Teaching Strategies to Promote Immediacy in Online Graduate Courses

Manuel Flores Fahara, Armida Lozano Castro


The present study is the result of the research question: How do teachers promote immediacy through interaction with their students in online graduate courses? Research was carried out at Tecnológico de Monterrey, a Mexican private university that offers online courses. The research methodology employed a qualitative approach of virtual ethnography, which entails non-participative observation and interviews with head professors and teaching assistants with the purpose of exploring the manner in which teachers foster immediacy in the discussion forums of online courses. The findings are organized into three main categories: instructional design, forms of communication and teaching strategies promoting immediacy, which show the manner in which teachers use immediacy when interacting with their students; immediacy that was also found in the administrative and academic forums of the online courses researched.


immediacy; interaction; instructional communication; online teacher; online course; social presence

Full Text:



Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30(4), 377-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378493

Andersen, J. F., & Withrow, J. G. (1981). The impact of lecturer nonverbal expressiveness on improving mediated instruction. Communication Education, 30(4), 342-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378490

Anderson, T. (2002). An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. IT Forum Paper #63. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm

Ardévol, E., Bertrán, M., Callén, B., & Pérez, C. (2003). Etnografía virtualizada: la observación participante y la entrevista semiestructurada en línea. Athenea Digital, 3, 72-92. Retrieved from http://atheneadigital.net/article/view/67/67

Bohnstedt, K. D., Jerome, M. K., Lojkovic, D. A., Brigham, F. J., & Behrmann, M. M. (2013). Instructor interaction and immediacy behaviors in a multipoint distance educational environment: Using technology to Improve low-Incidence teacher preparation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(4), 37.

Borthick, A. F., Jones, D. R., & Wakai, S. (2003). Designing learning experiences within learners’ zones of proximal development (ZPDs): Enabling collaborative learning on-site and online. Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 107-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jis.2003.17.1.107

Beuchot, A. & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums. Distance Education, 26(1), 67-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081285

Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5-11.

Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379159

Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviours, student motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813

Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance education, 28(1), 65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701305319

De Verneil, M., & Berge, Z. L. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(3), 227-242.

Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520302470

Fisher, B., & Katt, J. (2007). The effects of online instructor immediacy behaviors on student motivation. Florida Communication Journal, 36, 100-111.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Ghamdi, A. Al, Samarji, A., & Watt, A. (2016). Essential considerations in distance education in KSA: Teacher immediacy in a virtual teaching and learning environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(1), 17-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.651

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147-166.

Hine, C. (2004). Etnografía virtual. Barcelona: Editorial UOC, S.L. Retrieved from http://www.uoc.edu/dt/esp/hine0604/hine0604.pdf

Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/hutchins63.html

Johannsen, R. (1990). Ethics in human communication. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. USA: Sage.

Marks, R., Sibley, S., & Arbaugh, J. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562904271199

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Willey and Son.

Mehrabian, A. (1967a). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 294-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80113-0

Mehrabian, A. (1967b). Orientation behaviors and non-verbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17(4), 324-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1967.tb01190.x

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.

Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

McCroskey, J. C. (1968). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (1991). Computer conferencing in the context of theory and practice of distance education. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Computer Conferencing, 1-9. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.

Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (p. 22-38). London: Routledge.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Qing, L. (2002). Exploration of collaborative learning and communication in an Educational Environment Using Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 503-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2002.10782364

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35(1), 43-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388318

Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: Networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 287-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020901202588

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208

Swan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68-82.

Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Teacher nonimmediacy and misbehavior: Unintentional negative communication. Communication Research Reports, 13(2), 198-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099609362087

Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526852

Whalter, J. (1994). Interpersonal effect in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.

Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/woods-baker.html

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.228


  • There are currently no refbacks.