 |
A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relationship between Teacher Immediacy and Student Learning
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 35
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1975). Communication apprehension, student attitudes,
and levels of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 188-198.
*Shaw, D. H. (1988). Behaviors and the evaluation of teacher effectiveness, career
satisfaction, and student learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bridgeport.
Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity
in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1-10.
*Sorenson, G. A. (1989). The relationships among teachers’ self-disclosive statements,
students’ perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-276.
*Teven, J. J. (1998). The relationships among teacher characteristics, student learning,
and teacher evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown.
Thomas, C. E. (1994). An analysis of teacher socio-communicative style as a predictor of
classroom communication behaviors, student liking, motivation, and learning. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
*Thompson, C. A. C. (1992). The relationships among teachers’ immediacy behaviors,
credibility, and social style and students’ motivation and learning: Comparisons among cultures.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
*Titsworth, S. B. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture
cues, and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283- 297.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
.
Valencic, K. M. (2001). An investigation of teachers' temperament and students'
perceptions of teachers: Communication behavior and students' attitudes toward teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
|
| | Authors: Witt, Paul., Wheeless, Lawrence. and Allen, Mike. |
|
| |
|
|
Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 35
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1975). Communication apprehension, student attitudes,
and levels of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 188-198.
*Shaw, D. H. (1988). Behaviors and the evaluation of teacher effectiveness, career
satisfaction, and student learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bridgeport.
Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity
in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1-10.
*Sorenson, G. A. (1989). The relationships among teachers’ self-disclosive statements,
students’ perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-276.
*Teven, J. J. (1998). The relationships among teacher characteristics, student learning,
and teacher evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown.
Thomas, C. E. (1994). An analysis of teacher socio-communicative style as a predictor of
classroom communication behaviors, student liking, motivation, and learning. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
*Thompson, C. A. C. (1992). The relationships among teachers’ immediacy behaviors,
credibility, and social style and students’ motivation and learning: Comparisons among cultures.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
*Titsworth, S. B. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture
cues, and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283- 297.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
.
Valencic, K. M. (2001). An investigation of teachers' temperament and students'
perceptions of teachers: Communication behavior and students' attitudes toward teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
|
|
 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
