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 9 concerns have been raised about the validity of Gorham’s measure in relation to Mehrabian’s original construct of verbal immediacy (Robinson & Richmond, 1995), this measure continues to be employed in some immediacy research. By contrast, Jordan (1989; Jordan & Wheeless, 1990) measured verbal immediacy through items more closely related to the verbal behaviors delineated in Mehrabian’s original work, but Jordan’s unpublished measure has not been widely adopted by other researchers. Learning Measurement Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives delineated the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning. Valid measurement of learning in these three domains has proved problematic. Arguing that traditional learning indicators such as course grades do not constitute valid measurement of cognitive learning gain (Richmond & McCroskey, 1992; Richmond et al., 1987), some researchers have turned to student self-reports of perceived learning as evidence of cognitive outcomes (e.g., Baker, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992; Christophel, 1990; Folwell, 1995; McAlister, 2001; McCroskey et al., 1996a, 1996b; Menzel & Carrell, 1999; Neuliep, 1995, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 1996; Schaller, 1993; Teven, 1998; Thomas, 1994). The interpretation of Richmond et al.’s (1987) learning loss measure as an index of cognitive learning was a widespread practice during the 90’s. This self-report of students’ perceived learning may provide useful data, if test-retest reliabilities are obtained and it is collected along with other learning indicators. However, the essential question is whether this type of perceived learning is indicative of cognitive learning as delineated by Bloom (1956). Believing that recall, recognition, and retention provide more objective and valid data for lower- level cognitive gain, some researchers have elected to measure cognitive learning through these types of direct performance measures (e.g., Andersen, 1979; Comstock et al., 1995; Frymier &

Authors: Witt, Paul., Wheeless, Lawrence. and Allen, Mike.
first   previous   Page 9 of 41   next   last



background image
Immediacy and Learning Meta-Analysis 9
concerns have been raised about the validity of Gorham’s measure in relation to Mehrabian’s
original construct of verbal immediacy (Robinson & Richmond, 1995), this measure continues to
be employed in some immediacy research. By contrast, Jordan (1989; Jordan & Wheeless, 1990)
measured verbal immediacy through items more closely related to the verbal behaviors
delineated in Mehrabian’s original work, but Jordan’s unpublished measure has not been widely
adopted by other researchers.
Learning Measurement
Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives delineated the cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor domains of learning. Valid measurement of learning in these three domains has
proved problematic. Arguing that traditional learning indicators such as course grades do not
constitute valid measurement of cognitive learning gain (Richmond & McCroskey, 1992;
Richmond et al., 1987), some researchers have turned to student self-reports of perceived
learning as evidence of cognitive outcomes (e.g., Baker, 2001; Butland & Beebe, 1992;
Christophel, 1990; Folwell, 1995; McAlister, 2001; McCroskey et al., 1996a, 1996b; Menzel &
Carrell, 1999; Neuliep, 1995, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 1996; Schaller, 1993; Teven, 1998;
Thomas, 1994). The interpretation of Richmond et al.’s (1987) learning loss measure as an index
of cognitive learning was a widespread practice during the 90’s. This self-report of students’
perceived learning may provide useful data, if test-retest reliabilities are obtained and it is
collected along with other learning indicators. However, the essential question is whether this
type of perceived learning is indicative of cognitive learning as delineated by Bloom (1956).
Believing that recall, recognition, and retention provide more objective and valid data for lower-
level cognitive gain, some researchers have elected to measure cognitive learning through these
types of direct performance measures (e.g., Andersen, 1979; Comstock et al., 1995; Frymier &


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 9 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.