{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01596169193934557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004788507581803671, 'mean_word_length': 5.207920792079208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nonverbal Teacher Behaviors: A Rejoinder

The critique of this study (Galloway, 1974) raises several criticisms of the research as well as some key issues related to the study of nonverbal behavior in the classroom. In this writing we shall attempt to respond both to specific criticisms of the study and to questions of a more general nature. In seeking the answers to questions of human behavior researchers are invariably forced to choose either the laboratory or the field as the arena of investigation. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages in either approach. The laboratory provides us with experimental controls not available in the field, but the artificiality of this environment limits generalizability of findings. We can generalize more readily from "real world" environments, but must often remain in doubt about the precise relationships among variables. Our study was conducted in a setting chosen to possess an optimum combination of control and correspondence to the classroom. Thus it was not assumed that the 20-minute sample of behavior surveyed represented a typical cross section of classroom activity, but rather the closest approximation which would allow for experimental manipulation of the variables of interest.