Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire

Abstract

The Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire (ETIQ) is a 24-item instrument developed by Crump (1996) to assess students’ perceptions of the effectiveness and impact of their instructors’ immediacy behaviors. The scale specifically measures 12 distinct Teacher Immediacy behaviors, broken down into eight categories of nonverbal communication and four categories of verbal communication. The ETIQ was designed to quantify which specific behaviors students consider most motivating and effective, building upon previous research, particularly that conducted by Gorham (1988).

Each of the 12 immediacy behaviors is represented by two items on the questionnaire. The results provide insight into the hierarchy of teacher behaviors that most significantly influence student attention, motivation, and positive learning outcomes within the classroom environment.

Keywords

Teacher Immediacy, Nonverbal Behavior, Verbal Behavior, Student Motivation, Communication Education, ETIQ, Perceived Effectiveness, Higher Education.

Authors

C. A. Crump

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire (ETIQ) is to identify and measure the specific teaching behaviors that students perceive as effective and motivating. The scale aims to move beyond generalized measures of immediacy by detailing the impact of 12 specific verbal and nonverbal cues used by instructors. This allows researchers and educators to discern which precise immediacy behaviors contribute most significantly to student engagement and learning, thereby informing pedagogical practices.

Construct

The central psychological construct measured by the ETIQ is the perceived effectiveness and impact of Teacher Immediacy. Teacher Immediacy refers to the communicative behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, that reduce the perceived psychological distance between instructors and students, fostering a closer, more positive affective environment. The ETIQ operationalizes this construct across 12 specific dimensions, categorized as follows:

• Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors (8): Dynamic delivery (gestures/movement), vocal variation, friendly demeanor (smiling), eye contact, time spent outside of class, physical distance, physical appearance, and appropriate touch.
• Verbal Immediacy Behaviors (4): Use of humor, use of personal examples, learning student names, and inclusive language (using “our” and “we”).

By measuring student responses to these specific behaviors, the ETIQ assesses the degree to which these immediacy cues enhance motivation, attention, and overall comfort in the learning setting, linking instructional nonverbal communication and verbal communication to perceived student outcomes.

Validity

The validity of the ETIQ is supported primarily by its conceptual grounding and initial assessment of content appropriateness. The development process involved a thorough review of existing literature and prior studies focused on teacher immediacy, ensuring the items selected accurately reflect established components of this construct.

The results of this extensive literature review and examination of previous research involving similar questionnaires provide strong support for the scale’s face validity. This indicates that, on the surface, the questionnaire items appear to measure the intended construct—the effects of specific teacher immediacy behaviors on students.

Reliability

While the original documentation by Crump (1996) asserts that the questionnaire possesses reliability, specific statistical coefficients, such as Cronbach’s Alpha or test-retest correlations for the overall scale or its sub-factors, were not detailed in the source commentary. The scale’s foundation, however, is derived from established communication research, suggesting an inherent conceptual consistency. Future research utilizing the ETIQ should prioritize reporting comprehensive internal consistency measures to further substantiate the scale’s reliability across diverse academic populations.

Factor Analysis

Although the source does not detail a formal exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis, the study did involve detailed data analysis regarding the motivational impact of the 12 measured behaviors. The behaviors were statistically ranked based on student ratings regarding their motivational impact. Means and standard deviations were calculated and reported for the 12 immediacy behaviors, providing a clear hierarchy of effectiveness as perceived by the students.

The ranking of immediacy behaviors, from most to least motivating, was determined as follows: humor, dynamic delivery, vocal variation, personal examples, friendly demeanor, eye contact, time outside of class, using “our” and “we,” learning student names, physical distance, physical appearance, and appropriate touch.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, perceptual scale

Format: 24 items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale response format.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: College/University Students

Age Group: Late adolescence to adulthood (typically 18+)

Population Details: The original sample consisted of 70 community college students enrolled in communications courses who volunteered to participate in the study.

Test Methodology: Students rate their level of agreement or disagreement with statements describing the impact of specific teacher behaviors on their attention and motivation. The scoring uses a 5-point scale: Strongly agree = 1; agree = 2; are undecided = 3; disagree = 4; and strongly disagree = 5. The original documentation for this instrument is available via the ERIC system: ERIC ED 390 099.

Keywords

Student Perception, Pedagogical Effectiveness, Communication Skills, College Students, Nonverbal Immediacy, Affective Learning, Instructional Communication.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1996 (Publication of development study)

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding formal copyright permission or usage fees is not detailed in the source document. As the instrument was published via ERIC (ED 390 099), interested parties should consult the ERIC source or contact the author, C. A. Crump, for specific usage guidelines.

Reference’s

Crump, C. A. (1996). Teacher immediacy: What students consider to be effective teacher behaviors. ERIC ED 390 099.

Christophel, D. M., and Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 44:292–305.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education 37:40–53.

Sanders, J. A., and Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education 39:341–53.

Items of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I tend to pay attention when an instructor makes eye contact with me.
2. I want to listen to instructors who use gestures, movement, and who have a dynamic delivery.
3. I lose interest in attending classes taught by instructors who are sloppy in their appearance.
4. I look forward to going to classes when the instructor uses humor frequently.
5. I feel comfortable in a class where the instructor smiles and is friendly.
6. It is hard for me to listen to an instructor in a monotone.
7. I tend to work harder in classes in which the instructor has learned my name.
8. I daydream in classes when an instructor fails to use good eye contact.
9. I get bored when an instructor lectures using few gestures or movements.
10. Vocal variation and vocal expressiveness in instructors aids in holding my attention.
11. When an instructor spends time with me outside of class (stays late and comes early), I tend to skip that class less than other classes.
12. I am more interested in what instructors say when they dress professionally.
13. I do not like it when an instructor uses humor in the classroom.
14. I feel a sense of belonging when an instructor uses the term “our class.”
15. Instructors that pat me on the back or use touch appropriately make me feel comfortable.
16. I tend to pay attention when an instructor walks around the room and decreases the physical distance between him- self/herself and the class.
17. I learn more when instructors give personal examples during class discussions.
18. Instructors that smile a lot and are friendly make me nervous.
19. I dislike instructors who do not learn my name.
20. I feel that it is inappropriate for instructors to use personal examples during class.
21. When an instructor touches me, I feel uncomfortable.
22. I think the instructor should keep a physical distance between themselves and their students.
23. I feel uncomfortable when instructors use words like “we” and “our” referring to the class.
24. I think that it is inappropriate for instructors to spend time with students before and after class.