-

Öz

This study tries to find out the effects of university instructors’ nonverbal immediacy skills on the student perception of cognitive learning by using the “Nonverbal Immediacy Scale for Observers” (NIS-O) developed by Richmond, McCroskey and Johnson in 2003. The present study is the first use of 26-item NIS-O instrument in cross-cultural literature examining the relationship of “instructors’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors” and “student perception of cognitive learning”, which makes its findings rather important for the cross-cultural nonverbal immediacy literature. The survey was conducted with the participation of fourth year undergraduate business administration students from Turkey, USA, and China. Findings of the study showed that outstanding instructors in classroom teaching are rather competent in nonverbal immediacy skills. While American and Turkish instructors appeared to be immediate at the same level, Chinese instructors exhibited relatively low scores on immediacy scale. Findings also showed a statistically significant and positive correlation between instructors’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors and perceived cognitive learning level of students in Turkey and USA.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• nonverbal immediacy, nonverbal communication, cognitive learning, higher education, instructor, cross

Nonverbal Immediacy and Perception of Learning: A Cross-Cultural Survey in Turkey, Usa and China

Öz

Bu çalışmada; üniversite öğretim elemanlarının sözsüz yakınlık becerilerinin, öğrencilerin bilişsel öğrenme algılarına etkisi, Richmond, McCroskey ve Johnson tarafından 2003 yılında geliştirilen “Sözsüz Yakınlık Gözlemci Ölçeğinin” kullanımı ile ölçülmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışma, 26 soruluk Sözsüz Yakınlık Gözlemci Ölçeğinin alan yazınında “öğretim üyelerinin sözsüz yakınlık davranışları” ve “öğrencilerin öğrenme algıları” ilişkisini inceleyen kültürlerarası çalışmalardaki ilk kullanımını oluşturmaktadır. Bu durum, çalışma sonuçlarının kültürlerarası sözsüz yakınlık yazını açısından önemini artırmaktadır. Alan araştırması; Türkiye, ABD ve Çin’de İşletme Bölümü dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma bulguları, sınıfta öğretim konusunda üstün başarılı olarak algılanan öğretim elemanlarının sözsüz yakınlık becerilerinin yüksek olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Amerikalı ve Türk öğretim elemanlarının aynı düzeyde yüksek yakınlık davranışı sergilemelerine rağmen, Çinli öğretim elemanlarının yakınlık ölçeği değerleri göreceli olarak düşük çıkmıştır. Bunlara ek olarak, bulgular Türkiye ve ABD’de, öğretim elemanlarının sözsüz yakınlık davranışları ile öğrencilerin bilişsel öğrenme algıları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif düzeyde bir ilişkinin varlığını ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sözsüz yakınlık, sözsüz iletişim, bilişsel öğrenme, yüksek öğretim, öğretim elemanı, kültürler

Kaynakça

1. Andersen, J. E. (1978). The relationship between teacher immediacy and teaching effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Andersen, J.F., Andersen, P.A. & Jensen, A.D. (1979). The measurement of immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153-180. Andersen, P. A. (2008). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Arthur, D. (1995). The Importance of Body Language. HR Focus, 72, 22-28. Aydin, M.D. (2006). Nonverbal Communication and High Success at the Work Setting: The Case of Academicians (Sözsüz İletişim ve İş Ortamında Üstün Başarı: Öğretim Elemanları Örneği), Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 24(2), 227-2 Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: Longmans, Green. Bozkaya, M. & Aydin, E. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and learners’ perceptions of social presence and satisfaction in open and distance education: The case of Anadolu University Open Education Faculty. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(3). Chesebro, J. C., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59-68. Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82Christophel, D. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J.W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251-266. Dave, R. H. (1975). Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives. (R. J. Armstrong (ed.) Educational Innovators Press. Gao, G. (1997). Self and OTHER: A Chinese perspective on interpersonal relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. TingToomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (81101). Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Gudykunst, W. (1996). Chinese communication processes. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, (280-293). Georgakopoulos, A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2010). Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Nonverbal and Verbal Communication: A Comparison of Best and Worst Professors across Six Cultures, International Education Studies, 3(2), 3- Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. Gorham, J. S. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53. Goodboy, A. K.& Mccroskey, J. C. (2008). Toward a Theoretical Model of the Role of Organizational Orientations and Machiavellianism on Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction, Human Communication. 11, 293-308. Hall, E. T. (1990). The hidden dimension (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor Press. Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS System for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International differences in work-related values. California: Sage Publications. Hu, W., & Grove, C. L. (1991). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 198-20 Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc. Lee, K.S. & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40(2), 442–56. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281-291. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996a). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200-211.
2. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996b). A multi-cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44, 29730 McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Bennett, V. E. (2006). The Relationships of Student End-of-Class Motivation with Teacher Communication Behaviors and Instructional Outcomes. Communication Education, 55(4), 403-414. McDaniel, E. & Andersen, P. A. (1998). Intercultural patterns of tactile communication: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 59-76. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments, 1, 213-217. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 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. Myers, S., Zhong, M., & Guan, S. (1998). Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom, Communication Studies, 49(3), 240-254. Nussbaum, J. D. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180. Ozmen, K.S. (2010). Fostering Nonverbal Immediacy and Teacher Identity through an Acting Course in English Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6). Ozmen, K.S. (2011). Perception of Nonverbal Immediacy and Effective Teaching among Student Teachers: A Study across Cultural Extremes. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 865-881. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574-590. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504-517. Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305. Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341-353. Santilli, V. and Miller, A.N. (2011). The Effects of Gender and Power Distance on Nonverbal Immediacy in Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Power Conditions: A Cross-Cultural Study of Classrooms and Friendships. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(1), 3-22. Simpson, E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. Swenson, J., & Cashmir, F. L. (1998). The Impact of Culture-Sameness, Gender, Foreign Travel, and Academic Background on the Ability to Interpret Facial Expression of Emotion in Others. Communication Quarterly, 46(2), 214-15. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Taylor, R. (1989). Chinese hierarchy in comparative perspectives. Journal of Asian Studies, 48, 490-511. Thweatt, K.S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Teacher nonimmediacy and misbehavior: Unintentional negative communication. Communication Research Reports, 13(2), 198-204. Zhang, Q. (2005). Immediacy and out-of-class communication: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 33-50. Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G. Gao, X., Wilcox, R. G., & Takai, J. (2007). Teacher immediacy scales: Testing for validity across cultures. Communication Education, 56, 228-248.