Teacher‐student communication patterns

Miller, John J.; Hylton, Cal

doi:10.1080/10570317409373823

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Anecdotes on teacher-student communication in general (Du & He, 2007;Tatkovic et al, 2006;Miller & Hylton, 1974).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Semi-Social Media Platform for Teacher-Student Communication: MyU vs. WhatsApp and E-mail

Al Juwaiser

2024

AIJMSCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the era of digital communication, online communication has become an integral part of the teacher-student relationship. With the increasing use of online platforms, such as e-mail and instant messaging, teacher-student communication has shifted from traditional face-to-face interactions to a more virtual setting. This paper’s main objective is to identify the effectiveness of communication between university students and faculty members through the MyU application, compared with WhatsApp and e-mail. A sequential mixed-methods approach is adopted through qualitative semi-structured interviews (3 participants) and one focus group (5 participants), followed by a quantitative tool, an e-questionnaire filled by 365 university students who use MyU in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) 70% have been using MyU for 1 to 4 years, 50% of which are students at Kuwait University; (2) 87% believe that one of the advantages of MyU is the ability to join the academic section group; (3) 67% stated that if they had to choose between using MyU and using WhatsApp to communicate with their teachers, they would choose MyU, compared to 92% who stated that if they had to choose between using MyU and using e-mail to communicate with their teachers, they would choose MyU; (4) 84% hope that all students and faculty members get to know about MyU; (5) there is a statistical relationship between the length of using MyU and the knowledge of MyU features, namely: choosing a profile picture, recording voice messages, blocking users, and the option of knowing if a message was read (in private chats). In conclusion, this work has broadened the scope of research on social media as a new means of teacher-student communication. Future studies should consider teachers’ experiences with MyU compared to other platforms and means of communication with students. Keywords: social media, teacher-student communication, MyU application, educational technologies, Saudi Arabia.

show abstract

“…• Anecdotes on teacher-student communication in general (Du & He, 2007;Tatkovic et al, 2006;Miller & Hylton, 1974).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Semi-Social Media Platform for Teacher-Student Communication: MyU vs. WhatsApp and E-mail

Al Juwaiser

2024

AIJMSCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Heyns and Zander (1965) have also argued that it is often theoretically important to use context as a frame of reference in making inferences. Context may refer to the setting of the interaction (e.g., classrooms, Miller and Hylton, 1974; medical settings, Hawes and Foley, 1973; therapeutic settings, Yalom, 1975;organizations, Goldhaber, 1974: 209-239) the type and purpose of the group (e.g., discussion groups, Hare, 1976: 405; task groups, Stech, 1970; consciousness-raising groups, Drecksel and Fisher, 1977;Ellis, 1976; T-groups, Fisher and Werbel, 1978; creativity groups, Gordon, 1961) the types of individuals forming the groups (e.g., marital pairs, Parks et al, 1975; families, peers, Lumsden et al, 1974) the number of individuals observed (e.g., dyad, small group, large group the group member characteristics (e.g., sex, age, personality, status) the type of subject matter discussed (e.g., real or fictional tasks, topics)…”

Section: Observer Inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Taxonomy of Small Group Interaction-Coding Systems

Trujillo

1986

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an exploratory taxonomy of small group interaction-coding systems. Six dimensions that characterize interaction-coding schemes are presented in a hierarchical order rangingfrom abstract conceptual issues to specific methodological ones. Recommendations for future research are offered.Although more than three decades old (Bales, 1950), interaction analysis is one of the most popular methods employed in contemporary small group research. The method has enjoyed widespread use in recent years due to the impetus provided by the &dquo;pragmatic perspective&dquo; with its focus on the behavioral aspects of communication (Watzlawick et al., 1967). In fact, according to the metatheoretical framework that underlies the pragmatic perspective, communication is behavior. Accordingly, the method of interaction analysis is employed to provide an assessment of communication behaviors.The worth of any study employing interaction analysis is, of course, dependent upon the coding system used to describe the communication behaviors. Coding schemes are translation devices that allow researchers to assign behaviors into functional categories. And, as Fisher (1978) has noted, those categories are the variables or concepts of the research. As units of interaction are classified and placed within categories, they are SMALL GROUP

show abstract

“…Three studies dealt specifically with communication skills needed by businesspersons. Surveys were conducted of recent college graduates in business, 14 ' chief executive officers of business companies, 150 and first-line managers of manufacturing firms. 151 Seven studies identified communication skills important for various target persons or courses.…”

Section: Speech Criticism and Student Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%