Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundational aspects of classroom relations: associations between teachers’ immediacy behaviours, classroom democracy, class identification and learning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focused on foundational aspects of classroom relations. Specifically, relationships between teachers’ immediacy (interpersonal) behaviours, classroom democracy, identification and learning were considered. Previous work suggests that these variables can be used as a foundation to shape classroom climate, culture and learning outcomes and, by extension, assist educational institutions to achieve their civic mission. This study examined classroom democracy and class identification as variables that mediate the relationship between immediacy behaviours and learning using data collected from 529 students in six institutions of higher learning in Rwanda. Structural equation modeling revealed that classroom democracy mediates the relationship between immediacy behaviours and that classroom democracy and class identification covary substantially. The significant relationships in the final structural model suggest that immediate teachers are likely to have a positive influence on perceptions of classroom democracy, class identification and learning. Based on the growing scholarship of instructional dissent, this study highlights the foundational and strategic aspects underlying these relationships within the context of relating in the classroom and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguado, T., Ballesteros, B., & Malik, B. (2003). Cultural diversity and school equity: A model to evaluate and develop educational practices in multicultural education contexts. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(1), 50–63. doi:10.1080/10665680303500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, J. M., Ala’i, K. G., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Relationships between school climate and adolescent students’ self-reports of ethnic and moral identity. Learning Environments Research, 19, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9199-9-&gt.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M., Witt, R. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 98–120). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. L., & Cuoto, R. A. (1996). Introduction. In T. L. Becker & R. A. Cuoto (Eds.), Teaching democracy by being democratic (pp. 1–22). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragg, S., & Manchester, H. (2011). Creativity, school ethos and the creative partnerships programme. Newcastle, Australia: Creativity, Culture and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckner, M. M., & Frisby, B. N. (2015). Feeling valued matters: An examination of instructor confirmation and instructional dissent. Communication Studies, 66(3), 398–413. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1024873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82–90. doi:10.1080/03634529809379112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292–306. doi:10.1080/03634529509379020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coultas, V. (2015). Revisiting debates on oracy: Classroom talk—moving towards a democratic pedagogy? Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 22(1), 72–86. doi:10.1080/1358684X.2014.992205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, G. A. (2000). Collective form: An exploration of large-group writing. The Journal of Business Communication, 37(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBlase, G. L. (2003). Missing stories, missing lives: Urban girls (re)constructing race and gender in the literacy classroom. Urban Education, 38, 279–329. doi:10.1177/0042085903038003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1960). Theory of the moral life. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreikurs, R., & Cassel, P. (1972). Education without tears. New York: Hawthorn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, M. (1999). Positioned neutrality: Mathematics teachers and the cultural politics of their classrooms. Educational Review, 51, 117–128. doi:10.1080/00131919997560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C., & Harwood, J. (2003). Social identity in the classroom: An examination of age identification between students and instructors. Communication Education, 52, 60–66. doi:10.1080/03634520302463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C., & Shepherd, G. (2004). Education as communication: The pragmatist tradition. The Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M. (2012). Social networking, learning, and civic engagement: New relationships between professors and students, public administrators and citizens. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 449–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M., Blaszak, E. N., Buettner, S. L., Morrissette, B. A., & Redden, R. J. (2009). Improving quality and creating democracy in the classroom? Using student management teams. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31, 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. (1999). The class as case: “Reinventing” the classroom. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 482–502. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3%3C482::AID-PAM11%3E3.0.CO;2-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & O’Conner, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. L., & Khine, M. S. (Eds.). (2006). Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: Worldviews. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, K. E., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2015). Relational uncertainty, self-other inclusion, and communication satisfaction as predictors of friendship relational maintenance, and how equity changes the story. Communication Studies, 66(3), 321–340. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1018444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1240). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Herder and Herder.

  • Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41, 454–465. doi:10.1080/01463379309369905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/03634520009379209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Hauser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodboy, A. K. (2012). Sex differences in instructional dissent. Psychological Reports, 111, 189–195. doi:10.2466/11.07.16.PR0.111.4.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects on student communication behavior and traditional learning outcomes. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 204–219. doi:10.1080/10570310902856089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153–179. doi:10.1080/03634520701787777. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorard, S. (2010). Serious doubts about school effectiveness. British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 745–766. doi:10.1080/01411920903144251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. doi:10.1080/03634528809378702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–62. doi:10.1080/03634529009378786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269–287. doi:10.1080/03634529009378786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification. Small Group Research, 30, 558–582. doi:10.1177/104649649903000504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horenczyk, G., & Tatar, M. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes toward multiculturalism and their perceptions of the school organizational culture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 435–445. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02),00008-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosek, A. M. (2015). The intergroup perspective in the classroom: An examination of group-based categorization and relational outcomes between students and teachers. Communication Research Reports, 32, 185–190. doi:10.1080/08824096.2015.1016146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, I. A., Dahbany, A., Blum, M., Weiler, E., Brooks-Klien, V., & Pokalo, M. (1997). School discipline and school violence: The teacher variance approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (2000). Dangerous schools and what you can do about them. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 488–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K. K. (1999). Training teachers to use verbal immediacy. Communication Research Reports, 16, 223–232. doi:10.1080/08824099909388721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K. K. (2002). Increasing teaching effectiveness through verbal immediacy. Communication Teacher, 17(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, W. L., & Darling, A. L. (1990). Problems of understanding in classrooms: Students’ use of clarifying tactics. Communication Education, 39, 15–29. doi:10.1080/03634529009378784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, T. (2001). Longitudinal development of educational theory: Democracy and the classroom. Journal of Educational Policy, 16, 249–263. doi:10.1080/02680930110041384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1991). Inter-group relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBelle, S., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2013). Instructional dissent in the college classroom: Using the instructional beliefs model as a framework. Communication Education, 62, 169–190. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.759243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2010). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 3–16. doi:10.1177/1094428110391673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 546–559. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, J. P. (2013). Student emotional and cognitive interest as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student engagement: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Communication Education, 62(3), 253–277. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.777752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. J. (2004). The potential for civic learning in higher education: Teaching democracy by being democratic. Southern Communication Journal, 69(3), 188–205. doi:10.1080/10417940409373292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments, 1, 213–217. doi:10.3758/BF03208096.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31–40. doi:10.1080/03634529909379150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. C. (2004). Organizational discourse and citizenship: A special issue introduction. Southern Communication Journal, 69(3), 183–187. doi:10.1080/10417940409373291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeau, A. M., & Blalock, J. (2009). Student evaluations of instructor immediacy and sexually harassing behaviors: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(3), 256–272. doi:10.1080/00909889409365401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. A. (2004). Deliberative civic education and civil society: A consideration of ideals and actualities in democracy and communication education. Communication Education, 53, 74–91. doi:10.1080/0363452032000135788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plax, T., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43–55. doi:10.1080/03634528609388318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asympototic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudduck, J., & Fielding, M. (2006). Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educational Review, 58(2), 219–231. doi:10.1080/00131910600584207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J., & Wiseman, R. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341–353. doi:10.1080/03634529009378814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2007). Communication processes that mediate family communication patterns and mental well-being: A mean and covariance structures analysis of young adults from divorced and non-divorced families. Human Communication Research, 33, 330–356. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00302.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. (1993). Strategies that create a positive classroom climate. Clearing House, 67, 91–97. doi:10.1080/00098655.1993.9956031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom. Communication Education, 59, 165–184. doi:10.1080/03634520903390867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solansky, S. T. (2011). Team identification: A determining factor for performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 247–258. doi:10.1108/02683941111112677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titsworth, B. S. (2001). Immediate and delayed effects of interest cues and engagement cues on students’ affective learning. Communication Studies, 52, 169–180. doi:10.1080/10510970109388552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titsworth, B. S., & Smith, A. (2005). Relating and organizing in the classroom: How communication affects classroom ethos. In Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, San Antonio, TX.

