1. Verbal Immediacy: Effective Online Interactions Credence Baker & Kim Rynearson Tarleton State University Copyright Credence Baker & Kim Rynearson [2006]. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author

2. Background Online learning environments provide a unique opportunity to deliver education to students who are time- and place-bound. Because students do not meet in a physical location, they have specific concerns when it comes to interacting in the online enviroment. Current learning management systems provide the following tools to support content delivery and interaction –Threaded discussion –Email –Chat –Interactive whiteboards

3. Background Westbrook (2006) reported what students like and dislike about online learning –They like Exchanging ideas Convenient access to courses and course materials –They dislike Experiencing technological failures Not being able to meet classmates or the instructor

4. Background Students new to online learning often express concerns about the lack of physical presence of their classmates and instructor Research supports the importance of interaction in face- to-face and online learning environments (Tello, 2002; Swan, 2002) Based on students’ concerns and the importance of interaction, what are online students’ needs?

5. Online Students’ Needs Online students have specific needs –Timely, high-quality interaction between student and instructor –Interaction/collaboration among students –Consistent course design across courses –Technical support availability –Structural clarity in the design of the course (i.e., use of the same course management system across courses) –Innovative course content delivery (i.e., case studies, audio clips, readings followed/integrated with group discussions on the topic or structured games) (Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006 ; Young & Norgard, 2006)

6. Promoting Student Achievement Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” apply to the online environment and promote student achievement in online classes Good practice includes –Contact between students and faculty –Reciprocity and cooperation among students –Active learning techniques –Prompt feedback –Emphasis on time on task –High expectations –Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning

7. Interaction Preferences Northrup (2002) defined interaction in terms of interaction with course content, conversation and collaboration, interpersonal/meta-cognitive skills, and need for support –Students preferred: Content delivered innovatively Collaboration through ongoing interaction with peers and instructors Discussion and feedback from their instructors To monitor their progress and have structured assignment due dates Timely support

8. Importance of Interaction Swan (2002) reported interaction with instructors and active and valuable discussion are important in online learning environments Does interaction relate to student achievement? –The frequency with which an instructor used threaded discussion and email related positively to students’ attitudes and persistence to complete a course (Tello, 2002) –Interaction with the content, instructor, and other students also relate to students’ perceived learning

9. Psychological Closeness What is important about interaction? –Psychological closeness A construct from the communications field provides a framework for fostering psychological closeness through interactions –Communication immediacy (Mehrabian, 1971) Physical and verbal behaviors that reduce psychological and physical distance between individuals Called verbal and non-verbal immediacy

10. Verbal Immediacy Verbal immediacy cues consist of –Initiating discussions –Asking questions –Using humor –Using self-disclosure –Addressing students by name –Using inclusive pronouns –Responding quickly and frequently –Praising others –Conveying attentiveness and engagement (Baker, 2003; Freitas, Myers, & Avtgis, 1998; Gorham, 1988; O’Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004; Hutchins, 2003)

11. Verbal Immediacy and Instruction Verbal immediacy in the face-to-face classroom –Based on a meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between instructor immediacy and student learning: Verbal immediacy related positively to students’ perceived learning and affective learning (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004) Verbal immediacy in the online classroom –Students of verbally immediate online instructors reported greater positive affect and higher perceived cognition than students who rated their instructors as less verbally immediate

12. Research on Verbal Immediacy Most previous research on verbal immediacy has focused on –Student self-reports of perceived learning –Student attitudes toward learning The present study extended this research by examining how verbal immediacy affects student learning outcomes and students’ level of interaction in an online course

13. Current Study Unlike other studies on immediate communication in the online classroom (see Baker, 2003, and Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004), this study examined achievement and interaction outcomes Purpose –Examine the effect of verbally immediate communication behaviors on the number of interactions and achievement in undergraduate Psychology courses delivered online

14. Research Questions Does an instructor’s use of verbally immediate cues in an online classroom affect student interactivity? Does an instructor’s use of verbally immediate cues in an online classroom affect student achievement?

15. Method Participants –Twenty-eight university students randomly assigned to one of two sections of an upper-division Psychology course Twelve participants (3 men and 9 women) participated in a course section designated as Verbally Immediate (VI) Sixteen participants (2 men and 14 women) participated in a course section designated as Regular

16. Method Design –Independent-groups design compared course achievement and interactivity between the VI and Regular course sections –Instructor, course content, assignments, grading procedures, feedback schedules, and frequency of instructor interactions were controlled –Immediacy cues were manipulated in the instructor’s written communication with students in the VI course section References to physical reactions Praise Color Additional graphics Introductory biography with professional background and details about personal interests and her family

18. Results Achievement –Four measures Scores on three exams Overall final numeric grade for the course –Independent-samples t-test compared differences in achievement and interactivity between the two course sections

19. Results Group Measure of Achievement Verbally Immediate (n=12) Regular (n=16) Exam 1 7.31 (2.47)7.24 (2.47) Exam 2 7.17 (1.93)6.75 (2.18) Exam 3 6.77 (2.80)7.39 (2.38) Overall Course Grade 80.02 (18.44)81.7 (17.49) Table 1 - Mean (SD) Achievement Scores by Group

20. Results Interactivity –Three measures of interactivity Total number of hits Total number of course documents and discussion posts viewed Total number of discussion posts generated Independent-samples t-tests compared groups –No significant differences for the number of hits on the course materials –No significant differences for the number of discussion posts generated –A statistically significant difference between the two groups’ number of views of documents and discussion posts, t(26) = 2.079, p <.05 Students in the Regular section viewed significantly more course documents and posts than students in the VI section

21. Results Group Measure of Interaction Verbally Immediate (n=12) Regular (n=16) Hits992.58 (398.50)1146.88 (563.18) Items Read*517.92 (236.95)754.13 (335.06) Discussion Posts55.00 (18.67)53.00 (11.71) Table 2 - Mean (SD) Interaction Scores by Group

22. Conclusions Verbal immediacy cues did not influence –Student achievement –Hits on course materials –Number of discussion posts Students in the Regular course section viewed more course documents and posts than students in the VI section –Possible explanations?

23. Limitations The present study examined the effect of the quality of interactions only The effect of quantity of interactions was not measured, but it was controlled Course exam scores may not be the best measure of student learning (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004) Future research –Examine how the quantity and quality of instructor-to-student interactions influence student achievement and interaction –Use direct measures of student recall and retention of information as a measure of learning

24. Implications for Practice Fostering Interaction with Content –Use course activities to support convergent thinking, instructor directed inquiry, and scientific thinking such as written assignments, one-on-one tutorials, small group collaboration and self-testing –Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation that reward desired cognitive behaviors Fostering Interaction with Instructors –Provide frequent opportunities for both public and private interactions between students and instructors –Establish clear expectations for instructor-student interactions Fostering Interaction with Classmates –Use tracking mechanisms to reward reading as well as responding to posts –Design community-building activities (Swan, 2004)

25. Strategies to Increase Student Achievement Assume nothing and anticipate student questions when designing the course Be responsive Use directives, first-person voice, and conversational tone Create complete, well-explained on-line and off-line activities Encourage a sense of class community and provide community building opportunities and interaction Use redundant and consistent instructional cues and detailed explanations Provide ample opportunities for interaction with the instructor and with others in the course (Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea, Pelz, & Swan, 2000)

26. References Baker, J. D. (2002). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, March, 2-7. Durrington, V.A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54, 190-193. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with online courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 1- 35. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_fredericksen.asphttp://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_fredericksen.asp Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy and student learning. Communiation Educaiton, 37, 40- 53. Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), Swan, K. (2002). Builing learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mupinga, D.M., Nora, R.T. & Yaw, D.C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54, 185-189. Northrup, P.T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 32, 219-226. O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464-490. Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved September 21, 2006 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf Tello, S. F. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between instructional interaction and student persistence in online education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Westbrook, V. (2006). The virtual learning future. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 471-482. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184-207. Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107-115.

27. Contact Information Credence Baker Tarleton State University cbaker@tarleton.edu 254-968-1960 Kimberly Rynearson Tarleton State University rynearson@tarleton.edu 254-519-5439