Immediate and delayed effects of interest cues and engagement cues on students' affective learning

Communication Studies

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 169-179

  Titsworth, B Scott ^a  

^a MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD   (United States)

Author keywords

Notetaking; Organizational cues; Student affect; Teacher immediacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924592141     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510970109388552     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andersen, J., 1979. Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3: 543–559.
2. Andersen, J., Andersen, P., and Jensen, A., 1979. The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7: 153–180.
3. Andersen, P., and Andersen, J., 1982. “ Nonverbal immediacy in instruction ”. In Communication in the classroom, Edited by: Barker, L., 98–120. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
4. Bainbridge Frymier, A., 1993a. The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students?. Communication Quarterly, 41: 454–464.
5. Bainbridge Frymier, A., 1993b. The relationships among communication apprehension, immediacy and motivation to study. Communication Reports, 6: 8–17.
6. Bainbridge‐Frymier, A., 1994. A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42: 133–144.
7. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., and Krathwohl, D., 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives‐the classification of educational goals, handbook I: The cognitive domain, New York: McKay.
8. Chesebro, J., and McCroskey, J., 2000. The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49: 297–301.
9. Christophel, D., 1990. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39: 323–340.
10. 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.
11. Clark, C., Gage, N., Marx, R., Peterson, P., Stayrook, N., and Winne, P., 1979. A factorial experiment on teacher structuring, soliciting, and reacting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 534–552.
12. Feldman, K., 1989. The association between specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multi‐section validity studies. Review of Higher Education, 30: 583–645.
13. Gilbert, M., 1988. Listening in school: I know you can hear me — but are you listening?. Journal of the International Listening Association, 2: 121–132.
14. Gorham, J., 1988. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37: 40–53.
15. Gorham, J., and Christophel, D., 1990. The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39: 46–62.
16. Hackman, M., and Walker, K., 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.
17. Harp, S. F., and Mayer, R. E., 1997. The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89: 92–102.
18. Hidi, S., 1990. Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60: 549–571.
19. Hines, J., Cruickshank, D., and Kennedy, J., 1985. Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal, 23: 87–99.
20. Kearney, P., Plax, T., and Wendt‐Wasco, N., 1985. Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33: 61–74.
21. Kearsley, G., 1998. Engagement theory: A framework for technology‐based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38: 20–23.
22. Kiewra, K., 1984. Acquiring effective notetaking skills: An alternative to professional notetaking. Journal of Reading, 27: 299–301.
23. McCroskey, J., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J., Richmond, V., and Barraclough, R., 1996. Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross‐cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45: 200–211.
24. Mehrabian. 1971. Silent messages, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
25. Mehrabian, A., 1981. Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes, (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
26. National Center for Educational Statistics. 1995. Extracurricular Participation and Student Engagement [Internet], National Center for Educational Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/95741.html [2000, July, 16]
27. Plax, T., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J., and Richmond, V., 1986. Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35: 43–55.
28. Powell, R., and Harville, B., 1990. The effect of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39: 379–389.
29. Renchler, R., 1992. Student motivation, school culture, and academic achievement: What school leaders can do EA 023 593, Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
30. Rodriguez, J., Plax, T., 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.
31. Sanders, J., and Wiseman, R., 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.
32. Scott, M., and Wheeless, L., 1975. Communication apprehension, student attitudes, and levels of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41: 188–198.
33. Smith, W., Butler‐Kisber, L., LaRocque, L., Portelli, J., Shields, C., Sturge Sparks, C., and Vibert, A., 1998. Student engagement in learning and school life: National project report [Internet], Office of Research on Educational Policy. Available: HTTP:/www.cel.mcgill.ca/orep [2000, July 7]
34. Titsworth, B., and Kiewra, K., By the numbers: The effect of organizational lecture cues on notetaking and achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Convention. San Diego, CA. April.
35. Titsworth, B., Interest engagement theory: A framework for understanding students’ affective arousal toward learning. Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Convention. April, Cincinnati, OH.