The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model

Communication Education

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 21-31

  Allen, Mike ^a   Witt, Paul L ^b   Wheeless, Lawrence R ^a  

^a UW ^*

^b TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Affective Learning; Classroom Communication; Cognitive Learning; Meta Analysis; Teacher Immediacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 31844438345     PISSN: 03634523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03634520500343368     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abelson, R. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133.
2. Adkins, R. (1998). The differences in students' perceptions of learning between extended learning program students and on-campus students in a southern Christian university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, GA.
3. Allen, M. (2002). A synthesis and extension of constructivist comforting research. In M. Allen, R. Preiss, B. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal Communication Research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 227-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Allen, M., Burrell, N., Bourhis, J., Mabry, E., Ostrom-Blonigen, J., Chamberlain, K., Hasbargen, K., Madu, M., Attansey, M., Bornsen, S., Ocaña, A., Thweatt, T., Barrett, M., Markey, V., Lin, M., Novak, J., Carlson, G., Larson-Casselton, C., McRoberts, D., VanHorn, S., & Erickson, S. (2004, April). Meta-analysis examining factors influencing attrition in distance learning courses. Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Convention, Cleveland, OH.
5. Allen, M., Hecht, M., & Martin, J. (1996). Examining the impact of culture social scientifically: Some suggestions from examining Martin, Hecht, and Larkey. World Communication, 25(2), 69-78.
6. Andersen, J. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans, Green.
8. Bradford, L., Cooper, E., Allen, M., Stanley, J., & Grimes, D. (in press). Race and the classroom: Interaction and image. In B. Gayle, R. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Christophel, D. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
10. Christophel, D., & 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.
11. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251-266.
12. Cooper, E., & Allen, M. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the impact of student race on classroom interaction. Communication Research Reports, 15, 151-161.
13. Ehrenberg, R.G., & Zhang, L. (2004, December). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Paper of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute supported by grant from the Andrew H. Mellon Foundation and Atlantic Philanthropies, Cornell University.
14. Emmers-Sommer, T., & Allen, M. (1999). Variables related to sexual coercion: A path model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 659-678.
15. Frymier, A. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133-144.
16. Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (1998). Does making content relevant make a difference in learning? Communication Research Reports, 15, 121-129.
17. Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
18. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
19. Hamilton, M., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The effect of language intensity on receiver evaluations of message, source, and topic. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 99-138). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
20. Hess, J., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197-219.
21. Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for artifacts and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Jones, S., Dindia, K., & Tye-Williams, S. (in press). Effects of student and instructor gender on classroom interaction. In B. Gayle, R. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Kim, M., & Hunter, J. (1993a). Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43, 101-142.
24. Kim, M., & Hunter, J. (1993b). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research: II. Communication Research, 20, 331-364.
25. McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks (pp. 55-69). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
26. McCroskey, L. (2002). Domestic and international college instructors: An examination of perceived differences and their correlates. Journal of Intercultural communication Research, 31, 63-84.
27. McDowell, E. E., & McDowell, C. E. (1990, July). 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 International Communication Association Convention, Dublin, Ireland.
28. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 203-207.
29. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
30. Messman, S. J., Jones-Corley, J., Mezzacappa, D., & Crusan, D. (1998, November). Cognitive and affective learning in the basic course: Effects of delivery format, immediacy, and communication apprehension. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, New York.
31. Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195.
32. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574-574). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Robinson, R. Y., & Richmond, V. P. (1995). Validity of the verbal immediacy scale. Communication Research Reports, 12, 80-84.
34. Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & 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.
35. Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Communication apprehension, student attitudes, and levels of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 188-198.
36. Thompson, C. (1992). The relationships among teachers' immediacy behaviors, credibility, and social style and students' motivation and learning: Comparisons among cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
37. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Education Research, 45, 89-125.
38. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
39. 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, 327-342.
40. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 72, 184-217.