Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğretmenlerin İletişim Becerileri İle Öğrencilerin Derse İlgileri Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 622 - 636, 21.12.2018
https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.376135

Abstract

Bu
çalışmada öğretmenlerin iletişim becerileri ile öğrencilerin derse ilgileri
arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini,
2015- 2016 eğitim öğretim yılında Giresun ili Tirebolu ilçe merkezindeki Milli
Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı devlet liselerinde eğitim alan 336 öğrenci
oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada, öğrencilerin derse ilgilerini ölçmek amacıyla
Mazer (2013) tarafından geliştirilen ‘Derse İlgi Ölçeği’ ve öğretmenlerin
iletişim beceri düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla Karagöz ve Kösterelioğlu (2008)
tarafından geliştirilen ‘İletişim Becerileri Değerlendirme Ölçeği’
kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde ortalama, standart sapma, t testi, ANOVA,
korelasyon analizi ve yapısal eşitlik modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırma
sonuçlarına göre; öğretmenlerin iletişim becerileri, öğrencilerin cinsiyet,
akademik başarı ve okul türü değişkenlerine göre anlamlı şekilde
farklılaşmaktadır. Öğrencilerin derse ilgileri cinsiyet değişkenine göre
anlamlı şekilde farklılaşırken akademik başarı ve okul türü değişkenine göre
anlamlı şekilde farklılaşmamaktadır. Öğretmenlerin iletişim becerileri ile
öğrencilerin derse ilgileri arasında orta düzeyde pozitif yönlü anlamlı bir
ilişki bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca; öğretmenlerin iletişim becerileri, öğrencilerin
derse ilgilerini pozitif yönde etkilemektedir. 

References

  • Açıkalın, A. & Turan, S. (2015). Etkili iletişim. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543–559.
  • Akın, A., Uğur, E. & Akın, Ü. (2013). Derse ilgi ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. K. Ü. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23 (4), 1471-1480.
  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.
  • Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.
  • Chesebro J. L. & McCroskey J. C. (2001) The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50 (1), 59-68.
  • Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 37, 323-340.
  • Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24(3), 241–248.
  • Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher ımmediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
  • Harp, S., F., & Mayer, R., E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustra-tions: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educati¬onal Psychology, 89, 92-102.
  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
  • Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69-82.
  • Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
  • Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447-465.
  • Hoy, K. W. & Miskel, G. C. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi, teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (Çev. Ed. Selahattin Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Karagöz, Y. & Kösterilioğlu, İ. (2008). İletişim becerileri değerlendirme ölçeğinin faktör analizi metodu ile geliştirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 21, 81-98.
  • Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from texts, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98.
  • LeFebvre, L. & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: An examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 29-45.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student ınterest and engagement scales, Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 99-125.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2013a). Associations among teacher communication behaviors, student interest, and engagement: A validity test. Communication Education, 62 (1), 86-96.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2013b). Student emotional and cognitive ınterest as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student engagement: an examination of direct and ınteraction effects, Communication Education, Vol. 62 (3), 253-277.
  • McCroskey, C. J., Richmond, P. V., & Bennett, E. V. (2006). The relationships of student end-of-class motivation with teacher communication behaviors and instructional outcomes, Communication Education, 55(4), 403-414.
  • Mittchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436.
  • 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.
  • Pribyl, C. B., Sakamoto, M., ve Keaten, J. A. (2004). The relationship between nonverbal immediacy, student motivation, and perceived cognitive learning among Japanese college students. Japanese Psychological Research, 46(2), 73–85.
  • Richmond V. P., MCcroskey J. C., Plax G. T., & Kearney P. (1986). Teacher nonverbal immediacy trainning and student affect. World Communication. 15 (2), 161-194.
  • Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195.
  • Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instructions, 12, 467–491.
  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 299-323.
  • Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
  • Velez, J. J. & Cano, J. (2008). The relationship between teacher ımmediacy and student motivation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(3), 76-86.
  • Witt L. P. ve Wheeless R. L. (2001). An Experimental Study of Teachers’ Verbal and Nonverbal İmmediacy and Students’ Affective and Cognitive Learning. Communication Education, 50 (4), 327-342
  • Zhang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2006). Dimensions of teacher ımmediacy as predictors of student learning: a Chinese perspective. Communication Research Reports, 23(3), 199-207.
Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 622 - 636, 21.12.2018
https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.376135

Abstract

References

  • Açıkalın, A. & Turan, S. (2015). Etkili iletişim. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543–559.
  • Akın, A., Uğur, E. & Akın, Ü. (2013). Derse ilgi ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. K. Ü. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23 (4), 1471-1480.
  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.
  • Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.
  • Chesebro J. L. & McCroskey J. C. (2001) The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50 (1), 59-68.
  • Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 37, 323-340.
  • Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24(3), 241–248.
  • Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher ımmediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
  • Harp, S., F., & Mayer, R., E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustra-tions: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educati¬onal Psychology, 89, 92-102.
  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
  • Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69-82.
  • Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
  • Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447-465.
  • Hoy, K. W. & Miskel, G. C. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi, teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (Çev. Ed. Selahattin Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Karagöz, Y. & Kösterilioğlu, İ. (2008). İletişim becerileri değerlendirme ölçeğinin faktör analizi metodu ile geliştirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 21, 81-98.
  • Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from texts, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98.
  • LeFebvre, L. & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: An examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 29-45.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student ınterest and engagement scales, Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 99-125.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2013a). Associations among teacher communication behaviors, student interest, and engagement: A validity test. Communication Education, 62 (1), 86-96.
  • Mazer, J. P. (2013b). Student emotional and cognitive ınterest as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student engagement: an examination of direct and ınteraction effects, Communication Education, Vol. 62 (3), 253-277.
  • McCroskey, C. J., Richmond, P. V., & Bennett, E. V. (2006). The relationships of student end-of-class motivation with teacher communication behaviors and instructional outcomes, Communication Education, 55(4), 403-414.
  • Mittchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436.
  • 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.
  • Pribyl, C. B., Sakamoto, M., ve Keaten, J. A. (2004). The relationship between nonverbal immediacy, student motivation, and perceived cognitive learning among Japanese college students. Japanese Psychological Research, 46(2), 73–85.
  • Richmond V. P., MCcroskey J. C., Plax G. T., & Kearney P. (1986). Teacher nonverbal immediacy trainning and student affect. World Communication. 15 (2), 161-194.
  • Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195.
  • Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instructions, 12, 467–491.
  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 299-323.
  • Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
  • Velez, J. J. & Cano, J. (2008). The relationship between teacher ımmediacy and student motivation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(3), 76-86.
  • Witt L. P. ve Wheeless R. L. (2001). An Experimental Study of Teachers’ Verbal and Nonverbal İmmediacy and Students’ Affective and Cognitive Learning. Communication Education, 50 (4), 327-342
  • Zhang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2006). Dimensions of teacher ımmediacy as predictors of student learning: a Chinese perspective. Communication Research Reports, 23(3), 199-207.
There are 34 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section In This Issue
Authors

Tevfik Uzun

Güven Özdem

Eray Kara

Publication Date December 21, 2018
Acceptance Date November 21, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 20 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Uzun, T., Özdem, G., & Kara, E. (2018). Öğretmenlerin İletişim Becerileri İle Öğrencilerin Derse İlgileri Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(3), 622-636. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.376135