Enhancing instructor credibility and immediacy in online multimedia designs

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: Instructor practices that support community. Online Learning,21(2), n2.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breed, G., & Colaiuta, V. (1974). Looking, blinking, and sitting: Nonverbal dynamics in the classrooms. Journal of Communications,24(2), 75–81.

    Google 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.

  9. Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). A taxonomy of asynchronous instructional video styles. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,19(1), 294–311.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  13. Davis, L. K. (1978). Camera eye-contact by the candidates in the presidential debates of 1976. Journalism Quarterly,55(3), 431–437.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jones, R. A., & Cooper, J. (1971). Mediation of experimenter effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,20(1), 70–74.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  45. McCroskey, J. C., & Jenson, T. A. (1975). Image of mass media new sources. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,19, 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  46. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs,66, 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mehrabian, A. (1968a). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,10(1), 26–30.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mehrabian, A. (1970). A semantic space for nonverbal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,35(2), 248–257.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Park, J., & Feigenson, N. (2012). Effects of a visual technology on mock juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology,27, 235–246.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Ramlatchan.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramlatchan, M., Watson, G.S. Enhancing instructor credibility and immediacy in online multimedia designs. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 511–528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09714-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multimedia learning theory
  • Instructor credibility
  • Instructor immediacy
  • Online design
  • Distance learning