Instructor immediacy in the chinese college classroom

Communication Studies

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 240-254

  Myers, Scott A ^a   Zhong, Mei ^b   Guan, Shijie ^c  

^a CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009535761     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510979809368534     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Alston, J. P., and He, S. Y., 1997. Business guide to modern China, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
2. Andersen, J. F., 1979. “ Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness ”. In Communication Yearbook Vol. 3, 543-559.
3. Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., and Jensen, A. D., 1979. The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7: 153-180.
4. Andersen, J. F., Norton, R., and Nussbaum, J. F., 1981. Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30: 377-392.
5. Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., and Zhong, M., 1998. Motives for communicating with family and friends: A Chinese study. The Howard Journal of Communications, 9: 109-123.
6. Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Zhong, M., and West, D., 1997. Reliability, separation of factors, and sex differences on the assertiveness-responsiveness measure: A Chinese sample. Communication Research Reports, 14: 58-67.
7. Bond, M. H., 1991. Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
8. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., and Wan, K. C., 1982. The social impact of self-effacing attributions: The Chinese case. Journal of Social Psychology, 188: 157-166.
9. Book, C. L., and Putnam, J. G., 1992. “ Organization and management of a classroom as a learning community culture ”. In Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern, Edited by: Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, J. C., 19-34. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Boyer, L. M., Thompson, C. A., Klopf, D. W., and Ishii, S., 1990. An intercultural comparison of immediacy among Japanese and Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71: 65-66.
11. Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., and Plax, T. G., 1989. Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 38: 214-229.
12. Carrell, L. J., and Menzel, K. E., Gender, cognitive style, anxiety, academic ability, and professor behavior as predictors of a student's willingness to talk in class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. New York City. November.
13. Cheng, H. P., and Borzi, M. G., 1997. Chinese students’ recognition of typical American cultural situations: Implications for English as a second language instruction. Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association, 68: 9-22.
14. 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.
15. Christophel, D. M., 1990. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39: 323-340.
16. Christophel, D. M., 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.
17. Chu, G. C., and Ju, Y., 1993. The Great Wall in ruins: Communication and cultural change in China, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
18. Darling, A. L., and Civikly, J. M., 1987. The effect of teacher humor on student perceptions of classroom communicative climate. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 22: 24-30.
19. Deng, P., 1997. Private education in China, Westpoint, CT: Praeger.
20. Downs, V. C., Javidi, M. N., and Nussbaum, J. F., 1988. An analysis of teachers’ verbal communication within college classrooms: Use of humor, self-disclosure, and narratives. Communication Education, 37: 127-138.
21. Ellis, K., 1995. Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course: Trends and relationships. Communication Education, 44: 64-78.
22. Freitas, F. A., Myers, S. A., and Avtgis, T. A., 1998. Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education, 47: 366-372.
23. Frymier, A. B., 1993. The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students?. Communication Quarterly, 41: 454-464.
24. Frymier, A. B., 1994. A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42: 133-144.
25. Frymier, A. B., and Houser, M. L., 1998. Does making content relevant make a difference in learning?. Communication Research Reports, 15: 121-129.
26. Frymier, A. B., and Shulman, G. M., 1995. “What's in it for me?”: Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44: 40-50.
27. Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., and Houser, M., 1996. The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45: 181-199.
28. Fusani, D. S., 1994. “Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22: 232-255.
29. Gao, G., 1997. “ Self and OTHER: A Chinese perspective on interpersonal relationships ”. In Communication in personal relationships across cultures, Edited by: Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., and Nishida, T., 81-101. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., and Gudykunst, W., 1996. “ Chinese communication processes ”. In The handbook of Chinese psychology, Edited by: Bond, M. H., 280-293. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
31. Gorham, J., 1988. The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37: 40-53.
32. Gorham, J., and Christophel, D. M., 1990. The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39: 46-62.
33. 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.
34. 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: 196-207.
35. Hinkle, L. L., 1998. Teacher nonverbal immediacy behaviors and student-perceived cognitive learning in Japan. Communication Research Reports, 15: 45-56.
36. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Hofstede, G., 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10: 301-320.
38. Hu, W., and Grove, C. L., 1991. Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
39. Hwang, K. K., 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 944-974.
40. Javidi, M. N., and Long, L. W., 1989. Teachers’ use of humor, self-disclosure, and narrative activity as a function of experience. Communication Research Reports, 6: 47-52.
41. Jordan, F. F., and Merkel, A. M., The relationship of selected and communication climate variables to cognitive learning in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. New Orleans, LA. November.
42. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., and Burroughs, N. F., 1991. An attributional analysis of college students’ resistance decisions. Communication Education, 40: 325-342.
43. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, J. C., 1984. “ Power in the classroom IV: Teacher communication techniques as alternatives to discipline ”. In Communication Yearbook Vol. 8, 724-746.
44. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., and Sorensen, G., 1988. Effects of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education, 37: 54-67.
45. Klopf, D. W., Thompson, C. A., Ishii, S., and Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., 1991. Nonverbal immediacy differences among Japanese, Finnish, and American university students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73: 209-210.
46. Lin, J., 1993. Education in post-Mao China, Westpoint, CT: Praeger.
47. Liu, R. J., 1995. College and university admissions: The rate of growth must be appropriate. Chinese Education and Society, 28(6): 7-16.
48. Lu, S., 1997. Culture and compliance gaining in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of Chinese college teachers’ use of behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education, 46: 10-28.
49. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., and Yik, M. S. M., 1996. “ Universal aspects of Chinese personality structure ”. In The handbook of Chinese psychology, Edited by: Bond, M. H., 189-207. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
50. McCroskey, J. C., 1994. “ Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication ”. In Assessing college student competency in speech communication, Edited by: Morreale, S., and Brooks, M., 56-71. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
51. McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., and Barraclough, R. A., 1996. A multi-cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44: 297-307.
52. McCroskey, J. C., and McCroskey, L. L., 1986. The affinity-seeking of classroom teachers. Communication Research Reports, 3: 158-167.
53. McCroskey, J. C., and Richmond, V. P., 1992. “ Increasing teacher influence through immediacy ”. In Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern, Edited by: Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, J. C., 101-120. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. 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: 292-306.
55. 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.
56. Mehrabian, A., 1967. Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17: 324-332.
57. Mehrabian, A., 1968. Inference of attitudes from the posture, orientation, and distance of a communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32: 296-308.
58. Mehrabian, A., 1969. Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6: 294-295.
59. Mehrabian, A., 1971. Verbal and nonverbal interaction of strangers in a waiting situation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5: 127-138.
60. Mehrabian, A., 1981. Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes, 2nd ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
61. Menzel, K. E., and Carrell, L. J., Variations in willingness to talk and perceived learning across teacher gender, student gender, and levels of teacher immediacy behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association. Chicago, IL. April.
62. 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.
63. Moore, G., and Zhong, M., Toward developing culture-centered criticism to illuminate the rhetorical functions of popular culture: A case study of how students manage meaning on the campus of Peking University, Beijing, China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. November.
64. Myers, S. A., The relationship between selected teacher communication behaviors and student learning in the basic course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. November.
65. Myers, S. A., Communication correlates of student challenge behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Diego, CA. November.
66. Myers, S. A., and Knox, R. L., in press. Verbal aggression in the college classroom: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly.
67. Neuliep, J. W., 1995. A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44: 267-277.
68. Nussbaum, J. F., 1984. Classroom behavior of the effective teacher. Communication, 75: 81-91.
69. Nussbaum, J. F., Comadena, M. E., and Holladay, S. J., 1987. Classroom verbal behaviors of highly effective teachers. Journal of Thought, 22: 73-80.
70. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., and Richmond, V. P., 1986. Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35: 43-55.
71. Powell, R. G., and Harville, B., 1990. The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes. Communication Education, 39: 369-379.
72. Powers, W. G., Nitcavic, R., and Koerner, D., 1990. Teacher characteristics: A college level perspective. Communication Education, 39: 227-233.
73. Qin, S., 1993. China handbook, Beijing, China: New Star Publications.
74. Richmond, V. P., 1990. Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39: 181-195.
75. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., and McCroskey, J. C., 1987. “ The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning ”. In Communication Yearbook Vol. 10, 574-590.
76. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., and Koontz, K. A., 1980. Perceived power as a mediator of management communication style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary investigation. Communication Quarterly, 34: 37-46.
77. 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.
78. Rubin, K., 1983. Higher education in China: Recent calls for reform. China Exchange News CEN), 11(2): 34-36.
79. 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.
80. Sechrest, L., Fay, T. L., and Zaidi, S. M., 1972. Problems of translation in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3: 41-56.
81. Sorensen, G., 1989. The relationships among teachers’ self-disclosive statements, students’ perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38: 259-276.
82. Stevenson, H. W., and Lee, S., 1996. “ The academic achievement of Chinese students ”. In The handbook of Chinese psychology, Edited by: Bond, M. H., 124-142. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
83. Taylor, R., 1989. Chinese hierarchy in comparative perspectives. Journal of Asian Studies, 48: 490-511.
84. 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.
85. Thomas-Maddox, C., Appropriateness of instructional communication research across cultures: An analysis of the use of immediacy in the Hong Kong culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. Chicago, IL. November.
86. Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, J. C., 1994. The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11: 107-115.
87. Zhong, M., Buerkel, R. A., and Myers, S. A., Communication and intergenerational differences in Chinese families with the only-child generation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. Chicago, IL. November.