Advertisement

Teacher Interpersonal Communication Abilities in the Classroom with Regard to Perceived Classroom Justice and Teacher Credibility

  • Hadrian LankiewiczEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present theoretical foundations pertaining to interpersonal communication as well as to expound its role in defining teacher competence and evaluating teacher classroom performance. Furthermore, interpersonal skills are related to the concept of perceived teacher credibility and classroom justice as constituting the basis for the evaluation of teacher effectiveness in the classroom. The overall working hypothesis is that teacher evaluation pertains basically to the perception of his/her interpersonal communication skills. Both of the key concepts of teacher credibility and classroom justice rest firmly on these skills. Hence, their applicability in the verification process of teacher evaluation may shed additional light on the overall perception of teacher communicative abilities. As a result, the juxtaposition of the administrative teacher evaluation with the one based on the above-mentioned concepts corroborates the principal hypothesis.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Teacher Evaluation Interpersonal Communication Ranking List 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Volume II, ed. L. Berkowitz, 267–299. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrzejewska, E. 2008. Kompetencja nauczyciela języków obcych w edukacji wczesnoszkolnej. Języki Obce w Szkole 4: 42–47.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. and H. D. Brown. 1999. Introduction: A map of the terrain. In Affect in language learning, ed. J. Arnold, 1–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, W. 1977. Equity theory and social comparison processes. In Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, eds. J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller, 279–305. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  5. Bies, R. J. and J. S. Moag. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations 1: 43–55.Google Scholar
  6. Bolkan, S. and A. K. Goodboy. 2009. Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology 36: 296–306.Google Scholar
  7. Chory, R. M. 2007. Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Communication Education 56: 89–105.Google Scholar
  8. Chory, R. M. and J. C. McCroskey. 1999. The relationship between teacher management communication style and affective learning. Communication Quarterly 47: 1–11.Google Scholar
  9. Chory-Assad, R. M. 2002. The relationship between teacher management style and affective learning. Communication Quarterly 50: 58–77.Google Scholar
  10. Chory-Assad, R. M. and M. L. Paulsel. 2004a. Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly 52: 98–114.Google Scholar
  11. Chory-Assad, R. M. and M. L. Paulsel. 2004b. Classroom justice: Students aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education 53: 253–273.Google Scholar
  12. Clampitt, P. G. 1991. Communicating for managerial effectiveness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Colquitt, J. A., D. E. Conlon, M. J. Wesson, C. O. L. H. Porter and K. Y. Ng. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–445.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, P. J. 1993. Oral communication training for teachers. In Language and content, eds. N. Bird, J. Harris and M. Ingham, 433–480. Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  15. Cropanzano, R. and J. Greenberg. 1997. Progress in organizational justice. Tunneling through the maze. In International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Volume 12, ed. C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson, 317–372. London: Willey.Google Scholar
  16. Damasio, A. 1999. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotions in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  17. DeVito, J. A. 1986. Teaching as relational development. In Communication in college classrooms, ed. J. M. Civikly, 51–59. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. De Vito, J. 2011. Human communication: The basic course. Sydney: Pearson.Google Scholar
  19. Dobransky, N. D. and A. B. Frymier. 2004. Developing teacher-student relationship through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly 52: 211–223.Google Scholar
  20. Dodge, Y. 2003. Oxford dictionary of statistical terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, C. and S. A. Myers. 2007. Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports 24: 47–53.Google Scholar
  22. Frymier, A. B. and M. L. Houser. 2000. The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education 49: 207–219.Google Scholar
  23. Frymier, A. B. and C. A. Thompson. 1992. Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education 41: 388–399.Google Scholar
  24. Fulcher, D. G. and T. W. Anderson Jr. 1974. Interpersonal dissimilarity and teaching effectiveness: A relational analysis. The Journal of Educational Research 68: 19–25.Google Scholar
  25. Gouran, D., W. E. Wiethoff and J. A. Doelger. 1994. Mastering communication, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  26. Hamer, H. 1994. Klucz do efektywności nauczania. Poradnik dla nauczycieli. Warszawa: Veda.Google Scholar
  27. Hartley, P. 1999. Interpersonal communication. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Head, K. and P. Taylor. 1997. Readings in teacher development. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  29. Horan, S. M. and S. A. Myers. 2009. An exploration of college instructors’ use of classroom justice, power, and behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education 58: 483–496.Google Scholar
  30. Jewett G. S. and V. O’Donnell. 2006. Propaganda and persuasion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, S. D. and A. N. A. Miller. 2002. Cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education 51: 280–292.Google Scholar
  32. Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Collaborative language learning and teaching, ed. D. Nunan, 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kohonen, V., R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara. 2001. Experiential learning in foreign language education. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  34. Komorowska, H. 1993. Rola i styl kierowania a sukces zawodowy nauczyciela języka obcego. Neofilolog 6: 7–16.Google Scholar
  35. Kurcz, I. 2005. Psychologia języka i komunikacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Google Scholar
  36. Lankiewicz, H. 2011. Away from the input: Affordance as the way of activating personal touch to language learning. In Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching, ed. M. Pawlak, 227–240. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Luechauer, D. and G. M. Shulman. 1993. Empowerment at work: Separating folklore from fact. At Work: Stories of Tomorrow’s Workplace 2: 13–14.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, M. M., J. L. Chesebro and T. P. Mottet. 1997. Students’ perceptions of instructors’ socio-communicative style and the influence on instructor credibility and situational motivation. Communication Research Reports 14: 431–440.Google Scholar
  39. McCroskey, J. C. 1992. An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN: Burgess International.Google Scholar
  40. McCroskey, J. C., W. Holdridge and J. K. Toomb. 1974. An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Speech Teacher 23: 26–33.Google Scholar
  41. McCroskey, J. C. and J. J. Teven. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs 66, 90–103.Google Scholar
  42. McCroskey, J. C., K. M. Valencic and V. P. Richmond. 2004. Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly 52: 197–210.Google Scholar
  43. McCroskey, J. C. and T. J. Yung. 1981. Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal 32: 24–34.Google Scholar
  44. McLean, C. A. 2007. Establishing credibility in the multicultural classroom: When the instructor speaks with an accent. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 110. (Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~fellows/GTAP/Online%20Makeup/T-L%20Presentation%20Readings/Establishing%20Credibility_2007-Summer_15.pdf.
  45. McPherson, M. B. and Y. J. Liang. 2007. Students’ reactions to teachers’ management of compulsive communicators. Communication Education 56: 18–33.Google Scholar
  46. Mottet, T. P., J. Parker-Raley, S. A. Beebe and C. Cunningham. 2007. Instructors who resist ‘college lite’: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education 56: 145–167.Google Scholar
  47. Myers, S. A. and R. L. Knox. 2001. The relationship between college student information-seeking behaviors and perceived instructor verbal behaviors. Communication Education 50: 343–356.Google Scholar
  48. Paulsel, M. L. 2005. Classroom justice as a predictor of students’ perceptions of empowerment and emotional response. PhD dissertation, West Virginia University. (Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/31/70/3170942.html).
  49. Paulsel, M. L., R. M. Chory-Assad and K. N. Dunleavy. 2005. The relation between student perceptions of instructor power and classroom justice. Communication Research Reports 22: 207–215.Google Scholar
  50. Pogue, L. L. and K. AhYun. 2006. The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education 55: 331–344.Google Scholar
  51. Premack, D. and G. Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–526.Google Scholar
  52. Richards, J. C. 1998. Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Richmond, V. P. and K. D. Roach. 1992. Power in the classroom: Seminal studies. In Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern, eds. V. P. Richmond and J. C. McCroskey, 47–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Schrodt, P. 2003. Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education 52: 106–121.Google Scholar
  55. Schrodt, P., P. D. Turman and J. Soliz. 2006. Perceived understanding as a mediator of perceived teacher confirmation and students’ ratings of instruction. Communication Education 55: 370–388.Google Scholar
  56. Schrodt, P. and P. L. Witt. 2006. Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education 55: 1–20.Google Scholar
  57. Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1949. A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  58. Shebanova, I. 2010. Interpersonal communication value in globalizing community. Limes 3: 80–86.Google Scholar
  59. Stern, H. H. 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stonkuviene, I. 2010. Communication as an essential element of pedagogical process. TILTAI/BRIDGES/BRÜCKEN 4, 53: 189–200.Google Scholar
  61. Tesser, A. and N. Schwarz, eds. 2001. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Teven, J. J. 2007. Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect and perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly 55: 433–450.Google Scholar
  63. Teven, J. J. and T. L. Hanson. 2004. The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly 52: 39–53.Google Scholar
  64. Teven, J. J. and J. C. McCroskey. 1997. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education 46: 1–9.Google Scholar
  65. Thweatt, K. S. and J. C. McCroskey. 1998. The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education 46: 348–358.Google Scholar
  66. Umphrey, L. R., J. A. Wickersham and J. C. Sherblom. 2006. Immediacy, composure, receptivity, communication quality, communication satisfaction, involvement, and connectedness/mutuality in face-to-face and IITV instruction. Paper submitted to the Western States Communication Association Conference, Palm Springs, CA. (Retrieved from http://www8.nau.edu/~d-elearn/assessment/research/documents/Umphrey.pdf).
  67. van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  68. Werbińska, D. 2011. Developing into an effective Polish teacher of English. Słupsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pomorskiej w Słupsku.Google Scholar
  69. Wiener, J. L. and J. C. Mowen. 1986. Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust and expertise. In Advances in consumer research. Volume 13, ed. R. J. Lutz, 306-310. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  70. Witt, P. L. 2004. Students’ perceptions of teacher credibility and learning expectations in the classroom courses with websites. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 28: 423–434.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Scandinavian Studies and Applied LinguisticsUniversity of GdańskGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations