Kim (2018) Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility: Exploring the Mediating Role of Out-of-Class Communication, Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1-20
Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility:
Exploring the Mediating Role of
Out-of-Class Communication
ABSTRACT
Every generation experiences distinct events and develops unique
values. As Millennial learners enter classrooms, they bring with
them new views about education, learning and faculty/student
communication. This study explores the mediating role of out-ofclass
communication (OCC) in relation to the historical dimensions
known to compose faculty credibility. Findings indicate that OCC
has a positive, mediating influence that enhances two of the three
key dimensions of credibility for faculty members: trustworthiness
and perceived caring. In addition, this study suggests that there
is a fourth potential dimension that composes the construct
of faculty credibility in the perspectives of Millennial learners:
sociability, which should be included alongside the three historical
dimensions scholars have used in previous studies.
Who Will Get Chopped?: Mystery Basket PR Challenge
Similar a Kim (2018) Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility: Exploring the Mediating Role of Out-of-Class Communication, Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1-20
A Study Of Group Dynamics In Educational Leadership Cohort And Non-Cohort GroupsSean Flores
Similar a Kim (2018) Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility: Exploring the Mediating Role of Out-of-Class Communication, Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1-20 (20)
Kim (2018) Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility: Exploring the Mediating Role of Out-of-Class Communication, Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1-20
1. Public Relations Education
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Journal of
JPRE
Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742
3. Table of Contents
Research Articles
1-20
21-50 What do Employers Want? What Should Faculty Teach? A
Content Analysis of Entry-Level Employment Ads in Public
Relations
Brigitta R. Brunner, Kim Zarkin, & Bradford L. Yates
51-86 Teaching Digital and Social Media Analytics: Exploring Best
Teaching Briefs
PRD GIFT Winners from AEJMC 2018
87-98 Building a Social Learning Flock: Using Twitter Chats to
Enhance Experiential Learning Across Universities
Amanda J. Weed, Karen Freberg, Emily S. Kinsky,
& Amber L. Hutchins
99-106 Diagnosing Health Campaigns: A Campaign Evaluation
Assignment
Laura E. Willis
4. Teaching Briefs (continued)
PRD GIFT Winners from AEJMC 2018
107-114 Teaching Trolling: Management and Strategy
Leslie Rasmussen
115-122 Sparking Creativity Through Purpose-Driven Storytelling
Chris Cooney
123-127 Looking in to see out: An Introspective Approach to Teaching
Ethics in PR
Regina Luttrell & Jamie Ward
Reviews
128-133 Social Media Campaigns: Strategies for Public Relations and
Marketing
Matthew J. Kushin
134-145 Meltwater Media Intelligence Software
Matthew J. Kushin
5. Journal of Public Relations Education
2018, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1-20
Millennial Learners and Faculty Credibility:
Exploring the Mediating Role of
Out-of-Class Communication
Carolyn Mae Kim, Biola University
Every generation experiences distinct events and develops unique
values. As Millennial learners enter classrooms, they bring with
them new views about education, learning and faculty/student
communication. This study explores the mediating role of out-of-
class communication (OCC) in relation to the historical dimensions
known to compose faculty credibility. Findings indicate that OCC
has a positive, mediating influence that enhances two of the three
key dimensions of credibility for faculty members: trustworthiness
and perceived caring. In addition, this study suggests that there
is a fourth potential dimension that composes the construct
of faculty credibility in the perspectives of Millennial learners:
sociability, which should be included alongside the three historical
dimensions scholars have used in previous studies.
Keywords: credibility; Millennial learners; out-of-class
communication; pedagogy; faculty communication
The landscape of higher education constantly shifts. Shaping
influences include increased faculty loads, diminished budgets, and limited
resources (Kim, 2015; Swanson, 2008). A lesser-examined element,
however, is the generational influence from Millennial learners. According
to Pew Research Center, Millennials were born between 1981 and 1997
(Fry, 2016). As these students have filled classrooms, the educational
environment and pedagogical approaches of faculty have pivoted to
address the unique needs of Millennials (Kim, 2017b). One particular area
of change is the emphasis on out-of-class communication (OCC) between
faculty members and students. Scholars suggest OCC is a significant
element for students, as it leads to increased learning and immediacy with
faculty (Jaasma & Koper, 2002). Formerly faculty were viewed as the
“sage on the stage” and espoused wisdom for students to gain. Now they
6. 2
are viewed as a “guide on the side” and encouraged to facilitate a process
where students co-create a learning environment (Jaasma & Koper, 2002;
Kim, 2017a). These changes have resulted in a new paradigm for learners.
Due to these changes, re-examining the construct of faculty credibility in
light of Millennial learners, as well as examining the mediating influence
of OCC on faculty credibility, is significant.
Literature Review
In order to fully explore this issue, there are three significant
bodies of scholarship to examine: 1) generational identity; 2) faculty
credibility; 3) out-of-class communication.
Generational Identity
A growing focus among scholars has been the concept of how
individuals self-subscribe into social groups within organizational settings.
Scholars suggest social identities are self-designated by individuals “to
impose order on the social environment and make sense of who they are”
(Urick, 2012, p. 103). While there is significant focus in social identity
theory that looks at classifications related to constructs such as in-groups
and out-groups, race, and gender (Urick, 2012), there is an increasing
need to understand generational identities, which can be defined as “an
individual’s awareness of his or her membership in a generational group
and the significance of this group to the individual” (Urick, 2012, p. 103).
Each generation has distinct values and attitudes that manifest via
their interactions with others in organizational settings (Smola & Sutton,
2002). Kowske, Rasch, and Wiley (2010) suggest that Millennial learners
are connected due to the fact that they shared key common experiences at
significant development points which led to unique characteristics:
Millennials embody an age-based generational identity that has
grown through strong formative influences, including parental
styles that allowed them a strong voice in family decisions,
Kim
7. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 3
nurtured their egos and self esteem, and encouraged cooperation
and team oriented behavior. (Gerhardt, 2016, p. 3)
Faculty have recognized these shaping influences in Millennial
learners and suggest that a shift is required to provide “nuanced
pedagogies” that will provide the strongest learning environment possible
(Miller-Ott, 2016; Wilson & Gerber, 2008, p. 29).
Sociability and Millennial learners. With this shift in pedagogies,
faculty now are tasked with creating learning environments that Millennial
learners will feel comfortable contributing to and voicing opinions in,
rather than approaching education as lecture-based experiences with
an instructor providing content for students to absorb (Gerhardt, 2016).
In short, this kind of engaged learning environment is “essential to a
successful experience for Millennials in the classroom, and this generation
has a strong need to be heard, recognized and included” (Gerhardt, 2016,
p. 4). Additionally, Millennial learners expect “more frequent, affirming
communication with supervisors compared to previous generations”
(Gerhardt, 2016, p. 4; Hill, 2002; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Martin, 2005).
In other words, Millennial learners place a high value on sociability, or the
opportunity to interact, connect, and engage with leaders. This value of
sociability is higher than previous generations and drastically influences
their satisfaction, motivation and commitment to environments (Gerhardt,
2016; Kim, 2017b). In some ways, the concept of sociability is closely
aligned with the idea of immediacy.
Immediacy. Immediacy has been defined as “those communication
behaviors that reduce perceived distance between people” (Thweatt
& McCroskey, 1996, p. 198). A number of scholars have explored the
influence of immediacy within the context of faculty/student relationships
(e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998). In the context of Millennial learners,
however, immediacy seems to incorporate concepts that were not as
prevalent for earlier generations. Thus, sociability, or the desire to have a
voice, receive feedback and interact, are key components for Millennial
learners’ perspective of immediacy. In the context of this paper, sociability
is used to represent immediacy viewed through the lens of Millennial
8. 4
learners’ expectation of two-way communication, which includes gaining
a voice in decision making.
