13 Communication Climate, Comfort, and Cold Calling

Research Questions

Many instructors fear that cold calling will make their students uncomfortable. So we asked this first research question: How does the use of cold calling affect student comfort? Additionally, because communication climate influences student comfort students may be less apt to participate, and less likely to learn, in a communication climate perceived as defensive. It stands to reason that a major concern of instructors about cold calling is its potentially detrimental effects on the communication climate. Thus we pose the second research question: How does cold calling affect the students’ perceptions of the communication climate?

Research Design

This study was a pre-/postsurvey control group design. Four instructors administered the same pre- and postsurvey instrument in nine courses. Six of these courses were experimental groups and enrolled 130 students. Three were control groups and enrolled 62 students. Pedagogical practices were the same across all the instructors involved, except for the use of cold calling in the experimental group classes.

The Instructors, Courses, and Institutions

The research was conducted in nine undergraduate communication courses, both upper and lower division, taught by four instructors (the authors) at four educational institutions. Two of the instructors are male and two are female; three are Euro-American and one is Asian/Mexican American. The courses investigated included four public speaking courses, two gender and communication courses, and one each of cocultural communication, consultation skills, and interpersonal communication courses. The institutions were diverse geographically and institutionally (public and private, rural and urban, small liberal arts to large comprehensive to land grant research). Their student populations varied from economically diverse to largely upper-middle-class and from ethnically diverse to largely homogeneous.

The instructors collaborated to maintain pedagogical consistency across courses. All the courses in the study were primarily discussion-based, with some student presentations, small groups, case studies, and lecture. All of the courses graded participation, ranging from 10 percent to 22 percent of the total grade. In the experimental groups (N = 6), the instructors explained the choice, rationale, and advantages of cold calling, although they did not refer to the practice as “cold calling”; nor did they inform the students that this practice was being assessed. Because student experience with cold calling varied, the instructors agreed they would call on a student by name before asking questions and would ask questions from across all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956). They also agreed to maintain a supportive communication climate in their classes.

Sample

Of the total number of students enrolled in these courses, 192 completed and returned both pre- and postsurveys and were included in the analysis. To ensure the surveys were anonymous, we used a PIN to pair pre- and postsurvey questionnaires for analysis. (The survey form is available from the first author on request.)

Data

All data are student self-reported measures. We administered the presurvey on the first day of class, before explaining the class structure or participation requirements, and administered the postsurvey during the final week of classes. The presurvey established a baseline of the students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding class participation and discussion teaching. The postsurvey questionnaire focused on their views on, comfort with, and behavior during the discussion teaching in the course. Students had about twenty minutes to complete the latter questionnaire after being informed that it was part of a research project on the effectiveness of class discussions as a learning tool. To avoid biasing responses, we did not mention cold call or classroom climate in the questionnaire. In the postsurvey, however, we did ask students if calling on them when their hands weren’t raised had an impact on their participation.

The pre- and postsurvey questions (see Tables 13.1 and 13.2) were part of a more extensive questionnaire that asked students to report their level of participation, preparation, and learning in the course relative to others they had taken. The form contained both open-ended questions and close-ended items scored on a seven-point Likert scale. Although all responses were anonymous, we took extra effort to obtain candid responses by assuring students that we would not review the questionnaires until after we submitted final grades.

Data Analysis

In addition to descriptive statistical analysis of the pre- and postsurvey questionnaire data, we conducted a paired sample t test to assess relationships between pre-and postsurvey variables in the control and experimental groups. To analyze the qualitative data, we took a detailed, line-by-line approach, which Strauss and Corbin (1990) characterized as the most detailed and generative type of analysis. We segmented and coded the discourse into thematic “thought” units. We gave one sentence two or three codes if it contained more than one main idea and two or three sentences a single code if the main idea did not change. Our thematic analysis included searching for and developing individual themes, determining theme significance, and grouping relative to others (similar to those used by Peterson et al., 1994).

By noting the emergent themes and patterns (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and clustering data into fourteen themes, we created four broad communication climate categories. A second rater coded the data, and the reliability of these categories was determined by computing a coefficient of agreement. Between coders, Cohen’s Kappa intercoder reliability score was 96.8 percent as based on independent coding of 100 percent of the qualitative data.

Student Comfort and Cold Calling During Discussion

According to the presurvey, respondents moderately enjoyed (5.57) classes in which instructors use discussion, with the control group (5.25) reporting significantly less enjoyment than those in the experimental group (5.72) (t (190) = 2.22, p < .05; see Table 13.1). Respondents reported experiencing some enjoyment (4.82) participating in discussion generally; those in the control group (4.47) reported significantly less enjoyment than those who would be exposed to cold calling (4.88) (t (198) = 2.04, p < .05). Both groups were somewhat comfortable (4.55) participating in discussions generally, with the control group significantly more comfortable than the experimental group. When class participation was graded, respondents were not very comfortable (3.78), with those in the control group significantly less comfortable than the experimental group. Finally, respondents reported that discussion participation in general was a little easier (3.77) than difficult, with the control group reporting significantly more difficulty with discussion participation than the experimental group.

Results from the postsurvey, shown in Table 13.1, indicate that respondents experienced a moderately high level of comfort (5.83) with discussion participation in these specific classes and experienced a moderately higher level of comfort (5.32) in these specific classes as compared to others. No significant differences in comfort were found between groups. However, we did discover a difference in ease during discussions between groups. Those in the control group reported significantly more ease with discussion participation than those in the experimental group, even though the control group began the semester reporting less ease than the experimental group.

Results from a paired-samples t test (see Table 13.2) reveal that respondents felt much more comfortable participating in the classes evaluated for this study (5.83) than they felt about participating in class discussions in general (4.55). Table 13.2 also reports that respondents felt more ease participating in the specific classes in this study (3.23) than about discussion participation in general (3.75). We also used paired-samples t tests to assess differences in level of ease in discussion participation within the two groups (experimental and control). We found no significant differences in the experimental group, suggesting respondents felt similarly about the ease with which they could participate in discussion generally (3.56) and the ease with which they actually participated in the classes used for data collection (3.42). However, we did identify a significant difference in the control group, indicating that these respondents felt discussion participation in general (4.15) was significantly more difficult than participating in the classes used for this study (2.83).

Eighty-five percent of the experimental group and 87 percent of the control group reported being more comfortable in the course under investigation than in other courses. Therefore, only 15 percent of respondents in the experimental groups (N = 20 of 130) felt less comfortable in the cold-calling courses than in others; 12 percent of control group respondents (N = 7 of 62) felt less comfortable in control classes. When asked why they were more or less comfortable, respondents cited communication climate characteristics, though they were not specifically asked about them in the survey. The themes related to communication climate are described in the following section. However, responses not referencing communication climate related largely to three themes: the teacher, the nature of the course, and student preparation and comprehension.

Although no respondents mentioned the instructor as a reason for being less comfortable, twenty-one stated that they were more comfortable in the given class than in others because of the instructor. They explained that instructors helped them feel comfortable by being flexible and creating an encouraging, supportive, and respectful environment. For example, one experimental group respondent described being more comfortable “[b]ecause the [instructor] was willing to change things to make students more comfortable.” A control group respondent noted, “The teacher created an environment that leaves everyone feeling comfortable in their own opinion. There is no judgment presented by the teacher on wrong and right opinions.”

Twenty respondents stated that the nature of the course content was the reason for more or less comfort in the given class. Fourteen respondents who were more comfortable in the given course than in others stated it was because it was a “speech” or a “communication” course. Other respondents mentioned course design as affecting their comfort. For example, a respondent suggested, “This class was designed for participation in class discussion.” The six respondents less comfortable in the given class claimed it was due to the difficulty of the course content or design. One respondent claimed, “I felt less comfortable because the concepts were very challenging.” Another maintained, “The subject matter was sometimes really difficult to discuss.”

Student preparation and comprehension were mentioned by fourteen respondents. Six claimed they were more comfortable because they were better prepared. To illustrate, one respondent wrote, “I got used to talking in this course because I was prepared so I’d know what I was talking about.” Although no one attributed less comfort to poor preparation, four respondents blamed their comprehension level. As one stated, “When I felt uncomfortable, it was not that I was unprepared, but that I didn’t fully comprehend the subject matter.” Conversely, four respondents felt more comfortable as a result of their solid comprehension.

Impact of Cold Calling on Communication Climate

We identified fourteen themes identified from the data related to communication climate and grouped them into four categories: (1) climate of confirmation, (2) climate of engagement, (3) climate of familiarity, and (4) climate of freedom (listed in order of frequency from most to least). When asked why they were less comfortable in the given class, respondents gave reasons related to two of four communication climate themes.

