Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
An Abstract of a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Department of Communication Western Illinois University
By CHRISTINA L. FARWELL
May, 2011
ABSTRACT Teacher immediacy has admittedly been a popular area of study over the past few decades, with much of the research done on instructors verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the classroom as they relate to student outcomes (such as motivation and learning). Virtually all of this research has focused on the traditional classroom, under the assumption that the online format severely limits what behaviors instructors can exhibit. This study developed out of a growing acknowledgement that online instructors communication behaviors, while not conforming to traditional conceptions of immediacy, may nevertheless function similarly in the online classroom (utilizing an online version of immediacy behaviors). The study examines the relationship between teachers verbal and nonverbal behaviors and students perceptions of their own motivation and learning. These relationships were compared to those resulting from a similar evaluation of the variables in the traditional classroom. Results demonstrated a positive relationship between the conceptualized online immediacy, student motivation, and student learning variables in the online classroom. Findings also confirmed past research with results showing a positive relationship between all variables in the traditional classroom. Comparison tests revealed no significant difference between these relationships in the traditional versus online context.
MEASUREMENTS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN THE TRADITIONAL AND ONLINE CONTEXTS: TEACHER IMMEDIACY, STUDENT MOTIVATION, & STUDENT LEARNING
By CHRISTINA L. FARWELL
May, 2011
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 1493805 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Lisa Miczo, Chairperson, and committee members Dr. Breanna McEwan and Dr. John Miller for their valuable guidance and suggestions on this thesis project. Their encouragement and support throughout this project is worth more than words can express; they never gave up on me. I also want to thank instructors Cheryl Bailey and Alicia Mathison for allowing me to recruit participants from their classes and also Dr. Nathan Miczo for his guidance in running the comparison tests for the studys research questions. A special thank you is extended to my family. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for instilling in me the values of education, responsibility, and hard work. Thank you, my husband, for your constant support during this journey and for helping me to reach my goal. Thank you, my children, for always cheering me on; I hope my examples encourage you to never give up on your dreams. I love you all.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii-iv List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Teacher Immediacy in the Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Teacher Immediacy in the Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Computer-Mediated Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Student State Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Verbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Nonverbal Immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
iii
Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 State Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Chapter 4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Affective Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cognitive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Chapter 5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Chapter 6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A Immediate Verbal Behaviors Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix B Immediate Nonverbal Behaviors Scale - Traditional Classroom .52 Appendix C Immediate Nonverbal Behaviors Scale - Online Classroom . . . . 53 Appendix D State Motivation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix E Affective Learning Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Appendix F Perception of Cognitive Learning Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
iv
Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Traditional Classroom . . . . . . . . 21 Correlation Matrix of Variables in the Online Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Verbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . 28 Nonverbal Immediacy Variable Means & Standard Deviations . . . . . . 29
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Decades of research on college students have revealed a trend of graduation rates hovering around the 50 percent mark (Astin, 1975; Braxton, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto; 1993). Many studies on the development of college students have revealed that the time and energy students apply to their educational activities is the best predictor of their learning and personal growth (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Pace, 1980). Certain factors have been shown to increase the level of student engagement (Astin, 1991; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whit, & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). One such area receiving a great deal of attention concerns teachers and their pedagogical practices. What a teacher says and does in the classroom contributes to a students perception of both the teacher and the subject/course (Andersen, 1979). Certain classroom behaviors in particular, as perceived by students, have even been shown to contribute to students perceptions of motivation and learning (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). These behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, are aimed at reducing the social and psychological distance between people (Andersen, 1979; Mehrabian, 1967, 1971), termed immediacy by Mehrabian. Virtually all of the research on teacher immediacy and its effects on student outcomes has focused on the traditional classroom, with students having face-to-face communication with instructors (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). With the advent of electronicallydelivered courses, the classroom took on a new dynamic. The format of text-based online 1
2 courses seemed to preclude consideration of immediacy behaviors in the traditional sense. More recently, however, the effects of teacher behaviors that are similar to or serve as a proxy for immediacy behaviors have come under scrutiny, especially as enrollments in online courses continue to increase. Online classes in higher education have experienced substantial growth over the past decade. According to a 2008 report by Sloan Consortium, enrollment in online courses during the 2002-2007 time period grew by nearly twenty percent, compared to the increase in overall college-student population during that time of 1.5 percent (Brooks, 2009). This study also revealed that more than 20 percent of American college students were enrolled in at least one online course in the fall of 2007. Whether it be due to the economy and lack of funding state institutions are experiencing (Clark, 2010) or the flexibility that an online class gives to students (Mahoney, 2009), more and more students are choosing to take courses via this medium. The online forum creates an interesting structure for teacher-student interactions, where both parties rely on computermediated communication to maneuver through the class. According to Bargh and McKenna (2004), computer-mediated communication allows individuals to use their computers to stay in contact with others regardless of distance and the lack of face-toface elements. However, despite the growing popularity of online courses, the quality of the interactions between teachers and students in these environments has come under fire. Students taking online courses continue to describe feelings of being disconnected from others in the course, lacking teacher immediacy, and missing the interaction and communication skills that are normally present in a traditional classroom (Haefner, 2000; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Reisetter & Boris, 2004). Reports such as these have
3 contributed to Moores (1989) theory of transactional distance. Per Moore, transactional distance is the perceived distance between people in cyberspace. The greater the transactional distance one perceives in the online classroom, the less communication that occurs and the more learning suffers (Chen, 2001b; Sargeant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Vonderwell, 2003). How an instructor designs the course and chooses to interact with students in that course contributes to transactional distance and even influences whether a student continues with the course or drops out (Steinman, 2007). Therefore, in the electronic format, transactional distance would seem to represent the antithesis of Mehrabians (1967, 1971) description of immediacy and its effects. By this logic, practices that instructors utilize that serve to reduce transactional distance should increase students sense of online immediacy. Support for this perspective is growing. For example, Mupinga, Nora, and Yaw (2006) found that students expect frequent communication from their instructors so they dont feel like they are lost in cyberspace. Its clear that students note and are affected by perceived instructor immediacy behaviors in the online experience. Recent studies of teacher immediacy in the online classroom revealed a positive association between perceptions of an instructors immediacy and students reports of both satisfaction and learning (Arbaugh, 2001, 2002, 2004). Some of these studies have measured both verbal and nonverbal immediacy by asking participants to report on nonverbal cues using either video footage or still photos of instructors teaching (Bodie, 2010; Copeland & Warren, 2004). Many other studies have operationalized immediacy as a verbal element only, arguing that lack of face-to-face contact severely limits nonverbal communication (Arbaugh, 2001, 2010; Baker, 2004; Fisher & Katt, 2007;
4 VanHorn, Pearson, & Child, 2008). The nonverbal element of immediacy, on the other hand, has often been left out of research on online courses where students receive no video images of their instructor. There are several explanations for this. Some CMC scholars take the cues-filtered-out approach, regarding CMC as less able to produce meaningful interactions due to the lack of emotional and nonverbal cues such as vocal variety and body language (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Neumann, 2009). Other scholars argue CMC allows users to build online connections through verbal immediacy behaviors alone (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; LaRose & Whitten, 2001; Richardson & Swan, 2001; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Nevertheless, nonverbal cues in the online environment have been identified for their ability to convey immediacy (Carey,1980; Riordan & Kreuz, 2010). The identification of these cues as variances of or proxies for nonverbal face-to-face communication cues demonstrates the potential for teachers to use these cues when communicating with students in the online classroom. This study seeks to broaden the research on the potential for textual and chronemic proxies for nonverbal behaviors to operate as immediacy cues in the online classroom and to observe their association with student perceptions of motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning. Additionally, this study will examine a similar set of traditional nonverbal behaviors for their association to the outcome variables as a means of comparison.
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Teacher Immediacy in the Traditional Classroom DeVito provides an updated conceptualization of immediacy as the joining of the speaker and listener, the creation of a sense of togetherness, (1990, p. 165). Calling students by name, asking for students feedback, smiling, gesturing, and eye contact are examples of behaviors that teachers use to include students in the classroom (Frymier & Houser, 2000). These immediacy behaviors are both verbal and nonverbal. Verbal immediacy. In the learning environment, teacher verbal immediacy behaviors include verbal messages that recognize students, incorporate student responses into the class, express availability, and use humor and self-disclosure (Gorham, 1988; Jensen, 2002). Some examples of verbal immediacy would include using present rather than past verb tense, using inclusive language such as the word we instead of I, addressing students by name, asking students for their opinions, and using humor (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Gorham, 1988; Weiner & Mehrabian, 1968). Nonverbal immediacy. Guerrero, Hecht, and DeVito (2008) define nonverbal communication as messages without words that people exchange when interacting with each other. These messages are conveyed through a wide variety of behaviors, including body language, appearance, vocal cues (e.g. volume, rate, pitch, pauses), use of space, and touch (Guerrero, Hecht, & DeVito, 2008). Examples of nonverbal immediacy would include closer proximity to others, smiles, gestures, head nods, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness (Andersen, 1979). Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson (2003) created the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS) that includes the previous behaviors as well as items measuring vocal and facial animation and forward lean. 5
6 Teacher Immediacy in the Online Classroom Because online education continues to evolve, there are several definitions of what constitutes an online class. The U.S. Department of Educations National Center for Education Statistics (2008) defines online education as distance education, or a formal education process in which the students and instructor are not in the same place, and may involve communication through the use of video, audio, or computer technologies, or by correspondence (including written correspondence and the use of technology such as CD-ROM), (Response section, para. 1). As such, some online classes may be synchronous while others are asynchronous. Some courses are referred to as codec courses, which allow instructors to video broadcast their courses in real time; instructors are both visible and audible to students and vice versa (NAUNet, 1998). Another version is the hybrid course, also known as a blended course that combines traditional, face-to-face classroom meetings with online/distance components (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007). The third type (the type the present study will focus on) is the text-based online course. The latter type of online course features geographic separation of instructor and students, no face-to-face communication, course contact deployed through use of a computer, and most communication occurring asynchronously (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007; Guerrero & Miller, 1998). Verbal immediacy. Scholars researching teacher immediacy in online environments have focused on textual verbal immediacy, claiming that the typed messages in the online course can be seen in the same light as the messages that teachers verbalize in a traditional, face-to-face course (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992; Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005). These scholars explain that instructors can still create
7 a sense of closeness through addressing students by name in feedback/reply messages, using humor in messages typed to students, and using pronouns such as us and we when referring to the class to create the feeling of inclusiveness. What is more difficult to determine is how nonverbal cues can be present in the online context when no visual images of the instructor are present. In an online classroom, where students and instructors have only the computer to maneuver through class, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is the only means of communication. Computer-mediated communication. In the early days of CMC, the online environment was criticized in regards to the formation and quality of social relationships, specifically due to the lack of nonverbal cues. Social presence theory was applied in these criticisms. Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) described social presence as involving a communicator using warmth and friendliness toward the target in a conversation. Per this theory, when the number of cue systems is limited or decreased, the amount of social presence communicators experience is also decreased. The criticism here is that social presence is more difficult to achieve in the online context since CMC limits the amount of nonverbal cues available. Walther (2006) addressed social presence theory by applying chronemics, or the use of time to communicate; the time it takes one person to respond to another in the online setting communicates a more or less immediate presence of that person. The more timely a persons response, the more warmth and friendliness felt by the target party, indicating greater social presence. Looking specifically at social presence in the online classroom, Bodie (2010) explained that the students awareness of the teacher being present in the classroom can create the sense of more closeness and less distance (the
8 main concept behind immediacy). Student awareness of the instructor has been researched in several ways. Swan (2001), like Walther, brought up the issue of chronemics. In Swans study of the online classroom, the amount of interaction between instructors and students was an indicator for teaching presence, focusing on how often interactions took place. In 2003, Richardson and Swan studied teacher presence in the online classroom and its link to student perceptions of learning; they claimed teacher immediacy behaviors take into account the same phenomena as social presence, explaining that teachers making contributions to the online classroom are communicating to students that they are present. Each time a message is posted or feedback is given, the teacher is verifying his/her existence in the class. The less communication that occurs, the greater the transactional distance a student perceives, which is the antithesis of immediacy (Chen, 2001b; Sargeant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Vonderwell, 2003). Therefore, by an instructor communicating more frequently, students perceive more teacher presence and more togetherness or closeness with the instructor. Arbaugh (2010) also paired immediacy and teacher presence together. This study also focused on chronemics, with explanations about time that teachers take to clarify course goals, procedures, and responses. If teachers are taking time to provide thorough and thoughtful course directions, feedback, and responses, then students perceive the instructor as being present. Timeliness of feedback and responses indicates teacher presence, too (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wagner, 1997). The longer it takes a teacher to respond to a students question or assignment, the more a student feels distance from the teacher.
9 Nonverbal immediacy. The current studys arguments more closely align with Walthers social information processing theory (2008). Although the online environment limits the cue systems individuals have to draw upon for communication, language and writing in the online context can be manipulated by individuals to represent nonverbal cues; these representations can be just as useful as the traditional cues in regards to social relationships. An experiment by Walther, Loh, and Granka (2005) found no difference in immediacy between dyadic partners, whether in the face-to-face or CMC context. Per Walther (2008), individuals find alternate ways to communicate nonverbal cues when the face-to-face element is missing. These specific ways, or behaviors, have been identified by Carey (1980). Carey (1980) defined five categories of nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication and Riordan and Kreuz re-examined these cues in their 2010 study. Four of the categories, because they proxy for vocal variety, expressions, and emotions, are noteworthy for their links to immediacy (i.e., their capacity for increasing psychological closeness). The first two categories are vocal spelling (spelling out a word to imitate vocal intonation, such as weeeelllll) and lexical surrogates (spelling out a sound one would make to indicate speaking tone, such as mhmm). A third category is spatial arrays, which involves the use of emoticons and the use of sequences of keyboard strokes to imitate nonverbal behaviors such as facial expressions (). Another category involves manipulated grammatical markers including additional punctuation and capital letters to express emotion (!!! for excitement), pauses (), and tone of voice (WHAT! to indicate shock). Flaming, or using all capital letters would be considered part of this category (Turnage, 2007). Notice how nonverbal elements are imitated and compensated
10 for through the keyboard of the computer. Due to the nature of Careys (1980) fifth category and its irrelevance to immediacy, minus features (absence of certain language standards that normally appear in traditional writing), was not included in the present research. Student State Motivation Research indicates that there is a positive relationship between teacher immediacy and a students state motivation, in that the more immediate a student perceives the instructor, the more motivated the student perceives him/herself regarding the course (Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Richmond, 1990). Student motivation has been defined in many different ways. Ames (1986) defined it as goal-directed activity that involves different ways of thinking (p. 236), and then claimed that it is not simply the amount of effort a student puts into a task, but also how the student views himself, the task, and performance on the task. Frymier (1993) described motivation as two separate concepts: state motivation and trait motivation. Trait motivation is mainly inherent and less likely to be influenced by situational factors. State motivation, on the other hand, is influenced by situational factors, including the course instructor. This can include the instructional methods the teacher employs in the classroom, the teachers organization, and the teachers presentation (Keller, 1987). A large part of motivating students begins with garnering the attention of those students (Wlodkowski, 1978). Wlodkowski (1978) indicated several strategies to use in getting students attention; these included using body language, humor, stories, and involving students in the learning. In relation to the behaviors previously described for
11 communicating immediacy, these attention-getting actions closely align with immediacy cues. In line with this reasoning, the following hypothesis is offered: H1: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively associated with students reports of state motivation. Moreover, in line with the above arguments that the messages typed in the online course may function to engender immediacy much like traditional immediacy behaviors that teachers verbalize in a face-to-face course (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992; Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005), the following hypothesis and research question are forwarded. H2: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students reports of state motivation. RQ1: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students reports of state motivation? As a means of exploring the premise of social information processing theory, the following research question will be addressed. RQ2: Will the association between immediacy behaviors in the traditional classroom and student motivation be stronger than the association between immediacy behaviors in the online classroom and student motivation?
12 Student Learning Student learning, as it is associated with teacher immediacy, has been an area of avid research interest. Numerous studies demonstrate a positive relationship between teacher immediacy and learning outcomes (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). Student learning can be broken into two distinct parts: affective learning and cognitive learning. Affective learning. Affective learning, according to Christophel (1990), is the attitude a student has toward a teacher or course. Teven and McCroskey (1997) expanded this definition further to include students affect toward the course content and their likelihood of enrolling in another course of similar content. To confirm and examine the relationship between immediacy behaviors and affective learning outcomes in the traditional and online course delivery, the following hypotheses and research question are advanced. H3: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively associated with students reports of affective learning. H4: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students reports of affective learning. RQ3: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students reports of affective learning?
13 Cognitive learning. Cognitive learning differs significantly from affective learning in that the focus is on the comprehension and retention of knowledge (Bloom, 1956; Christophel, 1990). This type of learning deals with skills, concepts, or theories learned as a result of the class and the ability to use that knowledge in a future setting. The ability to recall, analyze, and synthesize this information would also indicate cognitive learning (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). Past research measuring immediacy behaviors and their relationship to learning has come under fire due to the use of student self-reports to measure cognitive learning. As Carrell (2010) asserted, perception of learning and authentic learning are different things; one is measured using self-reports (as this study does), and the other using observer reports. Previous research, specifically in the field of communication, found a close link between perceptions of cognitive learning (self reports) and actual cognitive learning (observer reports) (Carrell, 2009, 2010). In Carrells (2009) study on communication training for clergy, ministers self-assessments of communication competence became more parallel with observer assessments when meaningful feedback was given by observers, lending evidence that learning was occurring. Therefore, if instructors are giving thorough feedback that communicates the relationship between teacher and student and addresses the content of a students work, that student has information to be able to more accurately evaluate their own learning in the class. To examine perception of cognitive learning as a learning outcome associated with immediacy behaviors in both the traditional and online contexts, the following hypotheses and research question will be tested.
14 H5: Students perceptions of an instructors measured immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, in the traditional classroom will be positively associated with students reports of cognitive learning. H6: Students perceptions of an instructors measured verbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom will be positively associated with students reports of cognitive learning. RQ4: Will students reports of an instructors measured nonverbal immediacy behaviors in the online classroom be positively associated with students reports of cognitive learning? Finally, as a further exploration of the tenets of social information processing theory, a final research question will be forwarded. RQ5: Will the association between immediacy behaviors in the traditional classroom and student learning outcomes be stronger than the association between immediacy behaviors in the online classroom and student learning outcomes?
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Procedures Three introductory communication classes at a mid-sized Midwestern university were utilized to examine teacher immediacy and its effects in both the traditional and online contexts. One class featured the traditional, face-to-face setting and two classes used the text-based online setting. The traditional class was delivered through a lecture format, in a mass lecture setting. The mass lecture format was chosen for potential similarities to the online class, in the sense that students report similar feelings of distance (such as estrangement, impersonality, and decreased communication between them and the instructor) (Smith, Kopfman, & Ahyun, 1996), to provide a more conservative comparison between the traditional and online contexts. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Participants received extra credit points from the instructor for being a part of the research study. Preserving anonymity of the participants, students were asked to identify themselves on a page separate from their answers to survey questions, which allowed the students name to be submitted to his/her instructor for extra credit. Data was collected using QuestionPro, with the surveys available from December 1 through December 13 of the fall semester. This timing ensured that respondents would be well acquainted with the teachers typical classroom behaviors/communication practices. Measures Self-report measures were used to establish students perceptions of verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, state motivation, affective learning, and cognitive 15
16 learning. In order to provide a more accurate comparison of both classroom contexts, this study attempted to match scale items as closely as possible between the two delivery venues. In addition, three demographic questions were answered by participants after completing the self-report measures, including sex, student status (year in school), and age. Verbal immediacy. This was a 14-item Likert scale (see Appendix A) each participant completed, with items coming from Gorhams (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behaviors (VIB) scale. Originally a 17-item scale, this study eliminated three items (engaging in conversation/meeting before and after class and calling on students to answer questions even when they have not indicated they want to talk) due to the inapplicability of these behaviors in the online classroom. The modified scale was used for both the traditional and online courses. Sample items included asking questions, using humor, addressing students by name, and praising students work. The alpha reliability for this scale was .86 for the traditional classroom and .88 for the online classroom. Nonverbal immediacy. Since nonverbal immediacy behaviors scales previously created require the students to be able to physically watch their instructor teach (Andersen, 1979; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987), two different scales were used in this study, one for the traditional classroom and another for the online classroom. Despite the differences, both scales were matched as closely as possible to measure similar behaviors (and/or in the case of the online course, a proxy for those behaviors). Traditional classroom. For the traditional classroom, a 14-item Likert-type scale (see Appendix B) was completed by each participant. This scale was used to measure
17 students perceptions of their instructors nonverbal behaviors. Six items came from Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnsons (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS). These items generally pertain to animation: gesturing, vocal tone, vocal expressiveness, animation, and facial expressions. Proxies for these behaviors via online communication were felt to be similar enough for the inclusion of these six items. Sample items included gesturing, animation, and smiling. The other items from the NIS were deleted in an effort to keep the traditional and online measures as similar as possible. Eight items dealing with chronemics were also utilized. Five items dealt with thorough, thoughtful communication/responses (requiring more commitment of time); three of these five items came from Arbaughs (2010) research and focused on clarity and thoroughness of course topics, goals, and instructions, while the other two were developed by the researcher and dealt with thoughtful responses/feedback on questions and assignments. The remaining three items were developed based off of past research and specifying timeliness of responses/feedback (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wagner, 1997) and frequency of communication (Swan, 2001). Sample items included giving prompt feedback on questions, responding to most every comment contributed by students, and taking time to provide thoughtful responses on assignments. These eight items were also part of the nonverbal immediacy scale for the online classroom (see below). The alpha reliability for this scale in the traditional classroom was .89. Online Classroom. A 14-item Likert-type scale (see Appendix C) was also completed by participants for the online classroom. Again, this scale was used to measure students perceptions of their instructors nonverbal behaviors. Six of the 14 items were developed by the researcher based on past research in computer-mediated
18 communication and nonverbal behaviors. These six items were specific to the online context, yet appear to operate as proxies for face-to-face nonverbal behaviors. Use of social verbs to translate a physical action (Neumann, 2009) was measured in comparison to gestures in the traditional classroom. Words typed in all capital letters to indicate emotion (Ledbetter & Larson, 2008) was measured in comparison to vocal tone in the traditional classroom. Use of acronyms as a means of expression, such as LOL for laughing out loud (Neumann, 2009), was measured in comparison to vocal expressiveness in the traditional classroom. Vocal expressiveness in the online classroom was also measured through use of interjections, such as Wow! (Neumann, 2009). Use of punctuation to suggest animation, such as exclamation points (Carey, 1980; Riordan & Kreuz, 2010), was measured in comparison to face-to-face animation in the traditional classroom. Use of emoticons, or keyboard symbols representing facial expressions (Ledbetter & Larson, 2008; McCalman, 2008), was measured in comparison to facial expressions in the traditional classroom. The other eight items were the same items used in the traditional classroom, with slight rewording to better reflect the online context. For example, rather than when holding class discussions, the online item read on class discussion boards. The added items related to chronemics, or how effective the teacher is with his/her use of time in communicating with students. The alpha reliability for this scale in the online classroom was .88. State motivation. Christophels (1990) State Motivation Scale (see Appendix D) was completed by each participant. This scale measured students motivational attitudes and asked students to report on their feelings about taking the class using a 12-item
19 semantic differential scale. Sample items included motivated/unmotivated, inspired/uninspired, and challenged/unchallenged. Alpha reliability for this scale was .93 for the traditional classroom and .95 for the online classroom. Affective learning. McCroskeys (1994) 16-item affective learning scale (see Appendix E) was completed by each participant. Students attitudes toward course content and course instructor were measured using semantic-differential scales. Sample items included content of the course/instructor is valuable/worthless, positive/negative, and fair/unfair. Alpha reliability for this scale was .96 for both the traditional and online classrooms. Cognitive learning. A perception of cognitive learning scale was completed by each participant. This six-item scale (see Appendix F) featured a subset of a 28-item scale Hiltz (1988) used to measure students perceived learning and classroom evaluation in an online course. This subset was chosen due to the items focusing on skills/theories learned and synthesis of information, as conceptualized as cognitive learning in this study. Sample items included gaining a good understanding of basic concepts of the material and also the ability to communicate clearly about the subject. Alpha reliability for this scale was .96 for the traditional classroom and .86 for the online classroom.
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS For the traditional classroom, 51% of the participants were male and 49% were female. Ages ranged from 18 to 25, M = 19.77 (SD = 1.55). The majority of the participants in the traditional classroom were underclassmen, with 58% being either freshman or sophomores and 42% being either juniors or seniors. For the online classroom, 48% of the participants were male and 52% were female. Ages ranged from 19 to 50, M = 26.29 (SD = 9.5). The majority of the participants in the online classroom were upperclassmen, with 29% being sophomores and 71% being either juniors or seniors. Data was collected during the fall semester for one large traditional class (N = 57) and two small online classes (total of N = 35). Table I reports the mean, standard deviation, and alpha reliability for each variable in the traditional classroom, as well as a correlation matrix of all the variables examined for the traditional classroom. Table II reports on the mean, standard deviation, and alpha reliability for each variable, in addition to a correlation matrix of the variables for the online classroom. Motivation Hypothesis one predicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students reports of state motivation in the traditional classroom. In the traditional classroom, students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with their reports of state motivation, r(57) = .61, p < .01. The hypothesis was supported.
20
Variables Verbal Immediacy (VI) Nonverbal Immediacy (NVI) Immediacy (I) Motivation (M) Affective Learning (AL) Cognitive Learning (CL)
VI
NVI
AL
.62* .91* .60* .56* .04 .89* .48* .59* .38* .61* .65* .21 .65* .49* .26**
Variables Verbal Immediacy (VI) Nonverbal Immediacy (NVI) Immediacy (I) Motivation (M) Affective Learning (AL) Cognitive Learning (CL)
VI
NVI
AL
.58* .88* .60* .52* .69* .90* .26 .48 .39 .50* .57* .61* .76* .72* .74*
23 Hypothesis two predicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of state motivation in the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors was significantly and positively correlated with students reports of state motivation, r(35) = .60, p < .01. This hypothesis was also supported. The first research question inquired whether a positive association would exist between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of state motivation in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a positive relationship between the two variables, but it was not significant, r(35), = .26, p = .23. The second research question asked whether the relationship between immediacy behaviors and motivation in the traditional classroom would be stronger than the relationship between these two variables in the online classroom. To compute this, a Fishers z Comparison test was run to test the significance of the difference between the correlation of immediacy to state motivation in the traditional classroom and the correlation of these variables in the online classroom. No significant difference was found (z = .13, p = .27). Affective Learning Hypothesis three predicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students reports of affective learning in the traditional classroom. In the traditional classroom, students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with their reports of affective learning, r(57) = .65, p < .01. This hypothesis was supported.
24 Hypothesis four predicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of affective learning in the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with students reports of affective learning, r(35) = .52, p < .01. This hypothesis was supported. The third research question explored whether a positive association would exist between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of affective learning in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a significant positive relationship between the two variables r(35) = .48, p < .05. Cognitive Learning Hypothesis five predicted that students perceptions of an instructors immediacy behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, would be positively associated with students reports of cognitive learning in the traditional classroom. While the correlation test revealed a positive relationship between the two variables, there was not a significant relationship, r(57) = .21, p = .08. Hypothesis six predicted a positive relationship between students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors and students reports of cognitive learning in the online classroom. In the online classroom, students perceptions of an instructors verbal immediacy behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with students reports of cognitive learning, r(35) = .69, p < .01. This hypothesis was supported. The fourth research question inquired whether a positive association would exist between students reports of an instructors nonverbal immediacy behaviors and students
25 reports of cognitive learning in the online classroom. A correlation test revealed a significant positive relationship between the two variables r(35) = .39, p < .05. The fifth and final research question asked whether the relationship between immediacy behaviors and student learning in the traditional classroom would be stronger than the relationship between these variables in the online classroom. In order to test this, both affective and cognitive learning were computed into a new variable to represent an expanded measure of students overall perceptions of learning in the class. Alpha reliability for this variable was .95 in the traditional classroom and .96 in the online classroom. A Fishers z Comparison test was then run to test the significance of the difference between the correlation of immediacy to learning in the traditional classroom and the correlation of these variables in the online classroom. No significant difference was found (z = .61, p = .45).
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Discussion While much research has been done on teacher immediacy and its relationship to student motivation and learning, minimal research has examined these variables in the online classroom due to the nature of the context. Those studies that have examined these variables in the online classroom focused only on verbal immediacy behaviors that logically translated to text-based practices (e.g., use of humor, referring to the class as our class, and addressing students by name) (Arbaugh, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992; Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005) or tested nonverbal immediacy using video footage or still photos of the instructor (Bodie, 2010; Copeland & Warren, 2004). This study sought to establish the value of examining online instructor text-based behaviors for their relation to perceptions of teacher immediacy. Specifically, this study examined students perceptions of both verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors teachers used in the purely text-based online classroom and the relationship between those behaviors and students perceptions of their own motivation and learning. Several interesting findings emerged. While this study confirmed what previous research has revealed regarding immediacy behaviors in the traditional classroom (a positive relationship exists between immediacy and motivation and learning outcomes), of greatest interest were the results regarding text-based behaviors/practices of instructors that were thought to proxy for immediacy behaviors. Both the nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors demonstrated positive relationships to students reports of motivation and learning outcomes (the association between nonverbal immediacy and motivation, however, was not significant). 26
27 The scale of primary interest in this study was the one used for nonverbal immediacy in the online classroom, with secondary interest in the modifications made to the corresponding traditional classroom measure developed by Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnsons (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS). All items for the Immediate Nonverbal Behaviors scale used in this study were chosen based on a broadened conceptualization of immediacy. Specifically, this premise was that text-based instructor practices could function as proxies for traditional nonverbal behaviors in terms of engendering student perceptions of instructor immediacy/engagement. When comparing the means of the nonverbal immediacy variable between the traditional and online contexts (see Tables III and IV), a significant difference was found, t(56.13) = 5.06, p < .001. This could be due to the low reports of students perceptions that the instructor communicated animation, expression, and emotion through various keyboard functions (e.g., acronyms, punctuation, and interjections) (see Tables III and IV). These were the items put together from Careys (1980) research on CMC and used as representations of what Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson (2003) used in their Nonverbal Immediacy Scale for the traditional classroom. With the means ranging between never and rarely for these nonverbal items, the question arises as to whether or not instructors online are communicating animation, expression, and emotion. If that communication is taking place, how is that behavior being represented? Are there other ways instructors use keyboard functions to communicate nonverbal elements that this study did not identify or are those behaviors not being used online? Walthers (2008) social information processing theory asserts that individuals find alternative ways to communicate nonverbally when the face-to-face element is missing. Those items this study identified
Traditional Verbal Behavior Uses personal examples Asks questions/encourages comments Discusses something student brings up even when not part of plans Uses humor Addresses students by name Addresses me by name Refers to class as our class Provides feedback through comments Asks students about feelings on assignments Invites students to call or meet if have questions Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions Praises students work Will have discussions unrelated to class Is addressed by first name by students M 3.43 4.29 3.50 4.40 3.31 2.79 3.93 3.22 3.05 4.03 3.86 3.37 3.02 2.52 SD .88 .65 .96 .77 1.10 1.53 .97 1.20 1.14 .96 .89 .92 1.16 1.17 M 3.14 4.08 3.19 3.14 3.70 3.75 4.17 4.17 2.95 4.08 4.16 4.00 2.51 2.84
Online SD 1.06 .86 1.27 .89 1.13 1.11 .74 .81 1.10 1.06 .73 .84 1.19 1.17
Traditional Nonverbal Behavior Uses gestures/social verbs to translate physical action Uses monotone voice/words typed in italics or caps to indicate emotion Uses variety of vocal expressions/acronyms Is animated/uses punctuation to indicate expressiveness Uses vocal variety/interjections to express emotion Smiles/uses emoticons Prompt feedback on questions Prompt feedback on assignments Clearly communicates course topics Clearly communicates course goals Provides clear instructions on how to participate in learning activities In class/discussion board, responds to most every comment Takes time to provide thoughtful responses to my comments/questions Takes time to provide thoughtful responses on my assignments M 4.22 2.05 4.07 4.03 4.10 3.90 3.95 3.76 4.21 4.21 4.09 4.26 3.95 3.41 SD .84 1.05 .82 .84 .85 .97 .83 .98 .79 .81 .85 .79 .98 1.03 M
Online SD 1.05 1.14 1.12 1.04 1.10 1.22 1.04 1.11 .93 1.03 .96 1.08 1.16 .97
2.08 2.77 1.67 2.74 2.64 1.77 3.94 3.75 4.00 4.08 4.06 3.11 4.00 4.00
30 as nonverbal immediacy cues did not have a high rate of use, so now the question arises as to what, if anything, is being used by instructors online as an alternative. Examining the significant difference in means for nonverbal immediacy across the two contexts, the online course could be said to be disadvantaged in terms of available immediacy cues, yet there is no significant difference between the computed motivation and learning variables and immediacy correlations across formats. This would seem to imply that what immediacy/proxy variables there are available to online courses are carrying the weight for those relationships. The fact that students are perceiving these immediacy behaviors, that alphas for the Immediate Nonverbal Behaviors scale are around .88, and that significant findings were revealed, speak to the scales utility for this study. Aside from these differences that exist between nonverbal behaviors used in the traditional and online classes, there are some similarities. The likenesses are found in the items dealing with presence, specifically timeliness and frequency of feedback/responses. Most of these eight items were perceived by students to be used often and included prompt feedback, clear communication of topics/goals, clear instructions, frequent responses to comments, and thoughtful responses to comments/questions and assignments. As the methodology of the study explains, these items were included due to their measurement of perceived psychological closeness/engagement of the instructor with the student. If its taken into consideration that nonverbal messages can work to establish the relationship between individuals (Burgoon, 1994; Mehrabian, 1971), then looking at teacher presence in light of thoroughness (from the standpoint of time spent creating the message) and frequency of communication to help interactants to be on the
31 same page or have the sense of being together on an issue, this can be qualified as a message that works to build the relationship between persons. Some may still argue that teacher presence is not the same as immediacy, but the evidence that these elements give that sense of connection (a proxy for immediacy) obligates us to consider its role in online instruction. If those behaviors make students feel closer to the instructor, then immediacy is being achieved and the problem of transactional distance in the online environment is being lessened. What this research tried to do for the online context, as much as possible, was demonstrate that proxies for verbal behaviors done in text (such as addressing student by name and referring to the class as our class) are proxies for verbal immediacy. For nonverbal behaviors in the online classroom, measures in this study demonstrated what others indicate are functions of nonverbal presence. However, when looking at different classroom contexts, it becomes difficult to continue talking about immediacy as verbal or nonverbal when in the text-based format all run together. This research argues that the combination of factors in the online context is electronic immediacy. Future research should examine these types and other ways that can provide a sense of teacher presence or absence of presence. Shifting the focus from nonverbal immediacy behaviors to the other variables examined in this study, a different outcome was revealed when testing the comparison of means for verbal immediacy, motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning between the two contexts. No significant difference emerged for verbal immediacy, t(84) = 1.07, p = .29. Table IV shows most of the means hovered around the 3.5 range, making the perception that the instructor used immediate verbal behaviors fall between
32 occasionally and often. Further examination of this table shows three areas in particular to be used by instructors often in the traditional classroom: asking questions/encouraging students to comment, using humor, and inviting students to call or meet if they have questions. The online classroom also reported the behaviors of asking questions/encouraging students to comment and inviting students to call or meet if they have questions as being used often, with several other areas added to the list of behaviors happening frequently: referring to the class as our class/what we are doing, providing feedback through comments, asking questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions, and praising students work. On the flip side, both classroom contexts had behaviors that students perceived to be rarely used. For the traditional classroom these were addresses me by name and is addressed by first name by students. Since this classroom was in a mass lecture format, it makes sense that the instructor would rarely address students by name, as a large number of students are present during class and the platform focuses on lecture with little discussion. For the online classroom, those elements falling into the rarely category as perceived by students were the instructor asking students how they felt about assignments, due dates, or discussions topic; having discussions unrelated to class; and, students addressing instructor by their first name. Notice here that addresses student by name does not appear to be used rarely. In fact, the mean for this behavior was close to the often marker in the online classroom. Thinking about that context, the instructor has constant access to names, as questions and assignments posted by students are generally marked with their names automatically through the technology platform the online class uses (Knauff, 2010).
33 Means were also compared for the student outcome variables of motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning between the traditional and online contexts. The motivation variable had no significant difference, t(70) = .43, p = .67. Likewise, results for affective learning led to no significant difference between the contexts, t(79) = .03, p = .98. When testing differences in cognitive learning for the traditional versus online format, again, no significant differences were found, t(90) = 1.25, p = .22. Though the online class could be said to have been disadvantaged by the lack of traditional immediacy behaviors, no significant differences emerged in terms of the variables of interest. Thus, it could be argued through this study that perceptions of instructor immediacy are no less relevant in the online classroom than in the traditional one. Rather, the positive and significant findings demonstrate that perceived instructor immediacy plays an important part in students perceptions of their own motivation and learning outcomes regardless of the class context. While this study/data in no way asserts that immediacy causes students to be motivated or causes students to learn, the findings here support that there is a significant association between students having a more positive response to instructor, course, and material and perceptions of immediacy behaviors practiced by the instructor. The concept of immediacy has been under fire by researchers in the past, especially when student learning is involved. Criticisms have been made regarding the study of immediacy as a whole in relation to cognitive learning, with arguments that past research has not been done in a manner that indicates a causal relationship and also that the common measures used to gauge cognitive learning are not actually measuring that variable at all (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). These are
34 legitimate arguments that should be taken into consideration. The purpose of this study, however, was not to suggest that immediacy causes motivation or learning for students, but rather to test the relationship that does exist between those variables in a new context, the online environment. This study gives us a beginning glimpse of what nonverbal immediacy translates to in the online classroom and how it contributes to student perceptions of motivation and learning. It can certainly be argued that in the electronic classroom, the concern for establishing an instructors presence is heightened when arguably so much else from the traditional classroom dynamic is lost in that change of format. Moreover, as online education experiences rapid growth (Brooks, 2009), it is paramount to learn more about teachers behaviors online and the association between those behaviors and student perceptions. Limitations As with any research study, there are limitations that must be addressed. The first limitation deals with the small sample size. As a whole, the study only had 92 participants, with 57 reporting from the traditional classroom and only 35 students from the online classroom. Significant findings emerged despite this small sample size, but future research in this area could include a larger sample with more equal numbers between the two class contexts. It is also important to note that both the verbal and nonverbal scales used for the traditional classroom were modified scales, using only portions of the original scales. The modifications were made in an effort for behaviors in the traditional classroom to proxy for those in the online format. Due to the nature of the text-based online course,
35 there was a limited measure of immediacy items that could be included and measure for across contexts. A third limitation deals with the type of data collected. This study only took into account students perceptions of their teachers behaviors and their own motivation and learning. Teachers were not asked to complete self reports on their behaviors, nor did the researcher observe teachers behaviors. Observational data (including content analysis of online course texts) could be very valuable to include in a future project, as a comparison on behaviors could then be made between observer reports and student reports, as well as providing for descriptive analyses. This study also did not focus on actual grades for students. Due to the ability of students assessments of their own cognitive learning to parallel observers/teachers reports of cognitive learning, specifically when meaningful feedback is given to students (Carrell, 2009, 2010), students perceptions of cognitive learning were utilized in this study. Exam scores were not collected nor were students asked to supply their grades. In the future, taking exam scores/class grades into consideration, along with students perceptions of their learning, would help to measure actual cognitive learning as opposed to only perceptions of cognitive learning.
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION For decades the phenomenon of immediacy has been studied in relation to students motivation and learning. This research has focused on the traditional classroom where face-to-face communication is present (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). More recently, teacher immediacy has been studied in the online classroom, with some research examining verbal immediacy only (Arbaugh, 2001, 2010; Baker, 2004; Fisher & Katt, 2007; VanHorn, Pearson, & Child, 2008) and other research using video footage/still photos to measure nonverbal immediacy (Bodie, 2010; Copeland & Warren, 2004). Knowing that online education has experienced tremendous growth (Brooks, 2009) and that this form of education often includes a purely text-based format, the current study sought to explore the potential for text-based practices to function similarly to immediacy behaviors in the text-based online classroom, and to also compare immediacy and perceptions of the learning environment in the traditional and online contexts. Findings lend further support to the positive relationship between immediacy and the classroom/learning experience in the traditional instructional format and highlight the relevance of immediacy in the online format as well. Aside from demonstrating the association between immediacy and student outcomes in the online classroom, this study also gleaned information about the use of nonverbal behaviors in the text-based online context. Participants in this study reported infrequent use of nonverbal cues in the online context that communicated expression and emotion by the instructor, but frequent instructor nonverbal behaviors communicating thoughtfulness and attention, or teacher presence. These findings provide a starting point 36
37 for further research on nonverbal teacher behaviors in the online environment, how they are perceived by students, and how those behaviors contribute to student outcomes. Comparing results from the traditional versus the online classroom, this study revealed that no significant differences existed between associations of immediacy and student outcomes across classroom formats. Therefore, teachers should not write off the role immediacy behaviors play in students experiences, regardless of the instructional format being utilized. As more schools turn to online education classes, more research in this area will be vital in preparing instructors to teach online. This study provides a starting point, bringing to light the importance of teacher behaviors in the online classroom and the need for educators to be aware of the various forms of communication available in this context that may contribute to not only a more positive student experience, but also more success and efficiency for the instructor. By exploring these areas further in the online classroom, identification of behaviors that work to solidify the relationship between teachers and students in the online format can be made, allowing students to have a sense of togetherness with the instructor and decrease transactional distance.
38 REFERENCES CITED Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55(1), 21-31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368. Ames, C. (1986). Effective motivation: The contribution of the learning environment. The social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 235-256). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3, (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books. Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54. Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the online classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223. Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Learning to learn online: A study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 169-182.
39 Arbaugh, J. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55, 1234-1244. Astin, A. W. (1975). The power of protest: A national study of student and faculty disruptions with implications for the future (1st ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education Series on Higher Education. Washington/New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baker, J. D. (2004). 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. Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922 Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green. Bodie, L. (2010). An experimental study of instructor immediacy in the Wimba virtual classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Braxton, J. M. (2000). Introduction. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Rethinking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention. Nashville: Vanderbilt-University Press.
40 Brooks, M. (2009). The excellent inevitability of online courses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(38), A64. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 229285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Butland, M. J., & Beebe, S. A. (1992). A study of the application of implicit communication theory to teacher immediacy and student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Miami, FL. Carey, J. (1980). Paralanguage in computer mediated communication. In N. K. Sondheimer (Ed.). The 18th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and parasession on topics in interactive discourse: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 67-69). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Carrell, L. (2009). Communication training for clergy: Exploring impact on the transformative quality of sermon communication. Communication Education, 58(1), 15-34. doi:10.1080/03634520802235528 Carrell, L. J. (2010). Thanks for asking: A (red-faced?) response from communication. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 300-304. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Chen, Y. J. (2001b). Transactional distance in world wide web learning environments. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 38(4), 327-338.
41 Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The relationship of teacher clarity and teacher immediacy with students' experiences of state receiver apprehension. Communication Quarterly, 46(4), 446-456. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Chesebro, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(1), 59-68. Retrieved from Education Abstracts database. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Christophel, D. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323-340. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Christophel, D., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306. Clark, K. (2010). Learning the hard way. U.S. News & World Report, 147(8), 16-24. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Comadena, M., Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24(3), 241-248. doi:10.1080/08824090701446617.
42 Copeland, K., & Warren, R. (2004). Immediacy and communication skills in distance learning. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. DeVito, J. A. (1990). Interpersonal communication: Conversation. In J. A. DeVito (Ed.), Human communication (pp.153-173). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242-248. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Fisher, B., & Katt, J. (2007). The effects of online instructor immediacy behaviors on student motivation. Florida Communication Journal, 36(2), 100-111. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Frymier, A. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students' motivation: Is it the same for all students?. Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 454-464. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
43 Guerrero, L. K., Hecht, M. L., & DeVito, J. A. (2008). Perspectives on defining and understanding nonverbal communication. In L. K. Guerrero & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader (pp. 3-20). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc. Guerrero, L., & Miller, T. (1998). Associations between nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of instructor competence and course content in videotaped distance education courses. Communication Education, 47, 30-42. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-26. Haefner, J. (2000). Opinion: The importance of being synchronous. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/teaching/haefner2000.htm Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197-219. Hiltz, S. R. (1988). Learning in a virtual classroom (RR 25). Retrieved from New Jerseys Science and Technology University, Robert W. Van Houten Library website: http://archives.njit.edu/vol01/cccc-materials/njit-cccc-rr-025/njit-cccc-rr025.pdf Jensen, K. (2002). Increasing teaching effectiveness through verbal immediacy. Communication Teacher, 17(1), 3-16. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
44 Knauff, B. (2010, August). Blackboard FAQ: What is the best way to collect student assignments? Retrieved on March 24, 2010 from http://bbfaq.dartmouth.edu/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=18&id=40&artlang =en. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the classroom. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2001). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320-338. Ledbetter, A., & Larson, K. (2008). Nonverbal cues in e-mail supportive communication. Information, Communication & Society, 11(8), 1089-1110. doi:10.1080/13691180802109022. Mahoney, S. (2009). Mindset change: Influences on student buy-in to online classes. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 75-83. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-563. McCalman, A. (2008). If you give a researcher an emoticon, she'll probably want the real thing: UnCONVENTIONal findings of nonverbal communication online. Paper presented at the 2008 National Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
45 McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student competence in speech communication. Annadale, VA. Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231252. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of transaction. In M. G. Moore, & G. C. Clark (Eds.), Readings in Principles of Distance Education (pp. 100-105). University Park, PA.: The Pennsylvania State University. Mupinga, D., Nora, R., & Yaw, D. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. NAUNet: Arizona's statewide virtual classroom (1998). T H E Journal, 25(8), 48. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Neumann, D. (2009). The effect of emoticons on social connectivity in online learning. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70, Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10-16.
46 Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascallera, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 277291. Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2001). An examination of social presence in online learning students perceived learning and satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Richardson, J. C., & 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. Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195. 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. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. E. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 502-515.
47 Riordan, M., & Kreuz, R. (2010). Cues in computer-mediated communication: A corpus analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1806-1817. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.008. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-71. Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning on-line: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 128-136. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley. Smith, S., Kopfman, J., & Ahyun, J. (1996). Encouraging feedback in the large college class: The use of a question/comment box. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 3, 219-230. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 14921511. Steinman, D. (2007). Educational experiences and the online student. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51(5), 46-52. doi:10.1007/s11528-007-0069-x. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331.
48 Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Turnage, A. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 43-59. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00385.x. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 200607. Retrieved on October 25, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80. VanHorn, S., Pearson, J., & Child, J. (2008). Motivating instructors to teach the online communication course: Issues of satisfaction, efficacy, social presence, and verbal immediacy. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet & Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 7, 19-26.
49 Walther, J. B. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or :( and the net :(s with you, :) and you :) alone. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 461-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B. (2008). Social information processing theory: Impressions and relationship development online. In L.A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.). Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 391-404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36-65. Weiner, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts. 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. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054 Wlodkowski, R. J. (1978). Motivation and teaching: A practical guide. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
APPENDICES
50
51 APPENDIX A: IMMEDIATE VERBAL BEHAVIORS SCALE Below are descriptions of things instructors may do when teaching. Please respond to each of the statements in terms of the way you perceive your classs instructor. For each item, indicate how often your teacher responds this way when teaching. Scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, and 5 = very often. 1. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had. 2. Asks questions or encourages students to comment. 3. Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesnt seem to be part of his/her course plan. 4. Uses humor. 5. Addresses students by name. 6. Addresses me by name. 7. Refers to the class as our class or what we are doing. 8. Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, discussions, etc. 9. Asks students how students feel about an assignment, due date, or discussion topic. 10. Invites students to call or meet with him/her if they have questions or want to discuss something. 11. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 12. Praises students work or comments. 13. Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students or the class as a whole. 14. Is addressed by his or her first name by the students.
52 APPENDIX B: IMMEDIATE NONVERBAL BEHAVIORS SCALE TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM The following statements describe behaviors people may engage in while communicating with others. Please indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to your instructor. Scale:1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very often 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. My instructor gestures when he/she communicates. My instructor uses a monotone or dull voice when communicating. My instructor uses a variety of vocal expressions when communicating. My instructor is animated when he/she communicates. My instructor has a lot of vocal variety when he/she communicates. My instructor smiles when he/she communicates. My instructor gives prompt feedback on questions, often answering questions within 24 hours. 8. My instructor gives prompt feedback on assignments, allowing students ample time to use feedback on future assignments. 9. My instructor clearly communicates important course topics. 10. My instructor clearly communicates important course goals. 11. My instructor provides clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 12. When holding class discussions, my instructor responds to most every comment contributed by students. 13. My instructor takes the time to provide me with thoughtful responses to my comments/questions. 14. My instructor takes the time to provide me with thoughtful responses on my assignments.
53 APPENDIX C: IMMEDIATE NONVERBAL BEHAVIORS SCALE ONLINE CLASSROOM The following statements describe behaviors/practices people may engage in while communicating with others. Please indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to your instructor. Scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very often 1. My instructor uses social verbs (e.g., ::wave:: or ::high five::) to translate a physical action when communicating. 2. My instructor uses words typed in all capital letters or italics (e.g., GOOD or not) to indicate emotion when communicating. 3. My instructor uses acronyms (e.g., LOL for laughing out loud) when communicating. 4. My instructor uses punctuation (e.g., !!!) to indicate expressiveness when communicating. 5. My instructor uses interjections (e.g., Wow!) to express emotion when communicating. 6. My instructor uses emoticons (e.g., :-) or :-p) when communicating. 7. My instructor gives prompt feedback on questions, often answering questions within 24 hours. 8. My instructor gives prompt feedback on assignments, allowing students ample time to use feedback on future assignments. 9. My instructor clearly communicates important course topics. 10. My instructor clearly communicates important course goals. 11. My instructor provides clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 12. On class discussion boards, my instructor responds to most every comment contributed by students. 13. My instructor takes the time to provide me with thoughtful responses to my posted comments/questions. 14. My instructor takes the time to provide me with thoughtful responses on my assignments.
54 APPENDIX D: STATE MOTIVATION SCALE Please choose the answer which best represents how you feel about this class. The closer your response is to the word/adjective, the more you feel this way. 1. Motivated 2. Interested 3. Involved 4. Not stimulated 5. Dont want to study 6. Inspired 7. Unchallenged 8. Uninvigorated 9. Unenthused 10. Excited 11. Aroused 12. Not fascinated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Unmotivated Uninterested Uninvolved Stimulated Want to study Uninspired Challenged Invigorated Enthused Not excited Not aroused Fascinated
55 APPENDIX E: AFFECTIVE LEARNING SCALE Please mark the answer which best represents your feelings. The closer your response is to the word/adjective, the more you feel this way. My feelings about the content of this course are: 1. Bad 1 2 3 4 2. Valuable 1 2 3 4 3. Unfair 1 2 3 4 4. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Good Worthless Fair Negative Likely Impossible Probable Would not Good Worthless Fair Negative
My likelihood of taking future courses in this content area is: 1. Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Would 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall, the instructor I have in this class is: 1. Bad 1 2 3 2. Valuable 1 2 3 3. Unfair 1 2 3 4. Positive 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
Were I to have the opportunity, my likelihood of taking future courses with this specific teacher would be: 1. Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likely 2. Possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Impossible 3. Improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Probable 4. Would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Would not
56 APPENDIX F: PERCEPTION OF COGNITIVE LEARNING SCALE Please indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to you in regards to this class. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I learned to interrelate the important issues in the course material. I learned a great deal of factual material in this course. I gained a good understanding of the basic concepts of the material. I learned to identify the central issues of the course. I developed the ability to communicate clearly about the subject. I improved my ability to integrate facts and develop generalizations from the course material.