When we communicate with each other we are not only transmitting messages, but also enrichening experiences, perceiving emotions and cultivating attitudes, values, ways of being with others and the world. We are co-building people (Stonkuvienè, 2010). Educational context is a privileged environment for communication, particularly interpersonal communication. Postic (2008) criticizes theorists who support the study of teaching on the forging of “teaching machines” and underrate the interpersonal influences of the pedagogical context, as supported by Rogers (1985) and other authors. In a dialogical and teleological human sense of education, communication is a transversal element to all cultures. Communicating is a biopsychosocial act; conducted by the body, it involves personalities, roles and emotions. This study explores non-verbal communication in the pedagogical relationship, which is mediated by the body in teacher-student interactions. A bibliographical survey on this subject points out the relationship between the teacher’s non-verbal behavior and the student’s level of motivation and emotional, affective and cognitive proficiency (Sibii, 2010; Stonkuvienè, 2010; Velez e Cano, 2008; Hsu, 2010; Richmond, 2002). Shaping the relation, non-verbal elements such as eye gaze, touch, voice, kinesis and proxemics are potential promoters of immediacy. Mehrabian has presented this concept as the sensation of physical, affective and psychological proximity between interacting agents, which is created by the communicative behaviors (Argyle, 1988; Fiske, 2005; Watzlawick et al, 1921). Thus, the quality of interpersonal interactions is important to one’s emotional response towards people and the context associated with them. Applying this idea to the pedagogical context, one can understand that students build up positive or negative emotional responses to learning, depending, among other aspects, on teacher’s behavior. Students’ perceptions about the teacher are based on the reading of her communicative acts and the preponderance of certain behaviors, resulting in satisfying or unsatisfying experiences associated to a specific interlocutor (Titsworth, 2010; Damásio, 2012). A teacher who is close to her students is probably a better teacher than the one who is socially, emotionally and psychologically distant from them (Sibii, 2010). In this project, educational environment is seen as a privileged context of interpersonal relation, change and human development. By improving pedagogical communication, the teacher is contributing to a more human development of individuals, transcending the limits of the academic sphere only. Despite extensive research on communication in education, there are no known qualitative studies on the subject based on the analysis of the personal experiences of immediacy in pedagogical relationships. However, it would be interesting to hear people’s stories about their perceptions and feelings on this matter. In fact, while revealing a subjective point of view on the subject, this approach might add a new perspective on pedagogical relationship and education. So, what lies beyond the teacher’s words? The aim of this study is to explore and understand the role of non-verbal communication as a promoter of immediacy in the pedagogical relationship and its impact on students’ multidimensional growth.

Argyle M (1988). Bodily Communication. London: Methuen & Co. Bardin L (2011). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70. Clandinin DJ, Connely FM (2011). Pesquisa Narrativa, Experiências e História na Pesquisa Qualitativa. Minas Gerais: EDUFU. Damásio A (2012). Ao Encontro de Espinosa. As emoções sociais e a neurologia do sentir. Temas e Debates, Círculo de Leitores. Fiske J (2005). Introdução ao estudo da comunicação. (9ª Ed.) Porto: ASA Editores. Hsu L (2010). The impact of perceived teachers’ nonverbal immediacy on student’s motivation for learning English. Asian EFL Journal, 12 (4), 188-204. Molina D (2011). Asumir la tensión entre lo social y lo humano al hacer historia de vida. In F. Hernandéz, J.M. Sancho & J.I. Rivas (Orgs.), Historias de vida en educación: biografías en contexto (pp. 90-98). Barcelona: ESBRINA. Postic M (2008). A relação pedagógica. (2ª Ed.) Lisboa: Padrões Culturais. Richmond V (2002). Teacher nonverbal immediacy: use and outcomes. In J.L. Chesebro & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 65-82). Needham Heights, MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon. Rogers C (1985). Tornar-se pessoa. (7ª Ed.) Lisboa: Moraes Editores. Sibii R (2010). Conceptualizing teacher immediacy through the ‘companion’ metaphor. Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (5), 531-542. Stonkuvienè I (2010). Communication as an essential element of pedagogical process. TILTAI, 4, 189-200. Titsworth S, Quinlan M, Mazer J (2010). Emotion in teaching and learning: development and validation of the classroom emotions scale. Communication Education, 59 (4), 431-452. Velez JJ, Cano J (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy and student motivation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49 (3), 76-86. Watzlawick P, Helmick B, Jackson D (2007). Pragmática da comunicação humana: um estudo dos padrões, patologias e paradoxos da interacção. (16ª Ed.) São Paulo: Editora Cultrix.