arning in traditional classrooms and in 

distance learning classrooms.  The article asserts 

that teacher immediacy behaviors can be verbal 

(use of humor, verbal praise, willingness to talk o

utside the classroom, etc.) or nonverbal (signals 

of availability, warmth, etc.).  The research quest

ions are: 1) “will state motivation vary based on 

lecture delivery type (live, Powerpoint, and video)

?, 2) will perceived teacher immediacy vary 

based on lecture delivery type (live, Powerpoint, a

nd video)?”, 3) “will a student’s perceived 

learning vary based on lecture delivery type (live,

 Powerpoint, and video)?”, 4) “will a student’s 

actual learning vary based on lecture delivery type

 (live, Powerpoint, and video)?”, and 5) “will a 

student’s learning (perceived and/or actual) vary b

ased on the interaction of lecture delivery type 

(live, Powerpoint, and video) and student cognitive

 style?” (p. 232) The study methods involved 

giving 120 first year communication course students

 one of three different classroom treatments 

(a traditional classroom, a video simulcast lecture

, or a Powerpoint presentation with an audio 

simulcast) and then the students were given surveys

 employing Gregorc Cognitive Style 

Indicator, Andersen’s Generalized Immediacy Scale, 

Christophel’s State Motivation Scale and 

Bloom’s Taxanomy.  A second study was conducted tha

t mirrored the first.  Data variations for 

RQs 1, 3, 4, and 5 were not statistically significa

nt.  Data variations for RQ2 showed that 

immediacy perceptions varied widely across the situ

ations.  This article is useful because of the 

focus on immediacy on delivery type and then delive

ry type on learning.  The results of RQ2 are 

of particular interest.