Climate of confirmation. Forty-two respondents alluded to a communication climate of confirmation as the reason they were more comfortable. In a communication climate of confirmation, the negotiated characteristics of the communication context recognize another person’s worth (Cissna & Seiburg, 1995). We distilled four indicators of this type of climate: accepting communication, nonjudgmental communication, personal communication, and respectful communication. For instance, one respondent reported, “The atmosphere was very open and I felt I could express my opinion without being judged” (experimental group respondent: coded nonjudgmental). Here are further examples of each indicator (comments came from respondents in courses from all four instructors):

In fact, the most common theme among the more comfortable respondents was a climate of confirmation, and the most common theme among the less comfortable ones was a climate of disconfirmation. Nine of the twenty-five less comfortable respondents described a communication climate of disconfirmation, with characteristics such as judgment, intimidation, and lack of acceptance. As one experimental group respondent claimed, “There are a lot of opinionated people in this class that [sic] I feel judge others.” Another remarked, “I felt that some people didn’t like what I had to say because of my background.”

Climate of freedom. Twenty-six respondents cited a communication climate of freedom as the reason for their greater comfort. In this kind of climate, the negotiated characteristics of the communication context are not confined to restrictive rules; nor do they seem to be under the control or power of another person or persons. We found three indicators of a communication climate of freedom: open communication, unrestricted communication, and discussion-based communication. We consider these to be indicators because they offer students the freedom to communicate about various topics in various ways. Exhibit 13.3 offers examples of each indicator. Comments came from students in courses from all four instructors. Four respondents, however, felt less comfortable in the given class. One experimental group respondent asserted, “I didn’t like feeling forced to talk for 25 percent of my grade; too much pressure.” No one gave cold calling, which might be seen as controlling, as a reason for discomfort.

Climate of familiarity. Fifteen respondents attributed their greater comfort to a communication climate of familiarity—that is, one in which the negotiated characteristics of the communication context are known and familiar. Respondents claimed that knowing their fellow students, the instructor, and the environment enhanced their comfort. Comments came from students in courses from all four instructors (see Exhibit 13.4 for sample comments). Neither familiarity nor the lack of it was mentioned by less comfortable respondents.

Comfort May Not Decrease with Cold Calling

Our results present a strong argument against the common belief that cold calling decreases student comfort in the discussion classroom. Similar significant differences were found in the results for both the experimental and control groups when those groups were analyzed through two separate paired-samples t tests, indicating that factors other than cold calling increased their comfort participating in discussions. The experimental group results—with respect to increasing student comfort—are especially relevant because an increase in student comfort with discussion runs counter to common beliefs regarding the effects of cold calling.

The presurvey data provided an interesting baseline assessment. Although the experimental group liked discussions generally, neither group enjoyed participating in them. However, both groups asserted some level of comfort with discussion participation. The control group began the semester reporting significantly more comfort than the experimental group. However, the control group reported significantly less comfort than the experimental group when such participation was graded. This finding suggests respondents are moderately comfortable speaking in class but less so when their contributions are graded.

Although levels of enjoyment and comfort differed, and both groups claimed a moderate level of comfort during discussion generally, the postsurveys revealed that both groups reported a moderately high level of comfort with discussion in these specific classes. Regardless of coldcalling use, both groups’ comfort increased, and there were no significant differences found in comfort level. Further, both groups reported much more comfort participating in the classes evaluated than participating in other classes. Finally, not one respondent mentioned cold calling as a reason for their discomfort. These results suggest that comfort is neither decreased nor increased by cold calling (at least not among these students and instructors). Rather the increase in student comfort was related to other classroom variables.

Cold Calling Can Make Discussions More Difficult for Students

Although both groups experienced increased comfort, they differed in their reported level of ease with discussion participation. They both reported that discussion participation was somewhat easier than difficult in these specific classes, but the control group reported significantly more ease with discussion participation than those in the experimental group. It makes sense that students would find a discussion with cold calling more difficult, given the need to prepare and respond to questions nonvoluntarily. But despite this finding, both were equally comfortable. Student comfort is an important element of a supportive communication climate—and therefore critical to effective discussion—but we suggest that difficulty (as opposed to “ease”) of discussion participation can be desirable. Discussion strategies that raise difficulty can challenge students positively, both intellectually and communicatively, because they usually give students more practice in constructing, articulating, defending, and critiquing arguments.

Student Participation, Not Preparation, Is More Important for Student Comfort

Eighty-six percent of the students in both groups claimed more comfort in the course under study than in other courses. When asked why, they referred to the communication climate, the teacher, the nature of the course, and student preparation and comprehension, in order of frequency. Previous research by Dallimore et al. (2006) suggests that “when students are well prepared, they may be more comfortable participating, and the more they participate, the more comfortable they may become with it” (p. 18 ). Only five respondents from the experimental group claimed increased preparation was the reason for their greater comfort. Respondents did, however, claim that their (and their peers’) increased participation was a significant reason for greater comfort.

Communication Climate Is the Most Important Factor for Student Comfort

What is clear from this research is the importance of communication climate for student comfort in discussion-based classrooms. An overwhelming majority of students (78 percent) who reported increased comfort described some aspect of communication climate as the reason they were more comfortable; 48 percent of those reporting less comfort relative to other courses identified communication climate as a factor. The difference in percentages suggests (1) elements of a supportive communication climate had the greatest influence on increased student comfort (relative to other factors reported), and (2) elements of a defensive communication climate were rarely cited as a reason for decreased comfort, with more than 52 percent attributing to other factors such as course content and their lack of comprehension. Both the experimental and control groups reported that they were more comfortable because the communication climate was confirming, engaged, free, and familiar.

This study confirms the importance of a communication climate that recognizes another’s worth, similar to “empathy” as suggested by Gibb (1961). Our unique contributions to the communication climate research are the characteristics of engagement, freedom, and familiarity. From this study, we deem such qualities, which are not present in Gibb’s framework, as central to classroom interaction. Regardless of the use of cold calling, students are comfortable during discussion when all students are engaged, have the freedom to express a variety of viewpoints, and are familiar with the instructor, the students, and the environment. Counter to widespread suspicions, the experimental group did not perceive the communication climate as restrictive in the classroom with cold calling.

Cold Calling Can Increase Overall Student Engagement

Qualitative responses from the experimental (two-thirds) and control groups (one-third) were consistent with the overall N. Roughly one-third of the responses for each of the climate categories came from respondents in the control group, with one notable exception. Of the comments on a climate of engagement, 82 percent were from the experimental group. Although we expected both groups to participate, more respondents commented on student engagement in the cold-calling classroom. This finding suggests greater engagement in classes with cold calling.

Create a Climate of Confirmation in the Classroom

Students must anticipate they will not be ridiculed or shamed before they take the risk of participating. Before speaking up comfortably either voluntarily or nonvoluntarily, they need to feel they will be affirmed and valued as individuals. Similar to Gibb’s climate characteristics (1961) of empathy and equality, the communication climate of confirmation is accepting and nonjudgmental. We maintain that effective communication should be a relationship-building process rather than merely a means for transferring information and ideas (Robertson, 2002). Instructors must recognize the importance of affirming students before considering cold calling, because students could easily see it as punitive or threatening in a climate of disconfirmation.

Create a Climate of Engagement

Students are comfortable during discussions when participation is expected, when all students are engaged and personally contribute, and cold calling makes this happen. Now that several studies demonstrate that the practice need not sacrifice student comfort, instructors can feel confident in using it and other strategies to increase student engagement, such as grading participation and using multiple active-learning strategies.

Create a Climate of Freedom

The climate of freedom is similar to Gibb’s (1961) notion of “spontaneity,” which refers to messages that are open, honest, and free from ulterior motives. Respondents described this climate as characterized by openness, lack of confining rules, and an emphasis on discussion. These distinctions are appropriate for the classroom context. Students feel more comfortable participating when no rules restrict how to communicate and what to say. They described the allowance of multiple opinions and humor in a relaxed environment as the key to their comfort. Having a climate of freedom creates opportunities for them to “share the teaching task with one another and their instructor” (Christensen, 1991, p. 99). This freedom encourages students to share power over and responsibility for the learning experience of the class (Christensen, 1991).

Create a Climate of Familiarity in the Classroom

Individuals feel more comfortable with self-disclosure or speaking in public when the audience and setting are known. Students too feel more comfortable participating in discussion when familiar with the instructor, other students, and class setting. This familiarity develops through interaction. Its value extends the literature on the importance of establishing clear and explicit expectations for students (Davis, 1993).