THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER COMMUNICATIVE
BEHAVIORS ON STUDENT MOTIVATION
by
LINDA WISEMAN KAY, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
December, 1995
-TIT ^A^ '^(^/f^ l " \ ^ ^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mo.116
First of all, I would like to thank the school districts that let me
distribute questionnaires to their students which include: Frenship,
Lubbock Cooper, Shallowater, and my hometown-Sudan. I especially want
to thank Lou Young, Hoelt Pohlmeier, Kristin Mitchell, Sara (joff. Brad
Dannheim, Mike Brittingham and Karen Thornton. Without these willing
souls, I would have been passing out questionnaires until the year 2000.
I wotild like to thank my committee members for helping complete
what seemed like an impossible task at times. Dr. Karla Jensen has been a
fantastic pillar of support. I am so glad that you came to Texas Tech when
you did. Dr. Rob Stewart has truly helped me by giving me all of the great
suggestions to make this a professional, academic document. Dr. David
Roach, who is the epitome of the immediate teacher, has been a constant
encourager. Even when the statistics were frustrating and time was
growing short, he worked extra hours and helped me finish by the deadline.
Thanks to my first teachers, my parents. My dad, Pudd Wiseman,
instilled in me the attitude that I could do anything that I set my mind to as
long as I remembered who was really in charge. My mom, Kay Wiseman,
taught me to be the "strong oak" even when things did not go my way. I
realize how lucky I was to grow up with such loving parents.
Finally, my husband, John Kay, has put up with me when I was not
easy to live with. I appreciate your work to set up teachers for distribution
and the draft-reading that you did. But mostly I appreciate your belief in
me, even when I wondered if I could do it, you always knew that I could.
God truly blessed me with a husband like you. I dedicate this work to you as
you strive to motivate kids every day.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Literature Review 3
Homophily 5
Interpersonal Solidarity 8
Immediacy 10
Motivation 17
Immediacy and Motivation 21
n. RATIONALE 25
m. METHOD 30
Participants 30
Procedures 30
Measures 31
IV. RESULTS 37
V. DISCUSSION 48
Limitations 55
Future Research 56
Conclusion 58
Notes 60
REFERENCES 61
APPENDIX 66
111
LIST OF TABLES
1. Subject Profile 33
2. Teacher Profile 34
3. Profile of Varied Subjects Taught by Referenced Teachers. . . 35
4. Alpha Reliabilities for Scales 36
5. Simple Statistics for Verbal Immediacy, Nonverbal Immediacy, Total Immediacy, (jeneralized Immediacy, Homophily, Interpersonal Solidarity, Trait Motivation, and State Motivation by Education Level 41
6. Communication Scales Correlations with State Motivation . . 42
7. Individual Verbal Immediacy Item Correlation with State Motivation 43
8. Individual Nonverbal Immediacy Item Correlations with State Motivation 45
9. Multiple Regression Results for Verbal Immediacy, Nonverbal Immediacy, Interpersonal Solidarity, and Homophily on State Motivation on Three Education Levels . . 47
IV
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Verbal Immediacy Items 44
2. Nonverbal Immediacy Items 46
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
What is a good teacher? Essentially, an effective teacher is one who
aids students in all kinds of learning (Andersen, 1979). This concept seems
simple, but what becomes more important is how a teacher can most
effectively aid those students in the learning process. Educational research
has spent time and energy on trying to figure out what it takes to be effective
in the classroom. Research shows that teacher behaviors have a
significant impact on all areas of learning. Grossnickle and Thiol (1988)
posit.
Students clearly acknowledge, affirm, and appreciate teachers who not only know their subject well, but can communicate and relate to them in a motivating way...Testimonial after testimonial attests to the tremendous power a single teacher has to replace consistent student failure patterns and an accompanying feeling of hopelessness with a new vision of who they might become with a little well-timed and capable assistance from a friendly, concerned teacher, (p. 5)
To further illustrate the effects a teacher can have on students,
consider the following example. A sociology class went into the Baltimore
slums to obtain case histories for two hundred young males. In every case,
the evaluation read, "He hasn't got a chance." Twenty-five years later
another class did a follow-up study on the boys. One hundred-eighty of the
participants were contacted and one hundred seventy-six of the boys had
become successful doctors, lawyers or businessmen. When asked what
happened to turn their lives around, without exception they answered,
"There was this teacher."
1
The teacher was still in Baltimore, so the researchers contacted her.
They asked what her secret was for motivating students. The teacher's
eyes sparkled as she said, "It's really very simple. I loved those boys."
(Canfield and Hansen, 1993).
Teachers must show care and concern for their students to effectively
influence their behaviors which in turn will affect their learning outcomes.
The question now becomes how teachers can show this care and concern.
Since classroom teaching can be viewed as a dynamic communication
process between teacher and student (Anderson et al., 1978), more
concentration on making the communication process effective could aid in
overall teaching effectiveness.
Communication is an influence process. At the minimum, the act of communicating requires a sender who is motivated to achieve some end result through communication and a receiver who perceives the message and whose behavior, attitudes, or opinions are important to the communicator's objective....A communication is successful from the sender's point of view if the receiver is influenced by the message in a manner consistent with the communicator's objective. (Fulcher & Anderson, 1974, p. 19)
In order to aid communication, researchers consider specific
connections between the sender and the receiver. In the teacher-student
relationship, the teacher attempts to communicate in such a way that the
student learns the course material. Though many studies give substantial
leads, no conclusive evidence tells teachers what specific communicative
behaviors are perceived as the most effective for achieving successful
learning outcomes. For example, Richmond (1990) found the most effective
behaviors perceived at the college level are those which were facilitating
enjoyment, assuming equality, nonverbal immediacy, optimism and self-
concept confirmation. Richmond et al. (1987) revealed that vocal
expressiveness, smiling at the class, and having a relaxed body position
were the most important nonverbal behaviors for ratings of overall
effectiveness, (jorham (1988) showed that teacher's use of humor, praise of
students' work, and frequency in initiating conversations with the students
before or after class promoted effectiveness as perceived by the students.
However, before teachers can teach students how to learn, they must
get them ready to learn. The largest portion of getting students ready to
learn is getting them motivated. Research has shown that motivation may
be the mediating factor between teacher behaviors and student learning
(Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993a, 1993b). Therefore, more research needs
to focus on how a teacher's communication affects student motivation.
Literature Review
Positive student outcomes have been related to communication
constructs such as homophily (McDowell, 1980), interpersonal solidarity
(Andersen, 1979; Stewart and Wheeless, 1987) and immediacy (Andersen,
1979; McDowell, 1980; Richmond et al., 1987; Gorham, 1988; Christophel,
1990; Richmond, 1990; Gorham and Christophel, 1992; Christophel and
(jorham, 1995). The primary function of teaching is for stimulating higher
levels of learning in all learning contexts. Richmond (1990) posits, "...what
is of critical concern is what students think the teacher does and what
impact those perceptions have on other meanings stimulated in the mind of
the student" (p. 193). In other words, the students' perceptions of the
teacher's communication affects what the student wgmts to accomplish. If
the student perceives a great amount of concern from the teacher, he/she
may act on this perception by being more motivated to work in that
teacher's class. In order to exactly understand the impact of these student
perceptions on motivation, research must focus on specific communication
constructs in conjunction with student motivation. Present
communication research has focused on the effects of immediacy on
student motivation. However, these immediacy behaviors do not directly
consider the care and concern of the teacher on student motivation.
Therefore, other constructs must be researched to understand the
full impact that a teacher has on a student. Two communication
constructs which directly relate to a student's perception of a teacher are
homophily and interpersonal solidarity. These constructs were researched
in conjunction with immediacy in the Andersen's (1979) study and the
McDowell (1980) study but have been pushed aside in recent research. The
combination of these variables will give a more complete picture of the
communication of the teacher-student relationship on student motivation.
Immediacy refers to the communication behaviors which aid in the
perceived degree of psychological closeness between interactants
(Mehrabian, 1971). Interpersonal solidarity is the degree of psychological
closeness perceived by communication interactants (Brown, 1965).
Homophily is the degree of perceived similarity between individuals (Rogers
& Bhowmik, 1970). These constructs have specifically addressed the
teacher-student relationships to understand teaching effectiveness.
Each construct of homophily, interpersonal solidarity, immediacy
and motivation have been researched for effects on student learning. A
review of the literature shows what previous research revealed for effects of
each construct on learning.
Homophily
Homophily refers to the degree of perceived similarity between
individuals with regard to certain attributes such as beliefs, values,
actions, etc. (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1970). Fulcher and Anderson (1974) posit,
"A long-standing principle of human communication has been that source-
receiver similarity promotes communication effectiveness" (p. 19). In
addition to communication effectiveness, homophily has been evidenced to
produce more liking for the similar person (Byrne, 1961, 1962, 1966). Not
only does the perceived similarity increase liking but can have a strong
impact on the opinion beliefs of the receiver (Bersheid, 1966). Simons et al.
(1970) showed that homophily may have a strong impact on the level of
credibility the source maintains from the receiver.
For the purpose of the present research, the teacher is the source and
the student is the receiver. When considering this particular relationship,
the research is focused on teaching effectiveness (Fulcher & Anderson,
1974; Anderson et al., 1978) and student learning (McDowell et al., 1980;
McDowell & McDowell, 1990).
In order to consider the methods which facilitate teaching
effectiveness, Fulcher and Anderson (1974) looked at three introductory
business class settings. The students completed scales on themselves and
their respective instructor with 115 adjectives describing personal attributes
and beliefs which were compiled into twelve categories. The categories
were stage presence, morality, formality, structure, stage fright,
authoritarianism, empathy, liberalism, practicality, subjectivity, "sugar
daddy," and maturity. The students also completed a teaching effectiveness
measure. Fulcher and Anderson (1974) found that out of the three teachers
considered, the teacher who was rated as the most similar to the students
overall was also rated as the most effective instructor. Conversely, the
teacher who was rated as the most dissimilar to the student population was
rated as the most ineffective instructor. Therefore, the findings in this
study supported the proposition that homophily promotes teaching
effectiveness.
However, Anderson, Alpert and Golden (1978) saw that the previous
study was limited due to scope and instrument, so they developed a similar
study to see if the previous findings were valid. They changed the
instrument to five dimensions of personal attitude and belief which include
empathy, competence, conventionality, stage presence or confidence and
excitement. The students completed the instrument on themselves and
their instructor as well as a perception-based scale of the instructor's
effectiveness. Anderson et al. (1978) had different findings than Anderson
(1974) by concluding that the college students "appear to laud the
effectiveness of a teacher who has more of the critical factors (empathy,
competence, conventionality, stage presence and excitement) than they do"
(p. 43).
These studies were very similgir in nature and procedure, but the
conclusions were contradictory. Anderson et al. (1978) suggested that the
difference exists because of a threshold of effectiveness. Though not directly
shown in these two studies, both articles suggest the existence of a point at
which the receiver perceives a moderate amount of distance as being the
most communicatively effective. Simons et al. (1970) summarized, "that the
'ideal' communicator may embody and/or emphasize (through 'common
ground' techniques) a combination of similarity and dissimilarity which
create an image of "'super-representativeness'" (p. 13).
Both of these studies were conducted at the college level in business
classes. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized for a variety of
situations. McDowell et al. (1980) conducted a study at the high school and
junior high levels. They found that junior high students who rated their
teacher as highly similar to themselves also received higher grades in their
respective courses. In addition, these students were also more interested in
the classroom activities presented by the teacher. The high school student
population revealed a moderate correlation between homophily and
affective learning as well as behavioral commitment for learning.
McDowell and McDowell (1990) researched only high school students
for their study. They showed that perceived similarity had its greatest
correlation with the student's attitude toward the course. If the student
perceived the teacher as similar to himself/herself, the student enjoyed the
course and was willing to participate in the course. However, if the student
perceived dissimilarity, he/she did not enjoy the course. Cognitive learning
was also affected by homophily in this study. Though the relationship was
not as great as with affect, the relationship between cognitive learning and
homophily was moderate.
Homophily between interactants promotes more liking for the
similar person (Byrne, 1961, 1962, 1966) which in turn aids in additional
perceived closeness in the relationship. Homophily aids people in
developing interpersonal relationships. If the threshold theory is correct
then when the amount of homophily is at the appropriate level, the
communication effectiveness will increase (Anderson et al., 1978) and the
interactants will be satisfied with the relationship. By being satisfied, they
will view their relationship with more depth or solidarity (Wheeless, 1977).
Interpersonal Solidarity
Interpersonal solidarity has been conceptualized as the degree of
psychological closeness perceived by communication interactants (Brown,
1965). Wheeless (1976) clarified the construct by specif5nng five sets of
relations that produce solidarity:
(1) relations involving similarities in personal characteristics such as age, attitudes, and occupation; (2) relations involving closeness in physical space and social space (status); (3) relations involving pleasant sentiments such as liking, loving, attraction, sympathy, and trust; (4) relations involving behaviors such as cooperation, frequent interaction, confiding in one another, and beneficent actions; and (5) relations involving symbolic expressions of similarity, proximity, or intimacy... (p. 48)
Solidarity represents an interpersonal relationship which is mutually
close. Wheeless (1978) described how the measurement of interpersonal
solidarity could serve as a viable assessment of importance in
meaningfulness in interpersonal communication.
One of the most researched dyadic relationships is the teacher
student relationship. Given that solidarity was shown as a valid measure
of the quality of interpersonal relationships, using it to assess the teacher
student relationship seems logical. "Students weigh significantly ...
interpersonal solidarity in their evaluations of a teacher's effectiveness"
(Nussbaum and Scott, 1979, p. 553). The thought then became that since
students put stock in their relationship with the teacher for assessing the
instructor's effectiveness, then there must be a correlation between the
teacher student relationship and student learning.
Therefore, Andersen (1979) considered how interpersonal solidarity
related to student learning. Basically, interpersonal solidarity was
positively correlated with affective learning but negatively correlated with
8
cognitive learning. Nussbaum and Scott (1980) studied the relationship
between varying levels of teacher-student solidarity and affective,
behavioral, and cognitive learning. Conditions of low solidarity were
significantly lower in all three areas of learning compared to conditions of
moderate or high solidarity. There were no significant differences in
affective and behavioral learning between moderate and high solidarity
conditions, but there was higher cognitive learning in the moderate
solidarity condition than in the high solidarity condition. Therefore, "the
teacher who attempts to become too psychologically close with students or
who fails to nurture at least some perception of psychological closeness
with students will have less than a desirable effect on overall classroom
learning" (Nussbaum & Scott, 1980, p. 558).
McDowell et al. (1980) studied how perceptions of interpersonal
solidarity affected all three areas of learning in the high school and junior
high school settings. Essentially, the junior high school students rated
their relationships with their teachers higher in solidarity than the high
school students did. McDowell et al. (1980) suggested that the junior high
students' perceptions of closer relationships with their teachers were due to
the developmental differences in the ages that were tested. However, at
both the junior high school and the high school, student learning outcomes
were considerably higher for the students who perceived high solidarity
with their instructors.
Stewart and Wheeless (1987) researched two seperate instructional
contexts and compared the effects of interpersonal solidarity and
immediacy on student learning. The first group consisted of students in
basic speech communication courses at the undergraduate level, and the
second sample consisted of student pilots in graduate flight training at an
Air Force base. The purpose of the study was to determine if a
nontraditional sample of students perceived their instructors with the same
degree of solidarity and immediacy as traditional college students. Stewart
and Wheeless (1987) concluded that the traditional college students
perceived more immediacy with their instructors while the nontraditional
students perceived more solidarity in their relationships. However, the
correlation between the two constructs of immediacy and solidarity was
quite similar for both groups. Interestingly, the findings were generalized
for both settings in that perceived closeness to the instructor is important to
the student. Homophily can be the beginning of solidarity in a relationship,
but there are also certain behaviors such as immediacy behaviors which
can strengthen the level of solidarity.
Immediacy
Mehrabian (1967) conceptualized immediacy as the degree of
perceived physical and/or psychological closeness between people.
Immediacy refers to communication behaviors which are based on
approach and avoidance principles. Individuals tend to approach people or
situations they like and avoid people or situations they dislike.
Mehrabian (1971) states:
In response to a remark that appeals to us, we may 'approach' by asking questions or leaning forward. In response to discussion we find uninteresting or objectionable, we may 'avoid' by remaining silent and leaning back, farther away from the speaker...Immediacy behaviors involve an increase in the sensory stimulation between two persons. When we stand close to someone or talk to him [sic] a great deal more stimulation and information are exchanged than if we were to stand farther away or remain silent, (pp. 2-4)
10
Therefore, the psychological distance between communication
interactants is directly affected by the individual's desire to be close to or
distant from the other person. In order to understand the student-teacher
relationship better, it is important to see whether or not the teacher
communicates that he/she wants to be closer to the student.
Communication literature has shown that teacher immediacy
behaviors have a strong impact on affective learning (Andersen, 1979;
Richmond et al., 1987; Kearney et al., 1985; McDoweU et al., 1980), cognitive
learning (Richmond et al., 1987; Gorham, 1988; McDoweU and McDowell,
1990), and student state motivation (Christophel, 1990; Richmond, 1990;
Frymier, 1993a, 1993b). Hurt, Scott and McCroskey (1978) conceptualized
affective learning as a "student's attitude, beliefs and values toward the
knowledge and skills the student has acquired" (p. 554). This area of
learning concerns the student's affect toward the course, teacher or
learning in general. Behavioral communication refers to the student's
willingness to perform in class. Nussbaum (1978) defines the behavioral
domain as the observable use of knowledge acquired within the classroom.
Student state motivation refers to the student's desire to perform in a given
classroom setting (Brophy, 1986). All of these variables are important in
measuring student success in the classroom. By relating the teacher's
behaviors to the student outcomes, researchers can utilize the dynamic
process of communication in order to further knowledge on teaching
effectiveness.
11
In 1979, Janis Andersen, building on Mehrabian's earlier work,
investigated how teachers' use of nonverbal immediacy behaviors affected
student learning. Andersen (1979) operationalized nonverbal immediacy
as:
the communication behaviors engaged in when a person maintains closer physical distance; communicates on the same spatial plane; is not in front of or behind the other interactant(s); touches; uses direct body orientation; is relaxed; uses overall purposeful body movement; gestures; engages in positive head nods; smiles; uses eye contact; spends time with the other interactant(s); interacts with and allows the other person to interact; dresses informally; and is vocally expressive, (p. 545)
Accordingly, she studied seventeen teachers' immediacy behaviors
and how these behaviors related to students' affective learning, cognitive
learning, and behavioral commitment to the course. The results showed
that immediacy behaviors predicted 46% of the variance in student affect
toward the teacher and 20% of the variance in student affect toward the
course content. There was also a significant correlation between
immediacy behaviors and student behavioral commitment. Immediacy
predicted 18% of the variance in student behavioral commitment. This
study provided researchers with the basis for investigating how immediacy
behaviors could work as a potentially significant influence for improving
instructional effectiveness.
McDowell, McDowell and Hyerdahl (1980) replicated Andersen's
(1979) study using a group of junior high and senior high students. Their
findings generally supported the relationships between immediacy and
affective learning that Andersen (1979) found. However, McDowell et al.
(1980) found the most significant positive correlation between cognitive
learning and teacher immediacy behaviors. This finding was vastly
12
different from Andersen because she did not find a significant correlation
between these two variables at the college level. McDowell et al. (1980)
showed that differences existed between the two education levels. They also
found a significant difference between the two levels when rating
behavioral immediacy indicators and interpersonal solidarity items.
Junior high students rated the interpersonal solidarity items much higher
than did the high school students.
McDowell et al. (1980) used course grades in order to assess cognitive
learning. However, this type of assessment may not always be reliable
because some students may feel as if they learn more than the course
grades show. Therefore, Richmond, Gorham and McCroskey (1987)
decided to study how nonverbal immediacy was related to perceived
cognitive learning. Richmond et al. (1987) demonstrated that immediacy
behaviors are positively correlated with perceived cognitive learning. They
asked students two questions to determine how much students felt they
learned in the class. Students perceived more cognitive learning with
moderately to highly immediate instructors. Specifically, teachers' use of
vocal expressiveness, smiling at the entire class, and a relaxed body
position had the highest positive association with learning. Also, the
student perceptions of a teacher's use of smiling at individual students and
touching students had a lower but significant relationship with cognitive
learning. Therefore, teacher immediacy behaviors have a strong impact on
the three kinds of learning.
13
Richmond et al. (1987) gave a summation of research which is supported by
the studies given to this point.
Teachers with low immediacy will generate lower cognitive and affective learning. Teachers with moderate immediacy will generate higher cognitive learning and moderate affective learning. Teachers with high immediacy will generate similar (to moderately immediate teachers) cognitive learrung, but higher affective learning, (p. 588)
In order to understand these findings more fully, Kelley and (jorham
(1988) developed a four-step model which linked teachers' nonverbal
immediacy to students' cognitive learning. They argued that immediacy is
associated with arousal and that arousal focuses attention, improves
memory, and increases information-processing. Therefore, they assumed
that teachers' nonverbal immediacy should increase cognitive learning no
matter how the student feels about the teacher. To test the arousal theory,
Kelley and (jorham (1988) had confederates read four groups of six items
under varying conditions of eye contact and physical proximity . The
subjects were then asked to recall items and, indeed, the highest scores
were found in the high proximity/high eye contact condition. These
findings for cognitive learning broaden the scope of knowledge of how
teacher nonverbal immediacy behavior effectiveness can promote more
positive student outcomes.
Comstock, Rowell, and Bowers (1995) researched the effects of
immediacy on student learning. They posited that teacher immediacy
behaviors have a curvilinear relationship with the three domains of
learning. In other words, Comstock et al. (1995) state, "highly immediate
teachers may attenuate, rather than stimulate, learning" (p. 252). For
instance, a teacher may distract students from the process of learning if
their immediacy behaviors are extremely high.
14
In order to test this hypothesis, subjects attended a seminar on "brain
food." The person conducting the seminars manipulated the levels of
immediacy from low to excessively high. The subjects then completed tests
to see how much information they recalled after the seminar ended.
Basically, the moderately high immediacy produced greater learning than
high or low immediacy. Comstock et al. (1995) posit, "...where teacher
nonverbal immediacy is concerned, students can get either too little or too
much of a good thing^ (p. 262).
Kearney, Plax and Wendt-Wasco (1985) considered how students view
nonverbal immediacy behaviors in different college classrooms. They
divided the types of classes into two categories: people-oriented (P-type) and
task-oriented (T-type) content classes. The P-type classes were ones such as
sociology, communication, and psychology, and T-type classes included
subjects such as engineering, accounting, computer science and
mathematics. Kearney et al. (1985) found that students in P-type classes felt
that teacher nonverbal immediacy behaviors were more salient to the
course than did students in T-type courses. Students in T-type courses were
most concerned with the instructor being organized, structured, and
controlled in the classroom. However, positive correlations between
immediacy and affective learning were found with students in all courses.
From Andersen (1979) to Richmond et al. (1987), teacher immediacy
behaviors were categorized as a purely nonverbal construct. However,
Wiener and Mehrabian (1967) had developed a system to categorize
linguistic components of immediacy. Therefore, (jorham (1988) decided
that verbal immediacy behaviors needed to be considered in the classroom
as well as nonverbal immediacy behaviors. She gathered a group of forty-
seven upper-division communication students who brainstormed to find
15
teacher behaviors which they felt were immediate. From the statements
collected during the focus group brainstorming session, (jorham (1988)
compiled a list of twenty verbal items.
Essentially, (jorham (1988) found that verbal immediacy behaviors
had a significant effect on affective and cognitive learning. Though the
teacher's use of humor, praise of students' work, and willingness to engage
in conversation with students before and after class ranked highest among
all of the college students, Cjorham notes that certain behaviors were more
important to students in small classes than large classes. In other words,
(jorham stated, "It is likely that the physical closeness of teachers and
students in small classes enhances perceptions of immediacy...As class
size increases, however, teachers become more differentiated in terms of
their efforts to decrease psj^hological distance" (pp. 50-51).
It appears that verbal immediacy behaviors as well as nonverbal
immediacy behaviors have a strong effect on student learning, (jorham
(1988) states.
Teachers who exhibit these behaviors reduce psychological distance by recognizing individual students and their ideas and viewpoints, by incorporating student input into course and class design, by communicating availability and willingness to engage in one-to-one interactions, and by enhancing their "humanness" via humor and self-disclosure, (p. 52)
McDowell and McDowell (1990) replicated the Gorham (1988) study
using high school students because "many of the literature conclusions
derived from one study at one education level are indiscriminately cited as
applicable to different levels of education" (p. 4). McDowell and McDowell
(1990) found that high school students rated the following behaviors
highest: teacher's use of personal examples, addressing students by name,
and initiating conversations with students before, after, and outside the
16
classroom. The highest ranking behaviors did indeed differ across age
groups. As well as identifying age differences, gender differences also
surfaced in this study; females rated the immediacy behavior items much
higher than did males. This finding indicates that female high school
students perceive more communication and closeness between themselves
and their teachers. McDowell and McDowell (1990) did not find any
significant gender differences between the ratings of verbal and nonverbal
immediacy behaviors.
Commimication scholars began research on immediacy behaviors as
used by teachers to identify the nature of the relationship between what
teachers do and how well students perform. Education scholars, however,
have focused on student-centered concepts and how these concepts related
to learning in addition to teacher behaviors. The primary student-centered
concept that education scholars considered was the role of student
motivation to learning.
Motivation
Psychologists use the concept of motivation to explain why
individuals do what they do. Wlodkowski (1977) defines a motive as the
condition a person has that directly affects readiness for initiation or
continuation of activities. Specifically, he sums up motivational research
by stating that motivation is, "the word to describe those processes that can
(a) arouse and instigate behavior; (b) give direction or purpose to behavior;
(c) continue to allow behavior to persist; and (d) lead to choosing or
preferring a particular behavior" ( p. 6).
17
Motivation has been viewed in two forms: intrinsic and extrinsic
(Wlodkowski, 1982). Intrinsic motivation is associated with the willingness
to perform an activity because the activity provides enjoyment and
satisfaction in and of itself. Extrinsic motivation, however, refers to the
value which is placed on the end of a certain action. This type of motivation
emphasizes the reward an individual hopes to obtain by performing a
certain way. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated can see a
particular act as being rewarding in and of itself, whereas individuals who
are extrinsically motivated act a certain way because of the external reward
obtained by fulfilling the action. For exEunple, a professional athlete who
takes a smaller salary contract, so more players can join the team would be
intrinsically motivated to play. On the other hand, the athlete who states
that he/she will not play unless he/she gets the biggest contract in the
league is extrinsically motivated to play the game.
Maslow (1962) showed that human needs are innate and have a
motivational influence on what an individual will or will not do. In other
words, the condition an individual is currently in is directly affected by a set
of innate needs. Maslow (1970) developed a hierarchy of five basic needs.
The most primary needs are physiological needs which include an
individual's need to satisfy hunger and thirst. The second tier of needs is
safety needs which are the individual's needs to feel secure, stable and free
from feeir. The third level are belongingness and love needs which include
the need for friends, family and love. The fourth level are esteem needs
which include a high evaluation of self, self-respect, self-esteem and esteem
from others as well. The final level are self-actualization needs which
refers to the needs to fulfill one's destiny. In other words, Maslow states,
"What a man can be, he must be" (p. 46).
18
Maslow's theory is that individuals are motivated on these five levels.
First, the physiological needs must be met. Individuals can only be
motivated up through the tiers of the hierarchy if the needs below it are
sufficiently met. Interestingly, school systems are paying close attention to
this theory by providing students with a free breakfast and lunch before
trying to teach them. As Maslow (1970) explained, persons who are hungry
or thirsty will not be motivated to do anything until that primary need of
hunger or thirst is met. A long-standing goal of teachers is to help students
reach their full potential, but before that feat can be accomplished the other
needs have to be met. Students will be motivated to do whatever fits their
immediate needs. Teachers can only affect their motivation by assisting
them in fulfilling prior needs.
Brophy (1986) used the previous motivation research such as
Wlodkowski (1981) in order to conceptualize motivation to learn. Brophy
defines motivation to learn as a derived competence which is built from
common experience. Motivation to learn can occur as a general trait and
as a situation-specific state. Brophy (1986) states.
As a general trait, motivation to learn refers to an enduring disposition to value learning as a worthwhile and satisfying activity and, thus, to strive for knowledge and mastery in learning situations...In specific situations, a state of motivation to learn exists when task engagement is guided by the goal or intention of acquiring the knowledge or mastering the skill the task is designed to teach, (pp. 1-2)
In other words, individuals with a strong trait motivation to learn
will engage in the activity because they want more knowledge. Learning is
intrinsically rewarding to them in and of itself. Individuals with state
motivation to learn will engage in certain activities because they want to
know about the specific knowledge or skill being taught.
19
Brophy (1986) explains that individuals who possess the motivation to
learn will do their best to find all the benefits from activities or classes.
However, students who are not motivated to learn will only do what it takes
to meet the minimum requirements in order to satisfy a certain standard or
escape certain punishment. Further, individuals who possess the trait
enjoy expanding their knowledge simply because learning itself is
satisfying to them. These individuals find learning "intrinsically
rewarding" (p. 1). The two types of motivation defined by Wlodkowski (1982)
are the bases for the two types of motivation to learn as conceptualized by
Brophy (1986). Essentially, those individuals who are intrinsically
motivated to learn will be termed as trait-motivated to learn individuals
while those who are extrinsically motivated are more closely in line with
the state-motivated to learn individuals.
In order to capitalize on the motivation rese£U*ch, education
researchers looked for ways to develop materials which would foster more
student motivation. Keller and Kopp (1987) developed a motivational
construct which included the four conditions they deemed necessary for
influencing motivation in the classroom. The components are Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction or ARCS. The ARCS model is
similar in design to the principles set forth by Maslow (1970) in that one
level must be reached before the next can be effective for influencing
motivation. First, the designer must gain and sustain the students'
attention. Second, the designer needs to show the relevance of the activity,
so students can understand its utility. Third, the designer needs to give
students a positive expectemcy for success. Here, Keller and Kopp (1987)
call for an essential balance which means that the activity must have a
degree of risk so that the students actually learn. However, too much risk
20
will scare students away from the activity entirely. Researchers have found
that students have to be able to truly see themselves completing the activity.
If it seems too difficult, they will be afraid to try. On the other hand, if it
seems too easy, students will perceive that the teacher does not believe in
their abilities. Therefore, finding the appropriate level of difficulty is
essential for motivational success. Finally, the designer must be specific
about evaluation of the activity. If students feel the grading expectations
are unfair, motivation levels will plummet.
