Teacher immediacy, classroom social climate, and learner engagement: A multilevel study of speaking participation in Jordanian EFL classrooms
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to test a multilevel explanatory model linking teacher immediacy to learners’ speaking participation in Jordanian English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) classrooms through classroom social climate and learner engagement. Although teacher immediacy has been repeatedly associated with positive affective and cognitive outcomes, most language-learning studies still analyze immediacy and engagement at a single level, overlooking the nested nature of classroom life (students within classes and schools) and the possibility that teacher behaviors shape not only individuals but also shared classroom climates. We propose and operationalize an innovative mixed-method measurement strategy for speaking participation that combines (a) student-reported engagement and climate perceptions with (b) behavioral speaking indicators extracted from classroom audio using a semi-automated pipeline, validated by human coders. Data are modeled using multilevel (hierarchical) regression and a cross-level mediation logic in which teacher immediacy (class level) predicts classroom social climate (class level), which predicts learner engagement (student level), which in turn predicts speaking participation. The paper contributes to both instructional communication and applied linguistics by (i) treating speaking participation as an observable behavioral outcome rather than an attitudinal proxy, (ii) separating within-class from between-class engagement effects, and (iii) offering a reproducible analysis workflow and reporting template that anticipates common reviewer concerns about causality, measurement validity, and clustering. Illustrative analyses (using a synthetic dataset to demonstrate reporting) show that higher teacher immediacy is associated with more supportive classroom climates, higher engagement, and higher rates of voluntary speaking turns. Practical implications include evidence-informed immediacy micro-skills for EFL teachers and climate-building routines that reduce anxiety and increase learners’ willingness to speak.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1979.11923782
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312443651
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009932514731
Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, USA.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
Hu, L., & Wang, Y. (2023). The predicting role of EFL teachers’ immediacy behaviors in students’ willingness to communicate and academic engagement. BMC Psychology, 11, 318. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01378-x
Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000304
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00576.x
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self and other perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Sage.
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000311
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(2), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/036452042000228054
Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.014
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128
Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197264