Several studies have shown that communication apprehension (CA) plays a significant role in reducing the

(1)

I N F O R M S

Transactions on Education

Using Digital Video Technology to

Reduce Communication Apprehension in

Business Education

Elke M. Leeds

Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144, eleeds@kennesaw.edu

Ruth A. Maurer

Colorado School of Mines, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506,drruth1@earthlink.net

S

everal studies have shown that communication apprehension (CA) plays a significant role in reducing the effectiveness of oral communication in business settings. To compound this problem, environmental needs for large classes deny students the opportunity to present in the classroom and prevent universities from adequately addressing CA. In this study, digital video was used as a multimedia replacement for in-class oral presentations. A digital video treatment was designed and tested on a sample of second year management information systems (MIS) students at a large southeastern state university to determine its impact on CA. McCroskey’s [McCroskey, J. C. 1982. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ] Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) was used to measure CA in a pretreatment/posttreatment design. Results showed that the treatment is associated with a reduction in CA. A feedback survey indicated that participants in the treatment group spent more time on average practicing oral communication skills and most felt the treatment prepared them to present again. Digital video can benefit students through reduced CA, increased practice time, and the ability to review their presentation delivery. In a large class environment digital video may be used as an alternative to in-class presentation in order to benefit students who would otherwise not have the opportunity to present.

Key words: communication apprehension; digital video; oral communication; presentation; technology

History: Received: November 2007; accepted: January 2009. This paper was with the authors 4 months for 2 revisions.

Introduction

Communication apprehension (CA) is described as an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with another per-son or perper-sons (McCroskey 1970, 1976, 1977, 1984). CA is recognized to be an impediment to the devel-opment of the skills that are needed for effective oral communication in business and other settings (Aly and Islam 2003, 2005; Hassall et al. 2000; McCroskey 1970, 1976, 1977, 1984; McCroskey and Anderson 1976; Ruchala and Hill 1994; Scott et al. 1978; Winiecki and Ayres 1999). For communication skills to be suc-cessfully developed, a reduction in CA is necessary for individuals with high levels of CA (Hassall et al. 2000). Individuals who experience high levels of CA (a) will withdraw from communication and avoid it when possible; (b) will be perceived less positively than those with low CA in their work environment; and (c) will be negatively impacted in their social,

political, academic, and economic lives as a result of their communication avoidance (McCroskey 1977).

Educators and employers maintain that oral and written communication skills are the most critical skills needed by business students (Hynes and Bhatia 1996, Maes et al. 1997, Pittenger et al. 2004, Plutsky and Wilson 2000, Wardrope 2002). Norback and Hardin (2005) noted several studies that stress the need for oral communication skills in engineering and management science. Barnhart (2007) pointed out the need for improved communication skills among operations researchers. However, the need for larger class sizes (Campbell et al. 2001, Geske 1992) cou-pled with the increased curricular emphasis being placed on communication skills by accrediting bodies (Ober 1987, Ober and Wunsch 1983) places a strain on universities to adequately address CA. Robinson II (1997) suggested that introductory courses are ideal settings for addressing CA. However, these courses 84 Ad ditional inf ormation, inc luding supplemental material and rights and permission policies, is av ailab le at http://ite .pubs.inf orms.or g.

(2)

often have higher enrollment. This makes it difﬁ-cult to address CA through traditional approaches that require in-class student speaking activities. It is clear that an alternative to the traditional approach is needed to address the problem of CA for students in large classes. One such alternative is the subject of the present study, the use of student presenta-tions via multimedia technology in place of classroom presentations.

Description of the Study

This quasi-experimental study attempted to deter-mine if digital video, a multimedia technology, can be used in a large class to reduce CA. Digital video is an all-encompassing term for footage that is cap-tured digitally. It can be capcap-tured on a digital video tape, a disc, and directly onto a temporary stor-age device (Fill and Ottewill 2006). A digital video treatment combining resources, training, recording, practice, and review was created by the primary researcher as the independent variable in the study. CA was the dependent variable. A detailed descrip-tion on the treatment and its components follows later in this section. A purposive sample (Leedy and Ormrod 2001) of two introductory management of information systems classes taught by the primary researcher was identiﬁed. The classes comprised the control and treatment groups. Each participant signed a consent form approved by the institution’s review board. Care was taken to minimize any effect of researcher bias. These courses contained an oral com-munication requirement. In-class presentation and video presentation were touted as equally important and beneﬁcial. The participants were not aware of any researcher preference between the methods.

McCroskey’s (1982) Personal Report of Com-munication Apprehension (PRCA-24) was used in both groups to measure CA in a pretreat-ment/posttreatment methodology (Appendix A). The PRCA-24 is a series of 24 statements concerning an individual’s feelings about communicating with other people (McCroskey 1982). The instrument measures an individual’s level of CA across four communi-cation contexts: dyadic, group, meeting, and public speaking. It was administered through WebCT VISTA, a password-protected Web-based content manage-ment system, to student participants in both groups prior to an oral presentation assignment. The con-trol group delivered live in-class presentations to their peers and assessors. The experimental group recorded its presentation on digital videotape. Peers and asses-sors viewed the presentations on WebCT VISTA. Immediately after the presentations were delivered and submitted, the PRCA-24 was administered again to examine the effect of the treatment on CA. A posttest survey collected feedback from the groups on the experiment (Appendix B).

Classroom lectures on oral presentation planning, preparation, and delivery were presented halfway through the course. Student fears of public speaking and oral communication were identiﬁed as normal. Participants were assigned textbook readings by the researcher to coincide with classroom lectures. They performed a written analysis of Moot Corp Competi-tion student business plan presentaCompeti-tions (Moot Corp 2006) to identify elements of good oral communica-tion skills. The PRCA-24 pretest was administered. Students were then placed into teams by the instruc-tor and assigned a presentation topic based on course-related materials. The topic in this study was the impact of really simple syndication (RSS) and pod-casting on business. Students were asked to create 12-minute presentations, each to include an introduc-tion to RSS technology, its history, technology require-ments, and current issues for use in a business setting. Students were given three weeks to complete this assignment.

The two researcher-taught classes were identified as separate groups. One was the control and one the treatment group. The classes contained 80 students each, were taught on the same days, and followed one another in the same classroom. The first of the two classes was identified as the control group; the sec-ond as the treatment group. The control group was instructed to deliver live in-class RSS presentations to peers and assessors. Because of the large class size, the presentations required two separate class meetings of one hour and 15 minutes each. Simultaneously, the treatment group submitted presentations on digital video through the VISTA course management system. These presentations were viewed digitally in the two days that followed by peers, assessors, and presenters. Both groups concluded the presentation sequence on the same day.

The treatment group began with a 75-minute class period for preparation and training. The treatment was skills-based. Teams were trained on digital video quality characteristics including the best ways to frame a shot, the use of adequate lighting, and how to capture distortion-free audio. Film clip examples that demonstrate the adequate and inadequate use of lighting, the importance of using a tripod for steady ﬁlming, and the problems associated with back-ground noise interference were provided. Participants used Apple Macintosh iMovie digital video editing software (supported and available on-campus) for the creation of video ﬁles and the QuickTime player for viewing. The same cameras, equipment, and editing software were used for each participant, and train-ing for the digital video treatment was made able online to students. Virtual training was avail-able and could be substituted for in-class training.

Ad ditional inf ormation, inc luding supplemental material and rights and permission policies, is av ailab le at http://ite .pubs.inf orms.or g.

(3)

The treatment group identified an appropriate loca-tion and acquired the necessary equipment from the campus presentation technology department. Partic-ipants were instructed to film oral presentations in one continuous take as inserting or editing footage was not permitted. If students wished to retape, they had to start at the beginning of the presentation. This resulted in increased practice time. Treatment group participants had the option of submitting the best version of their presentation. Participants com-pressed video files and uploaded them to their associ-ated course. No adverse effects relassoci-ated to digital video technology training and use were noted.

Theoretical Framework

Literature Review

McCroskey’s (1970) seminal work on CA is the basis for hundreds of studies across a multitude of applica-tions. CA is perhaps the most oft-cited trait that influ-ences oral communication and presentation delivery. It is identified as a strong and stable trait that impacts human communication. CA is presented theoretically as a trait that has a negative impact on the source of communication, the receiver of the communication, or both (Cole and McCroskey 2003). These outcomes are manifested through avoidance of communica-tion, withdrawal, and disruption (McCroskey 1977). In an educational setting these outcomes have been linked to course withdrawal and student performance (McCroskey et al. 1989). Studies also linked CA to an increase in student dropout rates (Ericson and Gardner 1992, Rubin et al. 1990). CA exists in virtually every culture in which it has been investigated (Pryor et al. 2005). There are three major methods of reduc-ing CA: anxiety-reduction interventions (systematic desensitization); negative thought interventions (cog-nitive modification); and skills training (Pribyl et al. 2001). Agreement on the three major classifications of oral CA treatment exists (Allen et al. 1989, Daly and McCroskey 1984, Hallmark et al. 1993, Hopf and Ayres 1992, Pribyl et al. 2001, Robinson II 1997, Ruchala and Hill 1994), but disagreements abound as to which unique treatment, or which combination of treatments, is the most appropriate in a given situa-tion. This study builds on the work of McCroskey and others and focuses on the use of video technology in communication skills training as a means to reduce CA in large introductory classes.

Treatment of Communication Apprehension

Robinson II (1997) completed a national survey of in-class treatment techniques. In total, 307 colleges and universities responded to questions about CA screen-ing, treatment, classroom techniques, and resources. Of those, 81% of the respondents reported that CA

Table 1 Major CA Reduction Techniques and Frequencies Used

Method Frequency Percentage (%) Skills training (ST) 267 96 Cognitive modiﬁcation (CM) 173 63 Visualization 163 59 Systematic desensitization (SD) 69 25 is treated in the classroom. Many students in a basic public speaking course experienced CA and 20% of them were considered to have a serious problem (McCroskey 1977, 1984; Robinson II 1997). “A means of training speech-anxious students within the con-ﬁnes of the normal classroom is sorely needed by those who do not have the resources to provide indi-vidualized treatment programs for such students” (Ayres and Hopf 1985, p. 318). A breakdown devel-oped by Robinson II (1997) of major CA reduction techniques and their frequencies reported is shown in Table1.

“When deciding to treat CA in the classroom, instructors must determine which resources and tech-niques best fit their class structure and time limita-tions” (Robinson II 1997, p. 189). It is questionable, depending on the size and content requirements of an introductory class, whether sufficient classroom time exists to address CA from all three major classifica-tions of treatments. Instructional techniques and tech-nologies that are adaptable to large lecture classes are an important and needed area of research.

Skill-Based Treatments Using Video

Developments in digital video technology are con-tributing to video-enhanced learning. Video stream-ing to desktop computers and portable devices has made digital video access commonplace (Fill and Ottewill 2006). While communication scholars have shown interest in the pedagogical beneﬁts of video since 1970 (Hallmark et al. 1993), surprisingly few studies use video technology as part of a skill-based treatment for CA. Digital video technology use is recommended in a blended approach, incorporating various components of course delivery and student learning (Fill and Ottewill 2006). For example the video portfolio concept is becoming more common-place as a pedagogical, teaching, and self-evaluation tool in colleges (Moore and Voth 1997).

Mulac (1974) conducted one of the few stud-ies aimed at investigating the impact of videotape recording a speech performance. Mulac reported that “students receiving videotape replay demonstrated signiﬁcantly greater skill in oral communication at the end of the course than students receiving audiotape or no electronic replay” (Mulac 1974, p. 214). Mulac used paid judges to rate videotaped speeches using Price’s 11-point speech performance rating scale. While he

(4)

did not target CA, is it proffered that improved speak-ing ability may result in reduced CA or better control of CA. (Hallmark et al. 1993.)

Methodology and Results

Research Design

This study used a quasi-experimental research design to introduce change to an intact sample for the pur-poses of observing and measuring the effects of the change. Singleton and Straits suggest that “these designs often are used when the experimental treat-ment is administered to intact groups, such as school classes, making random assignment of individual subjects impossible” (2005, p. 207). Randomization of the sample was not logical or practical, as it would have unnecessarily reduced the size of the sample. The random sampling required for hypothesis testing was approximated by the random nature of univer-sity course enrollment.

A two-tailed t-test of population means was ini-tially identiﬁed as the most appropriate test. Sub-sequent analysis of variance and a linear regression model were used to test for interaction between group and test scores. The study tested the null hypothesis (H₀ that CA would remain unchanged through the use of a digital video technology treatment.

Sample

The sample for this study was drawn from students enrolled in a sophomore-level management of infor-mation systems course at a large southeastern state university. This course embeds curricular components of written and oral communication. It is akin to the introductory public speaking course referenced in the literature review as the ideal place to address CA and oral communication skills (Robinson II 1997). A two-section subset of the population was used to conduct the experiment. The control group and the treatment group each containedn=80 students at the beginning of the semester. The beginning sample was adjusted by course attrition and through the elimination of incomplete surveys. The resulting sample consisted of 60 student participants in the control group and 59 in the treatment group.

Validity and Reliability

The PRCA-24 (McCroskey 1982) is a validated instru-ment that has been used repeatedly as a measure of CA (Aly and Islam 2003, 2005; Bline et al. 2003; Carlson and Smith-Howell 1995; Cole and McCroskey 2003; Hassall et al. 2000; Jung and McCroskey 2004; McCroskey et al. 1989; Pryor et al. 2005). Studies on its validity and reliability have recognized the instru-ment as highly appropriate for use in both college and organizational settings (Bline et al. 2003, Leary

1991, Levine and McCroskey 1990). The internal relia-bility estimates for the PRCA ranged from 0.92 to 0.96 (McCroskey 1978). The PRCA-24 predicted behaviors that are theoretically consistent with the constructs of oral CA (McCroskey 1978). Pretest and posttest PRCA-24 scores in this study were examined for inter-nal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Pretest equiv-alency between the experimental and control groups was conﬁrmed by a two-tailedt-test on pretest mean scores. The result indicated that there was no signif-icant difference between the average PRCA-24 scores of two groups.

The posttest survey for student participants was also examined for validity. Face validity of the instru-ment was assured through instruinstru-ment design, ease of use, and the inclusion of the explanatory detail needed to ensure successful use by participants. Con-tent validity centered not only on what traits were included, but also on how they were presented to par-ticipants. Prior to including the survey instrument, several faculty members were asked to examine the instrument for content validity. The faculty members were chosen based on experience and availability. There were contacted through personal communica-tion and asked to help ascertain instrument readabil-ity and the comprehension level required for use, and to provide their interpretation on the ease of use. The results of this informal pilot study, along with direction from the institutional review board, veriﬁed the clarity of the instrument and its appropriateness for proper data collection. Adjustments were made based on these recommendations to improve the ini-tial design of the instrument and to purport a high level of user-friendliness.

Results

This study asked how CA was affected by the use of a digital video technology-based presentation deliv-ery treatment. Participant scores from the PRCA-24 were collected from the control group and the treat-ment group.1 _{PRCA-24 scores can range from 24–120.}

Scores between 24 and 55 indicate a low level of CA. Scores between 55 and 83 indicate a moderate level of CA. Scores between 83 and 120 indicate a high level of CA (McCroskey 1982). The scores in this study ranged from 47–120. As shown in Table 2, mean PRCA-24 posttest scores were lower in the treatment group than in the control group, visually suggesting a treat-ment effect.

A chi-squared goodness-of-ﬁt test reinforced the assumption that the data was normally distributed. The difference between pre- and posttest PRCA-24 scores was calculated for each participant within each

1_{Interested readers may contact the authors for more information}

about the data.

(5)

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics PRCA-24

Data sets

Control Control Treatment Treatment Statistic pretest posttest pretest posttest Mean 8446 8496 8354 8018 Median 84 85 83 80

Mode 97 90 77 81

Standard deviation 1409 15 1590 1410

group. The means of those differences were compared between the two groups. A two-tailedt-test for popu-lation means was used on the pre- and posttest score differences in the control group and the treatment group. Thep-value returned for the control group was 0.7488. In the treatment group, ap-value of 0.0518 was reported.

To determine the potential cause, and to determine if the relationship between the pretest and posttest differed between the two groups, three regressions were performed with the data. A treatment group dummy variable and a corresponding slope shifter variable were added as explanatory variables to deter-mine whether the treatment changed the intercept or the slope of the relationship between the pretest and the posttest. A treatment group dummy variable was added as an explanatory variable to determine if the interaction was related to a group effect, the slope, or the intercept. Regression statistics are available in Appendix C.

The ﬁrst model was created with the posttest score Y as a function of the pretest score X, a group dummy variableDand a slope-shifter vari-able (XD, the product of the group variable and the pretest score):

Y= 0+ 1X+ 2D+ 3XD

The second model was created with the posttest score as a function of the pretest score and the group dummy variable to examine the vertical shift of the intercept:

Y= 0+ 1X+ 2D

The third model was created with the posttest score as a function of the pretest score and the slope-shifter variable to examine the change in slope:

Y= 0+ 1X+ 3XD

The results of the regressions (shown in Appendix C) conﬁrm the results of the t-test on the difference of population means. It appears the posttest results of the treatment group may be lower than the posttest results of the control group, thereby conﬁrm-ing the earlier analysis that the treatment did, indeed, reduce CA.

Rejection of the null hypothesis was an impor-tant finding for faculty and administrators who use or are considering using digital video technology in large classes. On average, the digital video treat-ment resulted in a decrease in CA. Digital video can add benefit to curriculum design and instruc-tion. It exposes students to innovative technologies. It provides a functional resource to address CA in time-constrained environments and it creates presen-tation opportunities. It also may reduce the reliance on in-class presentation as a skills-based approach to address CA. In an environment where live in-class presentation is not a viable option, it supports the use of digital video to reduce CA. A modification of the treatment is recommended to more strongly address treatment modalities of CA. This is discussed further in the Future Research section.

Participant Survey

A survey was administered to the control and treat-ment groups after the PRCA-24 posttest to learn more about the treatment process and its outcomes. Ques-tions were included to enrich the data obtained, to gather information about preparation and practice, and to determine how the digital video presenta-tion experience prepared the students in the treatment group to present. These results (see Table 3) show that on average, treatment group participants prac-ticed both individually and as a team more often than control group participants. The necessity to have the team present for ﬁlming may have contributed to the increase in full-team practice hours. Control group participants did not need the full team to be present until the scheduled date for their in-class presenta-tion. The team rehearsal allowed students to work on speaker transition. It also provided an opportu-nity for feedback from team members. The additional practice hours contributed toward skills improvement and may have impacted the students’ conﬁdence to present again.

The participants were also asked to determine their readiness to present again, this time to a live audi-ence, based on their initial presentation experience. Table4shows the results.

The students in the control group indicated a higher degree of readiness to present again to a live audi-ence than did the students in the treatment group, 76% compared to 62% (signiﬁcant at the 10% level). The live presentation experience of the control group

Table 3 Hours Practiced

Variable Control group Treatment group Average total presentation 3.2 4.0

practice hours

Average total presentation 1.9 3.1 hours with teampresent

(6)

Table 4Readiness to Present Again to a Live Audience

Control group Treatment group Scale Count Percent (%) Count Percent (%) Strongly agree 17 28 5 8

Agree 29 48 32 54

Neither agree nor disagree 12 20 11 19

Disagree 2 3 11 19

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 Total 60 100 59 100

cannot be replaced by digital video. However, in large classes, or a virtual learning environment with dis-tance constraints, the digital video experience may provide the participants with enough presentation experience to express conﬁdence in their abilities to present again. The digital video treatment may be used as a substitute for live in-class presentation if it is not a viable option. This treatment, if extended to distance education, may improve the quality of dis-tance education, and the effectiveness of the virtual learning environment.

Discussion

The results presented in this study indicate that CA was decreased by the digital video treatment at a 10% level of significance. For students with high levels of CA, this is an important finding and one that may have far-reaching implications. McCroskey’s early study (1970) showed that between 50% and 70% of the students who were found to have high levels of CA dropped the required public speaking course. Anxiety and previous experience had shown these students that public speaking and live in-class oral presentations can lead to embarrassment, dis-comfort, and negative outcomes, thus perpetuating a vicious circle of avoidance (Friedrich and Goss 1984, McCroskey 1976). If students with high levels of CA recognize that oral presentation in large required introductory courses is delivered through a digital video technology medium, continued enrollment and retention may be directly impacted. This offers com-munication apprehensive students an opportunity to address matters related to CA, to benefit from the instruction on oral communication and public speak-ing, to focus on the eventual goal of reducing CA, and to engage in future live presentation experiences. This is significant, as it is generally accepted that man-agement science, engineering, and business students need good communication skills to be successful pro-fessionals (Norback and Hardin 2005, Bline et al. 2003). The treatment may provide additional benefit beyond its effect on CA. In a typical university setting, “most courses provide feedback on relatively few oral presentations” (Campbell et al. 2001, p. 24) because of

time constraints and the pressures of larger class sizes. As a result, the oral communication skills deemed essential by employers and accrediting bodies are often being overlooked in the classroom. The time needed to assess student public speaking skills was made more efficient through the use of digital video technology. The technology-based oral presentation delivery skills assessment resulted in more available class time. These additional contact hours can be used to extend existing content or to introduce expanded content. The result could be improved learning out-comes for students. Students with high levels of CA had an opportunity to focus on skills in a less anxiety-producing environment. Study findings also showed that students in the treatment group prac-ticed more individually and as a presentation team. When assessors were asked about time spent review-ing video files, in all cases the time was equal to or less than the time spent in class. A treatment that offers an opportunity for expanded practice and feed-back, while maintaining or reducing the level of fac-ulty involvement, provides a positive impact in a time-constrained environment.

Future Research

The use of technology continues to increase as uni-versities examine the use of podcasting, video stream-ing, digital video presentations, and remote classroom technologies. This study’s results on the use of digital video technology add value to that decision-making process. The treatment in this study appears to have reduced CA and has provided a functional resource to address CA without negative effect. The treatment in the study should be modified to include more detail on CA and techniques to overcome it. Providing stu-dents with a list of CA reduction techniques, and stressing the importance of practice and review, may affect study outcomes and provide more significant results. This treatment addition could also be used to help reduce CA for students that give live presenta-tions. Subsequent studies may consider following the video presentation with a live presentation to leverage treatment benefits while increasing realism. A replica-tion of this study with a larger sample size may also offer the opportunity to look at the video impact on students with varying levels of CA.

This study also makes a contribution to theory. Studies on digital video technology as a learning resource are well documented (Fill and Ottewill 2006). Communication scholars have shown interest in the pedagogical beneﬁts of videotape since 1970 (Hallmark et al. 1993). However there are surprisingly few studies that use digital video technology as part of a skill-based treatment for CA. This study adds to the ﬁelds of communication and business research while simultaneously introducing a new skills-based

(7)

methodology for addressing CA. An extension of the use of digital video and other multimedia tools is an important area of future research.

The treatment introduced in this experiment should also be extended to other disciplines. The Darling and Dannels (2003) study concludes that engineer-ing is an oral culture, and that the most important skills to develop are those related to oral communica-tion. While this is typically small-group and meeting-based communication, many respondents in the study indicated that formal presentations were critical com-ponents of the job (Darling and Dannels 2003). Oper-ations research and management science programs have many of the same critical issues including content loading, time constraints, and accreditation requirements. The Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technol-ogy (ABET) stress the importance of communica-tion skills and have incorporated communicacommunica-tion into their accreditation criteria (AACSB International 2008, ABET 2005). The replication of this study in an oper-ations or management science curriculum may offer additional insight into the uses of digital video to improve communication skills and reduce CA in stu-dents with high levels.

Additional areas of future research might include examining task, technology, ﬁt, and performance related to the video treatment. Information systems research has long studied how to measure informa-tion systems success. A test of task-technology ﬁt theory may be appropriate before widespread dissem-ination of the treatment occurs. Goodhue’s (1995) user evaluations of information systems focused on sys-tem use and user satisfaction could point the way to interesting extensions of this work.

Appendix A. PRCA-242

Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)

Directions: This instrument is composed of twenty-four statements concerning feelings about communication with other people. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by marking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree. Work quickly; record your ﬁrst impression.

1. I dislike participating in group discussions. 2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in

group discussions.

3. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.

4. I like to get involved in group discussions. 5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people

makes me tense and nervous.

2_{McCroskey, J. C. 1982.}_{An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication}_,

4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in a group discussion.

7. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.

8. Usually I am calm and relaxed while participating in a meeting.

9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting.

10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.

11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me feel uncomfortable.

12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.

13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous.

14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations. 15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in

conversations.

16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.

17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.

18. I’m afraid to speak up in conversations. 19. I have no fear of giving a speech.

20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while I am giving a speech.

21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.

22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.

23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with conﬁdence.

24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.

Appendix B. Student Posttest Survey

Posttest Survey Questions for Student Participants Please provide the following information:

1. Age: 2. Gender:

3. Cumulative Grade Point Average:

To the best of your ability, please provide a response:

4. The number of years of full-time professional business experience:

5. The number of previous college classes that you com-pleted that taught oral presentation delivery skills:

6. The medium through which your presentation was delivered: Digital Video or Live.

7. The total number of hours you practiced the presentation:

8. Out of the total number of hours practiced, how many hours did you practice with your full team present?

9. Did you practice aloud with an audience present? Yes or No.

10. Would you like to provide any additional feedback about the study in which you participated?

Please indicate the degree to which this statement applies to you by marking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are undecided, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree.

11. I am prepared to present again in a face-to-face live class. Ad ditional inf ormation, inc luding supplemental material and rights and permission policies, is av ailab le at http://ite .pubs.inf orms.or g.

