TEACHER AND STUDENT IMMEDIACY: INTERACTIVE OUTCOMES
ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Communication
_______________
by
Katharine Elaina Hoyer
Spring 2011
iii
Copyright © 2011
by
Katharine Elaina Hoyer
All Rights Reserved
iv
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
Teacher and Student Immediacy: Interactive Outcomes on
Students’ Learning
by
Katharine Elaina Hoyer
Master of Arts in Communication
San Diego State University, 2011
Research in the last thirty years has revealed immediacy as a leading variable in
successful teacher-student relationships, teaching effectiveness, and student achievement.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to extend what is known about classroom
immediacy by examining teachers’ perceptions of their own immediacy, as well as their
perceptions of classroom immediacy and achievement. Due to the reciprocal nature of
communication, a primary focus of the current study was to examine possible synergistic
outcomes of teacher-student interactions involving immediate behaviors. Furthermore, this
study examine the congruency between perceptual and performance measures of student
cognitive learning. Teachers’ perceptions of class achievement were assessed as a means of
measuring perceived cognitive learning. Additionally, class midterm scores were assessed as
a means of establishing student cognitive learning and comparability with perceptual
measures of learning.
Results demonstrated a significant relationship between teacher immediacy and class
midterm scores. Teacher immediacy also revealed a significant relationship with teachers’
motivation and affect for the class. Additionally, the interactive product of teacher and
student immediacy was found to be correlated with both perceptual and performance
measures of student cognitive learning. Lastly, results failed to find a significant relationship
between teacher immediacy and perceptions of classroom achievement. Furthermore, the
current study suggests that perceptual and performance measures of student learning do not
demonstrate significant comparability. Additional results and implications are discussed,
along with suggestions for future research.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Literature Review.....................................................................................................4 Nonverbal Immediacy ........................................................................................4 Affective Learning .............................................................................................5 Cognitive Learning ............................................................................................6 Motivation ..........................................................................................................9 Student Immediacy ..........................................................................................10 Teacher-Student Interactions ...........................................................................12 Motor Mimicry.................................................................................................13 Emotional Contagion .......................................................................................14 Rationale For The Hypotheses ...............................................................................16 2
METHODS ..................................................................................................................20 Participants .............................................................................................................20 Recruitment ............................................................................................................20 Data Collection ......................................................................................................21 Measurements ........................................................................................................22 Self-Perceived Immediacy ...............................................................................22 Class Achievement...........................................................................................22 Teacher Motivation ..........................................................................................23 Teacher Affect .................................................................................................23 Class Immediacy ..............................................................................................24 Class Learning .................................................................................................24 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................24 vi
3
RESULTS ....................................................................................................................25 4
DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................28 Implications............................................................................................................31 Limitations .............................................................................................................33 Future Research .....................................................................................................35 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX
A SELF-PERCEIVED IMMEDIACY MEASURE ........................................................44 B CLASS ACHIEVEMENT MEASURE .......................................................................50 C TEACHER MOTIVATION MEASURE ....................................................................52 D AFFECT MEASURE...................................................................................................54 E CLASS IMMEDIACY MEASURE ............................................................................56 F EXAM QUESTIONNAIRE.........................................................................................58 vii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Correlation Matrix .....................................................................................................25 viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of the following study is due, in part, to so many people whom I have
been lucky enough to experience during my personal and academic journey. Words cannot
begin to describe the amazing relationship I have with my family and the support that I have
received from them. They have always known when to be there for me and when to
challenge me to be a better person and strive for greater things. Dad, you have always been
my silent yet strong supporter. Thank you for investing so much into my future success and
being by my side through it all. Mom, the level of our friendship is ridiculous. Sometime
between turning eighteen and moving to Humboldt, you and I developed a level of
understanding, honesty and trust that is rare in many relationships. Thank you for giving up
so much so that my siblings and I could live successful and happy lives. I am forever grateful
and sending love to my parents, sister, brothers, and grandparents.
Dave, you are my fiancé, my best friend, and my greatest supporter. If anyone has
helped me get through graduate school, it’s you. You helped me study for the GRE, edited
my grad school applications, let me whine to you about classes and projects you didn’t really
understand, and took me out for some fun when it was clear that I needed a break. I am so
happy and proud that I get to celebrate this thesis and graduation with you! I honestly don’t
know what I would do without you. I am so fortunate and excited to spend the rest of my life
with you.
I have also met so many wonderful friends and professors that have inspired me to
continue with my education. Thank you to those teachers who pulled me aside and told me to
believe in myself when I doubted my work. Thank you to my coworkers, classmates, and
friends who have always made me laugh to the point of tears, even during the most trying
times. I cannot name all of you, but trust that I cherish even the silliest moments and am
appreciative of the invaluable advice and experiences that I have had with all of you.
Lastly, my committee is what made this thesis possible and so rewarding. Dr.
Andersen, your knowledge and experience made you a great thesis chairperson, but your wit
and humor made you a great person to work with on a daily basis. You let me come blowing
ix
into your office with a laundry list of concerns and always made sure I left feeling better. I
appreciated our small moments of side conversations to catch up with one another and make
sure we were still enjoying life. Thank you for your valuable time and for pushing me to do
what I thought I could never accomplish in such a short amount of time. Dr. Snavely, thank
you for insight and careful editing. Your role as devil’s advocate created a stronger paper and
was much needed during this entire process. I appreciate you giving me your edited drafts of
my paper and list of suggestions. They were always valued and incorporated into this thesis.
Dr. Gibson, your kindness and positive disposition is exactly what I needed during this
process. I valued having female energy in the group and always appreciated your positive
and encouraging emails and praises. Thank you for jumping on board so quickly and being so
supportive along the way. It was a pleasure to work with all of you.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Instruction in the college classroom is primarily a communicative interaction between
teachers and students. With over 18 million students enrolled in degree-granting universities
in the United States, the need for their instructors to effectively communicate and facilitate
information to their students is crucial (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2009). Although a student’s academic success is dependent upon a host
of qualities that are both external and internal to the student, a large body of education and
communication research points to a strong teacher-student bond as an important predictor of
student learning and success, regardless of age, gender, income, or race of the student (Kuh
& Hu, 2001; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004;
Tinto, 1993). Specifically, immediacy behaviors, or actions that signal closeness, have been
found to be the lynchpin in developing successful teacher-student interactions (Andersen,
1979; Wang & Schrodt, 2010).
The past thirty years of instructional research have predominately focused on teacher
immediacy and the positive outcomes those behaviors can have on college students, most
importantly, on student learning (Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Hess & Smythe, 2001; Witt,
Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). Immediacy consists of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that create
perceptions of closeness or affinity between people. First conceptualized through approachavoidance theory, Mehrabian (1971) explained, “People are drawn toward persons and things
they like, evaluate highly, and prefer; and they avoid or move away from things they dislike,
evaluate negatively, or do not prefer” (p. 1). Mehrabian’s early work focused on behaviors
such as leaning in, asking questions and probing others, eye contact, addressing others by
name, self-disclosing, and firm handshakes. Other behaviors that are perceived as immediate
include, “…smiling, engaging in eye contact, using vocal variety, looking relaxed, and
moving around the room …” (Houser, 2006, p. 337). Although Mehrabian did not focus on
teacher and student interactions, his evaluation of interpersonal relationships motivated
2
scholars, such as Andersen (1979), to exhaustively examine the outcomes of immediacy in a
classroom environment.
Ever since Andersen’s (1979) initial research on nonverbal immediacy and student
learning, scholars have strived to capture a universal conceptualization and research design
for assessing teacher nonverbal immediacy in relation to student cognitive learning
(Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers, 1995; King & Witt, 2009; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer,
Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996; Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003; Witt et al.,
2004; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006). Though this process continues, a multitude of positive
outcomes have been discovered by immediacy researchers. Scholars have found that teacher
immediacy can decrease dropout rates (e.g., Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006), improve class
management issues for teachers (e.g., Burroughs, 2007), increase teacher credibility (e.g.,
Schrodt & Witt, 2006; Teven & Hanson, 2004; Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998), and create
avenues for greater assimilation of material for students (e.g., Chesebro 2003; Chesebro &
McCroskey, 2001). Closer student-teacher relationships can ease apprehensions (e.g.,
Chesebro 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001), create clear lines of communication,
increase compliance in students (e.g., Burroughs, 2007; Mottet, Parker-Raley, Cunningham,
Beebe, & Raffeld, 2006; Rocca, 2004; Teven & Hanson, 2004; Thweatt & McCroskey,
1998), increase student affective learning (e.g., Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey,
2001; Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Kearney, Plax, & WendtWasco, 1985; Mottet, Parker-Raley, Beebe, & Cunningham, 2007), and increase student
motivation (e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham,
1995; Pogue & AhYun, 2006).
Also notable has been an interest in excessive immediacy (e.g., Comstock et al.,
1995), cross-cultural examinations of immediacy (e.g., Merkin, 2009; Zhang & Oetzel,
2006), gender and immediacy (e.g., Hoyt, 2009), and how immediacy has been interpreted
online (e.g., Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Overall, research in the last thirty years has
revealed immediacy as a leading variable in successful teacher-student relationships,
teaching effectiveness, and student achievement (Frymier & Houser, 2000; West, 1994).
Although research has produced mostly positive results, some researchers have called
into question the conceptual models and methodological practices in which immediacy and
student learning are examined (Comstock et al., 1995; King & Witt, 2009; McCroskey et al.,
3
1996; Witt et al., 2004; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006). Several theoretical models have been
posited to explain how immediacy can increase student learning, including the learning
model, the motivation model, the affective learning model, and the attention-arousal model
(Hess & Smythe, 2001).
Additionally, researchers have utilized various methodological practices in an attempt
to measure immediacy and student learning. Most studies have focused heavily on student
self-reports of teacher immediacy and student learning (King & Witt, 2009), while a small
number of scholars have relied on experiments containing videotaped interactions or prompts
for students to simply read and react to the description of an immediate or nonimmediate
teacher (e.g., Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds,
2007; Pogue & AhYun, 2006). Although the aforementioned theoretical models and
methodologies each possess shortcomings, researchers generally agree that immediacy
provides substantial benefits to students and teachers in numerous ways (See Witt et al.,
2004).
Despite the considerable breadth and depth of research within immediacy, scholars
have yet to touch upon teachers’ perceptions of their own immediacy and how they relate to
student immediacy. Research has mostly ignored the reciprocal nature of communication,
meaning how teachers and students affect one another’s immediacy behaviors in the
classroom. Consequently, the primary purpose of this study is to extend what is known about
classroom immediacy by examining teachers’ perceptions of their own immediacy, as well as
teachers’ perceptions of their class. Because of the reciprocal nature of communication, this
study also seeks to examine the possible synergistic or reciprocal outcomes of teacherstudent immediacy behaviors. This study also attempts to extend previous research by
examining the relationship between immediacy and student learning. It is plausible that
immediate teachers and/or students could enhance the classroom environment, and in turn,
increase student learning. Teachers’ perceptions of classroom achievement, as well as
aggregate midterm scores, will be assessed to see if teacher-student interactions possibly alter
classroom learning.
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section provides an extensive literature review on nonverbal immediacy, student
immediacy, and teacher-student interaction. Following the literature review is the methods
section, which explains the participants, measures, and data collection, followed by the
results section, which reveals the findings in regard to the posed hypotheses. Last is a
discussion regarding the present study’s findings, contributions, limitations, and suggestions
for future research.
Nonverbal Immediacy
Considerable research has focused on teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors and
their effects in the college classroom. According to Andersen and Andersen (2005), the
majority of immediacy behaviors that create close teacher-student relationships appear to be
nonverbal. Individuals utilizing nonverbal communication employ a multitude of
communicative channels, including proxemic, haptic, oculesic, kinesic, vocalic, and
chronemic messages (Andersen & Andersen, 2005). Examples of these nonverbal channels
can be exemplified through immediacy behaviors, including open and forward facing body
positions, expressive gesturing, eye contact, vocal variety, smiling, and frequent interactions
(Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Folwell, 2000; Mehrabian, 1971). In theory, these behaviors
help students focus on the teacher’s nonverbal message by eliciting arousal in the student,
which in turn increases affective and cognitive learning, motivation, and compliance
(Chesebro, 2003; Christophel, 1990; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986;
Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987).
In contrast, teachers that exhibit low immediacy or behaviors that are considered to be
nonimmediate, include speaking in a monotone or dull voice, not facing the class while
speaking, standing behind a desk or podium while speaking, stiff or uninviting postures, and
failing to provide availability for teacher-student discussions (Gorham, 1988; Richmond,
Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Simonds, Meyer, Quinlan, & Hunt, 2006). Research has
shown that teachers who fail to utilize positive immediacy behaviors may face more
obstacles in the classroom. For example, Chesebro and McCroskey (2001) found that
nonimmediate teachers faced more anxious students who were likely to associate their
negative classroom experiences to their own learning. Overall, research has utilized the
5
aforementioned taxonomy of immediacy behaviors to study how Mehrabian’s (1971)
conceptualization of immediacy unfolds between teachers and students.
Affective Learning
The majority of previous research has focused on the relationship between teacher
immediacy and student affective learning (Witt et al., 2004). Affective learning is a student’s
attitudes, beliefs, and values toward the teacher, course and/or the coursework presented in
class (Bloom, 1956). Over the past thirty years, over 80 studies have utilized affective
learning as a variable, finding a positive relationship between affective learning and teacher
immediacy in every single study (Witt et al., 2004). Looking again at Mehrabian’s (1971)
conceptualization of immediacy, it is not surprising that affective learning is correlated with
teacher immediacy. According to Mehrabian, immediacy and liking are like “two sides of the
same coin,” meaning that one variable will undoubtedly lead to the other. Thus, immediacy
causes liking and liking increases immediacy behaviors between individuals. This reciprocal
relationship between affect and immediacy is well documented in education and
communication research.
One of the earliest studies conducted by Andersen (1979) found that students with
immediate teachers showed positive affect for the teacher and course content, as well as
increased behavioral commitment. Following Andersen’s (1979) study, Kearney et al.
(1985), as well as Plax et al. (1986), surveyed college students and also found a positive
relationship between nonverbal immediacy and student affective learning. Kearney et al.
(1985) also noted that students in “person-oriented” courses reported higher affective
learning than did students in “content-oriented” courses. Additionally, a study by Gorham
(1988) found that a teacher who was both humorous and immediate stimulated higher
affective learning, while Folwell (2000) also found a relationship between affective learning
and teacher immediacy by utilizing trained coders and video-taped interactions. Lastly, a
study by Mottet et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between teacher immediacy and
student affective learning, even when teachers violated workload norms and expectations. In
short, teacher’s positive immediacy behaviors have been shown to increase student
enjoyment and liking for the teacher, course, and workload expectations.
6
Cognitive Learning
Given the importance of student learning in the classroom, scholars have not only
examined affective learning, but have focused on cognitive learning quite extensively (Hess
& Smythe, 2001; McCroskey et al., 1996; King & Witt, 2009; Witt et al., 2004). Unlike
affective learning, cognitive learning has been much more difficult to operationalize and
explain (Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Witt et al., 2004). Cognitive learning is often defined
according to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, which includes both lower and higher-order learning
domains (Comstock et al., 1995; King & Witt, 2009). Lower-order learning involves
evidence of knowledge and comprehension, while higher-order learning involves the
synthesis, evaluation, and application of learned material. Immediacy research that tests for
student cognitive learning according to Bloom’s taxonomy typically ask students to recall,
identify, label, or define content in simulated classroom contexts (Comstock et al., 1995;
Kelley & Gorham, 1988; King & Witt, 2009). Researchers also utilize class grades, class
midterms, quizzes, grade point averages, and other measures that are considered
“performance measures” (e.g., Andersen, 1979; Kelley & Gorham, 1988; King & Witt, 2009;
McCroskey et al., 1996). Studies utilizing performance measures have found only a modest
relationship between cognitive learning and teacher immediacy, however they are worthy of
further discussion and examination.
Utilizing test scores, Andersen’s (1979) early study failed to find a relationship
between cognitive learning and immediacy, however testing occurred very early in the
semester. Andersen suggested that teachers and students had yet to fully form meaningful
relationships, thus the opportunity for greater learning may have yet to form. Following
Andersen’s study, Kelley and Gorham (1988) conducted an experiment in which students
were asked to quickly recall lists of items. Students who had a nonverbally immediate
teacher had increased short term recall, and thus, exhibited a positive relationship between
immediacy and cognitive learning. Kelley and Gorham’s study is also notable because it was
a rare instance of an experiment. Most studies have utilized actual classrooms and/or survey
methods, although some researchers have done experiments similar to Kelley and Gorham
(e.g., Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000; Comstock et al., 1995; Mottet et al.,
2007; Titsworth, 2001; Witt & Wheeless, 2001).
7
Another study of interest is Comstock et al.’s (1995) experiment that focused on short
term recall with varying levels of immediacy (low, moderate, very high). Students were
tested on recall after being exposed to a trained researcher who exhibited a certain level of
immediacy. Results indicated that too much or too little immediacy created a negative or
small relationship with cognitive learning. The researchers also suggested that excessive
affective learning may inhibit cognitive learning. Although Comstock et al. suggest a
curvilinear relationship between immediacy and cognitive learning, latter studies have found
a positive relationship between cognitive learning at any level of immediacy (See
Christensen & Menzel, 1998).
A majority of the reported strong correlations between immediacy and cognitive
learning have been produced from what Witt et al. (2004) label “perceived learning”
measures. Student learning that is “perceived” deviates from cognitive or “performance”
learning in that it does not manipulate or test for any type of recall, comprehension, or
synthesis of learned material. Instead, perceived learning measures rely on students’
perceptions of their own learning or their potential to learn material with an immediate
teacher. This type of measurement relies on naturally-occurring teacher-student relationships
instead of experimental conditions, thus allowing for a longer, more meaningful relationship
to develop (King & Witt, 2009).
Additionally, perceived learning scales are often preferred over test or class grades,
since they can be efficient means for gathering data (Witt et al., 2004). Some scholars note
that quizzes and tests have a lack of comparability across class types, and/or these tests may
be contaminated with students’ anxieties, motivations, interest in the topic, etc. (Kelley &
Gorham, 1988, McCroskey et al., 1996, Richmond et al., 1987, Richmond & McCroskey,
1992). Thus, some argue that a class grade or score is a culmination of subjective decisions
made by both the teacher and the researcher (Gorham, 1988).
Studies utilizing perceived learning measures typically use a popular “learning-loss”
measure, first conceived by Richmond et al. (1987). The learning-loss measure is comprised
of two questions asking students how much they learned in a particular class, followed by
how much they think they would learn with an “ideal teacher” (Richmond et al., 1987).
Although Richmond et al. (1987) were careful to note the limitations with the “learning-loss”
score, utilization of the measure has been extensive (Hess & Smythe, 2001, King & Witt,
8
2009; Witt et al., 2004). In fact, 74 out of the 81 studies included in Witt et al.’s (2004) metaanalysis were survey research designs that utilized perceived learning measures.
Although the learning-loss measure has been used extensively, it has not been
universally accepted for a number of reasons. Most prevalent is the issue of a possible halo
effect (Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009; Witt et al., 2004). Some scholars have
concluded that the learning-loss measure is actually an attitudinal measure that rates students’
feelings of like/dislike for their instructor or course, rather than how much the student has
learned (Hess & Smythe, 2001). Students may not be able to separate their subjective
feelings from how much they have learned in the course. Therefore, self-report measures
may lack substantial internal validity (King & Witt, 2009; McCroskey et al., 1996).
A handful of studies have attempted to utilize both perceived learning measures, as
well as performance measures, to test the relationship between teacher immediacy and
student learning. For example, Chesebro and McCroskey (2001) tested the congruency
between the learning-loss score, as well as quiz scores obtained from an experiment. Results
indicated a positive relationship between learning and immediacy in both the learning-loss
score and the quiz score. This congruency was also identified in a study by Witt and
Wheeless (2001), however, cognitive learning was found to have only a modest relationship
with immediacy in both measurements. More recently, King and Witt (2009) proposed
“confidence tests” in which students were quizzed shortly after their semester had
terminated. With each question, students were asked to rate how confident they were with
their answer. Results indicated a positive relationship between students’ perceptions of how
much they learned and how well they scored on the test. Additionally, King and Witt (2009)
examined their course grades and found a positive relationship between the level of
immediacy and how much each student learned in their course.
Studies that utilize both scoring and self-reporting of learning have helped validate
the ability to use either type of measurement in current research. However, scholars should
approach each type of measurement with caution, as each comes with its own limitations.
Additionally, previous research has relied on self-report measures heavily (Witt et al., 2004).
In an effort to better understand how immediacy is related to learning, scholars should utilize
a variety of methods to help clarify the relationship between the two variables (Chesebro &
McCroskey, 2000; Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009; Witt & Wheeless, 2001; Witt
9
et al., 2004). Regardless of the preferred method, immediacy has thus far been found to be
an important, positive concept resulting in greater student learning. (Burroughs, 2007;
Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000; Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Comstock et
al., 1995; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009; Pogue &
AhYun, 2006; Witt & Wheeless, 2001).
Motivation
In addition to affective and cognitive learning, a third and important relationship
between teacher immediacy and students is the potential for greater motivation (Allen et al.,
2006). According to Crump (1995), “Student motivation is a major problem in classrooms
today. Many students are bored, inattentive, and unable to see a connection between
schoolwork and their lives outside classrooms” (p. 3). Instructional scholars have devoted a
substantial amount of time researching how nonverbal immediacy may help motivate
students. Theoretically, it is believed that students may feel more engaged with their
immediate teacher and class material, consequently creating a platform for higher learning
(Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990). Most studies that have utilized
motivation as a variable have found a positive relationship between student motivation and
teacher immediacy (Allen et al., 2006).
In one of the first studies that explored the relationship between immediacy and
motivation, Christophel (1990) constructed and implemented two “motivation measures” that
are widely used today (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel & Gorham, 1995;
Comstock et al., 1995; Pogue & AhYun, 2006). Results from Christophel’s split design
revealed that verbal and nonverbal immediacy led to increased student motivation, which in
turn created increased perceptions of student learning. A study by Frymier (1993) added to
these results by exploring how students’ individual anxieties changed their outlook on
teacher immediacy and personal motivation. Results from Frymier’s study indicated that
students’ with reportedly high amounts of anxiety were motivated from having a verbally and
nonverbally immediate teacher. It appears that students who are not feeling connected to the
class, or are having trouble feeling comfortable in class can benefit from having an
immediate teacher. As Crump (1995) states, “Teacher immediacy can help motivate students
by meeting their need for security and safety” (p. 8).
10
More recently, Allen et al. (2006) compiled eight studies to determine correlations
between teacher immediacy, student motivation, and student learning. Results from these
eight studies indicated that high levels of immediacy functioned primarily as a means of
motivation, thus increasing the capacity to learn. These results were also found in Pogue and
AhYun’s (2006) study, which utilized an experimental procedure. Additionally, the scholars
found teachers to be most effective and able to motivate when they were perceived as both
credible and immediate. Overall, the research conducted thus far has shown a positive
relationship between teacher immediacy and student motivation. Additionally, some posit
that motivation leads to increased perceived and/or cognitive learning (Allen et al., 2006).
Student Immediacy
Although teacher immediacy has received considerable attention, there is a large gap
in instructional research regarding students’ immediacy behaviors (Baringer & McCroskey,
2000; Nussbaum, 1992). Thus far, most research has focused on how teachers’ behaviors
influence students’ learning and motivation, with little attention being paid to how students
reciprocate and affect teachers’ perceptions. Furthermore, only a few studies have attempted
to examine teachers’ emotions toward students, or how teachers and students affect each
other’s enjoyment in the classroom (Frenzel, Goetz, Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009). To
date, only two published studies have analyzed the outcomes of student immediacy on
teachers (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Rosoff & Morganstern, 1980).
In a pilot study by Rosoff and Morganstern (1980), student feedback was
hypothesized to have a positive effect on teachers’ perceptions of student competence,
extraversion, character, attraction, immediacy, solidarity, attitude, homophily, and overall
educational success. Feedback was categorized as being either negative (students providing
no behavior enhancement) or positive (students providing enhanced behaviors or nonverbal
agreement). Feedback was described as specific nonverbal immediacy behaviors, including
positive head nods, eye contact, attentive postures, and repeated interactions or questions
during and after class. These student behaviors were hypothesized to express agreement,
approval, and interest in the teacher and the material being presented (Rosoff & Morganstern,
1980).
11
The study consisted of twenty-six professors, as well as two students from each class,
one of which was randomly selected, and one of which was a trained confederate. The
trained confederates were told to manipulate their level of feedback by continuously
displaying positive or negative immediacy behaviors during lecture. The randomly selected
students were to attend class in their usual manner. Results of the study indicated that there
was little significance between the control group and teachers’ perceptions (Rosoff &
Morganstern, 1980). On the contrary, randomly selected students yielded stronger
correlations, finding a positive relationship between student feedback behaviors and teachers’
overall perceptions of students. Specifically, nonverbal immediacy behaviors were found to
be the strongest indicator of teachers’ perceptions of the student in regard to positive
character, extroversion, competence, attitude, homophily, social attraction, task attraction,
solidarity, and educational success. Overall, this study concluded that students’ naturally
occurring immediacy behaviors can affect teachers’ perceptions of students in the classroom,
and thus, provide enhanced learning outcomes for both the students and the teachers.
Baringer and McCroskey (2000) extended Rosoff and Morganstern’s (1980) study by
analyzing the relationship between student immediacy and teachers’ perceptions of
themselves and the classroom. Specifically, Baringer and McCroskey hypothesized that
student immediacy would bolster teachers’ perceptions of student credibility, attraction,
affect, and overall success. Additionally, it was hypothesized that teachers would feel more
motivated from students expressing positive immediacy. Due to nonsignificant findings with
confederates in Rosoff and Morganstern’s (1980) study, Baringer and McCroskey (2000)
deemed trained professionals unnecessary and carried out the study with randomly selected
students.
Results confirmed Rosoff and Morganstern’s (1980) results, finding a positive
relationship between student immediacy and teachers’ perceptions of students. Specifically,
behaviors such as being vocally expressive, eye contact, leaning in, smiling, proximity, and
positive head nods were found to increase teachers’ positive perceptions of the students.
Additionally, teachers reported feeling more motivated to teach classes that had students
displaying positive immediacy behaviors. Baringer and McCroskey (2000) presume this
relationship to create more enjoyable classroom climates that are conducive for enhanced
teaching and learning. Thus, teachers are more likely to engage and facilitate students who
12
appear involved and engaging back (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Rosoff & Morganstern,
1980).
Results from these preliminary studies reveal the potential for further research on
student immediacy. Student immediacy and teacher motivation show a strong similarity to
prior studies that have confirmed the relationship between teacher immediacy and student
motivation (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). This suggests that there is a positive link
between immediacy and motivation, regardless of whom the sender or receiver is.
Teacher-Student Interactions
The majority of research conducted in the communication and education fields of
inquiry have framed teacher and student interactions within the process-product paradigm, in
which teacher behaviors lead to or affect student achievement (Nussbaum, 1992; Shulman,
1986). While the process-product theoretical framework is useful, it fails to acknowledge the
dynamic communicative process that is two-way, cyclical, and on-going between two or
more people (Gardiner, 1972; Nussbaum, 1992). Due to the fact that previous literature has
utilized only “sterile conceptualizations and subsequent operationalizations” of classroom
communication, the reciprocal nature of teacher-student interactions has remained mostly
unstudied (Natriello & Dornbusch, 1983; Nussbaum, 1992, p. 172). Thus, despite a
substantial effort to understand how teachers impact students, we still do not have a solid
grasp of how students impact teachers. Furthermore, the possibility of a cumulative or
“synergistic” effect between teacher-student interactions remains a mystery. In order to better
understand the potential benefits of effective teacher-student communication, we must turn to
literature that focuses on individuals outside of the classroom context.
The possibility that teachers and students could experience an interactive effect with
one another, stems from a wide range of disciplines that have advanced numerous theories
and proposed multiple terms to explain mutual influence between individuals. While this list
is not exhaustive, some terms that are commonly used include “turn-taking” (Pelose, 1987),
“adaptation” (Capella, 1997), “accommodation”, (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995),
“interpersonal or behavioral coordination” (Jones & Wirtz, 2007; Richardson, Marsh, &
Schmidt, 2005), “mirroring” or “behavioral mimicry” (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003),
“interactional synchrony” (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991), “the chameleon effect”(Chartrand &
13
Bargh, 1999), “reciprocity” (Gouldner, 1960), “emotional contagion” (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1994), and “synergy” (Lumsden & Lumsden, 2004). The following pages will place
these terms within their given theoretical context; however, many of the terms have been and
will be used interchangeably.
Beyond similar conceptualizations, researchers have yet to find a “conceptually
superior” theory and explanation for these interactive behaviors (Burgoon et al., 1995, p. 10).
For example, Jones and Wirtz (2007) describe coordination as a “flock of birds flying in
formation” (p. 73), whereas Burgoon et al. (1995) speak of accommodating behaviors as two
ballet dancers, “…so perfectly synchronized that each partner’s movement is enmeshed with
the other’s steps in a fluid and graceful union…Now imagine this same kind of coordination
in communication (p. 3). Although the scholars are utilizing different terminology, in
general, all of the aforementioned concepts desire to capture the nature in which two or more
people converge, match, or reciprocate verbal and nonverbal behaviors, either intentionally
or unintentionally.
Motor Mimicry
Some of the earliest conceptualizations of interactions are motor mimicry and
mirroring, in which individuals match or imitate each other’s behaviors, including gesturing
and posture (LaFrance, 1982), facial expressions, such as smiling or wincing (Bavelas,
Black, Chovil, Lemery, & Mullett, 1988; Schmidt & Cohn, 2001), speech patterns, vocal
inflections or accents (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), and mannerisms, such as face rubbing, foot
tapping, or yawning (Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & Van Knippenberg, 2004).
Chartrand and Bargh (1999) explain:
One may notice using the idiosyncratic verbal expression or speech inflections of a
friend. Or one may notice crossing one’s arms while talking with someone else who
has his or her arms cross. Common to all such cases is that one typically does not
notice doing these things-if at all-until after the fact (p. 893).
The behaviors described above generally portray “mirroring,” whereas mimicry exemplifies
the notion of empathy or an “…overt reaction that is appropriate to another person’s situation
rather to one’s own” (Burgoon et al., 1995, p.26). Traditionally, mimicking and mirroring
behaviors are said to serve a basic, biological function, meaning they are mostly believed to
be reactive or automatic behaviors programmed within each individual (Allport, 1968;
14
Burgoon et al., 1995; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Cheng & Chartrand, 2003). In fact, an
abundance of research has been conducted with infant-parent interactions, in an effort to
examine the biological function of mimicry and mirroring.
Research studying the interactions between caregivers and infants has revealed a host
of interesting outcomes that generally affirm meaningful mimicking behaviors (Burgoon et
al., 1995; Muller, 1996). For example, a study by Cohn and Tronick (1983) revealed that
three-month-old infants altered their facial expressions to match their caregiver’s facial
expression. When infants were presented with a “depressed” caregiver, they reacted
unfavorably or looked away more often than infants that who were presented with a “normal”
caregiver. Another interesting study by Simner (1971) found that babies will cry in rhythm
with one another, but not with an artificial infantile cry. Additionally, studies have found that
infants will quickly cease smiling if their mother is not attentive or interacting with them
(e.g. Cohn & Elmore, 1988). Caregivers have also been found to mimic infantile behaviors,
including infant lip movements while spoon feeding (e.g., O’Toole & Dubin, 1968). Overall,
research has shown that infants and their caregivers are not only able to simply mirror
behaviors, but they may also mimic one another in meaningful ways (Muller, 1996).
Emotional Contagion
Mimicry is said to be just one of the mechanisms through which moods and emotions
are “caught” and transferred between individuals. Emotions are broadly defined as positive
or negative affective responses that are subjective, short-lived and/or malleable internal
states, and are expressed behaviorally (Andersen, 2008; Barsade, 2002; Hatfield, Cacioppo,
& Rapson, 1994). Similar to mimicry, emotional contagion is thought to be an automated
process, causing physiological arousal within individuals (Barsade, 2002; Hatfield et al.,
1994; Neumann & Strack, 2000). According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people are
biologically inclined to spontaneously mimic facial expressions, as the aforementioned
studies on infant-caregiver interactions revealed. Once dyads or groups of people have
simultaneously synchronized with one anothers’ behaviors and gestures, physiological
arousal creates a feeling of the emotion each individual is expressing (Andersen, 2008;
Barsade, 2002; Doherty, 1997).
15
Although individuals may cognitively process and analyze their felt emotions, the
initial onset of emotions occurs on a subconscious level (Hatfield et al., 1994). Additionally,
emotions that are relatively intense and/or negatively-valenced have been shown to infect and
spread through groups faster than lower-intensity and/or positively-valenced emotions
(Hatfield et al., 1994). For example, one study surveyed college students before and after
living with a depressed roommate (Howes, Hokanson, & Loewenstein, 1985). After a three
month period, the “non-depressed” roommate reported signs of depression convergent to the
clinically depressed individual, suggesting a contagious depressive effect. Negative
emotional contagion has also been shown to inhibit employee satisfaction, longevity, and
salary (Brief & Weiss, 2002; George, 1990).
Because negative emotions can spread so easily, it is important that people develop
and maintain interactions that are positive and happy (George & Brief, 1992; Oatley &
Johnson-Laird, 1987; Tickle-Degnen & Puccinelli, 1999). Individuals feeling positive
emotions may cognitively retrieve information with greater ease, have higher selfconfidence, spread more goodwill, and have higher aspirations (Bower & Cohen, 1982;
George & Brief, 1992; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Research has shown that groups or work
teams with positive emotional contagion report increased cooperation, helpfulness,
performance, creativity, attraction, and individual happiness (e.g., Barsade, 2002; George,
1990; George & Brief, 1992). Even small gestures (smiling, nodding, and leaning in) have
been found to be reciprocated and induce feelings of warmth between individuals who are
merely strangers (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Siegman & Reynolds, 1982). People have
also reported feeling happier by simply watching others’ positive interactions, even though
they had no direct involvement (e.g., Hsee, Hatfield, Carlson, & Chemtob, 1990; Laird et al.
1994). Overall, it is not surprising that individuals desire to watch, interact, and emotionally
feel with other individuals who are happy and warm.
Although emotions are easily shared and experienced, several characteristics create
various levels of susceptibility in individuals. Those who tend to express more emotion tend
to also “catch” more emotion from others (Doherty, 1997; Jones & Wirtz, 2007). There is
some evidence that female adults are generally more expressive, and therefore catch more
emotion, than adult males from Western cultures (Hatfield et al., 1994). Additionally, people
are more prone to catch the emotions from those whom they already care about and love
16
(Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Hatfield et al, 1994). In fact, research has shown that couples
who do not commonly synchronize their behaviors and emotionally share will find
themselves frequently miscommunicating, which could ultimately sever the relationship
(Burgoon et al, 1995; Capella, 1997; Woodall & Burgoon, 1981). Other characteristics of
individuals include whether or not they are generally introverted, have high or low face
needs, and what culture they come from (Hatfield et al., 1994). Overall, where people were
raised, the context of the conversation, as well as the history of the relationship can alter the
ability for emotions to be shared.
The ability to cognitively work through emotions also alters individuals’
susceptibility to emotional contagion. Researchers often believe that interaction effects stem
from purposeful communication that is symbolic of greater social needs (Burgoon et al.,
1995). This is not to say that current communicative models do not acknowledge biological
components of reciprocity, but rather, that mindful and symbolic activities permeate
interactions either in conjunction with, or to a stronger degree, than reactive and biologicallyprogrammed behaviors (See Burgoon et al., 1995). For example, as people carry on
conversations, they may be frequently questioning how they are feeling, how others are
feeling, how they should react to what is being discussed, etc. (Hatfield et al., 1994).
This may be especially true with conversations between people who do not prefer or
like one another. Excessive cognitive appraisals, as well as outright rejection of mimicry may
occur if a person is not well received (Hatfield et al., 1994). Others may prefer to restrain
from feeling and showing intense emotions in an effort to hide or counteract sad,
uncomfortable, and/or negative emotions that may lead to embarrassment or heated fights
(e.g., Gottman, 1979). Overall, a combination of both genetic predispositions, as well as
individuals’ cognitive capacity to work through conversations, creates opportunities for
interactions that are both meaningful and powerful.
RATIONALE FOR THE HYPOTHESES
As explicated in the literature review, teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors have
been found to be positively correlated with students’ affective learning, cognitive learning,
and motivation. Although there is a vast amount of literature that already exists, several areas
within this body of research need significant exploration and clarification. For this reason,
17
the purpose of this study is three-fold. First, reported links between teacher immediacy and
student learning have been complicated with disputed methodologies and measurement
(Comstock et al., 1995; Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009; McCroskey et al., 1996;
Smythe & Hess, 2005; Witt et al., 2004; Zhang & Oetzal, 2006). As Witt et al. (2004) note,
the majority of researchers have asked students to assess their own learning. While, to some
degree, scholars have validated the use of students’ utilizing self-report measures (e.g.,
Burroughs, 2007; Christophel, 1990; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990;
King & Witt, 2009; McCroskey et al., 1996), other researchers push for diversified
operationalizations that can further clarify the relationship between immediacy and learning
(e.g., Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009; Smythe & Hess, 2005; Witt et al., 2004).
Thus far, only modest and inconsistent relationships have been found between immediacy
and objective measures of cognitive learning, whereas a highly positive relationship has been
found between immediacy and students’ perceptions of their own learning. Therefore, the
following hypotheses assess both perceived learning (teachers’ perceptions of classroom
learning), as well as cognitive learning (class midterm scores), as conceptualized by Bloom
(1956).
H1: Teacher nonverbal immediacy will be positively correlated with teachers’
perceptions of classroom achievement.
H2: Teacher nonverbal immediacy will be positively correlated with class midterm
scores.
Second, although there is a great deal of research on the aforementioned hypotheses,
research has generally failed to explore how student immediacy behaviors may alter teachers’
attitudes and experiences in the classroom (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Nussbaum, 1992;
Rosoff & Morganstern, 1980; Wilson, 2006). Mehrabian’s (1971) initial conceptualization of
immediacy has been consistently operationalized according to the process-product paradigm,
in which teachers are affecting students, with no account for feedback or mutual influence
(Nussbaum, 1992). Noting the importance of a teacher’s role in the classroom, it is surprising
that studies have yet to explore how students can alter a teacher’s classroom experience.
Since immediacy is comprised of affinity-seeking behaviors (Mehrabian, 1971), it is highly
probable that teachers will feel more motivated to teach a class that is likeable and friendly
(Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). Results from two prior studies (See Baringer & McCroskey,
2000; Rosoff & Morganstern, 1980) show the potential for a positive relationship between
18
student immediacy and teachers’ affect and motivation for the class. Therefore, the following
hypotheses are offered:
H3: Teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy will be positively correlated with
teachers’ affect scores.
H4: Teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy will be positively correlated with
teachers’ motivation scores.
Third, communications scholars have not recognized any possible interaction or
synergistic effects between teachers and students (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Nussbaum,
1992). The substantial literature on communicative reciprocity has found that nonverbal
behaviors stimulate motor mimicry, and thus, emotional contagion between individuals. As
the literature revealed, both biological and social-cognitive theories argue that people tend to
mimic and feel one another’s expressions, gestures, and emotions. Thus, nonverbal
immediacy behaviors, such as leaning in, smiling, and using eye contact, should induce
reciprocal behaviors between interactants, specifically, between teachers and students. As
Baringer and McCroskey (2000) note, both teachers and students may feel an obligation to
like and reciprocate positive behaviors in the classroom, creating a synergistic and more
positive experience in the classroom. If teachers and students are in fact reciprocating
positive immediacy behaviors, past research on immediacy posits that there should be
increases in perceived and student cognitive learning. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are presented:
H5: The interactive product of teacher immediacy and student immediacy will be
positively correlated with class midterm scores.
H6: The interactive product of teacher immediacy and student immediacy will be
positively correlated with teachers’ perceptions of class achievement.
In summary, the extensive literature on immediacy provides a wealth of information
on teacher behaviors and student outcomes; however it lacks a full recognition for the
communicative and interactive experience that occurs between teachers and students. A
strong emphasis has been placed on teachers as the sole communicator in the classroom,
without regard to how students may utilize immediacy and affect teachers (Baringer &
McCroskey, 2000; Rosoff & Morganstern, 1980). Additionally, researchers typically utilize
students for these studies, in an effort to gather students’ perceptions of the class and their
teacher (Smythe & Hess, 2005). Therefore, this study is unique in that it gives teachers the
opportunity to self-report their perceptions of their own immediacy, class immediacy, class
19
achievement, as well as their motivation and affect for the class. In doing so, this study hopes
to not only extend literature on immediacy and student learning, but this study desires to
explore synergistic outcomes of immediacy from a teacher’s point of view.
20
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
This section explicates the methods used in this study, including a description of the
participants, recruitment, procedures utilized for data collection, the measures used to gather
data, and the statistical analyses that were employed.
PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of college professors, instructors, and graduate teaching
associates (n = 42) from 21 various colleges in the United States. The participating sample of
teachers were comprised of both males (n = 20) and females (n = 22), ranging in age from 21
to 63 years old, with a mean age of 39 years for the participants. Ethnic backgrounds of the
teachers included: European American/White (n = 35), Latino/Latina, Hispanic, or Mexican
(n = 4), and African American/Black (n = 1). One participant selected “other” and one
participant selected “prefer not to disclose.” The participants varied in their teaching
experience, ranging from one semester to thirty-five years, with an average teacher having 14
years experience. To qualify as a participant, the teachers had to be instructing at least one
undergraduate course at a college in the United States during the fall semester of 2010. Both
lower division (n = 27) and upper division (n = 15) courses were reported. Class names and
subject matter was not attained to further protect the identity of the teacher; however, 83% of
the teachers were recruited from Communication departments. Class size ranged from 16-30
students (n = 27), 31-50 students (n = 8), 51-100 (n = 4), and more than 100 students (n = 3).
No students were directly involved in this study.
RECRUITMENT
The researcher utilized a snowball sample by obtaining a list of professional and
personal contacts from professional and academic networks. Approximately 100 participants
were sent a recruitment email either from the researcher, or from the researcher’s academic
research team, that outlined the requirements for participation and asked for their
21
participation. Additionally, these contacts were asked to forward the message to qualifying
peers.
The parameters for participation required subjects to be currently teaching at least one
undergraduate course at an established college in the United States. Additionally, the
instructor’s undergraduate course had to contain a midterm (n = 36) or two quizzes (n = 3)
that were not curved, or that could be reported prior to curving scores. Additionally, the
participants had to be over the age of 18 and have access to a computer with which they
could complete the online surveys.
If potential participants met the requirements of the study and wished to participate,
they were asked to reply to the email stating their intent to participate in the study. The
researcher then replied via email and gave the participants a SurveyMonkey link that
contained an online consent document. The informed consent document detailed the purposes
and requirements to participate in the study. The document also asked demographic
information, such as sex, age, ethnicity, and work experience. Additionally, the informed
consent document asked participants for basic information regarding the class to be surveyed,
including class size and whether the course was a lower division or upper division course.
Along with the informed consent document, the researcher gave each participant a
subject identification number to use with each SurveyMonkey link in order to maintain
confidentiality. Only the primary researcher had access to the list of participants’ names and
their corresponding identification numbers. Once participants read, understood, and filled out
the online consent document, SurveyMonkey automatically linked the participants to the first
survey where data collection began.
DATA COLLECTION
Data were collected in three stages. The first stage occurred between weeks three,
four, and five of each participant’s fall 2010 academic calendar. Teachers were individually
emailed with a link to SurveyMonkey that contained an informed consent document, as well
as two scales that assessed self-perceived immediacy, and their perceptions of class
achievement. Participants were instructed to assess the first class of their normal work week
in order to avoid bias. Participants had until the end of week five to complete the informed
consent document and the attached survey.
22
The second stage of data collection occurred between weeks six, seven, and eight of
each participant’s fall 2010 academic calendar. Participants were emailed with a link to
SurveyMonkey that contained scales assessing class immediacy, teacher motivation, and
teacher affect for the class. Lastly, once all surveys were completed, or the window for
survey completion had closed, participants were instructed to provide a mean score, median
score, and total points possible for the class’ midterm (n = 36) or combined quizzes (n = 3).
The midterm score was completed via SurveyMonkey and concluded the process of data
collection.
MEASUREMENTS
This section details the measures that were utilized in the assessment of selfperceived immediacy, teachers’ perceptions of class achievement, perceived class
immediacy, teacher motivation, and class learning.
Self-Perceived Immediacy
Teachers’ perceptions of their own immediacy were assessed using an adapted
version of the Behavioral Indicants of Immediacy Scale (BII) by Andersen, Andersen, and
Jensen (1979). The BII is a well-established, 28-item instrument that measures specific,
observable nonverbal behaviors, and is intended for students to use when surveying their
teachers (Andersen & Andersen, 2005). Additionally, the BII is a comparative measure that
asks students to rate their current teacher’s immediacy with other teachers the students have
experienced. The original 28-item BII, as well as shortened versions of the instrument, have
reported reliabilities ranging from α = .86 to α = .95 (Andersen & Andersen, 2005). For the
purposes of this study, the BII was adapted so that instructors reported their own immediacy
in comparison to other instructors. The researcher kept the same 28 items on a 7-point likerttype scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree), however the wording was altered to
reference the appropriate respondent. Based on item-total statistics, one item was deleted to
increase the 27-item scale’s reliability to α = .88 for the present study (See Appendix A).
Class Achievement
Teachers’ perceptions of overall class achievement were assessed using 2-items from
a 7-item, 9-point likert-type scale, previously utilized by Baringer and McCroskey (2000), as
23
well as Rosoff and Morganstern (1980). The scale asks teachers to assess a student’s success
in the class, as well the student’s potential success in future education. In a prior study, alpha
reliability for the achievement scale was α = .85 (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). For the
purposes of the current study, the wording was adapted to reflect the entire class, asking
teachers to assess overall class achievement. In the current study, this scale yielded a
reliability estimate of α = .76 for the previously utilized 2-item measure, and a reliability
estimate of α = .78 for the entire 7-item scale (See Appendix B).
Teacher Motivation
Motivation for teaching the surveyed class was assessed using Baringer and
McCroskey’s (2000) modified teacher motivation scale, originally created by Richmond
(1990). The teacher motivation scale is a 6-item, semantic differential measure. The teacher
motivation scale asks teachers to assess their motivation in relation to instructing an
individual student. The coefficient Alpha for the teacher motivation scale was previously α
=.90 (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). For the purposes of the current study, teachers were
asked to assess their level of motivation in regard to the entire class. Additionally, in order to
obtain greater understandability through SurveyMonkey, the measure was adapted to a 7point likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). The current study yielded
a reliability estimate of α = .96 for the teacher motivation scale (See Appendix C).
Teacher Affect
The teacher’s affect for the class was measured using 6 bi-polar scales, originally
conceived by McCroskey and Richmond (1989). For the purposes of the current study, four
of the six items were changed for greater understandability and to represent the appropriate
respondent. The original teacher affect scale was designed for teachers to assess their affect
in regard to an individual student. The current study adapted the wording to reflect teachers’
affect for the class in general. Previous reliabilities for the original teacher affect instrument
have been found to be consistently high (>.90) (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). This study
produced a reliability estimate of α =.91 for the adapted teacher affect scale (See Appendix
D).
24
Class Immediacy
Teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy were measured using a 10-item, 5-point (1
= never, 5 = very often) measure originally conceived by McCroskey et al. (1996). This
measure was originally intended for students to report on their teacher’s immediacy. A more
recent study (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000) utilized an adapted version of the scale to
measure individual student’s immediacy and produced a reliability of α =.79. For the
purposes of this study, the measure was reworded to allow for teachers’ perceptions of class
immediacy to be reported. The current study yielded a reliability estimate of α = .86 for the
class immediacy measure (See Appendix E).
Class Learning
Cognitive learning was assessed utilizing class midterm scores. Teachers (n = 39)
reported one average score for either a class midterm (n = 36) or the most recent two quizzes
(n = 3). In addition to a mean score for the class test, teachers also reported the median score,
as well as the total points possible for the test (See Appendix F).
DATA ANALYSIS
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilized to analyze all data
gathered. First, descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to determine the general
characteristics of the sampled participants. Second, due to the small sample size, in addition
to the reliance on previously validated measures, a factor analysis was deemed inappropriate
for the current study’s measures. The third step was to run reliability tests on the data
collected. Scales with a Cronbach’s of a >.70 were considered reliable assessments of a
single variable. The fourth stage of data collection was hypothesis testing. Statistical
significance was tested at the .05 level for all hypotheses. Simple correlations were
conducted to test the relationship between the proposed variables. Additionally, interaction
effects were analyzed through a correlation matrix. The power estimates for testing the
hypotheses from the current data ranged from .95 (n = 37) to .97 (n = 42) for a large effect,
.57 (n = 37) to .62 (n = 42) for a medium effect, and .15 (n = 37) to .16 (n = 42) for a small
effect (Cohen, 1988). The results of these analyses follow in the next chapter.
25
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
This chapter reports the results of the statistical analyses conducted on each of the six
hypotheses. The results of the present study will be presented in the order of the hypotheses
presented in Chapter 1. Additionally, Table 1 provides the correlations for variables
considered in this study.
Table 1. Correlation Matrix
Variable
1
1 Synergy
-
2 ClassIm
.86**
-
3 SelfImm
.81**
.40**
-
4 Motivate
.61**
.58**
.46**
-
5 Affect
.58**
.65**
.30*
.65**
-
6 ClassAch .60**
.69**
.24
.49**
.68**
7 ClassAc2 .44**
.51**
.20
.32*
.50** .76**
8 MeanMid .37*
.29*
.37*
.27*
.25
.11
.15
-
9 MedMid
.30*
.37*
.21*
.24
.14
.19
.97**
.37*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
-
Note: * p<.05; **p<.01; Synergy = Interactive product of ClassIm and SelfImm; ClassIm = Teachers’
perceptions of class immediacy; SelfIm = Self-perceived teacher immediacy; Motivate = Teachers’ level of
motivation; Affect = Teacher affect for the class; ClasAch = Teachers’ perceptions of class achievement;
ClassAc2 = 2-item measure of teachers’ perceptions of class achievement; MeanMid = Mean score of midterm;
MedMid = Median score for class midterm.
Hypothesis 1, which proposed that teacher nonverbal immediacy would be positively
correlated with teachers’ perceptions of classroom achievement, was not supported. The data
shows that teachers’ perceptions of their own immediacy had no significant correlation with
their perceptions’ of the class’ achievement (r = .24, p = .08).
26
The second hypothesis predicted that teacher nonverbal immediacy would be
positively correlated with the class’ midterm score. The data shows that teachers’ selfperceptions of immediacy were significantly associated with the mean class midterm score (r
= .37, r2 = .14, p <.05), as well as the median class midterm score (r = .37, r2 = .14, p <.05).
Thus, hypothesis two was supported.
The third hypothesis, which predicted that teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy
would be positively correlated with teachers’ affect scores, was supported. The data shows
that teachers’ perceptions of the class’ immediacy were significantly associated with
teachers’ affect for the class (r = .65, r2 = .42, p <.01).
The fourth hypothesis, which proposed that teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy
would be positively correlated with teacher motivation, was supported. The data shows that
teachers’ perceptions of the class’ immediacy were significantly correlated with teachers’
motivation (r = .58, r2 = .34, p <.01).
The fifth hypothesis proposed that the interactive product of teachers’ perceptions of
self-immediacy and class immediacy would be positively correlated with the class midterm
scores. The data shows that the interactive product of teachers’ self-perceived immediacy and
teachers’ perceptions of class immediacy are significantly associated with class midterm
scores. Hypothesis five was supported for both the mean class midterm score (r = .37, r2 =
.14, p <.05) and the median class midterm score (r = .37, r2 = .14, p <.05).
The sixth hypothesis proposed that the interactive product of teachers’ perceptions of
self-immediacy and class immediacy would be positively correlated with teachers’
perceptions of class achievement. Consistent with hypothesis six, an association between the
interactive product of teacher and student immediacy with perceptions of class achievement
(r = .60, r2 = .36, p <.01), was supported.
Finally, a post hoc test of association was conducted to examine the congruency
between teachers’ perceptions of class achievement and actual midterm grades. Two
correlation coefficients were computed, revealing no association between the self-report
measure of achievement and either of the class midterm scores (mean and median scores).
The two-item measure of perceived achievement, as utilized in previous literature (See
Baringer & McCroskey, 2000), did not correlate with either the mean class midterm score (r
= .15, p = .18) or the median class midterm score (r = .19; p =.13). The full 7-item measure
27
of perceived achievement utilized in the current study also failed to correlate with both the
mean class midterm score (r =.11, p = .25) and the median class midterm score (r = .17, p =
22).
28
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was three-fold: (1) To broaden what is known about the
relationship between immediacy and student learning, (2) to study how teachers perceive
students’ immediate behaviors, (3) and to explore any possible interactive outcomes
occurring from teachers’ perceptions of classroom and self immediacy. Results from the
current study provide unique findings for the aforementioned purposes in important respects.
First, the present study found that teacher immediacy accounted for 14% of the
variance in class midterm scores. Although not unexpected, this finding is somewhat unique
given that the majority of previous researchers have relied on self-report measures of
learning to generate positive correlations between immediacy and student learning (Chesebro
& McCroskey, 2000; Hess & Smythe, 2001; King & Witt, 2009 Titsworth, 2001; Witt et al.,
2004). Direct measures of cognitive learning, such as quiz or test grades, are generally
considered more valid indicators of learning because they test an individual’s capacity to
recall, synthesize, and interpret knowledge (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Titsworth, 2001);
however, only a small number of studies have actually tested for learning in this way and
found a significant relationship (Witt et al., 2004). For example, Andersen (1979) quizzed
students in a classroom but failed to find a positive relationship between student scores and
teacher immediacy. Andersen (1979) may have tested too early in the semester for a
relationship to develop between teachers and students, however later studies have found
positive results in short-lived, experimental conditions (e.g., Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000;
Comstock et al., 1995; Kelley & Gorham, 1988).
Manipulated immediacy behaviors enacted in experimental procedures have also been
criticized for ecological validity, since most experiments have students simply watch videos
of “immediate instructors” or read prompts about a hypothetical teacher (Hess & Smythe,
2001). Although experimental procedures are able to control for extraneous variables,
students are experiencing immediacy in conditions that deviate from their normal learning
environment. Clearly, it is difficult to distill the conditions where immediacy can be most
29
beneficial for student learning. The current study was undertaken, in part, to help clarify this
sometimes conflicting relationship. By allowing teachers and students to develop a
relationship over half of a semester, results from the current study found that teacher
immediacy was significantly related to actual midterm scores. Thus, based on the results of
the present study, it is plausible that teachers’ immediacy behaviors can ultimately lead to
higher student learning and performance.
Second, this study sought to rectify previous methodological disputes by utilizing
both teachers’ perceptions of class achievement, as well as aggregate midterm scores. Results
from the current study failed to find a significant relationship between teachers’ perceptions
of immediacy and perceptions of class achievement. A lack of congruency between midterm
scores and perceptions of class achievement is intriguing and may be cause for concern.
Although previous research uses perceptual and performance measures interchangeably,
based on the results of this study, it appears that these measures assess different constructs.
As discussed below in the limitations portion of this study, these results may point to
a potential problem with either (a) the utilization of self-report measures, or (b) midterm
scores as a measurement of student cognitive learning. If the error is in self-reporting of
student achievement, it could be due to the targeted participant or the design of the
measurement itself. The achievement measure employed in this study, as well as the popular
learning-loss measure, is most often completed by students who gauge their own level of
learning from their teachers’ immediate behaviors. For the current study, teachers instead
assessed their own immediacy and gauged students’ learning. It is possible that teachers were
not able to accurately estimate either their own immediacy or how successful the class was,
resulting in a possible halo effect in the self-report measure. Furthermore, it is plausible that
the modified measures were flawed in this study. Future research may replicate this
procedure with instructors to establish a more significant outcome.
If the error is not in the self-report measurement, then it is possible that midterm
scores were not appropriate indicators of student cognitive learning. The midterm scores
were aggregate class scores, thus eliminating any individual variability in scores. A more
optimal design would have used multi-level modeling to account for both individual and
classroom differences in midterm exam scores. Furthermore, the type and length of each test
is unknown, leading to considerable variability in midterm test scores. Although class grades
30
are generally considered a valid form of measuring student cognitive learning (Hess &
Smythe, 2001), it is possible that the midterm scores were not acceptable forms of measuring
what a student learned. Future studies may utilize additional performance measures to further
understand which method is best for assessing cognitive learning.
Overall, the first two hypotheses sought to find a relationship between learning and
immediacy. Although test grades and teacher immediacy were significantly related, the lack
of comparability between perceived class achievement and actual test scores remains
troublesome since most studies have used perceptual and performance measures
interchangeably. Some previous studies comparing these measures have also produced
conflicting results. Chesebro and McCroskey (2000) found congruency between perceived
and performance measures in an experimental design, however their study has been criticized
for a possible contamination of results. The learning-loss measure was given after the quiz,
so students were relatively capable of estimating their learning on the learning-loss measure
(Hess & Smythe, 2001). Another study by Hess and Smythe (2001) compared test grades and
learning-loss scores in actual classrooms, finding no significant correlation between the two
measures. The results of this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that perceived
achievement and performance measures are not justifiable surrogates for one another.
The third and fourth hypothesis of the current study sought to explore how teachers’
perceptions of student immediacy were related to teachers’ affect and motivation for the
class. Results show that teachers’ perceptions of student immediacy accounted for 42% of the
variance in teacher affect, as well as 34% of the variance in teacher motivation. Teachers
who felt their classes were immediate reported liking their students more and in addition,
reported feeling more excited and compelled to teach the class. In accordance to previous
research (e.g. Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Christophel, 1990), immediacy was found to be
related to personal motivation and affect, regardless of whether the teacher or student was
enacting or experiencing immediate behaviors. Although a student’s willingness to be
engaged in class interactions and material is imperative, it is also essential for teachers to
want to come to class, be motivated to teach, and be effective communicators. Since the
current study found student behaviors to be related to a teacher’s disposition, future studies
should further explore how student immediacy alters the classroom environment and
specifically, teacher effectiveness.
31
The fifth and sixth hypothesis explored the possible synergistic outcomes of
reciprocal immediacy. Results from the current study indicate that the combined immediacy
from teachers and students are positively correlated with student learning, both perceived and
performed (See Table 1). Although hypothesis 1 did not find a positive relationship between
teacher immediacy and teachers’ perceptions of class achievement (r = .24, p = .08), student
immediacy was found to be significantly related to teachers’ perceptions of class
achievement (r = .69, p <.01). Thus, the combined synergistic outcome of teacher and student
immediacy on perceived achievement was mostly due to student immediacy, accounting for
48% of the variance in teachers’ perceptions of class achievement. It is possible that
teachers’ perceptions of class achievement stemmed from their affect for the students, which
may have also been related to how immediate their students were in class. If teachers saw
their students displaying immediate behaviors, it is plausible that these behaviors lead to
feelings of liking and success in the teacher, regardless of how immediate the teacher saw
him or herself. Without causal contexts and such limited research, it is difficult to know
exactly how reciprocal behaviors can alter teacher and student attitudes and abilities. Thus,
future research should further explore teacher-student interactions in both classroom and
experimental contexts.
Similar to hypothesis 2, the combined outcome of teacher and student immediacy was
found to be significantly correlated with the average and median midterm scores (r = .37, p =
.02; r = .37, p = .02). In contrast to perceived achievement, the relationship between synergy
and class midterm scores was mostly due to teacher’s self-perceptions of immediacy. Thus, it
seems that teachers’ self-perceived immediacy behaviors seem to be a better predictor of
cognitive learning, while teachers’ perceptions of class achievement are better predicted by
teachers’ observations of class immediacy.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the current study have both theoretical and practical implications for
communication research. First, this study further explored the long-disputed relationship
between teacher immediacy and student cognitive learning. Due to conflicting findings in
previous literature, the study examined the congruency between perceptions of achievement
and midterm scores, as a means for assessing cognitive learning. Results from the current
32
study suggest that the heavy reliance on students’ perceptions of their own learning may have
questionable validity as a measure of cognitive learning and should be carefully scrutinized
before deployment in future studies. Although the participants in the current study were
teachers, not students, the lack of congruency between perceived achievement and students’
test scores proves to be problematic. Although self-reporting of potential learning may be an
efficient method for gathering data, the results from this study suggest that it may not be
indicative of student performance. Perhaps with greater statistical power, future studies can
in fact find more congruent results between perceptual and performance measures of
learning.
Contrary to many previous findings, results from this study found a moderate
correlation between self-perceived immediacy and students’ test scores. This is an interesting
and meaningful finding for several reasons. For one, it is possible that teachers are in fact
aware of their own nonverbal behaviors in the classroom. If teachers are able to monitor their
own immediacy, it is plausible that teachers can also alter (or be taught to alter) their own
nonverbal behaviors in a way that is productive for class cognitive learning. Further, if
teachers are able to alter their disposition, then immediacy may not be purely trait-based, but
instead, immediacy may be a more malleable communicative behavior that can be learned
and taught to others.
Also interesting is the possibility that teachers who are immediate in the classroom
may actually increase student learning and performance, whether it is directly or indirectly.
Although the exact relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning remains a
question, the results from the current study show promising results for an actual association,
even in the presence of such low statistical power. Continued and more expansive research is
needed to better understand how immediacy is related to cognitive learning.
Results from this study suggest that teachers are not only aware of their own
immediacy behaviors, but they are attentive to, and are affected by students’ immediacy
behaviors. These results have serious implications on the widely used process-product
paradigm in previous literature. Although teachers certainly influence students’ experiences
and learning outcomes in the classroom, it appears that students either reciprocate or behave
in ways that are immediate with their instructors as well. Thus, it is not surprising that
teachers in the current study reported higher motivation and affect for the class when they
33
also reported having highly immediate students. These results mirror previous literature that
has frequently proclaimed a positive relationship between immediacy and affect, as well as
motivation (e.g., Christophel, 1990). Although the relationship between immediacy and
student learning is less clear, Mehrabian’s (1971) initial conceptualization of immediacy as a
liking and “approach-avoidance” theory was noticeably supported in this study’s results.
In addition to theoretical implications, the results of this study should be integrated
within pragmatic and more useful suggestions for teacher-student interactions. Although
immediacy is not a cure-all for ineffective teaching, research has consistently supported the
notion that affinity-seeking behaviors can increase feelings of liking, comfort, and motivation
(Nussbaum, 1992; Witt et al., 2004). Furthermore, if there is a reasonable chance that
immediacy may increase student learning, it is worthwhile for teachers to assess their own
immediacy behaviors, and where they can improve this important teacher-student connection.
This is not to say that instructors should be artificial or extreme in displaying nonverbal
behaviors, but that instructors may simply work on monitoring their daily interactions with
students and modify behaviors that create barriers rather than connections to students.
Teachers may set the tone of the classroom by enacting positive immediacy behaviors, in the
hopes that students may “catch” and reciprocate these feelings.
Previous literature most often gives instructors the sole responsibility for creating a
positive classroom climate; however, results from the current study suggest that students are
partly responsible for molding the classroom environment as well. A small number of studies
have also supported this notion (e.g., Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Rosoff & Morganstern,
1980). As Gardiner (1972) notes, communication is continuous, dynamic, and powerful
between individuals. Thus, teachers and students may have equal power in communicating
liking and providing feedback for one another. In turn, these positive interactions may result
in higher affective and cognitive learning, a desired outcome by both teachers and students.
LIMITATIONS
It is imperative to situate the current implications of the findings within the
limitations of the research. First, this study utilized a correlational design to survey teachers
and their classroom interactions. Although self-report measures have been justified and
validated for over thirty years within immediacy literature, it is crucial to note that these
34
claims do not prove causation. Furthermore, previous research has leaned heavily on the
student population to assess teacher immediacy (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000). For the
current study, self-report measures had to be slightly modified to fit the appropriate
participant and therefore, could be flawed. Of the self-report measures, one scale asked
teachers to assess their own immediacy behaviors. This procedure has been rarely employed
and still bears further research.
Previously, Gorham and Zakahi (1990) found high congruency between student
reports of immediacy and teacher reports of self-perceived immediacy; however, not all
scholars have found similar results. For example, another study by Folwell (2000) found high
congruency between trained coders and students; however, teachers were less able to assess
their own immediacy. It seems reasonable that participants are unable to assess their own
behaviors as accurately as those observing others’ immediate behaviors. Moreover, having
teachers assess both their own immediacy behaviors and that of their students may have
produced a demand bias, inflating the association between such measures.
As previously indicated, a lack of congruency between teachers’ perceptions of class
achievement and midterm grades could signal a flawed measurement design. Previous
research would point to teachers’ self-reports of class achievement as the most invalid source
of measuring student learning, since midterm grades are less subjective and require students
to perform cognitive tasks (Folwell, 2000). However, midterm and quiz grades lacked
standardization in this study, so the type, subject, and size of the tests are unknown, leading
to considerable variability in this key outcome measure.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of this study was the small sample size (n = 42).
Recruiting participants proved difficult. Many instructors did not respond to recruiting
emails, while others failed to complete all of the measures or missed the deadlines for
particular surveys. The minimal amount of participants also proved problematic for
conducting a valid factor analysis with each measurement. Due to such a small sample size,
the power of this study’s results is reduced, making it more difficult to detect any subtle
relationships. With greater power, the current study could possibly have produced more
robust correlations. Further, it is possible that there is in fact a correlation between teachers’
self-perceived immediacy and their perceptions of class achievement, had there been more
participants involved in the current study.
35
Additionally, the sample size and type of sample does not allow for generalizing
beyond the findings of this study. Although teachers came from twenty-one different
colleges, 83% of the sample was Caucasian, and only 7% of the sample taught outside of
Communication departments. The homogeneity of the profession could have accounted for
the relatively high self-perceived immediacy reported in the study. It is possible that teachers
in the communication field are either more knowledgeable about their own behaviors, and/or
they enact higher immediacy. Future studies should incorporate teachers from a more diverse
set of departments to further analyze self-perceived immediacy.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings of the current study warrant further replication and exploration in
educational research. First, the design of future instructional communication studies should
incorporate more than one measure of student learning (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000;
Folwell, 2000; King & Witt, 2009; Witt & Wheeless, 2001). As this study revealed,
perceived learning measures do not seem to suffice for performance measures of cognitive
learning. Given the importance of students’ educational outcomes, future studies should
continue to test the congruency of perceived and performance measures that assess student
achievement (King & Witt, 2009 Witt et al., 2004). Further scrutiny of these methodological
designs could help clarify the relationship between immediacy and student learning.
Second, more research is needed that focuses on a teacher’s perspective (Baringer &
McCroskey, 2000; Folwell, 2000; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Nussbaum, 1992; Rosoff &
Morganstern, 1980). Previous research has focused almost solely on how teachers can affect
students, ignoring how students may ultimately alter the classroom environment. Thus, future
research should incorporate large and ethnically diverse samples of instructors from a variety
of fields.
Further, scholars may also incorporate student samples in order to further understand
the reciprocal nature of immediacy in the classroom context. Students may self-report their
own immediacy, perceived learning, individual grades or assessments, as well as how they
view their teachers’ immediacy behaviors. An optimal design would sample student and
teacher perceptions, employ standardized measures of learning, and use multilevel, nested
designs to consider the effects of both individual variability and classroom variability in
36
immediacy and learning. Perhaps, collecting data in multisection courses at a number of
universities, using multilevel modeling, would be the gold standard in future research.
Third, only a small number of studies have utilized experimental procedures to
analyze immediacy (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Witt et al., 2004). Although this study focused on
how immediacy unfolds in a natural environment, experimental conditions could test for
causal relationships within teacher and student interactions. Similarly, future studies may
examine how power, gender roles, and culture may affect immediacy behaviors, reciprocity,
and learning outcomes.
In conclusion, this study provides promising results for future studies to incorporate
and expand upon. Results from the current study suggest that immediacy and student learning
bears additional research by further testing the congruency of perceptual and performance
measures of student learning. Additionally, this study provides the groundwork for assessing
the multiplicative outcomes of teacher and student immediacy. Since student immediacy and
reciprocity are relatively unexplored in instructional literature, scholars have a multitude of
research options that may lead them to discover powerful and meaningful relationships
between teachers and students in college classrooms.
37
REFERENCES
Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a
motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model.
Communication Education, 55, 21-31.
Allport, G. W. (1968). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.), pp. 1-80.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
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.
Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A.D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal
immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153-180.
Andersen, P. A. (2008). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions (2nd ed.). Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Andersen, P. A., & Andersen, J. F. (2005). Measurements of perceived nonverbal
immediacy. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going
beyond words (pp. 113-126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baringer, D. K., & McCroskey. J. C (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student
immediacy. Communication Education, 49, 178-186.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 544–675.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function
in motor mimicry: Typographic evidence that the primary function is communicative.
Human Communication Research, 14, 275-299.
Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavioral matching and
interactional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rime (Eds.), Fundamentals of
nonverbal behavior (pp.401-432). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longmans,
Green.
Bower, G. H., & Cohen, P. R. (1982). Emotional influences in memory and thinking: Data
and theory. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth
annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 291-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interaction adaptation: Dyadic
interaction patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal
immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication
Education, 56, 453-475.
Capella, J. (1997). The development of theory about automated patterns. In G. Philipsen & T.
L. Albrecht (Eds.), Developing communication theories (pp. 63-66). New York, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link
and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910.
Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry
as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 1170-1179.
Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student
learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135-147.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of
learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication
Education, 49, 297-301.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and
immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning.
Communication Education, 50, 59-68.
Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of
teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82-90.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student
motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher
immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college
classrooms. Communication Education, 44, 293-306.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohn, J. F., & Elmore, M. (1988). Effect of contingent changes in mothers’ affective
expression on the organization of behavior in 3-month-old infant. Infant Behavioral
Development, 11, 493-505.
Cohn, J. F., & Tronick, E. Z. (1983). Three-month-old infants’ reaction to stimulated
maternal depression. Child Development, 54, 185-193.
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity,
nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive
learning. Communication Research Reports, 24, 241-248.
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal
immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251266.
39
Crump, C. A. (April, 1995). Motivating students: A teacher’s challenge. Paper presented at
the meeting of the annual Sooner Communication Conference. Norman, OK.
Retrieved from ERIC FirstSearch database (UMI No. 378 840).
Doherty, R. W. (1997). The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 131–154.
Folwell, A. L. (2000). A comparison of professors’ and students’ perceptions of nonverbal
immediacy behaviors. Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, 29, 4158.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional
transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student
enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 705-716.
Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy students’ motivation: Is it the same
for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41, 454-464.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal
relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
Gardiner, J. C. (1972). The effects of perceived receiver response on speaker attitudes.
Journal of Communication, 22, 289-299.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 107-116.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the
mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
310-329.
Gorham, J. S. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and
student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the
classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46-62.
Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of
immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education,
39, 354-368.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Harvard, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to cognitive
learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197- 219.
40
Houser, M. L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of
motivation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students.
Communication Quarterly, 54, 331-349.
Howes, M. J., Hokanson, J. E., & Loewenstein, D. A., (1985). Induction of depressive affect
after prolonged exposure to a mildly depressed individual. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 1110-1113.
Hoyt, T. (2009). Factors affecting women’s verbal immediacy to sexually risky situations.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 312-319.
Hsee, C. K., Hatfield, E., Carlson, J. G., & Chemtob, C. (1990). The effect of power on
susceptibility of emotional contagion. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 327-340.
Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2007). “Sad monkey see, monkey do:” Nonverbal matching in
emotional support encounters. Communication Studies, 58, 71-86.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective
learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 61-74.
Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information.
Communication Education, 37, 1988.
King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of
cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58, 110-123.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The
Review of Higher Education, 24, 309-332.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. Final report for the National
Postsecondary Education Cooperative and National Center for Education Statistics.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/npec/papers.asp.
LaFrance, M. (1982). Posture mirroring and rapport. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interaction Rhythms:
Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 279-298). New York, NY: Human
Sciences.
Laird, J. D., Alibozak, T., Davainis, D., Deignan, K., Fontanella, K., Hong, J., … Pacheco, C.
(1994). Individual differences in the effects of spontaneous mimicry on emotional
contagion. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 231-247.
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create
affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334-339.
Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (2004). Communicating in groups and teams (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
engagement as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal
of College Student Development, 5, 549-565.
41
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1989). Bipolar scales. In P. Emmert & L. L. Barker
(Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior (pp. 154-167). New York, NY:
Longman.
McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996).
Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation.
Communication Education, 45, 200-211.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Merkin, R. S. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in approach-avoidance communication in
South Korea and the US. Human Communication, 12, 199-213.
Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who
resist “college lite”: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’
course workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective
learning. Communication Education, 56, 145-167.
Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Cunningham, C., Beebe, S. A., & Raffeld, P. C. (2006).
Testing the neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on student course workload
expectancy violations and tolerance for instructor unavailability. Communication
Education, 55, 147-166.
Muller, J. P (1996). Beyond the psychoanalytic dyad: Developmental semiotics in Freud,
Pierce, and Lacan. New York, NY: Routledge.
Natriello, G., & Dornbusch, S. (1983). Bringing behavior back in: The effects of student
characteristics and behavior on the classroom behavior of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 20, 29-43.
Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Mood contagion: The automatic transfer of mood between
persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 211–223.
Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167180.
O’Toole, R., & Dubin, R. (1968). Baby feeding and body sway: An experiment in George
Herbert Mead’s “taking the role of the other.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 10, 59-65.
Oatley, K. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory of emotions.
Emotion and Cognition, 1, 29-50.
Pelose, G. C. (1987). The functions of behavioral synchrony and speech rhythm in
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20, 171-220.
Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the
classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning.
Communication Education, 35, 43-55.
Pogue, L. L., & AhYun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and
credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education,
59, 331-344.
42
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2005). Effects of visual and verbal
interaction on unintentional interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 62-79.
Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation.
Communication Education, 39, 181-195.
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between
selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Organizational communication for survival.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal
immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other- perceived nonverbal immediacy.
Communication Quarterly, 51, 504-517.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the
classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning.
Communication Education, 36, 1-12.
Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal
aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185-195.
Rosoff, J. M., & Morganstern, B. F. (1980). The effects of positive feedback on teacher’s
perceptions of students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 8, 40-54.
Schmidt, K. L. & Cohn, J. F. (2001). Human facial expressions as adaptations: Evolutionary
questions in facial expression research. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44, 3-24.
Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function
of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy.
Communication Education, 55, 1-20.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Siegman, A. W. & Reynolds, M. (1982). Interviewer-interviewee nonverbal
communications: An interactional approach. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interactional
rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 249-278). New York, NY:
Human Sciences Press.
Simner, M. L. (1971). Newborns’ response to the cry of another infant. Developmental
Psychology, 5, 136-150.
Simonds, B. K., Meyer, K. R., Quinlan, M. M., & Hunt, S. K. (2006). Effects of instructor
speech rate on student affective learning, recall, and perceptions on nonverbal
immediacy, credibility, and clarity. Communication Research Reports, 23, 187-197.
Smythe, M. J., & Hess, J. A. (2005). Are student self-reports a valid method for measuring
teacher nonverbal immediacy? Communication Education, 54, 170-179.
43
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Teven, J. J., & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring
on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39-53.
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and
misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358.
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Puccinelli, N. (1999). The nonverbal expression of negative emotions:
Peer and supervisor responses to occupational therapy students’ emotional attributes.
Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 18, 18-39.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues,
and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283297.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Retrieved from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/.
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry
and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71-74.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
communication. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88.
Wang, T. R., & Schrodt, P. (2010). Are emotional intelligence and contagion moderators of
the association between students’ perceptions of instructors’ nonverbal immediacy
cues and students’ affect? Communication Reports, 23, 1-13.
West, R. (1994). Teacher-student communication: A descriptive typology of students’
interpersonal experiences with teachers. Communication Reports, 7, 109-118.
Wilson, J. H. (2006). Predicting student attitudes and grades from perceptions of instructors’
attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 91–95.
Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and
nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication
Education, 50, 327-342.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship
between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71,
184-207.
Woodall, W. G., & Burgoon, J. K. (1981). The effects of nonverbal synchrony on message
comprehension and persuasiveness. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 207-233.
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). Constructing and validating a teacher immediacy scale: A
Chinese perspective. Communication Education, 55, 218-241
44
APPENDIX A
SELF-PERCEIVED IMMEDIACY MEASURE
45
Directions: Please mark the following scale to indicate how you perceive yourself while in your
teaching role. Please mark the following statements to indicate whether you:
strongly disagree; disagree; moderately disagree; are undecided; moderately agree;
agree; strongly agree. Simply record your perceptions of yourself in your teaching
role. Some of the questions may seem similar, but this is necessary.
I engage in
more eye
contact with the
class while
teaching than
most other
instructors.
I discuss less
with students in
this class than
in most other
classes.
I have a more
tense body
position while
teaching in my
class than most
other
instructors
I gesture more
while teaching
than most other
teachers.
I engage in less
movement
while teaching
than most other
teachers.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
46
I sit or stand
close to
students less
than most
other teachers
when teaching
I touch
students less
than most
other
instructors
while teaching.
I have a more
relaxed body
position while
teaching than
most other
instructors
I direct my
body position
toward the
class while
teaching more
than most
other
instructors.
I stand in front
of the
classroom less
than most
other
instructors
while teaching.
I smile more
during class
than most
other
instructors.
I dress less
formally than
most other
instructors
while teaching.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
47
I engage in less
eye contact with
students while
teaching than most
other instructors.
I spend less time
with students
before and after
class than most
other instructors.
I touch students
more than most
other instructors
while teaching.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I discuss more
with students
while teaching
than most other
instructors
I am more vocally
expressive while
teaching than most
other instructors.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I am more distant
from students
while teaching
than most other
instructors.
I direct my body
less toward the
class while
teaching than most
other instructors.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
48
I gesture less
while teaching
than most other
instructors.
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I engage in
more
movement
while teaching
than most other
instructors
I sit or stand
near students
more often than
most other
instructors
while teaching
I dress more
informally than
most other
instructors
when teaching
I stand in front
of the
classroom
more than most
other
instructors
while teaching
I am less
vocally
expressive
while teaching
than most other
instructors.
I smile less
during class
than most other
instructors.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Undecided
Moderately
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
49
I am less distant
from students than
most other
instructors while
teaching.
I spend more time
with student before
and after class than
most other
instructors.
Strongly Disagree Moderately Undecided Moderately Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly Disagree Moderately Undecided Moderately Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
50
APPENDIX B
CLASS ACHIEVEMENT MEASURE
51
Directions: Please evaluate the overall class with the following scale. These are just your
initial perceptions of the class, there is no wrong answer.
This is an attentive class.
1.
not attentive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very attentive
The students in this class become anxious when communicating in
2.
class.
not anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very anxious
3.
The students in this class participate in class.
very seldom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very often
4.
This class has established a strong relationship with other students in
the class.
none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very strong
5.
This class will succeed this semester.
very low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very high
6.
This class will succeed in future education.
very low
7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very high
The students in this class seem interested in this particular class.
not interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very interested
52
APPENDIX C
TEACHER MOTIVATION MEASURE
53
Directions: Please indicate your feelings about teaching the class you are evaluating.
Motivated
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Interested
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
I want to teach
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Inspired
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Excited
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Looking forward
to it
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Moderately
Disagree
Undecided Moderately
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
54
APPENDIX D
AFFECT MEASURE
55
Directions: Please describe your general attitude toward the students in the class. Please
evaluate the students as a group. The closer to the adjective, the stronger the feeling
1.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad
2.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Awful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nice
3.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Stupid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Smart
4.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Unmotivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Motivated
5.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Wise
6.
In your opinion, this class is generally
Very low
7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foolish
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very high
In your opinion, this class is generally
Hard working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lazy
56
APPENDIX E
CLASS IMMEDIACY MEASURE
57
Directions: Below is a series of descriptions of things some students have been observed
doing in some classes. Please respond to the statements in terms of how well the statements
apply to the majority of the students in your class. Please use the following scale to respond
to each of the statements.
Choose to sit near me
in the classroom.
Avoid eye contact
with me while I am
teaching.
Frown at me while I
am teaching.
Lean toward me while
I am teaching.
Speak with a
monotone/dull voice.
Exhibit positive head
nods while I am
teaching..
Smile at me while I
am teaching.
Sit far away from me
in the classroom
Establish eye contact
with me while I am
teaching
Are vocally
expressive when
talking.
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Often
Very Often
58
APPENDIX F
EXAM QUESTIONNAIRE
59
1. Please calculate and report the class' mean score (average score) for the midterm. For
example, "The average score is 78.0 points for the midterm." To calculate the average
midterm score for the entire class, please add up all the scores and then divide this summed
number by the total number of students who took the test. For example: 5+8+10+5+7=35;
35/5=7. Thus, you would report an average midterm score of 7.
2. Please report the points possible for the midterm. For example, "Total points possible for
the midterm are 100 points." This will help us understand what your previously reported
class average means and how well the class, on average, did on the test.
3. Please calculate and report the class median score (middle score) for the midterm. For
example, "Class median score is 74.0" To calculate the median, please arrange the test scores
from smallest to largest score. The median is exactly in the middle. If you have an even
number of scores, please sum the two middle scores together and divide by two. This new
number is your median. For example: 5; 5; 7; 8; 10. Median is 7.