Perceived teacher confirmation.
The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning
Article first published online: 10 JAN 2006
Human Communication Research
Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 264–291, April 2000
How to Cite
Ellis, K. (2000), Perceived teacher confirmation. Human Communication Research, 26: 264–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00758.x
- Issue published online: 10 JAN 2006
- Article first published online: 10 JAN 2006
This article reports an initial attempt to operationalize perceived teacher confirmation in behavioral terms and to explore relationships among perceived teacher confirmation, cognitive learning, and affective learning. Results for 2 samples (N=446; N=303) indicate that the final 16-item version of the Teacher Confirmation Scale (TCS) is valid and reliable. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that teacher confirmation is best represented by a 3-factor solution: (a) teachers' response to students' questions-comments, (b) demonstrated interest in students and in their learning, and teaching style. Results also indicate that teacher confirmation plays a significant role in college students' cognitive and affective learning. For Sample 1, confirmation uniquely explained 18% of the variance in cognitive learning and 30% of the variance in affective learning, after controlling for demographic variables and relevance of assignments. For Sample 2, confirmation uniquely explained 17% of the variance in cognitive learning and 31% of the variance in affective learning, after controlling for the same variables. Structural equation modeling revealed strong, significant paths between confirmation and affective learning and between affective and cognitive learning. The study revealed a large, significant, indirect effect of teacher confirmation on cognitive learning, suggesting that affective learning serves as a mediating variable between teacher confirmation and cognitive learning. A multiple groups comparison demonstrated that the structural model was invariant for the 2 samples.