Instructor Verbal and Nonverbal Immediacy and the Relationship with Student Self–efficacy and Task Value Motivation

Abstract

This descriptive correlation study sought to examine the relationships between verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, self-efficacy and task value. Respondents assessed the verbal and nonverbal immediacy of their course instructor, and then assessed their personal self-efficacy and task value motivation. Results showed a significant positive relationship between verbal immediacy and self-efficacy (r = .334), nonverbal immediacy and self-efficacy (r = .209), verbal immediacy and task value (r = .234), and nonverbal immediacy and task value (r = .152). Based on the list of effect size descriptors for the magnitude of a correlation, developed by Hopkins (1997), the effect sizes between self-efficacy and verbal immediacy were considered moderate. The effect sizes between nonverbal immediacy and selfefficacy, and between verbal immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, and task value were considered small. Results indicated 11% of the variance in self-efficacy was explained by the verbal immediacy of teachers, and four percent of the variance in self-efficacy was explained by nonverbal immediacy. Specific to task value, six percent of the variance was explained by verbal immediacy and two percent by nonverbal immediacy. Results are discussed in light of the theoretical underpinnings and recommendations made for continued research.

Undergraduate Student Course Engagement and the Influence of Student, Contextual, and Teacher Variables

“…The five-point scale and descriptors are described in Table 2. Previous research utilizing the present form of the NIB reported summated reliability coefficient estimates ranging from .82 to .94 (Christophel, 1990;McCroskey et al, 1996;Titsworth, 2004;Velez & Cano 2007;Velez, 2008).…”

“…The present study employed a one-measurement cross-sectional survey design (Creswell, 2009;Spector, 1981) where undergraduate student subjects completed a paper questionnaire to acquire their perceptions of the primary variables of course engagement and teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. To appropriately account for student perceptions, a five-point unipolar scaled question structure was utilized consistent with previous studies examining the constructs of student course engagement (Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005;Svanum & Bigatti, 2009) and teacher immediacy behaviors (Christophel, 1990;Gorham, 1988;Velez, 2008). The University of Missouri Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved the present study and data collection procedures prior to instrument administration.…”

“…Thereby, if 50 students were in the classroom, they could theoretically, offer reflection for this instrument on 50 different courses and teachers. This method of data collection was employed in previous research studies evaluating teacher immediacy behaviors (Christophel, 1990;Christophel & Gorham, 1995;Frymier, 1994;Gorham, 1988;Kelley & Gorham, 1988;McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996;Velez & Cano, 2008;Velez & Cano, 2012) and is believed to limit several threats to internal and external validity. The method was designed to maximize variability of coursework and instructor contact in addition to alleviating discomfort of the instructor of the course where the instrument was administered.…”

“…The Verbal Immediacy Behaviors (VIB) instrument consisted of 20 Likert-type scaled questions assessing student's perceptions of the frequency with which they observe the teacher demonstrating a specific behavior. Previous research utilizing the present form of the VIB reported split-half and summated reliability coefficient estimates ranging from .83 to .94 (Christophel, 1990;Velez, 2008). Utilizing an identical five-point scale to the VIB, the Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors (NIB) instrument consisted of 14 Likert-type scaled questions assessing student's perceptions of the frequency with which they observe the teacher demonstrating the specific behavior.…”

“…A panel of experts consisting of two associate professors and two assistant professors in education reviewed the instrument for face validity, only. Content validity was established for the SCEQ, NIB, and VIB in previous literature (Christophel, 1990;Handelsman et al, 2005;McCroskey et al, 1996;Velez, 2008;Velez & Cano, 2008). Post-hoc reliabilities were not sought as the structure of instrument items included were not deviated from the aforementioned original instruments and previous populations studied were undergraduate students.…”