Kline focuses on social interaction in general and teaching in particular. Social interaction is obviously based on language, but 85% of any communication is based on non-verbal aspects: gesture, posture, facial expression, motor synchronization, and so forth (Mehrabian & Ferris Reference Mehrabian and Ferris1967). However, in the entire target article, the word “motor” is never mentioned, while “movements” and “non-verbal” are cited only 3 times, each. I strongly believe that teaching is embodied. This commentary focuses on showing that motor synchronizations are always functionally present in any social interaction. The characteristics of interactions are based on person 1 reacting to the perception of movements from person 2 reacting to the perception of movements from person 1, ad infinitum. To illustrate my argument, I will use interpersonal coordination studies with healthy people and patients suffering from interaction deficits. I will first show that we are all unintentionally influenced by the movement of the person we are interacting with. Then I will indicate that such an interaction is embodied. The state of mind is directly observable in the body and the movement of the other person.
First, movements of people we are interacting with influence our own actions. When two persons interact together, they can be either intentionally or unintentionally coordinated. “Intentionally” is of course artificial, since people voluntarily move in perfect synchrony with each other. “Unintentionally” is what we are facing all the time as long as there is a perceptual contact. When two persons walk side by side, even if they both have different stride frequencies, as soon as they talk together, they both unconsciously change their locomotion in order to walk at the same pace (van Ulzen et al. Reference van Ulzen, Lamoth, Daffertshofer, Semin and Beek2008). Similarly, when an event or a show ends, the entire audience applauds. After the three first random hand claps, everyone synchronizes his or her applause at the same frequency (Neda et al. Reference Neda, Ravasz, Brechet, Vicsek and Barabasi2000). Several other examples can be found in the literature indicating that hearing, seeing, or touching someone triggers unintended synchronization. Schmidt and O'Brien (Reference Schmidt and O'Brien1997) were the first authors to reveal evidence of unintentional coordination when instructing two participants seated side by side to oscillate a handheld pendulum at their preferred frequency. For 30 seconds they looked at the other person's pendulum and for 30 seconds they looked in the other direction. As soon as they saw each other's pendulum, participants coordinated, revealing that even when the goal of the task was not focused on coordination, participants synchronized together. This experiment led other authors to challenge the unintended coordination phenomenon by explicitly instructing two participants to not take into account the movement of the other one (Issartel et al. Reference Issartel, Marin and Cadopi2007). Participants seated in front of each other were asked to move their right forearm however they wanted (improvisation task). Although all participants reported that they did not pay attention to their co-actor while performing their improvisation task, they all executed movements differently from when alone. Results showed they could not avoid coordinating with their partner.
These experiments demonstrate that people's movements always influence their partner's moves even if they are not aware of such synchronization. If no one can avoid motor coordination, obviously teachers cannot either. Their motor behavior is unintentionally synchronized with that of their learner. Consequently, no matter how a teacher thinks he/she is totally independent of the students' behavior for impartiality and fairness purposes, the way students move in general affects the teacher's behavior and vice versa. Learners immediately decipher the posture, gestures, and facial expressions of their teacher, in order to react based on such a perception.
Second, the state of mind is embodied. Based on previous evidence, one could argue that being coordinated does not affect the core of the interaction (in this instance, the teaching behavior). Motor coordination is dissociated from the state of mind. I want to show that such a statement is wrong. Our movements reflect our state of mind and if our movements are modified by another person, then our entire interaction is altered. The most tangible support of such a claim was paradoxically revealed in the rupture of social interaction observed in patients suffering from schizophrenia and social phobia. Schizophrenics have attentional deficits, which can be directly observed in their motor interaction. For example, in the handheld paradigm these patients always had a delay (were late) within the dyad interaction in all intentional conditions (but not in unintentional conditions), expressing in their bodies their lack of attention in following the instructions (Varlet et al. Reference Varlet, Marin, Raffard, Schmidt, Capdevielle, Boulenger, Del-Monte and Bardy2012). Social phobics, on the other hand, are characterized as displaying inhibited behavior. They believe they are unappreciated; consequently, they are incapable of endorsing the role of leader. Therefore, in the handheld experiment, although these patients were as accurate as any other healthy participants in following the participant, they were unable to be the leader (Varlet et al. Reference Varlet, Marin, Capdevielle, Del-Monte, Schmidt, Salesse, Boulenger, Bardy and Raffard2014). Both of these experiments indicate that the simple and neutral handheld paradigm was enough to reveal the link of mental deficit and motor coordination. Patients and clinicians are bodily influenced by each other even if they are not aware of such an interaction. Consequently, the rehabilitation of social pathologies is biased by non-verbal, body-based communication, which is rarely taken into account or controlled.
In the literature focusing on healthy participants, Wiltermuth and Heath (Reference Wiltermuth and Heath2009) demonstrated that cooperation and social attachment are enhanced when two people are engaged in an activity requiring motor coordination (such as walking, dancing, or singing). These authors showed that synchronization increases interpersonal rapport and pro-social behaviors (van Baaren et al. Reference van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami and van Knippenberg2004) and, by extension, it reveals confirmation of a link between motor processes engaged in interpersonal coordination and the mental connectedness in social interactions. In such a context, modifying the motor synchronization between the teacher and the learner alters the rapport and mental connectedness of the dyad.
In conclusion, I believe that it should be of a particular interest to include in Kline's new integrated framework the role of the motor behavior for teaching/learner interaction. A way to control the use and the consequence of motor behavior on teaching behavior would definitely increase the efficiency of any teaching situation.
You have
Access
Kline focuses on social interaction in general and teaching in particular. Social interaction is obviously based on language, but 85% of any communication is based on non-verbal aspects: gesture, posture, facial expression, motor synchronization, and so forth (Mehrabian & Ferris Reference Mehrabian and Ferris1967). However, in the entire target article, the word “motor” is never mentioned, while “movements” and “non-verbal” are cited only 3 times, each. I strongly believe that teaching is embodied. This commentary focuses on showing that motor synchronizations are always functionally present in any social interaction. The characteristics of interactions are based on person 1 reacting to the perception of movements from person 2 reacting to the perception of movements from person 1, ad infinitum. To illustrate my argument, I will use interpersonal coordination studies with healthy people and patients suffering from interaction deficits. I will first show that we are all unintentionally influenced by the movement of the person we are interacting with. Then I will indicate that such an interaction is embodied. The state of mind is directly observable in the body and the movement of the other person.
First, movements of people we are interacting with influence our own actions. When two persons interact together, they can be either intentionally or unintentionally coordinated. “Intentionally” is of course artificial, since people voluntarily move in perfect synchrony with each other. “Unintentionally” is what we are facing all the time as long as there is a perceptual contact. When two persons walk side by side, even if they both have different stride frequencies, as soon as they talk together, they both unconsciously change their locomotion in order to walk at the same pace (van Ulzen et al. Reference van Ulzen, Lamoth, Daffertshofer, Semin and Beek2008). Similarly, when an event or a show ends, the entire audience applauds. After the three first random hand claps, everyone synchronizes his or her applause at the same frequency (Neda et al. Reference Neda, Ravasz, Brechet, Vicsek and Barabasi2000). Several other examples can be found in the literature indicating that hearing, seeing, or touching someone triggers unintended synchronization. Schmidt and O'Brien (Reference Schmidt and O'Brien1997) were the first authors to reveal evidence of unintentional coordination when instructing two participants seated side by side to oscillate a handheld pendulum at their preferred frequency. For 30 seconds they looked at the other person's pendulum and for 30 seconds they looked in the other direction. As soon as they saw each other's pendulum, participants coordinated, revealing that even when the goal of the task was not focused on coordination, participants synchronized together. This experiment led other authors to challenge the unintended coordination phenomenon by explicitly instructing two participants to not take into account the movement of the other one (Issartel et al. Reference Issartel, Marin and Cadopi2007). Participants seated in front of each other were asked to move their right forearm however they wanted (improvisation task). Although all participants reported that they did not pay attention to their co-actor while performing their improvisation task, they all executed movements differently from when alone. Results showed they could not avoid coordinating with their partner.
These experiments demonstrate that people's movements always influence their partner's moves even if they are not aware of such synchronization. If no one can avoid motor coordination, obviously teachers cannot either. Their motor behavior is unintentionally synchronized with that of their learner. Consequently, no matter how a teacher thinks he/she is totally independent of the students' behavior for impartiality and fairness purposes, the way students move in general affects the teacher's behavior and vice versa. Learners immediately decipher the posture, gestures, and facial expressions of their teacher, in order to react based on such a perception.
Second, the state of mind is embodied. Based on previous evidence, one could argue that being coordinated does not affect the core of the interaction (in this instance, the teaching behavior). Motor coordination is dissociated from the state of mind. I want to show that such a statement is wrong. Our movements reflect our state of mind and if our movements are modified by another person, then our entire interaction is altered. The most tangible support of such a claim was paradoxically revealed in the rupture of social interaction observed in patients suffering from schizophrenia and social phobia. Schizophrenics have attentional deficits, which can be directly observed in their motor interaction. For example, in the handheld paradigm these patients always had a delay (were late) within the dyad interaction in all intentional conditions (but not in unintentional conditions), expressing in their bodies their lack of attention in following the instructions (Varlet et al. Reference Varlet, Marin, Raffard, Schmidt, Capdevielle, Boulenger, Del-Monte and Bardy2012). Social phobics, on the other hand, are characterized as displaying inhibited behavior. They believe they are unappreciated; consequently, they are incapable of endorsing the role of leader. Therefore, in the handheld experiment, although these patients were as accurate as any other healthy participants in following the participant, they were unable to be the leader (Varlet et al. Reference Varlet, Marin, Capdevielle, Del-Monte, Schmidt, Salesse, Boulenger, Bardy and Raffard2014). Both of these experiments indicate that the simple and neutral handheld paradigm was enough to reveal the link of mental deficit and motor coordination. Patients and clinicians are bodily influenced by each other even if they are not aware of such an interaction. Consequently, the rehabilitation of social pathologies is biased by non-verbal, body-based communication, which is rarely taken into account or controlled.
In the literature focusing on healthy participants, Wiltermuth and Heath (Reference Wiltermuth and Heath2009) demonstrated that cooperation and social attachment are enhanced when two people are engaged in an activity requiring motor coordination (such as walking, dancing, or singing). These authors showed that synchronization increases interpersonal rapport and pro-social behaviors (van Baaren et al. Reference van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami and van Knippenberg2004) and, by extension, it reveals confirmation of a link between motor processes engaged in interpersonal coordination and the mental connectedness in social interactions. In such a context, modifying the motor synchronization between the teacher and the learner alters the rapport and mental connectedness of the dyad.
In conclusion, I believe that it should be of a particular interest to include in Kline's new integrated framework the role of the motor behavior for teaching/learner interaction. A way to control the use and the consequence of motor behavior on teaching behavior would definitely increase the efficiency of any teaching situation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by AlterEgo, a project funded by the European Union FP7 (grant #600610).