THE ROLE OF TEACHER IMMEDIACY AS A MOTIVATIONAL FACTOR IN STUDENT LEARNING

  • Tran Huu Ai Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City
  • Luu Hoang Giang Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City
Keywords: teachers’ immediacy; student motivation; teaching effectiveness; teacher behavior

Abstract

This research uses the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis  to find the correlation between the variables of Teaching effectiveness, Teacher behavior and affective learning and that of Student motivation in learning, Teacher immediacy and learning outcomes and Student learning outcomes. A model is built so that to confirm that teachers produce the intermediate influence and also motivate the learning outcomes, cognitive ones especially. Data obtained here in the course of survey proves to be consistent with our initial model. The results show that the immediate teachers’ function is to be the means of increasing students’ motivation to learn, and that such motivation, in its turn, increases students’ cognitive abilities.

Author Biographies

Tran Huu Ai, Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City

PhD, lecturer of Faculty of Economics, Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Research interests – markets of agricultural products, SMEs functioning and government support, organic food markets, ecological economics, environmental issues of economic development and corporate social responsibility Published more than 50 papers in International journals, member of editorial board of International journals

Luu Hoang Giang, Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City

Faculty of Economics, Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Research interests –corporate social responsibility, modern educational practices, innovative teaching technologies

References

Carey, G. (2008). High stakes standardized testing. Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/846217/high_stakes_standardized_testing.html?cat=9

Christopher, 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. pp. 292-306.

Comstock, J., Rowell, E., and Bowers, J. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44. pp. 251-266.

Cooper, E., and Allen, M. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the impact of student race classroom interaction. Communication Research Reports, 15. Pp. 151-161.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and Zhang, L. (2004, December). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Paper of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute supported by a grant from the Andrew H. Mellon Foundation and Atlantic Philanthropies, Cornell University.

Evans, C. (2004). Learning with inquiring minds. The Science Teacher, 71. Pp. 27-30.

Hair, A. JF., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, R.I. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis.

Gigliotti, R. J. (1987). Are they getting what they expect? Teaching Sociology, 15. Pp. 365-375.

Hess, J., and Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52. Pp. 197-219.

Luke LeFebvre and Mike Allen (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: An examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14 (2). Pp. 29-45.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, L. L. (2002). The role of communication in instruction: The first three decades. In: B. Y. Gayle, R. W. Press, N. Burrell, and M. Allen, Classroom Communication and Instructional Processes: Advances Through Meta-Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1. Pp. 203-207.

Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotion and attitude.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Moore, S., and Kuol, N. (2007). Matters of the heart: Exploring the emotional dimensions

of educational experience in recollected accounts of excellent teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 12 (2). Pp. 87-98.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., and McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Richmond, V., and McCroskey, J. (2000). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39. Pp. 181-195.

Riley, C. (1999, November). Evidential understanding, period, knowledge and the development of literacy: A practical approach to 'Layers of Inference' for key stage 3. Teaching History, 97. Pp. 6-12.

Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (5th ed.). Haddington: John Wiley and Sons.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Education Research, 45. Pp. 89-125.

Wiener, M., and Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel of verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
Published
2018-11-30
How to Cite
Ai, T. H., & Giang, L. (2018). THE ROLE OF TEACHER IMMEDIACY AS A MOTIVATIONAL FACTOR IN STUDENT LEARNING. The EUrASEANs: Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics, (6(13), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.35678/2539-5645.6(13).2018.54-63

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>