Immediacv and Motivation
Research indicates that teacher behaviors have a tremendous effect
on student motivation and thus on learning outcomes. Therefore,
communication scholars considered the connection between teacher
immediacy behaviors and student motivation levels. Christophel (1990)
studied how the constructs of immediacy and motivation together influence
learning. She found that immediacy behaviors, specifically nonverbal
immediacy behaviors, moderately correlated with student state motivation.
Both verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors and student state
motivation were found to be strong predictors of learning. Essentially,
Christophel (1990) found that immediacy behaviors must modify student
state motivation before they can affect learning. This study brought two
constructs together which aid in the study of how to teach students to learn
more effectively. Christophel points out, "This discovery provides an
unmistakable confirmation of previous claims regarding the importance of
students' classroom-specific motivation levels in relation to learning"
(p. 337).
21
Richmond (1990) considered how students' perceptions of teacher's
nonverbal immediacy behaviors, affinity-seeking behaviors, and behavior
alteration techniques are related to student motivation to study.
Essentially, Richmond found that students were motivated to study in a
given course when the teacher used more nonverbal immediacy behaviors,
especially vocal variety, smiling, and eye contact.
Frymier (1993a) researched how immediacy affects motivation over
the course of an entire semester. This study showed positive correlations
between student state motivation and immediacy behaviors which
supported Christophel's (1990) study. However, the study did not show a
direct positive relationship between immediacy and student learning
outcomes. Frymier (1993a) concluded that state motivation mediates the
relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and student affective
and cognitive learning.
Frymier (1993b) studied how students with varying levels of
motivation when a semester began could be affected by an immediate
instructor. She had students complete trait and state motivation scales on a
class they had not yet attended, so she could get a clear picture of motivation
levels without teacher influences. In the middle and at the end of the
semester, students completed trait and state motivation scales along with
the verbal immediacy scale. Frymier (1993b) found that immediacy did
have a significant effect on student state motivation. Most interesting,
though, is that highly immediate teachers seemed to have a more
significant effect on individuals who entered the semester with moderate to
low state motivation to study. Teachers who appropriately use verbal and
nonverbal immediacy behaviors in their interactions with students are
22
likely to have greater effects on students vidth low to moderate state
motivation than on students with high state motivation.
Gorham and Christophel (1992) wanted to investigate precisely which
teacher behaviors were perceived as the most motivating in college
classrooms. Therefore, they asked 300 college students to write down all of
the motivational and demotivational factors in their classes. After the
answers were coded, 44% of them were coded as direct teacher behaviors.
The most motivating teacher behavior was the teacher's enthusiasm in
lecturing. The demotivator which was listed most was the teacher's
boredom or lack of excitement with the subject. This study showed that
teacher behaviors have a definite effect on student state motivation.
However, they did find that students perceive motivation as a student-
owned state and lack of motivation as a teacher-owned problem. This
finding suggests that students are highly aware of the effects of teacher
behaviors on motivation whether good or bad.
Christophel and (jorham (1995) developed a longitudinal study to see
how immediacy affects student motivation over a period of time.
Essentially, they foimd that students perceive teacher behaviors as only one
contributing factor in overall motivation. Other factors included class
subject, structure or format of the class, and administrative dictates such
as class size. In addition, Christophel and Gorham (1995) noted that
students could more easily determine demotivating factors over motivating
factors which ties into their previous study.
Summary
Previous research shows a significant, positive relationship between
immediacy and motivation (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993a, 1993b;
23
(jorham & Christophel, 1992). These findings show that how a teacher
presents material can indeed impact students' attitudes and motivation for
completing tasks. Frymier (1993b) states that immediacy does not affect all
students in the same way. Her study found that teachers' immediacy
behaviors have the greatest impact on low to moderate motivated students.
Though these findings are instructive about the effects of teachers'
communication on motivation, more research needs to consider additional
variables. Research needs to consider more than just the college level to
find out if the research outcomes are the same for all levels of education.
24
CHAPTER n
RATIONALE
Educational research holds that student motivation has a strong
impact on student learning outcomes (Wlodkowski, 1981; KeUer and Kopp,
1987). A teacher's goal is for students to be motivated to learn any subject
for the joy of learning, but this process must be the students' choice.
Though students come to the classroom with attitudinal predispositions to
leam--their trait motivation to leam--teacher behaviors have substantial
influence on students' state motivation. In other words, teachers have the
power to influence by what they do to and with students (Wlodkowski, 1977).
Communication research has focused on the connection between teacher
immediacy and motivation and how these together affect student learning
outcomes (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993). Notably, in the original
immediacy studies which consider the effects of the teacher-student
relationship on learning, interpersonal solidarity was also a variable which
had significant effects on student learning outcomes (Andersen, 1979;
McDowell et al., 1980). Andersen (1979) notes that immediacy is a possible
way to demonstrate interpersonal solidarity. Immediacy behaviors
promote closeness that accompanies a relationship which is high in
solidarity. In other words, interactants that like each other want to be with
each other more, therefore, they will approach situations to be with the
other interactant (Mehrabian, 1981).
Along with immediacy and interpersonal solidarity, homophily v as
also explored in relation to student learning. (McDowell et al., 1980;
McDowell and McDowell, 1990). The only research which has considered
effects of immediacy behaviors at junior high and high school levels is the
25
McDowell et al. (1980) study and the McDowell and McDowell (1990) study.
Homophily played a significant role in the first study by having the largest
effect on learning even over the effects of immediacy and interpersonal
solidarity. Therefore, homophily may be quite influential in the
relationship between motivation and learning.
Immediacy, interpersonal solidarity, and homophily have been
shown to have an impact on student learning outcomes in communication
research. It is important to determine how these three variables lead to
increased learning. Researchers are beginning to address the issue of how
these communication variables affect student learning. Christophel and
(jrorham (1995) showed how motivation seems to be the mediating factor
between immediacy and learning. However, more research needs to
consider the relationships between several communication variables and
motivation before the mediating link can be firmly established.
Christophel (1990) and Frymier (1993a) have shown clear
relationships between students' perceptions of teacher immediacy and state
motivation for a given course. The relationships between the
communication constructs of immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and
homophily have also been shown; therefore, all three communication
constructs should have an impact on student state motivation. Since these
constructs are quite similar but not isomorphic, the relationships among
them and motivation may indeed be similar to those found for immediacy
and student state motivation. Therefore,
H: Immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily are
positively correlated with student state motivation.
(jorham (1988) studied how verbal immediacy behaviors affected
student learning outcomes. In her study, the nonverbal immediacy
26
behaviors of smiling and eye contact seemed to have a more dramatic effect
on learning outcomes than did verbal behaviors such as referring to the
students by their first names and referring to the classroom as "our class"
instead of "my class." However, in the McDowell and McDowell (1990) study
no significant differences were found between verbal and nonverbal
behaviors at the high school level. Christophel (1990) found that nonverbal
behaviors seemed to have a more positive correlation with student state
motivation than the verbal behaviors did at the college level. McDowell et
al. (1980) foimd that junior high and high school students differed on which
nonverbal immediacy behaviors were more influential for learning.
Therefore, the discrepancies with which behaviors may have more effect
than others at various education levels leads to the following research
question:
RQl: Which specific verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors
have the strongest relationships with student state motivation
at the junior high, senior high, and college levels?
As stated earlier, the constructs of immediacy, interpersonal
solidarity and homophily are quite similar. For the current study, the
differentiation is that immediacy behaviors refer to actual actions taken by
the instructor which may be perceived as immediate or nonimmediate.
Interpersonal solidarity is the perceived relationship between the teacher
and the student. Homophily is the perceived similarity between teacher
and student in attitude or thought.
In the McDowell et al. (1980) study, junior high students rated
homophily as having the greater effect on learning outcomes while the high
school students rated immediacy, interpersonal solidarity, and homophily
relatively the same in relation to affective learning. These findings offer
27
new insights to the previous research in that different age groups find
different communication behaviors as more important than others.
Stewart and Wheeless (1987) posit:
...it is possible that in some contexts students will perceive their instructor to be highly immediate but will not perceive so high a degree of solidarity in their relationship with the instructor, while in other contexts students will perceive a great deal of solidarity in their relationship with the instructor but will not perceive the instructor to be so immediate, (p. 49)
Also, the McDowell and McDowell (1990) study showed that high school
students did not rate the same verbal immediacy behaviors as favorably as
did the college students. In addition to the different educational levels
mentioned, Kearney et al. (1985) showed how course content can make a
difference in how students perceive the importance of immediacy from
those instructors. For example, a sociology instructor is rated higher on
effectiveness for being immediate than a chemistry instructor. Many
factors contribute to the effectiveness of immediacy behavior usage such as
educational level and course content. Therefore, the following research
questions will be explored to see if the relationships are different across
educational levels:
RQ2: Do relationships between student state motivation and
nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy, interpersonal
solidarity, and homophily differ at the junior high, high
school, and college levels?
The similarities or differences will show the relationship between
various teacher communicative behaviors and student state motivation.
However, exploring the effects of the differences will give more instructive
information on how the research results can be used by instructors.
28
Therefore,
RQ3: Do differences exist in effects of teacher immediacy,
interpersonal solidarity, and homophily with student state
motivation at the junior high, high school, or college levels?
It is important to study how various communication constructs affect
student motivation at various educationgd levels. Previous communication
research has focused attention on teachers' use of immediacy behaviors.
Therefore, additional variables may prove instructive for the connection
between what a teacher does and the student's willingness to engage in
tasks for a particular class.
29
CHAPTER m
METHOD
Participants
Data were collected from participants in three education groups,
junior high (7-8 grades), high school (9-12 grades), and college (freshmen-
seniors). All participants were from the southern region of the United
States. The junior high sample was composed of 261 subjects attending four
southern junior highs. The junior high participants ranged in age from
12-14. The high school sample consisted of 363 participants ranging in age
from 13 to 18. The high school participants attended one of two schools
chosen for study. The college sample consisted of 327 participants ranging
in age from 18-42; 94% of the subjects were age 18-26. The college
participants were enrolled in interpersonal communication and business
and professional communication courses at a large southwestern
university. The college participants were offered extra credit for
participation. Table 1 displays specific demographic descriptions of the
subject pool. Teacher profiles are included in Table 2 and Table 3.
Procedures
The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire based on the
teacher and class immediately before the one in which the questionnaire
was distributed. This was done to get a wide variety of teachers. The
participants read a paragraph explaining the purpose of the survey as well
as their rights as participants. Individuals administering the
questionnaire were graduate students in Communication Studies at a large
southwestern university. Any questions were answered by the individuals
30
administering the questionnaires to the students. The questionnaires were
distributed during the fifth week of junior high and high school and the
fourth week of coUege classes. At the coflege level, questionnaires were
distributed in two large sections of communication courses. For the high
school level, questionnaires were distributed in twenty-five classrooms. At
the junior high level, questionnaires were distributed in twenty-one
classrooms.
Measures
Several instruments were used to assess each of the communication
constructs as well as motivation. The verbal immediacy scale ((jorham,
1988) was used to assess the frequency of verbal immediacy behaviors
students perceived their teachers used. The nonverbal immediacy scale
developed by Richmond et al. (1987) was used to assess the frequency of
nonverbal immediacy behaviors the students perceived the teachers used in
their classrooms. Reliability for the verbal and nonverbal immediacy
scales combined has been assessed at .80 to .89 (Christophel, 1990).
Separately, the nonverbal immediacy scale had a reliability of .93
(Richmond, 1990); the verbal immediacy had .94 (Gorham, 1988). In the
current study, alpha reliability was .85 for the verbal immediacy scale and
.77 for the nonverbal immediacy scale. Alpha reliability for the combined
scale was .86.
To assess perceptions of immediacy, the (jreneralized Immediacy
Scale developed by Andersen (1979) was used. The reason for using this
scale in addition to the two above is to validate the behaviors as
immediate in the students' perceptions. Previous alpha reliability was
assessed at .73 to .93. Alpha reliability for the current study was .92.
31
The interpersonal solidarity scale was used to measure students'
perceptions of their relationships with their teachers. Andersen (1979)
modified the Interpersonal Solidarity instrument (Wheeless, 1978) for use
in instructional settings. Factor analysis reveals that the unidimensional
measure of interpersonal solidarity has a reliability of .96 (Andersen, 1979).
Alpha reliability for this instrument in the current study was .88.
The fourth instrument was a measure of perceived homophily
developed by McCroskey, Richmond and Daly (1975). This instrument was
used to measure how the students perceive similarity between themselves
and the teacher. The scales loaded on the homophily dimension at .75 or
above (McDowell et al., 1980). In the current study, alpha reliability for this
instrument was .83.
State and trait motivation were measured by instruments originally
developed by Beatty, Forst and Stewart (1986). Richmond (1990) later
expanded the instruments into a 5-item semantic differential scale .
Reliabilities for these scales ranged from .91 to .96 (Richmond, 1990). These
scales assessed how students feel about school in general and about their
referenced class specifically. Alpha reliability for trait motivation was
assessed at .81 and state motivation was assessed at .89 in the current
study. The complete questionnaire is included in the Appendix.
32
Table 1
Subject Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Not Indicated
Total
Ethnic Backerround
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
Native American
Junior High
132
119
10
261
11
170
58
4
High School
182
174
8
364
18
243
84
1
College
183
138
6
327
12
257
38
7
Total
497
431
24
952
41
670
180
12
Oriental 5
Other 10
Not Indicated 3
Total 261
2
11
5
364
6
7
327
13
28
8
952
33
Table 2
Teacher Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Not Indicated
Total
Ethnic Background
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
Native American
Junior High
60
181
20
261
1
210
30
2
High School
182
174
8
364
18
243
84
1
College
183
138
6
327
12
257
38
7
Total
425
493
34
952
31
710
152
10
Oriental 3
Other 3
Not Indicated 12
Total 261
2
11
5
364
6
7
327
11
21
17
952
34
Table 3
Profile of Varied Subjects Taught By Referenced Teachers
Academic Strategies
Agriculture
Art
Athletics
Business
Communication
Computer
History
Human Development
Language
Math
Music
Science
Theater
Not Indicated
Total
Junior High
--
10
--
9
3
7
15
45
3
69
25
15
28
4
28
261
High School
1
4
8
5
31
1
2
35
13
76
m
32
71
7
12
364
College
5
4
12
2
31
59
11
41
13
37
36
1
62
1
12
327
Total
6
18
20
16
65
67
28
121
29
182
127
48
161
12
55
952
35
Table 4
Alpha Reliabilities for Scales
Verbal Immediacy
Nonverbal Immediacy
Total Immediacy
Generalized Immediacy
Homophily
Interpersonal Solidarity
Trait Motivation
State Motivation
Junior High
.82
.70
.81
.89
.80
.84
.82
.86
High School
.84
.75
.85
.93
.82
.91
.83
.90
College
.88
.82
.87
.94
.86
.89
.76
.90
Total
.85
.77
.86
.92
.83
.88
.81
.89
All correlation values were significant at p<.0001.
36
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Table 5 reports the means and standard deviations for all measures
at each educational level. The hypothesis and second research question
were concerned with how the communication variables of nonverbal
immediacy, verbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity, and homophily
correlated with student state motivation. Correlations were computed
using the Pearson product-moment procedure. Correlation coefficients for
student state motivation and verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy,
interpersonal solidarity and homophily at each educational level are
reported in Table 6. The hypothesis was supported with significant
moderate positive correlations for each communication variable and
student state motivation for the total sample (verbal immediacy, r=.46,
p<.0001; nonverbal immediacy, r=.49, p<.0001; interpersonal solidarity,
r=.56, p<.0001; homophily, r=.50, p<.0001).
The first research question focused on which teacher verbal and
nonverbal immediacy behaviors had the strongest relationship with student
state motivation. Table 7 reports the correlational findings for all three
levels for verbal immediacy items; table 8 reports the nonverbal items.
OveraU, use of humor, (item #4), praise of student work, (item #17), and
smiling at the class as a whole, (item #25), had the strongest association
with state motivation for the total sample.
At the junior high level, getting into conversations with the student
(item #7) had the highest correlation with state motivation. Teacher's use
of humor (item #4) and praise of student work (item #17) also correlated
high with state motivation for junior high students. For high school
37
students, initiation of the conversations before and after class (item #8) had
the highest relationship with student state motivation. Closely following in
magnitude was the teacher's use of humor, (item #4j, smiling at the class
as a whole, (item #25), and praise of student work (item #17). At the college
level, teacher's use of humor (item #4) had the highest relationship. The
teacher's use of praise (item #17) and encouraging students to talk in class
discussions (item #2) also had strong relationships. Smiling at the class
as a whole (item #25) also had a strong relationship as did the uses of vocal
variety (item #34). Interestingly, the teacher's use of monotone (item #23)
had a strong negative relationship with state motivation.
The second research question was concerned with the different
correlations between the v£u*ious communication variables of verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily
with student state motivation at the three education levels. Table 6 reports
these correlational findings.
For the junior high level, the combined verbal and nonverbal
immediacy scores obtained the highest correlation with state motivation
(r=.51, p<.0001). However, the verbal immediacy score alone had the lowest
correlation (r=.38, p<.0001). At the high school level, interpersonal
solidarity was correlated significantly higher with state motivation than
any other commimication variable (r=.65, p<.0001). Homophily had the
next highest correlation (r=.56, p<.0001). However, the combined
immediacy variables had a moderate correlation as well (r=.51, p<.0001).
The college level obtained the highest correlation with state motivation for
total immediacy (r=.63, p<.0001). Nonverbal immediacy and interpersonal
solidarity were identical in magnitude (r=.58, p<.0001). The total sample
showed the highest correlation between interpersonal solidarity and state
38
motivation (r=.56, p<.0001) with total immediacy being very close (r=.55,
p<.0001).
The third research question considered the difference made by verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily
on student state motivation at junior high, high school and college levels.
Multiple regression analyses were computed to consider how the four
communication variables of verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy,
interpersonal solidarity, and homophily worked together to affect student
state motivation.! In addition, each variable was computed to find its
contribution to the entire effect on state motivation. Multiple regression
analyses indicated that students at each educational level differed from
those at the other levels in what affects their motivation to learn in a
particular classroom. The degree to which verbal immediacy, nonverbal
immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily combined affected
student state motivation for all levels was (F[4/861]=145.2, p=.0001,^2= 40).
All three communication constructs had significant effects on student state
motivation. Interpersonal solidarity accounted for the greatest variance
(beta=.312). Nonverbal immediacy and homophily had similar effects
(nonverbal, beta=.180, homophily, beta=.172). Verbal immediacy had the
least effect on state motivation (beta=.108). The overall model of verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily
combined affected student state motivation for each level was: junior high
(F[4/227]=29.8, e=.0001,^2=.348); high school (£[4/340=71.6, ^=.0001,
R2=.460) ; college (F[4/2921=55.4,£=.0001,R^.435).
39
In order to consider the differences across the three levels, multiple
regression tests were completed for each educational level. Table 9 reports
these findings. At the junior high level, interpersonal solidarity made the
greatest contribution to student state motivation (beta=.327). Nonverbal
immediacy made a smaller but significant contribution in state motivation
as well (beta=.187). Verbal immediacy and homophily made an
insignificant contribution.
For the high school level, interpersonal solidarity accounted for the
greatest significant contribution to student state motivation (beta=.428).
Homophily made for a significant contribution as well (.208). Nonverbal
immediacy and verbal immediacy were insignificant.
The college level revealed close significant contributions between
three variables. Verbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and nonverbal
immediacy accounted for significant contributions to student state
motivation (verbal immediacy, beta=.260; interpersonal solidarity,
beta=.236; nonverbal immediacy, beta=.200). The effect of homophily was
nonsignificant.
40
Table 5
Simple Statistics for Verbal Immediacy, Nonverbal Immediacy, Total Immediacy, Generalized Immediacy, Homophily, Interpersonal Solidarity, Trait Motivation and State Motivation by Education Level
Junior High
High School
College Total
Verbal Immediacy
Nonverbal Immediacy
Total Immediacy
Greneralized Immediacy
Homophily
Interpersonal Solidarity
Trai t Motivation
State Motivation
M S D M S D M ^ M SD
63.80 10.55 64.20 10.41 62.44 11.88 63.48 11.00
47.76 8.26 48.78 8.34 51.71 9.16 49.51 8.76
111.50 16.22 113.09 16.74 114.20 18.73 113.06 17.34
33.73 7.95 32.79 8.41 33.79 8.36 33.37 8.28
10.33 4.09 10.37 3.97 11.38 3.77 10.69 3.96
59.21 11.92 57.61 14.03 55.03 11.86 57.14 12.85
22.69 7.06 23.17 6.35 25.90 4.95 23.98 6.27
22.78 8.13 21.44 8.01 23.96 7.24 22.68 7.85
Note: Range of scores (possible) for the measures are as foUows: Verbal immediacy 20-100; Nonverbal immediacy 14-70; Total hnmediacy 34-170; Generalized Immediacy 9-45; Homophily 4-20; Interpersonal Solidarity 20-100; Trait Motivation 5-35; State Motivation 5-35.
41
Table 6
Communication Scales Correlations with State Motivation
Junior High College Composite High School
Total Immediacy .51 .51 .63 .55
Verbal Immediacy .38 .44 .53 .46
Nonverbal Immediacy .46 .47 .58 .49
Interpersonal Solidarity .49 .65 .58 .56
Homophily .42 .56 .49 .50
All correlation values were significant at p<.0001.
42
Table 7
Individual Verbal Immediacy Item Correlations with State Motivation
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10
Item 11
Item 12
Item 13
Item 14
Item 15
Item 16
Item 17
Item 18
Item 19
Item 20
Junior High
.28
.28
.24
.31
.26
.17
.35
.27
.07
.23
.18
.14
.15
.26
NS
.19
.32
NS
.26
NS
High School
.27
.31
.23
.41
.21
.16
.39
.42
-.13
.27
.27
NS
.29
.25
NS
.21
.33
NS
.24
NS
College
.39
.44
.35
.51
.34
.31
.38
.34
NS
.35
.36
.16
.26
.38
.30
.32
.42
NS
.24
.20
Total
.34
.37
.30
.43
.29
.24
.37
.36
NS
.31
.29
.12
.26
.32
NS
.24
.36
NS
.24
NS
significant at p<.05.
43
Verbal Immediacy Items
1. Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had outside of class.
2. Asks questions or encourages students to talk.
3. (jets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn't seem to be part of his/her lecture plan.
4. Uses humor in class.
5. Addresses students by name.
6. Addresses me by name. 7. (jrets into conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 8. Has initiated conversations with me before, after or outside of class.
9. Refers to class as "my" class or what "I" am doing. 10. Refers to class as "our" class or what "we" are doing. 11. Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on
papers, oral discussions, etc. 12. Calls on students to answer questions even if they have not indicated
that they want to talk. 13. Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or discussion
topic. 14. Invites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if
they have questions or want to discuss something.
15. Asks questions that have specific, correct answers.
16. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions.
17. Praises students' work, action or comments.
18. Criticizes or points out faults in students' work, actions or
comments.
19. Will have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual
students or with the class as a whole. 20. Is addressed by his/her first name by the students.
Figure 1
44
Table 8
Individual Nonverbal Immediacy Item Correlations with State Motivation
Item 21
Item 22
Item 23
Item 24
Item 25
Item 26
Item 27
Item 28
Item 29
Item 30
Item 31
Item 32
Item 33
Item 34
Junior High
NS
.24
-.28
NS
.25
NS
.22
.22
NS
NS
NS
.26
.26
.22
High School
-.17
NS
-.30
.24
.37
-.18
.30
.30
-.07
-.13
-.13
.32
.13
.32
College
-.14
.36
-.44
.41
.53
-.37
NS
.32
NS
NS
NS
.42
.33
.47
Total
-.15
.28
-.35
.34
.43
-.25
.24
.27
NS
NS
NS
.36
.27
.36
NS stands for values that were not significant at p<.05. All other values were significant at p<.01 or greater.
45
Individual Nonverbal Immediacy Items
21.Sits behind desk while teaching.
22.(jestures while talking to class.
23.Uses monotone/dull voice when talking to class.
24.Looks at class while talking.
25.Smiles at the class as a whole, not just individual students.
26.Has a very tense body position while talking to the class.
27.Touches students in the class. (Uke encouraging pats on the arm)
28.Moves around the classroom while teaching.
29.Sits on a desk or in a chair while teaching.
30.Looks at the board or notes while talking to the class.
31.Stands behind podium or desk while teaching.
32.Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class.
33.Smiles at individual students in the class.
34.Uses a variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class.
Figure 2
46
Table 9
Multiple Regression Results for Verbal Immediacy, Nonverbal Immediacy, Interpersonal Solidarity, and Homophily on State Motivation at Three Education Levels
Verbed Immediacy
Nonverbal Immediacy
Interpersonal Solidarity
Homophily
Full Model
Junior High
t=1.82 p<.07 beta=.133
t=2.96 p<.003 bet£^.187
t=3.815 p<.0002 betaF=.327
t=.933 E<.352 beta=.070
F=29.8 p=.0001 E 2 = . 3 4 8
High School
i=.80l p<.423 bet^.046
t=1.84 p<.067 beta=.094
t ^ . 6 1 p<.0001 beta=.428
tF=3.726 p<.0002 bet^.208
F=71.6 p=.0001
a2=.460
College
lp3.982 p<.0001 beta=.260
t=3.541 p<.0001 beta=.200
^3.469 p<.0006 bet£^.236
t=1.494 p<.1362 beta=.089
F=55.4 p=.0001 R 2 = . 4 3 5
Total
t=2.91 p<.0037 betaF=.108
t=5.58 p<.0001 beta-. 180
^7.775 p<.0001 beta=.312
^4.86 p<.0001 bet^.172
F=145.2 p=.0001 R 2 = . 4 0 4
47
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of teacher
communicative behaviors on students' state motivation. Specifically, verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity, and homophily
were the constructs examined. The relationship between verbal immediacy
and nonverbal immediacy behaviors to state motivation which has been
shown in previous research (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993; Richmond,
1990) was indeed supported. Two new variables, interpersonal solidarity
and homophily, were also tested for relationship to state motivation and the
positive relationship hypothesis was supported as well. This finding is not
surprising when previous studies showed a significant moderate
relationship between verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy,
interpersonal solidarity, and homophily (Andersen, 1979; McDowell et al.,
1980; Stewart & Wheeless, 1987; McDowell & McDowell, 1990).
Overall, nonverbal immediacy behaviors had a higher relationship
with state motivation than verbal immediacy behaviors which supports
previous research (Christophel, 1990). Individual immediacy items were of
particular interest in this study for comparison of educational levels. The
items which were of particular interest were teachers getting into
conversations with the students, teachers' initiation of conversation,
teachers' use of humor, teachers' praise of student work, teachers' smiling
at the class as a whole, and teachers' use of vocal variety. Interestingly,
some of the same verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors had strong
relationships with state motivation at all three education levels.
For junior high students, teachers getting into conversations with them
48
had the highest correlation with state motivation. For high school
students, the teacher's initiation of conversation correlated highest, which
supports the 1990 McDowell and McDowell study. This finding suggests
that junior high students simply want contact with teachers while high
school students place more importance on teachers initiating the contact.
There are two possible reasons for this finding. On one hand, the junior
high students may not care who begins the conversations as long as the
teacher is willing to keep up the contact. The high school students may
place more emphasis on the teacher actually beginning the contact;
therefore, in this case, more care is shown to the student. However, the
other explanation may be the truer picture. Initiation is a difficult word for
junior high students to understand unless it is specifically explained. If
the junior high students did not understand the word, they may not have
rated it as accurately as the statement, "Gets into conversations with me
before, after or outside of class." Assuming that the junior high students
did understand the terminology, the implication between the two levels is
quite interesting. High school students place more importance on the
reward of teachers showing the care and concern to initiate the
conversation. Junior high students simply find value in conversation itself.
Teacher's use of humor had strong correlations with state motivation
at all three levels. This finding supports previous research which shows a
strong relationship between teachers' use of humor and perceived student
learning (Gorham, 1988). Praise of student work also had strong
correlations at all three levels which supports previous findings that praise
of student work is motivating to students (Brophy, 1986; Keller & Kopp, 1987;
Wlodkowski, 1981).
49
For college students, teachers' smiling at the class as a whole had
the highest correlation with state motivation. The teachers' use of vocal
variety also had a strong positive relationship with motivation and
teachers' use of monotone had a strong negative relationship with
motivation. In addition, a relaxed body position, looking at the class while
teaching and encouraging the students to talk demonstrated strong positive
correlations v dth state motivation at the college level.
The nonverbal immediacy items as a whole had a stronger positive
correlation with student state motivation at each education level than verbal
immediacy items which supports previous research (Christophel, 1990).
However, the highest correlations for individual immediacy behaviors were
primarily verbal items at the junior high and high school levels. While the
individual items which had the strongest relationship with state motivation
were evenly distributed between verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors
for college students.
The immediacy behaviors which had the strongest correlation with
state motivation at the junior high and high school levels are the behaviors
which foster the teacher-student relationship. For college students,
however, the immediacy behaviors with the strongest correlations were
more related to instructor's performance in the classroom and how they get
material across to the students. The reason for this finding is probably due
to the age difference £md maturity level of the students. For instance, the
junior high and high school students tend to place more emphasis on the
relationship with the teacher outside of the classroom as well as inside the
classroom. These students are looking for social gains, and the teacher can
provide the fulfillment for some of their needs.
50
The second research question considered whether direct
relationships differed between student state motivation with verbal
immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, total immediacy, interpersonal
solidarity, and homophily at each education level. The composite
immediacy measure had the strongest relationship at junior high and
college levels with interpersonal solidarity also having a strong positive
relationship. However, interpersonal solidarity had the strongest
relationship at the high school level with homophily as the second.
In addition, the combined set of verbal immediacy, nonverbal
immediacy, interpersonal solidarity and homophily had a significant effect
on student state motivation. At the junior high level, interpersonal
solidarity accounted for a significant amount of the contribution on the
effect of student state motivation. Additionally, the nonverbal immediacy
behaviors had a significant contribution on state motivation as well. In
previous research, homophily had a strong relationship with learning at
the junior high level (McDowell et al., 1980); however, in the present study,
homophily had no significant effect on motivation for junior high students.
For high school students, interpersonal solidarity had a strong
contribution for the effect on motivation while the contributions of both
verbal and nonverbal immediacy was insignificant. Though homophily's
contribution was insignificant for jimior high students, it was highly
significant for high school students. Therefore, high school students tend
to like teachers who are similar to them in terms of attitudes and thinking.
Again, the students' maturity level probably accounts for the differences of
homophily effects.
At the college level, none of the constructs overshadowed the rest in
the contribution to state motivation as interpersonal solidarity did at the
51
junior high and high school levels. In other words, verbal immediacy,
interpersonal solidarity, and nonverbal immediacy made equally
significant contributions to the total variance for college student state
motivation. Verbal immediacy had a slightly stronger effect than
interpersonal solidarity while interpersonal solidarity had a slightly
stronger effect than nonverbal immediacy. In addition to the results of this
test, the immediacy behavior correlations with state motivation support the
notion that a college student's state motivation is affected more by what a
teacher does in class than by the perceived relationship a student has with
a teacher. However, if the effects of verbal and nonverbal immediacy
behaviors were combined, they would outweigh those of interpersonal
solidarity. Therefore, the perceived closeness of the teacher-student
relationship may not be as important for affecting state motivation at the
college level as how the students perceive the teacher's actions in classroom
instruction. This finding supports previous research as found when
Wlodkowski (1981) stated:
In fact, there appears to be no specific trait or set of traits sufficiently associated with high quality teaching to provide a clear description of the type of teacher whose personality would insure effectiveness...what teachers do to and with students may be much more important than what they seemingly are as persons, (p. 15)
Noting all of the information found from the information at the three
education levels, social exchange theory may explain the present findings
in how teachers influence student motivation. Thibaut and Kelley (1959)
explain that individuals will seek to develop relationships which will
maximize rewards and reduce costs. For a student, teachers may offer
many potential rewards; therefore the student is willing to work harder to
maximize rewards for the teacher. The teacher's rewards are positive
52
student learning outcomes. The teacher student relationship will likely
increase over time if both parties are profiting from the experience.
Three specific explanations which may account for the varied results
in conjunction with state motivation. First, the maturity level of the student
seems to be a contributing factor for teacher behavior effectiveness as it
relates to state motivation. For instance, homophily played an insignificant
role in junior high and college but a significant role in high school. This
suggests that high school students put a lot of weight in the teacher having
similar beliefs and ideas. It does not seem important for the college
students to perceive their instructors as similar. In fact, as Fulcher and
Anderson (1974) found, college students were more influenced by
instructors who they perceived to be at a higher level than they were. For
example, these college students expected their instructors to be much more
knowledgeable and able to present that knowledge more effectively than the
college students could. The instructors who were rated as similar were
rated as less effective than the instructors who were rated as moderately
dissimilar to the students. In other words, the rewards of having
instructors who are superior to them appears to be great for junior high
and college students.
The second factor which may account for the present findings is the
school environment. The environment plays a large role in the type of
relationship available from teachers to students. The junior high and high
school students spend much more time with their instructors than the
college students do because of the school schedule. Junior high and high
school students spend approximately five hours a week with their teachers
while college students spend approximately three hours with their
teachers. Junior high and high school class time is set up where
53
interaction is more readily available than for the college classroom. For
example, the junior high and high school teachers must follow a stricter
format for accomplishing specific goals. In addition, the junior high and
high school students do not have a choice in attending school and to a
degree they do not have a choice in the classes they take. At the college
level, students have a choice about which classes they want, where to attend
college, etc. Since college students have theoretically chosen to attend
college, this choice adds another component to the environment. Students
have strong feelings about what they like and dislike. For instance, a
student may not like morning or afternoon classes. College students have
the choice about when classes can be taken. Flexibility of the college
schedule allows the opportunity for that choice. The value of choice is very
high for students. The perceived lack of choice may cause students to put
up barriers for the teacher student relationship. The costs may seem much
too great for students to let down these barriers.
Students have preconceived notions about what a teacher should do.
These expectations of the teacher's role may account for the differences
found in the education levels. Teachers may be viewed from instructors to
confidante's to counselors to mentors. Depending on the age of the student
as well as the school level he or she may be currently in, the student has
different expectations of what role that teacher should fill. According to the
data of this study, high school students value teachers who share similar
interests and beliefs. Junior high students may perceive the teacher's role
as far removed from themselves. If so, they would not value teachers who
were similar to them. In addition, college students may expect professors
to be more mature and knowledgeable than they are (Anderson & Fulcher,
1974). They value instructors who appear to be more successful than they
54
are (Anderson, 1978). Thus, maturity level of the student, the school
environment, and the expectations of the teacher's role may be
explanations for the importance students place on teachers affecting their
motivation levels.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. First, the time of the
school year when data were collected may have been too soon for students to
make the kind of judgments about teachers that this study was attempting
to assess. If data were collected later in the school year, such as November
or December, the answers may have been more accurate than the material
collected after only six weeks of school.
Second, data were collected only one time which limits the
generalizability of the results. If data were collected three or four times
throughout the school year, results would have given a clearer picture of
what effect teacher behaviors truly have on state motivation.
Third, the instruments were designed for college students. Some of
the vocabulary, particularly in the immediacy scales, may have been too
difficult for the junior high students to comprehend. The researcher was
on hand to answer any questions, but the students may not have felt
comfortable asking questions, ff students did not understand some of the
words, they may not have completed the scales as accurately as they could
have if they understood every word.
Finally, the samples were as equal as the researcher could arrange,
but the junior high sample was much smaller than the other two samples.
In addition, the college sample was much more varied than the junior high
and high school samples.
55
Future Research
The results of this study show that the effects of teacher
communication on state motivation differs by educational levels. Therefore,
more research needs to be done which focuses on varied education levels.
To be more effective, the current instruments should be examined for use at
each educational level. Certain vocabulary may need to be altered to more
effectively assess the students' perceptions for each age group.
In the present study, interpersonal solidarity played a significant
role in affecting state motivation. This construct has not been fully explored
for the teacher-student relationship context. In effect, the field is wide open
for more exploration in this area. For example, the differences between
students' perceptions of the teacher-student relationship in P-type
(sociology, communication, and psychology) and T-type (engineering,
accoimting, computer science, and mathematics) classes may be
instructive for understanding student expectations more fully.
In recent studies, researchers have considered the demotivating
factors in college courses as well as the motivating factors in conjunction
with verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors ((jorham and Christophel,
1992; Christophel and Gorham, 1995). Considering the impact of
interpersonal solidarity that was found in the present study, it would be
interesting to explore the effects of interpersonal solidarity on demotivating
factors.
The present study produced conflicting results for effects of
homophily. Previous research showed a significant effect for homophily on
learning (McDowell et al., 1980); however, for junior high and college there
was no significant effect shown by the present data. Homophily has not
received much attention in the teacher-student relationship research.
56
Since the effects of homophily were significant at the high school level, this
suggests that the construct measured something which made an impact on
that age group. For the college level, an interesting study would be to
compare homophily effects for graduate teaching assistants and professors.
Most graduate teaching assistants are more similar to traditional college
students than professors because they are students as well. Therefore,
college students may have a different status for graduate teaching
assistants than for professors.
Finally, the present study brought forth two additional variables,
interpersonal solidarity and homophily, into the motivation research. More
research needs to be conducted for the effects of interpersonal solidarity and
homophily with state motivation on learning. The present study did not
assess student learning, so the opportimity to consider these variables may
be more instructive than immediacy alone. Present research shows a
strong link between immediacy and state motivation which seems to be the
link with positive student learning outcomes. The present study shows a
significant contribution made by interpersonal solidarity and homophily on
student state motivation in conjunction with verbal and nonverbal
immediacy. By researching learning outcomes, the teachers' effects may
be more clearly identified. At the present time, researchers have focused
on nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors as the link to student state
motivation; however, the present study suggests that immediacy alone does
not account for the variance in state motivation. Therefore, further
research with aU three variables of immediacy, interpersonal solidarity,
and homophily may provide a clearer concept of how teachers affect student
motivation.
57
Conclusion
Effective communication is a necessity in the classroom. Previous
research shows how students' perceptions of effective communication can
affect motivation to learn (Christophel and (jorham, 1995; Frymier, 1993;
Grorham and Christophel, 1992; Christophel, 1990; Richmond, 1990) as well
as learning (Andersen, 1979; Richmond et al., 1987; (jorham, 1988).
However, the bulk of this research only considers one education level. The
results from the present study support the notion that students at various
education levels have different needs from their instructors. It should not
be assumed that what may seemingly work at one level will indeed be
successful at all levels of education. By considering three different
education levels, the results are more generalizable. In teacher training
institutes, most instruction is focused on how well the new teachers should
know their material. In addition, new teachers are taught about how to
deal with discipline problems. Little attention is given to the teacher
student relationship gmd how that affects student outcomes. Since the
present study ventured into more education levels than college, the results
may be more instructive for new teachers. Some junior high and high
school teachers feel that research findings only work at the college level.
However, the present findings exhibit true student perceptions at three
different education levels. The present study showed that students
appreciate the care and concern teachers exhibit in the classroom.
In addition, previous communication research has focused on only
one communication variable, immediacy. The present study showed that
verbal and nonverbal immediacy alone do not affect motivation as much as
when combined with interpersonal solidarity and homophily. Perceptions
of high interpersonal solidarity had a significant contribution for how a
58
teacher can affect a student's motivation for his/her class. Thus, the
quality of students' perceived relationships with teachers may be more
important for learning outcomes thgm the immediacy communication
behaviors used in the classroom alone.
59
Notes
^Communication variables of nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy, interpersonal solidarity, and homophily are moderately correlated. The multiple regression analysis results produced multi-colinearity; therefore, the exact contributions of each variable may be misleading.
60
REFERENCES
Alpert, M. L, and Anderson, W. T. (1973). Optimal heterophily and communication effectiveness: Some empirical findings. The Journal of Communication. ^ , 328-343.
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook. 3,543-559.
Andersen, J. F. & Norton, R. W. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between immediacy, teacher communicative behaviors, and student learning. Communication Education. 30, 377-391.
Anderson, W. T., Alpert, M. L, (jolden, L. L. (1978). A comparative analysis of student-teacher interpersonal similarity/dissimilarity and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research. 71. 36-44.
Beatty, M. J., Forst, E. C , & Stewart, R. A. (1986). Communication apprehension and motivation as predictors of public speaking duration. Communication Education. 35,143-146.
Bersheid, E. (1966). Opinion change and communicator-communicatee similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psychology. 4 (6), 670-680.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
Brophy, J. (1986). Socializing student motivation to learn. (Report No. SP 027 540). (ERIC Document No. ED 269 384).
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership. 45, 40-48.
Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. ^ , 713-715.
Byrne, D., and Wong, T. J. (1962). Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. ^ , 246-253.
61
Canfield, J. and Hansen, M.V. (1993). Chicken .nnp fnr thp cnni Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Christophel, D. M., and Gorham, J. (1995). A Test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college courses. Communication Education, 44 (4), 292-306.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education. ^ , 323-339. ~
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., and Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity Communication Ednratinn, 44, 251-266.
Duckett, W. (1986). Linking Research and Classroom Practice. Phi Delta Kappan.
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., and Kreps, G. L. (1991). Investigating communication: An introduction to research method.^ Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Frymier, A. B. (1993a). Immediacy and learning: A motivational explanation. (Report No. CS 508 305). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 793).
Frymier, A. B. (1993b). The impact of teacher immediacy on students' motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarteriv. 41 (4), 454-464.
Fulcher, D. G., and Anderson, W. T. (1974). Interpersonal dissimilarity and teaching effectiveness: A relational analysis. The Journal of Education Research. ^ (1), 19-25.
(jrorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behavior and student learning. Communication Education. 37, 40-53.
(jrorham, J., and Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarteriv. 40 (3), 239-252.
Grossnickle, D. R., and Thiol, W. B. (1988). Promoting effective student motivation in school and classroom: A practitioner's perspective. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
62
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarteriv. ^ ( 1 ) , 61-74.
Keller, J. M. & Kopp, T. W. (1987). An application of the ARCS model of motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models (pp. 289-320). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (1983). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. K. Shaw (Ed.), Aspects of educational technology (Vol. XVLD. London: Kogan Page.
Kelley, D. H., and Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37,198-207.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row, 2nd Ed.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, N J: Van Nostrand.
McCroskey, J. C , Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Payer, J. M. and Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education. 44 (4), 281-291.
McCroskey, J., Richmond, V., and Daly, J. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research. 321-332.
McDowell, E. E., McDowell, C. E. (1990). An investigation of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy behaviors, homophily. interpersonal solidarity, student attentiveness and student learning at the senior high school level. (Report No. CS 507 233). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322548).
McDowell, E. E., McDowell, C. E., and Hyerdahl., J. (1980). A multivariate study of teacher immediacv. teaching effectiveness, and student attentiveness at the junior high and senior high levels (Report No. CS-503-199). St. Paul, MN: Laboratory for Research in Scientific Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 093).
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.
63
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education. 41, 167-180.
Nussbaum, J., and Scott, M. D. (1979). Instructor communicative behaviors and their relationship to classroom learning. Communication Yearbook, 3. 561-583.
Richmond, y . P. & (3orham, J. S. & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook. 10, 574-590. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education. ^ , 181-195.
Rogers, E. M. and Bhowmick, D. K. (1970). Homophily-heterophily: Relational concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarteriv. 34, 523-538.
Simons, H. W., Berkowitz, N. N., and Moyer, R. J. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychology Bulletin, 73(1), 1-16.
Stewart, R. A. and Wheeless, L. R. (1987). Relationship between teacher immediacy and student/teacher solidarity: Its generalizability across divergent instructional contexts. Communication Research Reports. 4,47-52.
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.
Wheeless, L. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research. 143-156.
Wheeless, L. R. and Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research. 3, 250-257.
Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Selfdisclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research. 3, 47-61.
64
Wiener, M., and Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1978). Motivation and teaching: A practical guide. Washington, D. C : National Ekiucation Association.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1981). Making sense out of motivation: A systematic model to consolidate motivational constructs across theories. Educational Psychologist. 16,101-110.
65
APPENDK
66
APPENDDC Questionnaire
My name is Linda Kay and I am a graduate student at Texas Tech University. I am doing my master's thesis on how teachers commimicate in order to motivate students. Specifically, I want to compare stxidents' perceptions about college teachers with that of high school and junior high teachers. In order to accomplish this task, I need students at each level to complete the questionnaire about their teacher.
The questionnaire consists of a series of scales that you will be asked to give a number equivalent of your thoughts and feelings toward a particular teacher. The teacher for which you wiU be completing the questionnaire, is the one whose class you have just completed.
The participation in this study is voluntary, and your responses are anonymous. Every answer you give will be kept completely confidential. You may choose not to respond to any questions that you feel imcomfortable answering. Anyone who feels as though this questionnaire infiringes on his/her personal life may choose not to complete the questionnaire at aU. Completion of the entire questionnaire would be helpful to fully compare the three levels. Thank you for your participation.
Please do not put your name on the questiomiaire at any place. The first questions are for demographic research purposes only. Please answer the first six questions about yourself.
1. Grade level 2. Age 3. African-American Caucasian Hispanic Native American Oriental Other 4. Male Female 5. School 6. Favorite Class
Please do not put the teacher's name on the questionnauie at aity place. Please complete the remainder of the questionnah^ about the teacher of the class you have immediately preceding this class.
1. Subject t a u ^ t 2. Male Female 3. African-American Caucasian Hispanic Native American Oriental Other
67
Please place a nimiber in the blank provided by using the following scale about the teacher of the class immediately before this one: 5=Stron^y agree; 4=Agree 3=Neutral 2=Disagree l^Strongly Disagree 1- l.Uses personal examples or talks about experiences she/he has had outside of
c lass . 2. 2.Asks questions or encourages students to talk. 3. 3.Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this
doesn't seem to be part of his/her lectxire plan. 4. 4.Uses humor in class. 5. 5.Addresses students by name. 6. 6.Addresses me by name. 7. 7.Gets into conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 8. 8.Has initiated conversations with me before, after or outside of class. 9. 9.Refers to class as "my" class or what "I" am doing. 10. lO.Refers to class as "our" class or what "we" are doing. 11. 11.Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, oral
discussions, etc. 12. 12.Calls on students to Einswer questions even if they have not indicated that they
want to talk. 13. 13.Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date or discussion topic. 14. 14.1nvites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have
questions or want to discuss something. 15. 15.Asks questions that have specific, correct answers. 16. 16.Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions. 17. 17.Praises students' work, action or comments. 18. 18.Criticizes or points out faults in students' work, actions or comments. 19. 19.WL11 have discussions about things unrelated to class with individual students
or with the class as a v^ole. 20. 20.Is addressed by his/her first name by the students. 21. 21.Sits behind desk while teaching. 22. 22.Gestures while talking to class. 23. 23.Uses monotone/dull voice when talking to class. 24. 24.Looks at class while talking. 25. 25.Smiles at the class as a \^ole , not just individual students. 26. 26.Has a very tense body position wbjle talking to the class. 27. 27.Touches students in the class, (like encouraging pats on the arm or back) 28. 28.Moves around the classroom while teaching. 29. 29.Sits on a desk or in a chair while teaching. 30. SO.Looks at the board or notes while talking to the class. 31. 31.Stands behind podium or desk while teaching. 32. 32.Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class. 33. 33.Smiles at individual students in the class. 34 34.Uses a variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class.
68
Generalized Immediacy Scale Immediate behaviors are those communication behaviors that make you feel comfortable with the other person. In other words, we might say that the immediate person is perceived as fiiendly and warm. Please place an "X" on the line that best describes your feeling toward your teacher. For example, if you strongly agree that your teacher is friendly and warm, you would place an "X" on the first space, but if you strongly disagree that your teacher is friendly and warm, you would place an X on the last space. If you sometimes feel that the teacher is friendly and warm, you would place an X on the second space, but if you sometimes feel that the teacher is friendly and warm, you would place an X on the fourth space. If, however, you feel undecided, place an X on the middle space. Please mark only one space for each set of terms.
IN YOUR OPINION, THE TEACHING STYLE OF YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS VERY IMMEDIATE
Agree : : : : Disagree False : : : : True Incorrect : : : : Correct Wrong : : : : Right Yes : : : : No
IN YOUR OPINION, INDICATE THE WORD THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR INSTRUCTOR'S TEACHING STYLE
Immediate : : : : Not Immediate Cold : : : : Warm
Unfriendly : : : : Friendly Close : Distant
Homophily
Follow the guidelines as given above about placement of the "X" for each item. Please mark only one space for each set of terms.
I BELIEVE MY TEACHER
Doesn't think like me : : : : Thinks like me Behaves like me : : : : Doesn't behave like me Is similar to me : : : : Different from me Ishkeme : : : : Isnothkeme
69
Interpersonal Solidarity Measure Please place a number in the blank provided by using the following scale about the same teacher -who you completed the other parts of the questionnaire: 5=Strongly agree; 4=Agree 3=Neutral 2=Disagree l=Strongly Disagree
1. l.We are very close to each other. 2. 2.This teacher has a great deal of influence over my behavior. 3. 3.1 trust this teacher completely. 4. 4.We feel very differently about most things. 5. 5.1 wiQingly disclose a great deal of positive and negative things about myself,
honestly aind fully (in depth) to this teacher. 6. 6.We do not really understand each other. 7. 7.This teacher willingly discloses a great deal of positive and negative things
about himself honestly and fully (in depth) to me. 8. 8.1 distrust this teacher. 9. 9.1 like this teacher much more than most people I know. 10. 10.1 seldom interact-communicate with this teacher. 11. l l . I like this teacher. 12. 12.1 understand this teacher and vdio he/she really is. 13. 13.1 dislike this teacher. 14. 14,1 interact-communicate with this teacher much more than with other teachers. 15. 15.We are not very close at all. 16. 16.We share a lot in common. 17. 17. We do a lot of helpful things for each other. 18. 18.1 have little in common with this teacher. 19. 19.1 feel very close to this teacher, 20. 20.We share some private ways of commimicating with each other.
70
Trait Motivation Scale (concerned with feelings about school in general) Directions: These items are concerned with how you feel in general about school. Circle the number that is closest to the word that best describes your feelings about school in general .
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
Motivated
Excited
Uninterested
Involved
Dreading It
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unmotivated
Bored
Interested
Uninvolved
Looking Forward to it
State Motivation Scale (concerned with feeling about the class previous to this one) Directions: These items are concerned with how you feel about the class you just came fix)m. Circle the number that is closest to the word that best describes your feelings about the. class vou lust came ftx)nL
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
Motivated
Excited
Uninterested
Involved
Dreading It
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unmotivated
Bored
Interested
Uninvolved
Looking Forward to it
71
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library
and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may
be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It
is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for
financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written
permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
^
.Aa,fVr^vJ. 12-1-9^ Student's Signature ^ / Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
Student's Signature Date
