2011 measurements of effective teaching in the traditional and online contexts teacher immediacy,...
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
1/66
MEASUREMENTS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN THE TRADITIONAL AND
ONLINE CONTEXTS: TEACHER IMMEDIACY, STUDENT MOTIVATION, &
STUDENT LEARNING
An Abstract of
a Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of
Department of Communication
Western Illinois University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
By
CHRISTINA L. FARWELL
May, 2011
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
2/66
ABSTRACT
Teacher immediacy has admittedly been a popular area of study over the past few
decades, with much of the research done on instructors verbal and nonverbal behaviors
in the classroom as they relate to student outcomes (such as motivation and learning).
Virtually all of this research has focused on the traditional classroom, under the
assumption that the online format severely limits what behaviors instructors can exhibit.
This study developed out of a growing acknowledgement that online instructors
communication behaviors, while not conforming to traditional conceptions of immediacy,
may nevertheless function similarly in the online classroom (utilizing an online version of
immediacy behaviors). The study examines the relationship between teachers verbal and
nonverbal behaviors and students perceptions of their own motivation and learning.
These relationships were compared to those resulting from a similar evaluation of the
variables in the traditional classroom.
Results demonstrated a positive relationship between the conceptualized online
immediacy, student motivation, and student learning variables in the online classroom.
Findings also confirmed past research with results showing a positive relationship
between all variables in the traditional classroom. Comparison tests revealed no
significant difference between these relationships in the traditional versus online context.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
3/66
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
4/66
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
5/66
MEASUREMENTS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN THE TRADITIONAL AND
ONLINE CONTEXTS: TEACHER IMMEDIACY, STUDENT MOTIVATION, &
STUDENT LEARNING
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of
Department of Communication
Western Illinois University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
By
CHRISTINA L. FARWELL
May, 2011
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
6/66
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 1493805
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
UMI Number: 1493805
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
7/66
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Lisa Miczo, Chairperson, and
committee members Dr. Breanna McEwan and Dr. John Miller for their valuable
guidance and suggestions on this thesis project. Their encouragement and support
throughout this project is worth more than words can express; they never gave up on me.
I also want to thank instructors Cheryl Bailey and Alicia Mathison for allowing me to
recruit participants from their classes and also Dr. Nathan Miczo for his guidance in
running the comparison tests for the studys research questions.
A special thank you is extended to my family. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for
instilling in me the values of education, responsibility, and hard work. Thank you, my
husband, for your constant support during this journey and for helping me to reach my
goal. Thank you, my children, for always cheering me on; I hope my examples
encourage you to never give up on your dreams. I love you all.
ii
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
8/66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 2Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teacher Immediacy in the Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teacher Immediacy in the Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Computer-Mediated Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student State Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 3Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
iii-iv
v
1
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
9
10
12
12
13
15
15
15
16
16
16
iii
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
9/66
Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 4Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 5Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 6Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix AImmediate Verbal Behaviors Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix BImmediate Nonverbal Behaviors Scale - Traditional Classroom .
Appendix CImmediate Nonverbal Behaviors Scale - Online Classroom . . . .
Appendix DState Motivation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix EAffective Learning Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix FPerception of Cognitive Learning Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
18
19
19
20
20
23
24
26
26
34
36
38
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
iv
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
10/66
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title
I. Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . .II. Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . .
III. Verbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . .
IV. Nonverbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations . . . . . .
Page
21
22
28
29
v
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
11/66
1
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION
Decades of research on college students have revealed a trend of graduation rates
hovering around the 50 percent mark (Astin, 1975; Braxton, 2000; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto; 1993). Many studies on the development of college
students have revealed that the time and energy students apply to their educational
activities is the best predictor of their learning and personal growth (Astin, 1993;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pace, 1980). Certain factors have been shown to
increase the level of student engagement (Astin, 1991; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh,
Schuh, Whit, & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). One such area
receiving a great deal of attention concerns teachers and their pedagogical practices.
What a teacher says and does in the classroom contributes to a students perception of
both the teacher and the subject/course (Andersen, 1979). Certain classroom behaviors in
particular, as perceived by students, have even been shown to contribute to students
perceptions of motivation and learning (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro &
McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt,
& Simonds, 2007). These behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, are aimed at reducing
the social and psychological distance between people (Andersen, 1979; Mehrabian, 1967,
1971), termed immediacy by Mehrabian. Virtually all of the research on teacher
immediacy and its effects on student outcomes has focused on the traditional classroom,
with students having face-to-face communication with instructors (Allen, Witt, &
Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel &
Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). With the advent of electronically-
delivered courses, the classroom took on a new dynamic. The format of text-based online
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
12/66
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
13/66
3
contributed to Moores (1989) theory of transactional distance. Per Moore, transactional
distance is the perceived distance between people in cyberspace. The greater the
transactional distance one perceives in the online classroom, the less communication that
occurs and the more learning suffers (Chen, 2001b; Sargeant, Curran, Allen,
Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Vonderwell, 2003). How an instructor designs the course
and chooses to interact with students in that course contributes to transactional distance
and even influences whether a student continues with the course or drops out (Steinman,
2007). Therefore, in the electronic format, transactional distance would seem to
represent the antithesis ofMehrabians (1967, 1971) description of immediacy and its
effects. By this logic, practices that instructors utilize that serve to reduce transactional
distance should increase students sense of online immediacy. Support for this
perspective is growing. For example, Mupinga, Nora, and Yaw (2006) found that
students expect frequent communication from their instructors so they dont feel like they
are lost in cyberspace. Its clear that students note and are affected by perceived
instructor immediacy behaviors in the online experience.
Recent studies of teacher immediacy in the online classroom revealed a positive
association between perceptions of an instructors immediacy and students reports of
both satisfaction and learning (Arbaugh, 2001, 2002, 2004). Some of these studies have
measured both verbal and nonverbal immediacy by asking participants to report on
nonverbal cues using either video footage or still photos of instructors teaching (Bodie,
2010; Copeland & Warren, 2004). Many other studies have operationalized immediacy
as a verbal element only, arguing that lack of face-to-face contact severely limits
nonverbal communication (Arbaugh, 2001, 2010; Baker, 2004; Fisher & Katt, 2007;
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
14/66
4
VanHorn, Pearson, & Child, 2008). The nonverbal element of immediacy, on the other
hand, has often been left out of research on online courses where students receive no
video images of their instructor. There are several explanations for this. Some CMC
scholars take the cues-filtered-out approach, regarding CMC as less able to produce
meaningful interactions due to the lack of emotional and nonverbal cues such as vocal
variety and body language (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Neumann, 2009). Other scholars
argue CMC allows users to build online connections through verbal immediacy behaviors
alone (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; LaRose & Whitten, 2001; Richardson & Swan,
2001; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Nevertheless, nonverbal cues in the
online environment have been identified for their ability to convey immediacy
(Carey,1980; Riordan & Kreuz, 2010). The identification of these cues as variances of or
proxies for nonverbal face-to-face communication cues demonstrates the potential for
teachers to use these cues when communicating with students in the online classroom.
This study seeks to broaden the research on the potential for textual and
chronemic proxies for nonverbal behaviors to operate as immediacy cues in the online
classroom and to observe their association with student perceptions of motivation,
affective learning, and cognitive learning. Additionally, this study will examine a similar
set of traditional nonverbal behaviors for their association to the outcome variables as a
means of comparison.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
15/66
5
CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher Immediacy in the Traditional Classroom
DeVito provides an updated conceptualization of immediacy as the joining of the
speaker and listener, the creation of a sense of togetherness, (1990, p. 165). Calling
students by name, asking for students feedback, smiling, gesturing, and eye contact are
examples of behaviors that teachers use to include students in the classroom (Frymier &
Houser, 2000). These immediacy behaviors are both verbal and nonverbal.
Verbal immediacy. In the learning environment, teacher verbal immediacy
behaviors include verbal messages that recognize students, incorporate student responses
into the class, express availability, and use humor and self-disclosure (Gorham, 1988;
Jensen, 2002). Some examples of verbal immediacy would include using present rather
than past verb tense, using inclusive language such as the word we instead of I,
addressing students by name, asking students for their opinions, and using humor
(Frymier & Houser, 2000; Gorham, 1988; Weiner & Mehrabian, 1968).
Nonverbal immediacy. Guerrero, Hecht, and DeVito (2008) define nonverbal
communication as messages without words that people exchange when interacting with
each other. These messages are conveyed through a wide variety of behaviors, including
body language, appearance, vocal cues (e.g. volume, rate, pitch, pauses), use of space,
and touch (Guerrero, Hecht, & DeVito, 2008). Examples of nonverbal immediacy would
include closer proximity to others, smiles, gestures, head nods, eye contact, and vocal
expressiveness (Andersen, 1979). Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson (2003) created
the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS) that includes the previous behaviors as well as
items measuring vocal and facial animation and forward lean.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
16/66
6
Teacher Immediacy in the Online Classroom
Because online education continues to evolve, there are several definitions of
what constitutes an online class. The U.S. Department of Educations National Center
for Education Statistics (2008) defines online education as distance education, or a
formal education process in which the students and instructor are not in the same place,
and may involve communication through the use of video, audio, or computer
technologies, or by correspondence (including written correspondence and the use of
technology such as CD-ROM), (Response section, para. 1). As such, some online
classes may be synchronous while others are asynchronous. Some courses are referred to
as codec courses, which allow instructors to video broadcast their courses in real time;
instructors are both visible and audible to students and vice versa (NAUNet, 1998).
Another version is the hybrid course, also known as a blended course that combines
traditional, face-to-face classroom meetings with online/distance components (El
Mansour & Mupinga, 2007). The third type (the type the present study will focus on) is
the text-based online course. The latter type of online course features geographic
separation of instructor and students, no face-to-face communication, course contact
deployed through use of a computer, and most communication occurring asynchronously
(El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007; Guerrero & Miller, 1998).
Verbal immediacy. Scholars researching teacher immediacy in online
environments have focused on textual verbal immediacy, claiming that the typed
messages in the online course can be seen in the same light as the messages that teachers
verbalize in a traditional, face-to-face course (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992;
Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005). These scholars explain that instructors can still create
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
17/66
7
a sense of closeness through addressing students by name in feedback/reply messages,
using humor in messages typed to students, and usingpronouns such as us and we
when referring to the class to create the feeling of inclusiveness.
What is more difficult to determine is how nonverbal cues can be present in the
online context when no visual images of the instructor are present. In an online
classroom, where students and instructors have only the computer to maneuver through
class, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is the only means of communication.
Computer-mediated communication. In the early days of CMC, the online
environment was criticized in regards to the formation and quality of social relationships,
specifically due to the lack of nonverbal cues. Social presence theory was applied in
these criticisms. Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) described social presence as
involving a communicator using warmth and friendliness toward the target in a
conversation. Per this theory, when the number of cue systems is limited or decreased,
the amount of social presence communicators experience is also decreased. The criticism
here is that social presence is more difficult to achieve in the online context since CMC
limits the amount of nonverbal cues available.
Walther (2006) addressed social presence theory by applying chronemics, or the
use of time to communicate; the time it takes one person to respond to another in the
online setting communicates a more or less immediate presence of that person. The more
timely a persons response, the more warmth and friendliness felt by the target party,
indicating greater social presence. Looking specifically at social presence in the online
classroom, Bodie (2010) explained that the students awareness of the teacher being
present in the classroom can create the sense of more closeness and less distance (the
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
18/66
8
main concept behind immediacy). Student awareness of the instructor has been
researched in several ways. Swan (2001), like Walther, brought up the issue of
chronemics. In Swans study of the online classroom, the amount of interaction between
instructors and students was an indicator for teaching presence, focusing on how often
interactions took place. In 2003, Richardson and Swan studied teacher presence in the
online classroom and its link to student perceptions of learning; they claimed teacher
immediacy behaviors take into account the same phenomena as social presence,
explaining that teachers making contributions to the online classroom are communicating
to students that they are present. Each time a message is posted or feedback is given, the
teacher is verifying his/her existence in the class. The less communication that occurs,
the greater the transactional distance a student perceives, which is the antithesis of
immediacy (Chen, 2001b; Sargeant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006;
Vonderwell, 2003). Therefore, by an instructor communicating more frequently, students
perceive more teacher presence and more togetherness or closeness with the instructor.
Arbaugh (2010) also paired immediacy and teacher presence together. This study also
focused on chronemics, with explanations about time that teachers take to clarify course
goals, procedures, and responses. If teachers are taking time to provide thorough and
thoughtful course directions, feedback, and responses, then students perceive the
instructor as being present. Timeliness of feedback and responses indicates teacher
presence, too (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wagner, 1997). The longer it takes a teacher to
respond to a students question or assignment, the more a student feels distance from the
teacher.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
19/66
9
Nonverbal immediacy. The current studys arguments more closely align with
Walthers social information processing theory (2008). Although the online environment
limits the cue systems individuals have to draw upon for communication, language and
writing in the online context can be manipulated by individuals to represent nonverbal
cues; these representations can be just as useful as the traditional cues in regards to social
relationships. An experiment by Walther, Loh, and Granka (2005) found no difference in
immediacy between dyadic partners, whether in the face-to-face or CMC context. Per
Walther (2008), individuals find alternate ways to communicate nonverbal cues when the
face-to-face element is missing. These specific ways, or behaviors, have been identified
by Carey (1980).
Carey (1980) defined five categories of nonverbal cues in computer-mediated
communication and Riordan and Kreuz re-examined these cues in their 2010 study. Four
of the categories, because they proxy for vocal variety, expressions, and emotions, are
noteworthy for their links to immediacy (i.e., their capacity for increasing psychological
closeness). The first two categories are vocal spelling (spelling out a word to imitate
vocal intonation, such as weeeelllll) and lexical surrogates (spelling out a sound one
would make to indicate speaking tone, such as mhmm). A third category is spatial
arrays, which involves the use of emoticons and the use of sequences of keyboard strokes
to imitate nonverbal behaviors such as facial expressions (). Another category involves
manipulated grammatical markers including additional punctuation and capital letters to
express emotion (!!! for excitement), pauses (), and tone of voice (WHAT! to
indicate shock). Flaming, or using all capital letters would be considered part of this
category (Turnage, 2007). Notice how nonverbal elements are imitated and compensated
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
20/66
10
for through the keyboard of the computer. Due to the nature of Careys (1980) fifth
category and its irrelevance to immediacy, minus features (absence of certain language
standards that normally appear in traditional writing), was not included in the present
research.
Student State Motivation
Research indicates that there is a positive relationship between teacher immediacy
and a students state motivation, in that the more immediate a student perceives the
instructor, the more motivated the student perceives him/herself regarding the course
(Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Richmond, 1990). Student motivation
has been defined in many different ways. Ames (1986) defined it as goal-directed
activity that involves different ways of thinking (p. 236), and then claimed that it is not
simply the amount of effort a student puts into a task, but also how the student views
himself, the task, and performance on the task. Frymier (1993) described motivation as
two separate concepts: state motivation and trait motivation. Trait motivation is mainly
inherent and less likely to be influenced by situational factors. State motivation, on the
other hand, is influenced by situational factors, including the course instructor. This can
include the instructional methods the teacher employs in the classroom, the teachers
organization, and the teachers presentation (Keller, 1987).
A large part of motivating students begins with garnering the attention of those
students (Wlodkowski, 1978). Wlodkowski (1978) indicated several strategies to use in
getting students attention; these included using body language, humor, stories, and
involving students in the learning. In relation to the behaviors previously described for
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
21/66
11
communicating immediacy, these attention-getting actions closely align with immediacy
cues. In line with this reasoning, the following hypothesis is offered:
H1: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both
verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively
associated with students reports of state motivation.
Moreover, in line with the above arguments that the messages typed in the online course
may function to engender immediacy much like traditional immediacy behaviors that
teachers verbalize in a face-to-face course (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992;
Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005), the following hypothesis and research question are
forwarded.
H2: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students
reports of state motivation.
RQ1: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students
reports of state motivation?
As a means of exploring the premise of social information processing theory, the
following research question will be addressed.
RQ2: Will the association between immediacy behaviors in the traditional
classroom and student motivation be stronger than the association between
immediacy behaviors in the online classroom and student motivation?
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
22/66
12
Student Learning
Student learning, as it is associated with teacher immediacy, has been an area of
avid research interest. Numerous studies demonstrate a positive relationship between
teacher immediacy and learning outcomes (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro &
McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt,
& Simonds, 2007). Student learning can be broken into two distinct parts: affective
learning and cognitive learning.
Affective learning. Affective learning, according to Christophel (1990), is the
attitude a student has toward a teacher or course. Teven and McCroskey (1997)
expanded this definition further to include students affect toward the course content and
their likelihood of enrolling in another course of similar content. To confirm and
examine the relationship between immediacy behaviors and affective learning outcomes
in the traditional and online course delivery, the following hypotheses and research
question are advanced.
H3: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both
verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively
associated with students reports of affective learning.
H4: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students
reports of affective learning.
RQ3: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students
reports of affective learning?
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
23/66
13
Cognitive learning. Cognitive learning differs significantly from affective
learning in that the focus is on the comprehension and retention of knowledge (Bloom,
1956; Christophel, 1990). This type of learning deals with skills, concepts, or theories
learned as a result of the class and the ability to use that knowledge in a future setting.
The ability to recall, analyze, and synthesize this information would also indicate
cognitive learning (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). Past research measuring
immediacy behaviors and their relationship to learning has come under fire due to the use
of student self-reports to measure cognitive learning. As Carrell (2010) asserted,
perception of learning and authentic learning are different things; one is measured using
self-reports (as this study does), and the other using observer reports. Previous research,
specifically in the field of communication, found a close link between perceptions of
cognitive learning (self reports) and actual cognitive learning (observer reports) (Carrell,
2009, 2010). In Carrells (2009) study on communication training for clergy, ministers
self-assessments of communication competence became more parallel with observer
assessments when meaningful feedback was given by observers, lending evidence that
learning was occurring. Therefore, if instructors are giving thorough feedback that
communicates the relationship between teacher and student and addresses the content of a
students work, that student has information to be able to more accurately evaluate their
own learning in the class. To examine perception of cognitive learning as a learning
outcome associated with immediacy behaviors in both the traditional and online contexts,
the following hypotheses and research question will be tested.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
24/66
14
H5: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both
verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively
associated with students reports of cognitive learning.
H6: Students perceptionsof an instructors measured verbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students
reports of cognitive learning.
RQ4: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy
behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students
reports of cognitive learning?
Finally, as a further exploration of the tenets of social information processing
theory, a final research question will be forwarded.
RQ5: Will the association between immediacy behaviors in the traditional
classroom and student learning outcomes be stronger than the association
between immediacy behaviors in the online classroom and student learning
outcomes?
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
25/66
15
CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGY
Procedures
Three introductory communication classes at a mid-sized Midwestern university
were utilized to examine teacher immediacy and its effects in both the traditional and
online contexts. One class featured the traditional, face-to-face setting and two classes
used the text-based online setting. The traditional class was delivered through a lecture
format, in a mass lecture setting. The mass lecture format was chosen for potential
similarities to the online class, in the sense that students report similar feelings of
distance (such as estrangement, impersonality, and decreased communication between
them and the instructor) (Smith, Kopfman, & Ahyun, 1996), to provide a more
conservative comparison between the traditional and online contexts.
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Participants received extra credit
points from the instructor for being a part of the research study. Preserving anonymity of
the participants, students were asked to identify themselves on a page separate from their
answers to survey questions, which allowed the students name to be submitted to his/her
instructor for extra credit.
Data was collected using QuestionPro, with the surveys available from December
1 through December 13 of the fall semester. This timing ensured that respondents would
be well acquainted with the teachers typical classroom behaviors/communication
practices.
Measures
Self-report measures were used to establish students perceptions of verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, state motivation, affective learning, and cognitive
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
26/66
16
learning. In order to provide a more accurate comparison of both classroom contexts, this
study attempted to match scale items as closely as possible between the two delivery
venues. In addition, three demographic questions were answered by participants after
completing the self-report measures, including sex, student status (year in school), and
age.
Verbal immediacy. This was a 14-item Likert scale (see Appendix A) each
participant completed, with items coming from Gorhams (1988) Verbal Immediacy
Behaviors (VIB) scale. Originally a 17-item scale, this study eliminated three items
(engaging in conversation/meeting before and after class and calling on students to
answer questions even when they have not indicated they want to talk) due to the
inapplicability of these behaviors in the online classroom. The modified scale was used
for both the traditional and online courses. Sample items included asking questions,
using humor, addressing students by name, and praising students work. The alpha
reliability for this scale was .86 for the traditional classroom and .88 for the online
classroom.
Nonverbal immediacy. Since nonverbal immediacy behaviors scales previously
created require the students to be able to physically watch their instructor teach
(Andersen, 1979; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987), two different scales were
used in this study, one for the traditional classroom and another for the online classroom.
Despite the differences, both scales were matched as closely as possible to measure
similar behaviors (and/or in the case of the online course, a proxy for those behaviors).
Traditional classroom. For the traditional classroom, a 14-item Likert-type scale
(see Appendix B) was completed by each participant. This scale was used to measure
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
27/66
17
students perceptions of their instructors nonverbal behaviors. Six items came from
Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnsons (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS). These
items generally pertain to animation: gesturing, vocal tone, vocal expressiveness,
animation, and facial expressions. Proxies for these behaviors via online communication
were felt to be similar enough for the inclusion of these six items. Sample items included
gesturing, animation, and smiling. The other items from the NIS were deleted in an effort
to keep the traditional and online measures as similar as possible.
Eight items dealing with chronemics were also utilized. Five items dealt with
thorough, thoughtful communication/responses (requiring more commitment of time);
three of these five items came from Arbaughs (2010) research and focused on clarity and
thoroughness of course topics, goals, and instructions, while the other two were
developed by the researcher and dealt with thoughtful responses/feedback on questions
and assignments. The remaining three items were developed based off of past research
and specifying timeliness of responses/feedback (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wagner, 1997)
and frequency of communication (Swan, 2001). Sample items included giving prompt
feedback on questions, responding to most every comment contributed by students, and
taking time to provide thoughtful responses on assignments. These eight items were also
part of the nonverbal immediacy scale for the online classroom (see below). The alpha
reliability for this scale in the traditional classroom was .89.
Online Classroom. A 14-item Likert-type scale (see Appendix C) was also
completed by participants for the online classroom. Again, this scale was used to
measure students perceptions of their instructors nonverbal behaviors. Six of the 14
items were developed by the researcher based on past research in computer-mediated
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
28/66
18
communication and nonverbal behaviors. These six items were specific to the online
context, yet appear to operate as proxies for face-to-face nonverbal behaviors. Use of
social verbs to translate a physical action (Neumann, 2009) was measured in comparison
to gestures in the traditional classroom. Words typed in all capital letters to indicate
emotion (Ledbetter & Larson, 2008) was measured in comparison to vocal tone in the
traditional classroom. Use of acronyms as a means of expression, such as LOL for
laughing out loud (Neumann, 2009), was measured in comparison to vocal
expressiveness in the traditional classroom. Vocal expressiveness in the online classroom
was also measured through use of interjections, such as Wow! (Neumann, 2009). Use
of punctuation to suggest animation, such as exclamation points (Carey, 1980; Riordan &
Kreuz, 2010), was measured in comparison to face-to-face animation in the traditional
classroom. Use of emoticons, or keyboard symbols representing facial expressions
(Ledbetter & Larson, 2008; McCalman, 2008), was measured in comparison to facial
expressions in the traditional classroom.
The other eight items were the same items used in the traditional classroom, with
slight rewording to better reflect the online context. For example, rather than when
holding class discussions, the online item read on class discussion boards. The added
items related to chronemics, or how effective the teacher is with his/her use of time in
communicating with students. The alpha reliability for this scale in the online classroom
was .88.
State motivation. Christophels (1990) State Motivation Scale (see Appendix D)
was completed by each participant. This scale measured students motivational attitudes
and asked students to report on their feelings about taking the class using a 12-item
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
29/66
19
semantic differential scale. Sample items included motivated/unmotivated,
inspired/uninspired, and challenged/unchallenged. Alpha reliability for this scale was .93
for the traditional classroom and .95 for the online classroom.
Affective learning. McCroskeys (1994) 16-item affective learning scale (see
Appendix E) was completed by each participant. Students attitudes toward course
content and course instructor were measured using semantic-differential scales. Sample
items included content of the course/instructor is valuable/worthless, positive/negative,
and fair/unfair. Alpha reliability for this scale was .96 for both the traditional and online
classrooms.
Cognitive learning. A perception of cognitive learning scale was completed by
each participant. This six-item scale (see Appendix F) featured a subset of a 28-item
scale Hiltz (1988) used to measure students perceived learning and classroom evaluation
in an online course. This subset was chosen due to the items focusing on skills/theories
learned and synthesis of information, as conceptualized as cognitive learning in this
study. Sample items included gaining a good understanding of basic concepts of the
material and also the ability to communicate clearly about the subject. Alpha reliability
for this scale was .96 for the traditional classroom and .86 for the online classroom.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
30/66
20
CHAPTER 4RESULTS
For the traditional classroom, 51% of the participants were male and 49% were
female. Ages ranged from 18 to 25,M
= 19.77 (SD
= 1.55). The majority of the
participants in the traditional classroom were underclassmen, with 58% being either
freshman or sophomores and 42% being either juniors or seniors.
For the online classroom, 48% of the participants were male and 52% were
female. Ages ranged from 19 to 50,M= 26.29 (SD = 9.5). The majority of the
participants in the online classroom were upperclassmen, with 29% being sophomores
and 71% being either juniors or seniors.
Data was collected during the fall semester for one large traditional class (N= 57)
and two small online classes (total ofN= 35). Table I reports the mean, standard
deviation, and alpha reliability for each variable in the traditional classroom, as well as a
correlation matrix of all the variables examined for the traditional classroom. Table II
reports on the mean, standard deviation, and alpha reliability for each variable, in
addition to a correlation matrix of the variables for the online classroom.
Motivation
Hypothesis onepredicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy
behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students
reports of state motivation in the traditional classroom. In the traditional classroom,
students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors were significantly and
positively correlated with their reports of state motivation, r(57) = .61,
p < .01. The hypothesis was supported.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
31/66
21
Table I
Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Traditional Classroom
Note: *p < .01, **p < .05.
Variables M SD VI NVI I M AL
Verbal Immediacy (VI) 3.45 .61 .86
Nonverbal Immediacy (NVI) 3.90 .57 .89 .62*
Immediacy (I) 3.67 .53 .92 .91* .89*
Motivation (M) 4.84 .92 .93 .60* .48* .61*
Affective Learning (AL) 5.74 1.13 .96 .56* .59* .65* .65*
Cognitive Learning (CL) 3.91 .77 .96 .04 .38* .21 .49* .26**
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
32/66
22
Table II
Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Online Classroom
Note: *p < .01,p < .05, two-tailed.
Variables M SD VI NVI I M AL
Verbal Immediacy (VI) 3.60 .63 .88
Nonverbal Immediacy (NVI) 3.17 .68 .88 .58*
Immediacy (I) 3.43 .58 .92 .88* .90*
Motivation (M) 4.95 1.16 .95 .60* .26 .50*
Affective Learning (AL) 5.75 1.06 .96 .52* .48 .57* .76*
Cognitive Learning (CL) 4.10 .60 .88 .69* .39 .61* .72* .74*
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
33/66
23
Hypothesis twopredicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of
an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of state motivation in
the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors
verbal immediacy behaviors was significantly andpositively correlated with students
reports of state motivation, r(35) = .60, p < .01. This hypothesis was also supported.
The first research question inquired whether a positive association would exist
between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students
reports of state motivation in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a positive
relationship between the two variables, but it was not significant, r(35), = .26, p = .23.
The second research question asked whether the relationship between immediacy
behaviors and motivation in the traditional classroom would be stronger than the
relationship between these two variables in the online classroom. To compute this, a
Fishersz Comparison test was run to test the significance of the difference between the
correlation of immediacy to state motivation in the traditional classroom and the
correlation of these variables in the online classroom. No significant difference was
found (z= .13, p = .27).
Affective Learning
Hypothesis threepredicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy
behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students
reports of affective learning in the traditional classroom. In the traditional classroom,
students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors were significantly and
positively correlated with their reports of affective learning, r(57) = .65, p < .01. This
hypothesis was supported.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
34/66
24
Hypothesis fourpredicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of
an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of affective learning in
the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors
verbal immediacy behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with students
reports of affective learning, r(35) = .52, p < .01. This hypothesis was supported.
The third research question explored whether a positive association would exist
between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students
reports of affective learning in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a
significant positive relationship between the two variables r(35) = .48, p < .05.
Cognitive Learning
Hypothesis fivepredicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy
behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students
reports of cognitive learning in the traditional classroom. While the correlation test
revealed a positive relationship between the two variables, there was not a significant
relationship, r(57) = .21, p = .08.
Hypothesis sixpredicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of
an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of cognitive learning in
the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors
verbal immediacy behaviors were significantly andpositively correlated with students
reports of cognitive learning, r(35) = .69, p < .01. This hypothesis was supported.
The fourth research question inquired whether a positive association would exist
between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
35/66
25
reports of cognitive learning in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a
significant positive relationship between the two variables r(35) = .39, p < .05.
The fifth and final research question asked whether the relationship between
immediacy behaviors and student learning in the traditional classroom would be stronger
than the relationship between these variables in the online classroom. In order to test
this, both affective and cognitive learning were computed into a new variable to represent
an expanded measure of students overall perceptions of learning in the class. Alpha
reliability for this variable was .95 in the traditional classroom and .96 in the online
classroom. A Fishersz Comparison test was then run to test the significance of the
difference between the correlation of immediacy to learning in the traditional classroom
and the correlation of these variables in the online classroom. No significant difference
was found (z= .61, p = .45).
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
36/66
26
CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION
Discussion
While much research has been done on teacher immediacy and its relationship to
student motivation and learning, minimal research has examined these variables in the
online classroom due to the nature of the context. Those studies that have examined
these variables in the online classroom focused only on verbal immediacy behaviors that
logically translated to text-based practices (e.g., use of humor, referring to the class as
our class, and addressing students by name) (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992;
Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005) or tested nonverbal immediacy using video footage or
still photos of the instructor (Bodie, 2010; Copeland & Warren, 2004). This study sought
to establish the value of examining online instructor text-based behaviors for their
relation to perceptions of teacher immediacy. Specifically, this study examined students
perceptions of both verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors teachers used in the
purely text-based online classroom and the relationship between those behaviors and
students perceptions of their own motivation and learning.
Several interesting findings emerged. While this study confirmed what previous
research has revealed regarding immediacy behaviors in the traditional classroom (a
positive relationship exists between immediacy and motivation and learning outcomes),
of greatest interest were the results regarding text-based behaviors/practices of instructors
that were thought to proxy for immediacy behaviors. Both the nonverbal and verbal
immediacy behaviors demonstrated positive relationships to students reports of
motivation and learning outcomes (the association between nonverbal immediacy and
motivation, however, was not significant).
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
37/66
27
The scale of primary interest in this study was the one used for nonverbal
immediacy in the online classroom, with secondary interest in the modifications made to
the corresponding traditional classroom measure developed by Richmond, McCroskey,
and Johnsons (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS). All items for the Immediate
Nonverbal Behaviors scale used in this study were chosen based on a broadened
conceptualization of immediacy. Specifically, this premise was that text-based instructor
practices could function as proxies for traditional nonverbal behaviors in terms of
engendering student perceptions of instructor immediacy/engagement. When comparing
the means of the nonverbal immediacy variable between the traditional and online
contexts (see Tables III and IV), a significant difference was found, t(56.13) = 5.06,
p < .001. This could be due to the low reports of students perceptions that the instructor
communicated animation, expression, and emotion through various keyboard functions
(e.g., acronyms, punctuation, and interjections) (see Tables III and IV). These were the
items put together from Careys (1980) research on CMC and used as representations of
what Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson (2003) used in their Nonverbal Immediacy
Scale for the traditional classroom. With the means ranging between never and rarely for
these nonverbal items, the question arises as to whether or not instructors online are
communicating animation, expression, and emotion. If that communication is taking
place, how is that behavior being represented? Are there other ways instructors use
keyboard functions to communicate nonverbal elements that this study did not identify or
are those behaviors not being used online? Walthers (2008) social information
processing theory asserts that individuals find alternative ways to communicate
nonverbally when the face-to-face element is missing. Those items this study identified
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
38/66
28
Table III
Verbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations
Traditional Online
Verbal Behavior M SD M SD
Uses personal examples 3.43 .88 3.14 1.06
Asks questions/encourages comments 4.29 .65 4.08 .86
Discusses something student brings up even whennot part of plans
3.50 .96 3.19 1.27
Uses humor 4.40 .77 3.14 .89
Addresses students by name 3.31 1.10 3.70 1.13
Addresses me by name 2.79 1.53 3.75 1.11
Refers to class as our class 3.93 .97 4.17 .74
Provides feedback through comments 3.22 1.20 4.17 .81
Asks students about feelings on assignments 3.05 1.14 2.95 1.10
Invites students to call or meet if have questions 4.03 .96 4.08 1.06
Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions 3.86 .89 4.16 .73
Praises students work 3.37 .92 4.00 .84
Will have discussions unrelated to class 3.02 1.16 2.51 1.19
Is addressed by first name by students 2.52 1.17 2.84 1.17
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
39/66
29
Table IV
Nonverbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations
Traditional Online
Nonverbal Behavior M SD M SD
Uses gestures/social verbs to translate physical action 4.22 .84 2.08 1.05
Uses monotone voice/words typed in italics or caps to
indicate emotion2.05 1.05 2.77 1.14
Uses variety of vocal expressions/acronyms 4.07 .82 1.67 1.12
Is animated/uses punctuation to indicate expressiveness 4.03 .84 2.74 1.04
Uses vocal variety/interjections to express emotion 4.10 .85 2.64 1.10
Smiles/uses emoticons 3.90 .97 1.77 1.22
Prompt feedback on questions 3.95 .83 3.94 1.04
Prompt feedback on assignments 3.76 .98 3.75 1.11
Clearly communicates course topics 4.21 .79 4.00 .93
Clearly communicates course goals 4.21 .81 4.08 1.03
Provides clear instructions on how to participate in
learning activities4.09 .85 4.06 .96
In class/discussion board, responds to most every
comment4.26 .79 3.11 1.08
Takes time to provide thoughtful responses to my
comments/questions3.95 .98 4.00 1.16
Takes time to provide thoughtful responses on my
assignments
3.41 1.03 4.00 .97
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
40/66
30
as nonverbal immediacy cues did not have a high rate of use, so now the question arises
as to what, if anything, is being used by instructors online as an alternative.
Examining the significant difference in means for nonverbal immediacy across
the two contexts, the online course could be said to be disadvantaged in terms of
available immediacy cues, yet there is no significant difference between the computed
motivation and learning variables and immediacy correlations across formats. This
would seem to imply that what immediacy/proxy variables there are available to online
courses are carrying the weight for those relationships. The fact that students are
perceiving these immediacy behaviors, that alphas for the Immediate Nonverbal
Behaviors scale are around .88, and that significant findings were revealed, speak to the
scales utility for this study.
Aside from these differences that exist between nonverbal behaviors used in the
traditional and online classes, there are some similarities. The likenesses are found in the
items dealing with presence, specifically timeliness and frequency of feedback/responses.
Most of these eight items were perceived by students to be used often and included
prompt feedback, clear communication of topics/goals, clear instructions, frequent
responses to comments, and thoughtful responses to comments/questions and
assignments. As the methodology of the study explains, these items were included due to
their measurement of perceived psychological closeness/engagement of the instructor
with the student. If its taken into consideration that nonverbal messages can work to
establish the relationship between individuals (Burgoon, 1994; Mehrabian, 1971), then
looking at teacher presence in light of thoroughness (from the standpoint of time spent
creating the message) and frequency of communication to help interactants to be on the
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
41/66
31
same page or have the sense of being together on an issue, this can be qualified as a
message that works to build the relationship between persons. Some may still argue that
teacher presence is not the same as immediacy, but the evidence that these elements give
that sense of connection (a proxy for immediacy) obligates us to consider its role in
online instruction. If those behaviors make students feel closer to the instructor, then
immediacy is being achieved and the problem of transactional distance in the online
environment is being lessened.
What this research tried to do for the online context, as much as possible, was
demonstrate that proxies for verbal behaviors done in text (such as addressing student by
name and referring to the class as our class) are proxies for verbal immediacy. For
nonverbal behaviors in the online classroom, measures in this study demonstrated what
others indicate are functions of nonverbal presence. However, when looking at different
classroom contexts, it becomes difficult to continue talking about immediacy as verbal or
nonverbal when in the text-based format all run together. This research argues that the
combination of factors in the online context is electronic immediacy. Future research
should examine these types and other ways that can provide a sense of teacher presence
or absence of presence.
Shifting the focus from nonverbal immediacy behaviors to the other variables
examined in this study, a different outcome was revealed when testing the comparison of
means for verbal immediacy, motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning
between the two contexts. No significant difference emerged for verbal immediacy,
t(84) = 1.07, p = .29. Table IV shows most of the means hovered around the 3.5 range,
making the perception that the instructor used immediate verbal behaviors fall between
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
42/66
32
occasionally and often. Further examination of this table shows three areas in particular
to be used by instructors often in the traditional classroom: asking questions/encouraging
students to comment, using humor, and inviting students to call or meet if they have
questions. The online classroom also reported the behaviors of asking
questions/encouraging students to comment and inviting students to call or meet if they
have questions as being used often, with several other areas added to the list of behaviors
happening frequently: referring to the class as our class/what we are doing, providing
feedback through comments, asking questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions, and
praising students work. On the flip side, both classroom contexts had behaviors that
studentsperceived to be rarely used. For the traditional classroom these were addresses
me by name and is addressed by first name by students. Since this classroom was in a
mass lecture format, it makes sense that the instructor would rarely address students by
name, as a large number of students are present during class and the platform focuses on
lecture with little discussion. For the online classroom, those elements falling into the
rarely category as perceived by students were the instructor asking students how they
felt about assignments, due dates, or discussions topic; having discussions unrelated to
class; and, students addressing instructor by their first name. Notice here that addresses
student by name does not appear to be used rarely. In fact, the mean for this behavior
was close to the often marker in the online classroom. Thinking about that context, the
instructor has constant access to names, as questions and assignments posted by students
are generally marked with their names automatically through the technology platform the
online class uses (Knauff, 2010).
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
43/66
33
Means were also compared for the student outcome variables of motivation,
affective learning, and cognitive learning between the traditional and online contexts.
The motivation variable had no significant difference, t(70) = .43, p = .67. Likewise,
results for affective learning led to no significant difference between the contexts,
t(79) = .03, p = .98. When testing differences in cognitive learning for the traditional
versus online format, again, no significant differences were found, t(90) = 1.25, p = .22.
Though the online class could be said to have been disadvantaged by the lack of
traditional immediacy behaviors, no significant differences emerged in terms of the
variables of interest. Thus, it could be argued through this study that perceptions of
instructor immediacy are no less relevant in the online classroom than in the traditional
one. Rather, the positive and significant findings demonstrate that perceived instructor
immediacy plays an important part in students perceptions of their own motivation and
learning outcomes regardless of the class context.
While this study/data in no way asserts that immediacy causes students to be
motivated or causes students to learn, the findings here support that there is a significant
association between students having a more positive response to instructor, course, and
material and perceptions of immediacy behaviors practiced by the instructor. The
concept of immediacy has been under fire by researchers in the past, especially when
student learning is involved. Criticisms have been made regarding the study of
immediacy as a whole in relation to cognitive learning, with arguments that past research
has not been done in a manner that indicates a causal relationship and also that the
common measures used to gauge cognitive learning are not actually measuring that
variable at all (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). These are
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
44/66
34
legitimate arguments that should be taken into consideration. The purpose of this study,
however, was not to suggest that immediacy causes motivation or learning for students,
but rather to test the relationship that does exist between those variables in a new context,
the online environment. This study gives us a beginning glimpse of what nonverbal
immediacy translates to in the online classroom and how it contributes to student
perceptions of motivation and learning. It can certainly be argued that in the electronic
classroom, the concern for establishing an instructors presence is heightened when
arguably so much else from the traditional classroom dynamic is lost in that change of
format. Moreover, as online education experiences rapid growth (Brooks, 2009), it is
paramount to learn more about teachers behaviors online and the association between
those behaviors and student perceptions.
Limitations
As with any research study, there are limitations that must be addressed. The first
limitation deals with the small sample size. As a whole, the study only had 92
participants, with 57 reporting from the traditional classroom and only 35 students from
the online classroom. Significant findings emerged despite this small sample size, but
future research in this area could include a larger sample with more equal numbers
between the two class contexts.
It is also important to note that both the verbal and nonverbal scales used for the
traditional classroom were modified scales, using only portions of the original scales.
The modifications were made in an effort for behaviors in the traditional classroom to
proxy for those in the online format. Due to the nature of the text-based online course,
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
45/66
35
there was a limited measure of immediacy items that could be included and measure for
across contexts.
A third limitation deals with the type of data collected. This study only took into
account students perceptions of their teachers behaviors and their own motivation and
learning. Teachers were not asked to complete self reports on their behaviors, nor did the
researcher observe teachers behaviors. Observational data (including content analysis of
online course texts) could be very valuable to include in a future project, as a comparison
on behaviors could then be made between observer reports and student reports, as well as
providing for descriptive analyses. This study also did not focus on actual grades for
students. Due to the ability of students assessments of their own cognitive learning to
parallel observers/teachers reports of cognitive learning, specifically when meaningful
feedback is given to students (Carrell, 2009, 2010), students perceptions of cognitive
learning were utilized in this study. Exam scores were not collected nor were students
asked to supply their grades. In the future, taking exam scores/class grades into
consideration, along with students perceptions of their learning, would help to measure
actual cognitive learning as opposed to only perceptions of cognitive learning.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
46/66
36
CHAPTER 6CONCLUSION
For decades the phenomenon of immediacy has been studied in relation to
students motivation and learning. This research has focused on the traditional classroom
where face-to-face communication is present (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro
& McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt,
& Simonds, 2007). More recently, teacher immediacy has been studied in the online
classroom, with some research examining verbal immediacy only (Arbaugh, 2001, 2010;
Baker, 2004; Fisher & Katt, 2007; VanHorn, Pearson, & Child, 2008) and other research
using video footage/still photos to measure nonverbal immediacy (Bodie, 2010; Copeland
& Warren, 2004). Knowing that online education has experienced tremendous growth
(Brooks, 2009) and that this form of education often includes a purely text-based format,
the current study sought to explore the potential for text-based practices to function
similarly to immediacy behaviors in the text-based online classroom, and to also compare
immediacy and perceptions of the learning environment in the traditional and online
contexts. Findings lend further support to the positive relationship between immediacy
and the classroom/learning experience in the traditional instructional format and highlight
the relevance of immediacy in the online format as well.
Aside from demonstrating the association between immediacy and student
outcomes in the online classroom, this study also gleaned information about the use of
nonverbal behaviors in the text-based online context. Participants in this study reported
infrequent use of nonverbal cues in the online context that communicated expression and
emotion by the instructor, but frequent instructor nonverbal behaviors communicating
thoughtfulness and attention, or teacher presence. These findings provide a starting point
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
47/66
37
for further research on nonverbal teacher behaviors in the online environment, how they
are perceived by students, and how those behaviors contribute to student outcomes.
Comparing results from the traditional versus the online classroom, this study
revealed that no significant differences existed between associations of immediacy and
student outcomes across classroom formats. Therefore, teachers should not write off the
role immediacy behaviors play in students experiences, regardless of the instructional
format being utilized.
As more schools turn to online education classes, more research in this area will
be vital in preparing instructors to teach online. This study provides a starting point,
bringing to light the importance of teacher behaviors in the online classroom and the need
for educators to be aware of the various forms of communication available in this context
that may contribute to not only a more positive student experience, but also more success
and efficiency for the instructor. By exploring these areas further in the online
classroom, identification of behaviors that work to solidify the relationship between
teachers and students in the online format can be made, allowing students to have a sense
of togetherness with the instructor and decrease transactional distance.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
48/66
38
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a
motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal
model. Communication Education, 55(1), 21-31.
doi:10.1080/03634520500343368.
Ames, C. (1986). Effective motivation: The contribution of the learning environment.
The social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 235-256).
New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from PsycINFO
database.
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D.
Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3, (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick,
NJ:Transaction Books.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction
and learning in web-based courses.Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4),
42-54.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the online classroom: A study of technological and
behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses.Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Learning to learn online: A study of perceptual changes between
multiple online course experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 7,
169-182.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
49/66
39
Arbaugh, J. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor
activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55, 1234-1244.
Astin, A. W. (1975). The power of protest: A national study of student and faculty
disruptions with implications for the future (1st
ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1991).Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education
Series on Higher Education. Washington/New York: American Council on
Education and Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, J. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and
affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7(1), 1-13.
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life.Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 573-590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives.Handbook 1: The
cognitive domain.New York: Longmans, Green.
Bodie, L. (2010). An experimental study of instructor immediacy in the Wimba virtual
classroom.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70. Retrieved from
PsycINFO database.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Introduction. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),Rethinking the departure
puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention.Nashville:
Vanderbilt-University Press.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
50/66
40
Brooks, M. (2009). The excellent inevitability of online courses. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 55(38), A64. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 229285). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Butland, M. J., & Beebe, S. A. (1992).A study of the application of implicit
communication theory to teacher immediacy and student learning. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association,
Miami, FL.
Carey, J. (1980). Paralanguage in computer mediated communication. In N. K.
Sondheimer (Ed.). The 18th
annual meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics and parasession on topics in interactive discourse: Proceedings of the
conference (pp. 67-69). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Carrell, L. (2009). Communication training for clergy: Exploring impact on the
transformative quality of sermon communication. Communication Education,
58(1), 15-34. doi:10.1080/03634520802235528
Carrell, L. J. (2010). Thanks for asking: A (red-faced?) response from communication.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 300-304. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Chen, Y. J. (2001b). Transactional distance in world wide web learning environments.
Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 38(4), 327-338.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
51/66
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
52/66
42
Copeland, K., & Warren, R. (2004).Immediacy and communication skills in distance
learning. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the International
Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from Communication
& Mass Media Complete database.
DeVito, J. A. (1990). Interpersonal communication: Conversation. In J. A. DeVito (Ed.),
Human communication (pp.153-173). New York: Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students positive and negative experiences in
hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242-248. Retrieved
from Academic Search Premier database.
Fisher, B., & Katt, J. (2007). The effects of online instructor immediacy behaviors on
student motivation.Florida Communication Journal, 36(2), 100-111. Retrieved
from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Frymier, A. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students' motivation: Is it the
same for all students?. Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 454-464. Retrieved from
Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal
relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and
student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
53/66
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
54/66
44
Knauff, B. (2010, August).Blackboard FAQ: What is the best way to collect student
assignments? Retrieved on March 24, 2010 from
http://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang
=en.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (1991). Involving colleges:
Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development
outside the classroom. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2001). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses:
A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320-338.
Ledbetter, A., & Larson, K. (2008). Nonverbal cues in e-mail supportive communication.
Information, Communication & Society, 11(8), 1089-1110.
doi:10.1080/13691180802109022.
Mahoney, S. (2009). Mindset change: Influences on student buy-in to online classes.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 75-83. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.
Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2005). A structural equation model of
predictors for effective online learning.Journal of Management Education, 29(4),
531-563.
McCalman, A. (2008).If you give a researcher an emoticon, she'll probably want the
real thing: UnCONVENTIONal findings of nonverbal communication online.
Paper presented at the 2008 National Communication Association Conference,
San Diego, CA. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete
database.
http://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang=enhttp://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang=enhttp://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang=enhttp://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang=enhttp://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang=en -
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
55/66
45
McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward
instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA
summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student
competence in speech communication. Annadale, VA.
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal communication.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success
factors in distance education.Distance Education, 29(3), 231252.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of transaction. In M. G. Moore, & G. C. Clark (Eds.),
Readings in Principles of Distance Education (pp. 100-105). University Park,
PA.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Mupinga, D., Nora, R., & Yaw, D. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of
online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.
NAUNet: Arizona's statewide virtual classroom (1998). T H E Journal, 25(8), 48.
Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Neumann, D. (2009). The effect of emoticons on social connectivity in online learning.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70, Retrieved from PsycINFO
database.
Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher
Education, 2, 10-16.
-
7/27/2019 2011 Measurements of Effective Teaching in the Traditional and Online Contexts Teacher Immediacy, Student Moti
56/66
46
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace:
Effective strategies for the online classroom (1st
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991).How college affects students. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascallera, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005).How college affects students: A third decade
of research (Vol. 2). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). Student perceptions of effective elements in online
learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 277291.
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2001).