Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Academic Exchange Quarterly

Achieving immediacy with written cues.

Article Excerpt
Abstract

Research indicates non-verbal teacher immediacy influences student motivation and affective learning. Verbal immediacy has also been studied but generally as a parallel channel to nonverbal immediacy. One question remains: Can immediacy be achieved via written cues? The present study placed students in a scenario where they received written feedback that was cast in either an "immediate/provisional" or a "non-immediate/certain" form. Participants receiving the immediate/provisional critique reported higher motivation and affect toward the instructor than those who received non-immediate/certain critiques.

Introduction

A substantial body of research documents the relationship between non-verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student self-reports of motivation and learning. With the increasing use of computer mediated courses, how can an instructor invoke similar effects when not physically present? For instructors of traditional classes, are there ways of positively affecting students' motivation and learning in the written messages that are sent to students in the form of emails, handouts, or critiques of student work? The present study examines the effects that relatively subtle differences in wording of written messages have on student motivation and perceptions.

Literature Review

A robust body of research suggests teacher behaviors can influence students' motivation and their perceptions of learning. Teacher immediacy behaviors, "behaviors which reduce physical or psychological distance and/or increase perceptual stimulation between and among interactants" (Gorham, 1988, p. 40), have repeatedly been shown to influence students' state motivation and self reports of learning (eg. Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Frymier & Shulman, 1995; Christophel, 1990). Other studies have also documented relationships between student motivation and/or perceptions of learning and teacher behaviors including affinity-seeking behaviors (Houser, 2006), credibility based on teacher behaviors described in a written scenario (Pogue & AhYun, 2006), confirmation behaviors (Ellis, 2004), argumentativeness/aggressiveness (Myers, 2002), distributive and procedural justice (Chory-Assad, 2002), face-relevant activities (Kerssen-Griep, 2001), communicator style (Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 1999), and the use of power (Richmond, 1990).

Each of these studies deals with non-verbal behaviors. Some identify verbal immediacy variables as well, but researchers have expressed uncertainty about the efficacy of attempting to separate the effects of verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Both Gorham (1988) and Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986) raised concern that effects teachers' non-verbal immediacy behaviors might confound the effects of their verbal immediacy behaviors. More recently, studies questioned the validity of scales used to measure verbal immediacy. Although Gorham's (1988) scale has been the most widely used, its relationship to Wiener and Mehrabian's (1968) original construct of verbal immediacy has been called in to question (Robinson & Richmond, 1995). Thus, while making the case for specific non-verbal behaviors affecting student motivation and perceptions of learning, the extant research provides little guidance as to what constitutes effective verbal teacher behavior,...