|
|
|
AUTHOR(S): Valentina Mihaela Ghinea, Shahrazad Hadad, Alina Mihaela Dima
|
|
TITLE Is Delivering the Discourse a Determinant Factor for Student Engagement? |
 PDF |
|
ABSTRACT Professor – student communication is one of the most important aspects of the teaching process. For the effectiveness of the teaching process, efforts should be carried out by both of the parties involved, by fulfilling the following two conditions: on the one hand professors should share knowledge with their students, and on the other hand the students should assimilate the lessons and internalize it. Thus, we posit that delivering the discourse plays a special role in triggering students’ attention and engagement. As proven by the research in the field, the direct structuring of the message is more appropriate when a positive reaction is expected from the interlocutor, while its indirect structuring is more likely to be used in the case of a skeptical audience or of an audience that may be reluctant to the message conveyed. In order to find out which is the most appropriate way of structuring the message when addressing Romanian students, we resorted to three experiments, each of them conducted on a sample of 30 students from the same university. The first experiment used a direct psychological structure of an unpopular message, the second experiment used an indirect psychological structure of the message, whereas the last experiment used a direct psychological structured message reinforced by an item of psychological manipulation. The results of our experiments showed the Romanian students’ propensity for the direct message, contrary to the expectations fueled by the specialists in the field. Apparently, the Romanian young audience involved in the experiments is not so receptive to indirect messages, especially to the ones starting with buffers, hence, we can use these findings for improving the teaching - evaluation processes, in particular, and students’ engagement, in general. |
|
KEYWORDS delivering discourse, direct message, indirect message, students’ engagement, consistency principle, authority principle, manipulation |
|
REFERENCES [1] Bălănică, S., Business communication, ASE Publishing House, Bucharest, 2003. [2] Bovee, C., Thill J., Business communication today, Pearson, 2008. [3] Chiriacescu, A., Interhuman communication, business communication, negotiation, ASE Publishing House, Bucharest, 2003. [4] Cialdini, R., Psychology of manipulation, EuroPress Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001. [5] Constantinescu-Ștefănel, R., Business intercultural communication, ASE Publishing House, Bucharest, 2010. [6] Davidson, J., Fighting Information Overload, Office Solutions, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2006. [7] Dosher, B.A., Russo, J.E., Memory for internally generated stimuli, Journal for Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1976, pp. 633-640. [8] Ghinea, M.V., Hadad, S., Shaffer, K, and Ghinea. M., Brain Dominance and Its Consequences over the Student-Professor Relationship, In Proceedings of Latest advances in educational technologies Conference; 11th, Latest advances in educational technologies, 2012, pp. 17-22. [9] Huber, J., McCann, J., The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, 1982, pp. 324-333. [10] Korzybski, A., Science and sanity. An introduction to non-aristotelian systems and general semantics, 1933, online book retrieved at http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfredkorzybski/. [11] Larousse, Dictionary of Sociology, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 1996. [12] McLean, S., Business Communication for Success, Flat World Knowledge L.L.C., 2010. [13] Mehrabian, A., Communication Without Words, Psychology Today, September 1968. [14] Osman, M., An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol.11, 2004, pp. 988-1010. [15] Popescu, D., Dolle, M., d’Eyrames, S., Chivu I., Business communication and negotiation, Economica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001. [16] Roebuck, D.B., Improving Business Communication Skills, 4th edition New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. [17] Sloman, S.A., The empirical case for two systems of reasoning, Psychological Bulletin Vol. 119, No. 1, 1996, pp. 3-22. |
|
Cite this paper Valentina Mihaela Ghinea, Shahrazad Hadad, Alina Mihaela Dima. (2016) Is Delivering the Discourse a Determinant Factor for Student Engagement?. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 1, 191-196 |
|
|
