Student Preferences of Teachers Word

Running head: NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY CUES AND STUDENT PREFERENCE
Student Preferences of Teachers Nonverbal Immediacy Cues: A Pilot Study

Aviva Gordon
Wayne State University
Winter 2012
2
NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY CUES AND STUDENT PREFERENCE
Abstr act
Past research has indicated that nonverbal teacher immediacy has contributed in a
positive way to teacher/student relationships. Research thus far demonstrates differing results
among the variables of biological sex and ethnicity in the relationship between students, teachers
and immediacy. This pilot study explores the extent to which a preference for their teachers
nonverbal immediacy cues, how these preferences are ranked, and whether the biological sex of
the teacher and students sex/ethnicity play a role in student preference. A total of 95 students
participated in a survey regarding their teachers nonverbal behavior. The survey contained a
modified version of a previous immediacy nonverbal behavior instrument. The results indicate
students have preferences for teacher immediacy cues. Biological sex and ethnicity of the
students did not impact the preferences; however, male and female students prefer more
immediacy cues from female teachers than male teachers. The ranking of the cues provide
additional information in regards to how the students view immediacy behaviors, but, because of
survey limitations additional research will be required.
3
Student Preferences of Teachers Nonverbal Immediacy Cues: A Pilot Study

The instructor immediacy construct has been researched over three decades in terms of its
efficacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness on cognitive, affective and perceived learning
outcomes. Teacher immediacy is conceptualized as specific nonverbal behaviors that reduce
physical and/or psychological distance between teachers and students (Mehrabian, 1971).The
immediacy communication construct implies people are drawn towards persons and things they
like, evaluate highly, and prefer; and they avoid or move away from things they dislike, evaluate
negatively, or do not prefer (Mehrabian,1971, p.1). Immediacy is produced through
communication channels, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, and body movement. These
channels deliver messages, allowing the recipient to respond based on whether they like or
dislike the behavioral cues received from the sender.
The literature thus far, contains studies employing general findings, theoretical
explanations, critiques, and challenges associated with immediacy research between student and
teacher (Anderson, Anderson and Jensen, 1979; McCroskey, Richmond & McCroskey, 2006;
Jordan, McGreal, & Wheeless, 1990.) However, there has not yet been a study exploring the
question of whether students have specific preferences of their teachers nonverbal immediacy
cues (NVI).
Pur pose of this study
The research purpose is to determine the extent of students preferences of their teachers
nonverbal immediacy cues. Preference being defined the extent to which we like verses dislike
a person, an object, or an event (Mehrabian, 1971, p.11). This study adds to the NVI literature
two- fold: 1) to determine if students have NVI preferences of their teachers; 2) if so, how are
4
they ranked based on biological sex of the teacher and biological sex, age and ethnicity of the
student.
The value of further study on this construct is the potential for providing empirical data
of the immediacy cues students may prefer in an instructor. This will be valuable for the
educator who wishes to further enhance their interactions with their present student body.
Assumption and Limitations
It is assumed that immediacy cues contribute to the affective, cognitive and behavioral
outcomes between students and teachers. A limitation of this study is the nonrandom selection of
two graduate teaching assistants, who are the instructor of record for undergraduate
communications courses at a mid-western public university.
Oper ational Definitions
Immediacy cues are approach behaviors which increase sensory stimulation and produce
interpersonal closeness (Anderson et al., 1979, p. 153). A nonverbal immediacy cue /nonimmediacy cues are either approach or avoidance of eye contact, proximity, gestures,body
position and movement(Kearney, 1994, p. 238) as measured by Anderson, 1979; Richmond,
Gorham & McCroskey et. al,, 1987.
Literature Review
The Definition of Immediacy
Mehrabian (1971) defined the immediacy construct as communication which enhances
closeness to another person. This construct is a cluster of behavioral signals in which the
sender/communicator indicates closeness or liking by displaying these expressions to another
person (s). Immediacy cues indicate approachability, signal availability, increase sensory
stimulation, communicate interpersonal warmth and closeness, and create solidarity as they
5
reduce both the psychological and physical distance between people (Anderson, 1979).
From the onset, Mehrabian (1971) acknowledged that both verbal and nonverbal cues
resulted in immediacy and non-immediacy effects, and researchers developed specific words and
syntactic structures depicting liking and closeness, and distance. However, several scholars claim
that nonverbal immediacy cues are more pervasive and important than verbal messages
(Anderson, et. al., 1979, p. 153). As a result, some scholars have combined verbal and nonverbal
cues into a single instructors immediacy construct (Booth-Butterfield, Mosher & Mollish, 1992).
This may be in part because development of measures of verbal immediacy has proven to be
problematic. Although, according to McCroskey, et al.(2006) there is no extant valid measure
of verbal immediacy( p.423). Research suggests when a person communicates through direct
eye contact, facial expressions, tone of voice, body movements and words, a greater immediacy
is revealed, rather than through words only. Moreover, McCroskey et al. (2006) reported that
even though the verbal strategies are likely to work simultaneously with compatible nonverbal
behaviors, the nonverbal cues can still influence the verbal immediacy perceptions.
The Definition of the Nonver bal Immediacy Constr uct
Nonverbal immediacy communicates liking and closeness through body cues and
gestures such as direct eye contact, facial expressions, and tone of voice, body movements and
words (Guerrero and Hecht, 2008). The cluster of nonverbal signals displaying these behaviors
are (a) more forward lean; (b) closer proximity; (c) more eye gaze; (d) more openness of arms
and body; (e) more direct body orientation; (f) more touching ; (g) more postural relaxation ; (h)
more positive facial and vocal expressions (Knapp & Hall, 2010). Conversely, non-immediacy
cues create distance and cut off communication. The cluster signals of nonverbal non-immediacy
are (a) maintaining large distances; (b) leaning away from others (c) looking away from others;
6
(d) holding a defensive posture, such as arms crossed in the front of body; (e) gesturing noncommunicative availability (Guerrero & Hecht, 2008). In other words, people are drawn to what
they prefer and like and maintain create space from what they do not prefer and like.
Biological Sex Var iables
The relationship between student/teacher NVI and biological sex has been researched
since the advent of the immediacy construct. The findings have been wide and inconsistent.
Jordan et al, (1990), and Glascock & Ruggiero (2006) reported students of either biological sex
had no NVI preferences based on the teachers biological sex. Conversely, Bennett (1982),
Henley and Harmon (1985), Basow and Silberg (1987) and Jordan et al. (1990) reported
perceptions of NVI based on biological sex of teacher / student relationships.
Excessive NVI research, also known as amplified NVI has been incorporated into the
NVI construct (Burgoon and Dillman, 1995; Rester and Edwards, 2007). This research has
paralleled the increased number of women earning undergraduate and graduate college degrees,
which has since surpassed that of men (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
Excessive NVI are beyond the scope of this paper, but a concept worth addressing as teacher
misbehaviors (Kelsey, Kearney, Plax,Allen & Ritter, 2004) sexual harassment and litigation
(Rester and Edwards, 2007) become more prevalent.
Jordan et al. (1990) reported that student learning is impacted by teachers feminine traits
(concern, warmth, support) and masculine traits (assertiveness and controlling behaviors)
embedded in NVI behaviors. At the same time they, reported students are more concerned with
how teachers teach, than if they are a man or a women (p. 51). In addition, Bennett (1982)
researched gender bias and concluded that female faculty was subject to conditioned stereotypes
including the department in which they teach. For example, females fell short of receiving
positive feedback of their NVI when they failed to meet the appropriate expectations of female
7
professors such as warmth, personal charisma, more accessibility, formally prepared, organized
and experienced in the required instructional style. Similarly, Basow and Silberg (1987) reported
that female instructors were rated less favorably by both male and female students, particularly
when the women were not fitting gender stereotypes (p. 312). Moreover, Basow and Silberg
(1987) declared the fact that college teaching is considered a male occupation may help explain
why male students rate female professors lower than they rate male professors (p. 312) Yet in
the same report, the students claimed that teacher classroom behavior and personality traits were
found to be more important in evaluating their teachers, with only 4% variance on overall
teaching ability.
Henley and Harmons (1985) study of the nonverbal semantics of power and gender
researched NVI combinations. For example, eye contact, touch and close proximity, were
perceived as less dominant for women than for men, but this combination for women yielded
more equality, similarity, trustworthiness than men. Burgoon and Dillman (1995) paralleled
Henley and Harmons (1985) study, but added to the report that when it comes to violating the
immediacy cue of distance, women are seen as dominant and powerful instead of functioning
within their stereotypical roles. The report did, however, suggest that dominance displays are
multipurpose (p. 78), and immediacy cues may be misinterpreted -ranging from polite
assertiveness to sexual overtones to aggressive behavior. Glascock and Ruggiero (2006) used
immediacy as a covariant while ascertaining the relationship between biological sex and
credibility. They concluded no differences between sexes in assessing college instructors
credibility, but nonverbal immediacy had a greater variance for perceptions of competence and
caring, which are typically feminine traits.
8
Excessive Immediacy. Rester and Edwards (2007) extend immediacy to include excessive use
of immediacy which was defined as encompasses all of the behavioral elements of immediacy
at increased magnitudes (p. 36). For example, they suggest five behaviors: 1) speaking without
notes; 2) making direct eye contact / smiles 60% of the time; 3) using an expressive voice; 4)
moving up and down the aisles of the classroom; 4) touching students on the arm or shoulder; 5)
moving closer than 18 inches to the students. Although NVI research encourages increased
immediacy, scholars still recognize there is the risk of too much immediacy (Mehrabian, (1971).
Rester and Edwards (2007) conclude that sex of the teacher affects the perception of
offensive relational meanings that students get from excessive immediacy behavior. Often the
excessive behaviors are inferred by the students as control messages from male instructors and
caring messages from female instructors (P. 47) In addition, this report cited both female and
male students cited excessive immediacy behavior from both male and female teachers as a
form of sexual harassment (p. 47). The male teacher was labeled by the male students as
offensive and a form of teacher misbehavior. The women, however, expressed disagreement as
to how this behavior should be labeled. Rester and Edwards (2007) did not test for stereotyping
per se but did find consistency that students use sex-based stereotypes when interpreting
instructors relational intent (p.47).
In summary, the relationship between student/teacher NVI of either biological sex
appears to have differing perceptions of NVI behavior. This research seeks to answer what if
any, are the preferences of immediacy cues, and to an extent, what role does biological sex play.
Ethnicity Var iables
As classrooms are becoming increasingly ethnically diverse the search for optional
nonverbal communication strategies has become as an elusive task. (Alan & Wright, 2009;
9
Sanders and Wiseman, 1990). Anderson (1985) explains that ethnicity influences teacher
immediacy and is manifested by the arousal-valence theory. The receiver responds to
culturally inappropriate behavior, arousal increases causing negative valance to occur within the
classroom.
Studies have found the relationship between student ethnicity and teacher immediacy
behaviors affect the classrooms affective, behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Asian, Black,
Hispanic, and White respondents significantly differed in their preferred communication styles.
For example, Hispanics viewed positive nonverbal communication as bonding and validating,
thus reaping internal satisfaction, Whites viewed communication as more self-oriented and
externally rewarding, and Blacks preferred having their own goals fulfilled by the
communicative actions of others. Sanders and Wiseman, (1990) ; Hecht and Ribeau (1984);
Neulip (1995).
Specifically, Latinos, Black and Asians presented higher immediacy for teacher
effectiveness which included vocal expressiveness and smiling. Asians also were receptive to
teacher relaxedness, and for Latinos and Whites body position was significant (Sanders and
Wiseman, 1990). Moreover, Black, Latin, Asian and White students responded high to eye
contact and White and Asian students were partial to gestures. Asian students reported standing
behind a podium hindered their cognitive learning and for all of the aforementioned groups
avoiding looking at board notes was not a significant predictor. Given the results of these
results, this present study attempts to investigate if student ethnicity influences student
preferences of their teachers NVI behavior.
10
Methodology
Design
A nonrandomized survey design will be used to assess students preferences of their
instructors NVI cues (See Appendix). The survey will be conducted at a mid-western public
university. Two instructors of communications courses were solicited to allow their classes to
participate in this study. The first instructor was a Caucasian male, 27 years old, graduate
teaching assistant, and the second instructor was a Caucasian female, 26 years old, graduate
teaching assistant.
Although there were some students over the traditional age in both classes, in an effort to
control for the potential extraneous variable of age of students, the classes were restricted to the
undergraduate level. Also, potential confounding variables were controlled by administering the
surveys at the same time for all classes.
Pr ocedur es
The surveys will be administered after at least of the semester has been completed,
with the intent student/teacher interactions will have moved beyond first impressions. The
instructors will not be present while the survey is being administered. The researcher will review
the survey instructions with the students and notify the students that participation is voluntary,
confidential, and anonymous, with only a survey number recorded on each form for data entry
purposes. Fifteen minutes will be allotted to administer the survey.
Par ticipants
The target population is all teacher-student relationships. The accessible population is
teachers and students available at the mid-western public university. The sample, non-randomly
11
selected, was two required undergraduate communications classes. The sample consisted of 95
students who were enrolled in each of the instructors two courses.
Instr uments
Andersons (1978) original Nonverbal Behavior Instrument (NBI) reported students
perceptions of immediacy at two different studies were correlated between .74- .81. The
references to validity would need continued investigation. Nearly a decade later, the NBI was
modified into the Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors Instrument (NIBI) (Richmond, Gorham, &
McCroskey 1987). According to Kearney (1991) this instrument also has acceptable reliability
and validity evidence, reliability ranging from .73 to .89. Nevertheless, the NIBI has potential
weaknesses. For example, Nunnally (1978) noted it is poor measurement practice to ask two
stimuli in one question. Item #9 on the NIBI contains two questions in the item. Moreover, the
survey responses patterns take the format of frequencies, instead of preference (i.e., how many
vs. to what extent).
Hence, the NIBI will be modified in the following manner. (1) The original 14 questions
will be expanded to 15 (i.e., #9 broken into two separate questions), and the response patterns
will be changed to a five-point Likert scale of 1 = strongly like, 2 = like, 3 = neutral, 4 = dislike,
and 5 = strongly dislike. Although these changes do not impact any of the previously conducted
validation studies, the reliability estimates must now be reassessed, which will be done with the
study sample.
The reliability of the revised NIBI will be scored based on two subscales. The first is the
immediacy cues subscale, consisting of items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14. The second is the nonimmediacy subscale, which are items 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 15. The revised reliability estimates
will be obtained by internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) (Kelsey, et al. 2004).
12
Independent var iables. It is important to revisit the construct with a current student
body composition with a focus on biological sex and ethnicity as possible determinants of
students preferences of nonverbal behavior; since the National Center for Education Statistics,
(2010) and Alan and Wright (2009) reported the range of ethnicity has broadened and as a
growing trend, females outnumber males as both college students and in the workplace. Thus,
both biological sex (teachers and students) and ethnicity of the students will be used as
independent variables.
Dependent var iables. The surveys will be analyzed at the subscale level (i.e., immediacy
and non-immediacy), and at the individual item level. Therefore, the dependent variables will be
the revised NIBI subscale scores, and the individual survey item responses.
Statistical Hypotheses
Although the dependent variables could be investigated taken together, creating a
multivariate layout (e.g., the item 1, item 2, etc., analyzed together), that is beyond the scope and
sample size of the current study. Therefore, the statistical hypotheses will be examined in a series
of univariate layouts. The five statistical hypotheses are:
H1: There are student preferences of NVI cues.
H2: There is a rank order of student preferences of NVI cues.
H3: There is a difference in mean ranking for each NVI item based on biological sex of the
student.
H4: There is a difference in mean ranking for each NVI based on ethnicity of the student.
H5: There is a difference in mean ranking for each NVI item based on biological sex of the
teacher.
Data Collection and Entr y
13
Students responses will be entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS, v. 20), with each row representing a single students responses. The variables to be
defined in the SPSS input file are: identification number, group (teacher 1 vs. teacher 2), age,
biological sex (female = 1, male = 2), ethnicity (1 = Asian, 2 = Black/African American, 3 =
Hispanic, 4 = Middle Eastern, 5 = Pacific Islander, 6 = White, 7 = Other), and Q1, Q2, Q15,
where Q1 refers to item 1, Q2 refers to item 2, etc. (likert scale response 1 through 5). Each
survey with missing values will be inputted as 999, which will permit the maximum sample size
for each individual analysis.
Data Analysis
Because cases with missing values will be kept for item by item analysis, the sample size
may differ from one immediacy cue to the next. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations
will be reported for each item (e.g, Q1, Q2, etc.) and the two subscales. Pictorial representations
of proportions will be produced using Excels Chart.
The preferences of H1 and H2 will be determined if the mean responses gravitate either
toward like or dislike. By visual observation it will be determined if the mean responses are
distributed to the extent that a hierarchy can be established. (In other words, it is possible that
there is a preference, but all responses are strongly like. Therefore, all the cues would be lumped
together and there would be no rank ordering among them; they would all be considered
acceptable.)
The remaining hypotheses (H3 H5) call for an analysis of the difference in mean
rankings based on the level of the independent variable (e.g., female vs. male). The traditional
statistical analysis for this is the two independent samples Students t test (for two level
independent variables) and the one-way analysis of variance (for ethnicity which has more than
14
two levels). However, the literature is clear that these classical procedures are less powerful
when the data are in the form of ranks. Therefore, it is advised in the statistical literature (e.g.,
Sawilowsky & Blair, 1992; Sawilowsky, 2002) to use nonparametric counterparts, which are the
Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively.
Results
The results of this present study are based on a nonverbal immediacy scale (Anderson,
1978 &, Richmond, Gorham, et al. 1987) with modifications based on Nunnallys, (1978) scale
criteria. Sixteen Tables were produced to accommodate the five hypotheses. The dependent
variables were the fifteen scale items answered by the students. The independent variables were
biological sex of the student and teacher and the ethnicity of the students. The survey included
age and student major but were not included in this pilot study.
Descriptive Statistics
There were 95 surveys returned. Biological sex was left blank on one survey, and
ethnicity was left blank on one survey. Therefore, analyses based on biological sex or ethnicity
will be based on N = 94 surveys. The two largest groups were 41.5% White, and 27.7%
Black/African American. The remaining groups were Asian, Middle Eastern and other were
each 8.4% and Hispanic 5.3%. In terms of biological sex, 71.3% were female and 28.7% were
male.
Table 1
Nonverbal Immediacy Cues Scale Results Data
The original Student Preferences of Teachers requires the participants to rank their
preferences on a scale of 1 = strongly like to 5 = strongly dislike. For the purposes of statistical
analysis, examining the student responses were entered into SPSS as 1 = strongly dislike and 5 =
15
strongly like. This makes interpretation of the results more natural. The Student Preferences of
Teachers Nonverbal Immediacy Cues instrument contains both immediacy cues and nonimmediacy cues. Therefore, both reliability estimates and research hypotheses are obtained based
on the two separate sub-scales, instead of the total scale. Reliability estimates were obtained via
Cronbach alpha, a measure of internal consistency. As Cronbach alpha gets closer to 1.0, there is
increasing empirical evidence based on the sample that the scale is reliable. Throughout this
report, nonverbal immediacy cues will be referred to as NVI, and nonverbal non-immediacy cues
will be referred to as NVNI.
NVI Subscale
There were N = 91 complete responses for the NVI subscale. The remaining four were
deleted from this analysis. (The options were to treat the missing values with the mean score, or
other imputation method. The SPSS default is list-wise deletion.) Cronbach alpha was .58 for the
eight items of NVI subscale. It must be noted that Cronbach alpha, as all correlation-based
statistics, attenuates due to low sample size of number of items in the scale. A correction for this
is called the Spearman-Brown Prophecy (Nunnally, 1978). This technique projects the Cronbach
alpha if the subscale, 8 items in this case, were expanded to the total test length, which is 15
items overall. (This means the Spearman-Brown projects the reliability estimate if an additional
seven Immediacy cue items of the same caliber were added to the subscale.) The SpearmanBrown estimate of reliability for the Immediacy cue scale is .72. The mean responses and
standard deviations for the Immediacy Cue subscale are compiled in Table 1.
16
Table 1
NVI Subscale Statistics
Variables
Mean
Std. Deviation
Gestures while talking to the class
4.3736
.62625
Looks at the class while talking
4.6813
.53498
Smiles at the class while talking
4.4835
.72053
Touches students in class
2.1099
.87497
Moves around the classroom while teaching
4.0659
.78602
Has a very relaxed body position while
4.3956
.61245
Smiles at class while talking
3.8571
1.03892
Uses a wide variety of body expressions
4.4286
.68545
talking to the class
while talking to the class

Note. Summary statistics for the Immediacy cue scale are compiled in Table 2
Table 2
NVI Summary Item Statistics
Measurement
Mean
Minimum
Maximum Range Maximum / Variance

Minimum
N of
Items
Item Means
4.049
2.110
4.681
2.571
2.219
.679
Item Variances
.563
.286
1.079
.793
3.771
.066
17
Table 3 contains a what-if analysis to determine in the NVI subscale of the Survey of
Student Preferences of Teacher Behaviors can be made more reliable through the deletion of any
of the individual items.
This analysis suggests that if the Touches item was removed from the subscale, the
subscale reliability estimate would increase from .59 to .61. The marginal improvement, in this
case, is likely outweighed by the loss of 1/8th of the cues. The final Immediacy cue subscale
statistics for the eight items are mean = 32.4 and the standard deviation is 3.0. See Table 4.
Table 3
NVI Item-Total Statistics
Sub-scale Variables
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
.595
Looks at class while talking
.552
Smiles at the class while teaching
.475
Touches students in class
.612
Moves around the class while teaching
.585
Has a very relaxed body position while talking
.510
to the class
Smiles at individual students
.509
Uses a wide variety of vocal expressions while
.501
talking to the class.
18
Table 4
Final NVI Subscale Statistics
Mean
32.3956
Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

9.131
3.02170
NVNI Subscale
There were N = 91 complete responses for the NVNI subscale. The remaining four were
deleted from this analysis. (The options were to treat the missing values with the mean score, or
other imputation method. The SPSS default is list-wise deletion.) Cronbach alpha was the seven
items ofNVNI subscale. It must be noted that Cronbach alpha, as all correlation-based statistics,
attenuates due to low sample size. A correction for this is called the Spearman-Brown Prophecy
(Nunnally, 1978). This technique projects the Cronbach alpha if the seven items in this case,
were expanded to the total test length, which is 15 items overall. (This means the SpearmanBrown projects the reliability estimate if an additional seven Immediacy cue items of the same
caliber were added to the subscale.) The Spearman-Brown estimate of reliability for the
Immediacy cue scale is .78. The mean responses and standard deviations for the NVNI subscale
are compiled in Table 5, NVNI Summary Item Statistics are compiled in Table 6, NVNI ItemTotal Statistics are compiled in Table 7, and NVNI Scale Statistics are compiled in Table 8.
19
Table 5
NVNI Subscale Item Total Statistics

Sub-scale Variables
Mean
Std. Deviation
Sits behind desk while teaching
2.3187
.86768
91
Uses monotone while talking to the class
1.7473
1.11149
91
Has a very tense body position while talking to the class
2.1758
1.01755
91
Sits on desk while teaching
3.4835
.99289
91
Looks at board or notes while talking to the class
2.9670
.87497
91
Stands behind podium or desk while teaching
3.1099
.79513
91
Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching
2.7912
.88840
91
Table 6
NVNI Summary Item Statistics
Measurment
Mean
Min.
Max.
Range
Max. / Min. Variance N of Items
Item Means
2.656
1.747
3.484
1.736
1.994
.363
Item Variances
.885
.632
1.235
.603
1.954
.043
20
Table 7
NVNI Item-Total Statistics
Item
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Sits behind desk while teaching
.555
Uses monotone while talking to the class
.567
Has a very tense body position while talking to the class
.553
Sits on desk while teaching
.666
Looks at board or notes while talking to the class
.577
.596
Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching
.609
Table 8
Final NVNI Scale
Statistics
Mean
Variance
Std. Deviation
N of Items
18.5934
13.422
3.66357
Assessments of Research Hypothesis and Research Questions
21
Research Question H1: There are student preferences of NVI cues.

The paired-samples t test was statistically significant (t = 22.5, df = 90, p = .000). Therefore, the
1.39 points difference, on the five point scale, is a statistical significant difference. Moreover, a
mean of 4.05/5.0 is conceptually much higher than 2.66/5.0, indicating there is a practical
difference as well: Students rated Nonverbal immediacy higher than nonverbal non-immediacy
cues. Paired subscales samples statistics are in Table 9. Therefore, research hypothesis #1 is
supported in that students prefer NVI cues over NVNI cues.
Table 9
Paired Subscales Samples Statistics
Pair 1 Paired Subscales
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
NVI Cues
4.0495
91
.37771
.03959
NVNI Cues
2.6562
91
.52337
.05486
Research Question H2: The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there was a rank
order of student preferences for the nonverbal immediacy cues. The Survey Student Preferences
of Teacher Behaviors items are displayed in Table 10 below in order of the decreasing
magnitude of mean student preference. An inspection of this table indicates that with the
exception of item #7, there is unanimous support for the rank order. Also, Number 9 originally
with number 15, violating Nunnallys (1978) statement may be mischaracterized as NVNI
instead of NVI. This hypothesis is supported.
22
Table 10
NVI / NVNI Rankings
Item
NVI #4
Mean
Looks at the class while talking
4.6947
NVI # 5 Smiles at the class while talking
4.4842
NVI # 12 Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class
4.4211
NVI #14 Uses a wide variety of vocal expressions while talking to the class
4.4211
NVI #2
4.3895
NVI #8
Moves around the class while teaching
4.0737
NVI # 13 Smiles at Individual Students in the class
3.8936
NVNI # 9 Sits on a desk while teaching
3.5054
NVNI # 11Stands behind podium or desk while teaching
3.1398
NVNI # 10 Looks and board or noted while talking to the class
3.1050
NVNI # 15 Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching
2.8152
NVNI # 1 Sits behind desk while teaching
2.337
NVNI #6 Has a very tense body position while talking to the class
2.1758
NVI #7 Touches students in class
2.1099
NVNI #3 Uses monotone while talking to the class
1.7717
23
Research Question H3: There is a difference in mean ranking based on biological sex of
the student. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there is difference in subscale mean
score for Nonverbal immediacy cues and nonverbal non-immediacy cues by biological sex of the
student. Descriptive statistics for each subscale are compiled in Table 11. The statistical analysis
is conducted by a two independent samples t test. One of its assumptions of the standard
deviations of the two groups is equal. In Table 11 below, the standard deviations appear to be
similar. Levenes test is a formal test to ensure the standard deviations are equal. As noted in the
Table 12 below, Levenes test is not significant (p > .05), indicating this assumption has been
met. Thus, the top line of each subscale analysis will be interpreted.
For nonverbal immediacy cues the results are not significant (t = -.468, df = 88, p = .641).
Similarly, for nonverbal non-immediacy cues, the results are not significant (t = 1.558, df = 88, p
= .123). Thus, on the base of this sample, the hypothesis that there are differences in preferences
based on biological sex of the student was not supported.
Table 11
Descriptive Group Statistics
Subscale Sex
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
NVI Cues Male
27
4.0185
.42134
.08109
NVI Cues Female
63
4.0595
.36260
.04568
NVNI Cues Male
27
2.7831
.55239
.10631
NVNI Cues Female
63
2.5964
.50705
.06388
24
Table 12
Independent Samples Test
Measure
NVI Cues
Equal
variances
assumed
Levene's Levene's t-test for t-test for t-test for

Test for
Test for Equality Equality Equality of
Equality of Equality of of Means of Means Means
Variances Variances
t
df
Sig. (2F
Sig.
tailed)
1.606
.208
NVI Cues
Equal
variances not
assumed
NVNI Cues
Equal
variances
assumed
NVNI Cues
Equal
variances not
assumed
.734
.394
t-test for
t-test for
Equality of Equality of
Means
Means
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
-.468
88
.641
-.04101
.08762
-.441
43.295
.662
-.04101
.09307
1.558
88
.123
.18670
.11981
1.505
45.671
.139
.18670
.12403
Research Question H4: There is a difference in mean ranking for each item based on
ethnicity of the student. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there is difference in
subscale mean score for nonverbal immediacy cues and nonverbal non-immediacy cues by
25
ethnicity of the student. This was accomplished by conducting a one-way ANOVA on nonverbal
immediacy cues and nonverbal non-immediacy subscale by ethnicity. The results are compiled in
Table 13. For NVI, the results were not statistically significant (F = 1.866, df = 5,89, p = .109).
Similarly, the results for NVNI were not statistically significant (F = 1.664, df = 5,89, p = .152).
Thus, on the base of this sample, the hypothesis that there are differences in preferences based on
ethnicity of the student was not supported.
Even though there was no statistical significance in the omnibus (overall) F test, a post
hoc procedure was used to determine if there were any differences between subsets of two
Ethnicities. In order to control for the inflation of false positive errors, the Bonferroni correction,
which is available in SPSSs one-way ANOVA routine, was used. See Table 14.
Table 13
ANOVA
Item
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
.493
246
1.742
.181
NVI Cue Within Groups
12.307
87
.141
NVI Cue Total
12.799
89
.842
.421
1.546
.219
NVNI Cue Within Groups
23.691
87
.272
NVNI Cue Total
24.533
89
NVI Cue Between Groups
NVNI Cue Between Groups
26
Note: Ethnicity Demographics: (a) White 41.5%; (b) Black/African American 27.7% (c) Other
30.9% (combined Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Pacific Islander, more than one ethnicity
selected).
Table 14
Multiple Comparisons
Bonferroni Table
Dependent Variable (I) Ethnicity (J)
Mean
Ethnicity
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
95%
Confidence
Interval
Upper Bound
NVI White Black/African American
-.17878
.09737
.209
-.4165
.0589
NVI White Other
-.10075
.09421
.864
-.3307
.1292
NVI Black/African American White
.17878
.09737
.209
-.0589
.4165
NVI Black/African American Other
.07804
.10349 1.000
-.1746
.3307
NVI Other White
.10075
.09421
.864
-.1292
.3307
NVI Other Black/African American
-.07804
.10349 1.000
-.3307
.1746
NVNI White Black/African

American
-.06486
.13510 1.000
-.3947
.2649
NVNI White Other
-.22711
.13071
-.5462
.0920
.258
27
Multiple Comparisons
Bonferroni Table
Dependent Variable (I) Ethnicity (J)
Mean
Ethnicity
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
95%
Confidence
Interval
Upper Bound
NVNI Black/African American

White
.06486
.13510 1.000
-.2649
.3947
NVNI Black/African American

Other
-.16224
.14359
.785
-.5128
.1883
NVNI Other White
.22711
.13071
.258
-.0920
.5462
NVNI Other Black/African

American
.16224
.14359
.785
-.1883
.5128
Note: The post hoc results indicated there were no differences based on ethnicity. There is no
omnibus F significance, or post hoc significance.
Research Question H5.
The purpose of this hypothesis was to determine if there was a different mean ranking for
each subscale based on the teachers biological sex. A two independent samples t test was
conducted. Descriptive statistics are compiled in Table 15. As expected, both the female and
male teachers NVI scores were substantially higher than their respective NVNI scores.
The t test results were statistically significant favoring the female teacher vs. the male teacher for
the NVI (t = 3.52, df = 89, p = .001). However, the magnitude of the difference (i.e., a mean
response of 4.18 vs. 3.92) indicates statistically a subtle but detectable difference. With regard to
the NVNI, the t test was not statistically significant (t = 1.129, df = 89, p = .262), indicating the
28
students responses were not different based on the biological sex of the teacher. See Table 16.
Therefore, statistically the hypothesis was supported but practically was not supported.
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics
Subscale / Teacher Sex
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
NVI Cue / Male
45
3.9167
.38528
.05743
NVI Cue / Female
46
4.1793
.32452
.04785
NVNI Cue / Male
45
2.5937
.45068
.06718
NVNI Cue / Female
46
2.7174
.58437
.08616
Table 16
Independent Samples Test
Subscales for
Teacher Sex
NVI Cue Equal

variances assumed
Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
1.734
.191
NVI Cue Equal

variances not
assumed
NVNI Cue Equal
variances assumed
3.784
.055
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
-3.521
89
.001
-.26268
.07461
-3.514 85.841
.001
-.26268
.07475
-1.129
.262
-.12374
.10957
89
29
NVNI Cue Equal

variances not
assumed
-1.133 84.434
.261
-.12374
.10926
Discussion
The purpose of this pilot study was to explore if students have a preference of their
teachers nonverbal immediacy cues, how they are ranked and to what extent the biological sex of
the teacher and student sex/ethnicity play a role in student preference. The immediacy cues were
divided into two subscales; Immediacy cues (NVI) liking behavior, people are drawn towards
persons and things they like, evaluate highly and prefer and non-immediacy cues (NVNI) where
people avoid or move away from things they dislike, evaluate negatively, or do not prefer
(Mehrabian,1971).
This present study found that students have immediacy preferences for their teachers in a
particular rank. Biological sex and ethnicity of the students do not impact the preferences.
However, both male and female students significantly but not clinically prefer more immediacy
cues from female teachers, over their male teachers.
Hypothesis 1 predicted there are student preferences of NVI cues. This hypothesis was
supported significantly and practically. Hypothesis 2 predicted there was a rank order of student
preferences for the nonverbal immediacy cues. With the exception of item #7 touch, there is
unanimous support for the rank order. Also, item # 7, which was originally with item # 15,
violating Nunnallys (1978) statement, may be mischaracterized as NVNI instead of NVI.
Therefore, this hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted there is a difference in mean
ranking based on biological sex of the student. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if
there is difference in subscale mean score for NVI cues and NVNI cues by biological sex of the
30
student. The statistical analysis is conducted by a two independent samples t test. Contrary to the
literature review of biological response differences to immediacy cues, the results are not
significant. Thus, on the base of this sample, the hypothesis that there are differences in
preferences based on biological sex of the student was not supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted
there is a difference in mean ranking based on the ethnicity of the student. The purpose of this
analysis was to determine if there is difference in subscale mean score for NVI cues and NVNI
cues by ethnicity of the student. This was accomplished by conducting a one-way ANOVA on
both sets of cues by ethnicity. The results on both sets of cues were not statistically significant.
Thus, on the base of this sample, the hypothesis that there are differences in preferences based on
ethnicity of the student was not supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted there is a different mean
ranking for each subscale based on the teachers biological sex. Two independent samples t test
were conducted.. As expected, both the female and male teachers NVI scores were substantially
higher than their respective NVNI scores. The t test results were statistically significant favoring
the female teacher vs. the male teacher for the NVI. However, the magnitude of the difference
(i.e., a mean response) indicates statistically a subtle but detectable difference. With regard to the
NVNI, the t test was not statistically significant, indicating the students responses were not
different based on the biological sex of the teacher. Therefore, statistically the hypothesis was
supported but practically was not supported.
Limitations
As a pilot study, this were several limitations brought to light as the the study evolved.
First, three of four of the classes participated in the survey at the conclusion of the class period.
The students took approximately three to five minutes longer to fill out the survey at the
beginning of the class rather than the end of the class. Therefore, for future research, more
31
valuable feedback may be received from the students reporting at the beginning of their class
period.
Second, a more diverse and larger group of teachers with a broader age, gender and
ethnicity gap may deliver more significant data. This conclusion is based on the literature review
reporting on the multiple perspectives of students responses to their teachers immediacy cues
based on biological sex of the teacher.
Third, the reliability and validity of the original instruments the core of this study, may be
outdated for the following reasons: 1) Touch is considered a NVI cue, while the students rated
touch as 14th out of 15th in preference. This may be in response to excessive immediacy, cultural
protocol and university codes of conduct; 2) The original instrument had two stimuli in one
question, which, according to Nunnally ( 1978) is poor measurement practice. Therefore, item #
9 was changed to a single item sits on a desk while teaching and an additional item was added
as #15-Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching. Both of these items were defined as
NVNI. However, #9 sitting on a desk was the highest ranked NVNI cue; 3) the instrument,
excluding modifications for this study is 25 years old and with the changing demographics of the
student and teacher may warrant updating to meets the needs of the communities in which we
move.
Lastly as a new researcher, I informed the students this was a pilot study of their
teachers behavior and in retrospect I should have shared with the students a more generalized
description of the study. In addition, I should have informed the students of the time allotted to
complete the survey and asked if there were any questions prior to beginning the survey.
The next study should include the gender variable, thus examining communication
patterns (Henley and Harmon, 1985 and Burgoon and Dillman, 1995), open-ended questions, a
32
closer examination of the touch variable as to which subscale touch is relevant today as an
immediacy cue, and to an extent the role of technology. In conclusion, future research with a
revised instrument of the the students preferences of teachers nonverbal behavior has the
potential to aid teachers in teaching their subject matter according to the nature of the community
in which they teach.
Refer ences
Alan, L.T., Wright, B. (2009, November). Occupational Employment Projections to 2018, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly LaborReview.
Anderson, J. F. (1978) the relationship between teacher immediacy and teaching effectiveness.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown, West
Virginia.
33
Andersen, J. F.1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books
Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal
immediacy. Journal Of Applied Communications Research, 7(2), 153-180.
Anderson, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W.
Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Mutlichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 136). Hillsdale, N. J.: lwrence Erlbaum.
Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and
male professors rated differently?. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 308-314.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.308
Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors:
Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal Of
Educational Psychology, 74(2), 170-179. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.170
Burgoon, J. K., & Dillman, L., (1995). Gender, immediacy, and nonverbal communication. In p .J.
Kalbfleisch & M.J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power and communication in human relationships (PP.
63-81).Hillsdale, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Booth-Butterfield, S. ,Mosher, N., & Mollish, D., (1992). "Teacher immediacy and student
involvement: A dual process analysis". Communication research reports 9(1), p.13.
doi:10.1080/08824099209359893
34
Glascock, J., & Ruggiero, T.E. (2006). "The relationship of ethnicity and sex to professor
credibility at a culturally diverse university". Communication Education(0363-4523),
55(2), p.197.
Guererro, L.K, & Hecht, M. L. (2008). The Nonverbal communication reader. Long Grove, Ill.:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Henley, N. M., & Harmon, S., (1985). The nonverbal semantics of power and gender: a
perceptual study. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power dominance, and
nonverbal behavior (pp.151-164). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Jordan, F. F., McGreal, E. A., & Wheeless, V. (1990). Student Perceptions of Teacher
Sex-Role Orientation and Use of Power Strategies and Teacher Sex as Determinants of
Student Attitudes Toward Learning. Communication Quarterly, 38(1), 43-53.
doi:10.1080/01463379009369740
Kearney, P. (1994). Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors Instrument. In R.B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen
and H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication Research Measures (pp. 238-241). New York,
N.Y: Guilford Press.
Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax , T. G. , Allen , T. H, , & Ritter , K. J.( (2004) College students'
attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education,
53(1)doi:10.1080/0363452032000135760
Knapp, M. L. & Hall, J. A. (2010) Nonverbal communication in human interaction ( 7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Knapp, M. L. & Hall, J. A. (2010)
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, L. L. (2006). Nonverbal communication in
instructional contexts. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Nonverbal Communication (pp.421-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

National Center for Educational Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics by 2016 ,
Tables, 27-31. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2016/tables.asp#Group4
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill.
Rester, C. H. & Edwards, R. (2007). "Effects of Sex and Setting on Students Interpretation of
TeachersExcessive Use of Immediacy". Communication Education 56(1), 34.
DOI:10.1080/03634520600954619.
Richmond, V.P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected
immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 10 ( pp. 574-590). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey,J.C. & Johnson, A.D.(2003). Development of the Nonverbal
Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of Self- and Other-Perceived Nonverbal Immediacy.
Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504-517. (Document ID: 522124471).
Sawilowsky, S.S.(2005). Misconceptions leading to choosing the t test over the Wilcoxon
Mann- Whitney U test for shift in location parameter. Journal of Modern Applied
Statistical Methods, 4(2), 598-600.
Sawilowsky, S. S., & Blair, R. C. (1992). A more realistic look at the robustness and type II
error properties of the t test to departures from population normality. Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 353-360.
36
Appendix
SURVEY- Students Preference of Teacher Behaviors

Instructions: Below is a series of descriptions of things some teachers have been observed doing
in class. Please respond to the items in terms of this class, COM1010. Please use the scale of 1-5
for each item. Please indicate your selection by writing an x in the box of the appropriate
answer. Use this scale:
Str ongly like =1
Like =2
Neutr al = 3
Sits behind desk while teaching.
Gestures while talking to the class.
Uses monotone while talking to the class.
Dislike= 4
Str ongly dislike = 5
37
4
Looks at the class while talking.
Smiles at the class while talking.
Has a very tense body position while talking

to the class.
Touches students in class.
Moves around the classroom while teaching.
Sits on a desk while teaching.
10
Looks at board or notes while talking to the

class.
11
12
Has a very relaxed body position while

talking to the class.
13
Smiles at individual students in the class.
14
Uses a wide variety of vocal expressions

while talking to the class.
15
Sits in a chair while teaching.

About You
Age_______________
Ethnicity Black/African American____ Asian____ White_____ Middle

Eastern____
38
Hispanic/Latino____ Pacific Islander____ Other ______________
SEX Male _____
Female _____
Study Major______________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this survey

Student Preferences of Teachers Word

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Preferences of Teachers Word

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY CUES AND STUDENT PREFERENCE

Student Preferences of Teachers Nonverbal Immediacy Cues: A Pilot Study

Student Preferences of Teachers Nonverbal Immediacy Cues: A Pilot Study

Gestures while talking to the class

Looks at the class while talking

Smiles at the class while talking

Touches students in class

Moves around the classroom while teaching

Has a very relaxed body position while

Smiles at class while talking

Uses a wide variety of body expressions

talking to the class

while talking to the class

Maximum Range Maximum / Variance

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Gestures while talking to the class

Looks at class while talking

Smiles at the class while teaching

Touches students in class

Moves around the class while teaching

Has a very relaxed body position while talking

Uses a wide variety of vocal expressions while

talking to the class.

Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

NVNI Subscale Item Total Statistics

Sits behind desk while teaching

Uses monotone while talking to the class

Has a very tense body position while talking to the class

Sits on desk while teaching

Looks at board or notes while talking to the class

Stands behind podium or desk while teaching

Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching

Max. / Min. Variance N of Items

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Sits behind desk while teaching

Uses monotone while talking to the class

Has a very tense body position while talking to the class

Sits on desk while teaching

Looks at board or notes while talking to the class

Stands behind podium or desk while teaching

Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching

Assessments of Research Hypothesis and Research Questions

Research Question H1: There are student preferences of NVI cues.

Std. Error Mean

NVI # 5 Smiles at the class while talking

Gestures while talking to the class

Moves around the class while teaching

NVI # 13 Smiles at Individual Students in the class

NVNI # 9 Sits on a desk while teaching

NVNI # 11Stands behind podium or desk while teaching

NVNI # 10 Looks and board or noted while talking to the class

NVNI # 15 Sits in a chair away from a desk while teaching

NVNI # 1 Sits behind desk while teaching

NVI #7 Touches students in class

NVNI #3 Uses monotone while talking to the class

Std. Error Mean

NVI Cues Male

NVI Cues Female

NVNI Cues Male

NVNI Cues Female

Levene's Levene's t-test for t-test for t-test for

NVI Cue Within Groups

Ethnicity Black/African American Asian White_ Middle

Hispanic/Latino Pacific Islander Other __________