The teaching voice on the learning platform: Seeking classroom climates within a virtual learning environment

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 199-213

  Crook, Charles ^a   Cluley, Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Classroom climate; Learning platform; Teacher voice; Undergraduates; VLE

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349467791     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439880903141570     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, J.F. 1979. Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In Communication Yearbook, vol.3, ed. D. Nimmo, 543-559 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
2. Baker, J.K. 2002. An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. Internet and Higher Education 7, no.1: 1-13.
3. Bennett, S., K. Maton, and L. Kervin. 2008. The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39: 775-786
4. Christophel, D.M. 1990. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education 39: 323-340
5. Conole, G., M. de Laat, T. Dillon, and J. Darby. 2008. 'Disruptive technologies', 'pedagogical innovation': What's new? Findings from an in-depth study of students' use and perception of technology. Computers and Education 50, no.2: 511-524
6. Craig, E.M. 2007. Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and Web 2.0. Campus-Wide Information Systems 24, no.3: 152-160
7. Creemers, B.P.M., and G.J. Reezigt. 1999. The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school learning environments. In School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments, ed. H.J. Freiberg, 30-47. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
8. Crook, C.K. 2008. Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning: The current landscape - Opportunities, challenges and tensions. Coventry: Becta. http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/ downloads/page-documents/research/web2- technologies-learning.pdf (accessed March 3, 2009).
9. DfES. 2005. DfES e-learning strategy: Harnessing technology - Transforming learning and childrens' services. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ publications/e-strategy/ (accessed July 1, 2008).
10. Dutton, W.H., P.H. Cheong, and N. Park. 2003. The social shaping of a virtual learning environment: The case of a university-wide course management system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 2, no.1. http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/ vol2-issue1/issue 1-art3.htm (accessed August 12, 2009).
11. Freiberg, H.J., and T.A. Stein. 1999. Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. In School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments, ed. H.J. Freiberg, 11-29. London: Falmer Press.
12. Goodfellow, R., and M.R. Lea. 2007. Challenging e-learning in the university. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
13. Gorham, J. 1988. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education 37: 40-53.
14. HEFCE. 2004. HEFCE e-learning strategy: Consultation responses and next steps. Circular letter number 09/2004. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/ 2004/cl09-04/ (accessed May 2, 2004).
15. Herse, P., and A. Lee. 2005. Optometry and WebCT: A student survey of the value of webbased learning environments in optometric education. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 88: 48-52.
16. Holtham, C., and N. Courtney. 2005. Report on virtual learning environments: Practitioner perspectives on good practice. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
17. Johnson, E.J., and K. Card. 2007. The effects of instructor and student immediacy behaviors in writing improvement and course satisfaction in a web-based undergraduate course. MountainRise, the International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2, no.4. http://www.wcu.edu/facctr/ mountainrise/archive/vol4no2/html/johnson-card.pdf (accessed August 12, 2009).
18. Kreijns, C.J., P.A. Kirschner, W.M.G. Jochems, and H. van Buuren. 2007. Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education 49, no.3: 176-192
19. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Lepper, M., and M. Wolverton. 2002. The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education, ed. J. Aranson, 135-158. New York: Academic Press.
21. Lepper, M.R., M.F. Drake, and T. O'Donnell-Johnson. 1997. Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues, ed. K. Hogan and M. Pressley, 108-144 Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
22. Lieberman, D.A., and R. Remedios. 2007. Do undergraduates' motives for studying change as they progress through their degrees? British Journal of Educational Psychology 77: 379-395
23. Malkowski, S.R., M.E. Thompson, and J.G. Theis. 2006. External factors associated with adopting a CMS in resident college courses. Internet and Higher Education 9: 163-174
24. Mayer, R., S. Fennell, L. Farmer, and J. Campbell. 2004. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, no.2: 389-395
25. McPherson, M.A., and J.M. Nunes. 2004. The failure of a Virtual Social Space (VSS) designed to create a learning community: Lessons learned. British Journal of Educational Technology 35, no.3: 305-323
26. Mehrabian, A. 1969. Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 1, no.6: 203-207
27. Messman, S.J., and J. Jones-Corley. 2001. Effects of communication environment, immediacy, communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning. Communication Monographs 68: 184-200.
28. Morgan. G. 2003. Course management system use in the University of Wisconsin system. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR).
29. Mottet, T.P., J. Parker-Raley, C. Cunningham, S.A. Beebe, and P.C. Raffeld. 2006. Testing the neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on student course workload expectancy violation and tolerance for instructor unavailability. Communication Education 55: 147-166
30. Oblinger, G., and J. Oblinger. 2005. Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation. In Educating the net generation (EDUCAUSE e-book). http:// www.educause.edu/ IsItAgeorIT%3AFirstStepsTowardUnderstandingtheNetGeneration/ 6058 (accessed July 1, 2008).
31. Ofcom 2008. Social networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media
32. O'Sullivan, P.B., S. Hunt, and L. Lippert. 2004. Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23, no.4: 464-490
33. Paulsen, M.F. 2003. Experiences with learning management systems in 113 European institutions. Educational Technology and Society 6, no.4: 134-148
34. Pena-Shaff, J.B., and C. Nicholls. 2004. Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers and Education 42, no.3: 243-265
35. Pogue, L., and K. AhYun. 2006. The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education 55: 331-344.
36. Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Salmon, G. 2004. E-moderating: The key to teaching & learning online. 2nd ed. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
38. Selwyn, N. 2003. Why students do (and do not) make use of ICT in university. Paper presented at the conference on 'Finding common ground: IT education, dearing and democracy in the information society', July 9, in Department of Computing, University of Leeds, UK. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ documents/00003130.htm (accessed August 20, 2008).
39. Selwyn, N. 2008. An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the internet. Active Learning in Higher Education 9, no.1: 11-22.
40. Sfard, A. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27: 4-13.
41. Singh, G., J. O'Donoghue, and C. Betts. 2002. A UK study into the potential effects of virtual education: Does online learning spell an end for on-campus learning? Behaviour and Information Technology 21, no.3: 223-229
42. Smith, K. 2008. 'Who do you think you're talking to?' - The discourse of learning and teaching strategies. Higher Education 56: 395-406.
43. Strathern, M. 2000. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
44. Titsworth, B.S. 2001. The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students' note-taking on cognitive learning. Communication Education 50: 283-297.
45. University and College Union. 2007. Higher education employment data: Academic staff. http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/5/a/hedata-academicstaff.pdf (accessed August 20, 2008).
46. Vrasidas, C., and M.S. McIsaac. 1999. Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education 13, no.3: 22-36.
47. Wang, M.C., G.D. Haertel, and H.J. Walberg. 1997. Learning influences. In Psychology and educational practice, ed. H.J. Walberg and G.D. Heartel, 199-211. Berkeley, CA: McCatchan.
48. Wang, N., W.L. Johnson, R.E. Mayer, P. Rizzo, E. Shaw, and Collins. H. 2008. The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies 66: 98-112.
49. Weller, M.J. 2007. The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education 49: 148-159.
50. Woods, R., J.D. Baker, and D. Hopper. 2004. Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of Web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education 7, no.4: 281-297.
51. Woods, R., and S. Ebersole. 2003. Using non-subject-matter-specific discussion boards to build connectedness in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education 17, no.2: 99-118.
52. Woolgar, S. 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology, Human Values 16: 20-50.
53. Yates, J., and W.J. Orlikowski. 1992. Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review 17, no.2: 299-326.