classrooms: Dimensions of the classroom social environment. In K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 271–287). New York: Springer.
171
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J. A., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F. (1998). Assessing the crosscultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24). Japanese Psychological Research, 40, 47–53. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Richmond, V., & McCroskey, J. (1985). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Grousch Scazisbrick. Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38, 192–206. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437–460. Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101–1114. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON: Windsor, England. Tonetti, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2015). Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiology International, 32, 792–801. Turner, S., Beidel, D., Borden, J., Stanley, M., & Jacob, R. (1991). Social phobia: Axis I and II correlates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 102–106. Van Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., & Farvolden, P. (2003). The impact of anxiety disorders on educational achievement. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 561–571. Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–662. Zhang, Y., Butler, J., & Pryor, B. (1996). Comparison of apprehension about communication in China and the United States. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82 1168–11.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Academic achievement at the cost of ambition: The mixed results of a supportive, interactive environment on socially anxious teenagers Kyla A. Machell a, Dan V. Blalock a, Todd B. Kashdan a,⁎, Mantak Yuen b a b
George Mason University, United States University of Hong Kong, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 July 2015 Received in revised form 23 September 2015 Accepted 6 October 2015 Available online 22 October 2015 Keywords: Social anxiety Academic achievement Classroom climate Ambition
a b s t r a c t Social anxiety impacts functional impairment in several life domains; in children, the most notable effect is a decline in academic performance. Socially anxious children report that communicating with peers and teachers, as well as public speaking are their biggest fears in academic settings. Prior research has shown that these children attribute a lack of academic achievement to difficulties communicating interpersonally or publicly. For apprehensive children, many resources are devoted to interventions at the individual level, with little consideration given to their environment — the classroom. The current study examined the association between communication apprehension, social features of the classroom environment, and academic outcomes — current achievement and future ambitions. Three out of four classroom environmental factors (promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support) buffered the negative effects of communication apprehension on current academic achievement. Interestingly, these same factors increased the negative effects of communication apprehension on future academic ambition (intentions to attend college). Implications for the mixed results of a classroom environment that encourages communication are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The ability to communicate confidently and effectively is one of the driving forces of academic and occupational success. As social beings, communication is essential for navigating and extracting benefits from the world around us. When communication is impaired, it is more difficult to excel in social contexts such as the school environment (McCroskey, 1977). In this paper, we explore the impact of communication apprehension on adolescents' academic achievement and ambition, and consider how features of the classroom might influence these relationships. 1.1. Communication and academics Impaired social interactions are characteristic of social anxiety disorder (Alden & Taylor, 2004), one of the most prevalent psychological conditions among adolescents (Merikangas et al., 2010). Social anxiety is linked to impairment in multiple domains, but perhaps most importantly for adolescents, causes dysfunction in the school environment. In a sample of individuals with social anxiety disorder, 91% reported school impairment, citing poor grades due to lack of participation,
avoidance of classes that require public speaking, and even instances of transferring to another university to avoid presentations (Turner, Beidel, Borden, Stanley, & Jacob, 1991). In another sample of patients with any anxiety disorder, 49% reported leaving school prematurely, and of those that left, 24% indicated anxiety as the primary reason. “Problems speaking in front of the class” and “feeling too nervous in school and in class” were the two most highly endorsed reasons for not enjoying school (Van Ameringen, Mancini, & Farvolden, 2003). This research suggests communication apprehension may be one mechanism for academic impairments associated with anxiety disorders. Communication apprehension is an “internal cognitive state centered around the fear of communicating with others” (Richmond & McCrosky, 1985, p.29). This apprehension can interfere with academic functioning in several ways. Students with communication apprehension prefer larger classes with less interaction, are less likely to speak with teachers, enjoy school less, and earn lower grades than their non-apprehensive peers (McCroskey, 1977). Communication apprehension is also associated with increased rates of school dropout (Monroe, Borzi, & Burrell, 1992). Communication apprehension in the classroom setting appears to negatively affect both academic achievement (i.e., grades) and ambition (i.e., desire/plans to stay in school). 1.2. Classroom environment and academics
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, MS 3F5, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.B. Kashdan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.018 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Given the evidence demonstrating the academic impairments linked with communication apprehension, it is essential to explore potential
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
buffering factors. The classroom environment may be one such factor. The classroom is an inherently social environment with students learning alongside peers. Arguably, impairments in communication disrupt social processes linked to standardized learning and result in decreased academic achievement and ambition. It is possible that classroom environmental factors could minimize this disruption, leading to greater achievement and ambition. Indeed, research suggests that certain qualities of classrooms and teachers can promote healthy student outcomes. Classrooms that promote social self-efficacy (defined as confidence about communicating with teachers/students) are linked to academic engagement (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). Overall, positive classroom environment is also associated with academic and social self-efficacy, engagement, and motivation (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Four specific features of the classroom may influence social processes involved in learning and student performance and persistence on academic tasks (Ryan & Patrick, 2001): promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, promoting performance goals, and teacher support. Of these dimensions, teacher support has received the most scientific attention. Student perceptions of teacher support are linked with more interest and enjoyment in schoolwork and greater academic achievement (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011) and motivation (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Supportive teachers may be especially important for apprehensive students, who struggle with school engagement and enjoyment. Research also suggests that promoting interaction and mutual respect lead to better academic outcomes, while promoting performance leads to worse outcomes. In classrooms that promote positive interactions, students are more engaged (Patrick et al., 2007), report a greater sense of belonging, and view school as more valuable (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Alternatively, students who perceive their classrooms to emphasize competition and performance place less value on school, report less school belonging, and participate less, which in turn leads to lower academic achievement (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Promoting positive interactions and respect, rather than competition and performance, may be a key classroom feature that can improve academic outcomes for apprehensive students.
1.3. The present study The present study examined relationships between communication apprehension, classroom social environment, and academic achievement and ambition in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents. We explored whether a positive classroom environment mitigates the adverse effects of communication apprehension on academic achievement and ambition. Specifically, 1) when students perceive their classrooms as supportive and promoting interaction and respect, we expect a weaker, negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic outcomes; 2) when students perceive their classrooms to promote performance and comparison, we expect a stronger, negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic outcomes.
2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample was obtained from 13 classes in Hong Kong secondary schools. In international comparisons, the scores of Hong Kong students are among the highest for mathematics, reading, and science (PISA; OECD, 2013). Participants included 407 high school students (43% female; mean age = 16.8, SD = 1.30).Seventy-three percent of the students were born in Hong Kong. The majority of students (89%) came from schools that taught in Chinese, with the remaining (11%) from schools that taught in English.
167
2.2. Measures Scales were adapted using translation and back-translation procedures by the fourth author and a team of professional translators. The items were further refined by an expert panel of school psychologists, counselors, and teachers with experience working with high school students. 2.2.1. Predictors 2.2.1.1. Communication apprehension. Communication apprehension was measured using the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PCRA; McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985), a 24-item scale assessing trait apprehension about communicating with others. The PCRA produces subscales assessing communication apprehension in four contexts: group discussions, meetings, interpersonal conversations, and public speaking. The original validation studies indicated sufficient evidence for construct and predictive validity (McCroskey, 1978). Only the interpersonal conversation and public speaking subscales were used. The group discussion and meeting subscales were omitted, both because they are less relevant to the classroom, and because previous research has not supported these factors as separable in Asian samples (Pribyl, Keaten, Sakamoto, & Koshikawa, 1998). The interpersonal conversation subscale consists of the three positively worded items from the original PCRA (three reverse-scored items were omitted; see results section for details). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to three items: 1) While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous; 2) Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations; 3) I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. Similarly, the public speaking subscale's three positively worded items were: 1) Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech; 2) My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech; 3) When giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. 2.2.1.2. Classroom social environment. The Classroom Social Environment Scale (My class-teacher version, Ryan & Patrick, 2001) measured student perceptions of classroom social environment. This 24-item scale assesses student perceptions of four aspects of the classroom: the degree to which the class teacher promotes interaction, respect, performance, and levels of teacher support. Students responded on a 5-point Likert scale to items such as, “My class-teacher would like my classmates to respect each other.” Each subscale has been shown to be reliable and valid across different samples of US adolescents (Patrick & Ryan, 2005). 2.2.2. Outcomes 2.2.2.1. Academic achievement. Students completed face-valid items about their academic performance. Students were asked to review their recent report card prior to responding. First, using a 6-point Likert scale, students provided information on their grades with “6” representing an “A”, “5” representing a “B”, and so on. This variable was normally distributed, with the majority of students (65%) reporting their recent grades as “C” or “D”. Second, they rated their overall academic performance by placing themselves in one of five categories when compared to their classmates: top 10%, above average, about average, lower than average, and bottom 10%. Responses to this question were normally distributed, with most students placing themselves in the “average” categories (81%), and fewer students rating themselves in the top (5%) or bottom (14%) categories. 2.2.2.2. Academic ambition. Students reported on their intentions to attend university by answering either “yes” or “no” to: “Do you have
168
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
plans to study at university?” Two hundred six students (51%) responded affirmatively. 2.2.3. Covariates 2.2.3.1. Overall school quality. Students reported on perceptions of school quality by rating the degree to which schools “valued and offered academic challenges” using a 6-point Likert scale. This variable was normally distributed, with the majority of students (63%) rating the overall academic quality of their school as “slightly bad” or “slightly good.” 2.2.3.2. Self-efficacy. The 10-item generalized self-efficacy scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) assessed students' global sense of personal competence and ability to cope effectively with a variety of demanding situations. Students responded to items such as “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” on a 4-point Likert scale. Previous studies established construct validity through associations between GSE and constructs such as behaviorspecific self-efficacy, well-being, and coping strategies (e.g., Kashdan & Yuen, 2007). These associations remain consistent across countries and samples (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). 2.3. Procedure Approval to collect data was secured through school principals and letters of consent sent to parents. Classes were randomly selected from each of the three participating schools. Students didn't receive extra credit or compensation for participation, and were informed that the purpose of the study was to investigate adolescent development. Classroom teachers administered survey questionnaires in Chinese during regular class time. 3. Results Table 1 displays descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and alpha coefficients. 3.1. Measurement models We evaluated the psychometric properties of the translated scales by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of classroom social
Table 1 Descriptive statistics. Mean
SD
α
2.66 3.24
0.72 0.80
.67 .76
3.39 3.39 2.97 2.96
0.55 0.61 0.53 0.71
.78 .76 .65 .78
Covariates General self-efficacy Overall school quality
23.32 3.23
5.41 1.11
.90 NA
Outcomes Overall academic performance Recent grades
2.74 2.95
1.07 1.01
NA NA
N
%
206 182
51% 45%
Predictors Interpersonal CA Public speaking CA Classroom social environment Promoting interaction Promoting respect Promoting performance Teacher support
Intentions to attend university Yes No
environment (CSE), and general self-efficacy (GSE). In addition, we conducted an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of communication apprehension (CA). The measurement models yielded good fit for both the CSE (RMSEA = .07, 95% CI [.03, .08]; CFI = .88) and GSE (RMSEA = .09, 95% CI [.06, .12]; CFI = .95), suggesting that they are appropriate for this sample. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Table 1). Initial EFA results using oblique (Promax) rotation confirmed that previous research suggesting group discussion and meeting subscales were not separable factors in cross-cultural samples (Pribyl et al., 1998). Two factors emerged: one factor represented the meeting, group discussion, and interpersonal conversation subscales (31% variance explained), and another representing the public speaking subscale (7% variance explained). Interpersonal conversations and public speaking should be more relevant to the classroom experiences of this student sample, and thus were the only subscales used. Although the original PCRA contained reverse-coded items, research has shown reverse-coded items reduce the validity of responses (Schriesheim & Hill, 1981), especially when measuring constructs like anxiety, where reverse-scored items show questionable reliability and validity for the absence of anxiety (Rodebaugh, Woods, & Heimberg, 2007). Thus, we retained only positively-scored items. A CFA on the 2factor structure of these six positively-scored items confirmed excellent fit (RMSEA = .00, 95% CI [.00, .02]; CFI = 1.00). Even with only three items, the Interpersonal Conversation and Public Speaking subscales both demonstrated good internal consistency (Table 1). 3.2. Communication apprehension and classroom social environment as predictors of academic achievement and ambition With satisfactory measurement models, we examined bivariate relationships (Table 2) between CA, CSE, and academic outcomes. As expected, the two CA subscales were positively related (r = .41, p b .01) and both were significantly negatively related to academic outcomes. Of the four CSE subscales, only promoting interaction and teacher support were positively related to academic outcomes. We also considered the potential role of overall school quality and general self-efficacy: because both are conceptually and statistically linked with both our predictors and some outcomes of interest, all models control for these variables to provide a conservative test of the effects of classroom environment on the relationships between communication apprehension and academics. 3.2.1. The student-classroom interaction We examined whether classroom social environment moderated relations between communication apprehension and academic achievement and ambition. The data were conceptualized as hierarchically nested (e.g. students within classrooms) and analyzed with multilevel models using HLM 6.08 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004). Analyses followed procedures recommended by Nezlek (2011). All models included overall school quality and general self-efficacy as covariates, meaning significant moderation effects are above and beyond the contributions of school quality and self-efficacy. For the binary academic ambition variable, we conducted logistic regressions using Bernoulli models. For convenience and comparison, for all statistically significant moderation effects, the probing of simple effects (as recommended by Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006) are displayed in Table 3.1 3.2.1.1. When the classroom promotes interaction. Student's perceptions of the extent to which their teachers promoted interaction moderated
NA
CA = Communication Apprehension; higher scores indicate more apprehension. Higher scores on academic variables indicate better performance. α = Cronbach's alpha.
1 As gender often interacts with classroom variables, we also tested separate models with only gender and it's interaction with the effects we were interested in. Even with these very liberal models, allowing gender and any interactions to explain the most variance possible, neither the main effect of gender nor interaction with any of our predictors was significant.
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
169
Table 2 Bivariate correlations. 1
2
3
4
5
6
Predictors 1 Interpersonal CA 2 Public speaking CA 3 CSE: promoting interaction 4 CSE: promoting respect 5 CSE: promoting performance 6 CSE: teacher support
7
8
– .41⁎⁎ −.07 −.05 .09 −.03
– −.01 −.07 −.02 −.12⁎
– .69⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎
– .19⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎
– .15⁎
–
Covariates 7 General self-efficacy 8 Overall school quality
−.20⁎⁎ −.06
−.28⁎⁎ −.12⁎
.11⁎ .25⁎⁎
.10 .16⁎⁎
.25⁎⁎ .11⁎
.13⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎
– .05
–
Outcomes 9 Overall academic performance 10 Recent grades 11 Intentions to attend university
.01 −.06 −.18⁎⁎
−.01 −.12⁎ −.06
.02 .09 .14⁎⁎
.10⁎ .08 .04
−.09 −.04 −.09
.09 .13⁎⁎ .09
.03 .15⁎⁎ −.02
.08 .29⁎⁎ .03
9
10
11
– −.57⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎
– .19⁎⁎
–
CA = Communication Apprehension; CSE = Classroom Social Environment. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .08, t = 1.67, p = .050), overall academic performance (β = .13, t = 2.78, p = .006), and intentions to attend university Table 3 Simple effects for significant moderated regressions. CSE moderator
Relationship moderated
Promoting interaction −1SD +1SD Promoting interaction
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
−1SD +1SD Promoting interaction −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Promoting respect −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD Teacher support −1SD +1SD
β
se
−0.15† 0.08
.09 .09
−0.17† 0.20†
.10 .10
−0.27 −0.87⁎⁎⁎
.20 .23
−0.17† 0.09
.09 .09
−0.20† 0.21⁎
.10 .10
−0.26 −0.87⁎⁎⁎
.20 .23
−0.20⁎ 0.03
.09 .08
−0.12 0.11
.10 .09
−0.22⁎ 0.14
.09 .09
−0.13 0.14
.10 .10
−0.15 −1.05⁎
.20 .23
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Public Speaking CA–Recent grades
Public Speaking CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Recent grades
Interpersonal CA–Overall academic performance
Interpersonal CA–Intention to attend university^
Note. The probing of each simple effect included general self-efficacy and overall school quality as covariates. CA = Communication Apprehension; CSE = Classroom Social Environment. ^ = Bernoulli models. † p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
(β = −.25, OR = .78, p = .027), controlling for school quality and selfefficacy. Promoting interaction did not impact relationships between public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .10). 3.2.1.2. When the classroom promotes respect. Promoting respect moderated the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .10, t = 2.11, p = .035), overall academic performance (β = .15, t = 3.00, p = .003), and intentions to attend university (β = −.27, OR = .76, p = .021). Promoting respect also moderated the relationship between public speaking apprehension and recent grades (β = .10, t = 2.12, p = .034) and overall academic performance (β = .10, t = 1.97, p = .049). Promoting respect did not affect the link between public speaking apprehension and students' intentions to attend university (p = .22). 3.2.1.3. When the classroom promotes performance. Promoting performance did not impact relationships between interpersonal conversation apprehension or public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .10). 3.2.1.4. When the classroom teacher is supportive. Teacher support moderated the relationship between interpersonal conversation apprehension and recent grades (β = .13, t = 3.09, p = .003), overall academic performance (β = .10, t = 2.04, p = .002), and intentions to attend university (β = −.30, OR = .74, p = .002), controlling for school quality and self-efficacy. Teacher support did not affect relationships between public speaking apprehension and academic outcomes (ps N .20). Three aspects of the classroom environment seem to be important for reducing the adverse effects of communication apprehension: promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support. Although separating the classroom environment into four categories increased the number of interactions, 46% of these analyses were significant. We retained this separation to be interpretable to both scientists and practitioners with an interest in particular teacher behaviors. While a latent factor might have led to fewer analyses, the cost would be a decrease in interpretability. For interpersonal conversation apprehension, all of the positive classroom factors were important; for public speaking apprehension, promoting respect was the only protective aspect of the classroom environment. There were no significant interactions between communication apprehension and promoting performance. When observing simple slopes, a negative classroom environment consistently yields a significant or marginally significant negative relationship between communication apprehension and achievement. However, a positive classroom environment consistently yields an absence of this relationship. Interestingly, this same positive classroom environment yielded a
170
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171
negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition. A negative classroom environment yielded no relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition. 4. Discussion The current study examined relationships between communication apprehension, classroom social environment, and academic achievement and ambition in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents. Consistent with hypotheses, positive classroom social environment diminished the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic achievement. Contrary to expectations, positive classroom environment did not buffer against the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic ambition. In fact, these positive classroom factors decreased apprehensive students' intentions to pursue further schooling. These findings suggest that a positive classroom environment helps apprehensive students' achievement but harms their ambition. 4.1. When the classroom environment helps achievement The current results indicate that a positive classroom social environment can buffer against the negative impact of communication apprehension on academic achievement. This is consistent with past research suggesting that these positive classroom variables promote student engagement and participation (e.g., Ryan & Patrick, 2001). A positive classroom social environment seems to be especially beneficial for students who are hesitant to communicate with others. While all three aspects of a positive classroom environment (promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support) benefited students with high levels of interpersonal conversation apprehension, promoting respect was the most important for helping students with high levels of public speaking apprehension. A positive classroom social environment may be beneficial for apprehensive students because it may mitigate one of the potential mechanisms of academic impairments — lack of participation (McCroskey, 1977). Environments that are supportive and promote respect may increase participation of apprehensive students, thereby facilitating learning and resulting in better achievement. Importantly, our results indicated that promoting performance in classrooms did not improve apprehensive students' achievement. Taken together, these findings suggest that achievement can be improved in some students with an emphasis on other factors besides performance. In other words, consideration of individual differences can help maximize the learning environment. 4.2. When the classroom environment harms ambition The current results indicate that promoting interaction, promoting respect, and teacher support strengthen the negative relationship between communication apprehension and academic ambition (plans to attend university). At first glance, this is counterintuitive. However, it is possible apprehensive students may be achieving more and at the same time are more distressed. People with social anxiety use avoidance strategies to minimize distress (Kashdan et al., 2013), and often these behaviors lead to poorer academic achievement (Nurmi, Aunola, Salmela-Aro, & Lindroos, 2003). Students with communication apprehension likely use similar strategies to avoid interacting with peers and teachers. If these avoidance strategies are minimized by a classroom environment that promotes interactions among students and teachers, both achievement and distress may increase. This increased distress may cause adolescents to not want to “put themselves through this” again in a future university setting. Does this mean we must choose between classrooms that either promote achievement or ambition? Or can the culture of classrooms work to enhance both? A better understanding of how/why a supportive, interactive classroom decreases ambition among apprehensive students
may offer insight into nuanced interventions. One possibility is that these classrooms remove anxious students' primary strategy for reducing distress (avoidance, lack of participation) without providing replacement coping strategies. In other words, a positive classroom may increase demands on anxious students without providing the tools necessary to manage the associated distress. If so, it makes sense that these students would not have the ambition to voluntarily continue with schooling. However, if adaptive emotion regulation strategies can be taught to apprehensive students, perhaps they would better manage the increased social demands of an interactive classroom without suffering decreases in ambition. There is a substantial literature on school-based programs to promote social and emotional learning (SEL). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that SEL programs have significant positive effects on social– emotional competencies and school adjustment (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Our findings underscore the value of integrated approaches that target both the classroom environment and the coping skills of individual students. If interventions to promote supportive, interactive classrooms were implemented in conjunction with SEL programs to provide students with social–emotional skills, perhaps we would observe increases in anxious students' achievement without decreases in ambition. 4.3. Limitations and future directions Our findings should be interpreted alongside important limitations. First, using self-reported academic variables could result in inflated or inaccurate measurement (Tonetti, Natale, & Randler, 2015). That the self-reported distributions mirror what objective academic data typically looks like (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005) provides some evidence of honest responding. However, future research should replicate these findings with objective academic indicators. The role of culture should also be acknowledged when considering implications of this study. Research has demonstrated that Asian samples tend to report higher levels of communication apprehension than U.S. samples (Hsu, 2004; Zhang, Butler, & Pryor, 1996). Popular explanations for these differences use the framework of individualism–collectivism to suggest that variations in cultural orientations toward extraversion and individuality are responsible for differing levels of communication apprehension, which may result in different levels and types of associated impairment depending on the cultural context (Hsu, 2004). Findings should be replicated in additional samples to increase generalizability across cultures. In addition to establishing generalizability, future research should consider how other classroom and teacher factors, such as teacher gender, might influence these relationships. 4.4. Conclusion This study highlights the influential role of the classroom environment for academic outcomes of apprehensive students. Dimensions of the classroom social context can improve achievement for students who may otherwise struggle to reach their full potential. While results are promising, it seems that we have yet to unlock the key to improving academic ambition for those same students. Tremendous resources are spent on interventions at the individual level for students suffering from anxiety and related conditions, but our findings demonstrate the value of also focusing on improving the classroom climate. Understanding people in context, and adopting a similar contextual lens for interventions, are the most ecologically valid way to change young adult lives. References Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2004). Interpersonal processes in social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 857–882.
K.A. Machell et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 166–171 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. Hsu, C. F. (2004). Sources of differences in communication apprehension between Chinese in Taiwan and Americans. Communication Quarterly, 52, 370–389. Kashdan, T. B., & Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on the learning environment of their school: A study of Hong Kong adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 260–270. Kashdan, T. B., Farmer, A., Adams, L., Ferssizidis, P., McKnight, P. E., & Nezlek, J. B. (2013). Distinguishing healthy adults from people with social anxiety disorder: Evidence for the value of experiential avoidance and positive emotions in everyday social interactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 645–655. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 439–457. McCroskey, J. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communications Monographs, 45, 192–203. McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173. Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., ... Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980–989. Monroe, C., Borzi, M. G., & Burrell, R. D. (1992). Communication apprehension among high school dropouts. The School Counselor, 39, 273–280. Nezlek, J. B. (2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Nurmi, J. E., Aunola, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lindroos, M. (2003). The role of success expectation and task-avoidance in academic performance and satisfaction: Three studies on antecedents, consequences and correlates. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 59–90. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264190511-en. Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Identifying adaptive classrooms: Dimensions of the classroom social environment. In K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 271–287). New York: Springer.
171
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J. A., Sakamoto, M., & Koshikawa, F. (1998). Assessing the crosscultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24). Japanese Psychological Research, 40, 47–53. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Richmond, V., & McCroskey, J. (1985). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Grousch Scazisbrick. Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38, 192–206. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437–460. Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101–1114. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON: Windsor, England. Tonetti, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2015). Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiology International, 32, 792–801. Turner, S., Beidel, D., Borden, J., Stanley, M., & Jacob, R. (1991). Social phobia: Axis I and II correlates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 102–106. Van Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., & Farvolden, P. (2003). The impact of anxiety disorders on educational achievement. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 561–571. Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–662. Zhang, Y., Butler, J., & Pryor, B. (1996). Comparison of apprehension about communication in China and the United States. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82 1168–11.