Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning?

Communication Studies

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 197-219

  Hess, Jon A ^a   Smythe, M J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005139338     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510970109388554     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Allen, J. L., O'Mara, J., and Long, K. M., The effects of communication avoidance, learning styles, and gender upon classroom achievement. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. Boston, MA. November.
2. Allen, J. L., and Shaw, D. H., 1990. Teachers’ communication behaviors and supervisors’ evaluation of instruction in elementary and secondary classrooms. Communication Education, 39: 308–322.
3. Andersen, J. F., 1979. “ Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness ”. In Communication Yearbook, Edited by: Nimmo, D., Vol. 3, 543–559. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
4. Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., and Jensen, A. D., 1979. The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7: 153–180.
5. Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., and Nussbaum, J. F., 1981. Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30: 377–392.
6. Andersen, J. F., and Withrow, J. G., 1981. The impact of lecturer nonverbal expressiveness on improving mediated instruction. Communication Education, 30: 342–353.
7. Andersen, P., 1985. “ Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication ”. In Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior, Edited by: Siegman, A. W., and Feldstein, S., 1–36. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Andersen, P., 1999. Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
9. Bakeman, R., and Gottman, J. M., 1986. Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bern, D., 1972. “ Self‐perception theory ”. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Edited by: Berkowitz, L., Vol. 6, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.
11. Berger, C. R., and Calabrese, R. J., 1975. Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1: 99–112.
12. Butland, M. J., and Beebe, S. A., Teacher immediacy and power in the classroom: The application of implicit communication theory. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. Chicago, IL. October.
13. Capella, J. N., and Greene, J. O., 1982. A discrepancy‐arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant‐adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49: 89–114.
14. Chesebro, J. L., and McCroskey, J. C., 2000. The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49: 297–301.
15. Chesebro, J. L., and McCroskey, J. C., 2001. The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50: 59–68.
16. Christensen, L. J., and 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: 82–90.
17. Christophel, D., 1990. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39: 323–340.
18. Christophel, D., and Gorham, J., 1995. A test‐retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44: 292–306.
19. Clair, R. P., The effects of tactile stimulation and gross motor movement on cognitive learning: A test of Montessori's muscular movement theory in the college classroom. Paper presented at the convention of the Eastern Communication Association. Pittsburgh, PA. April.
20. Clifford, M. M., 1991. Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26: 263–297.
21. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., and Bowers, J. W., 1995. Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44: 251–267.
22. Darley, J. M., and Berscheid, E., 1967. Increased liking as a result of the anticipation of personal contact. Human Relations, 20: 29–40.
23. DeVellis, R. F., 1991. Scale development: Theory and applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Frymier, A. B., 1993. The impact of teacher immediacy on students motivation: Is it the same for all students?. Communication Quarterly, 41: 454–464.
25. Frymier, A. B., 1994. A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42: 133–144.
26. Frymier, A. B., and Houser, M. L., 1998. Does making content relevant make a difference in learning?. Communication Research Reports, 15: 121–129.
27. Frymier, A. B., and Houser, M. L., 1999. The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50: 1–12.
28. Frymier, A. B., and Houser, M. L., 2000. The student‐teacher relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49: 207–219.
29. Frymier, A. B., and Shulman, G. M., Development and testing of the learner empowerment instrument in a communication based model. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. New Orleans, LA. November.
30. Frymier, A. B., and Thompson, C. A., 1995. Using student reports to measure immediacy: Is it a valid methodology?. Communication Research Reports, 12: 85–93.
31. Gipps, C. V., 1994. Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment, London: Falmer.
32. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine.
33. Good, T., and Brophy, J. E., 1995. Contemporary educational psychology, White Plains, NY: Longman.
34. Gorham, J., 1988. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37: 40–53.
35. Gorham, J., and Christophel, D. M., 1992. Students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40: 239–252.
36. Gorham, J., Cohen, S. H., and Morris, T. L., 1999. Fashion in the classroom III: Effects of instructor attire and immediacy in natural classroom interactions. Communication Quarterly, 47: 281–299.
37. Gorham, J., and Millette, D. M., 1997. A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivaüon in college classes. Communication Education, 46: 245–261.
38. Gorham, J., and Zakahi, W. R., 1990. A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39: 354–368.
39. Hackman, M. Z., and Walker, K. B., 1990. Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39: 196–206.
40. Harp, S. F., and Mayer, R. E., 1998. How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90: 414–434.
41. Heider, F., 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21: 107–112.
42. Heider, F., 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
43. Hinkle, L. L., 1998. Teacher nonverbal immediacy behaviors and student‐perceived cognitive learning in Japan. Communication Research Reports, 15: 45–56.
44. Hull, C. L., 1943. Principles of behavior, New York: Appleton.
45. James, W., 1890. The principles of psychology, New York: Holt.
46. Jiobu, R. M., and Pollis, C. A., 1971. Student evaluations of courses and instructors. The American Sociologist, 6: 317–321.
47. Kearney, P., 1994. “ Measure profile: Nonverbal immediacy behaviors instrument ”. In Communication research measures: A sourcebook, Edited by: Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., and Sypher, H. E., 237–241. New York: Guilford.
48. Kearney, P., and Beatty, M. J., 1994. “ Measures of instructional communication ”. In Communication research measures: A sourcebook, Edited by: Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., and Sypher, H. E., 7–20. New York: Guilford.
49. Kelley, D. H., and Gorham, J., 1988. Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37: 198–207.
50. Kelley, H. H., Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Edited by: Levine, D., Vol. 15, pp. 192–240. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
51. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., and Masia, B. B., 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II. Affective domain, New York: David McKay.
52. Maier, N. R. F., 1931. Reasoning in humans II: The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12: 181–194.
53. Maruyama, G. M., 1998. Basics of structural equation modeling, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Maslow, A., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370–396.
55. McCroskey, J. C., and McCroskey, L. L., 1986. Self‐report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5: 108–113.
56. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., and Barraclough, R. A., 1995. A cross‐cultural and multi‐behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44: 281–291.
57. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., and Barraclough, R. A., 1996. Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross‐cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45: 200–211.
58. McDowell, E. E., and McDowell, C. E., An investigation of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy behaviors, homophily, interpersonal solidarity, student attentiveness and student learning at the senior high school level. Paper presented at the convention of the International Communication Association. Dublin, Ireland. June.
59. McDowell, E. E., McDowell, C. E., and Hyerdahl, J., A multivariate study of teacher immediacy, teaching effectiveness, and student attentiveness at the junior high and senior high levels. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. New York, NY. November.
60. Mehrabian, A., 1966. Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality, 34: 26–34.
61. Mehrabian, A., 1969. Significance of posture and position in die communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71: 359–372.
62. Mehrabian, A., 1972. Nonverbal communication, Chicago: Aldine.
63. Mehrabian, A., 1981. Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes, (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
64. Menzel, K. E., and Carrell, L. J., 1999. The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48: 31–40.
65. Metts, S., Sprecher, S., and Cupach, W. R., 1991. “ Retrospective self‐reports ”. In Studying interpersonal interaction, Edited by: Montgomery, B. M., and Duck, S., 163–178. New York: Guilford.
66. Miller, G. R., 1978. The current status of theory and research in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 4: 164–178.
67. Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A., 1996. College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45: 29–39.
68. Mottet, T., and Richmond, V., 1998. An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication Quarterly, 46: 25–40.
69. Neulip, J. W., 1995. A comparison of teacher immediacy in African‐American and Euro‐American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44: 267–277.
70. Newcomb, T. M., 1968. “ Interpersonal balance ”. In Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook, Edited by: Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M.J., and Tannenbaum, P. H., 28–51. Chicago: Rand McNally.
71. Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D., 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84: 231–259.
72. Powell, R. G., and Harville, B., 1990. The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39: 369–379.
73. Richmond, V. P., 1990. Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39: 181–195.
74. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., and McCroskey, J. C., 1987. “ The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning ”. In Communication Yearbook, Edited by: McLaughlin, M., Vol. 10, 574–590. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
75. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., and Plax, T. G., 1987. Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36: 1–12.
76. Robinson, R. Y., Affiliative communication behaviors: A comparative analysis of the interrelationships among teacher nonverbal immediacy, responsiveness, and verbal receptivity on the prediàion of student learning. Paper presented at the convention of the International Communication Association. Albuquerque, NM. May.
77. Robinson, R., and Richmond, V., 1995. Validity of the verbal immediacy scale. Communication Research Reports, 12: 80–84.
78. Rocca, K. A., and McCroskey, J. C., 1999. The interrelationship of student ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Communication Education, 48: 308–316.
79. Rodriguez, J., Plax, T. G., and Kearney, P., 1996. Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45: 293–305.
80. Rubin, R. R., and Graham, E. E., 1988. Communication correlates of college success: An exploratory investigation. Communication Education, 37: 14–27.
81. Rubin, Z., 1970. Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16: 265–273.
82. Rubin, Z., 1973. Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
83. Sanders, J. A., and Wiseman, R. L., 1990. The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39: 341–353.
84. Schaller, K. A., and Dewine, S., The development of a communication‐based model of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. Miami, FL. November.
85. Schraw, G., 1998. Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90: 3–12.
86. Schunk, D. H., 1991. Self‐efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26: 207–232.
87. Shuell, T. J., 1986. Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56: 411–436.
88. Strauss, A. L., 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89. Teven, J. J., and McCroskey, J. C., 1997. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46: 1–9.
90. Walker, K. B., and Hackman, M. Z., Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association. Atlanta, GA. October.
91. Ward, A. W., Stoker, H. W., and Murray‐Ward, M., 1996. Educational measurement: Origins, theories, and explications: Vol. 1. Basic concepts and theories, Vol. 1, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
92. Witt, P. L., and Wheeless, L. R., An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Paper presented at the convention of the International Communication Association. Washington, D. C. May.
93. Zechmeister, E. B., Rusch, K. M., and Markell, K. A., 1986. Training college students to assess accurately what they know and don't know. Human Learning, 5: 3–19.