1 / 29

Jillian L. Wendt University of the District of Columbia Deanna Nisbet Regent University

Teacher immediacy: the relationship with perceived learning and student outcomes in the U.s. international classroom. Jillian L. Wendt University of the District of Columbia Deanna Nisbet Regent University E-LEARN 2015 CONFERENCE OCTOBER 19-22, 2015. introduction.

sandra_john
Download Presentation

Jillian L. Wendt University of the District of Columbia Deanna Nisbet Regent University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teacher immediacy: the relationship with perceived learning and student outcomes in the U.s. international classroom Jillian L. Wendt University of the District of Columbia Deanna Nisbet Regent University E-LEARN 2015 CONFERENCE OCTOBER 19-22, 2015

  2. introduction • Unique challenges encountered by international students enrolled in U.S. courses • Many are successful • Different set of challenges • How do we best meet international students’ needs?

  3. introduction • Challenges include: • Language • Culture • Academic expectations • Social expectations

  4. introduction • Documented difficulties: • Language • Adapting to academic culture • Misunderstandings • Complications in communication • Isolation • Alienation • Culture shock • Overall adjustment (Erichsen & Bollinger, 2011)

  5. introduction • Importance of examining design and delivery of instruction • How can international students be best supported? • What are best practices? • What are evidence-based practices? • Do current models meet international student needs?

  6. introduction • Positive relationship between teacher immediacy and positive student outcomes (Ni & Aust, 2008; King & Witt, 2009; Russo & Benson, 2005) • Positive relationship between perceived learning and positive student outcomes (King & Witt, 2009; Rovai et al., 2009) • …with U.S. students. • Do similar relationships exist with international students?

  7. Introduction Does a relationship exist between international students’perceptions of teacher immediacy, perceived learning, and end of course grades when enrolled in U.S. graduate courses offered in a computer-mediated delivery format?

  8. Theoretical framework • Theory of immediacy (Mehrabian, 1971) • Indicator of attitudes in communication (Mehrabian, 1966) • Verbal and non-verbal immediacy • Explicit and implicit forms

  9. background • Relationship between increased teacher immediacy and positive student outcomes (Gorham, 1988) • Relationship between increased teacher immediacy and student satisfaction (Ni & Aust, 2008) • Relationship between increased teacher immediacy and student motivation (Wilson, 2006)

  10. background • CAP Perceived Learning Scale (Rovai et al., 2009) • Measures perceived learning • Domains: • Cognitive • Affective • Psychomotor

  11. background

  12. background • CAP • Relationship to learning effectiveness • Relationship to learning practices • Predictor of student course outcomes (Rovai et al., 2009)

  13. background • Nature of teaching and learning environment • Discourse community • Varies from one culture to another (DeVillar, Faltis, & Cummins, 1994; Hofsted, 1986; Sadykova & Dautermann, 2009) • Expectations vary

  14. background • Challenges of computer-mediated environment • Delayed response time • Lower quality of communication (Liu et al., 2010) • Heightened cultural challenges (Erichsen & Bollinger, 2011; Liu et al., 2010; Want & Reeves, 2007)

  15. background • Increased examination • Increased intervention • Importance of studying impact of teacher immediacy on outcomes • Relationship to student success

  16. methodology • Causal comparative research design • Spearman’s rank order correlation

  17. Research questions • RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between international students’ perceptions of teacher immediacy when enrolled in a graduate course and students’ end of course grades?

  18. Research questions • RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between international students’ perceived learning when enrolled in a graduate course and students’ end of course grades?

  19. Research questions • RQ3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between international students’ perceptions of teacher immediacy when enrolled in a graduate course and students’ perceived learning?

  20. participants • 276 students • Enrolled in graduate courses • Northern Virginia, USA • 211 males • 65 females

  21. participants • Synchronous delivery • Moodle ™ learning management system • 8 week courses • Survey given during week 5 • Demographics • Verbal Immediacy Scale (Gorham, 1988) • CAP Perceived Learning Scale (Rovai et al., 2009) • End of course grades

  22. Overview of results • RQ1: Small, negative statistically significant relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher immediacy and end of course grades

  23. Overview of results • RQ2: No statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived learning and end of course grades

  24. Overview of results • RQ3: Small, positive statistically significant relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher immediacy and students’ perceived learning

  25. discussion • Current findings contradict previous studies which revealed the following: • Positive relationship between perceived teacher immediacy and student outcomes (Ni & Aust, 2008; Russo & Benson, 2005) • Positive relationship between perceived learning and course grades (Rovai et al., 2009)

  26. Implications • What works for U.S. students may not work for international students. • Certain types of course design may present a barrier for international students.

  27. Future study More research is needed to examine: • Factors that impact international students’ success • Unique considerations for course design and delivery

  28. references Bista, K., & Foster, C. (2011). Issues of international student retention in American higher education. The International Journal of Research and Review, 7(2), 1-10. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. DeVillar, R. A., Faltis, C., & Cummins, J. (1994). Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Erichsen, E., & Bolliger, D. (2011). Towards understanding international graduate student isolation in traditional and online environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(3), 309-326. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International journal of International Relations, 10, 301-320. Kearney, P. (1994). Affective learning scale. In R.B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H.E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: The Guilford Press (pp. 81-85). King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58(1), 110-123. Lin, M. (2012). Students of different minds: Bridging the gaps of international students studying in the US. US-China Education Review, 3, 333-344. Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S., & Magjuka, R.J. (2010). Cultural difference in online learning: International student perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 177-188.

  29. references Mehrabian, A. (1966). Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality, 34(1), 26-34. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Ni, S., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom community in online classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 477-498. Rovai, A., Wighting, M.J., Baker, J.D., & Grooms, L.D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 7-13. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54-62. Sadykova, G. (2014). Mediating Knowledge through Peer-to-Peer Interaction in a Multicultural Online Learning Environment: A Case Study of International Students in the US. International Review of Research in Open And Distance Learning, 15(3), 24-49. Sadykova, G., & Dautermann, J. (2009). Crossing cultures and borders in international online distance higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 89-114. Wang, C., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Synchronous online learning experiences: The perspectives of international students from Taiwan. Educational Media International, 44(4), 339-356. Wilson, J.H. (2006). Predicting student attitudes and grades from perceptions of instructors’ attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 91-95. Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. F. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three international students. International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 11(1), 17-36.

More Related