All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relationship between Teacher Immediacy and Student Learning
Unformatted Document Text:  Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 10 Houser, 1998; Frymier & Schulman, 1994; Gorham et al., 1997, 1999; Hess & Smythe, 2001; Jordan, 1989; Kelley & Gorham, 1988; Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001; Titsworth, 2001; Witt & Wheeless, 2001). In the domain of affective learning, there is considerable variation in the ways learning data are interpreted. Andersen’s (1979) initial study made use of the Affective Learning scale, which she attributed to Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) and Scott and Wheeless (1975). Using 7-step semantic differential scales, students indicated their attitudes about the teacher, the course, the behaviors learned, and their attitudes about enrolling in another course of the same type. Over the years, only slight variations have been applied to the Affective Learning scale, yet the instrument has been variously attributed to Andersen, Gorham, McCroskey, and others. Some researchers combine student attitudes and behavioral predispositions (variously called behavioral intent or behavioral commitment) into a single measure of affective learning (e.g., Frymier, 1994; Roach & Byrne, 2001). Others report attitudes toward teacher and course as "affective learning" and attitudes toward enrolling and engaging in behaviors as "behavioral learning" (e.g., Mortenson, 1994; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Generally, these behavioral predispositions reflect attitudes about behaviors—higher-level learning in the affective domain—rather than a direct index of behavioral learning. One variation of the Affective Learning scale, the Instructional Affect Assessment Instrument (McCroskey, 1994) measures only attitudes toward instructor, course, and future enrollment, omitting attitudes toward behaviors learned. Because inconsistency of measurement and controversy over interpretation render narrative literature reviews subjective and imprecise, we employed the quantitative objectivity of meta-analysis to review the findings from 81 studies of immediacy and learning. Meta-analytical reviews can potentially clarify contradictory findings and reaffirm long-recognized relationships

Authors: Witt, Paul., Wheeless, Lawrence. and Allen, Mike.
first   previous   Page 10 of 41   next   last



background image
Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 10
Houser, 1998; Frymier & Schulman, 1994; Gorham et al., 1997, 1999; Hess & Smythe, 2001;
Jordan, 1989; Kelley & Gorham, 1988; Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001; Titsworth, 2001; Witt
& Wheeless, 2001).
In the domain of affective learning, there is considerable variation in the ways learning
data are interpreted. Andersen’s (1979) initial study made use of the Affective Learning scale,
which she attributed to Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) and Scott and Wheeless (1975).
Using 7-step semantic differential scales, students indicated their attitudes about the teacher, the
course, the behaviors learned, and their attitudes about enrolling in another course of the same
type. Over the years, only slight variations have been applied to the Affective Learning scale, yet
the instrument has been variously attributed to Andersen, Gorham, McCroskey, and others. Some
researchers combine student attitudes and behavioral predispositions (variously called behavioral
intent or behavioral commitment) into a single measure of affective learning (e.g., Frymier,
1994; Roach & Byrne, 2001). Others report attitudes toward teacher and course as "affective
learning" and attitudes toward enrolling and engaging in behaviors as "behavioral learning" (e.g.,
Mortenson, 1994; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Generally, these behavioral predispositions reflect
attitudes about behaviors—higher-level learning in the affective domain—rather than a direct
index of behavioral learning. One variation of the Affective Learning scale, the Instructional
Affect Assessment Instrument (McCroskey, 1994) measures only attitudes toward instructor,
course, and future enrollment, omitting attitudes toward behaviors learned.
Because inconsistency of measurement and controversy over interpretation render
narrative literature reviews subjective and imprecise, we employed the quantitative objectivity of
meta-analysis to review the findings from 81 studies of immediacy and learning. Meta-analytical
reviews can potentially clarify contradictory findings and reaffirm long-recognized relationships


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 10 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.