Chapter 5: Nonverbal Communication in Teaching

Chapter 5: Nonverbal Communication in Teaching
复制标题

第 5 章：教学中的非语言交流

DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Douglas M. Brooks
Douglas M. Brooks
中科院分区：
--
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Woolfolk;Douglas M. Brooks

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

在课堂外的许多环境中的研究表明，非语言交际可以在人类互动中发挥广泛的作用。其中包括：（1）补充、加强或调节言语交流（Ekman &弗里森，1969）;（2）揭示情绪状态或人格特征（Ekman &弗里森，1975年; Exline，Ellyson，& Long，1975年;谢勒，1974年）;（3）为印象形成提供线索（Imada & Hakel，1977; Wexley，Fugita，&马龙，1975）;（4）表示喜欢或不喜欢个人，情况或想法（Mehrabian，1972）;（5）相互作用物的相对状态的交流（Henley，1977; Mehrabian，1972）;（6）具有说服力（Albert & Dabbs，1970; McGinley，LeFevre，& McGinley，1975）;（7）影响他人的表现（Imada & Hakel，1977; Word，Zanna，&库珀，1974）。（关于非语言行为的许多可能功能的更完整的讨论可以在LaFrance &马约（1978）中找到。）很可能非语言交流在课堂上也有类似的功能。事实上，许多教育工作者已经提出了令人信服的论点，非语言交流在教学中的重要性（例如，Beebe，1981; Galloway，1972; Grant & Hennings，1971;里奇&里奇，1978; Wolfgang，1977）。然而，直到最近，教育研究者都忽视了对这一主题的系统研究。已经进行的研究主要是分散的、孤立的研究，没有共同的理论基础。这种缺乏内在连贯性的研究在以往的非语言交际教学可能已经
Research in many settings outside the classroom has indicated that nonverbal communication can serve a wide range of functions in human interaction. These include: (1) supplementing, reinforcing, or regulating verbal exchanges (Ekman & Friesen, 1969); (2) revealing emotional states or personality traits (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Exline, Ellyson, & Long, 1975; Scherer, 1974); (3) providing cues for impression formation (Imada & Hakel, 1977; Wexley, Fugita, & Malone, 1975); (4) indicating liking or disliking for individuals, situations, or ideas (Mehrabian, 1972); (5) communicating relative status of interactants (Henley, 1977; Mehrabian, 1972); (6) being persuasive (Albert & Dabbs, 1970; McGinley, LeFevre, & McGinley, 1975); and (7) influencing the performance of others (Imada & Hakel, 1977; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). (A more complete discussion of the many possible functions of nonverbal behavior can be found in LaFrance & Mayo, 1978.) It is likely that nonverbal communication functions similarly in the classroom. In fact, many educators have presented cogent arguments for the importance of nonverbal communication in teaching (e.g., Beebe, 1981; Galloway, 1972; Grant & Hennings, 1971; Richey & Richey, 1978; Wolfgang, 1977). However, until quite recently, educational researchers have neglected the systematic study of this topic. The research that has been carried out consists predominantly of scattered, isolated studies without a common theoretical basis. This lack of internal coherence in previous research on nonverbal communication in teaching probably has been