chapter 1 2 3 11 october 11

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

1/74

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011 Page 1

PhD THESES

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

Working Title: Exploring lecturers Instructional Communication at an

institution of higher learning, in South Africa, where English is the Medium of

Instruction.

Student name: Madikwa Hendrietta Segabutla

Student Number: 29460353

Programme: PhD Curriculum Design, Instruction, and Development

Email address: [email protected]

Date: November 2011

Supervisor: Dr R Evans

Mobile: 083 732 0099

Email: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

2/74


Chapter 1. An overview of the study

Introduction

What are the dynamics that are at play when lecturers communicate with their

students during instruction? What perceptions do students have about their lecturers

as they interact with them during instruction? What perceptions do the lecturers hold

about their own communication skills during an instructional interaction? These are

questions that I began to ponder about when I realised that more and more students

are not succeeding in their learning and are dropping out regardless of the efforts

that the lecturers, institutions and the government are putting in to facilitate students

success. No one can deny the importance of effective communication in human

interaction and in building relationships.

In life, people are expected to interact with one another in a manner that enables

them to send, and receive messages with as little misunderstanding (a mistake in

understanding the meaning of something), misinterpretation (getting the wrong idea

about something) or miscommunication (failure to communicate something clearly or

correctly) as possible. This is effective communication, which forms the basis of

relationships between lecturers and their students, in instructional contexts.

Lecturers spend much time sending and receiving messages to and from their

students. This happens through interpersonal communication (face-to-face

communication), small-group settings, verbal communication, nonverbal

communication, intercultural communication, and organisational communication.

The Department of Education, students, parents of students, and managers of

institutions expect lecturers to be effective communicators. Lecturers should have

deep understanding of when a student needs to be heard, how to interpret signals

correctly, show enthusiasm or concern, use facial expressions or gestures

appropriately, be humorous, and / or serious when the need arises (Bless & Higson

Smith, 2000). It is not enough for lecturers to simply master the content of what

they have to teach students or to know which methods and strategies to use in

lectures. They also need to know how to communicate effectively, verbally and

nonverbally, with students so that the latter are able to grasp what they are taught

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

3/74


during instruction. They need to be aware that they are not only providing facts and

information to students but are also impacting how students perceive them as

individuals (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). Therefore, one of the keys to lecturers

success in their profession is effective communication skills. The question is how

successful are lecturers in communicating effectively with their students during

instruction. This is what effective instructional communication is about, and it is what

this enquiry sought to explore.

Instructional communication refers to communication in a lecture environment, with

special focus on the instructors communication skills (Ismail & Idris, 2009).

Teaching and learning take place through communication, therefore, all forms of

communication, verbal and nonverbal, should be observed during formal instruction

to facilitate learning.

In this chapter I attempt to give an explanation of the importance of this study, the

problem statement, aims and objectives of the study, research questions that the

study attempted to answer, clarify key concepts that form the basis of this study,

outline the scope of this study, give a brief explanation of the research methods

used, the findings, conclusions and recommendations, outline the organisation of the

study, the possible limitations of the study and future research. An explanation of

these aspects follows:

1.1. The rationale of the study

The Department of Education (DoE) in South Africa (SA) identified, as a priority, the

need to improve the quality of education (Department of Education, 2008). This led

to the establishment of The Quality Learning and Lectures Campaign launched by

the former Minister of Education, Mrs Naledi Pando on 09 October 2008, in

Thembisa (Department of Education, 2008). One of the aims of the campaign is to

improve the quality of education for all children through better learner achievements.

This was reiterated by the President of South Africa, Mr J Zuma, in his Nation

Address, in 2009 and later by the Minister of Higher Education in South Africa, Mr

Blade Nzimande, at The Teacher Development Summit, held in South Africa, on 2

July 2009 (Department of Education, 2009). The aim of this study therefore, is to

explore the dynamics that are at play when lecturers and students interact, as I try to

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

4/74


gain a deep understanding of the instructional communication skills of one of the

primary role players in education, the lecturer.

My interest in this research was stimulated by the reality that students in institutions

of Higher learning do not succeed as expected. There is a high level of student drop-

out (MacGregor, 2009), and concerns that the Higher education sector is not

meeting national needs in respect of economic growth, and ...social cohesion

(Pando, 2005, in Higher education Monitor No.6). There are also concerns about

what needs to be done to support students, in order to improve the quality of

teaching and learning. Speculations are made about the factors that contribute to

students low success rates in universities, such as; lack of access into higher

institutions of learning, the poor quality of the learning experience, students

unpreparedness, challenges with English as the language of instruction; finances;

allegations that students do not study, do not take their studies seriously, are lazy,

and lack motivation (MacGregor, 2009; (Department of Education, 2008; Higher

education Monitor, 2009). The focus, quite often, is on what students are either doing

or not doing to facilitate learning. Less attention, if any, is given to what lecturers are

doing or not doing to ensure that students learn successfully. I then began to wonder

whether lecturers instructional communication was not one of the possible factors

contributing to students low success and retention rates. What are the complexities

of lecturers instructional communication in institutions of higher learning?

My observations, and experience, as a lecturer, at one of the institutions of higher

learning in South Africa, made me realise that the quality of lecturers communication

with students is key in students learning. If lecturers do not express themselves well,

verbally and nonverbally, students struggle to receive their messages. If lecturers

expect students to succeed in learning, they too should take responsibility to support

students effectively in their learning, by being effective communicators. I

experienced, first hand, how students fail to cope with their academic responsibilities

once they are at university. A gap exists between what students are expected to

know from Grade 12, and what they should be dealing with at universities.

Universities complain that students are underpreparedwhen they enter university,

regardless of the high marks they may have obtained in their grade 12 findings. Thiswas also confirmed in a study conducted by MacGregor (2009) at a number of South

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

5/74


African universities. The objectives of the study were to assess the entry-level

literacy and mathematics proficiencies of students, to probe the relationship between

university entry requirements, and school exit outcomes ... (Ibid, p.1). The study

indicated that there is a gap between what students acquired in school, and what

they are expected to have acquired in order to cope at university level. As a result,

lecturers find themselves having to go back and lecture what students should have

learnt in high school, and still cover the prescribed syllabus for the given course.

Time is of the essence, and quite often, the quality of the course gets compromised

in the process of bridging the gap. The focus needs to shift to whether lecturers are

able to adapt to new students that now enter universities. How effective are they in

communicating with these students during instruction?

The decline in the quality of Higher education is not unique to South Africa; it is a

global concern (Archived Information, US Department of Education, 2007; Times

Higher education, 2003). However, there is little research if any, in South Africa, on

lecturers instructional communication. It is against this background that the study set

out to explore the complexities of lecturers communication, with students, during

instruction, with the aim to increase human understanding on instructional

communication (Bless, and Higson-Smith, 2000) in the South African context. My

study sought not to test any theory on instructional communication but to relate

existing theories to this study for better insight. I also did not seek to generalise any

findings that might be obtained in the research, but to transfer what could be learnt

from research conducted, to similar contexts.

While a lot of research was conducted on instructional communication (Baringer &

McCroskey, 2000; Richmond et al, 2001; Richmond, McCroskey& Johnson, 2003;

Rocca, 2004; Pogue & Alyn, 2006; Zhang et al, 2007 etc.), a gap exists in these

studies that might compromise the reliability and validity of these studies in the field

of instructional communication. The researchers used only one method of collecting

data; questionnaires. There were no other methods to triangulate or crystallise the

findings of the questionnaire. A question remains if the researchers would have

arrived at the same conclusions had they used other methods of data collection like

interviews, classroom observations etc. most of these studies, focused on the

perceptions of students only without corroborating them with those of the lecturers or

the researchers observations. It is against this background that while my study is

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

6/74


about a long researched topic, I sought to use different methods of data collection;

questionnaires, interviews and observations so as to crystallise the information

gathered, to ensure reliability and validity.

Research Questions

In this study, an attempt was made to answer the following research questions to

gain a deeper understanding of the nature of lecturers communication as they

interact with their students in a multilingual instructional context:

1. The Primary question asked was:

RQ.1. what are the complexities of lecturers instructional communication in

multilingual lecture halls, where English is the medium of instruction?

This question forms the basis of this study as it helped me to gain deeper insight into

what the literature says about lecturers instructional communication. The answer to

this question helped me to identify several factors that contribute to instructional

communication like teacher traits, teacher communication behaviour, student

perceptions, learning outcomes, and learning environment. Because these factors

are so wide, I would not have done justice to this field if I attempted to explore themall in one study. I therefore chose to focus my study on teacher behaviours like

verbal and nonverbal behaviours, teacher clarity and source credibility. My choice of

focusing only on these aspects of instructional communication was also influenced

by my initial wonder, about whether lecturers are not possibly contributing towards

students low success rate and high drop-out rate as they interact with the students in

a lecture environment. I them decided to explore these factors by answering the

following secondary questions:

RQ.1.1. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of thelecturers verbal and nonverbal immediacy, at an institution of higher learning?

RQ.1.2. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of thelecturers clarity, at an institution of higher learning?

RQ.1.3. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of thelecturers credibility, at an institution of higher learning?

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

7/74


These questions were addressed through students responses in the questionnaires

administered, interviews held with the lecturers and the researcher observations of

lecturer presentations.

1.2. Contextualising the study

- The evolution of instructional Communication

o Internationally

o Nationally (SA)

1.3. Key Concept clarification

The following are key concepts that were used in this study and therefore need to be

clarified for better understanding of what they mean in the context of this study.

Some of these concepts appear to be obvious in their meaning and were explained

in simplistic terms. However, what is important is not what they mean but how they

were used in the context of this study and therefore, an argument is presented on

how they should be understood to avoid confusion. A brief explanation of theconcepts follows;

Communication

Communication is a multidisciplinary concept and therefore has multiple definitions.

The varying definitions of communication, presents, varying models that explain the

communication process. I considerCollins and OBriens (2003, p. 65) definition of

communication, which sums up communication as the exchange of ideas, including

hearing or receiving information, speaking or sending information, and use of

language, written, oral and symbolic. This definition brings to light many aspects of

communication, which are found in other definitions, that communication is:

interactive and participative ideas are exchanged; is a two-way processwith

feedback; it involves basic language skills- hearing, listening, speaking and in other

contexts even reading and writing; that there are participants one who sends

information (sender) and one who receives information (receiver) although these

roles are switched in the process, languageis used, and ideas are exchanged

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

8/74


through a medium/codes(oral, written and symbolic). Sage (2003, p.1) indicates

that communication is dynamic in that it includes many ways of sending and

receiving messages, and not simply telling things to others. For the purpose of this

study, communication, therefore, refers to a two-way process where both the

sender and the receiver create and exchange information e.g. ideas, feelings,

emotions, thoughts, attitudes, values etc., through verbal and nonverbal interactions,

via a medium. This definition places communication properly in an instructional

context wherein the participants; the lecturer and students interact with the purpose

of creating and sharing knowledge which changes with each lecture, and the

participants themselves, change roles in the process.

Institutions of higher learning

The term Institutions of higher learning in South Africa is used synonymously to

institutions of higher education. These refer to all registered academic institutions,

according to the Higher Education Act No.101 of 1997 of South Africa, that offer

qualifications higher than grade 12 (Mothata et al, 2000, p.76). Qualifications offered

are undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, offered on full-time or part-time

basis, through a contact or distance mode of delivery. The qualifications offered

range from certificates, to diplomas, to degrees. In 2001, the higher education

institutions in South Africa were divided into 21 Universities and 15 technikons

(Bunting, 2004). Technikons were institutions that offered vocational qualifications in

applied disciplines, and had less focus on research. Universities offered professional

academic programmes, with more emphasis on research. The situation changed in

2002, when the Department of Education rationalised the higher education system

by merging some of the institutions. For the purpose of this study, institutions of

higher learning referred to any accredited academic institution that offers formal

instruction to students registered for tertiary education programmes.

student-teacher interaction

Instructional Communication

Simonds (2001, p.1) defines Instructional communication as a field of study that

informs educators of all disciplines about the communication skills necessary to

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

9/74


function competently in the classroom. These communication skills entail teacher

immediacy, power, clarity, interpersonal relationships with students, and the use of

verbal and nonverbal codes, among others. Lecturers need these skills to be able to

impart the content of what they had planned to teach and students need these skills

to grasp what the lecturers teach. In this study, Instructional communication referred

to lecturers communicative skills, as they interact with their students verbally and

nonverbally, in a face-to-face learning environment. More information on instructional

communication is given in the literature review as this is the basis of my study.

Multilingual lecture hall

There seems to be no agreement on the definition of multilingualism. However, most

definitions commonly refer to multilingualism as the use of more than three

languages (Aronin & Hufein, 2009; Kemp, 2009; Nio-Murcia & Rothman, 2008).

The difference in the varying definitions is due to the fact there is no agreement in

terms of the degree of proficiency and functionality in the languages used (Ibid).

There are also different opinions about the number of languages to be mastered.

Others believe it should be mastery of three or more languages (Aronin & Hufein,

2009; Kemp, 2009) while others believe it should be two or more, hence they usemultilingualism and bilingualism interchangeably (Nio-Murcia & Rothman, 2008).

From these definitions, one can therefore conclude that to be multilingual means to

be able to speak more than three languages. A multilingual lecture hall did therefore

be a setting in which learners who speak more than three languages receive

instruction. Since language carries within it culture, a multilingual lecture hall did

have learners coming from different cultural backgrounds as well. All of these

variables did influence how teaching and learning takes place and how perceptions

are formed. For the purpose of this study, a multilingual lecture hall is an instructional

setting, at an institution of higher learning, where learners interact with each other,

from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

perceptions

Since instructional communication is about students perceptions, it is important to

explain what perceptions are. Perceptions refer to how we view the self, and how

others view us, through the five senses as we give meaning to communication

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

10/74


encounters (Geddes, 1995). Geddes points out that many of the systems in our

societyranging from family systems to organisational systems perpetuate

unhealthy behaviours and low self-esteem (p.22) .This study did explore how

lecturers perceive their instructional communication during lectures, and how

students perceive their lecturers instructional communication during lectures. I also

establish my perceptions of lecturers instructional communication through

observations that I conduct. The aim of these exercises did be, to gain an in-depth

knowledge of the nature of lecturers instructional communication, using various

instruments to collect data, so that the information gained could be reliable.

Lecturers often become casualties of damaged self-esteem because of practices

and structures created by institutions. In some instances, lecturers, themselves,

become the perpetuators of low self - esteem in students. The question is do

lecturers esteem themselves and, how do students esteem them.

1.4. The scope of study

In this study, no logical appeals and emotions were used to gain knowledge

(rhetorical), no signs and symbols were studied to elicit meaning (semiotic), nopersonal experiences were shared (Phenomenological), no social order was

explored as the glue of society (Sociocultural), and I did not see communication as a

social arrangement of power and oppression (Critical) (Graig 1999, in Littlejohn,

2002). However, I followed the Sociopsychological tradition of communication in

conducting my research. This tradition accents behaviour, variables, effects,

personalities, traits, perception, cognition, attitudes and interaction (Littlejohn, 2002,

p.14). I explored lecturers, students and my perceptions, of lecturers

communication skills as the lecturers interacted with their students during instruction.

Since language and communication are key elements that influence social and

academic success (Daly & Brown, 2007), my research was guided by three

assumptions made by Wilkenson (1982, p.4,), one of the forefathers of linguistics, on

the sociolinguistic approach to language, that

Interaction in classroom activities requires competence in both the structuraland functional aspects of language. I therefore decided to explore how

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

11/74


competent are lecturers in their communication with students, during

lecturers. This I did by evaluating both students and lecturers perceptions on

lecturers instructional communication.

The classroom is a unique communication context. Meaning is negotiated and

knowledge is shared when lecturers and students interact with each other in

an instructional context. This type of communication is symbolic of

interpersonal, verbal, nonverbal, small group, mass communication,

intercultural, extrapersonal and organisational communication contexts. This

assumption led me to attempt to gain a deeper insight into what dynamics are

at play when lecturers and students communicate with each other as they

interact in an instructional environment.

Students differ in their communicative competence. This is because they

come from different backgrounds and therefore bring with them, various

variables of communication, into the learning environment. One of the

variables they bring into a learning environment is their language proficiency

and this has an impact on how they will learn depending on the medium of

instruction at their institution of learning. It is against this background that I

decided to focus on an institution where English is the medium of instruction

because students are at various levels of proficiency in English. The same

can be said about teachers/lecturers; they differ in their communicative

competence, they differ in their proficiency in English, which is the medium

through which they need to impart knowledge meaningfully and successfully

to students and thereby facilitate effective cognitive learning. This explains

why my participants are not just one lecturer but seven lecturers so that I get

a holistic view of the subject of lecturer instructional communication.

These assumptions bring in relations between instructional communication and other

aspects of communication which did not form part of the conceptual framework of my

study, as I would not do justice to them since they are studies in their own right.

Researchers agree that the communication of instructors (teachers, lecturers,

facilitators, trainers) plays an important role during teaching and learning (Simonds,

2001; McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond, 2004), as teachers and students negotiate

meaning in a classroom context. This importance is supported by other researchers,

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

12/74


who use concepts, such as lecturer communication (Daly & Brown, 2007),

communication competence (Schirmer, Mauksch et al,2005; Lane, 2000),

Classroom communication (Ismail & Idris,2009), classroom interaction (Osakwe,

2009), verbal and nonverbal behaviour in the classroom ( Babad, 2009), and

classroom Discourse Analysis ( Rymes, 2009; Nuthall, 2009) to explain what

happens in a learning environment. Their research is still about instructional

communication, although they use different concepts, depending on the focus of

their research.

Research on Instructional Communication usually follows two general approaches;

relations and rhetoric. The relational approach relates to the transactional model of

interpersonal communication, which assumes that lecturers and students are mutual

partners in exchanging information and ideas, for shared understanding (McCrosky

et al, 2004, p.198). Both lecturers and students are seen as sources and receivers of

messages. This is in line with communication as a two-way process. The rhetoric

approach relates to influence via person-to-group communication (Ibid). It assumes

that lecturers are the source of information with students acting only as receivers.

This approach restricts communication to a one-way process. The question is, whichapproach to instruction, do lecturers follow as they interact with their students, during

formal instruction. I followed the relational approach because I believe that lecturers

and students are equal participants in the communication process. If the lecturer

becomes the sole source of information or knowledge during instruction, the lecture

becomes lecturer focused, and this does not facilitate cognitive learning. This is also

that traditional approach to teaching which is no longer relevant in todays learning

environments. Students need to be involved and actively participate in the learning

process.

Instructional communication is explained from a generic model of instructional

communication which consists of: students perceptions of teachers verbal and

nonverbal communication behaviours; students perceptions of the teachers source

credibility and task attractiveness; and instructional outcomes (McCrosky et al,

2005). This model, suggests that perceptions are one of the variables in instructional

communication. This is because students bring to an instructional context, variables

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

13/74


such as: intelligence; personality; prior learning and temperament among others,

which influence how they perceive their lecturers. Teachers on the other hand differ,

in terms of what they too bring to an instructional context: communication

behaviours; teaching methods and subject knowledge among others (Ibid), and

therefore, did have their own perceptions of how the communicate. In addition, each

(students and lecturers) creates perceptions of the other either before, during or after

instructional interactions. Therefore, I explore the lecturers, students and

researchers perceptions of lecturers verbal and nonverbal communication

behaviours, clarity and credibility during instruction. A brief explanation of these

factors follows; more will be said in the next chapter of this study.

Immediacyis a term that evolved from Mehrabians work in 1966,1971, and 1981

(Richmond, McCrosky & Johnson, 2003) where he came up with his immediacy

principle which states that people are drawn towards persons and things they like,

they evaluate highly, and prefer; they avoid or move away from things they dislike,

evaluate negatively, or do not prefer ( p.2). Several studies have linked teacher

immediacy to positive affect towards courses and instructors, greater motivation to

learn, greater achievement and greater perceptions of control by the students

(McCrosky & Chesebro, 2001, McCrosky & Richards, 2005). It is therefore important

that lecturers become aware of how they use their verbal and nonverbal codes

during instruction, to facilitate cognitive learning.

Teacher clarity, on the other hand, is the process by which an instructor is able to

effectively stimulate the desired meaning of course content and processes in the

minds of students through the use of appropriate structured verbal and nonverbal

messages (McCrosky & Chesebro, 2001, p.62). McCrosky & Chesebro conducted a

study where they concluded that teacher clarity is related to increased student

motivation to learn; that clear teachers speak fluently, stay on task and explain

information effectively; that students of clear lecturers are less likely to experience

receiver apprehension in the classroom.

Teacher credibility: Issues such as teacher immediacy, teacher clarity, power and

compliance-gaining, interpersonal relationships, listening and feedback, nonverbal

communication and effective teaching strategies are central to the role ofcommunication during learning (Simonds, 2001). However, the scope of this study

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

14/74


was to explore lecturers communication behaviours by measuring students,

lecturers, and the researcher perceptions of lecturers verbal and nonverbal

immediacy; clarity and credibility, as they interact with students during lectures.

1.5. Research Design and Methodology

The table below gives a summary of the research design and methodology followed

in this study

Table1. Summary of research methodology and process

ASSUMPTIONSEpistemological paradigm: Constructivism approachMethodological paradigm: Pragmatic methodology

RESEARCH DESIGNApproach QualitativeDesign Case study

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTSNon-probability conveniencesample

2 institutions of higher learning in South Africa

Participants Primary data - seven lecturers who offer BasicCommunication Skills coursesSecondary data - 300 students taught by the

target lecturersDATA COLLECTION

Protocols Semi-structured , face-to-face,individual interviews (lecturers)

eCOVE and video recordedobservations (lectures)

300 self-administered questionnaires(students)

Data documentation instruments Observation scheduled, interview schedule,eCOVE observation report,

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONSPSS, and Weft.QDA

DUALITY CRITERIAReliability Researcher effects, Participant effects, Context effects, Test-retestreliabilityValidity Content validity, Construct validity,

ETHICSInformed consent, Confidentiality, Anonymity, Trust

A brief discussion of the research design and methodology will now follow on the

next page, with detailed information in chapter three.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

15/74


1.5.1. Research philosophy

The world we live in requires some kind of knowledge, which can be viewed in three

worlds the world of everyday life and lay knowledge (pragmatics), the world of

science (epistemic), and the world of metascience (Mouton, 2009, pp. 8-9). This

study followed a pragmatic interest because I sought to explore the complexities of

lecturers instructional communication which is part of the lecturers and students

day-to-day activities. When students report on their lecturers communication skills,

they would be dwelling on their lay knowledge as students and not experts in the

field of communication. I explored how students and lecturers interact with one

another in a multilingual lecture context, from a constructivist point of view, which is

concerned with the uniqueness of each particular situation (Nieuwenhuis (2009,

p.51). Hittleman & Simon (2006, p.65) add that peoples behaviours and actions

occur in specific social contexts or situations, and therefore, ought to be studied in

natural settings. Each lecture that I observed is a unique situation in that the

interaction between lecturers and students varied from lecture to lecture, depending

on: the subject matter that was presented; the participants involved - lecturers and

students who present different dynamics with each lecture; and the learning context

itself, which was not the same at all times. I also sought to transfer knowledge fromone context to another by exploring different lecturers perceptions of their own

instructional communication skills and different students perceptions of their different

lecturers.

This study did not seek to generate any models or theory, which is the role of the

epistemic world; nor did it sought to bring conceptual clarity to any key concepts,

which is the aim of metascience. I also did not search for any empirical regularities

of laws of human behaviour, which is what Babbie & Mouton (2006, p.272), refer to

as the nomothetic strategy. My study followed the idiographic strategy which

examines a single event or case and its structural coherence with a larger context

(Ibid). The event under study is instruction as the lecturers interact with the students

during lectures.

I conducted an exploratory research using a case study of an institution of higher

learning in South Africa. The university has five academic Faculties, with eight

campuses, in three provinces; Gauteng, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga. A case study is

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

16/74


a systematic examination of an event or a set of related events which describes and

explains a phenomenon (Gillman, 2000; Babbie & Mouton, 2009. One of the

criticisms laid against case studies is that they are incapable of providing a

generalising conclusion. This is not the purpose of a case study because case

studies are aimed at gaining greater insight and understanding of the dynamics of a

specific situation (Nieuwenhuis, 2009), which is what my study is about.

Generalisation from one group of people to others, in human behaviour, is not

possible because, there are too many elements that are specific to that group

(Gillham, 2000). Case studies are known for their multiple source of evidence, to

ensure reliability. I used interviews and observations to gather data from the primary

source, the lecturers, and questionnaires to gather data from the secondary sources,

the students. The approach to my research is mainly qualitative as I conducted

manual and video recorded observations and face-to-face, semi-structured

interviews, with a quantitative data gathering tool used (self-administered

questionnaires). A brief explanation of how the qualitative approach was used

follows.

Qualitative Research

I followed a qualitative approach to my study by examining human actions in natural

context, interaction of other people and objects in their surrounding (Holloway &

Wheeler, 2002; Hittleman & Simon, 2006; Babbie & Mouton, 2006 ; Creswelll et al

2009; Mouton, 2009; Bless & Higson Smith; 2000,Jansen, 2009). I explored what

happened during an instructional episode with special focus on lecturers

communication skills in a lecture hall environment, which is seen as a natural context

in which lecturers interact with students daily, as they go about negotiating teaching

and learning. I interviewed and observed the participants myself to get a holistic view

of their perceptions about their own communication skills. This is in line with one of

the requirements of qualitative research; using multiple sources of data. I employed

the help of research assistants in video recording the lectures observed. Holloway &

Wheeler (2002) add that the researcher in qualitative research not only studies

people or systems but also participate and observes the participants in their natural

setting. However, I did not interact with the participants as this might have changed

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

17/74


my research to action learning, which is not the approach I wanted to follow. I was an

outside observer, in that much as I was in the same venue with the participants, I did

not teach anything, nor was I a learner, but a researcher. I used observation

checklists, interview schedules and the eCOVE software to record data, during

lecture sessions of one and half hours, per lecturer. The observations helped to

bridge the gap between what people say they do and their actual behaviour

(Bryman, 2001). The same lectures were video recorded, with the help of video

technicians. The reasons behind the two sessions of lectures were; to confirm what

was observed in the first session and to include some essential aspects that were

not part of the initial observation. I also interviewedthe seven lecturers, in one

session of 30 minutes each, to gain more insight into their perceptions about their

own communication skills, during formal instruction. More information on the

observations and face-to-face interviews will be given in chapter 4, under data

collection.

I did not conduct a quantitative research per se, but used one of the quantitative data

gathering techniques, questionnaires, to get as much information from the secondary

source of data, the students. Questionnaires were administered to 300 students in

order to get their perceptions of their lecturers instructional communication.

Quantitative research is known for using numbers and measurement (Gillham, 2000;

Babbie & Mouton, 2006, Bryman, 2001, Creswell et al, 2009).

1.5.2. Research process

The primary source of data in this research was seven lecturers at two institutions of

higher learning, in Gauteng, South Africa. I approached these lecturers and sent

them invitation letters to participate in the study, by virtue of the fact that they have

been offering communication courses, for some time at the institutions. They all

agreed to participate in the study. I used a non-probability convenience sample of six

permanent staff member, who interact more with the students and one part-time

lecturer. All of these lecturers offer Basic Communication Skills courses, at the two

institutions. The seven participants included 4 male lecturers (one white and three

black) and four female lecturers (two white and two black), of different age groups.Case studies are known for their small sample (Babbie & Mouton, 2006) and as such

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

18/74


this sample appears to be small, but is representative of the population of lecturers.

The sample is representative in that the population of lecturers in institutions of

higher learning is fairly large to cover in this study, and it is also costly to include all

institutions of higher learning in South Africa, in the study. Seven lecturers are

representative enough to generate knowledge that is truthful. The secondary

source of data is 300 students (black, white, male and female), who are taught by

the target lecturers. The students are at different levels of English language

proficiency since some have English as their mother tongue, others as second or

third languages. The emphasis is on the English language proficiency because

English is the medium of instruction at both institutions. Very few students have

competence in English. The selection of the sample might appear to be biased in

that six lecturers are based in the same department, at the same university, with the

exception of one lecturer. One should remember that the research conducted with

only the lecturer at one of the research sites, was a pilot study. The bias is

addressed in that lecturers are spread throughout the one institution, located at

various campuses, in the three provinces of South Africa, reducing the lecturer

effect. The lecturers offer courses to students who are registered for programmes, in

varying departments, Faculties, and campuses of the institutions, and this addresses

the student and campus effect. As a researcher, I personally interviewed the

participants and observed the lecture presentations to get a holistic view of the

perceptions of lecturers communication skills. More of the roles that I played are

explained in the next chapter.

Protocols

As already mentioned, multiple methods of data collection, interviews, observations

and questionnaires were used in this study to ensure reliability. For the purpose of

this study, data were collected using the ordinal level of measurement which refers

to variables with attributes that we can logically rank-order e.g. very important, fairly

important, important (Babbie & Mouton, 2009, p.131). A brief discussion of each data

collection tool used in my study follows, more on these will be discussed in

Chapter3:

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

19/74


Observations

One of the data-gathering methods I used for the qualitative study was observations.

I conducted twophases of one and half hours of lecture observations with seven

participants without interacting with them. The first phase was a pilot and then the

second session followed which was in the main study. One of the most distinctive

features of Qualitative research, is to attempt to view the world through the eyes

(perspective) of the actors themselves (Babbie and Mouton, 2009, p.271). It is

against this background that I played the role of a "qualitative researcher, one who

need not always participate in what they are studying, (Gillham, 2000). I did not

participate in any of the activities during lectures, because I did not want to influence

the study with my opinions, attitudes and experiences, but obtained an objective

view as far as possible. I recorded descriptions of what was observed, and

reflections on what happened, using a table (see Appendix C), modified from Evans

(2009) to suit my study. The observations I engaged in first were used in the pilot

study, and analysed for the purpose of adding or removing some aspects for use in

the main study. I also used the eCOVE observation software to gather data during

the observations. I chose to use eCOVE as it is software that is readily available in

the market, which proved to be reliable (sources) and can be used with ease during

actual instruction. A trained video technician videotaped the same lectures that I

observed to get any information I might have failed to capture during the use of the

eCOVE observation tool and to ensure reliability of what I shall have observed (see

Addendum B). More is said about how the camera and the eCOVE observation tool

were used, in chapter three of this study.

Face-to-face interviews

Another qualitative data-gathering technique that I used was the semi-structured,

face-to-face, individual interviews. I conducted one session of 30 minutes or more if

necessary, semi-structured, face-to-face, individual interviews, in English, with each

of the seven participants in the study. The interviews were held in the lecturers

offices to ensure privacy and to minimise disturbances. I personally conducted all

the face-to-face interviews to observe both the verbal and nonverbal codes of the

interviewees, and to assess their English language proficiency. An established set of

pre-determined, open-ended questions, with fixed wording and sequence ofpresentation (Babbie & Mouton, 2009, Wengraf, 2004) were asked, to explore the

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

20/74


nature of the lecturers communication skills during instruction, as they interacted

with their students. Follow-up questions were used to encourage the respondents to

express their attitudes, emotions, ideas or opinions, and to elicit more information. I

used clarification probes and paraphrasing to check the correctness of my

understanding of what was said. Wood & Kruger (2000) state that, one of the

requirements of interviews is that the interviewer and the interviewee are equal

partners in constructing meaning. The face-to-face interviews helped me to

synthesise data that emerged from the questionnaires and the observations. Chapter

three gives more information on how the interviews were conducted.

Questionnaires

As indicated before, the secondary data were collected through self-administered

questionnaires, to students, in two phases. In the first phase, the questionnaires

were pre-tested to identify errors, ambiguity in questions or violations of rules

(Babbie & Mouton, 2009), through a pilot study. This was done with one lecturer and

her students, to ensure reliability and validity, before the actual data gathering in the

main study. The questions asked in the questionnaires were informed by the

literature on assessing students perceptions in lecturers verbal and nonverbal

behaviour, clarity and credibility in instructional communication. The questionnaire

comprised of four sections: Section A which sought the students biographical data;

Section B which is a verbal and nonverbal immediacy scale that sought students

perceptions about their lecturers use of verbal and nonverbal communication skills,

adapted from the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale Observer Report (NIS-O) by

Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) ; Section C which is the Lecturer Clarity

measure adapted from Pwell and Harville (1990) and Sidelinger and McCroskey

(1997) and which explored students perceptions about how clear the lecturers are

during instruction. Section D is a Credibility Scale adapted from McCroskey and

Teven (1999) that evaluated students perceptions about their lecturer credibility. In

the second phase, the main study, 300 questionnaires were administered to

students, by trained research assistants. This was done in 30 minutes sessions with

the students taught by the participants, when students were free to participate in the

study. This was to address ethical considerations of the study like, voluntary

participation and non-interference with the university schedule. More information isgiven in chapter three.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

21/74


The data in the study were recorded and analysed through the use of SPSS software

and the eCOVE observation report for the quantitative study and the use of the

Weft.QDA software for the qualitative part of the study. More information on data

analysis is discussed in the fourth chapter of the study.

Findings, conclusion, recommendations, limitations and future research

1.6. Organisation of the Study

The outline of the study is in three phases, front matter, interrogation and back

matter. The Front matter includes a list of tables, a list of figures and a list of

addenda. The interrogation is as follows:

1. The first Chapter of the study gives the background of the study, which

introduces the problem statement, aims and objectives of the study, research

questions, and potential contributions; clarifies key concepts, and gives a brief

introduction of the research methods, the scope and organisation of the study.

2. In the second chapter, I explore the relevant literature to explain the

conceptualisation of the study, focussing on lecturers instructionalcommunication skills, with specific reference to teacher verbal and nonverbal

behaviours, clarity and credibility.

3. In the third Chapter, I explain the selected research philosophy and research

methodology,

4. The fourth chapter explains how data were collected through interviews,

observations and questionnaires. The results of the study are also reflected.

5. The sixth chapter presents an analysis and interpretation of the results,

reporting the findings of the study, with examples to enrich the presentation of

my study, relating the results to the literature review, while

6. The final chapter, Chapter seven, presents the conclusions on my study,

reflects on the challenges faced, and discusses the potential value of the

study, recommendations, and future research.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

22/74


The back matter includes references, addenda, samples of questionnaire;

interview schedule; samples of the eCOVE observation reports; video

observation sheets and interview transcripts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this is a qualitative, case study of seven lecturers and their students

at an institution of higher learning in South Africa, where English is the medium of

instruction. This study sought to explore the dynamics that are at play when lecturers

and students interact with each other in an instructional context. The purpose of this

study was to make a meaningful contribution to the field of instructionalcommunication, by exploring this field from a South African perspective. Most studies

in instructional communication have been conducted abroad and none, if any, have

been conducted in South Africa. Also, most of these studies evaluated students

perceptions about their lecturers communication skills using only questionnaires to

gather data. This is likely to compromise the reliability and validity of the studies as

there is no other data to either triangulate or crystallise the results of the study. It is

against this background that I conducted this study in a South African environmentand used multiple instruments to gather data which was later crystallised.

Seven lecturers from six campuses of the university participated voluntarily, through

lecture observations and interviews, in the study, upon invitation, to reflect on their

own communication skills during lectures. The target lecturers student responded to

questionnaires that were administered to give their perceptions about their lecturers

communication skills during lecturers.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

23/74


Chapter 2: Literature review

Introduction

The debate around instructional communication has been going on for years. This is

because this field of study has its basis as communication, which is evolving all thetime. Also, the concept takes place within a learning context and learning itself is life-

long. However, most importantly, issues around instructional communication

continue to be discussed because of their impact on students cognitive learning.

This chapter gives a broad understanding of the concept of instructional

communication based on the literature and research conducted in the field. The

chapter starts by unpacking the concept of instructional communication; explains the

General Model of Instructional communication, which is the basis of this study;

discusses issues of immediacy which are verbal and nonverbal, the measures used

to evaluate immediacy and their reliability and validity; teacher clarity by looking atoral and written clarity, content and process clarity, measures of clarity and their

reliability and validity; and teacher credibility by exploring factors such as

competence, trustworthiness and caring/goodwill and explaining the instruments that

were/continue to be used to measure credibility, and their reliability and validity.

2.1. Instructional communication

Instructional communication is a field of study that informs educators of all

disciplines about the communication skills necessary to function competently in the

classroom,(Simonds, 2001.p.1). This definition puts communication at the centre of

instruction. It suggest that effective teaching takes place when the educator is aware

of and uses the communication skills necessary for teaching and learning to take

place. These skills entail: teacher immediacy, teacher clarity, power and compliance,

interpersonal relationships, listening, feedback and nonverbal communication.

Simonds and Cheri argue that a teacher can be an expert in his/her field, but if he

/she cannot communicate that knowledge in a way that students understand,

learning is not achieved. This is because they view communication as central in a

classroom context, where they see the classroom as a place where both the teacher

and the students mutually influence learning, and not where the teacher is the sole

influence. Effective communication, on the part of the teacher, should therefore,lead to increased learning and positive evaluation.

Since instructional communication is a form of communication, other theories of

communication can be used since theories of communication practical because

every theory is a response to some aspect of communication encountered in

everyday life (Littlejohn, 2002). These theories, according to Littlejohn include

Metatheory which is a field that attempts to describe and explain thesimilarities and differences among theories;

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

24/74


Epistemology which studies knowledge or how people know what they claim

to know. This theory include viewing knowledge from different perspectives;

rationalism, empiricism and constructivism. This study approaches knowledge

from the empiricism view in that the study seeks to explore the dynamics that

are at play when lecturers and students communicate with each other duringinstruction by looking at the students, lecturers and researchers perceptions.

Instructional communication can also be based on the seven traditional standpoints

as highlighted by Littlejohn (2002) which include;

the semiotic tradition that focuses on signs and symbols;

the phenomenological tradition which concentrates on personal experience

including how individuals experience one another;

the cybernetic tradition which views communication primarily as informationprocessing;

the sociocultural tradition which holds social order as its centrepiece and

sees communication as the glue of society;

the critical tradition that sees communication as a social arrangements of

power and oppression and

The Sociopsychological tradition, which forms the basis of this study. This

tradition concentrates primarily on those aspects of communication that

include expression, interaction and influence. This research focused on

teacher- student interaction in a lecture hall context. The sociopsychological

tradition accents behaviour, variables, effects, personalities and traits,

perceptions, cognition, attitudes and interaction. This study sought to explore

students, lecturers and the researchers perceptions of lecturers behaviour,

influenced by their personalities and traits as they interact with their students

during instruction.

Early research on instructional communication, focused on individual differences in

students (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998,

McCroskey and Young, 1981). Recent research shifted focus to be centred onteachers orientations and behaviours related to communication during instruction

(Simonds, 2001, Mottet and Richmond, 2001, Witt, 2004, Chesebro and McCroskey,

2001, Teven and Herring, 2005, Comadena et al., 2007)

This study of Instructional communication is based on the general Model of

Instructional Communication which is explained below.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

25/74


2.2. The General Model of instructional communication

The general model of instructional communication is based on six components:

teachers and students perceptions of teachers verbal and nonverbal

communication behaviours; students perceptions of the teachers source credibility

and task attractiveness; instructional outcomes; students (temperament,

intelligence, experience, etc.) and the instructional environment (McCroskey et al.,

2004). McCroskey et al, point out that this general linear model of instructional

communication, suggests a direct causal pattern as follows;

Orientations of teachers are associated with teachers verbal and nonverbal

behaviours

Teachers verbal and nonverbal behaviours are observable by students.

The observation and interpretation of these behaviours are related to

students perceptions of the source credibility and task attractiveness of theteacher.

Students perceptions of teachers communication behaviours, source

credibility, task attractiveness, are associated with students evaluation of the

teacher.

As a result of these patterns, several studies were conducted to show a correlation

between nonverbal immediacy and socio-communicative style of the instructor

(Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001) that there is a

relationship teacher behaviour and student motivation and demotivation (Gorham

and Christophel, 1992, Simonds, 2001), a relationship between teacher clarity andstudent outcomes (Rodger et al., 2007), teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy

(Comadena et al., 2007), source credibility and communication effectiveness

(Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952), teacher immediacy and teacher credibility

(Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). These studies put at the centre of their research

students, teachers and perceptions. It therefore warrants that one put these aspects

of instructional communication into perspective.

Students are one of the most important role players in an instructional context. Thisis because teaching cannot take place without someone to learn what is being

taught. Also, students bring to an instructional system, many variables such as

intelligence, personality and temperament, prior learning, socio-economic status,

religion and many more, that impact the way students perceive their teachers and

teachers communication behaviours (McCroskey et al., 2004). However, there could

be no students without teachers in an instructional context.

Teachers, who are equally important role players in an instructional context, bring

various aspects into the instructional context; knowledge of content, knowledge of

methodology, level of intelligence, experience, communication competence,education, personality, temperament etc. (McCroskey et al., 2004). These elements

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

26/74


have an influence on the teachers choice of verbal and nonverbal communication

behaviours in instruction (Ibid). Since an assessment of teachers instructional

communication relies heavily on students perceptions, a brief explanation of the role

of perceptions in an instructional context follows;

Perceptions.

One of the keys to effective communication is perceptions (a healthy selfesteem).

This refers to how we view self, and how others view us, through the five senses.

Perceptions help to give meaning to communication encounters. Geddes (1995)

points out that many of the systems in our society ranging from family systems to

organisational systems perpetuate unhealthy behaviours and low self-esteem

(p22). This study explored the lecturers perceptions about their own instructional

communication in lectures, and students perceptions about their lecturers

instructional communication in lectures. I also established my own perceptions of

lecturers instructional communication through observations that I conducted. The

aim of these exercises was to gain an in-depth knowledge of lecturers

communication skills using various instruments to collect data so that the information

gained could be reliable.

Lecturers often become casualties of damaged self-esteem because of practices,

and structures created by institutions when they are not involved in the development

of curricula, and the university procedures, and policies and therefore have no

ownership. In some instances, lecturers themselves become the perpetuators of

students low self esteem, when they look down upon their students and when they

do treat them the same. Students too need to be involved in meaningful decision

making processes as a way of being empowered. The question is how lecturers

perceive their communicative competence, and how do students perceive their

lecturers.

Alder & Tower (1993, in Geddes, 1995, p.24) discuss the following as factors that

affect perceptions, which I incorporated in the study.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

27/74


(I). Motives .Our motives affect how we perceive varying people, and events. We

tend to perceive only what we want to see. If we do not like someone, we may

probably view what they say, and do with suspicion. If we like them then all is

good in them.

(ii). Past experiences colour our interpretation of present events.

(iii). Assumptions. Our assumptions about human behaviour influence how we

interpret people and events. If a lecturer always sees the negative side of the

students, it may affect their interaction with the students as well as their

perception of behaviour and events.

(iv). Expectations are related to assumptions. If lecturers believe that theirsupervisors are happy with their work, then thy may not be threatened by their

lecture visits.

(v). Knowledge affects our perception of others. If lecturers know that a particular

behaviour is normal for a 17- year old, then they would be able to deal with it as a

developmental stage and not as a problem.

Students form perceptions of their teachers at various levels; some students will form

perceptions about their teachers even before they are taught a given class by the

said teacher, during the course offered and after the course offered. This might be

because the students have met the teacher before, or have received information

about the teacher from other people, or have taken another class before, with the

teacher. In the case where the teacher is totally new to the students, they will begin

to develop perceptions of the teacher the moment they become exposed to the

teacher. McCroskey (2004) argues that these perceptions may be weak and

stereotypical at first, but become stronger as exposure continues, generated by theteachers verbal and nonverbal communication behaviour.

For the purpose of this study, focus will be on teachers and students perceptions of

teachers communication behaviours with specific focus on teacher immediacy;

students perceptions of the teachers clarity and source credibility as a way to

answer the research questions asked. Other aspects of the model will be left out for

future research as it will not be justified to include all aspects in this study.

