Quality Management Journal, 6(2), 9-21 (1999).

HOW TO IMPROVE TEACHING QUALITY

Richard M. Felder Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University Rebecca Brent College of Engineering North Carolina State University An announcement goes out to the faculty that from now on the university will operate as a total quality management campus. All academic, business, and service functions will be assessed regularly, and quality teams will plan ways to improve them. A campus quality director and a steering team are named, with the director reporting to the Provost. All university departments appoint quality coordinators, who attend a one-day workshop on quality management principles and return to their departments to facilitate faculty and/or staff meetings at which quality improvement is discussed. Many faculty members are irate. They argue that TQM was developed by and for industry to improve profits, industry and the university are totally different, and talking of students as "customers" is offensive and makes no sense. They make it clear that they will have nothing to do with this scheme and will view any attempt to compel them to participate as a violation of their academic freedom. What happens then ispractically nothing. Some changes are made in business and service departments, some curricula are revised, and a few instructors make changes in what they do in their classrooms but most go on teaching the way they have always taught. After two or three years the steering committee writes its final report declaring the program an unqualified success and disbands, and life goes on. Higher education discovered total quality management in the 1980s and quickly became enamored of it. Books like TQM for Professors and Students (Bateman and Roberts 1992) and Total Quality Management in Higher Education (Sherr and Teeter 1991) declared that TQM could serve as a paradigm for improving every aspect of collegiate functioning from fiscal administration to classroom instruction. Terms like "customer focus," "employee empowerment," "continuous assessment," and "Demings 14 principles" started appearing with regularity in education journals and in administrative pronouncements on campuses all over the country. Deming himself suggested the linkage between quality management principles and education, claiming that " improvement of education, and the management of education, require application of the same principles that must be used for the improvement of any process, manufacturing or service" (Deming, 1994). Some academic programs and many individual faculty members have tried applying quality principles in their work. Recent papers in engineering education describe quality-based models for

classroom instruction (Jensen and Robinson 1995; Shuman et al. 1996; Stedinger 1996; Latzgo 1997; Karapetrovic and Rajamani 1998), curriculum reform and revision (Bellamy et al. 1994; Litwhiler and Kiemele 1994; Summers 1995; Houshmand et al. 1996; Shelnutt and Buch 1996), and department program planning and administration (Diller and Barnes 1994). Nevertheless, after more than a decade of such efforts, TQM has not established itself as the way many universities operate, especially in matters related to classroom instruction. Our concern in this paper is specifically with teaching, as opposed to academic or research program structure and administration. We first consider how an instructor can improve the quality of instruction in an individual course, and then the more difficult question of how an academic organization (a university, college, or academic department) can improve the quality of its instructional program. In both cases, we examine the potential contribution of quality management principles to teaching improvement programs in light of the cultural differences between industry and the university. IMPROVING TEACHING QUALITY IN AN INDIVIDUAL CLASS We may define good teaching as instruction that leads to effective learning, which in turn means thorough and lasting acquisition of the knowledge, skills, and values the instructor or the institution has set out to impart. The education literature presents a variety of good teaching strategies and research studies that validate them (Campbell and Smith 1997; Johnson et al. 1998; McKeachie 1999). In the sections that follow, we describe several strategies known to be particularly effective. Write instructional objectives Instructional objectives are statements of specific observable actions that students should be able to perform if they have mastered the content and skills the instructor has attempted to teach (Gronlund 1991; Brent and Felder 1997). An instructional objective has one of the following stems:

At the end of this [course, chapter, week, lecture], the student should be able to *** To do well on the next exam, the student should be able to ***

where *** is a phrase that begins with an action verb (e.g., list, calculate, solve, estimate, describe, explain, paraphrase, interpret, predict, model, design, optimize,). The outcome of the specified action must be directly observable by the instructor: words like "learn," "know," "understand," and "appreciate," while important, do not qualify. Following are illustrative phrases that might be attached to the stem of an instructional objective, grouped in six categories according to the levels of thinking they require.
1. Knowledge (repeating verbatim): list [the first five books of the Old Testament]; state [the

steps in the procedure for calibrating a gas chromatograph]. 2. Comprehension (demonstrating understanding of terms and concepts): explain [in your own words the concept of phototropism]; paraphrase [Section 3.8 of the text].

3. Application (solving problems): calculate [the probability that two sample means will

differ by more than 5%]; solve [Problem 17 in Chapter 5 of the text].

4. Analysis (breaking things down into their elements, formulating theoretical explanations or

mathematical or logical models for observed phenomena): derive [Poiseuilles law for laminar Newtonian flow from a force balance]; simulate [a sewage treatment plant for a city, given population demographics and waste emission data from local manufacturing plants]. 5. Synthesis (creating something, combining elements in novel ways): design [an elementary school playground given demographic information about the school and budget constraints]; make up [a homework problem involving material covered in class this week]. 6. Evaluation (choosing from among alternatives): determine [which of several versions of an essay is better, and explain your reasoning]; select [from among available options for expanding production capacity, and justify your choice]. The six given categories are the cognitive domain levels of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom 1984). The last three categories--synthesis, analysis, and evaluation--are often referred to as the "higher level thinking skills." Well-formulated instructional objectives can help instructors prepare lecture and assignment schedules and facilitate construction of in-class activities, out-of-class assignments, and tests. Perhaps the greatest benefit comes when the objectives cover all of the content and skills the instructor wishes to teach and they are handed out as study guides prior to examinations. The more explicitly students know what is expected of them, the more likely they will be to meet the expectations. Use active learning in class Most students cannot stay focused throughout a lecture. After about 10 minutes their attention begins to drift, first for brief moments and then for longer intervals, and by the end of the lecture they are taking in very little and retaining less. A classroom research study showed that immediately after a lecture students recalled 70% of the information presented in the first ten minutes and only 20% of that from the last ten minutes (McKeachie 1999). Students attention can be maintained throughout a class session by periodically giving them something to do. Many different activities can serve this purpose (Bonwell and Eison 1991; Brent and Felder 1992; Felder 1994a; Johnson et al. 1998; Meyers and Jones 1993), of which the most common is the small-group exercise. At some point during a class period, the instructor tells the students to get into groups of two or three and arbitrarily designates a recorder (the second student from the left, the student born closest to the university, any student who has not yet been a recorder that week). When the groups are in place, the instructor asks a question or poses a short problem and instructs the groups to come up with a response, telling them that only the recorder is allowed to write but any team member may be called on to give the response. After a suitable period has elapsed (which may be as short as 30 seconds or as long as 5 minutesshorter is generally better), the instructor randomly calls on one or more students or teams to present their solutions. Calling on students rather than asking for volunteers is essential. If the students know that someone else will eventually supply the answer, many will not even bother to think about the question.

Active learning exercises may address a variety of objectives. Some examples follow.

Recalling prior material. The students may be given one minute to list as many points as they can recall about the previous lecture or about a specific topic covered in an assigned reading. Responding to questions. Any questions an instructor would normally ask in class can be directed to groups. In most classesespecially large onesvery few students are willing to volunteer answers to questions, even if they know the answers. When the questions are directed to small groups, most students will attempt to come up with answers and the instructor will get as many responses as he or she wants. Problem solving. A large problem can always be broken into a series of steps, such as paraphrasing the problem statement, sketching a schematic or flow chart, predicting a solution, writing the relevant equations, solving them or outlining a solution procedure, and checking and/or interpreting the solution. When working through a problem in class, the instructor may complete some steps and ask the student groups to attempt others. The groups should generally be given enough time to think about what they have been asked to do and begin formulating a response but not necessarily enough to reach closure. Explaining written material. TAPPS (thinking-aloud pair problem solving) is a powerful activity for helping students understand a body of material. The students are put in pairs and given a text passage or a worked-out derivation or problem solution. An arbitrarily designated member of each pair explains each statement or calculation, and the explainers partner asks for clarification if anything is unclear, giving hints if necessary. After about five minutes, the instructor calls on one or two pairs to summarize their explanations up to a point in the text, and the students reverse roles within their pairs and continue from that point. Analytical, critical, and creative thinking. The students may be asked to list assumptions, problems, errors, or ethical dilemmas in a case study or design; explain a technical concept in jargon-free terms; find the logical flaw in an argument; predict the outcome of an experiment or explain an observed outcome in terms of course concepts; or choose from among alternative answers or designs or models or strategies and justify the choice made. The more practice and feedback the students get in the types of thinking the instructor wants them to master, the more likely they are to develop the requisite skills. Generating questions and summarizing. The students may be given a minute to come up with two good questions about the preceding lecture segment or to summarize the major points in the lecture just concluded.

Use cooperative learning Cooperative learning (CL) is instruction that involves students working in teams to accomplish an assigned task and produce a final product (e.g., a problem solution, critical analysis, laboratory

report, or process or product design), under conditions that include the following elements (Johnson et al. 1998): 1. Positive interdependence. Team members are obliged to rely on one another to achieve the goal. If any team members fail to do their part, everyone on the team suffers consequences. 2. Individual accountability. All team members are held accountable both for doing their share of the work and for understanding everything in the final product (not just the parts for which they were primarily responsible). 3. Face-to-face promotive interaction. Although some of the group work may be done individually, some must be done interactively, with team members providing mutual feedback and guidance, challenging one another, and working toward consensus. 4. Appropriate use of teamwork skills. Students are encouraged and helped to develop and exercise leadership, communication, conflict management, and decision-making skills. 5. Regular self-assessment of team functioning. Team members set goals, periodically assess how well they are working together, and identify changes they will make to function more effectively in the future. An extensive body of research confirms the effectiveness of cooperative learning in higher education. Relative to students taught conventionally, cooperatively-taught students tend to exhibit better grades on common tests, greater persistence through graduation, better analytical, creative, and critical thinking skills, deeper understanding of learned material, greater intrinsic motivation to learn and achieve, better relationships with peers, more positive attitudes toward subject areas, lower levels of anxiety and stress, and higher self-esteem (Johnson et al. 1998; McKeachie 1999). Formal cooperative learning is not trivial to implement, and instructors who simply put students to work in teams without addressing the five defining conditions of cooperative learning could be doing more harm than good. In particular, if team projects are carried out under conditions that do not ensure individual accountability, some students will inevitably get credit for work done by their more industrious and responsible teammates. The slackers learn little or nothing in the process, and the students who actually do the work justifiably resent both their teammates and the instructor.

The following guidelines suggest ways to realize the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of cooperative learning (Felder and Brent 1994; Johnson et al. 1998; Millis and Cottell 1998; NISE 1997).

Proceed gradually when using cooperative learning for the first time. Cooperative learning imposes a learning curve on both students and instructors. Instructors who have never used it might do well to try a single team project or assignment the first time, gradually increasing the amount of group work in subsequent course offerings as they gain experience and confidence. Form teams of 3-4 students for out-of-class assignments. Teams of two may not generate a sufficient variety of ideas and approaches, teams of five or more are likely to leave at least one student out of the group process. Instructor-formed teams generally work better than self-selected teams. Classroom research studies show that the most effective groups tend to be heterogeneous in ability and homogeneous in interests, with common blocks of time when they can meet outside class. It is also advisable not to allow underrepresented populations (e.g. racial minorities, or women in traditionally male fields like engineering) to be outnumbered in teams, especially during the first two years of college when students are most likely to lose confidence and drop out. When students self-select, these guidelines are often violated. One approach to team formation is to use completely random assignment to form practice teams, and then after the first class examination has been given, form new teams using the given guidelines. Give more challenging assignments to teams than to individuals. If the students could just as easily complete assignments by themselves, the instructor is not realizing the full educational potential of cooperative learning and the students are likely to resent the additional time burden of having to meet with their groups. The level of challenge should not be raised by simply making the assignments longer, but by including more problems that call upon higher level thinking skills. Help students learn how to work effectively in teams. Some instructors begin a course with instruction in teamwork skills and team-building exercises, while others prefer to wait for several weeks until the inevitable interpersonal conflicts begin to arise and then provide strategies for dealing with the problems. One technique is to collect anonymous comments about group work, describe one or two common problems in class (the most common one being team members who are not pulling their weight), and have the students brainstorm possible responses and select the best ones. Take measures to provide positive interdependence. Methods include assigning different roles to group members (e.g. coordinator, checker, recorder, and group process monitor), rotating the roles periodically or for each assignment; providing one set of resources; requiring a single group product; and giving a small bonus on tests to groups in which the team average is above (say) 80%. Another powerful technique is jigsaw, in which each team member receives specialized training in one or another subtask of the assignment and must then contribute his or her expertise for the team product to receive top marks. Impose individual accountability in as many ways as possible. The most common method is to give individual tests. In lecture courses, the course grade should be based primarily on the test results (e.g., 80% for the tests and 20% for team homework), so that

students who manage to get a free ride on the homework will still do poorly in the course. Other techniques include calling randomly on individuals to present and explain team results; having each team member rate everyones contribution and combining the results with the team grade to determine individual assignment grades, and providing a last resort option of firing chronically uncooperative team members. Require teams to assess their performance regularly. At least two or three times during the semester, teams should be asked to respond to questions like "How well are we meeting our goals and expectations? "What are we doing well?" "What needs improvement?" and "What (if anything) will we do differently next time?" Do not assign course grades on a curve. If grades are curved, students have little incentive to help teammates and risk lowering their own final grades, while if an absolute grading system is used they have every incentive to help one another. If an instructor unintentionally gives a very difficult or unfair test on which the grades are abnormally low, points may be added to everyones score or a partial retest may be administered to bring the high mark or the average to a desired level. Survey the students after the first six weeks of a course. As a rule, the few students who dislike group work are quite vocal about it, while the many who see its benefits are quiet. Unless the students are surveyed during the course, the instructor might easily conclude from the complaints that the approach is failing and be tempted to abandon it. Expect some students to be initially resistant or hostile to cooperative learning.

This point is crucial. Students sometimes react negatively when asked to work in teams for the first time. Bright students complain about begin held back by their slower teammates; weaker or less assertive students complain about being discounted or ignored in group sessions; and resentments build when some team members fail to pull their weight. Instructors with experience know how to avoid most of the resistance and deal with the rest, but novices may become discouraged and revert to the traditional teacher-centered instructional paradigm, which is a loss both for them and for their students. Cooperative learning is most likely to succeed if the instructor anticipates and understands student resistance: its origins, the forms it might take, and ways to defuse and eventually overcome it. Felder and Brent (1996) offer suggestions for helping students understand why they are being asked to work in groups and for responding to specific student complaints. These suggestions may not eliminate student resistance completely, but they generally keep it under control long enough for most students to start recognizing the benefits of working in teams. Assessment and evaluation of teaching quality Most institutions use only end-of-course student surveys to evaluate teaching quality. While student opinions are important and should be including in any assessment plan, meaningful evaluation of teaching must rely primarily on assessment of learning outcomes. Current trends in assessment reviewed by Ewell (1998) include shifting from standardized tests to performancebased assessments, from teaching-based models to learning-based models of student development, and from assessment as an add-on to more naturalistic approaches embedded in actual instructional

delivery. Measures that may be used to obtain an accurate picture of students content knowledge and skills include tests, performances and exhibitions, project reports, learning logs and journals, metacognitive reflection, observation checklists, graphic organizers, and interviews, and conferences (Burke, 1993). A particularly effective learning assessment vehicle is the portfolio, a set of student products collected over time that provides a picture of the students growth and development. Panitz (1996) describes how portfolios can be used to assess an individuals progress in a course or over an entire curriculum, to demonstrate specific competencies, or to assess the curriculum. Rogers and Williams (1999) describe a procedure to maintain portfolios on the World Wide Web. Angelo & Cross (1993) outline a variety of classroom assessment techniques, all of which generate products suitable for inclusion in student portfolios. The devices they suggest include minute papers, concept maps, audiotaped and videotaped protocols (students reporting on their thinking processes as they solve problems), student-generated test questions, classroom opinion polls, course-related self-confidence surveys, interest/knowledge/skills checklists, and reactions to instruction. Longitudinal study of the proposed instructional methods In a study carried out at North Carolina State University, a cohort of students took five chemical engineering courses taught by the same instructor in five consecutive semesters. Active learning was used in all class sessions, and the students completed most of their homework assignments in cooperative learning teams. Both academic performance and student attitudes were assessed each semester for both the experimental cohort and a comparison cohort of students who proceeded through the traditionally-taught curriculum. Felder (1995, 1998) gives detailed descriptions of the instructional model and of the assessment procedures and results. The experimental group entered the chemical engineering curriculum with credentials statistically indistinguishable from those of the comparison group and significantly outperformed the comparison group on a number of measures. Students in the experimental group generally earned higher course grades than comparison group students, even in chemical engineering courses that were not taught by the experimental course instructor. Comparison group students were roughly twice as likely to leave chemical engineering for any reason prior to graduation and almost three times as likely to drop out of college altogether. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the experimental group outperformed the comparison group in developing skills in higher-level thinking, communication, and teamwork. The attitudes of the two groups of students toward their education differed dramatically. Students in the experimental group gave significantly higher ratings to the quality of their course instruction, the student-friendliness of their academic environment, the level of peer support they enjoyed, and the quality of their investment in their chemical engineering education.

The value of TQM in improving classroom instruction It is not difficult to find semantic links between teaching and total quality management. Almost every known strategy for teaching effectively cited in standard pedagogical references has counterparts on a list of TQM components compiled by Grandzol and Gershon (1997). Examples include writing instructional objectives (clarity of vision, strategic planning); student-centered instruction (customer focus, empowerment, driving out fear), collaborative or cooperative learning (adopting a new philosophy, teamwork), assessment (measurement, benchmarks, continuous improvement), and training and mentoring new faculty members (human resource development, employee training). The question is, if effective teaching strategies are known and validated by extensive research (as they are), why not simply incorporate them into classroom instruction without an added layer of jargon? If all that is done is to choose a subset of TQM terms that map onto known effective teaching strategies and then apply the strategies in a single coursewhich is what most of the published studies in the education literature consist ofthe TQM model adds no value. Perhaps more to the point, TQM is a collective strategy that has meaning only if it is agreed upon and implemented by the staff of an organization. Applying TQM terms to instruction in a single course by a single teacher may provide a good experience for the students, but it is not TQM. In short, while improving the quality of classroom instruction is a worthwhile goalarguably the most important goal that a university can adoptthere is no need to force-fit an industrial model or invent questionable analogies (e.g., students as "customers") to achieve it. TQM was developed by identifying problems with existing manufacturing practices and then applying a combination of sound economic and psychological principles to devise a better approach. Improving teaching requires identifying problems with existing academic practices and then applying a combination of sound educational and psychological principles to devise a better approach. Such approaches have already been devised. Why not just use them? IMPROVING INSTITUTIONALTEACHING PROGRAMS The proper use of any of the instructional methods described in the preceding section improves the quality of learning that occurs in the classroom. If several of the methods are used in concert, the potential for improvement is all the greater. The quality of an institutional teaching program may therefore be improved by persuading as many faculty members as possible to use those methods in their classes and providing them with the training and support they will need to implement the methods successfully. It would be nice if we could stop right there, but the problem is more complex. The presumption in everything just said is that both faculty members and administrators at the institution in question generally agree on a definition of "quality of learning" and on the importance of improving it. Unfortunately, this presumption rarely has a basis in fact. Much therefore remains to be said about how to improve an institutional teaching program (as opposed to teaching in a single class), including the potential role of total quality management.

As noted in the introduction, many campuses have experimented with TQM, provoking a great deal of faculty opposition in the process and having relatively little impact on what happens in most classrooms. The conflict between the TQM advocates and opponents reflects differences between the industrial culture where TQM was developed and the culture of the university. The conflict can easily turn what should be a united effort to improve the quality of education into a power struggle between faculty members and administrators. The consequence is that the introduction of TQM to the campus may work against the cause it was intended to promote. It is not that there is anything wrong with quality management principles. We believe that they are firmly rooted in common sense and that systematically applying them is very likely to lead to improvements in university operations. However, undertaking the wholesale application of a paradigm developed for one cultureindustryto another culturehigher educationhas pitfalls. In important ways, the two cultures are as different as automobiles are from students, and steps that may be feasible in one environment may be entirely inappropriate in the other. [Beaver(1994) makes this point tellingly. Some of the ideas we present in the next section draw on his observations.] Perhaps more to the point, the rhetoric of total quality management contains terms that are offensive to many faculty members, and their resentment of attempts to apply TQM language to their profession provokes fierce opposition to TQM-based strategies. In the remainder of this section we review the cultural differences that give rise to the faculty opposition, and then suggest how the lessons of TQM may be applied to teaching program improvement in a manner much more likely to succeed. Two different worlds Every organization, be it a company, a corporate division, a university, a college, or an academic department, has both a stated mission, which is written for public consumption, and a true mission, which dictates how the organization allocates resources and rewards performance. The two missions may be the same or different. The working definition of "quality" within an organization is determined primarily by the organizations true mission. The concept of the true mission is needed to explain the principal differences between the industrial and academic cultures that are related to quality management.

In industry, the true mission is relatively clear, and quality is relatively straightforward to define. In education, the true mission is complex and subject to endless debate, and quality is therefore almost impossible to define in an operationally useful manner.

Whatever the corporate mission statement may say, the true mission of a for-profit company is to maximize profits (more precisely, some measure of profitability). Setting aside altruistic objectives that may motivate individual company personnel, such goals as zero defects, customer satisfaction, staff empowerment, etc., are to the corporate mind simply means to the end of maximizing profits. "Quality" may be defined as any property of an industrial process or product that varies in a generally monotonic manner with profits. The goal of raising quality is therefore consistent with the mission of maximizing profits.

In education as in industry, the stated mission and the true mission may not coincide. The similarity ends there, however. The goals that constitute the educational mission of a university are extremely hard to pin down to everyones satisfaction. Is the goal to produce graduates who simply know a lot more than they did when they enrolled as freshmen? What is it that we want them to know? Do we wish to equip the students with the skills they will need to succeed as professionals? What skills would those be? Are they the same for all professions? Are we trying to produce "educated citizens"? Whose definition of "educated" will we adopt? Platos? Deweys? Alan Blooms? Is it our purpose to promote certain values in our graduates? Which ones? Agreeing on educational goals is only the first step toward formulating an academic mission, however. In the modern university, teaching is just one of several important functions, the others being research, service to business and technology (e.g., through faculty consulting activities), and service to the community and society at large. The true mission of the university might involve maximizing research expenditures, tuition revenues, "productivity" (rate of production of graduates divided by faculty size), the institutions ranking in U.S. News and World Report, national rankings of the football and basketball teams, and regional and national reputations of the undergraduate and graduate teaching programs. Many of these goals are unrelated and most of them compete for limited resources. Prioritizing them to arrive at a realistic teaching quality improvement program is a challenge unlike anything encountered in industry.

In industry, quality is relatively easy to assess. In education, even if a definition of quality can be formulated and agreed upon, devising a meaningful assessment process is a monumental task.

Quality control managers can easily count the number of television sets in a production run that malfunction, or the percentage of silicon dioxide films deposited on semiconductor wafers that fall outside pre-specified quality control limits, or the weekly volume of complaints about the promptness and effectiveness of repair service calls. The lower those values, the higher the quality of the process being assessed. But what are the measures of quality in education? Assuming that the mission of a university includes the imparting of certain knowledge, skills, and (perhaps) values, a meaningful assessment process must include measuring the degree to which the students have acquired those attributes. Assessing knowledge is relatively straightforward, but methods for assessing skills are complex and time-consuming to administer and valid means of assessing values do not exist.

In industry, the customer is relatively easy to identify and is always right, at least in principle. In education, those who might be identified as "customers" have contradictory needs and desires and may very well be completely wrong.

When attempt is made to introduce TQM on a campus, the term "customer" probably provokes more faculty outrage than any other feature of the approach. Its use is taken as clear evidence that the proponents of the program do not understand the differences between an industrial organization and an educational institution.

This inference is understandable. If I manufacture automobiles, the customers are automobile buyers. If I produce semiconductor chips, the customers are the manufacturers of the products that use semiconductor chips. If I own a restaurant, the customers are the diners. If a significant number of my customers complain, it means that I am not doing an acceptable job, and unless I improve in a way that reduces the number of complaints, I will suffer negative consequences. Admittedly, the shareholders and/or the Board of Directors might also be considered my customers, but if the first group of customers is unhappy and I am operating in a competitive market, the second group will sooner or later also be unhappy. If I am a faculty member, my "customers"who include hirers of graduates, university administrators, governing boards, state legislatures, research funding agencies, parents, and studentswant different and frequently contradictory things. Industry wants graduates who have good technical, communication, and teamwork skills and who can think critically and solve problems creatively. Administrators and governing boards want the university to have high national rankings (which are invariably based on research reputations), large amounts of external funding, and high "productivity," turning out as many graduates in as short a period of time as possible and at the lowest possible cost. Legislatures want the universities to be responsive to the taxpayers needs, which usually means having a strong but affordable undergraduate program. Funding agencies want results obtained quickly and cost-effectively. Parents want low tuition and graduation in four years or less. And then there are the students. Students at a university want a bewildering variety of different and often contradictory things. Some want teaching that emphasizes the concrete and practical over the abstract and theoretical that will prepare them for their chosen professions; others want a rigorous education that will prepare them to enter top graduate schools and then go on to research careers. Most dislike difficult homework assignments and examinations; a few welcome the challenge. Some like working in teams; others hate it. And so on. In short, the "customers" of a university clearly cannot always be right, and they may sometimes be completely wrong. The goal of customer satisfaction that makes so much sense in a corporate environment consequently makes little sense at a university. It is little wonder that faculty members react negatively to the concept.

In industry, a clear chain of command usually exists, on paper and in fact. In education, a chain of command might exist on paper, but it is in fact relatively amorphous and nothing at all like its industrial counterpart.

Corporate executives who wish their subordinates to do things differently have both carrots and sticks at their disposal. Employees who make substantial contributions to meeting the goals of the company or of their superiors may be awarded bonuses, raises, and promotions. Those who fail to make such contributions may (leaving aside considerations related to unions) find themselves unemployed or relegated to undesirable positions as a consequence of their insubordination. For both of these reasons, if the CEO or the Board of Directors of a company decides that (for example) a TQM policy will be implemented, the policy is implemented, and staff members who fail to go along with it place themselves at risk.

Insubordination is not part of the normal vocabulary of administration-faculty relations. Administrators may make requests but they simply do not give orders to professors, and they have very little power to compel acceptance of their requests. They may award or deny merit raises to noncompliant faculty members but there is not much else they can do, especially if the faculty members are tenured. (Tenure has no counterpart in industry.) If they ask professors to do something that requires a substantial expenditure of time and/or effortsuch as undertaking a quality-based teaching improvement programthey must somehow make a convincing case that doing it is in the professors best interests. Considering the low priority of teaching in most academic reward systems, that case can be extremely difficulty to make. Toward an effective institutional teaching improvement program We have so far spoken only of changes in teaching methods, but improvements in instructional programs may also involve subject integration, just-in-time instruction, writing across the curriculum, or any of a variety of other non-traditional approaches that have been found to improve learning. In the final analysis, however, the quality of a teaching program is primarily related to the quality of the instruction that takes place in individual classrooms. For the new curricula and instructional methods to have the desired impact, a reasonable percentage of the faculty must participate willingly and competently in both their delivery and their assessment. If they do not, the curriculum structure and any other educational reforms will be largely irrelevant in the long run. Most faculties have enough members who are sufficiently dedicated to teaching to participate voluntarily in pilot studies of new instructional programs, with minimal expectation of tangible reward. As many administrators have recently discovered, however, attracting and keeping enough faculty volunteers for a full-scale implementation of a new teaching program can be difficult or impossible, particularly if their participation is an add-on to all their other responsibilities and does not count toward tenure and promotion. Administrators who wish to make major improvements in the quality of their teaching programs should therefore provide incentives for faculty members to participate in the new programs, such as salary supplements, travel or equipment funds, or release from service responsibilities. They should also commit to faculty members who carry the principal burden of teaching and assessment in the new programs that they will have the same opportunities for tenure, promotion, and merit raises as their more research-oriented colleagues now enjoy (Boyer 1990; Glassick et al. 1997; Felder 1994b). Unless this commitment is made and honored, attempts to implement a large-scale teaching improvement program are likely to consume an immense amount of time and effort and accomplish relatively little in the end. Here, then, is our view of what can be done to improve the instructional program at a university. Each step requires agreement of the faculty members who must implement it and the administrators who must provide the necessary resources. 1. Faculty members and administrators define the knowledge, skills, and values that the graduates of the program should have. 2. With the assistance of experts in pedagogy and learning assessment, the faculty defines the instructional methods most likely to lead to the acquisition of the desired attributes, selects

3. 4. 5. 6.

the methods needed to assess the effectiveness of the instruction, and estimates the resources (including provisions for faculty development) needed to implement both the instruction and the assessment. The administration commits to provide both the necessary resources to initiate and sustain the program and appropriate incentives for faculty members to participate. The faculty and administration formulate a detailed implementation plan. The faculty implements the plan. The faculty and administration assess the results and modify the plan as necessary to move closer to the desired outcomes.

Rogers and Sando (1996) present models for teaching program assessment that include recommendations for all but Step 3 of this list. This six-step plan sounds like a TQM model, and of course it is. It can be put into effect perfectly well, however, in the context of the university culture, without ever mentioning customers, empowerment, bottom-up management, or any other TQM term whose applicability to education is questionable. Consensus on all of the issues involved in educational reform might or might not be achieved, but at least the dialogue would focus on the real issues rather than semantic red herrings. Our recommendations for improving teaching quality finally come down to this. Instructors who wish to improve teaching in a course should consult the literature, see which instructional methods have been shown to work, and implement those with which they feel most comfortable. Total quality management need not enter the picture at all. An administration wishing to improve the quality of its instructional program should first make the necessary commitment to provide the necessary resources and incentives for faculty participation. Then, dont talk about TQMjust do it. REFERENCES Angelo, T.A., and K.P. Cross. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers, 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Beaver, W. 1994. Is TQM appropriate for the classroom? College Teaching 42, no.3:111-114. Bellamy, L., D. Evans, D. Linder, B. McNeill, and G. Raupp. 1994. Active learning, team and quality management principles in the engineering classroom. Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, DC: ASEE. Bloom, B.S. 1984. Taxonomy of educational objectives. 1.Cognitive domain. New York: Longman. Bonwell, C.C., and J.A. Eison. 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brent, R., and R.M. Felder. 1992. Writing Assignments Pathways to Connections, Clarity, Creativity. College Teaching 40, no.2:4347. Burke, K. 1993. The mindful school: How to assess thoughtful outcomes. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing. Campbell, W. E., and K.A. Smith (Eds.). 1997. New paradigms for college teaching. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Deming, W.E. 1994. The new economics. 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies. Cited in Latzko, 1997. Ewell, P.T. 1998. National trends in assessing student learning. J. Engr. Education 87, no. 2:107113. Felder, R.M. 1994a. Any questions? Chem. Engr. Education, 28 no.3:174-175. . 1994b. The myth of the superhuman professor. J. Engr. Education, 82, no.2: 105110. . 1995. A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. IV. Instructional methods and student responses to them. J. Engr. Education, 84, no.4: 361367. , and R. Brent. 1994. Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038. , and R. Brent. 1996. "Navigating the bumpy road to studentcentered instruction." College Teaching 44, no.2: 4347. , and R. Brent. 1997. Speaking objectively. Chem. Engr. Education 31, no.3:178-179. , G.N. Felder, and E.J. Dietz. 1998. "A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students," J. Engr. Education 87, no.4:469-480. Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber, and G.I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grandzol, J.R., and M. Gershon. 1997. Which TQM practices really matter: An empirical investigation. Quality Management Journal 97, no.4:43:59. Gronlund, N.E. 1991. How to write and use instructional objectives (4th ed.) New York: Macmillan. Jensen, P.A., and J.K. Robinson. 1995. Demings quality principles applied to a large lecture course. J. Engr. Education 84, no.1:45-50.

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. 1998. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, 2d ed. Edina, MN: Interaction Press. Latzko, W.J. 1997. Modeling the method: The Deming classroom. Quality Management Journal 5, no.5:46-55. McKeachie, W. 1999. Teaching tips, 10th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Meyers, C., and T.B. Jones. 1993. Promoting active learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Millis, B.J., and P.G. Cottell, Jr. 1998. Cooperative learning for higher engineering faculty. Phoenix: Oryx Press. NISE (National Institute for Science Education). 1997. Collaborative learning: Small group learning page. <http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/cl1/> Panitz, B. 1996. The student portfolio: A powerful assessment tool. ASEE Prism 5, no. 7: 24-29. Rogers, G. M. & Sando, J. K. 1996. Stepping ahead: An assessment plan development guide. Terre Haute, IN: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. Rogers, G. M., & Williams, J. 1999. Building a better portfolio. ASEE Prism 8, no. 5: 30-32. Shelnutt, J.W., and K. Buch. 1996. Using total quality principles for strategic planning and curriculum revision. J. Engr. Education 85, no.3:201-207. Shuman, L.J., C.J. Atman, and H. Wolfe. 1996. Applying TQM in the IE classroom: The switch to active learning. Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, DC: ASEE. Stedinger, J.R. 1996. Lessons from using TQM in the classroom. J. Engr. Education 85, no2:151156. Summers, D.C.S. 1995. TQM Education: Parallels between industry and education. Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, DC: ASEE. Teacher Quality Initiatives What Does Work? School Closures Do Community Schools Have a Future?

Improving Classroom Teaching Can Teachers be Taught to Teach Better?

March 5, 2010 by Paul W. Bennett

Since the time of the Ancients, the art of teaching has sparked intense discussion both inside and outside of the academy. In the March 7 edition of the Sunday New York Times Magazine, Elizabeth Green, editor of GothamSchools.org, tackles the whole question in a splendid feature essay. Her article focuses on Doug Lemov, an Albany (NY) educational consultant, who had an epiphany five years ago while trying to assess why American school reform efforts were faltering. After observing dispirited teachers in action in the urban schools of upstate New York, Lemov reached the conclusion that teachers simply needed better training. Like most North American teacher educators, he also believes that good teaching is not just instinctive a kind of magic performed by born superstars but, instead, consists of deliberate techniques that can be taught or imparted to others. The fundamental question remains: Are good teachers simply born or can they be made? Here is how Elizabeth Green framed the issue: But what makes a good teacher? There have been many quests for the one essential trait, and they have all come up empty-handed. Among the factors that do not predict whether a teacher will succeed: a graduate-school degree, a high score on the SAT, an extroverted personality, politeness, confidence, warmth, enthusiasm and having passed the teacher-certification exam on the first try. When Bill Gates announced recently that his foundation was investing millions in a project to improve teaching quality in the United States, he added a rueful caveat. Unfortunately, it seems the field doesnt have a clear view of what characterizes good teaching, Gates said. Im personally very curious. When Doug Lemov conducted his own search for those magical ingredients, he noticed something about most successful teachers that he hadnt expected to find: what looked like natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise. Stand still when youre giving directions, a teacher at a Boston school told him. In other words, dont do two things at once. Lemov tried it, and suddenly, he had to ask students to take out their homework only once. It was the tiniest decision, but what was teaching if not a series of bite-size moves just like that? This week Educhatter asks the same questions posed by The New York Times Learning Network blog: What do you think? To what extent can good teaching can be taught? Like Be the first to like this post. Posted in Teacher Education | 6 Comments

6 Responses

1. on March 5, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Reply

Doug Little

Linda Darling-Hammond, in her latest book The Flat World and Education, reports on exhaustive research over many many years on this topic and concludes that three factors make for a better teaching complement. 1) Higher education of teachers 2) Higher levels of certification 3) Experience but only up to three years I hate to back to the Finns again but I must. They only pay wages on the European average but require 3 years of graduate education to become a teacher. They recruit only A level students to become teachers, as does Japan, but the competition for the few spots has come to the point where most prospective teachers go to get a Masters in their discipline for secondary or something like psychology for elementary before they even apply for teachers training. When asked to explain the Finnish Miracle to visitors, the answer is, we invest heavily in teacher education and training.

2. on March 6, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Reply

jtc

Has there ever been a study conducted that actually went directly to the teachers themselves to find out what they identified as working to help them be better educators? Seems to me that unless the people involved teachers are involved in their own improvement effort, the improvement efforts may be wasted. Perhaps snagging those who choose to leave the profession after just a few years and simply asking them what was missing would be a start. I dont think teachers are born, and can be taught. Neither do I think that all good teachers have been to teachers college or are certified. A clear understanding of what the job is would be helpful. How many still struggle with the whole purpose of education. Thats got to muddy the waters somewhat. If the answer about what education is is different to each and ever individual then any standardizing with goals of improvement may be wasted.

Working to improvement must involve everyone in the system..not strictly just the teachers. If the management is weak and parents are not at all supportive there would be no incentive to improve would think.

3. on March 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm | Reply

Doug Little

The Brits did a study of why teachers left the field after 5 years or less. The answer was not one the government wanted to hear. The basic answer boiled down to the accountability agenda. In a nut shell one young teacher summed it up nicely by saying They are just not paying anywhere near enough to think they can place these kinds of demands on me. As I have said before, Im sure they went into some field where the work was much easier and the money much better, like Law.

4. on March 7, 2010 at 9:19 pm | Reply

Paul W. Bennett

Faculty growth initiatives have been attempted, over the years, in various North American independent schools. Without teacher unions, School Heads have found teachers a little more amenable to the extra work involved in participating in regular, on-going faculty development. Furthermore, most of those faculty growth experiments were designed to supplant the traditional clinical supervision/evaluation model reserved for probationary/ beginning teachers and favoured in the public schools. Traditional top-down teacher evaluations are usually just paper exercises, but they always generate grumbling around the faculty coffeepot. Heres the familiar routine: Harried administrators pop into the classroom and write-up a class observation report. It normally causes rumblings and is often viewed by the faculty as the equivalent of a driveby shooting. Walker Buckalews Independent School Management (ISM) workshop on Teacher Effectiveness through Evaluation and Development has done much to popularize facultybased, peer evaluations. Breaking from traditional clinical models, Buckalew promotes meaningful faculty evaluation developed in collaboration with teachers. Even hardened veteran teachers are attracted by Walker Buckalews model of peer-based evaluation. For a classic example, see a frank appraisal at Is It June Yet? http://isitjuneyet.blogspot.com/2009/09/once-again-there-is-much-buzz-about.html

One of the most practical tools provided by Walker Buckalew in his Faculty Evaluation Toolkit is The Faculty Culture Profile. Its an effective tool for assessing the health of faculty culture and receptivity of teachers to any kind of professional development. See the survey at http://www.isminc.com/images/downloads/consulting/FCP.pdf Faculty-driven professional evaluation often evolves into well-intentioned Peer Evaluation Programs. A typical example is the Lake Forest Academy Peer Assisted Self-Evaluation Program (PASEP) trumpeted by Tom Elieff in February 2002. http://www.nais.org/resources/article.cfm?ItemNumber=145274 While reviewing recent progress, I came to a shocking conclusion. Back in the early-1990s, I gave a Faculty Growth Workshop at the NAIS Annual Conference in New York City and promoted a program known as PEP and almost identical to the PASEP. It capsized at Upper Canada College when the school adopted the IB in 1997-98. A similar program was attempted at Lower Canada College from 1997 to 2005 and it withered on the vine. I have just discovered that the first such program in North America, at Greensboro Day School (NC), died when the long-term head retired. I think it is safe to say that a new approach is in order. Does anyone know of a program that truly works?

5. on March 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Reply

Paul W. Bennett

The New York Times has posted a fascinating video featuring clips from actual classrooms around the country. It accompanies Elizabeth Greens featured essay and seeks to demonstrate how to Build a Better Teacher. In the video, Doug Lemov, founder of the charter-school network Uncommon Schools, analyzes techniques that effective teachers use to get students to pay attention and follow instructions. Check it out at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/07/magazine/20100307teacher-videos.html#/readingaloud What is your reaction to Doug Lemovs Uncommon Schools model of educating teachers?

6. on March 13, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Reply

Paul W. Bennett

Firing teachers is emerging as a rather macabre answer to our key question. Why We Must Fire Teachers is the headline for a provocative, incendiary feature story in Newsweek magazine (March 15, 2010) Written in response to the recent firing of all teachers at Central Falls HS in Rhode Island, it captures the angry American public mood. You can access the piece at http://www.newsweek.com/id/234590 Leading American education historian, Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010), is outraged by the story. A week after it first appeared, she tweeted that she is still steamed. After reading it myself, I despair for the state of American education. The Education Wars threaten to tear the system apart. Surely public schools do not have to be destroyed to save them. Perhaps its best for Canadians to wait until the smoke clears and then to assess the painful lessons.

Essays on Teaching Excellence

Toward the Best in the Academy
Vol. 14, No. 7, 2002-2003

A publication of The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. The posting and use of this publication on your institution's WWW server is covered by an End User License Agreement (EULA). By the terms of this agreement, the essay must be located on a secure server that limits access to your institution's students, faculty, or staff. Use beyond your institutional boundaries, including the linking of this page to any site other than this one, requires the express permission of the POD Network. To view the terms of the End User License Agreement, click here.

Improving Teaching through Classroom Action Research

Gwynn Mettetal, Indiana University South Bend
Teaching and learning centers provide an array of programs and services to assist the instructor who is struggling or the excellent teacher looking for something new. The pedagogical tools suggested can range from collaborative group work to problem-based learning to on-line instruction (see, for example, Nilson, 1998). The dilemma facing the individual instructor is choosing from a myriad of teaching strategies to use in a particular classroom situation. Factors

such as class size, content area, and student demographics play a role. The instructors own skills and style are also critical factors. Classroom Action Research (CAR) is systematic inquiry with the goal of informing practice in a particular situation. CAR is a way for instructors to discover what works best in their own classroom situation, thus allowing informed decisions about teaching. CAR occupies a midpoint on a continuum ranging from teacher reflection at one end to traditional educational research at the other. It is more data-based and systematic than reflection, but less formal and controlled than traditional educational research. Instructors use data readily available from their classes in order to answer practical questions about teaching and learning in their classrooms. Further CAR integrates the two faculty roles of teaching and scholarship and is one form of the scholarship of teaching and learning (Cross & Steadman, 1996). Methods of conducting classroom action research projects are diverse, and easily mastered by faculty from any discipline.

Steps of Classroom Action Research

The CAR process includes seven manageable steps. Instructors may complete small projects within a single semester, while projects more ambitious in scope might require planning ahead or collecting data over several semesters. Step 1: Identify a question. A good question has three major qualities. First, the question is significant to your classroom situation; that is, you think that it might make a difference in student learning. Second, the research findings will lead to action, such as keeping or changing a teaching strategy. Third, the question should lead to a project that is feasible in terms of time, effort, and resources. Some questions seek to describe, such as, "How many of my students read the assignments before coming to class?" Other questions may look for relationships, such as, "Do students who participate frequently in class do better on the exams?" Many questions take the form of "How does X affect student learning?" For example, "Are students test scores higher when I use case studies?" Or "Do students pay more attention and perform better on exams when I use presentation software (such as PowerPoint)?" Good questions might involve using a particular teaching strategy, a change in course structure or materials, or different assessment techniques. Step 2: Review the literature. You need background information on your question, but a brief review of secondary sources is adequate for these purposes. One good source of information is general books on teaching, often available through your teaching and learning center. Another excellent source is the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) database, which indexes teaching-related publications of all types. You can search the database at http://ericir.syr.edu/. The information from these sources may help refine your question and choose your method of research. Step 3: Plan a research strategy. There is no single best strategy for data collection. Depending on your research question, you might gather data about individual students or an entire class. You might describe a single situation (e.g. skills of entering students), look at the relationship between different types of data (e.g. student age and use of on-line office hours), or look for cause and effect relationships (e.g. the impact of homework assignments on test performance). Although a

tightly controlled experimental design is usually impractical, you can use a quasi-experimental design such as comparing student outcomes from two sections of the same course. You should check with your Institutional Review Board about policies regarding human subjects. Your project may qualify for expedited review if it uses regular classroom procedures, adult students, and does not identify individual students. Step 4: Collect data. This data could be quantitative (e.g. test scores, grades, survey results) or qualitative (e.g. dialogue from focus groups or class discussions). Start with data that you already have, such as assignments, exam scores, and teacher evaluations. If more information is needed, chose data that is fairly easy to collect and analyze. Angelo and Cross (1993) provide a comprehensive set of assessment tools, along with excellent advice on their use. In general, you should try to collect several different types of data to see whether results are consistent. This triangulation provides a measure of validity. For example, you might assess the effectiveness of your new group activity on student learning by looking at exam grades, comments during a class discussion, and observations of behaviors while in the groups. Student evaluations of teaching also yield useful information. Comparisons between data from students who were taught in different ways (usually in different course sections) can also be informative. Step 5: Analyze data. The goal of data analysis is to look for patterns. Did your teaching strategy result in better student performance on exams compared to their pre-tests or to another group of students? Were their comments in class more in-depth? A simple grouping of comments by themes or a table of average test scores will reveal any major trends in the data. If statistical tests are desired, Bruning and Kintz (1997) offer a very user-friendly guide. Step 6: Take action based on results. Your research findings should inform your teaching decisions. If the new strategy increases student learning, you would continue to use it in that teaching context. If it does not increase student learning, you might return to your old strategy, or continue to test new strategies. You might also consider the time and effort required for a new strategyis a small learning increase worth the trouble? Step 7: Share your findings. Teaching can be a solitary activity, with successes and failures rarely acknowledged to others. Sharing your CAR findings can provide an exciting forum for discussions on teaching. Results can be shared informally, through departmental or teaching center brownbags, or more formally at teaching conferences. Many projects are suitable for inclusion in the ERIC database. (See the ERIC website for submission information.) CAR findings might be submitted for publication, particularly when they describe more extensive projects or a series of related projects. General journals such as College Teaching or teaching journals within the discipline might be appropriate venues. Another forum is the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (http://www.iusb.edu/~josotl), which includes a section for Classroom Action Research.

Why you should try Classroom Action Research

Improve your teaching. CAR will help you discover what works best in your own classroom situation. It is a powerful integration of teaching and scholarship that provides a solid basis for instructional decisions. CARs easily mastered techniques provide insights into teaching that result in continual improvement. Document your teaching. Course materials and teaching evaluations are a good beginning for documentation, and peer observations and student work samples add depth. CAR adds a new dimension to documentation by providing both a measure of teaching effectiveness and a record of continuous improvement. These projects are particularly appropriate for teaching portfolios, where they complement descriptions of teaching strategies and student learning. Renew your excitement in teaching. CAR provides a new lens for examining your teaching. Learning the methods of conducting CAR projects can provide an interesting challenge, and discussing your project findings can open a whole new area for teaching discussions with colleagues.

References
Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bruning, J., & Kintz, B.L. (1997). Computational Handbook of Statistics (4th ed.) New York: Longman. Cross, P., & Steadman, M. (1996). Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nilson, L.B. (1998). Teaching at its Best. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Gwynn Mettetal (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is Interim Dean of the School of Education at Indiana University South Bend.

This publication is part of an 8-part series of essays originally published by The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. For more information about the POD Network, link to http://podnetwork.org.

Roger Smith considers tried and tested ways of improving teaching and learning and a few new ones

Improving teaching and making the whole of the learning process more effective is the key to raising standards. There are at least three initiatives that are keeping good teaching at the top of the school improvement agenda. Every Child Matters is at the heart of almost everything that is happening in schools and at its centre it clearly and emphatically emphasises the importance of meeting the needs of all children. Secondly, personalised learning which is a new-ish term for making sure that the learning needs of all children are catered for. Finally, is the importance of successful performance management which is being modified slightly during this year. When performance management is done properly it is about understanding what successful teaching is, observing it in the classroom and improving as many skills and techniques as possible. Making sure teaching is being improved Your school improvement partner (SIP) will be helping you to raise standards and one of their aide memoires is Strategies for Improving Schools: A Handbook for School Improvement Partners, which can be downloaded from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/documents/sips.doc. It suggests that you have to: ensure there is an unvarying focus on improving teaching and learning. You will also be completing your self-evaluation form (SEF). To do this properly you will have to monitor classroom performance so that you know how good the teaching is and what improvements need to be made. Section 5a (Quality of Provision) asks, How good is the quality of teaching and learning and suggests that you consider:

how well teaching meets the needs of the full range of learners and course requirements the suitability and rigour of assessment in planning, learning and monitoring learners progress the diagnosis of and provision for individual learning needs the involvement of parents and carers in their childrens learning and development.

So, if you want to find out those areas of teaching you might need to improve you dont have to look much further than the SEF. But this is too simple and it will not be very helpful if all you do on training days and at staff meetings is attempt to improve teaching by just repeating the questions from the SEF. We need to be much more specific. So what needs to be improved? Of course, for teachers to be able to personalise the learning of mixed-ability groups and provide work and activities that are challenging for every ability level is easier if they are able to:

use any assessments of pupils abilities and attainments as a starting point for teaching provide activities of sufficient variety and depth to allow for different levels of learning to take place differentiate by trying to use various starting points and tasks for different ability levels anticipate and expect different outcomes acknowledge that all pupils will need varying lengths of time to complete activities understand that each pupil will grasp new ideas within varying timescales group pupils in different ways for different tasks use a manageable number of differentiated teaching groups. No more than four is a manageable number carefully plan realistic deadlines so that all pupils have a sense of achievement

continuously assess teaching groups and give feedback about their learning and their successes use assessments to set individual, group and class targets use marking creatively to inform pupils about their standard of achievement.

By developing these specific suggestions it is easier to recognise those areas of teaching that need to be of the highest quality. Once this has happened it is possible to monitor their effectiveness and to begin to make improvements. A whole-school approach If you are going to improve teaching the changes you make have to affect what happens in the classroom. The bullet points in the last paragraph are directly related to this. But the wider ethos or culture of your school, which is usually an amalgamation of social, moral and academic values, will influence and determine how pupils and teachers work together. The right ethos will mean that what is taught, how it is taught, what needs to be taught and what needs to improve is agreed by everyone. Inversely, an inappropriate or badly thought out ethos will mean that even teaching that is well prepared and well structured will be more difficult to implement because there are no common boundaries. Because each of our schools has its own feelings and vibrations that make it unique it is important to find as many indicators of a positive ethos as possible. These do not have to be complex educational issues. They can be short and simple ideas such as:

pupils are happy pupils are treated fairly bullying is a rare occurrence there is a lively, creative atmosphere teachers motivate pupils.

Many of these factors will be relatively obvious, but part of the success of your school will be built on whether such a list actually suggests areas that might need to be improved and acted on by all teachers as whole-school issues. But what happens in the classroom? What about the actual teaching and the repertoire of skills that you will have to focus on? They will have to involve a range of whole class, group and individual teaching as well as involving the wide use of ICT. But your strategies will also help transmit knowledge and help key learning skills as well as accommodating children with different paces of learning. You might be saying at this stage, I do that already and most good teachers have been doing it for years. A young teacher colleague suggested to me recently My training and what I try to do in the classroom has always revolved round a mixture of teaching styles that cater for all levels of ability. In fact, what happens in the classroom will be the key to the discussions that will take place during performance management review meetings. Both the teacher and their reviewer should be asking themselves What is good about my teaching and what needs improving? By recognising what needs to get better it will be possible to work out strategies to actually make the necessary improvements. In fact, if you dont know what needs improving how can you make any positive changes?

But, by formalising all the necessary skills, there is a need to be aware of what kind of teaching will actually work. To build a successful system every teacher has to recognise that to achieve excellence every single child, whatever their talent and background and whatever their problems, has to have the best chance possible. Some of the approaches that you might think are ready for improvement might include:

preventing children falling behind by providing earlier interventions and using teaching assistants or support groups to improve progress using teaching assistants or classroom organisation to provide small group or individual teaching creating more and better opportunities for less able children as well as those who are gifted and talented providing homework clubs and other kinds of support for children who may be vulnerable.

Confronting problems Obviously, teaching some children can be extremely difficult for all kinds of reasons, but, I can only repeat, each lesson needs to cater for the learning needs of all pupils. This means differentiating to include the gifted and talented as well as the less able. One of the main problems we will all face when we seriously commit ourselves to making improvements is how to remove the barriers that some children bring into the classroom. One of the simplest improvements is to be able to demonstrate that you actually like teaching them and then to both challenge and support them by:

inspiring trust and confidence building learning commitment engaging and motivating them with well-paced differentiation thinking analytically about what they need being able to take positive action to improve the quality of their learning using data and the evaluation of results to plan learning.

What should children be doing? It is important that any attempts to standardise teaching methods and to achieve a sense of a consistent approach to learning doesnt totally inhibit the creativity of individual teachers. There needs to be room for flexibility and this is really part of that old clich: if at first you dont succeed try, try again. Perseverance can mean carrying on in a specific way but it can also mean trying something different to achieve the same ends. Some interesting training sessions can be built around the idea of what children should actually be doing and what is expected of them. Why not ask your teachers the question, What would you do to help your children achieve the following?

Acquire new knowledge and skills. Meet appropriate targets. Reach appropriate levels in both internal and external tests, assessments and examinations. Develop ideas.

And of course what we shouldnt be doing It would be ridiculous to expect perfection all the time. This is much more of a neurosis than a

realistic expectation. But each child in each class should expect excellence most of the time. It is relatively easy to find out what it is that makes teaching effective and successful. By doing this we can make sure that we know what to improve and in many cases how to make all the necessary improvements. But do we know what ineffective, poor teaching is in fact the kind of teaching that should not happen and which, by its very nature, has to be improved. Lets end with a final list and suggest that all teachers should recognise that learning is less effective and teaching unsuccessful when children are:

unsure about what work they are doing doing purposeless activities finding work too hard or too easy not knowing how to improve being made to work at too fast or slow a pace poorly motivated.

