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 18 best represented student affect, and despite the findings of Witt and Wheeless (2001), who observed a meaningfully higher r with affective than cognitive learning, we classified the learning loss measure in the perceived learning category. In the absence of complete norms (e.g., skewness, kurtosis) for a cognitive test that correlated well with learning loss in a single study (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000), we were unable to determine if the reported r was artifactual. The general absence of reliability assessment and reporting forced the use of the .60 reliability convention (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) in most of the meta-analysis involving this variable. Since the two items in learning loss measured different things—predicted learning from an ideal teacher and perceived learning from the current teacher—alpha reliabilities reported in two dissertations (Baker, 2001; Schaller, 1993) of .71 and .63 are apparently invalid. Moreover, the subtraction of the second item from the first produces a single learning loss score equivalent to a single-item measure that requires test-retest reliability estimates. Because they measured students' attitudes or opinions about certain types of learning, five other measures utilized in these studies were classified as perceived learning measures for the purpose of meta-analysis: the Learning Indicators instrument (Frymier & Houser, 2000), the "cognitive" section of the Learning Variables Survey (Allen & Shaw, 1990; Shaw, 1988), and 3 course-specific perceived learning measures (Frymier & Schulman, 1994; Jordan, 1989; Roach & Byrne, 2001). The average reliability for these measures was .86. Our categorization of cognitive learning was generally restricted in an attempt to more closely to match instances in Bloom's (1956) cognitive learning category. All of the included studies that measured cognitive learning performance assessed recall, recognition, test grades, or course grades. While test or course grades may reflect some types of higher-order learning, levels of learning involving analysis, synthesis, and problem-solving were not identified or

Authors: Witt, Paul., Wheeless, Lawrence. and Allen, Mike.
first   previous   Page 18 of 41   next   last



background image
Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 18
best represented student affect, and despite the findings of Witt and Wheeless (2001), who
observed a meaningfully higher r with affective than cognitive learning, we classified the
learning loss measure in the perceived learning category. In the absence of complete norms (e.g.,
skewness, kurtosis) for a cognitive test that correlated well with learning loss in a single study
(Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000), we were unable to determine if the reported r was artifactual.
The general absence of reliability assessment and reporting forced the use of the .60 reliability
convention (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) in most of the meta-analysis involving this variable. Since
the two items in learning loss measured different things—predicted learning from an ideal
teacher and perceived learning from the current teacher—alpha reliabilities reported in two
dissertations (Baker, 2001; Schaller, 1993) of .71 and .63 are apparently invalid. Moreover, the
subtraction of the second item from the first produces a single learning loss score equivalent to a
single-item measure that requires test-retest reliability estimates. Because they measured
students' attitudes or opinions about certain types of learning, five other measures utilized in
these studies were classified as perceived learning measures for the purpose of meta-analysis: the
Learning Indicators instrument (Frymier & Houser, 2000), the "cognitive" section of the
Learning Variables Survey (Allen & Shaw, 1990; Shaw, 1988), and 3 course-specific perceived
learning measures (Frymier & Schulman, 1994; Jordan, 1989; Roach & Byrne, 2001). The
average reliability for these measures was .86.
Our categorization of cognitive learning was generally restricted in an attempt to more
closely to match instances in Bloom's (1956) cognitive learning category. All of the included
studies that measured cognitive learning performance assessed recall, recognition, test grades, or
course grades. While test or course grades may reflect some types of higher-order learning,
levels of learning involving analysis, synthesis, and problem-solving were not identified or


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
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 18 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.