No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Teacher and Nonverbal Communication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2016
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
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990
References
Anderson, J. F. and Withrow, J. G.. 1987. The Impact of Lecturer Nonverbal Expressiveness on Improving Mediated Instruction. Communication Education, 30: 242–353.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: 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, E. E.
1979. Teacher Behavior and Its Effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 733–750.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: 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, G. G.
1971. Nonverbal: The Language of Sensitivity. Theory into Practice, 10: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle 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: 565–582.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, J. S.
1984. Classroom Behavior of the Effective Teacher. Communication, 13: 81–84.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: 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar