پیش بینی مشارکت تحصیلی دانش آموزان ترکمن از طریق اعتبار و رابطه دوستانه غیرکلامی معلمان زبان فارسی ایرانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

نویسنده ‏ی مسئول، دانشیار زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، دانشگاه گلستان، ایران

10.30479/jtpsol.2021.14654.1506

چکیده

با توجه به نقش اساسی مشارکت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان در یادگیری زبان دوم، متغیرهای بین فردی که بر میزان این مشارکت تأثیر می‌گذارند، مورد توجه قرار گرفتند. بر همین اساس، این مطالعه به بررسی نقش اعتبار و رابطه دوستانة غیرکلامی معلمان زبان فارسی در مشارکت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان ترکمن پرداخت. برای این منظور، 503 دانش‌آموز ترکمن با پایه‌های تحصیلی متفاوت (پایه هفتم، هشتم، نهم، دهم، یازدهم و دوازدهم) از مناطق مختلف استان گلستان به صورت داوطلبانه در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. این جامعه آماری را 282 دختر و 221 پسر با ردة سنی 12 تا 18 سال تشکیل دادند. برای جمع‌آوری داده‌های مورد نیاز، پرسشنامه‌های «رابطه دوستانه غیرکلامی معلمان» ، «اعتبار معلمان» و «مشارکت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان» بین شرکت‌کنندگان توزیع شد. به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌های جمع‌آوری شده، از آزمون‌های «ضریب همبستگی پیرسون» استفاده گردید. نتایج این آزمون‌ها نشان داد که بین هر سه عامل رابطه دوستانة غیرکلامی معلمان فارسی، اعتبار معلمان فارسی و مشارکت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان ترکمن روابط مثبت و معناداری وجود دارد. این یافته‌ها همچنین توسط نتایج «مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری» تأیید شد. به طور‌کل نتایج این تحقیق حاکی از آن است که اعتبار و رابطه دوستانة غیرکلامی معلمان زبان فارسی می‌تواند به طرز چشمگیری بر میزان مشارکت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان ترکمن بیفزاید. در پایان، پیامدها و پیشنهادات این تحقیق در ارتباط با آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر‌ فارسی‌زبانان مورد بحث قرار گرفت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Predictability of Turkman Students’ Academic Engagement through Persian Language Teachers’ Nonverbal Immediacy and Credibility

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Derakhshan
Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Due to the crucial role of student academic engagement in learning a second language, teacher interpersonal variables which affect second language learners’ engagement have gained momentum. To keep up with this line of inquiry, this study attempted to probe the role of Persian language teachers’ nonverbal immediacy and credibility in their Turkman students’ academic engagement. To do this, 503 Turkman students with different educational grades (i.e., 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) voluntarily took part in this study from different regions of Golestan province. The sample included 282 females and 221 males ranging in age from 12 to 18. To obtain the data, Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS), Source Credibility Scale (SCS), and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S) were distributed among participants. Pearson correlation coefficient tests were run to analyze the gathered data. The results exhibited that there were significant positive correlations among Persian language teachers’ nonverbal immediacy, credibility, and Turkman students’ academic engagement. The findings were also approved by structural equation modeling (SEM) results: Turkman students’ academic engagement was predicted significantly and positively by their Persian language teachers’ nonverbal immediacy and credibility. The outcomes of the present study posit that Turkman students’ academic engagement can be remarkably enhanced by their Persian language teachers’ credibility and nonverbal immediacy. Finally, the pedagogical implications for teaching Persian to speakers of other languages are also discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Student Academic Engagement
  • Teacher Nonverbal Immediacy
  • Teacher Credibility
  • Turkman Students
  • Persian Language Teachers
  • Second Language Learning
  • Structural Equation Modeling
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55(1), 21-31.
Alrashidi, O., Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualizations. International Education Studies9(12), 41-52.
Alvandi, M., Mehrdad, A. G., &Karimi, L. (2015). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ critical thinking skills, their EQ and their students’ engagement in the task. Theory and Practice in Language Studies5(3), 555-565.
Amiryousefi, M., & Mirkhani, M (2019). Interrelationships between willingness to communicate, self-concept, ideal L2 self, and teacher credibility among Persian language learners in Iran. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (JTPSOL), 8(18), 51-68.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools45(5), 369-386.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning.
Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education55(1), 63-72.
Beebe, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (2009). Students and teachers. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication: A reference handbook (pp. 349-357). Sage.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Carter, C. P., Reschly, A. L., Lovelace, M. D., Appleton, J. J., & Thompson, D. (2012). Measuring student engagement among elementary students: Pilot of the student engagement instrument—elementary version. School Psychology Quarterly27(2), 61-73.
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports24(3), 241-248.
Dalun, Z., Hsu, H.Y., Kwok, O. M., Benz, M., & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2011). The impact of basic-level parent engagements on student achievement: Patterns associated with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(1), 28-39.
Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence40(12), 1649-1660.
Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 264-291.
Estepp, C. M., & Roberts, T. G. (2015). Teacher immediacy and professor/student rapport as predictors of motivation and engagement. NACTA Journal59(1), 155-163.
Fallah, N. (2014). Willingness to communicate in English, communication self-confidence, motivation, shyness and teacher immediacy among Iranian English major undergraduates: A structural equation modeling approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 30(1), 140-147.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1), 59-109.
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity‐seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education41(4), 388-399.
Gerhardt, M. W. (2016). The importance of being social: Instructor credibility and the Millennials. Studies in Higher Education41(9), 1533-1547.
Ghelichli, Y., Seyyedrezaei, S. H., Barani, G., & Mazandarani, O. (2020). The relationship between dimensions of student engagement and language learning motivation among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research8(31), 43-57.
Gholamrezaee, S., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy: A study of its impact on students’ emotional states, cognitive learning, and burnout. Psychological Studies63(4), 398-409.
Hagenauer, G., Hascher, T., & Volet, S. E. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom: associations with students’ engagement, classroom discipline and the interpersonal teacher-student relationship. European Journal of Psychology of Education30(4), 385-403.
Halloran, S. M. (1982). Aristotle’s concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else’s. Rhetoric Review, 1(1), 58-63.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.  Yale University Press.
Hsu, L. (2010). The impact of perceived teachers’ nonverbal immediacy on students’ motivation for learning English. Asian EFL Journal12(4), 188-204.
Imlawi, J., Gregg, D., & Karimi, J. (2015). Student engagement in course-based social networks: The impact of instructor credibility and use of communication. Computers & Education88(1), 84-96.
Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues64(1), 21-40.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist8(1), 7-27.
Kahu, E., Stephens, C., Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2015). Linking academic emotions and student engagement: Mature-aged distance students’ transition to university. Journal of Further and Higher Education39(4), 481-497.
Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly50(1), 154-180.
Lashkari Kalat, F., Ahmadi Yazdi, Z., Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy: A study of its detriments and consequences. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(5), 216-234. 
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. The Journal of School Health74(7), 274-283.
McCroskey, J. C. (1998). An introduction to communication in the classroom (2nd Ed.). Tapestry Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90-103.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (2013). Source credibility measures. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies, 32(1), 24-34.
McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Communication Education, 23(1), 26-33.
­Mehrabian, A. (1971). Immediacy: Liking and approach. In A. Mehrabian (Ed.), Silent messages (pp. 1-23). Wadsworth.
Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255-282). Allyn & Bacon.
Myers, S. A. (2008). Classroom student-teacher interaction. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 514-520). Blackwell.
Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of COMM 600. (2014). College student learning, motivation, and satisfaction as a function of effective instructor communication behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 79(1), 14-26.
Nayernia, A., Taghizadeh, M., & Farsani, M. A. (2020). EFL teachers’ credibility, nonverbal immediacy, and perceived success: A structural equation modelling approach. Cogent Education7(1), 1-15.
Nejati, R., Hassani, M. T., & Sahrapour, H. A. (2014). The relationship between gender and student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management of Iranian EFL teachers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies4(6), 1219-1226.
Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). On being grateful and kind: Results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic engagement. The Journal of Psychology148(1), 37-60.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th Ed.). Open University Press.
Papillon, T. (2001). Rhetoric, art, and myth: Isocrates and Busiris. In C. W. Wooten, & G. A. Kennedy (Eds.), The orator in action and theory in Greece and Rome (pp. 73-96). BRILL.
Parsons, S. A., Nuland, L. R., & Parsons, A. W. (2014). The ABCs of student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan95(8), 23-27.
Phan, H. P. (2014). An integrated framework involving enactive learning experiences, mastery goals, and academic engagement-disengagement. Europe’s Journal of Psychology10(1), 41-66.
Pishghadam, R., Derakhshan, A., & Zhaleh, K. (2019). The interplay of teacher success, credibility, and stroke with respect to EFL students’ willingness to attend classes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50(4), 284-292.
Pishghadam, R., Seyednozadi, Z., & Zabetipour, M. (2017). Examining teacher credibility and language achievement in light of emotionalization and life syllabus. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 12(2), 117-131.
Pogue, L. L., & Ahyun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55(3), 331-344.
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research87(2), 345-387.
Qureshi, A., Wall, H., Humphries, J., & Balani, A. B. (2016). Can personality traits modulate student engagement with learning and their attitude to employability?. Learning and Individual Differences51(1), 349-358.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Hickson, M. (2008). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations. Allyn & Bacon.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., &Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research81(4), 493-529.
Salmela‐Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology84(1), 137-151.
Santilli, V., Miller, A. N., & Katt, J. (2011). A comparison of the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and teacher credibility in Brazilian and U.S. classrooms. Communication Research Reports, 28(3), 266-274.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies3(1), 71-92.
Sheybani, M. (2019). The relationship between EFL Learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) and their teacher immediacy attributes: A structural equation modelling. Cogent Psychology6(1), 1-14.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement69(3), 493-525.
Statistical Centre of Iran (2016). https://www.amar.org.ir. Retrieved in November, 2020.
Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio‐communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 107-114.
Trad, L., Katt, J., & Neville Miller, A. (2014). The effect of face threat mitigation on instructor credibility and student motivation in the absence of instructor nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education63(2), 136-148.
Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: A review of empirical research. European Psychologist18(2), 136-147.
Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education37(1), 21-32.
Violanti, M. T., Kelly, S. E., Garland, M. E., & Christen, S. (2018). Instructor clarity, humor, immediacy, and student learning: Replication and extension. Communication Studies69(3), 251-262.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development83(3), 877-895.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction28(1), 12-23.
Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development85(2), 722-737.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta‐analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs71(2), 184-207.
York, D. (2013). Investigating a relationship between nonverbal communication and student learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, Missouri.