training teachers to use verbal immediacy

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 03:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

Training teachers to use verbal immediacyKarla Kay Jensen aa Assistant Professor in Communication Studies , Texas Tech University , Lubbock, TX, 79409Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Karla Kay Jensen (1999) Training teachers to use verbal immediacy, Communication Research Reports,16:3, 223-232, DOI: 10.1080/08824099909388721

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099909388721

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08824099909388721

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099909388721

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Training Teachers to Use Verbal Immediacy

Karla Kay JensenTexas Tech University

Previous research clearly demonstrates the positive impacts of us-ing verbal immediacy in the college classroom. This paper exploresthe issue of training university instructors to increase their verbal im-mediacy use while teaching. First, a brief literature review recapsrecent verbal immediacy studies and the reasons training could bevaluable. Next, the training method is outlined and results reveal howuniversity teachers were successfully trained to use significantly moreverbal immediacy in their classrooms, compared to a control group ofteachers who were not trained. A discussion concludes with the impli-cations for improving college teaching.

The positive effects of teacher verbal immediacy have been well researched and docu-mented in the last decade. Verbal immediacy in the classroom can be defined as spokenbehaviors which increase psychological closeness between teachers and their students. Suchbehaviors include praising students, calling students by name, using humor in class, initiat-ing and/or demonstrating willingness to become engaged in conversations with studentsbefore, after or outside of class, self-disclosing, asking questions that solicit viewpoints oropinions, providing feedback on students' work, following up on student-initiated topics,and inviting students to telephone or meet outside of class if they have questions or want todiscuss a matter (Gorham, 1988).

Karla Kay Jensen (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 1994) is an Assistant Professor in CommunicationStudies at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX 79409.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 16, Number 3, pages 223-232

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Communication Research Reports/Summer 1999

Initial work on immediacy (Mehrabian, 1967; 1971) asserted that the primary function ofimmediacy behaviors is that they reflect a positive attitude of the sender to the receiver. "...[L]iking encourages greater immediacy and immediacy produces more liking" (1971, p. 77).Other authors concurred, stating that verbal cues express immediacy or nonimmediacy,resulting in perceptions of approach or avoidance (Anthony, 1978; Conville, 1975). Summa-rizing the verbal immediacy research to that date, Bradac, Bowers, and Courtright (1979)concluded that positive affect on the part of the source increases verbal immediacy whichwas related to evaluations of a source's character and competence.

Considering that use of immediacy is related to a person being seen as a likable indi-vidual, it is not surprising that communication scholars have found relationships betweenteacher verbal immediacy and student self-reports of motivation (Christophel & Gorham,1995 ), as well as students' perceptions of their affective, behavioral and cognitive learning(Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990).In a recent retest of these variables, Christensen and Menzel (1998) found a positive linearrelationship between teacher verbal immediacy and state (external) motivation, perceivedcognitive, affective and behavioral learning. In addition, findings reveal verbal immediacyhas a relationship to higher teacher ratings (Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996),greater teacher clarity (Powell & Harville, 1990), and lower student communication appre-hension (Ellis, 1995).

Research has provided instructors with sufficiently motivating evidence that verbalimmediacy greatly enhances students' learning. Therefore, the purpose of this investigationwas to determine whether instructors can be taught to increase their immediacy and whetherstudents perceive an increase of immediacy behaviors after conclusion of immediacy train-ing. Gorham and Zakahi (1990) have indicated that teachers are able to accurately assesshow they appear to their students and that experience was not related to this monitoringability. It makes sense that instructors would be capable of changing their classroom behav-ior when presented with information that they deem valuable to their teaching or theirstudents' learning. Although previous research does not indicate whether teachers aremotivated by such information, we at least know that they are able of changing. Thus, thecurrent study presumed that, if teachers can monitor their own behaviors, verbal immediacytraining would be possible and valuable.

In the most current research examining both nonverbal and verbal immediacy, verbalimmediacy accounted for twice as much variance in perceived student learning and nearlythree times as much variance in state motivation than did nonverbal immediacy (Christensen& Menzel, 1998). When reviewing research which explores both nonverbal and verbalimmediacy, however, results generally show that nonverbal immediacy has a greater impacton learning and motivation than does verbal immediacy. Despite these contradictory find-ings, it is certain that both types of immediacy have a positive impact on the classroomlearning environment.

