Training Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Interview Skills to Adolescents

Abstract

Adolescents’ verbal and nonverbal communication skills were compared before and after training in a workforce readiness training program, Language for Scholars (LFS), and a study skills program, Ideal Student Workshop (ISW). A cross-over design was used, ensuring that 44 adolescents received both programs and acted as their own control. The LFS program incorporated aspects of modeling, operationalized behaviors, performance, feedback, and self-regulatory goal setting. The active comparison ISW program taught study skill strategies. Adolescents participated in three interviews before (Pretest) and after both programs (Posttest 1, Posttest 2). Findings revealed that both adolescents’ verbal and nonverbal communication skills improved significantly immediately after completion of the LFS program only at Posttest 1 and Posttest 2. However, only nonverbal communication skills improved at Posttest 1 when comparing results between LFS and ISW. Findings suggest that both programs yielded some positive outcomes for adolescents.

Keywords

adolescents verbal and nonverbal communication training programs interview workforce

Adolescents are experiencing an employment crisis in the workforce, with their employment rates dropping 40% since 2001 (Ayers, 2013; CareerBuilder, 2015; JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2015). This is due in part to the fact that more skilled workers including millennials and retirees are now filling jobs that have been historically filled by adolescents (Soergel, 2015). Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has cut funding from youth jobs over the past 10 years in the amount of US$1 billion (Ayers, 2013). In addition, adolescents are experiencing labor force underutilization—officially unemployed, hidden unemployed, or underemployed (Sum, Khatiwada, Trubskyy, Ross, & McHugh, 2014). For example, they are unemployed and are actively seeking a job, they desire employment but are not actively looking, or they desire full-time employment but are working part-time. This competitive job market makes it essential that adolescents make favorable impressions on their potential employers during the interview process.

Appropriate verbal and nonverbal communication skills are essential to interviewing well, and most employers find them lacking in a significant portion of the applicants they interview. In a survey conducted by Peterson (1997), almost 99% of employers surveyed stated that verbal and nonverbal communication skills affected their hiring decisions, and only 60% indicated that their job applicants in the adult workforce were able to display effective communication skills during their initial interviews. For example, findings from Peterson’s (1997) study indicated that there were a number of verbal and nonverbal communications skills that employers felt were inadequate, including poor eye contact during discussions, an ability to talk about topics that were relevant to the discussions, listening attentively, poor grammar, and limited vocabulary. In addition, Spence (1981) studied employability of 70 adolescent males during a 5-min interview. Behavioral measures included the duration or frequency of nonverbal communication (i.e., gestures, fiddling, gross body movements, smiling, head movements, eye contact) and verbal communication (i.e., dysfluencies, attention feedback responses, amount spoken, interruptions, questions asked, and initiations). Findings revealed that nonverbal communication (i.e., frequency of smiling and eye contact) and verbal communication (i.e., questions asked, dysfluencies in speech, amount spoken, and interruptions) during interviews were significantly related to ratings of employability.

Favorable verbal communication is also referred to as oral fluency, speech that is free of filler words (e.g., she “um” went to the store), false starts (e.g., “[I am] we are excited”), repetitions (e.g., “[she] she drove the car”), reformulations (e.g., “[they bought] she is going with her”), and interjections (e.g., “he [like] found the cat”). For example, verbal behaviors such as content (Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, & Dressel, 1979), oral fluency (Hollandsworth et al., 1979), and proper use of pauses (Parsons & Liden, 1984) have been positively influential on interviewers’ decisions. Nonverbal communication can encompass a variety of nonverbal behaviors such as stance, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. Nonverbal behaviors such as greater eye contact, more frequent smiling, and attentive postures have been found to account up to 43% of an interviewer’s positive ratings of a candidate during an interview (Imada & Hakel, 1977). For example, nonverbal communication skills are very important in the workforce interview process because interviewers make attributions about candidates through their use of nonverbal cues (DeGroot & Gooty, 2009; Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985). If adolescents are to gain employment in this competitive climate, it is important that they possess effective verbal and nonverbal communication skills for use during their initial job interviews.

Due to the competitive adolescent employment market, organizations have developed workforce readiness programs to teach adolescents the skills they need to successfully participate in job interviews. For example, organizations such as JP Morgan Chase & Co. invested in summer youth employment initiatives across 14 cities. Also, the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration awarded Youth Opportunity grants in 36 communities and Youth Build programs in 43 states for adolescents (Communities Collaborating to Reconnect Youth, n.d.; JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2015; U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.; U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, n.d.).

In addition, interview training programs for adults have informed the development of adolescent training programs. Adult programs have traditionally included lessons focusing on enunciation (articulation), topic relevance, listening skills, grammar, vocabulary, stance, eye contact, facial expressions, the use of appropriate gestures, and stance. Successful adult programs incorporated aspects of Bandura’s (1977a) social learning theory such as observation, imitation, and modeling (Bankowski, 2010; Boyle, 1996; De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009a, 2009b; Hindle, 2000). Although there is a body of literature regarding the impact of training verbal and nonverbal communication skills for adults, it is unclear if the same training principles would be effective with adolescents.

A Chicago-based organization called Leap Learning Systems created a manualized program to train adolescents to use the kinds of verbal and nonverbal communication skills that employers have reported as being critical. The purpose of the program was to improve the likelihood that adolescents would make favorable impressions on employers during initial interviews, thereby increasing their chances of employment in a highly competitive climate. The program, Language for Scholars (LFS), focuses on teaching adolescents to use clear articulation and intonation, adequate projection, rate, eye contact, facial expression, stance, and gestures, while dissuading the use of filler words such as “like,” “you know,” “um,” and “er.” The term scholars in “LFS” refers to any adolescent who participates in the program. LFS is grounded in the theoretical framework of Bandura’s (1977a) social learning theory and utilizes key components of observation, imitation, and modeling during instruction. Instruction is provided in small and large groups and simultaneously addresses target behaviors of content (vocabulary) and delivery (articulation, fluency, body language, tone, volume, and rate). LFS incorporates the use of live models in a highly interactive context that affords participants multiple opportunities for practice, and for receiving specific feedback on trained behaviors.

The purpose of the current study was to determine whether LFS was associated with improvements in verbal and nonverbal communication skills that have been shown to affect their chances of employment. Specifically, we asked the following questions:

Research Question 1: Does a currently available program (LFS) designed to teach verbal and nonverbal communication skills to adolescents lead to immediate gains in oral fluency (measured using percent of words not mazed) and global body language (measured using stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures)?

Research Question 2: Are gains in oral fluency (measured using percent of words not mazed) and global body language (measured by stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures) after LFS instruction different from the gains associated with an active comparison group designed to teach study skills (Ideal Student Workshop [ISW])?

Method

Participants

Obtaining employment for adolescents is a challenge, as noted by the 33% decline in employment for adolescents ages 14 to 18 years (CareerBuilder, 2015). This has been particularly difficult for adolescents of color. For example, Black male adolescents ages 16 to 19 had an unemployment rate of 49% and Hispanic male adolescents had an unemployment rate of 33% in 2014 compared with White male adolescents at a rate of 26% (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2014). In addition, the occupations obtained by African Americans and Hispanics earned a lower average median wage per hour compared with Whites (CareerBuilder, 2015; Center for Law and Social Policy, 2014). Gender also plays a role in wages. Since 2001, women mostly gained employment in low-paying, male-majority jobs and were paid a lower wage (e.g., US$20.85/hr vs. US$25.49/hr; CareerBuilder, 2015). For these reasons, we recruited both male and female adolescents of color, both African American and Hispanic, to provide them with communication skills needed in the workforce.

Participants were recruited through a scholarship program offered by Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund (DMSF). DMSF is a Chicago-based organization that offers high school scholarship assistance and educational support to adolescents who are in the presence of environmental risk factors for academic failure, but nevertheless exhibited academic potential based on their academic performance in school. DMSF awarded seventy-nine 4-year high school scholarships to a variety of college preparatory high schools including college preparatory, boarding, independent, military, catholic/parochial, single gender, or coed. DMSF recipients were required to attend a summer high school preparatory program provided by two of its partner providers, Leap Learning Systems and Educational Endeavors (EE), in the summer prior to entering their freshman year of high school.

A total of 79 adolescents who participated in the summer high school preparatory program in Chicago, Illinois, were given consent/assent forms for participation in the approved institutional review board study. Forty-four adolescents, ranging in age from 13 years 10 months to 14 years 10 months, returned signed consents and were included in the study. DMSF assigned adolescents to Group A or Group B. Each group was comparable in terms of gender and ethnicity (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Group Summaries for Gender and Ethnicity.

Group	Total	Female	Male	African American	Asian	Bi-racial	Caucasian	Hispanic
A	20	8	12	7	0	1	0	12
B	24	11	13	7	1	0	1	15
Total	44	19	25	14	1	1	1	27

Note. Group = Group A or Group B; gender = female or male; ethnicity = African American, Asian, bi-racial, Caucasian, or Hispanic.

Research Design

A cross-over design was used such that all participants received both instructional programs and acted as their own control (Friedman, Furberg, & DeMets, 2010). A Chicago-based organization, Leap Learning Systems, delivered the LFS program. A different Chicago-based organization called Educational Endeavors delivered an active comparison program that focused on study skills titled Ideal Student Workshop (ISW). The adolescents were not expected to gain verbal or nonverbal communication skills in the ISW study skills course. Group A participated in LFS (Treatment A) first, followed by ISW (Treatment B), and Group B participated in the programs in reverse order.

Experimental Instruction

Treatment A: LFS

LFS is a commercially available program designed to improve verbal and nonverbal communication skills. Although the target audience of this study was adolescents, the LFS program can be delivered to any elementary, high school, or college audience. There were six speech-language pathologists (SLP) and five trained educators, collectively referred to as “trainers,” who attended a 3-hr training prior to delivery of the program. The purpose of this training was to review program content and role assignments from the manualized program. Trainers delivered the LFS program in a classroom-like setting consisting of a combination of large (44 adolescents) and small groups (8–10 adolescents) for 8 hr per day over 4 consecutive days, totaling 32 hr of direct instruction and practice. LFS incorporated aspects of (a) modeling, (b) operationalized behaviors, (c) performance, (d) reinforcement or feedback, and (e) self-regulatory goal setting (Bandura, 1977a, 1991).

SLPs and trained educators who implemented the LFS program modeled verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors. During instruction, trainers explicitly defined verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors, and presented examples and nonexamples. “Examples” were the target behavior and “nonexamples” were not a target behavior. For instance, to demonstrate an example of a “strong stance,” the trainer would stand with feet firmly planted on the floor. The trainer would contrast that “example” with a “nonexample”: The trainer would sway back and forth, demonstrating a “weak stance.” There were six verbal behaviors modeled in LFS including articulation, body language, intonation, projection, rate, and reduction of filler words. There were four nonverbal behaviors targeted in LFS including stance, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures (see Appendix A for body language rubric).

Numerous performance opportunities were provided to participants to practice target verbal and nonverbal behaviors during each workshop. Target behaviors were practiced in large or small groups during breakout workshop sessions in unison, group, or individually. The workshop sessions included Speaker’s Workshop (60 min), Body Language I (60 min), Body Language II (60 min), Effective Team Presentations (60 min), Mock Debates (120 min), Two-Minute Speeches (75 min), Debate Workshop (330 min), Newspaper Challenge (60 min), Trivia Game (105 min), and Guest Speaker (120 min; see Appendix B for workshop descriptions and sample activities). The culminating event for the adolescents was to participate in a debate as part of the Debate Workshop, which provided an opportunity to practice their newly developed interview skills in a high-stakes event.

Trainers and adolescent peers both provided reinforcement and feedback verbally and in writing during each of the workshops in the program. Adolescents provided daily reinforcement and feedback to one another after viewing practiced oral presentations. Trainers provided reinforcement and feedback to adolescents both during and after adolescents’ oral presentations. Similar research that focused on verbal and nonverbal communication skills (De Grez et al., 2009a, 2009b) and self-regulatory goal setting (Bandura, 1991) was included in the comprehensive instruction program. Adolescents were required to set three verbal and/or nonverbal communication goals they would like to work on throughout the training.

Treatment B: ISW

ISW was designed to teach adolescents how to increase their own enjoyment and understanding in learning by teaching effective study strategies to develop individualized learning methods. A high school English teacher provided instruction to groups of eight to 10 students for 3 hr a day, for 5 consecutive days. Participants were assigned groups based on the high school they would be attending in the fall, and were assigned to either an a.m. or a p.m. group. Materials used for instruction were textbooks and passages from high school history, social studies, and English courses.

There were three main topics covered in ISW: (a) executive functioning; (b) process reading, thinking, and writing; and (c) self-work assignments. Executive functioning lessons taught participants how to keep track of assignments, record and organize important information, express ideas in class, and perform well on tests. Ten executive functioning skills were taught: organization, time management, note taking, discussion skills, self-advocacy, examination preparation, goal setting, focusing, peer review, and research fundamentals. Process reading, thinking, and writing taught participants how to analyze ideas, structure thoughts, and create successful pieces of writing. Eight process writing skills were taught: annotating, generating guiding questions, free-writing, identifying key points, outlining, drafting, peer critiques, and revising and editing. Self-work assignments taught participants how to define the type of learner they are, identify short- and long-term goals, and how to make their dreams become reality.

Treatment Fidelity

The first author, who was aware of the purpose of the study, attended all sessions of the LFS program to measure the extent to which it was being implemented as intended. This was accomplished by referring to the manualized lesson plans associated with each activity. The author ensured that trainers delivered each session in the manual, addressed the targeted behaviors for that particular workshop, modeled targeted behaviors, provided opportunities for adolescents to practice, and provided feedback to the adolescents to inform their performance. The program was implemented as stated above at 100% fidelity for all 4 days of its duration.

The Educational Endeavors Director, referred to as the EE director, who held a master’s degree in English and creative writing as well as an MBA in international business administration and who has also tutored students, attended all EE sessions to measure the extent to which the EE program was being implemented as intended. This was accomplished by referring to the lesson plans associated with the instruction. The EE director observed both a.m. and p.m. sessions to ensure the instruction focused on activities related to executive functioning; process reading, thinking, and writing; and self-work assignments. The program was implemented with 100% fidelity for all 5 days of its instruction.

General Procedures

All adolescents were asked to answer questions during short interviews prior to and after participation in both the LFS and ISW 4-day seminars, totaling three interviews (cross-over design). These interviews were digitally video recorded for later scoring purposes. The video camera was placed next to the LFS trainer asking questions approximately 5 ft away from the adolescent. To be consistent with prior research (Clement, 2013; Hindle, 2000; Howard & Ferris, 1996), the participants were asked the same set of questions during Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2. Like other studies (Hindle, 2000; Howard & Ferris, 1996), the questions were printed and available to interviewers and evaluators. This was done to rule out any difficulties with memory that may affect the verbal and nonverbal communication skills.

The interviews consisted of five interview questions that varied in linguistic complexity. Some required simple responses and others required complex reasoning and rationales. The questions were (a) “Tell me about yourself,” (b) “Explain your favorite sport,” (c) “Explain what you will change when you are boss of the world,” (d) “Explain how you feel about school uniforms,” and (e) “Tell me how you feel about high fat foods in school cafeterias.” The interview was kept less than 5 min. After the program was implemented, the video recorded interviews were transcribed and scored for verbal and nonverbal communication skills.

Training

Undergraduate students in communication disorders were used as research assistants to transcribe the video recorded interviews. Prior to transcribing and coding the video recorded interviews for the study, the research assistants were trained on orthographic transcription and coding using sample transcripts. The research assistants orthographically transcribed and coded sample interviews and the study interviews using a software program called Systematic Analysis of Language Transcription (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2010). Transcripts were segmented into C-units based on Loban (1976), which consisted of independent clauses and modifiers and any subordinate clauses, and were coded for mazes (i.e., repetitions, revisions, false starts). They achieved interrater reliablity of 90% or greater on three consecutive sample transcripts for word transcription, C-unit segmentation, and coding using sample transcripts before transcribing and coding video interviews from the study. The research asssistants were blinded to treatment group and interview session (initial, middle, final) when transcribing and coding the video recorded interviews from the study.

A separate research assistant renamed all videos to blind the first author and another research assistant to the interview session (initial, medial, final). The first author and another research assistant, who was a doctoral student in applied behavior analysis, coded the videos for the nonverbal communication. They viewed 15 videos not used in the study to obtain a global body language score based on the 3-point Likert-type scale (novice, average, excellent). Nonresearchers were using this scale. An interrater reliability of 85% or better was deemed acceptable. The first author and the research assistant achieved interrater reliability of 87% on coding global body language for the oral presentations before coding the videos for the current study.

Outcome Measures

Similar to verbal and nonverbal behaviors in Hollandsworth et al. (1979), the interview data were coded and scored for the verbal communication and nonverbal communication outcome measures.

Verbal communication

Verbal communication has been measured through a variety of verbal aspects during interviews in the literature. For example, Hindle (2000) measured speech if speech was clear, audible, modulated, and lively. Hollandsworth et al. (1979) measured fluency of speech if interviewer spoke spontaneously, used words well, and articulated thoughts clearly. Parsons and Liden (1984) measured articulation on a scale ranging from poor grammar, slang, and profanity to clear speech and good grammar and measured pauses before answers on a scale ranging from long pauses to no pause or very short pause. Spence (1981) measured dysfluencies defined as “meaningless noises, e.g., ‘umm,’ ‘er,’ ‘ah,’ or irrelevant pauses exceeding 0.5 sec duration made during speech” (p. 162).

As demonstrated, there is no gold standard for measuring verbal communication during interviews. The video recorded interviews were orthographically transcribed using the SALT (Miller & Iglesias, 2010). An operational definition of verbal communication based on the SALT (Miller & Iglesias, 2010) was used to measure verbal communication for this study and was called oral fluency.

SALT operationally defines oral fluency as speech that was free of filler words (e.g., she “um” went to the store), false starts (e.g., “[I am] we are excited”), repetitions (e.g., “[she] she drove the car”), reformulations (e.g., “[they bought] she is going with her”), and interjections (e.g., “he [like] found the cat”). Filler words, false starts, repetitions, reformulations, and interjections were coded and collectively called “mazed words.” The amount of mazed words suggests oral disfluency; therefore, oral fluency was quantified as the percent of words not mazed. However, to calculate oral fluency, SALT first calculates disfluency and the inverse is fluency. The total number of mazed words was divided by the total number of words spoken, which yielded a percentage of mazed words. The percent of words not mazed (oral fluency) was the inverse of the percent of mazed words (oral disfluency) and was calculated as the outcome measure of verbal communication.

Nonverbal communication

The nonverbal communication outcome measure was called global body language because it was a composite score that included stance, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. Research assistants who were blinded to the purpose of the project coded the video recorded interviews for these skills using a researcher-designed rubric (see Appendix A). Each of the nonverbal communication skills was awarded a score on a 3-point Likert-type scale with values of novice, average, or excellent performance. A 3-point Likert-type scale, which is best suited for circumstances that require scales to be easy and quick to use (Preston & Colman, 2000), was implemented because it was anticipated that SLPs and educators who would be training these skills would use this scale in the future. Furthermore, results from the 3-point scale provide clear information on whether adolescents need additional training (novice), if their skills are as expected (average), or if their skills are well developed (excellent). Components of the global body language score were operationalized to enhance interrater reliability as there is currently no gold standard for measuring nonverbal communication.

Bandura (1977b) described self-efficacy as a relationship between how a person performs a specific behavior and a person’s belief in his or her ability to perform these behaviors. Adolescents’ self-efficacy of using nonverbal communication skills was measured through their performance in nonverbal communication skills. A novice rating indicated that the speaker did not demonstrate self-efficacy through the use of positive body language. An average rating was defined as the speaker demonstrated average self-efficacy through the use of standard body language. An excellent rating was defined as the speaker demonstrated excellent self-efficacy through the use of well-developed body language.

The global body language score was tabulated using a two-step process. First, a score of novice, average, or excellent was awarded to each of the separate behaviors including stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gesture. After each separate behavior was awarded a score, the second step was implemented to calculate the composite body language score. Scores of novice, average, or excellent were tabulated based on the number of separate behaviors in each category. A novice composite score of “1” was awarded if two or more behaviors were a score of “1.” An average composite score of “3” was awarded if at least three areas earned a score of average (“3”) and/or excellent (“5”). An excellent composite score of “5” was awarded if four of the behaviors earned a score of “5” (see Appendix A for body language rubric).

Reliability

All of the video recorded interviews were orthographically transcribed and coded to calculate the verbal communication outcome measure. Interrater reliability was calculated for 30% of the video recorded interviews using the point-by-point method. Transcript and coding interrater reliability was 99.5% for word transcription, 99.5% for mazes, and 95% for C-unit transcription. Interrater reliability for coding of nonverbal communication outcome measure was calculated for 20% of the video recorded interviews that were randomly selected from Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2 interviews using the point-by-point method and was 95%.

Results

The means and standard deviations, and medians for the verbal communication scores (oral fluency; measured using percent of words not mazed) and the nonverbal communication scores (global body language) for Groups A and B are presented in Table 2. A Shapiro–Wilk W test was conducted to assess the assumption of normality for verbal communication scores. Results indicated that verbal communication data from Pretest were not from a normal distribution (test statistic = 0.92, p = .00) and subsequent analyses used nonparametric methods. These analyses were based on the median of the verbal communication outcome measure; the means and standard deviations were reported for ease of interpretation. A Mann–Whitney test was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that Group A and Group B did not differ before instruction (at Pretest) on verbal and nonverbal communication skills. The results indicated that the group medians were not significantly different for either outcome measure before instruction began (verbal communication, W = 429, p = .29; nonverbal communication, W = 426.5, p = .59). Therefore, comparisons could be made between the groups.

Table 2.

Results for Verbal and Nonverbal Communication.

Group	Pretest	Posttest 1	Posttest 2
Group	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Verbal (oral fluency)
A
% WNM	91.5 (6.4)	94.6 (5)	94.7 (3.9)
% MW	8.5 (6.4)	5.4 (5)	5.3 (3.9)
B
% WNM	91 (4.3)	92.5 (4.4)	95.3 (2.6)
% MW	9.0 (4.3)	7.5 (4.4)	4.7 (2.6)
Nonverbal (global body language)
A	2.68 (1.0)	3.53 (0.91)	3.44 (0.86)
B	2.92 (0.93)	2.92 (0.41)	3.52 (1.08)

Note. Group A received LFS first and ISW second. Group B received ISW first and LFS second. An increase in percent of words not mazed indicates improved awareness of the importance of articulation, intonation, projection, rate, and use of fillers in oral presentations. Analyses for verbal communication were conducted using ratios; however, descriptives are presented as percentages to ease in interpretation. An increase in body language indicates an improved use of stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures in oral presentations. Scoring for body language was awarded a score of novice, average, or excellent and given the following number, respectively, “1,” “3,” or “5.” % WNM = percent of words not mazed, which equals percent of oral fluency; % MW = percent of mazed words, which equals the inverse of oral fluency; LFS = language for scholars; ISW = ideal student workshop.

Immediate Gains in Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

The first purpose of this project was to determine whether LFS led to immediate gains in verbal (oral fluency; measured using percent of words not mazed) and nonverbal (global body language; measured using stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures) communication for adolescents. As verbal communication (oral fluency) was measured as a percent of words not mazed, verbal communication was expected to increase after LFS as adolescents became more skilled at the interview process. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was conducted to determine if there were significant median differences. Because this was a cross-over design, this happened at different time points for each group. Specifically, it was calculated for Group A from Pretest to Posttest 1 and from Pretest to Posttest 2 for Group B. Findings revealed that there were significant median differences for Group A (W = 39.5, p = .027) and Group B (W = 21.5, p = .003). Groups A and B had significantly more verbal communication skills as measured by a higher percent of words not mazed after receiving LFS, indicating an immediate improvement in verbal communication skills (see Table 2).

Nonverbal communication was measured as a global body language score and was expected to increase after participation in the LFS program. Global body language was measured on a Likert-type scale (novice with a value of “1,” average with a value of “3,” and excellent with a value of “5”). For Group A, immediate gains were calculated at Posttest 1, immediately following LFS instruction, by computing the difference of Pretest from Posttest 1. For Group B, immediate gains were calculated at Posttest 2, immediately following LFS instruction, by computing the difference of Pretest from Posttest 2.

A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was conducted to determine if there were significant median differences in gains for Group A, from Pretest to Posttest 1, and for Group B, from Pretest to Posttest 2. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test findings revealed that there were significant differences between the gains on nonverbal communication for Group A (W = 39.5, p = .03) and Group B (W = 49.5, p = .01). After receiving LFS instruction, global body language scores significantly improved for Group A and Group B. The hypothesis that LFS would lead to immediate gains in fluency and global body language was confirmed.

LFS Compared With ISW

The second research question asked whether gains in verbal (oral fluency; measured using percent of words not mazed) and nonverbal (global body language; measured by stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures) communication after LFS instruction were different from those associated with the active comparison group (ISW). Because this was a cross-over design, this comparison was made at Posttest 1, after Group A received LFS and Group B received ISW training.

For the verbal communication outcome measure, a Mann–Whitney test was conducted to determine if there were significant median gain differences in percent of words not mazed between Group A and Group B from Pretest to Posttest 1. Findings revealed there were no significant differences between Group A and Group B (W = 402.5, p = .365) at Posttest 1. There was no difference in verbal communication between the groups who received LFS and the ISW.

For the nonverbal communication outcome measure, gain scores were calculated for each group by subtracting Pretest from Posttest 1 scores. A Mann–Whitney test was conducted to determine if there were significant median differences in gains of the nonverbal score between Group A and Group B from Pretest to Posttest 1. Findings revealed there was a significant difference (W = 504.5, p = .03), meaning the gains in nonverbal communication were larger for Group A (received LFS) than Group B (received ISW). These findings support the hypothesis favoring LFS over an active comparison instruction (ISW) for gains in nonverbal communication, but not in verbal communication skills.

Discussion

Immediate Gains in Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

The first purpose of this project was to determine whether LFS led to immediate gains in oral fluency and global body language. There were immediate significant gains in verbal communication (oral fluency; measured using percent of words not mazed) for all adolescents after they participated in LFS. For example, adolescents used fewer filler words such as “like” or “um,” revised their ideas less frequently, and made fewer repetitions of words and phrases. There were also immediate significant gains in nonverbal communication (global body language; measured using stance, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures) scores for all adolescents after participation in LFS (Group A at Posttest 1, Group B at Posttest 2). For example, adolescents were observed to stand firmly during their interview without using distracting body movements (e.g., used less rocking or swaying), walking, or fidgeting, and to face the interviewer rather than looking away. There were more instances of direct eye contact between the speaker and the listener, and fewer occasions in which adolescents were observed to stare at the floor or ceiling while speaking. Adolescents were noted to be more likely to engage the interviewer by using facial expressions such as smiling, widening of the eyes, raising their eyebrows, and using gestures to highlight important portions of their oral messages.

While the authors acknowledge that improved communication skills cannot be directly correlated with employability due to the scope of this study, these findings are consistent with the adult literature on training verbal and nonverbal communication to improve interview skills. Specifically, prior studies reported significant improvement in body language as well as slowed speaking rate used by adults (Bankowski, 2010; De Grez et al., 2009a). The LFS program had similar features to the programs utilized in these studies including multiple performance and practice opportunities, feedback opportunities, and the use of live modeling of targeted behaviors.

LFS Compared With ISW

Research Question 2 asked whether improvements in verbal communication and nonverbal communication after LFS instruction were greater than the gains associated with an active comparison group (ISW) designed to teach study skills. Specifically, this question addressed performance on outcome measures at Posttest 1, after Group A received training in LFS and Group B received training in ISW. Our hypothesis that adolescents who participated in LFS would demonstrate greater improvements in verbal and nonverbal communication skills than adolescents who participated in the active comparison group (ISW) was partially confirmed. LFS yielded significant differences in nonverbal communication measured by global body language and insignificant differences in verbal communication measured by oral fluency compared with ISW. Adolescents who received LFS instruction made greater gains in nonverbal communication than adolescents who received ISW, but their verbal communication skills as measured by their oral fluency was no better or worse than those exhibited after ISW training. Our findings suggest that either program may bring about reasonable gains in verbal communication skills as measured using oral fluency (percent of words not mazed). Results from our study add to the mixed results in the literature that has trained adults in verbal and nonverbal presentation skills. Although our study demonstrated immediate significant gains in both verbal and nonverbal communication, there were only significant results for nonverbal communication between LFS and ISW at Posttest 1.

There are extraneous variables worth considering that might have contributed to adolescents’ verbal communication challenges. One extraneous variable contributing to insignificant differences between these two programs could have been the instructional method used to teach verbal communication. Because verbal communication may be more nuanced in the adolescents’ oral interviews, it is possible that specific instructional methods and practice were required. Although one would predict that targeting verbal and nonverbal communication skills would be successful, research with adults did not always confirm improvements in both verbal and nonverbal communication skills. For example, De Grez et al. (2009b) included social cognitive perspective and self-regulated learning and their study also demonstrated significant improvements in body language but not vocal delivery. Instruction was delivered over four sessions using multimedia and three different modes of feedback. Moreover, De Grez et al. (2009a) included goal setting and self-reflection in their study which resulted in no significant improvements in eye contact or vocal delivery. Instruction was delivered over a school semester with and without goal setting and with and without self-reflection. In contrast, Bankowski’s (2010) study demonstrated an increase in both rate of speech and eye contact after receiving a semester’s worth of oral presentation instruction and practice. Instruction was delivered for about 15 hr over a semester. Similar to the adult literature, the way in which verbal communication was delivered in LFS may not have been different enough from ISW to demonstrate significant differences in verbal communication.

Perhaps a second extraneous variable in failing to find an advantage for LFS over ISW instruction on the verbal communication outcome measure at Posttest 1 might have been due to some potential overlap between skills taught in the two programs. One of the three overarching topics covered in the ISW program was called “executive functioning,” which targeted an adolescent’s ability to present ideas in class, to discuss, and to advocate for themselves. The major differences in instruction between LFS and ISW were that during LFS, adolescents viewed live models who demonstrated what ideal verbal communication sounded like and were given multiple opportunities to practice using fewer fillers, revisions, and repetitions in an oral presentation format. It may be that any program that incorporates aspects of executive functioning to improve one’s awareness of how his or her oral language is being delivered would result in favorable improvements in overall verbal communication functioning. Both LFS and ISW provided adolescents with this kind of instruction, resulting in equivocal findings for oral fluency. In support of our hypothesis, these adolescents did make immediate gains in their verbal skills after LFS, but they were not significantly different when compared with ISW. Adolescents may need a longer, more intense program that focuses specifically on the meta-cognitive aspects of monitoring one’s own conversation if he or she is to make lasting change in verbal communication.

A third extraneous variable that might explain the lack of significant difference between LFS and ISW on the verbal communication outcome measure at Posttest 1 could have been adolescents’ prior experiences with technology and potentially missed opportunities for oral presentation practice such as an interview. As noted by Cy, Berman, and Smith (2015), technology access is increasing for adolescents. Specifically, 93% of adolescents who are between the ages of 12 and 17 years of age have computers in the home and of the 78% who have a mobile phone, 47% of those own a smart phone. Adolescents use larger amounts of electronic medium versus face-to-face or voice-to-voice mediums to communicate, which depersonalizes the act of interpersonal communication (Subrahmanyahm & Greenfield, 2008).

When technology becomes a preferred method of communication, consequences for development of appropriate social skills can be severe (Cy et al., 2015). For example, it can be particularly challenging for adolescents to develop the ability to understand tone and inflection (Nie, Hillygus, & Erbring, 2002). Furthermore, it is believed that adolescents will have a difficult time interpreting communication without necessary verbal cues of tone and inflection or nonverbal cues such as body language and eye contact if they rely solely on technology (Shifflet, 2013). Interestingly, adolescents classify face-to-face communication, talking on the phone, and text communication as “talking” and do not differentiate between these mediums (Shifflet, 2013). It is possible that more extended conversations and practice with presentations and interviews in LFS may have been needed for adolescents to demonstrate significant differences in the use verbal skills compared with ISW (Healy, 1998).

Limitations

This study presents with some limitations. The adolescents may have been a little too young to actualize the benefits of workforce training as they were an average age of 14. Future studies may want to include adolescents of varying ages to determine if they respond differently to this training. This study could have more efficacy if the adolescents were followed for an additional 2 to 3 years and their employability was recorded during this time. Unfortunately, the circumstances in which the study was conducted did not allow for this. We would have learned more about long-term maintenance of verbal and nonverbal communication skills had we followed the adolescents longitudinally as they entered the workforce. This was beyond the scope of this study, as we initially wanted to determine if this training program would be effective for improving verbal and nonverbal communication for adolescents. Furthermore, we did not collect any information regarding the adolescents’ prior experiences or attitudes about interviewing, information about the amount of time spent on technology, or time spent communicating with adults, which may affect their verbal communication skills. Future studies should plan on collecting this type of information.

Educational and Workforce Implications

This is one of the first studies that have examined the outcomes of a training program to improve verbal and nonverbal communication skills for adolescents for the purpose of improving their performance on initial job interviews. The data empirically support the use of a comprehensive program targeting specific oral and nonverbal skills to bring about significant, positive changes in adolescents’ verbal and nonverbal communication skills. The LFS program may be helpful to educators who are working to assist adolescents in meeting requirements for higher education, and for improving their ability to be competitive in the workforce. As this program was delivered in large groups ranging from 15 to 40 adolescents, it may be effective if implemented in a regular education classroom, making it both efficient and economical. In addition, the short duration of the program may also make it possible for teachers and educators to incorporate it into their existing curricula. In terms of cost and time effectiveness, LFS may be indicated as the curriculum of choice if educators wish to bring about improvements in both verbal (revisions, false starts, repetitions) and nonverbal communication (stance, facial expressions, eye contact, and gestures) during interviews. This study indicates that LFS is a suitable program for organizations looking to implement a workforce readiness program for adolescents that teaches verbal and nonverbal communication skills. LFS may give adolescents the extra verbal and nonverbal communication skills that will make them stand out against the millennials and retirees who are competing for the same jobs.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Description of Workshops.

Workshop	Description	Sample activities
Speaker’s workshop (60 min)	Focused on components necessary for effective communication: Overarticulation, decreased rate of speech, projection of voice, varied pitch or increase of vocal intonation, elimination of filler words, establish and maintain eye contact, facial expression, and paying attention to body language.	Stand and count to 10. Describing favorite movie. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the alphabet. “Hey!” using diaphragmatic breathing. “Speak to the person outside the window.” Read a passage.
Conversation workshop (60 min)	Focused on how to shake hands, initiate, maintain, and close conversations. Practiced verbal communication skills in activities.	Practice giving handshakes, using a starter statement to begin a conversation, asking “wh” questions to maintain a conversation, and using closing statements. Using these skills in scenarios with a parent, teacher/coach, and unfamiliar adult.
Body language I (60 min)	Focused on increasing awareness of body in space during walking and sitting. Dressing for success was discussed.	Practice nonverbal communication in activities such as charades, vocal emotion, lasso game, and gestures in a story.
Body language II (60 min)	Focused on the importance of body language during oral presentations. Behaviors such as strong stance, eye contact/scanning audience, and purposeful movement were modeled and practiced.	Practice nonverbal communication in activities such as reciting a familiar children’s story with movement and gestures.
Handshakes (upon arrival)	Focused on reason for handshakes and handshake tips for first meeting, greeting, thank you, and goodbye. Scholars practiced handshakes with peers and trainers upon arrival to the program everyday.	Practice handshakes for first meetings, greetings, thank you, and goodbye.
Effective team presentations (60 min)	Scholars were divided into their debate teams and learned strategies to effectively present facts and opinions in preparation for the final project, the debate. The Scholars learned how to work as a team, how to use note cards, and how to confidently present their facts and opinions in preparation for the debate.	Scholars were assigned different team roles in the “virus” game practicing effective communication within their debate teams. Debriefed activity using speech goals.
Mock debates (120 min)	The purpose of holding mock debates was to provide the scholars with an opportunity to practice presenting high interest topics without extensive rehearsal. This required the scholars to speak the ideas that first come to mind with some emotion. It also gave them an opportunity to practice the structure of a debate prior to more formal debate held on the last day of the program.	Two teams debated a topic. One team was the “pro” side and the other was the “con” side. Scholars used speech goals as they individually presented their arguments in front of the large group.
Two-minute speeches (75 min)	Scholars were asked to prepare a brief presentation about an accomplishment they’ve made and to use speech goals during their presentation.	Stand up in front of large group while using speech goals to tell audience about an accomplishment.
Debate workshop (330 min)	The purpose of the debate was to learn how to use speech goals while discussing issues in a public, adversarial format. This activity involved using teamwork, researching topics, and organizing arguments in a concise manner.	Practice arguments using speech goals and gestures.
Newspaper challenge (60 min)	Emphasized the importance of expanding one’s own vocabulary. Scholars were encouraged to find new vocabulary by reading newspapers and prepare a presentation that included new vocabulary learned and use of speech goals.	Stand in front of large group. Use speech goals while telling title and summary of article. Define new vocabulary word.
Trivia game (105 min)	Team members worked in groups and formulated two to three questions using the vocabulary from the resource book. During the trivia game, teams answered questions and were awarded points for correct answer and use of speech goals.	Each team “spokesperson” uses speech goals while standing up and answering question in front of large group.
Guest speaker (120 min)	Outside speakers gave presentations to provide the students with a positive example for public speaking with regard to speech goals and to deliver a message that was motivational in nature. Scholars used speech goals when asking speakers questions.	Ask guest speaker questions by standing up, stating name, and using speech goals.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund, Educational Endeavors, Leap Learning Systems, Ron Gillam, Tim Slocum, Katie Snyder, Tom Watterson, Lee Thomas, and Katherine Hepworth. In addition, they thank the following research assistants: Angie Anderson, Chad Cronin, Shannon Davenport, Amanda Frandsen, Allison Hancock, Sara Hegsted, Sara Hickens, Hailey Johnson, Meg Milkanin, Natalie Nelson Buttars, Rob Robinson, and Karen Turnbow.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author was previously employed by Leap Learning Systems.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Division 1 Language Learning and Education Starfish Mini-Grant from the American Speech Language Hearing Association.

References

Ayers

(2013). The high cost of youth unemployment. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2013/04/05/59428/the-high-cost-of-youth-unemployment/

Bandura

(1977a). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bandura

(1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rev/

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes

Bankowski

(2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 187–196. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

Boyle

(1996). Modeling oral presentations. English Language Teaching Journal, 50, 115–126. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

CareerBuilder. (2015). The changing face of U.S. jobs, composition of occupations by gender, race, and age from 2001-2014. Retrieved from http://careerbuildercommunications.com/pdf/changing-face-of-us-jobs.pdf

Center for Law and Social Policy. (2014). Investing in boys and young men of color: The promise and opportunity, Issue Brief: Focus on Employment. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/CLASP-Young-Men-of-Color-Employment-Briefing-June-2014.pdf

Clement

(2013). Hiring good colleagues: What you need to know about interviewing new teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 86(3), 99–102. doi:10.1080/00098655.2013.769930

10.

Communities Collaborating to Reconnect Youth. (n.d.). Fact sheet: The youth opportunity grant evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/FACT-SHEET-FROM-the-YOUTH-OPPORTUNITY-GRANT-EVALUATION.web.pdf

11.

Berman

Smith

(2015). The role of communication technology in adolescent relationships and identity development. Child Youth Care Forum, 44, 79–92. doi:10.1007/s10566-014-9271-0

12.

De Grez

Valcke

Roozen

. (2009a). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 293–306.

13.

De Grez

Valcke

Roozen

. (2009b). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education, 52, 112–120. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.005

14.

DeGroot

Gooty

(2009). Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful personality attributions in employment interviews? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 179–192. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9098-0

15.

Friedman

Furberg

DeMets

(2010). Fundamental of clinical trials (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Gifford

Wilkinson

(1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment interview: Links between applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 729–736. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.729

17.

Healy

(1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds-for better and worse. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

18.

Hindle

(2000). Developing employment interview and interviewing skills in small-group project work. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24, 29–36. doi:10.1080/03098260085117

19.

Hollandsworth

Kazelskis

Stevens

Dressel

(1979). Relative contributions of verbal, articulative, and nonverbal communication to employment decisions in the job interview setting. Personnel Psychology, 32, 359–367. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291744-6570

20.

Howard

Ferris

(1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112–136. Retrieved from http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.innopac.library.unr.edu/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1559-1816

21.

Imada

Hakel

(1977). Influence of nonverbal communication and rater decisions in stimulated employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295–300. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/

22.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. (2015). New skills at work, building skills through summer jobs: Lessons from the field. Retrieved from https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Corporate-Responsibility/document/54887-jpmc-summeryouth-aw2.pdf

23.

Loban

(1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

24.

Miller

Iglesias

(2010). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), Research Version 2010 [Computer Software]. Middleton, WI: SALT Software, LLC.

25.

Nie

Hillygus

Erbring

(2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations, and sociability: A time diary study. In Wellman

Haythornthwaite

(Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 215–243). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

26.

Parsons

Liden

(1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: A multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 557–568. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/

27.

Peterson

(1997). Personnel interviewers’ perceptions of the importance and adequacy of applicants’ communication skills. Communication Education, 46, 287–291. doi:10.1080/03634529709379102

28.

Preston

Colman

(2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5

29.

Shifflet

(2013). Information technology and the net generation: The impact of technology on adolescent communication and interaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Information & Learning.

30.

Soergel

(2015, March 15). Why teens are getting shut out of the workforce, they’re seeing increased competition, but that’s not the only reason. U.S. News & World Report. Available from http://www.usnews.com/

31.

Spence

(1981). Validation of social skills of adolescent males in an interview conversation with a previously unknown adult. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 159–168. doi:10.1901/jaba.1981.14-159

32.

Subrahmanyahm

Greenfield

(2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 18, 119–146. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0006

33.

Sum

Khatiwada

Trubskyy

Ross

McHugh

(2014). The plummeting labor market fortunes of teens and young adults. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

34.

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Youth service competitive grants. Retrieved from https://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/discretionary.cfm

35.

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Admin-istration. (n.d.). Youth opportunity grants. Retrieved from https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/pdf/yogrants.pdf