Teacher Perceptions of Student Achievement

Teacher Perceptions of Student Achievement Based on Appearance

Perception is around us at all times; it was integral in our evolutionary behavior from ape to man; it allowed us to make judgments based on values, prior knowledge, and cultural norms. Perception is really two types of consciousness: phenomenal (observable) and psychological. However, the reality is that both types are often subjective. We may observe something and take away a variety of messages that may or may not be correct about the event; or psychologically, we may have such a bundle of preconceptions that we are unable to get past the historical and act on the present and potential. Our cognitive selves, though, have evolved to make these judgments and search for ways to categorize new objects, people, trends, and behaviors in ways that make sense to our minds and our ability to understand and relate to the newer stimuli (Chalmers, 1997, 25-6).

This is nowhere as evident, and important, as it is regarding the relationship between teacher and student at all levels. For at least fifty years we have known, researched, and debated the way that teacher perceptions of students often bias their learning, that teacher predictions of academic success has a strong correlation to classroom participation and test scores, and more than we thought -- a contributor to the student's own self-identification and actualization process within the classroom (Dusek, 1975). Thus, we will review those clues that provide teachers with ways to evaluate students and what contributes to those evaluations: nonverbal behavior, appearance, attitude, ethnicity, and even prior knowledge.

Non-Verbal Communication - the focal point of perceptions of students and their appearance on their abilities and intellectual level has numerous templates. Certainly outward dress, jewelry, hair style, etc. but, more of the way people are perceived is noted in a combination of those tangible items with the way humans, and therefore students of all ages, communicate messages -- some subtle, some not -- through non- verbal communication.

How we as humans dress communicates a message just as powerfully as oration. Our mannerisms, choice of colors, shapes, etc. all form a part of sending a message to the world. This is called nonverbal communication, and is a part of the process of interpersonal communication that sends messages without using words or phrases. It uses body posture, facial expressions, hand and arm gestures, posture, and even eye contact. For humans it also uses objects that we use culturally: clothing, jewelry, hairstyles and combinations of ways we present ourselves (e.g. using certain jewelry to communicate affluence, or a particular style of glasses to show "hipness," etc.). With speech, we can use rhythm, tone, timbre, style, or emotion to emphasize a message as well. Much of the study of nonverbal communication though is categorized into three major templates: the particular environment, the physical characteristics of the communicators, and the behaviors of those communicators as they interact (Knapp and Hall 2007, 7). In fact, the first scholarly study of nonverbal communication was done in 1872 by Charles Darwin, who argued that animals, too, show emotion and communication in their facial expressions (Darwin 2009).

Nonverbal communication is also culturally based -- expressions taught in childhood in one culture could be offensive in another, or the opposite. It is thus an area of study that focuses on numerous disciplines: sociology, anthropology, psychology, communications, art, music, criminology, etc. As part of the human communication paradgim, nonverbal comunication often defines the communication process by providing a basic template for message. It can also regulate regular verbal communication and provide clues and emphasis -- signals that the listner understands almost implicitly. By the same token, the person communicating looks for signals from the audience -- whether they are bored, interested, antagonistic, or sympathetic (Verckens 2003).

Relationship Between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication -- Social psychologist Paul Ekman is a pioneer in the study of emotions and their relationship to expressions and nonverbal communication. He believes there are at least six different ways in which verbal and nonverbal communications relate: repeat/enhance, contradict, complement, accent, substitute, and regulate (See below):

Issue

Definition

Comments

Substitute

Use nonverbal instead of verbal

Shaking one's head rather than answering yes or no

Repetition

Use nonverbal and verbal at the same time

Saying "no" and shaking head side to side

Contradict

Opposite meanings

Someone might say, "this will be fun" yet display a facial expression of disgust- this is sarcasm; words are positive, nonverbal communication is negative

Complient

Enhance or emphasize

Someone very tired or worn out might say "I've had a bad day," white simultaneously slumping in posture and looking sad or tired

Accent

Emphasize a part of the conversation or issue

Someone might say, "It was really smooth," while mimicing the smoothness with hands and voice tone

Regulation

Using nonverbal clues to regulate speed, depth, and intensity of communication

Nodding, smiling, looking away, etc.

Source: (Ekman 2007).

Another interesting facet of nonverbal communication is that while verbal communication is more overt, non-verbal is less controllable, and therefore, more honest and truthful. Speaking usually means that some sort of audible or visual message is available and is the target of communication. Once this is written or recorded, it can be used to discuss, reinvent, comment, etc. Nonverbal communication, however, is an impression made and often clues given without the speaker even realizing. These clues, though, are powerful enough to remain with the audience long after the message was sent. This, of course, is particularly true with politicians, performers, and even news reporters (Depaulo 1996).

Nonverbal Macro Signals - Nonverbal communication is extremely important in public speaking, the media, and interpersonal issues that focus on business relationships. While radio can disguise much by just using voice, public speaking and television cannot. This is especially true in news casting, where the way something is said, and the appearance and body posture, etc. Of the anchor or reporter, often communicates more than the message themselves. It is certainly true that how one acts in front of the camera is as important, if not more, than what text is read (Calero 2005). In the popular press, this is especially true within newscasts in which the reporter has just a few moments to communicate the appropriate message. Humans make decisions, usually subconsciously, very quickly -- and when an audience looks at a public figure or newscaster, they "read" the way that person is looking, often translating this behavior into the way a person views their role, or the role of others, in the business world (Knapp and Hall 2005).

From the overall standpoint of what a population sees regarding non-verbal communication, two very clear, and famous, historical examples of this are etched in the annals of history. First, most historians believe that the primary reason John F. Kennedy won the Presidential Election was because of the non-verbal "poor body language" on the television debate with Richard Nixon in 1960 -- especially valid since radio audiences overwhelmingly voted that Nixon had won the debate. Nixon's body language was furtive, he was perspiring, he looked unshaven, and he did not look at the camera -- Kennedy, on the other hand, was jovial, looked at the camera just as if it were a real person, making the home audience trust and feel like he was talking directly to them (JFK vs. Nixon - the 1960 Debates 1960; 1960: The Road to Camelot 2004. The second famous example was in 1963 when the CBS news anchor, Walter Cronkite, reported to the nation that President Kennedy had been shot and was dead. Cronkite had his jacket off, was visibly distressed, and even choked up and had tears in his eyes. Ratings soared for CBS, and even later, people saw Cronkite as a credible, emotionally vested, "real" person who actually cared about the news rather than just reporting (Cronkite 1963).

In the contemporary world, people make even more snap judgments about the credibility of the news based on the appearance of the newscaster. Witness, the Dan Rather and Peter Jennings reports on the Gulf War with both in flak jackets, desert attire, and posed so that the audience saw shooting and the reality of the war behind them (News 1991; Brokaw 2006). Similarly, rather than viewing the actual verbiage from many female reporters, audiences watch what they wear (cannot be do fancy, too contemporary, and must portray a calm professionalism), with their tasteful jewelry, pert but basic hairstyle, and minimalist make-up; coupled with the direction of maintaining non-verbal sincerity above all. For example, Leslie Stahl, Katie Couric, Connie Chung, and others (See: Connie Chung - U.S. Broadcast Journalist 2010; Kurtz 2008).

What is clear, based on these, and other examples, is that within the news profession, non-verbal clues; posture, eye contact, grooming, demeanor, etc. are critical. However, we cannot minimize how the external focus of nonverbal communication impacts the internal -- day-to-day activities with colleagues, teachers, students, etc. The signals given in non-verbal communication are also found to be key in interview situations, from both sides of the table. Everywhere we look, individuals use body language and non-verbal signals. We've seen evidence of politicians and the media using signals to improve their veracity (or the contrary), but non-verbal clues have even been studied by anthropologists as a way to recognize subtleties of communication. In fact, anthropologist Ray Birdswhistell found that most humans can recognize over 250,000 facial expressions that impart meaning (Pease 2006, 10).

Sources of Nonverbal Communication- Psychologists believe that nonverbal communication is both part of individual behavior and the result of that behavior. The environment plays a huge part in how we as individuals "feel" and therefore express ourselves. The difference, say, between a well lit hotel atrium with classical music playing, numerous plants, and earth tones vs. A dark and dingy hallway in a public building will certainly provide different nonverbal impetus. In addition, the following are part of the entire nonvernal universe:

Issue

Characteristic/Example

Physical Characteristics and Appearance

Body type, height, weight, skin color all communicates messages. Examples include casting for a play or movie, looking like a CEO, an impression of who is smart, etc.

Facial Appearance

Long history of using facial appearances to predict behavior, identify criminal tendencies, etc.

Odors

Send conscious and unconscious messages (cologne), sexual availability, etc.

Artifactual Clues

Jewelry, clothes, classes, accouterments

Proxemics

Space (personal and otherwise) during interaction

Kinesics

Body posture; for instance a person in a job interview tends to sit up straight and look at the interviewer; sitting slumped and looking around sends a message of negativity

Emblems

Thumbs up, down, the O.K. sign etc.

