The interface of communication and instruction: Conceptual considerations and programmatic manifestations

Staton, Ann Q.

doi:10.1080/03634528909378777

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oddly, after about thirty years, and any number of lucid definitions (Staton, 1989) there is still evidence of confusion about the relationship between these two important areas. As both focus on education, it makes sense to me that these two related areas would share a journal and divisions of professional associations.…”

Section: We Will Continue To Value Both Communication Education and Imentioning

confidence: 97%

Communication Education: The Spiral Continues

Sprague

2002

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: We Will Continue To Value Both Communication Education and Imentioning

confidence: 97%

Communication Education: The Spiral Continues

Sprague

2002

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Behavioral learning has been defined as the development of behaviors (Staton, 1989) and represent behaviors or activities that students enact that indicate learning. These types of behaviors may include explaining course content to friends or other students, elaborating on material, seeking help, volunteering in class, spending an increased amount of time on task, seeking out opportunities to learn more about a given content area, and relating material from one class to another (Frymier & Houser, 1998;Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).…”

Section: Definitions Of Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development and Testing of the Instructional Beliefs Model

Weber¹,

Martin

Myers

2011

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the Instructional Beliefs Model which forwards that teacher behaviors, student characteristics, and course-specific structural issues combine to influence students' instructional beliefs. Through these instructional beliefs, the firstorder variables influence student learning outcomes. Three studies were conducted to investigate the validity of this model and to test this model against other dominant instructional communication models (specifically, the Affective Learning Model, the Motivation Model, and the Immediacy Model). Results from these studies provide support for the Instructional Beliefs Model as a theoretical framework for future research.

show abstract

“…Research on social learning has also shown that individuals who observe or participate in decision-making activities tend to learn the behavioral processes or procedures that lead to a decision outcome more deeply than they learn the decision outcome itself (Bandura, 1986;Chickering and Gamson, 1987;Stanton, 1989;McKeachie, 1994). The specific behaviors and actions that lead to a decision are more vivid and immediate than the eventual outcome and, consequently, decision routines are encoded more deeply in memory and are more likely to be recalled and enacted later.…”

Section: Second-order Imitation Through Board Network Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second-Order Imitation: Uncovering Latent Effects of Board Network Ties

Westphal

Seidel

Stewart

2001

Administrative Science Quarterly

254

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and seminar participants at the University of Illinois and the University of California at Berkeley. We also thank Christine Oliver and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts.This study examines whether board interlock ties facilitate second-order imitation, in which firms imitate an underlying decision process that can be adapted to multiple policy domains, rather than imitating specific policies of tied-to firms (first-order imitation). Longitudinal analyses of archival data for a large sample of Forbes/Fortune 500 companies, as well as analyses of survey data on mimetic processes among these firms, show that network ties to firms that use imitation to determine a particular policy can prompt use of imitation by the focal firm in determining both that policy and a different policy. Firms that have board network ties to firms in other industries that imitate their competitors' business strategy are likely to imitate their own competitors' business strategy, as well as their competitors' acquisition activity and compensation policy. Thus, the findings reveal network effects that are not visible with extant perspectives on interorganizational imitation. We discuss implications for institutional theory and research on interorganizational networks.-A long tradition of research in organization theory has examined the diffusion of technology, policy, and strategy through social networks (Burt, 1987; Mizruchi, 1996). One of the most important propositions in this literature is that, under conditions of uncertainty, social influence processes will lead firms to imitate the individual policy decisions of other firms to which they are connected by social network ties (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;Galaskiewicz, 1985). Empirical studies in the board interlocks literature, in particular, have examined how overlapping board memberships between firms may facilitate the imitation of particular organizational structures, such as the multidivisional form, or individual policy decisions, such as the adoption of poison pills (e.g., Davis, 1991; Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou, 1993; Haunschild, 1993; Westphal and Zajac, 1997). Prior research may have underestimated the magnitude of network effects, however, by restricting its focus to first-order imitation, or the act of imitating the content of a particular policy decision, such as the level of spending on research and development (R&D). Second-order imitation, or the imitation of an underlying decision process or script that can be adapted to multiple policy domains (e.g., business strategy, compensation policy, acquisition activity, etc.), has been ignored in the interlocks literature, despite a body of literature on second-order effects.In general, second-order phenomena are characterized by an underlying process mechanism that can explain multiple discrete first-order effects (e.g., Bartunek and Moch, 1987;Farmer et al., 1997). In the organizational behavior literature, for instance, researchers have invoked the notion of secondorder change to describe...

show abstract

The interface of communication and instruction: Conceptual considerations and programmatic manifestations

Cited by 18 publications

References 1 publication

Communication Education: The Spiral Continues

Communication Education: The Spiral Continues

The Development and Testing of the Instructional Beliefs Model

Second-Order Imitation: Uncovering Latent Effects of Board Network Ties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About