In summary, Millennial learners represent an age-based
generational identity that is prevalent in higher education today. Millennial
learners have a high focus on participatory culture, having their voice
heard, and developing immediacy with those who are leading them,
which are more distinct traits from previous generations of learners. It
is reasonable, therefore, to expect that these values would influence the
overall perspective of a faculty person’s credibility.
Faculty Credibility
Research indicates that faculty credibility plays a significant part
in the educational process (Kim, 2017b). For example, student perceptions
of faculty credibility influence evaluations of courses (Tindall & Waters,
2017). With the new wave of technology, scholars have also examined
how faculty use of social media within a course influences perceptions of
the faculty member’s credibility (DeGroot, Young, & VanSlette, 2015).
Examining the role of faculty credibility becomes more salient when
placed in the larger context of a theoretical framework for credibility.
The construct of credibility has a rich history in communication
scholarship. This construct is a composite of perspectives held by
receivers of communication toward a particular source, message or
medium (Newell & Goldsmith, 2001, p. 236). Credibility is a fluid
construct, as it is based on perceptions held by individuals instead of a set
state of being. Thus, scholars use dimensions that contribute to individuals
perceiving something as credible in order to understand the specific
components that enhance or diminish credibility (Kim & Brown, 2015).
Scholars examine the construct of credibility through specific categories
such as source credibility (Berlo, Lemert, & Mertz, 1969; Hovland, Janis,
& Kelley, 1953; McCroskey, 1966), media or medium credibility (Gaziano
& McGrath, 1986; Kiousis, 2001; Meyer, 1998; West, 1994) and message
credibility (Appelman & Sundar, 2016; Kim & Brown, 2015). Scholars
Kim
9. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 5
focusing on faculty credibility do so using the dimensions from source
credibility.
Historically, scholars suggested that the two primary dimensions
present in source credibility were trustworthiness and expertise
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Trustworthiness
is a dimension where receivers perceive that a source will keep
promises, fulfill obligations, and act in a manner consistent with what
is communicated. Expertise deals with competencies, qualifications,
and skills. While these two dimensions have consistently shown to be
significant in a receiver’s perceptions of a source’s credibility, there is a
third dimension that has recently been measured as a distinct dimension
for faculty credibility: perceived caring.
Perceived caring. The concept of goodwill has been present in the
construct of source credibility since its inception with Aristotle’s rhetoric
and discussion of ethos (Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Scholars suggest that
goodwill, caring, or affinity (all terms applied to the same concept) is the
perception of whether someone genuinely cares about an individual, which
is decidedly different from trustworthiness as an overall source (Kim,
2017a). Initially, scholars suggested that the reliability of measurements
related to goodwill were too highly correlated to the dimensions of
trustworthiness to truly be distinctly measurable. However, in 1997, Teven
and McCroskey created a scale that successfully measured “perceived
caring” as a distinct dimension, and thus they argued for the inclusion
of this as a third piece to consider in faculty credibility. The concept of
“perceived caring” (McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Teven 1999; Teven
& McCroskey, 1997) for this study is defined as immediacy, or the feeling
of closeness due to the perception of personal care.
While McCroskey and Teven (1999) argued for “perceived
caring” to represent the third and final dimension of source credibility,
this construct does not fully capture the new value Millennial learners
place on interaction. While perceived caring is based on perceptions of
the faculty member toward the student, sociability focuses on the two-
way communication and role of student voice within interactions. This
10. 6
distinction is important to the overall construct of faculty credibility. Thus,
sociability is used to represent a fourth dimension to perceived source
credibility that will be unique to Millennial learners.
Lastly, in recent years, perceptions of faculty members’ credibility
and their interest in students has been a growing focus among scholars.
The concept of OCC is regularly identified as an influence in faculty/
student relationships and may provide a powerful mediating influence for
Millennial learners’ perspectives of credibility, particularly in relation to
out-of-class communication.
Out-of-Class Communication
What takes place inside of a classroom is only a partial view of
what influences student learning. Over the last several years, scholars have
increasingly focused on understanding out-of-class communication and
its impact to areas such as student motivation, student retention, student/
faculty trust, and immediacy (Jaasma & Koper, 2002; Kim, 2017a; Kim,
2017b; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996).
Dimensions of OCC. Like many constructs that deal with
humans, OCC is multi-faceted and cannot be understood simply as a one-
dimensional activity. For example, OCC can be either formal or informal
communication between a student and faculty member that occurs outside
of the classroom. An example of formal OCC would be a student attending
office hours, whereas an example of informal OCC would be a student
sending a text to a professor (Furlich, 2016). Beyond classifying OCC
into formal or informal communication patterns, it is also evaluated on
criteria such as frequency of occurrences, length, content, and student
satisfaction (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). Building on these dimensions
are also the perspectives, values and ideals of the individuals involved,
including both faculty members and students.
Faculty behaviors and OCC. The role of an individual instructor
also has an impact to the theory of OCC. Teacher behaviors in a classroom
have been shown to influence students’ perceptions of quality, trust,
Kim
11. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 7
and immediacy, and, ultimately, a student’s decision to engage in OCC
with a specific faculty member (Faranda, 2015; Kim, 2017b). Just as
faculty behaviors can enhance learning, Thweatt and McCroskey (1996)
identified that faculty “misbehaviors” are those activities that faculty do
which result in interference to learning. Misbehaviors do not have to be
overtly intentional actions that interfere with students but rather may also
encompass more subtle activities, such as actions that communicate a
sense of distance or disinterest in student interaction (p. 199).
Understanding the multi-faceted nature of OCC theory, it is
logical to expect a connection between the perceptions students hold of
OCC and the perceptions they hold of faculty credibility. Scholars have
explored these two constructs and verified that they seem to be correlated
in some manner (Gerhardt, 2016; Kim, 2017a; Myers, 2004). In light of
this connection, examining the construct in light of Millennial learner
expectations is also important.
In light of the existing body of research, as well as the gap in
understanding Millennial learners’ perceptions of faculty credibility and
the mediating role of OCC, the following research questions guided this
study:
RQ1: In what ways does OCC influence Millennial learners’
perspectives of faculty credibility?
RQ2: In what ways does OCC enhance the perceived sociability
between Millennial learners and their faculty?
H1: The more students believe that faculty are A) more
trustworthy, B) more of an expert, and C) have a greater affinity for
students because of OCC, the more likely they are to rate faculty
higher on final evaluations.
H2: The more students believe that faculty are genuinely interested
in their lives because of OCC, the more likely they are to rate
faculty higher on final evaluations.
H3: The more students believe that faculty are A) more
trustworthy, B) more of an expert, C) have a greater affinity for
students, and D) possess a genuine interest in their individual life
12. 8
because of OCC, the more likely they are to rate faculty higher on
final evaluations.
Method
To address these research questions, an online survey was
employed using Survey Monkey, a well-known survey platform.
With approval from the Institutional Review Board, participants were
recruited via email from a private university in the spring 2017 semester.
Participants were recruited from all majors and class ranks and were not
compensated for participation in the survey. In addition, participants could
opt out at any point or skip questions on the survey instrument.
Participant Demographics
A total of 289 qualified responses were collected. Of those who
reported gender, 29.9% (n = 86) were male and 69.9% (n = 201) were
female. Of those who identified class rank, 13.1% were freshmen (n =
38); 22.1% were sophomores (n = 81); 34.9% were juniors (n = 81); and
34.9% were seniors (n = 101). Participants represented all seven schools
at the university and 30 majors, including Public Relations, Journalism
and Integrated Media, Business Administration, Communication Studies,
Nursing, Intercultural Studies, Education, Cinema and Media Arts,
Biological Sciences, Anthropology, and others. By sampling a variety
of majors, participants were able to represent the diversity in degree
programs and student personalities, allowing for the results to be more
representative of an entire student body.
Instrument Design
In addition to the demographic information collected, participants
also responded to Likert-scale items related to credibility and OCC.
Three scale items related to previously identified dimensions of faculty
Kim
13. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 9
credibility (trust, expertise, and perceived caring) were used in the
survey instrument. Since scholars have previously identified that these
three dimensions are present and distinct within the construct of faculty
credibility, it was important to include them each as a scale item (Teven &
McCroskey, 1997). Each item asked participants to evaluate whether OCC
resulted in an increased perception of the particular dimension.
In addition, this study sought to measure the way in which OCC
would influence all three of these dimensions as a unified construct.
In order to evaluate the combined influence, a fourth scale item asked
students to respond to whether OCC would likely lead them to rate faculty
higher on evaluations. This is an important measurement as previous
research has shown that credibility is “positively correlated with students’
overall rating of the level of excellence of the course and instructor”
(Beatty & Zahn, 2009, p. 275). Knowing that previously scholars found
credibility to influence faculty evaluations, it was significant to measure
whether OCC had a positive, mediating impact on the evaluation as well.
Finally, in light of the new findings related to Millennial learners
(Gerhardt, 2016), this study incorporated a scale item related to sociability.
Participants rated whether they felt that faculty who engaged with them
through OCC “genuinely cared about their lives” more than faculty who
did not engage in OCC.
Analysis
RQ1: In what ways does OCC influence Millennial learners’
perspectives of faculty credibility?
In order to address the first research question, three Likert-scale
questions were used, based on the three commonly identified dimensions
of faculty credibility: trustworthiness, expertise and perceived caring.
These questions were posed to assess whether students who experienced
OCC were likely to have increased perceptions of specific dimensions
related to faculty credibility. Each scale question specifically asked
14. 10
whether, in light of out-of-class communication, the participant perceived
trustworthiness, expertise, or perceived caring to be greater.
Trust
Out of the 287 participants who responded, 78.4% (n = 225) either
agreed or strongly agreed that they trust faculty who are willing to meet
with students outside of class more than faculty who do not meet with
students outside of class. The mean for this scale item was 4.02.
Expertise
Out of the 288 participants who responded, only 18.8% (n = 54)
either agreed or strongly agreed that faculty who are willing to meet with
students outside of class are more of an expert in their field than faculty
who do not meet with students outside of class. The mean for this scale
item was 2.54.
Perceived Caring
Out of the 288 participants who responded, 68.8% (n = 198)
either agreed or strongly agreed that faculty who are willing to meet with
students outside of class care more about students than faculty who do not
meet with students outside of class. The mean for this scale item was 3.72.
Internal Reliability of Scale
While these three dimensions have previously been shown to
influence faculty credibility within the classroom, it was important to
verify the internal consistency or reliability of these dimensions in relation
to the credibility scale and OCC. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was
.68, indicating a moderate internal reliability. In addition, none of the scale
items had a high correlation (> 0.60), indicating that they did, in fact,
Kim
15. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 11
measure distinct dimensions.
RQ2: In what ways does OCC enhance the perceived sociability
between Millennial learners and their faculty?
A majority of students (84.75%; n = 239) agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement that when a professor interacts with them outside of
class, it indicates faculty are genuinely interested in individual students’
lives. The mean for this Likert-scale item was 4.12.
H1: The more students believe that faculty are A) more trustworthy,
b) more of an expert, and C) have a greater affinity for students
because of OCC, the more likely they are to rate faculty higher on
final evaluations.
While 69.3% (n = 194) of the participants either agreed or
strongly agreed that they rate faculty higher on course evaluations if they
interact outside of class, it is useful to also examine the influence of the
dimensions of credibility on this scale item. This hypothesis was used
to examine the influence of OCC and credibility on perceived faculty
excellence.
This hypothesis was supported: F = 19.92, df = 3, p = .000. The
factor with the greatest influence on whether students were likely to rate
faculty higher on evaluations due to OCC was the belief that faculty who
are willing to meet outside of class care more about students (affinity).
H2: The more students believe that faculty are genuinely interested
in their lives because of OCC, the more likely they are to rate faculty
higher on final evaluations.
Hypothesis 2 was also was supported, F = 50.54, df = 1, p = .000.
H3: The more students believe that faculty are A) more trustworthy,
16. 12
B) more of an expert, C) have a greater affinity for students, and D)
possess a genuine interest in their individual life because of OCC, the
more likely they are to rate faculty higher on final evaluations.
The third hypothesis was supported, as well, F = 22.94, df = 4, p =
.000.
Discussion
OCC and Faculty Credibility
While OCC has previously been shown to have a strong connection
with faculty credibility and student learning (Jaasma & Koper, 2002;
Kim, 2017a), this study leads to a more precise understanding of the way
OCC enhances credibility. Participants indicated that they are much more
likely to perceive faculty members as trustworthy and to perceive care
from faculty who engage in OCC. However, expertise is not a dimension
that seems to be particularly influenced through OCC. So, while OCC
does enhance students’ perceptions of credibility, it does so by increasing
perceptions of two of the three dimensions. While participants indicated
that OCC would have the greatest influence on trust, when it comes to
evaluating a professor, the perception that faculty who engage in OCC
care more about students seems to play the greatest role in evaluations.
This indicates that, while trust is built through OCC, when students
determine the overall excellence of a faculty person, perceived care plays
the most significant part. This study supports the idea that, while faculty
credibility is a fluid set of perceptions that is heavily influenced by in-
class behaviors, faculty who choose to engage in OCC have a significant
opportunity to build trust and illustrate care for students.
OCC and Faculty Sociability
In addition to previously identified measures, faculty sociability
Kim
17. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 13
seems to be a particularly poignant component to an educational
experience for Millennials (Gerhardt, 2016). In light of this, it was
important to understand how OCC may influence the perception of
sociability. Participants reported not only that OCC would significantly
influence their perception of a faculty person genuinely caring about their
lives, but also that this would result in higher evaluations of that faculty
member. This seems to indicate that, beyond simply perceived caring,
which is an existing dimension, the concept of being genuinely interested
in the individual student’s life is a shaping factor for student perceptions
of faculty. Recognizing that source credibility is a construct that evaluates
whether the perceptions of a receiver toward a source will result in
changed attitudes, opinions, or behaviors, it seems like there is strong
theoretical support to consider whether sociability should be a fourth
dimension in faculty credibility (Hovland et al., 1953). Findings indicate
that incorporating sociability alongside of the three existing dimensions
did not result in highly correlated variables and, as a unified construct,
provided a model that led to higher evaluations of a faculty person.
Theoretical Contributions
This study provides two significant theoretical contributions. First,
it expands the construct of faculty credibility in the context of Millennial
learners to suggest the inclusion of a fourth dimension: sociability.
Second, it advances the understanding of OCC as a pedagogical approach
by identifying it as a positive, mediating influence on the perception of
faculty credibility.
Faculty credibility theory. Historically, faculty seem to have a
larger focus on establishing expertise and trust with students. However,
recently, faculty have begun focusing on the dimension of perceived
caring. With Millennials filling classrooms, it is more important than ever
to understand what dimensions truly build their perceptions of credibility.
Beyond simply goodwill or affinity for students, Millennials are looking
for personalized interest and connection. They want a voice in their
18. 14
educational process and to know their contributions are heard. In addition,
they want to have leaders, or, in this case, faculty, who are authentically
interested in their personhood. This study goes beyond calling for
sociability as something that Millennial learners value and instead
identifies it as something at the heart of their perspective toward faculty.
If faculty fail to illustrate sociability or a genuine interest and engagement
with Millennial learners, their credibility will be diminished. Furthermore,
this may result in misbehaviors (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996) that
ultimately diminish learning and reduce the impact of what faculty set out
to do in the first place.
OCC mediating faculty credibility. A further contribution of
this study is the finding that not only are OCC and faculty credibility
interconnected, OCC actually mediates the perceptions of faculty
credibility in Millennial learners. Participants identified that they view
the trustworthiness, perceived care, and sociability of faculty members to
be greater when they engage in OCC compared to those who do not. In
other words, this study confirms that OCC is a direct mediator of increased
perceptions of credibility. Moving forward, faculty may benefit from
recognizing that OCC can play a pivotal role in pedagogical practices.
Those who do not purposefully engage in OCC may end up experiencing
students who perceive them as less credible, particularly when compared
against other faculty who have adopted this pedagogical approach.
Future Research and Limitations
This study has made two significant contributions to theoretical
frameworks. First, it has suggested that for Millennial learners, sociability
is a key dimension in faculty credibility. Second, it suggests that OCC is a
positive, mediating factor in developing faculty credibility. Future research
should explore these two constructs by examining it on a variety of college
campuses, as well as incorporating additional scale components that may
measure the validity of each of these elements in relation to the existing
concept of faculty credibility.
Kim
19. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 15
There were several limitations within this study. First, the study
took place at a private institution. It would be beneficial to expand the
participants and include a variety of institutional types to validate the
findings. Additionally, this study did not control for factors such as
previous interactions with highly social (or not social) faculty members
and the way those interactions might have influenced participants’
perceptions within this study. Finally, self-reported measures on behavioral
outcomes have the potential to differ from ways people might actually
respond. In light of this, while students reported certain behavioral
intentions, it would be beneficial to conduct additional research to see if
those self-reported concepts align with real-world application.
Conclusion
While source credibility has a rich history of scholarship, the
presence of Millennial learners suggests that the current approach to
faculty credibility needs to be adjusted. Their values are distinct compared
to other generations and, thus, their perspectives on what makes faculty
members credible are equally distinct. While trustworthiness, expertise,
and perceived caring continue to be important, the addition of sociability
is something that changes the current model. Additionally, OCC is more
than simply an enhancement to student motivation or learning. It, in
fact, enhances perceptions of credibility by bolstering the dimensions of
trustworthiness, perceived care, and sociability. Thus, engaging in OCC
seems to be more than a pedagogical approach; this study indicates it may
be a crucial component to faculty that hope to have a meaningful influence
on Millennial learners.
References
Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility:
Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59-79. https://doi.
20. 16
org/10.1177/1077699015606057
Beatty, M. J., & Zahn, C. J. (1990). Are student ratings of communication
instructors due to “easy” grading practices?: An analysis
of teacher credibility and student-reported performance
levels. Communication Education, 39, 275-282. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03634529009378809
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for
evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 33, 563- 576. https://doi.org/10.1086/267745
Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship
between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and
perceptions of state motivations, and of cognitive, affective, and
behavioral learning. Communication Education, 4, 82-90. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379112
DeGroot, J. M., Young, V. J., & VanSlette, S. H. (2015). Twitter use
and its effect on student perception of instructor credibility.
Communication Education, 64, 419-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
3634523.2015.1014386
Faranda, W. T. (2015). The effects of instructor service performance,
immediacy, and trust on student–faculty out-of-class
communication. Marketing Education Review, 25, 83-97. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.1029853
Fry, R. (2016, April, 25). Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as
America’s largest generation. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/
millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/
Furlich, S. (2016). Understanding instructor nonverbal immediacy,
verbal immediacy, and student motivation at a small liberal arts
university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
16(3), 11-22. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19284
Gaziano, C. & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of
credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462. https://doi.
org/10.1177/107769908606300301
Kim
21. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 17
Gerhardt, M. W. (2016). The importance of being…social? Instructor
credibility and the Millennials. Studies in Higher Education, 41,
1533-1547. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.981516
Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 21st century:
Important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 11(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602111020
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communications and
persuasion: Psychological studies in opinion change. New Haven,
CT: Yale University.
Hovland, C. & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on
communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-
650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
Jaasma, M. & Koper, R. (2002). Out-of-Class communication between
female and male students and faculty: The relationship to
student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Women’s Studies in
Communication, 25, 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.20
02.10162443
Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009). Change in newcomers’ supervisor
support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 527-544. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amj.2009.41330971
Kim, C. (2017a). Out-of-class communication and personal learning
environments via social media: Students’ perceptions and
implications for faculty social media use. Teaching Journalism &
Mass Communication, 7(1), 62-76. Retrieved from http://aejmc.us/
spig/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017/01/tjmc-w17-kim.pdf
Kim, C. (2017b). Millennial learners and out-of-class communication:
Expectations and perceptions. Teaching Journalism and Mass
Communication, 7(2), 23-31. Retrieved from http://aejmc.us/spig/
wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017/11/tjmc-2017-7-2-kim.pdf
Kim, C. (2015). Pedagogical approaches to student-run PR firms using
service learning: A case study. Teaching Journalism & Mass
Communication, 5(1), 57-68. Retrieved from http://aejmc.us/wp-
22. 18
content/uploads/sites/9/2015/07/tjmc-s15-kim.pdf
Kim, C., & Brown, W. (2015). Conceptualizing credibility in social
media spaces of public relations. Public Relations Journal, 9(4).
Retrieved from https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016v09n04KimBrown.pdf
Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media
credibility in the information age. Mass Communication
and Society, 4, 381-403. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327825MCS0404_4
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of)
attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational effects
on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 265-
279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity:
What managers need to know about Generation Y.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 37, 39-44. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00197850510699965
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to
communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369817
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of
ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03637756609375482
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the
construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66,
90-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers:
Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-572. https://
doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301
Miller-Ott, A. E. (2016). Helicopter parenting, family communication
patterns, and out-of-class communication with college instructors.
Communication Research Reports, 33, 173-176. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08824096.2016.1154836
Kim
23. Vol. 4(2), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 19
Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor
credibility and college student in-class and out-of-class
communication. Communication Reports, 17, 129-137. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08934210409389382
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a
scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of
Business Research, 52, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(99)00104-6
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting
generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.147
Swanson, J. (2008). Training future PR practitioners and serving the
community through a “learn by doing” undergraduate university
curriculum. Public Relations Quarterly, 52(3), 15-20.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-
of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive
development: A literature review. Journal of College Student
Development, 37, 149-162.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of
perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher
evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03634529709379069
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Teacher nonimmediacy
and misbehavior: Unintentional negative communication.
Communication Research Reports, 13, 198–204. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08824099609362087
Tindall, N. T., & Waters, R. D. (2017). Does gender and professional
experience influence students’ perceptions of professors?
Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 72, 52-67. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077695815613932
Urick, M. J. (2012). Exploring generational identity: A multiparadigm
approach. Journal of Business Diversity, 12, 103-115.
24. 20
West, M. D. (1994). Validating a scale of the measurement of credibility: A
covariance structure modeling approach. Journalism Quarterly, 71,
159-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100115
Wilson, M., & Gerber, L. E. (2008). How generational theory can improve
teaching: Strategies for working with the “millennials.” Currents
in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 29-44. Retrieved from https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/4aec/
f98b4cd5c7dad19e27f1bd85d5befd3e3121.pdf
Kim
Editorial Record: Original draft submitted to the AEJMC-PRD Paper Competition by
April 1, 2017. Selected as a Top Teaching Paper. Submitted to JPRE November 27, 2017.
Final edits completed July 13, 2018. First published online August 17, 2018.