Why nonverbal immediacy matters: A motivation explanation

References

• Baker, J. P., & Goodboy, A. K. (2018). Students’ self-determination as a consequence of instructor misbehaviors. Communication Research Reports, 35, 68–73. doi:10.1080/08824096.2017.1366305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). Exploratory theoretical tests of the instructor humor-student learning link. Communication Education, 64, 45–64. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Griffin, D. J. (2011). Teacher leadership and intellectual stimulation: Improving students’ approaches to studying through intrinsic motivation. Communication Research Reports, 28, 337–346. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.615958
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi:10.10/0363452032000135742
   Google Scholar
• Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61, 111–130. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.656669
   Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922
   Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B. (2016). Students’ motivation to learn. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Communication and learning. Handbooks of Communication Science: Vol. 16. Communication and learning (pp. 377–396). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50, 1–12. doi:10.1080/10510979909388466
   Google Scholar
• Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/03634520009379209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, Z. W., Goodboy, A. K., & Weber, K. (2017). College students’ psychological needs and intrinsic motivation to learn: An examination of self-determination theory. Communication Quarterly, 65, 167–191. doi:10.1080/01463373.2016.1215338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Baker, J. P. (2018). Instructor misbehaviors impede students’ cognitive learning: Testing the causal assumption. Communication Education, 67, 308–329. doi:10.1080/03634523.2018.1465192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197–219. ISSN: 1051-0974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houser, M. L., & Hosek, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hurt, H. T., Scott, M. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Communication in the classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 202–213. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, F. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazer, J. P., McKenna-Buchanan, T. P., Quinlan, M. M., & Titsworth, S. (2014). The dark side of emotion in the classroom: Emotional processes as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student negative emotions. Communication Education, 63, 149–168. doi:10.1080/03634525.2014.904047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives. In T. P. Mottet, P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Understanding the audience: Students’ communication traits (pp. 51–66). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi:10.1080/01463370409370192
   Google Scholar
• Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical & relational perspectives. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299–309. doi:10.1080/08824090009388777
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/01463370309370170
   Google Scholar
• 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. ISSN: 0363-4523. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 495–511). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Waldeck, J. H. (2007). Answering the question: Student perceptions of personalized education and the construct’s relationship to learning outcomes. Communication Education, 56, 409–432. doi:10.1080/03634520701400090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, P. L., Schrodt, P., Wheeless, V. E., & Bryand, M. C. (2014). Students’ intent to persist in college: Moderating and the negative effects of receiver apprehension with instructor credibility and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Studies, 65, 330–352. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811428
   Google Scholar