You are here:

Relationship between Affective Learning, Instructor Attractiveness and Instructor Evaluation in Videoconference-Based Distance Education Courses
ARTICLE

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology Volume 11, Number 4, ISSN 1303-6521

Full Text

Abstract

This paper is intended to reveal the results of a study in which the relationship between learners' perceptions of affective learning, instructors' attractiveness and instructor evaluations in a videoconference based distance education course was investigated. An online survey instrument was used to collect quantitative data. A series of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationships between these variables. The results have shown that there were positive correlations between task attractiveness, social attractiveness, affective learning and instructor evaluations in videoconference-based open and distance courses. Overall, almost all of these correlations were moderate level except the ones between the instructor evaluations and task attractiveness as well as the instructor evaluations and the social attractiveness. Positive, strong relationships were observed between these variables. Increases in task and social attractiveness were correlated with increase in the instructor evaluations. (Contains 3 tables.)

Citation

Aydin, I.E. (2012). Relationship between Affective Learning, Instructor Attractiveness and Instructor Evaluation in Videoconference-Based Distance Education Courses. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 247-252. Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

This record was imported from ERIC on April 18, 2013. [Original Record]

ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anadolu University (2012). Student Guide. Eskisehir: Anadolu University. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://az.anadolu.edu.tr/dosyalar/2012_2013_Azerbaycan_Kilavuzu.pdf
  2. Berscheid, E. & Hatfield-Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  3. Bozkaya, M. & Erdem-Aydin, I. (2007). 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 (TOJET), 6(4), 72-79.
  4. Edwards, A., & Edwards, C. (2001). The impact of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy on student perceptions of attractiveness and homophily. Journalof Excellence in College Teaching, 12(2), 5-17.
  5. Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., & Went-Wasco, NJ. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 61-74.
  6. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book 2: Affective domain. New York: Longman.
  7. McCroskey, J.C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), 1994 SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student competence in speech communication. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
  8. McCroskey, J.C., Hamilton, P.R., & Weiner, A.N. (1974). The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1, 42-52.
  9. McCroskey, J.C., & McCain, T.A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266.
  10. McCroskey, L.L., McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily, Communication Quarterly, 54, 1-31.
  11. Myers, S.A., & Huebner, A.D. (2011). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and perceived instructor credibility, attractiveness, and homophily. College Student Journal, 45, 84-91.
  12. Pekel, O., Demir, Y., & Yildiz, M. (2006). Biology teachers’ attitudes and communication behavior in Turkey: From the view point of their students.. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 5(1), 26-32.
  13. 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.
  14. Roberts, L. (1990). The elusive qualities of ‘affect’. In What research says about learning in science museums. Washington, DC: Association of Sceince-Technology Centers.
  15. Rocca, K.A., & McCroskey, J.C. (1999). The interrelationship of student ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Communication education, 48, 308-316.
  16. Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 5(2), 14-23.
  17. Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  18. So, H.J. (2010). Towards rigor of online interaction research: Implication for future distance learning research. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 9(2), 256-263.
  19. Unal-Colak, F. & Kobak-Uzun, K. (2011). Determining interpersonal attraction in educational environment and the relation with motivation. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(1), 47-56.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links