Verbal Immediacy: Effective Online Interactions

Credence Baker & Kim Rynearson

Tarleton State University

Copyright Credence Baker & Kim Rynearson [2006]. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational

purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish

requires written permission from the author

Background

• Online learning environments provide a unique opportunity to deliver education to students who are time- and place-bound. Because students do not meet in a physical location, they have specific concerns when it comes to interacting in the online enviroment.

• Current learning management systems provide the following tools to support content delivery and interaction– Threaded discussion– Email– Chat– Interactive whiteboards

Background

• Westbrook (2006) reported what students like and dislike about online learning– They like

• Exchanging ideas

• Convenient access to courses and course materials

– They dislike• Experiencing technological failures

• Not being able to meet classmates or the instructor

Background

• Students new to online learning often express concerns about the lack of physical presence of their classmates and instructor

• Research supports the importance of interaction in face-to-face and online learning environments (Tello, 2002; Swan, 2002)

• Based on students’ concerns and the importance of interaction, what are online students’ needs?

Online Students’ Needs

• Online students have specific needs– Timely, high-quality interaction between student and instructor– Interaction/collaboration among students– Consistent course design across courses– Technical support availability– Structural clarity in the design of the course (i.e., use of the same

course management system across courses)– Innovative course content delivery (i.e., case studies, audio clips,

readings followed/integrated with group discussions on the topic or structured games)

(Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006 ; Young & Norgard, 2006)

Promoting Student Achievement

• Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” apply to the online environment and promote student achievement in online classes

• Good practice includes– Contact between students and faculty– Reciprocity and cooperation among students– Active learning techniques– Prompt feedback– Emphasis on time on task– High expectations– Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning

Interaction Preferences

• Northrup (2002) defined interaction in terms of interaction with course content, conversation and collaboration, interpersonal/meta-cognitive skills, and need for support– Students preferred:

• Content delivered innovatively

• Collaboration through ongoing interaction with peers and instructors

• Discussion and feedback from their instructors

• To monitor their progress and have structured assignment due dates

• Timely support

Importance of Interaction

• Swan (2002) reported interaction with instructors and active and valuable discussion are important in online learning environments

• Does interaction relate to student achievement?– The frequency with which an instructor used threaded

discussion and email related positively to students’ attitudes and persistence to complete a course (Tello, 2002)

– Interaction with the content, instructor, and other students also relate to students’ perceived learning

Psychological Closeness

• What is important about interaction?– Psychological closeness

• A construct from the communications field provides a framework for fostering psychological closeness through interactions– Communication immediacy (Mehrabian, 1971)

• Physical and verbal behaviors that reduce psychological and physical distance between individuals

• Called verbal and non-verbal immediacy

Verbal Immediacy

• Verbal immediacy cues consist of– Initiating discussions– Asking questions– Using humor– Using self-disclosure– Addressing students by name– Using inclusive pronouns– Responding quickly and frequently– Praising others– Conveying attentiveness and engagement

(Baker, 2003; Freitas, Myers, & Avtgis, 1998; Gorham, 1988; O’Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004; Hutchins, 2003)

Verbal Immediacy and Instruction

• Verbal immediacy in the face-to-face classroom– Based on a meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship

between instructor immediacy and student learning:• Verbal immediacy related positively to students’ perceived learning

and affective learning (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004)

• Verbal immediacy in the online classroom– Students of verbally immediate online instructors reported

greater positive affect and higher perceived cognition than students who rated their instructors as less verbally immediate

Research on Verbal Immediacy

• Most previous research on verbal immediacy has focused on– Student self-reports of perceived learning– Student attitudes toward learning

• The present study extended this research by examining how verbal immediacy affects student learning outcomes and students’ level of interaction in an online course

Current Study

• Unlike other studies on immediate communication in the online classroom (see Baker, 2003, and Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004), this study examined achievement and interaction outcomes

• Purpose– Examine the effect of verbally immediate communication

behaviors on the number of interactions and achievement in undergraduate Psychology courses delivered online

Research Questions

• Does an instructor’s use of verbally immediate cues in an online classroom affect student interactivity?

• Does an instructor’s use of verbally immediate cues in an online classroom affect student achievement?

Method

• Participants– Twenty-eight university students randomly assigned to one of

two sections of an upper-division Psychology course• Twelve participants (3 men and 9 women) participated in a course

section designated as Verbally Immediate (VI)

• Sixteen participants (2 men and 14 women) participated in a course section designated as Regular

Method• Design

– Independent-groups design compared course achievement and interactivity between the VI and Regular course sections

– Instructor, course content, assignments, grading procedures, feedback schedules, and frequency of instructor interactions were controlled

– Immediacy cues were manipulated in the instructor’s written communication with students in the VI course section

• References to physical reactions• Praise• Color• Additional graphics• Introductory biography with professional background and details about

personal interests and her family

Results

• Achievement– Four measures

• Scores on three exams

• Overall final numeric grade for the course

– Independent-samples t-test compared differences in achievement and interactivity between the two course sections

Results

Group

Measure of Achievement Verbally Immediate (n=12)

Regular(n=16)

Exam 1 7.31 (2.47) 7.24 (2.47)

Exam 2 7.17 (1.93) 6.75 (2.18)

Exam 3 6.77 (2.80) 7.39 (2.38)

Overall Course Grade 80.02 (18.44) 81.7 (17.49)

Table 1 - Mean (SD) Achievement Scores by Group

Results

• Interactivity– Three measures of interactivity

• Total number of hits

• Total number of course documents and discussion posts viewed

• Total number of discussion posts generated

• Independent-samples t-tests compared groups– No significant differences for the number of hits on the course materials

– No significant differences for the number of discussion posts generated

– A statistically significant difference between the two groups’ number of views of documents and discussion posts, t(26) = 2.079, p < .05

• Students in the Regular section viewed significantly more course documents and posts than students in the VI section

Results

Group

Measure of InteractionVerbally Immediate

(n=12)Regular(n=16)

Hits 992.58 (398.50) 1146.88 (563.18)

Items Read* 517.92 (236.95) 754.13 (335.06)

Discussion Posts 55.00 (18.67) 53.00 (11.71)

Table 2 - Mean (SD) Interaction Scores by Group

Conclusions

• Verbal immediacy cues did not influence– Student achievement– Hits on course materials– Number of discussion posts

• Students in the Regular course section viewed more course documents and posts than students in the VI section– Possible explanations?

Limitations

• The present study examined the effect of the quality of interactions only

• The effect of quantity of interactions was not measured, but it was controlled

• Course exam scores may not be the best measure of student learning (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004)

• Future research – Examine how the quantity and quality of instructor-to-student

interactions influence student achievement and interaction– Use direct measures of student recall and retention of

information as a measure of learning

Implications for Practice• Fostering Interaction with Content

– Use course activities to support convergent thinking, instructor directed inquiry, and scientific thinking such as written assignments, one-on-one tutorials, small group collaboration and self-testing

– Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation that reward desired cognitive behaviors

• Fostering Interaction with Instructors– Provide frequent opportunities for both public and private

interactions between students and instructors– Establish clear expectations for instructor-student interactions

• Fostering Interaction with Classmates– Use tracking mechanisms to reward reading as well as

responding to posts– Design community-building activities

(Swan, 2004)

Strategies to Increase Student Achievement

• Assume nothing and anticipate student questions when designing the course

• Be responsive• Use directives, first-person voice, and conversational tone• Create complete, well-explained on-line and off-line

activities• Encourage a sense of class community and provide

community building opportunities and interaction• Use redundant and consistent instructional cues and

detailed explanations• Provide ample opportunities for interaction with the

instructor and with others in the course

(Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea, Pelz, & Swan, 2000)

ReferencesBaker, J. D. (2002). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the

online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin,

March, 2-7.Durrington, V.A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment.

College Teaching, 54, 190-193.Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with online

courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 1-35. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_fredericksen.asp

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

Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), Swan, K. (2002). Builing learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Mupinga, D.M., Nora, R.T. & Yaw, D.C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College

Teaching, 54, 185-189.Northrup, P.T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 32, 219-226. 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.Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved September 21, 2006 from

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdfTello, S. F. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between instructional interaction and student persistence in online education.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Westbrook, V. (2006). The virtual learning future. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 471-482. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and

student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184-207. Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. The Internet and

Higher Education, 9, 107-115.

Contact Information

Credence Baker

Tarleton State University

cbaker@tarleton.edu

254-968-1960

Kimberly Rynearson

Tarleton State University

rynearson@tarleton.edu

254-519-5439