Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nonverbal Communication in Teaching: Howard A. Smith
Nonverbal Communication in Teaching: Howard A. Smith
During the past 15 years, an increasing amount of research has examined the
influence of the nonverbal domain on interpersonal communication. Most of this
work has been done by anthropologists, communication theorists, and psychologists,
and usually the results have been of most immediate interest to those particular
disciplines. Increasingly, however, the role of nonverbal communication has also
been examined for its significance within educational settings. The main aims of this
review are to present the major topics of previous research in the nonverbal domain,
to examine studies of nonverbal communication in the classroom, and to outline
promising strategies and tactics for future educational research in nonverbal com-
munication.
The review will be conducted with several restrictions in mind. First, the literature
to be surveyed will place particular emphasis on nonverbal communication in
classroom studies of children from kindergarten to grade 13. On occasion, research
at the prekindergarten and postsecondary levels will be included when fairly direct
implications follow for the elementary or secondary school settings.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this project which was provided by the
Queen's University Advisory Research Committee and the Queen's Faculty of Education. I
thank Dean Arthur Coladarci for sponsoring my stay at the Stanford University School of
Education, where this work was conducted.
631
HOWARD A. SMITH
Second, the review will focus on "normal" subjects in relatively "normal" situa-
tions. Accordingly, the vast bodies of literature on nonverbal communication in each
of the following areas will not be considered here: (a) autistic or schizophrenic
subjects, (b) special education settings, (c) counseling or psychoanalytic situations,
and (d) theatrical or dramatic techniques.
Some of the topics to be examined in varying detail are cultural differences, use of
physical and personal space, body motion and gestures, use of face and eyes, vocal
qualitites, and physical characteristics. Pertinent references will be drawn from the
disciplines of anthropology, communication, psychology, and sociology as well as
from education. Some attention will be given to the currently predominant educa-
tional research paradigm and how that paradigm can be related to the study of
nonverbal communication in teaching. Finally, some mention will be made of the
technological and statistical considerations which may help guide future research in
the area.
632
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
633
HOWARD A. SMITH
As used in this review, the word communication is more comprehensive than both
language and talk and may be applied to both verbal and nonverbal domains.
While Montagu's statement serves to clarify part of the semantic argument, it also
raises and leaves unanswered several other critical points: Must communication be
a conscious process conducted in the full awareness of both sender and receiver and,
634
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
A viewpoint contrary to that of Wiener et al. was assumed by Koch (1971a) who
stated that "neither the sender nor the receiver needs to understand the message, or
even be aware of it, in order for it to be called language [used interchangeably with
communication]. Nonverbal messages abound, and we 'read' a lot of them without
being aware of doing so" (p. 288). Nolan (1975) similarly played down the role of
635
HOWARD A. SMITH
Accordingly, this review will use the word communication to describe the process
by which the recipient of an act or message, whether sent deliberately or not, derives
636
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
meaning which in some way affects his or her subsequent internal or external
behavior. The terms behavior and information will be seen as synonymous with
communication insofar as practical implications are concerned.
In a somewhat similar manner, the meaning of "nonverbal" could be discussed at
some length, although there seems to be more general agreement about its terms of
reference. In this review, the word nonverbal will be used to specify all those elements
of a communication which are not essentially linguistic in nature.
Even though the total impact of most messages depends on both verbal, or
linguistic, and nonverbal aspects, the intent of this report is to isolate the nonverbal
elements of communication as much as possible and to examine those elements in
some detail. Given the broad definitions of the words nonverbal and communication
which have been accepted here, the combined term nonverbal communication will
be used to touch a wide variety of studies within the guidelines established previously.
637
HOWARD A. SMITH
& Friesen, 1975; Exline, 1971, Ford, 1975), paralanguage (e.g., Starkweather, 1961),
and cultural differences (e.g., Ford, 1975; Morsbach, 1973; H. M. Taylor, 1975).
A range of more specific topics has also been studied: verbal-nonverbal incongruity
(Beier, 1974), the role of clothes (Fowles, 1974), silence (Jensen, 1973), deception
(Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1973), nonverbal persuasion (Merriam, 1975), extrasensory
perception (Schneider, 1971), developmental issues (Abecassis, 1975-1976; Dittman,
1972), time (Baxter & Ward, 1973; Hall, 1966, 1976), and tests of nonverbal awareness
(e.g., Buck, 1976; Leathers, 1976; Rosenthal, Archer, DiMatteo, Koivumaki, &
Rogers, 1974).
Extensive bibliographies have been prepared (cf., Davis, 1972; Thornton, 1972),
and several journals such as the Journal of Communication, Semiotica, and Environ-
mental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior have carried many relevant articles for
the student of nonverbal behavior. Occasionally, special issues such as the December
1972 issue of the Journal of Communication are devoted exclusively to topics in
nonverbal communication.
No attempt will be made here to review the plethora of findings from the general
areas of nonverbal communication. That task has already been conducted admirably
by many of the authors listed above. Rather, the intent is to list several category
systems used to classify nonverbal research and then to review only those studies
with fairly direct implications for educational practice.
638
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
classified references under the following six headings: (a) body motion or kinesic
behavior, (b) paralanguage, (c) proxemics, (d) olfaction, (e) skin sensitivity, and (f)
use of artifacts.
Harrison (1973, 1974) chose to categorize nonverbal "codes" into four divisions
based primarily on how the code elements are produced: (a) performance codes,
which are produced with the body, (b) artifactual codes, which involve the manipu-
lation of objects such as clothing and furniture, (c) mediatory codes, which involve
the media, and (d) contextual or spatiotemporal codes, which are concerned primarily
with the use of space and time. Harrison also specified the different modalities, codes,
and functions which characterize various nonverbal "signs," while Harrison and
Crouch (1975) made a distinction between messages of relationship, of which many
are passed nonverbally, and messages of content, of which a majority are probably
verbal in nature.
Yet another classification system was described by Wiemann and Wiemann (1975)
who listed categories in order from minimal overt impact on the production and
interpretation of verbal messages to maximum overt impact: (a) the environment
and personal space, (b) body movement and orientation, (c) the face and eyes, and
(d) nonlanguage vocal behavior.
In his recent text, Leathers (1976) perceived four major communication systems,
of which the verbal system was one. The three remaining communication systems
were essentially nonverbal in nature and consisted, in turn, of major subsystems: (a)
the visual communication system, composed of kinesic, proxemic, and artifactual
subsystems, (b) the auditory or vocalic communication system, and (c) the invisible
communication system, composed of tactile, olfactory, and telepathic subsystems.
The final plan of classification to be considered here was described by Knapp
(1978) who presented seven major categories: (a) environmental factors, consisting of
elements impinging on the human relationship but not directly a part of it, such as
furniture, architectural style, lighting, smells, colors, temperature, other noises, and
traces of previous action; (b) proxemics, defined as the use and perception of one's
social and personal space, such as in seating and spatial arrangements, territoriality,
and conversational distance and orientation; (c) kinesics, described as body motions
which include gestures, gross body movements, facial and eye behavior, posture, and
movements of other body parts; (d) touching behavior, consisting of physical contact
such as touching, stroking, hitting, greetings and farewells, holding, and guiding
another's movements; (e) physical characteristics, comprising personal characteristics
which are not movement bound such as physique, general attractiveness, body or
breath odors, height, weight, and hair and skin color; (0 paralanguage, consisting of
nonverbal vocal cues surrounding speech, such as voice pitch, volume, tempo and
intensity, silent pauses, intruding sounds, and speech errors; and (g) artifacts, which
are manipulated objects in contact with the interacting persons, such as perfume,
clothes, lipstick, hair pieces, eyeglasses, and miscellaneous beauty aids.
In this report, the categories described by Knapp (1978) will be used to classify
educational research on nonverbal processes. There are two practical reasons for
choosing this system over the others described here. First, most of the relevant work
can be identified readily with at least one of the seven categories and, second, the
number of categories is large enough to make some basic distinctions among research
emphases and is small enough to avoid severely fragmenting the area.
639
HOWARD A. SMITH
640
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
Environmental Factors
Although the environmental influences on a given communication are not inde-
pendent of proxemics for practical purposes, a useful conceptual distinction may be
made between the physical attributes of a setting and the subsequent use made of
that setting. The studies reviewed in this section will be concerned with the former
dimension of nonverbal communication.
A few investigations have been made of the effects which the design of an entire
physical plant, in this case the school, has on the subsequent behavior and attitudes
of personnel exposed to that setting (e.g., Hereford & Hecker, 1963; Myrick & Marx,
1968; Smith & Keith, 1967). For example, Hereford and Hecker (1963) used 34
secondary schools to examine the influence that four factors of building design (size,
design, utilization, and type) had on the attitude formation of school personnel
concerning themselves, others, the school, and the school's architecture. One major
premise of the study was that the type of interpersonal interaction was a key to
attitude formation. The authors found no firm evidence that building plan in and of
itself is a major influence on attitude, although various less dominant effects were
detected. School size was determined to be the single dominant factor with respect to
interaction and attitudes of school personnel: smaller schools with about 300 to 450
students per grade seemed to offer a greater degree of integratedness and fewer
personnel problems in the school as a whole. (The size range of schools sampled
varied from 100 to 750 students per grade.) However, the influence of school size on
interaction and attitudes could be modified by particular combinations of design and
utilization elements within the school. In this respect, Hereford and Hecker discov-
ered that the "school-within-school" plan appeared to promote desired interaction
patterns and attitude formation.
Similar influences of high school design on student behavior were found by Myrick
and Marx (1968) who examined the quantity and quality of informal student
conversations in schools with different floor designs. Myrick and Marx found that
the design of a school building affects the size of student groups which can assemble,
and that group size in turn affects the content of student conversations. It seemed
that central layouts promoted the formation of larger groups which conducted
conversations less in keeping with the goals of the school administration. However,
extended or "isolating" layouts forced the students to spend more time traveling from
one class to the next, with the result that smaller groups were formed and conversa-
tions more in keeping with the goals of the administration were conducted. A
pertinent set of findings was that informal conversation among school personnel
plays an important role in motivation and attitudes, learning, creating cohesion, and
altering the gap between the value system of the "teacher culture" and that of the
"student culture."
Thus, there is some evidence to show that design of the educational plant has an
influence on the behavior of those placed within its confines. Unfortunately, however,
there seems to be little compelling research at this time which relates school design
to teaching behavior and student achievement.
A number of references have drawn attention to the physical attributes of the
individual classroom. Various educators have commented on the general appearance
of the classroom (e.g., Reddick, 1975), prepared detailed specifications for levels of
classroom illumination (Rennhackkamp, 1964), provided plans for the ideally de-
641
HOWARD A. SMITH
signed fifth-grade classroom (Hartman, Kramer, Murtha, Proctor, & Thomson, 1970),
and given numerous suggestions on furniture arrangement in the open-class kinder-
garten (Baron, 1972). While the research base underlying many of these guidelines
has not always been firm, the general feeling has been that various physical attributes
of the classroom environment serve to promote or hinder a number of educational
goals.
In his landmark publication, Sommer (1969) expressed the view that too little
attention had been paid to the effects of classroom design and speculated on how
many students might be doing poorly in school as a result of such inattention. He
continued by stating that teachers must learn how to use the space and facilities
which are available to them to the maximum benefit. In his review, Sommer also
drew a distinction between static forms and dynamic processes in environmental
design:
Many designers reject the idea that the optimal environment, even for the
disabled, has a single static form. Architect Raymond Studer advocates servo-
environmental systems, which respond to changes in behavioral input. He feels
that design problems phrased in terms of buildings, schools, houses, and
neighborhoods obscure dynamic processes that will change over time. James
Marston Fitch has described a school environment that rejects day-long
environmental norms—the "ideal" temperature of 72 degrees, 50 percent
humidity, 60-foot lamberts at desk top, and 45 decibels of sound. A child needs
less heat in the afternoon than in the morning, more oxygen and less humidity
by the end of the day, as well as greater sound levels in the afternoon than in
the morning, (p. 149)
642
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
interact. For this young age group, it seemed that the presence of environmental
supports could promote student interaction and, presumably, positive feelings toward
the school, self, and others. In her study of selected junior high school classrooms,
Loss (1974) found that certain physical nonverbal components of the classrooms
could be recorded reliably and that the physical nonverbal data could provide
satisfactory description of communication events and teaching style. In the university
language laboratory, Moore (1967) discovered that, while students expressed a verbal
preference for study carrels over open.tables as places to work, they actually used the
tables more often. Also, students at the carrels tended to be more easily distracted. A
comparable study at the elementary or high school level could be useful in order to
determine the preferred school work patterns of younger students.
During the past decade, a great deal has been written about the merits of, and the
many ways to use and organize, the open-space classroom when compared to the
traditional classroom setting (cf., Baron, 1972; Hartman et al., 1970; Vandeman,
1976). However, more recent statements concerning the relative lack of advantage
for the open facility (e.g., Rosenshine, Note 1), together with the continued abundance
of standard classrooms, has somewhat tempered the initial enthusiasm to totally
modify the floor space of a school. Currently, emphasis is being placed on showing
teachers how to alter traditional classroom space so as to allow greater flexibility of
use; this instruction is particularly appropriate for teachers in the open areas who
continue to teach as though they were in traditional classrooms.
One recent study (Gauvain, Roper, & Nolan, Note 2) has examined the perceptions
of open-space schools by 47 junior high school students. A significant majority of the
students (87%) reported that they preferred open-space to self-contained classrooms,
but 75% of these same students identified noise as the major problem in their schools.
The noises most often reported were voices from other students and teachers and the
sound track of films being shown elsewhere. Visual distractions most often reported
were seeing the picture from films in adjacent areas and simply seeing other students
and teachers. The noise interfered with testing, reading, hearing, and small group
interactions. One quarter of the student sample suggested that the best way to
improve the open-space facility was to put up walls! Most students also felt that,
although a greater variety of activities was presented in the open-space environment,
teachers put a greater constraint on their activities and exhibited more tension out of
fear of disturbing other classes nearby.
A recent compelling study by Weinstein (1977) has demonstrated the significant
influence on behavior of a change in classroom arrangement. Weinstein used a time-
sampling-by-child observation schedule to determine the types of behavior mani-
fested in a second-third grade open classroom, and the locations in which this
behavior occurred, both before and after altering the classroom furnishings. The data
indicated that three types of behavioral change resulted from this direct intervention:
"First, children's spatial patterns were modified, as students moved into areas of the
room they had previously avoided. Second, the range of behaviors was broadened
within certain locations, and third, the frequency of specific categories of behavior
was altered" (p. 259). Weinstein felt that, following the classroom modifications, the
teacher's instructional goals were being met better and that undesirable behavior by
the students had decreased.
From the studies described here, it is quite clear that the physical environment of
643
HOWARD A. SMITH
the classroom affects the nature of the teaching activity conducted within its confines.
Evidence such as this has led Krasner (1976) to look at the classroom as a total
environment planned mainly by the teacher, and has led Proshansky (1976) to
proclaim the absolute integrity of person/physical-setting events. An additional
pertinent observation by Proshansky goes beyond the purely physical factors which
have been discussed: "Regardless of how focal we make the physical setting in
studying the person's relationships to his or her environment, that setting has a social
definition and purpose" (p. 308). Although social aspects will not be of direct concern
in this review, they should be considered in developing a comprehensive theory of
teaching.
Proxemics
The second nonverbal category to be examined is that of proxemics, usually
defined as a person's use and perception of his or her social and personal space. The
topics to be discussed within this classification are classroom seating and spatial
arrangements, teacher proximity, and the use of space in open and self-contained
teaching facilities.
A pertinent observation concerning classroom seating patterns has been made by
Sommer(1969):
644
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
In addition, Sommer (1965) examined the participation levels in one standard and
one windowless classroom, both of which contained four rows of desks. Even in these
small cramped rooms where latecomers had to sit in the front row immediately
adjacent to the teacher, participation in terms of voluntary contributions per person
per session declined from the front to the back rows: 1.77, 1.23, 1.32, and .95
respectively. No differences in levels of participation were observed between the
conventional and windowless classrooms.
Sommer (1969) has described similar data from several other studies and delineated
an ecology of participation in straight-row classrooms. He indicated that not only
was participation greatest in the front row of desks but also in the center of each row.
A similar finding was reported in a descriptive study conducted by Adams and
Biddle (1970). From their work in 16 elementary and secondary classrooms, Adams
and Biddle discovered that 64% of pupil emitters were located in the first three seats
of the center row and that virtually all pupil emitters were accounted for by including
the front desks on either side of the center. However, Delefes and Jackson (1972)
found that the frequencies of participation in this "action zone" were not as high as
those suggested by Adams and Biddle and that more pupil emissions came from the
right-hand side of the classroom than were reported elsewhere.
In a recent study conducted at the university level, Koneya (1976) asked two major
research questions: (a) Are central positions in row-and-column seating arrangements
selected by individuals who are experimentally categorized as high verbalizers to a
significantly greater extent than by individuals experimentally categorized as low
verbalizers?, and (b) Among persons experimentally designated as equal verbalizers,
do the central physical locations of a row-and-column seating arrangement promote
a high verbal interaction rate from their occupants relative to the interaction rates of
occupants of noncentral positions? Koneya hoped to provide at least a partial answer
to an earlier question raised by Sommer (1969): Do certain students choose particular
classroom areas, or do these areas subsequently affect the students, or are both of
these factors involved?
In his experiment, Koneya found a triangle of participation which extended across
the front row of the classroom and terminated at the middle seat of the middle row.
In response to the first of his research questions, Koneya found that moderate and
low verbalizers avoided central seats to a greater extent than did high verbalizers.
Apparently, some personal preferences affect the choice of seats in the classroom. In
response to his second question, Koneya discovered that both high and moderate
verbalizers exhibited significantly higher rates of verbalization when seated centrally
than when seated noncentrally. However, low verbalizers gave consistently low
verbalization rates no matter where they were placed. The data indicated clearly that
student location within a classroom can be a powerful index of communication.
One other study using undergraduate students (Breed & Colaiuta, 1974) reported
that general nonverbal behavior patterns and test performance did not differ whether
students sat in the front-, middle-, or back-third of the lecture hall. However, because
52 undergraduates were observed in a room with seating for 135 occupants, the
ability to generalize to the much smaller regular classroom may be somewhat limited.
Some differences were recorded between the nonverbal activity of students seated
centrally and those seated peripherally; the former group manifested greater activity,
looked at the instructor more, and wrote more, but also looked around and blinked
more. Breed and Colaiuta discovered that students who changed their seats from one
645
HOWARD A. SMITH
occasion to the next had higher test scores than students who occupied the same seats
constantly. This finding is of some interest in view of Kohl's statement (cited by
Sommer, 1969, p. 117) that students should be free to change their seats from class
to class depending on their personal needs and motivations at the time.
In his more naturalistic study of seating arrangements in sixth-grade classrooms,
Rubin (1973) prepared six different seating configurations for week-long periods of
time: the group concept, circle, teacher among students, horseshoe, random, and
traditional. The various seating arrangements were found to affect student perform-
ance, attitude, and behavior. Generally, low-IQ (as derived from test scores) students
preferred to have the teacher in their midst, whereas high-IQ students preferred the
circle and horseshoe arrangements, which were seen by all students as being "freer."
Discipline was not a dominant theme in any of the arrangements, but students
consistently expressed negative feelings about the traditional classroom seating plan
with its rows and columns of desks. Hence, from the studies examined so far, it seems
that one's location in a classroom can affect one's communication level and that the
arrangement of classroom furniture can influence the various communication pro-
cesses which are constantly occurring between teacher and students.
During the past few years, many educators have emphasized the need to examine,
and have often provided suggestions for, the structuring and use of classroom space
(cf., Howard, 1975; Katz, 1972; Krantz & Risley, 1972; Oregon Consolidated Schools,
1973; Rasmussen, 1958). Most of these suggestions have been based on practical
classroom experience or on extensive observations of classrooms. However, the
subsequent examination of altered teacher behavior or student performance has
usually not been carried out.
Several studies have attempted to examine possible influences of open-space
schools on proxemic behavior. For example, Brody and Zimmerman (1975) found
that children in open classrooms had smaller personal spaces than children in
traditional classes and suggested that personal space was a socially learned phenom-
enon. Results of a second investigation (Feitler, Wiener, & Blumberg, 1970) deter-
mined that teachers with differing interpersonal needs may be more comfortable in
one type of setting than in another. As a result of using Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation (FIRO-B) test scores, Feitler et al. observed that persons with
high-control needs preferred a structured situation with the teacher in a position of
control, while low-control persons opted for a less structured situation with less
obvious teacher control. However, the data used in the study came from a paper-
pencil test and questionnaire and did not include classroom evidence as to whether
the two groups of teachers actually behaved differently from each other and from
setting to setting. Randall, Hamilton, & Lashbrook (1972) observed no differences in
perception of group cohesion among students classified as having either rigid or loose
depictions of territoriality when they met together in small groups for brief periods
of time.
Perry (undated) demonstrated that more controlling behavior was observed in
elementary teachers provided with an inadequate amount of classroom space per
child (less than 30 square feet [2.79 m2]) per child, than in similar teachers with an
adequate amount of space (more than 49 square feet [4.55 m2]). These results led
Perry to suggest that the provision of adequate space was necessary to make teachers
more effective.
Rivlin and Rothenberg (1975) conducted a mapping study to see how space in
646
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
647
HOWARD A. SMITH
affection. As the distance between the teacher and students increased, the teacher
was perceived as being less warm. No significant relationship existed between the use
of space and the teacher's personality as assessed by the Maudsley Personality
Inventory. Finally, teachers were found to use space differently in traditional and
nontraditional classrooms: teachers in the former type of facility changed categories
less often and displayed higher ratio scores of T together with lower ratio scores of
DK, BL, and S.
At the elementary-school level, Norton and Dobson (1976) investigated how
differences in children's race, age, and sex affected their perceptions of some teacher
nonverbal behaviors. Among the findings reported, those of most relevance to the
present discussion on proxemics were that boys seemed to show greater tolerance for
distant or negative teacher behaviors than girls and that boys' perceptions grew
increasingly different from girls' as they grew older.
The use of time, reflected in part by a sense of "rhythm," is related to the use of
space, but has not been systematically investigated for its influence on nonverbal
communication in the classroom. It may be speculated that when the teacher moves
or gestures in a relatively rhythmic manner, then he or she is perceived as being
better or more effective than the teacher whose timing is off (i.e., one who moves
either too quickly or too slowly for the circumstances at hand). Perhaps research now
being done on state-shared rhythms (Byers, 1976, 1977) will help to elucidate some
aspects of this topic.
Another sense of time emerges in more direct connection with curricular demands,
a point mentioned by Galloway (1968): "How teachers use their time indicates the
value and importance they place on something. Indeed spending little time on a topic
or passing by it can indicate no interest or knowledge about the topic. Teachers do
not ordinarily recognize the meanings of their use of time. For instance, students can
frequently relate what a teacher's preferences are and what the teacher dislikes" (p.
12). Empirical research on the use and perceptions of time is clearly warranted.
Kinesics
Kinesics, defined as the study of body motions and movement, posture, and facial
and eye behavior, has been the focus of several studies (e.g., Brooks & Bowers, 1975;
Brooks & Wilson, 1978) and of various suggestions for classroom use (cf., Johnson
& Pancrazio, 1973; Koch, 1971b). Other educators have remarked on the superior
ability of most students to read their teachers' faces and on the importance of the
teacher making eye contact with the class (e.g., Bishop, 1976; Hodge, 1971; Mehra-
bian, 1971). However, nonverbal awareness is not necessarily mutual, since Schusler
(1971) observed that teachers were too often unaware of their students' perceptions
of them on a friendly-unfriendly basis. In addition, teachers considered the students
to be much more homogeneous in terms of preferences than they actually were.
Because physical motions and the meanings assigned to them can vary widely from
culture to culture, an awareness of culturally based kinesic differences has been
considered particularly important for foreign language teachers (cf., Fancy, 1976;
Green, 1971) and for teachers with students from different cultural environments
(Bachmann, 1973; Grove, 1976a, 1976b; H. M. Taylor, 1976; Walz, 1975). In his
outline of proxemic and kinesic differences among cultures, Grove (1976b) stated
that while it was unrealistic to expect teachers to significantly alter their basic cultural
648
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
649
HOWARD A. SMITH
The proxemic and kinesic areas of nonverbal behavior which have just been
presented seem worthy of much more research by virtue of their unceasing presence
in the classroom. Together with the other nonverbal dimensions to be discussed
below, these facets of classroom communication are always occurring whether
teachers realize it or not. According to Birdwhistell (quoted by Dance, 1967b, p.
305), "Nothing never happens" while, in like manner, Galloway (1970) emphasized
that communication occurs by omission as well as by inclusion of overt behavior:
"Something that you don't do can be as significant as something you do" (p. 4).
When dealing with proxemic and kinesic variables, these observations deserve
particular attention.
Touching Behavior
Although the type and amount of touching behavior varies among different
cultural groups, the effects of teacher touch on student behavior seems to have been
isolated in only one study. In her examination of the effects of teachers' touching
650
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
Physical Characteristics
Although many psychological experiments have studied how people perceive
others with varying physiques, general degrees of attractiveness, body odors, height,
weight, and hair or skin color (cf, Knapp, 1978), apparently no educational investi-
gations have been done which relate these factors to teacher effectiveness in the
elementary or secondary classrooms. The influence which these variables may have
on student achievement remains an empirical question.
Paralanguage
Similarly, the effects of paralinguistic variables (i.e., voice volume, pitch, tempo
and intensity, silent pauses, intruding sounds, and speech errors) on classroom
teaching performance have not been investigated so far. In a somewhat related study,
however, Bayes (1970) found that tone of voice was not a reliable index of interper-
sonal warmth. Typically these factors have been seen as accompanying and modify-
ing, rather than substituting for, verbal messages (Barker & Collins, 1970). This
viewpoint would seem to undervalue the communicative significance of the para-
linguistic variables.
One of the less obvious factors of paralanguage is silence, the total absence of a
verbal message. Grobsmith (1973) pointed out that "verbal silence may not be the
equivalent of noncommunication" (p. 3); while Jensen (1973) carried the significance
of silence even further: "Silence can communicate scorn, hostility, coldness, defiance,
sternness, and hate; but it can also communicate respect, kindness, and acceptance"
(p. 252).
The single study involving silence to be reported here (Raymond, 1973) tried to
determine the effectiveness of silence in a microteaching situation. Although student
teachers who had practiced the use of nonverbal cues used them more often during
teaching, and exhibited more positive nonverbal interactions with their students, they
were not perceived by the pupils as being more effective than student teachers lacking
the nonverbal training. However, the period of time used to conduct the investigation
may have been too short to detect potential differences in the use or nonuse of
teacher silence.
Artifacts
The effects of various manipulated objects such as clothes and beauty aids have
been examined in various settings (cf, Knapp, 1978) but apparently have not drawn
the interest of educational researchers. Various observations have been made such as
the one by Fowles (1974): "Our clothes broadcast our sex (usually), our rank
(decreasingly), and our up-to-dateness (increasingly)" (p. 348), but the significance
of this information for teaching is unclear. Cook (1971) has stated, "Studies on the
651
HOWARD A. SMITH
interpretation of facial features, voice, etc., that give only this information, are
probably overestimating their importance. If the judge is given a larger sample of
more relevant information—as would normally be the case—he does not allow the
subject's appearance to influence his judgement" (p. 69). A further examination of
this aspect of teacher nonverbal communication would seem warranted.
As this report has already indicated, research concerned with the various dimen-
sions of nonverbal communication in teaching has produced relatively few firm
conclusions but many promising leads. Usually, the implications for classroom
practice have been derived from studies in other areas or from personal observations
and experiences. These implications have then formed the bases of suggestions and
exercises prepared for preservice or inservice classroom teachers (e.g., Adams, 1976;
Borgers & Ward, undated; French, 1971; Galloway, 1970, 1971b, 1976; Grove, 1976b;
Hodge, 1971; Howard, 1975; Johnson & Pancrazio, 1973; Knapp, 1971; Koch, 1971a,
1971b, 1975; Ostler & Kranz, 1976; Strom & Ray, 1971; H. M. Taylor, 1976;
Wiemann & Wiemann, 1975).
Additional suggestions have been directed at teachers of particular subject areas
such as second-language teaching (Bachmann, 1973; Fancy, 1976; Walz, 1975),
English or language arts (Foerster, 1974; Hennings, 1975; Melnik & Larson, 1976;
Rosen & Pistone, 1976), mathematics (e.g., Mon, 1974), or at teachers assigned to
counseling situations (e.g., Hughey & Piepgrass, 1976). Other authors have written
more extensive training manuals or teaching modules (cf, Amidon, 1971; Hodge,
1974; Ligons, 1973; Love & Roderick, 1971; Shapiro, 1977). Finally, several investi-
gators have attempted to train teachers to interpret or emit various nonverbal
behaviors while teaching (Jecker, Maccoby, & Breitrose, 1965; Pancrazio & Johnson,
1971; A. D. Raymond, 1972; A. F. Raymond, 1973; Strother, Ayres, & Orlich, 1971).
The latter efforts have typically met with only marginal success, usually because of
the very short training and test periods involved or because the nonverbal cues being
taught were not necessarily the most significant ones. It is anticipated that once the
dominant constellations of nonverbal behaviors have been isolated, then focused
training of teachers in these behaviors should produce at least short-term benefits.
This section of the paper has summarized the relevant investigations of classroom
nonverbal behavior under seven particular headings. However, most descriptive
studies have used a variety of other classification systems, the majority of which have
been stimulated by Flanders' interaction analysis model with its focus on direct and
indirect verbal influence. The latter schemes include those developed by Amidon
(1971), French (1970), French and Galloway (1968), Galloway (1968, 1972b, 1976),
Heger (1968), Love and Roderick (1971), and Parker and French (1971). Other
categories have been created by the Roderick group (cf, Roderick, 1973; Roderick
& Littlefield, 1972; Roderick & Vawter, 1972), Grant and Hennings (1971), and
Pancrazio and Johnson (1971).
An alternative method of classification which has been used consists of preparing
extensive lists of nonverbal behaviors which are then placed within more global
nonverbal dimensions. However, these latter designations have tended to vary in
both number and scope. For example, investigations have employed 7 categories
(Victoria, 1970), 13 categories (Loss, 1974), 15 categories (Koch, 1971a), or 20
categories (Keith et al., 1974), each differing from the other in terms of basic frames
of reference.
652
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
The earliest classification models, especially those derived from Flanders' inter-
action analysis model, tended to rely on in vivo classroom observation with recordings
taken every few seconds. More recently, the emphasis has been on videotaping the
classroom encounter and transcribing the data later, a most useful procedure in view
of the permanent public record created by the videotape. Further, most of the first
efforts to collect classroom data were purely descriptive in nature and usually did
reasonably well at capturing various classroom proceedings. However, attempts were
generally not made to assess the effects on students of different types and quantities
of teacher nonverbal behavior. Nevertheless, many of these endeavors brought the
study of nonverbal communication in teaching to the threshold of significant
advances in theory and research.
653
HOWARD A. SMITH
654
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
It might also be noted that a greater degree of behavioral stability may take
place in the natural setting than in the lab, possibly due to the greater
redundancy of relevant cues, both spatially and temporally. If complex behav-
ior is assumed to be both probabilistic and multidimensional, "stripping" the
environment down to a minimum in order to control, to determine the role of
a very few variables, may be a potentially self-defeating process, (p. 268)
655
HOWARD A. SMITH
Snow also expressed the view that the simple experimental design is "perhaps . . .
sufficient for the purposes of summative evaluation studies, but it is not sufficient for
formative evaluation and certainly not for conclusion-oriented research" (p. 269).
Subsequently, he added:
Snow then went on to develop Brunswik's ideas of 20 years ago, together with those
of Campbell and Stanley (1963), by elaborating strategies and techniques for what
he called representative and quasi-representative designs for research on teaching. In
his concluding remarks, Snow observed that "the study of school learning requires
adapting methodology to match the complexity of students and situations in schools,
before the molecular mechanisms of laboratory learning can be traced in the moral
behavior of school learning" (pp. 288-289).
A pertinent observation concerning the molecular-molar distinction was also made
by Margenau (1972), after he noted that a gas has temperature while a single one of
its constituents does not:
I came to a conclusion which others have reached before, that in a new field
perhaps what is needed first is to steep oneself in the events, to approach the
phenomena with as few preconceptions as possible, to take a naturalist's
observational, descriptive approach to these events, and to draw forth those
low-level inferences that seem most native to the material itself, (pp. 291-292)
Other writers have attempted to overcome the first problem by calling for more
naturalistic research based in the classroom (cf, Jackson, 1974; Lutz & Ramsey,
1974; Overholt & Stallings, 1976), since the classroom context has been seen as a
critical component of the teaching process (e.g., Cook, 1971; Tikunoff, Note 5; Ward,
Note 6). Cook (1971) has stated his position as follows:
The absence of any context is one of the reasons why laboratory experiments
often seem artificial. Secord and Backman . . . point out that the situation the
656
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
Educational research has also been hampered by incomplete data stemming from
the short periods of time used to complete most studies. There have been various
reasons why many researchers have been satisfied with "snapshots" in time rather
than changes over time, but the former data-collection strategy is no longer adequate
for most purposes. Proshansky (1976) has elaborated somewhat on this point:
It is not enough to study these events in their natural context with a minimum
intrusion of the research process and with the painstaking avoidance of
conceptions that violate the integration of the totality that we call man and his
adaptation to his physical setting. They must be studied over time, for in fact
part of the integrity of human events is that they have a beginning and an end.
(p. 308)
The most comprehensive assessment of results and issues pertaining to the study
of teaching has been provided by Dunkin and Biddle (1974). After detailed consid-
eration of a wide variety of educational research, the authors produced a summary
chapter which proposed substantial modifications in the operating modes of most
investigators involved with the study of teaching. For example, Dunkin and Biddle
recommended that increased support be given to teams of investigators committed
over a period of years to particular avenues of research, that new observational
instruments for research on teaching not be developed in the absence of clear
theoretical justifications, that complete descriptive statistics be reported for all
pertinent findings, and that research designs provide independent measures of teacher
behavior, classroom environmental conditions, and individual pupil behavior. The
general import of Dunkin and Biddle's message was that existing educational research
has been generally inadequate in leading to an understanding of the teaching process.
657
HOWARD A. SMITH
FIGURE 1. The process-product paradigm (adapted from Dunkin & Biddle, 1974 and
Jansen et al., 1972).
SETTING
VARIABLES
Grade
TEACHER Materials CLASSROOM PUPIL
VARIABLES Class size BEHAVIORS PRODUCTS
Physical
Training environment Teacher Cognitive:
Experience behaviors short-term
Personality (in c l a s s ) long-term
Motivation x: Affective:
Social class
Age
Sex
3Teacher-
pup i I
i n t e r a c t ion
short-term
long-term
Psychomotorj
PUPI L
Teaching Adult
VARIABLES Pupil personality
ski I Is
Experiences behaviors
Intel I igence (in class)
Expectancies
Personal ity
Peer
inf l u e n c e s
Social
class
Age
Sex
Type I T y p e II T y p e III T y p e IV
Variables Variables Variables Variables
(Presage) (Context) ( Process) cproduct)
658
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
ralistic observation of inherited, adaptive behaviors, and (d) the external variable
approach, which stresses the experimental approach and statistical analysis.
In his major contribution to the nonverbal communication literature, Duncan
(1969) devoted significant attention to two of these research strategies: the structural
and the external variable. He saw the former tradition as an attempt to explicate the
existing rules of nonverbal communication to which, presumably, there could be no
exceptions. However, Duncan described the external variable approach as an attempt
to relate the rate of occurrence of specified nonverbal behaviors to a variety of
external variables, an approach which was primarily probabilistic and thus statistical
in nature. He saw both traditions as being useful for the study of nonverbal
communication.
Duncan also separated the nonverbal research into three interlocking phases which
roughly parallel the stages needed to consolidate educational sicence:
It seems likely that the external variable tradition can make significant contribu-
tions to understanding the role of nonverbal communication in teaching. However,
as emphasized above, the protocol data from descriptive or correlational studies must
be collected first and the subsequent experimentation should be done in the classroom
setting over a longer period of time than has been customary.
The difficulties of studying nonverbal communication have not been overlooked.
Knapp and Harrison (1972) posed several major questions before outlining some
related issues: "What nonverbal behaviors do we look for? What methods of
observation will be the most effective? What methods are most effective for analyzing
nonverbal data? What recording techniques will be the most productive?" (p. 1).
Galloway (1971a) has provided a cogent summary of the many research problems
affecting nonverbal research:
659
HOWARD A. SMITH
Again, in dance, where one would expect at least some reliance on feeling and
intuition for describing movements, it is discouraging to find that the only
comprehensive system of notation describes movements merely as motion,
with no reference to what they signify Such reliance on physical description
alone for nonverbal behavior is inadequate. It fails to take into account the
similar significance of unlike movements that emanate from different body
parts (for example, approval given with a head nod or pat on the back). Even
more importantly, it fails to provide a direction for identifying significant
nonverbal behaviors, (p. 119)
The use of scales has also been considered as an important part of nonverbal
research (cf., Leathers, 1976; Mehrabian, 1971). Leathers (1976) argues that category
systems provide only quantitative judgments about nonverbal behaviors, while the
addition of scaling techniques would also permit qualitative assessments to be made.
This point may be especially salient while trying to isolate the effects of variables
implicated, for example, in teacher "warmth" (cf., Bayes, 1970; Hodge, 1974; Klein-
feld, 1973).
Technological Considerations
The usual data-collection method of the 1960's (i.e., in-class observation schedules)
is no longer adequate for a rigorous analysis of classroom nonverbal communication.
Instead, videotape and its supporting equipment have become basic requirements in
the data collection process. The events placed on tape are public and may be viewed
repeatedly from many points of view. On occasion, two videotape recorders have
been used for even better coverage of the classroom situation. For some specific
purposes, however, audio recordings or even still photographs may suffice. Special-
ized equipment such as the time lapse videographer (Gurau, 1976) has been devel-
oped to aid the recording of classroom data, while the special effects generator (cf.,
Rezmierski, 1974) has been used to facilitate subsequent data analysis.
Typically, the analysis of videotaped protocols has been done by hand, a thankless
task at best. Recently, attempts have been made to computerize various components
of this work (cf, Ekman & Friesen, 1976, 1978). These and related efforts deserve
special attention in the future study of classroom nonverbal communication. Other
technological advances should further facilitate these research endeavors and make
possible projects which were totally inconceivable only a short while ago.
Statistical Considerations
Research on nonverbal communication which proceeds within the parameters of
the process-product paradigm, and which thereby incorporates the study of complex
classroom behaviors with a variety of research methods, should be accompanied by
a reexamination of the standard statistical procedures which have usually been
applied to most educational research. The focus of a statistical reassessment should
not be to discard classical methods of inference, but to involve other techniques as
the experimental situation warrants. In the latter regard, increasing emphasis has
been given recently to the Bayesian approach as an alternative to standard statistical
methods (cf, Binder, 1964; Edwards, Lindman, & Savage, 1963; Hays, 1973; Shulman
& Elstein, 1975; Slovic & Lichtenstein, 1971). A prime reason for this trend is that
Bayesian approaches tend to consider the data accumulated from previous similar
660
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
experiments and so view the sample at hand as having some previous history. This
position has been outlined succinctly by the National Institute of Education (1975):
While some theoretical grounds for pre-posterior analysis are available, few
practical methods have been developed. What is needed are ways to make the
methodology accessible to the performer of research on teaching, with his
perhaps unique knowledge and experience. One way to achieve this goal is
through the production of computer programs which interrogate the researcher
at critical points and present not only the optimal design, but also an analysis
of the relative importance of each critical point to the final choice of design.
(p. 21)
The essentially probabilistic stance adopted in this report, and in most educational
and psychological literature, has not been endorsed by everyone. For example,
Signorelli (1974) argued that "the unique as well as the frequent are amenable to
lawful explanation" (p. 776) and that modern psychology resembles Aristotelian
physics because of its tendency to classify events in terms of their frequency of
occurrence. However, at the present stage of most educational research, the ability to
designate a high probability of occurrence of an event would be a substantial
contribution.
Concluding Remarks
In this report, the area of nonverbal communication has been perceived from the
perspective of several common categories and the process-product research paradigm.
661
HOWARD A. SMITH
However, developments in these areas have implications for some closely related
topics. For example, the relationship of nonverbal communication to verbal com-
munication has not been addressed directly here but has been the focus of some
previous speculation (e.g., Balzer, 1969; Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Galloway, 1972b;
Harrison, 1973, 1974; Harrison & Crouch, 1975; Knapp, 1978; Lewis & Page, 1974;
Mehrabian, 1968, 1971; Nolan, 1975; Wiemann & Wiemann, 1975). In this regard,
further studies should help to clarify the so-called "double-bind" question, in which
verbal and nonverbal messages conflict with each other (cf., Galloway, 1974b; Keith
et al., 1974; Mehrabian, 1971; Woolfolk & Woolfolk, 1974a, 1974b; Woolfolk,
Woolfolk, & Garlinsky, 1977).
Nonverbal communication may also be examined for its role in general models of
communication (cf., Dance, 1967b; Hanneman, 1975a, 1975b), in models of infor-
mation processing and decision-making (Shulman & Elstein, 1975; Slovic & Lichten-
stein, 1971; Wittrock, 1977), and in general systems theory (cf., Leathers, 1976;
Pedersen & Shears, 1973).
In summary, this review has emphasized the importance of nonverbal communi-
cation in teaching. Some attempt has been made to describe the research conducted
in educational settings and the ensuing implications for classroom practice. The
research has been cast against the theoretical and methodological background of the
scientific enterprise in education, and some of the major problems have been
discussed briefly. The study of nonverbal communication is seen to have significant
potential in helping to better understand the teaching process.
Reference Notes
1. Rosenshine, B. Primary grades instruction and student achievement gain. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April
1977.
2. Gauvain, M. T., Roper, S. S., & Nolan, R. R. Students* perceptions of behavior and
instructional practices in open-space schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1977.
3. Berliner, D. C. A status report on the study of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Los Angeles,
March 1975.
4. Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. Quasi-clinical inquiry in research on classroom teaching and
learning (Report No. VI-2). San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
and Development, June 1977.
5. Tikunoff, W. J. Context variables of a teaching-learning event. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1977.
6. Ward, B. A. Why consider context? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, April 1977.
7. Gage, N. L. A reexamination of paradigms for research on teaching. Stanford, Calif.: Center
for Educational Research at Stanford, 1977.
8. Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. The Texas Teacher Effectiveness Project: Presentation of
non-linear relationships and summary discussion (Report No. 74-6). Austin, Texas: University
of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, September 1974.
9. McDonald, F. J., & Elias, P. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: Phase II, 1973-74,
Executive summary report. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976.
10. Soar, R. S. Final report: Follow Through classroom process measurement and pupil growth
(1970-71). Gainesville, Fl.: University of Florida, June 1973.
662
N O N V E R B A L COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
11. Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. H. Follow Through classroom observation evaluation 1972-
1973. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute, August 1974.
12. Novick, M. R. Bayesian considerations in educational information systems (Report No. 38).
Iowa City: American College Testing Program, November 1970.
13. Novick, M. R., Jackson, P. H., Thayer, D. T., & Cole, N. S. Applications of Bayesian
methods to the prediction of educational performance (Report No. 42). Iowa City: American
College Testing Program, April 1971.
References
Abecassis, J. A propos des communications non verbales: Conditions d'une semiotique de la
gestualite enfantine. Bulletin de Psychologie, 1975-1976, 29 (4-7), 345-355.
Adams, R. S. Observational studies of teacher role. International Review of Education, 1972, 18,
440-458.
Adams, R. S., & Biddle, B. J. Realities of teaching: Explorations with video tape. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1970.
Adams, T. W. Understanding and communication. The Family Coordinator, 1976, 25, 87-89.
Aiello, J. R., & Aiello, T. de C The development of personal space: Proxemic behavior of
children 6 through 16. Human Ecology, 1974, 2, 177-189.
Allen, V. L., & Feldman, R. S. Decoding of children's nonverbal responses. Madison, Wise:
University of Wisconsin, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117 044)
Amidon, P. Nonverbal interaction analysis: A method of systematically observing and recording
nonverbal behavior. Minneapolis, Minn.: Association for Productive Teaching, 1971. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 071 925)
Argyle, M. Bodily communication. London: Methuen, 1975.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. Gaze and mutual gaze. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Bachmann, J. K. English face to face: The non-verbal dimension of conversation. Fort Collins,
Colo.: Colorado State University, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 115
073)
Balzer, L. Nonverbal and verbal behaviors of biology teachers. American Biology Teacher, 1969,
31, 226-229.
Barker, L. L., & Collins, N. B. Nonverbal and kinesic research. In P. Emmert & W. D. Brooks
(Eds.), Methods of research in communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.