So, there it is in a nutshell and perhaps it is the key to another Improving Teaching and learning training session. Use the bullet points to ask teachers another question, How can I prevent this happening in my classroom?

How to Improve Teaching in the Classroom

By Jared Lewis, eHow Contributor Teachers must constantly work to improve classroom instruction.

Becoming a better teacher is something all educators should be concerned with. Good teachers are effective classroom managers and communicators who can adapt to a variety of learning styles and effectively instruct a large percentage of the class. Improvement of teaching in the classroom can be obtained by putting together a plan of action and following it through. Teachers who make the extra effort to improve their teaching can make a significant impact on the lives of students.

Other People Are Reading

How to Improve Classroom Discipline How to Arrange Classroom Furniture

Print this article

Instructions
1.

Start off each class by making attendance an instructional session. Linda Starr of Education World suggests avoiding the typical roll call of asking students whether they are there or not. Instead, she suggests that each students should be asked a question about the previous day's lesson. This will make the students accountable for what is happening in class each day and maybe even force them to review their notes each night as homework. This will reinforce your teaching and make your students more attentive to what you are teaching, especially if each day's question counts toward their grade.
o

Review student notebooks periodically. For instance, require your students take notes for the class in a spiral notebook that they must turn in at the end of the week or every other week. Teachers sometimes assume that students know how to take proper notes or summarize what they have been taught when that might not actually be the case. Taking time out each week to teach students the art of note-taking and summarizing can empower them to become better students and enhance the classroom teaching experience.
o

Sponsored Links

Bulk Email--Free Trial

Email marketing to fit your needs. Start a Free 30-Day Trial Today.
www.iContact.com
o

Manage your classroom rather than just teaching a class. Effective teachers know how to organize the classroom, manage the curriculum and keep students on task with various management techniques. Dr. Robert Kizlik of ADPRIMA suggests that teachers must be decisive in knowing what they want to accomplish and what they don't want in their classroom. This can only happen when you both show and tell your students. He suggests acknowledging students rather than praising them when they provide an appropriate response and responding decisively and expeditiously when students do not respond appropriately.
o

Teach students critical thinking skills rather than just teaching them to memorize facts. Students who learn critical thinking can improve in other areas as well when their mental muscles have been exercised effectively. Take time out each week to teach students a new critical thinking skill like comparing and contrasting in order to facilitate learning at a higher level.

Read more: How to Improve Teaching in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_7839220_improve-teachingclassroom.html#ixzz2jPv8DGrW

How to Improve Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom

By Kerry O'Neill, eHow Contributor

Teachers need to evaulate themselves as well as their students.

Effective teaching is truly measured based on the success of the students in the class. Reflection by the teacher as well as a revision of the methods used in the classroom indicate a teacher that is willing to grow professionally. Teachers have a great deal of autonomy; therefore, it is up to the individual, in large part, to become the best teacher he or she can be. There are several basic areas that all teachers should examine to improve efficacy in the classroom.

Other People Are Reading

How to Improve Classroom Practices How to Improve Teaching in the Classroom

Print this article

Instructions
o

1. 1

Get feedback. Ask a supervisor or another teacher to observe your class. Most teachers are only observed once a year. According to the National Education Association, "annual observations are often performed by school principals who are not adequately trained to conduct classroom observations and are unable to provide teachers with constructive, actionable feedback." Without commentary, it is harder to improve as a teacher. A supervisor or peer can help you look at areas that you feel could be improved, or they can give you a general overview.
o

Examine the feedback you have received. Break the suggestions down by area: classroom management, teacher preparation, delivery, and methodology. Use the comments to see what changes you can make in each or any of the areas. Determine, based on the evaluation, which of the areas you seem to have the most difficulty with in the classroom.
o

Sponsored Links

Support Our Teachers

Vote for Joe! Time for Change

facebook.com
o

Pick one area to focus on first. Do not attempt to change too much at once; this is not practical and will make you appear inconsistent. Base your decision on which area you feel you are the weakest in, or the one that is impacting the students the most. For example, if your classroom management is weak, you need to address it immediately, to create an environment more conducive to learning.
o

Research the area that you need to address. Research current practices to help you gather practical ideas. The National Education Association, or NEA, is a great source for articles on teaching strategies. Modify your findings to suit you as a teacher. Begin to implement the new strategies into your future lessons.

Ask for more feedback after the change has been made. Invite the supervisor or teacher back in to observe. Or you can ask the students for their opinions. Teachers sometimes stray away from getting students to evaluate the class. It can be difficult to look at criticism, but educators need to be willing to admit their deficiencies in order to improve them.
Sponsored Links

Enneagram Coachingwww.MadanesSchool.com

Get Certified Online! World-class school, faculty and training

Online Exam Softwarewww.examweb.com

Create, deliver, report on exams Full featured assessment technology

Teacher's Crossword Makerwww.CrosswordWeaver.com

Easily make crosswords with your words. Tchr disc. $29.95. PC's only

Best Reading Postersposters4pennies.com

Reading and Library Posters Best Prices--99 Each

Read more: How to Improve Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_7866341_improve-teacher-effectivenessclassroom.html#ixzz2jRIxzRqv

Guidelines for Effective Teaching

By Chris Newton, eHow Contributor

An effective teacher can impact a student's life tremendously.

Teaching is often a personal activity between instructors and students. Teachers should think about their personal communication strengths and vision for how to best share knowledge and help students learn. Teachers can benefit greatly from exchanging their views as well as their classroom strategies with other teachers to improve teaching effectiveness. Teaching will impact students for better or worse, so it is important for teachers to review their effectiveness in the classroom.

Other People Are Reading

Effective Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices Effective Communication Skills in Teaching

Print this article

Organization
o

A key guideline to effective teaching is to carefully organize each class or lesson. Teachers should stay organized using an outline for each class that highlights the content or material the teacher plans to cover. It is also important to distinguish clearly between main and subsidiary ides to properly plan how class time will be spent. Teachers should plan to spend more time on main ideas, and save details for discussions amongst the students. Lessons should point out key ideas, concepts,

definitions and principles of a topic. Teachers need to effectively signal transitions between parts of a lesson and should summarize the main points after each section of a lecture. Review ideas and facts to remain current. Begin each lecture with quick summary of the last lecture to maintain a unifying thread during the course of the class.

Classroom Climate
o

It is important for teachers to develop a healthy classroom environment and establish a positive relationship with students. Teaching and learning can get difficult at times, and it is important that classes not be grim. Teachers should be timely and spend some time before class speaking with their students to learn more about their personalities, goals and interests. Students are sure to struggle at some point with the material, so it is important for teachers to empathize and be patient with their students. This also helps develop confidence in students to be verbal with their questions and ideas, as no question or answer should ever be ridiculed. When students do poorly on tests or papers, teachers should explore the material further with the student and discuss how he can do better next time. Teachers should also be encouraging, friendly and smile during class to create a better environment. Sponsored Links

Access Education Articles

Access PhD theses and other education studies.

udini.proquest.com

Approach
o

Adopt a teaching approach that is concerned and professional. Make an effort to meet with students who are doing poorly in the class or those who wish to explore the material further. Also, be honest about not understanding or knowing the answer to a question rather than giving incorrect information. Teachers are role models and should teach their students that learning is an ongoing quest. Answer difficult questions in the next meeting or class after proper preparation. Request feedback from students early in the semester when there is still time to fine tune a teaching approach to determine the best method learning and teaching for teachers and students.

Teacher Resources
o

There are various resources available to teachers who desire to further fine tone and improve their teaching skills. Teachers may attend a faculty workshop, a number of seminars to learn different teaching techniques or continue their education with a post-graduate degree in education. Teachers should also turn to their peers for ideas and other teaching advice.

Read more: Guidelines for Effective Teaching | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8081120_guidelines-effective-teaching.html#ixzz2jRHfsvSl