Luận án: Investigating a Relationship giữa Giao tiếp Phi Ngôn ngữ và Học Tập Sinh Viên

Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University Dissertations Theses & Dissertations Fall 11-2013 Investigating a Relationship between Nonverbal Communication and Student Learning Dustin York Lindenwood University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation York, Dustin, "Investigating a Relationship between Nonverbal Communication and Student Learning" (2013).edu/dissertations/459 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses & Dissertations at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact phuffman@lindenwood. Investigating a Relationship between Nonverbal Communication and Student Learning by Dustin York A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education i Investigating a Relationship between Nonverbal Communication and Student Learning by Dustin York This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Lindenwood University by the School of Education ii Declaration of Originality I do hereby declare and attest to the fact that this is an original study based solely upon my own scholarly work here at Lindenwood University and that I have not submitted it for any other college or university course or degree here or elsewhere.

iii Acknowledgements The help and support I received during the completion of this dissertation process was remarkable. I will be forever grateful to everyone who played a part in the success of this document. First, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Graham Weir, for his continual support and encouragement throughout this process.

Without his direction and knowledge, this dissertation would have faltered. Sherrie Wisdom, thank you for your quantitative expertise. You provided valued assistance to my academic journey. Thank you to Dr.

Christie Rodgers for her support from day one of my doctoral journey. Thank you Dr. Colleen Biri for assisting me in making certain this dissertation meets professional standards. My methodology would not have been possible without the help of Debbie Nicolai.

I greatly appreciate the assistance Rachel Jordan, Markus Hoff, and Kelsey Schaberg provided to this research. A large gratitude goes to my previous colleagues when I began this journey at Lindenwood University, and my colleagues during the completion of this journey at Maryville University. Last but not least, thank you to my wonderful wife, Crystal York, for her continued love and support. Thank you to my family and friends who believed in me and supported this accomplishment.

iv Abstract Clear and effective communication is essential in today’s society (Smith & Cotten, 1980; Smith & Land, 1981). Nonverbal communication specifically has a vital role in communication. There is inconsistent data on the effect of nonverbal communication used by instructors and the impact on student learning within the higher education environment. This research study sought to find distinct correlations between instructors’ nonverbal communication and a variety of elements related to student learning.

This study examined (1) the relationship between standardized measurements of student learning and instructors’ nonverbal communication, (2) the relationship between students’ perceptions of their learning and instructors’ nonverbal communication, (3) the relationship between students’ perceptions of instructor credibility based on the instructors’ nonverbal communication, and (4) the relationship between students’ gender and instructors’ nonverbal communication. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, college students (N=85) from a midsize Midwestern university reported distinct findings that progressed the study of nonverbal communication. Students attended class with one of two variable instructor- lecturing types: utilizing effective nonverbal communication (good eye contact, arm movement, facial expression, voice fluctuation, and position in the classroom), or poor nonverbal communication (poor eye contact, arm movement, facial expression, voice fluctuation, and position in the classroom). The instructors lectured the exact same material from a script.

Students provided data through tests, surveys, and focus groups v that delivered substantial evidence of the relationship between instructors’ nonverbal communication and student learning. Findings in the research study suggest that instructors’ nonverbal communication is beneficial to students’ academic success. This study outlined which elements of nonverbal communication an instructor could use to benefit student learning. Using the results of this study, university administrators, faculty, and professional development officials could find beneficial information for the success of higher education instruction.

vi Table of Contents List of Tables. vii List of Appendices. viii Chapter One: Introduction .1 Background of the Study .2 Purpose of the Study .11 Definition of Terms.14 Chapter Two: Literature Review .16 Nonverbal Communication and Student Learning, a Historical Perspective .16 Nonverbal Communication’s Effect on Perceptions of Learning .23 Nonverbal Communication’s Effect on Standardized Measurements of Learning27 Nonverbal Communication’s Effect on Perceived Credibility .34 Gender Differences in Response to Nonverbal Communication .36 Learning Effective Nonverbal Communication .41 Chapter Three: Methodology .44 Population and Description of Participating University .45 Sample of Study .45 Developing the Lecture .60 Focus Group Data Analysis .61 Confidential Treatment of Data .64 Chapter Four: Results .65 Analysis of Data .65 Focus Groups – Introduction .78 Students’ Nonverbal Communication .81 Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection .85 Relationship to Literature .87 Hypotheses and Research Questions Discussion .90 Implications for Higher Education Instruction .127 ix List of Tables Table 1. Gender of Samples…………………………………………………………………….

Poor Nonverbal Immediacy Survey. Effective Nonverbal Immediacy Survey. Participant Pool Survey. Poor Nonverbal Immediacy Test Results.

Effective Nonverbal Immediacy Test Results. Participant Pool Test Results. Posttest Scores: Effective Nonverbal Communication and Poor Nonverbal Communication. Pretest/Posttest Comparison: Effective Nonverbal Communication and Poor Nonverbal Communication.

Pretest/Posttest Comparison: Female versus Male Knowledge Retention in the Effective Nonverbal Communication Classes. Pretest/Posttest Comparison: Female versus Male Knowledge Retention in the Poor Nonverbal Communication Classes. Comparison of Type of Communication and Posttest Knowledge Scores. Regression Results for Comparison of Type of Communication and Posttest Knowledge Scores .72 x Appendices Appendix A: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Application .119 Appendix B: Consent to Participate.121 Appendix C: Focus Group Questions .124 Appendix E: Effective Nonverbal Communication/Poor Nonverbal Communication Checklist .125 Appendix F: Pretest/Posttest .126 xi Chapter One: Introduction Effective higher education instructors’ lectures are key to an enriching student learning environment (Leathers & Eaves, 2008).

As so, instructors are responsible for communicating clearly and effectively to their students. Research has been conducted to examine what effect instructors’ communication has on students’ in-class behaviors (Adalsteinsdottir, 2004; Anderman & Kaplan, 2008; Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984; Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Leathers & Eaves, 2008; Mackay, 2006; Sime, 2006). Significant research has been conducted to correlate an academically beneficial bond between students and instructors through the use of verbal communication (Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007; Galloway, 1971; Lemire, 2002; McCroskey, 2002; Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003). This research has propelled theories of students’ academic success through the use of positive words.

An experiment conducted by Wright and Nuthall (1970) showed a relationship between instructors’ use of words like “good” following a student’s in-class answer and that same student’s achievement on later graded material. Based on this finding, the verbal communication between an instructor and student is crucial for academic success; the clarity of the instructors’ words impact the learning environment. Nonverbal communication by the instructor can help provide clarity and help students interpret the instructors’ verbal communication (Burgoon, 1980; Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Chesebro, 1999, 2003; Houser & Frymier, 2009; Mehrabian, 1981; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). Thus, one can theorize that utilizing not only NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 2 effective verbal communication, but also effective nonverbal communication fosters a more enriching learning environment.

This study addressed inconsistent data regarding the effect of instructors’ nonverbal communication on student learning. Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Paulsel (2004) stated, “Verbal messages function to convey the content of the message whereas nonverbal messages function to establish the relationship” (p. Previous literature (Andersen, 1979; Folwell, 2000; Frechette & Moreno, 2010) has cast doubt on the correlation between the relationship built from nonverbal communication and student learning, while other literature promotes its effectiveness (Burroughs, 2007; Comadena et al. Background of the Study In order to study nonverbal communication, it is essential to offer a specific definition.

Ellyson and Dovidio (1985) defined nonverbal communication as “behavior that is not part of formal, verbal language” (p. This definition encompassed a wide variety of messages a student may receive within a classroom. This would include aspects such as classroom temperature, instructor attire, time of day, etc. Another definition of nonverbal communication was stated by Henley (1977), “how we say things with our body postures and movements, facial expressions, gestures, touching, eye contact, use of space, and so on” (p.

For the purpose of this study, the definition of nonverbal communication included instructors’ eye contact, hand and arm motions, facial expressions, voice fluctuation, and moving around the front of the classroom while never behind a podium or other barrier. NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 3 The question must be asked: how much of communication is nonverbal? A number of studies tried to pinpoint an exact percentage. Mehrabian (1981) theorized that one-half of communication falls under the nonverbal category, which is the lowest percentage accumulated from such a study. Barnum and Wolniansky’s (1989) findings suggest 70% is nonverbal while Fromkin and Rodman’s (1983) findings state that 90% is nonverbal communication.

A more recent study by Pease and Pease (2004) found that 83% of communication comes from nonverbal communication. According to these authors, there is a consensus that nonverbal communication accounts for over half of communication. Past research focused primarily on two areas of speakers’ nonverbal communication. The first area of study that received attention is the speakers’ facial expressions (Atkinson, 2002; Garau, Slater, Bee, & Sasse, 2001; Mitrovic & Suraweera, 2000).

The second area of nonverbal study centered around hand and arm motions (Craig, Gholson, & Driscoll, 2002; van Mulken, Andre, & Muller, 1998). Although both areas were found to demonstrate qualities of the speaker, the two differed. Emotions have been correlated to the face (Atkinson, 2002), while clarity has been associated with hands and arms (Craig et al. This nonverbal communication research has been incorporated into the classroom setting for over three decades.

Numerous studies presented data relating instructors’ effective nonverbal communication with students’ academic success in some context (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Andersen, 1979; Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Burroughs, 2007; Chesebro, 2003; Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; King & Witt, 2009; Plax, Kearney, NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 4 McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Powell & Harville, 1990; Richmond, 1990; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990; Titsworth, 2001). While research has been plentiful, there have been a number of inconsistencies in the findings. In the following sections, I will identify the purpose of this study, and how it will add to the literature. Purpose of the Study Maximizing students’ academic achievement is the primary goal for any educator.

With this being the goal, instructional communication is an area that can benefit any instructor in the classroom. Although many studies researched the area of instructional communication, further data may shed light onto the effect of nonverbal communication in the classroom. Few studies have investigated potential correlations between instructors’ nonverbal communication and true student learning. In order to supply instructors in the higher education environment with information about effective lecture practices, further research is needed to define the effectiveness of nonverbal communication in the classroom at the college level.

This research study provided documentation of a correlation between instructors’ nonverbal communication and student performance on standardized measurement of learning. This document also adds to literature the relationship instructors’ nonverbal communication has on other areas of students’ learning. Instructional communication supports the clarity of academic messages. Past studies found a strong correlation between instructor clearness and increased student academic achievement (Alexander, Frankiewicz, & Williams, 1979; Burgoon, 1980; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 5 Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Chesebro, 1999, 2003; Hines, Cruickshank, & Kennedy, 1985; Houser & Frymier, 2009; Mehrabian, 1981; Smith & Cotten, 1980; Smith & Land, 1981; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968).