Learner Autonomy and Achievement Motivation as a Function of Teacher Immediacy and Student Attachmen

1
Learner Autonomy and Achievement Motivation as a
Function of Teacher Immediacy and Student
Attachment RepresentationsGary Creasey,
Ph.D.Patricia Jarvis, Ph.D.Daniel
GadkeDepartment of PsychologyIllinois State
University

2
What is Learner Autonomy?

• Self-directed Learning (Effort regulation)
  Marked by high confidence and control
• Strongly forecasts achievement success
• Both a trait and a state

3
What Predicts State LA?

• Person Variables Trait LA Personality
  Characteristics General Attachment Functioning
• Contextual Variables Interest in course
  material Class size Major class Course
  Threat Appraisals

4
Instructor Variables?

• Teacher Immediacy In-class, verbal and
  non-verbal communicative behaviors.
• Eye contact
• Responds effectively to student questions
• Positive demeanor
• Smiles at class while talking

5
What Explains Links between Teacher Immediacy
LA?

• Theory? High Teacher Immediacy positive
  student-instructor relationship
• Positive student-teacher relationship
  self-directed learning (e.g., Eccles, 2004)

6

• Current Concerns
• Gaps between theory and research
• Definition of good student-instructor
  relationship?
• Is a good student-instructor relationship based
  on teacher behavior, or the manner in which
  students form attachment relationships?

7

• Rationale for Present Study
• Link theory with research
• Teacher Immediacy ? Instructor-Student
  Relationship ? LA
• 2) Develop Student-Instructor Relationship
  Measure
• 3) Poll student thinking/behavior in randomly
  determined class

8

• METHODOLOGY
• Sample 278 full-time, undergraduate college
  students recruited via Psychology Department
  sign-up board
• Procedure Instructed to evaluate one, randomly
  determined, traditional class

9

• Measures
• Demographic/Classroom Characteristics Age
  Student/Instructor Gender Approximate Class
  Size, Major/Non-Major Class Initial Threat
  appraisal etc.

10

• Measures (continued)
• 30-item Teacher Immediacy Scale (Gorham, 1988
  Thomas et al., 1994)
• Verbal items Asks questions and
  encourages students to talk
• Nonverbal items Looks at class while
  talking

11

• Measures (continued)
• 36-item Student-Instructor Relationship Scale
  (Creasey Jarvis, 2006)
• 3 Dimensions
• 1) Dependability If I had a problem, this
  instructor would help me solve it.
• 2) Connectedness I feel comfortable sharing
  my thoughts with this instructor
• 3) Anxiety This instructor makes me feel
  tense and anxious

12

• Measures (continued)
• Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
  (Pintrich et al., 1993)
• Learner Autonomy Scales
• Effort Regulation
• Control of Learning Context
• Learning Self Efficacy

13

• Supplemental Measures
• Generalized Attachment Functioning (RSQ
  Bartholomew Horowitz, 1991)
• Additional Instructor Variables (40 items)
• - Use of technology?
• - Physical attractiveness?
• - Good Personality?
• - Posts study materials on the Web?

14

• RESULTS
• Bivariate Correlations
• Nonverbal and verbal immediacy positively
  associated with instructor dependability,
  connectedness, and negatively associated with
  instructor anxiety (r range .25-.55)
• Teacher immediacy and student-instructor
  relationship associated with all facets of
  learner autonomy (e.g., effort regulation,
  learner efficacy)

15

• RESULTS
• Regression Analyses testing for Mediation Model
• Teacher Immediacy ? Student-Instructor
  Relationship ? LA
• 3 separate regression analyses to predict Effort
  Regulation, Learner Efficacy, Control of Learning
  Context

16

• RESULTS
• Conditions for full mediation (Holmbeck, 1997)
  met in each analysis
• Effects on learner autonomy dependent on analysis
• Instructor connectedness mediated associations
  between teacher immediacy and learner self
  efficacy/control over learning environment
• Instructor dependability mediated associations
  between teacher immediacy and effort regulation

17

• RESULTS (Continued)
• 3) Results replicated while controlling for
  general attachment security, classroom
  characteristics (e.g., class size)

18

• SUPPLEMENTAL RESULTS
• Variables that did not predict
  instructor-student relationship or learner
  autonomy
• Major/nonmajor course
• Student/instructor gender
• Instructor physical attractiveness
• Use of technology
• Any one form of assignment (e.g., learning
  journals active learning assignments)
• Good personality

19

• Discussion
• Classroom teacher immediacy does not
  automatically forecast learner autonomy rather,
  student must form a positive relationship
  impression of instructor (dependability,
  connectedness, low anxiety)
• Nevertheless, subtle classroom behaviors do
  contribute to this impression and are potentially
  trainable

20

• Discussion (Continued)
• More research needed to explore other instructor
  behaviors (in- and out-of-class) that contribute
  to student relationship impressions
• Positive student-instructor relationships appear
  to develop, even when student brings to class
  existing attachment problems (instructor as a
  secure base)
• Current study Longitudinal method to assess
  changes in learner autonomy over course of
  semester

21

• Discussion (Continued)
• Do our results replicate with younger students at
  different grade levels?