Understanding Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy, Verbal Immediacy, and Student Motivation at a Small Liberal Arts University

Article Sidebar

cover image
PDF
Published: Jun 17, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19284
Keywords:
Small Liberal Arts University, Nonverbal Immediacy, Verbal Immediacy, Student Motivation

Main Article Content

Stephen A Furlich
Texas A&M University-Commerce

Abstract

Abstract Instructor communication behaviors and student motivation to learn relationships were studied at a small liberal arts university. Specifically, relationships between instructor nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy behaviors and student motivation to learn were measured. Only instructor verbal immediacy behaviors had a significant linear regression relationship result with student motivation to learn. These results from a small liberal arts university are discussed in reference to previous research that measured these variables primarily at research universities. The results and implications are addressed for instructors and administrators.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Furlich, S. A. (2016). Understanding Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy, Verbal Immediacy, and Student Motivation at a Small Liberal Arts University. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19284
Issue
Vol. 16 No. 3 (2016): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Author Biography

Stephen A Furlich, Texas A&M University-Commerce

Assistant Professor Department of Literature & Languages Texas A&M University-Commerce

References

Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using a meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21-31.

Anderman, L. (2004). Student motivation across subject-area domains. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 283-285.

Andersen, J. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication Yearbook, 3, (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved November 13, 2010 at http://www.classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/

Christensen, L. & Menzel, K. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82-90.

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

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

Comadena, M., Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24, 241-248.

Dickson, R. (1999). The changing role of community college faculty: Implications in the literature. Community College Review, 26 (4), 23-38.

Dobransky, N., & Frymier, A. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211-223.

Donelan, G. (2004). The establishment of ‘teaching’ universities: Perspectives from a university college. Perspective, 8, 68-73.

Elliot, J., & Knight, J. (2005). Student motivation: The bottom line. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 77(4), 8-10.

Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1-20.

Fang-Yi, F., & Wang, Y. (2010). Student silent messages: Can teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy moderate student use of text messaging in class. Communication Education, 59, 475496.

Frymier, A. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133144.

Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.

Glynn, S., Aultman, L., & Owens, A. (2005). Motivation to learn in general education programs. The Journal of General Education, 54, 150-170.

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

Gorham, J. & Zakahi, W. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39, 354-368.

Harrison, R. (2011). Instructor transformational leadership and student outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4, 91-119.

Houser, M. (2005). Teacher behavior, student interest and affective learning: Putting theory into practice. Communication Quarterly, 53, 71-90.

Jaasma, M. & Koper, R. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 4147.

Johnson, D. (2013). Student in-class texting behavior: Associations with instructor clarity and classroom relationships. Communication Research Reports, 30, 57-62.

Lapka, C. (2012). Getting engaged. Illinois Music Educator, 72, 72-73.

Lebedina-Manzoni, M. (2004). To what students attribute their academic success and unsuccess. Education, 124, 699-708.

Mayhew, M. (2012). A multilevel examination of the influence of institutional type on the moral reasoning development of first-year students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83, 367-388.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Modern Language Association Committee on Community Colleges (2006). A community college teaching career. Retrieved October 11, 2006 at http://www.mla.org/commcollege_teachcar

Ovington, J., Diamantes, T., Roby, D., & Ryan, C. (2003). An analysis of prevailing myths regarding tenure and promotion. Education, 123, 635-637.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Merrienboer, J, & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (3), 25-34.

Pascarella, E., Wang, J., Trolian, T., and Blaich, C. (2013). How the instructional and learning environments of liberal arts colleges enhance cognitive development. Higher Education, 66, 569-583.

Pogue, L., & Ahyun, K. (2007). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55, 331-344.

Proulx, T., & Heine, S. H. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter: Affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19, 1294 1300.

Richmond, V., Gorham, J. & McCroskey, J. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (ED.), Communication Yearbook, 10, (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rubin, R., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: The Guilford Press.

Schutt, M., Allen, B., & Laumakis, M. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy behaviors in online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10, 135-148.

Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46, 137-149.

Sidelinger, R. (2010). College student involvement: An examination of student characteristics and perceived instructor communication behaviors in the classroom. Communication Education, 61, 87-103.

Sorcinelli, M. (2002). New conceptions of scholarship for a new generation of faculty members. New Directions for Teaching, 90, 41-48.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

U.S. Department of Education (2011). National Center for Education Statistics, 2011 National Study of Postsecondary faculty. Retrieved September 21, 2011 at http://www.nces.ed.gov/

U.S. News and World Reports (2015). U.S. News and World Reports Education Rankings and Advice. Retrieved September 28, 2015 at http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges

Velez, J., & Cano, J. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy and student motivation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49 (3), 76-86.

Wiesman, J. (2012). Student motivation and the alignment of teacher beliefs. Clearing House, 85, 102-108.

Witt, P., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60, 75-94.

Witt, P., Wheeless, L., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184-207.

Zhang, Q, Oetzel, J., Gao, Z., Wilcox, R., & Takai, J. (2007). A further test of immediacy-learning models: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 1-13.