This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 05 December 2014, At: 13:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj19

What Can Teacher Educators Do About Teachers’ NonVerbal Behaviours? Some Guidelines From ResearchRichard Tisher a & Hans Gerhard Klinzing ba Monash Universityb University of TuebingenPublished online: 02 Jun 2006.

To cite this article: Richard Tisher & Hans Gerhard Klinzing (1985) What Can Teacher Educators Do About Teachers’Non Verbal Behaviours? Some Guidelines From Research, South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 13:2, 1-8, DOI:10.1080/0311213850130201

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0311213850130201

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What Can Teacher Educators Do

About Teachers' Non Verbal

Behaviours? Some Guidelines

From Research

RICHARD TISHER, Monash University and HANS GERHARD

KLINZING, University of Tuebingen

Six years ago Kaye (1978) evaluated the research on non-verbal communicationand concluded that it had produced a body of knowledge relevant for practisingteachers. He stated that it was "difficult to dismiss non-verbal elements as incon-sequential facets of classroom life", and, "the importance of the teachers' reper-toire of non-verbal behaviours cannot be underemphasized". He expressed theview, however, that the research findings had not been given any systematic con-sideration by teacher educators, nor had they found their way into teacher edu-cation courses. He suggested that the reasons for this were (a) "the failure ofmany teacher educators to extend their frame of reference beyond classical,verbally-oriented models of teacher effectiveness", (b) "the uncritical, wholesaleadoption, by teacher educators, of traditionally respected pedagogical preceptsand injunctions", and, (c) "a reluctance to initiate action research". Whetherthese comments still apply today is left for the reader to judge.

Since 1978 other detailed, extensive reviews of the role of non-verbal be-haviours in teaching-learning contexts (Smith, 1979; Woolfolk and Brooks,1983) have appeared and they strongly substantiate Kaye's claim that there is abody of knowledge relevant for teachers. In addition, a few authors have synthe-sized the research on the effects of training programmes on teacher patterns ofnon-verbal behaviour and have proposed characteristics of effective trainingprogrammes (Klinzing and Tisher, 1985). Today, teacher educators have accessto clearer, research-based guidelines as to how, in pre-service and in-serviceprogrammes, they might increase teachers' sensitivity to, and repertoires of non-verbal behaviours. This paper indicates what a number of those-guidelines areby drawing upon relevant research studies as well as on syntheses of the research.Now, the framing of guidelines is not an easy task, for a number of reasons. Onecomplicating feature, for instance, is the bewildering variety of outcome vari-ables that have been used to assess the effects of training programmes on non-verbal behaviours. These outcome variables include knowledge about non-verbal behaviour, estimates of a person's intelligence, gestures, vocal inflection,

The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1985

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

2 TISHER AND GERHARD KLINZ1NG

non-verbal behaviour, estimates of a person's intelligence, gestures, vocal inflec-tion, characteristics of faces, eye contact and enthusiasm. Another confoundingaspect is that specific non-verbal behaviours may have differing effects, depend-ing upon the context in which they occur and on the meanings participants (e.g.,pupils) attach to them. One non-verbal behaviour may communicate (or may beinterpreted to mean) one thing to one pupil and something quite different toanother. But despite these difficulties it is possible, from the large number oftraining studies, to justify a number of guidelines for developing teachers' reper-toires of non-verbal behaviours.

NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOUR: EFFECTS AND FUNCTIONS

At this stage it is appropriate to note that in the preceding paragraphs thephrase "non-verbal communication" was used only once. The preferred phrasewas "non-verbal behaviour". In the literature, however, the terms non-verbal be-haviour and non-verbal communication are often used interchangeably. Strictlyspeaking, non-verbal behaviour denotes the broad category of behavioural orphysiological responses other than words. The category includes a wide range ofphenomena, for example, co-verbal behaviours, such as a gesture, facial expres-sion, eye gaze; paralanguage, such as tone and pitch of voice, rate and length ofspeaking, errors in speech; proxemics, such as distance between speakers, use ofspace; and features such as appearance (dress, attractiveness), smell, and the ar-rangement of the physical environment. Non-verbal communication includes allof the preceding features and, in addition, involves the transmission and in-terpretation of messages which depend upon the nature of the environment andthe shared codes, or meanings about that environment. Non-verbal communi-cation involves interpretation of messages linked with non-verbal behaviours.

Anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists and linguists have, for more thanhalf a century, been much more interested in non-verbal behaviour and com-munication than educationists. Numerous research reports attest to this (seeKlinzing and Tisher, 1985). It is only within the last decade that educationistshave begun to direct more research effort to study non-verbal behaviours andcommunication. The increased research effort has paid off. Now the weight ofevidence (Smith, 1979; Woolfolk and Brooks, 1983) is such that the role ofteachers' non-verbal behaviours, like eye contact, gestures, vocal inflections andbody movement, as well as combinations of non-verbal behaviours depicted byenthusiasm, animation and variation of stimuli, in enhancing pupils' attention,motivation, immediate recall and achievement, has been definitely established.Of course, as might be expected, there are some gentle qualifications about thepositive effects, or the salience of non-verbal behaviours. For instance, it hasbeen found that high frequencies of specific (teacher) non-verbal behaviours canhave negative effects on pupils, such as reducing the attention they pay to lessoncontent and, as a consequence, reducing their achievement (Brophy and Evert-son, 1974). Another qualification is that the salience of teachers' non-verbal be-haviours is reduced when pupils are involved with novel curriculum materials(Williams and Ware, 1976), or in inquiry-discovery activities (Bettencourt,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

TEACHERS' NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS 3

1979). Their non-verbal behaviours are more salient when whole class teaching,characterised by lecture-discussion, occurs.

Finally, the functions served by non-verbal behaviours have been identified.They include regulating classroom interactions, expressing feelings (e.g., liking),controlling behaviour (e.g., through eye contact) and emphasising or indicatingsignificant features (e.g., by gesticulating or pointing). Given the importance ofthe effects and functions of teachers' non-verbal behaviours, how then can theawareness of teachers about these features be enhanced? and, how can teachersbest be trained to be judiciously expressive non-verbally? Answers to these ques-tions can be derived from relevant research studies. Only a limited number willbe cited here. Additional ones are given in another lengthy research review(Klinzing and Tisher, 1985).

ENHANCING TEACHERS' AWARENESS OF NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS

About 31 studies indicate that a particular training programme increasesteachers' awareness of non-verbal behaviours. "Awareness", however, had differ-ent operational definitions in the various studies. For example, in some it was themeanings the teachers attached to different non-verbal behaviours (e.g., Hans-ford, 1977), in others, knowledge about non-verbal communication (Shapiro,1976), and others, "accuracy of reading faces" (Jenness, 1932). The varioustraining programmes included one or more of the following elements; a time for(a) theory about non-verbal behaviours, (b) watching demonstrations and films,(c) discussions about non-verbal behaviours, (d) exercises to decode or dis-criminate between non-verbal behaviours and (e) five to ten-minute practiceperiods with peers, plus feedback sessions. The times spent on training rangedfrom 15 minutes to 40 hours. By and large the research indicates that a trainingprogramme containing any two or more of the elements specified is more effec-tive than a programme containing only one. Furthermore, altering the charac-teristics of some elements can also enhance a training programme'seffectiveness. Extended microteaching sessions (Hansford, 1977) or short, pre-cise and specific periods of direct practice (Rosenthal et ai, 1979) are much moreeffective than short, indirect or less specific periods of practice. From some ofthe studies on the effects of training programmes, in particular thoseprogrammes that were less effective in achieving their desired outcomes (Hunt-ley, 1978; Reich, 1970), it can be inferred that the lack of precision in the trainingprogramme, as well as failure to conceptualize clearly what may be communi-cated via the non-verbal aspects of behaviour, can have deleterious effects on theprogramme and its outcomes.

In summary, if teachers' sensitivity to non-verbal behaviours is to be increasedthrough formal training programmes, then steps should be taken to ensure that:

(a) they do not lack precision;(b) they are conceptualized clearly;(c) they include two or more of the following components: theory

about non-verbal behaviours, demonstrations or films, decodingexercises, discussions, and practice periods with feedback; and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

4 TISHER AND GERHARD KLINZING

(d) when micro-teaching and practice are included that the periods forthe former are extended ones and for the latter they are specific andprecise.

Undoubtedly teachers' awareness of non-verbal behaviours may be enhanced insettings other than those associated with formal training programmes. Theguidelines proposed above for the formal programmes are, however, still ap-plicable to the other settings.

ENHANCING REPERTOIRES OF NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS

In the last 18 years there have been numerous investigations on how to in-crease experienced and trainee teachers' repertoires of non-verbal behaviours. Amore detailed listing of these appears elsewhere (Klinzing and Tisher, 1985).Here it is sufficient to note the following. The training programmes which werebeing evaluated contained sessions for (a) the presentation of theories aboutnon-verbal behaviour, (b) modeling (through demonstrations, films or video-tapes), (c) discriminating between non-verbal behaviour, (d) practising non-verbal behaviours and (e) reviewing what was practised. Comments about therelative effectiveness of these various training components appear in a subse-quent paragraph.

The programmes themselves were designed to change the quality and quantityof specific non-verbal behaviours, such as facial expressions, voice modulations,gestures, body movements, eye contacts, movement around classes, kneeling andsitting next to pupils, or of combinations of non-verbal behaviours associatedwith "enthusiasm", "animation" or "variation of stimuli". Whether they hadachieved their aims was assessed in two ways. Firstly, the non-verbal behavioursthat were supposed to have been enhanced in an experimental group were ratedby trained observers. A majority of the investigations were of a pre-, post-test de-sign in either an actual classroom, or in a scaled down setting, generally amicroteaching situation lasting for about five to fifteen minutes and using fourto nine students who were often the experimental teachers' or trainees' peers. Asa consequence changes in ratings could be assessed. Secondly, changes werenoted in other features regarded as "pay-offs" from the training programmes.These additional criteria included such things as the experimental teachers' andtrainees' attitudes to the training programme and, their students' (a) attitudes tothe (experimental) teacher or trainee, (b) achievement, (c) on task behaviourand, (d) perceptions of the experimental teacher's or trainee's effectiveness.Almost two-thirds of the 32 studies reviewed by Klinzing and Tisher (1985)report significant gains in their outcome measures. When effect sizes were calcu-lated their magnitudes were of the order of 0.9 for studies dealing with the scaleddown teaching settings and 1.0 for those involving actual classrooms. It is ap-propriate to note that both pre-service and in-service teachers perceived theirtraining programmes favourably and, on the basis of the effect sizes obtained forthe studies involving each group, the training programmes can be considered tobe equally effective for teachers with different amounts of experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

TEACHERS' NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS

There is ample evidence then that experienced and trainee teachers can betrained with respect to the ways in which they express themselves non-verbally.But, what components of a training programme contribute most to its success?What perspectives can be derived from the research about the effectiveness ofeach of the components of training programmes? The following conclusionshave been derived from a detailed, careful examination of those studies whichaddressed the issue of component effectiveness. First, training which is limitedonly to sessions involving the presentation of theories about non-verbal be-haviours is not very effective in enhancing the quality and quantity of teachernon-verbal behaviour. This is especially so when the theories are presentedthrough a lecture-discussion format (Fitzner, 1982). However, when lecture-discussions are complemented with sessions where participants are trained todiscriminate between non-verbal behaviours, significant increases occur in par-ticipants' non-verbal behaviours, such as eye contact, gestures, body move-ments, and facial expressions. About three hours or more need to be devoted tothis discrimination training. Second, providing models of non-verbal be-haviours using short videotapes (perceptual modeling) and type-scripts (sym-bolic modeling) without any form of follow-up does not lead to any significantgains in the quality and quantity of participants' non-verbal behaviours. Whenthe videotapes of models, however, are used as the basis for sessions on discrimi-nation training the situation is different and positive gains occur. Furthermore,when feedback sessions using videotapes are added to these discriminationtraining sessions, there are further significant changes in participants' non-verbal behaviours (Shum, n.d.). Third, two or more practice sessions followed byones' containing focussed feedback from colleagues or other observers lead topositive training gains. One important characteristic of these sessions is thatparticipants know clearly and precisely what are the goals of the trainingprogramme, and what has to be demonstrated in the practice sessions. Anotheris that the feedback should not be overdone, particularly if this involves self-confrontation using video-replays.

