M. Chad McBride, Erika L. Kirby, Karla Mason Bergen, Shawn T. Wahl, Stephanie Norander, and Tucker Robinson

14Social Identities in the Classroom

Abstract: When instructors and students enter the classroom, they bring with them (multiple) social identities that influence classroom interaction. A social identity perspective toward instructional communication allows for exploring how interactions in the classroom are impacted by social group similarities and differences between students and their instructor (and vice versa). Being mindful of both social identity categories and intersectionality, we consider the role of multiple social identity categories and the implications of these identities for the people who claim the category, as well for others who “label” them as a part of a particular group. In particular, we look at the social identity(s) of students and instructors as tied to sex/gender, race/ethnicity, age, social class, sexual orientation, and disability. In each section, we review and evaluate relevant research and propose future directions for research in the area of social identity in the education setting.

Keywords: social identity, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, age, nontraditional students, social class, first-generation college student, sexual orientation, disability

Social identification is the process by which people define themselves – and by which others define them – into terms and categories that are shared with other people (see Deaux, 2001; Harwood, 2006). When operating at the level of social identity, behaviors are understood and judged in terms of group memberships. Many forms of social identity exist; when such “differences” are considered, typical categories are gender/sex, race/ethnicity, social class, sexuality, ability, and age (see Allen, 2011b). A social identity perspective highlights how communication dynamics are influenced by group identities. Furthermore, communication also constructs and shapes the meanings of particular social identities by “raising or lowering the salience [importance] of particular group identifications and constructing the meaning of groups for members and nonmembers” (Harwood, 2006, p. 88). Thus, social identity(s) have implications not only for the person(s) who claim the social identity, but also for others who see them as members of particular categories (see Deaux, 2001).

Social identity cannot be fully understood outside of the notion of intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the specific conditions that exist when we hold in tension two or more of a person’s social identities, recognizing that these conditions are inextricably bound together in the individual’s life. In other words, differences function in intersection since all individuals are comprised of multiple social identities. An analogy derived from Lorde’s (1984) metaphor of “ingredients” is to think of the multiple facets of social identity as colored pencils. Imagine a person (stereotypically) starts by coloring assigned sex at birth as pink or blue, then colors over that with gender (perhaps in purple), then colors over that with a shade near their skin tone, then colors yellow over that to illustrate their social class, and so forth. Then, if they “want to just concentrate on showing the purple-ness of your gender … purple has been combined with pink/blue, a shade of brown, and yellow – and so you can not just take it back without erasing everything … the ingredients intersect and are inextricably linked” (Kirby & McBride, 2009, p. xix).

Clearly, social identities influence the classroom; “group identities and intergroup processes play a role in classroom behavior” (Edwards & Harwood, 2003, p. 64). A social identity perspective toward instructional communication allows for exploring how interactions in the classroom are impacted by social group similarities (and differences) between themselves and their instructor (and vice versa). Being mindful of both social identity categories and intersectionality, in this chapter, we consider the role of multiple social identity categories and the implications of these identities for the people who claim the category as well for others who “label” them as a part of a particular group. In particular, we look at the social identity(s) of students and instructors as tied to sex/ gender, race/ethnicity, age, social class, sexual orientation, and disability. It is important to note that much of the scholarship we reviewed focuses on U.S. American classrooms (although not exclusively), as that is where much of the research was conducted. We then close with a critical reflection of this literature (including a discussion of theory) and a call for future research in the area of social identity and the classroom.

Sex/ Gender

Sex and gender may be the most salient aspects of our identity. Although the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, they have very distinct meanings (Wood & Dindia, 1998). Sex is assigned at birth and references the biological distinctions between individuals, commonly understood as a male-female dichotomy (although there are a small percentage of intersexed individuals who display the characteristics of both). These biological distinctions are based on the genetic composition of an individual’s X and Y chromosomes and genitalia. Gender encapsulates behaviorally-manifested characteristics described as masculine or feminine, based on culturally-accepted norms for men and women. Although we typically expect women to act in feminine ways and men to act in masculine ways, we also know that there are feminine men and masculine women. The term androgynous is used to describe the gender of individuals who behave in a mix of traditionally masculine and feminine ways.

Horan, Houser, and Cowan (2007) noted the terms sex and gender are commonly misunderstood and thus often (mistakenly) used interchangeably – instructional communication researchers have also sometimes been guilty of using the terms interchangeably. Issues of sex and gender have come into play in instructional communication research most commonly by using biological sex (designations of male or female) as a variable, seeking to explain either instructor characteristics and behavior or student characteristics and behavior.

This section focuses on instructional communication research that explores social identity markers of biological sex and gender in regard to instructor communication characteristics and behaviors and then in regard to student characteristics and behaviors. The amount of instructional communication research focused directly on matters of sex and gender is relatively small, and some of the reviewed research does not use either term in the title. A common scenario is for biological sex (the research participant’s chosen designation of male or female) to be correlated with another variable. There are, however, a few researchers who have examined the effects of both sex and gender, such as Aylor’s (2009) work on the perceived importance of teacher communication skills.

Instructor Characteristics and Behaviors

As noted, when sex (or gender) is used in instructional research, it commonly functions as an independent variable. Much of the instructional research focusing on instructor characteristics and behaviors seeks to attribute differences to the sex or gender of the instructor – sometimes interacting with the sex or gender of students. Three major instructor characteristics and behaviors of interest in regard to sex/ gender differences include instructor credibility, students’ perceptions of instructors in evaluations, and instructor communication skills. All of these characteristics are studied almost exclusively through variable analytic research.

Instructor credibility

Instructor credibility is a widely studied characteristic in instructional communication research due to its impact on student learning (McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004; see also Teven & Katt, this volume). A number of instructional scholars have studied the relationship of sex/gender to instructor credibility. Patton (1999) used gender as a primary variable, examining the impact of ethnicity and gender on instructor credibility in the university classroom. However, gender was operationalized as a male or female instructor, so this was essentially a study of sex differences. Interestingly, Patton found no differences in instructor credibility between male and female college instructors. Glascock and Ruggiero (2006) also failed to find correlations between either instructor or student sex and perceptions of instructor credibility. Schrodt and Turman (2005) studied the impact of three variables: instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on student’s perceptions of instructor credibility. They found that there was no evidence of sex differences moderating the relationship between instructor technology use and instructor credibility and only a small difference between male and female students’ perceptions of instructor competence and caring. Canary and Hause (1993) argued against studying sex differences because a large body of research has documented that sex differences, if existent, are usually small, and these studies cited seem to bear this out.

Rather than focusing on sex differences, Pope and Chapa (2008) sought to examine the relationship between instructor gender, student gender, and instructor credibility. Perceived gender for both instructors and students was determined using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). They found that student participants who perceived the instructor as androgynous rated the instructor as more credible than student participants perceiving the instructor as feminine, masculine or undifferentiated. As argued by Rocca (2010), gender may be a better predictor of instructor differences and student outcomes than biological sex.

Instructor evaluations

Instructor evaluations reflect an instructor’s image from the students’ perspective, and communication scholars have studied the effect of both sex and gender on instructor evaluations. Smith, Yoo, Farr, Salmon, and Miller (2007) examined the influence of both student sex and instructor sex on nearly 12,000 communication students’ evaluations of their instructors on five dimensions. The authors found that both male and female students rated their female instructors significantly higher than their male instructors, and that female students rated their instructors, regardless of instructor sex, significantly higher than male students. Bachen, McLoughlin, and Garcia (1999) assessed the role of gender in nearly 500 college students’ evaluations of faculty in a mixed-methods study, examining whether gendered expectations influenced how students evaluated faculty. Bachen et al. found an interaction effect between students’ sex and instructors’ sex: female students rated female professors significantly higher than male professors; there were no significant differences of male students’ ratings between male and female professors.

Instructor communication behaviors

Witt and Wheeless (2001) observed that “communication behaviors employed by teachers play a strategic role in student learning outcomes” (p. 327). Instructional scholars have investigated the role of sex/gender within the areas of instructor immediacy and other instructor communication skills.

Immediacy behaviors can be defined as verbal and nonverbal communication acts that increase perceptions of closeness between instructors and students (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Instructor immediacy is important because it is positively associated with perceived student learning (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). A number of communication scholars have examined sex and gender differences in student perceptions of instructor immediacy, with somewhat mixed findings.

Frymier and Houser (2000) examined the association of teachers’ communication skills and immediacy behaviors with students’ perceptions of importance, motivation, and learning. One of their goals was to learn if there were any differences in the perceptions of male and female students. The female students in this study did, in fact, perceive both the instructors’ communication skills and immediacy behaviors to be more important than did male students. Grellhesl, Smith, and Punyanunt-Carter (2011) studied student perceptions of graduate teaching assistant (GTA) immediacy behaviors and found that male students perceived their male GTAs to have higher immediacy behaviors, whereas female students rated their female GTAs as higher on immediacy behaviors. This finding may be because men and women are somewhat better at reading the nonverbal cues of their own sex, possibly due to normative gender stereotypes. Gendrin and Rucker (2002) explored how student sex affected perceptions of instructor immediacy and student motivation to learn in the classroom at a historically black college. They found that the relationship between immediacy and motivation to learn did not differ for black men and black women.

Rester and Edwards (2007) studied the effects of professor and student sex and setting (classroom, professor’s office, or student center) on students’ reports of instructors’ excessive immediacy. There was a significant main effect for sex in that students were more likely to interpret male professors’ excessive immediacy as sexual harassment, but interpret female professors’ excessive immediacy as caring. The effect was greater in the out-of-classroom settings. Given the seriousness of the nature of sexual harassment between instructors and students, this study demonstrates an unusually practical application of sex difference research. Findley and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) investigated the impact of gender (operationalized as a male or female instructor) on students’ perceptions of the instructors’ nonverbal communication in the classroom. They found only a few differences between male and female students’ perceptions of instructor nonverbal behaviors. One of the interesting differences they did find was that students associated female instructors’ smiling with their own feeling of contentment during class, consistent with normative cultural expectations for feminine behavior.

Aylor’s (2003) study of the effect of sex, gender, and cognitive complexity examined the relationship of these three variables on what he termed “perceived importance of teacher communication skills” (p. 496), defined as eight aspects of instructor communication in interaction with students (e.g., conversational skill, comforting skill, and conflict management skill) that previous research had found were important to students (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Although these communication skills are not exactly the same as previously defined immediacy behaviors, Frymier and Houser observed that there is some overlap; for example, conversational skills and comforting skills on the part of the instructor are logically related to perceptions of psychological closeness. Importantly, Aylor found that gender was a more powerful predictor than sex for six of the eight teacher communication skills.

Instructor verbal aggression

In contrast to the literature on primarily positive instructor behaviors, Myers (2001) explored the topic of instructor verbal aggression, defined as “a message that attacks a person’s self-concept” (p. 355). Instructor verbal aggression is important because it is negatively correlated with instructor credibility. Myers and Knox (1999) explored whether there were sex differences in the perceived use of verbal aggression in the classroom by instructors. They found that overall, use of verbally aggressive messages by instructors was infrequent, but that male instructors used some types of verbally aggressive messages (swearing, teasing, and ridicule) more than female instructors. This finding is unsurprising given cultural norms in the United States regarding the expression of emotion for men and women. As one can see, the instructional communication research studying the role of sex and gender in instructor communication has been largely a body of work investigating sex differences.

Student Characteristics and Behaviors

Probably the largest student outcome that has been of interest to instructional communication researchers is student learning, as it is the ultimate goal of teaching. In addition to learning as an outcome, student affect, communication apprehension, (un)willingness to talk in class, and student speaker characteristics have also received attention in relation to sex and/ or gender.

Student learning

Although McCroskey et al. (2004) identified cognitive and affective learning as two key desired outcomes of instructional communication, only a few studies have looked directly at the influence of sex/ gender. Menzel and Carrell (1999) theorized that there might be an interaction effect between instructor sex and student sex. Indeed, they found that male students reported they learned more from male professors and female students reported they learned more from female professors, but the effect was mediated by the instructor’s verbal immediacy. In contrast, using a sample of black students from a Historically Black College or University (HBCU),Gendrin and Rucker (2002) found no difference in learning outcomes for men and women, although their participants’ learning was better predicted by nonverbal (rather than verbal) immediacy. The findings of these two studies, similar to other studies, showed biological sex to be a poor predictor on its own.

Student affect

Bloom and colleagues (Bloom,1956; Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) considered affect to be an appreciation for the importance or relevance of content material, positive feelings toward the learning experience, and a continued interest in and high value placed on what was learned, resulting in the likelihood of applying the information or employing the behaviors recommended. As such, it has been a topic of study for instructional scholars due to its correlation to student learning. Turman and Schrodt (2005) examined the influence of instructor technology use, course designs, and instructor/ student biological sex on student affect. They found that there were no significant differences in student affect for male and female instructors across three different levels of technology use. The Affective Learning Model (Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996) posits that student affective learning mediates the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning, a proposition confirmed through meta-analysis (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006). Using this model, Findley and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) asked students to identify their emotions invoked by particular instructor nonverbal behaviors. By and large, there were few differences between the emotions reported by male and female students, but there were some differences in the specific instructor nonverbal behaviors of male and female instructors that were linked with student feelings of contentment and nervousness. In order to maximize positive student affect in the classroom, instructors might want to be aware of the more highly valued nonverbal behaviors associated with being male or female. Increasing positive student affect is an important part of promoting student learning.

Communication apprehension/(Un)willingness to communicate

Communication apprehension (CA) and related concepts have been a major area of study within the discipline of instructional communication (see McCroskey, Teven, Minielli, & Richmond McCroskey, 2014 for a review). Communication apprehension is defined as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with [others]” (McCroskey, 1977, as cited in Pearson, Child, DeGreeff, Semlak, & Burnett, 2011, p. 219), whereas (un)willingness to communicate (WTC) “is a predisposition representing a chronic tendency to avoid and/ or devalue oral communication” (Pearson et al., 2011, p. 219). The two concepts are related and highly correlated, but not synonymous. However, due to their conceptual similarity, we group them together here.

Donovan and MacIntyre (2004) investigated the role of age and sex on CA and WTC using students of both sexes divided into three age groups: junior high, high school, and college. Among junior high and high school students, they found no sex differences in CA, but they found college-age women to have higher CA than college-age men. Junior high females showed greater WTC than junior high males, but there were no sex differences for the other age groups on WTC. Of course, this WTC measure applies to all contexts of communication, not simply communication in the classroom. Menzel and Carrell (1999) found that neither sex of student or instructor (although they called it “gender”) affected students’ willingness to talk in class.

Pearson et al. (2011) examined the influence of biological sex, self-esteem, and CA on WTC of college students and found that women experienced communication in general as more rewarding than men, and women were also more willing to communicate. They suggested that it would also be helpful to assess students’ gender types rather than just biological sex, as they note that men and women are typically socialized to communicate in different ways. Thus, these differences in attitudes toward communication may really be a function of gender rather than biological sex.

Student speaker competency/Evaluation/Grades

Instructional communication scholars have studied a variety of topics relating to student speakers and considered sex an important variable. Pearson and colleagues found female students achieve higher levels of public speaking competency than do male students while controlling for a variety of other factors (Pearson, Child, Herakova, Semlak, & Angelos, 2011). They also found that biological sex helps explain differences in grades earned in public speaking courses (Pearson et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2011); consistent with other research, their findings suggest it is likely that female students are “more attentive students and earn higher grades overall” (Pearson et al., 2008, p. 402). For example, the female students in Campbell, Eichhorn, Basch, & Wolf’s (2009) study of 672 college students reported higher levels of effort and higher grade point averages than male students.

In contrast to Pearson et al.’s studies (2008, 2011), Sellnow and Treinen (2004) did not find female student speakers to be rated higher within the public speaking classroom context. They examined the role of gender (operationalized as biological sex) in perceptions of student speaker competence via the analysis of student peer critiques and found that while speaker sex did not seem to influence the overall ratings given by peer evaluators, it did influence the types of comments given. However, the types of comments did not vary by the sex of the peer evaluator. The authors observe that (their sample of) public speaking classrooms seems to be immune to gender-bias. Taken along with the findings of Pearson and colleagues’ studies that consistently find women out-performing men in the college public speaking classroom, it is interesting that Sellnow and Treinen found no significant differences in ratings by speaker sex.

Student instructional dissent

Instructional dissent is the “communication of disagreement” by students in regard to practices and policies in the classroom (Goodboy, 2011, p. 298). Goodboy (2012) specifically studied student sex differences in instructional dissent and how instructor sex might affect that dissent. He found that students expressed more instructional dissent (especially vengeful dissent) toward male instructors than female instructors. Additionally, female students reported communicating more expressive dissent than male students, and male students reported communicating more rhetorical and vengeful dissent than female students. These findings fit with the cultural norms for expression of emotion, with anger being seen as more acceptable for males to express; however, the author noted that the sex of the student explained only a small part of students’ use of instructional dissent.

Overall, studies have found few sex differences in classroom interaction, and when they exist they are usually small; indeed, they are responsible for only about one percent of the variance across many types of communication behavior (Canary & Hause, 1993). As a whole, this body of research illustrates that focusing on sex differences may provide less insight than research involving gender when it comes to understanding student and instructor experiences in the classroom. Additionally, much of this research focuses on American classrooms, and more work should be done to examine what, if any, differences there are in other cultural classrooms.

Race/ Ethnicity

The concept of race is, in actuality, a social construct. In other words, from a sociocultural standpoint, students and instructors do not have an inherent racial identity apart from how those in the classroom (and out of it) talk about issues of race and what it means to be of a particular race (Allen, 2011a, 2011b; Kirby, 2011). Some instructional scholars use the word race in their research, whereas others use other words or concepts to capture these differences among people. For example, ethnicity is a cultural, ancestral, or national identification (Banks, 1987) that is sometimes used interchangeably with the term race. Also related is the term nationality, which most often refers to a place where an individual was born or which one identifies as homeland. Sometimes all three of these suggest the same concept, and at other times they denote different shades of one’s social identity. For example, a student may be ethnically Hispanic and may identify her nationality as a citizen of the United States. As we highlight some of the ways these constructs have been studied in the classroom, we will use the definitional/descriptive terms regarding race/ ethnicity/ nationality that the researchers chose for their particular projects. In this section we will focus on two distinct approaches to instructional communication research: studies of cross-cultural comparisons between American classroom communication and that of other countries, and intercultural studies about racial/ethnic attitudes and interactions within college classrooms.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons

The first research perspective addresses classroom communication in the United States as compared with that of other countries. For example, in comparative studies between U.S. and Chinese classrooms, Goodboy, Bolkan, Beebe, and Shultz (2010) identified differences between American and Chinese students’ use of behavioral alteration techniques and affinity-seeking strategies. In a study of American and Chinese students, Mortenson (2006) found that both American and Chinese students associated failure with feelings of disappointment and frustration (rather than embarrassment or shame) and coped with the distress in similar ways (e.g., seeking social support with goal-based emotions); however, Chinese students “showed a significantly weaker association between academic distress and seeking emotional support, but a stronger association between association between distress and avoidant self-coping” (p. 141) than American students. Zhang, Zhang, and Castelluccio (2011) examined student resistance in response to their U.S. and Chinese instructor misbehaviors and perceptions of credibility, concluding that U.S. students had more resistance due to instructor indolence and incompetence, whereas Chinese students only had resistance due to teacher offensiveness. Further, of the three dimensions of credibility, only instructor trustworthiness and competence predicted U.S. student resistance, and trustworthiness predicted Chinese student resistance. Cross-cultural research has shown that American and Korean students experience different communication motives and levels of satisfaction with their instructors (Mansson & Lee, 2014). Confirming the impact of local culture on classroom communication, it was found that Korean students studying in their home country perceived instructors to have greater decision-making authority and less verbal and nonverbal immediacy compared to Korean students studying in the United States (Park, Lee, Yun, & Kim, 2009). Finally, Roach and Byrne (2001) compared American and German classrooms in their examination of instructor power and its impact on affective and cognitive learning and student ratings of instruction. They found that American instructors were rated significantly higher in power use, affinity-seeking, and nonverbal immediacy than German instructors, resulting in significantly higher perceptions of cognitive learning by U.S. students (compared to German students). Together, these studies show that among the often studied variables in instructional literature, there are some cultural differences between instructors and students in different countries.

Another dimension of cross-cultural research involves college students who pursue higher education outside their own country. For example, Wadsworth, Hecht, and Jung (2008) employed empirical research methods and applied the communication theory of identity to assess the social and educational experiences of international students studying in the United States. They examined the impact of acculturation, perceived discrimination, and identity gaps on overall educational satisfaction and found that students who were more highly integrated into American culture had a positive educational experience, whereas those who perceived racial or ethnic discrimination had a more negative experience. Further, relatively low educational satisfaction was reported by students who perceived a bigger personal-enacted gap (e.g., a gap between how students perceived themselves versus how they expressed themselves when interacting with others). This finding highlights the tension between being true to one’s own social identity compared with trying to fit into the dominant way of being in U.S. college classrooms. Collectively, this body of work examining cross-cultural experiences highlights differences in social norms, verbal communication strategies, and pedagogical methods as influenced by the local culture.

Racial/ Ethnic Differences within American Classrooms

From a second research perspective, communication scholars use research findings to promote and support constructive conversation in American classrooms concerning the race/ethnicity of students, instructors, and others. For example, Fitzgerald (2009) examined the role of service learning to reconfigure the multicultural classroom and suggested how reflective writing could introduce voices of color into the classroom. Another study focused on student perceptions of addressing race in the classroom and concluded that instructor self-reflexivity and support for diversity significantly impacted discussions of race in the classroom (Simpson, Causey, & Williams, 2007). The work of Miller and Harris (2005) was designed to help White students deal with their ethnicity in an interracial communication course, specifically looking at three themes about white privilege, defining an anti-racist lifestyle, and being comfortable with talking about race in the classroom.

Much of this intercultural research has focused on (a) student aptitude or success, (b) differing perceptions of instructors, (c) the impact of instructor behaviors, and (d) tensions experienced by ethnic minorities in the educational context. Among those who examine students aptitudes and achievement, Powell and Avila (1986) found that White students scored significantly higher than Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics on the Communication Competence Assessment Instrument (CCAI);however, they acknowledged that these results may highlight the ways that the CCAI (and other measures like it) privilege White ways of speaking. Similarly, Wladis, Conway, and Hachey (2015) found that even though Black and Hispanic students may do worse, on average, in STEM courses than White and Asian students in both online and face-to-face classrooms, the differences between their scores were not increased in the online environment, suggesting that the online environment did not impact differences between race.

The second focus of intercultural research examines race/ethnicity in relation to students’ perceptions of instructor immediacy and effectiveness, and how these perceptions might impact students’ motives to participate during class and engage in out-of-class communication with the instructor. For example, Collier and Powell (1990) found that Anglo-American students’ perceptions of instructor immediacy were linked to their feelings about utility of the course and how effectively their instructors processed content. These students described an effective instructor as clear, motivational, and supportive. They also found that Latino students’ perceptions of immediacy were particularly dominant in early parts of a course, whereas their respect for content outweighed their changing perceptions of instructors later in the course. These scholars examined the attitudes and perceptions of students from a variety of ethnicities, but the differences they observed among the ethnicities were not always significant, so their findings highlighted the complexities of a diverse classroom system. Gendrin and Rucker (2007) also found differences in how students of different ethnicities perceived instructors. African-American students perceived their instructors (regardless of ethnicity) to be more nonverbally immediate than did the instructors’ Euro-American students. Further, instructor verbal immediacy was associated with African-American students’ motives to communicate with their instructors for relational and participation purposes, whereas perceptions of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy had a negative impact on European-American students’ motives to communicate with their instructors for functional purposes.

A third line of intercultural study involves how instructors change or adapt their classroom communication based on the race/ethnicity of students. In their meta-analysis of 15 studies, Cooper and Allen (1998) found that African-American and Latino students receive more negative feedback and less praise from teachers than Euro-American students. In addition, Euro-American students and teachers interact less with African-American and Latino students. Based on these results, Cooper and Allen suggested that such communication dynamics might negatively impact minority students’ academic achievement. Another study observed that racial stereotypes inside the classroom had a negative influence on academic performance of Hispanic college students’ performance on standardized exams (Rodriguez, 2014). In contrast to these findings, Wheeless, Witt, Maresh, Bryand, and Schrodt (2011) observed that teacher nonverbal immediacy positively influenced students’ intent to persist in education regardless of the ethnicity of the student. Clearly, inconsistencies exist in this research, highlighting the fact that instructor behaviors toward students of different ethnicities have both positive and negative impacts on these students’ success.

A fourth line of intercultural research examines various tensions that students of an ethnic minority may experience in a predominately White educational context. Most of these scholars employ qualitative or interpretive methodology to elicit feelings, perceptions, and attitudes of individuals and groups of students. For example, White and Ali-Khan (2013) found some minority students (especially first-generation college students) often resist adoption of academic discourses because of fear of “selling out” or “acting white.” White and Ali-Khan used case studies to examine how the academic discourse of “null curriculum” of learning the language of academics had an impact on the success of these students. Using a similar approach, Simmons, Lowery-Hart, Wahl, and McBride (2013) examined the experiences of African-American students at predominantly White universities. Their participants discussed the negotiation they experienced in navigating intrapersonal tensions (e.g., tensions between their Blackness and the perceived Whiteness of their university) and intergroup tensions of deciding when and how to infuse themselves into university culture (integration/segregation), as well as when to educate others about their culture and when to protect their culture (revelation/concealment). These studies move toward capturing the true socio-cultural experiences of students as linked to their racial/ ethnic identity, rather than merely assessing how their race/ethnicity might impact their academic performance or the communication behaviors of their instructors.

To demonstrate the effects of White privilege on campuses and in classrooms, Covarrubias (2008) highlighted how American Indians choose to remain silent in certain classroom discussions. Specifically, discriminatory silence was “the public or private withholding of speech, specifically the withholding of voiced objections to statements that dismiss, disconfirm, or alienate a person because of racial, ethnic, or cultural origin when the ethical action would be to speak up” (Covarrubias, 2008, p. 246), and it served to further marginalize and distance American Indians from the White majority. In summary, then, it can be seen that students with an ethnic/racial background different from the majority clearly face interpersonal issues of social identity that can help or hinder classroom communication and academic achievement.

Ethnicity of Professors

Most studies of ethnicity/ race in the classroom address the experiences and perceptions of students, but scholars have also examined the social identity of instructors, sometimes focusing on non-native English-speaking instructors. For example, Chia-Fang (2012) found that challenges related to vocal quality and language skills influenced students’ anxiety about the learning process, and when student anxiety was reduced, students had more positive attitudes for the instructor/course and increased engagement in learning activities. Miller and Pearson (2013) had participants evaluate different fictionalized cases of American versus Chinese-born instructors and found that students were more willing to engage in out-of-class interaction with American instructors, and that they would have given American instructors higher evaluations for discussion-based teaching than Chinese instructors who did the same. Finally, Li, Mazer, and Ju (2011) found that when international Teaching Assistants attempted to dialogically resolve language inadequacy, it had negative effects on students’ perceptions of their clarity in the classroom, but positive effects on perceptions of instructor caring.

Beyond nationality, other examinations of the race/ethnicity of instructors have yielded mixed results. For example, Glascock and Ruggiero (2006) found that students at a university with a predominantly Hispanic student population rated Caucasian instructors higher than Hispanic instructors on perceptions of competence and caring, but the effect sizes were minimal and instructor immediacy was a better predictor than instructor race. However, other researchers have found that African-American instructors are seen as a) more credible than Euro-American instructors by a variety of students (Patton, 1999) and b) more immediate by African-American students as compared to Euro-American students’ perceptions of Euro-American instructors (Neuliep, 1995). Neuliep also found positive correlations between all instructors’ immediacy and measures of students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning, but that these correlations were significantly higher for Euro-American instructors.

Even as these quantitative studies documented differences in the impact of instructor race/ethnicity on student perceptions, interpretive scholars have also found qualitative differences in the experiences of instructors with different ethnic social-identities. For example, in one study White Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) did not perceive their experiences as instructors to be different from non-White GTAs, but GTAs of Color felt they had a different experience from their White counterparts (Hendrix, Hebbani, & Johnson, 2007). Finally, an autoethnography by Johnson and Bhatt (2003) detailed different student reactions when they facilitated discussions of race and privilege. When these White and Asian females engaged students interactively, students reacted differently depending on the ethnic makeup of the class and whether the discussion was held individually or facilitated in their intercultural communication classrooms.

Collectively, then, it can be seen that the large body of cross-cultural and intercultural communication research illustrates the crucial role played by the race/ ethnicity of students and instructors in classroom interactions and ultimately, student learning. Indeed, in the journal Communication Education alone, almost one-fourth of the journal’s studies in recent years address issues of social identity (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014), including 17 articles on race/ethnicity in the classroom. Of course, there is always room for additional research related to race and ethnicity implications in the classroom.

Age

When investigating the impact of age dynamics in the college classroom, scholars typically bracket students’ ages as 18–24 (traditional students) versus 25 and older (non-traditional students). Common operationalizations of a non-traditional student include age, but go beyond age as a sole determining factor. Whereas a traditional student is a younger adult who attends college immediately after completing high school, a non-traditional student typically has one or more of the following characteristics as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics: “financial independence, part-time attendance, delayed enrollment, full-time work, dependents, and single parenthood” (Navarre Cleary, 2011, p. 34). Houser (2005) found that many non-traditional students reported working full-time while attending school, being married, and paying their own college expenses. It is significant to note that, in research concerning how age influences a non-traditional student’s social identity, traditional students are often considered normative.

It is important to study this aspect of social identity in the classroom because the “definition of the ‘traditional’ college student as full-time, middle-class, white, and young is rapidly giving way to ever-increasing numbers of adults returning to or entering higher education for the first time” (Donavant, Daniel, & MacKewn, 2013, p. 132). Despite large increases in the numbers of non-traditional students entering or returning to higher education, to date scholars have given insufficient attention to the ways faculty members view and work with this student demographic (Brinthaupt & Eady, 2014). What is currently known is that, compared to their traditional classmates, non-traditional students desire to attend class more frequently (but at times are unable to), have higher levels of motivation, prefer more participative learning styles, and experience less communication apprehension (see Wei, 2007). In this section we will survey instructors’ attitudes and perceptions about students in relation to their perceived age, as well as the attitudes of students toward instructors of different ages.

Instructors’ Perceptions About Students Related to Age

Day, Lovato, Tull, and Ross-Gordon (2011) did qualitative in-depth interviews with eight faculty members in order to explore how they perceived non-traditional students. They found that faculty perceived adult students as tenacious, meaning they are more committed to their education, more focused, more persistent, and harder-working in their classes than traditional students. Campbell et al. (2009) echoed the observation that students who are older put more effort into their college courses. In a survey-based study of 208 faculty members, Donavant et al. (2013) found faculty tended to support the notion that adult students exhibit greater intrinsic motivation in the classroom, and most faculty believed that adult students were prepared for college as well as, or better than, traditional students. This latter finding contrasted with the observations of Day et al. (2011), whose participants indicated that, though adult learners are typically prepared to devote themselves to study, they are also lacking in some preparedness in terms of specific study skills and confidence in the classroom.

What do these attitudes and expectations mean in terms of how instructors approach teaching non-traditional students? Day et al. (2011) argued that faculty members are not familiar with literature on pedagogy, as most are hired due to their specialty expertise rather than pedagogical knowledge or excellence. Reflecting this fact, Donavant et al. (2013) found that, although faculty acknowledged that non-traditional students differ from their traditional-aged counterparts and enhance the overall educational environment in mixed-age undergraduate classes, faculty perceived no need to adapt their instructional approach to accommodate these students. Indeed, Brinthaupt and Eady (2014) examined the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of 171 university and community college teachers and observed that participants held very positive attitudes and perceptions of their nontraditional students, but that faculty reported treating these students similarly to the traditional students in their classes. These findings reveal a general lack of understanding by the professoriate regarding adult education methodologies.

Accordingly, some authors offer strategies for instructors to alter their pedagogical style toward non-traditional students through offering advice on pedagogy versus andragogy: a learner-centered style of teaching where students are active participants and can discuss and share personal information (see Houser, 2004a and Chapter 27 in this volume). One strategy is to design classroom activities, such as case studies, role plays, and even service learning to draw on the relevant life experience of the adult learners using active teaching and learning strategies (e.g., Buglione, 2012; Day et al., 2011). Houser (2004a) offered a group of techniques for classroom communication with non-traditional students that address their desires for recognition, flexibility, clarity, coursework relevance, involvement, and classroom interaction. She also emphasized the importance of creating a positive learning environment and a non-threatening communication climate where nontraditional students feel as if they are part of the learning community; this is especially relevant because faculty cited the frustration and, sometimes even disdain, exhibited by students of differing generations toward each other as an impediment to faculty’s ability to create a classroom environment conducive to optimal learning (Donavant et al., 2013).

Students’ Perceptions About Instructors Related to Age

In the same way that instructors form opinions about students based on age, students also form certain perceptions of and attitudes toward their instructors based to some degree on the perceived age of the teacher. Edwards and Harwood (2003)found that students who mention their instructor’s age in an open-ended description of an “ideal instructor” are more likely to imagine a younger instructor, and students who mention their instructor’s age in an open-ended description of a disfavored instructor are more likely to imagine an older instructor. Supporting this supposition is the work of Bianchini, Lissoni, and Pezzoni (2013), who claimed there is widespread consensus on a negative relationship between instructor age and perceptions of teaching quality; they studied how age impacted teaching evaluations at an Italian university and found that older instructors received lower teaching evaluations than their younger counterparts. In addition, Campbell et al. (2009) found a negative relationship between teacher confirmation behaviors (i.e., communication from teachers indicating that students are endorsed, recognized, and valued) and age of the professor. In other words, the older the professor was, the less students perceived that they enacted “confirming” behaviors in the classroom. In contrast to this group of findings, however, Semlak and Pearson (2008) used an experimental design and found students perceived older instructors to be more competent, caring, and trustworthy than younger instructors. They also noted that, whereas some students may believe younger instructors are the most desirable, these same students may be willing to concede that older instructors are more credible. Thus, it appears that the age of instructors may exert both positive and negative influence on students’ perceptions of their classroom communication, depending on whether the outcome variable is social desirability or effective teaching. Inconclusive research findings like these call for further investigation into the age dynamic between instructors and students.

Age-Related Differences in Students’ Expectations During Instruction

Another contrast between traditional and non-traditional students concerns their expectations of their instructors and the learning environment (for direct responses to more than 42 scenarios, see Moen, Davies & Dykstra, 2010). As Houser (2005) points out, “It appears nontraditional students desire different instructor communication behaviors than typically presented in the instructional literature” (p. 224). This may be in part due to differences in learning motivation (e.g., Houser, 2006; Wei, 2007): whereas non-traditional students are more interested in overall learning (higher behavioral learning orientation), traditional students are more frequently focused on grades (higher behavioral grade orientation; Houser, 2005).

In light of this higher level of motivation and learning orientation, non-traditional students desire instructors who recognize them as students who take ownership of their own learning, respect their knowledge and experiences, and treat them as adults (Houser, 2004b). They have less of a need for humor and to be “entertained” in the classroom. Furthermore, Wei (2007) found non-traditional students have a higher level of preference for lectures than do traditional students (and this goes for online formats as well – see Simonds & Brock, 2014). In addition, while non-traditional students expected exemplary teachers to use outlines and examples when lecturing, traditional students defined exemplary teaching as funny, interesting, and entertaining (see also Houser, 2004b).

Houser (2004b, 2005, 2006) published a series of studies grounded in expectancy violations theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) to examine traditional and nontraditional students’ prescriptive expectations and experiences with instructor behaviors. Related to instructor immediacy (i.e., communication that expresses interpersonal liking, approval, and psychological closeness), non-traditional students have minimal desire for instructors to exemplify verbal immediacy and no desire for them to show nonverbal immediacy (Houser, 2004b). When looking at expectations as compared to experiences, traditional students’ expectations for verbal immediacy were negatively violated, in that they wanted more than they actually received from their instructors – but expectations for instructor use of nonverbal immediacy were met for both traditional and non-traditional students (Houser, 2005).

Houser (2004b) also studied students’ perceptions of instructor clarity and found that both traditional and non-traditional students desire instructors who exercise higher levels of classroom clarity by using examples, providing feedback, and preparing them for exams. When looking at expectations as compared to experiences, instructional clarity was negatively violated for both traditional and nontraditional students: both groups wanted more clarity from their instructors than they perceived in the classroom (Houser, 2005).

A final instructor behavior studied by Houser was affinity-seeking (i.e., encouraging students to like them). Houser (2004b) discovered non-traditional student expectations of instructor communication behaviors did not include a desire for affinity-seeking. This led to Houser (2005) finding a significant difference between traditional and non-traditional students: traditional students’ experiences with affinity-seeking met their expectations, but non-traditional students’ expectations for affinity-seeking were positively violated. In other words, because they did not see this as a necessary instructor behavior in the first place, they reported receiving too much and viewed it as too much of a good thing. They reported instructors engaging in more responsiveness, praise, and expression of student concern than needed (Houser, 2005). Collectively, these studies indicated that non-traditional students perceived excess levels of sensitivity, listening, dynamism, and openness from their instructors.

Thus, extant research documents enough differences to warrant instructors to rethink their use of these prescriptive communication behaviors because traditional and non-traditional students have different needs: “The professoriate must reach an understanding of the significant challenges that older students bring to higher education and prepare to address issues such as what adult learners want, expect, and need from the classroom experience” (Donavant et al., 2013, p. 133).

Social Class

Kirby (2011) defines social class as “a relative social ranking of individuals or families by power based on economic capital (financial), cultural capital, and social capital (esteem or social status)” (p. 141). Discussions of social class are intertwined with discussions of income inequality, privilege, and access barriers to resources that enable class mobility (i.e., higher education). As such, social class can be a challenging and complicated social identity category to address in both personal and public spheres.

Several scholars have called for more attention to the multidimensionality of social identities in educational contexts (Allen, 2011b; Darvin & Norton, 2014; Orbe, 2004). Nevertheless, social class remains underexplored in social identity research in general, and in instructional contexts in particular. Part of the difficulty in studying social class lies in the fact that, unlike other more visible aspects of identity, it is often enacted at the discretion of the student or instructor (see Kirby 2011; Orbe 2004). Moreover, social class, and in particular socioeconomic status, can be a barrier to entering college. As Wirt and Jaeger (2014) pointed out, most higher education instructional research is based on White, traditional-aged college students at four-year institutions, despite the fact that close to one-half of all U.S. undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges. Social class will continue to be a key social identity factor in educational contexts, as the number of first-generation college (FGC) students increases and public policy debates target higher education access and affordability. In this section, we overview the emerging research on FGC students, which provides the most focused analysis of social class to date.

First-Generation Students

Much recent attention in American higher education has been focused on the experiences of first-generation college (FGC) students. FGC students are commonly defined as students “coming from a family where no parent or guardian has earned a baccalaureate degree” (Soria & Stebleton, 2012, p. 674). This group of students comprises approximately 30% of all entering first-year students in the United States (Wang, 2012). Although FGC students tend to come from lower socioeconomic family backgrounds (Soria & Stebleton, 2012), it is important to note that not all FGC students come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (see Orbe, 2003). However, research on FGC students provides the most insight thus far into the ways social class influences the college experience.

Researchers have identified two major problems FGC students face during their college or university studies. First, they experience a performance gap across all stages of their college career, from transition to post-graduation, when compared to continuing-generation college (CGC) students (see Zwerling & London, 1992).Thus, FGC student research focuses on student success and on how to close this performance gap. Wang (2014) and Wirt and Jaeger (2014) emphasized the importance of student-teacher interactions and suggested that building positive interpersonal relationships with faculty impacts the FGC student experience significantly. Soria and Stebleton (2012) also concluded that increasing the frequency and quality of faculty and FGC student interactions will likely increase academic engagement and improve retention rates.

The second problem typically faced by FGC students is negotiating multiple identities. In an in-depth qualitative study of FGC students, Orbe (2004) illustrated how students develop outsider status both at home and school. Because they are the first in their family to attend college, negotiating this identity within familial relationships can be positive and/or fraught with tension. Students reported feeling different and perceived being treated as different (in both positive and negative ways) from others in their families and neighborhoods. Likewise, FGC students face particular challenges and choices in negotiating and enacting this aspect of their identity at school. In another study, Orbe (2003) specifically engaged the experiences of African-American FGC students. This study revealed that the majority of students felt their racial identity was more salient on campus than their FGC student identity, but that the diversity of the campus as a whole strongly impacted their communicative experiences as a student. Orbe (2003) argued for more research that recognizes the diversity of communicative experiences within any social group, as opposed to research that draws upon sweeping generalizations.

FGC students often do not share a communal identity with other FGC students (Wang, 2014). There are few identifying markers for first-generation status, and students choose carefully when to enact this identity on campus, often based on the extent to which they perceive negative stigma associated with the identity (Orbe, 2004). Thus, developing a sense of belonging is challenging for FGC students because they might experience outsider status in relation to their CGC student peers, and there can be considerable stigma to forming community with other FGC students. Soria and Stebleton (2012) studied this issue through the lens of social capital, arguing that stronger faculty-student interactions can mediate the lack of social capital FGC students bring to college by increasing their sense of belonging. Similarly, in a study of memorable messages FGC students receive from on-campus mentors, Wang (2012) concluded that faculty mentors play a strong role in students’ academic and social integration.

The burgeoning research on FGC students offers evidence to suggest that individual faculty can increase students’ sense of belonging, academic engagement, and social integration through intentional interactions (Wang, 2012, 2014; Wirt & Jaeger, 2014). These insights are important for understanding the significance of classroom interactions beyond teaching effectiveness. Although much effort has been exerted on improving student success for FGC students, Orbe (2004) asserted that “the impact of these support services on the larger cultural framework of most universities is questionable” (p. 146). One way scholars can deepen the understanding of the relationship between social class and instructional communication is by continuing the focus on the diversity of college student experiences. Researchers can add nuance to their understanding of social class, in particular, by broadening the focus of experience to include pre-, during, and post-college communicative interactions about and within higher education. For example, Polley and Norander (2015) showed how rural high school students create college access narratives shaped by the intermingling of their socioeconomic status and rural location.

More research on the communicative interactions students have prior to entering college could lead to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how students negotiate identities, as well as to practical implications for how to implement college access and affordability policies. Moreover, study of students’ post-college experiences could further inform the types of learning experiences and interactions teachers can facilitate to support the increasingly diverse range of college student identities.

Sexual Orientation

The student-instructor relationship is built upon trust and openness; it can be further strengthened by disclosures of personal information. An example of this type of disclosure is sexual orientation: students who identify as gay/ lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) often navigate the difficulties that come with disclosing their sexual orientation, so having an instructor with whom they share that social identity can be very helpful (Hendrix, Jackson, & Warren, 2003; Johnson & Bhatt, 2003). Yet for LGBTQ instructors, the decision to disclose their sexual orientation to students can be a tricky process, especially depending on the environment in which they teach. For instructors in general, there also lies the problem of how to address sexual orientation in the classroom when they do not know how many (if any) of their students identify as LGBTQ. Thus, we examine factors that contribute to whether or not LGBTQ instructors disclose their sexual orientation, the different ways in which the disclosure may occur, and how instructors may approach sexual orientation with students while promoting a respectful classroom environment that combats homophobic behavior.

LGBTQ Instructor Decisions to Disclose

One of the most difficult decisions for LGBTQ instructors is whether or not to “out” themselves to their students: do they remain “closeted” and hide a crucial aspect of their identity, or reveal their sexual orientation and risk judgment or discrimination? Both options carry potential risks. For example, LGBTQ instructors who choose not to disclose their sexual orientation may alienate themselves from LGBTQ students. Johnson (2009) described when a (gay, male) student came to her office accusing her of “lying about who she was” in class: “Why had I allowed students to believe that I had a husband? Was I ashamed? Was I afraid? At that point, I was afraid. Having only taught for four years, I was still untenured and vulnerable” (p. 187).

In facing this tension, many LGBTQ instructors feel that remaining “closeted” is the only option. Some instructors anticipate that revealing their sexual orientation would receive backlash from their students and undermine their authority and credibility as an instructor (Pope & Chapa, 2008; Russ, Simonds, & Hunt, 2002; Turner, 2010), while others believe that it is either inappropriate or irrelevant for them to talk about their sexual orientation with their students, especially if the course subject does not warrant an obvious connection with sexual orientation (Fletcher & Russell, 2001; McKenna-Buchanan, Munz, & Rudnick, 2015). Similarly, many LGBTQ instructors believe that the environment in which they teach is a largely heteronormative space where different sexual orientations will be judged (Bettinger, Timmins, & Tisdell, 2006), and is therefore not a safe space in which to disclose their own sexual orientation (Elliot, 1996; Turner, 2010). Although disclosing their sexual orientation could make them more relatable, some LGBTQ instructors feel the potential rewards are not worth the potential risks.

For LGBTQ instructors who choose to come out to their students, the outcomes vary. LGBTQ instructors may experience censure or condemnation (whether from students, other instructors, or the institution where they instruct; DeJean, 2004; Evans, 2002), as well as risk lower student evaluations that could jeopardize their chances at tenure (Johnson, 2009; Liddle, 1997). Concomitantly, LGBTQ instructors may find that coming out has more positive results, such as helping their students expand their horizons and consider perspectives and viewpoints they previously had not (Alexander, 1997; Liddle, 2009; Nowlan, 2001). LGBTQ instructors can “come out” in a variety of ways, including low-key disclosure (i.e., casually mentioning it when introducing themselves to students), having a frank and open dialogue with their students, or by incorporating material (such as a book or movie) that helps the students relate to the instructor’s experiences (Cummings, 2009; Fletcher & Russell, 2001; Temple, 2005).

LGBTQ Student Issues

Promoting an educational setting where LGBTQ students feel safe and respected is important, as the classroom climate can have a significant impact on their mental well-being and academic performance (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, & Koenig, 2011). Instructors who turn a blind eye to any instances of bullying or prejudice are more likely to deal with instances of homophobic behavior (Poteat, DiGiovanni, & Scheer, 2012) than are instructors who promote a classroom environment that is encompassing and respectful of all members.

One way that instructors can better promote a respectful classroom (and decrease the chances of homophobic behavior) is to have an understanding of how the concept of sexual orientation can influence the behavior of heterosexual students. For some heterosexual students, engaging in homophobic behavior may be an effective way to make their sexual orientation clear, especially if they live in an environment where an individual may be treated differently because of his or her sexual orientation (Phoenix, Frosh, & Pattman, 2003). Other heterosexual students may engage in homophobic behavior because they wish to mirror the behavior and attitudes of their parents (Poteat et al., 2012), similarly to how some students may emulate their parents’ racial prejudice through racist behavior (Fishbein, 2000; Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005). On the other hand, some heterosexual students may be less likely to engage in homophobic behavior if they are friends with LGBTQ students (Poteat et al., 2012), or are exposed to media images that portray LBGTQ individuals in a positive light (Levina, Waldo, & Fitzgerald, 2000; Riggle, Ellis, & Crawford, 1996).

According to Kitchen and Bellini (2012), instructors can combat homophobic behavior by letting students know what types of comments are not tolerated (i.e., “that’s so gay”), watching the language or slang they use in the classroom, and incorporating more gender neutral or inclusive language when interacting with students. Instructors could also make the classroom more friendly by incorporating more LGBTQ examples into the curriculum or hanging up posters that instill a sense of diversity and acceptance (Kitchen & Bellini, 2012). By understanding how sexual orientation may influence student behavior, along with knowing different ways to prevent and address homophobia, instructors can become better equipped to not only promote a respectful classroom environment, but also to anticipate and combat homophobic behavior before it happens (Miller Marsh, 2002).

Disability

An additional salient category of social identity that merits mention surrounds issues of disability, because persons with disabilities are often treated differently from persons without disabilities (Frymier & Wanzer, 2003). Frymier and Wanzer noted that disabilities can be both visible (noticeable to others, such as physical deformities, use of a wheelchair, deafness, or blindness) and invisible (hidden and go unnoticed except under unusual circumstances or when disclosed, such as learning disabilities, arthritis, and diabetes). Literature related to disability and the classroom addresses (a) how students negotiate identity in relation to their disability(s), (b) the interface of students with disabilities and their instructors, and (c) how mental health (as a disability) impacts learning.

How Students Negotiate their Own Disability(s)

For students with disabilities (especially invisible ones), the classroom is often a site for identity negotiation (e.g., Lindemann, 2011). Consequently, a number of communication scholars have examined how, when, and why students disclose that they have a learning disability, as well as their instructors’ communication competence in responding to the disclosure. Kranke, Jackson, Taylor, Anderson-Fye, and Floersch (2013) performed a qualitative study across two years that examined 17 college students’ use of disability services. They found students decided to disclose and request accommodations under three conditions: (a) the fear that their disability will greatly limit functioning critical to academic achievement, (b) the stability of their non-apparent disability, and (c) stigma. Blockmans (2015) examined the disability-disclosure experiences of 13 students in Belgium with physical impairments and found the nuances of disclosure and topic avoidance decisions differ by disclosure target (i.e., disability-disclosure is mainly a balancing act between fulfilling physical needs and maintaining a normal, positive identity).

Goddard and Torres (2009) utilized qualitative interviewing to demonstrate the significance of face-negotiation theory for understanding how six students with disabilities handle facework during conflict situations with able-bodied individuals. The most significant themes revolved around identity/ image and how disability impacted their friends and family; while it was clear that many of the participants highly valued their own image, it was also evident that they were concerned with the face needs of those around them. The interviews and focus groups revealed that students employed face restoration, face saving, face assertion, and face giving strategies in situations surrounding their disabilities; overall Goddard and Torres (2009) found characteristics of both individualistic and collectivistic cultures in the way face strategies were used to handle conflict situations within their family and on campus.

The Interface of Students with Disabilities and their Instructors

Centering on how instructors treat students with visible disabilities, Hart and Williams (1995) illustrated four roles of how able-bodied instructors communicate (differently) with students with physical disabilities than with able-bodied students. The first role is the avoider: these instructors “displayed communication avoidance and generally nervous behavior in the presence of a [disabled] student … manifested as physical separation from the student or in eschewing discussions on … disabilities [or] when the instructor chose to completely ignore the disabled student” (p. 144). Instructors who performed the role of guardian were overly protective of students with disabilities: “whenever they sought to establish emotional, physical, or intellectual protection, some instructors tended to lower standards and separate students with disabilities from the rest of the class” (p. 145). Some instructors (the rejecters) “rejected the ability of disabled students to be productive members of the class … perhaps because of their own fears or uncertainties, rejecters treated students with disabilities differently than they did able-bodied students … [they] ignore or verbally abused them” (p. 147). Finally, there was (only) one instructor who performed the role of nurturer; she was more at ease and “facilitated an environment in which students with disabilities are supported and encouraged … so that learning for all students is facilitated” (p. 149).

Knowing that instructors (may) treat students with disabilities differently, Frymier and Wanzer (2003) compared the perceptions of 79 “able-bodied” students with those of 57 students with disabilities (34 with a learning disability and 23 with a physical disability). Results indicated that students with learning and physical disabilities perceived their professors as less competent, less appropriate, and less effective communicators than did the able-bodied students. However, students with learning disabilities perceived their professors as less appropriate and effective communicators than did both students with physical disabilities and students without disabilities. The disabled students also felt they were dissimilar to their professors and felt less supported and understood by their professors than did “able-bodied” students. However, all students (with and without disabilities) seemed reluctant to communicate with their professors.

For over a year, Cornett-DeVito and Worley (2005; Worley & Cornett-DeVito, 2007) examined the experiences of college students with learning disabilities (SWLD) through in-depth interviews and focus groups. The authors identified five ways SWLD define instructors as “communicatively competent,” including when they: (a) willingly provide individualized instruction that meets students’ needs, (b) build rapport and listen empathically, (c) demonstrate knowledge about learning disabilities and accommodation, (d) are alert to alternatives to assist student learning, and (e) are accessible outside the classroom. The authors also identified five ways SWLD define instructors as “communicatively incompetent,” including when they: (a) demonstrate a lack of knowledge about learning disabilities and accommodations, (b) actively resist accommodations, (c) maintain rigid instructional styles, (d) question students’ ability to succeed, and (e) disregard student privacy.

Nonetheless, SWLD reported generally positive experiences with instructor power, finding that most instructors showed respect, actively listened, were accessible, trustworthy, and friendly. In these situations, they typically felt that they could be themselves and not have to hide their learning disability – which often resulted in positive relationships with the instructors. Students’ negative experiences with instructor power commonly included instructors who looked away from or ignored them, resisted accommodations, and displayed disrespectful facial expressions (such as eye rolling). In these situations, students most often responded to negative instructor power experiences by asserting that they should not be treated less because of their learning disability.

Mental Health (as a Disability) and Learning

A newly emerging area of scholarship surrounding disability relates to the increased frequency of mental health issues in higher education. As noted at a 2013 conference of the American Psychological Association, increasing numbers of college students are arriving on campus with psychological issues or developing problems once they are in school (Clay, 2013). The Center for Collegiate Mental Health (2014) surveyed more than 100,00 students across 140 institutions and found that about half had attended counseling for mental health concerns, one-third had taken medication for mental health concerns, and one in ten had been hospitalized for mental health concerns. Data from the 2013 National College Health Assessment II indicated that about one-third of college students across the United States had problems functioning because of depression in the last 12 months, and almost half said they had felt overwhelming anxiety in the last year; four of the top five “substantial obstacles to their academic success” offered by students were sleep difficulties, stress, anxiety, and depression (American College Health Association, 2013).

Douce and Keeling (2014) illustrate how mental and behavioral health problems are therefore also learning problems: “Stress, anxiety, depression, and harmful health behaviors such as substance abuse can impair the quality and quantity of learning. They decrease students’ intellectual and emotional flexibility, weaken their creativity, and undermine their interest in new knowledge, ideas, and experiences” (p. 3). To investigate the effects of mental health issues in the teaching-learning process, Carton and Goodboy (2015) examined the relationship between students’ psychological well-being and their interaction involvement in class. They found that while depression and stress were both related negatively to attentiveness and responsiveness, anxiety was related negatively only to students’ attentiveness in class. Certainly, as more attention is paid to issues of mental health, more research is needed on removing barriers to learning.

Overall, the emerging research on issues of visible and invisible disabilities indicates that instructors have much to learn in making all students comfortable in the classroom. As noted by Carton and Goodboy (2015), instructors should consider students’ psychological states in the classroom and possibly adjust their communication behaviors in order to keep students with mental health issues involved in the learning process. This echoes the broader hopes of Hart and Williams (1995) that “through increased research, and increases in training programs and in-services for instructors at all levels, attitudes toward people with disabilities can be positively changed … [and] instructors … will have an opportunity for positive professional growth,” leading to classrooms where “all students [would] be treated alike instead of differently” (p. 152).

Critical Reflections and Future Research

Although scholars have called for more work dealing with issues of social identity in the classroom (e.g., Bell & Golombisky, 2004), much instructional research continues “to perpetuate an image of the American professor as either genderless or white male, unconsciously sending messages to readers and potential contributors regarding subject matter and methodologies deemed legitimate for publication” (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014, p. 414). Just as Covarrubias (2008) argued that masked and discriminatory silence in the classroom perpetuates dominant culture and marginalizes particular people, this lack of substantive research on social identity in major outlets for instructional research also marginalizes the experiences of many. In this final section of the chapter, we identify changes of attitudes, perspectives, and methodology as strategies to correct the perceived insufficiencies of current instructional communication research.

One way to expand and strengthen the body of research on social identity in the classroom is to include the development or application of theory in every project. Many social identity scholars have set a positive precedent in this regard by framing their work in expectancy violations theory (Houser, 2005, 2006), media richness theory (Turman & Schrodt, 2005), theory of identity (Wadsworth et al., 2008), social identity theory (Edwards & Harwood, 2003; Miller & Pearson, 2013), critical whiteness theories (Covarrubias, 2008), relational dialectics (Simmons et al., 2013), social interactionism (Pearson et al., 2011), social presence theory (Turman & Schrodt, 2005), structuration theory (Li et al., 2011), standpoint and muted group (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014), and theory of planned behavior (Wheeless et al., 2011). To build on this strong foundation, scholars should continue to use communication theories to frame projects, analyze data, and interpret findings.

In terms of research methodologies employed by social identity scholars, a considerable portion of this body of work is based on quantitative analysis of empirical data. We argue a need for more interpretive and/ or critical research to deepen our understanding of how students and instructors experience each of the six types of social identity discussed in this chapter. In the area of sex/gender research, for example, a strong precedent has been set by Goodboy (2011) who investigated the importance of the sex composition of a teacher-student dyad by exploring their interaction through qualitative research methods using open-ended survey questions. Similarly, while there is research that compares differences between students and instructors based on race/ethnicity, more work needs to be done to explore how people manage this aspect of their social identity when interacting in the classroom and on campuses (see Simmons et al., 2013 for a good example from a student perspective and Hendrix, Hebbani, & Johnson, 2007 for a good example from a professor perspective). Related to age, future work should address Day et al.’s (2011) call to examine faculty perceptions of teaching in a mixed-age, higher education classroom in both face-to-face and online courses. In the realm of social class, Wang (2014) suggests the use of methods such as a diary for FGC students to track their memorable messages in their transition to college – such an approach could transcend identity categories. Research on sexual orientation in the classroom should branch out into other sections of the LGBTQ spectrum: little research focuses specifically on the experiences of bisexual, transgender, or queer students/ instructors, which means that their perspectives are missing from the conversation. As previously noted, increasing numbers of students facing mental health issues constitute a call for broader research related to disability. Finally, because of the multidimensional nature of these various social identities, a great need exists for researchers to examine in greater detail the intersectionality of sex/ gender, race/ ethnicity, age, social class, sexual orientation, and disability.

As we move this important body of research into the future, there is a pressing need for further critical reflection. Instructional communication scholars face a moment of urgency related to social identity research, as well as diversity and inclusion efforts in higher education (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Simmons & Wahl, 2016). To take research and theoretical application to a new level of praxis, higher education administrators must admit that current levels of diversity and inclusion efforts often fail for lack of authenticity in all areas of social identity reviewed in this chapter. To augment these well-intentioned but largely ineffective efforts, instructional communication researchers are strategically positioned to become advocates of the following principles:

Finally, although considerable attention has been paid to understanding how students of varying social identity categories experience college, less attention has been paid to incorporating dialogue about these social identity categories effectively into pedagogy. We advocate that instructors utilize critical communication pedagogy to interrogate these social identity categories in the classroom, “easing” into it as it is can be difficult to teach about the ways that difference is (re)constructed in everyday life (Allen, 2011a; Kirby, 2011). Indeed, discussing differences can make students angry on both sides because students are often resistant to having their “assumptive worlds” challenged (see Johnson & Bhatt, 2003). Allen (2011a) suggests that by incorporating critical communication pedagogy into the classroom, faculty can prepare students to address the complexity and fluidity of social identities and differences in a variety of contexts. At the same time, such pedagogy involves faculty and students in questioning the structures of power and privilege that perpetuate marginalization (Fassett & Warren, 2007).

In conclusion, investigating the ways we engage and enact social identities in the classroom, and connecting them to the ways we do so in our institutions and society, can inform both critical instructional communication and pedagogy; and ultimately, such inquiry and practice can help create a more just and unprejudiced society.

References

Alexander, J. (1997). Out of the closet and into the network: Sexual orientation and the computerized classroom. Computers and Composition, 14, 207–216. doi:10.1016/01421599979572

Allen, B. J. (2011a). Critical communication pedagogy as a framework for teaching organizing and difference. In D. K. Mumby (Ed.), Reframing difference in organizational communication studies (pp. 103–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen, B. J. (2011b). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: A meta-analysis and causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31.

American College Health Association (2013). National College Health Assessment II: Reference group executive summary spring 2013. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association.

Aylor, B. (2003). The impact of sex, gender, and cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of teacher communication skills. Communication Studies, 54, 496–509. doi:10.1080/10510970309363306

Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students’ evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48, 193–210. doi:10.1080/03634529909379169

Banks, J. A. (1987). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bell, E., & Golombisky, K. (2004). Voices and silences in our classrooms: Strategies for mapping trails among sex/gender, race, and class. Women’s Studies in Communication, 27, 294–329. doi:10.1080/07491409.2004.10162478

Bem, S. (1974). The psychological measurement of androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215

Bettinger, T. V., Timmins, R., & Tisdell, E. J. (2006). Difficult dilemmas: The meaning and dynamics of being out in the classroom. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 112, 63– 71. doi:10.1002/ace.237

Bianchini, S., Lissoni, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2013). Instructor characteristics and students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: Evidence from an Italian engineering school. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38, 38–57. doi:10.1080/03043797.2012.742868.

Blockmans, I. G. E. (2015). “Not wishing to be the white rhino in the crowd”: Disability-disclosure at university. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 34, 158–180. doi:10.1177/0261927X14548071

Brinthaupt, T. M., & Eady, E. (2014). Faculty members’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors toward their nontraditional students. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62, 131–140. doi:0.1080/07377363.2014.956027

Buchanan, D. (2014). A phenomenological study highlighting the voices of students with mental health difficulties concerning barriers to classroom learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38, 361–376. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2013.778964

Buglione, S. M. (2012). Nontraditional approaches with nontraditional students: Experiences of learning, service and identity development (Ed.D. dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79. doi:10.1080/03637758809376158

Campbell, L. C., Eichhorn, K. C., Basch, C., & Wolf, R. (2009). Exploring the relationship between teacher confirmation, gender, and student effort in the college classroom. Human Communication, 12, 447–464.

Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication? Communication Quarterly, 41, 129–144. doi:10.1080/01463379309369874

Carton, S. T., & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). College students’ psychological well-being and interaction involvement in class. Communication Research Reports, 32, 180–184. doi:10.1080/08824096.2015.1016145

Chia-Fang, H. (2012). The influence of vocal qualities and confirmation of nonnative English-speaking teachers on student receiver apprehension, affective learning, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 61, 4–16. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.615410

Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82–90. doi:10.1080/03634529809379112

Clay, R. A. (2013, December). Mental health issues in college on the rise. Monitor on Psychology, 44, 54.

Collier, M. J., & Powell, R. (1990). Ethnicity, instructional communication and classroom systems. Communication Quarterly, 38, 334–349. doi:10.1080/01463379009369771

Cooper, E., & Allen, M. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the impact of student race on classroom interaction. Communication Research Reports, 15, 151–161. doi:10.1080/08824099809362109

Cornett-DeVito, M. M., & Worley, D. W. (2005). A front row seat: A phenomenological investigation of learning disabilities. Communication Education, 54, 312–333. doi:10.1080/03634520500442178

Covarrubias, P. O. (2008). Masked silence sequences: Hearing discrimination in the college classroom. Communication, Culture & Critique, 1, 227–252. doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2008.00021.x

Cummings, M. C. (2009). Someday this pain will be useful to you: Self-disclosure and lesbian and gay identity in the ESL writing classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 28, 71–89.

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2014). Social class, identity, and migrant students. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13, 11–17. doi:10.1080/15348458.2014.901823

Day, B. W., Lovato, S., Tull, C., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of adult learners in college classrooms. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 77–84. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.568813

Deaux, K. (2001). Social identity. In J. Worrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender (pp. 1059– 1068). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

DeJean, W. (2004). Gay male high school teachers: A taxonomy of fear. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 17, 19–23.

Donovant, B. W., Daniel, B. V., & MacKewn, A. S. (2013). (Dis)connected in today’s college classroom? What faculty say and do about mixed-age classes. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61, 132–142. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.836811

Douce, L. A., & Keeling, R. P. (2014). A strategic primer on college student mental health. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/newsletters/access/2014/10-14/college-mental-health.pdf

Edwards, C., & Harwood, J. (2003). Social identity in the classroom: An examination of age identification between students and instructors. Communication Education, 52, 60–65. doi:10.1080/03634520302463

Elliot, M. (1996). Coming out in the classroom: A return to the hard place. College English, 58, 693–708. doi:10.1080/15348450902848825

Evans, K. (2002). Negotiating the self. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2007). Critical communication pedagogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Findley, M., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. (2007). The impact of gender on instructor nonverbal communication from the perspectives of learner affect and learners’ perceptions of instructor. Human Communication, 10, 243–257.

Fishbein, H. D. (2000). Peer prejudice and discrimination: The origins of prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fitzgerald, C. M. (2009). Language and community: Using service learning to reconfigure the multicultural classroom. Language and Education, 23, 217–231. doi:10.1080/09500780802510159

Fletcher, A. C., & Russell, S. T. (2001). Incorporating issues of sexual orientation in the classroom: Challenges and solutions. Family Relations, 50, 34–40. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00034.x

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/03634520009379209

Frymier, A. B., & Wanzer, M. B. (2003). Examining differences in perceptions of students’ communication with professors: A comparison of students with and without disabilities. Communication Quarterly, 51, 174–191. doi:10.1080/01463370309370149

Gendrin, D. M., & Rucker, M. L. (2002). The impact of gender on teacher immediacy and student learning in the HBCU classroom. Communication Research Reports, 19, 291–299. doi:10.1080/08824090209384857

Gendrin, D. M., & Rucker, M. L. (2007). Student motive for communicating instructor immediacy: A matched-race institutional comparison. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15, 41–60. doi:10.1080/15456870701212682

Glascock, J., & Ruggiero, T. E. (2006). The relationship of ethnicity and sex to professor credibility at a culturally diverse university. Communication Education, 55, 197–207. doi:10.1080/03634520600566165

Goddard, S. B. A., & Torres, M. B. (2009, May). Conflict, face, and disability: An exploratory study of the experiences of college students with disabilities. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference in Chicago, IL.

Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756

Goodboy, A. K. (2012). Sex differences in instructional dissent. Psychological Reports, 111, 189– 195. doi:10.2466/11.07.16.PR0.111.4.189-195

Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., Beebe, S. A., & Shultz, K. (2010). Cultural differences between United States and Chinese students’ use of behavioral alteration techniques and affinity-seeking strategies with instructors. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39, 1–12. doi:10.1080/17475759.2010.520834

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573– 589. doi:10.1002/pits.20173

Grellhesl, M., Smith, J., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2011). An investigation of college students’ perceptions of teaching assistants’ immediacy behaviors. Human Communication, 14, 105– 116.

Hart, R. D., & Williams, D. E. (1995). Able-bodied instructors and students with physical disabilities: A relationship handicapped by communication. Communication Education, 44, 140–154. doi:10.1080/03634529509379005

Harwood, J. (2006). Social identity. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as … Perspectives on theory (pp. 84–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hendrix, K. G., Hebbani, A., & Johnson, O. (2007). The “other” T. A.: An exploratory investigation of graduate teaching assistants of color (GTACs). International & Intercultural Communication Annual, 30, 51–82.

Hendrix, K. G., Jackson, R. L., & Warren, J. R. (2003). Shifting academic landscapes: Exploring coidentities, identity negotiation, and critical progressive pedagogy. Communication Education, 52, 177–190. doi:10.1080/0363452032000156181

Hendrix, K. G., & Wilson, C. (2014). Virtual invisibility: Race and communication education. Communication Education, 63, 405–428. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.934852

Horan, S. M., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2007). Are children communicated with equally? An investigation of parent-child sex composition and gender role communication differences. Communication Research Reports, 24, 361–372. doi:10.1080/08824090701624262

Houser, M. L. (2004a). Understanding instructional communication needs of nontraditional students. Communication Teacher, 18, 78–81. doi:10.1080/1740462042000237882

Houser, M. L. (2004b). We don’t need the same things! Recognizing differential expectations of instructor communication behavior for nontraditional and traditional students. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 52, 11–24. doi:10.1080/07377366.2004.10400271

Houser, M. L. (2005). Are we violating their expectations? Instructor communication expectations of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 213–228. doi:10.1080/01463370500090332

Houser, M. L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of motivation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 54, 331–349. doi:10.1080/01463370600878248

Johnson, J. R., & Bhatt, A. J. (2003). Gendered and racialized identities and alliances in the classroom: Formations in/of resistive space. Communication Education, 52, 230–244. doi:10.1080/0363452032000156217

Johnson, S. (2009). Between a rock and a hard place. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 186–189. doi:10.1177/0959353509102195

Kearney, P. (1994). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors instrument. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 238–241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kirby, E. (2011). “But society is beyond __ism” (?): Teaching how differences are “organized” via institutional privilege – oppression. In D. K. Mumby (Ed.), Reframing difference in organizational communication studies (pp. 127–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirby, E. L., & McBride, M. C. (2009). Gender actualized: Cases in communicatively constructing realities. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2012). Making it better for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students through teacher education: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 8, 209–225. doi:10.1080/17425964.2012.719129

Kranke, D., Jackson, S. E., Taylor, D. A., Anderson-Fye, E., & Floersch, J. (2013). College student disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26, 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.028

Levina, M., Waldo, C. R., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2000). We’re here, we’re queer, we’re on TV: The effects of visual media on heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 738–758. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02821.x

Li, L., Mazer, J. P., & Ju, R. (2011). Resolving international teaching assistant language inadequacy through dialogue: Challenges and opportunities for clarity and credibility. Communication Education, 60, 461–478. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.565352

Liddle, B. J. (1997). Coming out in class: Disclosure of sexual orientation and teaching evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 32–35. doi:10.1177/009862839702400107

Liddle, K. (2009). Despite our differences: Coming out in conservative classrooms. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 190–193. doi:10.1177/0959353509102196

Lindemann, K. (2011). Performing (dis)ability in the classroom: Pedagogy and (con)tensions. Text and Performance Quarterly, 31, 285–302. doi:10.1080/10462937.2011.573188

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Trumansberg, NY: The Crossing Press.

Mansson, D. H., & Lee, H. B. (2014). American and South Korean engineering students’ communication motives and their student-instructor communication satisfaction. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 43, 30–44. doi:10.1080/17475759.2013.869244

McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi:10.1080/01463370409370192

McCroskey, L. L., Teven, J. J., Minielli, M. C., & Richmond McCroskey, V. P. (2014). James C. McCroskey’s instructional communication legacy: Collaborations, mentorships, teachers, and students. Communication Education, 63, 283–307. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.911929

McKenna-Buchanan, T., Munz, S., & Rudnick, J. (2015). To be or not to be out in the classroom: Exploring communication privacy management strategies of lesbian, gay, and queer college teachers. Communication Education, 64, 280–300. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1014385

Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived listening. Communication Education, 48, 31–40. doi:10.1080/17513057.2010.533787

Miller, A., & Pearson, J. (2013). Can I talk to you? The effects of instructor position, nationality, and teaching style on students’ perceived willingness to communicate and on teacher evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 61, 18–34. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.719059

Miller, A. N., & Harris, T. M. (2005). Communicating to develop white racial identity in an interracial communication class. Communication Education, 54, 223–242. doi:10.1080/03634520500356196

Miller Marsh, M. (2002). Examining the discourses that shape our teacher identities. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 453–469. doi:10.1111/1467-873X.00242

Moen, D., Davies, T., & Dykstra, D. V. (2010). Student perceptions of instructor classroom management practices. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 6, 21–31. doi:10.19030/ctms.v6i1.5517

Mortenson, S. T. (2006). Cultural differences and similarities in seeking social support as a response to academic failure: A comparison of American and Chinese college students. Communication Education, 55, 127–146. doi:10.1080/03634520600565811

Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 354–364. doi:10.1080/08824090109384816

Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1999). Verbal aggression in the college classroom: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47, 33–45. doi:10.1080/01463379909370122

Navarre Cleary, M. (2011). How Antonio graduated on out of here: Improving the success of adult students with an individualized writing course. Journal of Basic Writing, 30, 34–63.

Neuliep, J. W. (1995). A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44, 267–277. doi:10.1080/03634529509379016

Nowlan, B. (2001). Teaching and working as an openly gay faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Radical Teacher, 60, 27–33.

Orbe, M. P. (2003). African American first generation college student communicative experiences. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 13. Available at http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/013/2/01322.html

Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education, 53, 131–149. doi:10.10/03634520410001682401

Park, H. S., Lee, S. A., Yun, D., & Kim, W. (2009). The impact of instructor decision authority and verbal and nonverbal immediacy on Korean student satisfaction in the U.S. and South Korea. Communication Education, 58, 189–212. doi:10.1080/03634520802450531

Patton, T. O. (1999). Ethnicity and gender: An examination of its impact on instructor credibility in the university classroom. The Howard Journal of Communications, 10, 123–144. doi:10.1080/106461799246852

Pearson, J. C., Child, J. T., DeGreeff, B. L., Semlak, J. L., & Burnett, A. (2011). The influence of biological sex, self-esteem, and communication apprehension on unwillingness to communicate. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19, 216–227. doi:10.1080/15456870.2011.584509

Pearson, J., Child, J., Herakova, L., Semlak, J., & Angelos, J. (2008, November). Competent public speaking: Assessing skill development in the basic course. Paper presented at the National Communication Association conference, San Diego, CA.

Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine subject positions: Narratives of threat, homophobia, and bullying in 11–14 year old boys. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 179–195. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.t01-1-00011

Polley, C., & Norander, S. (2015, November). The college access narrative of rural, southwest Missouri students: An applied communication study for social change organizing. Paper presented at the National Communication Association conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Pope, M., & Chapa, J. (2008, November). The gender connection: Instructor credibility and gender in the classroom. Paper presented at the National Communication Association conference, San Diego, CA.

Poteat, V. P., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Scheer, J. R. (2012). Predicting homophobic behavior among heterosexual youth: Domain general and sexual orientation-specific factors at the individual and contextual level. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42, 351–362. doi:10.1007/s1096-4012-9813-4

Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parental support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 597–609. doi:10.1037/a0025095

Powell, R. G., & Avila, D. R. (1986). Ethnicity, communication competency, and classroom success: A question of assessment. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 269–278. doi:10.1080/10570318609374233

Rester, C. H., & Edwards, R. (2007). Effects of sex and setting on students’ interpretation of teachers’ excessive use of immediacy. Communication Education, 56, 34–53. doi:10.1080/03634520600954619

Riggle, E. D., Ellis, A. L., & Crawford, A. M. (1996). The impact of media contact on attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 31, 55–69. doi:10.1300/J082v31n03_04

Roach, K. D., & Byrne, P. R. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and German classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 1–14. doi:10.1080/03634520109379228

Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59, 185–213. doi:10.1080/03634520903505936

Rodriguez, B. A. (2014). The threat of living up to expectations: Analyzing the performance of Hispanic students on standardized exams. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13, 191– 205. doi:10.1177/1538192714531292

Rodriguez, J. L., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059

Russ, T. L., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2002). Coming out in the classroom … an occupational hazard?: The influence of sexual orientation on teacher credibility and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 51, 311–324. doi:10.1080/03634520216516

Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. (2005). The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 53, 177–196. doi:10.1080/01463370500090399

Sellnow, D. D., & Treinen, K. P. (2004). The role of gender in perceived speaker competence: An analysis of student peer critiques. Communication Education, 53, 286–296. doi:10.1080/0363452042000265215

Semlak, J. L., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Through the years: An examination of instructor age and misbehavior on perceived teacher credibility. Communication Reports, 25, 76–85. doi:10.1080/08824090701831867

Simmons, J., Lowery-Hart, R., Wahl, S. T., & McBride, M. C. (2013). Understanding the African-American student experience in higher education through a relational dialectics perspective. Communication Education, 62, 376–394. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.813631

Simmons, J., & Wahl, S. T. (2016). Rethinking diversity and inclusion in communication education research. Communication Education, 65, 232–235. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1098711

Simonds, T. A., & Brock, B. L. (2014). Relationship between age, experience, and student preference for types of learning activities in online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 11, 1–19. doi:10.3912/OJIN

Simpson, J. S., Causey, A., & Williams, L. (2007). “I would want you to understand it:” Students’ perspectives on addressing race in the classroom. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 33–50. doi:10.1080/17475750701265274

Sinclair, S., Dunn, E., & Lowery, B. S. (2005). The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children’s implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 283–289. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.003

Smith, S. W., Yoo, J. H., Farr, A. C., Salmon, C. T., & Miller, V. D. (2007). The influence of student sex and instructor sex on student ratings of instructors: Results from a college of communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 30, 64–77. doi:10.1080/07491409.2007.1016250

Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 673–685. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.666735

Temple, J. R. (2005). “People who are different from you”: Heterosexism in Quebec high school textbooks. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 271–294. doi:10.1177/0022487107313160

Turman, T. D., & Schrodt, P. (2005). The influence of instructional technology use on students’ affect: Do course designs and biological sex make a difference? Communication Studies, 56, 109–129. doi:10.1080/00089570500078726

Turner, S. L. (2010). Undressing as normal: The impact of coming out in class. The Teacher Educator, 45, 287–300. doi:10.1080/08878730.2010.508316

Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and acculturation in international students’ educational satisfaction in American classrooms. Communication Education, 57, 64–87. doi:10.1080/03634520701668407

Wang, T. R. (2012). Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from on-campus mentors. Communication Education, 61, 335–357. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.691978

Wang, T. R. (2014). Formational turning points in the transition to college: Understanding how communication events shape first-generation students’ pedagogical and interpersonal relationships with their college teachers. Communication Education, 63, 63–82. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.841970

Warren, J. T. (2001). Doing whiteness: On the performative dimensions of race in the classroom. Communication Education, 50, 91–108. doi:10.1080/03634520109379237

Wei, F. (2007, May). Teaching above and beyond traditional students’ needs: A comparison between traditional and nontraditional college students’ expectations of classroom communication. Paper presented the International Communication Association conference, San Francisco, CA.

Wheeless, V. E., Witt, P. L., Maresh, M., Bryand, M. C., & Schrodt, P. (2011). Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructor communication and students’ intent to persist in college. Communication Education, 60, 314–339. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.555917

White, J. W., & Ali-Kahn, C. (2013). The role of academic discourse in minority students’ academic assimilation. American Secondary Education, 42, 24–42.

Wirt, L. G., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). Seeking to understand faculty-student interaction at community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 980–994. doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.725388

Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 327–342. doi:10.1080/03634520109379259

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054

Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., & Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online STEM classroom – who succeeds? An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Community College Review, 43, 142–164. doi:10.1177/0091552115571729

Wood, J. T., & Dindia, K. (1998). What’s the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men. In D. J. Canary & K. E. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 19–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. M. (2007). College students with learning disabilities (SWLD) and their responses to teacher power. Communication Studies, 58, 17–33. doi:10.1080/10510970601168665

Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., & Castelluccio, A. (2011). A cross-cultural investigation of student resistance in college classrooms: The effects of teacher misbehaviors and credibility. Communication Quarterly, 59, 450–464. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.597287

Zwerling, L. S., & London, H. B. (Eds.) (1992). First-generation students: Confronting the cultural issues. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.