can anyone do a 10 pages paper of the communication theory class?

This article was downloaded by: [California State University] On: 27 April 2014, At: 00:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Western Journal of Communication Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

Navigating Toward Andragogy: Coordination and Management of Student–Professor Conversations Darrin S. Murray a b a Loyola Marymount University b California State University , Northridge Published online: 20 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Darrin S. Murray (2014): Navigating Toward Andragogy: Coordination and Management of Student–Professor Conversations, Western Journal of Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2013.866687

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.866687

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Navigating Toward Andragogy: Coordination and Management of Student–Professor Conversations Darrin S. Murray

Some professors make conversational moves intended to transform their relationships

with students and help move students through a liminal space toward more adult-like

(or andragogical) patterns of learning. Specifically, professors might attempt to construct

more collaborative and mutual relationships with students, and may attempt to encour-

age students to position themselves as more intrinsically motivated, personally respon-

sible, and self-directed. This study explored such conversations and transitions using

the coordinated management of meaning as a theoretical and heuristic lens. Conclusions

were drawn inductively from interview data, recalled conversations, document analysis,

and ethnographic observations; a taxonomy emerged for describing the conversational

patterns enacted when professors attempt to foster student development toward

andragogy. This framework included identification of significant bifurcation points (or

relational turning points) where one interlocutor might enact an intervention intended

to transform their conversation, relationship, or conversational partner. Further, the

model developed from this study identifies a set of explicit and implicit strategic conver-

sational moves that were employed in those critical moments. Finally, this essay discusses

some methodological implications and recommendations for future research.

Keywords: Andragogy; Coordinated Management of Meaning; Critical Pedagogy;

Instructional Communication; Student Development

Darrin S. Murray (Ph.D., Fielding Graduate University) is adjunct faculty at Loyola Marymount University and

at California State University, Northridge. This manuscript was developed in part from the author’s doctoral

dissertation at Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA. The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge

W. Barnett Pearce, Lita Furby, Fred Steier, Joan Goppelt, William F. Eadie, Paige Edley, and Donald Bruce

for their assistance with this project. Correspondence to: Darrin S. Murray, California State University,

Northridge, Department of Communication Studies, 18111 Nordhoff Street, MC 8257, Northridge, CA

91330-8257, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Western Journal of Communication

Vol. 0, No. 0, pp. 1–27

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2014 Western States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2013.866687

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Beyond delivering course content, some education professionals seek to foster other

aspects of student development; specifically, to encourage students to move beyond

child-like learning patterns and toward learning patterns more characteristic of adults

(Knowles, 1970, 1984, 1990). This project contributes to a body of research examin-

ing instructional communication from developmental and relational perspectives

(Dobransky & Frymier, 2004; Frymier & Houser, 2000; McCroskey, Valencic, &

Richmond, 2004; Sprague, 1992, 2002). In conversation professors may attempt to

encourage students to move toward taking more personal responsibility, enacting

more self-direction, and relying more on intrinsic motivation. Such negotiation

might result in a relationship that is less authoritarian, and more mutual, equal,

and collaborative. After reviewing the literature on relational approaches to instruc-

tional communication, I conceptualize the liminal space between child-like and

adult-like learning, and then detail a multimethods project that identified professors’

conversational moves when they attempted to prompt student development.

Literature Review

Professor–Student Relationships

Instructional communication scholars have increased attention to student–professor

relationships as ‘‘interpersonally driven and relationally oriented’’ (Meyers, 2006,

p. 293). Docan-Morgan (2009, 2011) not only took this relational communication

approach to instructional communication inquiry but also compiled convincing

arguments that achieving desirable educational outcomes is fundamentally depen-

dent on the quality of the professor–student relationship (also see Docan-Morgan

& Manusov, 2009). The preponderance of existing literature explores student–

professor communication using quantitative variable-analytic approaches.

Quantitative approaches

In an effort to construct a general model of instructional communication, McCroskey

et al. (2004) reviewed 30 years of research in instructional communication and ident-

ified a set of operationalized variables central across many studies, including: Instruc-

tional environment; students (personality, gender, culture, ethnicity, prior learning,

intelligence, temperament); teachers (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, per-

sonality, experience, communication competence); teachers’ verbal and nonverbal

behaviors; student perception of the teacher; instructional outcomes (cognitive, affect-

ive, and psychomotor learning). While a student–teacher relationship is implied by this

body of literature, curiously McCroskey et al. did not explicitly identify this as an essen-

tial component of their model. Considerably scarcer than projects employing a quan-

titative approach, some studies employing qualitative and interpretive methods have

more explicitly examined the relational nature of student–teacher interaction.

Qualitative approaches

To date there seems to exist only a handful of qualitative communication studies that

focus directly on the professor–student relationship. Examples include West’s (1994)

2 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

description of the positive and negative ways that students describe their relation-

ships with professors. Sabee and Wilson (2005) examined facework in conversations

about disappointing grades. Chen (2000) used the organizational culture model to

detail the dynamics of the expectations students and faculty have for their relation-

ships with one another. In a study of relational communication between one graduate

student and one professor, Chawla and Rawlins (2004) explored turning points in the

development of a mentoring relationship. K. A. Pearce (2004) constructed an auto-

ethnography of her relationships with students in order to provide advice for making

those relationships more productive and satisfying. Finally, Worley, Titsworth, Wor-

ley, and Cornett-DeVito (2007) described communicatively competent behaviors

enacted by professors.

Whether qualitative or quantitative, a common theme runs through this body of

inquiry; the communication relationship between student and instructor is integral

to successful teaching and learning (Aylor, 2003; Lopez, 1997; West, 1994; Worley

et al., 2007). Docan-Morgan (2009), however, noted that most existing literature

explores student–professor relationships and turning points indirectly and implicitly.

Further, Worley et al. (2007) argued, ‘‘Because instructional communication has gen-

erally emphasized quantitative snapshots of classroom behavior’’ there is a distinct

need to employ ‘‘interpretive methods to generate a more holistic view’’ (p. 208).

The study reported here provides a more well-rounded understanding by directly

examining communication that constructs student–professor relationships, specifi-

cally investigating relational turning points where professors encourage more

andragogical educational orientations.

Andragogy

Knowles (1970, 1984, 1990) developed a prescriptive model of adult education that

he argued was preferable to child-oriented, or pedagogical, methods. Focusing on

the etymology of the term as a reference to children, Knowles used pedagogy in a spe-

cialized way, somewhat inconsistent with modern uses, to describe and criticize the

practice of educating adults using instructional techniques intended for children.

Regardless of whether pedagogical techniques are even appropriate for children,

Knowles argued such techniques were not appropriate for adults, and alternatively

advocated andragogical techniques. Subsequent educational theorists (e.g., Cross,

1981; Kolb, 1984; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) lent support to the disadvantages of

employing ‘‘pedagogical’’ practices with adult learners, promoting the comparative

advantages of andragogy.

Knowles (1970, 1980, 1984, 1990) articulated numerous assumptions and practices

of andragogy, developing an extensive treatment of how he believed adult education

should be practiced. To narrow the present study I focused on just four aspects of

andragogy. First is the belief that adult learners are self-directed and can take charge

of their own learning; Knowles (1990) argued adult learners do not rely on educators

to make ‘‘all decisions about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will

be learned, and if it has been learned’’ (p. 54), but can and should take on much of

Western Journal of Communication 3

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

the responsibility for actively charting their own course toward desired outcomes.

Second, adult learners can and should take personal responsibility, consistent with

Rotter’s (1966) treatment of internal locus of control. Third, adult learners require

less extrinsic motivation and respond better to intrinsic motivation or ‘‘doing

something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable’’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000,

p. 55). Fourth, consistent with contemporary conceptualizations of critical pedagogy,

Knowles (1970, 1980, 1984, 1990) advocated relational mutuality, rejecting authori-

tarian subjugation of learners and instead valuing cooperation, equality, respect,

and collaboration.

A few scholars have introduced Knowles’s (1970, 1980, 1984, 1990) concept of

andragogy to the literature on teaching and learning in Communication Studies.

Most notably, Engleberg (1984) argued:

In the face of a growing and diverse population of adult learners, it is the pro- fessional obligation of the speech profession to understand and embrace the world of adult education. Andragogy is a partner that can help the speech communication discipline—at all levels—grow, prosper, and survive. (p. 17)

The discipline has largely ignored Engleberg’s (1984) challenge; discussion and

application of andragogy are notably absent from the Communication Studies litera-

ture. The conversation about andragogy is limited to five articles (Anyanwu, 2003;

Cunningham, 1999; Hassan, 1986; Tuss, 1996; Vehvilainen, 2003) that mention the

concept in passing without any substantive discussion of the learning theory, and

two nonempirical essays (Carney, 1985; Hynes, Worley, & Dyrud, 2002) that discuss

some implications of andragogy in communication education.

Perhaps one reason communication scholars have largely ignored Knowles’s

(1970, 1980, 1984, 1990) theory is that they do not completely see its relevance to

their work with college students, who they may not perceive as fully self-directed,

personally responsible, and intrinsically motivated adults. This lack of relevance

would be accentuated by literature that views pedagogy and andragogy as dichot-

omous (e.g., Beaman, 1998; Gehring, 2000; Hynes et al., 2002; Marshak, 1983;

Rachal, 2002). Notably, Cross (1981, p. 275) argued that a learner either takes on

child-like characteristics or adult-like characteristics. Pratt (1988), however, rejected

that dichotomy and argued relationships between instructors and students may be

considerably flexible and dynamic.

Pedagogy–andragogy liminality

I have found it useful to conceptualize pedagogy and andragogy as points on a

developmental continuum, and some literature supports that notion (Delahaye,

Limerick, & Hearn, 1994; Grow, 1991; Hadley, 1975; Holmes, 1980; Kerwin, 1981;

Pearson, 1998; Pratt, 1988). As such, there would be a liminal space (Turner, 1964,

1967, 1974, 1982) between pedagogy and andragogy where learners are ‘‘betwixt

and between’’ (Turner, 1964, p. 93) educational orientations. Liminal learners would

be a point of ‘‘transition between different social structures’’ (Turner, 1974, p. 47),

4 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

‘‘comprising the boundary between different states of existence or between different

communities’’ (Jeyaraj, 2004, p. 16).

Within this fluid transitional space, students and educators would experience a

confluence of dialectical tensions marked by a ‘‘dynamic interplay between unified

oppositions’’ (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 8). In theorizing about the teaching

relationship as a friendship, Rawlins (2000) suggested that student–teacher relation-

ships experience multiple dialectic tensions, including simultaneous ‘‘tugs and pulls’’

(p. 10) toward both dependence and independence. Rawlins argued that both teachers

and students find significant challenges in negotiating balance between guidance,

direction, limitation, freedom, restriction, boundaries, and flexibility. In terms of

pedagogy–andragogy liminality, students might simultaneously desire andragogical

self-direction and explicit direction from their professor. Consequently, giving free-

dom to self-direct violates students’ expectations for clear standards, but giving

detailed instructions violates students’ need for self-direction. Characteristic of the

fluid and contradictory nature of liminal space between andragogy and pedagogy,

some educators attempt to encourage students to navigate dialectical tensions and

move toward andragogy. Scholars from Human Development and Education have

explored extensively the dynamics of student development, and that literature is help-

ful in conceptualizing the communicative and relational moves made in this liminal

space.

Student Development

Some educators value student development toward more andragogical patterns.

Grow (1991) observed that the ability to be self-directed and independent affords sig-

nificant advantages to learners in the classroom and beyond, and Knowles (1970)

concluded that in encouraging student development toward andragogy, ‘‘teachers

who have helped their adult students to achieve this breakthrough report repeatedly

that it is one of the most rewarding experiences of their lives’’ (p. 46).

The ‘‘power in the classroom’’ series published in the 1980s, focusing on instructor

behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and behavior alteration messages (BAMs), set

one direction for examining student compliance (Kearney, Plax, Richmond, &

McCroskey, 1984, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1983; McCroskey, Richmond,

Plax, & Kearney, 1985; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond,

McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987). This body of quantitative work and subsequent

variable-analytic studies (see McCroskey et al., 2004) focus on student development

as a mostly unidirectional, linear exertion of power by teachers, and a subsequent

return of compliance or resistance from students. These studies do not focus suffi-

ciently on the transactional nature of a relationship that is constructed in communi-

cation. While these studies take a ‘‘transmission view’’ of communication, I find it

useful to embrace a ‘‘constitutive view’’ (Craig, 1999; W. B. Pearce, 2007) from which

the student–teacher relationship is viewed as created in communication, and student

development is an ongoing generative process arising from interlocutors’ communi-

cative negotiation of positions in relationship to one another (Gergen, 1985, 1994).

Western Journal of Communication 5

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Only a few studies have taken this sort of social construction perspective in directly

researching student development toward andragogy.

One project in a large Texas community college district was designed to foster stu-

dents’ development of a more internal locus of control (Roueche & Mink, 1976;

Roueche & Pitman, 1972; Roueche & Snow, 1979). Another project led by Drago-

Severson (2004) focused on adult English as a second language students, where edu-

cators encouraged development from self-oriented and dependent positions, through

stages of increasing personal responsibility, and eventually ‘‘self-authoring’’ ways of

knowing (Kegan, 1994). K. A. Pearce (2004) directly examined student development

as renegotiation of the student–professor relationship; noting that her students

seemed initially more concerned with grades than learning, K. A. Pearce (2004)

worked to foster more collaborative, coaching relationships with them. Given this lim-

ited body of inquiry, further research is needed to explore the conversational patterns

enacted when professors attempt to foster student development toward andragogy.

Andragogy is not an inherent, essentialized construct contained within an individ-

ual, rather it is a function of the the instructor–student relationship (Pratt, 1988).

Andragogy is enacted in interpersonal communication behavior (Holmes, 1980),

student development from pedagogy to andragogy is worked out in conversation

as part of the negotiation of the student–professor relationship, and the quality of

that communication is integral to developmental outcomes (Roueche and Pitman,

1972). Ultimately, conversation is the event horizon for significant relational turning

points between professors and students (Docan-Morgan, 2009, 2011; Docan-Morgan

& Manusov, 2009). Hence, I ask the following research question:

RQ: What are the patterns of communication enacted in dyadic conversations where professors are attempting to foster student development toward andragogy?

Consistent with W. B. Pearce (2007, 2012), I define patterns of communication as

clusters of regulative and constitutive rules used to coordinate action and make

meaning, recognizable to communicators by some perceived reoccurrence of those

regulative and constitutive rules, and identified by communicators as patterns. This

study was designed to find, define, and explore such patterns.

Method

In this descriptive, qualitative study I took a cooperative approach to inquiry (Bray,

Smith, & Yorks, 2000), inviting participants to assist in understanding and interpret-

ing the phenomena under investigation. During data collection I chose to redefine

the subject–researcher relationship in a way that intentionally blurred traditional

boundaries (Bray et al., 2000), deviating from an ‘‘objective’’ third-person position

(i.e., ‘‘What do they do?’’) to construct a first-person plural account with participants

(i.e., ‘‘How can we better understand this experience?’’). I ensured steps were taken to

protect the research participants, and obtained IRB approval from multiple institu-

tions. I collected data from 2007 through 2009, participants included faculty and

6 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

regularly matriculated students at North American colleges, and all gave informed

consent. Analysis was ongoing, concurrent with data collection, and employed a var-

iety of heuristics derived from the coordinated management of meaning (W. B.

Pearce, 2007). These heuristics were applied using a technique inspired by the herme-

neutic circle (Mueller-Vollmer, 2002); data were interpreted from a variety of stand-

points, particularly from ‘‘near’’ and ‘‘distant’’ perspectives.

Interview Phase

I conducted 28 face-to-face interviews with participant volunteers, asking each to recall

turns in a conversation of interest, and then to elaborate and begin to analyze that con-

versation along with me. Concluding, I asked participants to refer their conversational

partner for an interview. If I obtained interviews from both interlocutors, the data were

included for analysis. If I was unable to interview both partners the initial interview was

not considered primary data, which was the case for 13 sets of recalled conversations

from 10 interviews. This yielded a total of 18 usable paired interviews (9 professors= 9 students). From these 18 paired interviews, 12 recalled conversations were collected

(some interviews contained multiple data sets with different partners).

Participants

Through professional and personal contacts, participants learned I was collecting con-

versations where a professor attempted to encourage a student to be more personally

responsible, more internally motivated, more self-directed, or where an attempt was

made to renegotiate the relationship as more collaborative and mutual. Participants

then self-selected when they believed they had a conversation of interest for the study,

and an interview was scheduled. Eight interviews began with a professor recalling con-

versational turns and two commenced with a student interview. The initial con-

venience sample of 10 participants was extended by snowballing, when an initial

interlocutor recruited their conversational partner. The final participant pool con-

sisted of 7 female professors, 2 male professors, 6 male students, and 3 female students.

The professors reported between 2 and 30 years of teaching experience (M ¼ 15.3, SD ¼ 8.0), and the students self-reported their class year as 1 first-year student, 2 sophomores, 4 juniors, and 2 seniors. Half of the participants self-identified as

Caucasian, 11.1% as Asian, 11.1% as African American or Black, 11.1% as Hispanic

or Latino=a, and 16.7% identified as multiethnic, multiracial, or ‘‘other.’’

Interview protocol

I designed an interview protocol to elicit narrative accounts of pedagogical-to-

andragogical turning points, turn-by-turn recalled conversation, and thick description

of contexts surrounding those interactions. Recalled conversations occurred no more

than 60 days prior to the interview, in most cases only a few days prior, and in two

cases, only minutes prior to my interview of the first interlocutor. I conducted semi-

structured interviews using open-ended queries and circular questioning (Creede,

Western Journal of Communication 7

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

2012; Tomm, 1988). Rooted in systems theory, circular questioning is designed to elicit

information on the social construction of meaning, and to explore interrelationships

among persons, events, stories, meanings, actions, and contexts (Tomm, 1987).

The shortest interview lasted 12 minutes and the longest, 86 minutes. Mean inter-

view length was 44.3 minutes (SD ¼ 21.5). Interviews with professors tended to last substantially longer (n ¼ 9, M ¼ 55.6 minutes, SD ¼ 22.2, Range ¼ 21 to 86 minutes) than interviews with students (n ¼ 9, M ¼ 33.0 minutes, SD ¼ 14.4, Range ¼ 12 to 57 minutes). Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed, and notes (from both

the researcher and participants) were archived.

Recalled conversation as data

Dyadic pedagogical-to-andragogical conversations are often private, unplanned, and may

be momentary and fleeting; using recalled conversation was the only viable way to obtain

access.Cronen,Pearce,andSnavely(1979)demonstratedhowskilledinterviewerscansuc-

cessfully elicit recalled conversations and I modeled my approach on a body of social

construction research that used such data (for examples, see Barge, Downs, & Johnson,

1989; Cronen, Johnson, & Lannamann, 1982; Harris, 1980; Montgomery, 2004; Orem,

2003; W. B. Pearce & Cronen, 1980; Sabee & Wilson, 2005; Sundarajan & Spano, 2004).

Collecting data from both conversational partners was one method of compensating for

the potential limitations of recalled dialogue, and rather than relying on recalled conver-

sation alone, I accessed additional data from a second phase of the research design.

Phase Two: Follow-Up

Phase two was designed to reveal macroconversational turns, construct thick descrip-

tions of contexts, and further involve participants in collaborative data analysis. Data

collection consisted of follow-up interviews, informal conversations, direct observa-

tions, and document collection.

Participants

Participants for this phase were a subset of the previous. At the end of each phase one

interview participants were provided a handout with contact information and sent a

follow-up e-mail inviting them to stay in contact, provide further information, and

assist in data interpretation. Six participants, 4 professors and 2 students, volunteered

for additional involvement. Participants in this phase became participant-

collaborators in order to ‘‘create a more relational discourse of method, recognizing

that it is only by ‘their’ hearing us and addressing us that we can emerge as a ‘we’

doing interpersonal research’’ (Steier, 1995, p. 72).

Macroconversational turns

While a conversational turn could be considered a verbal utterance in an exchange of

messages between interlocutors, ‘‘macro’’ conversational turns include broader verbal

or nonverbal communicative acts. A professor distributing a syllabus, a student not

8 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

attending five class meetings, or an instructor assigning a failing grade, could all be con-

sidered conversational turns, and each has preceding and succeeding turns that con-

tribute to the making of meaning. If a professor tells students to work independently

for the next five class meetings, the student’s turn of missing five classes takes on a con-

siderably different meaning than if instead the syllabus, as the essential preceding con-

versational turn, stated that missing five classes would result in a failing grade. Adjacent

turns define the meaning of macro turns, just as each preceding and successive ‘‘micro’’

verbal utterance in a conversation serves to make meaning for every other speech act in

that conversation. Macroconversation analysis, which has precedence in W. B. Pearce,

Littlejohn, and Alexander’s (1987) analysis of interactions between secular humanists

and the Christian right, was used substantially in this study.

Data collection

Interviews and interactions for this phase were not structured in advance. Over the

course of one year, I engaged in countless conversations with the 6 participants on a

variety of aspects of the project. We discussed contexts in which participants’ original

conversations were embedded, collected documents, and observed classroom interac-

tions. I often presented my interpretations of particularly perplexing data (masked to

protect identities) back to participants, engaged in conversation about possible alterna-

tive interpretations, and collaborated to deepen our data interpretation.

Phase two data

This phase generated considerable data. I examined 14 course syllabi, three course

manuals (20–30-page booklets that included course syllabus, class schedule, campus

resource information, assignment instructions, assignment rubrics, self-evaluation

forms, and study guides), four additional assignment instruction handouts, and two

other informational handouts. Each document was linked with a particular participant

and at times with specific recalled conversations, and was used to inform my under-

standing of the conversation and layers of context surrounding it. Participants also for-

warded 46 e-mails, most of which documented two to five electronic conversational

turns. Four e-mails related directly to reports of recalled conversation, and another five

with relevant contextual information directly associated with specific interviews. Also, I

observed a total of four class sessions; two conducted by one participant-collaborator,

and one each from another two. The classes lasted 50 to 80 minutes during which I took

field notes using procedures suggested by Warren and Karner (2005). I focused on

instructional design and classroom culture, and these observations were useful in

understanding layers of context surrounding conversations reported in interviews.

Data Analysis

Dealing with Discrepant Accounts

I made no attempt to resolve discrepancies between accounts of conversations; I

reconstructed the most complete conversational script possible based on both

Western Journal of Communication 9

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Table 1 CMM Terminology and Heuristics

Term Explanation

Bifurcation Points (see

W. B. Pearce, 2007)

Critical moments in conversational episodes that may serve as relational

turning points. Choices made at bifurcation points are fateful in that

they establish a particular trajectory for the conversation at hand, and

may also have more far-reaching consequences for the direction of

future episodes. This is parallel to Docan-Morgan’s (2009, 2011)

concept of relational turning points.

Communication Rules

(see Murray, 2012)

As an expression of deontic logic, socially constructed ‘‘oughts’’ and

‘‘ought nots’’ that govern behavior and guide the making of meaning.

Regulative Rules Socially constructed prescriptions that translate into a felt obligation to

perform or not perform a particular act within a given context.

Constitutive Rules What communicators know about how to interpret messages and make

meaning from others’ communicative acts.

Deontic Logic (see

Murray, 2012)

An internalized sense of felt obligation; a socially constructed sense of

‘‘oughtness’’ concerning what actions are obligatory, encouraged,

irrelevant, discouraged, or forbidden in particular context.

Dialectic Tensions (see

Baxter, 2004; Baxter &

Montgomery, 1996)

Pairs of human needs or desires that may be perceived as mutually

exclusive, establishing opposing forces that simultaneously pull in

opposite directions.

Episodes (see W. B.

Pearce, 2007)

Self or socially named events that people self-define as episodes. Episodes

are a series of conversational turns, perceived as having particular

boundaries (punctuated as having a particular beginning and a

particular end), and connected together with a narrative that gives the

episode meaning.

Episode Work (see Blong,

2012; W. B. Pearce,

2007)

The exertion of practical or implicative force in an attempt to transform

episodes. Conversational strategies that move away from undesirable,

problematic, or enigmatic episodes, and toward more coordinated

communication.

Hierarchy of Contexts

(see W. B. Pearce,

2007; W. B. Pearce &

Cronen, 1980)

Surrounding any speech act is a complex and layered system of multiple

contexts, such as culture, self-concept, punctuated episodes,

relationships, etc. In some combination, layers of context influence

both the patterns of communication and the making of

meaning.

Logical Force (see Brown,

2005; Oliver, 2004;

W. B. Pearce, 1989;

W. B. Pearce &

Cronen, 1980)

Arising from a particular deontic logic, the pressure that one experiences

driving their actions (e.g., speech acts). May take the form of

prefigurative, practical, contextual, implicative, or reflexive force.

Prefigurative Force Arises from the perception of antecedent causality.

(Continued )

10 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

accounts, noting differences. I could not help but recall the first participant’s account

while interviewing her=his conversational partner so if a participant was not recalling part of the conversation or reporting a part differently, I asked additional questions

and probed further (without violating the confidence of the first participant). Often

this showed the two accounts had more similarities than differences and I considered

discrepancies to be additional data.

Theoretical Framework

For data analysis I employed the coordinated management of meaning (CMM), which

offers a rich set of analytic tools to illuminate forms and patterns of communication

(Creede, Fisher-Yoshida, & Gallegos, 2012; Cronen et al., 1979; W. B. Pearce, 1976,

1989, 1994, 2007; W. B. Pearce & Cronen, 1980; W. B. Pearce, Cronen, & Conklin,

1979). CMM heuristics used in data analysis included: Stories told, serpentine modeling,

Table 1 Continued

Term Explanation

Practical Force Action generated from intent to create a particular consequence in the

future.

Contextual Force A felt obligation to act in a certain way because of a perception that the

context (time, place, circumstances, occasion, relationship,

self-concept, and=or culture) expects or requires that act.

Implicative Force Action arising from a desire to transform contexts, such as definitions of

episodes, relationships, self-concept, and=or larger cultural systems.

Reflexive Force An awareness of the communication processes in which one is involved

generates the possibility of altering those processes.

Punctuation (see Cronen

et al., 1979)

The conceptual boundaries that communicators perceive as marking the

beginning and end of an episode.

Serpentine Modeling (see

W. B. Pearce, 2007)

A method of mapping individual turns in a conversation, plotted to

show the flow of the interaction winding across two interlocutors’

social worlds (as in Figure 1).

Stories Told (see

Forsythe, 2012; W. B.

Pearce, 2007)

Narrative renditions of the episodes in which an individual has engaged

(i.e., stories that they have lived).

Target Outcomes (see

Knowles, 1970, 1984,

1990)

One’s objective for the consequences of a conversation. In the case of this

study, professors’ attempts to move students toward one or more of

the outcomes of being more personally responsible, self-directed,

intrinsically motivated, and to renegotiate the student–professor

relationship as less competitive or authoritarian and more mutual.

Note. This table is adapted from one originally presented in the author’s doctoral dissertation (Murray, 2009,

pp. 145–146).

Western Journal of Communication 11

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

punctuation, deontic logic, logical force, communication rules, hierarchically organized

systems of contexts, episode work, and bifurcation points. Two other analytic models

(target outcomes and dialectic tensions) were drawn from other theories. A summary

of CMM heuristics and related terminology are presented in Table 1.

Initially I focused on understanding participants’ stories, scripting out recalled

conversational turns, and comparing the two accounts. The sequence of other data

analysis modules often changed and overlapped. It was not unusual to apply one

Figure 1 Serpentine Analysis of Conversation. Note. In order to mask the participants’s identities, pseudonyms

are used and conversational details have been altered. This figure is adapated from one originally presented in

the author’s doctoral dissertation (Murray, 2009, p. 393).

12 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

heuristic, move on to the application of other heuristics, then later return to that first

heuristic and analyze further, revisit my first interpretive impressions, and often

revise my analysis. I also frequently moved among data clusters, comparing and

contrasting interpretations from one to another. Overall, analyses were organized

and mapped using CMM’s serpentine model as a foundation, with additional nota-

tions from other heuristics, such as socially constructed rules, logical force, and hier-

archically organized contexts. Figure 1 shows one example of 12 such analyses.

Upon completion of serpentine modeling for each of 12 conversations, I took a

wider perspective to identify and define patterns. Through interpretive analysis of

conversational serpentines, along with interpretation of other qualitative data (e.g.,

documents, ethnographic observations, additional interviews), several identifiable

patterns of communication emerged.

Results and Discussion

The research question guiding this study focused on communication patterns enacted

when professors encourage students toward more andragogical positions. One emergent

theme was that particular communication patterns indicate a conversation is at or near a

bifurcation point, or relational turning point. Another was that at such bifurcation

points, a professor may (or may not) employ particular strategic conversational moves.

Bumps in the Road: Patterns of Communication Indicating Bifurcation Points

Many points in a conversation could be considered bifurcation points; however, what

deserves to be examined are points where sufficient clues exist to indicate something

different might need to be done, and where interlocutors have available resources and

ability to construct a turn sending the conversation on a different trajectory. Data

analysis revealed that patterns of communication indicating bifurcation points are

frequently characterized by one or more of the following factors: experiencing and

recognizing dialectical tension, recognizing differences in hierarchical organization

of contexts, dominant use of prefigurative and contextual force, and perceived fric-

tion from less well coordinated patterns of communication.

Experiencing and recognizing dialectical tension

For most participants, conversational patterns indicated tension between andragogy

and pedagogy, more specifically between autonomy and connection; in this case,

‘‘connectedness’’ is a relational dynamic where students rely on instructors for

direction and motivation. This is consistent with existing evidence that the

autonomy–connection dialectic is the most commonly experienced relational tension

in any context (Pawlowski, 1998). For example, in interviews with student Kasey and

professor Katherine, considerable dialectical tension was evident (N.B.: In this

example and in all of the examples and data excerpts reported, I use pseudonyms

and altered narrative and conversational details to protect participant anonymity).

Katherine directs a placement program matching graduates with entry-level

Western Journal of Communication 13

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

positions. Katherine reported an attempt to place Kasey in a position and feeling

‘‘apprehensive because even though she is brilliant, really stood out in our depart-

ment, she seems . . . immature.’’ Katherine placed Kasey in a position which Kasey accepted only to change her mind and decline the position right before it began.

Kasey and Katherine’s conversation is particularly illustrative of patterns of com-

munication characterized by dialectical tension:

Kasey: (within a few days after the job offer, Kasey approaches Katherine) ‘‘This is too much work. I don’t think I can do it. They’re expecting too much. I wish you could come and meet with them with me.’’

Katherine: ‘‘That’s not my job. It’s yours. You need to negotiate with them yourself. This is [an entry level job], it’s only 40 hours a week.’’

Kasey: ‘‘But I’m freaking out over this, I can’t do it, it’s too much, I don’t know what they want from me. You should have come with me [on the initial interview].’’

Katherine: ‘‘You can do this. It’s an entry level position, and they know you just graduated.’’

Kasey: ‘‘But I need to make more money than that. I wish you would talk to them for me. It’s too expensive to travel there.’’

Katherine: ‘‘You need to negotiate that for yourself. Tell them what you need. Make an offer. If you didn’t want this, you needed to tell me before we set this up.’’

From both participants, it was clear Kasey was pulled in the direction of adult

responsibility when she initially accepted the position, but subsequently seemed to

be pulled in the opposite direction. Taking a position of less personal responsibility,

Kasey attributed an external locus when she explained that she needed to decline the

offer because it interfered with her vacation plans. Realizing Kasey was experiencing a

‘‘personal responsibility’’ dialectic, Katherine decided to change the course of the

conversation and push Kasey to accept more personal responsibility. Variations on

such dialectical tension patterns of communication were recognizable in every paired

interview analyzed, and sometimes were resolved more satisfactorily than others.

Recognizing differences in hierarchical organization of contexts

Surrounding any speech act is a complex, layered system of multiple contexts that, in

some combination, influence patterns of communication and the making of meaning

(W. B. Pearce, 2007). Students and professors sometimes organize their hierarchal

systems of meaning differently, resulting in enactment of different rule systems; this

can create interactional friction in the relationship. Context significantly influenced

the constitutive rules for making meaning for the word ‘‘effort’’ in a grade dispute

between professor Elaine and student Edward. Edward repeatedly described

the amount of effort he put into an assignment, where Elaine considered effort

‘‘meaningless and irrelevant.’’ Both parties reported being extremely dissatisfied with

this encounter, and believed they were ‘‘talking past’’ one another.

Between professor Landon and student Laura, greater complexity was seen in

layers of context surrounding and defining each side of their conversation. Laura

14 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

seemed to use ‘‘grades’’ as the highest (or most dominant) level of context in the

educational setting; she said her primary thought on the first day of class was

‘‘How am I supposed to know how to get an ‘A’?’’ Landon, on the other hand,

had a class culture where the course ‘‘is in the hands of the students’’ as the highest

order context, and where he put substantial responsibility on students for determin-

ing what they learn and how. Following numerous conversational turns that both

interlocutors reported as frustrating, Landon acknowledged his realization they were

using different frames of contextual reference, and thus changed the conversation tra-

jectory. Landon’s reflection on the contextual differences provided the reflexive force

to make conversational moves encouraging Laura to redefine her conceptualization

of the teaching and learning context.

Dominant use of prefigurative and contextual force

When prefigurative force, contextual force, or both become dominate influences run-

ning a conversation, the resulting communication patterns may indicate bifurcation

points. Use of prefigurative force, arising from the perception of antecedent causality

(W. B. Pearce & Cronen, 1980), can be seen in statements like ‘‘because you insulted

my term paper I was obligated to complain about you to your department chair.’’

Contextual force, arising from the multiple circumstances in which an episode is

embedded, might be recognized in statements like:

I didn’t submit this assignment on time because you didn’t remind me of the dead- line often enough, and you didn’t give me clear enough instruction on how to com- plete the work, and in [my definition of the context of] school, the teacher is supposed to do those things.

In an argument between professor Elaine and student Edward, prefigurative force

was particularly evident. Edward lamented, ‘‘I don’t understand how I could get a

‘D’ [on this assignment you just returned]! How? How? How?’’ and attributed the

grade to Elaine’s failure to give clear assignment instructions; ‘‘But I asked [you] if this

[particular research material] was okay to use, and you told me it was.’’ Edward’s con-

versational moves seemed particularly reactionary to the grade he received and what he

believed were faults of Elaine’s responsibility. Elaine also seemed to employ copious

prefigurative force in responding to each of Edward’s conversational turns by pointing

to an assignment rubric and saying, ‘‘If you do this, you get the points. If you don’t, you

don’t.’’ As with Edward, there was little forward thinking use of practical or implicative

force in these conversational turns. The more both interlocutors engaged in reactionary

use of prefigurative force, the more dissatisfied they became with the interaction.

Heavy use of contextual force also seems to indicate bifurcation points. This sort

of pressure from context tends to produce repetitive episodes of conflict in relation-

ships (Cronen et al., 1979). In the conversation between professor Landon and stu-

dent Laura, Landon seems to mindlessly refuse to help Laura with a group-project

problem that she believed was going to seriously harm her final grade. Even as Laura

expressed rising frustration, Landon repeated his unqualified refusal to help resolve

the issue. My interview with Landon revealed substantial (and seemingly habitual)

Western Journal of Communication 15

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

responses to students like Laura, based on his contextual definitions of himself, his

relationships with students and the classroom context. He reported this particular

conversation with Laura as being one that he often encounters. There appeared to

be strong links to Landon’s autobiographical context (‘‘I am a person who allows stu-

dents to learn from working out their own problems’’), his definition of instructional

culture context (‘‘students are in charge and should self-direct’’), and his definition of

the context of relationships to students (‘‘I am not the person you rely on for answers

or learning, I support that learning and support you, but do not solve problems for

you’’). The pattern of communication Landon enacted with Laura appeared to be

one scripted into his repertoire of communication behaviors as a response to anyone

approaching him with this type of issue. Eventually, Landon recognized his stock

responses were not working (based in part on a particularly strong expression of frus-

tration from Laura) and made moves to change the trajectory of the conversation.

Perceived friction from less well coordinated patterns of communication

When conversational partners have significantly misaligned interactional logics and

enact rule systems that are incompatible with each other in key ways, conversational

friction results. Contrasting ‘‘relational resonance,’’ where interlocutors’ stories and

contexts align relatively amicably, ‘‘relational dissonance’’ occurs where competing

narratives of ‘‘me, you, and us’’ become significant forces in an episode (Wasserman,

2012, p. 198). In every student–professor interaction studied, some friction between

juxtaposed stories, contextual frameworks, forces, and rule systems was evident.

Often, participants indicated a lack of coherence (W. B. Pearce & Cronen, 1980); they

had difficulty understanding the purpose and intent of a partner’s conversational

moves. This friction may indicate a bifurcation point.

An example of this pattern of communication can be seen in the interaction

between Gin and Geoff (see Figure 1). Geoff reported feeling significant dissatis-

faction with the conversation because Gin was continuing to make ‘‘excuses.’’ Gin,

however, framed her explanations as ‘‘reasons,’’ not excuses. This difference in

contextual framing exacerbated both interlocutors’ frustration to the point that the

conversation ended with the following exchange:

Gin: ‘‘I don’t understand why you’re being so mean to me. You don’t have to be like that.’’ (starts crying)

Geoff: ‘‘This isn’t anything personal. I’m just trying to help you out here.’’ Gin: ‘‘But you don’t have to be so mean about it.’’ Geoff: ‘‘OK, let’s talk about this. How am I being mean? Help me out here.’’ Gin: ‘‘I’ve got another class. I don’t want to do this. I’ve got to go. Just give me a

zero. I don’t care.’’ (starts to walk away) Geoff: ‘‘OK, but I’d still like to talk about this more later on.’’ Gin: ‘‘I don’t see the point. Just give me a zero. I’ve got to go.’’

Gin reported being so frustrated and upset she decided to ‘‘give up’’ on the con-

versation. Geoff reported being extremely frustrated, and ‘‘felt helpless,’’ particularly

since he feared Gin was going to complain to an administration that he said ‘‘doesn’t

16 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

support faculty here, and if a student gets pissed off, they side with the student.’’ Both

participants reported not understanding their conversational partner’s attempt to

send the conversation on an undesired trajectory; each participant perceived a

significant lack of conversational coherence.

For many professors in this study, conversational friction resulted in some action

from implicative force. Experiencing sufficient discomfort with the lack of con-

versational coordination, they sought to transform one or more elements of the

communicative context. For example, Geoff pleaded with Gin to continue the con-

versation and discuss their lack of conversational coordination. Overall, data showed

many negative emotions expressed by both students and professors, such as

frustration, anger, hostility, resistance, dismay, and disengagement, which likely

indicate bifurcation points.

Counter example

Certainly not all professor–student conversations contain or require logical force to

promote andragogy. In two nonpaired student interviews (where data were not used

to reconstruct a set of conversational turns), there was evidence relationships were

more coordinated than not. The first of these students stated she could not think

of examples of conversations where a professor attempted to move her toward andra-

gogy, believing that adult-like learning patterns were part of a value system instilled

‘‘by [her] parents a long, long time ago, when [she] was a child.’’ She also indicated

that if she had any such conversations, they were not with professors, but ‘‘probably

happened in grade school or maybe high school.’’ The second participant recalled an

occasion where a professor ‘‘lectured the whole class on personal responsibility,’’ and

that she ‘‘thought that maybe needed to be said to maybe some of the other kids in

the class, but not to me, really.’’ However, where communication patterns are not

well coordinated and when professors recognize bifurcation points they may engage

in conversations intended to promote andragogy.

Implications for Instructional Communication—Strategic Conversational Moves

At a practical level, my analysis revealed key strategic conversational moves that may

be enacted in attempts to assert implicative force in transforming students’ contexts

to more andragogical frameworks. In the short term, these moves tend to arise from

practical force, intending to construct the prefigurative force necessary for a student

to do something in the near future. The longer range or higher order intention with

these conversational moves is often to effect implicative force that transforms con-

texts. Such strategic conversational moves may be more implicit or more explicit,

and can be classified more specifically as depicted in Figure 2.

Explicit move: Coaching

Coaching communicates interactive instruction, advice, and feedback, and involves

interlocutors forming a collaborative and mutual relationship. For example, several

Western Journal of Communication 17

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

professors positioned themselves as advisors and consultants. One professor, Alicia,

explained to student Anthone how he should communicate with his teachers and

what attitude to take in accepting their suggestions. Alicia reported telling Anthone:

I want you to try something. Even if you don’t like a comment a teacher gives you, I want you to hold back. Hold back with your body, and even if you don’t love it, just try that person’s idea that they just gave you. Work with them. Maybe it’s not correct for you. Teachers are always learning as well. But just try it.

Alicia’s use of qualifiers, like ‘‘I want you to try something’’ and ‘‘just try it,’’

is more relationally mutual than authoritarian, placing their interaction in this

‘‘coaching’’ category.

Explicit move: Instructing

Similar to coaching but not focused on collaboration and mutuality, instructing

involves a more straightforward explanation on how to do something. When student

Gin approached professor Geoff with what he perceived as excuses for not submitting

work (what Gin perceived as ‘‘reasons’’), Geoff reported telling Gin:

When you approach me or any other of your professors with something like this, making excuses just isn’t the way to come across. You’d be much better off taking responsibility for yourself. Say ‘look, I screwed up—this is my fault—what can we do about this so my grade doesn’t suffer?’

Although Geoff labeled his conversational moves ‘‘coaching’’ in our interview, I

interpreted his moves as instruction because he was telling Gin how to present herself

without the use of qualifying language and without establishing collaboration.

Explicit move: Demanding

Different from instructing, demanding is an order. Professors reported making state-

ments like ‘‘that’s not my job—it’s yours,’’ ‘‘you need to take responsibility for this,’’

Figure 2 Strategic Conversational Moves. Note. This figure is reproduced from the author’s doctoral

dissertation (Murray, 2009, p. 320).

18 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

or ‘‘you can’t blame [external factor] for what happened here’’ all are unqualified,

explicit moves ordering students what they must do. In discussing a late assignment

with student Thomas, professor Tamara demanded he take a more personally res-

ponsible position when she said:

Look, this is college. I don’t think you’re acting mature or professional. It’s not fair to the other students in this class for you to [submit your assignment late]. You are the one responsible for the situation you have created here. If you lose your scholarship, that’s your own fault. Sometimes people just need to learn lessons the hard way.

Explicit move: Coercing

Coercing employs some sort of force to gain compliance from others; either rewards

are offered or punishment threatened to construct pressure. Professor Alicia issued an

ultimatum, withholding a letter of recommendation from student Anthone until she

received a promise that he would engage in different relational positioning in future

educational programs. Coercing can be direct, as in this case where Alicia directly told

Anthone what andragogical behavior she wanted, or it can be a more veiled or indirect

move where the purpose of the coercion is not as transparent. Zoe held a student’s

grade hostage until he explored the locus of control literature and wrote an essay

on why he should not blame external circumstances but instead take more personal

responsibility. Zoe’s move was explicit, making direct statements indicating her desire

for this student to take more personal responsibility, pressuring him to explore that

topic further using the reward or punishment of a grade as leverage. Some develop-

mental moves, however, are less explicit and are categorized as implicit moves.

Implicit move: Covert

Covert moves involve some form of deception to prompt desired development. One

professor used deception to ‘‘teach [a student] a lesson.’’ Zoe received an e-mail from

student Zelda:

Zelda: ‘‘hi professor sorry to bother you i have a quick question when is the [major class assignment] due? thank you!!!’’

Zoe: ‘‘Hi [Zelda], Sorry, but I am off campus right now and I do not have a copy of the class schedule with me. If you do not have your copy of the syllabus, remember that you can download it though [online resource]. Have a good weekend.’’

Zoe informed me her response was a lie intended to move the student toward

more self-directness and personal responsibility in finding answers for herself.

Implicit move: Passive

Incidents of strategic inaction or nonresponsiveness are passive approaches. By ‘‘doing

nothing’’ in order to accomplish something, Elaine’s unstated expectation that students

should be able to accomplish self-directed work from a set of assignment instructions was

Western Journal of Communication 19

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

particularly passive. Also, professor Tamara’s passive nonresponse to Thomas’s questions

about not being scheduled for an in-class presentation was an attempt to get him to rea-

lize that he had not followed her course rules by submitting an outline on time:

Thomas: (holding his assignment out to her) ‘‘You forgot to schedule me for my day.’’

Tamara: (does not take the outline from Thomas) ‘‘No, I didn’t.’’ Thomas: ‘‘But my name’s not on the list.’’ Tamara: ‘‘You’re right. It’s not.’’ Thomas: ‘‘I don’t understand.’’ Tamara: ‘‘Can you think of a reason that I didn’t schedule you? Maybe something

in the directions for the assignment? Maybe something that we talked about many times in class?’’

Tamara reported using this passive approach because Thomas should have taken

more personal responsibility for knowing her course rules in order to be allowed to

complete the assignment.

Implicit move: Indirect

Indirect moves happen when there is an attempt to encourage student development,

but where the motive is not transparent. This is not directly deceptive, as with covert

moves, and does involve action, unlike passive moves. Instead, the action attempts to

prompt desired student development without explicitly stating so. This may include

moves like those of professor Beverly, whose first day of class involved distributing a

blank syllabus, and without stating her rationale, negotiated course design with her

students. With Edward’s statement about putting considerable effort into an assign-

ment, Elaine never directly said that she did not believe that effort was a valid evalu-

ation criterion; instead, she just referred Edward back to the assignment instructions,

implying but not explicitly stating that effort does not count.

Implicit move: Coercive

Coercive moves employ the same force via rewards and punishments as discussed in

the explicit category, but the purposes and motives behind the coercion are withheld,

making it an implicit strategy. Professor Beverly compelled student Beckett to ‘‘take

the initiative’’ to use her office hours by making it clear that his course grade would

suffer if he did not take action. She accomplished this implicitly by distributing a

grading rubric from which Beckett was supposed to realize (and did realize) that

his course grade was in jeopardy. Ultimately, the threat of a reduced grade in the

course, though implied and not explicitly stated, created sufficient pressure for

Beckett to approach Beverly somewhat ‘‘on his own’’ (or, at least, enact behavior

resembling initiative-taking).

Mysterious moves

Mysterious moves are included in this taxonomy because some acts cannot be com-

pletely understood. For example, Alicia was trying to instruct student Anthone on a

20 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

particular kinesthetic motor skill she believed he used incorrectly. She repeatedly

tried to correct Anthone’s behavior and met resistance both directly (‘‘it’s fine the

way I’m doing it!’’) and indirectly (by not altering his physical performance). Alicia

reported finally exclaiming ‘‘OK, I am not going to explain this again! The impor-

tance of you [doing the following behaviors in the following way] is because I have

explained it 5 weeks in a row!’’ Alicia reported saying this firmly, emphatically, but

with a sense of humor and laughing with the group about her uncharacteristic asser-

tiveness. She said her collaborative style (‘‘my approach of ‘let’s work on this

together’’’) was met with too much resistance; she was frustrated and gave the stu-

dent what she labeled an ultimatum. Her assertiveness combined with humor in

expressing frustration had the unintended but welcome effect of transforming her

relationship with Anthone. This does not fit easily one of the previous categories,

and therefore is labeled ‘‘mysterious.’’

Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The taxonomy developed from analysis of interviews, recalled conversations, artifacts,

and ethnographic observations allows for more complex and rich thinking about pat-

terns of communication enacted when professors make conversational moves urging

students toward more andragogical positions. As a way of narrowing this study, I

made the decision to focus primarily on conversational moves in dyadic settings,

and where professors were encouraging students toward one or a combination of

four andragogical states: fostering student development toward increased internal

motivation; greater personal responsibility; more self-directedness; the enactment

of a student–professor relationship that was less authoritarian and more collaborative

and relationally mutual. Knowles’s (1970, 1984, 1990) andragogy, however, addresses

characteristics of adult teaching and learning beyond dyadic relationships and in

regard to more than just these four factors, such as use of learner experience, class-

room climate, learner readiness, learner evaluation, time perspective, needs assess-

ment, and instructional design. Future research should explore these other aspects

of andragogical development and communication patterns beyond the context of

dyads.

Though it was not the focus of this study, every participant provided at least some

evidence of outcomes. Participants frequently spoke to their satisfaction or dissatis-

faction with these encounters and provided information on whether they believed

their conversational turns were effective. While my interpretation of these data (as

well as the personal impact of this project on my own work) leads me to form a

strong impression that more explicit, collaborative approaches produce more desir-

able outcomes, this study did not produce sufficient data to substantiate firm conclu-

sions on that front. Future research ought to consider how common each of these

conversational moves are, investigate their short- and long-term outcomes, evaluate

interlocutors’ level of satisfaction, and explore the relative effectiveness of these con-

versational moves. Further, this project establishes important groundwork for explo-

ration of pedagogy–andragogy liminality from a critical perspective. There are likely

Western Journal of Communication 21

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

issues of race, gender, sexuality, power, generation, social class, and many other ele-

ments of students’ and professors’ autobiographies that shape identity and place indi-

viduals in particular contextual frameworks; these factors ought to be interrogated

more directly and thoroughly in the process of advancing a more complete and

inclusive view of pedagogy–andragogy liminality.

In addition to contributing to the body of theory on pedagogy, andragogy, and

student professor relationships, this project makes significant advances in research

methodology. I employed what I believe to be a unique approach of gathering

recalled conversations in paired interviews, and this approach has substantial poten-

tial to compensate for some of the inherent disadvantages of using recalled conver-

sation as data, particularly in research circumstances where direct observation would

be impossible, impractical, or unethical. This project also begins to demonstrate the

potential of CMM employed as a research methodology; I found CMM particularly

pragmatic not just as a theoretical lens but also as an integral tool for data analysis.

CMM offers a rich set of heuristics that have been used extensively by practitioners

and developed substantially in unpublished doctoral dissertations (Barge & Pearce,

2004). This essay helps to introduce some of that work back into the current

Communication Studies literature.

Overall, these data do suggest that if interlocutors better understood each other’s

social worlds, they might be able to discern more satisfying and effective strategic

conversational moves. While the present study focused more on identifying patterns

of communication and less on examining the outcomes of those conversational

moves, the resulting taxonomy prompts more complex, rich thinking about com-

munication patterns. Ultimately, this taxonomy is an open framework. Nevertheless,

the structure developed here for identifying bifurcation points and the strategies

employed at those points, establishes necessary groundwork for extended exploration

into the important topic of relational communication between professors and

students.

References

Anyanwu, C. (2003). Myth and realities of new media technology. Television and New Media, 4,

389–409. doi:10.1177=1527476403256210 Aylor, B. (2003). The impact of sex, gender, and cognitive complexity on the perceived importance

of teacher communication skills. Communication Studies, 54, 496–509. doi:10.1080= 10510970309363306

Barge, J. K., Downs, C. W., & Johnson, K. M. (1989). An analysis of effective and ineffective

leader conversation. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 357–386. doi:10.1177= 0893318989002003004

Barge, J. K., & Pearce, W. B. (2004). A reconnaissance of CMM research. Human Systems: The

Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 15, 13–32.

Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. doi:10.1111= j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY:

Guilford.

22 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Beaman, R. (1998). The unquiet . . . even loud, andragogy! Alternative assessments for adult learners. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 47–59. doi:10.1023=A:1022920513341

Blong, L. (2012). Facilitating episode work. In C. Creede, B. Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.),

The reflective, facilitative, and interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning:

Making lives, making meaning (pp. 47–63). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Bray, J., Smith, L. J., & Yorks, L. (2000). Cooperative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and

making meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporate integrity: Rethinking organizational ethics and leadership. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Carney, T. F. (1985). Andragogy and teaching critical communication. Canadian Journal of

Communication, 11, 107–122.

Chawla, D., & Rawlins, W. K. (2004). Enabling reflexivity in a mentoring relationship. Qualitative

Inquiry, 10, 963–978. doi:10.1177=1077800404269420 Chen, Z. J. (2000). The impact of teacher-student relationships on college students’ learning:

Exploring organizational cultures in the classroom. Qualitative Research Reports in

Communication, 4, 76–83.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.

doi:10.1111=j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x Creede, C. (2012). Expanding meaning of my volunteer work in Uganda using circular questioning as

a self-reflective journaling practice. In C. Creede, B. Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.), The

reflective, facilitative, and interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning:

Making lives, making meaning (pp. 123–138). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Creede, C., Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Gallegos, P. V. (2012). The reflective, facilitative, and interpretive

practices of the coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making meaning. Madison,

NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Cronen, V. E., Johnson, K. M., & Lannamann, J. W. (1982). Paradoxes, double binds, and reflexive

loops: An alternative theoretical perspective. Family Process, 21, 91–112. doi:10.1111= j.1545-5300.1982.00091.x

Cronen, V. E., Pearce, W. B., & Snavely, L. M. (1979). A theory of rule-structure and types of

episodes and a study of perceived enmeshment in undesired repetitive patterns (‘‘URPs’’).

In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 3 (pp. 225–240). New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Press.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cunningham, A. C. (1999). Confessions of a reflective practitioner: Meeting the challenges of

marketing’s destruction. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 685–697. doi:10.1108= 03090569910274311

Delahaye, B. L., Limerick, D. C., & Hearn, G. (1994). The relationship between andragogical and

pedagogical orientations and the implications for adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly,

44, 187–200. doi:10.1177=074171369404400401 Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through

out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211–223. doi:10.1080= 01463370409370193

Docan-Morgan, T. (2009). A typology of relational turning point events in college teacher-student

relationships. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 82–97.

Docan-Morgan, T. (2011). ‘Everything changed’: Relational turning point events in college

teacher-student relationships from teachers’ perspectives. Communication Education, 60,

20–50. doi:10.1080=03634523.2010.497223 Docan-Morgan, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Relational turning point events and their outcomes in

college teacher-student relationships from students’ perspectives. Communication Education,

58, 155–188. doi:10.1080=03634520802515713

Western Journal of Communication 23

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective development.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Engleberg, I. N. (1984). Andragogy in community college communication courses. Communication

Education, 33, 13–17. doi:10.1080=03634528409384712 Forsythe, L. (2012). CMM and healthcare qualitative simulation research: Developing the team’s

voice. In C. Creede, B. Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.), The reflective, facilitative,

and interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making

meaning (pp. 95–106). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal

relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080=03634520009379209 Gehring, T. (2000). A compendium of material on the pedagogy-andragogy issue. Journal of

Correctional Education, 51, 151–163.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American

Psychologist, 40, 266–275. doi:10.1037==0003-066X.40.3.266 Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 125–149.

doi:10.1177=0001848191041003001 Hadley, H. N. (1975). Development of an instrument to determine adult educators’ orientation:

Andragogical or pedagogical (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations. (7512228)

Harris, L. (1980). Analysis of a paradoxical logic: A case study. Family Process, 19, 19–33.

doi:10.1111=j.1545-5300.1980.00019.x Hassan, S. (1986). Human resource development for broadcasting in Asia. International Communi-

cation Gazette, 38, 187–200. doi:10.1177=001654928603800114 Holmes, M. R. (1980). Interpersonal behaviors and their relationship to the andragogical and

pedagogical orientations of adult learners. Adult Education, 31, 18–29. doi:10.1177= 074171368003100102

Hynes, G. E., Worley, R. B., & Dyrud, M. A. (2002). Strategies for teaching managerial communi-

cation. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 86–92. doi:10.1177=108056990206500311 Jeyaraj, J. (2004). Liminality and othering: The issue of rhetorical authority in technical discourse.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18, 9–38. doi:10.1177=1050651903257958 Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV:

Alternatives to discipline. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 8 (pp. 727–746).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III:

Teacher communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19–28.

doi:10.1080=03634528509378579 Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Kerwin, M. A. (1981). Student involvement as a dimension of the student-perceived teaching

behavior of post secondary educators. Adult Education, 31(2), 85–92. doi:10.1177= 074171368103100202

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy.

New York, NY: Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). My farewell address . . . andragogy—no panacea, no ideology. Training and Development Journal, 34(8), 48–50.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf

Publishing.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Lopez, F. (1997). Student-professor relationship styles, childhood attachment bonds and

current academic orientations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 271–282.

doi:10.1177=0265407597142008 Marshak, R. J. (1983). What’s between pedagogy and andragogy? Training and Development

Journal, 37(10), 80–81.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student

perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175–184. doi:10.1080=03634528309378527 McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the classroom V:

Behavior alteration techniques, communication training and learning. Communication

Education, 34, 214–226. doi:10.1080=03634528509378609 McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of

instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi:10.1080= 01463370409370192

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, S. A. (2006). Using leader-member exchange theory to explain students’ motives to

communicate. Communication Quarterly, 54, 293–304. doi:10.1080=01463370600878008 Montgomery, E. (2004). Tortured families: A coordinated management of meaning analysis. Family

Process, 43, 349–371. doi:10.1111=j.1545-5300.2004.00027.x Mueller-Vollmer, K. (Ed.). (2002). The hermeneutics reader. New York, NY: Continuum.

Murray, D. S. (2009). Navigating the liminal space between pedagogy and andragogy: Coordination

and management of professor-student communication (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (3370126)

Murray, D. S. (2012). Interactional logics: Moving CMM forward by looking back. In C. Creede, B.

Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.), The reflective, facilitative, and interpretive practices of the

coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making meaning (pp. 153–171). Madison,

NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Oliver, C. (2004). Reflexive inquiry and the strange loop tool. Human Systems: The Journal of

Systemic Consultation and Management, 15, 127–140.

Orem, S. L. (2003). Relationships that grow: Disagreements as a site for learning (Doctoral disser-

tation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (3100545)

Pawlowski, D. R. (1998). Dialectical tensions in marital partners’ accounts of their relationships.

Communication Quarterly, 46, 386–416. doi:10.1080=01463379809370111 Pearce, K. A. (2004). Reconceptualizing teaching: Using CMM to change rules and relationships in

the classroom. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 15(2),

77–88.

Pearce, W. B. (1976). The coordinated management of meaning: A rules-based theory of inter-

personal communication. In G. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication

(pp. 17–36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pearce, W. B. (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Pearce, W. B. (1994). Interpersonal communication: Making social worlds. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

Pearce, W. B. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing Limited.

Pearce, W. B. (2012). Evolution and transformation: A brief history of CMM and a Meditation on

what using it does to us. In C. Creede, B. Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.), The reflective,

facilitative, and interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning: Making lives,

making meaning (pp. 1–21). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The creation of social

realities. New York, NY: Praeger.

Western Journal of Communication 25

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Pearce, W. B., Cronen, V. E., & Conklin, F. (1979). On what to look at when analyzing communi-

cation: A hierarchical model of actors’ meanings. Communication, 4, 195–220.

Pearce, W. B., Littlejohn, S. W., & Alexander, A. (1987). The new Christian right and the humanist

response: Reciprocated diatribe. Communication Quarterly, 35, 171–192. doi:10.1080= 01463378709369679

Pearson, P. G. (1998). The educational orientations of graduate social work faculty. Journal of Social

Work Education, 34, 427–436. doi:10.2307=23043394 Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI:

Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication

Education, 35, 43–55. doi:10.1080=03634528609388318 Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult Education Quarterly, 38, 160–181.

doi:10.1177=0001848188038003004 Rachal, J. R. (2002). Andragogy’s detectives: A critique of the present and a proposal for the future.

Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 210–227. doi:10.1177=0741713602052003004 Rawlins, W. K. (2000). Teaching as a mode of friendship. Communication Theory, 10, 5–26.

doi:10.1111=j.1468-2885.2000.tb00176.x Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII:

Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36,

1–13. doi:10.1080=03634528709378636 Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. doi:10.1037=h0092976 Roueche, J. E., & Mink, O. (1976). Locus of control and success expectancy: A self study unit.

Manchaca, TX: Sterling Swift Publishing Company.

Roueche, J. E., & Pitman, J. C. (1972). A modest proposal: Students can learn. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Roueche, J. E., & Snow, J. J. (1979). Overcoming learning problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new

directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006=ceps.1999.1020 Sabee, C. M., & Wilson, S. R. (2005). Students’ primary goals, attributions, and facework

during conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 54, 185–204.

doi:10.1080=03634520500356154 Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some

unasked questions. Communication Education, 41, 1–25. doi:10.1080=03634529209378867 Sprague, J. (2002). Communication education: The spiral continues. Communication Education, 51,

337–354. doi:10.1080=03634520216532 Steier, F. (1995). Reflexivity, Interpersonal communication, and interpersonal communication

research. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 63–87).

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Sundarajan, N., & Spano, S. (2004). CMM and the co-construction of domestic violence. Human

Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 15, 45–60.

Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part I. Strategizing as a fourth guideline for the thera-

pist. Family Process, 26, 3–13. doi:10.1111=j.1545-5300.1987.00003.x Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic or

reflexive questions? Family Process, 27, 1–15. doi:10.1111=j.1545-5300.1988.00001.x Turner, V. (1964). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In J. Helm (Ed.),

Symposium in new approaches to the study of religion: Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Spring

Meeting of the American Ethnological Society (pp. 4–20). Seattle, WA: American Ethnological

Society.

Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

26 D. S. Murray

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4

Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York, NY: PAJ.

Tuss, P. (1996). From student to scientist: An experiential approach to science education. Science

Communication, 17, 443–481. doi:10.1177=1075547096017004004 Vehvilainen, S. (2003). Avoiding providing solutions: Orienting to the ideal of students’ self-

directedness in counseling interaction. Discourse Studies, 5, 389–414. doi:10.1177= 14614456030053005

Warren, C. A. B., & Karner, T. X. (2005). Discovering qualitative methods: Field research, interviews,

and analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Wasserman, I. (2012). CMM: A reflective tool for engaging diversity and adversity. In C. Creede, B.

Fisher-Yoshida, & P. Gallegos (Eds.), The reflective, facilitative, and interpretive practices of the

coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making meaning (pp. 197–217). Madison,

NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

West, R. (1994). Teacher-student communication: A descriptive typology of students’ interpersonal

experiences with teachers. Communication Reports, 7, 109–118. doi:10.1080= 08934219409367593

Worley, D., Titsworth, S., Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007). Instructional communi-

cation competence: Lessons learned from award-winning teachers. Communication Studies,

58, 207–222. doi:10.1080=10510970701341170

Western Journal of Communication 27

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C al

if or

ni a

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 00

:0 7

27 A

pr il

2 01

4