Teacher's Communicative Behaviors in Relation to Organizational and Technical Factors in Online University Education

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The authors present the results of a study of the relationship of the quality of the Internet connection and students’ attendance with the clarity and immediacy of the teacher’s communicative behavior in the process of online university education. The relevance of the problem is due to significant changes currently taking place in the Russian educational environment: the active use of the online training format affects both the content of education and its organization. The study involved 409 undergraduate students (females - 71%, mean age = 20, SD = 2.1). The students’ perceptions of the clarity and immediacy of the teacher’s communicative behaviors in the online training format were measured by tools based on their subjective assessments. In addition, the students evaluated the quality of Internet connection on a five-point scale and indicated how many classes they attended; since these factors are presumably associated with their perceptions of their teacher’s behavior. The results of the study showed a positive correlation between the teacher’s immediacy and the students’ attendance; however, no relationship was found between the clarity of the teacher’s communicative behavior and students’ attendance. It was also found that the quality of the Internet connection is directly related to the teacher’s clarity and immediacy. Moreover, the latter can be perceived both positively and negatively depending on the quality of the Internet connection. The obtained data indicate that the organizational and technical factors are very important for teacher - student interaction in the online training format.

About the authors

Natalia E. Riapina

HSE University

Author for correspondence.
Email: neriapina@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9157-6854
SPIN-code: 8075-8359

Senior Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages

27 Lebedev St, Perm, 6141007, Russian Federation

Tatyana M. Permyakova

HSE University

Email: tpermyakova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4960-5038
SPIN-code: 1063-7868

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Department of Foreign Languages

27 Lebedev St, Perm, 6141007, Russian Federation

Ekaterina A. Balezina

HSE University

Email: katebalezi@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2456-0913
SPIN-code: 3143-3860

Ph.D. in Sociology, is Research Fellow, Department of Foreign Languages

27 Lebedev St, Perm, 6141007, Russian Federation

References

  1. Abramova, M.O., Barannikov, K.A., Gruzdev, I.A., Zhikharev, D.A., Leshukov, O.V., Ott, M.A., Rogozin, D.M., Sandler, D.G., Sukhanova, E.A., Terent'ev, E.A., & Frumin, I.D. (2021). The quality of education at Russian universities: What we learned in the pandemic: Analytical report. Tomsk: Tomsk State University. (In Russ.)
  2. Al Ghamdi, A. (2017). Influence of lecturer immediacy on students’ learning outcomes: Evidence from a distance education program at a university in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.1.838
  3. Avtgis, T.A. (2001). Affective learning, teacher clarity, and student motivation as a function of attributional confidence. Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384815
  4. Baker, J.D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.006
  5. Bolliger, D.U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845949
  6. Borunova, E.B., & Peskova, I.M. (2021). About the organization of distance learning of a foreign language for students of natural science specialties of a pedagogical university. Language. Culture. Communication: Study and Learning: Conference Proceedings (pp. 268–274). Orel: Kartush Publ. (In Russ.)
  7. Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20277
  8. Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  9. Chernobay, E.V., & Davlatova, M.A. (2020). Changing the professional roles of teachers in the context of distance learning for schoolchildren: a current view. Pedagogika, 84(11), 100–108. (In Russ.)
  10. Chesebro, J.L., & McCroskey, J.C. (1998). The development of the teacher clarity short inventory (TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15(3), 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099809362122
  11. Chirkova, V.M. (2021) Influence of distance learning on the achievement and attendance of foreign students during the pandemic period. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 10(3), 303–305. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26140/anip-2021-1003-0076
  12. Diril, D. (2020). Teaching as an art of communication: an investigation into the nature of teacher immediacy and perceived attendance (M.S. in Educational Sciences Thesis). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
  13. Farwell, C.L. (2011). Measurements of effective teaching in the traditional and online contexts: Teacher immediacy, student motivation, & student learning. Macomb: Western Illinois University.
  14. Faylor, N.R., Beebe, S.A., Houser, M.L., & Mottet, T.P. (2008). Perceived differences in instructional communication behaviors between effective and ineffective corporate trainers. Human Communication, 11(1), 149–156.
  15. Finn, A.N. (2012). Teacher use of prosocial and antisocial power bases and students’ perceived instructor understanding and misunderstanding in the college classroom. Communication Education, 61(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.636450
  16. Finn, A.N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students' perceived understanding mediates the effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.656669
  17. Gardner, E.E., Anderson, L.B., & Wolvin, A.D. (2017). Understanding instructor immediacy, credibility, and facework strategies through a qualitative analysis of written instructor feedback. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 18(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2016.1247113
  18. Horn, D.C. (2022). Instructional clarity examined as a transactional communication process (Doctor of Education Thesis). Normal: Illinois State University. https://doi.org/10.30707/etd2022.20220606094400712813.999982
  19. Hsu, C.F. (2012). The influence of vocal qualities and confirmation of nonnative English-speaking teachers on student receiver apprehension, affective learning, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 61(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.615410
  20. Kazakova, E.I. (2020). Digital transformation of pedagogical education. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, (1), 8–14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20323/1813-145X-2020-1-112-8-14
  21. Kolesov, K.I. (2022). Transition to online at the preparatory faculty of NSTU University named after R.E. Alekseev. Innovative Technologies in Educational Activities: Conference Proceedings (pp. 285–288). Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University named after R.E. Alekseev. (In Russ.)
  22. Krouglov, A. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and learning in simultaneous interpreting: Capturing experiences of teachers and students. Training, Language and Culture, 5(3), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442x-2021-5-3-41-56
  23. Lepshokova, E.A. (2021). Information technology efficiency in education. Mother Tongue Today: Problems of Preservation and Development: Conference Proceedings (pp. 223–228). Karachayevsk: Karachay-Cherkess State University named after U.D. Aliyev. (In Russ.)
  24. Leshchenko, S.A. (2021). Distance education technologies in online learning. Actual Problems of the Activities of the Units of the Penal System: Conference Proceedings (pp. 546–547). Voronezh: Nauchnaya Kniga Publ. (In Russ.)
  25. Nadtochiy, Yu.B. (2021). Factors affecting the quality of online classes. The Humanities and Education, 12(2), 68–74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.51609/2079-3499_2021_12_02_68
  26. Narbut, N.P., Aleshkovski, I.A., Gasparishvili, A.T., & Krukhmaleva, O.V. (2020). Forced shift to distance learning as an impetus to technological changes in the Russian higher education. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 20(3), 611–621. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2020-20-3-611-621
  27. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Factors influencing quality online learning experiences. In G. Davies & E. Stacey (Eds.), Quality Education @ a Distance (pp. 129–136). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35700-3_14
  28. Powell, R.G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378816
  29. Rajabnejad, F., Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2017). On the influence of stroke on willingness to attend classes and foreign language achievement. Applied Research on English Language, 6(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2017.21344
  30. Razdrogov, M.O. (2020). The features of conducting online classes of computer cycle in quarantine conditions. Topical issues of pedagogy: Conference Proceedings (pp. 44–48). Penza: Nauka i Prosveshchenie Publ. (In Russ.)
  31. Rocca, K.A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression: Brief Report. Communication Education, 53(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520410001682447
  32. Salmanova, J.A., & Alizhanova, H.A. (2016). Study of speech and conduct nonverbal teacher. Nauka Vchera, Segodnya, Zavtra, (2–1), 101–109. (In Russ.)
  33. Schubert-Irastorza, C., & Fabry, D.L. (2011). Improving student satisfaction with online faculty performance. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 4(1), 168–179.
  34. Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Bell, B.S., & Bauer, K.N. (2010). The effects of technical difficulties on learning and attrition during online training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019968
  35. Sknarev, D.S. (2020). The communicative behavior of the teacher in online and offline environments. Rhetorical Traditions and Communication Processes in the Era of Digitalization: Conference Proceedings (pp. 91–500). Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University. (In Russ.)
  36. Smith, L.R. (1984). Presentational behaviors and student performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, April 23–27, 1984). ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED242640.pdf
  37. Titsworth, B.S. (2004). Students' notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53(4), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000305922
  38. Tyunnikov, Yu., & Maznichenko, M. (2004). Teacher-student interaction scenario. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii, (12), 97–105. (In Russ.)
  39. Walkem, K. (2014). Instructional immediacy in elearning. Collegian, 21(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2013.02.004
  40. Xie, F., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 708490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490
  41. Zheng, J. (2021). A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 712419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712419

Copyright (c) 2023 Riapina N.E., Permyakova T.M., Balezina E.A.

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

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies