Dergiler / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2008 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

The Relationship Between Teacher Immediacy Behaviours And Distant Learners’ Social Presence Perceptions In Videoconferencing Applications

Sayfa
180–192
Yayın Tarihi
2008-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In other words, instructors’ nonverbal and verbal communication skills enhance learners’ social presence in either environment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Videoconferencing systems combine face-to-face and mediated interactions in distance education.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Comparison between physically present and distant located learners did not indicate significant differences in social presence.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In other words, instructors’ nonverbal and verbal communication skills enhance learners’ social presence in either environment.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Teacher Immediacy Behaviour · Social Presence · Videoconferencing.

Abstract

Videoconferencing systems combine face-to-face and mediated interactions in distance education. We extend the use of a Social Presence measure to on-site (face-to-face) learners and distant learners. Comparison between physically present and distant located learners did not indicate significant differences in social presence. Also results indicate that the predicted social presence score for distance instruction is slightly lower than for the on-site instruction for high nonverbal behavior while the reverse is true of low non verbal behaviors. Predicted social presence for face to face instruction is quite higher than for the distance instruction for the high verbal behaviors while the reverse is true of low verbal behaviors. It means that students’ social presence is predicted to be higher in the face to face setting comparing to the videoconferencing course in both models. Additionally, when both nonverbal and verbal behaviors increase, the predicted social presence is facilitated, controlling for the grouping variable. In other words, instructors’ nonverbal and verbal communication skills enhance learners’ social presence in either environment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BOZKAYA, M. (2008). The Relationship Between Teacher Immediacy Behaviours And Distant Learners’ Social Presence Perceptions In Videoconferencing Applications. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 180–192. https://ajindex.com/articles/140705

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Andersen, J., Andersen, P., & Jensen, A (1979). The measurement of nonverbal Immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication, 7, 153-180.
  2. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. New Jersey: Transaction Books. Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). ― Eye contact, distance and affiliation‖. Sociometry,,289-304.
  3. Booth- Butterfield, S., Mosher, N., & Mollish, D. (1992). Teacher Immediacy and student involment: Adual process analysis.Communication Research reports,9, 13-22.
  4. Burgeon, J., Buller, D., & Woodall, W. (1996). Nonverbal Communication: The unspoken Dialogue (2.nd): McGraw-Hill. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
  5. Daft, R. L.,& Lengel, R. H. ( 1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behaviour and organizational design. Research in organizational Behaviour, 6, 191-233.
  6. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application, Sage Publications, California. George, D., & Mallery, P. (1995). SPSS: Step by step. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Griffiths, D., Stirling, D. W., & Weldon, L. K. (1998). Understanding Data: Principles & practice of statistics. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education. 37, 40-53.
  7. Hackman, M & 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 (3), 196-206.
  8. Kydd, C.T. & Ferry, D.L. (1994). Managerial use of videoconferencing. Information & Management, 27 (6), 369-375.
  9. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1996).Distance Education. In Jonassen, D (ed.) Handbook for research on educational communications and technology, Scholastic Press, New York, pp.403-437.
  10. Mehribian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 6, 294-295.
  11. Murphy, K. L., & Farr, C.W.(1993). The critical role of the ID in interactive television: The value of immediacy. In proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the AECT sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, New Orleans, LA, January 13-17.
  12. Netemeyer, R. G, Bearden, W. O and Sharma, S. (2003): Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publicati