Advertisement

Enhancing instructor credibility and immediacy in online multimedia designs

  • Miguel RamlatchanEmail author
  • Ginger S. Watson
Development Article

Abstract

The design of multimedia elements used in video for online courses can increase student perceptions of their instructor’s credibility and immediacy. Credibility is the learner’s perception of the subject matter expertise of the instructor, while immediacy is the learner’s perception of the instructor’s ability to communicate and reduce physiological distance. This experiment randomly assigned research participants (N = 211) into one of five independent treatment groups, each group viewed a different design based on the same subject matter, instructor video, audio narration, and presentation slides. These presentation designs included an instructor-only, slides-only, video-switching, dual-windows, and a superimposed-slides multimedia design variation. A series of 5 × 1 Analyses of variances and Tukey post hoc calculations were conducted to test for statistically significant differences between groups. The results suggest that a balance can be established between instructor credibility and immediacy by showing both the instructor and instructional content during online classes.

Keywords

Multimedia learning theory Instructor credibility Instructor immediacy Online design Distance learning 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations, sources of funding, or personal or professional relationships that would represent a conflict of interest as it relates to this research study or the potential to bias its results.

References

  1. Anderson, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., Lefebvre, L., & Cook, M. (1974). The meaning of five patterns of gaze. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4(2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: Instructor practices that support community. Online Learning, 21(2), n2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2017). Conditional processes of effective instructor communication and increases in student’s cognitive learning. Communication Education, 66(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breed, G., & Colaiuta, V. (1974). Looking, blinking, and sitting: Nonverbal dynamics in the classrooms. Journal of Communications, 24(2), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, M. (2002). Leveraging the asymmetric sensitivity of eye contact for videoconferencing. Paper presented at the CHI ‘02: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computer systems. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). A taxonomy of asynchronous instructional video styles. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, R. C., & Meyer, R. E. (2016). e-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, R. G. (2012). Restoring washed out bridges so elearners arrive at online course destinations successfully. Cognitive Education, 3(4), 557–564.Google Scholar
  12. da Silva, A. G., Santos, A. M., Costa, F. A., & Viana, J. (2016). Enhancing MOOC video: Design and production strategies. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholders Summit 2016. Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, L. K. (1978). Camera eye-contact by the candidates in the presidential debates of 1976. Journalism Quarterly, 55(3), 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz-Piedra, C., Rieiro, H., Cherino, A., Fuentes, L. J., Catena, A., & Di Stasi, L. L. (2019). The effects of flight complexity on gaze entropy: An experimental study with fighter pilots. Applied Ergonomics, 77, 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diwanji, P., Simon, B. P., Marki, M., Korkut, S., & Dornberger, R. (2014). Success factors of online learning videos. 2014 international conference on interactive mobile communication technologies and learning, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  16. Dixson, M. D., Greenwell, M. R., Rogers-Stacy, C., Weister, T., & Lauer, S. (2017). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Communication Education, 66(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Embacher, K., McGloin, R., & Richards, K. (2018). When women give health advice online, do we listen? The effect of source sex on credibility and likelihood to use online health advice. Western Journal of Communication, 82(4), 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frisby, B. N., Limperos, A. M., Record, R. A., Downs, E., & Kercsmar, S. E. (2013). Students’ perceptions of social presence: Rhetorical and relational goals across three mediated instructional designs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 468–480.Google Scholar
  19. Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fry, R., & Smith, G. F. (1975). The effects of feedback and eye contact on performance of a digit-coding task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 145–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrett, N. (2012). PowerPoint’s impact on conference ratings and social media likes. E-Learn: World conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Gegenfurtner, A., & Vauras, M. (2012). Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gopalakrishnan, U., Rangan, P. V., Ramkumar, N., & Hariharan, B. (2017, December). Spatio-temporal compositing of video elements for immersive elearning classrooms. 2017 IEEE international symposium on multimedia, Taichung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  24. Griffiths, M., & Graham, C. B. (2010). Using asynchronous video to achieve instructor immediacy and closeness in online classes: Experience from three cases. International Journal on E-learning, 9(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
  25. Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Sundie, J. M., Hardison, T. A., & Cialdini, R. B. (2013). The opinion-changing power of computer-based multimedia presentations. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(2), 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning @ scale conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Hart, S. G. (2008). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 904–908). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, R. A., & Cooper, J. (1971). Mediation of experimenter effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(1), 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalat, F. L., Yazdi, Z. A., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ verbal and non-verbal immediacy: A study of its determinants and consequences. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(5), 216–234.Google Scholar
  32. Knoblauch, H. (2013). PowerPoint, communication, and the knowledge society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kosslyn, S. M., Kievit, R. A., Russell, A. G., & Shephard, J. M. (2012). PowerPoint presentation flaws and failures: A psychological analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krause, J., Portolese, L., & Bonner, J. (2017). Student perceptions of the use of multimedia for online course communication. Online Learning, 21(3), 36–49.Google Scholar
  35. Leppink, J., & van den Heuvel, A. (2015). The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4(3), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, K. (2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. The Review of Communication, 6(1–2), 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lu, H. (2017). Sustainability of e-learning environment: Can social presence be enhanced by multimedia? International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(4), 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahoney, P., Macfarlane, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2017). A qualitative synthesis of video feedback in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 307–324.Google Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Multimedia Instruction. In J. Elen, J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 385–399). New York, NY: Spring Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mazer, J. P., & Stowe, A. (2016). Can teacher immediacy reduce the impact of verbal aggressiveness? Examining effects on student outcomes and perception of teacher credibility. Western Journal of Communication, 80(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCain, T. A., Chilberg, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1977). The effect of camera angle on source credibility and attraction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 21(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. The Speech Teacher, 23, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCroskey, J. C., & Jenson, T. A. (1975). Image of mass media new sources. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 19, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mehrabian, A. (1968a). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(1), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mehrabian, A. (1968b). Inference of attitudes from the posture, orientation, and distance of a communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mehrabian, A. (1970). A semantic space for nonverbal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(2), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  51. Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Murphrey, T. P., Arnold, S., Foster, B., & Degenhart, S. H. (2012). Verbal immediacy and audio/video technology use in online course delivery: What do university agricultural education students think? Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nikulin, C., Lopez, G., Pinonez, E., Gonzalez, L., & Zapata, P. (2019). NASA-TLX for the predictability and measurability of instructional design models: Case study in design methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Park, J., & Feigenson, N. (2012). Effects of a visual technology on mock juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pass, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 402–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590.Google Scholar
  58. Sweller, J., Ayers, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tait, A. (2014). From place to virtual space: Reconfiguring student support for distance and e-learning in the digital age. Open Praxis, 6(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and Students’ note taking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Violanti, M. T., Kelley, S. E., Garland, M. E., & Christen, S. (2018). Instructor clarity, humor, immediacy, and student learning: Replication and extension. Communication Studies, 69(3), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, J., & Antoneko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, L., Wang, G., Haung, W., Jiang, C., & Xu, Y. (2014). Study on astronauts’ workload of typical tasks in orbit. In R. Jang & T. Ahram (Eds.). Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors: Part II. Retrieved from http://www.ahfe2016.org/files/books/2014PE-PART-II.pdf.
  65. Zhu, L., & Anagondahalli, D. (2018). Predicting student satisfaction: The role of academic entitlement and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Reports, 31(1), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Distance Learning, Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Curry School of EducationUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations