Comm 491 oscar grant research paper submission
-
Upload
eric-backus -
Category
Education
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of Comm 491 oscar grant research paper submission
Instructor Immediacy 1
Running Head: Instructor Immediacy
The Impacts of Instructor Immediacy on Student-Veterans’Affective and Cognitive
Learning Outcomes
Eric J. Backus
George Mason University
May, 7th, 2015
Instructor Immediacy 2
ABSTRACT
A two-part questionnaire was administered to student-veterans in which depictions of
instructor immediacy in the classroom were rated within the context of two scenarios.
Scenario #1 required the participant to respond based on “a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades” and, Scenario
#2, “a specific professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy and received
one of your lowest grades.” In Part I, various Verbal and Nonverbal Immediacy
Behaviors (VIB & NVIB) were rated on a five-point Likert-Scale based on frequency of
observation. In Part II, both affective and cognitive learning outcomes were measured
relative to the two scenarios. Student-veterans who reported high levels of VIB in
Scenario I also reported high levels of affective learning outcomes (e.g. student
satisfaction and sense of accomplishment) in Scenario I. A similarly positive correlation
was found within student-veterans who reported low-levels of VIB in Scenario II and
correspondingly low-levels of affective learning outcomes in Scenario II. NVIB
consistently had a milder effect on both affective and cognitive learning outcomes
regardless of the scenario. Neither VIB nor NVIB demonstrated significant correlations
with cognitive learning outcomes (e.g. learning loss, final grades and recall ability). A
paired/dependent samples T-test between each scenario set in Part I reveals that there are
meaningfully significant differences between all scenario pairs. This greatly reduces the
likelihood of a Type I error in accepting the null-hypothesis and further supports the
data’s significance.
Instructor Immediacy 3
Introduction
Some time ago, I made a transition from soldier to student - a transition which
presented a unique and challenging new “mission” for me. I recall my separation from
the USArmy shortly after the events of 9/11, but, as I was receiving my honorable
discharge papers, many other soldiers were receiving their deployment papers. Today,
as we see thousands of US military/service members returning home from their
deployments and discharging from service, universities like Mason are seeing a sharp
increase in veteran enrollment. In fact, the number of military/service members who
have utilized Veterans Affairs Education programs has more than doubled since the
enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill five years ago. In 2013, benefits issued from the VA
soared above one million military/service members with an estimated $12 billion in VA
payouts (Veteran Affairs, 2014). Certainly veterans have earned this assistance, but with
such a sharp increase in enrollment over the last five years, how can we better serve those
who have served our country?
As an aspiring professor, nothing could have made more sense to me than to
return to school. After all, service to the community and country was what I signed up
for to begin with - and what better way to continue to serve than to give back the
community through teaching? Unfortunately, as more and more veterans register for
college classes each semester, an increasing number of studies suggest that they do not
perceive that their institutions are providing sufficient support for them to succeed
academically (Kim, Cole, 2013). A few factors might contribute to this perception: there
may be a lack of institutional programs and services extended to meet student-veteran’s
needs; there may be fewer social groups and targeted organizations student-veterans feel
Instructor Immediacy 4
will help them thrive academically; and there may be communication barriers between
collegiate instructors and student-veterans.
Veterans come from highly regulated and controlled learning environments.
Now, in the new civilian environment, the collegiate professors present many veterans
with a new structure of immediacy - one in which more relaxed interpersonal constructs
and behaviors are acceptable. Often times, veterans struggle with the new autonomous
and lenient instructional practices. As a veteran, Communication major, and aspiring
professor, a positive instructor-student relationship has been integral to my learning
experience and future academic work. To this end, my research investigates instructor
immediacy (communication practices that bring instructors and students closer together)
which has long been reputed for having a strong and positive correlation with various
students’ learning outcomes. Specifically, my research will seek to determine how
verbal and nonverbal instructor immediacy behaviors impact student-veterans' affective
and cognitive learning outcomes. I am grateful that Mason has decided to conduct this
research to provide a more complete understanding of this rapidly expanding
demographic. A positive and ongoing impact will occur from this study, and will offer
valuable feedback to both groups to better understand instructor immediacy and
student-veterans’ learning outcomes.
