Professors Review Best Teaching Practices

David Butt and Edward Reutzel

INTRODUCTION

The concept of "best practices" has been used for decades to improve various segments of society. Business has applied it to improve products and increase productivity. Public institutions have adapted the concept to meet their unique needs. Penn State staff have been reviewing best practices to improve services and increase value offered in the areas of admission, operations, and student advising.

During the past two years, a team of award-winning university faculty, the IBM Master Teacher Team (MTT), has been meeting twice a month to discuss issues associated with teaching quality and instructional effectiveness. Team members include Jay Chandra, Andy Pytel, Al Soyster and Bob Melton from the College of Engineering, and Dave Butt, Ed Reutzel, Ben Henszey and Bob Novack from the College of Business.

Motivated initially by an IBM Quality Improvement grant, the team undertook to review and disseminate information pertaining to "best teaching practices." Team members visited and benchmarked each other's classes. Members reviewed professional literature focusing on teaching effectiveness and subsequently discussed the importance of teaching in the promotion and tenure process with the University Provost and the Deans of Engineering and Business Administration.

These efforts resulted in the formalization of a list (Appendix I) of twenty-two teaching practices, many of which were currently being used by members of the MTT.

Practices most frequently used by team members included: (1) having a formal agenda for each class session, (2) using student suggestions to improve the course, and (3) giving lectures that are clear and well organized.

MTT members conducted a pilot survey of the twenty-two practices to determine what their students felt. One hundred and eighty students participated and identified the top ten "best teaching practices," the most important of which was "giving lectures that are clear and well organized."

During the Spring Semester, 1994, with the assistance of the Envisioneers, a student Engineering Society dedicated to the improvement of instruction, the team surveyed an additional one thousand undergraduate students, approximately equally distributed between the Colleges of Business and Engineering. The ranked list of student preferences with respect to the ten teaching practices is shown in Table 1.

Analysis: Survey results clearly indicated that the overwhelming majority of students from both colleges, male and female, at all levels, majors and grade point averages considered "Giving lectures that are clear and well organized" as the single most important teaching practice. Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 1, there was a great deal of consistency in the rankings between the two colleges with the exception of "Promptly reviewing homework, exams, assignments, etc." which was ranked 6th (29%) by business students but 2nd (44%) by their counterparts in engineering. The difference may reflect the possibility that engineering students are given more homework, which is counted as a greater part of their course grades than are business students.

To gain additional insight into possible teaching-learning dynamics, the data were tabulated across several different dimensions. Table 2 presents the ranking by gender.

The rankings between the sexes are fairly consistent, again with the exception of "Promptly reviewing, homework, exams, assignments, etc." which is ranked 2nd (39%) by males but 5th (33%) by females. This finding is understandable since there are many more males enrolled in engineering and if one accepts the premise that homework is weighted more heavily for engineering students. Table 3 displays the data organized by grade level.

The data in Table 3 suggest that as one moves through his or her undergraduate years, the importance of "Giving lectures that are clear and well organized" becomes more important, the need for "...special study sessions" decreases, and "Asking for and acting upon student suggestions for improving the course" increases. These issues suggest that, with experience, students may feel more in control of their performance and may have less need for outside-the-classroom assistance.

Finally, Table 4 displays the rankings according to the students' grade point averages.

As grade point average (GPA) increases, the importance of "Giving lectures that are clear and well organized" rises dramatically from (72%) for students with the lowest GPA to (86%) for students with highest GPA's. There seems to be much less need for "Helping students prepare for exams by offering special study sessions" (from 45% to 31%) and "Giving students an opportunity to revise assignments before a final grade is given" drops in importance from 32% for the low GPA students to 13% for the high GPA students. Furthermore, those with high GPA's attach greater value to "Carefully explaining course goals, expectations, grading and ground rules at the beginning of the course," ranking this practice as 2nd most important versus 6th or 7th for low achievers. It seems fairly clear that academically strong students may be saying "Tell me at the beginning of the course what it is about and what is expected, and then give me a clear, organized lecture and I'm very satisfied."

Discussion: Students traditionally have selected courses on the basis of whether the instructor is an authority in the field and how well the instructor presents the course material. As indicated by one student participating in the survey, "Lecturing is the way most instructors teach. Too many teachers are boring and are hard to follow. I always try take professors who are clear and interesting and who know their material."

Student preferences for clearly organized course materials, for opportunities to clarify and correct understandings through feedback, for special study sessions and for prompt review of assignments have been reported in the literature pertaining to teaching effectiveness for at least two decades: Lowman's (1984) summary of research pertaining to "masterful teaching" stresses the importance of an instructor's speaking abilities which "includes skill not only in giving clear, intellectually exciting lectures but also in leading discussions." Chickering and Gamson (1987) and Roberts (1991) emphasize the importance of "prompt feedback" and providing opportunities for active learning as underlying principles for "good practice" in undergraduate education. Undergraduate students participating in a 1990 Harvard University assessment of teaching indicated preferences for teaching which provided opportunities for quick and detailed feedback; for learning through revision; for frequent evaluations with quick turnaround; and, for opportunities for cooperative learning through mentoring and study sessions with peers. Cashin's (1988) comprehensive review of research pertaining to student assessment of teaching effectiveness also supports the MTT finding that students expect "good teachers" to be highly skilled lecturers. What was particularly interesting in the MTT survey of Penn State students, is the strength of the preference for upper division students with higher GPA's.

While not explicitly focused on learning preferences, MTT findings may also be an indication of student learning styles and learning needs. Kolb's (1985) four-stage cycle of learning suggests that students have style preferences with respect to "how they learn best." Some students prefer to observe, to reflect and to listen and are dependent upon the lecture as a dominant learning resource. Others prefer to act and interact with their peers, with high preference for mentoring, cooperative learning and group discussion.

More recently and perhaps more definitely, Brightman (1989) has used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to identify and adapt instructional practices to learning preferences of students enrolled in technical business courses. He discovered that students scoring high on the Sensing (S) and Thinking (T) dimensions of the MBTI "learned best" when instructors took time to discuss lecture objectives and lecture organization prior to lecture presentation. In addition, he observed that high S-T students mastered lecture content more easily when the instructor used advanced organizers, which included outlines, flow charts and initial summaries. Brightman also found that students scoring high on Extraversion (E) responded most favorably to the use of short group discussion exercises incorporated as part of lectures, while students scoring high on Introversion (I) responded more favorably to lectures when the instructor included "quiet moments" for reflection as part of the lecture presentation.

Brightman's research may be potentially useful in interpreting the MTT rankings, particularly if normative MBTI profiles for students enrolled in technical majors are characteristic of the Penn State students participating in the survey. Typically, students enrolled in business and engineering tend to score higher on the Sensing-Thinking dimensions of the inventory, with a high preference for reflection, listening and organization. Rankings observed for group discussion and special study sessions might relate to alternative MBTI profiles for individuals scoring high on the Feeling (F) dimension, with preferences for action and involvement with peers. Further study is necessary to determine definitely what the survey indicates concerning student learning preferences.

To date, members of the Master Teacher Team have discussed best practices with faculty at University Park and at the Behernd College. The team has also made presentations to faculty at the Rochester Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech, sister schools also funded by IBM to improve instructional practices. Currently, team members, serving as mentors, are sharing their best practices with new faculty in their respective colleges.

REFERENCES

1. William Cashin, "Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of Research," Idea Paper #20, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development. Kansas State University, 1988.
   
   
2. R.J. Light, "The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Explorations with Students and Faculty About Teaching, Learning and Student Life." Cambridge, 1990.
   
   
3. Harry V. Roberts, "Practicing TQ to Learn TQ," Graduate School of Business. University of Chicago, 1993.
   
   
4. George R. Bateman and Harry V. Roberts, "TQM for Professors and Students," Graduate School of Business. University of Chicago, 1993.
   
   
5. Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," AAHE Bulletin, March 1987.
   
   
6. Harvey Brightman, and Robert Hightower, "Improving Teaching in the EMBA Classroom: Some Empirical Findings," Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14 (1), 1989.
   
   
7. Joseph Lowman, Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, Jossey-Bass, 1984.
   
   
8. David Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experiences at the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, 1984.
   
   
9. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc.

Copyright © 1995-2005
The Pennsylvania State University

Send comments about this site to: webmaster@email.esm.psu.edu

ESM Home Page |Text Only ESM Home Page | Penn State Home Page| College of Engineering| Contact ESM

Penn State is committed to affirmative action,
equal opportunity, and the diversity of its workforce.

This publication is available on alternative media on request.