Communication in contemporary learning environments: instructor and student concepts of civility and conflict in online courses

Online learning continues to become more prevalent in higher education. Despite extensive research of interpersonal constructs in face-to-face (F2F) instructional environments (e.g., immediacy, expectations, clarity), research has yet to explore factors such as student incivilities, instructor misbehaviors, and conflict in online courses as separate and unique from the F2F context. Based on student and instructor responses to open-ended online survey questions, this study explicated the various student incivilities and instructor misbehaviors that occur in online courses and considered what incivility/misbehavior categories tend to precipitate conflict in online courses. The findings suggest that there is a difference between F2F and online learning environments, which warrants sustained research that considers the F2F and online instructional settings independently.

COMMUNICATION IN CONTEMPORARY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT CONCEPTS OF CIVILITY AND CONFLICT IN ONLINE COURSES by Kimberly Noreen Aguilar A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Communication The University of Utah December 2015 Copyright © Kimberly Noreen Aguilar 2015 All Rights Reserved The Universi ty of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Kimberly Noreen Aguilar has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Ann L. Darling , Chair 7/27/15 Date Approved Robert K. Avery , Member 7/27/15 Date Approved Connie Bullis , Member 7/27/15 Date Approved Daniel J. Canary , Member 7/27/15 Date Approved Donna H. Ziegenfuss , Member 7/27/15 Date Approved and by Kent A. Ono , Chair of the Department of Communication and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT Online learning continues to become more prevalent in higher education. Despite extensive research of interpersonal constructs in face-to-face (F2F) instructional environments (e.g., immediacy, expectations, clarity), research has yet to explore factors such as student incivilities, instructor misbehaviors, and conflict in online courses as separate and unique from the F2F context. Based on student and instructor responses to open-ended online survey questions, this study explicated the various student incivilities and instructor misbehaviors that occur in online courses and considered what incivility/misbehavior categories tend to precipitate conflict in online courses. The findings suggest that there is a difference between F2F and online learning environments, which warrants sustained research that considers the F2F and online instructional settings independently. To Mom and Dad, My first and forever teachers TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................... vii Chapters ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 Communicative Aspects of Online Learning ...................................... 4 Statement of the Problem .................................................................. 9 TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 12 Teacher-Student as an Interpersonal Relationship ........................... 12 Conflict ............................................................................................... 28 Research Questions .......................................................................... 38 THREE: METHOD ........................................................................................ 39 Research Design .............................................................................. 39 Sites ................................................................................................... 40 Procedures ......................................................................................... 42 Participants ........................................................................................ 46 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 49 Summary ............................................................................................ 52 FOUR: RESULTS, PART ONE ..................................................................... 53 Student Incivilities .............................................................................. 54 Instructor Misbehaviors ...................................................................... 76 Summary ............................................................................................ 103 FIVE: RESULTS, PART TWO ..................................................................... 105 Contributing Factors to Conflict with Online Students ........................ 105 Contributing Factors to Conflict with Online Instructors ..................... 118 Summary ............................................................................................ 134 vi SIX: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ..................................................... 135 Discussion .......................................................................................... 135 Implications ........................................................................................ 148 Limitations .......................................................................................... 153 Future Research ................................................................................ 156 Summary ............................................................................................ 157 Appendices A: COURSE CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................................. 159 B: FACE-TO-FACE STUDENT INCIVILIITES LIST ...................................... 161 C: FACE-TO-FACE INSTRUCTOR MISBEHAVIORS LIST ......................... 163 D: IRB-APPROVED RECRUITEMENT EMAILS .......................................... 166 E: IRB-APPROVED CONSENT COVER LETTERS ..................................... 169 F: IRB-APPROVED SURVEYS .................................................................... 173 G: IRB-APPROVED INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ......................................... 177 H: FIRST-LEVEL CODEBOOKS .................................................................. 180 I: SECOND-LEVEL CODEBOOKS ............................................................... 187 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 193 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "It takes a dream to get started, desire to keep going, and determination to finish." - Eddie Harris, Jr. In addition to dreams, desire, and determination though, one also needs support. And oh, the support I have! Dr. Ann Darling, I came to the University of Utah to work with you and it is one of the best decisions I made in my graduate career. Your mentorship helped me to realize that this very small seed of an idea could turn into the dissertation project it became. From the encouraging emails to compassionate track changes, your support was never-ending. Most importantly, you challenged and pushed me in ways that have helped me understand myself and grow as a student, scholar, and teacher. Dr. Donna Ziegenfuss, I walked into your office and felt an immediate kinship with you. Your excitement and passion for online learning is refreshing. In the moments where I felt this process was overwhelming, you always had a kind story to share and a positive outlook to help me reframe. Even though we came into working together as strangers, I am leaving the University of Utah knowing that I have you as a mentor. Dr. Connie Bullis, you are ever the optimist and I have enjoyed my work with you. I thank you and will forever cherish the words you have shared with me viii about my writing. Dr. Robert Avery, I appreciate your enthusiasm about this project. In particular, thank you for your contributions that helped me situate my work among the other technologies that exist in instructional communication. Dr. Dan Canary, this project is the result of an idea that I explored in your seminar. I am grateful that you agreed to join my committee and thankful for your attention to detail, which helped make both my writing and this project stronger. Julie, on our first day of orientation, Ann Darling presented five challenges to us as graduate students. Challenge number four on that list was to make new friends with whom you plan to be lifelong friends; you have undoubtedly been that kind of friend. I hope you know how deeply I value our friendship, your loyalty, love, and the treasured memories we have created together. Denise, it is rare to encounter the kind of generous and selfless soul that you possess. Thank you for all you have done, especially being a second set of eyes and soundboard throughout this process. Sheena, as a colleague and friend, you are tops. Thank you for your encouragement, considerate and helpful feedback, and willingness to indulge in sweets with me anytime. There is a group of women, which I lovingly refer to as The Trifecta: Dr. Heather Hundley, Donna Gotch, and Dr. Jo Anna Grant. Although you three were my mentors during my time at CSUSB, you have continued to advise and guide me even after I left your nest. You each have profoundly touched and positively altered my life path and I will be grateful evermore. My most significant thank you's are reserved for my family. Mom and Dad, I am a happy and fulfilled human being because you love me so unconditionally ix and completely. Your sacrifices and support continually inspire me with the courage to pursue and achieve my goals in life. I am eternally indebted to you for sharing your time texting, talking, and visiting to make sure that I felt supported through this process. You both have been with me at each crucial moment of this adventure and when I look back at the memories of this experience, it will be with absolute fondness because you two are a part of them. Manuel Joseph, you are the most loving sibling I could ever ask for. How special it is to not only be able to call you my brother, but a friend - one who understands me so completely and can make me laugh during every conversation we have. Victoria, I feel proud to call you my sister-in-law and appreciate the friendship we have cultivated. Thank you for being inquisitive about this process and taking the time to check-in with me just when I needed it most. Layla Vaughn, you bring so much love and joy to my life. And even though I earned the title of Doctor through this process, you have given me my most beloved title of Auntie. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Online education is part of a broader learning tradition known as distance education, defined as "any formal approach to learning in which a majority of instruction occurs while educator and learner are at a distance from another" (Verduin & Clark, 1991, p. 8). Long before the days of promoting online learning on the World Wide Web, Pennsylvania State University was one of the first universities to announce that they had their own ‘information highway,' by offering correspondence studies in 1892 (Banas & Emory, 1998). Initially, distance learning was developed out of a need to reduce geographic distance between students and the physical institution. In addition to this, distance education allows students who are separated by time to partake in a course. Beyond decreasing the gap of time and space, proponents of distance education cite the many advantages of it including access, learning, and expense (Daly, 1999). Numerous modes of delivery exist within distance education. At the outset, print-based correspondence courses were offered. As technologies emerged, radio and television-based courses surfaced as well. Scholars researched the instructional uses of television and radio oftentimes juxtaposing them against traditional, face-to-face (F2F) courses. Notable comparable studies by Schramm 2 (1962) examined learning that occurred in differing instructional formats such as instructional television and compared them to a classroom in which F2F instruction occurred. His analysis indicated no significant differences between the two methods of teaching. In the 1990s, "computer-based CDs and other forms computer-assisted instruction, as well as computer-mediated instruction" (Daly, 1999, p. 482) gained traction as distance education instructional modes. Research emphasizes that no one instructional mode is more effective over another. Banas and Emory (1998) asserted that distance learning and teaching are different from the traditional F2F learning environment for both instructors and students because "the social context and interaction of all participants are inherently different" (p. 372). The advances in distance education have had implications for interpersonal interactions between instructor and student. Most significant is how communication transitioned from technologies that were purely asynchronous and were burdened by time delays, to learning environments that make synchronous and immediate communication more feasible. Contemporary distance education research has largely focused on one format in particular, online instruction. The U.S. Department of Education (2011) reported that approximately 4.3 million undergraduate students had taken at least one distance education course. Allen and Seaman (2014) have tracked the trends of online education in US higher education institutions for the past 10 years. They identified three types of technology-based courses, which include web facilitated courses, blended or "hybrid" courses, and online courses (see 3 Appendix A for a detailed description of course types). In terms of online education specifically, nearly 1.6 million higher education students were enrolled in at least one online course in 2002, where at least 80 - 100% of material is delivered via a learning management system (LMS) typically without F2F meetings. As of 2012, the number of students taking at least one online course had grown to 7.1 million, indicating, "students taking at least one online course is at an all-time high of 33.5 percent" (Allen & Seaman, 2014, p. 4). This statistic represents a jump of almost 24% since 2002. Beyond students making decisions to enroll in online courses, administrators clearly understand that developing their online offerings is of great importance. Almost 60% of higher education institutions view online courses as critical to their long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2014). Moreover, over 80% of institutions see both online courses and full programs as a vital part of their university's strategic plan (Allen & Seaman, 2014), indicating that online education is more than only a passing phase in instructional formats. These online education statistics reveal several realities that may be increasingly likely regarding the learning environment, as we know it. First, students may be able to achieve a degree completely online, without ever setting foot into a brick and mortar, traditional F2F campus and/or classroom. Second, teachers will be able to conduct and complete all of their curricular work, including communication with students, in a virtual setting. Scholarly research regarding online instruction has primarily focused on several aspects of online courses such as advantages to online learning (Clark & 4 Jones, 2001; Daly, 1999) and best practices of effective virtual learning environments (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010; Stavredes, 2011). Several other relevant lines of research represent the communicative behaviors that transpire in online learning environments, such as teacher presence and building social communities, each of which are discussed in turn. Communicative Aspects of Online Learning In response to a lack of clarity about the definition of "interaction" in distance learning research, Moore (1989) articulated a distinction in three types of interaction that occur in such learning environments: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner. An online instructor's disposition toward these three types of interaction is communicated in various ways, most often through instructor presence and the creation and maintenance of social community. Instructor Presence Instructor presence, also referred to as social presence in the literature, is defined in a number of ways. In online learning contexts specifically, Aragon (2003) explained it is "the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships" (p. 59). Others have characterized it as "purposive in developing positive instructor/student relationships" (Hazel, Crandall, & Caputo, 2014, p. 314) and include interactions that demonstrate immediacy and intimacy (Gundawardena & Zittle, 1997). Taken together, teaching presence encompasses the positive communicative behaviors that an instructor can prompt and advance in their online courses. 5 Most important to this discussion is the aspect of teaching presence that focuses on learner-instructor interaction in which the instructor-student relationship may be encouraged through communication. Communication in mediated learning contexts presents unique challenges for both instructors and students such as providing/receiving feedback, social interaction, and student identity (Sherblom, 2010; Vanhorn, Pearson, & Child, 2008). Therefore, scholars have developed strategies for online instructors to promote their social presence in online courses. First, participation in online discussions is vital to maintaining "the interest, motivation, and engagement of students in active learning" (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 7). This includes the instructor assuming an active role in reading and contributing to student submission in the discussions and maintaining social presence through purposeful timing, allowing students to respond to the comments (Aragon, 2003; Hazel et al., 2014). Next, immediacy can be demonstrated by addressing students by name, using humor, self-disclosing in ways that establish credibility and sharing personal experiences. As an example, instructors can introduce themselves to the class, sharing relevant personal information through a short video welcome message (Aragon, 2003). Finally, providing personal feedback is a strategy in which online instructors can develop their social presence. Kehrwald (2008) suggested that instructors should provide regular feedback in discussions, whereas Aragon (2003) asserted that personalized feedback should be given in regard to "assignments, participation, and their progress in the course" (p. 64). It is important for an instructor to demonstrate these communication behaviors as 6 they serve as a point of modeling appropriate behaviors for the online learning environment (Anderson et al., 2001). Consequently, communication is crucial in developing and maintaining interaction, which may in turn lead to positive and significant instructor-student relationships. Communication between students and instructors might positively influence student motivation to learn, an often-cited challenge of online learning environments (Moore, 1989; Vanhorn et al., 2008). Additionally, scholars have declared that the advantages of instructor presence influence student satisfaction as well as learning outcomes (Aragon, 2003; Freitas, Myers, & Avtgis, 1998; Hazel et al., 2014). Immediacy in F2F classrooms is viewed as a predictor to student behaviors. Furthermore, immediate teacher behaviors (e.g., humor, affect) influence student motivation and learning outcomes (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2002). This helps us to understand why students report a disinclination to comply with instructors who are not immediate (Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, 1991). Despite the findings regarding the importance and effects of positive instructor-student interactions, little is known about negative or conflictive instructor-student interactions and if and how they may conversely effect motivation to learn or participate in online courses specifically. Social Community Another salient area of communication behaviors in online courses is conveying and building a sense of an online learning community. Because online courses are facilitated completely via course management systems and 7 only require a very small amount of F2F time (if any at all), students often report a feeling of isolation (Banas & Emory, 1998). In fact, Cvetko (2001) noted that, in many ways, technology creates a contradiction; it reduces social involvement, but students often report that they desire to feel connected. As a solution, scholars have proposed the use of learning communities to establish and/or restore a feeling of connectedness in two types of interaction, learner-instructor and learner-learner. Learning communities are not a new phenomenon; they have been used and studied in F2F courses. More recently learning communities have been widely studied in the online learning context and advocated in order to reduce the feeling of distance in the learning environment. The literature regarding learning communities suggests that they need to be nurtured, interpersonal in nature, and interactive, all which can be fostered through effective teacher communication (Goodnight & Wallace, 2005; Lock, 2002). Establishing a classroom climate that promotes a feeling of community commences when the student logs into the online class and can be encouraged nonverbally (by way of activities, such as icebreakers in an initial class activity) or verbally (through explicit expectations on the syllabus). Additionally, instructors can use various teaching strategies that signal they value and encourage interaction in the online learning environment among students and between teachers and students. One strategy is to partner/group students together for certain assignments (such as discussions, peer reviews, study groups); these groups can be assigned early in the term and/or change 8 throughout the semester in order to engage different sets of students (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). Formally, the students would be required to work together online to accomplish different course tasks; informally, they may maintain closeness with one another and begin to form relationships that are not only task-related. In addition to small groups/pairs, an instructor can set the climate for online courses by having the students post a short autobiography on a Discussion Board, which not only allows a teacher to model discussion posts, but helps to establish commonalities early and before content is presented (as is customarily done in F2F courses during the first session/week of class). Planning how/if/when these interactions occur takes preparation and coordination on the instructor's part. However, with the knowledge that students can feel isolated in online learning environments, an instructor's encouragement and use of strategies to build learning communities is crucial (Meyers, 2003; Sherblom, 2010). Particularly in the case of placing an emphasis on building and developing a learning community, the goals of online teaching are propelling the choice for the use of technology. In other words, an instructor does not choose technology and haphazardly discover that it promotes collaboration and the feeling of closeness and community. Rather, the strategies for learning are chosen purposefully, with the clear intent to increase connectedness among students and between the instructor and students. Literature suggests establishing learning communities as a conflict prevention strategy in F2F learning environments (Kearney & Plax, 1992; Meyers, 2003). Peer learning strategies (e.g., partnering students together, small group 9 work, ice breakers) help students develop connections and feel comfortable with one another. Furthermore, when students have developed community or social cohesion the likelihood of conflict or aggressive behaviors is reduced (Meyers, 2003). Be that as it may, this line of knowledge is not explored in the literature concerning online courses. In sum, instructor presence and the creation and maintenance of social communities are areas of online teaching/learning research that have been thoroughly investigated. This body of scholarship represents two communicative aspects of online learning, but do little to explore how the deficit of such aspects may precipitate conflict between students and instructors. Statement of the Problem Instructional communication research has largely focused on aspects of the "traditional" F2F classroom (see e.g., Myers, 2010). Such research has offered claims about teacher communicative behavior as it relates to cognitive and affective learning (Avtgis, 2001; Chesebro, 2003; Kelley & Gorham, 1988), messages that teachers use to establish and maintain control in the classroom (Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984, 1985), and teacher communication behaviors that are not received positively by students (Boice, 1996; Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991; Plax & Kearney, 1999). Together, these programs of research, and others, support the claim that teaching is essentially a communication accomplishment and specific teacher behaviors can enhance or detract from student learning. The majority of this research examines the F2F learning environment and provides very little support to our 10 understanding of effective teacher or student communication behaviors in the online setting. Given the prevalence of online courses and programs, and aspirations for growth of online courses and degree programs, particularly at the University of Utah (Allen & Seaman, 2014; "UOnline Programs and Courses," 2014), faculty development is necessary. Thus, a continued need exists to investigate the online learning environment and its communicative dimensions. Research suggests that characteristics of effective teaching and learning in online learning environments include social presence (Dow, 2008) and learning communities (Goodnight & Wallace, 2005; Lock, 2002). Communication research in online instructional contexts has received scarce attention and primarily addresses constructs such as immediacy (Aguilar, 2010; Baker, 2001; Witt, Schrodt, & Turman, 2010) and expectations (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010; Lawrence, O'Dell, & Stephan, 2005). Because relatively scarce research has explored the communicative aspects of online instruction, there is a need for understanding the specific communication behaviors that might help, or hurt, teaching and learning in an online learning environment. Because teaching and learning deeply depend on the exchanges of ideas, research on how communication varies in this specific context is crucial. Although the research is scant, existing research does indicate increases in uncivil behaviors in F2F courses (Burroughs, 1990; Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, 1991; Meyers, 2003; Nilson, 2010). These behaviors, it appears, might be more likely to occur in an online setting than in a F2F environment 11 because of the mediated communication channels. Such behaviors may cause harm to the teaching and learning environment; this may in turn have serious implications such as students dropping a course and withdrawing from serious and authentic attempts to communicate. Though research has already ventured to analyze interpersonal constructs such as immediacy and expectations, it has yet to explore the contributing factors to and management of conflict and how it is communicated in online courses. Again, as more and more higher education institutions move towards programs and courses that are entirely facilitated online, it will remain important to continue focusing on the online learning environment and the many effects that the varying modes of communication may have on both students and instructors. Thus, the purpose of this study is to focus on identifying, naming, and describing patterns of student incivilities and instructor misbehaviors and consider if/what incivility/misbehavior categories tend to precipitate conflict in online learning environments. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Teacher- Student as an Interpersonal Relationship The teacher-student relationship is part of a broad area of study identified as instructional communication. Staton (1989) characterized instructional communication as the study of human communication processes in instructional contexts. Instructional communication is distinctive because it is not only concerned with instruction in communication courses, but how instruction and communication are employed in all disciplines. Additionally, instructional communication tends to focus on communication variables that affect all learning environments including training, mentoring, coaching, and various education levels (including K - 12) - although higher education contexts are more often researched (Buell, 2004; Hyun & Davis, 2005; Jaasma, 2002; Turman, 2003; Waldeck, Orrego, Plax, & Kearney, 1997). Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984) noted that instructional communication research has generally explored teacher characteristics and student characteristics. However, Friedrich (1987) identified several distinct areas of instructional communication research, which included (a) trait-rating (which addresses what the "best" teachers do), (b) trait-observation (how a teacher carries out instruction in a learning environment), (c) how the classroom is 13 structured, (d) process-product (which connects instructional strategies to learning outcomes), (e) and the mediating-process (which focuses on student perceptions and processing responses). Instructional communication scholarship is based on the premise that the teacher-student relationship is interpersonal in nature. Scholarship indicates there is not a definitive conceptualization of interpersonal communication and scholars generally agree several distinguishing features of this type of communication exist. Descriptions usually specify that interpersonal communication is a process with the inclusion of at least two communicators, involvement between the communicators, creation of meaning, and enactment of verbal and nonverbal messages (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2008; Knapp & Daly, 2011). Beyond these key features, interpersonal communication used in instructional communication research is often contextualized by developmental stages and communication skills. These components offer a helpful framework in understanding how the teacher-student relationship is situated as interpersonal. Developmental Stages Instructional scholars have pointed out the teacher-student relationship moves through a relational development process (DeVito, 1986; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Mottet & Beebe, 2006). DeVito (1986) explained that relational development "refers to the processes involved in creating an interpersonal relationship" (p. 51) and that teachers and students move through stages, much like other interpersonal relationships. Scholars have established several models 14 that help explicate the various stages that are experienced in interpersonal relationships (DeVito, 1986; Knapp, 1984; Krug, 1982) and several of the developmental stages are relevant in demonstrating that teacher-student relationships are interpersonal. Similarly, Boettcher and Conrad (2010) suggested that online courses move through four stages and the resulting communication between instructors and students transform during each of the four periods of developing their interpersonal relationship. Initiating. Relational development models uniformly indicate that initiating is the first stage in which interpersonal relationships commence. In terms of the learning environment, the first day of class provides teachers an opportunity to begin establishing relationships with students. Cooper and Simonds (2007) articulated, "Our prior knowledge of the students and theirs of us, our mutual expectations, and our initial impressions" (p. 25) play a role during the initiation stage. Because the relationship is in its beginning stages, there is usually a marked amount of agreement, cooperation, and conformity. The initiating stage offers an occasion for teachers to help students through the process of secondary socialization, where students become aware of and begin to understand what skills are necessary in order "to perform the role of student in a particular classroom" (Friedrich & Cooper, 1999). Specifically, students reported that they want teachers to cover the following categories of information on the first day of class: (a) what content will be covered in class and how it relates to other work, (b) course procedures (including the typical layout, work load, types of assignments, etc.), and (c) information about the teacher (i.e., 15 personality, accessibility, approachability) (Friedrich & Cooper, 1999). This first stage of relationship development between student and teacher is significant to teaching as first impressions help students understand the expectations set by the teacher and often set the stage for the types of communication and behaviors that occur in the learning environment for the remainder of the class (i.e., term, year, etc.). Communication in the initial stages of an online course is similar to that found in F2F courses. On the first day, online instructors explicitly communicate with students about the course goals, content for the term, and course policies; this usually comes in the form of a text-based page and/or video welcome recorded by the instructor. Deviating from the initiating stage in F2F courses, instructors begin understanding students individually and should facilitate students becoming acquainted with one another as well by initiating discussion and requiring students to post short bios (e.g., ice breaker discussions). The first day online should encourage students to become familiar not only with the format of the course, but the instructor too. Instructors can accomplish this by promoting their social presence, which builds credibility, approachability, and conveys an instructor's personality. Experimenting. In this second stage of relational development, communication begins to progress or evolve. Both students and teachers experiment by testing one another in order to appraise the boundaries around the relationship. Interestingly, although this stage represents that the relationship is progressing, teachers and students view each other through the lens of their 16 given role (Cooper & Simonds, 2007). That is, neither is understood as individuals at this point. The teacher is an authority figure, but not a unique or distinct being and students may still be viewed as a body, not as independent persons in the classroom. Nonetheless, during the experimenting stage, students tend to test behaviors that help to discover limits and consequences. For example, in the first stage, students seek to find out course procedures; in this stage, students often test the limits of those procedures (e.g., What are the repercussions of late work?) and seek to understand further what it takes to satisfy the teacher (e.g., participation, quality of work). These behaviors are often viewed by teachers as student misbehaviors (see discussion below) and sometimes mark the first sign of discord in the learning environment. On the other hand, teachers are attempting to recognize the teaching techniques and management skills that most positively impact the particular group of learners. Online, as instructors and students continue to develop their relationship, their communication similarly adapts in the experimenting stage. Boettcher and Conrad (2010) indicate that students and instructors settle into a rhythm and at this point online instructors begin moving from solely directing learners to supporting them in their exploration and engagement of the course content. In this way, both instructors and students are viewed as experimenting with boundaries, although in the online context, it seems to be more content-related rather than relationship-related. Intensifying. Moving towards a more established interpersonal 17 relationship occurs in the intensifying stage (Cooper & Simonds, 2007). Teachers and students move beyond their roles in this stage, begin to emerge as individuals, and demonstrate competence in communicating on an interpersonal level. In addition to teacher and student behavior becoming more predictable at this stage, both are also able to explain the behaviors because of the knowledge they have of one another. Lastly, it becomes easier for students to understand and perform the communication rules in a particular classroom because interpersonal communication has likely unfolded with the teacher at this point. During this phase in online courses, students are a more established part of the learning community and (if promoted and supported effectively) have a deepened understanding of their relationships with their classmates and instructor. Because, as the intensifying stage implies, instructor and student behavior is more predictable, instructors are encouraged to move from displaying a heavy teaching presence to a more "personalized and small group teaching presence" (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010, p. 47). Due to the established relationships at this point, online instructors begin to share power and responsibility for directing learning. Deterioration and dissolution. The final stage or conclusion of relationships is usually viewed as a negative experience; however, teachers and students experience this occurrence often (e.g., at the end of each term) and so it tends to be a more neutralized event. In fact, DeVito (1986) suggested that, "In the teaching situation, this stage has a positive tone…[and] represents a normal and healthy developmental process" (p. 55) because it allows for moving on to 18 new mentor opportunities and creating new relationships with other students and teachers. Paradoxically, because teachers are charged with assigning grades at the end of a term, this period is sometimes discernable because students may communicate negatively regarding grade concerns/appeals. Online teaching literature indicates that the final weeks are viewed in a widely positive light. During this stage in the instructor-student relationship, instructors represent a more of a supporting mentoring role while students experience independence. In the closing weeks of the online course, instructors are encouraged to "ensure that the learners receive feedback on their knowledge" (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010, p. 348) and gather information from students about what they are taking away from the course. This, in turn, aids in understanding how to refine the course in the future. In comparing the teacher-student relationship to other interpersonal relationships (e.g., friendships), Frymier and Houser (2000) aptly noted that status difference and time constraints are two areas where the relationships deviate. Even so, this does not affect how communication functions to develop the teacher-student relationship. In other words, the four stages of relational development presented are useful in identifying the various points in which the relationship between teachers and students is refashioned through communicative activities. Beyond the developmental stages that are experienced in the learning environment, instructional scholars recognize that interpersonal skills are necessary in order for teachers to build relationships, share content, and promote 19 the teaching-learning process. This discussion now turns to the relevant communication skills essential to teaching. Interpersonal Skills and Variables in the Instructional Setting Because relationships are established and maintained via interpersonal communication, possessing interpersonal skills is an important aspect of relationship development regardless of the type of relationship (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). Scholarship has produced abundant research regarding communication variables that are salient to academic interpersonal relationships (e.g., self-disclosure, immediacy, credibility, humor; see e.g., Fassett & Warren, 2010). This significant body of research has resulted in an understanding of how teachers' interpersonal skills and variables affect cognitive/affective learning, student attitudes, student motivation, student course feedback/evaluations, affect (i.e., liking of the teacher), student perceptions of teaching effectiveness, and willingness to communicate (both in and out of the classroom). With the understanding that teaching is not only content driven, but relationally driven, communicative capabilities are material to the teaching-learning process and relationship skills have been categorized according to distinct abilities. As an example, DeVito (1986) identified the following relational skills as ones that effective teachers should possess: (a) communicate effectively in interpersonal interactions; (b) initiate and encourage meaningful dialogue; (c) control degrees of openness and self-disclosure; (d) compliment, reinforce, and reward; (e) establish, maintain, and relinquish control; (f) deal with conflict and utilize conflict strategies that are productive to meaningful dialogue; (g) active 20 listening; (h) interpret different messages (i.e., content, relational) and understand the nuanced verbal and nonverbal cues associated with relational messages; and (i) identify and restore relationships. Furthermore, based on the notion that teaching is a relational activity, Graham, West, and Schaller (1992) noted that a relational teaching approach (RTA) is made up of three interpersonal constructs: communication competence, immediacy, and humor. That is, these communication constructs are often researched as a part of relational skills and are an important part of facilitating effective classroom communication. In an examination of the teacher-student relationship, Frymier and Houser (2000) utilized the Communication Function Questionnaire (CFQ) to measure the communication skills that students found necessary in teachers.1 Most importantly, this study provided support for the teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Students reported that referential skills (ability to convey information clearly and unambiguously), ego supportive skills (ability to make another feel good about her/himself), and conflict management skills (ability to reach mutually satisfying solutions in conflict) were among the most important skills for teachers to possess and were predictors of student learning and motivation too. More recently, Martin and Myers (2010) noted that most instructors' relational teaching skills are displayed through their "interpersonal communication traits and more specifically through their presentational 1 Burleson and Samter (1990) developed the Communication Function Questionnaire (CFQ) instrument, which measures eight communication skills in same-sex relationships. Although generated to test a different type of relationship, the measurement demonstrates significant overlap with the relationship skills that DeVito (1986) conveyed (i.e., conversational, referential, ego supportive, conflict management, comforting, persuasive, narrative, and regulation skills). 21 communication traits" (pp. 263-264). They identified three presentational traits, which each have roots in interpersonal communication: self-disclosure, communicator style, and socio-communicative style. For teachers, the connections between communication skills and the relational characteristics of teaching presented in the communication and instruction literature illuminate the critical nature of having (or developing) a strong competence in interpersonal communication in order to be effective on both content and relational levels. F2F instructor immediacy. In terms of classroom communication, research teacher immediacy is perhaps the most studied variable (Witt et al., 2010). Initially adapted from psychology, Mehrabian's (1969) ideas about immediacy were adopted to explore the "perception of physical or psychological closeness" (Richmond, 2002, p. 65), which is comprised of both verbal and nonverbal components. Students perceive teachers who demonstrate immediacy as warm and approachable; conversely, nonimmediate instructors are oftentimes viewed as cold and unfriendly (Cooper & Simonds, 2007). Specifically, verbal immediacy behaviors include communicating concern for students, addressing students by name, using the words we and our, appropriate teacher self-disclosure, use of humor, and exchanges with students before/after class (Gorham, 1988; Mehrabian, 1969). On the other hand, nonverbal immediacy behaviors are implicit indications of affect and approachability. These behaviors include instructor eye contact, smiling, gestures (natural and animated), forward leans, and movement around the classroom (Witt et al., 2010). Immediacy behaviors have been studied 22 extensively in the F2F context and have been found to positively affect cognition, affective learning, student evaluations of an instructor, as well as positively impact student motivation (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Burroughs, 2007; Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Frymeir, 1994; Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996). Online instructor immediacy. In addition to studying immediacy in the F2F classroom, researchers have explored the variable in computer-mediated instructional contexts. In their study of online learning environments, Freitas et al. (1998) noted that students have varying perceptions of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy. Findings indicate that, "nonverbal immediacy cues are filtered out by a text-only medium" (Witt et al., 2010, p. 203) and so an increase in verbal immediacy skills may make up for the loss of instructor nonverbal behaviors. Baker (2001) studied the effects of teacher immediacy in effective online courses and found a moderate correlation between immediacy and cognitive learning, and a strong correlation between immediacy and affective learning. In sum, Baker's findings were significant in that they supported the existing understanding that immediacy behaviors help advance and sustain teacher-student interpersonal relationships. Instructors often use immediacy cues in an online learning environment to signal that the teacher and student co-exist in a learning environment. In a study of the online basic communication course (i.e., public speaking), Aguilar (2010) found that teachers effectively employed verbal immediacy behaviors in online 23 courses. In particular, teachers used terms such as "our" and "we" in class announcements and emails. The presence of verbal immediacy cues helped to demonstrate inclusivity, an important aspect of community and belonging in an online course. What studies of online courses appear to neglect is the consideration and observation of nonverbal immediacy cues in online learning contexts. Previous studies appear to assume online courses are solely text-based or include observations of courses in which instructors did not utilize visual or synchronous communication channels. Eye contact, smiling, and gestures are all nonverbal immediacy behaviors that can be exercised by teachers via asynchronous means (e.g., video messages, video-recorded lectures) or synchronous methods such as video chat (e.g., Skype, Big Blue Button). Despite the limited research exploring the nonverbal aspects of teacher immediacy in online courses, the findings do offer further support for the idea that immediacy not only has an affect on the teacher-student relationship, but on the ways that students learn and feel connected in computer-mediated learning environments. F2F expectations. As previously discussed, Moore (1989) summarized the three ways that students interact in a learning environment: learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor. Teachers are responsible for establishing expectations about all three of these interactions. Therefore, this discussion turns to another relevant variable that affects the teacher-student relationship, establishing expectations. Teachers have expectations of what they envision for their learning environment; these expectations are communicated in two ways: 24 implicitly and explicitly. A teacher's expectations regarding behaviors are often communicated via modeling. By demonstrating certain manners and ways of communicating, a teacher can lead students to understand what behaviors are appropriate for the class. Most relevant to the discussion of teacher expectations is Moore's (1989) concept of the learner-instructor relationship and consequent instructor-student interactions. In light of this, Friedrich and Cooper (1999) asserted that a teacher's expectations can signal to students what type of relationship they can expect to form with a teacher, or at the very least, what type of relationship their instructor is open to. Students consider questions such as the following: Will the teacher be open to or closed from communication with students? Does the instructor value connections or relationships with students? Teachers share these types of expectations explicitly on the first day of class through typical interactions such as teacher self-presentation. Here initial impressions offer telling cues about a teacher's communication preferences and behaviors (Friedrich & Cooper, 1999). Moreover, teachers can implicitly communicate their expectations through documents such as the course syllabus. Though not a requirement, some scholars encourage instructors to share their approach and "express [their] commitment to education…[their] view of the mutual rights and obligations between instructors and students…[and] the rapport with students that [they] aim to develop" (Nilson, 2010, p. 36). Research alludes to establishing clear expectations, but it never connects the tangentially relevant body of instructional studies regarding clarity in the 25 learning environment. In addition to developing expectancies, a teacher must be capable of effectively relaying the information to students. Research has established that there is a positive correlation between clarity and affect for an instructor (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2002; Titsworth, 2001). This finding is significant to the discussion of establishing expectations because students may react more favorably toward a teacher's expectations when they are clear teacher affect is present. The absence of establishing/communicating expectations or lack of clarity in teacher expectations may result in misunderstandings about the course or the teacher, negative student perceptions of a teacher's competence, or conflict. Online expectations. Because interaction is a crucial element of online courses, a substantial body of research regards explicit techniques to communicate expectations in virtual learning environments. Most online education scholars advocate the use of a communication and interaction plan (CIP; Boettcher & Conrad, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2005). CIPs can be beneficial and important in any learning environment, but are particularly useful when F2F time is reduced and/or eliminated in online courses. Meager research discusses student expectancies. However, students indicate they want to understand an instructor's expectations, and an instructor should clearly communicate them (Friedrich & Cooper, 1999). Thus, although CIPs are primarily discussed in the online teaching literature, they have relevance and would be equally useful in the F2F learning environment too. There can be up to five parts of a CIP, which include (a) defining the preferred 26 methods of communication, (b) explaining how students should support one another in their social environment, (c) outlining expectations and rules for learning in online courses, (d) providing opportunities for building community, and (e) identifying where to get technical support (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). A CIP is not necessarily a document that is created by an instructor for distribution to students, but rather, is a guide that helps an instructor conceptualize how they plan to interact with their students, how students should engage with one another, and participate in the course; these guiding procedures are communicated at all points during the term (early, middle, late) and disseminated in a variety of ways to students (e.g., course syllabus, assignment directions, etc.). A best practice that emerges from online teaching literature is that of setting expectations about communication with an instructor, as alluded to when discussing F2F teacher expectations. Lawrence et al. (2005) indicated that preparing students for online learning may increase their chances of success in the course. Thus, the CIP is designed to get instructors to consider the ways that lines of communication can be opened up between teacher-student and potentially aid in the development of this interpersonal relationship. As an illustration, an instructor can set forth that open communication will take place via email and in person (if extremely personal in nature or in the case of discussing grades). Sharing preferred methods of communication helps students make sense of the various ways that an instructor and student can interact and which channel is most appropriate (e.g., email, in-person, Skype, etc.). Using a CIP as 27 a guide, instructors have the opportunity be clear(er) about their expectations for students' communication. Unfortunately, in terms of online instruction, limited research concerns the implicit communication of expectations. This is likely due to the fact there are more opportunities to be explicit rather than implicit in online courses. The online learning environment can be an impersonal setting, but it has the potential to be a site of an interpersonal experience if thoughtfully promoted and supported. Through use of immediacy behaviors and cues, an instructor can verbally communicate their values surrounding the teacher-student relationship. Furthermore, it is crucial for teachers to convey their expectations about interaction in the online learning environment as it can help a student understand what kind of connection a student may be able to form with a teacher. Communicating closeness and expectations can help make the online classroom a location where mediated communication is interpersonal and meaningful learning can takes place as well. As previously indicated, conflict management is an interpersonal skill that both scholars suggest and students deem necessary from their instructors (DeVito, 1986; Frymier & Houser, 2000). CIPs encourage an instructor's articulation of expectations and rules for learning along with the development of ways to build community. As a result, CIPs inherently help an instructor convey the way(s) that they manage conflict. For example, a CIP may include policies concerning topics that are considered points of conflict (e.g., grade dispute procedures). I now turn to a discussion of conflict and the manner in which it 28 transpires in various learning environments. Conflict As suggested in the introduction, certain aspects of online instruction are commonly researched as a part of establishing effective online teaching. Certainly, teacher presence, building online community, immediacy, and teacher expectations are central to establishing thriving teacher-student relationships. However, left unexplored are questions about the potential hazards (or consequences) if teacher-student relationships are not formed or go awry. The online learning environment seems to be a context in which there is room for an increase in maladaptive communication behaviors. Furthermore, there is little research to help us understand how those behaviors emerge, the consequences to the teacher-student relationship, or how they might be managed. A dimension of classroom communication that has been investigated very little is conflict, which has been the topic of infrequent instructional communication scholarship and less so in online contexts. Conflict in the Classroom Communication scholars have studied conflict that transpires in a variety of environments, surroundings, and situations; the classroom is not an exempt context in which conflict occurs. Though conflict has been defined in a variety of ways, instructional literature points to a primary reliance on Hocker and Wilmot's (1978) definition that conflict is "an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and 29 interference from others in achieving their goals" (p. 9). The justification for the use of this particular definition is largely dependent on two factors. First, classroom conflict is considered present when it is communicated (via verbal or nonverbal communicative behaviors). Second, the definition suggests that conflict in the context of a classroom transpires due to two types of issues (i.e., relationship and content), which further necessitates communication skills as a necessary part of initiating, developing, and sustaining effective teacher-student relationships. As Cooper and Simonds (2007) contended, in particular, instructional communication literature regarding conflict focuses on aspects of a learning environment that may invite conflict. Contributing factors drawn from research include power structures in the classroom, unclear or unfair classroom rules/policies, grading disputes, competition among/between students, desire for individual attention, differences in perception, and teacher misbehaviors (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Hocker, 1986; Kearney, Plax, & Allen, 2002; Wilmot, 1976). Power. Thomas (1974) articulated the five events that occur in a conflict sequence: (1) party's frustration, (2) party's conceptualization of the conflict situation, (3) party's conflict behavior, (4) other's reaction, and (5) an outcome. Although Thomas' sequence offers a blueprint by which conflict is realized, communicated, and resolved, scholars echo Frymier and Houser's (2000) ideas regarding power and point out that often there is a lack of reciprocal power in the teacher-student relationship. Thus, even supposing a student may experience a conflict, because they perceive themselves to be less powerful than their teacher, 30 they may not communicate the conflict. A study by Wilmot (1976) supports the research on power and conflict. Wilmot found that students generally had a negative experience or position regarding conflict with a teacher. Students reported that teachers employed high-power tactics and they characterized conflict as a win-lose situation. Interestingly, after "losing" the conflict to the teacher, students did not utilize other means to "win" the conflict (e.g., revisit the issue with the instructor or secure a third-party intervention). In a study about power and conflict in the teacher-student relationship, Jamieson and Thomas (1974) found that undergraduate students reported an uneven distribution of power between student and teacher and an "authoritarian mode of teacher influence" (p. 329). Graduate students did not report the same levels of teacher coercive power and instead reported more expert power of their teachers. This finding is not surprising given that graduate students are at a different level in their education where teachers focus less on authority and more on mutual respect (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974). Group conflict in the online classroom. A scant line of research exists that specifically addresses one of Moore's (1989) types of interactions: learner-learner conflict in the F2F learning environment (see, e.g., Barfield, 2003; Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000). Furthermore, even though student-student conflict has been examined, the focus of the present study is online learning environments; thus, this discussion now moves to the few studies of group conflict in online courses. Investigating online communication courses, Kindred (2001) observed that 31 oftentimes, disagreements between students did not precipitate continuing conflict. Despite literature that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can produce more unrestrained communication, the findings in Kindred's study did not support this. In fact, she noted that major conflict did not occur in the "public" places in the online course (e.g., ListServ or Discussion Board), although they occurred in "private" email conversations or phone calls between students. In other words, conflicts did not become confrontational in the virtual learning environment. In fact, students exhibited complimentary interactions where "students praised each other's ideas and positively critiqued each other's written contributions to the project" (Kindred, 2001, p. 116). At the end of the experience, students revealed that they preferred individual projects rather than group projects in order to eliminate conflict. Another study examined conflict in collaborative groups in an online education course (Smith, 2003). Students who participated in the study readily voiced their understanding that not many people are comfortable with conflict, but also acknowledged that progress is a result of asking questions and disagreeing with one another. The issues surrounding the observed conflicts in this course were interpersonal in nature (e.g., leadership, different perspectives, uneven work contributions). Nonetheless, "when confronted with perceived conflict, participants in this study failed to discuss the underlying interpersonal issues" (Smith, 2003, p. 111) and in most cases either minimized or ignored the conflict altogether. The student approaches to group conflict are noteworthy in both of the aforementioned studies because they demonstrate avoidance (of both group 32 projects and group conflict) tendencies, a conflict management tactic (see conflict management discussion) that is generally viewed as a passive, unfruitful coping strategy to setting group progress in motion. Smith (2003) asserted, "conflict is a naturally occurring event when people work together" (p. 109). In view of this perspective, it is important to bear in mind that student groups are not the only instance in which people work together in online courses. Likewise, instructors and students work with each other, thus making instructor-student conflict a worthy area of investigation. Student Incivilities and Teacher Misbehaviors As previously noted, research on classroom conflict reveals an emphasis on locating variables that generate conflict. One such element that presents a recurring pattern is incivility and teacher misbehavior. Incivility is used as a term in education that defines classroom behaviors that instructors find annoying, unacceptable, disrespectful, or rude (Ballantine & Risacher, 1993; Tiberius & Flak, 1999). In a likewise manner, classroom communication literature describes teacher misbehaviors as the conduct (what is said and done) that students do not like (Kearney et al., 2002). Meyers (2003) suggested that faculty members are often unprepared to handle student misbehaviors, which are "a common source of classroom conflict" (p. 94). Interestingly, the bulk of the literature deals with student incivilities. In two separate studies, teachers were able to discern 24 distinct student incivilities (Ballentine & Risacher, 1993; Royce, 2000; see Appendix B). Research indicates that these categories are often composed of two dimensions, either 33 active or passive behaviors (Burroughs, 1990; Kearney et al., 1991). Active student incivilities are overt attempts to disrupt learning (e.g., side-talking in class, arriving late/leaving early, wasting class time, making harassing or vulgar comments to the teacher). On the other hand passive student incivilities tend to be more covert in nature (e.g., not paying attention to the teacher, sleeping in class, not attending class, demanding makeup exams or assignment extensions). Teachers dislike both types of student incivilities, although of the two they report preference for the passive incivilities (Kearney et al., 1991). At first glance, the literature can mistakenly lead readers to believe that students are the sole perpetrators of incivilities. However, several scholars remind us that oftentimes students misbehave because their teachers do (Boice, 1996; Plax & Kearney, 1999). In other words, teachers misbehave too. A sample of 250 college students generated a list of over 1,700 teacher misbehaviors (Kearney et al., 1991; see Appendix C). These were coded and classified into 28 categories, which include three dimensions: (a) incompetent conduct (e.g., lack of demonstrating care about the course/student, not knowing student names, boring teachers), (b) offensive conduct (e.g., humiliating students, making arbitrary decisions, playing favorites with students), and (c) indolent conduct (e.g., arriving late for class, failing to grade student work in a timely manner, constantly readjusting assignments). The line of research on misbehaviors seems to capture the various actions (or inactions in some cases) that irritate, demotivate, or distract teachers and students in/out of the classroom; however, there appears to be a lack of research on student/teacher misbehaviors 34 in online learning environments. If misbehaviors are a precursor to conflict in the F2F class, it becomes crucial to then explore what instructor/student misbehaviors exist in the online classroom and if they serve as a similar indication that conflict may arise. The F2F literature regarding teacher/student misbehaviors strongly suggests that there is a link between these transgressions and conflict in the learning environment. Despite that, scholarship has not yet explored such behaviors in the online learning environment. Much may be gleaned from identifying and exploring the behaviors of students and instructors in virtual courses in order to better understand the potential effects it has on learning and the ways that the information may be used in order to train and develop faculty who teach online courses. Managing/Preventing Conflict Conflict management. Another line of classroom conflict research has emphasized the various management styles that exist. Hocker (1986) asserted that conflict styles are developed through life experiences. Some research on conflict styles has suggested two to five styles. Most commonly used in the interpersonal conflict literature is the five-style approach based on Kilmann and Thomas' (1975) scales of concern for self and concern for other and identify five distinct conflict styles: (a) competition (pursuing one's concerns at the expense of others), (b) collaboration (cooperative and involving of the other person), (c) compromise (where concern for self and others are both moderate), (d) avoidance (behaving passively and nonassertiveness), and (e) accommodation 35 (giving into other person's concerns). Several instruments exist in order to measure conflict style in a variety of settings: Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory II (ROCI-II; Rahim, 1983), Management of Differences Exercise (MODE; Kilmann & Thomas, 1975), and the Putnam-Wilson Conflict Behavior Scale, which subsumes the styles from the Thomas-Kilmann styles "into a validated research instrument" (Hocker, 1986, p. 76). Jamieson and Thomas (1974) utilized the MODE instrument to measure conflict style of high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels of education. Overwhelmingly, students self-reported that they prefer avoiding conflict (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974). However, this finding may not be as salient as it was articulated 40 years ago. Because the teacher-student paradigm has moved toward a more student-centered approach to teaching, the formerly passive-dependent role may not be as prevalent in today's classrooms (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Fink, 2003). Furthermore, when a teacher utilizes collaboration during conflict management with students, the conflict episode can become a positive experience. Hocker (1986) suggested that productive conflicts might offer a set of circumstances in which the teacher (and perhaps the student) learns about their communication and can modify their behavior accordingly. She recommends avoiding treating every teacher-student conflict in this same manner, as this communicates "a high-powered, non-caring form of conflict management" (p. 79). Instead, using an approach that focuses on the process rather than the outcome and relationship goals of conflict may help determine a 36 solution amenable to both parties. Conflict prevention. The literature on preventing conflict offers a valuable link to the aforementioned interpersonal aspects of teaching. Although immediacy was not necessarily directly mentioned, scholars suggested that teachers "communicate warmth and interpersonal sensitivity" (Meyers, 2003, p. 94) and "[decrease] students' anonymity by knowing and using [student] names" in the learning environment (Boice, 1996, p. 456). Similarly, scholars implied suggestions that establishing clear expectations with students may prevent conflict. For example, Meyers (2003) encouraged teachers to, "establish a shared course framework" (p. 95), Berger (2000) claimed a preventative measure included "mak[ing] it clear in your syllabus what behaviors are not acceptable in your course…[and] discuss[ing] these expectations on the first day of class" (p. 448), and Feldmann (2001) claimed setting ground rules is essential. Scholarly publications regarding classroom conflict point to the various contributing factors that may spur conflict. In addition to the research on power and its effects on teacher-student conflict, a substantial amount of literature suggests both teacher and student misbehaviors have an effect on the emergence of conflict. Furthermore, even though conflict sometimes occurs in the teacher-student relationship, literature points to a connection between the implementation of effective interpersonal communication skills (e.g., immediacy and establishing expectations) and methods to manage and prevent conflict. Although this information aids in the understanding of conflict in F2F contexts, scholars have yet to explore the impetuses of conflict in online courses, the 37 methods used to negotiate conflict online, and the potential consequences that it has on both instructors and students. Notably, the literature on classroom conflict and communication is primarily situated in the F2F classroom, largely ignoring the types of conflicts that transpire in online learning environments between teacher and student. Additionally, existing research widely ignores student experiences with conflict. Consequently, this research seeks to expand on the current understanding of conflict in classrooms and specifically seeks both teacher and student experiences and ideas regarding conflict in online learning contexts. As the modern classroom continues to undergo changes as a result of current pedagogies and the influence of technology, it becomes crucial for communication scholars to consider the effects that this may have on conflict between students and instructors and learning. Thus, not only would research about conflict in online classrooms fill a gap in the literature regarding online learning settings, it also has the potential to address and expand on the relational domains of conflict research by incorporating an additional interpersonal conflict context. The classroom conflict literature suggests the connection between teacher/student misbehaviors and conflict. Some of the incivilities/misbehaviors in the F2F context clearly will not be an issue in the online course. This leaves me to wonder whether there is a divergent set of teacher misbehaviors and student incivilities in the online learning environment and if overlapping features exist between what teachers and students report as other contributing factors to 38 conflict. Research Questions The following research questions guided this study: • RQ1: In an online course, what teacher/student misbehaviors are present? • RQ2: What contributing factors that lead to conflict between instructors and students are experienced in online courses? CHAPTER THREE METHOD Research Design Qualitative methods refer to the "collection, analysis, and interpretation of…data in order to understand and describe meanings, relationships, and patterns" (Tracy, 2013, p. 36) in which participants respond to "very open, non-directional questions" (Schreier, 2012, p. 25). This study uncovered meanings and patterns in incivilities/misbehaviors and conflict by investigating the ideas, perceptions, and experiences of both online instructors and students. Thus, using a qualitative approach to this study was appropriate. Through the use of online surveys and data collected from interviews with online instructors and students, this study sought to identify the student incivilities, instructor misbehaviors, and types of conflict that transpire in online courses. Because research on conflict in the classroom has largely been conducted in F2F learning environments, this research will expand on the current literature by investigating instructor and student involvement in courses that are facilitated completely online. Previous research has focused primarily on the teacher perspectives of conflict; this study included both the student and teacher perspectives and, more specifically, it considered the potential impacts that conflict has on the teacher-student relationship. Moreover, because the literature surrounding 40 student/teacher misbehaviors suggests a link to conflict, this study investigated the patterns of such behaviors. Given that research has not yet explored teacher-student conflict in online courses, this research was both exploratory and descriptive. Sites The University of Utah I chose The University of Utah as the research site for this study largely due to its recent educational initiatives that have prompted an increase in the amount of online courses and programs available to students. Allen and Seaman (2014) reported that 66% of academic leaders believe online learning is "critical to their long-term strategy" (p. 3). Recently Dr. Ruth Watkins, the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, partnered with Teaching and Learning Technologies (TLT) and placed a call for online program and course proposals. The purpose of the request for proposals is described as a way to help "move the University of Utah to a more strategic level in online offerings, and ensure that we are well positioned to capitalize on opportunities in this area" ("UOnline Programs and Courses," 2014, ¶ 1). This initiative focuses on three strategic priorities, which include (a) online courses that reduce bottleneck, (b) baccalaureate programs that can be completed entirely online, and (c) professional masters programs that can be facilitated fully online and/or with limited synchronous components. Prior to the UOnline initiative, individual instructors oftentimes proposed single online courses and received funding to develop and launch their course 41 with the guidance of TLT and The Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE). However, given the online program and course strategy described above, it can be surmised that some departments may be focused on moving entire degree programs online. From this, it can be deduced that proper faculty development will be needed in the near future, further making the findings from this study potentially relevant to the training of online instructors. Online Courses Allen and Seaman (2014) clarified the difference between web-facilitated, hybrid, and online courses; online courses are defined as those where 80-100% of the content is delivered online. This definition aligns with the description of how online courses are administered at the University of Utah, as TLT describes an online course as one where all course work takes place online, except for some courses that require exams to be taken at the UOnline Center on main campus ("How Online Courses Work," 2014). Online instructors and students have access to Canvas, which is a learning management system (LMS). Canvas is a web-based technology that allows instructors to post announcements, assignments, and grades; the content for online courses is designed and arranged via modules and/or pages within the LMS. Students using this technology have 24-hour access to their virtual classroom, can submit assignments on Canvas, communicate with other students and their instructor, and view their course at any time of day. For the purposes of this study, participants were sought from fully online courses. 42 Procedures Institutional Review Board Approval Because the design of this study required the participation of both students and instructors, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was necessary before proceeding with data collection. An application that outlined the purpose of the study, brief project explanation, description of participants, and proposed letters of consent (for both instructors and students) was submitted via the Electronic Research Integrity and Compliance Administration (ERICA) system on January 27, 2015. The IRB determined that the study was exempt (under Exemption Category 2) and approval was secured on February 2, 2015. Data Collection The research questions that guided this study were exploratory and thus required that participants share their ideas, perceptions, and experiences regarding conflict in online learning environments. Even though validated measures exist to measure instructor misbehaviors (Kearney et al., 1991), the purpose of this research was to uncover new categories that may exist uniquely in online learning contexts. Because the goal of this study was to gather preliminary data regarding instructor and student communicative behaviors in online learning contexts, open-ended online surveys were employed in order to collect data from the varying participant groups (i.e., teachers, students). Surveys are the most common data collection method in communication studies (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000). Additionally, due to the nature of the online 43 context for this study, I decided to utilize online surveys because of the participants' possible proclivity towards mediated contexts. The online surveys were launched on February 6, 2015 and closed on April 5, 2015. In order to recruit instructors into this study, I contacted each online instructor via email (see Appendix D) and requested their participation in an online survey, hosted by Qualtrics, an online survey platform. I sent the first round of emails to 241 instructors on February 6, 2015. After the initial emailing, 48 instructors participated in the online survey and three emails were bounced back to me with error messages that the email was invalid. A second round of emails were sent on March 1, 2015; however, this only round only produced 5 more participants. Although 53 instructors logged in to the online survey, 2 instructors did not consent to the first question and therefore were not permitted to complete the online survey (because of the filtering question). Thus, there were 51 instructor participants. Likewise, students were asked to participate in an online survey for this study. I did not have access to a master list of students who have enrolled in online courses; therefore, a version of snowball sampling was employed (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000). I worked to circulate a student recruitment email (see Appendix D) to as many instructors as possible so that they might pass it along to their current students. I also posted the recruitment email on Facebook (on the Graduate Student Advisory Committee page), sent a mass email to our department's communication graduate student listserv, and sent emails to other instructor colleagues. Finally, I was made aware of several departments and 44 colleges that actively recruit student participants for research; I contacted the Eccles School of Business, School of Education, and the Psychology department via phone and followed up via email requesting that they distribute the recruitment email to their undergraduate students. Of these three, the School of Education replied with confirmation that they had distributed the email to their current undergraduate student listserv. Because of the manner in which students were recruited, it is not possible to discern the total number of students who received the recruitment email. However, the final number of completed surveys was 137. Online Qualtrics Surveys Upon clicking on the link provided in the recruitment email, instructors/students were presented with an IRB-approved letter of consent (see Appendix E). The first question in the survey functioned as a filtering question and asked if participants read and understand the consent form and was willing to voluntarily participate in the study. In order to access the online survey, participants were required to click on "Yes" before the Qualitrics system would allow them to move on to the second question (see Appendix F). Similarly, the second question was also a filtering question that ensured that instructors/students had taught/taken at least one online course (in which 80% - 100% of the content was delivered online). Even though some demographic information was collected, the majority of the questions were open-ended so that participants had the opportunity to fully explicate their ideas, perceptions, and experiences. In total, both the instructor and student versions of the online 45 surveys included 11 questions, which included both demographic and open-ended questions (see Appendix F). Follow-Up Interviews As previously mentioned, many studies that explore conflict and misbehaviors do so from only one perspective. Therefore, I chose to triangulate and incorporate interviews into my study as a validity strategy. In addition to gathering data from the online Qualitrics surveys, I posed a question in both the student and instructor versions of the survey that inquired if the participants would like to participate in a short interview via phone or F2F. Those interested provided their name and email address. Of the 51 instructor participants, 29 indicated that they were interested in participating in the follow-up interview. Of the 137 student participants, 15 expressed interest in participating in the follow-up interview. Once the online surveys were closed, I sent follow-up emails to each of the participants on May 18, 2015 and 20 instructors agreed to meet for an interview. A follow-up email was sent to those participants who I did not hear back from on May 26, 2015. Two student participants agreed to an interview; however, 1 cancelled the day of their scheduled interview and the other did not return either of my email messages regarding establishing a time/date for their participation. Thus, the second emailing did not yield additional follow-up interview participants, nor did this process produce any student interviewees. I audio-recorded each of the 20 semistructured interviews (see Appendix G for interview protocols), which each lasted 15-20 minutes. Participants chose 46 a meeting method (phone or F2F) and location. Eleven participants choose to meet F2F (i.e., in Room 1705A in the Marriott Library or in the instructor's office) and nine opted for phone interviews. During the interviews, I took extensive notes on a printed question protocol page. Because the interviews were used as a means of global triangulation in which I sought details that may have been absent in the online Qualtrics surveys, I did not transcribe the interviews. I referred to my notes during the coding period(s) and when considering supporting examples, I transcribed the necessary parts of the interviews for the results chapters. Participants All participants for this study, both students and instructors, were recruited because of their experience with online learning spaces at the University of Utah. Online Instructors The University of Utah's website allowed me to sort the courses being offered by course attributes ("Spring 2015 Class Schedule", 2014). The total sample of online teachers were recruited from 348 courses with the "ONLN" (online) course distinction slated for the spring 2015 semester at the University of Utah; approximately 241 instructors were scheduled to teach the online courses during the term during which data collection was happening. The difference in the number of the courses and the number of instructors can be accounted for by instructors teaching more than one section and/or more than one instructor in a single section of a course. The goal was to select a sample of online instructors 47 who represented a diverse range of departments, teaching ranks (i.e., graduate instructors, adjunct, professors), and online teaching experience. Fifty-three online instructors participated in the study, which I recruited through email (see Appendix D). Although 53 instructors participated in the survey, every instructor did not fill in a response to each question; therefore, the descriptive statistics about the sample vary. Fifty-one instructors identified their position in the online survey; graduate teaching assistants were the largest group (n = 18; 35%), followed by various ranking professors (n = 15; 29%), adjunct instructors (n = 9; 18%), and career line professors (n = 9; 18%). The instructor participants also represented a variety of colleges from across campus: College of Humanities (n = 18; 35%), College of Nursing (n = 9; 18%), College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (n = 9; 18%), College of Health (n = 5; 10%), College of Social Work (n = 4; 8%), College of Fine Arts (n = 2; 4%), Honors College (n = 2; 4%), College of Science (n = 2; 4%), David Eccles School of Business (n = 1; 2%), College of Education (n = 1; 2%), School of Medicine (n = 1; 2%), College of Mines and Earth Sciences (n = 1; 2%), and the Gerontology Program (n = 1; 2%). Furthermore, instructors indicated their online teaching history: 1 - 4 online courses (n = 23; 46%), 5 - 12 online courses (n = 12; 24%), and 12 or more classes (n = 16; 31%). Instructors also identified themselves in terms of mastery of online teaching as: novice (n = 7; 14%), intermediate (n = 25; 49%), and experienced (n = 19; 37%). 48 Online Students Upon request, the Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis (OBIA) at the University of Utah provided me with current information regarding the Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 enrollment in online courses. In Fall 2014, 8,100 students enrolled in online courses and in Spring 2015, 8,703 students. In total, 16,803 students on the University of Utah campus enrolled in an online course during the 2014-2015 academic year. This number of unduplicated students (non-repeating) over the two semesters totaled 12,659, which indicates that 40.17% of students at the University of Utah took an online class at least once during the 2014-2015 academic year. Initially, 152 students logged on to participate in the online survey; however, Question 2 (see Appendix F) filtered out 5 students who had not taken at least one online course (in which 80% - 100% of the content was delivered online) and 137 students completed their survey. The majority of students identified as seniors (n = 72; 50%), followed by juniors (n = 44; 30%), graduate students (n = 13; 9%), sophomores (n = 12; 8%), and freshman (n = 4; 3%). Because the survey was open to any current University of Utah student, participants reported a variety of majors. Even though 137 students completed their surveys, there were students who did not indicate a major and 5 students reported a double major. The majors of students who participated in this study included Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (n = 80), Communication (n = 22), Exercise and Sports Science (n = 9), Psychology (n = 5), Social Work (n = 4), Health, Society, and Policy (n = 3), Health, Promotion, and Education (n = 2), 49 Sociology (n = 2), Spanish Teaching (n = 2), Anthropology (n = 1), Art (n = 1), Business Administration (n = 1), Chemistry (n = 1), Computer Science (n = 1), Economics (n = 1), Electronic Arts Engineering (n = 1), Elementary Education (n = 1), Environmental and Sustainability Studies (n = 1), Family and Consumer Studies (n = 1), Health (n = 1), Health Education (n = 1), International Studies (n = 1), Linguistics (n = 1), Music Education (n = 1), Nursing Education (n = 1), Occupational Therapy (n = 1), Physical Education Teacher Education (n = 1), and Urban Planning (n = 1). Data Analysis Qualitative Content Analysis I utilized qualitative content analysis to interpret the text (which data is referred to in qualitative content analysis) for this study. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) defined this analysis approach as a "subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns" (p. 1278). Specifically, I chose this analysis method because it allowed me to reduce my text by focusing on relevant aspects of the data (Schreier, 2012). Several forms of qualitative content analysis exist including: conventional content analysis, directed content analysis, and summative content analysis. For this analysis, I employed a directed content analysis. As the literature review indicates, there are already established patterns for F2F classroom conflict, student incivilities, and teacher misbehaviors. My coding utilized both previous categories and uncovered new or deviating categories specific to the online learning context. 50 Coding and Analysis Prior to beginning the steps of coding, I read the text from the survey responses in order to make notes about ideas and themes that begin to emerge. Zhang and Wildemuth (2009) pointed out, "Qualitative content analysis usually uses individual themes as the unit for analysis, rather than the physical linguistic units" (p. 3). Therefore, a coding unit was identified as an expression of an idea, which came in multiple forms (e.g., single word, phrase, sentence, etc.). When only one researcher is coding material, Schreier (2012) suggests a 10 - 14-day break between first-level and second-level recoding. Therefore, I began first-level coding on April 28, 2015 and second-level coding commenced on May 19, 2015. The process began with first-level open coding, which Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe as "the analytic process through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data" (p. 101). To assist in the coding stage of this research project, I utilized NVivo Version 10, which is a computer software program that manages data. At the close of first-level coding, I had generated the following amount of categories-subcategories: RQ1, Student Incivilities: 14 categories, 23 subcategories; RQ1, Instructor Misbehaviors: 9 categories, 40 subcategories; RQ2, Instructor-Reported Conflict: 14 categories, 0 subcategories; RQ2, Student-Reported Conflict: 15 categories, 0 subcategories (see Appendix H for codebook). As I continued to code, categories were inductively developed from the text (i.e., instructor and student responses to open-ended questions), which included coding units that have similar meanings and connotations. I continually 51 revisited the categories and revised them as necessary, working to collapse categories that demonstrated a significant overlap. So that I had a clear description of each category and its dimensions, I kept a notebook in which I could adjust the descriptions. This step in analysis is a part of the constant comparative method, which Zhang and Wildemuth (2009) summed up as, "the systematic comparison of each text assigned to a category with each of those already assigned to that category, in order to fully understand the theoretical properties of the category; and integrating categories and their properties through the development of interpretive memos" (p. 4). At several points during the coding process, I conducted checks of my coding to assess consistency and noted how the categories shifted subtly over time (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I noted some incivilities/misbehaviors did not fit my coding frame; therefore, I categorized them as outliers and they were not included in the final incivility/misbehavior categories. There were 6 student incivility outliers and 14 instructor misbehavior outliers (for examples of outliers, see Chapter 4). Additionally, there were conflict experiences that did not fit the coding frame for two reasons: (a) the participant reported they had not experienced conflict or (b) the participants' response did not include enough relevant information. In instructor-reported conflict, 7 participants reported no conflict and 2 participants did not provide enough information for their response to be considered. In student-reported conflict, 33 participants reported no conflict (however, see an extended discussion of this statistic in Chapter 6) and 8 participants did not provide enough information for their response to be 52 considered. By the end of the second-level coding, I had collapsed my first-level codes into the following: RQ1, Student Incivilities: 9 categories, 16 subcategories; RQ1, Instructor Misbehaviors: 15 categories, 24 subcategories; RQ2, Instructor- Reported Conflict: 10 categories, 13 subcategories; RQ2, Student-Reported Conflict: 11 categories, 14 subcategories (see Appendix I for codebook). Summary Based on the exploratory nature of the research questions guiding this study, a qualitative approach was chosen as the most suitable method of inquiry. Because the responses collected were the result of primarily open-ended questions, qualitative content analysis was used to code and interpret the data. This chapter explicated my method selection and processes. Chapters Four and Five identify and describe the various categories that emerged from my analysis of the data. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS, PART ONE The purpose of this chapter is to describe the findings that were revealed through a content analysis of data gathered from instructor and student online surveys and instructor interviews. This study was developed to explore both instructor and student concepts of incivilities and misbehaviors as well as consider the ties that such communicative behaviors have with conflict in online learning environments. My findings are divided into two chapters; this chapter will discuss student incivilities and instructor misbehaviors and Chapter Five will discuss the ways in which the patterns of incivilities and misbehaviors align with the contributing factors that lead to conflict between teachers and students in online courses. Classroom incivilities are defined as "a speech or action that is disrespectful or rude" (Berger, 2000, p. 449) that are destructive, disruptive, cause discomfort and have the potential to "derail learning" (Boice, 1996, p. 459). Research in the areas of classroom incivilities has primarily been conducted in F2F classroom settings and thus, the first research question in my study sought to identify the incivilities that both students and instructors experience in online RQ1: In an online course, what classroom incivilities are present? In this chapter, I will describe the various online classroom incivilities that were 54 identified in this study. The categories presented below emerged from the participants' responses to questions that inquired about the communication behaviors of students and instructors. Classroom incivilities literature includes two categories: (a) those committed by students (student incivilities) and (b) those committed by instructors (referred to as instructor misbehaviors in the communication literature), both of which are defined and illustrated below. Student Incivilities The instructors who participated in my study generated a list of 115 classroom incivilities that are committed by students, six of which were identified as outliers (which did not fit the coding frame). Using qualitative content analysis, nine distinct categories emerged from the instructor responses, which were collected from the online survey and in individual interviews as well. Because instructor interviews were conducted with the same instructors who completed the online survey, new comments did not emerge (with the exception of one comment, see Acts of Dishonesty section). Instead, instructor interviews were used to support and provide elaboration about the incivilities generated by the survey responses. The sections below include descriptions and examples generated by instructors; I present the sections in descending order based on the frequency of comments in each categories (see Table 4.1). I used the preexisting framework for identifying active and passive student incivilities to distinguish between behaviors that were overt (i.e., attempts to disrupt learning) and covert behaviors (i.e., not openly displayed; Dreikurs, Grunwald, & Pepper, 1971) in online 55 Table 4.1: Student Incivility Categories with Sample Descriptions and Frequencies Category Name and Sample Descriptions Frequency/ Percentage Does Not Read Course Materials Does not read course materials, asks questions without checking the LMS for information, and sends excessive emails regarding material posted on LMS. 29; 26.61% Unprofessional Communication Communication that is disrespectful, overly informal, lacks identifying information, hostile or bullying in nature, and/or demanding. 24; 22.02% Complaints Protests the course, refuses to accept grades, and/or criticizes exams/assignments. 14; 12.83% Writes Inappropriate Discussion Board Posts Discussion posts that are offensive, critical of classmates' posts, lack an informed position, and/or are not meaningful. 11; 10.09% Offers Excuses Makes excuses for incomplete or late assignments. 9; 8.26% Requests Accommodations Communication requests extensions or accommodations, offers excuses for late work, and/or asks for special favors. 9; 8.26% Lack of Communication Does not communicate with instructor, ignores instructor emails, unaware of instructor feedback, waits until last minute to communicate concerns/questions about assignments, and/or refuses F2F communication with instructor 6; 5.50% Ineffective Communication Lacks ability to ask specific questions, does not clearly convey needs, and/or explain the steps that have already been taken. 5; 4.59% Acts of Dishonesty Does not tell the truth about being able to access course information via LMS and acts of academic dishonesty (e.g., plagiarism). 2; 1.83% 56 courses. Does Not Read Course Materials The most commonly reported type of student incivility was that students do not read (or view) course content (n = 29). In an online class, all course content is delivered via the LMS (i.e., Canvas) in a variety of ways: text, videos, links, and visual representations. Ideally, a student engages with the content that an instructor posts for their students. However, when students do not read the material provided by their instructor, this (in)action is considered a passive incivility. That is, the students' behavior can be considered covert because it is usually not revealed to the class at large. Three comments in this category were in regards to the general ways that students who do not read the course materials posted by their instructors on the LMS. Instructors expressed that students "do not read my emails and announcements" (Survey Participant #14) and "do not read the syllabus, course outline…whether it's exam/assignment directions or questions…course material, etc." (Survey Participant #26). One way that not reading course content is evidenced is in the way(s) that students complete assignments incorrectly, which was the basis for three of responses in this category. An instructor explained, "I am annoyed by students who do not read instructions, and consequently, do the assignment wrong" (Survey Participant #17). Another instructor observed that "[students] show they are not reading instructions by doing exactly what I assigned them not to do" (Survey Participant #53). 57 In some instances, instructors specify the platform for contacting them (e.g., Canvas message or campus email). Students who do not read the syllabus or engage with the introductory module may not know these expectations and therefore communicate using the incorrect platform. This can create an occurrence where the instructor does not get the email (or respond to it) in a timely manner. One online instructor explained that students contact them in a panic "…via email when they haven't been participating in the online classroom, where I ask that all communications occur" (Survey Participant #53). A different instructor offered that they didn't like students "commenting with questions on assignments or announcements rather than writing me an email or Canvas message…because Canvas does not alert me when people do that" (Survey Participant 22). In other words, two comments in this category discussed students using the incorrect messaging platform as another way in which students demonstrate they have not first read the instructions or course materials that explicate the preferred communication channels for the courses. Twenty-one instructors indicated that student emails were a third way in which students demonstrated they did not read course content. Instructors described student messages that inquire, "where to find details that are clearly offered, they seem like they haven't made an effort to find the info" (Survey Participant #35), ask "questions without checking the syllabus and announcements" (Survey Participant #22), and "Emails that show the student didn't read the instructions/materials posted" (Survey Participant #50). Survey Participant #36 shared that students "…appear to not have the ability or desire to 58 attempt to solve problems or learn the material on their own using the resources provided, and instead call and/or email their instructor multiple times per day/week with seemingly simple questions" (Survey Participant #36). This account sheds light on why this particular type of student behavior may be viewed as an incivility by instructors. Additionally, the instructor comments in this category concerned the amount of emails in online courses, which was described as a "repeated need for explanation of rules and schedule, students don't seem to follow instructions well" (Survey Participant #25). One instructor remarked that, when they inquired about whether or not students have attempted to access the information prior to the email, …inevitably the answer is no. This is frustrating, because it took a lot of time to create the screencasts, so there would be less confusion, and it did not seem to affect the confusion at all. In addition, I spent a lot of time answering these emails from students re-explaining something that I have already clearly outlined... (Survey Participant #20) Furthermore, this instructor voiced concern that the side effect of these types of emails is that it ultimately takes time away from those students whose questions are not easily located in the already-posted material (e.g., struggling with course concepts). In other words, instructors felt that when students do not read or view the materials online not only does it create additional work for an instructor, but it may also monopolize an instructor's time and prevent them from responding to more pressing emails. 59 Unprofessional Communication The second category of student incivilities that emerged from instructor responses was unprofessional communication (n = 24). This category is considered an active incivility, given the three main characteristics of the action, which indicate that the communicative nature of unprofessional communication is disrespectful, overly casual communication, and demanding of instant instructor response. Disrespectful communication. Eleven instructors' responses identified their students' communication, particularly in emails, as lacking in respect. For example, Survey Participant #30 commented, "Communication tends to be much more rude and entitled when they don't have to sit down and talk to you directly." Instructors reported a certain tone that students use in emails. The tone was described as terse and "less respectful than in other [F2F] courses" (Interview Participant #3), which left the instructor feeling as though they were being treated "like customer service or something…maybe not so respectful tone or things like that…" (Interview Participant #10). In illustrating the nature of disrespectful emails, Interview Participant 3 explained that emails were perceived as confrontational. For example, disrespectful communication included blaming phrases such as "Your videos don't work" or "I can't find the instructions for this assignment anywhere. You don't have the them…in the syllabus." That is, "you" language was considered unprofessional in nature. Instructors identified a final characteristic of disrespectful communication, which included messages with hostile elements. Instructors reported that some 60 student communication gave the impression that students "… feel they can bully their instructors through threats or other written accusations" (Survey Participant #37) and behave in inappropriate ways that include emails/messages that "are not only accusatory or belligerent but in all caps" (Survey Participant #53). One instructor described an experience with a confrontational student: A specific example of this would be the student I had a few semesters ago who was angry about quiz grades and my refusal to reverse a grade because he thought a question was confusing. I didn't save the messages, so I can't give exact quotes, but I remember that he called me stupid and a hypocrite. (Survey Participant #34) In other words, hostile, blaming, and aggressive communication was seen as unprofessional, and therefore a student incivility. Overly informal communication. A second characteristic of unprofessional communication is that it is overly informal, which accounted for six instructor comments. Instructors pointed out that this type of communication occurs in two primary locations: emails and written assignments (e.g., essay exams, discussion board posts). Informal emails were described as casual messages "that read like text messages to friends" (Survey Participant #37). Despite syllabi blurbs and modeling of professional communication (Interview Participant #9), instructors commented that students composed emails that addressed the instructor by first name/without a title or no name at all (e.g., "Hey" or "Hi Teacher"; Survey Participant #13), lacked a subject line, did not include a sign-off, used text speak or abbreviations (e.g., LOL), employed poor netiquette form (e.g., typing message in all caps), and did not follow basic grammar/spelling conventions. Furthermore, instructors explained that student correspondence 61 lacks in identifying information. As an illustration, an instructor provided an example of one such email: To: [e-mail] From:[e-mail] Subject: (blank) Message: How do you figure out the answer to Question #4? In this case, the student could not be identified because the email was sent from an ambiguous email address and did not include sign off with the student's name (Survey Participant #32). When explaining why receiving student emails from unknown email addresses is a challenge for instructors, Interview Participant #2 said, …a few will email from Yahoo and Gmail accounts. I usually request they don't because sometimes that stuff gets sent to spam. So I tell them pretty early, I'm like, ‘email from Canvas' um, if you can, and if you don't that's ok, but email me from your UNID email because of that issue and I do check my spam like everyday especially at the beginning of the semester ‘cause I get tutti-frutti@ yahoo or something every semester. Furthermore, Interview Participant #13 explained their attempts at modeling professional behavior by addressing students by name in discussion board posts and emails. Additionally, that same instructor stated that they establish rules about communication and said, "I do expect them to contact me, call me by name, use a proper title, address me with full sentences…I get a lot of messages that are not that" (Interview Participant #13). In other words, instructors receive overly informal student messages regardless of the fact that instructors address professional communication through modeling and clear communication of their expectations. Moreover, course assignments were written with casual communication 62 similar to that found in student emails. Instructors described student communication in papers, written exams, and discussion posts as work that lacked a demonstration of fundamental academic form (e.g., spelling errors, poor grammar, and lack of punctuation). An instructor explained, "…students assume that because a course is online, that papers can be written like an email. There is something missing in terms of their understanding of the formality of a course when it is in an online setting" (Survey Participant #38). Demanding instant communication. The final characteristic of unprofessional communication is defined as communication that is demanding of an instantaneous response. Two instructor responses opined that student communication expressed insistence for an immediate reply from the instructor, rather than requesting one. An instructor explained that this sort of email tends to come from students who "[send] an e-mail at 11:00 pm and [expect] a response on the same evening" or those whose messages are in regards to "a situation in which the student's own action resulted in an ‘emergency'" (Survey Participant #31). Such emails contained demanding language such as "[need] an answer right away" (Survey Participant #31) or "Get back to me ASAP" (Survey Participant #1). In elaborating on demanding student communication behaviors, one instructor described that students expect "…me to be awake at 2 am to respond to their [emails], even though we set up the expectation [for] 48 hours…" (Interview Participant #6). Similarly, an instructor shared: When an instructor has posted how to contact them on a class, quite often will include an email and will include a cell number for 63 emergency purposes, but when a student bypasses the email for simple basic questions and instead sends constant text messages to the instructor anticipating an immediate response will come from that route rather than an email that's very annoying. (Interview Participant #12) In this account, the instructor interpreted the student's behavior as purposely violating the instructor's communication guidelines in an attempt to induce a speedy response via an alternate communication channel. From the accounts of unprofessional communication, 5 instructors in this category cited the lack of F2F contact in regards to students' unprofessional communication behavior(s). For instance, instructors asserted "It seems students are less courteous when they have not met you face to face" (Survey Participant #16), "students are a lot more sassy and critical when they aren't communicating with instructors face-to-face!" (Survey Participant #30), and "I don't think this type of behavior would happen in person" (Survey Participant #4). When describing potential explanations for the lack of professional communication, Survey Participant #8 explained, "In online courses it is more difficult to develop rapport and therefore humanize yourself to your students" while another instructor noted, "I'm personally of the opinion that this is due to the lack of face threat" (Survey Participant #35). In other words, the impersonal nature of online courses may offer us a perspective that can help us understand the basis for unprofessional student communication. Complaints Two types of complaints emerged as student incivilities (n = 14). Instructors described complaints as communication in which students convey 64 that they "…are very irritated" (Survey Participant #30), or "…are disgruntled" (Survey Participant #26); such expressions are commonly in regard to the course or grades and are therefore classified as an active incivility. Complaints about the course. Six of the instructors whose responses concerned student complaints commented in regard to two major types of complaints about the course. First, students complain about the course being too demanding. In these types of complaints, students lament not only the difficulty level of the work, but also about the amount of work required for online courses. For example, Survey Participant #9 explained, "It seems like an online course is treated as a low priority, or unimportant as compared to other courses." In describing student complaints, one instructor recalled a student complaint that surfaced in the end-of-semester student course feedback: In the online course, I have gotten every semester, I get at least one student that says ‘I just didn't have time to sit down for three hours of lecture' and you know this that and the other and I'm like but…it's a three-hour class…there seems to be a disconnect between the fact that a sit-down course and an online course are actually the same thing. (Interview Participant #2) From this instructor's perspective, students may not have an understanding that online courses have an equivalent workload to F2F courses. Second, instructors expressed that student complaints were usually communicated directly to the instructor via email or LMS/Canvas message. However, while most complaints take place privately, some students choose to complain publicly. "Public" areas in an online course include Announcement threads to which any student can reply or as Survey Participant #28 pointed out, "course-wide discussion posting," where students can air their grievance to the 65 entire class. In addition to responding to public complaints, instructors may attempt to manage student complaints via other communication channels. However, one instructor shared their displeasure with students who will not make an appointment for a phone/Skype/F2F meeting "…[because it] is much more effective in working through any issue which is upsetting a student" (Survey Participant #26). From these examples, it is evident that online instructors understand the limitations of certain types of communication and the potential effects that it may have on student complaints as well. Complaints about grades. Another type of complaint is one in which students object about a grade that was earned, which accounted for eight comments in this category. The first characteristic of this type of complaint is that they tend to be accusatory in nature, which is often a result of a negative reaction to the assessment of their work. In complaining about grades, students may attempt to find fault in instructor's questions and/or exams. For example, an instructor shared an experience in which a student claimed that they had asked a classmate about a particular problem and when neither student could come up with an answer, they believed this to be an implication that the question was unreasonable (Survey Participant #14). Another instructor described this as an incivility because students attributed the grade to the instructor's inability to compose a good exam question. For example, a student wrote to an instructor and said: "question #_ is unfair'…‘the answer is not in the reading materials, and I have looked for it x number of times" (Survey Participant #18). The next characteristic of grade complaints is that they are baseless or unreasonable. 66 Survey Participant #19 recalled that a student once complained about a single point on an assignment and argued, "…the point should not be taken because this is the first time s/he made the mistake." In cases such as this, students refuse to self-examine the errors they made that led to the point deduction/earned grade. The final characteristic of grade complaints is that students do not understand the protocol they should follow when grieving a final course grade. According to University of Utah Policy 6-400, Section IV-B, the first step in any grade grievance is to discuss the issue with the instructor, yet at times, students will attempt to supersede the instructor by going over their "head to the department chair to have a grade changed" (Survey Participant #33). Writes Inappropriate Discussion Board Posts The next category of student incivilities is clustered around students who write inappropriate discussion board posts (n = 11). The types of inappropriate discussion posts are considered active incivilities because of the overtly negative nature of the communication that transpires in such posts. Two characteristics emerged in regard to student posts: lack of meaningful responses and offensive or overly critical posts. Lack of meaningful response. Four instructor comments addressed discussion posts, which were described as inappropriate, lacked meaningful responses because the responses were "overly polite to each others' posts" (Survey Participant #3), or demonstrated signs that the student responded without completing the appropriate readings. In many online classes, instructors ask their students to engage in dialogue with their classmates, usually via the 67 Discussion Board. Student responses that were excessively polite consisted of messages such as "I really like your post" (Survey Participant #3) or "'I agree' or ‘Right on!'" (Survey Participant #17) and lacked in any significant or reflective communication. Moreover, one instructor commented that polite responses were written "regardless of the quality of the post" (Survey Participant #3). The other type of responses that were not meaningful were those posted by a student whose comments did not demonstrate any connection to the course content. For example, Survey Participant #52 explained that students compose discussion posts where it is evident that "…the student has not read the material so the response is very generic and oftentimes inaccurate" or that students "respond to prompts using commonplace understanding of terms that are clearly defined in the texts" (Survey Participant #3). In other words, instructors expected posts to be informed by the course readings, not only situated in personal experience. Offensive or overly critical posts. Seven comments in this category focused on offensive discussion posts, which included language or ideas that were racist (Survey Participant #11), sexist, vulgar (Survey Participant #4), insulting, or assumptive (Survey Participant #32) in nature. Often these types of discussion posts were biased and the instructor (or other students) in the online discussion "called out" the post for not being grounded in fact and/or course content. One instructor recalled There have been times that I have had to privately inform a student that a remark was inappropriate; generally, I was able to invoke the approach we take in class which is an objective one. In other words, I tell that student that they need to leave their biases out of it and focus on the facts. (Survey Participant #40) 68 Instructors also considered posts that were overly critical as inappropriate. An instructor shared that student posts were, at times, disparaging of other faculty or professionals in their field and that student comments ranged from simple disagreements with the faculty/professional and "under the worst of circumstances they [made] personal, derogatory comments" (Interview Participant #6). Discussion posts were also considered uncivil if they criticized "others…for the quality of work submitted" (Survey Participant #36), as this is not the job of the student, but of the instructor. Offers Excuses Instructors indicated that a student incivility occurs when a student makes an excuse of some sort after an assignment is due or without enough time for the instructor to respond (n = 9). In the case of student incivility, an excuse is an attempt by a student to defend or justify an action. Offering excuses is considered a passive student incivility, as it is often a mild disruption or annoyance for the instructor and is usually covertly conveyed in one-on-one communication with the instructor. Two instructors' responses noted that excuses are offered for incomplete or late assignments (Survey Participant #6). An instructor explained that offering excuses is normally a patterned student behavior in regard to time: For my classes, I always set things up in a Monday-Sunday week-by- week schedule. Invariably, I will have students that don't visit the class website or read messages and announcements I've made until Sunday night, when they hardly have any time left to work. That's when I receive the excuse emails about how they didn't find out that they needed to do this or that in preparation and so their assignments are late. (Survey Participant #34) 69 Instructors often recognized this as an incivility because the timing of student excuses seem to peak at particular points during a class such as around the time of assignment due dates and exam periods. That is, if students' excuses were offered at a different time (i.e., prior to due dates), they may not have been perceived as an uncivil behavior. Beyond the timing of student emails with excuses, seven instructor responses indicated that the second type of student excuses centered around three explanations: illness, family death, or technology. Even in online courses, where physical presence is not required on campus, a common excuse that is offered by students is that they unable to login to the LMS/Canvas due to illness. In regards to family deaths, one instructor commented, "I can't tell you how many grandparents die right before finals. It seems like more than one would expect" (Survey Participant #16). Another instructor summed up their experience with emails that offer excuses by stating, "Sadly, several of these emails indicate a death in the family…or a number of dramatic reasons for the absence or lack of submissions. This also makes me, as the instructor, a bit more callous and unbelieving" (Survey Participant #36). Instructor accounts of emails that contained student excuses indicated that instructors are not convinced of all student excuses, but are oftentimes left without a way of verifying it. Lastly, instructors indicated that online students blame technology as the culprit of late assignments. For example, students will claim that their Internet went out or they lacked an Internet connection, Canvas wasn't working, or that they encountered computer troubles. The similarity between the various types of excuses is that 70 such communication of issues generally occurred after an assignment was due and is usually a precursor to a request for an accommodation, which is discussed in the next category. Requests Accommodations Student requests for accommodations are often connected with the previous theme of offering excuses (n = 9). Instructors conceptualized accommodation requests as instances in which a student requests "special exceptions" (Survey Participant #33) or "special treatment" (Survey Participant #42). The request is often accompanied by an excuse that is utilized in an attempt to justify the request and thus is also categorized as a passive incivility. Five instructor comments focused on one type of accommodation, those that appealed for extensions on assignments or for late assignments to be accepted (i.e., after the due date has already passed). An instructor explained their annoyance with the excessive requests for late work: Another thing that aggravates me is that I don't accept any late work, I have a lot of stuff to grade, I have a lot of papers to take care of…you know, we all have our lives and I feel as if the current class of students feels um…uh, not empowered, but entitled [to exceptions]. (Interview Participant #19) In commenting about students who want to "catch up at the end of the semester," Survey Participant #39 commented that students often assume "that the course is at their own pace." Requests for extensions and/or exceptions to submit late work was considered an incivility because the student knowingly disregarded the "no late work" policies included in the course syllabus, which include acceptable reasons for such accommodations (e.g., documented medical excuses or 71 university-sanctioned events). Other types of accommodation requests came in the form of asking for special favors, which accounted for four instructor comments. Instructors observed that students requested "changes to [the] schedule in order to fit traveling/remote students" (Survey Participant #25), appeals for extra credit so that they may "do something to improve their grade" (Survey Participant #16), routine emails from students requesting permission to add an online class beyond the course cap (Survey Participant #2), and contacting the instructor in the last weeks of class to ask for an "I" (i.e., incomplete for a grade) even though the student has not met the criteria for this mark (Interview Participant #8). Lack of Communication Online instructors identified lack of communication as an uncivil student behavior, which is considered an active incivility given that it is an overt decision to not reciprocate communication on the student's end (n = 6). Oftentimes student communication is absent altogether until there is an issue and when communication does take place it is at the last minute, which,<