comm 491 oscar grant research paper submission

Instructor Immediacy 1

Running Head: Instructor Immediacy

The Impacts of Instructor Immediacy on Student-Veterans’Affective and Cognitive

Learning Outcomes

Eric J. Backus

George Mason University

May, 7th, 2015


ABSTRACT

A two-part questionnaire was administered to student-veterans in which depictions of

instructor immediacy in the classroom were rated within the context of two scenarios.

Scenario #1 required the participant to respond based on “a specific professor/instructor

who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades” and, Scenario

#2, “a specific professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy and received

one of your lowest grades.” In Part I, various Verbal and Nonverbal Immediacy

Behaviors (VIB & NVIB) were rated on a five-point Likert-Scale based on frequency of

observation. In Part II, both affective and cognitive learning outcomes were measured

relative to the two scenarios. Student-veterans who reported high levels of VIB in

Scenario I also reported high levels of affective learning outcomes (e.g. student

satisfaction and sense of accomplishment) in Scenario I. A similarly positive correlation

was found within student-veterans who reported low-levels of VIB in Scenario II and

correspondingly low-levels of affective learning outcomes in Scenario II. NVIB

consistently had a milder effect on both affective and cognitive learning outcomes

regardless of the scenario. Neither VIB nor NVIB demonstrated significant correlations

with cognitive learning outcomes (e.g. learning loss, final grades and recall ability). A

paired/dependent samples T-test between each scenario set in Part I reveals that there are

meaningfully significant differences between all scenario pairs. This greatly reduces the

likelihood of a Type I error in accepting the null-hypothesis and further supports the

data’s significance.


Introduction

Some time ago, I made a transition from soldier to student - a transition which

presented a unique and challenging new “mission” for me. I recall my separation from

the USArmy shortly after the events of 9/11, but, as I was receiving my honorable

discharge papers, many other soldiers were receiving their deployment papers. Today,

as we see thousands of US military/service members returning home from their

deployments and discharging from service, universities like Mason are seeing a sharp

increase in veteran enrollment. In fact, the number of military/service members who

have utilized Veterans Affairs Education programs has more than doubled since the

enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill five years ago. In 2013, benefits issued from the VA

soared above one million military/service members with an estimated $12 billion in VA

payouts (Veteran Affairs, 2014). Certainly veterans have earned this assistance, but with

such a sharp increase in enrollment over the last five years, how can we better serve those

who have served our country?

As an aspiring professor, nothing could have made more sense to me than to

return to school. After all, service to the community and country was what I signed up

for to begin with - and what better way to continue to serve than to give back the

community through teaching? Unfortunately, as more and more veterans register for

college classes each semester, an increasing number of studies suggest that they do not

perceive that their institutions are providing sufficient support for them to succeed

academically (Kim, Cole, 2013). A few factors might contribute to this perception: there

may be a lack of institutional programs and services extended to meet student-veteran’s

needs; there may be fewer social groups and targeted organizations student-veterans feel


will help them thrive academically; and there may be communication barriers between

collegiate instructors and student-veterans.

Veterans come from highly regulated and controlled learning environments.

Now, in the new civilian environment, the collegiate professors present many veterans

with a new structure of immediacy - one in which more relaxed interpersonal constructs

and behaviors are acceptable. Often times, veterans struggle with the new autonomous

and lenient instructional practices. As a veteran, Communication major, and aspiring

professor, a positive instructor-student relationship has been integral to my learning

experience and future academic work. To this end, my research investigates instructor

immediacy (communication practices that bring instructors and students closer together)

which has long been reputed for having a strong and positive correlation with various

students’ learning outcomes. Specifically, my research will seek to determine how

verbal and nonverbal instructor immediacy behaviors impact student-veterans' affective

and cognitive learning outcomes. I am grateful that Mason has decided to conduct this

research to provide a more complete understanding of this rapidly expanding

demographic. A positive and ongoing impact will occur from this study, and will offer

valuable feedback to both groups to better understand instructor immediacy and

student-veterans’ learning outcomes.

Literature Review

Of the many factors believed to lead towards constructive communicative

relationships in education, one must include instructor immediacy, which has long been

reputed for promoting positive learning outcomes . With regard to this reputation, the

scope of my literature review concerns instructor immediacy and its impact on


student-veterans’ affective and cognitive learning outcomes. Research on the

relationship between instructor immediacy and learning outcomes have been relatively

mixed. Immediacy behaviors and cues may be largely inferential, interpretative, and

vary among different ethnic groups and cultures. For this reason, a clear and concise

definition of instructor immediacy is paramount along with specific examples of

immediacy behaviors. Commonly held within the instructional communication (IC)

field, immediacy refers to the common types of communicative behaviors through which

communicators convey closeness, feelings of approval, motivation, and an availability or

willingness to meaningfully communicate with each others (Mottet, & Beebe, 2002 and

Morreale, Backlund, Sparks, 2014). Immediacy in the instructional context may be

demonstrated through either verbal immediacy behaviors (VIB) and nonverbal

immediacy behaviors (NVIB). The use of humor, engaging students in discussions,

calling on students by name, and asking for students’ opinions constitute examples of

VIB’s - while eye contact, body posture, vocal tones, hand gestures, and smiles serve as

examples of NVIB’s (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004).

Learning outcomes are sectioned into three taxonomies: affective, cognitive, and

psychomotor (Harrow, 1972, Wilson, 2014). Affective learning refers to the emotions

and attitudes related to a learner’s sensitivity, reception, response, motivations, and the

empowerment felt through the communication process (Houser, Frymier, 2009 and

Wilson, 2014). Cognitive learning refers to a student’s ability to know, comprehend,

apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information (Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001,

Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). Finally, psychomotor learning refers to those behaviors

specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements. For


the purposes of this research, no evaluations will be made regarding psychomotor

learning outcomes.

An overview of the research concludes that the relationship between instructor

immediacy and affective and cognitive learning outcomes has also been somewhat varied.

A 2004 meta-analysis suggests a strong positive correlation between instructors’ verbal

and nonverbal immediacy behaviors and affective learning outcomes (Witt, Wheeless,

Allen, 2004). Recent research by Titsworth also suggests that there is a strong positive

correlation between instructor immediacy and affective learning (Titsworth, 2004). In a

subsequent study conducted in 2008, it was further observed that increases in an

instructor’s verbal immediacy behaviors, specifically, verbal instructor confirmations,

also has a positive correlation with affective learning outcomes. Another study

concerning instructor immediacy’s effect on cognitive learning showed no significant

correlation (King, Witt, 2009).

While there are results concerning immediacy’s effect on learning outcomes in

general, there is a noticeable lack of scholarly research regarding its effect on

student-veterans specifically. There have been notable studies published by non-profit

organizations such the American Council on Education (ACE) in 2012 and 2013 which

suggests that veterans do not perceive that their institutions provide the kinds of support

they need to succeed academically (Kim, Cole, 2013, McBain, Kim, Cook, Snead, 2012).

This brief used The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to assess academic

engagement, awareness of campus support, and perception of learning outcomes in

student-veterans. The report collected information from over 288,000 full-time

first-year and senior students from 584 educational institutions across the country.


Among the relevant results, the report found that student-veterans are more likely to

discuss their grades and are more likely to have a positive relationship with instructors

compared to non-student-veterans. It also showed that student-veterans are more likely

to discuss relevant coursework outside the classroom but less likely to work with

instructors on non-coursework related material outside the classroom. The authors

conclude that student-veterans are more likely to concentrate their academic efforts on

what they considered most relevant to their learning outcomes (Kim, Cole, 2013, McBain,

Kim, Cook, Snead, 2012). Jointly, these two studies may suggest that veterans respond

favorably to high levels of common immediacy behaviors (both verbal and nonverbal) as

demonstrated by self-reports of high levels of affective learning outcomes.

There is also a significant amount of aggregated demographical information on the

modern student-veteran which will be helpful in comparing the student-veterans

demographical break-down with a much larger study’s.

Little research has been done to examine instructor immediacy’s effect on

student-veteran learning outcomes. This shows that veterans are an underrepresented

demographic and further supports the need for Mason’s investigation. Among the many

factors that could affect veterans’ learning outcomes, my study investigated the

instructor’s role in veterans’ learning outcomes. Given the preliminary results from the

pilot survey I conducted in December of 2014, and the literature review, my prediction

for the full-study was that instructor immediacy will have a significant effect on

student-veterans’ affective learning outcomes while having no/little effect on student

veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Following this, my formal research question and

hypotheses were:


RQ: How do various levels of verbal and nonverbal instructor immediacy impact

student-veterans’ affective and cognitive learning outcomes?

H1: Student-veterans will demonstrate an increase in affective learning

outcomes in response to high levels of verbal and nonverbal instructor

immediacy.

H2: Student-veterans will demonstrate no significant effects in cognitive

learning outcomes in response to all levels of verbal and nonverbal

instructor immediacy.

Methodology

This study conducted a self-administered, cross-sectional survey targeted towards

student-veteran participants with postsecondary level educations and U.S. military service

backgrounds. The questionnaire was adapted from research conducted by Joan Gorham

and Walter R. Zakahi in 1990 and consists of 37 total questions . Surveys were

distributed in person, via email, through social media outlets such as Facebook & Twitter,

and with the help of the online questionnaire application Qualtrics. Participants were

allowed to save and continue the survey at any time until completion within a four-week

period running from February 22nd-March 22nd, 2015.

As presented to the participant, the questionnaire began with a consent page

(Appendix A) followed by the demographics section (Appendix B). The demographic

section began with standard nominal and demographic questions including those specific

to one’s military experience. Once aggregated, this section revealed that participants

were between the ages of 26 and 57 years old with an average age of 37. The

respondents were 77% male and 23% female, with 33% of participants identifying


themselves as African American/Black, 26% as Caucasian/White, and 16% as Latin

American/Hispanic. All military branches were represented in the study with the US

Marines and Army taking the lion’s share at 36% and 30% respectively. On average,

participants severed in the military for nine years and just over one-third reported that

they are children of at least one military parent.

Instructions on the third page directed participants on how to complete the remainder

of the questionnaire (Appendix C) while considering both of the following two scenarios

(please see attachment for all appendices):

Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific

professor/instructor who taught a course you enjoyed and received

one of your highest grades.

Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific

professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy and

received one of your lowest grades.

The first 29 questions used a Likert scale to ask participants to identify how often

they experienced various types of verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors (where 1 =

“not at all”; 2 = “rarely”; 3 = “neutral or N/A”; 4 = “sometimes”; and 5 = “often”).

There were 17 questions pertaining to verbal immediacy behaviors (VIB) and 12

questions pertaining to nonverbal immediacy behaviors (NVIB). The remaining

questions asked for affective and cognitive reports relative to the two scenarios. In this

section, questions were asked regarding the student's emotions/feelings towards their

learning experiences with regard to the student's interpretations of various instructor

immediacy behaviors and cues. Finally, questions regarding the student's


comprehension, application, and knowledge acquisition (including course grades) from

their learning experiences were included in the questionnaire.

Research was conducted and completed by the end of the Spring 2015 semester.

My timeline began at the onset of the semester and continued as follows:

Week 1: Made corrections to Pilot Study conducted Fall semester 2014

Week 2-3: Finalized literature search and synthesis

Week 4: Finalized questionnaire for the survey

Week 5: Submitted application to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Week 6: Made appropriate adjustments to IRB application

Week 7-11: Conducted official data collection

Week 12: Performed preliminary analysis

Week 13: Submitted findings for professor review - Applied revisions

Week 14: Presented the research and its findings at the College of Humanities and

Social Sciences undergraduate symposium in April 2015.

Results

In alignment with previous findings and my first hypothesis (H1), my analysis

indicated that high levels of verbal (VIB) and nonverbal (NVIB) instructor immediacy

has a strong impact on student-veterans' affective learning outcomes. The evidence also

supports my second hypothesis (H2), that student-veterans will demonstrated no

significant impacts on cognitive learning outcomes in response to all levels of VIB and

NVIB. Student-veterans’ assessment of immediacy in Scenario 1 (courses in which

participant received an excellent grade) showed higher levels of VIB and NVIB than

instructors in Scenario 2 (courses in which participant received a bad grade).


Correspondingly, the mean average on Question #30 which asked “How much did you

learn in this course?” was 8.88 out of 10 for Scenario 1, while Scenario 2 averaged just

4.68 out of 10.

Regardless of perceived level, VIB and NVIB did not appear to have as significant a

correlation with student-veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Using Question #32,

which asked for the letter grade received in the course, the average score was 11.81 out of

13 for Scenario 1. This translated to a 3.48 on a traditional 4.0 scale or roughly a lowA

to -A. Scenario 2’s letter grades averaged out to a low B or an 8.69 out of 13 (2.67 on

the traditional 4.0 scale). The difference between these averages is .96 out of 4.0 or

nearly a full letter grade. Upon aggregating Question #33 which asked “What letter

grade did you expect to receive in this course?,” Scenarios 1 and 2 averaged 11.33 and

9.42 respectively. In both scenarios there was little difference in participants’ expected

grades and their actual grades.

Cognitive learning loss is the quantitative difference between what a person feels

they learned and what they feel they could have learned given an "ideal" instructor

(Hooker and Denker 2014, Richmond et al. 1987). “A high score suggests a large

amount of learning loss (or absence of cognitive learning), as students scored their

in-class learning as much lower than what they perceived could have happened with an

ideal teacher. On the contrary, a score of 0 suggests that students perceived that they did

in fact have an ideal instructor” (Richmond, et al., 1987). Correspondingly, questions

#30 & #31 respectively asked “How much did you learn in this course?” and “How much

do you feel you could have learned in this course given your ‘ideal instructor?”

According to the data, student-veterans perceived a marginal levels of cognitive learning


loss in Scenario 1 and a low -moderate level of cognitive learning loss in Scenario 2.

After subtracting the averages from Questions #30 and #31, the average cognitive

learning loss for Scenario 1 was 3% (.3 raw difference) while the average cognitive

learning loss for Scenario 2 was 29.6% (2.96 raw difference).

Finally, VIB appears to have a slightly greater impact in both scenarios than NVIB.

This finding was determined by averaging the responses of the 17 VIB questions and

comparing them to the average of the responses to the 12 NVIB questions for both

scenarios. Scenario 1 had an average VIB score of 4.04 out of 5 while Scenario 2 had

an average VIB score of 2.85 out of 5. Scenario 1 had an average NVIB score of 3.56

out of 5 while Scenario 2 had an average NVIB score of 3.19 out of 5.

Discussion

Ahead of offering any discussion on the findings of this research, I believe it is

prudent to identify a few shortcomings of the study. First and foremost, a more

comprehensive population sample must be obtained in order to maintain a more practical

external validity. There are an estimated three thousand student-veterans at Mason alone,

comprising nearly 10% of the undergraduate population. With this study’s total of

only77 participants, many of whom have long graduated and/or did not attend Mason, my

research did not accurately capture either the student-veteran body at Mason or the

national demographical break-down of student veterans as a whole. This also allows

room to argue that many of my older participants, whom have been removed from both

the military and academic environments for years, may not accurately recall specific

instructor immediacy behaviors compared to student-veterans who have a more recent

experience. Furthermore, a more comprehensive demographical make-up would be


desirable as my study does not fully capture key components such as marital status,

dependents, secondary school education level, and whether or not the participant is a

first-generation student.

Several modifications to the questionnaire would be made in response to feedback

from study participants. After the official questionnaire was conducted, many of the

participants offered advice as to its improvement. I found several disgruntled

participants who vehemently disagreed with the wording of Question #34 which asked,

“What grade do you think you deserved in the course?” The term “deserved” was

disliked as I was reminded by several participants that “veterans earn everything, even

bad grades.” Correspondingly, this question was left unanswered more than any other

question (n=4).

Perhaps the most important alteration needed to be made would be to change the

Scenario 2 prompt to read, “Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific

professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy but still received one of your

highest grades.” As presented, the questionnaire did not properly isolate the variables of

“a class you did/did not enjoy” as it asks the participant to base the Scenario 2 responses

on having received “one of your lowest grades.” Ultimately, this represents a fatal error

in the presentation of the scenarios, and while very useful information remains, I must

present both my results and this subsequent discussion with extreme prejudice and

significant reservations.

Overall, these findings suggest that instructor immediacy has a significant impact on

student-veterans’ affective learning outcomes but little-moderate impact on

student-veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Based on this information, both


hypotheses were supported (or in the case of H2, partially supported). In fact, it appears

that participants performed over two full letter-grades higher in courses where they

observed higher levels of instructor immediacy demonstrating a very strong positive

correlation. These findings are significant as student-veterans may perceive that they

are performing well because they feel communicatively closer to an instructor who

demonstrates higher levels of VIB & NVIB. While this result was found to be within

my hypothesis (H1), it is (perhaps a prima facie) a bit counterintuitive. Veterans are

rarely expected to “like” a military instructor. In fact, a participant’s affective

impressions of a military subject matter expect (SME) is largely irrelevant. My

prediction was supported but not because I thought veterans would respond better to high

levels of VIB and NVIB, but because I believed then as I do now that most people will

have a higher affective response to high levels of immediacy.

Also as predicted, cognitive learning outcomes were marginally-moderately impacted

by instructor immediacy. This may be as a result of a disconnect between the perception

of instructor immediacy and the student’s cognitive ability to demonstrate his or her

knowledge, comprehension, and synthesis of the information provided. Perhaps

instructor immediacy can serve to “distract” an otherwise astute student’s cognitive

processing. This may be explained from the communicative attention that is focused on

the student-veterans’ affective feelings of immediacy and away from the cognitive

retention of the information being provided. For the veteran, low levels of VIB & NVIB

may have been common in the instructional phases of their military careers. Even at

these lower levels, veterans were still expected to retain a high level of cognitive

processing as the performance of one’s duties and the retention of specific skill-sets is


held in the highest regard (e.g. life or death/war-time operations training). Perhaps

variations in the student-veterans’ perception of VIB & NVIB do not have a significant

effect in the collegiate environments because veterans were accustomed to maintaining a

high cognitive retention rate while observing much lower levels of immediacy behaviors

from military instructors. Once the transition from military to civilian life is complete,

it appears that the veteran retains (at least the drive for) high-levels of cognitive outputs.

That is, the veteran does not seem to care whether or not they “like” the instructor in front

of them, so long as that accurately retain the block of instruction s being presented.

In an effort to properly warrant such conclusions, I would need to expand the

questionnaire to include scenarios relative to the participants’ military instruction and

compare the data against their collegiate instruction. I would also need to run a very

similar questionnaire geared towards the nonveteran-student to identify if the results this

study found are significant/unique when compare to the general population of

nonveteran-students. Finally, offering a modified version of the questionnaire to the

instructors themselves would lend significant insight into the very important “other half”

of these communicative behaviors.

It ‘s along these expansive lines that I make the case for future research. The useful

information provided by this study offers a glimpse into an important population of

students, - and demands that more research is conducted to ensure we can academically

better serve those who have served us.


References

Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning,

Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The

Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university

examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green

Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008, April). The effect of teacher confirmation on

student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57(2),

153-179. doi:10.1080/03634520701787777

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing

Behavioral Objectives. New York: David McKay

Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009, January). The role of student characteristics and

teacher behaviors in students' learner empowerment. Communication Education,

58(1), 35-53. doi:10.1080/03634520802237383

Kim, Y. M., & Cole, J. S. (2013, December). Student veterans/service members'

engagement in college and university life and education. American Council on

Education, 1-20. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Student-Veterans-Service-Member

s-Engagement.pdf

King, P., & Witt, P. (2009, January). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the

measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58(1), 110-123.

doi:10.1080/03634520802511233


Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,

the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York:

David McKay Co., Inc.

McBain, L., Kim, Y. M., Cook, B. J., & Snead, K. M. (2012, July). From soldier to

student II: Assessing campus programs for veterans and service members.

American Council on Education, 5-59. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/From-Soldier-to-Student-II-Assess

ing-Campus-Programs.pdf

Morreale, S., Backlund, P., & Sparks, L. (2014, October). Communication education

and instructional communication: Genesis and evolution as fields of inquiry.

Communication Education, 63(4), 344-354. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.944926

Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2002). Relationships between teacher nonverbal

immediacy, student emotional response, and perceived student learning [Electronic

version]. Communication Research Reports, 19(1), 77-88.

doi:10.1080/08824090209384834

Titsworth, B. S. (2004, October). Students' notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy

and clarity. Communication Education, 53(4), 305-320.

doi:10.10/0363452032000305922

Utilization (2014, October 3). In National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics.

Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Utilization.asp

Wilson, L. O. (2014). Three domains of learning – Cognitive, affective, psychomotor. In

The Second Principle. Retrieved from

http://thesecondprinciple.com/instructional-design/threedomainsoflearning/

http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Utilization.asp

http://thesecondprinciple.com/instructional-design/threedomainsoflearning/


Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004, June). Ameta-analytical review of the

relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication

Monographs, 71(2), 184-207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054

Worley, D., Titsworth, S., Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007, June).

Instructional communication competence: Lessons learned from award-winning

teachers. Communication Studies, 58(2), 207-222.

doi:10.1080/10510970701341170


Appendix A

Informed Consent Terms and Conditions

RESEARCH PROCEDURESThis research is being conducted to study instructor immediacy’s effect on studentveteran cognitive and affective learning outcomes. If you agree to participate, you willbe asked to answer several questions about instructor immediacy in the classroom. Thissurvey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.RISKSThere are no foreseeable risks for participating in this research.BENEFITSAside from potential extra credit, there are no benefits to you as a participant other thanto advance academic research on instructor immediacy’s effect on student veterancognitive and affective learning outcomes.CONFIDENTIALITYThe data in this study will be confidential. The survey that will be distributed willrequire you to insert your GMU email address if you are completing this survey toreceive course credits, however, your email address will not be connected to your surveyresponses.PARTICIPATIONYour participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from the study at any time and forany reason. If you decide not to participate or if you withdraw from the study, there isno penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may be able toreceive extra credit for completing this survey if and only if you are enrolled in a coursethat offers extra credit for survey completion. There are no alternatives to surveycompletion for extra credit. There are no costs to any other party. You must be 18years old or older to complete this survey.CONTACTThis research is being conducted by Eric J. Backus, Student Researcher of theCommunication Department at George Mason University. His Principal Investigator,Xiaomei Cai may be reached at 3-3774 for questions or to report a research-relatedproblem. You may contact the George Mason University Office of Research Integrity &Assurance at 703-993-4121 if you have questions or comments regarding your rights as aparticipant in the research.This research has been reviewed according to George Mason University proceduresgoverning your participation in this research.CONSENTI have read this form and agree to participate in this study (Please circle one and providedate - Please do not write your name).

[AGREE] [DISAGREE] Date:


Appendix B

Instructor Immediacy Questionnaire Part I

Please do not write your name on this form. This information will allow us to provide anaccurate description of the research sample. For the following items, please select theone response that is most descriptive of you or fill in the blank as appropriate.______________________________________________________

1. Gender: Female Male Not Specified

2. Age: ____________

3. Ethnicity: Asian or Pacific Islander Asian Indian White/Caucasian

Native American Latino/Hispanic Black/African American

Other/Multiple Ethnicities (please specify):___________________

4. Major(s)/Concentration(s): ____________________________________________

5. Minor(s): __________________________________________________________

6. Enrollment: Full-time Part-time

7. Standing: Freshman Sophomore Junior

Senior Non-degree Graduate1ou been enrolled in college? ____________

9. In what year did you first enroll in college? ____________

10. What is the highest level of education completed by your parents? ____________

11. Which branch(es) of the military did you serve in? Army Marines

Navy Air Force Coast Guard Other ________________

12. How long were you enlisted or commissioned in the military? ___ years ___ months

13. What was your enlisted/commissioned rank upon discharge (please use E/O ranking

system if applicable) ________________________

14. Were/are your parents enlisted or commissioned in the military? YES NO


Appendix C

Instructor Immediacy Questionnaire Part II

Directions: Please complete this questionnaire considering both of the following two scenarios.

For questions 1-29, please respond by circling a number from 0-4 (0 = never and 4 = very often) to

indicate how often you’ve experienced that item relative to each of the two scenarios. 11

Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor

who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades.


who taught a course you did not enjoy and received one of your lowest grades.

1. Used personal examples or talked about experiences she/he had outside of class.

Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4

2. Asked questions or encouraged students to talk.


3. Fostered discussions on topics students brought up.


4. Used humor in class.


5. Addressed students by name.


6. Addressed me by name.


7. Got into conversations with individual students before or after class.


8. Initiated conversations with me before, after, or outside of class.


9. Referred to class as “our class” or what “we” were doing.


10. Provided feedback on my work through comments on papers, oral discussions, etc.



11. Called on students even if they did not indicate that they wanted to talk.






12. Asked how students felt about an assignment, due date, or discussion topic.


13. Invited students to contact them outside of class if they wanted to discuss something.


14. Asked questions that solicited viewpoints and/or opinions.


15. Praised students’ work, action, or comments.


16. Had discussions about things unrelated to class with students


17. Was addressed by her/his first name by the students


18. Mostly sat behind desk while teaching.

Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3

4

19. Often gestured while talking to class.


20. Used monotone voice while talking to class.


21. Rarely looked at the class throughout lectures.


22. Smiled at the class as a whole, not just individual students.


23. Had a very tense body position while talking to the class.



24. Made appropriate, encouraging physical contact with students.


25. Moved around the classroom while teaching.






26. Looked at board or notes while talking to class.


27. Had a very relaxed body position while talking to the class.


28. Smiled at individual students in the class.


29. Used a variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class.


For questions 30 & 31, please respond by circling a number from 0-10 (0 means you learned less

than any class you’ve ever taken and 10 means you learned more than any class you’ve ever

taken) to indicate how you feel relative to each of the two scenarios.

30. How much did you learn in this course?

Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

31. How much do you think you could have learned in this course given an “ideal instructor?”

Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

For questions 32 - 34, please indicate your response by circling the appropriate letter grade

relative to the two scenarios. (I = Incomplete).

32. What letter grade did you receive in this course?

Scenario 1: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I



33. What letter grade did you expect to receive in this course?



34. What letter grade do you think you deserved to receive in this course?







For questions 35 - 37, please indicate your response by circling Yes, No, or Unsure/Maybe relative

to each of the two scenarios.

35. If scheduling/funding permitted, would you take another course with the same

professor/instructor?

Scenario 1: Yes No Unsure/Maybe


36. If scheduling/funding permitted, would you take a similar course with another

professor/instructor?



37. Would you (or do you) recommend this professor/instructor to other students?




Appendix D

Recruitment Letter

Dear Student-Veteran,

Greetings! My name is Eric J. Backus and I am a fellow George MasonStudent and U.S. Army Veteran. I am writing to ask for your participationin research that I am conducting this semester. Your assistance would bemost appreciated. Your must be 18 years old or older to complete thissurvey.This study investigates instructor immediacy’s effect on student-veterans’learning outcomes. Immediacy refers to communicative behaviors,gestures, and cues that promote communication among individuals. Thissurvey consists of:

1) Completing a few background questions2) Answering several questions regarding your experiences withvarious instructor immediacy items3) Answering several questions regarding your perceptions withvarious instructor immediacy items

The survey can be accessed via the following hyperlink:[https://az1.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/?T=2GP8o1WXlQtOI9n4fORO7R]

Thank you for helping to advance my research,

Eric J. Backus

Class of 2015

Major, Honors - Communication

Major, Honors - Philosophy

President, George Mason Philosophy Club