Literature Review
Of the many factors believed to lead towards constructive communicative
relationships in education, one must include instructor immediacy, which has long been
reputed for promoting positive learning outcomes . With regard to this reputation, the
scope of my literature review concerns instructor immediacy and its impact on
Instructor Immediacy 5
student-veterans’ affective and cognitive learning outcomes. Research on the
relationship between instructor immediacy and learning outcomes have been relatively
mixed. Immediacy behaviors and cues may be largely inferential, interpretative, and
vary among different ethnic groups and cultures. For this reason, a clear and concise
definition of instructor immediacy is paramount along with specific examples of
immediacy behaviors. Commonly held within the instructional communication (IC)
field, immediacy refers to the common types of communicative behaviors through which
communicators convey closeness, feelings of approval, motivation, and an availability or
willingness to meaningfully communicate with each others (Mottet, & Beebe, 2002 and
Morreale, Backlund, Sparks, 2014). Immediacy in the instructional context may be
demonstrated through either verbal immediacy behaviors (VIB) and nonverbal
immediacy behaviors (NVIB). The use of humor, engaging students in discussions,
calling on students by name, and asking for students’ opinions constitute examples of
VIB’s - while eye contact, body posture, vocal tones, hand gestures, and smiles serve as
examples of NVIB’s (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004).
Learning outcomes are sectioned into three taxonomies: affective, cognitive, and
psychomotor (Harrow, 1972, Wilson, 2014). Affective learning refers to the emotions
and attitudes related to a learner’s sensitivity, reception, response, motivations, and the
empowerment felt through the communication process (Houser, Frymier, 2009 and
Wilson, 2014). Cognitive learning refers to a student’s ability to know, comprehend,
apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information (Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001,
Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). Finally, psychomotor learning refers to those behaviors
specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements. For
Instructor Immediacy 6
the purposes of this research, no evaluations will be made regarding psychomotor
learning outcomes.
An overview of the research concludes that the relationship between instructor
immediacy and affective and cognitive learning outcomes has also been somewhat varied.
A 2004 meta-analysis suggests a strong positive correlation between instructors’ verbal
and nonverbal immediacy behaviors and affective learning outcomes (Witt, Wheeless,
Allen, 2004). Recent research by Titsworth also suggests that there is a strong positive
correlation between instructor immediacy and affective learning (Titsworth, 2004). In a
subsequent study conducted in 2008, it was further observed that increases in an
instructor’s verbal immediacy behaviors, specifically, verbal instructor confirmations,
also has a positive correlation with affective learning outcomes. Another study
concerning instructor immediacy’s effect on cognitive learning showed no significant
correlation (King, Witt, 2009).
While there are results concerning immediacy’s effect on learning outcomes in
general, there is a noticeable lack of scholarly research regarding its effect on
student-veterans specifically. There have been notable studies published by non-profit
organizations such the American Council on Education (ACE) in 2012 and 2013 which
suggests that veterans do not perceive that their institutions provide the kinds of support
they need to succeed academically (Kim, Cole, 2013, McBain, Kim, Cook, Snead, 2012).
This brief used The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to assess academic
engagement, awareness of campus support, and perception of learning outcomes in
student-veterans. The report collected information from over 288,000 full-time
first-year and senior students from 584 educational institutions across the country.
Instructor Immediacy 7
Among the relevant results, the report found that student-veterans are more likely to
discuss their grades and are more likely to have a positive relationship with instructors
compared to non-student-veterans. It also showed that student-veterans are more likely
to discuss relevant coursework outside the classroom but less likely to work with
instructors on non-coursework related material outside the classroom. The authors
conclude that student-veterans are more likely to concentrate their academic efforts on
what they considered most relevant to their learning outcomes (Kim, Cole, 2013, McBain,
Kim, Cook, Snead, 2012). Jointly, these two studies may suggest that veterans respond
favorably to high levels of common immediacy behaviors (both verbal and nonverbal) as
demonstrated by self-reports of high levels of affective learning outcomes.
There is also a significant amount of aggregated demographical information on the
modern student-veteran which will be helpful in comparing the student-veterans
demographical break-down with a much larger study’s.
Little research has been done to examine instructor immediacy’s effect on
student-veteran learning outcomes. This shows that veterans are an underrepresented
demographic and further supports the need for Mason’s investigation. Among the many
factors that could affect veterans’ learning outcomes, my study investigated the
instructor’s role in veterans’ learning outcomes. Given the preliminary results from the
pilot survey I conducted in December of 2014, and the literature review, my prediction
for the full-study was that instructor immediacy will have a significant effect on
student-veterans’ affective learning outcomes while having no/little effect on student
veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Following this, my formal research question and
hypotheses were:
Instructor Immediacy 8
RQ: How do various levels of verbal and nonverbal instructor immediacy impact
student-veterans’ affective and cognitive learning outcomes?
H1: Student-veterans will demonstrate an increase in affective learning
outcomes in response to high levels of verbal and nonverbal instructor
immediacy.
H2: Student-veterans will demonstrate no significant effects in cognitive
learning outcomes in response to all levels of verbal and nonverbal
instructor immediacy.
Methodology
This study conducted a self-administered, cross-sectional survey targeted towards
student-veteran participants with postsecondary level educations and U.S. military service
backgrounds. The questionnaire was adapted from research conducted by Joan Gorham
and Walter R. Zakahi in 1990 and consists of 37 total questions . Surveys were
distributed in person, via email, through social media outlets such as Facebook & Twitter,
and with the help of the online questionnaire application Qualtrics. Participants were
allowed to save and continue the survey at any time until completion within a four-week
period running from February 22nd-March 22nd, 2015.
As presented to the participant, the questionnaire began with a consent page
(Appendix A) followed by the demographics section (Appendix B). The demographic
section began with standard nominal and demographic questions including those specific
to one’s military experience. Once aggregated, this section revealed that participants
were between the ages of 26 and 57 years old with an average age of 37. The
respondents were 77% male and 23% female, with 33% of participants identifying
Instructor Immediacy 9
themselves as African American/Black, 26% as Caucasian/White, and 16% as Latin
American/Hispanic. All military branches were represented in the study with the US
Marines and Army taking the lion’s share at 36% and 30% respectively. On average,
participants severed in the military for nine years and just over one-third reported that
they are children of at least one military parent.
Instructions on the third page directed participants on how to complete the remainder
of the questionnaire (Appendix C) while considering both of the following two scenarios
(please see attachment for all appendices):
Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific
professor/instructor who taught a course you enjoyed and received
one of your highest grades.
Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific
professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy and
received one of your lowest grades.
The first 29 questions used a Likert scale to ask participants to identify how often
they experienced various types of verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors (where 1 =
“not at all”; 2 = “rarely”; 3 = “neutral or N/A”; 4 = “sometimes”; and 5 = “often”).
There were 17 questions pertaining to verbal immediacy behaviors (VIB) and 12
questions pertaining to nonverbal immediacy behaviors (NVIB). The remaining
questions asked for affective and cognitive reports relative to the two scenarios. In this
section, questions were asked regarding the student's emotions/feelings towards their
learning experiences with regard to the student's interpretations of various instructor
immediacy behaviors and cues. Finally, questions regarding the student's
Instructor Immediacy 10
comprehension, application, and knowledge acquisition (including course grades) from
their learning experiences were included in the questionnaire.
Research was conducted and completed by the end of the Spring 2015 semester.
My timeline began at the onset of the semester and continued as follows:
Week 1: Made corrections to Pilot Study conducted Fall semester 2014
Week 2-3: Finalized literature search and synthesis
Week 4: Finalized questionnaire for the survey
Week 5: Submitted application to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Week 6: Made appropriate adjustments to IRB application
Week 7-11: Conducted official data collection
Week 12: Performed preliminary analysis
Week 13: Submitted findings for professor review - Applied revisions
Week 14: Presented the research and its findings at the College of Humanities and
Social Sciences undergraduate symposium in April 2015.
Results
In alignment with previous findings and my first hypothesis (H1), my analysis
indicated that high levels of verbal (VIB) and nonverbal (NVIB) instructor immediacy
has a strong impact on student-veterans' affective learning outcomes. The evidence also
supports my second hypothesis (H2), that student-veterans will demonstrated no
significant impacts on cognitive learning outcomes in response to all levels of VIB and
NVIB. Student-veterans’ assessment of immediacy in Scenario 1 (courses in which
participant received an excellent grade) showed higher levels of VIB and NVIB than
instructors in Scenario 2 (courses in which participant received a bad grade).
Instructor Immediacy 11
Correspondingly, the mean average on Question #30 which asked “How much did you
learn in this course?” was 8.88 out of 10 for Scenario 1, while Scenario 2 averaged just
4.68 out of 10.
Regardless of perceived level, VIB and NVIB did not appear to have as significant a
correlation with student-veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Using Question #32,
which asked for the letter grade received in the course, the average score was 11.81 out of
13 for Scenario 1. This translated to a 3.48 on a traditional 4.0 scale or roughly a lowA
to -A. Scenario 2’s letter grades averaged out to a low B or an 8.69 out of 13 (2.67 on
the traditional 4.0 scale). The difference between these averages is .96 out of 4.0 or
nearly a full letter grade. Upon aggregating Question #33 which asked “What letter
grade did you expect to receive in this course?,” Scenarios 1 and 2 averaged 11.33 and
9.42 respectively. In both scenarios there was little difference in participants’ expected
grades and their actual grades.
Cognitive learning loss is the quantitative difference between what a person feels
they learned and what they feel they could have learned given an "ideal" instructor
(Hooker and Denker 2014, Richmond et al. 1987). “A high score suggests a large
amount of learning loss (or absence of cognitive learning), as students scored their
in-class learning as much lower than what they perceived could have happened with an
ideal teacher. On the contrary, a score of 0 suggests that students perceived that they did
in fact have an ideal instructor” (Richmond, et al., 1987). Correspondingly, questions
#30 & #31 respectively asked “How much did you learn in this course?” and “How much
do you feel you could have learned in this course given your ‘ideal instructor?”
According to the data, student-veterans perceived a marginal levels of cognitive learning
Instructor Immediacy 12
loss in Scenario 1 and a low -moderate level of cognitive learning loss in Scenario 2.
After subtracting the averages from Questions #30 and #31, the average cognitive
learning loss for Scenario 1 was 3% (.3 raw difference) while the average cognitive
learning loss for Scenario 2 was 29.6% (2.96 raw difference).
Finally, VIB appears to have a slightly greater impact in both scenarios than NVIB.
This finding was determined by averaging the responses of the 17 VIB questions and
comparing them to the average of the responses to the 12 NVIB questions for both
scenarios. Scenario 1 had an average VIB score of 4.04 out of 5 while Scenario 2 had
an average VIB score of 2.85 out of 5. Scenario 1 had an average NVIB score of 3.56
out of 5 while Scenario 2 had an average NVIB score of 3.19 out of 5.
Discussion
Ahead of offering any discussion on the findings of this research, I believe it is
prudent to identify a few shortcomings of the study. First and foremost, a more
comprehensive population sample must be obtained in order to maintain a more practical
external validity. There are an estimated three thousand student-veterans at Mason alone,
comprising nearly 10% of the undergraduate population. With this study’s total of
only77 participants, many of whom have long graduated and/or did not attend Mason, my
research did not accurately capture either the student-veteran body at Mason or the
national demographical break-down of student veterans as a whole. This also allows
room to argue that many of my older participants, whom have been removed from both
the military and academic environments for years, may not accurately recall specific
instructor immediacy behaviors compared to student-veterans who have a more recent
experience. Furthermore, a more comprehensive demographical make-up would be
Instructor Immediacy 13
desirable as my study does not fully capture key components such as marital status,
dependents, secondary school education level, and whether or not the participant is a
first-generation student.
Several modifications to the questionnaire would be made in response to feedback
from study participants. After the official questionnaire was conducted, many of the
participants offered advice as to its improvement. I found several disgruntled
participants who vehemently disagreed with the wording of Question #34 which asked,
“What grade do you think you deserved in the course?” The term “deserved” was
disliked as I was reminded by several participants that “veterans earn everything, even
bad grades.” Correspondingly, this question was left unanswered more than any other
question (n=4).
Perhaps the most important alteration needed to be made would be to change the
Scenario 2 prompt to read, “Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific
professor/instructor who taught a course you did not enjoy but still received one of your
highest grades.” As presented, the questionnaire did not properly isolate the variables of
“a class you did/did not enjoy” as it asks the participant to base the Scenario 2 responses
on having received “one of your lowest grades.” Ultimately, this represents a fatal error
in the presentation of the scenarios, and while very useful information remains, I must
present both my results and this subsequent discussion with extreme prejudice and
significant reservations.
Overall, these findings suggest that instructor immediacy has a significant impact on
student-veterans’ affective learning outcomes but little-moderate impact on
student-veterans’ cognitive learning outcomes. Based on this information, both
Instructor Immediacy 14
hypotheses were supported (or in the case of H2, partially supported). In fact, it appears
that participants performed over two full letter-grades higher in courses where they
observed higher levels of instructor immediacy demonstrating a very strong positive
correlation. These findings are significant as student-veterans may perceive that they
are performing well because they feel communicatively closer to an instructor who
demonstrates higher levels of VIB & NVIB. While this result was found to be within
my hypothesis (H1), it is (perhaps a prima facie) a bit counterintuitive. Veterans are
rarely expected to “like” a military instructor. In fact, a participant’s affective
impressions of a military subject matter expect (SME) is largely irrelevant. My
prediction was supported but not because I thought veterans would respond better to high
levels of VIB and NVIB, but because I believed then as I do now that most people will
have a higher affective response to high levels of immediacy.
Also as predicted, cognitive learning outcomes were marginally-moderately impacted
by instructor immediacy. This may be as a result of a disconnect between the perception
of instructor immediacy and the student’s cognitive ability to demonstrate his or her
knowledge, comprehension, and synthesis of the information provided. Perhaps
instructor immediacy can serve to “distract” an otherwise astute student’s cognitive
processing. This may be explained from the communicative attention that is focused on
the student-veterans’ affective feelings of immediacy and away from the cognitive
retention of the information being provided. For the veteran, low levels of VIB & NVIB
may have been common in the instructional phases of their military careers. Even at
these lower levels, veterans were still expected to retain a high level of cognitive
processing as the performance of one’s duties and the retention of specific skill-sets is
Instructor Immediacy 15
held in the highest regard (e.g. life or death/war-time operations training). Perhaps
variations in the student-veterans’ perception of VIB & NVIB do not have a significant
effect in the collegiate environments because veterans were accustomed to maintaining a
high cognitive retention rate while observing much lower levels of immediacy behaviors
from military instructors. Once the transition from military to civilian life is complete,
it appears that the veteran retains (at least the drive for) high-levels of cognitive outputs.
That is, the veteran does not seem to care whether or not they “like” the instructor in front
of them, so long as that accurately retain the block of instruction s being presented.
In an effort to properly warrant such conclusions, I would need to expand the
questionnaire to include scenarios relative to the participants’ military instruction and
compare the data against their collegiate instruction. I would also need to run a very
similar questionnaire geared towards the nonveteran-student to identify if the results this
study found are significant/unique when compare to the general population of
nonveteran-students. Finally, offering a modified version of the questionnaire to the
instructors themselves would lend significant insight into the very important “other half”
of these communicative behaviors.
It ‘s along these expansive lines that I make the case for future research. The useful
information provided by this study offers a glimpse into an important population of
students, - and demands that more research is conducted to ensure we can academically
better serve those who have served us.
Instructor Immediacy 16
References
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)
Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The
Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university
examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008, April). The effect of teacher confirmation on
student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57(2),
153-179. doi:10.1080/03634520701787777
Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing
Behavioral Objectives. New York: David McKay
Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009, January). The role of student characteristics and
teacher behaviors in students' learner empowerment. Communication Education,
58(1), 35-53. doi:10.1080/03634520802237383
Kim, Y. M., & Cole, J. S. (2013, December). Student veterans/service members'
engagement in college and university life and education. American Council on
Education, 1-20. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Student-Veterans-Service-Member
s-Engagement.pdf
King, P., & Witt, P. (2009, January). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the
measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58(1), 110-123.
doi:10.1080/03634520802511233
Instructor Immediacy 17
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc.
McBain, L., Kim, Y. M., Cook, B. J., & Snead, K. M. (2012, July). From soldier to
student II: Assessing campus programs for veterans and service members.
American Council on Education, 5-59. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/From-Soldier-to-Student-II-Assess
ing-Campus-Programs.pdf
Morreale, S., Backlund, P., & Sparks, L. (2014, October). Communication education
and instructional communication: Genesis and evolution as fields of inquiry.
