Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

PhD THESES FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
Working Title: Exploring lecturers Instructional Communication at an institution of higher learning, in South Africa, where English is the Medium of Instruction.
Student name: Madikwa Hendrietta Segabutla Student Number: 29460353 Programme: PhD Curriculum Design, Instruction, and Development Email address: segabutlamh@tut.ac.za Date: November 2011
Supervisor: Dr R Evans Mobile: 083 732 0099 Email: revans@postino.up.ac.za
PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011
Page 1
Chapter 1. An overview of the study

Introduction What are the dynamics that are at play when lecturers communicate with their students during instruction? What perceptions do students have about their lecturers as they interact with them during instruction? What perceptions do the lecturers hold about their own communication skills during an instructional interaction? These are questions that I began to ponder about when I realised that more and more students are not succeeding in their learning and are dropping out regardless of the efforts that the lecturers, institutions and the government are putting in to facilitate students success. No one can deny the importance of effective communication in human interaction and in building relationships. In life, people are expected to interact with one another in a manner that enables them to send, and receive messages with as little misunderstanding (a mistake in understanding the meaning of something), misinterpretation (getting the wrong idea about something) or miscommunication (failure to communicate something clearly or correctly) as possible. This is effective communication, which forms the basis of relationships between lecturers and their students, in instructional contexts. Lecturers spend much time sending and receiving messages to and from their students. This happens through interpersonal communication (face-to-face communication), small-group settings, verbal communication, non verbal communication, intercultural communication, and organisational communication. The Department of Education, students, parents of students, and managers of institutions expect lecturers to be effective communicators. Lecturers should have deep understanding of when a student needs to be heard, how to interpret signals correctly, show enthusiasm or concern, use facial expressions or gestures appropriately, be humorous, and / or serious when the need arises (Bless & Higson Smith, 2000). It is not enough for lecturers to simply master the content of what they have to teach students or to know which methods and strategies to use in lectures. They also need to know how to communicate effectively, verbally and nonverbally, with students so that the latter are able to grasp what they are taught
Page 2
during instruction. They need to be aware that they are not only providing facts and information to students but are also impacting how students perceive them as individuals (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). Therefore, one of the keys to lecturers success in their profession is effective communication skills. The question is how successful are lecturers in communicating effectively with their students during instruction. This is what effective instructional communication is about, and it is what this enquiry sought to explore. Instructional communication refers to communication in a lecture environment, with special focus on the instructors communication skills (Ismail & Idris, 2009). Teaching and learning take place through communication, therefore, all forms of communication, verbal and nonverbal, should be observed during formal instruction to facilitate learning. In this chapter I attempt to give an explanation of the importance of this study, the problem statement, aims and objectives of the study, research questions that the study attempted to answer, clarify key concepts that form the basis of this study, outline the scope of this study, give a brief explanation of the research methods used, the findings, conclusions and recommendations, outline the organisation of the study, the possible limitations of the study and future research. An explanation of these aspects follows: 1.1. The rationale of the study
The Department of Education (DoE) in South Africa (SA) identified, as a priority, the need to improve the quality of education (Department of Education, 2008). This led to the establishment of The Quality Learning and Lectures Campaign launched by the former Minister of Education, Mrs Naledi Pando on 09 October 2008, in Thembisa (Department of Education, 2008). One of the aims of the campaign is to improve the quality of education for all children through better learner achievements. This was reiterated by the President of South Africa, Mr J Zuma, in his Nation Address, in 2009 and later by the Minister of Higher Education in South Africa, Mr Blade Nzimande, at The Teacher Development Summit, held in South Africa, on 2 July 2009 (Department of Education, 2009). The aim of this study therefore, is to explore the dynamics that are at play when lecturers and students interact, as I try to
Page 3
gain a deep understanding of the instructional communication skills of one of the primary role players in education, the lecturer.
My interest in this research was stimulated by the reality that students in institutions of Higher learning do not succeed as expected. There is a high level of student dropout (MacGregor, 2009), and concerns that the Higher education sector is not meeting national needs in respect of economic growth, and ...social cohesion (Pando, 2005, in Higher education Monitor No.6). There are also concerns about what needs to be done to support students, in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Speculations are made about the factors that contribute to students low success rates in universities, such as; lack of access into higher institutions of learning, the poor quality of the learning experience, students unpreparedness, challenges with English as the language of instruction; finances; allegations that students do not study, do not take their studies seriously, are lazy, and lack motivation (MacGregor, 2009; (Department of Education, 2008; Higher education Monitor, 2009). The focus, quite often, is on what students are either doing or not doing to facilitate learning. Less attention, if any, is given to what lecturers are doing or not doing to ensure that students learn successfully. I then began to wonder whether lecturers instructional communication was not one of the possible factors contributing to students low success and retention rates. What are the complexities of lecturers instructional communication in institutions of higher learning?
My observations, and experience, as a lecturer, at one of the institutions of higher learning in South Africa, made me realise that the quality of lecturers communication with students is key in students learning. If lecturers do not express themselves well, verbally and nonverbally, students struggle to receive their messages. If lecturers expect students to succeed in learning, they too should take responsibility to support students effectively in their learning, by being effective communicators. I experienced, first hand, how students fail to cope with their academic responsibilities once they are at university. A gap exists between what students are expected to know from Grade 12, and what they should be dealing with at universities. Universities complain that students are underprepared when they enter university, regardless of the high marks they may have obtained in their grade 12 findings. This was also confirmed in a study conducted by MacGregor (2009) at a number of South
PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011 Page 4
African universities. The objectives of the study were to assess the entry-level literacy and mathematics proficiencies of students, to probe the relationship between university entry requirements, and school exit outcomes ... (Ibid, p.1). The study indicated that there is a gap between what students acquired in school, and what they are expected to have acquired in order to cope at university level. As a result, lecturers find themselves having to go back and lecture what students should have learnt in high school, and still cover the prescribed syllabus for the given course. Time is of the essence, and quite often, the quality of the course gets compromised in the process of bridging the gap. The focus needs to shift to whether lecturers are able to adapt to new students that now enter universities. How effective are they in communicating with these students during instruction? The decline in the quality of Higher education is not unique to South Africa; it is a global concern (Archived Information, US Department of Education, 2007; Times Higher education, 2003). However, there is little research if any, in South Africa, on lecturers instructional communication. It is against this background that the study set out to explore the complexities of lecturers communication, with students, during instruction, with the aim to increase human understanding on instructional communication (Bless, and Higson-Smith, 2000) in the South African context. My study sought not to test any theory on instructional communication but to relate existing theories to this study for better insight. I also did not seek to generalise any findings that might be obtained in the research, but to transfer what could be learnt from research conducted, to similar contexts. While a lot of research was conducted on instructional communication (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Richmond et al, 2001; Richmond, McCroskey& Johnson, 2003; Rocca, 2004; Pogue & Alyn, 2006; Zhang et al, 2007 etc.), a gap exists in these studies that might compromise the reliability and validity of these studies in the field of instructional communication. The researchers used only one method of collecting data; questionnaires. There were no other methods to triangulate or crystallise the findings of the questionnaire. A question remains if the researchers would have arrived at the same conclusions had they used other methods of data collection like interviews, classroom observations etc. most of these studies, focused on the perceptions of students only without corroborating them with those of the lecturers or the researchers observations. It is against this background that while my study is
about a long researched topic, I sought to use different methods of data collection; questionnaires, interviews and observations so as to crystallise the information gathered, to ensure reliability and validity. Research Questions In this study, an attempt was made to answer the following research questions to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of lecturers communication as they interact with their students in a multilingual instructional context: 1. The Primary question asked was: RQ.1. what are the complexities of lecturers instructional communication in multilingual lecture halls, where English is the medium of instruction? This question forms the basis of this study as it helped me to gain deeper insight into what the literature says about lecturers instructional communication. The answer to this question helped me to identify several factors that contribute to instructional communication like teacher traits, teacher communication behaviour, student perceptions, learning outcomes, and learning environment. Because these factors are so wide, I would not have done justice to this field if I attempted to explore them all in one study. I therefore chose to focus my study on teacher behaviours like verbal and nonverbal behaviours, teacher clarity and source credibility. My choice of focusing only on these aspects of instructional communication was also influenced by my initial wonder, about whether lecturers are not possibly contributing towards students low success rate and high drop-out rate as they interact with the students in a lecture environment. I them decided to explore these factors by answering the following secondary questions: RQ.1.1. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of the lecturers verbal and nonverbal immediacy, at an institution of higher learning? RQ.1.2. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of the lecturers clarity, at an institution of higher learning? RQ.1.3. what are lecturers, students and the researchers perceptions of the lecturers credibility, at an institution of higher learning?
Page 6
These questions were addressed through students responses in the questionnaires administered, interviews held with the lecturers and the researcher observations of lecturer presentations.
1.2. -
Contextualising the study
The evolution of instructional Communication o Internationally o Nationally (SA)
1.3.
Key Concept clarification
The following are key concepts that were used in this study and therefore need to be clarified for better understanding of what they mean in the context of this study. Some of these concepts appear to be obvious in their meaning and were explained in simplistic terms. However, what is important is not what they mean but how they were used in the context of this study and therefore, an argument is presented on how they should be understood to avoid confusion. A brief explanation of the concepts follows; Communication
Communication is a multidisciplinary concept and therefore has multiple definitions. The varying definitions of communication, presents, varying models that explain the communication process. I consider Collins and OBriens (2003, p. 65) definition of communication, which sums up communication as the exchange of ideas, including hearing or receiving information, speaking or sending information, and use of language, written, oral and symbolic. This definition brings to light many aspects of communication, which are found in other definitions, that communication is: interactive and participative ideas are exchanged; is a two-way process with feedback; it involves basic language skills - hearing, listening, speaking and in other contexts even reading and writing; that there are participants one who sends information (sender) and one who receives information (receiver) although these roles are switched in the process, language is used, and ideas are exchanged
through a medium/codes (oral, written and symbolic). Sage (2003, p.1) indicates that communication is dynamic in that it includes many ways of sending and receiving messages, and not simply telling things to others. For the purpose of this study, communication, therefore, refers to a two-way process where both the sender and the receiver create and exchange information e.g. ideas, feelings, emotions, thoughts, attitudes, values etc., through verbal and nonverbal interactions, via a medium. This definition places communication properly in an instructional context wherein the participants; the lecturer and students interact with the purpose of creating and sharing knowledge which changes with each lecture, and the participants themselves, change roles in the process. Institutions of higher learning
The term Institutions of higher learning in South Africa is used synonymously to institutions of higher education. These refer to all registered academic institutions, according to the Higher Education Act No.101 of 1997 of South Africa, that offer qualifications higher than grade 12 (Mothata et al, 2000, p.76). Qualifications offered are undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, offered on full-time or part-time basis, through a contact or distance mode of delivery. The qualifications offered range from certificates, to diplomas, to degrees. In 2001, the higher education institutions in South Africa were divided into 21 Universities and 15 technikons (Bunting, 2004). Technikons were institutions that offered vocational qualifications in applied disciplines, and had less focus on research. Universities offered professional academic programmes, with more emphasis on research. The situation changed in 2002, when the Department of Education rationalised the higher education system by merging some of the institutions. For the purpose of this study, institutions of higher learning referred to any accredited academic institution that offers formal instruction to students registered for tertiary education programmes. student-teacher interaction Instructional Communication
Simonds (2001, p.1) defines Instructional communication as a field of study that informs educators of all disciplines about the communication skills necessary to
function competently in the classroom. These communication skills entail teacher immediacy, power, clarity, interpersonal relationships with students, and the use of verbal and nonverbal codes, among others. Lecturers need these skills to be able to impart the content of what they had planned to teach and students need these skills to grasp what the lecturers teach. In this study, Instructional communication referred to lecturers communicative skills, as they interact with their students verbally and nonverbally, in a face-to-face learning environment. More information on instructional communication is given in the literature review as this is the basis of my study. Multilingual lecture hall
There seems to be no agreement on the definition of multilingualism. However, most definitions commonly refer to multilingualism as the use of more than three languages (Aronin & Hufein, 2009; Kemp, 2009; Nio-Murcia & Rothman, 2008). The difference in the varying definitions is due to the fact there is no agreement in terms of the degree of proficiency and functionality in the languages used (Ibid). There are also different opinions about the number of languages to be mastered. Others believe it should be mastery of three or more languages (Aronin & Hufein, 2009; Kemp, 2009) while others believe it should be two or more, hence they use multilingualism and bilingualism interchangeably (Nio-Murcia & Rothman, 2008). From these definitions, one can therefore conclude that to be multilingual means to be able to speak more than three languages. A multilingual lecture hall did therefore be a setting in which learners who speak more than three languages receive instruction. Since language carries within it culture, a multilingual lecture hall did have learners coming from different cultural backgrounds as well. All of these variables did influence how teaching and learning takes place and how perceptions are formed. For the purpose of this study, a multilingual lecture hall is an instructional setting, at an institution of higher learning, where learners interact with each other, from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. perceptions
Since instructional communication is about students perceptions, it is important to explain what perceptions are. Perceptions refer to how we view the self, and how others view us, through the five senses as we give meaning to communication
encounters (Geddes, 1995). Geddes points out that many of the systems in our society ranging from family systems to organisational systems perpetuate unhealthy behaviours and low self-esteem (p.22) .This study did explore how lecturers perceive their instructional communication during lectures, and how students perceive their lecturers instructional communication during lectures. I also establish my perceptions of lecturers instructional communication through observations that I conduct. The aim of these exercises did be, to gain an in-depth knowledge of the nature of lecturers instructional communication, using various instruments to collect data, so that the information gained could be reliable. Lecturers often become casualties of damaged self-esteem because of practices and structures created by institutions. In some instances, lecturers, themselves, become the perpetuators of low self - esteem in students. The question is do lecturers esteem themselves and, how do students esteem them.
1.4.
The scope of study
In this study, no logical appeals and emotions were used to gain knowledge (rhetorical), no signs and symbols were studied to elicit meaning (semiotic), no personal experiences were shared (Phenomenological), no social order was explored as the glue of society (Sociocultural), and I did not see communication as a social arrangement of power and oppression (Critical) (Graig 1999, in Littlejohn, 2002). However, I followed the Sociopsychological tradition of communication in conducting my research. This tradition accents behaviour, variables, effects, personalities, traits, perception, cognition, attitudes and interaction (Littlejohn, 2002, p.14). I explored lecturers, students and my perceptions, of lecturers communication skills as the lecturers interacted with their students during instruction.
Since language and communication are key elements that influence social and academic success (Daly & Brown, 2007), my research was guided by three assumptions made by Wilkenson (1982, p.4,), one of the forefathers of linguistics, on the sociolinguistic approach to language, that Interaction in classroom activities requires competence in both the structural and functional aspects of language. I therefore decided to explore how
competent are lecturers in their communication with students, during lecturers. This I did by evaluating both students and lecturers perceptions on lecturers instructional communication. The classroom is a unique communication context. Meaning is negotiated and knowledge is shared when lecturers and students interact with each other in an instructional context. This type of communication is symbolic of interpersonal, verbal, nonverbal, small group, mass communication, intercultural, extrapersonal and organisational communication contexts. This assumption led me to attempt to gain a deeper insight into what dynamics are at play when lecturers and students communicate with each other as they interact in an instructional environment. Students differ in their communicative competence. This is because they come from different backgrounds and therefore bring with them, various variables of communication, into the learning environment. One of the variables they bring into a learning environment is their language proficiency and this has an impact on how they will learn depending on the medium of instruction at their institution of learning. It is against this background that I decided to focus on an institution where English is the medium of instruction because students are at various levels of proficiency in English. The same can be said about teachers/lecturers; they differ in their communicative competence, they differ in their proficiency in English, which is the medium through which they need to impart knowledge meaningfully and successfully to students and thereby facilitate effective cognitive learning. This explains why my participants are not just one lecturer but seven lecturers so that I get a holistic view of the subject of lecturer instructional communication.
These assumptions bring in relations between instructional communication and other aspects of communication which did not form part of the conceptual framework of my study, as I would not do justice to them since they are studies in their own right. Researchers agree that the communication of instructors (teachers, lecturers, facilitators, trainers) plays an important role during teaching and learning (Simonds, 2001; McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond, 2004), as teachers and students negotiate meaning in a classroom context. This importance is supported by other researchers,
Page 11
who use concepts, such as lecturer communication (Daly & Brown, 2007), communication competence (Schirmer, Mauksch et al,2005; Lane, 2000), Classroom communication (Ismail & Idris,2009), classroom interaction (Osakwe, 2009), verbal and nonverbal behaviour in the classroom ( Babad, 2009), and classroom Discourse Analysis ( Rymes, 2009; Nuthall, 2009) to explain what happens in a learning environment. Their research is still about instructional communication, although they use different concepts, depending on the focus of their research.
Research on Instructional Communication usually follows two general approaches; relations and rhetoric. The relational approach relates to the transactional model of interpersonal communication, which assumes that lecturers and students are mutual partners in exchanging information and ideas, for shared understanding (McCrosky et al, 2004, p.198). Both lecturers and students are seen as sources and receivers of messages. This is in line with communication as a two-way process. The rhetoric approach relates to influence via person-to-group communication (Ibid). It assumes that lecturers are the source of information with students acting only as receivers. This approach restricts communication to a one-way process. The question is, which approach to instruction, do lecturers follow as they interact with their students, during formal instruction. I followed the relational approach because I believe that lecturers and students are equal participants in the communication process. If the lecturer becomes the sole source of information or knowledge during instruction, the lecture becomes lecturer focused, and this does not facilitate cognitive learning. This is also that traditional approach to teaching which is no longer relevant in todays learning environments. Students need to be involved and actively participate in the learning process.
Instructional communication is explained from a generic model of instructional communication which consists of: students perceptions of teachers verbal and nonverbal communication behaviours; students perceptions of the teachers source credibility and task attractiveness; and instructional outcomes (McCrosky et al, 2005). This model, suggests that perceptions are one of the variables in instructional communication. This is because students bring to an instructional context, variables
such as: intelligence; personality; prior learning and temperament among others, which influence how they perceive their lecturers. Teachers on the other hand differ, in terms of what they too bring to an instructional context: communication behaviours; teaching methods and subject knowledge among others (Ibid), and therefore, did have their own perceptions of how the communicate. In addition, each (students and lecturers) creates perceptions of the other either before, during or after instructional interactions. Therefore, I explore the lecturers, students and researchers perceptions of lecturers verbal and nonverbal communication behaviours, clarity and credibility during instruction. A brief explanation of these factors follows; more will be said in the next chapter of this study. Immediacy is a term that evolved from Mehrabians work in 1966,1971, and 1981 (Richmond, McCrosky & Johnson, 2003) where he came up with his immediacy principle which states that people are drawn towards persons and things they like, they evaluate highly, and prefer; they avoid or move away from things they dislike, evaluate negatively, or do not prefer ( p.2). Several studies have linked teacher immediacy to positive affect towards courses and instructors, greater motivation to learn, greater achievement and greater perceptions of control by the students (McCrosky & Chesebro, 2001, McCrosky & Richards, 2005). It is therefore important that lecturers become aware of how they use their verbal and nonverbal codes during instruction, to facilitate cognitive learning. Teacher clarity , on the other hand, is the process by which an instructor is able to effectively stimulate the desired meaning of course content and processes in the minds of students through the use of appropriate structured verbal and nonverbal messages (McCrosky & Chesebro, 2001, p.62). McCrosky & Chesebro conducted a study where they concluded that teacher clarity is related to increased student motivation to learn; that clear teachers speak fluently, stay on task and explain information effectively; that students of clear lecturers are less likely to experience receiver apprehension in the classroom. Teacher credibility: Issues such as teacher immediacy, teacher clarity, power and compliance-gaining, interpersonal relationships, listening and feedback, nonverbal communication and effective teaching strategies are central to the role of communication during learning (Simonds, 2001). However, the scope of this study
was to explore lecturers communication behaviours by measuring students, lecturers, and the researcher perceptions of lecturers verbal and nonverbal immediacy; clarity and credibility, as they interact with students during lectures.
1.5.
Research Design and Methodology
The table below gives a summary of the research design and methodology followed in this study
Table1. Summary of research methodology and process ASSUMPTIONS Epistemological paradigm: Constructivism approach Methodological paradigm: Pragmatic methodology RESEARCH DESIGN Approach Qualitative Design Case study SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS Non-probability convenience 2 institutions of higher learning in South Africa sample Participants Primary data - seven lecturers who offer Basic Communication Skills courses Secondary data - 300 students taught by the target lecturers DATA COLLECTION Protocols Semi-structured , face-to-face, individual interviews (lecturers) eCOVE and video recorded observations (lectures) 300 self-administered questionnaires (students) Data documentation instruments Observation scheduled, interview schedule, eCOVE observation report, DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION SPSS, and Weft.QDA DUALITY CRITERIA Reliability Researcher effects, Participant effects, Context effects, Test-retest reliability Validity Content validity, Construct validity, ETHICS Informed consent, Confidentiality, Anonymity, Trust A brief discussion of the research design and methodology will now follow on the next page, with detailed information in chapter three.
Page 14
1.5.1. Research philosophy The world we live in requires some kind of knowledge, which can be viewed in three worlds the world of everyday life and lay knowledge (pragmatics), the world of science (epistemic), and the world of metascience (Mouton, 2009, pp. 8-9). This study followed a pragmatic interest because I sought to explore the complexities of lecturers instructional communication which is part of the lecturers and students day-to-day activities. When students report on their lecturers communication skills, they would be dwelling on their lay knowledge as students and not experts in the field of communication. I explored how students and lecturers interact with one another in a multilingual lecture context, from a constructivist point of view, which is concerned with the uniqueness of each particular situation (Nieuwenhuis (2009, p.51). Hittleman & Simon (2006, p.65) add that peoples behaviours and actions occur in specific social contexts or situations, and therefore, ought to be studied in natural settings. Each lecture that I observed is a unique situation in that the interaction between lecturers and students varied from lecture to lecture, depending on: the subject matter that was presented; the participants involved - lecturers and students who present different dynamics with each lecture; and the learning context itself, which was not the same at all times. I also sought to transfer knowledge from one context to another by exploring different lecturers perceptions of their own instructional communication skills and different students perceptions of their different lecturers. This study did not seek to generate any models or theory, which is the role of the epistemic world; nor did it sought to bring conceptual clarity to any key concepts, which is the aim of metascience. I also did not search for any empirical regularities of laws of human behaviour, which is what Babbie & Mouton (2006, p.272), refer to as the nomothetic strategy. My study followed the idiographic strategy which examines a single event or case and its structural coherence with a larger context (Ibid). The event under study is instruction as the lecturers interact with the students during lectures. I conducted an exploratory research using a case study of an institution of higher learning in South Africa. The university has five academic Faculties, with eight campuses, in three provinces; Gauteng, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga. A case study is
a systematic examination of an event or a set of related events which describes and explains a phenomenon (Gillman, 2000; Babbie & Mouton, 2009. One of the criticisms laid against case studies is that they are incapable of providing a generalising conclusion. This is not the purpose of a case study because case studies are aimed at gaining greater insight and understanding of the dynamics of a specific situation (Nieuwenhuis, 2009), which is what my study is about. Generalisation from one group of people to others, in human behaviour, is not possible because, there are too many elements that are specific to that group (Gillham, 2000). Case studies are known for their multiple source of evidence, to ensure reliability. I used interviews and observations to gather data from the primary source, the lecturers, and questionnaires to gather data from the secondary sources, the students. The approach to my research is mainly qualitative as I conducted manual and video recorded observations and face-to-face, semi-structured interviews, with a quantitative data gathering tool used (self-administered questionnaires). A brief explanation of how the qualitative approach was used follows.
Qualitative Research I followed a qualitative approach to my study by examining human actions in natural context, interaction of other people and objects in their surrounding (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002; Hittleman & Simon, 2006; Babbie & Mouton, 2006 ; Creswelll et al 2009; Mouton, 2009; Bless & Higson Smith; 2000,Jansen, 2009). I explored what happened during an instructional episode with special focus on lecturers communication skills in a lecture hall environment, which is seen as a natural context in which lecturers interact with students daily, as they go about negotiating teaching and learning. I interviewed and observed the participants myself to get a holistic view of their perceptions about their own communication skills. This is in line with one of the requirements of qualitative research; using multiple sources of data. I employed the help of research assistants in video recording the lectures observed. Holloway & Wheeler (2002) add that the researcher in qualitative research not only studies people or systems but also participate and observes the participants in their natural setting. However, I did not interact with the participants as this might have changed
my research to action learning, which is not the approach I wanted to follow. I was an outside observer, in that much as I was in the same venue with the participants, I did not teach anything, nor was I a learner, but a researcher. I used observation checklists, interview schedules and the eCOVE software to record data, during lecture sessions of one and half hours, per lecturer. The observations helped to bridge the gap between what people say they do and their actual behaviour (Bryman, 2001). The same lectures were video recorded, with the help of video technicians. The reasons behind the two sessions of lectures were; to confirm what was observed in the first session and to include some essential aspects that were not part of the initial observation. I also interviewed the seven lecturers, in one session of 30 minutes each, to gain more insight into their perceptions about their own communication skills, during formal instruction. More information on the observations and face-to-face interviews will be given in chapter 4, under data collection.
I did not conduct a quantitative research per se, but used one of the quantitative data gathering techniques, questionnaires, to get as much information from the secondary source of data, the students. Questionnaires were administered to 300 students in order to get their perceptions of their lecturers instructional communication. Quantitative research is known for using numbers and measurement (Gillham, 2000; Babbie & Mouton, 2006, Bryman, 2001, Creswell et al, 2009). 1.5.2. Research process The primary source of data in this research was seven lecturers at two institutions of higher learning, in Gauteng, South Africa. I approached these lecturers and sent them invitation letters to participate in the study, by virtue of the fact that they have been offering communication courses, for some time at the institutions. They all agreed to participate in the study. I used a non-probability convenience sample of six permanent staff member, who interact more with the students and one part-time lecturer. All of these lecturers offer Basic Communication Skills courses, at the two institutions. The seven participants included 4 male lecturers (one white and three black) and four female lecturers (two white and two black), of different age groups. Case studies are known for their small sample (Babbie & Mouton, 2006) and as such
this sample appears to be small, but is representative of the population of lecturers. The sample is representative in that the population of lecturers in institutions of higher learning is fairly large to cover in this study, and it is also costly to include all institutions of higher learning in South Africa, in the study. Seven lecturers are representative enough to generate knowledge that is truthful. The secondary source of data is 300 students (black, white, male and female), who are taught by the target lecturers. The students are at different levels of English language proficiency since some have English as their mother tongue, others as second or third languages. The emphasis is on the English language proficiency because English is the medium of instruction at both institutions. Very few students have competence in English. The selection of the sample might appear to be biased in that six lecturers are based in the same department, at the same university, with the exception of one lecturer. One should remember that the research conducted with only the lecturer at one of the research sites, was a pilot study. The bias is addressed in that lecturers are spread throughout the one institution, located at various campuses, in the three provinces of South Africa, reducing the lecturer effect. The lecturers offer courses to students who are registered for programmes, in varying departments, Faculties, and campuses of the institutions, and this addresses the student and campus effect. As a researcher, I personally interviewed the participants and observed the lecture presentations to get a holistic view of the perceptions of lecturers communication skills. More of the roles that I played are explained in the next chapter.
Protocols
As already mentioned, multiple methods of data collection, interviews, observations and questionnaires were used in this study to ensure reliability. For the purpose of this study, data were collected using the ordinal level of measurement which refers to variables with attributes that we can logically rank-order e.g. very important, fairly important, important (Babbie & Mouton, 2009, p.131). A brief discussion of each data collection tool used in my study follows, more on these will be discussed in Chapter3:
Page 18
Observations One of the data-gathering methods I used for the qualitative study was observations. I conducted two phases of one and half hours of lecture observations with seven participants without interacting with them. The first phase was a pilot and then the second session followed which was in the main study. One of the most distinctive features of Qualitative research, is to attempt to view the world through the eyes (perspective) of the actors themselves (Babbie and Mouton, 2009, p.271). It is against this background that I played the role of a "qualitative researcher, one who need not always participate in what they are studying, (Gillham, 2000). I did not participate in any of the activities during lectures, because I did not want to influence the study with my opinions, attitudes and experiences, but obtained an objective view as far as possible. I recorded descriptions of what was observed, and reflections on what happened, using a table (see Appendix C), modified from Evans (2009) to suit my study. The observations I engaged in first were used in the pilot study, and analysed for the purpose of adding or removing some aspects for use in the main study. I also used the eCOVE observation software to gather data during the observations. I chose to use eCOVE as it is software that is readily available in the market, which proved to be reliable (sources) and can be used with ease during actual instruction. A trained video technician videotaped the same lectures that I observed to get any information I might have failed to capture during the use of the eCOVE observation tool and to ensure reliability of what I shall have observed (see Addendum B). More is said about how the camera and the eCOVE observation tool were used, in chapter three of this study.
Face-to-face interviews Another qualitative data-gathering technique that I used was the semi-structured, face-to-face, individual interviews. I conducted one session of 30 minutes or more if necessary, semi-structured, face-to-face, individual interviews, in English, with each of the seven participants in the study. The interviews were held in the lecturers offices to ensure privacy and to minimise disturbances. I personally conducted all the face-to-face interviews to observe both the verbal and nonverbal codes of the interviewees, and to assess their English language proficiency. An established set of pre-determined, open-ended questions, with fixed wording and sequence of presentation (Babbie & Mouton, 2009, Wengraf, 2004) were asked, to explore the
nature of the lecturers communication skills during instruction, as they interacted with their students. Follow-up questions were used to encourage the respondents to express their attitudes, emotions, ideas or opinions, and to elicit more information. I used clarification probes and paraphrasing to check the correctness of my understanding of what was said. Wood & Kruger (2000) state that, one of the requirements of interviews is that the interviewer and the interviewee are equal partners in constructing meaning. The face-to-face interviews helped me to synthesise data that emerged from the questionnaires and the observations. Chapter three gives more information on how the interviews were conducted.
Questionnaires As indicated before, the secondary data were collected through self-administered questionnaires, to students, in two phases. In the first phase, the questionnaires were pre-tested to identify errors, ambiguity in questions or violations of rules (Babbie & Mouton, 2009), through a pilot study. This was done with one lecturer and her students, to ensure reliability and validity, before the actual data gathering in the main study. The questions asked in the questionnaires were informed by the literature on assessing students perceptions in lecturers verbal and nonverbal behaviour, clarity and credibility in instructional communication. The questionnaire comprised of four sections: Section A which sought the students biographical data; Section B which is a verbal and nonverbal immediacy scale that sought students perceptions about their lecturers use of verbal and nonverbal communication skills, adapted from the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale Observer Report (NIS-O) by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) ; Section C which is the Lecturer Clarity measure adapted from Pwell and Harville (1990) and Sidelinger and McCroskey (1997) and which explored students perceptions about how clear the lecturers are during instruction. Section D is a Credibility Scale adapted from McCroskey and Teven (1999) that evaluated students perceptions about their lecturer credibility. In the second phase, the main study, 300 questionnaires were administered to students, by trained research assistants. This was done in 30 minutes sessions with the students taught by the participants, when students were free to participate in the study. This was to address ethical considerations of the study like, voluntary participation and non-interference with the university schedule. More information is given in chapter three.
The data in the study were recorded and analysed through the use of SPSS software and the eCOVE observation report for the quantitative study and the use of the Weft.QDA software for the qualitative part of the study. More information on data analysis is discussed in the fourth chapter of the study. Findings, conclusion, recommendations, limitations and future research
1.6.
Organisation of the Study
The outline of the study is in three phases, front matter, interrogation and back matter. The Front matter includes a list of tables, a list of figures and a list of addenda. The interrogation is as follows: 1. The first Chapter of the study gives the background of the study, which introduces the problem statement, aims and objectives of the study, research questions, and potential contributions; clarifies key concepts, and gives a brief introduction of the research methods, the scope and organisation of the study. 2. In the second chapter, I explore the relevant literature to explain the conceptualisation of the study, focussing on lecturers instructional communication skills, with specific reference to teacher verbal and nonverbal behaviours, clarity and credibility. 3. In the third Chapter, I explain the selected research philosophy and research methodology, 4. The fourth chapter explains how data were collected through interviews, observations and questionnaires. The results of the study are also reflected. 5. The sixth chapter presents an analysis and interpretation of the results, reporting the findings of the study, with examples to enrich the presentation of my study, relating the results to the literature review, while 6. The final chapter, Chapter seven, presents the conclusions on my study, reflects on the challenges faced, and discusses the potential value of the study, recommendations, and future research.
Page 21
The back matter includes references, addenda, samples of questionnaire; interview schedule; samples of the eCOVE observation reports; video observation sheets and interview transcripts.
Conclusion In conclusion, this is a qualitative, case study of seven lecturers and their students at an institution of higher learning in South Africa, where English is the medium of instruction. This study sought to explore the dynamics that are at play when lecturers and students interact with each other in an instructional context. The purpose of this study was to make a meaningful contribution to the field of instructional communication, by exploring this field from a South African perspective. Most studies in instructional communication have been conducted abroad and none, if any, have been conducted in South Africa. Also, most of these studies evaluated students perceptions about their lecturers communication skills using only questionnaires to gather data. This is likely to compromise the reliability and validity of the studies as there is no other data to either triangulate or crystallise the results of the study. It is against this background that I conducted this study in a South African environment and used multiple instruments to gather data which was later crystallised. Seven lecturers from six campuses of the university participated voluntarily, through lecture observations and interviews, in the study, upon invitation, to reflect on their own communication skills during lectures. The target lecturers student responded to questionnaires that were administered to give their perceptions about their lecturers communication skills during lecturers.
Page 22
Chapter 2: Literature review

Introduction The debate around instructional communication has been going on for years. This is because this field of study has its basis as communication, which is evolving all the time. Also, the concept takes place within a learning context and learning itself is lifelong. However, most importantly, issues around instructional communication continue to be discussed because of their impact on students cognitive learning. This chapter gives a broad understanding of the concept of instructional communication based on the literature and research conducted in the field. The chapter starts by unpacking the concept of instructional communication; explains the General Model of Instructional communication, which is the basis of this study; discusses issues of immediacy which are verbal and nonverbal, the measures used to evaluate immediacy and their reliability and validity; teacher clarity by looking at oral and written clarity, content and process clarity, measures of clarity and their reliability and validity; and teacher credibility by exploring factors such as competence, trustworthiness and caring/goodwill and explaining the instruments that were/continue to be used to measure credibility, and their reliability and validity. 2.1. Instructional communication
Instructional communication is a field of study that informs educators of all disciplines about the communication skills necessary to function competently in the classroom, (Simonds, 2001.p.1). This definition puts communication at the centre of instruction. It suggest that effective teaching takes place when the educator is aware of and uses the communication skills necessary for teaching and learning to take place. These skills entail: teacher immediacy, teacher clarity, power and compliance, interpersonal relationships, listening, feedback and nonverbal communication. Simonds and Cheri argue that a teacher can be an expert in his/her field, but if he /she cannot communicate that knowledge in a way that students understand, learning is not achieved. This is because they view communication as central in a classroom context, where they see the classroom as a place where both the teacher and the students mutually influence learning, and not where the teacher is the sole influence. Effective communication, on the part of the teacher, should therefore, lead to increased learning and positive evaluation.
Since instructional communication is a form of communication, other theories of communication can be used since theories of communication practical because every theory is a response to some aspect of communication encountered in everyday life (Littlejohn, 2002). These theories, according to Littlejohn include Metatheory which is a field that attempts to describe and explain the similarities and differences among theories;
Page 23
Epistemology which studies knowledge or how people know what they claim to know. This theory include viewing knowledge from different perspectives; rationalism, empiricism and constructivism. This study approaches knowledge from the empiricism view in that the study seeks to explore the dynamics that are at play when lecturers and students communicate with each other during instruction by looking at the students, lecturers and researchers perceptions.
Instructional communication can also be based on the seven traditional standpoints as highlighted by Littlejohn (2002) which include; the semiotic tradition that focuses on signs and symbols; the phenomenological tradition which concentrates on personal experience including how individuals experience one another; the cybernetic tradition which views communication primarily as information processing; the sociocultural tradition which holds social order as its centrepiece and sees communication as the glue of society; the critical tradition that sees communication as a social arrangements of power and oppression and The Sociopsychological tradition, which forms the basis of this study. This tradition concentrates primarily on those aspects of communication that include expression, interaction and influence. This research focused on teacher- student interaction in a lecture hall context. The sociopsychological tradition accents behaviour, variables, effects, personalities and traits, perceptions, cognition, attitudes and interaction. This study sought to explore students, lecturers and the researchers perceptions of lecturers behaviour, influenced by their personalities and traits as they interact with their students during instruction.
Early research on instructional communication, focused on individual differences in students (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998, McCroskey and Young, 1981). Recent research shifted focus to be centred on teachers orientations and behaviours related to communication during instruction (Simonds, 2001, Mottet and Richmond, 2001, Witt, 2004, Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001, Teven and Herring, 2005, Comadena et al., 2007) This study of Instructional communication is based on the general Model of Instructional Communication which is explained below.
Page 24
2.2.
The General Model of instructional communication
The general model of instructional communication is based on six components: teachers and students perceptions of teachers verbal and nonverbal communication behaviours; students perceptions of the teachers source credibility and task attractiveness; instructional outcomes; students (temperament, intelligence, experience, etc.) and the instructional environment (McCroskey et al., 2004). McCroskey et al, point out that this general linear model of instructional communication, suggests a direct causal pattern as follows; Orientations of teachers are associated with teachers verbal and nonverbal behaviours Teachers verbal and nonverbal behaviours are observable by students. The observation and interpretation of these behaviours are related to students perceptions of the source credibility and task attractiveness of the teacher. Students perceptions of teachers communication behaviours, source credibility, task attractiveness, are associated with students evaluation of the teacher.
As a result of these patterns, several studies were conducted to show a correlation between nonverbal immediacy and socio-communicative style of the instructor (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001) that there is a relationship teacher behaviour and student motivation and demotivation (Gorham and Christophel, 1992, Simonds, 2001), a relationship between teacher clarity and student outcomes (Rodger et al., 2007), teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy (Comadena et al., 2007), source credibility and communication effectiveness (Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952), teacher immediacy and teacher credibility (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). These studies put at the centre of their research students, teachers and perceptions. It therefore warrants that one put these aspects of instructional communication into perspective.
Students are one of the most important role players in an instructional context. This is because teaching cannot take place without someone to learn what is being taught. Also, students bring to an instructional system, many variables such as intelligence, personality and temperament, prior learning, socio-economic status, religion and many more, that impact the way students perceive their teachers and teachers communication behaviours (McCroskey et al., 2004). However, there could be no students without teachers in an instructional context. Teachers, who are equally important role players in an instructional context, bring various aspects into the instructional context; knowledge of content, knowledge of methodology, level of intelligence, experience, communication competence, education, personality, temperament etc. (McCroskey et al., 2004). These elements
have an influence on the teachers choice of verbal and nonverbal communication behaviours in instruction (Ibid). Since an assessment of teachers instructional communication relies heavily on students perceptions, a brief explanation of the role of perceptions in an instructional context follows;
Perceptions. One of the keys to effective communication is perceptions (a healthy self esteem). This refers to how we view self, and how others view us, through the five senses. Perceptions help to give meaning to communication encounters. Geddes (1995) points out that many of the systems in our society ranging from family systems to organisational systems perpetuate unhealthy behaviours and low self-esteem (p22). This study explored the lecturers perceptions about their own instructional communication in lectures, and students perceptions about their lecturers instructional communication in lectures. I also established my own perceptions of lecturers instructional communication through observations that I conducted. The aim of these exercises was to gain an in-depth knowledge of lecturers communication skills using various instruments to collect data so that the information gained could be reliable.
Lecturers often become casualties of damaged self-esteem because of practices, and structures created by institutions when they are not involved in the development of curricula, and the university procedures, and policies and therefore have no ownership. In some instances, lecturers themselves become the perpetuators of students low self esteem, when they look down upon their students and when they do treat them the same. Students too need to be involved in meaningful decision making processes as a way of being empowered. The question is how lecturers perceive their communicative competence, and how do students perceive their lecturers.
Alder & Tower (1993, in Geddes, 1995, p.24) discuss the following as factors that affect perceptions, which I incorporated in the study.
Page 26
(I). Motives .Our motives affect how we perceive varying people, and events. We tend to perceive only what we want to see. If we do not like someone, we may probably view what they say, and do with suspicion. If we like them then all is good in them. (ii). Past experiences colour our interpretation of present events. (iii). Assumptions. Our assumptions about human behaviour influence how we interpret people and events. If a lecturer always sees the negative side of the students, it may affect their interaction with the students as well as their perception of behaviour and events. (iv). Expectations are related to assumptions. If lecturers believe that their supervisors are happy with their work, then thy may not be threatened by their lecture visits. (v). Knowledge affects our perception of others. If lecturers know that a particular behaviour is normal for a 17- year old, then they would be able to deal with it as a developmental stage and not as a problem.
Students form perceptions of their teachers at various levels; some students will form perceptions about their teachers even before they are taught a given class by the said teacher, during the course offered and after the course offered. This might be because the students have met the teacher before, or have received information about the teacher from other people, or have taken another class before, with the teacher. In the case where the teacher is totally new to the students, they will begin to develop perceptions of the teacher the moment they become exposed to the teacher. McCroskey (2004) argues that these perceptions may be weak and stereotypical at first, but become stronger as exposure continues, generated by the teachers verbal and nonverbal communication behaviour. For the purpose of this study, focus will be on teachers and students perceptions of teachers communication behaviours with specific focus on teacher immediacy; students perceptions of the teachers clarity and source credibility as a way to answer the research questions asked. Other aspects of the model will be left out for future research as it will not be justified to include all aspects in this study.
2.3.
Teacher Immediacy
Page 27
Teacher immediacy is a concept that was first introduced by Mehrabian in 1971 (Richmond, 2001). Immediacy is the degree of perceived physical or psychological closeness between teachers and students, based on the belief that students are drawn to teachers they trust and perceive as competent and caring (Richmond, 2001, Mottet and Richmond, 2001, McLean, 2007, Martinez-Egger and Powers). Richmond suggests that students are more likely to comply with reasonable requests if they like, respect and admire the teacher. Immediacy, which can be either verbal or nonverbal, determines the amount of power and affect a teacher, has with his/her students. This presents a potential impact on learning in the classroom because nonverbal messages differ from culture to culture. Several studies confirm that immediacy behaviours are associated with more positive affect, increased cognitive learning and more student evaluations (Baringer and McCroskey, 2000, Richmond, 2001). Richmond asserts that the more communicators employ immediate behaviours, the more others will like them, evaluate highly and prefer (p.68). Similarly, the less communicators employ immediate behaviours the more others will dislike, evaluate negatively and reject such communicators. Teachers need to be mindful of the possible impact of their nonverbal behaviour on student learning. Teacher immediacy is linked to more positive affect towards course and instructors, greater motivation to learn, greater achievement and greater perceptions of control (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001) Teachers verbal and nonverbal behaviours differ from one teacher to another, bringing various variables into the instructional context. Teachers impart knowledge in what they say and do and this in turn becomes stimulated in students minds. The more teachers communicate with their students, the more they develop communication behaviours, which students observe and form opinions/impressions about. A discussion of verbal and nonverbal behaviours follows.
2.3.1. Verbal immediacy Verbal immediacy is about how close or more distant we feel towards people, depending on what they say and do. When we send positive verbal messages, we encourage people to communicate with us and thereby establish and maintain positive relationships. The opposite is also true in that negative messages establish negative relationships. The primary function of teacher verbal behaviour in the classroom is to give content to improve students cognitive learning (Richmond, 2001). More! 2.3.2. Nonverbal immediacy Instructional communication research has determined that behaviours such as gestures, movement, smiling, vocal variety, eye contact, humour etc., are highly
affective teaching behaviours (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). Early research referred to these behaviours as teacher enthusiasm or teacher expressiveness, in (Abrams, Leventhal, & Perry, 1982; Coats & Smidchens, 1966 and Ware &Williams, 1975). Recent communication researchers labelled this as immediacy behaviours (McCroskey, 2004, Richmond et al., 2003). A closer look at teachers nonverbal behaviour in the context of instruction follows;
2.3.3. Lecturer appearance The way lecturers appear to their students, during instruction influences the way students perceive him. Similarly, the way students appear towards lecturers during instruction or in the lecturers offices, influences the way lecturers perceive them. Students will perceive a lecturer who dresses formally as competent, organized, prepared and knowledgeable but not receptive (Richmond, 2001). Richmond adds that students will perceive teachers who dress casually as friendly, outgoing, receptive, flexible but not competent.
2.3.4. Gestures and movement Students behave in certain ways during instruction, such as chewing pencils, biting nails, clicking pens, etc., to adapt to their environment, for example, when anxious or if the teacher is boring. Teachers also show certain behaviours to adapt to the teaching environment, for example when meeting the class for the first time, if anxious or nervous. Where teachers and students show very little gestures or none at all, might be perceived to be boring and unanimated (Richmond, 2001). This implies that teachers and students can be perceived to be either receptive and immediate or non-immediate and unreceptive depending on how they use gestures. It is therefore important that both teachers and students should strive to be more animated and dynamic as this will improve student teacher interaction and make the classroom a more exciting environment (p.72). Richmond adds that Positive nods are means of stimulating student-teacher interaction and student response and students who use similar head nods help promote student-teacher interaction and help the teacher to know when students have understood the content (p.72) 2.3.5. Facial expression Students perceive a teacher with a dull, boring facial expression as uninterested in the subject matter and in them. Smiling is associated with liking, affiliation and immediacy. Teachers who smile show positive affect and are perceived to be more immediate and likeable than those who dont smile. Both teachers and students react
positively to those that smile to them than those who frown. This opens up communication.
2.3.6. Eye behaviour Eye behaviour of both students and teachers play a very important role during instruction in that it can affect interaction between the two. When students look away and avoid teacher eye contact, the teachers perceive them to be uninterested and unwilling to communicate. When teachers lack eye contact from students, this is perceived as rejection of the content or the teacher. Similarly, teachers who do not maintain eye contact with their students are perceived to be shy, or unapproachable.
2.3.7. Vocal behaviour Tone of voice plays a very important role during instruction (Richmond, 2001). Richmond asserts that students learn less, are less interested in the subject matter, liked the class less when teachers use a monotone voice (p.74). Students prefer lively, animated voices. Richmond adds that good teachers laugh and allow students to laugh as a way to release tension and to relax.
2.3.8. Space How space is shared in an instructional environment is can be affective. Teachers who stand behind the podium, or in one place throughout instruction and rarely approach the students or allow the students to approach them, are perceived to be unfriendly and unreceptive, unapproachable, non-immediate and hamper studentteacher relationships (Richmond, 2001). In the same breath, students who back away when the teacher approaches, are perceived to be hostile to the teacher and to their learning environment and uninterested in learning.
2.3.9. Touch Richmond assert that touch can be helpful to establish and maintain teacher student relationships (p.74). However, he warns that some students can be touch avoidant, and very much uncomfortable. In such instances, he advises that such students should be left alone. Care should be taken to ensure that touch is done within the norms of the school to facilitate teaching and learning. The primary function of teacher nonverbal behaviour in the classroom is to improve affect or liking for the subject matter, teacher and class, and to increase the desire to learn more about the subject matter. Students are more likely to listen more, learn more and have a more positive attitude about school when the teacher improves affect through nonverbal behaviour(Richmond, 2001).
Since the questionnaire used in this study is divided into four categories of instructional communication; student biography; verbal and nonverbal immediacy; clarity and credibility, it is important to explore the instruments that have been used and are currently still being used, to measure them, instruments which informed the development of the instruments in this study. 2.3.10. Measures of verbal and nonverbal immediacy.
Richmond et al (2003) indicate that communication research on immediacy and its measurement began in instructional communication with the work of Anderson in 1978 and 1979. According to Richmond, Anderson employed three different measures; The Behavioural Indicants of Immediacy (BII), the Generalised Immediacy (GI) scale and an 11-item rating scale, which were initially regarded as the better scales but were later found not to be valid. Richmond, Gorham and McCroskey (1992) re-examined the original BII and developed the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (NIM) which became the most common choice of instructional researchers (Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952, McCroskey and Young, 1981). Gorhan and Zakahi (1990) developed a 14-item measure which was labelled the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (NIM). This measure was later reviewed by McCroskey, Richmond, Salinger, Fayer and Barraugh in 1995. Gorhan (1998) developed a measure of verbal immediacy, where the focus was on what people (teachers) say. Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) indicated that the measure was initially well-received although it later emerged that it was completely invalid as a measure of verbal immediacy (p.506). Mottet and Richmond (1998) were unsuccessful in their attempt to develop a verbal immediacy measure.
2.3.11.
The validity and reliability of the measures
The original General Immediacy (GI) Scale, a 9-item measure by Anderson (1978 and 1979), where data were collected from both the teachers and their students with regards to their teacher nonverbal immediacy, indicated a small correlation between the students and teachers and was non-significant (Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson, 2003). Both the 14-item and the 10-item NIM provided a wide variety of
reliability estimates ranging from .69 to .89 (Ibid) and higher than .81in three studies (Richmond and McCroskey, 2000a). This shows inconsistent reliability estimates. A review of the instruments by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) used a total of 26 items (13 positively worded, 13 negatively worded), presented as a self-report and as an other - report of nonverbal immediacy. The items were presented with a 5 Likert type measure response format. The reliability estimates for both versions of the instruments was regarded to be very strong. Richmond et al (2003) concluded that the scale appeared to be both valid and reliable. In a study conducted by Baringer and McCroskey (2000), they used the 10-item measure to assess teacher perceptions of student immediacy. The reliability was found to be very similar to that found for the original form (Ibid, p.182). Rocca (2004) conducted a study where she looked at the impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. She used the 10-item Nonverbal Immediacy measure which she found to be reliable and valid. It is against this background that I decided to design my instrument on verbal and nonverbal immediacy (Section B) according to the tried and tested scales of immediacy measures. The rationale behind this is that the nonverbal Immediacy Scale self Report (NVIS-SR), the Nonverbal immediacy Scale Observer Report (NVIS OR) and the Self-Report of Immediacy Behaviours (SRIB) is that these are instruments that have been used for years and are currently still being used by many researchers because of their reliability and validity (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Richmond et al, 2001; Richmond, McCroskey& Johnson, 2003; Rocca, 2004; Pogue & Alyn, 2006; Zhang et al, 2007 etc.).
2.4.
Teacher clarity
There seems to be no consistency in defining teacher clarity. Is it sometimes defined as the ability of the teacher to present information in an understandable and organized manner, using relevant examples, pointing out practical applications, repeating ideas, stressing important points (Rodger et al., 2007, Comadena et al., 2007). Chesebro and McCroskey (2001) view clarity as a variable which represents the process by which an instructor is able to stimulate the desired meaning of course content and process in the minds of students through the use of appropriate verbal and non-verbal messages (P. 62). For Sidelinger & McCroskey (1997) clarity include expressiveness, message clarity, explaining effectiveness, teacher explanations, structuring, direct instruction, explicit teaching, teacher elaboration, message fidelity, task structuring, coaching and scaffolding (p. 1). However, these definitions all focus
on clarity only in as far as the teacher is concerned, Simonds (1997) points out that teachers and students share in the responsibility and abilities to clarify content. Both are equal partners in the process as teachers clarify their explanations and students seek clarifications of the teachers explanations. Sidelinger (1997) indicate that teacher clarity is central to effective teaching in that as teacher clarity increases, so does student learning and teacher evaluations.
Previous studies focused on oral clarity to the exclusion of written clarity (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Simonds, 1997). However, students perceptions of teacher clarity are impacted by both oral and written verbal messages in the instructional context.
2.4.1. Oral Clarity Oral communication entail course lectures, content examples, teacher feedback from students questions and written communication includes exam questions, the course syllabus, outlines of class projects and course objectives (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997) Simonds (1997) points out that teacher oral clarity, manifests itself in teacher explanations which are; Interpretive which answer what questions about the content of the course Descriptive which answer how questions about procedure or tasks of the course Reason-giving which answer why questions, which address the rationale for content and procedure.
This indicates the role that teachers play in their efforts to clarify the subject matter in class. It also indicates the possible role that students ought to play in processing the information that teachers present by also asking such questions. Simonds (1997) also argues that the other manifestation of teacher oral clarity is teacher questions which vary according to the subject matter presented and the participants involved. Both teachers and students have the responsibility of making presentations clear. Erdogan and Campbell (2008) argue that teachers use questions for two reasons where they focus on; the subject matter whereby questions are restrictive and lead to intended responses Eliciting students ideas by asking questions encouraging a much wider range of student responses.
Page 33
Teachers are expected to ask students questions to assess if they are following the discussion, understood what was presented and whether they can apply the theory they have learnt to practical situations, amongst other reasons. Similarly students are expected to ask questions seek clarification, present an argument, and request for help. Simonds (1997) categorised students questions as questions that seek classroom procedure, general inquiry on content, clarification, confirmation and general inquiry on the teacher.
Erdogan and Campbell (2008) differentiate between two types of questions asked during teaching and learning; Lower-order questions which elicit responses that require direct recalling from or explanations cited explicitly in text and Higher-order questions aimed at assessing higher cognitive skills such as analysing, synthesising and evaluation.
Erdogan and Campbell add that the two levels of questioning are important for assessing students understanding and for stimulating thinking.
2.4.2. Written clarity Written clarity, which according to Sidelinger and McCroskey (1997) relates to written communication, includes things like exam questions, the course syllabus, outlines of projects and course objectives. Recent research on teacher clarity has expanded the construct of clarity to include the clear communication of classroom process and course content (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997, Simonds, 1997). 2.4.3. Content clarity Content clarity is reflected by behaviour items such as (a) Explains content of material, (b) Stresses important aspects of content and (c) Responds to perceived deficiencies in understanding content material (Hines et al,1985, in Simonds, 1997). 2.4.4. Process clarity Process clarity refers to the teachers ability in making his/her presentations clear to facilitate student learning (Simonds, 1997). High clarity teachers are clear in their presentations and organisation of content, preview topics, provide affective transitions, so that students are able to integrate lecture material into their schemata effectively, speak fluently, stay on task and explain information effectively (Comadena et al., 2007, Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). However, if the teacher is unclear, students are expected to use some strategies that will help them to reduce the uncertainty. These will include request for help, specific information and additional material, among other things.
Several studies have indicated positive correlates between teacher clarity student affective learning (Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997) between teacher immediacy and student motivation (Rodger et al., 2007, Comadena et al., 2007), affect for instructor, affect for course (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). These relationships are supported by Simonds (1997) who adds that teacher clarity is a relational variable, viewed in relationship to teacher knowledge; seen as a connecting element between content and pedagogy (p. 280).These relationships were measured in these studies through some of the following instruments; 2.4.5. Measures of Clarity Rosenshine and First (1971 in Simonds, 1997) identified nine variables that comprised teacher clarity; clarity, variability, enthusiasm, task oriented, criticism, teacher indirectness, criterion meter structuring concepts and levels of questions (Simonds, 1997). They also identified different descriptions of clarity such as clarity of presentation, and whether the points that teachers made were easy to understand (p.280). Simonds (1997) points out that the challenge with these descriptions is that there are inferential than behavioural in nature. Civickly (1992, in Simonds, 1997) identified two groups of instruments on teacher clarity. The first group of instruments followed a self inventory format. Cruickshank (1985) and Wlodkowski (1985, in Simonds 1997), produced two instruments; the first is a collection of 12 behaviours;(a) orient and prepares students for what is to be taught; (b) communicates content so that students understands; (c) provides illustrations and examples; (d) demonstrates; (e) use variety of teaching material; (f)teach things in a related step-by-step manner; (g) repeats and stress directions and points;(h) adjust teaching to the learner and the topic; (i) cause students to organise learning in meaningful ways; (j) provide practice; (k) provides standards and rules for satisfactory performance; (l)provides students with feedback or knowledge of how well they are doing (Simonds, 1997). Wlodkowski (1985, in Simonds, 1997) produced the final model of the self-inventory instrument in the first group, where he identified four core characters of teacher presentation, expertise, empathy, enthusiasm and clarity (Simonds, 1997). These instruments were followed by observational measures which ask students to rate an instructors clarity. Murrays Teacher Rating Form (Murray & Lawrance, 1980, in Simonds, 1997) includes 10 global items and 28 low- inference behaviours. Global items include; clarity of explanations, and explicitness regarding course objectives.
Observable behaviour includes puts outline of lecture on the board; provide sample exam questions; explains how each topic fits in. Murray also developed the Teacher Behaviour Inventory (TBI) which had nine categories and 57 items of classroom behaviour. The categories include; enthusiasm, clarity, interaction, task orientation, Rapport, and organisation. The behaviours that describe clarity factor are; (a) uses concrete examples of concepts; (b) gives multiple examples; (c) points out practical applications; (d) stress important points and (e) repeats difficult ideas. Simonds (1997) cites the following as other instruments which include behavioural items indicative of teacher clarity (McCaleb and Rosenthal (1983 in Simonds, 1997); Hines, Cruikshank and Kennedy (1985 in Simonds, 1997) and Powell and Harville (1990). Simonds (1997) argue that teachers and students share in the responsibilities and abilities of to clarify content (p.283). This is in line with the two-way process of communication where both the teacher and the students negotiate meaning. Simonds adds that it is therefore important that that any measure of clarity focus on both the teacher and the students. Most studies however, focus on the clarity of teachers at the exclusion of students clarity. Simonds (1997) developed an instrument (Teacher Clarity Report TCR) that unlike previous ones, sought to measure the clarity of both content and process for overall classroom understanding. Simonds selected items from; Murray & Lawrance, 1980; Cruikshank, 1985; Wlodkowski, 1985 and Powell and Harville, 1990. Simonds included content items common with most measures and added process items. Her instrument included two global items; content and process clarity and 18 low-inference behaviours. Sidelinger and McCroskey (1997) conducted a study on the Communication Correlation of Teacher Clarity in the College Classroom where they used the expanded version of the scale by Powell and Harville (1990). Their scale consisted of 22 items on a fivepoint Likert Scale, as opposed to the original 10-items Scale which focused only on the oral communication of the instructor. Chesebro & McCroskey (1998) developed the Teacher Clarity Short Inventory (TCSR) as a review of the instruments previously developed by Simonds, 1997 and Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997 because they believed the scales were longer than the other instructional measures of Immediacy, affect for instructors and subjects; motivation and learning and so valuable time could be if a shorter instrument with comparable reliability were available. The
instrument became useful and proportional to other measures of instructional communication (p.264). 2.4.6. Validity and Reliability of the measures The original scale (Powell and Harville, 1990) yielded an alpha reliability estimate of .93 and Sidelinger and McCroskeys (1997) scale yielded an alpha reliability estimate of .95. Simonds (1997) study appears to enhance content validity of teacher clarity by including items of process clarity and content clarity and reliability of the overall TCR (Simonds, 1997). The reliability and validity of the TCSI is regarded to be comparable to previous instruments by indicating an alpha reliability measure of .92 (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998). It is against this background that I chose to adapt my instrument to measure clarity on the instruments previously tried and tested.
2.5.
Teacher credibility
There are several definitions and references to teacher credibility. Teacher credibility (Martinez-Egger and Powers, Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998, Witt, 2004, Teven and Herring, 2005, Banfield et al., 2006) which Aristotle called ethos (McCroskey and Young, 1981) or source credibility(Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952, McCroskey and Young, 1981, McCroskey and Teven, 1999) refers to the attitude of a receiver towards the source based on the image that a particular teacher presents in class (being perceived as competent, trustworthy and/or caring (Teven and Herring, 2005)p. 237 or perceived to be believable (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). McCroskey, Holdridge and Toomb (McLean, 2007),p.17) on the other hand define teacher credibility as a composite of character, sociability, composure, extroversion, and competence, determined by caring, competence, and trustworthiness. These definitions are not so different for they both refer to credibility as competence, trustworthy and caring. Students perceptions of a teacher are generated by what the teacher says and does and how he or she says it (McCroskey et al., 2004). If students do not perceive a teacher to be credible, they will less likely listen and learn from that teacher, which goes back to immediacy.
The attitude of the audience, which is a component of perceptions, towards the communicators is seen as an important factor in the effectiveness of communication (Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952, Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998), whether the goal is persuasion or the generation of understanding (McCroskey and Young, 1981) p.24. This supports the claim that one of the goals of teachers in the classroom is to facilitate student understanding and to develop positive affect towards the teachers themselves and the subject matter being studied (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998). Thweat and McCroskey add that affective learning involves attitudes; beliefs,
likes/dislikes and values, and these are variables of instructional communication. This is possible for if students have a negative attitude towards the teacher, they are less likely to have a positive affect for the subject. Similarly, if students have a negative attitude towards the subject, they are less likely to have a positive affect towards the teacher.
Research in the early years indicates that teacher credibility has a strong influence on communication effectiveness (Hovland and Weiss, 1951-1952), that teacher immediacy and misbehaviours have an impact on teacher credibility (Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998), also that there is a strong positive relationship between the students perceptions of respect for a teacher with regards to reports of the teachers competence, caring and character and the students evaluation of the teacher (Martinez-Egger and Powers) and that there is an interrelationship between students perceptions of teacher power, credibility and student satisfaction (Teven and Herring, 2005). These relationships suggest the importance of teacher credibility in a learning environment and puts a possible challenge on the teachers to be mindful of what they say or do and how they say or do things to ensure effective cognitive learning.
Most researchers view teacher or source credibility as composed of three aspects: competence, trustworthiness and goodwill (Martinez-Egger and Powers, McCroskey and Young, 1981, Thweatt and McCroskey, 1998, Teven and Herring, 2005, Banfield et al., 2006). A discussion of these three factors follows;
2.5.1. Competence Competence is defined as the degree to which a teacher is perceived to know what he or she is talking about (McCroskey 1998, p.65). 2.5.2. Trustworthiness Trustworthiness is seen as the degree to which a teacher is perceived to be honest (McCroskey, 1998, p.65). Thweat and McCroskey (1998) indicate that teacher trustworthiness is the essence of teacher character, which is related to teacher competence. If students perceive the teacher to be untrustworthy or incompetent in the subject matter, they are less likely to have a positive attitude towards the teacher and therefore, therefore learning will be affected negatively. Teven and McCroskey (1998) conducted a study where they looked at the other side of teacher trustworthiness, teacher misbehaviour. This is important because most teachers view misbehaviours only in as far as students are concerned. However, teachers too can misbehave. The study by Teven and McCroskey reported that teachers were perceived to be most competent when they were high in immediacy and without
misbehaviours (p.355). They also reported that teachers with high immediacy and no misbehaviours were seen as the most trustworthy. Also the study reported that high immediate teachers were constantly seen as more caring than nonimmediate teachers regardless of their behaviour.
2.5.3. Caring/goodwill Goodwill is the degree to which a teacher is perceived to care about the students best interest (McCroskey 1998, p.65).Teven and McCroskey (1996) add that caring is directly associated with good will and has a positive impact on affective learning, cognitive learning and the students teacher evaluation. This implies that when the students perceive their teacher to be caring they are more likely to learn better. Also when the teacher is perceived to be caring, students are most likely to evaluate him/her positively. 2.5.4. Respect One of the aspects of teacher credibility, related to is teacher respect, which Martinez-Egger and Powers (2007) define as the degree of regard held by a student for an instructor engaged in the teaching profession (p.147).Martinez-Egger and powers add that knowledge of student respect enable lecturers to predict potential behaviour as well as related evaluations that may have an influence upon the learning process. They further argue that a students respect for a teacher would logically have an impact upon a students behaviour towards and communication with the teacher during interactions. This is possible because if a student disrespects the teacher, that student will not value the knowledge that the teacher brings to the lecture hall, and this will be evident in the students verbal and nonverbal behaviour. Previous research (Yelsma and Yelsma, 1998 in Martinez-Egger and Powers) focused on measuring respect by looking at a students behaviour. However, current research (Martinez-Egger and Powers, 2007) focuses on developing measurement of respect looking at students cognitions. Martinez-Egger and Powers believe that cognitions representing student respect for a teacher can be measured within the context of the educational system. This is consistent with the measurements of teacher credibility because respect does not confine itself to student behaviour towards teachers but also respect in what the teacher offers, cognitively. Similarly, studies on respect often focus on student behaviour at the exclusion of teacher behaviour that also shows teacher respect for the students or lack thereof. If teacher perceive students to be misbehaving, the students behaviour is interpreted as lack of respect. Similarly if students perceive the lecturer to be misbehaving, they too will interpret the lecturers behaviour as showing disrespect towards them. This is a relationship that most lecturers tend to overlook by only confining respect or lack thereof to students.
Page 39
Martinez- Egger and Powers (2007) argue that behaviours are not random events but rather are preceded by some combination of cognitions that precipitate the behavioural decision (p.149). They further assert that a students report of a teachers behaviour would flow from one of two interactive cyclic perspectives, namely; The teacher behaved in such a manner as to create or impact a students respect for that teacher A students respect for a teacher provides an orientation such that the student may consistently interpret the teachers behaviour from a comparable point of view (p.149)
These perspectives present respect as a two-way process, just like communication itself. It is a give and take situation where if the teacher respects the students, the students will in-turn respect the lecturer. Both need to conduct themselves in respectful ways to facilitate effective teaching and learning. 2.5.5. Teacher credibility measures Teacher credibility has its foundations in the history of ethos, which originates from Rhetorics by Aristotle (McCroskey and Young, 1981). Anderson (1961, in McCroskey and young, 1981) conducted a study where he reported the development of semantic differential scales designed to measure ethos. Berlo and Lemert in 1961 later reported on semantic differential-type scales used to measure the dimensions of competence, trustworthiness and dynamism (McCroskey and Young, 1981). McCroskey and young point out that these factors were later seen to be unrelated to previous conceptualisations of ethos or credibility, reported on the measures developed for semantic differential type, employing factor analyses as their primary research tool, and used small samples that rendered the internal validity of the study questionable.
In later years, McCroskey and his associates (1971-1975) reported a series of studies in which they investigated a wide variety of types of communication receivers with scales. These studies brought to the table five dimensions of credibility: competence, character, sociability, extroversion, and composure with specific scales recommended to measure each of these dimensions on the basis of the type of source involved (McCroskey and Young, 1981). McCroskey and Young later developed an instrument which was based on the adjectives they got from students describing the person you would be least likely to believe (p.27). They then reported eight dimensions of Source Credibility labelled as sociability, size, extroversion, composure, competence, time, weight, and character, previously demonstrated in other studies, with the additions of size, weight and time.
2.5.6. The reliability and validity of the measures The instruments used to measure credibility have been used for years by researcher in the field of instructional communication. Their reliability and validity have been tested and are now considered reliable and valid. Teven and McCroskey (1997) developed the Source Credibility Measure, which showed the Cronbachs alpha reliability of .89 for competence, .93 for caring and .83 for trustworthiness. MartinezEgger and Powers scale showed an alpha reliability coefficient of .9533.Banfield, in their study, Richmond and McCroskey (2006) showed an estimated alpha reliability for each component; Competence = .90, trustworthiness = .92 and caring .90.
Conclusion Lecturers Instructional communication plays a key role in teaching and learning. Lecturers need to be mindful of what they say (verbal immediacy) and how (nonverbal immediacy) they say it as research has shown that these have a possible impact on students cognitive learning. Also, learning takes place effectively when students perceive the lecturer to be immediate. It is also important that lecturers are clear in what they say (oral and content) and also in how (process) they say it. Lecturer clarity should be evaluated in its totality form oral clarity to written clarity and from content clarity to process clarity. Research has shown that students will evaluate highly a lecturer who is clear and cognitive learning is facilitated effectively, when lecturers are clear. A lecturers credibility has possible implications on student learning. It is important that students perceive lecturers to be trustworthy with the information they give as this will make students not only evaluate the lecturer highly, but they will also evaluate the subject matter highly too, and therefore see the value of what they are taught. Since teacher clarity entails both oral and written clarity and content and process clarity, any instrument that claims to measure teacher clarity should assess these four aspects, to get holistic pictures of teacher clarity.
Page 41
Chapter3. Research Methodology

3.1. Introduction This chapter gives detailed explanations of how the sample used in this study was arrived at; the research design followed; the methodology used in the study; how data was gathered by giving a detailed explanation of the techniques used interviews, lecture observations and questionnaires. A detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of the measures used is also given. 3.2. Research Philosophy This study followed a qualitative research design although a quantitative data collection tool was also used to gather data. The primary goal of qualitative research is to understand and describe human behaviour and not to explain it (Niewenhuis, 2009). In this study, the aim was to understand the behaviour of lecturers and students as they communicate and interact with each other during instruction. Qualitative research is concerned with understanding the processes, and the social and cultural contexts which underlie various behavioural patterns(Niewenhuis, 2009), p51. The process that was followed in this exploration meant that a sample was chosen with participants and respondents, data was collected and analysed and a report compiled. More on this process of research will be elaborated upon as the report progresses. An instructional context is seen as a social and cultural context in that any interaction that takes place between the lecturer and the students, and among the students, is governed by social rules. In the same breath, all the participants (lecturer and students) in this communication process, bring with them their cultural background, which might be the same or different, and has an influence on how they perceive each other. Also, much as they bring their cultural background into the lecture context, they are all subjected to the university culture which is superior to any culture, in this context. Niewenhuis adds that that qualitative research is aimed at conducting an in-depth study of a phenomenon, and not at testing a hypothesis or generalising results. This is what this study is about, to conduct an indepth study of the instructional communication of lecturers and their students, in a lecture context, in terms of verbal and non-verbal immediacy, teacher clarity and credibility. This study is not aimed at proving any hypothesis or to generalise any
Page 42
rule. The aim of this study is to uncover the depth of information on the behavioural patterns of lecturers during an instructional communication interaction. This study followed the constructivist approach as it looked at the uniqueness of each individual lecturer and his/her students, and not focused on discovering any general laws governing instructional communication. This belongs to Quantitative research, which is the difference between nomothetic and ideographic approaches (Niewenhuis, 2009, Babbie et al., 2006). Holloway and Wheeler (2002, p.51), and Babbie et al (2009) add that qualitative research studies people or systems, by interacting with, and observing the participants in their natural environment. This is the methodological paradigm followed in this study. The intention is to explore the instructional communication of lecturers at an institution of Higher Education, by observing their behaviour in an instructional context. I do not interact with the lecturers as this might change my research to action learning, which is not the approach I wanted to follow. However, my presence in the lecture hall cannot be ignored by both the lecturers and the students. I therefore become a passive participant observer. The lecture hall is considered a natural environment for both the lecturers and the students for this is where teaching and learning take place. If one is to explore the instructional communication of the lecturer, the lecture hall is the best place to do so. The lecturers and students behaviours of immediacy, clarity and credibility will be observed as they happen during lectures. Qualitative research attempt to view the world through the eyes of the actors themselves (Babbie et al., 2006), p.271). This is in line with my study as I sought to describe and understand the lecturers and students perceptions about themselves and others, through the eyes of the lecturers and their students. This I achieved by administering questionnaires to students, I interviewed the lecturers about their communication. I have followed the inductive approach in this study, by being immersed in the natural setting of the participants through lecture observations that I conducted, described the events as they occurred during the lecture, built the second order construct and ultimately created new knowledge. This explains why there are no hypothesis in my study because I did not want to test a hypothesis.
Page 43
The purpose of this study is to explore lecturer and students communication skills within an instructional context, with the aim of learning what perceptions both students and lecturers have about each others verbal and non-verbal immediacy, clarity and credibility. This then confines the study to be explorative. Explorative studies are known to explore a topic, or to provide a basic familiarity with the topic, typical when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of the study itself is relatively new (Babbie et al., 2006). The field of instructional communication is not entirely new in research. Several studies have been conducted abroad (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001, Mottet and Richmond, 2001, Richmond et al., 2003, McCroskey et al., 2004, Rodger et al., 2007, Comadena et al., 2007) among others. However, the topic of instructional communication has not been researched that much in South Africa, and therefore, remains fairly new in this context. Exploratory studies are also appropriate for more persistent phenomena (Babbie et al., 2006). Lecturers and students communication continues to be an issue of concern in educational sectors as it is considered one of the key variables in ensuring and promoting effective teaching and learning. Barbie et al (2006) argue that bbecause exploratory studies usually lead to insight and comprehension, rather than the collection of detailed, accurate and replicable data, they frequently use indepth interviews, analysis of case studies, and the use of informants (p.80). The research conducted is a case study of an institution of higher learning in Pretoria, South Africa, where interviews were held with lecturers to get their perception about their communication skills. Classroom observations were also conducted to get an idea of the actual situation during instruction. More information will be shared on this in the third chapter of this study. The research design followed in this study is a survey. Surveys have been used, in social research, to gather data over many years (Babbie et al., 2006). Questionnaires were administered at the end of the communication courses to explore how students perceived their lecturers communication skills, throughout the year. Surveys may be used for descriptive, exploratory and explanatory purposes, where human beings are the unit of analysis, serving as either respondents or participants. The unit of analysis in this study is the behaviour of both the lecturers and their students as they interact and communicate with each other within an instructional context, confining this study to empirical research in the social sciences.
In this study, the lecturers are the participants and their students are the respondents. This is a cross sectional study that took place over a period of 18 months. Babbie et al add that surveys are also an excellent tool for measuring attitudes and orientation within a large population. This study measured the perceptions (also related to attitudes) of the students and their lecturers to get two sides of the story and the researched observed events herself to see what the actual situation is. 3.3. Research process This research is an exploratory study using a case study. Creswell (2009) defines a case study as a systematic inquiry into an event or a set of related events which aims to describe and explain the phenomenon of interest (p.75). The kind of case study I embarked upon looked at a series of lectures by seven lecturers, at an institution of higher learning in Pretoria, South Africa, in year courses. I endeavoured to give what Creswell (2009) calls a comprehensive (holistic) understanding of how participants relate, and interact with one another (p. 75). A criticism laid against case studies is that they are incapable of providing a generalising conclusion. Creswell warns that this is not the purpose of a case study because case studies are aimed at gaining greater insight and understanding of the dynamics of a specific situation (p76), exactly what this study is about.
Creswell (2009) indicates that credibility and trustworthiness in research can be ensured by engaging multiple methods of data collection. In this study, a combination of methods are used to gather data; questionnaires, interviews and observations. The help of Research Assistants was sought to distribute questionnaires to about 300 students in lectures and to video record the lectures. I, the researcher, observed the lecturers twice in one academic year, during lectures through the eCOVE observation software, and a trained Research Assistant video recorded the same lectures to confirm and add to the information gained during lecture observations. I also called upon the expertise of a trained statistician to help me with the recording, and interpretation of the data.
Page 45
3.3.1. Research Site The primary research site for the study is a university in Gauteng, South Africa. The university is a result of the merger between three former technikons in Gauteng in 2004. The merger was initiated by the then minister of Education with the aim to address the imbalances in higher education as a result of the apartheid system of governance. This system propagated separate universities for students according to their racial background. The university has five academic Faculties, with eight campuses, in three provinces; Gauteng, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga. The university offers accredited programmes, predominantly via contact and few on distance learning. Contact programmes are those programmes whose students attend lectures on a face-to-face interaction with lecturers, almost on a daily basis. Distance learning programmes refer to those programmes where students do not have face-to-face contact, with their lecturers regularly, except per appointment. Personal contact is, in most instances, non-existent as students only hear from their lecturers when they write and receive assignments, by mail through tutorial letters and when they write tests and examinations. For the purpose of this study, I focus only on face-to-face interactions (contact programmes) as this is the best way to observe the complexities of lecturers communication verbally and non-verbally, with their students. The secondary research site for this study, which was used as a pilot, is one of the international universities, still in Gauteng, South Africa. The institution also offers both contact and distance learning programmes. Focus was only on the contact learning programmes, for the same reason already mentioned. The choice of these institutions is based on suitability and feasibility (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, in Maree, 2009). The campuses are suitable as they are spread across three provinces in South Africa, and feasible, in terms of the distance to be covered. I intend to explore the nature of the lecturers English communication skills, during instruction, and this can only be investigated when English is the target language and also the medium of instruction. The research site in this study uses English as the medium of instruction. The participants and respondents in this study are all from the research site explained. They are described as follows:
3.3.2. Participants Bless and Higson Smith (2000) and Mouton (2009) agree that the aim of research in sampling is to determine or study a sample that best represents the population so
as to generalise the findings truthfully or faithfully (Moutons terms). However, researchers acknowledge that it is usually neither feasible nor possible to draw large samples (Mouton, 2009, p.39) nor is it possible to include the entire population in ones study (Maree & Pieterson, 2009, p.172). The primary source of data in this research was the academic discourse of seven lecturers at two institutions of higher learning, in Gauteng, South Africa. I use a convenience sample of five permanent, and two part-time lecturers who offer Basic Communication Skills1 Courses, at the two institutions. I approach these lecturers to participate in the study, by virtue of the fact that they were delivery communication/English courses, for some time at the institutions. Their knowledge of communication/English skills did help them to respond to the questions that were addressed to them during interviews. The sample appears to be small but representative, because case studies are known for their small sample (Babbie & Mouton, 2006). The sample is representative in that the population of lecturers in institutions of higher learning is fairly large to cover in this study, and it is also costly to include all institutions of higher learning in South Africa, in the study. Seven lecturers were representative enough to generate knowledge that is truthful. The seven participants did include 3 male lecturers (one white and two black) and four female lecturers (two white and two black), of different age groups. The secondary source of data is 300 students (black, white, male and female), who are taught by the said lecturers. It is difficult at this stage to give a breakdown of the profile of students, as this did depend upon the number of students registered at the time of conducting the research. The secondary source of data was available, and easy to reach because of the location of the two institutions. The students are at different levels of English language proficiency. Very few have competence in English. The emphasis is on the English language proficiency because English is the medium of instruction at both institutions. This is in line with the purpose of this study; an exploration of the complexities of instructional communication in multilingual lecture halls, where English is the medium of instruction. The selection of the sample might appear to be biased in that six lecturers are based in the same department, at the same university, with the exception of one lecturer. Research conducted with the only lecturer at one of the research sites, were a pilot study. The bias is addressed in that lecturers are spread throughout the one institution, located at various campuses, in the three provinces of
Page 47
South Africa. The lecturers offer courses to students who are registered for programmes, in varying departments, Faculties, and campuses of the institutions.
3.3.3. Researcher Role My role as researcher was clarified from the onset with the participants, for ethical reasons. This was to enable the participants to separate my interactions with them as their colleague from my interactions with them as a researcher. Some of the functions that I performed entails: Designing data collection tools observation sheets, interview schedules, compiling questionnaires. I employed the help of the statistician and research consultant at the University of my Study to help me with the capturing of the data gathered to ensure reliability and validity of the factors to be assessed. Preparing, and structuring the observations which I personally administered as there were specific things that I wanted to observe. Training and assisting research assistants in administering the questionnaires, and video- recording the lectures. Training and assisting research assistants to sign confidentiality clauses Securing ethical clearances 3.3.4. Sampling Qualitative research involves smaller sample sizes than quantitative research. This is supported by Maree, and Peterson (2009) who agree that It is usually impossible to include the entire population in your study, the two main restrictions being time, and cost (p.172).Bless and Higson-Smith (2000), and Mouton (2009) add that the aim of research in sampling is to determine or study a representative sample that best represents the population so as to generalise the results truthfully or faithfully (Moutons terms). However, researchers acknowledge that it is usually neither feasible nor possible to draw large samples (Mouton, 2009, P39 ) nor is it possible to include the entire population in ones study (Creswell, 2009), p.172). The sample in this study, nine lecturers, is considered to be representative enough to generate knowledge that is regarded as truthful. For the purpose of this study, I used a nonprobability sample which is summarised in the table that follows;
Study
Participants Race Black White
Respondents Race
Total
Black Students
White
Pilot
Lecturers M 0 F 1 M 1 F 0
M 1st year 2nd year 3rd year
Main study
lecturers
Students 1st year 2nd year 3rd year
Table 1: A summary of the sample used in the study. The sample in the study can be considered to be representative of the population because lecturers are either black or white and male or female. In the same context, students are either black or white, and male or female. The participants were recruited by sending out letters of invitation to lecturers and the first seven lecturers who responded, were chosen to participate according to the variables reflected in the table 1, above. Care was taken to ensure that the sample is balanced in terms of race and gender. Since university students register for various qualifications, diploma; degree and postgraduate studies, this study focused only on the perceptions of lecturers and students registered for various diploma programmes. In order to make the study representative of university lecturers offering courses to students registered for diploma programmes, care was also taken to include lecturers who lecture courses to 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year students. Based on the choice of participants, a convenience sample was used to select the respondents based on the criteria that they are a group of students taught by the participants. The lecturers were left to choose which course to focus on for the purpose of this study. The course chosen then determined which group of students would serve as respondents, in the study. The group chosen by the lecturers to be respondents in this study can be considered to be
representative of the student body in that care was taken to ensure that the students were representative of the race and gender found at multilingual and multicultural universities. The students are also considered representative in terms of their field of study as they are registered for diploma programmes in the fields of Engineering, Management sciences, Economic sciences and Journalism. This also indicates that I used a stratified purposive sample because I purposely chose participants who lectured to students in different fields of study and the field of study chosen (Engineering, Management sciences and Economic sciences) are the ones with the largest population of students at the university with a few representing smaller fields (Languages and journalism). 3.3.5. Ethical Considerations Researchers need to anticipate ethical issues that might arise during their study (Creswell, 2009). As a result, I need to be aware of my perceptions or expectations that may interfere with my observation of important subtle aspects of character and speech (Hittleman & Simon, 2006). The fact that I am a lecturer means that I have my own perceptions about lecturing at an institution of Higher learning. I need to acknowledge this bias and guard against interpreting the discourse that I will receive, from my own perspective. I will have to detach from my bias and remain focused on the data given and not on the person giving the data. Creswell (2009, p.87) adds that researchers need to protect their participants; develop trust; promote the integrity of the research; .... In addition, researchers need to consider issues such as: Informed consent; Confidentiality; Anonymity; Trust etc. and inform participants of their rights (Graziano & Raulin, 2004; Creswell, 2009; Creswell et al, 2009; Babbie and Mouton, 2009; Hittleman & Simon, 2006; Pietersen and Maree, 2009). These issues were touched on briefly under data collection. I will now elaborate on them. Informed consent refers to the right of participants to make decisions about their participation or non-participation in the research. I will give the participants in this study letters inviting them for participation, with information about the research, the purpose of the study, their roles and activities that will be carried out during the research, to make them aware of their rights in this study and to help them make informed decisions about their participation. They will be made aware that participation in the study is voluntary and that they may withdraw from further participation when they feel so. I will give them consent forms to sign before they participate in the study as an indication that they have not been coerced into participating in the study but do so
voluntarily. The purpose of the face-to-face interviews will be clarified beforehand to the participants. I will seek permission to record the face-to-face interviews so that I can listen to them at a later stage, and make transcripts of the face-to-face interviews for data analysis purposes (Nieuwenhuis, 2009). Confidentiality is important in research because participants will only be willing to give sensitive information when they are assured it will be treated as such. I will explain to the participants the value of the data they will give to me and assure them that it will be used solely for the study and that no other person will have access to it. This I will secure by signing a confidentially form, to commit myself to keeping the information that participants give to me, confidential. This will be a way of protecting the information that participants volunteer. The student assistants will also sign confidentiality clauses to ensure that they will keep all information they come across, confidential. Participants who have sensitive information to divulge can sometimes not be forthcoming for fear of victimisation. I will encourage all participants to open up by making them aware that their names will not be reflected in the study to ensure anonymity. Their identities will be kept anonymous by using numbers to identify them, when collecting, and recording data. Their faces will be hidden from the cameras when video recordings are made. If by any chance their faces are captured, they will be blanked so that nobody can identify them. This will be done to protect their identities. Research is conducted within a setting and in this case, the setting is two institutions of Higher learning in South Africa. Institutions have rules and regulations and one of them is to request permission for any research to be conducted. I will request permission to conduct research for my study at both the primary and secondary research sites, through their appropriate Faculty Research and Innovation Committee, and the Ethics Committee. The fact that I am an employee at the university will serve as an advantage to speed up the process. I will collaborate with the Head of Department where the participants are located, for cooperation and support. I will also collaborate with the participants, lecturers, who are also my colleagues, for their participation in the study by explaining to them, the value of the study. Collaboration will also be sought from the statistician at the University for their Expert Knowledge, in data capturing and analysis.
Page 51
3.4.
Protocols
Data gathering in this study is largely qualitative with one quantitative tool used. Qualitative studies are common for using qualitative data gathering methods such as interviews, observations and personal documents, and qualitative analysis methods. Most qualitative studies do not treat data collection and data analysis as two separate processes, but see them as an on-going, cyclical and iterative process (Niewenhuis, 2009), p.81. This is the approach I embarked upon in my study, because I first conducted a pilot study, where I collected data, reflected on the data, identified gaps and then planned for the second leg of data collection in the main study. The same was done for the second leg of data collection in the main study. I used two methods to collect data; qualitative through interviews and lecture observations and quantitative where questionnaires were administered.
Niewenhuis (2009) argue that qualitative research is based on a natural approach that seeks to understand phenomenon in context (p.78) this means that research is conducted in real-life situations and not in experimental situations. This study takes place within a lecture hall set-up which is regarded as a normal teaching and learning situation for both the lecturer and the students. Both the lecturer and the students are not placed in a laboratory where they are under scrutiny.
3.4.1. Lecture hall observations (Niewenhuis, 2009) sees observations as a systematic process of recording behavioural patterns of participants, objects, and occurrences without necessarily questioning or communicating with them (p83). In this study, I became an observer who at the same time was a passive participant because my presence in the lecture hall could not be ignored by the lecturer and the students, the observer paradox.. Participant effect. Much as I became a passive participant, I remained focused on my role as an observer and did not participate in any activities during the lecture. Babbie et al (2009) state that one of the challenges of participant observation is the issue of overt versus covert research because of ethical issues involved. In this study, I did not have to cover up my role as an observer in the lecture hall as I was
obviously not considered a member of the group since I was neither the groups lecturer, nor was I the student. Also, the issues I was observing were not confidential at all to warrant me to disguise myself. It is important to take down full and accurate notes either during or immediately after the observation. In my case, I used the eCOVE classroom observation software, which afforded me the opportunity to record my observations electronically and still write brief comments in the comments box. Babbie et al (2009) caution, that even the tape recorders and cameras cannot capture everything. I counteracted this by using three methods of observations; manual, electronic and video recording so that I can watch the video recordings later fill-up the gaps of what I might have missed during the eCOVE observation. A video camera was placed at a corner of the lecture hall to get a clear view of the lecturer student interactions, with minimal interference during the lecture. Care was taken to ensure good sound recording and to ensure non-identification. This is in line with one of the requirements of case studies i.e. to use multiple methods so as to triangulate the data. I also had developed a Video observation checklist (addendum) for the things I might want to focus attention on, as I watch the video. Babbie et al (2009) advise that it is better to practice conducting observations. I found this to be true because I wanted to test out my observation tools before data gathering in the main study; hence I conducted a pilot study of the tools. In the pilot study, I wanted to check my readiness in using the eCOVE software and I wanted to assess the student assistants skills in recording a video that could be considered professions.
In the pilot study, I conducted single, 1h30min sessions of lecture observations with each of the two participants. I then conducted two, 1h30min sessions of lecture observations with five participants in the main study. I then had a second round of 1h30min lecture observations with the participants in the pilot study, as part of the main study. In all of these observation sessions, I determined the following categories of lecturers-students behaviour, that I could observe; verbal immediacy, non-verbal immediacy, clarity and credibility.
Page 53
3.4.2. Interviews Interviews are regarded as one of the most useful tools in qualitative data gathering, and as a social interaction which involves specific norms, expectations and social roles (Babbie et al., 2006), and therefore should be planned and conducted as such. Babbie et al add that one of the advantages of interviews is that they afford the researcher, the opportunity to probe for answers, clarify misunderstandings, gain insight into the respondents understanding of questions, and to see the world through the eyes of the participant (Maree et al, 2009, p.5).
I conducted single, 30minute sessions of semi-structured interviews with the two lecturers during the pilot study. I then conducted two sessions of 30minutes, with five lecturers and a second session of 30minutes with the lecturers that were involved in the pilot as part of the main study. All the interviews were conducted by me (researcher) as I wanted to get first-hand information on the participants responses and also observe their non-verbal behaviour during the interviews as they are a rich source of information. Similarly, I had to be mindful of my non-verbal behaviour during the interviews. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain a rich, descriptive data that would help me understand the dynamics that are at play when lecturers and students communicate with each other.
The lecturers I interviewed were the best qualified people to provide me with the information regarding their interaction with the students and again they were talking about their own experiences as lecturers at an institution of higher learning.
In all sessions I asked pre-determined questions, with some probing questions to get more information and clarification of the participants responses. I took down notes where necessary as taking down notes during an interview can be time consuming and distracting. I made up for this by having an audio-tape of the interviews, which I later listened to and transcribed. During the pilot study, I listened
Page 54
to the tapes, reviewed my notes and reflected on the interview to identify gaps that I needed to explore in the main study.
I developed an interview schedule (Addendum) which had 16 pre-determined questions, which were asked in exactly the same way, for consistency. The interview schedule opened with a paragraph adapted from Maree et al (2009), which is read to the participant to confirm that a request to hold the interview was submitted (see Addendum ..Invitation letter for participation), and that s/he consents to then interview (addendum). The introduction further gives the background of the study, the aim of the interview, and the commitment that information given will only be used for research purposes, and that no names will be reflected in the research report. The participant is given an opportunity to ask any questions before the interview commences. At the start of the interview I then asked for permission to audio-tape the interview, so that I can listen to it later for information that I might have missed, and to make correct transcripts of the interview for the purposes of data analysis at a later stage.
There are no yes or no questions asked in the interview as they would not yield the detailed information. Leading questions were avoided to get more information on the perception of lecturers about their interaction with their students during lectures. However, probing questions were asked for elaboration and clarity. A variety of questions were asked which sought the participants Behaviour e.g. how would you describe your relationship with your students?.... Opinion e.g. how would you describe your students competence in this subject?... Feelings e.g. how do you feel about the students conduct during lectures?... Evaluation e.g. how would you rate your students English language proficiency? etc.
Page 55
3.4.3. Questionnaire Part of my study implied that I use a quantitative data gathering technique, questionnaires, to get students perceptions about their lecturers communication behaviours during lectures. 20 minutes Questionnaires were administered by student assistants to each group of students identified by the lecturers, during a special lecture. The questionnaire included a student self-report at the end, where students had to give their perceptions about their own behaviour during lectures. The cover page of the questionnaire is a consent form (Addendum.), which students had to sign before they responded to the questionnaire, indicating that they willingly participate in the study. The consent form gives the background of the study, the aim of the research, and the commitment that information given will only be used for research purposes, and that no names will be reflected in the research report. Some advantages of using questionnaires as data collection tools are: that they are cheap and quick to administer; have absence of the researcher effects; no interviewer variability and ensure convenience from respondents (Bryman, 2001). However, Bryman adds that some disadvantages of using questionnaires are: lack of prompt (no one to help the respondents); no probe (no opportunity to probe for elaboration) and lower response rate. These disadvantages did not affect my study in that the questionnaires were self-administered in the presence of research assistants, who offered help where and when, needed, and collected all questionnaires at the end of the sessions. Questionnaires tap peoples attitudes and report on their behaviour (Ibid). It is very important that instructions on the questionnaire be clear so that the respondents are better positioned to give the correct information. The instructions in the questionnaires administered are in clear, simple English, which is the language of instruction at the university, and therefore students are expected to be able to understand the language used in asking the questions, and respond correctly. What also makes the instructions clear is that a demonstration of the instruction is also given, e.g. Please make a cross (X) in the box with the most appropriate answer for you, indicating to the respondents how they should respond to the questions. It is therefore not expected that the respondents will cross out more than one box.
Page 56
The appearance of the questionnaire is user-friendly as all the information is in table format, and respondents only have to make a cross on the box that has the best appropriate response. The boxes are adequately spread apart, making the questionnaire to look more professional and easy for the respondents to deal with. The questionnaire is arranged into five sections according to information requested on the respondents biography; lecturers verbal and non-verbal immediacy, clarity and credibility and a students self-report on their behaviour during lectures. The reason for this division is to help respondents to focus on one topic at a time and not have their minds going all over. The estimated completion time of the questionnaire was 20minutes, which according to the pilot, became The number of items used in the questionnaire, were as follows: Section A: Biographical data =7 items Section B: Verbal and non-verbal immediacy =16 items Section C: Clarity = 14 items Section D: Credibility = 15 items Section E: Student self-report = 16
52 items were used all in all. The sequence of the questionnaire was as follows: The questionnaire starts with Section A which is easy to answer, with nonthreatening questions that seek to establish the biographical details of the respondents to put their perspective at ease. Sections B, C, and D are arranged into content subsections relevant to the study; Section B = Verbal and non-verbal immediacy, Section C = clarity and section D = credibility, making it easier for the respondents to pay attention to one topic at a time. These sections are arranged according to the level of difficulty with Section B, being the easiest to respond to, followed by Sections C and D which are a bit challenging as students now have to depend upon their memory to recall information in order to respond to the questions honestly. The questionnaire has a student self - report (Section A) which covers all the topics; immediacy, clarity and credibility, from a students perception about him/herself. The section is easy to deal with as it requires
students to now reflect on their behaviour during lectures. This section end with an opportunity made available to the respondents, to write down their comments on any matter of their choice. This part will enable them to talk about what has been omitted in the questionnaire, which is important to the respondents, leaving the students feeling good about their responses to the questionnaire. The questionnaire closes with a statement thanking the participants for taking part in the study, and giving them contact details for more information or complaints if they have any.
The wording of the questionnaire is written in such a way that it is the same for each respondent. All the items are worded as statements that respondents need to grade. The language used is simple English, which is the medium of instruction at this institution. Since the respondents are 1st, 2nd and 3rd year students at the university, and therefore, their language proficiency will equip them to respond to the questions correctly and honestly. Some items have been simplified where the researcher felt some students might fail to understand them e.g. The question the lecturer asks students application questions has been simplified to The lecturers ask students questions that make them to apply what they have learnt. Similarly, an evaluation question has been simplified to the lecturer asks the students questions that make them to evaluate situations. Some questions are further simplified by giving additional information to avoid ambiguity e.g. Section B, item 8, The lecturer uses a variety of material (PowerPoint presentations, hand-outs, videos/DVDs etc.) during lectures. Double questions have been avoided by asking them as separate questions to avoid confusing the respondents. No leading questions or single/double-negative questions have been asked to avoid suggesting answers or confusing the respondents. There are no sensitive questions asked and no assumptions made in the questions. Sections E, the student self-report is in the 1st person so that respondents can choose responses that best express their perceptions about themselves. This is important in this section as the questions become personal and so the respondents can be more honest in their responses. Most of the items are positively worded with only a few that are negatively worded. The reason behind this was to avoid ambiguity and confusion so that the respondents know exactly what it is that they are measuring. The items in Section B
(16 items) are all positively worded. In Section C, out of the 14 items, 10 items are positively worded and four items negatively worded. All the 15 items in Section B are positively worded. Section E has 16 items which are all positively worded. The types of questions asked vary, to accommodate all respondents. However, there are no open (unstructured) questions asked in the questionnaire. The reason for this is that I wanted to direct the respondents perceptions to specific behaviours. The respondents were given space at the end of Section E to write down any comments they might have based on the questionnaire. 99% of the questions asked are closed (structural) questions, with respondents provided with a set of responses to choose from; by making a cross in the box that they feel has the best response. Babbie et al (2006) point out that closed-ended response, provide greater uniformity of responses and are more easily processed and can be transferred directly into a computer format. Some of the questions asked, especially in Section A (Biographic data), are dichotomous e.g. the item on gender, where respondents have only two options to choose from because that is how life is, one is either male or female. The questionnaire contains mostly grid questions, where respondents are provided with tables containing statements and boxes that match possible responses to choose from. Most researchers agree that biographical questions should be included in the questionnaire as they help to determine the profile of the sample, to see if the sample is representative of the population, and to explore the possible relationship between biographical variables and other variables (Maree et al., 2009) etc. section A of the questionnaire, seek information like the respondents age, gender and language of communication and instruction, to determine differences between the respondents.
Bell (2005) argues that scales in questionnaires are used to determine the respondents strength, or feelings or attitudes on a construct. The questionnaire used in this study, used an ordinal measure of the respondents perceptions through a Likert scale, asking respondents whether they agree or disagree (Sections C and D) with the statements, or whether they always do something or never (Sections B and E), in five categories; never, seldom, sometimes, often and always and strongly
agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree. The minimum value of Sections B, D and E is 16, with the maximum of 80 and the minimum values for Section C are 13, with the maximum of 65. Most of the items in the questionnaire are stated in the same direction with a few exceptions.
The respondents might be willing to answer the questions asked because the questions relate to their day-to-day interaction with their lecturers, which is also about them. They might also see their participation in the study as an opportunity to either complement their lecturers or express their concerns about him/her with the hope that something might be done to facilitate learning.
The questions vary in length, making the questionnaire easy to read and therefore, uncluttered. The questionnaire is balanced in that the statements are not too short, nor too long, but are in the middle. it is hoped that the respondents would read the statements quickly, understand their intent and select a response without difficulty (Babbie et al., 2006). Because items in the questionnaire are asked as statements, which respondents either have to agree or disagree with, this has minimised biased questions. There are no contingency questions asked as all the questions in the questionnaire are relevant to all respondents.
No matter how well designed a questionnaire might be, there is always the possibility of errors (Babbie et al., 2006). For this reason, pilot studies can be very informative to both the researcher conducting the research and to other people doing similar work (Thabane et al., 2010). It is against this background that I conducted a pilot study to pre-test the questionnaire so as to eliminate errors in the main study. The purpose of the pilot study was to look at the wording, order of the questions and the range of responses amongst other things. Since the questionnaire is divided into four categories of instructional communication; verbal and nonverbal immediacy; clarity; credibility and student selfreport, it is important to explore the instruments that have been used and are
currently still being used, which informed the development of the instruments in this study. 3.4.5. Measures of verbal and nonverbal immediacy. Richmond et al (2003) indicate that communication research on immediacy and its measurement began in instructional communication with the work of Anderson in 1978 and 1979. Anderson employed three different measures; The Behavioural Indicants of Immediacy (BII), the Generalised Immediacy (GI) scale and an 11-item rating scale, which were initially regarded as the better scales but were later found not to be valid. Richmond, Gorham and McCroskey (1992) re-examined the original BII and developed the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (NIM) which became the most common choice of instructional researchers (sources from 1987 -1989). Gorhan and Zakahi (1990) developed a 14-item measure which was labelled the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure ( NIM). This measure was later reviewed by McCroskey, Richmond, Salinger, Fayer and Barraugh in 1995. Gorhan (1998) developed a measure of verbal immediacy, where the focus was on what people (teachers) say. Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) indicated that the measure was initially well-received although it later emerged that it was completely invalid as a measure of verbal immediacy (p.506). Mottet and Richmond (1998) were unsuccessful in their attempt to develop a verbal immediacy measure.
3.4.6. Validity and reliability of measures of verbal and nonverbal immediacy. The original General Immediacy (GI) Scale, a 9-item measure by Anderson (1978 and 1979), where data were collected from both the teachers and their students with regards to their teacher nonverbal immediacy, indicated a small correlation between the students and teachers and was non-significant (Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson,2003). Both the 14-item and the 10-item NIM provided a wide variety of reliability estimates ranging from .69 to .89 (Ibid) and higher than .81in three studies (Richmond and McCroskey, 2000a). This shows inconsistent reliability estimates. A review of the instruments by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson (2003) used a total of 26 items (13 positively worded, 13 negatively worded), presented as a self-report and as an other - report of nonverbal immediacy. The items were presented with a 5
Likert type measure response format. The reliability estimates for both versions of the instruments was regarded to be very strong. Richmond et al (2003) concluded that the scale appeared to be both valid and reliable. In a study conducted by Baringer and McCroskey (2000), they used the 10-item measure to asses teacher perceptions of student immediacy. The reliability was found to be very similar to that found for the original form (Ibid,p.182). Rocca (2004) conducted a study where she looked at the impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. She used the 10-item Nonverbal Immediacy measure which she found to be reliable and valid. It is against this background that I decided to design my instrument on verbal and nonverbal immediacy (Section B) according to the tried and tested scales of immediacy measures. The rationale behind this is that the nonverbal Immediacy Scale self Report (NVIS-SR), the Nonverbal immediacy Scale Observer Report (NVIS OR) and the Self-Report of Immediacy Behaviours (SRIB) is that these are instruments that have been used for years and are currently still being used by many researchers because of their reliability and validity (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Richmond et al, 2001; Richmond, McCroskey& Johnson, 2003; Rocca, 2004; Pogue & Alyn, 2006; Zhang et al, 2007 etc.). Section B of the questionnaire was adapted from the various tools used to measure immediacy; The Non-verbal Immediacy Scale Self-Report (NIS-SR); the Non-verbal Immediacy Scale observer Report (NIS OR) and the Self Report of Immediacy Behaviours (SRIB) (Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson, 2003). However, the instruments were not used as are but had to be adapted because research has shown that immediacy is culture bound (Zhang et al, 2007). Zhang et al caution that care should be taken when using the different immediacy scales and measures to validate a culturally grounded scale before they are applied to other cultures (p). The instruments I used to develop my questionnaire are US based and so some items used in the instruments may not necessarily be relevant to my respondents who are predominately South African. The respondents come from various subcultures even in South Africa and so it is important that items used in the questionnaire are meaningful to them if they are to make any judgements. Zhang et al (2007) add that some immediacy behaviours like smile, and vocal variety are applicable across cultures. However, some immediacy behaviours like proxemics, maintaining eye-contact, forms of address vary from culture to culture. The need
then arise for researchers to drop those items that are regarded to be inappropriate as a way to increase reliability. It is against this background that I did not use the scales as are but adapted them to the environment of my study, the South African context. Nb: how many items were considered to be poor.
3.4.7. Measures of Clarity Rosenshine and First (1971) identified nine variables that comprised teacher clarity; clarity, variability, enthusiasm, task oriented, criticism, teacher indirectness, criterion meter structuring concepts and levels of questions (Simonds,1997). They also identified different descriptions of clarity such as clarity of presentation, and whether the points that teachers made were easy to understand (p.280). Simonds (1997) points out that the challenge with these descriptions is that there are inferential than behavioural in nature. Civickly (1992) identified two groups of instruments on teacher clarity. The first group of instruments followed a self inventory format Piukshank (1985), produced two instruments; the first is a collection of 12 behaviours;(a) orient and prepares students for what is to be taught; (b) communicates content so that students understands; (c) provides illustrations and examples; (d) demonstrates; (e) use variety of teaching material; (f)teach things in a related step-by-step manner; (g) repeats and stress directions and points;(h) adjust teaching to the learner and the topic; (i) cause students to organise learning in meaningful ways; (j) provide practice; (k) provides standards and rules for satisfactory performance; (l)provides students with feedback or knowledge of how well they are doing. Wlodkowski (1985) produced the final model of the self-inventory instrument in the first group, where he identified four core characters of teacher presentation, expertise, empathy, enthusiasm and clarity (Simonds, 1997). The second group of instruments are observational measures which ask students to rate an instructors clarity. Murrays Teacher Rating Form (Murray & Lawrance, 1980) includes 10 global items and 28 low- inference behaviours. Global items include; clarity of explanations, and explicitness regarding course objectives. Observable behaviour include puts outline of lecture on the board; provide sample exam questions; explains how each topic fits in. Murray also developed the Teacher Behaviour Inventory (TBI) which had nine categories and 57 items of
classroom behaviour. The categories include; enthusiasm, clarity, interaction, task orientation, Rapport, and organisation. The behaviours that describe clarity factor are; (a) uses concrete examples of concepts; (b) gives multiple examples; (c) points out practical applications; (d) stress important points and (e)repeats difficult ideas. Simonds (1997) cites the following as other instruments which include behavioural items indicative of teacher clarity McCaleb and Rosenthal (1983); Hines, Cruikshank and Kennedy (1985) and Powell and Harville (1990). Simonds (1997) argue that teachers and students share in the responsibilities and abilities of to clarify content (p.283). This is in line with the two-way process of communication where both the teacher and the students negotiate meaning. Simonds adds that it is therefore important that that any measure of clarity focus on both the teacher and the students. Most studies however, focus on the clarity of teachers at the exclusion of students clarity. Simonds (1997) developed an instrument (Teacher Clarity Report TCR) that unlike previous ones, sought to measure the clarity of both content and process for overall classroom understanding. Simonds selected items from; Murray & Lawrance, 1980; Cruikshank, 1985; Wlodkowski, 1985 and Powell and Harville, 1990. Simonds included content items common with most measures and added process items. Her instrument included two global items; content and process clarity and 18 low-inference behaviours. Sidelinger and McCroskey (1997) conducted a study on the Communication Correlation of Teacher Clarity in the College Classroom where they used the expanded version of the scale by Powell and Harville (1990). Their scale consisted of 22 items on a fivepoint Likert Scale, as opposed to the original 10-items Scale which focused only on the oral communication of the instructor. Chesebro & McCroskey (1998) developed the Teacher Clarity Short Inventory (TCSR) as a review of the instruments previously developed by Simonds, 1997 and Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997 because they believed the scales were longer than the other instructional measures of Immediacy, affect for instructors and subjects; motivation and learning and so valuable time could be if a shorter instrument with comparable reliability were available. The instrument became useful and proportional to other measures of instructional communication (p.264).
Page 64
3.4.8. Validity and Reliability of the measures of Clarity The original scale (Powell and Harville, 1990) yielded an alpha reliability estimate of .93 and Sidelinger and McCroskeys (1997) scale yielded an alpha reliability estimate of .95. Simonds (1997) study appear to enhance content validity of teacher clarity by including items of process clarity and content clarity and reliability of the overall TCR (Simonds, 1997). The reliability and validity of the TCSI is regarded to be comparable to previous instruments by indicating an alpha reliability measure of .92 (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998).it is against this background that I chose to adapt my instrument to measure clarity on the instruments previously tried and tested.
3.4.9. Teacher credibility measures Teacher credibility has its foundations in the history of ethos, which originates from Rhetorics by Aristotle (McCroskey and Young, 1981). Anderson (1961) conducted a study where he reported the development of semantic differential scales designed to measure ethos. Berlo and Lemert (1961) later reported on semantic differentialtype scales used to measure the dimensions of competence, trustworthiness and dynamism (McCroskey and Young, 1981). McCroskey and young point out that these factors were later seen to be unrelated to previous conceptualisations of ethos or credibility, reported on the measures developed for semantic differential type, employing factor analyses as their primary research tool, and used small samples that rendered the internal validity of the study questionable. In later years, McCroskey and his associates (1971-1975) reported a series of studies in which they investigated a wide variety of types of communication receivers with scales. These studies brought to the table five dimensions of credibility: competence, character, sociability, extroversion, and composure with specific scales recommended to measure each of these dimensions on the basis of the type of source involved (McCroskey and Young, 1981). MCrosky and Young later developed an instrument which was based on the adjectives they got from students describing the person you would be least likely to believe (p.27).they then reported eight dimensions of Source Credibility labelled as sociability, size, extroversion, composure, competence, time, weight, and character, previously demonstrated in other studies, with the additions of size, weight and time.
3.5.
Data analysis
Page 65
The qualitative part of my study was analysed inductively in that I had to build patterns, categories, and themes from bottom up, by organising data into increasingly more abstract units of information (Creswell, 2009). Transcriptions were made of the data gathered during the interviews to facilitate analysis. Transcriptions refer to the transformation of spoken discourse into a written form that is fully amenable to analyse... (Wood & Kruger, 2000). Wood and Kruger add that, these transcriptions are essential, because it is not possible to keep the features of discourse in mind sufficiently while listening. However, these transcriptions can be manual or technical through the use of computer assisted data gathering software systems. I this case I used the report generated by the eCOVE observation tool to analyse the data gathered through lecture observations. The major part of my research was qualitative, and, therefore, I used qualifying words or descriptions to record, and interpret aspects of the research data gathered from the video observations, using observation sheets.
However, there are various Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), which researchers have used effectively in analysing data (Alexa & Zuell, 2000; Lewis, 2004; Wetherell et al, 2001; Babbie & Mouton, 2006). A disadvantage of using CAQDAS is that it is not enough to leave the process of sense making , and coming to understand the object of the study, completely up to a machine (Babbie & Mouton, 2006, p.503). As a researcher I had to cluster the data collected and do the data analysis myself. However, Babbie and Mouton warn that CAQDAS is not designed to do data analysis for the researcher, but to facilitate the researchers analysis of data. I also used ATLAS.ti which is regarded as one of the best available and potentially useful qualitative data analysis tools (Babbie and Mouton, 2006). ATLAS.ti is known to help researchers in counting frequencies, sequences or locations of words and phrases, placing selected or reduced data in a condensed, organised format (Ibid,p.505). Alexa & Zuell (2000) conducted a study where they made a comparison of the various software packages available (AQUAD, ATLAS.ti, HyperRESEARCH, NUD*IST etc.) and concluded that they each have strengths and weaknesses, but recommended ATLAS.ti as one of those that is userfriendly. Lewis (2004) also conducted a study where he made a comparative review of NVico and ATLAS.ti. He too recommended ATLAS.ti to be superior. I did use
ATLAS.ti to record my qualitative data and to facilitate analysis of my data. This is because I have access to ATLAS.ti as a student and it is also readily available at my place of work. My exploration of ATLAS.ti gave me the impression that is has a userfriendly interface unlike other software packages that are complicated to use. Since part of my research was quantitative I used SPSS to analyse the data gathered through questionnaires. I also used descriptive and inferential statistics to describe, and interpret the quantitative data gathered. This included the use of a pie chart to reflect students perceptions, and tables, and graphs to create a frequency distribution. I also consulted a statistician at my institution of learning, to assist me in capturing, and coding both the qualitative and quantitative data gathered.
3.6.
Quality Criteria
Since this study used both the qualitative and quantitative data gathering tools, i will now explain their quality criteria; 3.6.1. Qualitative I now address the quality aspects of the qualitative part of my study in terms of credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and transformability. Credibility in qualitative study includes aspects such as prolonged and persistent engagement; member checks and peer debriefing and triangulation among others. I spend six months doing field work (see Addendum C) which entailed one hour-30 minutes of manual and video recorded observations of each of the seven participants. I also conduct one hour face-to-face, individual interviews with each of the seven participants. A pilot study was conducted before actual field work where the tools were tested and reviewed for quality purposes. This afforded me enough exposure to the study to avoid premature closure. Member checks and peer debriefings were conducted as I ask the participants to verify the constructions that are developing as a result of the data collected by summarising the interview and after data is analysed. I also worked with other researchers at work and statisticians for correctness in gathering and interpreting data. I triangulated data by checking information that was collected from observations, interviews and questionnaires for consistency of evidence. Transferability relates to the ability to generalise the findings of the study based on the assumption that the sample used is representative
of the population (Mertens, 2010). This is not applicable in my study since my study did not seek to make any generalisations. Confirmability entails objectivity in a study, where the influence of the researchers judgement should be minimised (Mertens, 2010). I minimised influencing judgement by dealing with my bias in the study by relying more on what literature says about the data to be analysed. I also kept a confirmability audit which can be traced to original sources.
3.6.2. Quantitative Since I used a quantitative data gathering tool, the following quality considerations related to issues of reliability and validity were observed.
Reliability Since my research involved a case study, I used multiple methods of data collection; interviews, observations and questionnaires to ensure reliability. Reliability entails factors such as researcher effects, participant effects, context effects and test-retest reliability (Mouton, 2009). I now address these factors, in relation to my study, in the next paragraphs:
One of the factors that contribute towards researcher effects is affiliation (membership). I am a lecturer in the same department as some of the participants in the study, at an institution of higher learning. It was, therefore, possible, that the participants in this study, might be influenced by their relationship with me through past interactions, to either participate voluntarily in the research, or they might be uncomfortable. To address this, I clarified the purpose of this research to the participants, and my role in interacting with them, from the onset of the research. At least the participants did not see me as a stranger, and this reduced distance between participants and me. Another researcher effect is that the participants might be suspicious of the motives of the researcher, as the researcher might be seen to intrude in their core business. I had to overcome these effects by explaining to the participants the purpose of this study; the value of the information they were to contribute; assure them that the information would not be used anywhere else except in the study and that they will remain anonymous in the study. To ensure this, the research assistant, the video technician and I had to sign a declaration statement (see addendum.)
The mere fact that human beings are being studied, leads to atypical behaviour (Mouton, 2009, p.155). Mouton suggests that some of the participant effects are memory decay (participants unable to recall information due to time lapse), the omniscience syndrome, and face-to-face interviews saturation. The participants in the study responded to questions during interviews, based on their daily interactions with students, and, therefore, these pose no problems of memory decay. Only one session of 30 minutes interviews was held and this posited no threat of interviews saturation.
Lecturers were observed as they offer lectures by another lecturer and this had the potential to present the contextual factor. However, the participants were motivated by the topic under investigation since it related directly to their practice. The fact that the researcher conducted non participant observations of lecturers, which are at least the least obtrusive form of observation (Nieuwenhuis, 2009, p.85), to some extent, helped to ensure the validity of the study. However, Bless and Higson -Smith (2000,) warn that although non-participant observation is based on the assumption that the observer merely records facts without interaction with the observed, there is an element of bias as people become aware of being observed. This was possible in my study because the source of data is lecturers, who are themselves, human, and this threatens both the reliability and validity of any study. However, this was addressed by the fact that I was observing lecturers in a lecture hall context, with both lecturers and students present, and so attention to the lecturer was hopefully disguised by the presence of other people in the lecture hall.
A context effect, which refers to the narrower setting within which the research is, conducted (Mouton, 2009, p.155) has the potential to compromise the reliability of any study. My experience, as a lecturer, has taught me that students give feedback on lecturers, sometimes influenced by the timing of the setting. If the information requested about lecturers is sought at a time when students have received good feedback about their performance in an assessment, then they might give positive feedback, and vice- versa. I collaborate with lecturers to collect data from students at a time when there were no feedback given on any assessment, i.e. when the setting is perceived to be neutral.
Validity Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure and this includes aspects like face validity, content validity and construct validity. (Hittleman & Simon, 2006; Bless & Higson Smith, 2000; Creswell et al, 2009; Mouton, 2009; Babbie & Mouton, 2006;Halloway & Wheeler, 2002). Face validity is the extent to which an instrument appears to measure a specific body of information (Hittleman & Simon, 2006). I intended to measure the nature of lecturers instructional communication and therefore, the data gathering tools I used, observation sheets, questionnaires and interviews were drawn in such a way as to reflect students, lecturers and the researchers perceptions. The instruments were piloted to test their validity and the results reported Content validity refers to the ability of an instrument to cover the complete content of the particular construct that it is set out to measure (Pietersen and Maree, 2009, p.216). To address this, I send a provisional version of my instrument to experts in the field for their comments, and input. I also ensure that I included all the varying components to be assessed as guided by the literature and previous studies conducted on measures of measure teacher immediacy, clarity and credibility. I also define concepts as much as possible to give a clear understanding of their meanings in the study. Construct validity has to do with how well the construct(s) covered by the instrument is/are measured by the varying groups of related items (Pietersen and Maree, 2009, p.216). To address this, I used statistical techniques such as item analysis, and factor analysis, as recommended by Pietersen and Maree (2009, p.218). The item analysis helped me to identify items that were not suitable for use by either being too easy or too difficult. I use factor analysis, to measure which items belonged together, and, therefore, measure the same dimension or factor.
I also did a test-retest reliability of all the data gathering instruments (eCOVE software tool, video recordings, and questionnaires) and the data analysis tools (eCOVE observation report, ATLAS.ti, SPSS) I used in the pilot of my study. Synopsis of the pilot?
3.7.
Possible Constraints of the Study
Jansen (2009,) indicates that one of the limitations in research, empathetic neutrality, was influenced by the fact that fulfilling the role of observer, and not participant, was unfamiliar to individuals, and /or groups, and this could influence their behaviour (p.42). This is possible in my study, since the participants are not used to being observed. However, this was minimised by the fact that lecturers were not the only people in the lecture hall during observations, there were also students in the same room and so attention was not only on the lecturers but also on the students. I conduct face-to-face interviews to assess lecturers perceptions of their own instructional communication, and this can be subjective and personal. To counteract this, I administered questionnaires to students to assess their perceptions of their lecturers. The findings of students questionnaires were used to either confirm or reject the findings of lecturers responses during the face-to-face interviews. I also conduct observations to confirm or reject the findings of the questionnaires and face-to-face interviews, or to bring out more insights. The time of collecting data might be a possible limitation as it might have either a positive or negative influence on the responses students give. I liaised closely with lecturers on a relatively safe period to administer the questionnaires. A challenge often associated with the non-participatory role of the researcher is that the researcher does not become immersed in the situation, and is alleged not to understand what they are observing. I am a trained lecturer, and have been lecturing Basic Communication skills and English courses, for the past 14years. My experience in teaching the courses puts me in a better position to understand the dynamics of communication as a skill and the lecturer student interactions during formal instruction. My knowledge and understanding of aspects of communication empowered me to deal with the study, better. The fact that the participants (except for one) and I, belong to the same institution and department, makes us share a history. This history might influence the participants to either relax, as I observe them, or withdraw participation, as they might feel that I am intruding in their line of duty. I put the participants at ease by explaining to them, the purpose of the study, and assured them of confidentiality and anonymity of the study. I also advised them
to withdraw from participation at any stage of the study if they felt uncomfortable. Another challenge associated with observations is that information gathered through observations is highly selective and subjective. I addressed this in the study by being conscious of my own biases, and dealt with them by observing events first and later, behaviour. I also took up a passive role in the initial stages of the observations so that I did not dwell aggressively on data collection as this might interfere with interpretation.
Page 72
References BANFIELD, S. R., RICHMOND, V. P. & MCCROSKEY, J. C. 2006. The Effect of Teacher Misbehaviours on Teacher Credibility and Affect for the Teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63-72. BABBIE , E., MOUTON, J., VOSTER, P. & PROZESKY, B. 2006. The Practice of Social Research, Cape Town.South Africa, Oxford University Press. BARINGER, D., K. & MCCROSKEY, J. C. 2000. Immediacy in the Classroom: Student Immediacy. Communication Education, 49, 178-186. CHESEBRO, J. L. & MCCROSKEY, J. C. 2001. The Relationship of Teacher Clarity and Immediacy with Student State Receiver Apprehension, Affect, and Cognitive Learning Communication Education, 50, 59-68. COMADENA, M. E., HUNT, S. K. & SIMONDS, C. J. 2007. The Effects of Teacher Clarity, Nonverbal Immediacy and Caring on Student Motivation, Affective and Cognitive Learning. Communication Research Reports, 24, 241-248. CRESWELL, J. W. 2009. Research Design:Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, California, United States of America, SAGE Publications, Inc. GORHAM, J. & CHRISTOPHEL, D. M. 1992. Students' Perceptions of Teacher Behaviours as Motivating and Demotivating Factors in College Classes. Communication Quarterly, 40, 239-252. HOVLAND, C. I. & WEISS, W. 1951-1952. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 635-650. MARTINEZ-EGGER, A. D. & POWERS, W. G. Student Respect for a Teacher: Measurement and Relationships to Teacher Credibility and Classroom Behaviour Perceptions. Human Communication, 10, 145-155. MCCROSKEY, J., VALENCIC KM, RICHMOND VP 2004. Towards a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197-210. MCCROSKEY, J. C. & TEVEN, J. J. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. communication monographs, 66, 90-103. MCCROSKEY, J. C., VALENCIC, K. M. & RICHMOND, V. P. 2004. Towards a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197-210. MCCROSKEY, J. C. & YOUNG, T. L. 1981. Ethos and Credibility: The construct and it measurement after three decades Central State Speech, 32, 24-34. MCLEAN, C. A. 2007. Establishing Credibility in the multilingual classroom: When the instructor speaks with an accent. . New Directions for Teaching and Learning., 11, 15-24. MAREE, K., CRESWELL, J. W., EBERSOHN, L., ELOFF, I., FERREIRA, R., IVANKOVA, N. V., PLANO CLARK, V. L. & VAN DER WESTHUISEN, C. 2009. First Steps in Research, Pretoria, South Africa, Van Schaik Publishers. MOTTET, T. P. & RICHMOND, V. P. 2001. Student Nonverbal Communication and its Influence on Teachers and Teaching. NIEWENHUIS, J. 2009. Qualitative research designs, and data-gathering techniques. In: MAREE, K. (ed.) first steps in research. pretoria: van schaik.
RICHMOND, V. P., MCCROSKEY, J. C. & JOHNSON, A. D. 2003. Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of Self - and OtherPerceived Nonverbal Immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504-517. RODGER, S., MURRAY, H. G. & CUMMINS, A. L. 2007. Effects of teacher clarity and students anxiety and student outcomes. Teachin in Higher Education, 12, 91-104. SIDELINGER, R. J. & MCCROSKEY, J. C. 1997. Communication Correlates of teacher Clarity in the College Classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1-10. SIMONDS, C. J. 1997. Classroom understanding: An expanded notion of teacher clarity. Communication Research Reports, 14, 279-290. SIMONDS, C. J. 2001. Refelectcing on the relationship between instructional commuication theory and teaching practices. Communication Studies [Online]. [Accessed 2009/10/31]. THABANE, L., JINHUI, M. A. & CHU, R. 2010. A Tutorial on Pilot Studies:what, why and how. Medical Research Methodology, 10. TEVEN, J. J. & HERRING, J. E. 2005. Teacher Influence in the Classroom: A preliminary Investigation of Perceived Instructor Power, Credibility, and Student Satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 22, 235-246. THWEATT, K. S. & MCCROSKEY, J. C. 1998. The Impact of Teacher Immediacy and Misbehaviours on Teacher Credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358. WITT, P. L. 2004. Students' perceptions of teacher credibility and learning expectations in classroom courses with websites. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 423-434.
Page 74

Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Chapter 1 2 3 11 October 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PhD THESES FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

Supervisor: Dr R Evans Mobile: 083 732 0099 Email: revans@postino.up.ac.za

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Chapter 1. An overview of the study

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Contextualising the study

The evolution of instructional Communication o Internationally o Nationally (SA)

Key Concept clarification

The scope of study

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Research Design and Methodology

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Organisation of the Study

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Chapter 2: Literature review

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

The General Model of instructional communication

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

The validity and reliability of the measures

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Chapter3. Research Methodology

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Participants Race Black White

M 1st year 2nd year 3rd year

Students 1st year 2nd year 3rd year

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

Possible Constraints of the Study

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

PhD Theses, MH Segabutla, 29460353, 13 October 2011

You might also like