2.3. Teacher Immediacy

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

28/74


Teacher immediacy is a concept that was first introduced by Mehrabian in 1971

(Richmond, 2001). Immediacy is the degree of perceived physical or psychological

closeness between teachers and students, based on the belief that students are

drawn to teachers they trust and perceive as competent and caring (Richmond,

2001, Mottet and Richmond, 2001, McLean, 2007, Martinez-Egger and Powers).Richmond suggests that students are more likely to comply with reasonable requests

if they like, respect and admire the teacher. Immediacy, which can be either verbal or

nonverbal, determines the amount of power and affect a teacher, has with his/her

students. This presents a potential impact on learning in the classroom because

nonverbal messages differ from culture to culture. Several studies confirm that

immediacy behaviours are associated with more positive affect, increased cognitive

learning and more student evaluations (Baringer and McCroskey, 2000, Richmond,

2001). Richmond asserts that the more communicators employ immediate

behaviours, the more others will like them, evaluate highly and prefer (p.68).

Similarly, the less communicators employ immediate behaviours the more others will

dislike, evaluate negatively and reject such communicators. Teachers need to be

mindful of the possible impact of their nonverbal behaviour on student learning.

Teacher immediacy is linked to more positive affect towards course and instructors,

greater motivation to learn, greater achievement and greater perceptions of control

(Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001)

Teachers verbal and nonverbal behavioursdiffer from one teacher to another,

bringing various variables into the instructional context. Teachers impart knowledge

in what they say and do and this in turn becomes stimulated in students minds. The

more teachers communicate with their students, the more they develop

communication behaviours, which students observe and form opinions/impressions

about. A discussion of verbal and nonverbal behaviours follows.

2.3.1. Verbal immediacy

Verbal immediacy is about how close or more distant we feel towards people,

depending on what they say and do. When we send positive verbal messages, we

encourage people to communicate with us and thereby establish and maintainpositive relationships. The opposite is also true in that negative messages establish

negative relationships. The primary function of teacher verbal behaviour in the

classroom is to give content to improve students cognitive learning (Richmond,

2001).

More!

2.3.2. Nonverbal immediacy

Instructional communication research has determined that behaviours such as

gestures, movement, smiling, vocal variety, eye contact, humour etc., are highly

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

29/74


affective teaching behaviours (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). Early research

referred to these behaviours as teacher enthusiasm or teacher expressiveness, in

(Abrams, Leventhal, & Perry, 1982; Coats & Smidchens, 1966 and Ware &Williams,

1975). Recent communication researchers labelled this as immediacybehaviours

(McCroskey, 2004, Richmond et al., 2003). A closer look at teachers nonverbalbehaviour in the context of instruction follows;

2.3.3. Lecturer appearance

The way lecturers appear to their students, during instruction influences the way

students perceive him. Similarly, the way students appear towards lecturers during

instruction or in the lecturers offices, influences the way lecturers perceive them.

Students will perceive a lecturer who dresses formally as competent, organized,

prepared and knowledgeable but not receptive (Richmond, 2001). Richmond addsthat students will perceive teachers who dress casually as friendly, outgoing,

receptive, flexible but not competent.

2.3.4. Gestures and movement

Students behave in certain ways during instruction, such as chewing pencils, biting

nails, clicking pens, etc., to adapt to their environment, for example, when anxious or

if the teacher is boring. Teachers also show certain behaviours to adapt to theteaching environment, for example when meeting the class for the first time, if

anxious or nervous. Where teachers and students show very little gestures or none

at all, might be perceived to be boring and unanimated (Richmond, 2001). This

implies that teachers and students can be perceived to be either receptive and

immediate or non-immediate and unreceptive depending on how they use gestures.

It is therefore important that both teachers and students should strive to be more

animated and dynamic as this will improve studentteacher interaction and make

the classroom a more exciting environment (p.72). Richmond adds that

Positive nods are means of stimulating student-teacher interaction andstudent response and students who use similar head nods help

promote student-teacher interaction and help the teacher to know when

students have understood the content (p.72)

2.3.5. Facial expression

Students perceive a teacher with a dull, boring facial expression as uninterested in

the subject matter and in them. Smiling is associated with liking, affiliation and

immediacy. Teachers who smile show positive affect and are perceived to be more

immediate and likeable than those who dont smile. Both teachers and students react

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

30/74


positively to those that smile to them than those who frown. This opens up

communication.

2.3.6. Eye behaviour

Eye behaviour of both students and teachers play a very important role during

instruction in that it can affect interaction between the two. When students look away

and avoid teacher eye contact, the teachers perceive them to be uninterested and

unwilling to communicate. When teachers lack eye contact from students, this is

perceived as rejection of the content or the teacher. Similarly, teachers who do not

maintain eye contact with their students are perceived to be shy, or unapproachable.

2.3.7. Vocal behaviour

Tone of voice plays a very important role during instruction (Richmond, 2001).

Richmond asserts that students learn less, are less interested in the subject matter,

liked the class less when teachers use a monotone voice (p.74). Students prefer

lively, animated voices. Richmond adds that good teachers laugh and allow students

to laugh as a way to release tension and to relax.

2.3.8. Space

How space is shared in an instructional environment is can be affective. Teacherswho stand behind the podium, or in one place throughout instruction and rarely

approach the students or allow the students to approach them, are perceived to be

unfriendly and unreceptive, unapproachable, non-immediate and hamper student-

teacher relationships (Richmond, 2001). In the same breath, students who back

away when the teacher approaches, are perceived to be hostile to the teacher and to

their learning environment and uninterested in learning.

2.3.9. Touch

Richmond assert that touch can be helpful to establish and maintain teacher

student relationships (p.74). However, he warns that some students can be touch

avoidant, and very much uncomfortable. In such instances, he advises that such

students should be left alone. Care should be taken to ensure that touch is done

within the norms of the school to facilitate teaching and learning.

The primary function of teacher nonverbal behaviour in the classroom is to improve

affect or liking for the subject matter, teacher and class, and to increase the desire to

learn more about the subject matter. Students are more likely to listen more, learn

more and have a more positive attitude about school when the teacher improvesaffect through nonverbal behaviour(Richmond, 2001).

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

31/74


Since the questionnaire used in this study is divided into four categories of

instructional communication; student biography; verbal and nonverbal immediacy;

clarity and credibility, it is important to explore the instruments that have been usedand are currently still being used, to measure them, instruments which informed the

development of the instruments in this study.

2.3.10. Measures of verbal and nonverbal immediacy.

Richmond et al (2003) indicate that communication research on immediacy and its

measurement began in instructional communication with the work of Anderson in

1978 and 1979. According to Richmond, Anderson employed three different

measures; The Behavioural Indicants of Immediacy (BII), the Generalised

Immediacy (GI) scale and an 11-item rating scale, which were initially regarded as

the better scales but were later found not to be valid. Richmond, Gorham and

McCroskey (1992) re-examined the original BII and developed the Nonverbal

Immediacy Measure (NIM) which became the most common choice of instructional

researchers (Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952, McCroskey and Young, 1981).

Gorhan and Zakahi (1990) developed a 14-item measure which was labelled the

Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (NIM). This measure was later reviewed by

McCroskey, Richmond, Salinger, Fayer and Barraugh in 1995. Gorhan (1998)

developed a measure of verbal immediacy, where the focus was on what people

(teachers) say. Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) indicated that the

measure was initially well-received although it later emerged that it was completely

invalid as a measure of verbal immediacy (p.506). Mottet and Richmond (1998) were

unsuccessful in their attempt to develop a verbal immediacy measure.

2.3.11. The validity and reliability of the measures

The original General Immediacy (GI) Scale, a 9-item measure by Anderson (1978

and 1979), where data were collected from both the teachers and their students with

regards to their teacher nonverbal immediacy, indicated a small correlation between

the students and teachers and was non-significant (Richmond, McCroskey and

Johnson, 2003). Both the 14-item and the 10-item NIM provided a wide variety of

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

32/74


reliability estimates ranging from .69 to .89 (Ibid) and higher than .81in three studies

(Richmond and McCroskey, 2000a). This shows inconsistent reliability estimates. A

review of the instruments by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) used a total

of 26 items (13 positively worded, 13 negatively worded), presented as a self-report

and as an other - report of nonverbal immediacy. The items were presented with a 5

Likert type measure response format. The reliability estimates for both versions of

the instruments was regarded to be very strong. Richmond et al (2003) concluded

that the scale appeared to be both valid and reliable.

In a study conducted by Baringer and McCroskey (2000), they used the 10-item

measure to assess teacher perceptions of student immediacy. The reliability was

found to be very similar to that found for the original form (Ibid, p.182). Rocca (2004)

conducted a study where she looked at the impact of instructor immediacy and

verbal aggression. She used the 10-item Nonverbal Immediacy measure which she

found to be reliable and valid. It is against this background that I decided to design

my instrument on verbal and nonverbal immediacy (Section B) according to the tried

and tested scales of immediacy measures. The rationale behind this is that the

nonverbal Immediacy Scaleself Report (NVIS-SR), the Nonverbal immediacy Scale

Observer Report (NVISOR) and the Self-Report of Immediacy Behaviours (SRIB)is that these are instruments that have been used for years and are currently still

being used by many researchers because of their reliability and validity (Baringer &

McCroskey, 2000; Richmond et al, 2001; Richmond, McCroskey& Johnson, 2003;

Rocca, 2004; Pogue & Alyn, 2006; Zhang et al, 2007 etc.).

2.4. Teacher clarity

There seems to be no consistency in defining teacher clarity. Is it sometimes definedas the ability of the teacher to present information in an understandable and

organized manner, using relevant examples, pointing out practical applications,

repeating ideas, stressing important points (Rodger et al., 2007, Comadena et al.,

2007). Chesebro and McCroskey (2001) view clarity as a variable which represents

the process by which an instructor is able to stimulate the desired meaning of course

content and process in the minds of students through the use of appropriate verbal

and non-verbal messages (P. 62). For Sidelinger & McCroskey (1997) clarity include

expressiveness, message clarity, explaining effectiveness, teacher explanations,

structuring, direct instruction, explicit teaching, teacher elaboration, message fidelity,task structuring, coaching and scaffolding (p. 1). However, these definitions all focus

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

33/74


on clarity only in as far as the teacher is concerned, Simonds (1997) points out that

teachers and students share in the responsibility and abilities to clarify content. Both

are equal partners in the process as teachers clarify their explanations and students

seek clarifications of the teachers explanations. Sidelinger (1997) indicate that

teacher clarity is central to effective teaching in that as teacher clarity increases, sodoes student learning and teacher evaluations.

Previous studies focused on oral clarity to the exclusion of written clarity (Sidelinger

and McCroskey, 1997, Simonds, 1997). However, students perceptions of teacher

clarity are impacted by both oral and written verbal messages in the instructional

context.

2.4.1. Oral Clarity

Oral communication entail course lectures, content examples, teacher feedback from

students questions and written communication includes exam questions, the course

syllabus, outlines of class projects and course objectives (Sidelinger and McCroskey,

1997)

Simonds (1997) points out that teacher oral clarity, manifests itself in teacher

explanations which are;

Interpretivewhich answer what questions about the content of the course

Descriptivewhich answer how questions about procedure or tasks of the

course

Reason-givingwhich answer why questions, which address the rationale

for content and procedure.

This indicates the role that teachers play in their efforts to clarify the subject matter in

class. It also indicates the possible role that students ought to play in processing the

information that teachers present by also asking such questions.

Simonds (1997) also argues that the other manifestation of teacher oral clarity is

teacher questions which vary according to the subject matter presented and the

participants involved. Both teachers and students have the responsibility of making

presentations clear. Erdogan and Campbell (2008) argue that teachers use

questions for two reasons where they focus on;

the subject matter whereby questions are restrictive and lead to intended

responses

Eliciting students ideas by asking questions encouraging a much wider range

of student responses.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

34/74


Teachers are expected to ask students questions to assess if they are following the

discussion, understood what was presented and whether they can apply the theory

they have learnt to practical situations, amongst other reasons. Similarly students

are expected to ask questions seek clarification, present an argument, and request

for help. Simonds (1997) categorised students questions as questions that seekclassroom procedure, general inquiry on content, clarification, confirmation and

general inquiry on the teacher.

Erdogan and Campbell (2008) differentiate between two types of questions asked

during teaching and learning;

Lower-order questions which elicit responses that require direct recalling from

or explanations cited explicitly in text and

Higher-order questions aimed at assessing higher cognitive skills such as

analysing, synthesising and evaluation.

Erdogan and Campbell add that the two levels of questioning are important for

assessing students understanding and for stimulating thinking.

2.4.2. Written clarity

Written clarity, which according to Sidelinger and McCroskey (1997) relates to

written communication, includes things like exam questions, the course syllabus,

outlines of projects and course objectives. Recent research on teacher clarity has

expanded the construct of clarity to include the clear communication of classroom

process and course content (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Simonds, 1997).

2.4.3. Content clarity

Content clarity is reflected by behaviour items such as (a) Explains content of

material, (b) Stresses important aspects of content and (c) Responds to perceived

deficiencies in understanding content material (Hines et al,1985, in Simonds, 1997).

2.4.4. Process clarity

Process clarity refers to the teachers ability in making his/her presentations clear to

facilitate student learning (Simonds, 1997). High clarity teachers are clear in their

presentations and organisation of content, preview topics, provide affective

transitions, so that students are able to integrate lecture material into their schemata

effectively, speak fluently, stay on task and explain information effectively

(Comadena et al., 2007, Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). However, if the teacher is

unclear, students are expected to use some strategies that will help them to reduce

the uncertainty. These will include request for help, specific information andadditional material, among other things.

8/3/2019 Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

35/74


Several studies have indicated positive correlates between teacher clarity student

affective learning (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997) between teacher immediacy

and student motivation (Rodger et al., 2007, Comadena et al., 2007), affect for

instructor, affect for course (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). These relationships

are supported by Simonds (1997) who adds that teacher clarity is a relationalvariable, viewed in relationship to teacher knowledge; seen as a connecting element

between content and pedagogy (p. 280).These relationships were measured in

these studies through some of the following instruments;

2.4.5. Measures of Clarity

Rosenshine and First (1971 in Simonds, 1997) identified nine variables that

comprised teacher clarity; clarity, variability, enthusiasm, task oriented, criticism,

teacher indirectness, criterion meter structuring concepts and levels of questions

(Simonds, 1997). They also identified different descriptions of clarity such as clarity

of presentation, and whether the points that teachers made were easy to understand

(p.280). Simonds (1997) points out that the challenge with these descriptions is that

there are inferential than behavioural in nature. Civickly (1992, in Simonds, 1997)

identified two groups of instruments on teacher clarity. The first group of instruments

followed a self inventory format. Cruickshank (1985) and Wlodkowski (1985, in

Simonds 1997), produced two instruments; the first is a collection of 12

behaviours;(a) orient and prepares students for what is to be taught; (b)

communicates content so that students understands; (c) provides illustrations and

examples; (d) demonstrates; (e) use variety of teaching material; (f)teach things in a

related step-by-step manner; (g) repeats and stress directions and points;(h) adjust

chapter 1 2 3 11 october 11

Documents