Students’ Perception about Teachers’ Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior: A Case of Communication Sciences Faculty

Mestan Küçük 1 *
More Detail
1 Anadolu University, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 6, Issue December 2016 - Special Issue, pp. 198-205. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/5653
OPEN ACCESS   1436 Views   1396 Downloads   Published online: 01 Dec 2016
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Few concepts in instructional communication literature have received as much attention as teacher immediacy. Although it is very intensively researched in foreign literature, there are small amount of research in Turkey about in class communication especially nonverbal immediacy behaviors. The purpose of this study is to determine how communication students’ evaluate their lecturers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors. Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS), which was developed by Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson (2003) were used to collect data. The NIS was applied to 185 college of communication students from a University located in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. Results indicate that colleges of communication students are finding adequate teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors and there are no differences between males and females level of perception.

CITATION

Küçük, M. (2016). Students’ Perception about Teachers’ Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior: A Case of Communication Sciences Faculty. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(December 2016 - Special Issue), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/5653

REFERENCES

  • Akkuzu, N., & Akkaya, N. (2014). Development and validity-reliability study of communication skills scale for student teachers: Suggestion of an alternative model. Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9/8, 111-132.
  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543-559.
  • Argon, T., & Zafer, D. (2009). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin iletişim sürecinde yaşadıkları problemler: Nitel bir çalışma. The Journal of SAU Education Faculty, 18, 99-123.
  • Ballester, E.P. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy and foreign language anxiety in an EFL university course. Porta Linguarum, 23, 9-24. ISSN: 1697-7467
  • Basaran, M., & Erdem, I. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının güzel konuşma becerisi ile ilgili görüşleri üzerine bir araştırma. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(3), 743-754.
  • Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviours, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 37, 323-340.
  • Çetinkanat, C. (1997). Öğretmenlerin iletişim becerileri. Paper presented at the 3thInternational Elementary Teaching Semposium, Adana-Turkey: Çukurova University.
  • Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
  • Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
  • Hazneci, Y. (2012). Oluşturmacı öğretmen iletişim beceri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve ilköğretim öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi iletişim becerilerinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi.
  • Hsu, L. (2010). The impact of perceived teachers’ nonverbal immediacy on students’ motivation for learning English. Asian EFL Journal, (12), 4, 1-17.
  • Karagöz, Y., & Kösterelioğlu, I. (2008). İletişim becerileri değerlendirme ölçeğinin faktör analizi metodu ile geliştirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21, 81-98.
  • Küçük, M, & İspir, B. (2016). Sözsüz yakınlık davranışları sormacasının türkçe versiyonu için geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Yayınlanmamış Metin - Unpublished manuscript). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2005). An introduction to communication in the classroom: The role of communication in teaching and training. Boston: Pearson.
  • Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.
  • Pogue, L. L., & AhYun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, (55), 3, 331-344.
  • Richmond, V. P. (2002). Teaching nonverbal immediacy, in J. L. Chesebro (ed.), Communication for teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 65-82.
  • Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication yearbook 10. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 574-590.
  • Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Richmond; V.P., McCroskey, J.C., & Johnson, A.D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self and other perceived nonverbal immediach. Communication Quarterly, 51 (4), 504-517.
  • Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, I. C., Kearney, P. & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36: 1-12.
  • Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305.
  • Tarhan, U. (2000). Effect of interpersonel skills training on teachers communication skills and self awareness. PhD dissertation. Ankara: The Middle East Technical University.
  • Witt, P.L., Schrodt, P., Wheeless, V.E., & Bryand, M.C. (2014). Students’ intent to persist in college: Moderating the negative effects of receiver apprehension with instructor credibility and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Studies, 65 (3), 330-352.