KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 32 Sayı: 2

İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ YAKINLIK DAVRANIŞLARINA DAİR YANSITICI BAKIŞI: ÖĞRENME KAZANIMLARI, ALGILAR VE ÖZDEĞERLENDİRMELER

EFL TEACHER TRAINEES’ REFLECTIVE LENSES ON IMMEDIACY BEHAVIORS: LEARNING GAINS, PERCEPTIONS AND SELF-EVALUATIONS

Burcu Turhan(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6025-0616
Yasemin Kırkgöz(CUKUROVA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5838-6637
Sayfa
661–673
Yayın Tarihi
2023-10-23
🏛️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)

Yansıtıcı raporların tümevarımsal içerik analizi öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen yakınlığı ile ilgili farkındalık kazandıklarını ve bilgilerini genişlettiklerini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının almış oldukları 14 haftalık öğretmen yakınlığı temalı bir dersin sonucu olarak yakınlık davranışları ile ilgili öğrenme kazanımlarının, algılarının ve öz-değerlendirmelerinin bir araştırmasıdır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Dersi tamamlayan 61 öğretmen adayı içerisinden altı tanesi maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilmiş ve haftalık bireysel yansıtıcı raporlar yazmışlardır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Yansıtıcı raporların tümevarımsal içerik analizi öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen yakınlığı ile ilgili farkındalık kazandıklarını ve bilgilerini genişlettiklerini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Öğretmen yakınlığı · İngilizce öğretmen adayları · Yansıtma.

Özet

Bu çalışma İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının almış oldukları 14 haftalık öğretmen yakınlığı temalı bir dersin sonucu olarak yakınlık davranışları ile ilgili öğrenme kazanımlarının, algılarının ve öz-değerlendirmelerinin bir araştırmasıdır. Dersin bitişinden yaklaşık dört ay sonra, öğretmen adaylarından ders süresince edindikleri deneyimleri üzerine tekrar düşünerek dört adet yansıtıcı rapor yazmaları istenmiştir. Dersi tamamlayan 61 öğretmen adayı içerisinden altı tanesi maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilmiş ve haftalık bireysel yansıtıcı raporlar yazmışlardır. Bu yansıtıcı raporların esas amacı öğretmen adaylarının ders kazanımlarına ve dersin gelişmekte olan yakınlık davranışları üzerindeki etkilerine dair düşüncelerini elde etmektir. Yansıtıcı raporların tümevarımsal içerik analizi öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen yakınlığı ile ilgili farkındalık kazandıklarını ve bilgilerini genişlettiklerini göstermektedir. Ek olarak, öğretmen adayları eleştirel ve yansıtıcı bir bakış açısıyla hem öğretmen yakınlığı kavramına dair farkındalık kazanma süreçleri üzerine hem de öğretmen yakınlığına sahip İngilizce öğretmenleri olarak gelecekteki kimlikleri üzerine düşünebilmişlerdir.

Abstract

This study is an investigation of EFL teacher trainees’ learning gains, perceptions and self-evaluations regarding immediacy behaviors resulting from a 14-week Teacher Immediacy course. Approximately four months later, the trainees were invited to write four successive reflections by re-thinking their experiences throughout the course. In total, 61 trainees attended the course; and out of them, six trainees were selected based on the maximal variation sampling method and wrote individual reflection reports. The ultimate aim of these reflective writings was to gather opinions about the outcomes and influences of the course on the trainees’ evolving knowledge of immediacy. Inductive content analysis of the reflections demonstrated that the trainees gained awareness of and expanded theoretical knowledge of teacher immediacy. Besides, they reflectively andcritically looked back on the process of their familiarization with the concept of teacher immediacy and looked beyond their future identity as an immediate EFL teacher.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Turhan, B., Kırkgöz, Y. (2023). İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ YAKINLIK DAVRANIŞLARINA DAİR YANSITICI BAKIŞI: ÖĞRENME KAZANIMLARI, ALGILAR VE ÖZDEĞERLENDİRMELER. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 2, 661–673. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1200375

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (51)

  1. Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343368
  2. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
  3. Andersen, J. F. (1985). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 3 (pp.543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
  4. Bozkaya, M., & Aydin, İ. E. (2007). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and learners’ perceptions of social presence and satisfaction in open and distance education: The case of Anadolu university open education faculty. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 6(4), ISSN: 1303-6521.
  5. Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701530896
  6. Chesbro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302471
  7. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379232
  8. Cocksedge, S., George. B., Renwick, S., & Chew-Graham, CA. (2013). Touch in primary care consultations. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 63(609), 283–290.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  10. Derakhshan, A. (2021). The predictability of Turkman students’ academic engagement through Persian language teachers’ nonverbal immediacy and credibility. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 10, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.30479/JTPSOL.2021.14654.1506
  11. Drack, M. (2009). Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s early system approach. System Research & Behavioral Science, 26, 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.992
  12. Edwards, A., & Edwards, C. (2001). The impact of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy on student perceptions of attractiveness and homophily. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 12(2), 5-17.
  13. Flynn, S., & Korcuska, J. (2018). Credible phenomenological research: A mixed-methods study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 57, 34 –50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ceas.12092 Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 454-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369905
  14. Frymier, A., & M. Houser. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 4(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379209
  15. Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behaviour. Communication Education, 50, 314-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379258
  16. Furlich, S. A. (2016). Understanding instructor nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy, and student motivation at a small liberal arts university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19284
  17. Geçer, A., & Deryakulu, D. (2004). Öğretmen yakınlığının öğrencilerin başarıları, tutumları ve güdülenme düzeyleri üzerindeki etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 40, 518-543.
  18. Gholamrezaee, S., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ verbal and non-verbal immediacy: a study of its impact on students’ emotional states, cognitive learning, and burnout. Psychology Studies, 63, 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-018-0467-5
  19. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviours and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
  20. Hsu, L. L. (2006). The relationship among teachers' verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviours and students' willingness to speak in English in central Taiwanese college classrooms. (Published doctoral dissertation), Oral Roberts University, USA.
  21. Hussain, T., Azeem, A., & Abid, N. (2021). Examining the correlation between university students’ perceived teacher immediacy and their motivation. Psychology and Education, 58(1), 5809-5820. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i1.1990
  22. İnceelli, A., & Candemir, Ö. (2016). Öğretim amaçlı videolarda öğretmen yakınlığı: Açık sınıf örneği. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 8-35.
  23. Kalat, F. L., Yazdi, Z. A., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy: A study of its detriments and consequences. Eurasian Journal of Education Studies, 63, 398–409. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1238057
  24. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Sorensen, G., & Smith, V. R. (1988). Experienced and prospective teachers’ selections of compliance-gaining messages for “common” student misbehaviours. Communication Education, 37, 150-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378712
  25. Kyaruzi, F., Strijbos, J. W., Ufer, S., & Brown, G. T. (2019). Students’ formative assessment perceptions, feedback use and mathematics performance in secondary schools in Tanzania. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1593103
  26. Lee, J. L. (2020). Relationships among students’ perceptions of native and non-native EFL teachers’ immediacy behaviors and credibility and students’ willingness to communicate in class. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2019.1642187
  27. Li, L. T. (2003). Carl Rogers and me: Revisiting teaching. Thinking Classroom, 4, 34-42.
  28. MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2019). Setting an agenda for positive psychology in SLA: Theory, practice, and research. Modern Language Journal, 103, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12544
  29. McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01463370409370192
  30. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (Vol 8). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  31. Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31-40. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03634529909379150
  32. Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  33. Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist ‘‘college lite’’: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education, 56, 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1080=03634520601164259
  34. Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist ‘‘college lite’’: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education, 56, 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1080=03634520601164259
  35. Özmen, K. S. (2011). Perception of nonverbal immediacy and effective teaching among student teachers: A study across cultural extremes. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 865-881.
  36. Paul, A., Maiti, N. C., & Nath, I. (2019). Nonverbal immediacy behaviour and teacher effectiveness in secondary schools of West Bengal. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.01.36
  37. Pintrich, P. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychological beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp 389–414). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  38. Pishghadam, R., Derakhshan, A., & Zhaleh, K. (2019). The interplay of teacher success, credibility, and stroke with respect to students’ willingness to attend classes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2019.131001
  39. Pogue, L., & AhYun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55(3), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748623
  40. Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379059
  41. Rosati-Peterson, G. L., Piro, J. S., Straub, C., & O’Callaghan, C. (2021). A nonverbal immediacy treatment with pre-service teachers using mixed reality simulations. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1882114, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1882114
  42. Saechou, T. (2005). Verbal and nonverbal immediacy: Sex differences and international teaching assistants. (Doctoral dissertation), Louisiana State University, USA.
  43. Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343335
  44. Sheybani, M. (2019). The relationship between EFL Learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) and their teacher immediacy attributes: a structural equation modeling. Cogent Psychology, 6, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1607051
  45. Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. Y., &Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457- 477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y
  46. Teven, J. J., & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370177
  47. Violanti, M. T., Kelly, S. E., Garland, M. E., & Christen, S. (2018). Instructor clarity, humor, immediacy, and student learning: Replication and extension. Communication Studies, 69, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1466718
  48. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.
  49. Witt, P., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60, 75-94. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03634523.2010.507820
  50. Witt, P., & L. Wheeless. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379259.
  51. Zheng, J. (2021). A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students. Frontier in Psychology, 12, 712419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712419