2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-021-09609-y
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classroom goal structures and communication style: the role of teacher immediacy and relevance-making in students’ perceptions of the classroom

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One exception was their level of hyperactivity–inattention and opposition–defiance in language increased during the school year, which could indicate a regression-to-the-mean effect, or suggest that teachers may become more tolerant of these behaviors considering the high level of engagement and achievement of these students (Lohman & Korb, 2006). Similar to previous findings (Gallo et al, 2022; Iaconelli & Anderman, 2021), these results suggest that it might be desirable to be exposed to teachers who value performance as long as these teachers do not push students too hard at demonstrating it, communicate that mastery remains more important, and provide them with an adequate level of support. Consistent with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), by focusing on effort and progression, creating emotionally supportive interactions, giving constructive feedback, and providing opportunities to collaborate with peers in a respectful environment, these teachers probably support students’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One exception was their level of hyperactivity–inattention and opposition–defiance in language increased during the school year, which could indicate a regression-to-the-mean effect, or suggest that teachers may become more tolerant of these behaviors considering the high level of engagement and achievement of these students (Lohman & Korb, 2006). Similar to previous findings (Gallo et al, 2022; Iaconelli & Anderman, 2021), these results suggest that it might be desirable to be exposed to teachers who value performance as long as these teachers do not push students too hard at demonstrating it, communicate that mastery remains more important, and provide them with an adequate level of support. Consistent with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), by focusing on effort and progression, creating emotionally supportive interactions, giving constructive feedback, and providing opportunities to collaborate with peers in a respectful environment, these teachers probably support students’ motivational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…In other words, consistent with the idea that a positive social climate helps communicate a mastery-approach orientation, some profiles should display matching levels of classroom social climate and mastery-approach goal structure, whereas performance goal structures and negative social climates should dominate others. Moreover, students exposed to performance-avoidance goals structures should be unlikely to hold a positive view of their classroom learning climate given that the main objective in such classrooms is to avoid demonstrating incompetence in front of others (Iaconelli & Anderman, 2021), an objective that may even overshadow more positive facets of the classroom learning climate.…”
Section: Student’s School Functioning and Behavioral Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, in the case of Shinta and Agnes, what actually happens is the difference in perceiving student's' messages. In this case, Shinta suggested that making mistakes when learning is bad and should be avoided in order to prevent demonstrating a lack of knowledge or ability (Iaconelli & Anderman, 2021). Student outcomes influenced by teacher immediacy include affective learning, cognitive learning, engagement, and individual motivation (Frymier & Houser, 2016;Witt et al, 2004;Meece et al, 2006;Grace at al., 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, one limitation of this study is related to the scale that we used to measure verbal immediacy (Gorham, 1988). Although recent studies (e.g., Iaconelli & Anderman, 2021;Liu, 2021) still use the verbal immediacy scale from Gorham to measure verbal immediacy, there is also critique on the scale from other researchers. Robinson and Richmond (1995) argued that the verbal immediacy scale represented teacher effectiveness rather than verbally immediate behaviour.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 96%