THE EFFECT OF NONVERBAL TEACHER APPROVAL ON STUDENT ATTENTIVE BEHAVIOR¹

Abstract

The effect of contingent nonverbal teacher approval on student attentive behavior was examined in a dassroom with 12 retarded children. After baseline data were gathered on contingent verbal and nonverbal teacher approval and student attentive behavior, the teacher was instructed to increase her use of contingent nonverbal approval (smiles and physical contact) and to maintain her baseline level of verbal approval. After a reversal phase, the nonverbal approval phase was reinstated. Nonverbal teacher behaviors increased during the experimental phases, whereas verbal teacher approval (alone or in conjunction with nonverbal behaviors) did not increase. Attentive behavior increased for 11 of 12 students during the phases in which contingent nonverbal teacher approval increased. Correlational data suggested that nonverbal teacher approval accounted for behavior change of the students to a greater extent than did changes in the amount of teacher approval per se or in the teacher's use of verbal approval.Teacher approval or attention has been used extensively to alter student behavior in the classroom. In many studies, teacher approval is operationalized as verbal praise (Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman, 1969;Ward and Baker, 1968;Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper, 1969). Yet, in other studies, verbal approval is supplemented with nonverbal attending behaviors on the part of the teacher such as smiling, patting, holding, touching, moving toward the child, making eye contact, varying tone of voice, among others (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas, 1967;Buell, Stoddard, Harris, and Baer, 1968;Cooper, Thomson, and Baer, 1970 their individual effect on student behavior is rarely evaluated. Even when observational codes include nonverbal teacher behaviors such as facial expressions and physical contact (Becker et al., 1967) or proximity of the teacher to the pupil , it remains unclear whether these behaviors contribute to behavior change in the students independently of verbal approval alone. One reason that nonverbal attending behavior usually is not evaluated is that verbal approval, as opposed to facial expressions and physical contact, constitutes most (about 85 %) of teacher attending behavior (Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Moreover, teacher training is more likely to emphasize and alter verbal behavior as opposed to nonverbal behaviors (facial expressions and physical contact) (Kazdin, in press). Nevertheless, nonverbal teacher behaviors alone may provide an important source of reinforcement in the classroom. Indeed, several texts and manuals on behavior modification in the classroom advocate the use of nonverbal approval behaviors either to supplement praise or to provide reinforcement in their own right (

The Effects of Proximal and Distal Feedback on Rate and Type of Teacher Feedback in a Physical Education Setting

“…These findings show that opposite sector feedback may allow more scanning of the class, thus allow more opportunities to observe performance, give appropriate feedback, and keep activity management problems to a minimum. The results support the findings of earlier research [26][27][28] which suggest the use of feedback in reducing off-task behavior. Verbal feedback typically occurs when the teacher is near the student.…”

A Brief Review of Classroom Group‐oriented Contingencies

“…For example, based on Premack's principle of reinforcement, the arrangement of free-time or special activities contingent upon the individual behaviors of all students in a classroom has been reported to increase desirable classroom behavior (Homme, deBaca, Devine, Steinhorst, and Rickert, 1963;Osborne, 1969;Wasik, 1970) and to improve academic performance (Hopkins, Schutte, and Garton, 1971;Lovitt, Guppy, and Blattner, 1969). Likewise, making teacher attention contingent upon the individual behaviors of all students in a classroom has been reported to increase the rate of study behavior (Hall, Panyon, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;Kazdin and Klock, 1973), to decrease the rate of disruptive behavior (Hall, Fox, Willard, Goldsmith, Emerson, Owen, Davis, and Porcia, 1971;Madsen, Becker, Thomas, Koser, and Plager, 1968;McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman, 1969), and to increase the rate of following instructions (Schutte and Hopkins, 1970). Finally, the use of individually administered token reinforcers for whole classes has been reported to increase the rate of study behavior and academic performance (Bednar, Zelhart, Greathouse, and Weinberg, 1970;Bijou, Birnbrauer, Kidder, and Tague, 1966;Birnbrauer, Bijou, Wolf, and Kidder, 1965;Birnbrauer and Lawler, 1964;Bushell, Wrobel, and Michaelis, 1968;Chadwick and Day, 1971;Clark, Lachowicz, and Wolf, 1968;Ferritor, Buckholdt, Hamblin, and Smith, 1972;Glynn, 1970;Haring and Hauck, 1969;Hewett, Taylor, and Artuso, 1967;Knapczyk and Livingston, 1973;McIntire, Davis, and Pumroy, 1970;McKenzie, Clark, Wolf, Kothers, and Benson, 1968;McLaughlin and Malaby, 1972a;Nolen, Kunzelmann, and Haring, 1967;Wolf et al, 1970;Wolf, Giles, and Hal...…”

Role Playing to Train Elementary Teachers to Use a Classroom Management “Skill Package”1

“…This work is part of a body of research that has assessed the value of a wide variety of individual component skills useful for classroom management. Much of this literature has focused on the systematic use of teacher approval as a means of replacing disruptiveness with on-task behavior (Broden, Bruce, Mitchell, Carter, and Hall, 1970;Hall, Lund, and Jackson, 1968;Hall, Panyon, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968;McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman, 1969; Shutte and Hopkins, 1970) as well as the use of teacher disapproval to reduce inappropriate classroom behavior (Hall, Axelrod, Foundopoulos, Shellman, Campbell, and Cranston, 1971;Miller, 1974, McAllister et al, 1969;O'Leary, Kaufman, Kass, and Drabman, 1970 (WINTER 1975) growing body of literature examining such variables as the redistribution of teacher attention (Sanders and Hanson, 1971), prompting skills (Knapczyk and Livingston, 1974), rules (Herman and Tramontana, 1971;Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968;O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas, 1969), nonverbal teacher approval (Kazdin and Klock, 1973), and vicarious social reinforcement (Broden et al, 1970;Kounin and Gump, 1958;Kazdin, 1973). Although the results of research on the systematic application of a variety of social skills by teachers in the classroom have been encouraging, it is apparent that a shift of emphasis from component analysis to the integration of these components into a useful "skill package" is needed.…”