SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2009 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Teacher Immediacy Behaviors And Participation in Computer Mediated Communication

Mestan KUCUK
Pages
225–235
Publication Date
2009-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicated that affective and interactive indicators were the least used immediacy behaviors while cohesive indicators were mostly used by teacher in this case.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Few concepts in instructional communication literature have received as much attention as teacher immediacy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, educational communication scholars have thoroughly studied immediacy behaviors mainly in traditional classrooms and these studies are mostly related to student attitudes and learning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicated that affective and interactive indicators were the least used immediacy behaviors while cohesive indicators were mostly used by teacher in this case.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Teacher Immediacy · Immediacy Behaviors · Social Presence

Abstract

Few concepts in instructional communication literature have received as much attention as teacher immediacy. However, educational communication scholars have thoroughly studied immediacy behaviors mainly in traditional classrooms and these studies are mostly related to student attitudes and learning. Thanks to some growing attempts, recent research has extended these findings to distance education. The difference of this study is to examine the relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and participation in an online setting. Results indicated that affective and interactive indicators were the least used immediacy behaviors while cohesive indicators were mostly used by teacher in this case. Also data show that teachers’ interactive immediacy behaviors and immediate feedback determine students’ participation in asynchronous computer-mediated communication environment.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUCUK, M. (2009). Teacher Immediacy Behaviors And Participation in Computer Mediated Communication. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 225–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/140764

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Andersen, J. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 3 (pp. 543-559).
  2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
  3. Freitas, A. F., Myers, S. A., & Avtgis, T. A (1998). Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed classrooms. Communication Education, 47, 372. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
  4. Kelley, D., & Gorham, J. (1988) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37(2), 198-207.
  5. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 205-207.
  6. Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy of willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31-40.
  7. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Myers, S. A., Zhong, M., & Guan, S. (1998). Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom. Communication Studies, 49, 240-253.
  8. 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. 194). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education14 (2), 50-71.
  9. Swan, K., Polhemus, L., Shih, L-F., & Rogers, D. (2001). Building knowledge building communities through asynchronous online course discussion. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Swan, K. (2002). Immediacy, social presence, and asynchronous discussion. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds), Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3 (pp. 157- ). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Swan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students‘ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68-82.
  10. Tsang, E.Y.M., Choi, H.M.F., & Tam, K.C. (2002). Students