Students and Communication Competence:
A Call to Professors for Establishing Appropriate Communication Boundaries
Keith T. Hardeman, M.A.
Professor and Chair
Communication and Fine Arts Department
Westminster College
E-mail: Keith.hardeman@westminster-mo.edu
Most professors have encountered them: students who don’t seem to grasp basic expectations for social interaction, those who demand immediate attention or special treatment from their teachers. There’s the student who telephones her professor at home late on a weeknight because she’s having difficulties with a paper due the following day, or the student who frantically asks to speak to his professor as class is about to start, wanting to know why the professor hasn’t responded to an e-mail he sent the night before—he was unable to complete his assignment as a result and expects an extension (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008, p. 51).
A college education requires professors training students in a variety of academic, social, professional, and behavioral situations. One important behavioral area in which many students entering college are probably lacking, to some extent, is communication competence. Trenholm and Jensen (2004) define communication competence as “the ability to communicate in a personally effective and socially appropriate manner” (p. 10). This shortcoming is certainly not unexpected, as incoming freshmen are new to the college experience in a variety of capacities. For many, it’s a matter of adjusting to the freedoms of leaving home and living on their own for the first time. For most, it’s not only the changing and increasing academic expectations of college professors from high school teachers, but also a student’s first peek at the rigors of the professional world to follow. As a result, many new college students have an initial adjustment period in terms of how to appropriately communicate with their professors. With our guidance, those students can make a successful transition toward that end. There are obstacles, however.
The trendy but toxic student-as-consumer metaphor can often obstruct the behavioral boundaries in dealing with professors. Communication competence deals with understanding appropriate behaviors within a role. However, it also includes successfully recognizing the appropriate role within a communication situation. I maintain that students are not customers, and college professors are definitely not in the customer-service business.
In addition, technology has made it much easier and quicker for students to communicate with their professors. As a result, e-mails typed in haste may not represent clear thought or audience analysis regarding the tone, organization, immediacy, and presentation of a message.
Faculty can also unwittingly become co-conspirators by rewarding inappropriate communication behavior, albeit sometimes reluctantly, with accommodation. If faculty do not outwardly discourage weekend or late night calls and e-mails, for example, students may develop the perception that we are there to serve them at their leisure and adjust their communication accordingly.
The purpose of this philosophical paper is to examine some of the difficulties faculty encounter with students who unintentionally (or intentionally) cross the boundaries of appropriate communication. Reasons for such behavior will also be discussed along with behavioral changes professors might consider making toward the aim of altering and correcting this portion of student communication competence. Obviously, not all students fit this description. However, it would be absurd to posit that such transgressions are rare.
Perceptual implications of the student-as-consumer model
A sense of “customer entitlement” can cause some students to occasionally forget that a college education is actually an early glimpse of the professional world that awaits them. In addition to course content and work ethic, professors are attempting, at least implicitly, to teach students about respect and responsibility normally granted to superiors, which are skills that will prove to be more than beneficial in professional life. There may be some “role confusion” among some college students as to whether or not they see themselves as customers in the academic world. If college students believe they are consumers of a product as opposed to educational participants (and certainly, not all do), some may inadvertently see their professors a little less as authority figures and a little more as providers of a service. Such a perception can easily be seen in the relationship dimension tone of an email that exhibits a clear demand – not a request – of a professor’s time and assistance.
There are valid comparisons between students and general customers of goods and services. Institutions of higher learning must be concerned with enrollment levels. Therefore, competition among colleges to bring in students is consistent with this model. To compete and thrive, a college’s learning environment must be as attractive as possible. Maintenance of enrollment depends on having good teachers, learning services, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing buildings and grounds, and an opportunity to give feedback. A college must directly or indirectly provide avenues for the enhancement of social life as well. Clearly, “the need to vigorously market their institutions in a competitive national environment is a harsh reality for U.S. colleges and universities. Basic similarities between students and consumers are numerous” (Kruckeberg, 2007, para 5).
However, many (and I hope most or all) professors bristle at the thought of college students being referred to as “customers” or “clients” who enter a university with the implicit goal of purchasing a degree instead of earning it. In discussing the consumer model of higher education, McMillan and Cheney (1996) state that such a semantic connection can affect the education and organization process:
Not only has ‘the customer is always right” become the rallying cry of a significant social movement…, [it] has challenged the traditional organization structure as we know it in that many organizations are now redesigning themselves as market-driven.[I]t is easy to see the benefits of such adaptation. But [others] argue that over-correction in the direction of only one organizational constituency may compromise other critical aspects of the organization, such as goals, philosophy, resources and personnel (p.3)
Indeed, some administrators may add to the perception (and, hence, the problem) with constant imploring of university personnel to satisfy the customer. When presidents, deans and department chairs strongly suggest faculty include every means of contact – not only office phone numbers and e-mail, but cell and home phones – on their syllabi, students can become empowered, and faculty may be looked upon as servers instead of superiors (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008).
Consequently, some professors may feel obligated to respond and acquiesce to time-consuming, sometimes reasonable, sometimes unreasonable, or even ridiculous student requests in fear of maintaining employment. This obligation is likely magnified for the untenured. “For junior faculty members, the barrage of e-mail has brought new tension into their work lives…as they struggle with how to respond. Their tenure prospects, they realize, may rest in part on student evaluations of their accessibility” (Glater, 2006, para. 8).
As a result, some students may see the responsibility of their own education residing more with the college (and, specifically, with college professors) and less within themselves. Kruckeberg (2007) states, “Problems occur only when consumer satisfaction influences or dictates the content and rigor of educational programs…” (para. 5).
The inappropriate communication outcome might manifest itself in a context of a student oversleeping through an 8:00 a.m. class. The student later telephones or sends an e-mail apologizing for the absence, but also imploring (if not outright demanding) the professor to set up a meeting for the purpose of getting the student caught up in class content. Translation: in this case, in order to satisfy the customer, the already busy professor must do his/her job not once, but twice. Instead of the student conforming to class schedules, the professor conforms to the student’s. If college is, at least in part, preparation for students entering the professional world (Boyer, 1987), how is this teaching them to adapt to the demands of an onerous supervisor?
“[M]any in this generation of traditional students are used to being entertained in their daily lives, expect immediate gratification and assume an entitlement that includes very little acceptance of personal responsibility in the education of which they perceive themselves to be the ‘consumers’ ” (Kruckeberg, 2007, para. 9). Therefore, as long as some students see themselves as customers to be serviced, indeed they may take less responsibility for their own learning and place more on their professors. Professor compliance may only serve to solidify that perception. When an institution of higher learning contributes to that customer perception by actually embracing it, as many do, the outcome of inappropriate communication will not only persist, it will permeate the education culture.
E-mail and other technology: Communication incompetence?
While the student-as-consumer model may empower students to be more interpersonally challenging and less deferential in the classroom, an office or on the phone, cyber communication may provide avenues to be even more confrontational and oblivious:
Such communication difficulties may be associated with technological developments that have made immediate response and instant gratification possible. Students are used to being able to look up a topic on the Internet and find answers immediately; they are accustomed to being able to reach anyone they wish to contact by home phone, cell phone, e-mail, instant messaging, or pager. This expectation of immediacy is transferring into relationships everywhere – including those in the classroom (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008, p. 52).
Communication technology over the last decade and a half seems to have further obfuscated the line between appropriate and inappropriate communication behavior among college students and faculty. Because a computer-mediated transaction is not a face-to-face dyad, e-mail itself can bring forth an almost brazen tone in upward communication. As Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke (2008) mused, “e-mail has no conscience and…knows no fear” (para. 44). Most professors would likely be aghast in receiving an email such as, “omg, i cant come 2 class 2day. plez send notes asap.” This message invites faculty criticism not only to the e-mail content, but also on spelling, communication tone, and etiquette.
E-mail developed so rapidly and is used so pervasively that its true etiquette is still being worked out. For example, there are many self-help e-mail etiquette books, textbooks and Web sites available. While there are similarities in the sources, a number of them contain contradicting information regarding what is appropriate in using business e-mail in terms of tone, grammar, and the use of emoticons.
At the outset of this technology, some valid concerns came to light. To what extent would e-mail and text-messaging affect the quality of interpersonal communication? With far fewer nonverbal channels available, how understandable would cyber communication be? Would e-mail actually take the place of face-to-face interactions? Adler, Proctor, and Towne (2005) indicate that some research legitimizes these fears. One study pointed out that Internet users had a 25% reduction in talking time with those close to them. As Stanford University professor Norman Nie stated, “E-mail is a way to stay in touch, but you can’t share a coffee or a beer with somebody on e-mail or give them a hug” (Adler, et al., 2005, p. 23).
On the other hand, Adler also cites another study showing Internet time having no reduction effect on communication within families. One survey demonstrated that the quality of communication could actually be enhanced by e-mail use:
In that survey, 72 percent of the Internet users had communicated with a relative or friend within the past day, compared with 61 percent for nonusers. Surprisingly, the Internet users were also more likely to have phoned friends and relatives. Even more significant than the amount of communication that occurs online is its quality: 55 percent of Internet users said that e-mail had improved communications with family, and 66 percent said their contact with friends had increased because of e-mail (Adler, et al., 2005, p. 23).
These results, however, point toward positive effects of e-mail regarding personal relationships. In the professional world, some see it as a burden as much as (or more than) a benefit.
According to Regan (2007), “E-mail takes up more and more of our time at work. … E-mails sent by a company’s workers are projected to increase 27 percent this year, to an average of 47 a day – up from 37 a day in 2006” (para. 6). Dr. Ken Siegel, president of a management consulting firm in Los Angeles, contends that e-mail is often used to provide disclaimers and it causes employees to write about problems instead of discussing them in person. “E-mail [in the workplace],” Regan asserts, “has become the…interpersonal coward’s device of choice” (para. 14). Siegel also states that employees may take two to three hours per day reading, composing and typing e-mails when phone calls or interaction in person could be far more productive and expeditious.
On the student side of the academic world, e-mail translates into more approachable faculty, which, most professors would likely concur, is a good thing. Many professors also see educational positives when communication doors are opened a little more. E-mail can facilitate student questions on content they may not have understood during the lecture. An Amherst University political science professor sees such communication as useful. An e-mail query “is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn’t get it,” allowing professors to fill in material gaps (Glater, 2006, para. 22). However, there is a point when things go too far.
For faculty, e-mail often means dealing with issues from the mundane to the absurd to the disrespectful and at all hours of the day. Many professors would argue that while e-mail works well as a broadcast tool, it has also “made them too accessible, erasing boundaries that traditionally kept students at a healthy distance” (Glater, 2006, para. 3). Assistant Dean Michael Kessler at Georgetown University is critical of the student presumptions e-mailing can encourage:
The tone that they would take in e-mail was pretty astounding, ‘I need to know this and you need to tell me right now,’ with a familiarity that can sometimes border on imperative.
It’s a real fine balance to accommodate what they need and at the same time maintain a level of legitimacy as an instructor and someone who is institutionally authorized to make demands on them, and not the other way round (Glater, 2006 para. 5 and 6).
One math professor at Cal-Davis was sent a somewhat ridiculous student e-mail asking, “Should I buy a binder or a subject notebook? Since I'm a freshman, I’m not sure how to shop for school supplies. Would you let me know your recommendations? Thank you!” (Glater, 2006, para. 2).
Unfortunately, e-mail has become a primary medium for some students to “hide” behind technology. That is, some communicate about topics over e-mail they may not ordinarily feel comfortable discussing with their professors in person. They may use it to request permission to be excused from class. Some request information covered during an absence, challenge assignment or semester grades, submit drafts for professor feedback, and inquire about when essay tests will be graded, among other topics. Typical e-mails I’ve received from students over the years have ranged from the confrontational (“I can’t believe you had the audacity to give me a C”) to the comically presumptuous (“I won’t be in class for the test on Friday because of my cousin’s wedding in Atlanta. I’ll be back on Monday, but I won’t be ready to take a makeup until Wednesday”) to those containing bizarre and inappropriate disclosures (“I’m sorry I missed class, today, but I had bad cramping”).
Walmsley and McManemy (2008) have gone so far as using the term, “character dysfunction” to describe this student inability to see and abide by appropriate communication boundaries:
‘Character dysfunction’ – which we define as a deficiency in social skills necessary for successful professional relationships – often leads to communication disruptions and unsatisfactory interactions between students and faculty and staff.
…For example, the inability of an individual to recognize his or her own strengths and weaknesses, to demonstrate ‘boundary control’ by avoiding actions that overstep socially respected boundaries, and to interact socially without expecting others to meet one’s needs immediately are all signs of character dysfunction. A student who is inflexible and has weak impulse control and poor boundary control contributes to a classroom environment that is not conducive to learning (p. 52).
“Chat-speak” and other writing maladies
As has been discussed, e-mail can be used constructively or destructively. A polite tone can enhance communication quality, but errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation can disintegrate the professionalism of any message, making it difficult to take the sender seriously. College professors who require any amount of writing can attest to the fact that many of their students are in dire need of remedial writing courses. This is not, quite obviously, a recent phenomenon. Mary Kolesnikova, a high school writing tutor in San Francisco, laments the lack of spelling skills of many high school students. “I’ve been asked how to spell ‘here’ and ‘one’ by high school seniors and seen more your/you’re, there/their, to/too mix-ups than a homophone workbook” (Kolesnikova, 2008, para. 3). As inappropriate as spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors can be in a student-to-professor e-mail, many of these writing problems have exploded in numbers out of habit as opposed to students actually lacking writing skills.
While cyber-communicators rush to type on their keyboards, Blackberrys and cell phones, gaffes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation are numerous. Since typing speed seems to be the name of the game in e-mail and text messaging, users resort to the shortcuts of “chat-speak” (Kolesnikova, 2008). Phonetic spellings (“laf”), word initials (“BRB” for “be right back”), alphabet letters and numbers designated as words, (“y r u b4 me”), emoticons (“i m 
”) and the omission of capital letters and apostrophes (“i cant”) have certainly hastened the keyboarding process. (Of course, that begs the question, if speed is so important, why not simply use said electronic device, and instead talk to the individual?) And the chance of a student at least running a device spell check (let alone actually proofreading) for an e-mail or text message is even more remote than their doing so in a formal class paper.
Worse, such errors and other forms of “chat-speak” are now appearing in classroom essays and papers. Kolesnikova continues:
…at least those [aforementioned] students were using actual words. I dread my first encounter with text-speak, but I know it’s coming: ‘Marcel Marceau lived in France and totally brought the LOLz.’ Even more gut-tossing is the fact that 25% of teens in the Pew study have used emoticons on tests, homework and essays. Oh, imagine the history papers: ‘When President Abe Lincoln was gatted, the whole country was =(, even though some in the South must have been =P’ (para. 3).
If left unchecked, could this mode of writing perpetuate and bleed into the professional world? Picture a manager’s reaction to an employee charged with writing an analysis report who sends the following e-mail: “mr. smith, cood u look ovr my report draft an mak commets? im having trubl finshing. ” Fortunately, there is hope. Most teenagers still recognize the importance and necessity of solid writing skills. According to an April 2008 Pew Research Center Study, “86% of teens believe that good writing is an essential skill for later in life” (Kolesnikova, 2008, para. 9). Again, for the purpose of training our students to be more productive employees and citizens, it is imperative that we, as college educators, draw the grammatical and spelling line, not only with papers as we normally do, but also with e-mail correspondence.
Symptoms and solutions: Creating effective communication boundaries
Walmsley and McManemy (2008) have outlined specific symptoms of their term, character dysfunction. Students who, again, are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate communication with faculty fall into this category.
- Poor boundary control
- Lack of emotional control
- Inability to accept limits
- “Hiding behind” technology
- Inadequate social skills and functioning
- Inability to communicate in a global society
- Excessive use of defense mechanisms (“it’s not my fault”) (p. 52)
The inability to recognize boundaries in terms of communication tone and content can demonstrate a lack of “goal” communication competence. This is “the ability to set goals, anticipate probable consequences, and choose effective lines of action” (Trenhom & Jensen, 2004, p.15). One who is proficient in this area possesses a variety of communication tactics in order to accomplish particular goals. A shortage in goal competence leaves few communicative options to the student. Because they are unaware of other strategies, some students may resort to demanding, confrontational, whiny, and high maintenance behaviors instead of providing their superiors (professors) with respect and deference. When there is a problem in controlling feelings and emotions, dysfunctional students may actually yell at or weep in front of a professor, “But I can’t have a C, I have to have an A, or I lose my scholarship!” Where there is difficulty in accepting immediacy limits of communication, the expectation is that the professor should, essentially, be “on call” whenever a question arises. Should confrontations take place over e-mail rather than in person, inhibitions seem to disappear, and there is a tendency to write things one may not ordinarily say to the face of a superior.
Like writing difficulties, some students bring some of the aforementioned problems to the table as they enter college. Such character dysfunction can be amplified by other phenomena previously mentioned in this paper, and it can also be developed to some extent. If professors do not establish clear boundaries, students are rewarded for this type of behavior, and the spiral of self-fulfilling prophecy will continue:
…many professors inadvertently contribute to dysfunctional behaviors. For example, some professors answer e-mail day and night without restricting student expectations for feedback. A professor may answer e-mail during nonstandard business hours because of convenience, but if the professor does not make it clear that students should not always expect such immediate feedback, some students may come to depend upon this kind of communication. Other professors may offer to accept phone calls at all times, and even regularly meet students during nonstandard business hours. Acceptance of phone calls during inappropriate hours could contribute to what may become a continual problem (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008, p. 52).
Recently, one of my more high-maintenance students practically demanded that I give him my cell phone number so that he could call me anytime – day or night – when he had a question about class. Initially, he seemed quite put off and a bit surprised when I would not comply. Aside from wishing to keep my personal and professional lives separate, I declined because he usually asked questions, in person and over e-mail, on information that was already clearly explained in the assignment sheet or syllabus. I established and held to firm communication boundaries by not answering such inquiries. The student saw that he had no alternative but to take more responsibility. Since I would not always provide instant information, he began taking the time to read my handouts.
Eventually, his academic, classroom, and e-mail behaviors began to show a little more autonomy as he finally recognized my parameters. His subsequent emails and after-class questions lessened, and when he did have a question, it usually demonstrated more thought and understanding about the assignment. We, as professors, must exhibit our own goal competence, recognize when our enabling behaviors contribute to this unproductive cycle, and change our acquiescing reflex actions for the betterment of our students.
In addition to outlining symptoms of character dysfunction, Walmsley and McManemy (2008) provide basic approaches to cope with the problem and, hopefully, alleviate some of the manifestations:
There are many strategies that professors can use to enable students to develop more appropriate ways of interacting with others. First, faculty should clearly delineate their expectations for student behavior – both inside and outside the classroom. Faculty should be clear about setting boundaries, react consequentially to inappropriate behavior, and themselves model expected behaviors. Some faculty members might choose to develop contractual agreements that specify expectations for interaction between teacher and student; students must be held responsible for inappropriate behavior. It may be beneficial to refer students who have trouble with boundary control and limit setting to counseling and guidance centers (p. 53)
Such guidelines could be explicitly stated not only on syllabi – these days our class “contracts” – but also in classroom discussions. Should a student cross a line, gently pointing it out immediately is one way of reacting. For example, a professor might respond to a late-night home phone call (with the obvious exception of an actual emergency) by politely, but firmly, putting off the discussion until the following school day. A hostile e-mail could have the faculty reply of a simple invitation to discuss the problem in person (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008). Should a student show disrespect during an office visit or phone call, it must be immediately asserted that the discussion will terminate if the student does not behave more appropriately. In the case of a rather inconsequential e-mail, such as the request for input on what school supplies to purchase, no response may best indicate the inappropriateness of the question (Glater, 2006).
As previously stated, while responding with quick information to satisfy simple questions regarding assignment or class policy expedites things for some students, it insures their continued failure to closely read class handouts (and their perpetual dependence on immediate professor feedback). Whether on e-mail, telephone, or in class, I, instead, routinely respond only with a polite, “Well, you already have that information on the handout.” Freely providing class information to students who were absent without good reason gives them less incentive to attend class. When such a request or demand is made, I tell them, “I already went over that in class when you weren’t there. I’m really sorry, but I don’t have the time to do it again. Your best bet for today is to get notes from a classmate and then not miss class in the future.”
When I receive a paper or outline overloaded with writing errors that can be seen at a glance, I normally return it with “Please revise” at the top before I will grade it. I’ve very recently begun doing the same thing with student e-mails. I’ll close an eye to the occasional typo, but for error-laden messages, I’ve found that an initial reply of “You must revise before I will respond to your question” seems to accomplish two things. First, e-mails are starting to come in a little cleaner, which was my hope. The second – and unexpected – positive outcome is that students seem to be calling or visiting more while sending fewer e-mails. The quality of communication appears to have improved.
Conclusion
I’ve been told on more than one occasion that I must do a better job of learning and adapting to cultural and technological changes in society. E-mail, instant-messaging, cell phones and iPods and their future generations and variations are not only here to stay and develop, they will continue to affect the way we communicate and educate. I agree that changes are never-ending, but I have a different view. Instead of simply reacting, I want teachers of all levels to be proactive driving forces in those changes. While communication techniques quickly evolve and become mainstream, responsibility and etiquette don’t seem to have run parallel with this evolution. Therefore, it is our collective job to maintain appropriate standards of communication behavior for our students. The quality of their professional and personal lives could depend on it:
It is crucial that faculty develop and enforce strategies that support character development and cultivate social skills in students. Graduates entering the workforce, becoming parents, and getting involved in community organizations cannot be successful or good role models for future generations if the cycle…continues (Walmsley and McManemy, 2008, p. 53).
College teachers are truly the last lines of higher-education defense before our students graduate and enter the professional world. Most professors have had experience with the type of students described in this paper. It is our duty to do everything in our power not only to educate them in the areas of our disciplinary expertise, but also to help them become more competent communicators in a variety of settings. We must set clear, reasonable boundaries and model behaviors so they may recognize differences in social and professional situations, the appropriate roles within those situations, and appropriate communication behaviors and options within the context of those roles.
References
Adler, R., Proctor, R., and Towne, N. (2005). Looking out/looking in. Belmont, CA: Tomson Wadsworth.
Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Glater, J. (2006, February 21). To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why it's all about me. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/education/21professors.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
Kolesnikova, M. (2008, May 13). Language that makes you say OMG. Los Angeles Time. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kolesnikova13-2008may13,0,4111689.story
Kruckeberg, D. (2007, Spring). A clarification of the differences between “product” and “consumer” in public relations education: A call for the re-assessment and re-ordering of perception of stakeholders. Teaching Public Relations. Retrieved from
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~aejmcpr/teach.htm.
McMillan, J. and Cheney, G. (1996, January). The student as consumer: The limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45 (1), 1 - 15.
Plaschke, B. (2008, June 8). Nasty attacks should be banned in Boston. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke8-2008jun08,0,4046101,full.column.
Regan, T. (2007, October 17). Maybe e-mail isn’t such a great idea after all. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p16s01-stct.html.
Trenholm, S. and Jensen, A. (2004). Interpersonal Communication (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Walmsley, A. and McManemy, J. (2008, January-February), College student character dysfunction: It’s time we set some expectations for our students that go beyond the syllabus. Academe, vol. 94, no. 1. pp. 51-53.
You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample
to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)
Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.
Web Master: Nicholas Eastham
