Strict-sounding teachers are worse at inspiring pupils than “supportive voices”, according to new research, but experts have queried whether the results would be different if repeated with teachers that know the children.
A study from the University of Essex and the University of Reading played pre-recorded teachers’ voices to 250 children who were then asked to judge how the tone affected them.
The children were asked to rate how it would affect factors such as competence, emotions, trust and their intention to cooperate, and they reacted much better to the “supportive” voices, while “controlling” tones made their self-esteem plummet.
Before the recordings took place, the teachers were given instructions on how to use their voice, and for the autonomy-supporting recordings, they were told to imagine they were addressing a child in their class that was in need of “praise, encouragement or support”.
For the “controlling” recordings, they were asked to imagine addressing a child “who needs to pay more attention or needs to be disciplined”.
Professor Netta Weinstein, who worked on the study, said the results showed that “tone of voice is a powerful way to convey teachers’ caring, understanding, or openness”.
She added: “It’s easy to forget when we are stressed or tired, but teachers can provide a positive learning environment when they are thoughtful in how they use their tone of voice.”
But in the research, the authors accept some limitations to the study and said that it should be replicated in the classroom.
They add: “For example, the effects of teachers’ voice on students’ wellbeing and behaviour could be measured by recording listening, engagement and cooperation during particular school activities when teachers are more likely to attempt to motivate behaviour.”
Others have also pointed out that though, in this case, students were listening to recordings, results may be different if students were listening to teachers they knew well and had a relationship with.
Christian Bokhove, professor at the Southampton Education School, said that the study was “interesting” and “robust”, but added: ”I think we can’t rule out that students are very apt at distinguishing the relative nature of the use of voice: for some a controlling voice works, they know the teacher, they have a relationship with them, for others not, and perhaps vice versa.
“The use of voice is important, but more research needed seems the most important conclusion.”
Tom Bennett, the Department for Education’s behaviour adviser, said a student’s response to the voice in hypothetical circumstances “may have no relationship to how a student might actually respond to the direction in a real classroom”.
Mr Bennett also pointed out that pupils were “not taught by disembodied voices”.
He said: “They are taught by humans with whom they have a relationship. And we communicate with far more than tone of voice; we communicate by choice of words, how we act, whether we are reliable, whether we demonstrate that we care, by turning up, by marking their books promptly, and a million other ways that we build a relationship with the child. In the classroom, you can be stern, or serious, or chatty and smiling.”
“What matters is what they believe you to be like as a person. Do they trust you? Do they believe you have high standards, but also high levels of regard? That’s what reaches children. You can speak as softly as you like, but if the kids trust you to always follow up with, eg, a call home, then they will learn that you are dependable. You can be aggressive and loud, but if you never do what you say you will, children will treat you like Mr Tumble.”
