Introduction
Over the last two decades, educational leaders and advocates have emphasized the importance of communication ability in higher education. Writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving are all included as crucial learning goals for undergraduates. Communication competency is probably not a phrase that academics or university officials have used. Because its people are regarded as its greatest asset, the US strives to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy globally, capable of achieving sustainable economic development, creating more and better employment, and enhancing social cohesion.
Without testing for measurement invariance, this measure is commonly employed outside of the United States and outside of the academic context, despite its intended application. As a result, every human being becomes a valuable asset to the entire community. For a comprehensive plan to succeed, communication skills must be considered. This work was written to understand what the self-communication competence scale is and analyze its result.
Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale
Communication competence has been quantified in a variety of methods, involving objective analysis, personal reflection, self-report, and receiver-report. The self-report technique has been one of the most commonly utilized metrics in research throughout the years. It is most acceptable to utilize self-report measures such as the SPCC scale in situations when the respondent has no cause to fear negative repercussions from any response given. SPCCS (Self-perceived communication competence scale) was designed as a tool for assessing people’s perceptions of their communication competence in a range of communication settings and with a wide variety of recipients.
When first developed, self-report measures of communication competence were constructed to indicate what their authors thought communication competence to be comprised of or components of effective communication. The responder is asked to rate their communication skills on a scale from 1 to 10. According to McCroskey and McCroskey, “It is concluded that self‐reports have little validity as indicants of competent communicative performances but may serve as valuable measures of self‐perceptions that may function as precursors of communicative choices” (1988, 108). An example of verbal communication with persons from various cultures or strangers may be observed as a result of applying such communication tools in practice.
Results
Based on the results, we can say that the stranger aspect has the lowest score – 45, but this score is acceptable and expected. Not every person is ready to start accessible communication with a stranger. The highest indicator is occupied by the aspect of friend – 84.75, which is not surprising. Trust in a person makes communication with him much more accessible, so people look for friends for themselves because it is easier to communicate with them. An indicator that practically goes beyond the norm is acquaintance – 65 with a minimum rate of 62. It means that it is difficult for a person to make new acquaintances. An indicator that went beyond the norm is a dyad – 66, while the norm is 68. The difference is not significant; however, one should think that this indicator is below average.
A person’s communication with different cultures also affects his communication in general. For example, I communicate better with a Hispanic audience; my communication is more friendly with this audience. Each person communicates differently with different cultures. It can depend on race, language, religion, political views. Public people communicate with each other in a curtailed manner in order not to cause misunderstandings among the public, because the views of famous people do not always intersect with yours. Each person should develop in communication, as this is the main engine of progress.
Conclusion
Educators and activists have stressed the relevance of communication skills in higher education over the previous two decades. As part of the undergraduate curriculum, writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving are all considered essential skills. It is unlikely that academics or university administrators have ever used the term “communication competence.” America’s people are viewed as its most valuable asset. As such, it aims to become the world’s most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy, able to achieve sustainable urban growth, generate more employment opportunities, and improve social integration.
Communication ability has been quantified in several ways, including honest evaluation, self-discovery, self-report, and receiver-report. Throughout the years, the self-reporting approach has been one of the most widely used measures in research. A self-report measure, such as the SPCC scale, should be used if there is no reason to believe that the respondent would be negatively affected by his or her answers.
Communication with people from other cultures has an impact on a person’s overall communication. Not everyone is ready to engage in accessible contact with a stranger at this point in their lives. People search for friends since it is simpler to speak with them when they trust them. For instance, I communicate better with a Hispanic community. With diverse cultures, each individual communicates differently. Race, language, religion, and political beliefs can all play a part. Celebrities and the general public speak in a restrained manner to avoid misunderstandings because the ideas of famous individuals do not always coincide with your own beliefs. The fundamental motor of advancement is communication.
Reference
McCroskey J. C. & McCroskey L. L. (1988). Self‐report as an approach to measuring communication competence, Communication Research Reports, 5:2, 108-113. Web.