(8)

Appendix C. Regression Statistics

Pretest, group, slope shifter Pretest, group Pretest, slope shifter

Y=0+1X+2D+3XD Y=0+1X+2D Y=0+1X+3XD MultipleR 0.6498 0.6454 0.6479 Rsquare 0.4223 0.4166 0.4199 AdjustedRsquare 0.4073 0.4065 0.4099 Standard error 11.33 11.33 11.30 Observations 119 119 119

Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value

Intercept 25.99 0.0044 33.05 3.02E−07 30.70 9.28E−07

PretestX 0.6981 9.27E−10 0.6147 1.47E−14 0.6439 2.54E−15

Group variableD 8.4157 0.4839 −4.212 0.04518 — —

Slope shifterX∗D −0.1502 0.2868 — — −0.0531 0.0308

References

Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology. 2005. Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, Baltimore.

Allen, M., J. E. Hunter, W. A. Donohue. 1989. Meta-analysis of self-report data on the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques.Comm. Ed.38(1) 54–76.

Aly, I. M., M. Islam. 2003. Audit of accounting program on oral communications apprehension: A comparative study among accounting students.Managerial Auditing J.18(9) 751–760. Aly, I., M. Islam. 2005. Factors affecting oral communication

appre-hension among business students: An empirical study.J. Amer. Acad. Bus.6(2) 98–103.

Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business International. 2008. Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved May 6, 2008 fromhttp://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp. Ayres, J., T. S. Hopf. 1985. Visualization: A means of reducing

speech anxiety.Comm. Ed.34(4) 318–323.

Barnhart, C. 2007. Remarks to Walden University operations research students at INFORMS Seattle.

Bline, D., D. R. Lowe, W. F. Meixner, H. Nouri. 2003. Measurement data on commonly used scales to measure oral communication and writing apprehensions.J. Bus. Comm.40(4) 266–288. Campbell, K. S., D. L. Mothersbaugh, C. Brammer, T. Taylor. 2001.

Peer versus self assessment of oral business presentation per-formance.Bus. Comm. Quart.64(3) 23–42.

Carlson, R. E., D. Smith-Howell. 1995. Classroom public speak-ing assessment: Reliability and validity of selected evaluation instruments.Comm. Ed.44(2) 87–97.

Cole, J. G., J. C. McCroskey. 2003. The association of perceived com-munication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and interpersonal contexts.Comm. Quart.51(1) 101–110. Daly, J. A., J. C. McCroskey, eds. 1984.Avoiding Communication:

Shy-ness, Reticence, and Communication Apprehension. Sage Publica-tions, Beverly Hills, CA.

Darling, A. L., D. P. Dannels. 2003. Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communi-cation in the workplace.Comm. Ed.52(1) 1–16.

Ericson, P. M., J. W. Gardner. 1992. Two longitudinal studies of com-munication apprehension and its effects on college students’ success.Comm. Quart.40(2) 127–137.

Fill, K., R. Ottewill. 2006. Sink or swim: Taking advantage of devel-opments in video streaming.Innovations Ed. Teaching Internat.

43(4) 397–408.

Friedrich, G., B. Goss. 1984. Systematic desensitization. J. Daly, J. McCroskey, eds.Avoiding Communication. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 173–188.

Geske, J. 1992. Overcoming the drawbacks of the large lecture class.

College Teaching40(4) 151–154.

Goodhue, D. L. 1995. Understanding user evaluations of informa-tion systems.Management Sci.41(12) 1827–1844.

Hallmark, J. R., T. L. Hanson, G. Padwick, D. Abel, P. Stewart. 1993. Communication apprehension remediation: The interac-tion effect of video self-observainterac-tion and gender.79th Annual Meeting of the Speech Comm. Assoc., Miami, FI, National Com-munication Association, Washington, D.C.

Hassall, T., J. Joyce, R. Ottewill, J. Arquero, J. Donoso. 2000. Com-munication apprehension in UK and Spanish business and accounting students.Ed. Training42(2) 93–100.

Hopf, T., J. Ayres. 1992. Coping with public speaking anxiety: An examination of various combinations of systematic desensitiza-tion, skills training, and visualization.J. Appl. Comm. Res.20(2) 183–198.

Hynes, G. E., V. Bhatia. 1996. Graduate business students’ prefer-ences for the managerial communication course curriculum.

Bus. Comm. Quart.59(2) 45–55.

Jung, H. Y., J. C. McCroskey. 2004. Communication apprehension in a ﬁrst language and self-perceived competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second language: A study of speakers of English as a second language.Comm. Quart.52(2) 170–181.

Leary, M. R. 1991. Social anxiety, shyness and related constructs. J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, L. S. Wrightsman, eds.Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego, 182–184.

Leedy, P., J. Ormrod. 2001.Practical Research. Planning and Design, 7th ed. Merrill-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Levine, T. R., J. C. McCroskey. 1990. Measuring trait

communica-tion apprehension: A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24.Comm. Monographs57(1) 62–72.

Maes, J. D., T. G. Weldy, M. L. Icenogle. 1997. A managerial per-spective: Oral communication competency is most important for business students.J. Bus. Comm.34(1) 67–80.

McCroskey, J. C. 1970. Measures of communication bound anxiety.

Speech Monographs37(4) 269–277.

McCroskey, J. C. 1976. The problem of communication apprehen-sion in the classroom.Communication4(2) 115–133.

McCroskey, J. C. 1977. Oral communication apprehension: A sum-mary of recent theory and research. Human Comm. Res.4(1) 78–96.

McCroskey, J. C. 1978. Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral com-munication apprehension.Comm. Monographs45(3) 192–203.

(9)

McCroskey, J. C. 1982.An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McCroskey, J. C. 1984. The communication apprehension perspec-tive. J. Daly, J. McCroskey, eds.Avoiding Communication. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 13–38.

McCroskey, J. C., J. F. Andersen. 1976. The relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among college students.Human Comm. Res.3(1) 73–81. McCroskey, J. C., S. Booth-Butterﬁeld, S. K. Payne. 1989. The impact

of communication on college student retention and success.

Comm. Quart.37(2) 100–107.

Moore, M., B. Voth. 1997. The pedagogical values of video port-folios in basic publicspeaking courses.J. Excellence in College Teaching8(2) 87–105.

Moot Corp Business Plan Competition. 2006. University of Texas—Austin. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://www. mootcorp.org/pastcompetitions.asp.

Mulac, A. 1974. Effects of three feedback conditions employing videotape and audiotape on acquired speech skill. Speech Monographs41(3) 205–214.

Norback, J. S., J. R. Hardin. 2005. Integrating workforce commu-nication into senior design tutorial. IEEE Trans. Professional Comm.48(4) 413–426.

Ober, S. 1987. The status of postsecondary business communication instruction—1986 vs. 1982.J. Bus. Comm.24(3) 49–60. Ober, S., A. P. Wunsch. 1983. The status of business communication

instruction in postsecondary institutions in the United States.

J. Bus. Comm.20(2) 5–16.

Pittenger, K. S., M. C. Miller, J. Mott. 2004. Using real-world stan-dards to enhance students’ presentation skills. Bus. Comm. Quart.67(3) 327–336.

Plutsky, S., B. Wilson. 2000. Study to validate prerequisites in business communication for student success. J. Ed. Bus.

76(1) 15–18.

Pribyl, C. B., J. Keaten, M. Sakamoto. 2001. The effectiveness of a skills-based program in reducing public speaking anxiety.

Japanese Psych. Res.43(3) 148–155.

Pryor, B., J. Butler, K. Boehringer. 2005. Communication apprehen-sion and cultural context: A comparison of communication apprehension in Japanese and American students.North Amer. J. Psych.7(2) 247–252.

Robinson, II, T. E., 1997. Communication apprehension and the basic public speaking course: A national survey of in-class treatment techniques.Comm. Ed.46(3) 188–197.

Rubin, R. B., E. E. Graham, J. T. Mignerey. 1990. A longitudinal study of college students’ communication competence.Comm. Ed.39(1) 1–13.

Ruchala, L. V., J. W. Hill. 1994. Reducing accounting students’ oral communication apprehension: Empirical evidence.J. Account-ing Ed.1(1) 41–50.

Scott, M. D., J. C. McCroskey, M. E. Sheahan. 1978. Measuring com-munication apprehension.J. Comm.28(1) 104–111.

Singleton, R. A., Jr., B. C. Straits. 2005.Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wardrope, W. J. 2002. Department chairs’ perceptions of the impor-tance of business communication skills. Bus. Comm. Quart.

65(4) 60–72.

Winiecki, K. L., J. Ayres. 1999. Communication apprehension and receiver apprehension in the workplace. Comm. Quart. 47(4) 431–440. Ad ditional inf ormation, inc luding supplemental material and rights and permission policies, is av ailab le at http://ite .pubs.inf orms.or g.