2011 measurements of effective teaching in the traditional and online contexts teacher immediacy,...

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


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.


3/66


4/66


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


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


7/66

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


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


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


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


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


12/66


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;


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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?


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.



associated with students reports of affective learning.

H4: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy


reports of affective learning.



reports of affective learning?


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.


24/66

14



associated with students reports of cognitive learning.

H6: Students perceptionsof an instructors measured verbal immediacy


reports of cognitive learning.



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?


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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**


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*


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


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.


34/66

24

Hypothesis fourpredicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of

an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of affective learning in


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


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


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


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



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).


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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,


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


51/66


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.


53/66


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


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.


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).

2011 measurements of effective teaching in the traditional and online contexts teacher immediacy,...

Documents