A model of immediacy in the classroom

Teacher immediacy has been examined quite extensively in recent years with the encouraging results that it is a useful teaching strategy. Two things lacking in extant research on immediacy are evidence of a causal relationship between immediacy and learning, and an explanation of why immediacy may lead to learning. Two models of the immediacy‐learning relationship, based on extant research, were tested using path analysis with panel data collected over the period of a semester. An effort was made to explain the results using Keller's (1983, 1987) model of motivation, and to extend this explanation to other classroom communication variables.

[1]  H. Murray.  Explorations in personality : a clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age , 1939 .

[2]  B. Skinner,et al.  Principles of Behavior , 1944 .

[3]  K. Lewin.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[4]  A. Maslow.  Toward a Psychology of Being , 1962 .

[5]  John W. Atkinson,et al.  A theory of achievement motivation , 1966 .

[6]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication , 1968 .

[7]  B. Weiner.  Theories of motivation : from mechanism to cognition , 1972 .

[8]  W. F. Hill.  Learning: A Survey of Psychological Interpretations , 1972 .

[9]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[10]  Michael D. Scott,et al.  Communication apprehension, student attitudes, and levels of satisfaction , 1977 .

[11]  R. Norton.  Teacher Effectiveness as a Function of Communicator Style , 1977 .

[12]  Raymond J. Wlodkowski.  Motivation and Teaching: A Practical Guide , 1978 .

[13]  John M. Keller,et al.  Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective , 1979 .

[14]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Correlation and causality , 1979 .

[15]  J. F. Andersen.  Teacher Immediacy as a Predictor of Teaching Effectiveness , 1979 .

[16]  Motivation and Teaching: A Practical Guide Raymond J. Wlodkowski. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1978, $8.50 , 1979 .

[17]  J. Nussbaum,et al.  Dramatic Behaviors of the Effective Teacher , 1980 .

[18]  E. Mandinach,et al.  The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation , 1983 .

[19]  J. Keller.  Motivational Design of Instruction , 1983 .

[20]  J. Brophy,et al.  Relationships between teachers' presentations of classroom tasks and students' engagement in those tasks , 1983 .

[21]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional Design Theories and Models : An Overview of Their Current Status , 1983 .

[22]  John A. Daly,et al.  The affinity-seeking function of communication , 1984 .

[23]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  Power in the classroom II: Power and learning , 1984 .

[24]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Power in the Classroom V: Behavior Alteration Techniques, Communication Training, and Learning. , 1985 .

[25]  Robert A. Stewart,et al.  Communication apprehension and motivation as predictors of public speaking duration , 1986 .

[26]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning , 1986 .

[27]  J. Keller.  Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design , 1987 .

[28]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy Behaviors and Cognitive Learning , 1987 .

[29]  J. Gorham,et al.  Effects of immediacy on recall of information , 1988 .

[30]  J. Gorham.  The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning , 1988 .

[31]  G. Sorensen.  The relationships among teachers' self‐disglosive statements, students' perceptions, and affective learning , 1989 .

[32]  V. Richmond.  Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation , 1990 .

[33]  Diane M. Christophel.  The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning , 1990 .