Teachers’ Nonverbal Behavior and Its Impact on Student Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The observational study was conducted to see the impact of teachers’ nonverbal behavior on academic achievement of learners. This also investigated the relationship of nonverbal communication of teachers working in different educational institutions. Main objectives of study were to measure nonverbal behavior of teachers’ both male and female working in English medium Federal Government Cantt Garrison schools, Army Public schools and Private schools and to find out the relationship between teachers’ nonverbal behavior and academic achievement of students. 90 science teachers were randomly chosen through cluster sampling technique. An observation form with seven-point rating scale (semantic differential) based on Galloways’ categories of nonverbal communication was developed. The rating scale complemented verbal dimension of Flanders’ interaction categories through nonverbal dimension. Design of research was descriptive cum observational. The statistical techniques of frequency distribution, mean, standard deviation, and ANNOVA and t-test were used for analysis. The results were generalized to the population by means of appropriate inferential statistics. It was found that the nonverbal behavior of the teachers was found to be consistent with their verbal behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".