While not denying the value of nonverbally immediate behaviors, a focus on verbalteacher behaviors may be more pragmatic from a faculty training perspective because lan-guage may be more easily controlled. Specifically, in a large lecture hall, it may be impos-sible to achieve a desired level of nonverbal immediacy with all students for a lack of physi-cal proximity. Consequently, when nonverbally immediate behaviors such as smiling, ges-turing or using eye contact may lose their impact, or when room arrangement restricts teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Verbal Immediacy Training - Page 225

movement, a teacher's language skill can be the one factor remaining consistently immedi-ate, despite the type of room or number of students.

We may very well be headed toward larger classes where students and faculty alikecomplain that there is little opportunity to interact (Chism, 1989; Cravener, 1997; Gedeon,1997; Geske, 1992; Hensley & Oakely, 1998). When considering the trend in larger univer-sity classes, it is useful to recall that the effects of immediacy on learning have been shown toincrease as class size increases (Gorham, 1988). This finding is pedagogically paramountwhen we recall that many students find it difficult to pay attention (Penner, 1984) and to feelinvolved (Pearson, 1990) in a lecture situation. This finding also makes sense because, in alarge lecture environment, verbal immediacy may be the main channel through which car-ing and concern are conveyed; consequently, the use of verbal immediacy could motivatestudents to pay greater attention and learn more.

Considering that past research shows the positive effects of verbal immediacy on stu-dent learning and motivation, and previous studies demonstrate that instructors are capableof monitoring their own behaviors, it seemed reasonable that faculty could be trained to usemore immediacy in their classrooms to create a more successful learning environment. Be-cause the actual amount of verbal immediacy use may not necessarily be perceived by stu-dents, it was necessary to examine verbal immediacy from the perspectives of both teacherand student. Also, it was necessary to examine two groups of faculty to determine if verbalimmediacy training influenced teacher and student behaviors, and not other confoundingvariables such as time. Thus, one group of faculty was trained, and the second group wasnot trained.

The following research questions were explored to further understand the influence ofverbal immediacy in the classroom:

RQ1: Does training affect students perceptions of verbal immediacy?RQ2a: Will teachers' verbal immediacy use increase after verbal immediacy training?RQ2b: Will teachers' verbal immediacy use increase without training?The intended impact of more verbal immediacy use in the classroom is ultimately greater

student learning. We know from previously cited work that verbal immediacy positivelyinfluences students' motivation and learning. It was thought that one way we might mea-sure the impact of increased immediacy was through examining students' participation intheir classes. Consequently, the following questions were asked:

RQ3a: Will students' solicited or unsolicited class participation increase after theirinstructors' verbal immediacy training?

RQ3b: Will students' solicited or unsolicited class participation increase during thecourse of the semester without teacher training?

METHOD .Participants and Procedures

Full-time faculty members from all departments at a large, southwest university werecontacted to participate in a study regarding teaching effectiveness. Forty-two full- timefaculty from 16 disciplines participated. Those disciplines represented in the study follow:Animal Science, Anthropology, Atmospheric Science, Biology, Communication Disorders,Communication Studies, Economics, English, Health/Physical Education & Recreation,History, Hotel/Restaurant Management, Math, Physics, Political Science, Theater Arts, andWomen's Studies. Years of faculty teaching experience at the college level ranged from three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


to 25 years, with an average of 14 years. Twenty-two of the faculty participants were male,while twenty participants were female.

The 2,478 undergraduate students of the faculty volunteers were also subjects. Classsizes ranged from 10 to 99 students, with an average of 45 students per class. The meanstudent age was 21.4. Fifty-four percent of the student subjects were female; 17% of thestudents were first year, 25% were sophomores, 30% were juniors and 28% were seniors.

In exchange for their participation, faculty participants were invited to meet with theresearcher at the end of the semester after the data was gathered, to examine and discuss thedata collected in their individual class. Students, whose participation was voluntary, werenot offered any incentives.

The first phase of data collection (Tl) began during the fourth and fifth weeks of thesemester. All faculty volunteers were visited in their classrooms during a session of lectureand/or discussion. Each class was both audio- and video-taped as unobtrusively as pos-sible. Taping began five minutes before the scheduled beginning of the class; if the instructorwas not there at that time, taping began upon the instructor's arrival. After each lecture, thefaculty member departed and all students in the class were asked to indicate the frequency ofteachers' use of each immediacy behavior included on Gorham's (1988) verbal immediacyscale (SeeTable 1).

TABLE 1Gorham's (1988) Verbal Immediacy Scale

1. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had outside of class.2 Asks questions or encourages students to talk.3. Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn't seem

to be part of his/her lecture plan.4. Uses humor in class.5. Addresses students by name.6. Addresses me by name.7. Gets into conversations with individual students before or after class.8. Has initiated conversations with me before, after, or outside of class.9. Refers to "my "class or what "I" am doing.

10. Refers to "our" class or what "we" are doing.11. Provides feedback on individual work through comments on papers, discussions, etc.12. Calls on students to answer questions, even if they have not indicated that they want to talk.13. Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or discussion topic.14. Invites students to telephone or meeting with him/her outside of class if they have questions

or want to discuss something.15. Asks questions that have specific, correct answers.16. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions.17. Praises students' work, actions, or comments.18. Criticizes or points out faults in students' work, actions or comments.19. Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students or with the

class as a whole.20. Is addresses by his/her first name by the students.

Note: Numbers 9,12,15 and 18 are considered non-immediate behaviors

In previous studies, reliability of this measure have been reported up to .92 (Gorham &Zakahi, 1990). Cronbach alpha reliability for the verbal immediacy scale in the currentstudy was .85. In addition to the respectable reliability in this and previous research, astrength of Gorham's (1988) verbal immediacy instrument lies in its behavior orientation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Thus, students are able to "objectively report the immediacy behaviors performed by theirteachers" (Frymier & Thompson, 1995 p. 91).

Ten to 14 days after the initial course tapings (weeks six and seven), 21 facultymembers participated in a ninety-minute training session about verbal immediacy. Identi-cal training sessions were held with approximately half of the participants attending eachsession. During training, the researcher explained the origins of the verbal immediacyconcept, reviewed the results of previous studies measuring verbal immediacy's impact inthe learning environment (citing all the literature reviewed in this article), and made sugges-tions to incorporate more verbally immediate language into one's teaching. The researcherencouraged participants to ask questions at any point in the training and provided opportu-nities for role-playing. At the end of the session, faculty participants received a list of verbalimmediacy behaviors and directions to monitor their own teaching during the subsequentweeks, incorporating verbal immediacy into their teaching where it felt comfortable andappropriate.

The other 21 faculty participants received no training, nor were they told the purpose ofthe project.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth weeks of the semester, the researcher revisited all 42faculty members' classes (T2). Each class was again audio- and videotaped, and after theclass period, students completed Gorham's (1988) verbal immediacy scale.

Data AnalysisStatistical Analyses. Computation of t-tests assessed the difference between verbal imme-

diacy from Tl to T2 for both the student perception measure and the faculty lecture tran-scripts measure. In addition, covariance analysis was conducted to ensure there were noinherent differences between experimental and control groups.

Transcription Coding. The first, middle and last twelve minutes of the classroom audiotapes from both Tl and T2 lectures were first transcribed and then coded for verbal imme-diacy and student participation by two research assistants. The twelve-minute lecture divi-sion was done to ensure the transcript lecture length was the same for each instructor andthat each transcript contained the definite beginning, middle and conclusion of each lecture.Verbal immediacy was coded by counting the number of times the teacher engaged in aspecific verbally immediate behavior on the Gorham (1988) instrument (only the positivelyworded items were coded which omitted items #9,12,15 and 18 on the student instrument).Students' verbal participation (asking questions, making comments, answering questions)was coded by counting the frequency of either solicited or unsolicited student questions orremarks.

To ensure intercoder reliability, the two coders participated in a pilot coding project andpracticed coding for verbal immediacy and student participation. This pilot coding wasconducted on classroom transcripts which were in no way related to the study. Initialresults produced high reliability for several verbal immediacy items, with a few exceptions.Specifically, item #2 ("Asks questions or encourages students to talk") could not be distin-guished from item #16 (Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions). Collapsing thetwo questions created one mutually exclusive category. Second, item #3 ("Gets into discus-sions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn't seem to be a part of thelecture plan") and item #19 ("Will have discussions about things unrelated to class withindividual students or with the class as a whole") could not be distinguished. Collapsingthem created a single category.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


In addition, there were a few verbal immediacy items that could not be assessed giventhe nature of the transcripts. For example, in item #8 ("Has initiated conversations before,after or outside of class") the coders were only able to code the interaction before class (ifthere was any) because the faculty member left at the end of the lecture so surveys could beadministered. Consequently, this category was dropped from the coding. Finally, the cat-egory of being willing to have discussions about things unrelated to class even if they werenot based on the lesson plan could not be assessed (collapsed items #3 and #19) because thecoders were not aware of what those lesson plans. This prompted the dropping of thiscategory from the coding.

After making these adjustments, coders examined other sets of pilot transcripts, andreliability was again computed using both percentage agreement and Scott's pi (Holsti,1969). When intercoder reliability reached 90% (Scott's pi, .88), classroom transcriptionsfrom the 42 faculty participants in the current study were given to the assistants. The codersboth examined the same 30% of the transcriptions, overlapping on this portion of the coding.The remaining lectures were divided equally between the coders. Final inter-coder reliabil-ity, based on the transcripts that both coders examined, remained at 90% (Scott's pi, .88).

RESULTSResearch Question One asked whether training affects students' perceptions of verbal

immediacy. First, covariance analysis showed there was no initial difference between theexperimental and control groups (F[l, 2,476]=1.38, p>.23). Additionally, covariance analy-sis showed that treatment (verbal immediacy training) resulted in a significant differencebetween the groups (F [1,2,476]=5.81, p<.02). More specifically, when comparing the Tl andT2 difference for each item on the verbal immediacy scale, five items showed a significantincrease in the experimental group (See Table 2). There was no significant increase instudents' perceptions of teacher's verbal immediacy from Tl to T2 in the control group.

TABLE 2Student Perceptions of Verbal Immediacy Items Which Increased From Tl to T2 for the

Trained Instructors

Verbal Immediacy Items t-value

#1. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has hadoutside of class t=4.06***

#5. Addresses students by name t=5.01 ***#6. Addresses me by name t=2.96 **#8. Has initiated conversations with me beforeor after class t=4.21 * * *#13. Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or

discussion topic t=2.82**

**p<.01 ***p<.0001

The questions posed in RQ2 were concerned with teachers' verbal immediacy use inthe classroom and whether it would increase either after training, or without, during semes-ter. The transcription coding revealed that, as a group, there was an average 42 percentincrease in classroom verbal immediacy behaviors from Tl to T2 for the trained group (i=9.40,eia2=.74, p<.0001). For the group which did not receive training, there was an average ninepercent increase in actual classroom verbal immediacy behaviors from Tl to T2 (f=3.62,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


eífl2=.4O, p<.05). Finally, a t-test between the difference of Tl and T2 scores for the experimen-tal and control groups indicates a significant immediacy increase in the experimental groupcompared to the control group (f=6.93, ef«2=.54, p<.0001).

Upon closely examining the verbal immediacy behaviors from the transcripts, ageneral pattern of increased immediacy emerges between Tl and T2 for the experimentalgroup that is not evident in the control group, despite the perceived immediacy increase.Specifically, for the trained faculty, the use of personal examples (item #1), humor (item #4),inclusive pronouns (item #9), praise (item #17) and asking questions (collapsed items #2 and#16) all increased from Tl to T2. In addition, asking how students feel about an assignment,discussion topic, due date, etc.(item #13), addressing students by name (items # 5 and #6),inviting students to meet outside of class (item #14) increased for at least a third of the trainedparticipants.

Research Questions Three a and b asked whether students' participation would in-crease either after their instructors' training, or without training, during the semester. Tran-scription coding indicated, as a group, an average 59 percent increase in the amount ofstudent participation from Tl to T2 (f=4.62, efa2=.52, p.<.0001) in the classes of trained fac-ulty. Student participation in the experimental group increased from Tl to T2, in part be-cause these faculty members invited more discussion or directly asked questions. In addi-tion, 45% of the T2 student participation consisted of unsolicited questions (25%) or com-ments (20%) during the lecture. Considering that unsolicited Tl remarks composed only10% of student participation, these numbers indicate that students may have felt more com-fortable as the semester progressed, and possibly more at ease as their instructor's verbalimmediacy increased. In the classes of untrained faculty, no significant increase in partici-pation occurred (f=.31, p>.05).

DISCUSSIONThe results of this investigation have important implications for improving college teach-

ing. Because many faculty members come to academe with little or no pedagogical training,a simple course in verbal immediacy training could make a long-lasting, positive impact ona great number of students. When they know what is effective, most teachers could self-prescribe appropriate behaviors to increase their effectiveness. Indeed, this was the casewith the twenty-one faculty participants in this study's experimental group. Specifically, theresults indicate a definite verbal immediacy increase from Tl to T2, both from the students'perspective, as well as from class transcripts.

The results from the transcript coding exceeded mere reporting of numbers to reveal thatthe verbally immediate classroom is the interactive classroom. Ellis (1995) states that teacherverbal immediacy behaviors indicate to students that the teacher cares about them andvalues them as individuals. This appears to be exactly what happened in the classes for thisstudy. A common teacher-student interaction pattern in the experimental group T2 lecturetranscriptions, where there was a 42% increase in the amount of verbal immediacy used,occurred as follows: The instructor would present material using humor or an example andthen ask a question. Next, a student would volunteer to respond, the teacher would thensometimes call the student by name and nearly always thank or praise the student. Consid-ering this interaction pattern, it makes sense that the student participation also rose by 59%.

Although the control group's actual verbal immediacy rose, the statistical analysis com-paring the control and experimental groups establishes that training dramatically increases

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


actual immediacy behaviors used in the classroom. In addition, the students in the controlgroup classes had no increase in their participation or in the perceptions of their teacher'sverbal immediacy between Tl and T2. This finding indicates a naturally occurring increasein immediacy behaviors over the course of the semester that is not necessarily evident by thestudents. Such an increase can be accounted for considering that some immediacy behav-iors (i.e., knowing students' names, using personal examples, and getting into discussionsbefore or after class) might only gradually develop over the course of time.

In addition to the increase in verbal immediacy behaviors for the 21 trained faculty,these participants also had an increase in self-reflection. For instance, when viewing theirvideos, several participants remarked that this was the first time to see themselves teach.Also, the theme of much informal conversation, both in the training and private tutoringsessions, was that, as an institution, we do not talk much about teaching and that the verbalimmediacy training (including the self-monitoring and watching the videos) forced partici-pants to examine what they were doing in the classroom. Also, the survey results providedfaculty participants with information on how their students perceive them—a novelty formany of those involved. Schon (1983) points out that activities consciously and specificallyreflecting on our action, are vital for professional development. The choices teachers makeon an everyday basis can be complex. Participating in verbal immediacy training, monitor-ing one's verbal instruction, reviewing student perceptions and viewing one's self on video-tape are all avenues to becoming more mindful of what actually occurs in our classrooms inorder to evaluate how we cope with challenges.

LimitationsA possible concern with the results of the transcript coding is that more immediacy may

have occurred in classed than the transcripts could reveal. For instance, it is impossible toknow if the instructor is addressed by his/her first name, or if the instructor has engaged inany of the immediacy behaviors at a time other than during recordings. Conversely, toappear competent for the researcher, faculty participants may have added more immediacyto their T2 lecture than they normally would use. However, it still remains that students'perceptions of their instructor's verbal immediacy increased from Tl to T2 in the experimen-tal group and not the control group, thereby making a strong case that more immediacybehaviors were actually employed after the training.

Another concern might be that some topics lend themselves more to verbal immediacyuse than others. For instance, a health class about the history of women's sports may havemore opportunities for verbal immediacy use than a physics class. This in fact may be true.However, in all 21 experimental courses, regardless of the topic, the number of studentsenrolled, or the sex or years of experience of the faculty member, the amount of verbal imme-diacy use increased from Tl to T2. Also, regardless of the above- mentioned variables,student perception of immediacy did not increase for the control group. This finding indi-cates that, despite any of the variables, verbal immediacy increases with appropriate train-ing.

In a similar vein, we might be concerned about the composition of the faculty volunteers.Although there was a good representation from the Arts and Sciences and Human Sciencescolleges, there were no volunteers from other colleges on campus; thus, the lack of volunteersfrom the Education, Engineering, Law or Agriculture colleges could affect the results. Addi-tionally, the sample might have been skewed by faculty who were confident enough in their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


teaching techniques to invite a colleague into their classroom. Conversely, the sample mayhave been skewed by volunteers unsure about their teaching techniques, wanting trainingfor improvement. Whatever speculations may be made about the faculty participants andtheir reasons for volunteering, the student surveys and transcription coding indicate a muchlarger increase in verbal immediacy behaviors for each instructor who participated in thetraining, compared to those who were in the control group. Considering the volunteerpopulation, the findings of this study further demonstrate the wide spread applicability ofthis verbal immediacy training.

Finally, there is the time variable which might have contributed to the increase in verbalimmediacy. Only two class periods from the semester were studied, making it difficult to geta true picture of the relationship that formed over time between the teacher and students. Asteachers and students become more comfortable with each other over the course of a semes-ter, time may play a part in the natural increase in verbal immediacy, yet the control groupdemonstrated that the perception of verbal immediacy did not increase over the course of thesemester, even if there was a slight increase in the actual amount of immediacy used.

CONCLUSIONEven considering the above-mentioned limitations, we can benefit greatly from these

initial results and plan a research agenda to further explore the benefits of teacher training.Next to peers, faculty are the biggest influence in an undergraduate student's success orfailure in college (Astin, 1993). Consequently, regardless of the topic or who is teaching aclass, we have a great responsibility to take a close look at what type of communication isoccurring in our classrooms. Verbal immediacy training seems to be a promising tool forincreasing effective student-teacher interactions.

REFERENCESAnthony, S. (1978). Immediacy and nonimmediacy factors in communicating

interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 141-142.Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Josey-

Bass Publishers, San Francisco.Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables

in communication research: Intensity, immediacy and diversity. Human Commu-nication Research, 5, 257-269.

Chism, N. V. (1989). Large enrollment classes: Necessary evil or not necessar-ily evil. Notes on teaching, Center for Teaching Excellence, Ohio State University.

Christensen, L. J. & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between stu-dent reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motiva-tion, and of cognitive, affective and behavioral learning. Communication Educa-tion, 47, 82-90.

Christophel, D. M. & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest of student motivation,teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation incollege classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behav-iors, student motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.

Conville, R. (1975). Linguistic nonimmediacy and self-presentation. Journal ofPsychology, 90, 219-227.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Communication Research Reports /Summer 1999

Cravener, P. A. (1997). Promoting active learning in a large lecture class. Nurseeducator, 22, 21-25.

Ellis, K. (1995). Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher imme-diacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course: Trends and relation-ships. Communication Education, 44, 64-78.

Frymier, A. B. & Thompson, C. A. (1995). Using student reports to measureimmediacy: Is it a valid methodology? Communication Research Reports, 12, 85-93.

Gedeon, R. (1997). Enhancing a large lecture with active learning. ResearchStrategies, 15, 301-304.

Geske, J. (1992). Overcoming the drawbacks of the large lecture class. CollegeTeaching, 40, 151-154.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behav-iors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.

Gorham, J. & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use ofhumor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Edu-cation, 39, 46-62.

Gorham, J. & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student per-ceptions of immediacy and learning. Monitoring process and product. Communi-cation Education, 39, 61-74.

Hensley, T. R. & Oakely, M. (1998). The challenge of the large lecture class:Making it more like a small seminar. PS Political Science Teacher, 31, 47-53.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesely Publishing.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal com-

munication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., & Shea, K. A. (1996). College

teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education,45, 29-39.

Pearson, J. (1990). Large lecture classes. In J. A. Daly, G. W. Frederich, & A. L.Vangelisri (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research & methods (pp. 293-300).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Penner, J. (1984). Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid commu-nication breakdown in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Powell, R. G. & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarityon instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Educa-tion, 39, 369-379.

Sanders, J. A. & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbalteacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective and behavioral learning inthe multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341-353.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.New York: Basic Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:07

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

training teachers to use verbal immediacy

Documents