ORBIS SCHOLAE
ORBIS SCHOLAE

Orbis scholae je odborný recenzovaný časopis zaměřený na problematiku školního vzdělávání v jeho širších sociokulturních souvislostech. Cílem časopisu je přispět k porozumění školnímu vzdělávání a jeho rozvoji, k řešení problémů praxe a vzdělávací politiky.

ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol 9 No 1 (2015), 83–101

Komunikace ve školní třídě a žákovské učení

[Communication in the Classroom and Students’ Learning]

Martin Sedláček, Klára Šeďová

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.73
zveřejněno: 01. 11. 2015

Abstract

This study examines whether the nature of educational communication influences student learning in humanistic subjects or not. It is based on a questionnaire which inquires as to what the features of educational communication and indicators of perceived learning are. The study surveys the results of an analysis of data coming from 256 lower secondary school students who study in the South Moravian Region. The results show that features of educational communication significantly influence perceived learning and that the most important variable is students’ participation in communication. V textu řešíme otázku, zda charakter výukové komunikace ovlivňuje žákovské učení v humanitních předmětech. Autoři představují dotazník zjišťující charakteristiky výukové komunikace spolu s ukazateli percipovaného žákovského učení a prezentují výstupy z analýzy dat na vzorku 256 žáků druhého stupně základních škol v Jihomoravském kraji. Výsledky ukazují, že charakteristiky výukové komunikace velmi významným způsobem ovlivňují subjektivně hodnocené žákovské učení, přičemž se jako nejdůležitější faktor ukazuje žákovská angažovanost v komunikaci.

Klíčová slova: classroom communication; perceived learning; teacher clarity; teacher credibility; students’ engagement výuková komunikace; percipované učení; jasnost; kredibilita učitele; žákovská angažovanost

reference (58)

1. Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the Classroom (s. 98–120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

2. Avtgis, T. (2001). Affective learning, teacher clarity and student motivation as a function of attributional confidence. Communication Research Report, 18(4), 345–353. CrossRef

3. Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–72. CrossRef

4. Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65–79. CrossRef

5. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323–346. CrossRef

6. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298. CrossRef

7. Chesebro, J. L. (2002). Student listening behavior. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (s. 8–18). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

8. Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension and affect. Communication Education, 28(1), 53–58. CrossRef

9. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey J. C. (1998). The relationship of teacher clarity and teacher immediacy with students' experiences of state receiver apprehension. Communication Quarterly, 46(4), 446–456. CrossRef

10. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The relationship between students' reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49(3), 297–301. CrossRef

11. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(1), 59–68. CrossRef

12. Chesebro, J. L, & Wanzer, M. (2006). Instructional message variables. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication (s. 89–106). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

13. Cooper, L. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

14. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Dynamics of educational effectiveness. A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.

15. Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3–4), 407–442. CrossRef

16. Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Professors' and students' perception of why students participate in class. Teaching Sociology, 24(1), 25–33. CrossRef

17. Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcome. Communication Education, 58(4), 516–537 CrossRef

18. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicator scale. Communication Studies, 50(1), 1–12. CrossRef

19. Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor behavior. Communication Education, 50(4), 314–326. CrossRef

20. Gavora, P., Mareš, J., & den Brok, P. (2003). Adaptácia Dotazníku interakčného štýlu učiteľa. Pedagogická revue, 55(2), 156–145.

21. Gray, D. L., Anderman, E. M., & O'Connell, A. A. (2011). Associations of teacher credibility and teacher affinity with learning outcomes in health classrooms. Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 185–208. CrossRef

22. Hines, C., Cruickshank, D., & Kennedy, J. (1985). Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 87–99. CrossRef

23. Janík, T. et al. (2013). Kvalita (ve) vzdělávání: obsahově zaměřený přístup ke zkoumání a zlepšování výuky. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

24. Janík, T., Lokajíčková, V., & Janko, T. (2012). Komponenty a charakteristiky zakládající kvalitu výuky: přehled výzkumných zjištění. Orbis Scholae, 6(3), 27–55.

25. Joyce, J., Hassall, T., Monta-o, J. L. A., & Anes, J. A. D. (2006). Communication apprehension and maths anxiety as barriers to communication and numeracy skills development in accounting and business education. Education and Training, 48(6), 454–464. CrossRef

26. Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37(3), 198–207. CrossRef

27. Kersen-Griep, J., Mae Gayle, B., & Preiss, R. W. (2006). Classroom interaction and educational outcomes. In B. Mae Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes (s. 129–147). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

28. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (Eds.). (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: McKay.

29. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J, & Neter J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

30. Mareš, J., & Gavora, P. (2004). Interpersonální styl učitelů: teorie, diagnostika a výsledky výzkumů. Pedagogika, 54(2), 101–128.

31. McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16–25. CrossRef

32. McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. The Speech Teacher, 23(1), 26–33. CrossRef

33. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Understanding the audience: Students' communication traits. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication (s. 51–66). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

34. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). The role of communication in instruction: The first three decades. In B. Mae Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrel, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes. Advances through meta-analysis (s. 15–28). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

35. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. CrossRef

36. Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163. CrossRef

37. Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258. CrossRef

38. Mottet, T. P, Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of instructional communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

39. Mottet, T. P. et al. (2008). Instructional communication predictors of ninth-grade students' affective learning in math and science. Communication Education, 57(3), 333–355. CrossRef

40. Murray, H. G. (1983). Low-inference classroom teaching behaviours and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 138–149. CrossRef

41. Myers, S. A. (2010). Instructional communication. The emergence of a field. In D. L. Fasset & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (s. 149–159). Los Angeles: Sage.

42. Myers, S. A., & Martin, M. M. (2006). Understanding the source: Teacher credibility and aggresive communication traits. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication (s. 67–88). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

43. Panayiotou, A. et al. (2014). Teacher behavior and student outcomes: Results of a European study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 73–93. CrossRef

44. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590.

45. Richmond, V. P., & Hickson, M. (2001). Going public: A practical guide to public talk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

46. Rodger, S., Murray, H. G., & Cummings, A. L. (2007). Effects of teacher clarity and student anxiety on student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 91–104. CrossRef

47. Slavík, J., & Janík, T. (2012). Kvalita výuky: obsahově zaměřený přístup ke studiu procesů vyučování a učení. Pedagogika, 61(3), 262–286.

48. Šalamounová, Z. (2014). (Re)konstruování školního vědeckého slovníku. Studia paedagogica 19(1), 9–42. CrossRef

49. Šeďová, K., & Švaříček, R. (2010). Angažovanost žáků ve výukové komunikaci na druhém stupni základní školy. Pedagogická orientace, 20(3), 24–48.

50. Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., Sedláček, M., & Šalamounová, Z. (2014). On the way to dialogic teaching: Action research as a means to change classroom discourse. Studia paedagogica 19(4), 9–43. CrossRef

51. Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., & Šalamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve školní třídě. Praha: Portál.

52. Štech, S. (2011). PISA – nástroj vzdělávací politiky nebo výzkumná metoda? Orbis scholae, 5(1), 123–133.

53. Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46(1), 1–9. CrossRef

54. Titsworth, S., & Mazer, J. P. (2010). Clarity in teaching and learning: Conundrums, consequences, and opportunities. In D. L. Fasset & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (s. 241–262). Los Angeles: Sage.

55. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs 71, 149–154. CrossRef

56. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 6–24. CrossRef

57. Zhang, Q., & Huang, B. (2008). How does teacher clarity affect student learning? A multi-cultural test for the mediated effect. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33(1), 10–19.

58. Zlatníček, P., & Pešková, K. (2012). Vývoj nástroje pro posuzování vybraných komponent a charakteristik kvality výuky: aplikace v oblasti cizího jazyka. Orbis Scholae, 6(3), 57–76.

Creative Commons License
Komunikace ve školní třídě a žákovské učení is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

230 x 157 mm
vychází: 3 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 150 Kč
ISSN: 1802-4637
E-ISSN: 2336-3177

Ke stažení