Communication Education, 63(4), 344-354. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.944926
Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2002). Relationships between teacher nonverbal
immediacy, student emotional response, and perceived student learning [Electronic
version]. Communication Research Reports, 19(1), 77-88.
doi:10.1080/08824090209384834
Titsworth, B. S. (2004, October). Students' notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy
and clarity. Communication Education, 53(4), 305-320.
doi:10.10/0363452032000305922
Utilization (2014, October 3). In National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Utilization.asp
Wilson, L. O. (2014). Three domains of learning – Cognitive, affective, psychomotor. In
The Second Principle. Retrieved from
http://thesecondprinciple.com/instructional-design/threedomainsoflearning/
Instructor Immediacy 18
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004, June). Ameta-analytical review of the
relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication
Monographs, 71(2), 184-207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054
Worley, D., Titsworth, S., Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007, June).
Instructional communication competence: Lessons learned from award-winning
teachers. Communication Studies, 58(2), 207-222.
doi:10.1080/10510970701341170
Instructor Immediacy 19
Appendix A
Informed Consent Terms and Conditions
RESEARCH PROCEDURESThis research is being conducted to study instructor immediacy’s effect on studentveteran cognitive and affective learning outcomes. If you agree to participate, you willbe asked to answer several questions about instructor immediacy in the classroom. Thissurvey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.RISKSThere are no foreseeable risks for participating in this research.BENEFITSAside from potential extra credit, there are no benefits to you as a participant other thanto advance academic research on instructor immediacy’s effect on student veterancognitive and affective learning outcomes.CONFIDENTIALITYThe data in this study will be confidential. The survey that will be distributed willrequire you to insert your GMU email address if you are completing this survey toreceive course credits, however, your email address will not be connected to your surveyresponses.PARTICIPATIONYour participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from the study at any time and forany reason. If you decide not to participate or if you withdraw from the study, there isno penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may be able toreceive extra credit for completing this survey if and only if you are enrolled in a coursethat offers extra credit for survey completion. There are no alternatives to surveycompletion for extra credit. There are no costs to any other party. You must be 18years old or older to complete this survey.CONTACTThis research is being conducted by Eric J. Backus, Student Researcher of theCommunication Department at George Mason University. His Principal Investigator,Xiaomei Cai may be reached at 3-3774 for questions or to report a research-relatedproblem. You may contact the George Mason University Office of Research Integrity &Assurance at 703-993-4121 if you have questions or comments regarding your rights as aparticipant in the research.This research has been reviewed according to George Mason University proceduresgoverning your participation in this research.CONSENTI have read this form and agree to participate in this study (Please circle one and providedate - Please do not write your name).
[AGREE] [DISAGREE] Date:
Instructor Immediacy 20
Appendix B
Instructor Immediacy Questionnaire Part I
Please do not write your name on this form. This information will allow us to provide anaccurate description of the research sample. For the following items, please select theone response that is most descriptive of you or fill in the blank as appropriate.______________________________________________________
1. Gender: Female Male Not Specified
2. Age: ____________
3. Ethnicity: Asian or Pacific Islander Asian Indian White/Caucasian
Native American Latino/Hispanic Black/African American
Other/Multiple Ethnicities (please specify):___________________
4. Major(s)/Concentration(s): ____________________________________________
5. Minor(s): __________________________________________________________
6. Enrollment: Full-time Part-time
7. Standing: Freshman Sophomore Junior
Senior Non-degree Graduate1ou been enrolled in college? ____________
9. In what year did you first enroll in college? ____________
10. What is the highest level of education completed by your parents? ____________
11. Which branch(es) of the military did you serve in? Army Marines
Navy Air Force Coast Guard Other ________________
12. How long were you enlisted or commissioned in the military? ___ years ___ months
13. What was your enlisted/commissioned rank upon discharge (please use E/O ranking
system if applicable) ________________________
14. Were/are your parents enlisted or commissioned in the military? YES NO
Instructor Immediacy 21
Appendix C
Instructor Immediacy Questionnaire Part II
Directions: Please complete this questionnaire considering both of the following two scenarios.
For questions 1-29, please respond by circling a number from 0-4 (0 = never and 4 = very often) to
indicate how often you’ve experienced that item relative to each of the two scenarios. 11
Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades.
Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you did not enjoy and received one of your lowest grades.
1. Used personal examples or talked about experiences she/he had outside of class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
2. Asked questions or encouraged students to talk.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
3. Fostered discussions on topics students brought up.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
4. Used humor in class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
5. Addressed students by name.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
6. Addressed me by name.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
7. Got into conversations with individual students before or after class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
8. Initiated conversations with me before, after, or outside of class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
9. Referred to class as “our class” or what “we” were doing.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
10. Provided feedback on my work through comments on papers, oral discussions, etc.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
Instructor Immediacy 22
11. Called on students even if they did not indicate that they wanted to talk.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades.
Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you did not enjoy and received one of your lowest grades.
12. Asked how students felt about an assignment, due date, or discussion topic.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
13. Invited students to contact them outside of class if they wanted to discuss something.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
14. Asked questions that solicited viewpoints and/or opinions.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
15. Praised students’ work, action, or comments.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
16. Had discussions about things unrelated to class with students
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
17. Was addressed by her/his first name by the students
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
18. Mostly sat behind desk while teaching.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3
4
19. Often gestured while talking to class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
20. Used monotone voice while talking to class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
21. Rarely looked at the class throughout lectures.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
22. Smiled at the class as a whole, not just individual students.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
23. Had a very tense body position while talking to the class.
Instructor Immediacy 23
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
24. Made appropriate, encouraging physical contact with students.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
25. Moved around the classroom while teaching.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades.
Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you did not enjoy and received one of your lowest grades.
26. Looked at board or notes while talking to class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
27. Had a very relaxed body position while talking to the class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
28. Smiled at individual students in the class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
29. Used a variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class.
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4
For questions 30 & 31, please respond by circling a number from 0-10 (0 means you learned less
than any class you’ve ever taken and 10 means you learned more than any class you’ve ever
taken) to indicate how you feel relative to each of the two scenarios.
30. How much did you learn in this course?
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
31. How much do you think you could have learned in this course given an “ideal instructor?”
Scenario 1: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Scenario 2: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For questions 32 - 34, please indicate your response by circling the appropriate letter grade
relative to the two scenarios. (I = Incomplete).
32. What letter grade did you receive in this course?
Scenario 1: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
Instructor Immediacy 24
Scenario 2: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
33. What letter grade did you expect to receive in this course?
Scenario 1: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
Scenario 2: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
34. What letter grade do you think you deserved to receive in this course?
Scenario 1: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
Scenario 2: A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F I
Scenario 1: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you enjoyed and received one of your highest grades.
Scenario 2: Answer the following questions by thinking about a specific professor/instructor
who taught a course you did not enjoy and received one of your lowest grades.
For questions 35 - 37, please indicate your response by circling Yes, No, or Unsure/Maybe relative
to each of the two scenarios.
35. If scheduling/funding permitted, would you take another course with the same
professor/instructor?
Scenario 1: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
Scenario 2: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
36. If scheduling/funding permitted, would you take a similar course with another
professor/instructor?
Scenario 1: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
Scenario 2: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
37. Would you (or do you) recommend this professor/instructor to other students?
Scenario 1: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
Scenario 2: Yes No Unsure/Maybe
Instructor Immediacy 25
Appendix D
Recruitment Letter
Dear Student-Veteran,
Greetings! My name is Eric J. Backus and I am a fellow George MasonStudent and U.S. Army Veteran. I am writing to ask for your participationin research that I am conducting this semester. Your assistance would bemost appreciated. Your must be 18 years old or older to complete thissurvey.This study investigates instructor immediacy’s effect on student-veterans’learning outcomes. Immediacy refers to communicative behaviors,gestures, and cues that promote communication among individuals. Thissurvey consists of:
1) Completing a few background questions2) Answering several questions regarding your experiences withvarious instructor immediacy items3) Answering several questions regarding your perceptions withvarious instructor immediacy items
The survey can be accessed via the following hyperlink:[https://az1.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/?T=2GP8o1WXlQtOI9n4fORO7R]
Thank you for helping to advance my research,
Eric J. Backus
Class of 2015
Major, Honors - Communication
Major, Honors - Philosophy
President, George Mason Philosophy Club