Article Critique Worksheet 1

• Maria Schutt, Instructional Designer, College of Extended Studies, SDSU, 5250 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182.

Telephone: (619) 594-4497. E-mail: [email protected]

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10(2), 2009, pp. 135–148 ISSN 1528-3518

Copyright © 2009 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

THE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTOR

IMMEDIACY BEHAVIORS IN

ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Maria Schutt

San Diego State University

Brock S. Allen and Mark A. Laumakis

San Diego State University

Previous research has indicated that instructor immediacy is associated with learning outcomes, satisfaction,

and motivation. However, few researchers have examined instructor immediacy in the context of online learn-

ing. This study is the first large experiment (n = 433) to empirically investigate the effects of instructor imme-

diacy behaviors (high versus low) and online delivery modality (audio versus video) on participant

perceptions of instructor immediacy and social presence. Results demonstrated that participants assigned to

the high-immediacy sessions indicated significantly higher perception of instructor immediacy and social

presence than participants assigned to the low-immediacy sessions. Findings also established a strong corre-

lation between participants’ perception of instructor immediacy behaviors and their perception of the instruc-

tor’s social presence.

We live in an era in which many education and

training organizations routinely employ

distance education systems to substitute elec-

tronically mediated interactions for direct,

physically proximate communication between

instructors and students. Despite this, the liter-

ature on student-instructor interactions

evidences a dearth of experimental or causal-

comparative research on how instructor com-

municative behaviors influence student percep-

tion of important instructors’ characteristics

such as care, empathy, disclosure of personal-

ity, and expression of emotions. Educational

researchers have associated these characteris-

tics to social presence (Garrison, Cleveland-

Innes, & Fung, 2004) and have reported that

student perception of social presence can

increase student satisfaction and student per-

ception of learning (Gunawardena & Zittle,

1997; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan,

136 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

2003). Researchers investigating social pres-

ence suggest that this construct is closely

related to the construct of immediacy

(Gunawardena, 1995; Short, Williams, &

Christie, 1976) but the literature appears to offer

no empirical evidence regarding relationships

between social presence and instructor imme-

diacy behaviors in classes or in online distance

education settings.

Immediacy behaviors reflect an ancient set

of human communication modalities including

voice, gestures, and facial expressions as well

as verbal expressions of inquiry, concern,

inclusiveness, encouragement, and recognition

that have long been associated with humane

teaching and learning. Communication

researchers often describe immediacy meta-

phorically as a psychological distance between

a communicator and the object of his commu-

nication (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968).

Research has shown that when instructors

employ verbal and nonverbal immediacy

behaviors, students demonstrate increased

motivation, report enhanced satisfaction, and

achieve higher levels of learning outcomes

(Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Gorham,

1988; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Gorham

& Zakahi, 1990; Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-

Wasco, 1985; Kelley & Gorham, 1988).

However, most research on immediacy

behaviors has been conducted in traditional

face-to-face, non-mediated settings and few

studies examined instructor immediacy in the

context of distance education (Freitas, Myers,

& Avtgis, 1998; Guerrero & Miller, 1998;

Hackman & Walker, 1990, O’Sullivan, Hunt,

& Lippert, 2004). Considering the increasing

number of students enrolled in courses offered

online, there is a noticeable gap when it comes

to investigating how students perceive instruc-

tor immediacy when formal courses employ

various computer conferencing tools. There-

fore, this experimental study examined the

effects of instructor immediacy behaviors and

online lecture environment on student percep-

tion of instructor immediacy and perception of

social presence.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Instructor Immediacy

Immediacy refers to the perceived physical

and/or psychological closeness between peo-

ple (Mehrabian, 1967); instructors can employ

verbal and nonverbal behaviors to signal

immediacy and to reduce physical and psycho-

logical distance with their students (Chris-

tophel & Gorham, 1995). Verbal behaviors

include the use of personal examples, asking

questions or encouraging students to talk,

using humor, addressing students by name and

being addressed by first name by the students,

using inclusive language (referring to class as

“our” class or what “we” are doing), providing

feedback, and praising students’ work (Gor-

ham, 1988). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors

include using gestures, moving around the

classroom, assuming a relaxed body position

and smiling at the class, not reading notes, and

looking at the class while talking (Andersen,

1979; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey,

1987).

Existing research on the impact of such

instructor behaviors has generally been con-

ducted in traditional face-to-face classrooms

(Wise, Chang, Duffy, & Del Valle, 2004).

Researchers have repeatedly associated

instructors’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy

behaviors with increased affective and cogni-

tive learning, motivation, and satisfaction

(Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Gorham,

1988; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Gorham

& Zakahi, 1990; Kearney et al., 1985; Kelley

& Gorham, 1988).

The impact of verbal and nonverbal behav-

iors may be influenced by class size. Gorham

(1988) found that the effect of some behaviors

(e.g. teacher self-disclosure, asking questions

or encouraging students to talk, referring to

class as “our class” or “we” are doing, gestur-

ing, smiling at individual students, employing

relaxed body position, and movement around

the classroom) on measures of affect and

learning increased as the number of students in

a classroom increased. Gorham suggests that it

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 137

is possible that the physical proximity of stu-

dents to the instructor in small classes

enhances perceptions of instructor immediacy

whereas larger class size increases the psycho-

logical distance. In view of the previously

cited findings on the importance of immediacy

on student learning, Gorham’s findings might

be the basis of arguments that teachers in

larger classes should use specific verbal and

nonverbal behaviors to reduce psychological

distance with their students. The same argu-

ment might apply to distance education classes

in which students are physically separated

from instructors and instructors are faced with

the challenge of reducing the psychological

distance with the students.

Many researchers (e.g. Andersen, 1979,

Gorham, 1988; Richmond et al., 1987) have

emphasized the importance of immediacy

behaviors in relation to teaching effectiveness,

so it seems reasonable to expect that the

absence of a full range of nonverbal behaviors

in typical distance education venues might

contribute to increased psychological distance

between students and their instructors. Audio-

and video-enabled computer conferencing

tools allow—but do not require—distance edu-

cation instructors to employ many of the ver-

bal immediacy behaviors that previously cited

research has found to be positively correlated

with cognitive and affective learning out-

comes.

Instructors can enhance satisfaction of dis-

tant students by providing individual attention

and by using vocal variety (Hackman &

Walker, 1990). Skilled distance education

instructors who are animated, fluent, com-

posed, and warm seem likely to convey imme-

diacy despite the geographical distance

separating them from their students (Guerrero

& Miller, 1998). For example, Guerrero and

Miller found that instructor behaviors project-

ing instructor involvement and conversational

skill (e.g., general involvement, expressive-

ness or warmth, composure or fluency, eye

contact, and articulation or clarity) correlated

with students’ positive responses to the

instructor and the course content.

Social Presence

Several studies in the distance education lit-

erature have examined social presence, a con-

cept closely related to the concept of

immediacy (Gunawardena, 1995; Short et al.,

1976). In their theory of social presence Short

et al. define this construct as the degree of

salience of the other person in the interaction

and the consequent salience of the interper-

sonal relationships. Short et al. theorize that

social presence is partly a quality of the

medium through which immediacy behaviors

are represented so, in their view, media vary in

the degree of social presence they can convey.

In addition, their theory attempted to take into

account such factors as the communicators and

their perception of the medium, and their pres-

ence in a series of interactions. Consistent with

these arguments, Tu and McIsaac (2002) assert

that social presence can be enhanced by con-

sidering the characteristics of the learners, by

selecting appropriate communication media,

and by applying appropriate instructional ele-

ments to course design. However, it is impor-

tant to note that most educational researchers

have studied social presence primarily in asyn-

chronous text-based learning environments.

Collectively, the findings suggest that social

presence impacts learning, interaction, inter-

personal relationships, and user satisfaction

(Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Picciano, 2002;

Richardson & Swan, 2003; Stacey, 2002; Tu,

2001; Tu & McIsaac,). Furthermore, percep-

tion of social presence can be cultivated in

conference participants (Gunawardena & Zit-

tle) and improved social presence can increase

interaction between students and instructors.

While recent studies examining social

presence in distance education did not

address the potential impact of the media

used in the courses under study, communica-

tion media differ in the extent to which they

can overcome constraints of time, location,

permanence, distribution, and distance (Rice,

1993). Media also differ in the extent to

which they can represent and transmit the

many social, symbolic, and nonverbal cues

138 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

important to human communication (Rice).

For example, media vary in their capacity for

communicating immediate feedback, the

number of the cues and senses involved, per-

sonalization, and language variety (Daft &

Lengel, 1986). This implies that the commu-

nication medium is a factor in representing

discrete immediacy behaviors (Gunawar-

dena, 1995). Earlier studies reported by Short

et al. (1976) and Rice appear to be in agree-

ment as to the ranking of media in their likely

ability to convey social presence (face-to-face

was ranked highest, followed by video, audio,

and text). However, we could find no recent

study that examined social presence in the

newer computer-based conferencing tools.

Finally, while many authors have theorized

that attributes of the media systems influence

perceived social presence, student perception

of social presence will largely depend on the

ways in which media are employed to repre-

sent the immediacy behaviors of instructors

and the online community (Gunawardena;

Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Therefore the

immediacy behaviors of the instructor can be

expected to play a key role in determining the

communication process, interaction, and stu-

dent perception of social presence.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate

participants’ perception of instructor immedi-

acy and social presence, and the relationships

between immediacy and social presence in

online learning environments. For the purpose

of this study, online learning was defined as a

computer-mediated learning experience that

occurs through the Internet and students access

content on the World Wide Web (Web). The

study employed two widely-used combina-

tions of computer conferencing tools that

allow synchronous computer communication

through the Internet: (a) video and audio tools

for the instructor with student-supplied text

comments and questions (“text chat”), and

(b) audio tools for the instructor with text chat

for the students. Within the context of these

two learning environments, we examined the

following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1i: Participants who view the high-

immediacy sessions will indicate higher per-

ception of instructor immediacy than the par-

ticipants who view the low-immediacy

sessions.

Hypothesis H1ii: Participants who view the

high-immediacy, video and audio with text

chat session will indicate the highest percep-

tion of instructor immediacy.

Hypothesis H2i: Participants who view the

high-immediacy sessions will indicate higher

perception of instructor social presence than

the participants who view the low-immedi-

acy sessions.

Hypothesis H2ii: Participants who view the

high-immediacy video and audio with text

chat session will indicate the highest percep-

tion of instructor social presence.

Hypothesis H3: There is a positive relationship

between perceived instructor immediacy and

perceived instructor social presence.

METHOD

Materials

To examine the hypotheses experimentally,

we manipulated the level of immediacy behav-

iors (high versus low) projected by the instruc-

tor, using two simulated synchronous

computer conferencing environments: (a)

video and audio tools for the instructor with

text chat for comments supplied by the stu-

dents, and (b) audio only tools for the instruc-

tor with text chat for comments supplied by the

students. The audio with text chat groups were

presented with a static picture of the instructor

in the place of the video window.

To reliably manipulate the level of imme-

diacy projected by the instructor, we scripted

two versions of a lesson on current psycho-

logical perspectives, which was part of a reg-

ular introductory psychology course content.

The two versions of the lesson were created

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 139

by first writing the basic script, then system-

atically increasing and decreasing specific

verbal and nonverbal immediacy cues to cre-

ate the high- and low-immediacy conditions.

The instructor was asked to project high- and

low-immediacy behaviors in accordance with

established verbal (Gorham, 1988) and non-

verbal (Richmond et al., 1987) immediacy

behaviors. The instructor performed each of

these two scripts in the two learning environ-

ments and each session was recorded, result-

ing in the four experimental conditions

presented in Table 1. The lesson included a

presentation from an instructor (using video

and audio or audio only) accompanied by

illustrative slides and intermittent exchanges

between the instructor and simulated student

“participants.” These simulated students

appeared to submit text comments or ques-

tions in a chat box and the instructor

responded using audio in various ways con-

sistent with either the high or the low imme-

diacy conditions.

The manipulation of the immediacy behav-

iors resulted in minor difference in the script as

it was performed (the low immediacy videos

were approximately 23 minutes long and the

high immediacy videos were approximately 25

minutes long). A summary of the overall

instructor behaviors in the high and low condi-

tions is presented in Table 2.

Participants and Procedures

The participants for this study were drawn

from two sections of Psychology 101, an intro-

ductory course for undergraduate students at a

large public university in Southern California.

Combined, the two sections provided a sample

of 989 subjects who were then randomly

assigned to one of the four treatment groups

(see Table 3).

Participants were told by their course

instructor that they could complete an online

assignment featuring a presentation by a

guest instructor and complete a few question-

naires as a way to prepare for an upcoming

midterm exam. Participants were offered

extra credit for this assignment. The instruc-

tor informed the participants that after com-

pleting the assignment and receiving their

credit, they would have the option to give

their consent to the researchers to use their

responses for research purposes. Based on

which group they were randomly assigned to,

the instructor of the course e-mailed a URL

to each enrolled student directing them to one

of four Web sites designed for standard Web

browsers. Each site contained identical direc-

tions on how to access and view the simu-

lated session and complete the questionnaires

at any time of their choice, on any computer

available to them. Participants were given

one week to complete this assignment. Of the

TABLE 1 Experimental Conditions

Recorded Session Conditions

Session 1 (Hi-VAT) High Immediacy script (Hi) – Video, Audio, & Text (VAT)

The instructor used video and audio while the simulated students supplied text comments and

questions.

Session 2 (Hi-AT) High Immediacy script (Hi) – Audio & Text (AT)

The instructor used audio while the simulated students supplied text comments and questions.

Session 3 (Lo-VAT) Low Immediacy script (Lo) – Video, Audio, & Text (VAT)

The instructor used video and audio while the simulated students supplied text comments and

questions.

Session 4 (Lo-AT) Low Immediacy script (Lo) – Audio & Text (AT)

The instructor used audio while the simulated students supplied text comments and questions.

140 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

989 students who were assigned to the four

groups, 632 students completed the assign-

ment and 433 students consented to use of

their data for analysis. Table 4 displays the

distribution of consenting participants across

the four groups. Consenting participants were

primarily female (73.2%) and 53.3% were

self-identified as White. The mean age of the

consenting participants was 19; 79% were 18

or 19 years old.

TABLE 2 Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Four Sessions

Hi - VAT Hi - AT Lo-VAT Lo-AT

Video—upper body relaxed

posture

Static image of instructor Video – upper body Static image of

instructor

Moved upper body and head

while teaching (animated)

NA Did not move upper body

or head while teaching

(not animated)

NA

Inclusive language (“our” “we”) Inclusive language (“our” “we”) No inclusive language–

used “your” “you”

No inclusive language

– used “your” “you”

Smiled in response to individual

students’ comments and to class

NA Did not smile NA

Used gestures NA No gestures NA

Used humor Used humor No humor No Humor

Asked students to address him

by his first name

Asked students to address him by

his first name

Introduced himself to the

students as Dr. <Last

Name>

Introduced himself to

the students as Dr.

<Last Name>

Enthusiastic voice while talking

to class-varied vocal

expressions

Enthusiastic voice while talking to

class-varied vocal expressions

Monotone-dull voice Monotone-dull voice

Used personal examples and

talked about experiences he has

had outside of class

Used personal examples and

talked about experiences he has

had outside of class

No personal examples No personal examples

Addressed students by first

name

Addressed students by first name Did not address students

by name

Did not address

students by name

Asked how students felt about

topic

Asked how students felt about

topic

Did not ask how students

felt about topic

Did not ask how

students felt about topic

Asked questions and

encouraged students to talk

Asked questions and encouraged

students to talk

Did not ask questions or

encourage students to

talk

Did not ask questions

or encourage students

to talk

Solicited viewpoints or opinions Solicited viewpoints or opinions Did not solicit viewpoints

or opinions

Did not solicit

viewpoints or opinions

Praised students’ comments Praised students’ comments Did not praise students Did not praise students

Did not appear to read notes Did not appear to read notes Appeared to read notes Appeared to read notes

Showed emotion Showed emotion Showed no emotion Showed no emotion

Got into discussions based on

student questions which were

not part of his plan

Got into discussions based on

student questions which were not

part of his plan

Did not get into

discussions about

questions that were not

part of his lecture plan

Did not get into

discussions about

questions that were not

part of his lecture plan

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 141

Instrumentation

Survey. The study employed a short self-

report questionnaire to gather demographic

information, such as age, gender, and ethnic-

ity.

Instructor Immediacy. Instructor immedi-

acy was measured using a questionnaire based

on the Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale

(VIBS) developed by Gorham (1988) and the

Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior Scale (NIBS)

developed by Richmond et al. (1987). The

scales use a five-point Likert-type scale, rang-

ing from 0 (never) to 4 (often). Combined, the

scores on the verbal and nonverbal scales pro-

vide an overall immediacy score ranging from

0 to 136 (Moore, Masterson, Christophel, &

Shea, 1996). Previous research (Freitas et al.,

1998) demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-

cients ranging from .77 to .94 for the VIBS and

from .76 to .82 for the NIBS. The wordings of

a few items were revised and some were omit-

ted to reflect the computer conferencing capa-

bilities simulated in the treatments employed

in this study.

Social Presence. Social presence was mea-

sured using an instrument developed by Garri-

son et al. (2004) for assessing student role

adjustment in online communities of inquiry.

The social presence scale consists of 10 items

with a reported alpha coefficients ranging from

.9211 to .9237 (Garrison et al.). The original

scale, ranging from “Much Better” to “Much

Worse,” was modified to “Strongly Disagree”

to “Strongly Agree” to meet the needs of the

current study.

Open-ended Items. A few open-ended items

asked participants to provide additional com-

ments on their perception of the instructor.

RESULTS

First, we calculated Cronbach's alpha for the

internal consistency of the items in the com-

bined (VIB + NIB) scales (α = .904) and the

10-item modified social presence scale (α =

.937), indicating high levels of reliability.

To determine the utility as a covariate of

self-report data regarding prior experience

with courses using online conferencing tools,

we performed a series of dependent t tests

comparing participants with “no” and “some”

prior experience in each of the treatment

groups. In particular, we compared student

responses to the instructor immediacy and

TABLE 3 Subject Groupings

Random Assignment

Group Treatments

Group 1 (Hi-VAT) Assigned to watch Hi-VAT session: High Immediacy (Hi) – Video, Audio, & Text (VAT)

Group 2 (Hi-AT) Assigned to watch Hi-AT session: High Immediacy (Hi) – Audio & Text (AT)

Group 3 (Lo-VAT) Assigned to watch Lo-VAT session: Low Immediacy (Lo) – Video, Audio, & Text (VAT)

Group 4 (Lo-AT) Assigned to watch Lo-AT session: Low Immediacy (Lo) – Audio & Text (AT)

TABLE 4 Distribution of Consenting Students Across Experimental Groups (n = 433)

Group

Group 1

Hi-VAT

Group 2

Hi-AT

Group 3

Lo-VAT

Group 4

Lo-AT

n 110 100 113 110

142 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

1 2 3 4

Group

30

40

50

60

M e a n

o f

im m

e d

ia c y

FIGURE 1 Means Plot for Instructor Immediacy

social presence items. With alpha set at .05,

these failed to detect any significant difference

on the dependent variables. Therefore, we

decided not to use online conferencing experi-

ence as a covariate in the data analysis.

Hypothesis One

We hypothesized that participants who

viewed the high-immediacy sessions (Hi-VAT

and Hi-AT) would indicate higher perception

of instructor immediacy than the participants

who viewed the low-immediacy sessions (Lo-

VAT and Lo-AT), with participants in the Hi-

VAT group indicating the highest perception

of instructor immediacy.

A one-way ANOVA demonstrated an over-

all significant effect [F(3, 433) = 97.972, p =

.000]. As shown in Figure 1, participants who

viewed the high-immediacy sessions (Hi-VAT

and Hi-AT) indicated higher levels of per-

ceived instructor immediacy than participants

who viewed the low-immediacy sessions (Lo-

VAT and Lo-AT). Planned contrasts between

groups revealed significant differences

(p < .000) in perception of instructor immedi-

acy between the Hi-VAT group and the two

low-immediacy groups (Lo-VAT and Lo-AT);

between the Hi-AT group and the two low-

immediacy groups (Lo-VAT and Lo-AT); and

between the two high-immediacy groups (Hi-

VAT and Hi-AT). Finally, Tamhane’s T2 post-

hoc test for multiple comparisons showed that

perception of instructor immediacy in the Lo-

VAT group did not significantly differ (p =

.870) than perception in the Lo-AT group

(mean difference = 2.283).

Hypothesis Two

We hypothesized that participants who

viewed the high immediacy behaviors sessions

(Hi-VAT and Hi-AT) would indicate higher

perception of instructor social presence than

participants who viewed the low immediacy

behaviors sessions (Lo-VAT and Lo-AT), with

participants in the Hi-VAT group indicating

the highest perception of instructor social pres-

ence.

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 143

1 2 3 4

Group

2

2.5

3

3.5

M e

a n

o f

s o

c ia

lp re

s e

n c

e

The magnitude and direction of differences

between mean scores were consistent with the

research hypotheses: Participants in the Hi-

VAT group indicated the highest perception of

instructor social presence (M = 36.33, SD =

6.01), followed by the Hi-AT group (M = 35.

81, SD = 7.01), the Lo-VAT group (M = 21.56,

SD = 7.95), and the Lo-AT group (M = 20.47,

SD = 7.97) (see Figure 2).

A one-way ANOVA demonstrated an over-

all significant effect [F(3, 433) = 154.337,p =

.000]. Contrast tests supported the first

research hypothesis, but not the second

research hypothesis. There was no significant

difference (p = .569) in perception of instructor

social presence between the Hi-VAT and the

Hi-VAT group. However, there was signifi-

cant difference (p = .000) in perception of

instructor social presence between the Hi-VAT

group, and the two low-immediacy groups

(Lo-VAT and Lo-AT). Similarly, there was a

significant difference (p = .000) in perception

of instructor social presence between the Hi-

AT group and the two low-immediacy groups

(Lo-VAT and Lo-AT). Finally, posthoc analy-

sis using Tamhane’s T2 posthoc demonstrated

no significance difference (mean difference =

1.09, p = .892) between the Hi-AT and Lo-

VAT groups on the measure of perceived

social presence.

Hypothesis Three

We hypothesized that there is a positive

relationship between perceived instructor

immediacy and perceived instructor social

presence. Using a Pearson Correlation we

found a significant correlation (r(433) = .844,

p = .000) between participant ratings of the

level of instructor immediacy and participant

ratings of the social presence of the instructor

(See Figure 3 for scatterplot). Regression anal-

ysis based on this data (F(1, 433) = 1067.567,

R2 = .712, p = .000) demonstrated that over

71% of the variance in ratings for social pres-

ence could be explained by ratings for immedi-

acy behaviors (perception that the instructor

was emitting immediacy behaviors).

FIGURE 2 Means Plot for Instructor Social Presence

144 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine the

effects of instructor immediacy behaviors

(communicated through recorded online les-

sons using video-enabled and audio-enabled

online learning environments) on participants’

perception of the instructor’s immediacy and

social presence.

We hypothesized that participants who

viewed the high-immediacy sessions (Hi-VAT

and Hi-AT) would indicate higher perception

of instructor immediacy than participants who

viewed the low-immediacy sessions (Lo-VAT

and Lo-AT), with participants in the Hi-VAT

group indicating the highest perception of

instructor immediacy. The ANOVA compar-

ing the four groups demonstrated significance

(F(3, 433) = 97.972, p = .000) and supported

the research hypotheses. These findings sug-

gest that video-enabled computer conferencing

enables (but does not ensure) communication

of immediacy behaviors. However, the find-

ings also remind us that the use of audio also

enables projection of immediacy behaviors.

Participants’ perceptions of instructor immedi-

acy in the Hi-VAT group were significantly

higher than perceptions in the other groups.

This suggests that the use of video allowed the

instructor to project more immediacy behav-

iors (e.g., gesturing, body position, smiling,

etc.) and had an impact on how participants

perceived the instructor. However, the ability

to see the instructor in the Lo-VAT group did

not contribute significantly to student percep-

tions of immediacy. From a practical perspec-

tive, this finding suggests that the use of video

may reduce the psychological distance

between the instructor and the online learners

if the instructor is proficient in the use of

immediacy behaviors. However, if an instruc-

tor fails to employ immediacy behaviors, stu-

dents are more likely to perceive him/her as

nonimmediate regardless of whether the com-

munication environment is (a) video- and

audio-enabled or (b) only audio-enabled.

These results also suggest that when an

instructor is trained to project relevant imme-

diacy behaviors, students will be more likely to

perceive him/her as highly immediate even if

the communication environment is only audio-

enabled. These findings are consistent with

10 20 30 40 50

Social Presence

0

20

40

60

80

100

Im m e d ia c y

FIGURE 3 Correlation of Social Presence and Immediacy

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 145

earlier research. For example, Gorham and

Zakahi (1990) found that instructors’ percep-

tions of their immediacy and their perceptions

of learning are congruent with their students’

perceptions. Based on the findings of their

study, Gorham and Zakahi suggested that

instructors can monitor their behaviors based

on the immediacy literature. Similarly, the

findings of the present study have prescriptive

value for training faculty to utilize the infor-

mation identified in the immediacy literature

for teaching students at a distance.

We can derive similar conclusions from the

results of testing related to the second hypoth-

esis. The findings supported this hypothesis:

participants who viewed the high-immediacy

sessions indicated significantly higher percep-

tion of instructor social presence than the par-

ticipants who viewed the low-immediacy

sessions (p = .000). Ranking groups by mean

ratings for perceived social presence was con-

sistent with our predictions: participants in the

Hi-VAT group indicated the highest percep-

tion of instructor social presence, followed by

the Hi-AT group, the Lo-VAT group, and Lo-

AT group. These findings are also consistent

with responses to an open-ended question that

asked participants whether they perceived the

instructor as a real person. Real person was

defined as a person who is caring, empathetic,

disclosing personality, and expressing emo-

tions, in accordance with the social presence

scale used in this study. A very substantial

majority of comments from participants in the

Hi-VAT group (92%) indicated their percep-

tion of the instructor’s social presence, fol-

lowed by the Hi-AT group (66%), the Lo-VAT

group (56%), and the Lo-AT group (50%).

However, contrast tests showed no significant

difference in perception of instructor social

presence between participants in the two high-

immediacy groups or between participants in

the two low-immediacy groups. These find-

ings suggest that the level of immediacy pro-

jected by the instructor influenced

participants’ perceptions of instructor social

presence but the use of video did not signifi-

cantly affect student perception of the instruc-

tor as a “real person.” While no recent studies

have compared the social presence of different

online conferencing learning environments,

earlier experiments conducted by Short et al.

(1976) and Rice (1993) ranked the social pres-

ence of video higher than audio. The findings

of this study are consistent with the claims of

researchers who argue that even though the

characteristics of the media affect the levels of

social presence, student perception of social

presence will depend on the social presence

created by the instructor (Gunawardena, 1995;

Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). These findings

emphasize the prescriptive value of the present

research as the instructor holds a central role in

determining student perceptions in the online

classroom. The availability of video-enabled

tools could enhance student perception of

instructor immediacy, which according to the

current study will also increase perception of

social presence. However, in the absence of

video, instructors can still project several

immediacy behaviors and increase perception

of social presence. For example, some partici-

pants who reported that the instructor seemed

like a real person, indicated that factors influ-

encing their perception of the instructor

included the fact that the instructor, among

other reasons, encouraged students to talk,

used gestures, answered questions, and they

could also see him and hear his voice. Specifi-

cally, participants reported that “he expressed

emotions, and asked questions to get the stu-

dents involved,” “he made a lot of gestures and

called out individuals by name,” “he cared

about what the students understood or didn't

understand,” and “he was actively engaging

with the class, he was asking questions and

giving a chance for students to voice their

opinions and questions.”

Research has shown that social presence is

a strong predictor of satisfaction in computer

conferencing settings (Gunawardena & Zittle,

1997). Findings in this current study suggest

that regardless of the computer conferencing

learning environment, training instructors to

use the use high-immediacy behaviors, could

impact students’ perceptions of the instructor

146 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

and their satisfaction with the online course.

The relationship between instructor immedi-

acy and social presence was further tested with

the third hypothesis. We hypothesized that

there is a positive association between per-

ceived instructor immediacy and perceived

instructor social presence. Indeed, the correla-

tion analysis and regression analysis indicated

a strong, positive relationship between per-

ceived instructor immediacy and perceived

instructor social presence (r(433) = .844, p =

.000; R2 = .712). These results are consistent

with early research that suggested, but did not

empirically confirm, that immediacy is related

to social presence (Gunawardena, 1995; Short

et al., 1976). These findings suggest that

instructors who are able to monitor and project

high-immediacy behaviors can reduce psycho-

logical distance in distance education settings

and by doing so they can also increase social

presence and students’ perceptions of the

instructors as caring, empathetic, emotionally

expressive, and disclosing personality. The

results of the current study are particularly

important in light of recent work by Richard-

son and Swan (2003) who demonstrated a rela-

tionship between perceived social presence,

perceived learning, and satisfaction with

instructors and interaction. Similarly, Picciano

(2002) found a relationship among student per-

ceptions of interaction, social presence, and

learning.

We must note that this study is limited in its

nature because it was conducted as a “one

shot” experiment. The study addresses only

the perceptions of the particular undergraduate

level participating students and does not neces-

sarily represent perceptions and responses of

all the students who are engaging in online

learning. Furthermore, participating students

only observed a simulated lesson; their percep-

tions of the instructor might have been differ-

ent if had they been able to interact directly

with the instructor.

Nevertheless, this study’s experimental

design (random assignment of participants to

treatment groups), the significant differences

between groups, and the variance in perception

of social presence accounted by use of imme-

diacy behaviors (71.2%) allow us to infer with

considerable confidence that coordinated use

of immediacy behaviors can strongly influence

the social presence of instructors as perceived

by students in both video- and audio-enabled

computer conferencing systems. The findings

of these previous studies considered together

with those of the current study suggest that

regardless of the conferencing tool, increasing

instructor immediacy in online learning envi-

ronments increases the perceived social pres-

ence of the instructor. The combination of

increased instructor immediacy and perceive

social presence can positively influence stu-

dents’ perceptions of course-related interper-

sonal interactions and learning outcomes as

well as student motivation for participating

and their satisfaction with their course-related

experiences.

Growing interest in technologies for

improving instructional logistics and conve-

nience will not automatically ensure that dis-

tance education venues will be instructionally

effective or educationally satisfying. Nor will

such technologies necessarily preserve or

enhance the human attributes and interactions

that help make learning experiences humane

and meaningful. What seems particularly rele-

vant in an age of new media machines, is to

better understand the role of ancient forms of

human expression that communicate interest,

enthusiasm, empathy, concern, and recogni-

tion—the forms of expression that help real

students and real teachers to project their per-

sonal presence through electronic pathways.

REFERENCES

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a pre-

dictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543-

559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in

learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy

between live and distance education classrooms.

Communication Education, 50(3), 230-240.

The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments 147

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among

teacher immediacy behaviors, student motiva-

tion, and learning. Communication Education,

39(4), 323-340.

Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-

retest analysis of student motivation, teacher

immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation

and demotivation in college classes. Communi-

cation Education, 44, 293-306.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational

information requirements, media richness and

structural design. Management Science, 32(5),

554-571.

Freitas, F. A., Myers, S. A., & Avtgis, T. A. (1998).

Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in

conventional and distributed learning class-

rooms. Communication Education, 47(4), 366-

372

Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the

classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42(2),

133-144.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T.

(2004). Student role adjustment in online com-

munities of inquiry: Model and instrument vali-

dation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 8(2). Retrieved March 6, 2006, from

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/

v8n2_garrison.asp

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal

immediacy behaviors and student learning.

Communication Education, 37(1), 40-53.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The rela-

tionship of teachers’ use of humor in the class-

room to immediacy and student learning.

Communication Education, 39(1), 46-62.

Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison

of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy

and learning: Monitoring progress and product.

Communication Education, 39(4), 354-368.

Guerrero, L. K., & Miller, T. A. (1998). Associa-

tions between nonverbal behaviors and initial

impressions of instructor competence and course

content in videotaped distance education

courses. Communication Education, 47(1), 30-

42.

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory

and implications for interaction and collabora-

tive learning in computer conferences. Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Telecommunica-

tions 1(2/3), 147-166

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social

presence as predictor of satisfaction within a

computer-mediated conferencing environment.

The American Journal of Distance Education,

11(3), 8-26.

Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instruc-

tional communication in the televised class-

room: The effects of system design and teacher

immediacy on student learning and satisfaction.

Communication Education, 39(3), 196-206.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. J.

(1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learn-

ing in divergent college classes. Communication

Quarterly, 33(1), 61-74.

Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of

immediacy on recall of information. Communi-

cation Education, 37(3), 198-207.

McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Rich-

mond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Non-

verbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A

cross-cultural investigation. Communication

Education, 45(3), 201-211.

Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from non-

immediacy of verbal communication. 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. Communica-

tion Education, 45(1), 29-39.

Olgren, C. H. (1998). Improving learning outcomes:

The effects of learning strategies and motivation.

In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in

higher education. Institutional responses for

quality outcomes (pp. 77-95). Madison, WI:

Atwood.

O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R.

(2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of

affiliation in a technological age. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464-

490.

Picciano, G. A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions:

Issues of interactions, presence, and perfor-

mance in an online course. Journal of Asynchro-

nous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. Retrieved

February 6, 2005, from http://www.aln.org

/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_picciano.asp

Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using

social presence theory to compare traditional

and new organizational media. Human Commu-

nication Research, 19(4), 451-484.

Richardson, C. J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining

social presence in online courses in relation to

students' perceived learning and satisfaction.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

7(1), 68-88. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from

148 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 2, 2009

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/

v7n1_richardson.asp

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J.

C. (1987). The relationship between selected

immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In

M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook

10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The

social psychology of telecommunications. Lon-

don: Wiley.

Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: Network-

ing learners at a distance. Education and Infor-

mation Technologies, 7(4), 287-294.

Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social pres-

ence: An examination in online learning envi-

ronment. Educational Media International,

38(1), 45-60.

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship

of social presence and interaction in online

classes. American Journal of Distance Educa-

tion, 16(3), 131-150.

Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language

within language: Immediacy, a channel in ver-

bal communication. New York: Appleton Cen-

tury Crofts.

Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R.

(2004). The effects of teacher social presence on

student satisfaction, engagement, and learning.

Journal of Educational Computing Research,

31(3), 247-271.

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10(2), 2009, pp. 249–252 ISSN 1528-3518

Copyright © 2009 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

Brock Allen is codirector of the SDSU Center

for Learning, Instruction, & Performance

Technologies and emeritus professor of educa-

tional technology at SDSU, where he teaches

graduate courses on educational product

design and the psychology of technology-

based learning. Allen has published more than

40 articles or book chapters on computer-

based learning environments, interactive

media, instructional design, and related topics.

Barbara A. Bichelmeyer is associate vice

president for academic planning and associate

professor of instructional systems technology

at Indiana University. Barbara's research,

teaching and service focus on the areas of

human performance improvement, instruc-

tional and program evaluation, instructional

design, adult learning, and the integration of

technologies in instructional environments.

Barbara's grant-based research has recently

focused on the study of distance learning envi-

ronments in graduate education and blended

learning environments in high schools and

community colleges. Her recent service work

has focused on evaluation of educational mate-

rials for the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and the Indiana Supreme Court

Commission for Continuing Legal Education.

Barbara has served as a consultant for the

design, development and evaluation of educa-

tion and training programs with organizations

such as Procter & Gamble, Eli Lilly, Micro-

soft, Sprint, the United States Coast Guard and

the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Jeff Cain is the director of education technol-

ogy for the University of Kentucky College of

Pharmacy. His research interests are moral rea-

soning, instructional technology, online social

networking, and health professions education.

Alison A. Carr-Chellman graduated in

instructional systems technology from Indiana

University under the direction of Charles

Reigeluth with a focus on educational systems

design. She has taught school, designed

instruction for jet fighter pilots, and directed a

tutoring center. She has been at Penn State’s

Instructional Systems program for about 16

years and is a professor with a focus on sys-

tems theory, diffusion of innovations, change

theory, school change, and educational sys-

tems design. She teaches courses on instruc-

tional design, global e-learning, qualitative

research, and research apprenticeships.

Yu-Hui Ching is a PhD candidate in instruc-

tional systems program at Penn State Univer-

sity. Her research interests include technology

integration for effective teaching and learning,

ill-structured problems solving, and self-regu-

lated learning. At Penn State University, she

has cotaught both face-to-face and online

courses on instructional design and technology

integration. She currently serves as a graduate

consultant at Schreyer Institute for Teaching

Author Biographical Data 251

crime, gender and policing, evaluative

research methods, and domestic violence.

Nilufer Korkmaz is a PhD student in Instruc-

tional Systems Technology at Indiana Univer-

sity. She is teaching K-12 technology

integration courses to preservice teachers. Her

research has focused on instructional design

education, interactions and communications in

distance and blended learning environments,

and evaluation of distance education pro-

grams.

Heng-Yu Ku is an associate professor in the

Educational Technology Program, College of

Education and Behavioral Sciences, at the

University of Northern Colorado.

Mark A. Laumakis, PhD, is a lecturer in the

Department of Psychology at San Diego State

University (SDSU). He also holds the position

of faculty in residence in instructional technol-

ogy services at SDSU. In April, 2008, he was

the recipient of an SDSU top 25 award, given

to members of the SDSU community who

have made transformational contributions to

the mission of the university, for his innovative

uses of technology in his two 500-student sec-

tions of introductory psychology. He received

his AB in psychology and sociology from

Duke University and his PhD in clinical psy-

chology from the University of Southern Cali-

fornia.

Cara E. Rabe-Hemp is an assistant professor

in the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences

at Illinois State University. She received her

PhD in Criminal Justice from the University of

Illinois at Chicago in 2005. Her research inter-

ests include: autonomous learning and student

engagement in the online classroom, gender

and policing, small and rural policing, citizen

perceptions of the police, and police deviance.

Her recent publications have appeared in the

Women and Criminal Justice, Police Quar-

terly, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Polic-

ing: An International Journal of Police

Strategies and Management.

Jonathan P. Mathews is an assistant profes-

sor of energy and mineral engineering at the

Pennsylvania State University. He holds a PhD

in fuel science from The Pennsylvania State

University and an applied chemistry BSc

(Hons) degree from the Nottingham-Trent

University, in England. He was an early

adopter in online education and has reached

over 5,000 students online, mostly to campus-

based resident undergraduate students in the

area of general education.

Robert A. Schuhmann is currently an associ-

ate professor and past director of the MPA pro-

gram and former head of the Department of

Political Science at the University of Wyo-

ming. His publications have appeared in Pub-

lic Administration Review, Social Science

Journal, the American Review of Public

Administration, Administrative Theory and

Praxis, Social Science Quarterly, and Public

Administration and Management: An Interac-

tive Journal.

Maria Schutt, EdD, is an instructional

designer for the College of Extended Studies at

San Diego State University (SDSU). She is

also a lecturer in the Department of Educa-

tional Technology at SDSU, teaching an

online graduate-level course in instructional

design. She has also lectured at the School of

Leadership and Educational Sciences at the

University in San Diego and has taught gradu-

ate-level courses in instructional design, teach-

ing with technology, distance education, and

research methodology. She has previously

worked as a teacher, online learning consul-

tant, and as an instructional designer for a lead-

ing provider of curriculum-based software and

Internet services. Schutt is passionate for

designing instructional products and solutions

that reach learners beyond borders.

Tracy A. Skopek is currently an assistant pro-

fessor and director of the MPA program in the

Department of Political Science at the Univer-

sity of Wyoming. She has published articles in

the American Review of Public Administration

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.