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(8), 715–727. doi:10.2307/30040663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas, L. (Ed.). (2002). Women faculty of color in the white classroom: Narratives on the pedagogical implications of teacher diversity. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 973–993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 327–342. doi:10.1080/03634520109379259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, P. W., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., & Castelluccio, A. (2011). A cross-cultural investigation of student resistance in college classrooms: The effects of teacher misbehaviors and credibility. Communication Quarterly, 59, 450–464. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.597287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701, USA

    Jean Claude Kwitonda

Authors
  1. Jean Claude Kwitonda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Claude Kwitonda.

Appendix: Items used in the questionnaire

Appendix: Items used in the questionnaire

Note: All items are responded to with a five-point Never/Always scale.

Learning indicators

1. I see the relationship of the course content from one day to the next throughout the semester

2. I see the connections between the content in this class with the content in other classes

3. I ask questions to find out what others in class think about the content

4. I actively participate in class discussion

5. I like to talk about what I’m doing in this class with friends and family

6. I meet my instructor in her/his office

7. I explain course content to other students

8. I volunteer my opinion in class

9. I helped my instructor with his/her project outside of class

10. I challenge points made by my instructor in class

11. I openly disagree with my instructor on content in class

12. I see improvement in my performance on assignments in this class

13. I think about the course content outside of class

Class identification

1. I would prefer to be in a different classa

2. Members of that class like one another

3. I enjoy interacting with the members of the class

4. I don’t like many of the other people in that classa

5. In that class, members don’t have to depend on one anothera

6. All class members need to contribute to achieve the class’s goals

7. The class as whole accomplished things that no single member could achieve

8. In this class members do not need to cooperate to complete group tasksa

9. As a student I think of this class as part of who I am

10. As a student, I see myself as quite different from other members of the classa

11. As a student, I don’t think of that class as part of who I ama

12. As a student, I see myself as quite similar to other members of the class

Verbal immediacy

In that class, the instructor:

1. Asks questions or encourages students to talk

2. Asks how students feel about the class (assignment, due date or discussion topics)

3. Praises students’ work, actions or comments.

4. Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions

5. Refers to class as ‘our’ class or what ‘we’ are doing

6. Addresses students by name

7. Invites students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something

8. Uses humor in class

9. Provides feedback on my individual work through comments on papers, oral discussions, etc

10. Gets into discussions based on something a student brings up even when this doesn’t seem to be part of his/her lecture plan

11. Gets into conversations with individual students before or after class

12. Refers to class as ‘my’ class or what ‘I’ am doinga

Non-verbal immediacy

In that class, the instructor:

1. Smiles at the class while talking

2. Uses monotone/dull voice when talking to the class

3. Smiles at individual students in the class

4. Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class

5. Uses a variety of vocal expressions when talking to the class

6. Stands behind the podium or desk while teaching

7. Looks at board or notes while talking

8. Moves around the classroom while teaching

9. Gestures while talking

10. Sits on a table or chair while talking

11. Smiles at individual students in the class

Classroom democracy

1. The teacher is concerned with discipline

2. The teacher has confidence in the class

3. Class members get chances to take some responsibility

4. In class discussions a student opinion is respected

5. The teacher’s tone of voice is bossy (she/he talks authoritatively, like a boss)a

6. Everyone gets a chance to talk

7. Most members are interested in class activities and problems

8. The teacher makes the decisions for the groupa

9. One or two members of the class take over the discussion in the classa

10. The teacher does things against the will of the classa

11. Did you have the feeling that you would like to get out the class?a

12. The teacher permits us to cooperate with our friends

13. The teacher tries to control rather than guide our activities

14. The teacher tries to have everyone take part in class activities

15. Most students are interested in class discussions and seem to enjoy them

16. The teacher’s feelings about many problems are the same as ours

17. The class is expected to agree with the teachera

18. We express our opinions

19. The teacher seems to enjoy new ideas

  1. aReverse-scored item

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwitonda, J.C. Foundational aspects of classroom relations: associations between teachers’ immediacy behaviours, classroom democracy, class identification and learning. Learning Environ Res 20, 383–401 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9231-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9231-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation