28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Perceived Criticality of Communicative Cues toward Establishing
Online Instructional Immediacy: A Modified Delphi Study
Jeffrey L. Bailie
Professor
School of Graduate Education
Kaplan University
Introduction
Previous studies extensively document how enhanced communication between instructors and their
students serves to promote affective and cognitive learning in a variety of instructional settings. A key
aspect of instructional communication that has gained increasing attention over the past five decades is
that of immediacy. Immediacy, as it was first examined by Mehrabian (1968) through his work in the
field of communication theory, comprises those “behaviors which reduce physical and psychological
distance between interactants” (pg. 43). The purpose of this paper will be to examine findings from past
investigations pertaining to behaviors of instructor immediacy, including a 2011 study of the perceived
importance on select immediacy cues according to online faculty and students. Finally, a review of
practical techniques reflective of verbal immediacy within the online learning environment is offered.
The Instructional Immediacy Construct
The construct of immediacy was defined by Mehrabian (1967) as an affective expression of emotional
attachment, feelings of liking, and the degree of perceived physical and/or psychological closeness
between people. Mehrabian discussed immediacy in terms of approach-avoidance, a notion that
individuals will approach people or situations that they like, and avoid those they dislike. Andersen
(1979) was the first to investigate immediacy in the classroom context, defining the immediate instructor
as one who “is more likely to communicate at a close distance, smile, engage in eye contact, use direct
body orientation, use overall body movement and gestures, touch others, relax, and be vocally expressive”
(p.548).
Ensuing studies in the academic setting determined that instructors can convey immediacy both verbally
and non-verbally. Gorham (1988) identified a set of immediacy behaviors in her study that involved 47
undergraduate students tasked with identifying nonverbal and verbal behaviors that characterized their
favorite teachers. Gorham utilized the most documented behaviors to create a scale of verbal immediacy
behaviors (VIB). Gorham’s 17-item scale has been widely reported in the literature as an instrument used
to evaluate immediacy in investigations of classroom engagement.
The 2011 investigation reported in this paper sought to examine the verbal immediacy behaviors by
considering the perceptions of two constituent groups representing a learning environment that emerged
after Gorham’s 1988 study--practicing online faculty and online students. It is hoped that the results of the
investigation will serve to further authenticate those verbal immediacy behaviors that are considered to be
most prevalent in the practices of effective online instructors.
Participants
For this study, a heterogeneous panel of nine experienced online students and nine faculty members from
a single institution of higher learning was seated. Students demonstrating a minimum equivalency of
enrollment in not less than ten online courses, and faculty having demonstrated a minimum of ten online
Copyright 2012 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
1
28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
course deliveries, were considered eligible candidates. There were 10 male and eight female panel
members ranging in age from 25 to 52.
Methods
A modified Delphi technique was adopted to define the perceptions of current online faculty and students
regarding the importance of behaviors previously associated with online faculty immediacy. Since its
development in the 1950s, the Delphi method has been widely used to inform technology, education, and
medical fields (Cornish, 1977). It is a method for the “systematic solicitation and collation of judgments
on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with
summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier responses” (Delbecq, Van de Ven,
& Gustafson, 1975, p.10).
For the first round of the investigation, participants were asked to rate the importance of each of the 17
items included in the Verbal Immediacy Scale (Gorham, 1988). A comment section was provided for
“write in” behaviors that were not included on the list. The mean values were then calculated to determine
the importance rating of each item. For the subsequent rounds of the Delphi probe, participants were
provided with resulting lists of behaviors perceived by the panelists to be of importance in previous
rounds. In each succeeding round, participants were asked to rate the importance of the listed behaviors
based on a “Likert-type” scale. The interquartile range (IQR) was selected to determine the level of
consensus. Following Delphi 3, a consensus of opinion relative to the importance of verbal immediacy
behaviors in the online instructional setting emerged.
Results
The ideal result of the Delphi technique is the formation of a consensus among participants. This
investigation was designed to determine whether a consensus of opinion relative to the importance of
specific verbal immediacy behaviors, as demonstrated in the online learning environment, could be
established between two groups of participants.
In Delphi 1, participants rated the importance of the 17 behaviors included in Gorham’s (1988) Verbal
Immediacy Scale based on a “Likert type” response pattern where "1" represented very unimportant, "2"
not important, "3" important, and “4" very important. Of the 17 behaviors, panelists identified five to be
unimportant based on the mean value of the responses. These behaviors included: “The instructor gets
into discussions based on something a student brings up,” “The instructor gets into conversations with
individual students before/after class,” “The instructor has initiated conversations with me before/after
class,” “The instructor calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated that they want
to talk” and “The instructor is addressed by his/her first name by the students.” Because these behaviors
were deemed unimportant by the panel, they were removed from the list to be presented in Delphi 2.
Five responses were offered as “write in” entries for the panel’s consideration. These recommendations
included: “The instructor telephones each student to personally welcome them to class,” “The instructor
uses color, emoticons, clip art, and/or media in their communications with students,” “The instructor
provides regular announcements outlining the learning objectives, solidifying their relevance, and
offering guidance for a more efficient and effective mastery,” “The instructor offers personal details about
themselves, including imagery,” and “The instructor invites students to appraise his/her approach to
instruction during the active term.” The panel would consider these additions in Delphi 2.
In Delphi 2, panelists rated the criticality of the behaviors deemed to be of importance in the first round,
including the five “write in” entries. The combined response of both faculty and students regarding the
perceived importance of the behaviors indicated that two of the behaviors on the Delphi 2 list: “The
Copyright 2012 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
2
28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
instructor will have discussions about things unrelated to class…” and “The instructor telephones each
student to personally welcome them…” were viewed as unimportant, and were therefore deleted.
The IQR was computed for each of the 15 behaviors to determine the level of consensus. The IQR is the
difference between the 3rd and 1st quartiles (i.e., IQR = Q3 – Q1). Adopting the approach used in similar
studies, consensus was defined as being achieved when an IQR of 1 or less was reached. The strongest
consensus is indicated by an IQR of 0 (Bailie, 2010).
From the combined group response of both panels, a consensus was demonstrated for 13 of the 15
behaviors. Consensus was not achieved for two behaviors, “asks student about assignment, due dates,
topics” and “invites to telephone or chat outside of class.” Consequently, a third round was warranted.
In Delphi 3, participants were provided with a summary of the group’s responses from Delphi 2. The
introduction of the cumulative results generated by previous rounds has historically been offered in the
final probe to sustain the validation of group consensus (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). In the
third round, a shift in the combined group’s perception of importance of one of the behaviors in
discrepancy from the previous round was noted. However, the faculty rating for the “asks student’s about
assignment, due dates, topics…” was reduced in the degree of unimportance. Because the faculty rating
for this behavior was lowered, a complete consensus was achieved for all but this single behavior. Online
faculty and students did demonstrate a consensus of opinion regarding the importance of 14 verbal
immediacy behaviors. The panel’s list is offered in Table 1.
Table 1 Delphi Round 3 Combined Panel Results
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Important Online Verbal Immediacy Behaviors
IQR
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The instructor uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he had outside of class
1
The instructor asks questions or encourages students to respond
1
The instructor uses humor in the course
0
The instructor addresses students by name
1
The instructor addresses me by name
1
The instructor refers to class as "our" class or what "we" are doing
1
The instructor provides feedback on my individual work through comments
on papers, discussions etc.
0
The instructor asks how students feel about an assignment, due dates, or discussion topics
2
The instructor invites students to telephone or chat sessions outside of class if they have
questions or want to discuss something
1
The instructor asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions
1
The instructor praises students' work, actions or comments
1
The instructor uses color, emoticons, clip art, and/or media in their
communications with students
1
Copyright 2012 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
3
28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
The instructor provides regular announcements outlining the learning objectives, solidifying
their relevance, and offering guidance for a more efficient and effective mastery
0
The instructor offers personal details about themselves, including imagery
1
The instructor invites students to appraise his/her approach to instruction during the active term
1
_________________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
Interaction is at the heart of any learning experience and is widely cited as a defining characteristic of
successful outcomes in both traditional and the online learning environments (Picciano, 2002; Swan,
2002; Wanstreet, 2006). However, as Eastmond (1995) asserted, computer-mediated communication is
not inherently interactive. Rather, it is dependent on factors including the frequency, timeliness, and
nature of the exchange. With this in mind, instructional immediacy within the online classroom was
described by Baker and Woods (2004) to be the “pedagogical and administrative actions an instructor
takes throughout an online course to increase the students’ sense of human interaction, instructor
presence, caring, and connectedness” (p.135). Noting the aforementioned caveats, and with the results of
the 2011 Delphi study as a guide, the following immediacy-based instructional strategies are advanced.
Initiate and maintain timely and on-going contact – be proactive in communication with
students through weekly announcements, individual contact, and engagement. Highlight a sincere
personal interest in the learner’s success and emphasize an unfettered availability for student
contact. Set a goal for response time to student inquires of less than 12 hours.
Adapt communication to various learning styles - Create technology-enhanced snippets that
guide students through the learning process, detailing what is expected, and using available media
to provide a feeling of direct instruction, personal attention and collective ownership.
Create channels for personalization - Provide social-emotional cues with routine messages that
represent personality and self-image. Judiciously introduce humor, as appropriate. Provide
individualized feedback on all work. Encourage learners to share their own experiences and
views. Praise individual and group student effort.
Generate impetus through communication - Demonstrate a high presence through regular
opportunities for interaction. Always address students by name, course endeavors in the
possessive, demonstrate a personal interest in each student by asking questions and offering
personal examples.
Previous investigations into the area of instructional communication have supported the long-held
premise that verbal and nonverbal behaviors conveyed by instructors have the potential to influence
student learning outcomes. Instructional immediacy in the online classroom is the extent to which
teachers are able to project affability and congeniality through their communication. In short, the more
that an instructor can do to lend a caring and supportive approach to the online classroom, the more
receptive learners will profit from an online learning experience. Such interactions are not all that
challenging to construct, but faculty must take the initiative for doing so. But doing will requires a
planned and concerted effort, a little empathy, and a sincere desire to make online learning the fruitful and
rewarding experience that we ourselves would desire it to be.
Copyright 2012 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
4
28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication
Yearbook, 3, 543-559.
Bailie, J. L. (2011). Effective online instructional competencies as perceived by online university faculty
and students: A sequel study. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 82–89. Retrieved
from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/bailie_0311.pdf
Baker, J., & Woods, R. H. (2004). Immediacy, cohesiveness, and the online classroom. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 133-151.
Cornish, E. (1977). The study of the future. Washington, DC: World Future Society.
Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide
to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Eastmond, D.V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing.
Hampton Press:New Jersey.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behavior and student learning.
Communication Education. 37, 40-53.
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communications. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.
Mehrabian, A. (1968). Inference of attitudes from the posture, orientation, and distance of a
communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 296-308.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in
an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21- 40.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction.
Education, Communications, & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interactions in online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 7(4), 399-411.
About the Presenter
Jeffrey Bailie is a full time professor with the Kaplan School of Graduate Education. Jeff has been a
classroom teacher in a variety of learning environments ranging from the middle school grades through to
doctoral level of instruction, on-ground and online, domestic and international. Over the past decade, he
has taught more than 100 online courses through a variety of academic institutions. His areas of
specialization include assessment and evaluation, online faculty training, mentoring, and supervision.
Areas of recent research interest have included validation of online instructor competencies, and the
influence of instructional immediacy and engagement on online student performance and persistence.
Email:
UPL:
Phone:
[email protected]
http://online.kaplanuniversity.edu/education/Pages/Schools_Of_Education.aspx
605-430-0509
Copyright 2012 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
5