Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T12:59:11.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Teacher and Nonverbal Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2016

Gregory B. Arnold*
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi

Extract

In writing of the seven deadly sins of college teaching, Eble (1983:3) observed that “Arrogance, Dullness, Rigidity, Insensitivity, Vanity, Self-Indulgence, and Hypocrisy” are sins as deadly to students' chances of learning “as the traditional deadly sins were to chances of salvation.” Focusing on “dullness,” Eble comments that though it is a seemingly benign sin, it competes for the “highest (or lowest) place.”

With this in mind, and on the assumption that instructors are the dominant influence in the classroom, the major focus for many researchers has been the analysis of teacher behavior. From their studies five characteristics of effective college teachers have been identified: scholarship (Mayhew, 1980); interest in subject (Beatty and Behnke, 1980); enthusiasm in presentation (Barr, 1981); keen wit (Bryant, et al., 1980); and the ability to dramatize a subject (Norton and Nussbaum, 1980). Consequently, the communication style of instructors has emerged as a prevailing factor in the teaching-learning process and has served as the basis of a growing body of research.

In the usual college classroom environment, communication is the central element in teaching. Norton's studies (1983) offered evidence showing perceived teacher effectiveness to be related to a teacher's perceived communication style, while Scott and Nussbaum (1981) found students' perceptions of teachers' communication styles to be associated significantly with student achievement. In the last instance, the findings showed that an instructor's perceived adeptness in communication was highly related to a student's evaluation of the overall performance of that instructor in the classroom.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. F. and Withrow, J. G.. 1987. The Impact of Lecturer Nonverbal Expressiveness on Improving Mediated Instruction. Communication Education, 30: 242353.Google Scholar
Arnold, Gregory B., and Roach, Terry. 1989. The Hidden Messages Teachers Send. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Academy of Management, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Barr, A. S. 1981. Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness. Madison: Demar Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Beatty, M. J. and Behnke, R. R.. 1980. Teacher Credibility as a Function of Verbal Content and Paralinguistic Cues. Communication Quarterly, 28: 5559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, E. E. 1979. Teacher Behavior and Its Effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 733750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, J., et al. 1980. Relationship Between College Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom and Students' Evaluation of Their Teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 511519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, G. G. 1971. Nonverbal: The Language of Sensitivity. Theory into Practice, 10: 250258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eble, Kenneth E. 1983. The Aims of College Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
Mayhew, L. B. 1980. Personality and Teaching. Journal of Communication, 30: 8389.Google Scholar
Norton, R. W. 1983. Communicator Style: Theory, Application, and Measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Norton, R. W. and Nussbaum, F. F.. 1980. Dramatic Behaviors of the Effective Teacher. In Nimmo, D. (Ed.), Communicatiaon Yearbook, 4: 565582.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, J. S. 1984. Classroom Behavior of the Effective Teacher. Communication, 13: 8184.Google Scholar
Scott, M. D., and Nussbaum, F. F.. 1981. Students' Perceptions of Instructor Communication Behaviors and Their Relationship to Students' Evaluations. Communication Education, 30: 4453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar