8. Teaching PortfolioStephanie Tom Tong, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Tenure review, September 2016

Because communication is a ubiquitous part of human life, I believe that as a professor of communication, I have a unique advantage to influence the way students think and behave on a day-to-day basis. As a teacher, my primary goals are: (1) to help students become more effective communicators (2) to get students to recognize the scholarly and practical value of communication theory, (3) to demonstrate for students how empirical research can be used to investigate communicative events that occur in everyday life.

Although the average student does not think about theory, I’ve noticed that students can better appreciate it when it is applied to something that is familiar or recognizable. For example, in my undergraduate Communication Theory class, we discuss self-presentation and impression formation when we read Erving Goffman’s seminal essay “On Facework.” To illustrate this framework, I ask students to apply constructs such as “line,” “face,” and “intentionality” to analyze their own self-presentation behaviors in their Facebook profiles. This analysis gets students to reflect more critically on their online self-presentation behaviors that occur in their everyday lives, and to become more competent communicators overall. In addition, students learn to appreciate the explanatory power of a theory that Goffman developed in the 1950s.

After we finish the profile analysis activity, we read a published research studies in which my colleagues and I examined how small informational “cues” on one’s Facebook profile (e.g., Facebook friend count, friends’ comments, photos, etc.) impact the kinds of impressions that people form about others on social network websites. These studies show students how “real life” questions about communication behavior in venues like Facebook can be turned into hypotheses derived from theory, and how researchers design studies to test them. I also use these articles to introduce students to full-length journal publications and concepts like peer-review. Additionally, I think if students know how and why their professors conduct research, issues like plagiarism, citation, and research ethics come into sharper focus.

Another important pedagogical goal of mine is getting students to recognize the importance and utility of social science research methods. Students in communication often approach research methods classes reluctantly and sometimes with outright fear. When I ask students about their attitude toward research methods on the first day of class, they often give responses such as: “Well, I don’t really want to be here, but it’s required for the major” or “I heard this class has lots of math. I became a Communication major to avoid math.”

Overcoming the “math stigma” makes quantitative methods a particularly challenging set of topics to teach. As a result, research methods is the class in which I have spent the most time developing activities, lectures, and examples in an effort to increase student interest and change attitudes towards research. One example of my efforts can be seen in my ice cream taste test. In this activity, I explain to students that we are going to do a “blind taste test” in which they must taste and evaluate different kinds of ice cream. I tell them I’ve run all over town to purchase three different brands of chocolate ice cream at several different grocery stores. I transfer the ice creams out of their original packaging into containers simply labeled “A,” “B,” and “C.”

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

2

Each student gets three little ice cream tasting spoons (which I get from Cold Stone Creamery), and takes one spoonful of each brand of ice cream to taste. As they work their way through the three samples, students can see that A, B, C all differ in color—Brand A is the lightest shade of brown, followed by Brand B, then Brand C which is the darkest brown in color. After they taste all the ice cream brands, they fill out surveys with several questions designed to measure their preferences. These survey questions also reflect different levels of measurement (e.g., categorical, ordinal, interval), which becomes an important illustration of measurement and later, as data to calculate descriptive and inferential statistics. After the taste test is over, I reveal to the class: All the ice cream you just ate was vanilla. I dyed it different shades of brown using food coloring! (Side note: It is so much fun to see them smile in disbelief when I tell them the experimental manipulation!) This activity helps illustrate several important concepts: First, I want students to understand the concept of experimental design and data collection. Design is demonstrated through the manipulation that shows how we “eat with our eyes” and form psychological expectations about flavors by relying on the colors we see in food. Secondly, we critically analyze the survey by examining each question. Embedded in my survey are “good” and “bad” survey item wordings. We also detail the survey’s design, different response options, and levels of measurement. Lastly, I use students’ own responses to teach the logic of hypothesis testing. Students generate hypotheses such as: “Ice cream color will have an effect on chocolate flavor preference scores.” To test these different hypotheses, we apply different forms of inferential statistics to analyze the data, including chi-square goodness-of-fit, t-test, and analysis of variance. Because of the ice cream activity, students know exactly how the data were collected and they learn the importance of good measurement in statistical analyses. When I use their data as examples during lecture, their eyes light up when they see their a priori hypotheses supported by their statistical results. For example, almost every semester there is a statistically significant difference between Brand C (the darkest color brown ice cream) and Brand A (lightest color brown ice cream) on ratings of “deepest chocolate flavor.” This activity helps them understand how research methods like experiments and surveys can be applied to their own projects—in the classroom and in their future jobs. I’ve developed this activity specifically for research methods and I use it every time I teach the class. I’ve seen how it gets students involved and makes methods come alive in the classroom. Statistics, surveys, and experiments can live up to their reputation of being boring, but only if those concepts are kept confined to the textbook. I believe it’s up to the instructor to show students how such methods work in “real life” and get them excited about the process, even if it means spending extra time and effort to prepare and coordinate an involved in-class activity (and who doesn’t like ice cream?!). Although my SET scores reflect that I am consistently at or above the average ratings of my peers, in my own evaluation of my effectiveness I use many different metrics. I see my impact most clearly in the twelve undergraduate students who have asked to collaborate with me as research assistants on different projects during my time at Wayne State. I’ve seen it in the four honors students who asked me to be the faculty advisor of their independent research projects, three which have resulted in over $9000 of funding from the Wayne State Undergraduate

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

3

Research Opportunities Program. I’ve seen it in the graduate student members of my research team, who have become my co-authors on published research articles. I judge my own successes through those of my students—when they present research at national and international conferences, and learn to be teacher-scholars in their own right, I know I’ve succeeded too. In these moments I’m reminded of my responsibility to nurture my students’ intellectual development, and to teach them the skills they need so that they can investigate questions of their own. In my first years as an assistant professor, I’ve experienced some of my greatest successes as a teacher. Of course, my more risky innovations have crashed and burned. But I’m willing to take those risks in my teaching and research in order to develop students’ passion for theory and research, and to help them become better, more effective communicators.

TONG RESEARCH TEAM One of the more innovative elements in my teaching has been the development of the Tong Research Team, which my students affectionately call “TRT”. First implemented by Dr. G. R. Miller at Michigan State University, in the team model a faculty leader introduces a small group of students to aspects of the research process. Fall 2012 was my first semester at Wayne, and I spent a lot of my time simply introducing the team model to skeptical students whose trust I had to earn. I sent out multiple emails publicizing my team idea in an effort to recruit students. That first year, I managed to cobble together a four-person team of PhD students; we met once a month to work on a small data coding project. From this initial effort, we produced a competitively selected conference paper, which was later published in a peer-reviewed journal. Since 2012, more students have become interested in joining my research team. Currently, TRT is an 8-person team with students from different disciplines (psychology, public relations, media studies, communication studies) and at different levels—5 PhDs, 1 MAs, 2 undergrads. In Fall 2015, I realized that the growing size of the team required me to provide greater structure to manage the team environment. During the academic year, I hold weekly, 2-hour meetings in which we discuss theory, research design, ethics, laboratory procedures, data safety and analysis, and publication reviews and revisions. In addition, we cover other issues related to professional development including resume writing, academic interviewing, conferences, and professional conduct. The amount of preparation required to run TRT often feels like an additional class (see the sample Fall 2015 TRT schedule), but helping students learn the process, find their own scholarly voice, and develop their own professional drive has been one of my greatest pedagogical successes. Over the last four years, I have seen 6 undergraduate students on my team graduate with degrees from the Department of Communication. Several of them graduated as published co-authors on grant-funded research as a direct result of their experience on TRT. I also co-author routinely with my graduate students; they present our work at national and international conferences, and some have peer-reviewed publications with me. As I believe conferences are important professional development opportunities, I have used my own faculty start-up funds and grant money to sponsor several students’ conference travel, fees, and association memberships, and so that they can attend and present at conferences. In many cases it might be easier to do all of the work myself, but I am happy to take on the extra work if it means that I get the opportunity mentor students through the research process and help them with their professional development.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

4

Although my team’s research agenda is a direct product of my own research interests, I think that its impact and productivity can be seen and felt in other distinct ways. The first is that senior graduate students learn how to mentor others. I often rely on my senior team members to train and guide new members. I think this allows senior graduate students to practice their own teaching skills, and it also provides incoming graduate students with other mentors to turn to, besides faculty. Secondly, students learn how to work with others. Research is a collaborative effort and students learn how to negotiate issues such as authorship, teamwork, leadership, professional courtesy, and respect. Lastly, I think the presence of TRT has strengthened the general research culture in the Department of Communication. When students see that their peers are learning new skills, attending conferences, and publishing their research, it stimulates interest. Since my first year, I no longer have to send emails or actively work to recruit students—instead, students write to me asking to join TRT. To me, this is evidence that the research culture within the department is getting stronger. I am never happier when my teaching and research goals merge. It has been such a wonderful experience watching TRT grow, and watching students take pride in being part of my team. Although it takes an immense amount of time and effort, I have never felt a greater return on investment. I’m investing in my students’ future, and they are helping me with mine.

SAMPLE RESEARCH TEAM SCHEDULE Below is a sample of the policies and procedures of the Tong Research Team. These were implemented in Fall 2015 to provide additional structure for a growing team of students and co-investigators. Notably, there are specific meeting times, assigned tasks, and planned deadlines. This helps keep all team members (including faculty members!) productive and accountable. Topics span a wide range theory, research design, lab procedures, and professional development. At the end of the semester, I also schedule one team-building activity for our final meeting (this year, a group Sunday brunch; next year, indoor rock climbing). To:TongResearchTeamFrom:StephanieTongDate:September2,2015Subject:Policies&FallScheduleDearMembersofTRT,TRTisavolunteercommitment.Youareallverybusypeople,so,I’dliketostartoffbysayingahuge“THANKYOU”forvolunteeringyourtime!ThesizeofTRThasgrowntremendouslyinthelastfewsemesters.Thissignalstomethatpeopleareinterestedinperformingresearch,butitalsohascreatedsomelogisticalchallenges.Asthefacultyleader,I’vebeenreflectingonhowIcanbestmanageourteam’sdynamicstomaximizeefficiency,effectiveness,andproductivity,whileatthesametimeremainingfairandthoughtful.Duethesizeofourteamandthenatureofourwork,itisimportanttonotesomebasicproceduresthatIoutlinebelow:

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

5

WeeklyMeetings,Email,andCommunication:1.)Teammeetingsareimportant.Iexpectyoutoattendallscheduledmeetings—youshouldbeprepared,attentive,andresponsive.Iknowthatthisisreallyhard,andI’mgoingtoworkonthistoo.Ifyoucan’tmakeameetingforwhateverreason,ifyou’rerunninglate,orleavingearly,that’sokay.Justletmeknow.Butwhenyou’rehere,youneedtopayattention,befocused,andcontribute.Allteammembersareexpectedtoreadanyemailssentfromme,theprojectcoordinator,thelabmanager,oranyotherteammember.Youarealsoexpectedtorespondtotheminatimelyfashion.Iknowhowfloodedouremailinboxesare—soevenjustareplytoconfirmthatyou’veseenandreadtheemailisoftenappreciated.OnlineInteractionLab:2.)Youareresponsibleforyourscheduledlabshifts.Ifyoufindyoucannotmakeyourscheduledshiftitisyourresponsibilitytofindareplacementexperimenter.YoushouldthennotifytheProjectCoordinatorthat(a)youcannotmakeyourshiftand(b)whoisyourscheduledreplacement.Incaseofemergency,youmustnotifytheProjectCoordinatorassoonaspossible.Emergencieshappen,butweneedtimetomakeadjustmentsinthelab.PleasefollowtheOIlabproceduresandtheprotocol.Astheprimaryexperimenters,youaretheeyesandearsofthelab,andyourobservationsareveryimportnat.Withoutyou,Ihavenoconnectiontotheprimaryresearchprocedures—thisiscrucialbecauseifthedatacollectionsuffers,theresearchconclusionswillalsosufferintheend.Evaluation&Assessment:3.)Asthefacultyleader,Iwillassignpeopletodifferentprojects.I’llalsobemakingassessmentsaboutthoseteammemberswhocomepreparedtoparticipateandcontribute.Tomakemyassessments,IwillbeperiodicallybeseekingfeedbackfromourProjectCoordinatorandourLabManageraboutyourperformance(e.g.,OIlabsessions,emailresponsiveness,etc.).Iwillprovidewrittenfeedbacktoallmembersattheendofthesemester(PCandLMincluded).TRTevaluationswillnowbemoreformalthantheyhavebeeninpastyears.Compensation:4.)Compensationmayoccurinseveralforms,suchas(butnotlimitedto):authorship(onconferencepapersand/orpublications),lettersofrecommendation,andsponsorshiptoprofessionalconferences.Notethatasthefacultyleader,IamwithinmyrighttowithdrawanyofferoftheaboveifIdeemyourperformancetobebelowaverage.Itisnolongera“given”thatauthorshipwillbecreditedtoallteammembers.Authorshipissomethingthatwillbeearned;Iwillbemakingassessmentsaboutthecontributionsofeachteammemberandinwhatorder.Iwilldiscussmydecisionsopenlywiththeteam,butyouarealwaysfreetoinitiatediscussionswithmeaswell.Iencourageyoutodoso.IwanttotellyouhowmuchIvalueyourcontributionstoourwork.Icannotdothisalone,soyouareandcontinuetobeacrucialpartoftheteam.Itisanhonorandaprivilegetoworkwithyouall.Itisatremendousresponsibilitytobethefacultyleader,andIdonottakeitlightly.Iencourageyoutocometalkwithmeaboutyourownresearchgoalsandideas.Researchis,withoutadoubt,myfavoritepartofmyjob.I’msogladyou’realongfortheride.Sincerely,Stephanie

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

6

TongResearchTeam:Fall2015

Members:StephanieTong,ElenaCorriero,KuntoWibowo,AnnisaRochadiat,RachellePrince,BrittanyJefferson,PrathyushaTadi,WillCooper,AllisonElam,RobertMathenyCo-Is:RichardSlatcher(WaynePsych);JeffreyHancock(StanfordCommunication)Fall2015ProjectList:Algorithms1.0&2.0:Stephanie+JeffHancock&RichSlatcher/R&RcompletedbyNovember2015LensModel:Elena,Kunto,Stephanie/Completed&SubmittedbyWinter2016Algorithms3.0:Fullteamdatacollection/DatacollectioncompletedbyDecember2015RelationalState:Elena,Annisa,StephanieWeek1:9/2/15—IntroductorytopicsTopic1:ProjectOverviewReading:Tong,S.T.,Hancock,J.T.,&Slatcher,R.B.(2014).TheSMARTmodelofonlinedating:

UncoveringtheimpactofInternettechnologyonromanticrelationshipformationandindividualself-perception.(NSFProposal#1520723).[DONOTCIRCULATE]

• ReadthisVERYcarefully!Writedown(atleast)3questionsthatyouhaveasyoureadthroughtheprojectdescription—couldbeabouttheory,method,design,implications,writingprocess.

Topic2:Researchteams:WhytheymatterandwhattheycandoforyouReading:Miller,G.R.(1979).Theresearchteamconcept:Anapproachtograduatetraining.

CommunicationEducation,28,322-327.• Writedownthreespecificgoalsyouhaveforyourselfthissemester(couldbelong-termor

short-termgoals)• WhatdoyouwantoutofTRT?HowcanIhelpyouachieveit?

Week2:9/9/15—Algorithms1.0&2.0Topic:PeerReviewandPublicationSubmission(anddiscussionofpreviousstudiesfromSummer2014,

Fall2014&Winter2015)Readings:Tong,S.T.,Hancock,J.T.,&Slatcher,R.B.(2015).Onlinedatingsystemdesignandrelational

decision-making:Choice,algorithms,andcontrol.ManuscriptsubmittedforpublicationtoPersonalRelationships.[DONOTCIRCULATE]

Neuman,W.R.,Davidson,R.,Joo,S-H.,Park,Y.J.,&Williams,A.E.(2008).Thesevendeadlysinsofcommunicationresearch.JournalofCommunication,58,220-237.

Tongetal.’sMediaPsychologyReviews&PersonalRelationshipsReviews• Readcarefullyandwritedown3questions/commentsthatyouhaveasyoureadthrough(a)the

paperand(b)thepeerreviews• Note:ThoseofyouwhoareinterestedinhowtheR&Rprocessworkscansitinontherevision

process,ifyouhavetime.Week3:9/16/15—Algorithms3.0Topic:PlanningdatacollectionforFall2015Readings(Note:startthebookthisweek;it’snotdueuntilnextweek):Ansari,A.&Klinenberg,E.

(2015).Modernromance.NewYork:PenguinPress.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

7

Week4:9/23/15—OILabTraining(Note:STleavesforFallFacultyAssembly@3pm)Topic:Protocolrun-through/tweakingWeek5:9/30/15—DataCollectionFinalPrep(ComStudiesAreaMeeting@3pm)Topic:Finalprotocoledits(pretest/profiledev,mainstudyprocedures(consentthroughdebrief),

interviewqs&qualtrics,finalschedulingonSONA,labsecurityprocedures)Readings:ContinueAnsari&Klinenberg,2015Friday,October3:NOTE:Dr.JeffreyT.Hancock(StanfordUniversity)tovisitWayneStateFullteammeeting(probablyafternoon,pleaseblockout2-3hours—Stephaniebuysyoulunch)Week6:10/7/15—PopularpresstreatmentoftopicsTopic:Popularpressvs.AcademicresearchReadings:FinishAnsari&Klinenberg,2015

• Writedown3keydifferencesbetweenpopularpressandacademictreatmentofthesetopics?• Thinkoftopicsrelatedtoonlinedating/romancethatyouwouldliketostudyfurther.Afteryour

brainstorm,develop2refined,testableresearchquestions.ForeachRQyoudevelop,answerthefollowingina1-pageresponse:

• Whattheories/frameworks/conceptswouldbemostusefulinyourinvestigationofyourresearchquestion?Whydoesthistopicmatterscientifically?Whydoesthistopicmattersocially?

• (forfun,butnotrequired):Ifyouhadtoexecutethisstudy,whatmethodswouldyouuse?

Week7:10/14/15OILabtrainingWeek8&9:10/21/15-10/28/15Topic:ProfessionalDevelopment1(+Datacollection)—Allthethings:CurriculumVitae,CoverLetters,TeachingPhilosophy,ResearchStatementReadings:Stephanie’sExamples(checkyouremail)Week10:11/4/15Topic:ProfessionalDevelopment2(+Datacollection)—TRTChoice:Whatdoyouwanttocover?Week11:11/11/15(+Datacollection)Topic:ProfessionalDevelopment3—Conferences:Whatthey’regoodfor,whatthey’renotgoodfor!Readings:NCAProgramWeek12:11/18/15TraveltoNCA(LabforthoseNOTgoingtoVegas)NCA=Elena,Kunto,Annisa,Brittany+StephanieWeek13&14:11/25/15&12/2/15HappyThanksgiving!!Goeatsomedeliciouscarbs…Finalsstudybreak–TRTnoweeklymeetingWeek15:12/9/15OfficialendofFall2015!!Finalmeeting;wrapup

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

8

SAMPLE SYLLABUS (COMMUNICATION 4210) Communication4210:ResearchMethodsinCommunication&PublicRelationsWinter2013Manoogian068T/Th11:45-1:10Professor:StephanieTongOffice:569ManoogianEmail:stephanie.tong@wayne.eduOfficeHours:T1:30-4:30&byappointmentCourseDescription:Themaingoalofthiscourseistointroduceyoutothesocialscientifictraditionofcommunicationresearch.Overthecourseofthesemester,youwillberesponsiblefordevelopinganinterestingandnovelresearchprojectbasedonsocialscientificliteratureandtheory.Youwilllearnhowtocriticallyevaluateempiricalresearchandemploythescientificmethodtoengageinseriousacademicinvestigation.Yourresearchquestionwillrevolvearoundhowindividualsusenewmediasystemsforavarietyofdifferentcommunicationfunctions.Somesystemsyoumaychoosetoexploreinclude:Facebook,Twitter,LinkedIn,onlinedatingwebsites,email,Skype,onlinerecommendationsystems,ortext-basedinstantmessaging.“Communicativefunctions”aredefinedasanytypeoftaskorgoalthatindividualstrytoachieveusingcommunication,suchas(butnotlimitedto):relationshipinitiation,maintenance,ortermination,coordinationcommunication,informationseeking,productreview/onlineshopping,individualself-presentationandimpressionmanagement.Duringthesemesteryouwilllearnhowtosynthesizeanargument,testit,andwriteupanoriginalresearchstudythatmakesasignificanttheoreticalormethodologicalcontributiontothefieldofcommunication.Thisresearchprojectwillbeagroupeffortdesignedtoimplementthe“researchteam”modelofscientificinquiry.

Bytheendofthiscourse,youshouldbeableto:

(a) Readandcomprehendthetheoryandliteraturewithinthefieldofcommunication(b) Understandbasicproceduresofhypothesistesting,datacollection,andstatisticalanalysis(c) Conductresearchandpresentyourfindingsinapublicforuminbothwrittenandspokenforms

Text:Keyton,J.(2011).Communicationresearch:Askingquestions,findinganswers(3rdEd.).McGrawHill,Boston,MA.ISBN:978-0-07-340676-3

Plusadditionalreadingsandstatisticshandoutstobeannouncedandmadeavailableoncoursewebsite.

CourseRequirements:Yourgradeisbasedonyourperformanceonthefollowingelements.Assignmentswillonlybeacceptedifthestudentturnstheminpersoninclassandremainsfortheentireclass(unlessproperdocumentationcanbeprovided).Youareexpectedtokeephardcopiesofallyourworkasproofofcompletion.Latework(includingelectronicsubmissions)isacceptedonlywithinstructorapprovalandmaybepenalizedaccordingly.

1. Exams(2@50pts;100ptstotal):Therearetwoexamsintheclassandeachwillfollowamultiplechoice/true-false/essayformat.Youarerequiredtotaketheseexamsinclassonthescheduleddate.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

9

2. IndividualAssignments(2@25pts;50ptstotal):Therearetwoout-of-classassignmentsinthisclassthatmustbecompletedindividually.Theseassignmentsmaycoverlecture,readings,orothercoursematerial.

3. Pop-Quizzes,Activities,Exercises(25pts):Unannouncedshortactivities,quizzes,orexercisesdesignedtotestyourfamiliaritywithreadingsandlectureandtotestyouroverallpreparednessforclass.Nomakeups:Youmustbepresentthedaytheactivityisassignedtoearnthesepoints.

4. ResearchProject(175ptstotal):Theresearchprojectisbrokendownintoaseriesofphases.Youandyourgroupmustcompleteeachstepandreceiveapassinggradebeforeyouareallowedtomoveontothenextphase.Thisprocessisdesignedtomakesurethatyoubuildingafoundationsothatyoucanachievesuccessattheendofthesemester.Detailswillbeprovidedwhenassigned:• AnnotatedBibliography(entriestobecompletedindividually)(25points)• FrontEnd&Hypotheses(25pts)• MethodProposal(25pts)• AnalysisProposal(25pts)• DataCollection,Analysis,&Write-up(25pts)• FinalPaper(50pts)

5. GroupResearchPresentation&PeerEvals(25pts):Attheendofthesemester,yourgroupresponsibleforpresentingyourworkinanacademicconference.Youareexpectedtoexecuteaprofessional,polishedpresentation.Inaddition,youwillbegiventhechancetoevaluateandgradeyourteammembers’efforts.

6. ClassroomParticipation&Attendance(25pts):Throughoutthecourse,youareexpectedtoparticipateinclassroomdiscussions.Theinstructorwillbekeepingrecordofthosestudentswhoprovidemeaningful,insightful,interestingcommentsorquestionsduringlecture.Thesinglebestwaytoearnthesepointsistocometoclassregularly,finishreadingspriortoclass,andbepreparedandattentiveduringlecture.

GradingPolicies:400PointsPossibleInordertoreceiveaspecificgrade,youmustearnthespecifiednumberofpoints.Otherthanexammake-upsforofficiallyexcusedabsences,therearenoadditionalassignmentsormakeupopportunitiesforimprovingacoursegradeoncethesemesterisdone.Ifyouthinkacomputationalerrorhasbeenmaderegardingyourgrade,Iamhappytodiscussthiswithyou.However,anyattemptstoinfluencecoursegradechangesonceagradehasbeenpostedwillbeconsideredadirectviolationofcoursepolicyandwillnotreceivearesponse.Additionally,inaccordancewiththeBuckleyAmendment/FERPA,instructorsareforbiddenfromdiscussingstudents’gradesandclassperformancewithanyindividualotherthanthestudenther/himself,withoutexpressedwrittenpermissionofthestudent.>94-100%=A 90-93%=A- 88%-89%=B+ 84-87%=B80-83%=B- 78%-79%=C+ 74%-77%=C 70%-73%=C- 68-69%=D+ 64-67%=D 60-63%=D- below60%=FIfyouwanttodisputeordiscussanassignedgrade,youmustwaitafull24hoursbeforeyoucancontactme.This24hourperiodisdesignedtoallowyoutoreflectspecificallyonwhatyouwouldliketodiscuss,ratherthanreactonpureemotion.Wecandiscussanyissuesyoumayhaveconcerningyourgradeduringofficehoursorbyappointment,butonlyafterthe24hourperiodhaspassed.Notethatdisputesdonotnecessarilyresultinagradechange;yourgrademaygoup,itmaygodown,itmaynotchangeatall.Disputesmustbespecificandbearguedcalmly,rationally,andlogicallybythestudent.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

10

CoursePolicies

1. Emergencies:Ifyouaresickorhaveanemergencythatwillaffectyourabilitytoreceivecreditforanin-classassignment,orbepresentfortheexams/presentations,contactmeimmediately.LateAssignments:Legitimatemedicalexcusesoremergencieswillbeacceptedwithoutassessmentofapenaltyaslongastheyareaccompaniedbyproperwrittendocumentation.Lateworkduetoanyotherreasonsuchasforgottendeadline,leavingtown,brokentechnologyarenotaccepted.

2. Makeupswillbeprovidedforappropriateacademicexcuseswithwrittenverification,includingdeath,illness,personalorfamilyemergency.IneedtobenotifiedassoonaspossibleintheeventthatanemergencyoccursandPRIORtotheexamifitoccursonanexamday.IfyoucannotprovidedocumentationofanappropriateacademicexcuseorifIdonotreceivenotificationfromyoupriortothepresentationorassignment,youwillnotbeallowedtosubmitamakeupassignment,andthiswillresultina0forthatparticularassignment.AnyattemptstoscheduleamakeupwithoutpriorapprovalwillNOTbeconsidered.Iacceptuniversity-approvedabsencesonlywithdocumentation:1.Certainreligiousholidaysandobservances;2.Serviceinthemilitaryorjuryduty;3.Majorillness(requiringaphysician’snote)4.Authorizeduniversityactivities(requiringnotefromcoach,etc.).

3. Cheating:Don’tcheat;don’tplagiarize.RefertoWSU’scodeofconductregardingpolicies:http://www.doso.wayne.edu/codeofconduct.pdfTheprinciplesoftruthandhonestyarefundamentaltotheeducationalprocessandtheacademicintegrityofWSU.Dishonestyofanykindwillnotbetoleratedinthiscourse.Therefore,nostudentshall:claimorsubmittheacademicworkofanotherasone'sown;procure,provide,acceptoruseanymaterialscontainingquestionsoranswerstoanyexaminationorassignmentwithoutproperauthorization;completeorattempttocompleteanyassignmentorexaminationforanotherindividualwithoutproperauthorization;allowanyexaminationorassignmenttobecompletedforoneself,inpartorintotal,byanotherwithoutproperauthorization;alter,tamperwith,appropriate,destroyorotherwiseinterferewiththeresearch,resources,orotheracademicworkofanotherperson;falsifyrecordsorcheatinanefforttoboostexaminationperformance;orfabricateorfalsifydataorresults.StudentswhoarefoundtobedishonestwillreceiveacademicsanctionsandwillbereportedtotheUniversity’sjudicialaffairsofficefordisciplinarysanction. Materialsthatareclearlynotthestudent'sownworkorwhicharenotappropriatelydocumentedwillbesubjectedtoclosescrutiny.Allactsofacademicdishonestyincludingcheatingandplagiarismwillbetreatedasviolationsofappropriatestudentconductandwillbesubjecttodisciplinaryaction.TheUniversityDueProcessPolicycanbefoundat:http://doso.wayne.edu/student-conduct/Academic_Integrity.html

4. StudentResponsibilities:Assignedreadingsnotinyourtextbookcanbefoundonthecoursewebsite.Youareresponsiblefordownloading,printing,andreadingallcoursematerial.Getintothehabitofcheckingyouremailaccountandthewebsitedailyforcourseannouncementsandupdates.

5. ClassroomCourtesy:Youareexpectedtomaintainaprofessional,welcoming,andcomfortableenvironmentforyourcolleagues.Thismeansallperspectives,viewpoints,andquestionsshouldberespectedduringclassdiscussions.Anydisruptive,dogmatic,ordistractingbehaviorswillnotbetolerated.Youwillbeaskedtoleavetheclassifyoudisplaysuchbehaviororcreatedistractions.

6. Attendance:Notethatacademicsuccessinthisclassishighlycorrelatedwithregularattendance.Inaddition,themajorassignmentsinthisclassareGROUPbased.IfInoticethatyouareregularlyabsentfromclassandareunabletocontributefullytoyourgroup’sproject,thiswillbereflectedinyourattendanceandparticipationgrade(andmostlikely,inyourgroups’peerevaluationsofyou).Regularattendancetoclassisrequired.Excessiveabsencesmayresultinyourbeingwithdrawnfromthecourseattheinstructor’sdiscretion.Allstudentsaregranted2unexcusedabsenceswithoutquestionfromtheinstructor.Unexcusedabsencesafterthesewillaffectyourparticipationandattendancegrade.Duringclass,studentsareexpectedtoarriveontimeandtostayuntiltheend;

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

11

repeatedtardiness,earlydepartures,andexcessiveabsencesmayresultinaloweredparticipationgradeorbeingdroppedfromthecourse.MissedClassSessions:Idonotgiveoutmylecturematerials.Ifyoumissasessionitisyourresponsibilitytoobtainanynotesormaterialsgivenoutthatday.Afteryougetthesematerials,Iwouldbehappytoclarifyspecificissuesaboutthem,butyoumustobtainthisonyourown.

7. WritingStandards.Standardsofproperwritingareexpectedonallworksubmittedinthiscourse.Spelling,grammar,punctuation,andotherconventionsshouldbecorrect.Ifproblemspersist,astudentmayreceiveagradeof0onsubsequentassignmentsthataresub-standard.AllcitationsmustfollowAPAformat,6thedition.TosetupanappointmentwiththeWSUWritingCenter:http://www.clas.wayne.edu/writing/

8. Incompletes:Incompletesarereservedforextraordinarycircumstancessuchaspersonalemergenciesthatcanbedocumented.Anincompleteisgrantedwheninthejudgmentoftheinstructorastudentcansuccessfullycompletetheworkofthecoursewithoutattendingregularclasssessions.Incompletes,whicharenotconvertedtoalettergradewithinoneyear,willautomaticallyreverttoanF(failinggrade).

9. WithdrawingfromClass:PerWSUpolicy,studentswhowithdrawfromacourseaftertheendofthe4thweekofclassmayreceiveagradeofWP,WF,WN.• WPwillbeawardedifthestudentispassingthecourse(basedonworkduetodate)atthetime

thewithdrawalisrequested• WFwillbeawardedifthestudentisfailingthecourse(basedonworkduetodate)atthetime

thewithdrawalisrequested• WNwillbeawardedifnomaterialshavebeensubmitted,andsothereisnobasisforagrade

Studentsmustsubmittheirwithdrawalrequeston-linethroughPipeline.Theinstructormustapprovethewithdrawalrequestbeforeitbecomesfinal,andstudentsshouldcontinuetoattendclassuntiltheyreceivenotificationviaemailthatthewithdrawalhasbeenapproved.Studentswhostopattendingbutdonotrequestawithdrawal,ordonotdropthecoursewillreceiveanautomaticF(failinggrade).

10. StudentDisabilities:YoumustvisitStudentDisabilityServices(SDS)toarrangeanyaccommodationsyoumayneed.Formoreinformationpleasesee:http://studentdisability.wayne.edu/Ifyouhaveadocumenteddisabilitythatrequiresaccommodations,youwillneedtoregisterwithSDSforcoordinationofyouracademicaccommodations.TheSDSofficeislocatedat1600DavidAdamanyUndergraduateLibraryintheStudentAcademicSuccessServicesdepartment,313-577-1851or313-577-3365(TDDonly).Onceyouhaveyouraccommodationsinplace,Iwillbegladtomeetwithyouprivatelyduringmyofficehourstodiscussyourspecialneeds.SDS’smissionistoassisttheuniversityincreatinganaccessiblecommunitywherestudentswithdisabilitieshaveanequalopportunitytofullyparticipateintheireducationalexperienceatWSU.PleasebeawarethatadelayingettingSDSaccommodationlettersforthecurrentsemestermayhindertheavailabilityorfacilitationofthoseaccommodationsinatimelymanner.Therefore,itisinyourbestinteresttogetyouraccommodationlettersasearlyinthesemesteraspossible.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

12

Communication4210CourseSchedule(subjecttochange): DATE TOPIC READINGS WORK DUE

Week1 1/8

1/10

CourseIntroduction/IntrotoScientificInvestigationTheResearchProcess;IntrotoCMC

Syllabus;KeytonChapter1KeytonChapter2;DeAndrea&Tong,2011

Week2 1/15 QuantitativeApproach KeytonChapter3;Waltheretal.,2008 1/15IA#1&1/17 QualitativeApproach&Project

DetailsKeytonChapter4 GroupSelections

Week3 1/22 Measurement,Validity,&

ReliabilityAnnotatedBibWorkshop

KeytonChapter6Note:Meet@UGLLabA,Rm1140

1/24

Week4 1/29 Surveys&Questionnaires

ExperimentalDesign

KeytonChapter9;Schwarz,2003;QualtricsExample;SurveyTypesKeytonChapter8

1/29AnnotatedBibDue

1/31Week5 2/5 Populations&Sampling

ResearchEthicsKeytonChapter7KeytonChapter5

2/7

Week6 2/12 Exam#1

DataEntry&IntrotoStatsIntrotoStatsHandouts

2/14 2/14FrontEnd

Week7 2/19 SPSSBasicAnalyses:Reliability

&CompositesDescriptiveStatistics

BasicAnalysesHandoutsKeytonChapter10(pp.184-196)&CentralTendencyHandouts

2/21

Week8 2/26 DescriptiveStatistics

WorkshopIntrotoInferentialStatistics

Note:Meet@UGLLabA,Rm1140KeytonChapter11(pp.195-201)

2/26MethodProposal2/28 PrintedHandouts

RequiredWeek9 3/5 TheLogicofHypothesis

Testing&DataCollectionIA#2&ProjectCatch-upDay

HypothesisTestingHandoutsNote:Meet@UGLLabA,Rm1140

3/7IA#2&FinalSurveyDue

Week10 3/123/14

SPRINGBREAK!SPRINGBREAK!SPRINGBREAK![NOTE:YOURGROUPSHOULDBEINTHEFIELDCOLLECTINGDATA!]

Week11 3/193/21

Chi-SquareT-Test

KeytonChapter11(pp.198-202)KeytonChapter11(pp.202-204)PrintedHandoutsRequired

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

13

Week12 3/263/28

ANOVACorrelations

KeytonChapter11(pp.204-213)KeytonChapter12(pp.214-223)

PrintedHandoutsRequired

Week134/2 AnalysisProposalWorkshop 4/4 15MinuteProject

Consultations 4/4AnalysisProposal

Week14 4/94/11

DataWorkshopIn-ClassDraftingWorkshop

Note4/9:Meet@UGLLabA,Rm1140andbringyourdatatoclass

Week15 4/16 ExamReview Note:Meet@UGLLabA,Rm1140 4/16ResultsWrite-Up4/18 Exam#2

FinalExam 4/26 FinalExam:Presentations Note:Finalisfrom10:40-1:10 PapertoBBby5pm!

Note:AllStatisticsweeksWeek7-Week12requireyoutodownloadDr.Tong’shandoutsfromBlackboard.Thesemustbeprinted,hardcopiessoyoucantakenotes.Failuretobringthesetoclassresultsinaloweredparticipationgrade.

SAMPLE INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY: ICE CREAM ANOVA EXAMPLE In my research methods course, I have developed a series of handouts on descriptive and inferential statistics, rather than ask students to buy another textbook. These handouts correspond to activities that we perform in class. This allows students to see how the data are collected and used during hypotheses tests. In addition, I teach my students how to use the popular software program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The ANOVA handout below is based on the ice cream taste test activity that was described above.

Communication4210:One-WayANOVA

ANOVAisshortfor“analysisofvariance.”Unlikethet-testwhichcomparesthedifferencesbetweensamplemeans,ANOVAanalyzesthedifferencesbetweensamplevariances.Theterm“one-way”means“oneindependentvariable.”Likewise,theterm“twoway”ANOVAmeans“twoindependentvariables.”Liketheindependentsamplest-test,theone-wayANOVAanalyzesdifferencesbetweengroups.Unlikethet-test,ANOVAcomparessamplevariancesratherthansamplemeans.ANOVAcanhandleacategoricalvariablethathas2ormorelevels,andonecontinuousDV.TheANOVAstatisticisrepresentedbytheletterF.

Likeallparametrictests,ANOVAalsousesdegreesoffreedom.InANOVA,youreporttwolevelsofdf,onefortheindependentvariable(called“betweengroupsdf”)andoneforthewholesampleofparticipants(called“withingroupsdf”).Youmustreportbothdfinyouranalyses.

Betweendf=k–1(wherek=numberoflevelsintheIV)Withindf=n–k(wheren=numberofindividualsinthesample)

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

14

Theone-wayANOVAsomestatisticalassumptionsthatyoumustmeetduringanalysis:1. Thepopulationsfromwhichthesampleswereobtainedmustbe(approximately)normally

distributed.2. Thesamplesmustbeindependent.3. Thegroupsmusthave(roughly)thesamesamplesize.4. Thevariancesmustbe(roughly)equal.ANOVAExample:WayneStateresearchersconductedanicecreamtastetest.Theysampled60people.Eachpersonwasrandomlyassignedtosampleoneofthreedifferentbrands,A,B,andC.Therewere20peoplepercondition.Subjectstastedonebrand,thenratedtheicecreambytakingashortfive-itemsurveythatusedaLikert-typescalerangingfrom1,“stronglyagree”to7,“stronglyagree.”Eachsubject’sscoreswereaddedtocreateasingle,preferencescoreoneachtypeoficecream.TheresearchteampredictsthattherewillbedifferencesbetweentheicecreampreferencescoresamongbrandsA,B,andC.PreliminaryQuestions:Whyistheone-wayANOVAthecorrectstatisticaltestinthiscase?Whatdoweknowfromthebackgroundinformationabove?N= IV= DV= Step1:Whatisoursubstantivehypothesis?(non-directional:Note,thereisnosuchthingasa“directional”ANOVAlikeint-tests.Ifyouwanttopredictspecificpatternstothedifferencesingroups,weuse“plannedcomparison”tests—whicharebeyondthescopeofthisclass!)Step2:Whatarethestatisticalhypotheses?H0: Ha:Step3:whatisouralphalevel?α=Step4:select,calculateappropriatestatisticaltest.Compareourtestvaluetoourcriticalvalue.Or,compareoursignificancelevel(p)toalpha(α).Hereisaclippedscreenshotofourclassdatafromtheicecreamtest.Thesehavebeencleaned,screened,andcheckedforreliability(rememberlastlecture?)!Notethecodesforvariable“ice_cream_type”1=A,2=B,3=C.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

15

Okay,timetoanalyzethedatausingSPSS:Analyze<GeneralLinearModel<Univariate

MoveyourcontinuousDVintothe“dependentvariable”box.MoveyourcategoricalIVtotheboxlabled“FixedFactor(s).”

Now,lickon“options”ontherighthandsideofthebox.Here,youwanttomoveboth“OVERALL”andyourIV(inthiscase,“icecreamtype”)overtotherighthandboxsotheyareincludedintheanalyses.Youalsowanttomakesureyoucheckthe“homogeneityofvariances”box;thiswilltestthegroupstomakesuretheymeetthenormalityassumption!Alsocheckthe“descriptivestatistics”boxsoyougetmeansandSDforeachgroup.

Next,pushthe“posthoc”buttonontherighthandsideofthebox.MovetheIVoverfromthelefttorightcolumnusingthearrows.Also,makesureyouchecktheboxcalled“Tukey.”Thiswillgenerateapost-hoccomparisonofmeansamongeachicecreamtype(seenextpageforexplanation).

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

16

YouroutputfromSPSSwilllooksomethinglikethis…

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Estimated Marginal Means

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall ice_cream_type Mean Std. Deviation N

ice cream a 5.1050 .83049 20

ice cream b 4.0200 1.04811 20

ice cream c 4.1250 1.20476 20

Total 4.4167 1.13405 60

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

ice_cream_type 1 ice cream a 20 2 ice cream b 20 3 ice cream c 20

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall F df1 df2 Sig.

1.469 2 57 .239

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + ice_cream_type

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 14.324a 2 7.162 6.632 .003

Intercept 1170.417 1 1170.417 1083.825 .000 ice_cream_type 14.324 2 7.162 6.632 .003

Error 61.554 57 1.080 Total 1246.295 60 Corrected Total 75.878 59 a. R Squared = .189 (Adjusted R Squared = .160)

2. ice_cream_type

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall ice_cream_type Mean Std.

Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

ice cream a 5.105 .232 4.640 5.570

ice cream b 4.020 .232 3.555 4.485

ice cream c 4.125 .232 3.660 4.590

1. Grand Mean

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall Mean Std.

Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

4.417 .134 4.148 4.685

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

17

Tukey’sHSD(honestlysignificantdifference)measuresdifferencesbetweenpairsofmeans.Inotherwords,itwillcomparealltheicecreamtypestoeachother(IcecreamAtoB,IcecreamAtoC,andIcecreamBtoC)toseeiftheydiffer

fromoneanother.Thosewithasterisks(*)indicateasignificantdifferencefromeachother.Likewise,the“HomogenousSubsets”boxgives

yousimilarinformation.

Post Hoc Tests ice_cream_type

Homogeneous Subsets

ice_cream_overall

Tukey HSD ice_cream_type N Subset

1 2 ice cream b 20 4.0200 ice cream c 20 4.1250 ice cream a 20 5.1050 Sig. .945 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 1.080.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 20.000. b. Alpha = .05.

Step5:Makeadecision.IsourANOVAsignificant?Wherearethedifferencesamonggroups?Whatisthestatisticalconclusion(rejectorretainH0)?Oursubstantiveconclusion?SampleResultsWrite-up:Hypothesis2predictedthattherewouldbeadifferenceinthepreferencesofeachicecreamtype,A,B,andC.Asinglefactoranalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasusedtotestthishypothesis.Resultsindicatedasignificantdifferenceamongtheicecreampreferencescores,F(2,57)=6.63,p=.003.Meanswereexaminedbypost-hoccomparisonsusingTukey’sHSDtest.AnalysisshowedthatBrandA(M=5.11,SD=0.83)wasratedsignificantlyhigherthanBrandB(M=4.02,SD=1.05),andBrandC(M=4.13,SD=1.20),whereasBrandBdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromBrandC.Therefore,thehypothesiswassupported.

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: ice_cream_overall Tukey HSD (I) ice_cream_type (J) ice_cream_type Mean

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

ice cream a ice cream b 1.0850* .32862 .005 .2942 1.8758

ice cream c .9800* .32862 .012 .1892 1.7708

ice cream b ice cream a -1.0850* .32862 .005 -1.8758 -.2942

ice cream c -.1050 .32862 .945 -.8958 .6858

ice cream c ice cream a -.9800* .32862 .012 -1.7708 -.1892

ice cream b .1050 .32862 .945 -.6858 .8958

Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 1.080.

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

18

SAMPLE UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECT All undergraduate projects I’ve advised have been directly connected to my own interests in Internet communication and/or interpersonal relationships, thus demonstrating the strong connections among my research, teaching, and advising. Under my guidance, three of my advisees have applied for and received funding from the Provost’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. These projects have generated over $9000 of internal grant funding. Below is a sample of a successful proposal; this research project is an ongoing senior honors thesis, with an anticipated finish date of Winter 2017.

Uncertainty within Relationships between Resident Advisors and Residents

Resident Advisors (RAs) can be found at almost every university that has on-campus housing. RAs are student leaders that live among other students inside university housing. RAs and residents have a unique relationship. RAs are fellow students and peers of regular residents, but they have a duty to supervise the other residents, provide residents with resources as needed, mediate conflicts between residents, and document policy violations when necessary. As a result, RAs must cultivate mentorship and camaraderie with their residents while still maintaining a sense of authority and control. This “blended” dynamic of friendliness and authority can lead to a great deal of uncertainty between a resident and their RA. Uncertainty has been defined generally as a communicator’s lack of knowledge, and inability to predict or explain events (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Communication scholars have agreed that the experience of uncertainty is a foundational part of being human, and that managing that uncertainty is also a primary human activity (Goldsmith, 2001). In particular, uncertainty may be heightened for both the RA and the resident following a stressful interpersonal interaction. RAs and residents may orient differently to uncertainty depending on the time frame of the interaction. Scholars have defined a predictive perspective on uncertainty, which occurs before an interaction (“what will happen in this situation”), and a retrospective perspective (“what just happened here?”) (Knobloch, 2010). As uncertainty is something that can occur before, during, and after interaction, it is an important topic of study. For the purpose of this project, uncertainty will be further classified into two different categories, issue uncertainty and relational uncertainty. Issue uncertainty is uncertainty brought about during communication regarding a specific topic. In this project, issue uncertainty focuses on the topic of discussion that leads RAs and residents to have a stressful interpersonal encounter. For example, many RAs are required to discuss important issues with residents, such as issues of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, body image/eating disorders, or alcohol or drug use. These kinds of topics can be stressful. Generally, as the amount of communication increases between an RA and a resident about the topic, issue uncertainty is expected to decrease. Relational uncertainty is uncertainty that focuses specifically on one’s level of confidence and understanding of their involvement in an interpersonal relationship (Knobloch, 2002, p. 245). In this project, relational uncertainty would entail the RA’s understanding of their role in the resident’s life, the RA’s understanding of the resident’s role in their own life. Although it would also entail the resident’s understanding of the RA’s role in their own life and the resident’s understanding of the resident’s role in the RA’s life, the focus of this project is the RAs’ perspective on the relationship (rather than the resident’s perspective). All of these aspects may

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

19

be different from each other, based on individual perspective of the relationship. This understanding should become clearer as more interpersonal interaction occurs over time. This research project investigates the effects of three variables on the experience of uncertainty between a RA and their resident following a stressful interpersonal encounter with each other. The first variable prior relational knowledge, is defined as how well the RA and resident know understand their relationship with each other before the stressful interpersonal encounter occurs. Knobloch (2002) predicted that if prior relational knowledge is high between the RA and resident than both issue uncertainty and relational uncertainty will be low following a stressful interpersonal encounter. This prediction is based on the higher levels of intimacy that occur between two known partners. An intimate relationship tends to have more open and direct conversations about heavy topics, which lead to reduce levels of uncertainty (Knobloch, 2002). This is similar to a stressful interpersonal encounter that an RA could have with a resident. H1: Higher amounts of prior relational knowledge between a RA and Resident will be related to reduced amounts of issue uncertainty for the RA following discussion of a stressful topic. The second variable is the presence of the follow-up interaction. RAs are required to have a second follow-up conversation with a resident a few days after a stressful interpersonal encounter. The goal of the follow-up is to determine how the resident is coping with the issue discussed, but it may also play a role in the amount of relational uncertainty that RAs experience. H2: Presence of a follow-up interaction will reduce both issue uncertainty and relational uncertainty for the RA. The final factor is the nature of communication directness involved in each interaction. During the initial interpersonal encounter, RAs are trained to be very direct in their communication with the resident, and often discuss the issue in great detail and specificity. While such directness may decrease issue uncertainty, it may simultaneously raise relational uncertainty. Following a very direct conversation, RAs may question how they should interact with that resident in the future; for example, wondering if they must continually check-up on the resident, or if they will have to exert greater or lesser amounts of authority in upcoming interactions. To ease this kind of uncertainty, many RAs may engage in less explicit communication during their follow-up discussions. For example, many RAs try to diffuse the intensity that can be caused by stressful encounter by avoiding the use of direct terms like “suicidal adoration” or “anorexia.” During the follow-up, many RAs will instead inquire about the resident’s “issue” or ask about their “problem” rather than engaging in specific labeling. It is predicted that this indirect communication during follow-up will cause a small increase in issue uncertainty, but also provide a large decrease in the relational uncertainty. This is because the lack of communication directness normalizes the interaction between the RA and resident.

H3: Communication directness during the follow-up interaction between RAs and Residents are (a) negatively associated with RA’s issue uncertainty, and (b) positively associated with RA’s relational uncertainty.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO

STEPHANIE TONG Teaching Portfolio

20

Project Description & Method Sample. As the student researcher (SR) is a RA currently working in the Wayne State residence halls, she will recruit participants through her own personal network. Only those RAs and residents who are (a) over the age of 18 and (b) currently living in one of the on-campus residence halls (Ghafari, Atchison, or the Towers Residential Suites) will be allowed to participate in the study. The SR will publicize the research project to all the RAs during their winter 2016 training. The RAs would then know about the study and be able to participate when they experience an incident with a resident. The RAs will have the option to fill out a survey for data collection online every time they engage in a stressful encounter with a resident. Procedure. All RAs will be asked to self-identify stressful interpersonal encounters that they have recently had with one (or more) residents. Examples of qualified interpersonal encounters includes when RAs meet with residents to discuss issues of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, body image issues, and similar heavy topics. After insuring that the encounter meets the inclusion criteria, RAs will be emailed a weblink to an online survey following a stressful interpersonal encounter with a resident. The online survey will first describe the project and ask for informed consent. The weblink also contain the measures described below. If a follow-up interaction takes place, RAs will then be asked to fill out a second survey after follow-up is complete. All surveys will be delivered online using the SR’s qualtrics account. All data will be anonymous. Measures. The first survey will be administered after the initial interpersonal encounter, and will include measures of all key variables: (1) prior relational knowledge (Theiss & Solomon, 2006), (2) issue uncertainty (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999), (3) relational uncertainty (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999), (4) perceived communication directness (Theiss & Solomon, 2006), and (4) relational satisfaction (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). In addition, RAs will describe the particular topic that was discussed in the initial encounter, the general setting in which the encounter took place, and if the incident occurred with a resident on their floor or a different floor. The second survey with the same measures will be administered after the follow-up, if one takes place. All participants will also provide relevant demographic information. Responsibilities: The SR will be responsible for writing the main project and the write-up of the research report to the UROP. The SR will also design the research survey and coordinate the data collection and analysis. She will also present her research at all conferences.The faculty sponsor will oversee project design, data analysis, and final reporting of study. The faculty sponsor will also obtain the necessary ethical approvals required to execute the project and will monitor procedures throughout all phases of the project. Timeline/Duration of project: Initial project design and IRB approval to be carried out January 2016. Data collection: February-April 2016. Data analysis: May-July 2016. Write-up: August 2016. The results of this project will be submitted to the Fall 2016 UROP conference at Wayne State University, at which time, the SR will be a senior. In addition, the SR will work with the faculty advisor to submit the paper to the 2017 International Communication Association annual conference, scheduled in San Diego, CA from May 25-29.

SAMPLE TEACHIN

G PORTFOLIO