-

Öz

Eğitim bilgini öğretmen tarafından aktarıldığı ve öğrenci tarafından alındığı bir system değil, bilginin taraflar arasındaki iletişim sürecinde üretildiği bir eylemdir. Bu iletişim sürecinin öğretmenin duyuşsal, kavramsal ve duygusal alanlarda öğrencilerle iletişmesi gerekir. Bu iletişim ancak öğrencinin öğretmeni samimi/yakın bulduğu durumlarda daha başarılı olabilmektedir. Öğretmen samimiyeti/yakınlığı ve öğrenci Sözel olmayan iletişim ve yakınlık algısı arasında doğru orantılı bir ilişki olduğu bilinmektedir. Öğrenme ve öğretmen yakınlığı arasında ters at nalı şeklinde bir bağıntı olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca samimiyet/yakınlık algısının kültüre bağlı olarak şekillendiği ve kültürel yakınlık belirten davranış normlarına uymayan öğretmenlerin uzak algılandığı ve dolaylı olarak bu durumun güdülenme, duyuşsal öğrenme kaybına ve öğrenme algısının düşmesine yol açtığı bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmada bir yerli ve bir yabancı niversite öğretmeni yakınlık belirten davranışlar açışından değerlendirilmiştir. Yerli öğretmenin kişiliğe bağlı olmayan kültürel nedenlerle yabancı hocadan daha samimi olarak algılandığı bulunmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen yakınlığı, sınıf içi iletişim, sözel olmayan iletişim

AN OBSERVATION OF NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOURS OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE LECTURERS

Öz

Teaching is an interactive process in which learning is not exported by the teacher and received by the learners, but is created interactively between both parties. The interaction requires the teacher actively, affectively, and cognitively engages the learners. This engagement is perceived to be positive when the teacher is perceived to be immediate. Research on the issue has revealed that there is a positive curvilinear correlation between student learning and teacher immediacy. As well, perceptions of immediacy are found to be pan-culturally shaped and failure to meet cultural nonverbal immediacy norms means that the teacher is perceived to be non-immediate, which in turn leads to loss of motivation, affective and perceived learning. In this study, we cross compared two lecturers; one native, one non-native, in terms of immediacy behaviours. The results suggest that the native lecturer is perceived to be more immediate in terms which are not personal but cultural

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher immediacy, classroom communication, nonverbal immediacy

Kaynakça

1. Albers, L. D. (2001) Nonverbal Immediacy in the Classroom http://clearinghouse.mwsc.edu /manuscripts/236.asp
2. Allen, J.L., Shaw, D.H., (1990). Teachers' communication behaviours’ and supervisors' evaluation of instruction in elementary and secondary classrooms. Communication-Education, 39, 308-322.
3. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
4. Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, pp.153-180.
5. Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the Classroom (pp. 98-120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
6. Argyle, M. (1983). (4th Ed.) The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. London: Penguin.
7. Argyle, M. (1988). (2nd Ed.) Bodily communication. London: Routledge.
8. Baringer, D.K., McCroskey, J.C. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication-Education, 49, 178-186.

9. Bıçkı, A. & Gökkaya, Z. (2004) İlköğretim okullarinda öğretmen tükenmişliğinin mevcut düzeyi [unpublished report submitted to Ministry of Education]
10. Capper S. (2000) Nonverbal Communication and the Second Language Learner: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/00/ may/capper.html Last modified: May 11, 2000 Retrieved 14.May.2007 considerations
11. Hall, E. T. (1966) The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
12. Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
13. Kitao, K. & Kitao, S.K. (1989). Intercultural communications between Japan http://ilc2.doshisha.ac.jp/users/kkitao/online/ retrieved 15.03.2003 the United States.
14. Love, G. (2001) Creating a More Effective Learning Environment: The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacy in Multi-Cultural Classrooms http://www.jmu.edu/writeon/ documents/ 2001/love.pdf Retrived 15th May2008
15. McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond V. P. (1992) Increasing teacher effectiveness trough immediacy. In Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey J. C. Eds. Power in the classroom: Communication, control and concern (pp. 101-119) Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
16. McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1996) Fundamentals of human communication: an interpersonal perspective Prospect Heights: II Waveland Press.
17. McCroskey, J.C., Richmond, V.P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J.M. (1995). A cross- cultural and multi-behavioural analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281-291.
18. McCroskey, J.C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J.M., Richmond, V.P., et-al, (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication-Education, 45, 200-211.
19. Mehrabian, A. (1971) Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
20. Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotion and attitude Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
21. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974) An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
22. Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195.
23. Richmond, V. P. (1990). Continuing education. In J. A. Daly, G. W. Friedrich. & L Vangelti (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (pp. 417-426). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
24. Richmond, V. P. (2002) Teacher nonverbal immediacy: use and outcomes. In Chesebro and McCroskey, J.C. (2003) Eds. Communication for Teachers. (pp. 65-82) Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.
25. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S. & McCroskey, J. C. (1987) The relationship between selected immediacy behaviours and cognitive learning. In McLaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Newbury Park, CA:Sage
26. Wallbott, H.G. (1995). Congruence, contagion, and motor-mimicry: Mutualities in nonverbal exchange. In I. Markova, C. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004) A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relationship between Teacher Immediacy and Student Learning. Communication Monograph, 71/2, pp.184-207