Gestures

Cultural and meaningful gestures; illustrators, and manipulators

Touching

Culturally rule-bound as well, but emphasizes behaviors

Eyes

Staring/gazing, pupil dilation, eye movement

Paralanguage

Pitch, tone, pauses, "It is not what you say, but how you say it."

(Sources: Morris 1986; Schwebel 2002).

Nonverbal Comunication and the Professional Interview -- Experts not that nonverbal communication is as important as what answers may be given during a professional interview. In any situation in which one is being judged in competition by another the nonverbal clues must be practiced and assured, else they may give away feelings of nervousness or a lack of competence on a particular question. Studies have been done in which several factors have been tested and the following suggestions made that will nonverbally enhance an interviewing situation:

Understand the message one wants to send nonverbally; interest, competence, professional distance, etc.

Posture -- sitting either straight up at the back of the chair, legs uncrossed; or leaning slightly forward to engender interest.

Eye contact -- concentrate on a spot in the middle of the interviewer's forehead, try not to look around at the desk, walls, books, artwork, etc.

Dress -- very dependent upon the type of job; the type of firm, and the position. Typically, better to be more conervative with a touch (e.g. tie, stockings, jewelry, etc.) of the avante garde.

Grooming, etc. -- avoid heavy cologne scents, heavy floral notes; best to understate

Gestures -- try to avoid large or sweeping gestures, emphasis can be done using a pen or pencil

Tone of voice -- pause a bit prior to answering a question, ensure grammar is correct, but try not to sound like giving a canned response (Hiemstra 1999; Miller 2006; B. Pease 2006).

Humans are constantly making decisions about the messages received; and the nonverbal portions of these communications are incredibly powerful and robust.Nonverbal communication affects almost every aspect of daily interpersonal encounters; first dates, job interviews, doctor visits, advertising, work and school. Because these messages are so powerful and pervasive, it is important to understand what messages are being given and received. The better one is at both receiving (interpreting) and executing nonverbal communication, the more chance one will have of being understood completely. We should remember an ancient Confucian saying, "one can better understand others by looking into their eyes than by listening to their words."

Dress as Expression -- Now that we have a background in the way non-verbal signals work, we turn to the way that signals from dress emphasize, or de-emphasize, personality traits that may or may not be accurate. The manner in which children and young people dress is part of the socialization process from their own internal culture, their upbringing, and their own understanding of their individuality. If we think about the contemporary world, children and adolescents become culturally socialized with appearance and dress within several linear paradigms: family, school, work, fun, etc. Much of this socialization is peer related, but influenced heavily by the media and "trends" children see on television, social networking sites, and movies. Often, this puts children of lower economic status at a disadvantage, because the "right" clothes, the "right" look can be cost prohibitive. To counter this, we find an entirely new argument, not completely germane to our argument here, of elementary and middle school children being required to wear uniforms. This requirement is designed, in theory, to allow for a more egalitarian approach to dressing for school, allowing students to be perceived less individually and more communally, and to ensure that clothing and appearance are not overly weighted factors within the classroom (Workman and Studak, 2008). Additionally research shows that, particularly in heavily diverse schools, educators support the use of uniforms because they reduce the rsik of both psychological harm (comparisons, etc.) and other school related issues (gang markings, too much sexuality, teacher perceptions). The older the student, the less likely, however, they are in agreeing to wear uniforms or to generalize their appearance (Alleyne, 2003).

What students wear, how they wear their hair, which glasses they choose, all are part of their own burgeoning self-expression. Many experts see that this self-expression is an important part of child development and that the time spent in school (approximately 35-40 hours per week) is large enough that public education should foster, not limit, the idea of celebrating diversity. These same studies acknowledge that while students do not always make the best choices when opting for certain modes of appearance, it is also the responsibility of the school to prepare children for life in the real world, where they will continue to be judged by appearance (Dress Codes - Pros and Cons, 2004). This is actually the crux of the matter -- how does the world, and how do teachers specifically, use clothing and appearance to make qualitative judgements about students, particularly their abilities and achievement level, through clothing and appearance.

Perceptions Surrounding Dress and Appearance- There is absolutely no doubt that choices in personal appearance communicate certain bits of information to the world. Clothing as communication is historical, it sends messages of economic status, interest level, conformity, and even intelligence and ability. One "expects" a student neatly coiffed with pressed khaki pants, a button down shirt, and loafers to be not only studious, but a potential leader and excellent student. Conversely, a student with dreadlocks, several piercings, jeans with numerous holes, and radical t-shirts or jewelry is perceived to be antisocial, to lack conformity, to be rebellious and disrespectful (Damhorst, 1990).

Within the research, several types of appearance structures are addressed. The sociobiological perspective, for instance, predicts that a relationship exsits interculturally between what people perceive as facial attractivness or its opposite predictive of behavior and intelligence. This is not as modern as it sounds; evolutionarily, people with the most attractive features appeared to be better genetic material for mating, and passing on that genetic map. Perceived unattractiveness, whether that be from any sort of disfigurement at one extreme or piercings, colorations, etc. On the other perspective has a strong biological perpensity towards different. This can be illustrated as follows (Jackson, 1992):

This same research shows that although the face is usually the first thinkg noticed, and is extremely strong as a perceptual predictor, body attractiveness, hygeine, taste and appropriateness all also have strong consequences, particularly for females. Depending on the culture in question (values), we find that there are a number of predictors involved in assessing both the quality of the person as a mate (socio-biology) and their inate ability to positively impact society at large. Each of these perceptors certainly vary by individual, as well as by chronology (for instance, in 1965 an elementary student would have been sent home for wearing a Mohawk and having multiple piercings; in some areas that form of dress and expression is commonplace):

Issue

Perceptor

Comments

Facial Attractiveness

Shape, eyes, skin tone, nose, mouth

In modern culture this is generally non-blemished skin of all tones; high cheekbones, wide mouth, roundish eyes

Piercings/Body Jewely/Tatoos

Culturally relevant; more acceptable in some than others, tends to be more of a primitive or anti-social indicator.

Light piercings acceptable, heavy or multiple piercings, or piercings that are reddish around the skin are seens as anti-social

Clothing -- Style, mode

Trendy, nostalgic, layered, respectful, color, suggestive

Clothing style reflects self as well as external perception; e.g. gothic black

Hygeine -- both self and clothing

Clothes that look dungy or wrinkled, body odor, shaving for teen boys, makeup for girls

Crucial in educational settings; too much make up seen as "loose"

Hair style

Cleanliness, style, coloration

Fairly wide based, but too extreme (e.g. colored Mohawk) gives anti-social perception.

Carriage -- posture, nervousness, focus

Self-esteem, looks into the eye, speaks coherently, shyness

Carriage part of non-verbal communication to the outside world.

(Sabatelli and Rubin, 1996; Solomon and Saxe, 1977).

In the educational field, while some of these perceptors are less vital than others we find that teachers' judgements about pupuls' general personality characteristics revolves around both the issue of appearance and the very qualitative and subjective view of whether they "understaood" pupils. The challenge with this view is that there is a two-step stage: initial appearance and then, over time, that diminishes to the point in which the student's personality and quality of work, especially timliness, neatness and cognitive thinking, takes over. Related to this is that of "teacher interest." Since teachers are a diverse group as well, their own prior knowledge, ethnicity, cultural heritiage and values and notions all contribute to their own perceptions of students. Someone who was radical in the 1960s and 1970s, wore long hair and opt-out clothing may be more likely to be far less judgmental than someone of a strict religious or social class upbringing. Teachers often describe these subjective traits within the context of both understanding the student and finding them educationally interesting. In effect, though, they are relating extrenal characteristics to the studetns apparent cognitive style, the way the student interacts with their own personal style and egagement, as well as the classroom culture. If a student never engages, is laxidasical with their lessons, and seems disinterested in the teacher's presentations, their personal appearance has less of a judgmental factor for that instructor (Cooper and McIntyre, 1996, 141-2).

The idea of engagement and chronological time is very important to our approach. There is a clear distinction in the modeling of perception based on nonverbal as well as appearance clues between the initial meeting (first day of class), mid-term, and end of year. Much happens in a classroom, particularly at the elementary level when one typically has the class most of the day. Numerous situations, value judgements, chances to observe interaction, beneficence, empathy, as well as student presentations and their ability to cognitively interact (Ibid; Coleman, 2001, 87).

This trend is accentuated by the manner in which the initial perception of the student, based on body language, physical appearance, and clothing choice is accentuated over time as students' and teachers' strive to build relationships. One study of note saw that even intial perceptions of a student's academic ability, notions about testing, and success in the school was strongly mitigated by a number of seemingly innocuous behaviors: active listening, patience, cognizance and embracement of change, advocacy, engagement, physical proximity, and the ability to refrain from placing social of physical distance between themselves and their students. This can be assessed in a just a matter of moments in most classrooms: the teacher who is comfortable removing their preconceptions based on diversity or appearance tends to walk around the class, spends very little time at their desk, and allows students to express themselves openly without fear of retribution as long as polite and within the rules. These types of teachers do not say, "No, that's not right," but… "Well, that is interesting, how else might we think about subject a?" (Ibid, 88-90).