Improving Classroom Performance: Phase One

George E. Smith
Department of Performing and Visual Arts

What is the focus of your investigation?

General Area: Improving Classroom Learning
Specific Problem: What faculty performance/presentation skills and behaviors can be
improved to enhance student learning—and how can they be improved?

What resources/references have you found helpful?

Both discipline-specific and general/generic periodicals, books, websites, and other
materials will be employed in supporting this research. These resources are limited to
those materials associated with classroom teaching pedagogy (as opposed to those
primarily devoted to research). A representative list of resources is provided below.

Generic Periodicals (abridged)

Teaching Professor, http://www.magnapubs.com
Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, http://ject.lib.muohio.edu/
The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, http://titans.iusb.edu/josotl/

Discipline-Specific Periodicals (abridged)

Journal of Agricultural Education, http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae
Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, http://teamat.oxfordjournals.org
Electronic Journal of Research in Science Education,
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html
Journal of Science Education and Technology,
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/journal

What was your approach and/or what evidence have you gathered?
Student participants are enrolled in SPEECH 1010/Public Speaking. In this course, they
receive formal training (text assignments, lectures, online PowerPoint resources,
discussions) in nonverbal communication, presentation styles, and performance
behaviors. As a result of this experience and their classroom experiences, they are
qualified to observe and to comment on faculty performance in this context.

What results have emerged?

Initial analysis of student data suggests a practical range of presentation and performance
issues: ineffective eye contact, lack of appropriate gestures, ineffective time and space
management within the classroom, an inability to empathize with students, monotonous
vocal delivery, ineffective interaction with students, etc. These and other prioritized
issues will be addressed within the second phase of this project.
Examples of Student Work
The initial input is student feedback—written papers submitted by approximately 220
students over three semesters (2004-2005), the data from which a prioritized list of
faculty nonverbal behaviors, presentation styles, etc., will be drawn. The second phase of
this project (2006) will be the development of materials to help faculty reduce perceived
problems in presentation style, nonverbal behavior, etc., to enhance student learning.
These materials will address the most common problem behaviors and presentation
issues.

Note
Additional interaction with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) may be required to
accommodate concerns for protection of human subjects (in this case, faculty who are
performing their normal instructional duties in a public classroom). Federal guidelines
(45CFR46) cited within the campus manual suggest that a variety of bases for exemption
exist, but IRB committee members seem to feel that faculty must be notified when
students are observing them in order to fulfill an assignment in another class.
External counsel is being sought to resolve this issue with IRB. In the event that a
negative decision is forthcoming (i.e., an IRB sanction, despite the researcher’s
exemption claim), the researcher will forego SoTL involvement and funding for this
project.
 Improving Classroom Performance: Phase One
George E. Smith
Department of Performing and Visual Arts

Introduction
This report summarizes the first phase of a two-phase project supported through
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) funding.

There is no existing construct for effective classroom teaching at UWP. Perceptions of

what it means to be an effective college professor are subjective, codified only in the
form of student course evaluations—which many faculty view as popularity polls with
little legitimate basis. Despite this dilemma, the current project was premised on the
assumption that improved faculty performance in the classroom leads to improved
student learning, regardless of how “effective classroom teaching” is defined by rubrics,
evaluation forms, or educational theorists.

This project was conceived as a two-phase program to be undertaken over a three-year

period. The purpose of this project was to improve student learning campus-wide by
improving the quality of classroom instruction. An indirect benefit of this project might
be long-term improvements in faculty salaries—a result of higher student evaluations of
classroom instruction.

The first phase of this project entailed collecting data from students in 14 sections of
SPEECH 1010/Public Speaking during a two-year period (2004-2006). The second phase
of this project will consist of a series of in-service presentations and/or materials to be
distributed to faculty regarding strategies for improving classroom performance (2006-
2007).

Acknowledgments
In part, this project was made possible through grants from the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning portion of UWP’s Curriculum Improvement Fund (CIF) grant program.

The project director also wishes to thank Dr. Tom Lo Guidice of the Teaching Excellence
Center (TEC). Dr. Lo Guidice was instrumental in providing input as chair of the
Improvement of Learning Committee (ILC). It is further anticipated that the TEC will be
the conduit through which the second phase of this project will be presented during 2006-
2007.

Input was also provided by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the on-campus
committee responsible for overseeing research involving human subjects.

Data assistance was provided by Ms. Kay Egbers.

Background
Classroom learning is a complex process involving critical responsibilities for both
instructors and students. Unfortunately, as professors, most of us enter the field of college
teaching without much professional preparation; virtually all of our graduate coursework
consisted of discipline-specific classes rather than training in pedagogy, educational
methodology, classroom management, presentation style, or instructional design.

A related factor is that some of us graduated from undergraduate programs that did not
require a course in public speaking (or in some cases, any communication coursework).
Prior to entering the teaching profession, we had little or no experience presenting in
front of students. Many of us gained limited experience as graduate teaching assistants,
but often without much guidance from “supervising” professors who were more intent on
other aspects of their own professional development (e.g., research, publication,
university service). Undergraduate education was often viewed as a necessary evil that
helped pay the bills.

As a result, many of us “teach as we were taught”—not always a good recipe for

effective classroom instruction. While some of us demonstrate a real aptitude for
classroom teaching, most of us evolve through trial-and-error, reacting to student course
evaluations, practical strategies evolved through collegial discussions, or inefficient
pedagogical experiments. Fine-tuning our classroom performance takes time, during
which period our students tolerate less-than-effective teaching methods.

Many college professors assume erroneously that our titles or graduate degrees provide
sufficient basis for classroom credibility. While such perceptions of self-importance may
enhance our confidence, we must understand that credibility (or believability) results
from a combination of factors (See Diagram 1), not simply competence in our chosen
field. To a great extent, communication research (Mehrabian, et al.) suggests that
nonverbal factors are more important than verbal factors in impacting our communication
effectiveness. In other words, what we say is perhaps less important than how we say it.
 COMPETENCE
DO YOU KNOW
WHAT YOU’RE
TALKING
ABOUT?
HOMOPHILY CHARACTER
WHAT ARE YOU
“COMMON TRUSTWORTH?
GROUND”
EXISTS?
CREDIBILITY

ARE YOU
BELIEVABLE
?
ENTHUSIASM COMPOSURE
ARE YOU DO YOU
PASSIONATE APPEAR
ABOUT WHAT NERVOUS?
YOU SAY?

SOCIABILITY

HOW DO YOU
INTERACT W/
STUDENTS?

Diagram 1. Dimensions of credibility.

It is also critical to understand that credibility is not inherent in the speaker; i.e.,
credibility must be earned by the speaker and will be assigned by the receiver(s).
Credibility is a perception on the part of the receiver(s), only partially related to the
competence of the speaker.

To some extent, these dimensions of credibility are often interactive. An effective speaker
need not display strength in all six dimensions of credibility, but must not display
significant weakness in any of these dimensions.

Many of these dimensions of credibility manifest themselves through nonverbal

communication or rhetorical style. In addition, mechanical aspects of instruction (e.g.,
visual support, directing discussion, answering questions) will impact the overall
effectiveness of classroom instruction.

In addition to nonverbal aspects of classroom performance, there are other factors that
impact our effectiveness as instructors. Our abilities to effectively design and use visual
support in the classroom are key factors in helping our students understand course
content that is often abstract or difficult. Such visual support ranges from course handouts
to PowerPoint® presentations, from problem solutions on chalkboards to in-class
distributions of three-dimensional objects. We recognize that not all students learn in the
same way—e.g., visual, tactile, auditory styles. As a result, effective visual support may
determine whether or not some of our students “get it.”

Also significant in effective instruction are “mechanical” aspects of presentation style:

language selection, use of second-person pronouns, appropriate comparisons and
analogies, content organization, effective support like real-world applications and
hypothetical examples, stories based on first-hand instructor experience, and humor.

Attempts to engage students in the learning process are also critical. Asking and
answering questions, directing class discussions, adapting and relating to students’
perspectives, and providing appropriate redundancy are key elements in effective
classroom instruction.

In summary, effective performance in the classroom is the culmination of a wide range of

factors. Given the fact that many of us have never received formal training in how to be
effective instructors, we rely on our own common sense and trial-and-error efforts to
evolve what we perceive to be appropriate classroom performance.

Methodology
The initial phase of this project set out to determine which aspects of classroom
instruction at UWP needed the most improvement. Given most professors’ lack of formal
training, the trial-and-error approach seemed to reflect the greatest amount of personal
control within the classroom. In other words, rather than admit we could use some
assistance in our classroom performance, most of us simply muddle ahead, improving
(hopefully) with “baby steps” rather than through any pedagogically defensible strategy.

After receiving formal instruction in effective design and use of visual aids, nonverbal
communication, presentation style, and other aspects of communication, students enrolled
in the researcher’s sections of SPEECH 1010/Public Speaking were asked to apply this
knowledge in observing and assessing faculty on campus. In all, 245 students participated
in this project over a four-semester timetable.

Fall 2004 Six sections

Spring 2005 Four sections
Fall 2005 One section
Spring 2006 Three sections

At the suggestion of the Institutional Review Board, faculty and academic staff were
contacted prior to student observations (effective Fall 2005). Less than 4% of those
faculty and staff contacted opted to not participate. The following sequence for approval
was followed.

1. Students e-mailed their speech instructor with the name of a prospective faculty
member for observation. Students were directed to select the faculty member for a
course in which the students were currently enrolled.
 2. The speech instructor contacted the prospective faculty member to indicate (a)
one of their common students had selected the faculty member for an observation
assignment, and (b) the faculty member had the option of not participating in the
project. Students were not identified by name, nor were the course observation
dates specified in an effort to avoid “special treatment” by the faculty member.
3. Students were notified to conduct their observations during the next 3-6 weeks.
4. Papers were submitted near the end of the semester, graded and briefly returned to
students. The speech instructor retained the student papers for purposes of
subsequent content analysis (Phase One of the research project).

At no time were the faculty identified by name outside of the student papers. And the
content analysis did not attempt to consolidate information about specific faculty nor
keep track of which faculty members were observed by students.

The content analysis highlighted appropriate student comments in three general areas.
Within these three areas, 40 variables were identified (see Appendix A). Variable
categories analyzed included effective design and use of visual aids (coded as variables
V1 through V8), content presentation style (coded as variables C1 through C16), and
nonverbal behavior patterns (coded as variables N1 through N16).

Content analysis coded approximately 10 comments per student paper. Some papers
discussed fewer than 10 issues, and some papers discussed significantly more than 10
issues. Within the 245 student papers, 2,449 comments were coded and analyzed. These
observations and comments were coded as positive, neutral, or negative in scope.

From these 2,449 comments, a prioritized list of the top 11 areas of concern was
compiled. This list represented those variables that drew the most negative comments.
Precluded from student comment were areas like grading standards, textbook selection,
examination techniques, and other course management factors.

Results
As noted earlier, the construct of “effective classroom instruction” is subjective in nature.
And certainly any student assessment of the factors impacting classroom performance is
equally subjective.

To our credit as a faculty, approximately two-thirds of the student comments were

positive in nature. And within the comments that were negative in scope, our ability to
“fix” these perceived “problems” seems within our grasp (the purpose of the second
phase of this project).

Validity
While many colleagues challenge the basis for any legitimate student assessment of
classroom performance, we would argue that students who spend 30 to 60 hours in our
courses have some basis for identifying strengths and weaknesses of in-class instruction.
Like most faculty, most students lack any formal training in instructional methodology.
However, the simple amount of time spent in classrooms certainly qualifies students to
make some educated evaluation of instructional quality. In particular, the students
participating in this project received formal training in public communication as part of
the content in their Public Speaking course. Therefore, the researcher asserts that these
245 students were reasonably qualified to observe and comment on faculty classroom
performance.

Reliability
Within reason, the accuracy of students’ observations was confirmed by (1) the overall
number of comments made in particular areas across 145 classroom instructors, and (2)
the duplication of certain types of comments regarding certain instructors. In other words,
the specific scope of positive and negative comments about particular instructors (in
several courses over four semesters) was fairly consistent. In addition, many of the
student comments seemed consistent with the researcher’s personal observations of these
same colleagues.

Data
Among the 40 variables identified for analysis, many consisted of compilations of related
issues (e.g., N4 included vocalized pauses, problems with speaking rate, and foreign
accents; C16 included general content organization, effective explanations, and
miscellaneous content factors).

The following areas drew the greatest number of positive comments from student
observers (i.e., these were among our strengths as a faculty).

1. Effective body language, posture, and gestures (N9)

2. Effective volume, tone and vocal projection (N7)
3. Appropriate eye contact and facial expression (N10)
4. Enthusiasm and a generally positive attitude (N1)

These nonverbal behavior aspects seem to be fundamental to all areas of

communication—i.e., interpersonal communication, small-group communication, and
public communication.

The following areas drew the greatest number of negative comments from student
observers (i.e., these are the areas on which we need to improve as a faculty).

1. Overall visual effectiveness (V8)

2T. Vocalized pauses, delivery rate, accent (N4)
2T. Effective body language, posture and gestures (N9)
4T. Effective volume, tone and vocal projection (N7)
4T. Appropriate eye contact and facial expression (N10)
6. Pacing of lecture content (N12)
7. Easy to see/read visual support (V3)
8. General content organization, effective
explanations, & miscellaneous content factors (C16)
 9. Composure and nervousness (N15)
10T. Enunciation and articulation (N6)
10T. Space utilization, movement within classroom (N5)

Comparison of the positive and negative lists above (and in Appendix A) suggests that
most of us are “doing it right.” The relative balance between positive and negative
comments is roughly 2:1 and is 3:1 on these overlapping items. The positive
interpretation of this comparison is that we have plenty of excellent role models among
our colleagues.

The scope of Phase Two of this multiyear project will be to present in-service programs
to assist faculty in improving their classroom performance. And the net result will be not
only better classroom instruction by our faculty, but also more effective learning by our
students, certainly a desired outcome for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Discussion
It is important to note that student comments that challenge faculty competence are
extremely rare. At the heart of faculty concerns regarding student evaluation of classroom
performance is that they—the faculty—may be found “wanting” with regard to their
content knowledge. Many faculty may equate competence with credibility; while these
two issues are clearly related, they are not synonymous. Competence is simply one
dimension of credibility, as explained in Diagram 1.

But the participating students realize that the other dimensions of credibility will impact
perceptions of faculty credibility. And these are some of the areas we seek to improve as
a result of the present project.

Many of the problem areas identified by our students are relatively easy to “fix.” Others
are more challenging. In-service SoTL programs and materials distributed through the
Teaching Excellence Center are among the channels through which improvements might
be made. Most academic disciplines have one or more scholarly publications or
periodicals devoted to classroom pedagogy. Redundant as these might seem, they offer
in-program opportunities to apply sound instruction practice.

Comments
Variable V8 dealt with effective use of visual support within the classroom. By far, the
dominant comment was that faculty simply had no visual support; i.e., all content was
delivered through lecture, course discussions, or text readings. Of particular significance
within the visual support area were comments about visual content accuracy (V2),
particularly in disciplines like mathematics, the natural sciences, and engineering where
courses depend on “chalkboard explanations,” e.g., working through problems in front of
the class.

Variable N9 dealt with body language, posture, and gestures. Many students observed
that their instructors simply stood statue-like behind their podium reading lecture notes.
Variable N4 dealt with vocalized pauses (“ummmm,” “uhhh”), delivery rates (too fast or
too slow/boring), and non-English accents. Improvements in these areas require
concentration. To some extent, we all display vocalized pauses and variable delivery
rates, depending on our cognitive activity and enthusiasm regarding message content.

Variable N7 dealt with volume, tone, and projection. To some extent, these concerns may
be a function of room size. But quite often, these concerns are tied to personal
communicative style; i.e., some individuals are more introverted and quiet. While these
might be of less concern in interpersonal communication, they are significant factors in
public communication. If our students cannot hear us, they cannot learn from us.

Variable N10 dealt with eye contact and facial expression. The former issue is intensely
personal and takes a higher comfort level to improve. Students perceive a lack of eye
contact (often tied to note dependency) as a sign of unfamiliarity with lecture content—
which in turn impacts credibility. Facial expression is often one of the key conveyors of
emotion; i.e., a lack of facial expression suggests a lack of passion or commitment to the
topic at hand.

Variable N12 dealt with the pacing of lecture content. Different than delivery rate, this
variable addresses larger time management concerns; e.g., the instructor who hustles
through complicated lecture material in an effort to “beat the clock.” Students often
perceive this as an indicator of a lack of empathy—i.e., focus on teaching rather than
focus on learning.

Variable V3 dealt with the ability to see and/or read visual support. The dominant
comment was tied to legibility of handwriting in on-board notes. Less common was the
comment that instructors inadvertently stand in front of on-board notes or projections,
blocking the students’ view of critical material for which they will be held accountable.

Variable C16 dealt with general content organization, effective explanations, and overall
content issues. Student comments were similar to the more specific concerns tied to
instructors’ inability or unwillingness to answer questions in class. Responses to C16
suggested vague content explanations, lack of focus, and a hodge-podge mix of
seemingly unrelated course content (e.g., “clear to faculty, clear as mud to students”).

Variable N13 dealt with composure and nervousness. While intensely personal, these
factors impact students’ perceptions of instructors’ overall credibility (see Diagram 1).
Greater familiarity with course content would obviously help such faculty, but it is
equally likely that such nonverbal behaviors reflect an introverted and shy personality
that does not translate well in an open classroom. Student perceptions of faculty
nervousness also impact trustworthiness (similar to the “Nixon factor” in the 1960
television debates with Kennedy). Of all the variables listed in this study, N13 is perhaps
one of the most difficult to overcome.

Variable N5 dealt with space utilization and movement within the classroom. Student
comments on this issue were mixed: some students found instructor movement
distracting, while others were disturbed by inflexible statue-like delivery. Some students
perceived that an instructor’s ability to move about the classroom reflects a higher
comfort level with both course content and students.

Variable N6 dealt with enunciation and articulation. Students commented that faculty
mumbled and slurred words in a less-than-professional manner. Of course, this led to
reduced understanding of lecture material. To some extent, some aspects of articulation
and enunciation may be tied to delivery rate.

Conclusion
Of the 11 variables identified as “problem areas,” some are easier to improve than others.
The subjective nature of performance assessment and the lack of a prescribed construct
for effective classroom performance limit extended application of the data identified
herein. However, many of these variables are simply “mechanical” aspects that can be
easily remedied.

The purpose of Phase Two of “Improving Classroom Performance” will consist of a

series of in-service programs designed to help faculty enhance their work in the
classroom. And since two-thirds of the data suggest positive assessments, it would seem
that most of us are already on our way toward being effective classroom performers.
 Appendix A
FACTOR POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE TOTAL RANK
SIZE OF VISUAL AIDS, WRITING V-1 16 0 11 27
VISUAL CONTENT ACCURACY V-2 0 0 18 18
EASY TO SEE / READ VISUALS V-3 36 1 38 75 7
CONTRAST, DESIGN FACTORS V-4 22 0 10 32
VISUALS EASY TO UNDERSTAND V-5 22 1 13 36
TECHNICAL FACTORS RE: VISUALS V-6 8 0 21 29
TIMING, CONTROL OF VISUALS V-7 10 0 10 20
OVERALL VISUAL EFFECTIVENESS V-8 76 31 63 170 1
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, GOALS C-1 63 0 23 86
JARGON, VOCAB, LANGUAGE USAGE C-2 42 1 11 54
RELATES PERSONAL EXP., CONTENT C-3 13 1 2 16
EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS C-4 18 1 13 32
TIMELY STORIES, EXAMPLES, ETC. C-5 27 0 3 30
RELATES / ADAPTS TO STUDENTS C-6 64 0 20 84
DISTRACTED, OFF ON TANGENTS C-7 2 0 21 23
ENGAGES STUDENTS IN PROCESS C-8 49 0 6 55
ANSWERS STUDENT QUESTIONS C-9 25 0 15 40
PROMOTES FEEDBACK, DISC'N C-10 20 1 9 30
USE OF APPROPRIATE HUMOR C-11 70 0 6 76
PRONUNCIATION & GRAMMAR C-12 27 4 12 43
CONTENT REDUNDANCY C-13 16 0 10 26
CREDIBILITY DEVELOPMENT C-14 25 0 8 33
EFFECTIVE SUMMARIZING C-15 8 1 10 19
ORG'N / EXPLANATION / OTHER C-16 54 0 36 90 8
ENTHUS'C, POSITIVE ATTITUDE N-1 103 0 22 125
TIME MGMT., ACCOMM. QUEST'NS N-2 27 1 8 36
PROFESSIONAL APPEARANCE N-3 33 4 6 43
VOCAL PAUSES, DEL. RATE, ACCENT N-4 20 2 59 81 2T
SPACE UTILIZATION, MOVEMENT N-5 67 19 28 114 10T
ENUNCIATION / ARTICULATION N-6 49 1 28 78 10T
VOLUME, TONE , PROJECTION N-7 125 1 45 171 4T
TALKS TO BOARD WHEN WRITING N-8 1 0 7 8
BODY LANG., POSTURE & GESTURES N-9 129 9 59 197 2T
EYE CONTACT, FACIAL EXPRESS'N N-10 122 2 45 169 4T
NOTE DEPENDENCY N-11 43 1 21 65
PACING OF LECTURE CONTENT N-12 49 3 40 92 6
COMPOSURE & NERVOUSNESS N-13 50 1 31 82 9
CHARACTER, TRUSTWORTHINESS N-14 7 0 1 8
SOCIABILITY & EXTROVERSION N-15 11 0 3 14
OTHER NONV'L DELIVERY ISSUES N-16 12 1 9 22
TOTAL COMMENTS 1561 87 801 2449