ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Immediacy and out-of-class communication: A cross-cultural comparison

Qin Zhang
Department of Communication, Faireld University, Faireld, CT 06824, USA

Abstract The objective of the present study is to extend out-of-class communication (OCC) research by comparing OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction, and examining the inuence of instructor immediacy on OCC in Chinese and US college classrooms. The survey of relevant literature suggests this study represents the rst direct empirical cross-cultural comparison of OCC, which reports ve major ndings: (a) Chinese students engage in more OCC than US students; (b) Chinese OCC is more personal problem oriented, but US OCC focuses on coursework; (c) US students have a signicantly higher OCC satisfaction than Chinese counterparts; (d) Chinese and US students differ in OCC forms. Chinese students visit instructors ofce more often, but US students email their instructors more; (e) US instructor immediacy is not correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction, whereas Chinese instructor verbal immediacy is correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction. Chinese nonverbal immediacy is associated signicantly with OCC frequency, but not with OCC satisfaction. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Immediacy; Out-of-class communication; Cross-cultural comparison; Chinese classrooms; US classrooms

E-mail address: qzhang@mail.faireld.edu. 0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
34 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

1. Introduction Although one essential assumption for both Chinese and US tertiary education is that the process of education and the roles of faculty extend beyond the boundaries of formal classroom (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Bejar & Doyle, 1981; Ho, 2001; Lamport, 1993; Nadler & Nadler, 2000; Pascarella, 1980; Runco & Thurston, 1987), the majority of prior studies on facultystudent interaction were limited to in-class communication. A widely quoted example is that over 1000 studies focusing on teacher behaviors inside the classroom were published during the period 19701992 (Nussbaum, 1992). Comparatively, instructorstudent out-of-class communication (OCC), despite its gaining of increasing attention from scholars in communication, education, and psychology elds in the past few decades, is still in its infancy (Jaasma & Koper, 2002), and needs to be further explored since education does not stop at the classroom doors and neither should our scholarly exploration of communication in this environment (Nadler & Nadler, 2000, p. 187). Moreover, the sporadic study of instructorstudent OCC has been restricted to the US educational setting up to date. Little is known about OCC in other cultures. Due to the differences in the expectations of teacherstudent roles, responsibilities and relationships (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998; Ho, 2001; Hu & Grove, 1999; Myers, Zhong, & Guan, 1998), OCC might be perceived differently in the Chinese cultural milieu. The purpose of this study is to extend OCC research by conducting a crosscultural comparison of OCC at Chinese and US universities and to examine the inuence of instructor immediacy on frequency and student satisfaction.

2. Out-of-class communication OCC is the formal and/or informal interaction between faculty and students which takes place outside of formal classrooms and during times other than when class is scheduled. But in this study, I only focus on formal out-of-class interactions, which specically include ofce visits during ofce hours or non-ofce hours, email, and phone calls. Therefore, the informal out-of-class interactions, such as the chats before and/or after lectures and unscheduled campus encounters are excluded from this study. Substantive evidence suggests that OCC is benecial to students, instructors, and universities alike. Students engaging in OCC with faculty usually demonstrate greater academic and cognitive achievement, intellectual and personal development, career and educational aspirations, and institutional persistence (Kuh, 1995; Lamport, 1993; Pascarella, 1980; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996). Instructors benet from OCC by gaining higher teacher evaluations and satisfaction (Cooper, Stewart, & Gudykunst, 1982; Lamport, 1993), and greater student perceptions of trust and immediacy (Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002). OCC also benets universities by improving student performance, obtaining greater student satisfaction, lowering student drop-out rates, and creating a seamless learning environment (Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002; Nadler & Nadler, 2000).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 35

Prior research indicates that OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction are related to both instructor and student individual factors, including instructor and student biological sex and psychological gender (Aylor & Oppliger, 2002; Jaasma & Koper, 2002; Nadler & Nadler, 2000, 2001), instructor communication behaviors, such as immediacy (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002), empathy, relational topoi, and credibility (Nadler & Nadler, 2000, 2001), humor orientation and sociocommunicative style (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003), and student motivation (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). Research also reveals that OCC tends to be infrequent, task-oriented and coursework-related, and instructor communication behaviors strongly predict OCC satisfaction (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 2000). In retrospect, all the existing studies on OCC have been conducted exclusively with the faculty and students at US universities, little is known about OCC patterns in other cultures. Given the differences between US and Chinese culture in educational systems and the perception of teachers roles and responsibilities, it stands to reason to assume that OCC might be perceived differently in US and Chinese classrooms.

3. Chinese and US cultures in educational contexts Similarities notwithstanding, by and large, Chinese and US cultures seem to be on opposite ends of a continuum. US culture is typically delineated as an individualistic and small power distance culture, whereas Chinese culture is primarily perceived as a collectivistic and large power distance culture (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980, 1991). These general cultural distinctions are manifested in educational contexts, particularly in perceived teacher and student roles, teacherstudent relationships and communication patterns. 3.1. Teachers roles A Chinese teacher is usually deemed as a transmitter of knowledge, role model, authority, and parent (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Pratt, 1991). The primary roles of teachers in China are to jiaoshu yuren (teach books and educate people), consequently, the conceptualization of holistic teaching requires teachers to assume both instructional and pastoral role, which involves educating the whole person instructionally, cognitively, affectively, and morally (Biggs & Watkins, 2001; Ho, 2001; Lu, 1997). Chinese teachers are supposed to conduct themselves academically and non-academically with exemplary virtue. They are expected to care about students behaviors and problems inside and outside of the school environment, as Ho (2001) observed, Hong Kong teachers tended to regard themselves as having the moral responsibility to guide students on the right path and were more prepared to go all the way to rectify misbehavior, spending as much time as they could and often getting personally involved (p. 102). However, a wealth of knowledge indicates that Westerners perceive teachers roles in a different vein, which tends to view teachers roles from the perspective of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
36 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

professional responsibilities (Biggs & Watkins, 2001; Ho, 2001). A US teacher functions as a facilitator, observer, course designer, organizer and friendly critic (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Gu, 2001; Pratt, 1991), but not necessarily as a moral example. Teachers are expected to perform academic instruction duties and be evaluated according to teaching competence. Generally they are not concerned about students behaviors and problems outside of the school environment since they tend to see their professional responsibility as ending after hours (Biggs & Watkins, 2001, p. 282) and students personal or family problems were not perceived as their responsibility (Biggs & Watkins, 2001, p. 281). 3.2. Teacher student relationships Chinese teacherstudent relationships are seemingly contrasting because teacher authority usually characterizes their in-class relationship, but warmth and affection permeate their out-of-class relationship, which is conducive to the establishment of personal and affective quality of their relationship. Ho (2001) observed: In the formal class situation, the more formal and hierarchical relationship is in operation, which enables the teacher to be authoritarian and thus facilitates the teaching and learning process, whereas outside the classroom, relationships are informal and the social climate could be warm (p. 108). Because they assume the role of parents, Chinese teachers are expected to exert authority and enforce strictness and punishment over students in classrooms, as the aphorism goes, rearing without education is the fault of the father, teaching without strictness is the negligence of the teacher. In China, teachers authority and strictness are appropriate since they highlight care and nurture of students (Biggs & Watkins, 2001). The teacherstudent relationships in the West tend to be again more professional, the quality of which is usually related closely to the teachers in-class instructional and organizational competence (Ho, 2001). US teacherstudent relationships are typically characterized by equality and freedom. Authority and strictness are not highly desirable since they might restrict and stie students freedom of expression, and threaten a warm teacherstudent relationship (Biggs & Watkins, 2001; Ho, 2001). 3.3. Teacher student communication Due to the learning and teaching practice emphasizing information-packed lecturing, students listening and memorization skills (Biggs & Watkins, 1996; Hu & Grove, 1999; Watkins & Biggs, 2001), teacherstudent hierarchical relationship and respective roles and responsibilities, Chinese teachers and students engage in relatively little in-class interaction and students questioning is often seen as disruptive and disrespectful, hence discouraged (Ho, 2001; Myers et al., 1998; Pratt, 1991). Chinese teachers usually keep reasonable distance with students to get the class in full control by keeping a straight face or avoiding smiling unnecessarily at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 37

students (Salili, 2001). Participation in informal in-class communication, such as small talk, self-disclosing, and using rst names, etc., is regarded as inappropriate (Myers et al., 1998). However, such little in-class interaction does not indicate little out-of-class interaction, since the pastoral role of Chinese teachers requires an on-going, extracurricular involvement with students. In addition, nearly all Chinese college students live on campus in dormitories and stay in the class they are assigned to throughout the four years of their college life, which facilitates a huge amount of after-class collective activities, including academic and athletic contests, academic discussions and recreational activities, etc. Instructors usually live on campus too, which further promotes teacherstudent out-of-class interaction, which might be typically marked if not by warmth then by a sense of responsibility and mutual respect (Biggs & Watkins, 1996, p. 274). In US classrooms, the prevalent student-centered interactive teaching style accenting verbal skills, critical thinking and analytical capacities gives rise to tremendous amount of in-class interactions between instructors and students (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Hu & Grove, 1999; Myers et al., 1998). However, due to the emphasis on teachers professional roles and responsibilities, their interaction tends to end within the boundary of classroom. The relatively little instructor student OCC is repeatedly supported by prior studies (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 2000). In sum, traditional Chinese education values whole-person education and is more holism-oriented than US education. Chinese teachers assume the multiple roles of being an instructor, authority, parent, and model, which requires them to care about students overall development, including their study, life, and problems, and to engage in more OCC with students. In light of the cultural differences in the aforementioned teacherstudent roles, relationships, and communication at Chinese and US universities, the following hypotheses are addressed: H1. There is more frequent instructorstudent OCC at Chinese universities than at US universities.

H2. Chinese instructorstudent OCC is more personal problem oriented than US instructorstudent OCC. Little is known about student satisfaction with OCC and OCC forms at Chinese and US classrooms. Chinese teachers might engage in more OCC with students, but are Chinese students more satised with OCC than US students? Do Chinese and US OCC differ in forms, such as ofce visits, email, and call? These questions have never been explored, so given the exploratory nature of this study, the following research questions are proposed: RQ1: Is there a signicant difference in student OCC satisfaction at Chinese and US universities? RQ2: Is there a signicant difference in OCC forms (ofce visits, email, and call) at Chinese and US universities?

ARTICLE IN PRESS
38 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

4. Instructor immediacy Instructor communication behaviors and their inuences on learning outcomes have been widely explored, and immediacy is one of the focal topics. Originally conceptualized by Mehrabian (1967, 1969, 1971), immediacy is the use of communication behaviors that enhance closeness and reduce physical and/or psychological distance between people. Immediacy is composed of verbal and nonverbal components (Andersen, 1979; Gorham, 1988). Andersen (1979) rst extended the immediacy construct to the classroom. Andersen (1979) introduced nonverbal immediacy, which was dened as the nonverbal behavior manifestation of high affect (p. 545), to instructional communication. Although nonverbal immediacy behaviors generally involve proxemics (space), haptics (touch), vocalics (paralanguage), kinesics (body movement), oculesics (eye contact) and chronemics (time), substantial evidence demonstrates that nonverbal immediacy behaviors are not of equal importance. The most salient teacher nonverbal immediate behaviors typically include smiling, vocal variety and expressiveness, eye contact, gestures, relaxed body position, forward body leans, and proximity (Andersen, 1979; McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, & Barraclough, 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996; Myers et al., 1998; Neuliep, 1997; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Gorham (1988) expanded the construct of immediacy in the classroom to include a verbal component. Gorham (1988) argued that both verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors constituted overall teacher immediacy behaviors. Gorham (1988) identied several teacher verbal immediacy behaviors that help to reduce the physical and/or psychological distance between teachers and students, which include the use of personal examples, students rst names, we and our, self-disclosure, praise and humor, as well as the willingness to initiate conversations with students, etc. Gorhams research indicated that both verbal and nonverbal immediacy contribute to students perceived affective and cognitive learning. The initial research on teacher immediacy was primarily limited to the US classrooms, which was largely based on homogeneous samples of Caucasian students from middle-class families (McCroskey, Fayer et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen et al., 1996; Myers et al., 1998; Powell & Harville, 1990), but scholars now are moving beyond US classrooms to examine immediacy in other cultures. Studies have been conducted to date in the classrooms in China (Myers et al., 1998; Zhang, 2005a,b), Japan (Neuliep, 1997), German (Roach & Byrne, 2001), Kenya (Johnson & Miller, 2002), and Australia, Finland, and Puerto Rico (McCroskey, Richmond, Sallinen, Fayer, & Barraclough, 1995; McCroskey, Fayer et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen et al., 1996). The ndings suggest that teacher immediacy has a positive effect on teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes and the direction of their relationship remains constant although these cultures might differ in the magnitude of their relationships and in the perceptions of some immediacy behaviors (McCroskey et al., 1995; Myers et al., 1998). The studies also suggest that some immediacy behaviors

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 39

are perceived differently across cultures. For example, some immediate behaviors in US classrooms, such as engaging in small talk, self-disclosure, and addressing students by the rst name, might be considered inappropriate or even offensive in Chinese classrooms (Myers et al., 1998). Prior studies indicate a positive relationship between instructor immediacy and OCC frequency and satisfaction in US classrooms (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999). To replicate this nding in US classrooms and also to generalize the nding to Chinese classrooms, the following hypotheses are offered: H3. Instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy are related positively to OCC frequency and satisfaction at US universities.

H4. Instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy are related positively to OCC frequency and satisfaction at Chinese universities.

5. Method 5.1. Participants A total of 321 undergraduate students participated in this study. A hundred and seventy-six Chinese students were recruited in an English Department at a large urban university in central China; 145 US students were recruited in a couple of introductory communication courses at a large urban university in the Southwest. Both universities are public universities, so most of the students might be from working class families. Participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. The Chinese sample consisted of 149 females and 27 males. Their ages ranged from 18 to 23, with an average age of 20.1 (SD .98). Eighty-six were sophomores and 90 juniors. A hundred and twenty-four reported a small class size (125 students), and 52 a medium class size (2650 students). All the participants were English majors. As for instructor gender, 78 Chinese students reported to have a male instructor, and 98 a female instructor. The US sample consisted of 48 males and 97 females. Their ages ranged from 17 to 62, with an average age of 22.44 (SD 5.43). Nine were freshmen, 25 sophomores, 51 juniors and 60 seniors. Fifty-six reported a small class size, 55 a medium class size, and 34 reported a large class size (51 or more students). The participants represented 19 majors. As for instructor gender, 93 students reported to have a male instructor, and 49 a female instructor. 5.2. Instruments In addition to the demographic information, a questionnaire was developed to investigate the cross-cultural differences in OCC frequency, content and satisfaction, and the inuence of perceived instructor immediacy on OCC.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
40 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

5.2.1. Out-of-class communication Like previous research on OCC (Aylor & Oppliger, 2002, 2003; Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002), students were asked to assess their formal OCC with the instructor that semester (ofce visits, email, and phone). Students were asked to estimate the number of interactions, the percentage of time spent on coursework, personal problems, and socializing, and their overall rating of satisfaction with OCC. 5.2.2. Immediacy Instructor immediacy was measured by two widely used scales, whose reliabilities were consistently reported (Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Jaasma & Koper, 2002; McCroskey, Fayer et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen et al., 1996; Myers et al., 1998). Verbal immediacy was measured by a modied 13-item version of Verbal Immediacy Scale (Gorham, 1988; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Nonverbal immediacy was measured by a revised 10-item Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (McCroskey et al., 1995; McCroskey, Fayer et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen et al., 1996). Both instruments are 5-point Likert-type response scale assessing perceived instructor verbal and nonverbal behaviors (1 never; 5 very often). Examples for verbal immediacy items include: Uses humor in class, and Addresses students by name, and examples for nonverbal immediacy items include: Smiles at the class while talking, and Looks at the class while talking. The Cronbachs alphas for the verbal and nonverbal immediacy for this study were .76 and .80 for the Chinese sample, and .81 and .81 for the US sample. 5.3. Procedures To obtain data on immediacy and OCC-related issues, the questionnaire was administered in the 12th week of the semester, assuring that students had ample time to engage in OCC with their instructors and to observe their instructors in-class communication behaviors. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and backtranslated into English by different bilingual scholars to ensure conceptual and linguistic equivalence. All participants completed the questionnaire voluntarily and anonymously in their native language. The questionnaire required about 15 min to complete. For OCC and immediacy items, US participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire on the class that they had immediately before the class in which the data were collected to maximize the number of target instructors and disciplines instructors represented. However, this technique would not work in Chinese classrooms because it was very likely that a class of Chinese students would take the same previous class. Therefore, to maximize the number of target instructors, Chinese participants were instructed to respond to the questions in reference to the course Comprehensive English since, in contrast to other classes which are usually large ones or small ones with the same instructor, Comprehensive English as a required course for all English majors is offered in small classes, each of which usually involves a different instructor. All instructors for Comprehensive English are Chinese instructors, although some of them have been trained briey abroad, usually

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 41

for one year. The questionnaire for Chinese students was self-administered. They were asked to complete it in their free time and return it to the instructor a couple of days later, who then sent the data to the author for analysis. The instructor in charge was not a Comprehensive English instructor, so students did not have to worry about any potential negative consequences. 5.4. Data analysis Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to test Hypotheses 12 and to answer Research Questions 12, or to analyze the cross-cultural differences in OCC frequency, content, forms and satisfaction at Chinese and US universities. MANOVA is appropriate in this study since it is enables us to simultaneously examine two or more related dependent variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). Pearson Product-Moment correlation and regression analysis were utilized to test Hypotheses 34 regarding the relationships between OCC and instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy. Pearson correlation examines the linear relationship between two continuous variables and regression analysis predicts one variable from another (Williams & Monge, 2001).

6. Results MANOVA was conducted to test Hypotheses 12 and to answer Research Questions 12 regarding the cross-cultural differences in OCC frequency, content, forms and satisfaction at Chinese and US universities. The independent variable was national culture, and the dependent variables were OCC frequency, content (coursework, personal problems or socializing) and satisfaction. Barletts test of sphericity (1699.46, df 5, po.001) indicated that MANOVA was warranted. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the dependent variables by national culture. The multivariate main effect for national culture was signicant, Wilks lambda .72, F(5, 315) 24.63, po.001. All of the univariate effects were signicant: frequency, F(1, 315) 4.82, po.05, Z2 :02, coursework, F(1, 315) 5.18, po.05, Z2 :02, personal problems, F(1, 315) 47.65, po.001,

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction by national culture Frequency Content Coursework M China US 2.38 1.79 SD 2.30 2.48 M .68 .53 SD .25 .78 Personal problems M .12 .03 SD .15 .08 Socializing M .11 .03 SD .13 .11 M 3.09 3.48 SD .70 .87 Satisfaction

ARTICLE IN PRESS
42 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

Z2 :13, socializing, F(1, 315) 31.41, po.001, Z2 :09, satisfaction, F(1, 315) 19.34, po.001, Z2 :06. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there is more instructorstudent OCC at Chinese universities than at US universities. MANOVA results displayed a signicant univariate effect for the total visits or frequency. There is more OCC at Chinese universities than at US universities. Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 stated that Chinese instructorstudent OCC is more personal problems oriented than US OCC. MANOVA results displayed a signicant univariate effect for the proportion of personal problems. Chinese OCC is more personal problems oriented than US OCC. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. Research Question 1 inquired whether there is a signicant difference in the students perception of satisfaction with OCC at Chinese and US universities. MANOVA results revealed a signicant univariate effect for OCC satisfaction. US students have a signicantly higher satisfaction with OCC than Chinese students. Research Question 2 inquired whether there is a signicant difference in OCC forms (ofce visits, email, and call) at Chinese and US universities. A separate MANOVA reveals that Chinese and US students differ in their forms of OCC with instructors. The independent variable was national culture, and the dependent variables were ofce visits, email, and telephone. Barletts test of sphericity (185.55, df 5, po.001) indicated that MANOVA was warranted. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the dependent variables by national culture. The multivariate main effect for national culture was signicant, Wilks lambda .89, F(3, 317) 12.67, po.001. Two of the univariate effects were signicant: ofce visits, F(1, 317) 16.21, po.001, Z2 :05, email, F(1, 317) 4.72, po.05, Z2 :02. The univariate effect for telephone was not signicant, F(1, 317) .68, p4.05, power .13. Chinese students visit instructors ofce more often than US students, but US students email their instructors more often than Chinese students. Chinese and US students do not differ signicantly in number of calling their instructors. Pearson correlation and regression analysis were employed to test Hypotheses 34 concerning the relationships between OCC and instructor immediacy. An a of .05 was utilized to determine the statistical signicance of the results. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among verbal and nonverbal immediacy and OCC frequency and satisfaction. Hypothesis 3 proposed that instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy are related positively to OCC frequency and satisfaction at US universities. Pearson correlation

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for ofce visits, email, and call by national culture Ofce visits M China US 1.32 .70 SD 1.29 1.49 Email M .71 .99 SD .94 1.40 Call M .30 .22 SD .56 1.03

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations for OCC and immediacy China 1 1 2 3 4 1.00 .41** .25** .21** 2 3 4 M 3.85 3.35 2.38 3.09 SD .49 .32 2.30 .70 US 1 1.00 .39** .10 .07 2 3 4 M 3.71 3.35 1.79 3.48 SD .71 .44 2.48 .87 43

