Instructor Interaction and Immediacy Behaviors in a Multipoint Distance Educational Environment: Using Technology to Improve Low-Incidence Teacher Preparation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2013
Instructor Interaction and Immediacy Behaviors in a Multipoint Distance Educational Environment: Using Technology to Improve Low-Incidence Teacher Preparation
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of professors teaching in a multipoint videoconferencing instructional environment and how they interacted with students in proximate and remote classrooms. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed to gain an understanding of the teaching experience and to examine differences between instructor interaction and immediacy behaviors based on student location. Results indicated that no clear difference existed in instructor interaction behaviors with local and remote populations, but that they engaged in more immediacy behaviors with the remote population.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
2.
BatesT. (1995). Technology, open learning, and distance education. London, UK: Routledge.
3.
BohnstedtK. D. (2011). Instructor interaction and immediacy behaviors in a multipoint videoconferenced instructional environment: A descriptive case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
4.
BorensteinM. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In CooperH. M.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
5.
BrownellM. T.SmithS. W.McNellisJ. R.MillerM. D. (1997). Attrition in special education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7, 143–155.
6.
CavanaughC. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 73
7.
CarvilleS.MitchellD. R. (2000). It's a bit like Star Trek: The effectiveness of video conferencing. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 42–49.
8.
ChakrabortyM.VictorS. (2005). Do's and don'ts of simultaneous instruction to on-campus and distance students via videoconferencing. Journal of Library Administration, 41(1), 97–112.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
10.
FillionG.LimayemM.BouchardL. (1999). Videoconferencing in distance education: A study of student perceptions in the lecture context. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(4), 302.
11.
FreitasF. A.MyersS. A.AvtgisT. A. (1998). Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education, 47(4), 366. doi:10.1080/03634529809379143
12.
GoodT. L.BrophyJ. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Longman.
13.
HarrisT.SherblomJ. C. (2008). Small group and team communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
14.
JungH. Y. (2006). Transactional distance and student motivation: Student perception of teacher immediacy, solidarity toward peer students and student motivation in distance education. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.
15.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
16.
KiddR. S.StamatakisM. K. (2006). Comparison of students' performance in and satisfaction with a clinical pharmacokinetics course delivered live and by interactive videoconferencing. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(1), 10.
17.
KnipeD.LeeM. (2002). The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 301. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00265
18.
LangM.FoxL. (2003). Breaking with tradition: Providing effective professional development for instructional personnel supporting students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 17–26.
19.
LudlowB. (2003). An international outreach model for preparing early interventionists and early childhood special educators. Infants and Young Children, 16, 238–248.
20.
MachtmesK.AsherJ. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 27. doi:10.1080/08923640009527043
21.
MassingillK. B. (2002). A comparison of communication motives of on-site and off-site students in videoconference-based courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.
22.
McDavidG. M. (2003). College students' perceptions of instructional interactions in distance education courses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2), 432.
23.
MillerM.BrownellM.SmithS. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218.
24.
MuirheadB. (2001). Interactivity research studies. Educational Technology and Society, 4(3), 108–112.
25.
MurphyT. H. (1999). A quantitative analysis of instructor–student verbal interaction in a two-way audio two-way video distance education setting. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40, 50–60.
26.
OffirB.LevY.LevY.BarthI.ShteinbokA. (2004). An integrated analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101–118.
27.
PeacockK. (2005). Does instructional medium affect verbal classroom behaviours? (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, No. 1001865851.
28.
PetersonC. (2004). Making interactivity count: Best practices in video conferencing. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 15(1), 63–74.
29.
RaffeliniC. (2006). An evaluation of the training activities provided by videoconferencing in a university hospital center. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 261–277.
30.
RoblyerM.EkhamlL. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/summer32/roblyer32.html.
31.
Russell, T. L., & International Distance Education Certification Center. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. Montgomery, AL: IDECC.
32.
RyndakD. L.KennedyC. H. (2000). Meeting the needs of students with severe disabilities: Issues and practices in teacher education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 69–71.
33.
SimonsonM.SmaldinoS.AlbrightM.ZvacekS. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
34.
SkopekT. A.SchuhmannR. A. (2008). Traditional and nontraditional students in the same classroom? Additional challenges of the distance education environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11 (1).
35.
SmithD. D.MontrosseB. E.RobbS. M.TylerN. C.YoungC. (2011). Assessing trends in leadership: Special education's capacity to produce a highly qualified workforce. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University.
36.
SnellM.BrownF. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
37.
SpoonerF.JordanL.AlgozzineB.SpoonerM. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 132–140.
38.
UmphreyL. R.WickershamJ. A.SherblomJ. C. (2008). Student perceptions of the instructor's relational characteristics, the classroom communication experience, and the interaction involvement in face-to-face versus video conference instruction. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 102–114. doi:10.1080/08824090802021954
39.
WagnerE. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6–29.
40.
WoodsR. H.BakerJ. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).