REVIEW AND REFLECTIONS

Even though the numerous studies on the effects of programmes to enhanceparticipants' sensitivity to, and quality and quantity of, non-verbal behaviours,have varied with respect to their design and outcomes measured, there is ampleevidence that, provided two, and preferably more, of the components, theorypresentation, modeling, discrimination training, practice, and feedback, are in-cluded, the programmes will be effective. Three or more hours are required fordiscrimination training, two or more sessions are needed for practice, so conse-quently, more than four hours are required for any programme.

From our detailed reviews of the literature and our experiences in conductingclinics for improving non-verbal behaviour in classrooms we have developed anumber of perspectives about formal training programmes to enhance thequality and quantity of teachers' non-verbal behaviours. They are presented herefor consideration. The aim of these programmes is a complex one, namely, to de-velop or broaden teachers' repertoire of non-verbal behaviour and perception in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

6 TISHER AND GERHARD KLINZING

order to promote their expressivity and their flexibility in coping with a varietyof different situations, and to improve their ability to convey messages to an au-dience effectively. To achieve this complex objective it seems appropriate to pro-vide training for each non-verbal "channel" separately in a way that allows for agradual step by step integration of the acquired skill into the subsequent skillarea. For example, if starting with voice delivery and continuing with facial ex-pressions, gaze, eye contact, gestures, posture, body movement, and use ofspace, the focus of training is on one channel at a time, but the behaviours arecontinuously integrated into the subsequent training.

The sessions in a formal training programme would be as follows: —

1. An introduction: this component presents information about con-texts and situations in which the different non-verbal signals areused appropriately and functionally. It acquaints participants withthe objectives and the rationale of the training, and specifically,with what must be demonstrated at the end. It also presents eachnon-verbal channel and introduces the training components whichfollow, eg., theory presentation, etc.

2. Presentation of theory: the objective of this 20-30 minute com-ponent is to understand the structure, meaning, functions and ef-fects of specific non-verbal behaviours. The importance of thefunction of non-verbal behaviour as a device for emphasis, struc-ture, and organisation of verbal information to aid understandingis also stressed.

3. Demonstrations of behaviours coupled with intensive discrimin-ation training: this component, which combines modeling and dis-crimination between non-verbal behaviours, aims to facilitate theidentification of essential features of the respective non-verbalchannel and the accuracy of observation. As a consequence there isa guide to participants about their appropriate performance andthere is a focus for the corrective feedback associated with the sub-sequent practice sessions. Pictures, films and videotapes are recom-mended for the intensive practice (at least 2 to 3 hours) in decoding,and in identifying non-verbal features that provide for emphasis,structure, and organization of verbal information. Observationalsystems (like the ones discussed by Woolfolk and Brooks, 1983) andratings (like the non-verbal scales developed by Collins, 1978), sup-plemented by examples of specific behaviours, can be helpful intraining participants to observe reliably.

4. Practice coupled with focussed feedback: This component containsat least two practice sessions followed by times for specific focussedfeedback dealing with the behaviours being practised. As actualclassrooms are complex settings it is advisable initially to practicethe skills in specifically designed scaled down situations such as amicro-teaching setting with groups of peers or pupils. Opportunityis provided for teaching, feedback and reteaching to correct andimprove behaviour. After about two cycles of teach-reteach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

TEACHERS' NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS 7

participants in most cases are ready to experiment with and imple-ment the behaviours in actual classrooms. Here they can coacheach other as advocated by Joyce and Showers (1982) or collaboratewith another colleague to receive feedback, to analyse their appli-cation of non-verbal behaviours and to assess how they haveadapted to the pupils.

The findings from the studies referred to above promise that a trainingprogramme of the kind outlined increases the probability that the quality andquantity of teachers' non-verbal behaviours will be enhanced and have a directinfluence on teachers' classroom performance.

All of the foregoing features of formal training programmes can be incor-porated into a variety of modes of professional development, including pre-service and in-service education. For example, they could be incorporated intoschool-based in-service education or with clinical supervision. When this isdone, some of Doyle's (1977) objections about applying directly to actual teach-ing settings research findings that have been derived from settings outside theclassroom will be met. He presents a strong case for the influence of the settingon the events which occur in classrooms and recommends that research onteaching, including research on non-verbal behaviours, be conducted within anecological paradigm that incorporates the situational realities of teaching. Hiscautions cannot be ignored, but it is appropriate to note that a proportion ofresearch on training programmes dealing with non-verbal behaviours has beenconducted in actual classrooms. Also, as Woolfolk and Galloway (1985) pointout when they discuss Doyle's point of view: "Even though classrooms have theirown physical, social and temporal characteristics, this does not mean that find-ings from other contexts necessarily are irrelevant. As with any application ofresearch to practice, we must make sure there is a reasonable match between thesituation investigated in the original research and the situation present in theclassroom, such that findings will generalise from the research setting to the sit-uation in which they are applied" (p. 79).

We believe that the recommendations for training outlined above not onlyhave a firm basis in the relevant research, but adequately take account of cau-tions like those voiced by Doyle, especially when the recommendations are in-corporated into school-based in-service education and clinical supervision, andallow for the collaborative coaching advocated by Joyce and Showers (1982).

REFERENCES

Bettencourt, E. M. Effects of training teachers in enthusiasm on student achievement and attitudes.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1979. (University Microfilm Inter-national 792 7226).

Brophy, J. E. and Evertson, C. M. Process-product correlations in the Texas Teacher EffectivenessStudy: Final report. The University of Texas at Austin, 1974.

Collins, M. L. The effects of training for enthusiasm on the enthusiasm displayed by preserviceelementary teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Toronto, 1978.

Doyle, W. The uses of non-verbal behaviors: Toward an ecological model of classrooms. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23(3), 1977.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

8 TISHER AND GERHARD KLINZING

Fitzner, T. Das training von expressivem nichtverbalem Lehrverhalten. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 4,1982.

Hansford, B. C. Microteaching feedback, dogmatism, and nonverbal perceptiveness. The Journal ofPsychology, 95, 1977.

Huntley, S. V. A study of the effects of nonverbal behavior awareness training on the perception andperformance of student teachers in elementary and secondary education. Unpublished Disser-tation, University of Toledo, 1978. (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, No.79-14845).

Jenness, A. The effects of coaching subjects in the recognition of facial expressions. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 7, 1932.

Joyce, B. R. and Showers, B. The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 1982.Kaye, M. E. Close encounters in the classroom: An evaluation of relevance of research into nonverbal

communication. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 7(3), 1979.Klinzing, H. G. and Tisher, R. P. Expressive non-verbal behaviors. A review of research on training

with consequent recommendations for teacher education. In: Katz, L. and Raths, J. (Eds), Ad-vances in Teacher Education, Vol II. New Jersey: Ablex, 1985.

Reich, L. H. Non-verbal communication of emotions: A study of the relationship between training,expression, and recognition of emotion. Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, 1970.(University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 70-24, 409).

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., Archer, D., Sensitivity to nonverbal com-munication: The PONS Test. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1979.

Shapiro, J. N. Modular instruction in nonverbal communication. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio StateUniversity, 1976. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 77-2501).

Shum, W. C. The effects of training student teachers in self-analysis of nonverbal response patterns.Paper, State University of New York at Oswego, undated.

Smith, H. A. Nonverbal communication in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 1979.Williams, R. G. and Ware, J. E. Validity of student ratings of instruction under different incentive

conditions: A further study of the Dr. Fox Effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 1973.Woolfolk, A. E., and Brooks, D. M. Nonverbal communication in teaching. In Gordon, E. W. (Ed.),

Review of Research in Education, 10. Washington: American Educational Research Associ-ation, 1983.

Woolfolk, A. E. and Galloway, C. M. Nonverbal communication and the study of teaching. Theoryinto Practice, 24(1), 1985.

Professor R. P. Tisher,Faculty of Education,Monash University,Clayton 3168,Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

42 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014