teacher non-verbal immediacy behaviours

Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), June 2008

An Observation of Nonverbal ImmediacyBehaviours of Native and Non-native

LecturersAli BIÇKI1

Özet: Eğitim bilgini öğretmen tarafından aktarıldığı veöğrenci tarafından alındığı bir system değil, bilginintaraflar arasındaki iletişim sürecinde üretildiği bireylemdir. Bu iletişim sürecinin öğretmenin duyuşsal,kavramsal ve duygusal alanlarda öğrencilerle iletişmesigerekir. Bu iletişim ancak öğrencinin öğretmenisamimi/yakın bulduğu durumlarda daha başarılıolabilmektedir. Öğretmen samimiyeti/yakınlığı ve öğrenciSözel olmayan iletişim ve yakınlık algısı arasında doğruorantılı bir ilişki olduğu bilinmektedir. Öğrenme veöğretmen yakınlığı arasında ters at nalı şeklinde birbağıntı olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca samimiyet/yakınlıkalgısının kültüre bağlı olarak şekillendiği ve kültürelyakınlık belirten davranış normlarına uymayanöğretmenlerin uzak algılandığı ve dolaylı olarak budurumun güdülenme, duyuşsal öğrenme kaybına ve öğrenmealgısının düşmesine yol açtığı bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmadabir yerli ve bir yabancı niversite öğretmeni yakınlıkbelirten davranışlar açışından değerlendirilmiştir.Yerli öğretmenin kişiliğe bağlı olmayan kültürelnedenlerle yabancı hocadan daha samimi olarakalgılandığı bulunmuştur.Anahtar kelimeler:

Abstract: Teaching is an interactive process in whichlearning is not exported by the teacher and received bythe learners, but is created interactively between bothparties. The interaction requires the teacher actively,

1 Öğretim Görevlisi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, İngilizceÖğretmenliği Bölümü Çağ Üniversitesi, Mersin.

1

Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), Haziran 2008

affectively, and cognitively engages the learners. Thisengagement is perceived to be positive when the teacheris perceived to be immediate. Research on the issue hasrevealed that there is a positive curvilinearcorrelation between student learning and teacherimmediacy. As well, perceptions of immediacy are foundto be pan-culturally shaped and failure to meet culturalnonverbal immediacy norms means that the teacher isperceived to be non-immediate, which in turn leads toloss of motivation, affective and perceived learning. Inthis study, we cross compared two lecturers; one native,one non-native, in terms of immediacy behaviours. Theresults suggest that the native lecturer is perceived tobe more immediate in terms which are not personal butcultural. Key words:

1. Introduction Communication in general is the process of

sending and receiving messages that enable humansto share knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Althoughwe usually identify communication with speech,communication is composed of two dimensions -verbal and nonverbal. Nonverbal communication hasbeen defined as communication without words. Itincludes apparent behaviours such as facialexpressions, eyes, touching, and tone of voice, aswell as less obvious messages such as dress,posture and spatial distance between two or morepeople. “Everything communicates,” includingmaterial objects, physical space, and time systems.Although verbal output can be turned off, nonverbalcannot. Even silence speaks.

No matter how one can try, one cannot notcommunicate. Activity or inactivity, words orsilence all have message value: they influence

2


others and these others, in turn, cannot notrespond to these communications and are thusthemselves communicating. Children first learnnonverbal expressions by watching and imitating,much as they learn verbal skills. Young childrenknow far more than they can verbalize and aregenerally more adept at reading nonverbal cues thanadults because of their limited verbal skills andtheir recent reliance on the nonverbal tocommunicate. As children develop verbal skills,nonverbal channels of communication do not cease toexist although become entwined in the totalcommunication process.

Humans use nonverbal communication because:1. Words have limitations: There are numerousareas where nonverbal communication is moreeffective than verbal (when explaining theshape, directions, personalities are expressednonverbally) 2. Nonverbal signals are powerful: Nonverbalcues primarily express inner feelings (verbalmessages deal basically with the outside world).3. Nonverbal message are likely to be moregenuine because nonverbal behaviours cannot becontrolled as easily as spoken words. 4. Nonverbal signals can express feelingsinappropriate to state: Social etiquette limitswhat can be said, but nonverbal cues cancommunicate thoughts. 5. A separate communication channel isnecessary to help send complex messages: Aspeaker can add enormously to the complexity of

3


the verbal message through simple nonverbalsignals.

1.1 The Functions of Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal communication in fact constitutesmost of what we intend to communicate. Indeed,early researchers went as far to claim that verbalcommunication achieved only 7% of the messageconveyed. Mehrabian (1971,1974) in his researchconcluded that listeners’ perception of theattitude of a speaker were influenced 7% by theverbal message and 38% by the vocal tones whichwere used, summing up to 93% percent ofcommunication to be done through nonverbalchannels. They may have overestimated thepercentage of nonverbal communication, yet mostresearchers agree that verbal communication makesup to 35% of the message conveyed. The functionscarried out by nonverbal communication as listed byCapper (2000) are as follows:

(i) Regulatory function: When we engage inconversation with people of different linguistic,sociocultural etc. backgrounds keeping theconversation on track requires lots of effort.Nonverbal clues serve a great deal here to regulateconversational behaviour.

(ii) Interpersonal function: Nonverbal communicationserves to express attitudes and emotions ininterpersonal relations (also known as 'affectdisplays').

(iii) Emblematic function: Largely the use ofgestures to convey a specific message.

4


(iv) Illustrative function: Nonverbal communicationused to indicate size, shape, distance, etc.

(v) Adaptive function: Used as a means ofreassurance, self-comforting; often involvingunconscious acts such as playing with hair, beardstroking, playing with a pencil or cigarette, etc.

1.2 Types of Nonverbal Communication

It is important for teachers to understand thedistinctions between the various forms of nonverbalcommunication. The following is a basicintroduction to the areas most relevant to theclassroom.

1.2.1 GesturesGestures are perhaps the most readily

noticeable manifestation of non verbalcommunication, their purpose is to consciouslyconvey a (culturally) specific message, succinctlyand unambiguously. We should also mention the(in)appropriateness of certain gestures, and of theunique ways in which cultures may differ greatly inperformance of gestures with the same basic meaning(for example, beckoning, or waving goodbye).Differences also exist in consciously used facial'gestures' to show frustration, anger,embarrassment or confusion.

1.2.2 Head movementsAs with so much nonverbal communication,

interpretation will depend on one's own culturalnorms; Turkish persons nodding in conversation arelikely to indicate comprehension and evidence oflistening as it is to indicate agreement, whichappears to be its primary (though not only)

5


function in English. English also uses head-noddingas a turn-taking signal (Argyle, 1983). In theclassroom, activities such as giving directions,explaining processes and procedures, will providesuitable opportunities.

1.2.3 Facial Expression Teachers’ facial expressions can affect how

the students feel about the classroom environment.The teacher who has a dull, boring facialexpression when talking is perceived by thestudents not interested in them and the subjectmatter. This type of teacher is likely to have moreclassroom disruptions because the students becomebored with the teaching style. Teachers must havepleasing facial expressions, ones that show theyare not only interested in the subject matter butalso in their students. Positive facial expressionsare often accompanied by positive head movements(Andersen, 1979; McCroskey and Richmond, 1992,1996, 1998; Richmond, 2002)

Smiling is associated with liking, affinityand immediacy. The teacher who smiles and haspositive facial affect and is perceived as moreimmediate than who does not. Students would reactmore positively to the teacher who smiles a lotthan to the teacher who frowns or does not smilemuch. The author of this thesis has interviewedsome language teachers and teachers of otherdisciplines in Turkish state schools. Especiallyolder teachers believed that Turkish students willnot respect teachers that do smile a lot, andthought it necessary to be very formal in theclassroom. However, the observations and personal

6


experiences proved just the opposite. Studentsliked teachers who are smiling, communicated withthem more and there was a more positiverelationship between them and the students (Bıçkıand Gökkaya 2004)

1.2.4 Eye Contact and GazeAs with eyebrow movement, eye contact and gaze

play an important role in enabling conversationmanagement, providing vital feedback when engagedin face to face floor holding, turn taking andyielding, and in closing sequences. Parallel tothis function is the importance of eye contact andgaze in affect displays, (jealousy, nervousness,fear); in establishing status (dominance ordeference); intimacy and so on (Capper, 2000).

Eye contact and gaze are rather delicate formsof nonverbal behaviour across cultures, andmastering cultural differences could be quitechallenging. Especially in high-contact culturesalong the Mediterranean rim eye contact and gazeare to be handled with care as lengthened – timingis vastly variable across cultures – gaze may leadto serious clashes. Teachers exceedingly using eyecontact and gaze for classroom management should bealert that they might embarrass many studentsunwillingly.

1.2.5 Kinesics, Body LanguageTeacher’s movement and preferred body posture

and classroom position tells more to the studentsthan anything else. This relates to questions onthe side of the students such as : "Is she using abook as a shield?" "Does he have an open, confidentposture?" "Is he using the pen/board marker/chalk

7


as a security blanket?" "Does he react differentlyto boys and girls?" "Does she tower over studentsor go down to their level?" "How would I feel if mydesk (defensive barrier) were removed?" (Capper,2000)

1.2.6 ProxemicsClosely related to kinesics, proxemics is the

preferences of space use in conversationalinteraction. Edward T. Hall’s categories can lendinsight. Hall (1966) specifies four distance zoneswhich are commonly observed by North Americans:Intimate distance - from actual touching toeighteen inches. This zone is reserved for thosewith whom one is intimate. At this distance thephysical presence of another is overwhelming.Teachers who violate students’ intimate space arelikely to be perceived as intruders. Personaldistance from eighteen inches to four feet. This isthe distance of interaction of good friends. Thiswould also seem to be most appropriate distance forteacher and student to discuss personal affairssuch as grades, conduct, private problems, etc.Social distance exists from four to twelve feet. Itseems to be an appropriate distance for casualfriends and acquaintances to interact. Publicdistance outward from twelve feet a speaker becomesformal. Classes of teachers who maintain thisdistance between themselves and their students aregenerally formal, and some students may feel thatthe teacher is cold and distant. The verticaldistance between communicators is often indicativeof the degree of dominance a sub ordinance in the

8


relationship. People are affected by literallylooking up at or looking down on another person.

After a conversation about proxemics with anAmerican lady who has been living in Turkey foraround 10 years she told me that in America peoplewere always stepping back when they were talking toher. The reason is that she was using Turkishdistances of conversation which are considerablyshorter than American counterparts, and that meantviolation of personal space leading to discomfort.Teachers’ use of proxemics may help establish poweror distance in the class. The only caution is touse the right distance: social distance duringlecture, and personal distance during one-to-oneconversations.

1.2.7 Haptics: Uses of TouchPerhaps more subtle, and arguably more common,

is the use of touch to reassure or empathize; toget, redirect or hold attention; to guide; toencourage; or to express intimacy Touching someone,even whom you personally know, is a delicatematter, which has to do lots with culture, age,gender etc. Mediterranean cultures – Spanish,Italian, Greek and Turkish – are high contactcultures wherein touching is an indicator ofintimacy, whereas North-American, British andJapanese are non-contact cultures in whichinteractants rarely touch each other. A worthypoint would be that cross gender touches are evenmore delicate even dangerous in most cultures,especially in ones where gender differences aregreat, such as Muslim cultures.

9


1.2.8 Vocal Intonation and CuesThe proverb “It is not what we say that

counts, but how we say it” reflect the meaning ofvocal intonation. An unconscious bias of thelistening public is a widespread positive prejudicein favour of man with low, deep voices withresonant tones, such as those qualities possessedby most male newscasters. Studies have alsoreported the use of vocal cues as accurateindicators of overall appearance, body type,height, and race, education, and dialect region.Paralinguistic cues often reveal emotionalconditions. Difference in loudness, pitch, timbre,rate, inflection, rhythm, and enunciation allrelate to the expression of various emotions.

Experimental findings suggest that activefeelings, such as rage, are exemplified vocally byhigh pitch, fast pace, and blaring sound. The morepassive feelings, such as despair, ate portrayed bylow pitch, retarded pace, and resonant sound. Inaddition, stress is often vocalized by higher pitchand words uttered at a greater rate than normal.The reverse (lower pitch, slower word pace) islikely during depression.

This powerful nonverbal tool can readilyaffect student participation. Generally, to correctanswers the teacher respond with positive verbalreinforcement enhanced by vocal pitch or tone,expressing the acceptance and liking of thestudents’ answer (often accompanied by a smile orother forms of nonverbal approval).

Vocal behaviour is also capable of arousingstereotypes about either a teacher or a student.

10


For example, a teacher who has a very nasalspeaking voice is often perceived as having avariety of undesirable personal and physicalcharacteristics. Female teachers with very tensevoices are often perceived as being younger,feminine, more emotional, easily upset, and lessintelligent. Male teachers with the same vocalcharacteristics are often perceived as being older,more unyielding, and cantankerous. (Capper, 2000)

1.2.9 Backchannelling, Silence and BreathingWhile not strictly verbal, vocalizations are

invaluable to the communicative process; theirinappropriate use (for example, L1 backchannellingbehavior in L2) may be distracting and may lead toa negative impression.

Quiet time may be defined as the silenceoccurring between speech or utterances, and howmuch quiet time is acceptable varies considerablyacross cultures. While some cultures value livelyand open self-disclosure, with few if any prolongedsilences, Japanese generally feel more comfortablewith longer periods of silence, do not feel theneed for volubility or immediate self-disclosure,and often consider talkativeness to be shallow,immature and possibly disrespectful (Kitao andKitao 1989).

Moreover, turn-taking and conversationalbehaviour shaped culturally may be perceived asnon-immediate. For instance, while American’s have“no gap, no overlap” rule in conversing, Turks have“high involvement” style characterized byoverlapping utterances. It would be quite commonfor a Turkish person to break in a conversation,

11


start talking just before last word is uttered, andtake the turn. In a sense, asking Turkish studentsto talk just after the other stops talking inconversation might be perceived “unnatural” andnon-immediate.

Finally, breathing is itself a form ofnonverbal communication, often underestimated andunnoticed, usually involuntary, but a sigh, a yawnor a gasp can undermine even the most elaboratelyand convincingly composed verbal message.

1.2.10 EnvironmentObjects and the classroomEnvironmental research has clearly indicated

that communication differs greatly from onephysical environment to another. The physicalenvironment of the classroom is determined in thelarge measure by the objects in that classroom.Some of them are intrinsic for the classroomitself, while others are objects that theinhabitants bring with them. Such objects may havea significant (either negative or positive) effecton classroom communication.

Dress Although most people are only superficially

aware of the wear of others, clothing doescommunicate. Often dictated by societal norms,clothing indicates a great amount of informationabout self. It identifies sex, age, socioeconomicclass, status, role, group membership, personalityor mood, physical climate, and time in history.Much empirical evidence supports the view that onewho is well dressed – and dressed accordingly – islikely to be much better accepted by not known

12


people than if not well dressed thus increasinginterpersonal effectiveness.

Physical AttractivenessBody type communicates a variety of meanings,

particularly as it relates to physicalattractiveness.

TimeThough this has not been adequately studied,

per se, it seems safe to say that teacher’s use oftime has nonverbal communicative value. Consider anelementary teacher who tells his students that mathis as important as history, yet devote much moreclassroom time to history. His students canprobably tell which subject he really thinks ismore important. There are also a non written normsrelated to how long students are expected to waitfor late instructors, and it varies according torank. Since students are accustomed to classesrunning for a certain amount of time, they tend toexpose nervousness when their expectancies areviolated

2. Nonverbal Communication and TeacherImmediacy

1.3 Teacher Immediacy

The studies conducted to observe immediacybehaviours of teachers during instructionalcommunication have found that immediacy behavioursare associated with more positive affect as well asincreased cognitive learning, and more positivestudent evaluations of teachers (McCroskey andRichmond, 2000). McCroskey and Richmond (2000:86)suggest the following communication principle:

13


The more communicators employ immediatebehaviours, the more others will like,evaluate highly, and prefer suchcommunicators; and the less communicatorsemploy immediate behaviour the moreothers will dislike, evaluate negatively,and reject such communicators. We preferto call this idea the “principle ofimmediate communication”.

The importance of immediacy for teachers isembodied in this principle. More establishedimmediacy leads to more cognitive learning andpositive attitudes both towards the teacher and theschool. The rest of this chapter will then dealwith aspects of immediacy and their possibleeffects and outcomes in the language classroom.

It wouldn’t be naïve to hypothesize thatimmediacy helps a great deal in the classroom.Similarly, Richmond (2002:65-66) shares the sameview and lists five generalizations drawn formresearch on teacher immediacy:

1. Teacher immediacy behaviours can beused effectively to get students to dowhat we want them to do, so long as we aretruly engaging immediacy behaviours and wecontinue to use nonverbal and verbalimmediacy behaviours throughout thecourse.

2. Students are drawn to teachers theytrust and perceive as competent andcaring. Students avoid teachers that theydo not trust or perceive as competent,caring and responsive.

3. Teacher immediacy behaviour givesthe teacher positive forms of behavioural

14


control, rather than using coercive orantisocial teacher strategies.

4. Immediacy in large part determinesthe amount power and affect (liking) thata teacher has with students.

5. Students usually comply with,rather than resist, reasonable teacherrequests, if the teacher is likedrespected, and admired by her/hisstudents.

Mahrebian (1971) introduced the concept ofimmediacy. He stated the concept of immediacy as:“People are drawn toward persons they like,evaluate highly, and prefer; they avoid or moveaway from things they dislike, evaluate negatively,or do not prefer.” (Quoted in Richmond, 2001:66).It is also noted that immediacy has both verbal andnonverbal aspects, and both can have an impact onlearning and classroom atmosphere.

1.3.1 Nonverbal Teacher Immediacy

People cannot always avoid things they do notlike nor can they express verbal dislike at alltimes. However, we communicate our feelings throughour nonverbal behaviours. For instance, if someoneis saying something nice about us we are morelikely to stand closer, have more eye contact,listen more attentively and perhaps even touch. Onthe contrary, if something unpleasant is being toldabout us, we are likely to lean away form thatperson, have little eye contact (or hostilelengthened eye contact), remain silent, and not

15


touch. Theses are abbreviated forms of approach oravoidance behaviour.

These abbreviated forms of nonverbalbehaviour imply the degree of psychologicalcloseness between people. More approach likenonverbal behaviour implies that the person isimmediate or wants to build immediacy. The more weuse avoidance like behaviours, the more we areperceived as nonverbally non-immediate or/andunapproachable.

In sum, nonverbal behaviours are quiteaffective on interpersonal relationships. Teachersas we are, we may either frown the students or havethem communicate their feelings freely. Yet, as wasclarified before teachers should not sacrificetheir status in the classroom for buildingimmediacy and rapport between themselves and thestudents (Studies on student perceptions reportthat students find too friendly ‘ineffective’).Richmond (2002) draws Avoidance – approachcontinuum to summarize the point:Table 1 Avoidance – Approach Continuum (Adapted from Richmond, 2002:67)

Avoidance – Approach ContinuumPhysical Hostilityor → violence

Verbal → Hostility

Aggression → Neutrality → Immediacy → Intimacy

The avoidance end of the continuum denotesthat we do not want to communicate by any meanswith verbally or physically abusive person. Theapproach end is only reserved for a few persons,such as mother, beloved, best friends etc. Thepoint that people feel themselves most comfortable

16


at communicating is immediacy (that why you findyourself telling your problems to a stranger youjust met on the bus). At the neutral point, we justevaluate the person; if he/she is found toimmediate communication goes on, if found non-immediate or keeps neutral conversation is over(Richmond, 2002).

1.3.2 Verbal ImmediacyWhat people say makes us feel either closer or

more distant from them. Verbal immediacy is builtaround verbal messages that show openness to theother, friendship and care for the other, orempathy with the other. Such simple phrases as theuse of plural pronouns “we or us” rather thansingular ones “you, you and I” can increase thefeeling of immediacy. For instance, when denotingverbal immediacy to student instead of “you shoulddo this” saying “let’s see what we can do” isbetter.

Clearly, verbal messages constitute a greatdeal of the message we are trying convey in givenconversation. Yet, nonverbal messages hold greatvalue in successful communication. Althoughimmediacy is accomplished trough both verbal andnonverbal messages, Richmond (2002) claims that thenonverbal component is far more important in mostcases. Especially in such as classroomcommunication where the sender and the receiver areface to face nonverbal communication determineswhat is meant. This is because nonverbal messagesare often alone, not necessarily accompanied byverbal messages. On the other hand verbal messagesare almost always accompanied by nonverbal

17


messages, and when there is conflict between verbaland nonverbal messages – when verbal suggestsimmediacy while nonverbal message is contradictory– receivers tend to take nonverbal negative messagedisregarding the verbal.

In sum, verbal and nonverbal immediacy aretied together with strong ropes. Verbal andnonverbal messages should be in parallel if we areto build rapport and immediacy between us and thestudents. Moreover, even when conveying negativemessages – that is non-immediacy – verbal andnonverbal messages should fit in each otherotherwise our behaviour would not be takenseriously, which would be a great hindrance toteaching.

1.4 Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviours

Mehrabian (1981) indicates that immediacy inthe interaction between two people "includesgreater physical proximity and/or more perceptualstimulation of the two by one another" (p. 14).Immediacy is thus characterized in part by reducedphysical or psychological distances in teacher-student interaction. Hesier's (1972) study ofteachers' proxemic positioning revealed thatteachers who sat at, on, beside, or behind the deskwere rated by students as low in both affection andinclusion and teachers who moved in front of thedesk or among the students were more likely to beperceived as warm, friendly, and effective.Research has provided solid evidence that moreimmediacy is communicated when people face oneanother directly and that people assume closer

18


positions to those they like than to strangers orthose they dislike (Aiello & Cooper, 1972;Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Byrne, Baskett,& Hodges, 1971; Mehrabian 1968, 1967; Mehrabian&Friar, 1969; Patterson & Sechrest, 1970 inRichmond 1992). Although the point at whichphysical proximity and, to an even greater extent,interpersonal touch become uncomfortable differsamong individuals, the lack of recognitionresulting from psychological distancing can negateany verbal attempts to establish interpersonalbonds (Richmond, Gorham and McCroskey 1987).

Even when close physical proximity is notpossible, direct eye contact can providepsychological closeness between teachers andstudents and has been shown to be an importantcomponent of both interpersonal immediacy generallyand the teacher's immediacy in particular(Andersen, 1979; Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen,1979). Mehrabian (1981) notes that "considerableevidence has been accumulated showing that more eyecontact is associated with greater liking and morepositive feelings among interactants" (p. 23).

Beyond increasing physical and/orpsychological proximity, immediacy is alsocharacterized by behaviours that contribute toperceptual stimulation during interpersonalinteraction. Smiling is one nonverbal behaviourthat has been associated with such perceptualstimulation indicating both liking and arousal(Mehrabian, 1981).

Perceptual stimulation is also related to bodymovement: A physically active teacher provides both

19


visual and auditory sensory arousal. Subjects inRosenfeld's (1966) study of approval-seekingincreased both gestural activity and head noddingwhen seeking positive affect. Beebe (1980 inRichmond, Gorham & McCroskey 1987) summarizesstudies by Mehrabian (1971) and Seals and Kaufman(1975 in Richmond, Gorham & McCroskey 1987) thatindicate clear differences between the kinesicpatterns of effective and "average" teachers.Effective teachers moved more; student attitudeswere positively correlated with increased activityby the instructor. A relaxed body posture also hasbeen found to be related to teacher immediacy to beinfluential in eliciting opinion change and to beless likely when people dislike one another(Richmond, Gorham & McCroskey, 1987)

3. Teacher Immediacy and Student LearningThere is a substantial body of literature on

positive effects of nonverbal immediacy and studentlearning almost all of which positively correlatelearning with positively-perceived teacherimmediacy and student learning. However, we shouldnote that out of three domains of learning, namelyperceived learning, affective learning and cognitive learning,cognitive learning is the least and affectiveleaning is the most affected one (Witt, Wheeless &Aiken, 2004). Moreover, very high levels ofimmediacy is also useless in that student perceiveit to be superficial (Richmond, 2002). To summarizethe existing research on this topic, a team ofresearchers Witt, Wheeless & Aiken did a meta-analysis of 81 studies that encompassed 24,474

20


students. Their findings include the following,among others:

A synthesis of the first 23 years ofimmediacy and learning research lendscredence to the view of manyinstructional communication scholars—that even though students like morehighly immediate teachers and thinkthey learn more from their courses,actual cognitive learning is notaffected as much as they [students]think it is...p. 201.

As well, Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers (1995, inLove 2001) concluded that highly immediate teachersdo not produce the most significant increases instudent learning leading to an inverted Ucurvilinear pattern of correlation between learningand teacher immediacy. In other words, moderateamount of teacher immediacy is most effective inincreasing student learning and motivation tooptimal levels.

Perceptions of immediacy are relatively lessstudied in situations where the lecturer andstudents share different cultural backgrounds. Love(2001) cites two significant studies (Neuliep,1995; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990) conducted inAmerica. Both studies reveal that perception ofimmediacy has a positive pancultural effect onlearning and students perceive lecturers of thesame background to be more immediate than others.Neuliep (1995) also notes that African-American

21


students perceive their African-American teachersas more immediate than do Euro-American studentswho had Euro-American teachers. The impact of thisimmediacy varied significantly, including anegative relationship between strictly Euro-Americans’ perception of immediacy and learning-loss, suggesting a possible expectation ofimmediacy behaviours by African-American students(Love, 2001). Though these studies provide somehints they do not clarify cases of non-nativeinstructors teaching home countries of thestudents. As social power relations and stereotypicperceptions do also effect such cases research isneeded on this topic.

4. Research QuestionsThere is clear correspondence between

nonverbal communication and lecturer effectiveness.One who uses nonverbal communication effectively inthe classroom is often deemed to an effectiveteacher. As well, nonverbal communication has quitedistinctive cultural realizations ranging fromspeech act realizations, to communication anddiscourse style (eg. high-involvement versus no-gap-no-overlap styles). In this limited study weaimed at observing the following research question:Are there any meaningful differences between non-native and nativelecturers’ instructional styles in terms immediacy relating tononverbal communication?

5. Participants, Measurement and ProceduresThe two lecturers observed are both teaching

at Çağ University ELT department. The nativelecturer is a male and has a more sociable out-of-classroom style. The non-native lecturer is a

22


female and looks more reserved out-of-class whichmay be a result of the students’ communicationapprehension. Both are senior lecturers in theirearly sixties.

The instrument used was Nonverbal Immediacy Scaledeveloped by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003)with reliability estimates of .90. Nomodifications were found necessary. Non-participantobservations were done in the same classroom withthe same students thus reducing environmentalinterference. Both lecturers were observed duringinteractive activities to avoid speech eventmismatch.

Data was gathered both during the classroomobservation and trough 20 min. video recordings ofthe lessons. The video recordings were observedextensively in terms of verbal and non-verbalimmediacy behaviours.

6. LimitationsThe study was conducted with only two persons

and within a limited time of observation.Increasing the number of participants is utterlyneeded; however, finding pairs of non-native nativelecturers in the same department is very unlikely.Therefore, the findings of this research should notbe generalised to the total population but shouldbe not as an entry level preliminary research forforthcoming analyses.

7. FindingsThe results of the observation sheets revealed

that the native lecturer is far more immediate thanthe non-native lecturer. Indeed, there are somecultural differences that play a great role in the

23


perception of immediacy. Especially thecommunication style employed differs greatly: whileMs. Smith (pseudonym) employed “no overlap” style,Mr. Kemal’s communication is characterized byfrequent overlapping and high-involvement. Besidesthe students often spoke altogether, which is anatural feature of Turkish classrooms, in Mr.Kemal’s class. On the contrary, the studentspreferred to address their classmates and wereslightly reluctant to speak directly to Ms. Smith.

Another distinctive feature is frequent code-switching in Mr. Kemal’s class. Nevertheless, weshould note that the class was actually translationso code-switching is expected, but the functionscarried out by code switching were more thantranslation, but also humour, elaborations, errorcorrection and so forth. This may be considered tobe an advantage for native lecturers, but there isno evidence on the part of the students to considerMr. Kemal more immediate since he shares the sametongue. The students’ expectations are met with Ms.Smith’s class so, although we can claim that sharedmother tongue is effective on perceptions ofimmediacy, it is no more effective than verbal partof communication which on the highest estimate inresearch 30%.

Both lecturers are active during the class andkeep eye contact, but Ms. Smith occasionally usesgestures and often ties her hands at her back whichwith a rough guess would be perceived non-verballynon-immediate. Moreover, a tense body posture andlack of vocal variety adds to the negative side. Onthe other hand, Mr. Kemal has more vocal variety,

24


which may a result of his literature and since hewas reading a paper animatedly, accompanied with avariety of gestures. We may venture to say that Mr.Kemal is more immediate than Ms. Smith on theseaspects.

The basic differences are proxemics, kinesicsand gestures, and tone of voice. On other aspects(haptics, environment etc.) both lecturers seemedto employ the same behaviour patterns. Mr. Kemalkept a smaller distance – so did the students –while Ms. Smith had a bigger one, yet she did noton any occasion move away or tried to keep thatdistance. On these grounds we may claim that thisis due North American distance preferences.

8. ConclusionsCulturally speaking Mr. Kemal holds great

advantage since he is a member of the speechcommunity, but we should note that the studentsseem to be evaluating both lecturers regardless oftheir language backgrounds. This also supported inthe literature we have noted above, while MiddleEastern societies are high context, highinvolvement speech communities North American’s arelow context and no-gap no-overlap ones. Tacitlyaware of the language differences the studentsanswered accordingly to vocal behaviours.

The problem is in non-verbal communicationstrategies persons tend to apply their own cultural(or speech community) norms in interpreting non-verbal messages of foreigners. This led anotherdistinctive feature to be noted that the students’preference of seating in classroom. While theyoccupied the front rows in Mr. Kemal’s class, they

25


preferred the middle seats in Ms. Smith’s class.Indeed, this supports the questionnaire’s findings;seeing as, if considered non-immediate persons tendkeep the distance.

On the very beginning of the lesson, Ms. Smithhad to wait in silence for the students to settledown, and it took them a while to do so. A group ofboys kept chatting for some time during the lecturepart, which we may roughly guess that supports thefindings.

Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) notethat there are significant gender differences inperception of non-verbal immediacy. While malestend to pay less attention and rate less, femalesare more sensitive to non-verbal clues, and so wasthe case in both classes with a difference that inMs. Smith’s class some male students kept onchatting for a while during the lecture part. Theissue of gender differences of Turkish studentsperception of non-verbal immediacy and theirresponses to opposite and same sex should be moreelaborately scrutinized in future research.

This study is strictly limited in that onlytwo lecturers were observed and students’perception of immediacy is only observed by thewriter. In order to get more valid and reliableresults the study might be carried out on largerscale including self-reports of the observedlecturers, and reports of the students on theirperception of their lecturers’ immediacy.

To sum up, while some differences in nonverbalimmediacy behaviour could be accounted for in termsof personality, most difference seem to be stemming

26


from cultural norms. The students do not have anyproblem in interpreting verbal immediacy behaviourswhile they miss cultural norms shaping nonverbalimmediacy. We may, though hasty, conclude thatnative lectures will always be perceived moreimmediate than non-natives.

References Albers, L. D. (2001) Nonverbal Immediacy in the Classroom

http://clearinghouse.mwsc.edu/manuscripts/236.asp

Allen, J.L., Shaw, D.H., (1990). Teachers'communication behaviours’ and supervisors'evaluation of instruction in elementary andsecondary classrooms. Communication-Education,39, 308-322.

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

Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D.(1979). The measurement of nonverbalimmediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research,7, pp.153-180.

Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbalimmediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.),Communication in the Classroom (pp. 98-120).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Argyle, M. (1983). (4th Ed.) The psychology ofinterpersonal behaviour. London: Penguin.

Argyle, M. (1988). (2nd Ed.) Bodily communication.London: Routledge.

27


Baringer, D.K., McCroskey, J.C. (2000). Immediacyin the classroom: Student immediacy.Communication-Education, 49, 178-186.

Bıçkı, A. & Gökkaya, Z. (2004) İlköğretim okullarindaöğretmen tükenmişliğinin mevcut düzeyi [unpublishedreport submitted to Ministry of Education]

Capper S. (2000) Nonverbal Communication and the SecondLanguage Learner: Some pedagogic considerationshttp://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/00/ may/capper.html Last modified: May 11,2000 Retrieved 14.May.2007

Hall, E. T. (1966) The Silent Language. Garden City,NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding CulturalDifferences Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.

Kitao, K. & Kitao, S.K. (1989). Interculturalcommunications between Japan and the United States.http://ilc2.doshisha.ac.jp/users/kkitao/online/ retrieved 15.03.2003

Love, G. (2001) Creating a More Effective LearningEnvironment: The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacy inMulti-Cultural Classroomshttp://www.jmu.edu/writeon/ documents/2001/love.pdf Retrived 15th May2008

McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond V. P. (1992) Increasingteacher effectiveness trough immediacy. InRichmond, V. P. & McCroskey J. C. Eds. Power inthe classroom: Communication, control and concern (pp.101-119) Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1996)Fundamentals of human communication: an interpersonalperspective Prospect Heights: II Waveland Press.

28


McCroskey, J.C., Richmond, V.P., Sallinen, A.,Fayer, J.M. (1995). A cross-cultural andmulti-behavioural analysis of the relationshipbetween nonverbal immediacy and teacherevaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281-291.

McCroskey, J.C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J.M.,Richmond, V.P., et-al, (1996). Nonverbalimmediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication-Education,45, 200-211.

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

Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent messages: Implicitcommunication of emotion and attitude Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974) An approach toenvironmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in theclassroom: Power and motivation. CommunicationEducation, 39, 181-195.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Continuing education. In J.A. Daly, G. W. Friedrich. & L Vangelti (Eds.),Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods(pp. 417-426). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence EribaumAssociates.

Richmond, V. P. (2002) Teacher nonverbal immediacy:use and outcomes. In Chesebro and McCroskey,J.C. (2003) Eds. Communication for Teachers. (pp.65-82) Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S. & McCroskey, J. C.(1987) The relationship between selectedimmediacy behaviours and cognitive learning.

29


In McLaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 10 (pp.574-590). Newbury Park, CA:Sage

Wallbott, H.G. (1995). Congruence, contagion, andmotor-mimicry: Mutualities in nonverbalexchange. In I. Markova, C. Graumann, & K.Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M.(2004) A Meta-Analytical Review of theRelationship between Teacher Immediacy andStudent Learning. Communication Monograph, 71/2,pp.184-207

30


9. AppendixNonverbal Immediacy Scale-Observer Report (NIS-O) When using this instrument it is important to

recognize that the difference in these observer-reportsbetween females and males is not statisticallydifferent. Hence, it is unnecessary to employ biologicalsex of the person completing the instrument in dataanalyses involving this instrument. It is recommendedthat the COMBINED norms be employed in interpreting theresults employing this instrument. However, sexdifferences of the target persons on whom the instrumentis completed may be meaningful. This possibility has notbeen explored in the research to date (September, 2003).

DIRECTIONS: The following statements describe theways some people behave while talking with or to others.Please indicate in the space at the left of each itemthe degree to which you believe the statement applies to(fill in the target person's name or description).Please use the following 5-point scale:

1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 =Often; 5 = Very Often _____1. He/she uses her/his hands and arms togesture while talking to people. _____ 2. He/she touches others on the shoulder or armwhile talking to them. _____ 3. He/she uses a monotone or dull voice whiletalking to people. _____ 4. He/she looks over or away from others whiletalking to them. _____ 5. He/she moves away from others when theytouch her/him while they are talking.

31


_____ 6. He/she has a relaxed body position whenhe/she talks to people. _____ 7. He/she frowns while talking to people. _____ 8. He/she avoids eye contact while talking topeople. _____ 9. He/she has a tense body position whiletalking to people. _____10. He/she sits close or stands close to peoplewhile talking with them. _____11. Her/his voice is monotonous or dull whenhe/she talks to people. _____12. He/she uses a variety of vocal expressionswhen he/she talks to people. _____13. He/she gestures when he/she talks to people._____14. He/she is animated when he/she talk topeople. _____15. He/she has a bland facial expression whenhe/she talks to people. _____16. He/she moves closer to people when he/shetalks to them. _____17. He/she looks directly at people whiletalking to them. _____18. He/she is stiff when he/she talks topeople. _____19. He/she has a lot of vocal variety whenhe/she talks to people. _____20. He/she avoids gesturing while he/she istalking to people. _____21. He/she leans toward people when he/shetalks to them. _____22. He/she maintains eye contact withpeople when he/she talks to them.

32


_____23. He/she tries not to sit or stand close topeople when he/she talks with them. _____24. He/she leans away from people when he/shetalks to them. _____25. He/she smiles when he/she talks to people. _____26. He/she avoids touching people whenhe/she talks to them.

Scoring: Step 1. Add the scores from the following items: 1, 2,6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 25. Step 2. Add the scores from the following items: 3, 4,5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 26. Total Score = 78 plus Step 1 minus Step 2.

Norms: Females Mean = 96.7 S.D. = 16.1

High = >112 Low = <81 Males Mean = 91.6 S.D. =

15.0 High = >106 Low = <77 Combined Mean = 94.2 S.D. = 15.6

High = >109 Low = <79 Source: Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A.

E. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale(NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbalimmediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 502-515.

33

teacher non-verbal immediacy behaviours

Documents