Do You Know What You Look Like?

Interpersonal Relationships In Education

Jack Levy, Theo Wubbels

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781135721084
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Much of the work in this book has originated from an international project called "Education for Teachers". Educational researchers from Holland, USA, Australia and Israel look at an important element of teacher behaviour - that is the interpersonal actions which create and maintain a positive classroom atmosphere. The book uses systems theory and family therapy to analyze what happens in classrooms, looking at classes as "big families". It provides a simple way to collect feedback from participants in communication in education (students, teachers, principles, student-teacher supervisors). Thus for example, differences between students' perceptions and the teachers self-perception of the teacher communication style are are formed. This feedback can be used to improve teaching. The book reviews research on communication styles of teachers in secondary education with the help of the questionnaire on teacher interaction and includes implications for teacher programs.

Chapter 1
A Systems Perspective on Classroom Communication

Hans Créton, Theo Wubbels and Herman Hooymayers

In order to understand interpersonal communication it is important to examine the ecological or contextual system in which it occurs. In educational terms, the immediate context for teachers is the classroom. Their natural communication partners are, of course, students. This thinking led us to evaluate and adopt general systems theory as a basis to analyze classroom communication. Systems concepts have been usefully employed in family therapy (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967; Haley, 1963). Wubbels, Créton and Holvast (1988) demonstrated some of these ideas can be productively used in describing classroom situations.

By interpreting the class as a communication system this chapter illustrates a number of characteristics of teacher-student communication. Among these are cause and effect, which are the ‘dead-ends’ of the communication process; report and command, which describe the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of communication and are of great importance; not being able to ‘not communicate’; symmetrical and complementary interaction, which refer to similar and dissimilar behaviors of teachers and students and the problems they embody; blindness, which is a characteristic of many beginning teachers; paradoxical injunctions, in which teachers undermine their intentions; and metacommunication, which is a way out of problematic communication.

Before we discuss the characteristics, however, we must introduce two concepts which help frame the entire discussion. Circularity and change refer to the interdependent relationship of all aspects in a communication system. This idea leads to the second concept, which is the focus on teacher behavior as the most pragmatic point by which to analyze—and change—the learning environment.

Circularity and Change

The concepts of circularity and change are central to an understanding of systems theory and help describe all other characteristics. Circularity implies that all aspects of a system are intertwined. Changes in one will not only affect the others, but will then return like ripples of water moving between river banks. Thus, circular communication processes develop which not only consist of behavior but which determine behavior as well. The nature of any system, then, is greatly affected by its response—and in some cases, resistance—to change.

Classes are characterized by stability, resistance to change and circular processes. Teachers seek stability to provide sound instruction, as can be seen in the use of words like ‘routines’ and ‘rituals’ (Yinger, 1980; Au and Kawakami, 1984). These can be quite desirable, in that they help to protect the class from interruption, increase predictability and reduce ambiguity (Yinger, 1980; Shavelson, 1983). They can also be undesirable and not supportive of student achievement. Once stability has been established (whether positive or negative) both teachers and students seem hesitant to change (Blumenfeld and Meece, 1985; Doyle, 1983). The first day of school seems to set the trend for the rest of the year, and once the pattern is set it is difficult to modify (Brooks, 1985).

The presence of circularity can be inferred from Doyle’s (1983) analysis of teacher-student communication as a process of negotiation. He proposes that teacher behavior in classrooms is probably produced by teacher-student interaction and is shaped by the demands of securing student cooperation. Since teacher behavior also influences teacher-student interactions the process is circular. Circularity continues over the life of the communication. People who are communicating continually exchange messages in response to earlier messages, even if there is an interruption of minutes, hours or days. If we haven’t seen each other in some time, we simply ‘pick up where we left off. This makes it impossible to assign a beginning to the communication, unless we consider its entire history. Since communication consists of series of consecutive messages, therefore, the teacher’s behavior is not only caused by students’ actions, but also confirms them.

Focus on Teacher Behavior

A unique feature of the systems perspective is its refusal to seek out individual motives in problem situations. As will be discussed below, the notion of circularity and continual communication makes it difficult to identify beginning and end in teacher-student interaction. While we may be able to figure out who started what, the information is generally useless for the solution. The systems’ perspective doesn’t attempt to figure out why, either, since it doesn’t place much importance on the individual motives of participants. Teacher-student relationships are not deduced from psychosocial backgrounds, but are seen as outcomes of a classroom system in which both teacher and students take part.

This behavioral orientation allows the systems perspective to deal with problems in the most pragmatic fashion, one which causes the system the least trauma. In terms of classroom problems, therefore, it leads to a focus on the teacher’s behavior rather than the students’, since it is easier to change one person instead of twenty-five. Campbell (1974) demonstrated the importance of teacher behavior to class character by analyzing classes which stayed together but had different teachers for each subject. The students were described as varying from ‘a pack of hungry half-starved wolves with the math and English teachers, to docile lambs with their science teacher’.

Who’s to Blame?

In general, researchers have only recently begun to reflect on teacher behaviors with regard to problems in the learning environment. Much of the research on undesirable classroom situations views misbehavior as a student characteristic or the result of poor management techniques (Doyle, 1986). Teachers usually think that students are to blame for most class disturbances, and cite various psychosocial reasons (Brophy and Rohrkemper, 1981; Metz, 1978; Sanford and Evertson, 1981; Sieber, 1979; Tikunoff and Ward, 1978, all in Doyle, 1986).

As we’ve implied, it’s unreasonable to single out students for blame, since class-communication problems are the result of both students’ and teachers’ behavior. Wubbels, Créton and Holvast (1988) analyzed classes in which problem students were either absent or had permanently left. They found that often after an initial period of relief (for the teacher), someone else became the ‘trouble maker’. In fact, the new problem student frequently displayed the same behaviors as the original. They concluded that misbehavior can’t be attributed to a particular student. Communication situations seem to have an identity, or life of their own. If the basic behaviors of participants don’t change (i.e., the character of the stability remains the same) and someone leaves, another will take his or her place. This explains why a new trouble maker appears just when the teacher believes his or her problems are over. The Wubbels, et al. finding corroborates similar results from family therapy research (Haley, 1971).

The phenomenon of ‘blaming the other guy’ is not uncommon, and can be explained in terms of ‘punctuation’. When people punctuate communication sequences they figuratively provide ‘full stops’ (beginnings-ends) and ‘commas’ (pauses) regarding their own ideas and imagine similar punctuations in their partner’s messages (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967, p. 54). People interpret punctuations differently and this naturally leads to differing opinions about which behavior is cause and which is effect. People in these situations—in our case teachers and students—may experience ‘punctuation problems’. An example would be the teacher whose classroom is noted for its aggressive atmosphere. She feels the students aren’t performing well because of their misbehavior, and as a result grades them harshly. Students, on the other hand, feel that their inattention and subsequent low grades come as a result of her confusing presentations.

When punctuation problems occur, teachers and students do not differ as to whether or how certain events took place. They tend to disagree about cause, effect and blame. Most believe it’s the other’s fault (since he/she/they started it), which is usually an unproductive line of reasoning.

Report and Command Aspects

Every form of communication has a report and a command aspect (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967).
The report can be understood as the what, and the command as the how of communication. The report conveys the content, information, or description; the command carries instructions about how to interpret the report (Ruesch and Bateson, 1968 in LaFrance and Mayo, 1978). In a class, teacher and students relate in ways which are outside the subject matter (report) and often exist through non-verbal means (Woolfolk and Brooks, 1983; Blumenfeld and Meece, 1985; Stubbs, 1976).

Both the report and command aspects of the communication are closely interwoven. If a teacher is enthusiastic and captivating, or if he or she grades harshly, this will influence the teacher-student relationship. Likewise, students’ curiosity about subject matter is aroused when teachers are willing to assist and encourage them (Deci, Nezlek and Sheinman, 1981). Clearly, the manner in which a teacher deals with each student influences motivation (de Bruyn, 1979). In addition, the same report message can affect students differently depending on the accompanying command aspect. For example, Marshall and Weinstein (1986) demonstrate that a behavior such as pointing out student mistakes can carry different underlying messages about student ability. One command interpretation might be ‘I want to help you to learn’. A quite different translation, however, is also possible: ‘You are too stupid to learn.’

Because the command-level communication is often ambiguous, it’s important to analyze the nature of messages. Besides spoken words, the teacher-student relationship manifests itself non-verbally through bearing, gesture, facial expression, intonation, sound level, articulation and context, among other indicators. When a teacher doesn’t consciously think about the report and command aspects of his or her message, students might react in a way that is different from the teacher’s intentions, as in the following example:

A teacher was trying to restrain a student disturbance. With a cracking voice and flushed face he yelled: ‘Anyone who says another damn thing has to copy twenty-five pages from the book and will report to the principal.’ One student responded with: ‘I thought you weren’t allowed to curse’, which was followed by an outburst of laughing from the other students.

At the report level the teacher indicated that the students ought to be afraid of him because of his power to punish them. At the command level, however, students probably interpreted his cracking voice as a sign of impotence. The content of the message was powerful and terror-inspiring. The command aspect, however, communicated the opposite: that the teacher was in danger of losing his grip on the situation. The student’s reaction was therefore understandable. Though the teacher wanted to define the students’ interpretation by the content of his message, he was not able to do so.

The command aspect of students’ communications can also be ambiguous. Occasionally students will be full of questions about a particular subject. Their behavior might indicate a genuine interest in the subject, or something quite different—a desire to divert the teacher’s attention from something else, like homework or a quiz. In analyzing problematic communication patterns it is almost always more profitable to concentrate on the command aspects of the interaction rather than the report.

The following example once again shows how the command aspect can be communicated subconsciously.

While the teacher makes a presentation, two students in the back quietly talk about something which has nothing to do with the subject. The teacher sees the students but continues his explanation. A few minutes later two other students start to converse. The teacher tells them to shut up, whereupon the irritated students call his attention to this inconsistency.

Here the teacher initially continues with the lesson. The report aspect of his message concerns the subject, but at the command level the students interpret his initial inaction as tacit acceptance of their nonparticipation. Other students, then, may have even interpreted this as an invitation to start talking. In any case, the subconscious transmission of an unintended message has created a conflict.

Teachers who have difficulty with class management often send mixed messages which deliver conflicting impressions at the report and command levels. An example would be a teacher who continually contradicts what he or she has just said by repeatedly warning students ‘for the last time’ while pronouncing the most terrible threats. Or, the teacher who indignantly says to a student: ‘You just do as you like. I don’t care whether you pay attention or not. You’re only hurting yourself’. Here, the verbal message says ‘I grant you permission’ while the nonverbal says ‘absolutely not!’ Such conflicting communication usually has a negative effect on the person addressed (Waxler and Mishler, 1970; Haley, 1973).

The need to distinguish between the report and command levels is especially important in beginning relationships. This is for example true for first-year teachers, who are often confronted by students ‘trying them out’ (Brooks, 1985). The students basically want to know what the teacher will and will not permit.
This process chiefly takes place at the command level, below the surface of their communication about the subject taught. This can be seen in the following example.

The teacher comes in. It is very noisy. She stands in front of the first desk in the middle row and looks at the class. Nobody reacts. She hesitates. Finally, she says: ‘Take out your books, please. Exercise six.’ Most students ignore her and continue talking. The teacher approaches two students in the front by the window. They are obviously doing something they should not do. After talking with them for a moment she resumes her original position: ‘Exercise six, page fifty-seven’ she says, raising her voice. Nobody reacts, but she continues unperturbed. ‘Okay, the first sentence? Jim, you take the first sentence’. The first sentence?’ he asks, as if she’s said something very odd. ‘Exercise six, page fifty-seven’ whisper the students around him. Laughing, he reads the first paragraph. It is about a father who does not want his son to be treated by different doctors. The paragraph tries to create an analogy between medical specialists treating a patient and garage mechanics treating engines. When different mechanics would put different kinds of oil in the father’s engine it would invariably break down.

‘What is your conclusion?’, the teacher asks. ‘They must be using the wrong oil.’ Great hilarity. ‘No, they should have put more oil in him’, says another. A few more of these remarks follow, but the teacher does not respond. Outwardly unconcerned, she looks at the class. She does not share their amusement, but neither does she resist it. ‘Bart, what have you got?’ she says to one of the students who is the noisiest laugher. ‘Lemme look for my answer.’ Of course, he can’t find it. The question is directed to somebody else and the teacher finally gets a serious answer.

This pattern continues—teacher asks question, students joke around, teacher tries to ignore it until she finds a student willing to cooperate.

The command aspect predominates in nearly every student response. It seems as if they are continually telling each other and the teacher that ‘I don’t take this exercise seriously; I’ll just ignore the teacher’. The answers not only indicate how students see their relationship with the teacher, but also act as an element in defining their own relationship. They derive their status from the competition to see who is the funniest. The teacher ignores messages from students at command level and only reacts to the content of the sentences. Because both sides stress a different communication level and thus talk at cross-purposes, they can also associate with each other in a relatively peaceful way and avoid confrontation. To properly assess the meaning of students’ answers, teachers should focus on such non-verbal behaviors as voice, facial expression and bearing. This is usually more informative than the content aspect of students’ responses if the communication is problematic.

Healthy relationships between people are characterized by communication which is more report than command-based (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967). When things aren’t going that well, however, there is a constant struggle over the meaning of command-level messages, and the content aspect becomes less important (p. 52). Generally, this implies the predominance of non-verbal behaviors over verbal. Thus, when educational research is conducted in laboratories the verbal part of teacher behavior appears to explain more variance in student reactions than the non-verbal. In more natural settings, however, the non-verbal channel prevails. This may be due to the nature of the lab settings, where the relationship is generally pronounced and healthy.

We normally think of the command aspect of teacher communication being delivered with a gesture or other immediate non-verbal behavior. The way it is received actually depends on...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 A Systems Perspective on Classroom Communication
• Chapter 2 The Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior
• Chapter 3 Perceptions of Interpersonal Teacher Behavior
• Chapter 4 A Typology of Teacher Communication Style
• Chapter 5 Student Performance, Attitudes, Instructional Strategies and Teacher-Communication Style
• Chapter 6 Comparison of Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of Interpersonal Teacher Behavior
• Chapter 7 Interpersonal Teacher Behavior Throughout the Career
• Chapter 8 Interpersonal Teacher Behavior and School Environment
• Chapter 9 Principals’ Interpersonal Behavior and Teachers’ Satisfaction
• Chapter 10 Supervisors’ Interpersonal Behavior and Student Teachers’ Satisfaction
• Chapter 11 Socialization in Student Teaching
• Chapter 12 Teacher Education Programs
• Appendices
• References
• Notes on Contributors