1.00 .21** .04

1.00 .34**

1.00

1.00 .09 .05

1.00 .41**

1.00

**po.01. 1 verbal immediacy, 2 nonverbal immediacy, 3 OCC frequency, 4 OCC satisfaction.

indicated nonsignicant relationships of verbal immediacy with OCC frequency (r .10, p4.05) and satisfaction (r .07, p4.05), and of nonverbal immediacy with OCC frequency (r :09, p4:05) and satisfaction (r :05, p4:05). Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 posited that instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy are related positively to OCC frequency and satisfaction at Chinese universities. Pearson correlation demonstrated signicant positive relationships of verbal immediacy with OCC frequency (r .25, po.01) and satisfaction (r .21, po.01), and of nonverbal immediacy with OCC frequency (r .21, po.01), but the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and OCC satisfaction was not signicant (r .04, p4.05). Additionally, multiple regression analyses were used to further explore the relationship between teacher immediacy and OCC in Chinese classrooms. The dependent variables were OCC frequency and satisfaction, respectively, and the independent variables were verbal and nonverbal immediacy, which were entered individually into a linear regression equation in a stepwise manner. The regression model for OCC frequency yielded verbal immediacy as the only regressor variable, F(1, 174) 11.57, R2 .06, po.001. Thus, OCC frequency could be explained by teacher verbal immediacy, which had a moderate effect and accounted for 6% of the variance. The regression model for OCC satisfaction yielded verbal immediacy as the only regressor variable, F(1, 174) 4.17, R2 .02, po.05. Teacher verbal immediacy had a small effect on OCC satisfaction and accounted for 2% of the variance. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

7. Discussion The objective of the present study is to extend OCC research by comparing OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction, and examining the inuence of instructor immediacy on OCC in Chinese and US college classrooms. The survey of relevant literature suggests this study represents the rst direct empirical cross-cultural comparison of OCC, which reports ve major ndings: (a) Chinese students engage in more OCC than US students; (b) Chinese OCC is more personal problem

ARTICLE IN PRESS
44 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

oriented, but US OCC focuses on coursework; (c) US students have a signicantly higher OCC satisfaction than Chinese counterparts; (d) Chinese and US students differ in OCC forms. Chinese students visit instructors ofce more often, but US students email their instructors more; (e) US instructor immediacy is not correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction, whereas Chinese instructor verbal immediacy is correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction. Chinese nonverbal immediacy is associated signicantly with OCC frequency, but not with OCC satisfaction.

7.1. Hypotheses and research questions First, consistent with past research (Biggs & Watkins, 1996, 2001; Ho, 2001), Chinese students engage in more OCC than US students in the current study, which is likely attributable to distinctive cultural expectations concerning teacherstudent roles, responsibilities, relationships, and interactions. The model, parent, and pastoral roles of Chinese teachers consequently require more on-going extracurricular involvement with students beyond the classroom; conversely, the emphasis on professional roles and responsibilities of US teachers predetermines the focus on in-class instruction and the potential end of teacherstudent interactions within classroom (Biggs & Watkins, 1996, 2001; Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Gu, 2001; Ho, 2001; Pratt, 1991). Second, Chinese OCC is more personal problem focused than US OCC likely because the triple roles of Chinese teachers as a parent, model, and instructor, the dual responsibilities of educating students academically and morally, and the students role as children render it appropriate and even obligated for teachers and students to discuss about both coursework and students personal problems inside and outside of the school environment, whereas a more compartmentalized view of US teachers responsibilities leads to a focus on coursework and the relative indifference of teachers to students personal problems outside of the school environment. US teachers professional responsibility tends to be set within in-class instruction and management, which ends after hours (Biggs & Watkins, 2001; Ho, 2001). Third, an interesting paradox from this study is that, comparatively, Chinese students have more OCC but less OCC satisfaction, whereas US students have less OCC but more OCC satisfaction. A plausible explanation is, once again, related to different cultural expectations. Chinese students might set culturally understandably high expectations toward OCC. Their actual OCC likely falls short of these expectations, which, consequently, causes dissatisfaction and discontent among the students. By contrast, US students might set relatively low expectations toward OCC. Their actual OCC likely surpasses their expectations, which might bring them satisfaction and contentment. In other words, Chinese students might perceive it teachers responsibility to engage in OCC with them and any breach might incur dissatisfaction, but US students might perceive it beyond teachers responsibility to engage in OCC with them and any fulllment might bring satisfaction.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 45

Fourth, it is not surprising that Chinese students visit instructors ofce more, but email instructors less than US students. Chinese students visit instructors ofce more often mostly because both teachers and students usually live on campus, which facilitates their face-to-face interactions. Chinese students email their instructors less than US students mostly because there is no free Internet access in most Chinese universities and email is not so widely used on campus as in the United States. Last, an intriguing nding is that Chinese perceived verbal immediacy is correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction, and nonverbal immediacy is associated signicantly with OCC frequency, which are consistent with previous ndings at US universities (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999), but, unexpectedly, US perceived verbal and nonverbal immediacy are not correlated signicantly with OCC frequency and satisfaction, and Chinese nonverbal immediacy is not related signicantly to OCC satisfaction. Two explanations seem to be plausible for the discrepancy. One might be that, in Chinese culture where instructor immediacy is not highly expected (Myers et al., 1998; Neuliep, 1997), instructors immediacy behaviors might excite students, which might, accordingly, enhance their motivation of and satisfaction with OCC. Another explanation might be that, in US culture where OCC is not highly expected (Biggs & Watkins, 1996, 2001; Ho, 2001), students might not engage in too much formal OCC, such as ofce visits, email and telephone, regardless of instructor immediacy behaviors, although it is highly likely that instructor immediacy behaviors might increase in-class interaction and informal OCC, such as chatting before and after class, etc. 7.2. Implications The results of the present study suggest some important implications for OCCrelated research. First, OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction are inuenced by the teachers and/or students culture. Chinese and US cultural differences in teacherstudent roles, relationships, and communication practices engender different expectations in OCC frequency, content, and satisfaction. The pastoral role of Chinese instructors requires them to involve more in OCC and to care about students personal problems, and detachment might bring students dissatisfaction; conversely, the emphasis on the professional role of US instructors might disengage instructors in OCC and in students personal lives, and involvement might bring students appreciation and satisfaction. A second implication is that little OCC might be a universal problem crossculturally, calling for due attention and joint efforts from the global educational community. This study provides support for infrequent OCC suggested by previous research (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 2000). The nding indicates that little OCC is not a problem unique to US universities but facing Chinese universities too. The average number of US OCC is only 1.79 (SD 2.48), about 42% of US students have never had OCC, and nearly 20% of students have had just one OCC. Although traditional Chinese culture places a great premium on OCC, the average number of OCC is only 2.38 (SD 2.3). As

ARTICLE IN PRESS
46 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

high as 32% of Chinese students have never had OCC, and nearly 12% of students have had just one OCC. A third implication is that the relationships between instructor communication behaviors and OCC might be examined from a cultural perspective since both are culturally determined. Culturally speaking, Chinese instructors should be authoritative verbally and nonverbally, but US instructors need to be immediate communicatively. The different expectations in appropriate instructor communication behaviors might have different effects on students involvement in OCC. A cultural scrutiny might provide a plausible explanation to the discrepancy that Chinese instructor immediacy is associated signicantly with OCC, but US instructor immediacy is not. A nal implication is that cross-cultural comparisons of OCC-related research could contribute to the amelioration of OCC. Probing a new culture might mean opening up a new perspective in viewing OCC. A good implication for US educators gained from this study is that, to ameliorate OCC, it might be necessary to redene and reconsider teachers roles and responsibilities. For example, if US teachers roles were extended to include a pastoral role, it might be likely that teachers would engage more actively in OCC with students. 7.3. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions There are two limitations about this study. The rst limitation involves the reliance on self-report responses to collect data, which might not be what has actually happened. Students recollection of OCC might also be a threat to validity in this study since students might suffer from memory distortion, hindsight bias problem, and selective recollection memories. The second limitation concerns the variables that might confound the interpretation of the results and undermine the conclusions drawn. The rst confounding variable might be the demographic factor since the US sample is more diverse and heterogeneous, whereas the Chinese sample is more homogeneous. For example, the Chinese students are all English majors, and 70% report a small class size, and 30% a medium class size; whereas the US students represent 19 different majors, and 38% report a small class size, 37% a medium class size, and 25% a large class size. Although class size is not correlated signicantly with OCC frequency (r .08, p4.05), or nonverbal immediacy (r .01, p4.05), it is associated with verbal immediacy (r .14, po.05). Additionally, the Chinese sample and the US sample also differ in age differences and gender ratio. The Chinese students range in age from 18 to 23, and 85% of them are female, whereas the US students range in age from 17 to 62, and 67% of them are female. But the disproportionate ratio between Chinese male and female respondents, which is 27 to 149, reects the reality of the constitution of foreign language majors in China. A typical class of 30 students usually includes only ve or six male students. It might be problematic since previous studies show that gender and sex make a difference in OCC and perceived immediacy (Aylor & Oppliger, 2002; Jaasma & Koper, 2002; Nadler & Nadler, 2000, 2001). But in this

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 47

study, Pearson correlation shows that both student and instructor gender are not correlated with verbal immediacy (Student gender: r .07, p4.05; Instructor gender: r .01, p4.05), nonverbal immediacy (Student gender: r .02, p4.05; Instructor gender: r .05, p4.05), and OCC (Student gender: r .02, p4.05; Instructor gender: r .08, p4.05). Another confounding variable is related to the degree of operational validity and generalizability of the US-derived teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy scales in Chinese classrooms (Zhang, 2005a,b). Since teacher immediacy is culturally loaded, it is very likely that the Chinese have different perceptions, interpretations, evaluations, and expectations of teacher immediacy behaviors from the Americans. Thus, although the teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy scales yield adequate reliability in this study, their validity is not established in Chinese culture, which, hence, should be treated with caution. One more thing merits caution. The signicant association between immediacy and OCC in US classrooms reported in previous studies (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999) is not replicated in this study. Due to the presence of the aforementioned confounding variables, the results might be interpreted with caution too. Future research might consider several directions. First, given the great benets of OCC and absolute little OCC, more concerted effort needs to be made from the side of instructors on how to increase OCC to create a seamless learning environment. This has a far-reaching practical implication for instructors since increased OCC will be ultimately conducive to students, instructors, and universities (Cooper et al., 1982; Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002; Kuh, 1995; Lamport, 1993; Nadler & Nadler, 2000; Pascarella, 1980; Terenzini et al., 1996). Second, this study represents an exploratory cross-cultural study of OCC between Chinese and US universities, cross-cultural comparisons of OCC might be a lucrative eld for future research because of the potential benets to open new doors to explore OCC, and to work out specic ways to promote OCC. Third, more empirical studies are needed to investigate the role instructor communication behaviors like immediacy played in OCC since this study generates somewhat inconsistent ndings from previous studies. The nonsignicant correlations between US instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy and OCC frequency and satisfaction are at odds with their signicant associations suggested by prior research (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999). In a nutshell, this study represents a preliminary effort to extend OCC studies from US classroom to Chinese classrooms. The ndings indicate that OCC expectations and practices are culture-bound. Due to distinctive cultural prescriptions of teacherstudent roles, responsibilities, and interaction expectations, Chinese students have more OCC, more discussion of personal problems, but less OCC satisfaction than US peers. This study also demonstrates a signicant correlation of Chinese student perceptions of instructor immediacy with OCC frequency and satisfaction, but a nonsignicant association between US student perceptions of instructor immediacy with OCC frequency and satisfaction. More empirical crosscultural studies are needed to understand OCC better.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
48 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Dr. John Oetzel for his insightful feedback on earlier drafts. The author also thanks Dr. Dan Landis and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543559. Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2002). Understanding out-of-class communication between instructors and students: Student biological sex, psychological gender, and status as a communication major. Iowa Journal of Communication, 34, 4760. Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio-communication style. Communication Education, 52, 122134. Bejar, I., & Doyle, K. O. (1981). Factorial invariance in student ratings of instruction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 307312. Biggs, J., & Watkins, D. (1996). The Chinese learner in retrospect. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual inuences (pp. 269286). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Biggs, J. B., & Watkins, D. A. (2001). Insights into teaching the Chinese learner. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 277298). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323340. Cooper, P. J., Stewart, L. P., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1982). Relationship with instructor and other variables inuencing student evaluations of instruction. Communication Quarterly, 30, 308315. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D. McNamara, & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education (pp. 7690). London: Routledge. Fusani, D. S. (1994). Extra-class communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in studentfaculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232255. Gao, G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 4053. Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39, 354368. Gu, M. (2001). Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Ho, I. T. (2001). Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 99114). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organization: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hu, W., & Grove, C. L. (1999). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of studentfaculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 4147.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350 49

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2002). Out-of-class communication between female and male students and faculty: The relationship to student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Womens Studies in Communication, 25, 119137. Johnson, S. C., & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the US and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280292. Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123144. Lamport, M. A. (1993). Studentfaculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971990. Lu, S. (1997). Culture and compliance-gaining in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of Chinese college teachers use of behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education, 46, 1028. McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multicultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44, 297307. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A crosscultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281291. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200211. Mehrabian, A. (1967). Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17, 324332. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 294295. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak. Myers, S. A., Zhong, M., & Guan, S. (1998). Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom. Communication Studies, 49, 240254. Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2000). Out of class communication between faculty and students: A faculty perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 176188. Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in our-of-class communication between faculty and students. Womens Studies in Communication, 24, 241261. Neuliep, J. W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of teacher immediacy in American and Japanese college classrooms. Communication Research, 24, 431451. Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167180. Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Studentfaculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545595. Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 369379. Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States: Contrasting foundations for adult education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 285310. Roach, K. D., & Byrne, P. R. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and German classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 114. Runco, M. A., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). Students ratings of college teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 8991. Salili, F. (2001). Teacherstudent interaction: Attributional implications and effectiveness of teachers evaluative feedback. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 7798). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341353.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
50 Q. Zhang / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 3350

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students out-of-class experiences and their inuence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149162. Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Reasoning with statistics. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Zhang, Q. (2005a). Immediacy, humor, power distance and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 109124. Zhang, Q. (2005b). Teacher immediacy and classroom communication apprehension: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 4863.