Baron, B. The open classroom approach in the kindergarten. Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 077 588)
Baxter, L. A., & Ward, J. M. An exploratory investigation of diffusedpoint arrival time and source
credibility. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 102 622)
Bayes, M. A. An investigation of the behavioral cues of interpersonal warmth (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Miami, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 2272B.
(University Microfilms No. 70-18,160)
Beier, E. G. Nonverbal communication: How we send emotional messages. Psychology Today,
1974, 8(5), 53-56.
Binder, A. Statistical theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1964, 15, 277-310.
Birdwhistell, R. L. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.
Bishop. A. Actions speak louder than words. Mathematics Teaching, 1976, 74, 49-71.
Blumenthal, D., & Reiss, S. Do open space environments encourage children to seek immediate
gratification? Journal of School Psychology, 1975, 13(2), 91-96.
Borgers, S. B., & Ward, G. R. Communication: Nonverbal. Houston, Tex.: University of
Houston, undated. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 100 939)
Boucher, J. D., & Ekman, P. Facial areas and emotional information. Journal of Communication,
1975, 25(2), 21-29.
Breed, G. Nonverbal behavior and teaching effectiveness. Vermillion, S. D.: University of South
Dakota, 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 059 182)
663
HOWARD A. SMITH
Breed, G., & Colaiuta, V. Looking, blinking, and sitting: Nonverbal dynamics in the classroom.
Journal of Communication, 1974, 24(2), 75-81.
Brody, G. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. The effects of modeling and classroom organization on the
personal space of third and fourth grade children. American Educational Research Journal,
1975, 12(2), 157-168.
Brooks, D. M., & Bowers, N. D. The relationship between teacher nonverbal behaviors and
selected teacher-pupil attitudes and behaviors. Cedar Falls, Iowa: University of Northern Iowa,
1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 104 888)
Brooks, D. M., & Wilson, B. J. Teacher verbal and nonverbal behavioral expression toward
selected pupils. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70(2), 147-153.
Buck, R. A test of nonverbal receiving ability: Preliminary studies. Human Communication
Research, 1976,2, 162-171.
Burgoon, J. K., £ Saine, T. 27ie unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal communication.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.
Byers, P. Biological rhythms as information channels in interpersonal communication behavior.
In P. P. G. Bateson & P. H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol. 2). New York:
Plenum Press, 1976.
Byers, P. A personal view of nonverbal communication. Theory into Practice, 1977,16, 134-140.
Byers, P., & Byers, H. Nonverbal communication and the education of children. In C. B.
Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York:
Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1972.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
Cook, M. Interpersonal perception. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1971.
Dance, F. E. X. Human communication theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967 (a)
Dance, F. E. X. Toward a theory of human communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human
communication theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967 (b)
Davis, F. Inside intuition: What we know about nonverbal communication. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1973.
Davis, G. L. Nonverbal behavior of the first grade teachers in different socio-economic level
elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1973). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 6352A. (University Microfilms No. 74-7994)
Davis, M. Understanding body movement: An annotated bibliography. New York: Arno Press,
1972.
Davitz, J. R. The communication of emotional meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Delefes, P., & Jackson, B. Teacher-pupil interaction as a function of location in the classroom.
Psychology in the Schools, 1972, 9, 119-123.
Dittman, A. T. Developmental factors in conversational behavior. Journal of Communication,
1972, 22, 404-423.
Dobson, R., Hopkins, W. S., & Elsom, B. Elementary teachers' philosophies of human nature
and nonverbal communication patterns. Journal of the Student Personnel Association for
Teacher Education, 1973, 77(3), 98-101.
Duke, C. R. Nonverbal behavior and the communication process. Plymouth, N. H.: Plymouth
State College, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 088 090)
Duncan, S., Jr. Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 118-137.
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. G. The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
1974.
Dunning, G. B. Research in nonverbal communication. Theory into Practice, 1971,10, 250-258.
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. Bayesian statistical inference for psychological
research. Psychological Review, 1963, 70, 193-242.
Ekman, P. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1971.
664
N O N V E R B A L COMMUNICATION IN T E A C H I N G
Ekman, P. Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York: Academic
Press, 1973.
Ekman, P. Biological and cultural contributions to body and facial movement. In J. Blacking
(Ed.), The anthropology of the body London: Academic Press, 1977.
Ekman, P. Facial signs: Facts, fantasies, and possibilities. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Sight, sound and
sense. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1978.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. A repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and
coding. Semiotica, 1969,1, 49-98.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 1972, 22, 353-374.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Measuring facial movement. Environmental Psychology and
Nonverbal Behavior, 1976, 1, 56-75.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. y. Investigator's guide to the FACS. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting
Psychologists Press, 1978.
Emmert, P., & Brooks, W. D. Methods of research in communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1970.
Exline, R. V. Visual interaction: The glances of power and preference. In J. K. Cole (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1971.
Exline, R. V. Nonverbal communication: Research European style. (Review of Social commu-
nication and movement: Studies of interaction and expression in man and chimpanzee by M.
von Cranach & I. Vine). Contemporary Psychology, 1976, 21, 739-740.
Fancy, A. Expressivite: An approach to French language instruction. Canadian Modern Lan-
guage Review, 1976, 32, 410-414.
Fast, J. Body language. New York: M. Evans, 1970.
Feitler, F. C , Wiener, W., & Blumberg, A. The relationship between interpersonal relations
orientations and preferred classroom physical settings. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University,
1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 039 173)
Foerster, L. M. Teach children to read body language. Elementary English, 1974, 51, 440-442.
Ford, B. Body language: What it reveals about you. In P. M. Insel & L. F. Jacobsen (Eds.),
What do you expect? An inquiry into self fulfilling prophecies. Menlo Park, Calif: Cummings,
1975.
Fowles, J. Why we wear clothes. ETC. A Review of General Semantics, 1974, 31, 343-352.
French, P. Kinesics in communication: Black and white. Language Sciences, 1973, 28, 13-16.
French, R. L. A study of communication events and teacher behavior: Verbal and nonverbal.
Knoxville, Tenn.: The University of Tennessee, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 041 827)
French, R. L. Analyzing and improving nonverbal communication: A model for inservice
education. Theory into Practice, 1971,10, 305-309.
French, R. L., & Galloway, C. M. A description of teacher behavior: Verbal and nonverbal.
Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 028 134)
Galloway, C Nonverbal communication: A needed focus. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,
1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 025 484)
Galloway, C. Teaching is communicating: Nonverbal language in the classroom (Bulletin No.
29). Washington, D. C: Association for Student Teaching, 1970. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 038 369)
Galloway, C. The challenge of nonverbal research. Theory into Practice, 1971,10, 310-314. (a)
Galloway, C Nonverbal: The language of sensitivity. Theory into Practice, 1971, 10, 227-230.
(b)
Galloway, C. Analysis of theories and research in nonverbal communication. Washington, D. C :
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 059 988) (a)
Galloway, C. The nonverbal: An approach for supervisors. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Univer-
sity, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 064 800) (b)
665
HOWARD A. SMITH
666
N O N V E R B A L COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
Hartman, M., Kramer, R., Murtha, D. M., Proctor, J., & Thomson, J. The fifth grade classroom.
Madison, Wise: University of Wisconsin, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 037 982)
Hayes, F. C. Gesticulation: A plan of classification. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida, 1975.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 122 617)
Hays, W. L. Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
1973.
Hebb, D. O. What psychology is about. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 71-79.
Heger, H. K. Analyzing verbal and nonverbal classroom communications. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 025 483)
Hennings, D. G. Nonverbal language study. Paper presented at the meeting of the National
Conference on the Language Arts in the Elementary School, Boston, April 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 108 252)
Hereford, K. T., & Hecker, S. E. Relationships among school design, utilization, personnel
interaction and attitudes. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1963. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 001 158)
Hesler, M. W. An investigation of instructor use of space (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue
University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 33, 3055A. (University Micro-
films No. 72-30,905)
Hinde, R. A. Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Hodge, R. L. Interpersonal classroom communication through eye contact. Theory into Practice,
1971, 10, 264-267.
Hodge, R. L. An empirical study of the acquisition of nonverbal teaching behaviors by secondary
teacher candidates in a teaching laboratory. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee, 1974.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 090 162)
Hopkins, W. S. Philosophies of human nature and nonverbal communication patterns (Doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34,
6517A. (University Microfilms No. 74-8048)
Howard, J. A teacher talks: Structure and space. Urban Review, 1975, 8{\), 5-17.
Hughey, A. R., & Piepgrass, E. L. On the necessity of training counselors in nonverbal behavior:
Background information and rationale. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1976. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 402)
Jackson, P. W. Naturalistic studies of schools and classrooms. In M. W. Apple, M. J. Subkoviak,
& H. S. Lufler, Jr. (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Analysis and responsibility. Berkeley:
McCutchan, 1974.
Jansen, M., Jensen, P. E., & Mylov, P. Teacher characteristics and other factors affecting
classroom interaction and teaching behaviour. International Review of Education, 1972, 18,
529-538.
Jecker, J. D., Maccoby, N., & Breitrose, H. S. Improving accuracy in interpreting non-verbal
cues of comprehension. Psychology in the Schools, 1965, 2, 239-244.
Jensen, J. V. Communicative functions of silence. ETC. A Review of General Semantics, 1973,
30, 249-257.
Johnson, W. D., & Pancrazio, S. B. Promoting effective pupil thinking through nonverbal
communication. College Student Journal, 1973, 7(1), 92-96.
Katz, L. G. Research on Open Education: Problems and issues. Urbana, 111.: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Early Childhood Education, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 068
202)
Keith, L. T., Tornatzky, L. G., & Pettigrew, L. E. An analysis of verbal and nonverbal classroom
teaching behaviors. Journal of Experimental Education, 1974, 42(4), 30-38.
Kennedy, J. J., & Bush, A. J. Overcoming some impediments to the study of teacher effective-
ness. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27(1), 14-17.
Key, M. R. Preliminary remarks on paralanguage and kinesics in human communication. La
Linguistique, 1970, 6(2), 17-36.
667
HOWARD A. SMITH
Randall, D. W., Hamilton, P., & Lashbrook, W. B. The effects of territorial depiction and
disruption on group cohesion in a classroom setting. Normal, 111.: Illinois State University, 1972.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 061 763)
Rasmussen, M. (Ed.). Space, arrangement, beauty in school. Washington, D.C.: Association for
Childhood Education International, 1958. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
028 592)
Raymond, A. D. The acquisition of nonverbal behaviors by preservice science teachers and
their application during student teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University,
1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 3846A. (University Microfilms No. 72-
3861)
Raymond, A. F. An analysis of nonverbal behaviors exhibited by two groups of science student
teachers. Norfolk, Va.: Old Dominion University, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 089 945)
Reddick, T. L. Is your classroom up to par? Teacher Educator, 1975, 70(3), 27-28.
Rennhackkamp, W. M. H. School lighting. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research, 1964. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 034 389)
Rezmierski, V. E. J. An exploratory study of the nonverbal communication of teachers and
children: Some theoretical and methodological considerations (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 4887A. (University
Microfilms No. 74-3713)
Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, A. E. Cut-eye and suck-teeth: African words and gestures in new
world guise. Georgetown, Guyana: University of Guyana, 1974. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 119 515)
Rivlin, L. G., & Rothenberg, M. Design implications of space use and physical arrangements in
open education classes. New York: City University of New York, 1975. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 106 421)
Roberts, C. L., & Becker, S. L. Communication and teaching effectiveness in industrial
education. American Educational Research Journal, 1976, 13, 181-197.
Roderick, J. A. Identifying, defining, coding, and rating nonverbal behaviors that appear to be
related to involvement: Project on Involvement Interim Report No. 2. College Park, Md.:
University of Maryland, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 097 103)
Roderick, J. A., & Littlefield, B. The Project on Involvement: An interim report. College Park,
Md.: University of Maryland, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 094
875)
Roderick, J. A., & Vawter, J. A category system to describe the nonverbal behavior of teachers
and students: An interim report. College Park, Md.: University of Maryland, 1972. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 094 874)
Rogers, C. O. The relationship between the organization of play space and children's behavior.
Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma State University, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 127 011)
Romney, B. M. The effects of windowless classrooms on the cognitive and affective behavior of
elementary school students. Albuquerque, N. M.: University of New Mexico, 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 622)
Rosen, R., & Pistone, I. A creative response to visual literacy in the mainstream—not for learning
disabled only. Woodbury, N. Y.: Jericho Public Schools, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 132 521)
Rosenthal, R., Archer, D., DiMatteo, M. R., Koivumaki, J. H., & Rogers, P. L. The language
without words. Psychology Today, 1974, 8(4), 64-68.
Rubin, G. N. A naturalistic study in proxemics: Seating arrangement and its effect on
interaction, performance, and behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State Univer-
sity, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 3829A. (University Microfilms No.
73-1119)
670
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN TEACHING
671
HOWARD A. SMITH
Thornton, B. L. Bibliography for a research of the literature in nonverbal communication and its
applications, as related to the study of black American nonverbal communication. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 070
108)
Trager, G. L. Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics, 1958,13, 1-12.
Tyler, R. M. An ecological study offreeplay in a preschool classroom. Lawrence, Kans.: University
of Kansas, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 119 830)
Vandeman, B. A. Where curiosity comes easily: Alternative classroom design. Science and
Children, 1976, 73(8), 9-10.
Victoria, J. An investigation of nonverbal behavior of student teachers. University Park, Penn.:
Pennsylvania State University, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 042
724)
Victoria, J. A language for affective education. Theory into Practice, 1971,, 10, 300-304.
Walz, J. A mini-film on French kinesics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 108 508)
Watson, O. M. Conflicts and directions in proxemic research. Journal of Communication, 1972,
22, 443-459.
Weinstein, C. S. Modifying student behavior in an open classroom through changes in the
physical design. American Educational Research Journal, 1977,14t 249-262.
Weitz, S. Nonverbal communication: Readings with commentary. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1974.
Wiemann, M. O., & Wiemann, J. M. Nonverbal communication in the elementary classroom.
Urbana, 111.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 113 771)
Wiener, M., Devoe, S., Rubinow, S., & Geller, J. Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal commu-
nication. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 185-214.
Wittrock, M. C. The generative process of memory. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The human brain.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Woolfolk, R. L., & Woolfolk, A. E. Effects of teacher verbal and nonverbal behaviors on
student perceptions and attitudes. American Educational Research Journal, 1974, //(3), 297-
303. (a)
Woolfolk, R. L., & Woolfolk, A. E. Nonverbal teacher behaviors: A rejoinder. American
Educational Research Journal, 1974, / / , 307-309. (b)
Woolfolk, R. L., Woolfolk, A. E., & Garlinsky, K. S. Nonverbal behavior of teachers: Some
empirical findings. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1977, 2, 45-61.
Wyckoff, W. L. The effect of stimulus variation on learning from lecture. Journal of Experi-
mental Education, 1973, 41(3), 85-90.
AUTHOR
HOWARD A. SMITH, Associate Professor of Education, Faculty of Education,
Duncan McArthur Hall, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L
3N6. Specializations: Human Memory and Learning; Nonverbal Communication
in the Classroom.
672