Advance Search

The Influence of lecturers’ verbal and non-verbal immediacy behaviour on perceived affective and cognitive learning in a multicultural context.

Lydie Terblanche
University of the Free State
Terry Terblanche
University of the Free State
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

The Influence of lecturers’ verbal and non-verbal immediacy behaviour on perceived affective and cognitive learning in a multicultural context. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 23(2), 21-50. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v23i2.1758
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Articles
  • Submited: October 19, 2022
  • Published: October 24, 2022

Abstract

The intention of the present study was to determine whether (1) the immediacy behaviour
of lecturers whose home language is Afrikaans or English contributes positively to the
affective and cognitive learning of learners whose home language is Afrikaans, English
or one of the African languages; and (2) whether the form of immediacy behaviour
displayed by English or Afrikaans lecturers functions differently for learners whose home
language is one of the African languages in relation to those whose home language is
Afrikaans or English. Data was collected by means of a questionnaire that had separate
sections on immediacy behaviour and learning. Positive correlations between the
immediacy behaviour of the lecturers and the affective and cognitive learning of the
learners were observed for the whole test group. The immediacy behaviour displayed by
the lecturers functions differently for learners whose home language is one of the African
languages than for those whose home language is Afrikaans or English. Considering these
findings, it is imperative that instructional communication in today’s South Africa be
increasingly characterized by a culture-centred approach.

pdf
pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. ALLEN, J.L. & SHAW, D.H. 1990. Teacher's communication behaviors and supervisors' evaluation of instruction in elementary and secondary classrooms. Communication Education, 39: 308-322.
  2. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378812 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378812
  3. ANDERSEN, J.F. 1979. Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication YearbooK, 3:543-559.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1979.11923782 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1979.11923782
  5. ANDERSEN, J.F., NORTON, R.W. & NUSSBAUM, J.F. 1981. Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30:377-392.
  6. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378493
  7. ANDERSEN, P. 1991. Explaining intercultural differences in nonverbal communication. (In Samovar, L.A. & PORTER, R.E. eds. Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, California : Wadsworth. pp. 286-296).
  8. ANDERSEN, P.A., GUERERO, L.K., BULLER, D.B. & JORGENSEN, P.F. 1998. An empirical comparison of three theories of non-verbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24:501-535.
  9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00429.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00429.x
  10. BARRINGER, D.K. & McCROSKEY, J.C. 2000. Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication Education, 49(2):178-186.
  11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379204
  12. BLOOM, B.S. 1956. A taxonomy of educational objectives (Handbook 1: The cognitive domain). New York : Longmans.
  13. BLOOM, B.S. 1976. Human characteristics and school learning. New York : McGraw-Hill.
  14. CHRISTENSEN, L.J. & MENZEL, K.E. 1998. The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47:82-90.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379112
  16. CHRISTOPHEL, D.M. 1990. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39:323-340.
  17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813
  18. CHRISTOPHEL, D.M. & GORHAM, J. 1995. A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44:292-305.
  19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379020
  20. COLLIER, M.J. 1988. A comparison of conversations among and between domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36:122-144.
  21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378809369714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378809369714
  22. COMSTOCK, J., ROWELL, E. & BOWERS, J.W. 1995. Food for thought: Teacher non-verbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44:251-266.
  23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379015
  24. FAYER, J.M., GORHAM, J. & McCROSKEY, J.C. 1988. Teacher immediacy and student learning: A comparison between U.S. mainland and Puerto Rican classrooms. (In Fayer, J.M. Puerto Rican Communication Studies, Caracas : Icanografia).
  25. GORHAM, J. 1988. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 3:40-53.
  26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
  27. GORHAM, J. & CHRISTOPHEL, D.M. 1990. The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39:46-62.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378786
  29. GORHAM, J. & ZAKAHI, W.R. 1990. A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39:354-368.
  30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378815
  31. GUDYKUNST, W.B. & TING-TOOMEY, S. 1988. Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park : Sage.
  32. HALL, E.T. & HALL, M.R. 1990. Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine : Intercultural Press.
  33. HANNIGAN, T.P. 1990. Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14:89-111.
  34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90049-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90049-3
  35. HECHT, M.L., ANDERSEN, O.A. & RIBEAU, S. 1989. The cultural dimensions of nonverbal communication. (In Handbook of international and intercultural communication. eds. Asante, M.K. & Gudykunst, W.B. Newbury Park : Sage. pp. 163-185).
  36. HECHT, M.L., LARKEY, L.K. & JOHNSON, J.N. 1992. African American and European American perceptions of problematic issues in interethnic communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19(2):209-236.
  37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00300.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00300.x
  38. HECHT, M.L. & RIBEAU, S. 1984. Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8:135-351.
  39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(84)90036-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(84)90036-1
  40. HOWELL, D.C. 2002. Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont : International Thomson Publishing.
  41. HUYSAMEN, G.K. 1993. Metodologie vir die sosiale en gedragswetenskappe. Halfweghuis : Southern Boekuitgewers.
  42. KEARNY, P., PLAX, T.G. & WENDT-WASCO, N.J. 1985. Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33:61-74.
  43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369579 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369579
  44. KELLEY, D.H. & GORHAM, J. 1988. Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37:198-207.
  45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378719
  46. KOCHMAN, T. 1990. Force fields in black and white communication. (In Cultural communication and intercultural contact. ed. Carbauch, D. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (p. 139-217).
  47. MARAIS, H.C. 1985. On communication in a divided society. Communicare, 4(2):38-43.
  48. MARTIN, J.N., HECHT, M.L. & LARKEY, L.K. 1994. Conversational improvement strategies for interethnic communication: African American and European American perspectives. Communication Monographs, 61(3):237-255.
  49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376335
  50. McCROSKEY, J.C., SALLINEN, A., FAYER, J.M., RICHMOND, V.P. & BARRACLOUGH, R.A. 1995. A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between non-verbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44:281-291.
  51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379019
  52. McCROSKEY, J.C., SALLINEN, A., FAYER, J.M., RICHMOND, V.P. & BARRACLOUGH, R.A. 1996. Non-verbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45:200-211.
  53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379049
  54. MEHRABIAN, A. 1969. Some referents and measures of non-verbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments, 1:213-217.
  55. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208096
  56. MEHRABIAN, A. 1971. Silent messages. Belmont, California : Wadsworth.
  57. MEHRABIAN, A. 1972. Non-verbal communication. Chicago : Aldine Atherton, Inc.
  58. MEHRABIAN, A. 1981. Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotion and attitude. Belmont, California : Wadsworth.
  59. MENZEL, K.E. & CARREL, L.J. 1999. The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48:31-40.
  60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379150
  61. MOORE, A., MASTERSON, J.T., CHRISTOPHEL, D.M. & SHEA, K.A. 1996. College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:29-39.
  62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379030
  63. MYERS, S.A. & KNOX, R.L. 1999. Verbal aggression in the college classroom: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47:33-45.
  64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379909370122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379909370122
  65. MYERS, S.A. & KNOX, R.L. 2000. Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17:299-309.
  66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388777 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388777
  67. MYERS, S.A. & ROCCA, K.A. 2000. Students' state motivation and instructors' use of verbally aggressive messages. Psychological Reports, 87:291-294.
  68. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.1.291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.1.291
  69. NEULIEP, J.W. 1995. A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44:267-277.
  70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379016
  71. PARRY, L. 1994. Cultural barriers to intercultural/interracial communication among black and white South African women: An exploratory study. Communicare, 12(2):5-20.
  72. PATTERSON, M.L., POWELL, J.L. & LENIHAN, M.G. 1986. Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect. Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour, 10(1):41-50.
  73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987204
  74. POWELL, R.G. & HARVILLE, B. 1990. The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39:369-379.
  75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378816 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378816
  76. RICHMOND, V.P., GORHAM, J.S. & McCROSKEY, J.C. 1987. The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10:574-590.
  77. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678663 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678663
  78. SANDERS, J.A. & WISEMAN, R.L. 1990. The effects of verbal and non-verbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39:341-354.
  79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378814
  80. SHAW, T.M. & DU TOIT, S.H.C. 1985. Causal relationships in longitudinal data (Research Report WS-33). Pretoria : Human Sciences Research Council.
  81. SOUTH AFRICA SURVEY. 2001. Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations.
  82. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM INSTITUTE. 1985. SAS user's guide: Statistics version. Cary : Author.
  83. STATISTICAL PRACTICES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCES INCORPORATED. 1983. SPSS user's guide. New York : Author.
  84. STEYN, H.S. 1999. Praktiese beduidendheid: Die gebruik van effekgroottes. Potchefstroom : Publikasiebeheerkomitee.
  85. STEYN, M. 1994. A perspective on reconstructing or troubled communities: Intercultural communication and African worldview. Communitas, 1:15-31.
  86. TABACHNICK, B.G. & FIDELL, L.S. 1989. Using multivariate statistics. New York : Harper & Row.
  87. TERBLANCHE, F.H. 1994. Die aard en gemeenskapskulturele dimensie van nie-verbale boodskapverkeer met spesifieke verwysing na emblematiese gedrag. Communitas, 1:32-54.
  88. THWEATT, K.S. & McCROSKEY, J.C. 1998. The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47:348-358.
  89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379141
  90. WITT, P.L. & WHEELESS, L.R. 2001. An experimental study of teachers' verbal and non-verbal immediacy and students' affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4):327-342.
  91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379259
How to Cite
The Influence of lecturers’ verbal and non-verbal immediacy behaviour on perceived affective and cognitive learning in a multicultural context. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 23(2), 21-50. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v23i2.1758

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate