Constructing and validating a teacher immediacy scale: A Chinese perspective

Communication Education

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 218-241

  Zhang, Qin ^a   Oetzel, John G ^b  

^a FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Chinese perspective; Construction; Cross cultural; Teacher immediacy scale; Validation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645217455     PISSN: 03634523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03634520600566231     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543-559.
2. Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Progress in Communication Sciences, XIV, 39-72.
3. Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24, 501-535.
4. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters.
5. Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
6. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
7. Biggs, J. B., & Watkins, D. A. (2001). Insights into teaching the Chinese learner. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 277-298). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center.
8. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129-142.
9. Burgoon, J. K. (1995). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 194-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
11. Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult-adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 89-114.
12. Carbaugh, D. (1990). Cultural communication and intercultural contact. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 93-105.
14. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998a). The relationship between teacher clarity and immediacy and students' experiences of state receiver apprehension when listening to teachers. Communication Quarterly, 46, 446-456.
15. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998b). The development of the teacher clarity short inventory (TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 262-266.
16. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship between teacher clarity and immediacy and student affect and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59-68.
17. 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, 82-90.
18. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
19. Christophel, D., Sx 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.
20. Chu, G. C. (1988). In search of an Asian perspective of communication theory. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 204-210). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
21. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., Sx Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251-266.
22. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D. McNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education (pp. 76-90). London: Routledge.
23. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
25. Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133-144.
26. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
27. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
28. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147-166.
29. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-26.
30. Hess, J. A., Sx Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is there immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197-219.
31. Hinkle, L. J. (1998). Teacher nonverbal immediacy behaviors and student-perceived cognitive learning in Japan. Communication Research Reports, 15, 45-56.
32. Ho, I. T. (2001). Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 99-114). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center.
33. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
35. Hu, W., & Grove, C. L. (1999). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
36. Ishii, S. (2001). An emerging rationale for triworld communication studies from Buddhist perspectives. Human Communication, 40, 1-9.
37. Jaasma, M. A. (1997). Classroom communication apprehension: Does being male or female make a difference? Communication Reports, 10, 219-228.
38. Johnson, S. C., & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280-292.
39. Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
40. Le Poire, B. A., Sx Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Usefulness of differentiating arousal responses within communication theories: Orienting response or defensive arousal within nonverbal theories of expectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 63, 208-230.
41. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. 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.
43. Lu, X. (2002). Chinese political communication: Roots in Asian rhetoric and impacts on contemporary Chinese thought and culture. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 97-116.
44. Mancini, J. A., & Marek, L. I. (2004). Sustaining community-based programs for families: Conceptualization and measurement. Family Relations, 53, 339-347.
45. Marsh, H. W. K., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
46. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). The application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor structures and their invariance across age group. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.
47. Martin, K., & Olaf, K. (1997). Construct validity of assessment centers: Appropriate use of confirmatory factor analysis and suitable construction principles. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 65-84.
48. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multi-cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44, 297-307.
50. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & 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.
51. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 4, 200-211.
52. Mehrabian, A. (1967). Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17, 324-332.
53. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 294-295.
54. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine.
55. Miike, Y. (2002). Theorizing culture and communication in the Asian context: An assumptive foundation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 1-21.
56. Miike, Y. (2003). Beyond Eurocentrism in the intercultural field: Searching for an Asiacentric paradigm. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 26, 243-276.
57. Mottet, T., & Richmond, V. (1998). An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication Quarterly, 46, 25-40.
58. Myers, S. A., Zhong, M., & Guan, S. (1998). Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom. Communication Studies, 49, 240-254.
59. Neer, M. R. (1987). The development of an instrument to measure classroom apprehension. Communication Education, 36, 154-166.
60. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Neuliep, J. W. (1995). A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44, 267-277.
62. Neuliep, J. W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of teacher immediacy in American and Japanese college classrooms. Communication Research, 24, 431-451.
63. Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599-624.
64. Olaniran, B. A., & Roach, K. D. (1994). Communication apprehension and classroom apprehension in Nigerian classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 42, 379-389.
65. Olaniran, B. A., & Stewart, R. A. (1996). Instructional practices and classroom communication apprehension: A cultural explanation. Communication Reports, 9, 193-203.
66. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. L. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.
68. Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 369-379.
69. Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States: Contrasting foundations for adult education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 285-310.
70. Pribyl, C. B., Sakamoto, M., & Keaten, J. A. (2004). The relationship between nonverbal immediacy, student motivation, and perceived cognitive learning among Japanese college students. Japanese Psychological Research, 46, 73-85.
71. Reinard, J. C. (2001). Introduction to communication research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
72. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574-590.
73. Richmond, V. P., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Teacher immediacy and the teacher-student relationship. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 167-194). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
74. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NTS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504-517.
75. Roach, K. D., & Byrne, P. R. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and German classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 1-14.
76. Roach, K. D., Cornett-DeVito, M. M., & DeVito, R. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and French classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 87-107.
77. Robinson, R. Y., & Richmond, V. P. (1995). Validity of the verbal immediacy scale. Communication Research Reports, 12, 80-84.
78. Rogers, E. M. (1999). Georg Simmel's concept of the stranger and intercultural communication research. Communication Theory, 9, 58-74.
79. Sanders, J. A., & 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. Schreiber, L. (2000). Overcoming methodological elitism: Afrocentrism as a prototypical paradigm for intercultural research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 651-671.
81. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
82. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
84. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
85. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction, Education. Communication & Information, 2, 23-49.
86. Swartz, O. (2002). Hierarchy is not harmony: A view of the traditional Chinese family. In X. Lu, W. Jia, & D. R. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese communication studies: Contexts and comparisons (pp. 119-134). Westport, CT: Ablex.
87. Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes, and cognition (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.
88. Tu, C-H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Education Media International, 38, 46-60.
89. 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.
90. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184-207.
91. Yu, J. H., Keown, C. F., & Jacobs, L. W. (1993). Attitude scale methodology: Cross-cultural implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6, 45-64.
92. Zhang, Q. (2005a). Immediacy, humor, power distance and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 109-124.
93. Zhang, Q. (2005b). Teacher immediacy and classroom communication apprehension: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 48-63.
94. Zhang, Q. (2006). Immediacy and out-of-class communication: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 33-50.