Text Messaging for Out-of-Class Communication: Impact on Immediacy and Affective Learning

Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


While out-of-class communication between instructors and students can impact all types of student learning it has its greatest impact on student affective learning, including motivation and engagement. One of the primary reasons for this is that the out-of-class communication enhances student perception of instructor immediacy. Immediacy is defined as behaviour which increases psychological closeness between communicators. Research studies in instructional communication suggest that improved instructor immediacy is linked to enhance affective learning. A research study was conducted into the use of text messaging for out-of-class communication and the impact it had on student perception of instructor immediacy and student affective learning. Both quantitative measures of immediacy and qualitative feedback from students show that the instructor is perceived as closer, more approachable and responsive when text messaging services are offered. The student feedback also reveals that the use of text messaging has other positive effects on affective learning.


Student Learning Text Messaging Mobile Learning Student Learning Outcome Administrative Purpose 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). D. Nimmo, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: D. McKay.Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher Immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47(1), 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, E., & Doody, C. (2008). Using mobile phone text messaging as an alternative to traditional handheld audience response. In Proceedings of 9th Annual Irish Educational Technology Users’ Conference (EdTech) 2008. Ireland: Dundalk Institute of Technology, Irish Learning & Teaching Association.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53(1).Google Scholar
  6. Harley, D., Winn, S., et al. (2007). Using texting to support students’ transition to university. Innovations in Education: Teaching International, 44(3), 229–241.Google Scholar
  7. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., et al. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horstmanshof, L. (2004). Using SMS as a way of providing connection and community for first year students. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 423–427). Perth.Google Scholar
  9. Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student/faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48(1), 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., et al. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keegan, D. (2006). The arrival of mobile learning. In Proceedings of 7th Annual Irish Educational Technology Users’ Conference (EdTech) 2006. Sligo, Ireland: Irish Learning & Teaching Association.Google Scholar
  12. Markett, C., Sanchez, I. A., et al. (2006). Using short message service to encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education, 46(3), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCombs, B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication (pp. 55–65). In M. Morreale, S. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA Summer Conference Proceedings and Prepare Remarks.Google Scholar
  15. McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., et al. (1996). A multi-cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44(3), 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behaviour. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 205–207.Google Scholar
  17. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont: CA, Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  18. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages. Belmont: CA, Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  19. Naismith, L. (2007). Using text messaging to support administrative communication in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 155-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noels, K. A., Clement, R., et al. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pogue, L. L., & Ahyun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55(3), 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. So, S. (2009). The development of a SMS-based teaching and learning system. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stone, A. (2004). Mobile scaffolding: An experiment in using SMS text messaging to support first year university students. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2004 (pp. 405–409). Joensuu, Finland.Google Scholar
  24. Tretiakov, A., & Kinshuk, K. (2005). Creating a pervasive testing environment by using SMS messaging. In Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education 2005 (WMTE’05) (pp. 62–66). IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Trifonova, A. (2003). Mobile learning-review of the literature. Technology Report No. DIT-03-009). University of Trento, Department of Information and Communication Technology Retrieved from
  26. Vaughn, L. M., & Baker, R. C. (2004). Psychological size and distance: emphasising the interpersonal relationship as a pathway to optimal teaching and learning conditions. Medical Education, 38(10), 1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Witt, P. L. (2000). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy, student motivation, and cognitive learning in video instruction, University of North Texas. Doctor of Philosophy, p. 206.Google Scholar
  28. Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National College of IrelandDublinIreland
  2. 2.Private University of Applied SciencesGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations