Instructional Science

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 491–523 | Cite as

Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogical knowledge and beliefs of law professors

  • Nira Hativa
Article

Abstract

Two instructors, given the lowest ratings by students in theschool of law at a research university in Israel, were interviewed,rated by students, and videotaped in classes twice: before and afterthey went through a treatment for improving instruction. Throughout theintervention period, several of their students were also interviewedregarding their instruction. Ratings by students of the same course inthe years previous to, and following, the treatment were also recorded.An analysis of the pre-treatment data identified three general factorsthat diminished students' ability to pay attention to and understandtheir teaching, thus causing their teaching to be perceived by studentsas poor. These three factors were: personal characteristics andaptitudes that negatively affect classroom behavior; lack ofsufficient pedagogical knowledge, and damaging thinking and beliefsregarding instruction and students. The four-month intensive treatmentshowed success in modifying and changing for the better most of thedamaging factors and in increasing instructional effectiveness. Thesignificant increase in student satisfaction from instruction thatresulted from the intervention was maintained for at least eight monthsafter the end of treatment. A principal conclusion is that for improvinginstruction of teachers perceived as poor by students, it is necessaryto modify not only the teachers' classroom behaviors but also theirpersonal characteristics and their beliefs about teaching and students– especially those that damage the effectiveness of theirinstruction.

improving instruction poor teaching teacher knowledge teachers' beliefs university teachers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, J., Garrison, D. & Magnusson, K. (1996). The teaching and learning transaction in higher education: A study of promoting excellent teaching. Teaching in Higher Education 1(1): 81–103.Google Scholar
  2. Bayless, O.L. & Moody, B.S. (1984). The Speech Communication Methods Course in Secondary Teacher Preparation Programs in Arkansas. Journal of Communications Studies 2(1): 20–24.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, J. & Skeff, K.M. (1988). Developing the motivation for improving university teaching. Innovative Higher Education 12(2): 114–125.Google Scholar
  4. Blackburn, R.T., Boberg, Q., O'Connell, C. & Pellino, G. (1980). Project for Faculty Development Program Evaluation: Final Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  5. Boud, D. & McDonald, R. (1981). Educational Development through Consultancy. Surrey, England: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Cashin, W.E. & Downey, R.G. (1995). Disciplinary differences in what is taught and in students' perceptions of what they learn and of how they are taught. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 64: 81–92.Google Scholar
  7. Chism, N.V.N. & Sanders, D. (1986). the place of practice-centered inquiry in a faculty development program. In M. Svinicki, J. G. Kurfiss & J. Stone, eds, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 5, pp. 56–64. Stillwater: OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock, ed, Handbook of Research on Teaching, third ed., pp. 255–296. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P.A. (1990). Bringing research into practice, Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice, Vol. 43, pp. 123–132. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Cruickshank, D.R. (1985). Applying research on teacher clarity. Journal of Teacher Education 36(2): 44–48.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Dick, R.C. & Robinson, B.M. (1994). Oral English proficiency requirements for ITAs in U.S. colleges and universities: An issue in speech communication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration (JACA) 2: 77–86.Google Scholar
  13. Dunkin, M.J. (1995). Concepts of teaching and teaching excellence in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development 14(1): 21–33.Google Scholar
  14. Dunkin, M.J. & Precians, R.P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers' concepts of teaching. Higher Education 24(4); 483–502.Google Scholar
  15. Erdle, S., Murray, H.G. & Rhuston, P.J. (1985). Personality, classroom behavior, and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 77(4): 94–407.Google Scholar
  16. Erickson, B.L. & Erickson, G.R. (1980). Working with faculty teaching behaviors. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1: 57–67.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, W.E. & Guymon, R.E. (1978, March). Clarity of explanation: A powerful indicator of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research 38(1): 47–65.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, K.A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal characteristics: A review and synthesis of research. Research in Higher Education 24(2): 139–213.Google Scholar
  20. Feldman, K.A. (1989). Instructional effectiveness of college teachers as judged by teachers themselves, current and former students, colleagues, administrators, and external (neutral) observers. Research in Higher Education 30(2): 137–194.Google Scholar
  21. Freedman, M., Brown, W., Ralph, N., Shukraft, R., Bloom, M. & Sanford, N. (1979). Academic Culture and Faculty Development. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, P.L. (1995). Teachers' knowledge. In L.W. Anderson, ed, The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, 2nd ed., pp. 20–24. Oxford, England: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  23. Hanges, P.J., Schneider, B. & Niles, K. (1990). Stability of performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6): 658–667.Google Scholar
  24. Hativa, N. (1985). A study of the organization and clarity of mathematics lessons. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 16(1): 89–99.Google Scholar
  25. Hativa, N. (1993). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathematics and the physical sciences: Discipline-and situation specific teaching patterns. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 24(4): 579–593.Google Scholar
  26. Hativa, N. (1995). The department-wide approach to improving faculty instruction in higher education: A qualitative evaluation. Research in Higher Education 36(4): 377–413.Google Scholar
  27. Hativa, N. (1997). Teaching in a research university: Professors' conceptions, practices, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Hativa, N. (1998a). Effective University Teaching, Hebrew ed. Tel Aviv: Ramot.Google Scholar
  29. Hativa, N. (1998b). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. Higher Education 36(3): 353–381.Google Scholar
  30. Hativa, N. (1998–1999). 1. Engaging Students: Actively Engaging Students; Getting Students to Think. 2. Getting Student Attention: Attention-getting Teacher Behavior; Attentiongetting Content. 3. Simplifying: Teaching in Two Cycles; Structuring and Looking Back. 4. Adapting to Students: Evaluating Students' Knowledge; Adjusting to Students' Diversity. 5. Classroom Environment. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Hativa, N., Barak, R. & Simhi, E. (1998). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective instruction, and classroom behavior. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG on Higher Education, Leiden, Holland (ED 430961).Google Scholar
  32. Hativa, N. & Raviv, A. (1996). University instructors' ratings profiles: Stability over time, and disciplinary differences. Research in Higher Education 37(3): 341–365.Google Scholar
  33. Hines, C.V. (1981). A further investigation of teacher clarity: The observation of teacher clarity and the relationship between clarity and student achievement and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  34. Hines, C.V., Cruickshank, D. & Kennedy, J.J. (1985). Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal 22(1): 87–99.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, J. (1979). Physics Interface. Higher Education Research Office, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  36. Kelly, N. & Kelly, B. (1982, November). Backgrounds, teaching styles of award winning professors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  37. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3): 255–275.Google Scholar
  38. Land, M.L. (1981). Combined effect of two teacher clarity variables on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education 50(1): 14–17.Google Scholar
  39. Land, M.L. & Smith, L.R. (1981). College student ratings and teacher behavior: An experimental study. Journal of Social Studies Research 5(1): 19–22.Google Scholar
  40. Lenze, L.F. & Dinham, S.M. (1994). Examining pedagogical content knowledge of college faculty new to teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Levinson-Rose, J. & Menges, R.J. (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research 51(3): 403–434.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, K.G. (1988). Individual consultation: Its importance to faculty development programs. In E.C. Wadsworth, ed, Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education. A Handbook for New Practitioners, pp. 75–80. Stillwater OK: New Forums Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11(3): 253–388.Google Scholar
  44. Marsh, H.W. & Bailey, M. (1993). Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education 64(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  45. Marsh, H.W. & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal 30(1): 217–251.Google Scholar
  46. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher 17(2): 13–17.Google Scholar
  47. McCaleb, J.L. & White, J.A. (1980). Critical dimensions in evaluating teacher clarity. Journal of Classroom Interaction 15(2): 27–30.Google Scholar
  48. McKeachie, W.J. (1994). Teaching Tips, 9th ed. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  49. Miltz, R.J. (1971). Development and evaluation of a manual for improving teachers' explanations. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 5474A. (University Microfilm No. 72–11,697).Google Scholar
  50. Murray, H.G. (1984). The impact of formative and summative evaluation of teaching in North American universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 9(2).Google Scholar
  51. Murray, H.G. (1997a). Classroom teaching behaviors and student instructional ratings: How do good teachers teach? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  52. Murray, H.G. (1997b). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart, eds, Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice, pp. 171–203. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Murray, H.G., Rushton, P.J. & Paunonen, S.V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(2): 250–261.Google Scholar
  54. Nyquist, J.D. & Wulff, D.H. (1988). Consultation using a research perspective. In K.G. Lewis, ed, Face to Face. Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  55. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67(1): 25–35.Google Scholar
  57. Rahilly, T.J. & Saroyan, A. (1997). Characterizing poor and exemplary teaching in higher education. Implications for faculty development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  58. Saroyan, A. & Snell, L.S. (1997). Incorporating theories of teacher growth and adult education in a faculty development program. In D. DeZure, ed, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 16, pp. 93–116. Stillwater, OK: New Forms Press.Google Scholar
  59. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Learning to Teach. Washington: American Association of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, L.R. & Land, M.L. (1980a). Student Perception of Teacher Clarity (ED183105).Google Scholar
  61. Smith, L.R. & Land, M.L. (1980b). Student perception of teacher clarity in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11(2): 137–147.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, R.A. (1995). Reflecting critically on our efforts to improve teaching and learning. In E. Neal, ed, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 14, pp. 5–25. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, R.A. & Geis, G.L. (1996). Professors as clients for instructional development. In L. Richlin, ed, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 15, pp. 129–153. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stark, J.S. & Lowther, M.A. (1990). Planning Introductory College Courses: Influences on Faculty (ED330277). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  65. Theall, M. & Franklin, J. (1991). Using ratings for teaching improvement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 48, pp. 83–96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D.A. Grouws, ed, Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pp. 127–130. NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  67. Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1989). An investigation of exemplary physics teaching. Physics Teacher 27(3): 144–150.Google Scholar
  68. Ward, B. (1995). Improving teaching across the academy: Gleanings from research. In E. Neal, ed, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 14, pp. 27–42. Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  69. Weimer, M. & Lenze, F.L. (1991). Instructional interventions: A review of the literature on efforts to improve instruction. In J.C. Smart, ed, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 7, pp. 294–333. Bronx, NY: Agathon.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, R.C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education 57(2): 196–211.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S. & Richert, A.E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead, ed, Exploring Teachers' Thinking, pp. 104–124. London: Cassell Educational Limited.Google Scholar
  72. Young, S. & Shaw, D.G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The Journal of Higher Education 70(6): 670–687.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nira Hativa
    • 1
  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations