Higher Education 5 ( 1976) 135-151 �9 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

THE USE OF LABORATORY S YSTEMS IN I M P R O V I N G

U N I V E R S I T Y T E A C H I N G

A R Y E P E R L B E R G

Teehnion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

ABSTRACT

The problem of improving university teaching is reviewed and is seen as part of the process of re-education and change analysed by Lewin (1948) and others. A "teaching laboratory" is proposed including provision for feedback mechanism, self-confronta- tion processes, simulation and micro-teaching. Case studies of the use of micro-teaching and video recording are reported.

I m p r o v i n g un ivers i ty teaching - s o m e general issues

" T h e A m e r i c a n college t eache r is the on ly high-level profess iona l m a n

on the A m e r i c a n scene who enters u p o n a career wi th ne i the r the prerequi-

site trial o f c o m p e t e n c e n o r expe r i ence in the use o f the tools o f his

p r o f e s s i o n . " This m u c h - q u o t e d s t a t e m e n t (Bleger and Cooper , 1950) made a

qua r t e r o f a c e n t u r y ago in a con fe r ence convened in the Uni ted States to

discuss the p r o b l e m s o f college and un ivers i ty teaching, is equal ly t rue today ,

n o t on ly fo r A m e r i c a n professors , bu t for p rofessors all a round the world .

The Hale C o m m i t t e e (MacKenzie , 1970), which inves t iga ted teaching m e t h -

ods in Brit ish universi t ies , m a d e the fo l lowing s t a t emen t , which could also be

e x t e n d e d far b e y o n d the Brit ish academic c o n t e x t to which they referred:

A person who adopts the career of university teacher does not do so in most cases because his main object is to teach. A more usual motive is to pursue research in a subject which had engaged his attention as a student, teaching being regarded as a duty incidental to a life of scholarship. And, whatever the motive which first led him to adopt an academic career, he soon realizes that it is on his achievement as a scholar rather than as a teacher that his advancement in his profession will d e p e n d . . , there is .certainly little to tempt anyone to give a study of teaching methods time which both inclination and self-interest would lead him to devote to his own subject.

Wilson (1967) suggests tha t even t hough teaching is one o f the ma in func t ions o f the univers i ty , i t is no t h o n o r e d on the campus . He adapts P la to ' s obse rva t ion tha t , "Wha t is h o n o r e d in a c o u n t r y will be cul t iva ted t he r e , " and says, " I f t each ing is h o n o r e d on our campuses , i t will be

136

cultivated there and will finally be done well there. If it does not find honor, expressed in the respect and prestige granted the teacher by his colleagues and by the dollars paid him by the comptroller, it is not likely to be

cultivated nor to improve." The problem is even more acute than lack of financial or social rewards.

The threat of being ridiculed or tagged as a " teacher" creates negative

motivation towards teaching improvement. Nisbet (1967) describes this

feeling:

The once familiar characterization of a faculty member as a good teacher but a poor research man is very likely to be fatal in the university today . . . As one very candid assistant professor once put it to me in a letter: "I hope I never get labeled in any student or faculty evaluation as a good man with undergraduates. Until my research record is unchallengeable, I can get farther by dull teaching of undergradu- ates. This will at least leave open the possibility that my research promise may therefore be high."

Although the state of affairs described above is still dominant in universities around the world, there are indications of a growing concern for the need to improve teaching in higher education. The increasing number of books and articles which have been published in recent years on this subject

is one index of this concern. Another is the growing number of national and

international conferences devoted to this problem. The conference we are presently attending is reminiscent of a similar conference sponsored by

Unesco and IAUP, which convened in 1970 at the University of Amsterdam, and of the conference co-sponsored by Unesco and the University of

Massachusetts in October, 1974. These are but a few examples and many more could be cited. However, the publications and conferences represent verbal concern, while the crux of the problem of improving university teaching is real action.

One form of such action is being carried on in instructional develop- ment agencies in higher education. The number of such agencies has in- creased in recent years. Alexander and Yelon (1972) discussed the role of these agencies as follows:

the

Instructional development agencies function as catalysts in affecting change. Their staffs consist mainly of behavioral scientists who work closely with faculty mem- bers. They assist faculty in analyzing and solving instructional problems. They help faculty apply principles of learning and motivation to the planning and practice of instruction. They conduct research studies of teaching and learning processes and help faculty to develop improved instructional procedures by applying the results of these studies. Thus, instructional development agencies seek to contribute to the improvement of undergraduate education by raising the instructional capabilities of individual faculty members.

Many of those concerned with the improvement of teaching consider establishment of such agencies as a very important step forward.

137

Nevertheless, there are those who contend that even these attempts are not adequate. PopEam in his paper, "Higher Education's Commitment to In- structional Improvement Programs" (1974), sees them as "meek medicine for a major affliction". He also states that: "I seriously doubt whether many of the tokenistic and half-hearted efforts currently underway will lead to any genuine improvements in the instructional capabilities of many faculty members. In numerous institutions of higher learning the commit- ment to improve faculty instructional capabilities is largely political, stem- ming more from public relations motives than from a genuine desire to bring about increased faculty effectiveness."

He goes on to stress that instructional development agencies must have more power before their efforts toward instructional change will have any impetus. University officials, administrators and faculty must have greater commitment to the improvement of instruction, giving the agency enough personnel and financial resources to evaluate faculty teaching effectiveness and try to improve it.

It is interesting to note that Popham, in his final analysis, is quite pessimistic. He asks whether instructional development programs will be- come an integral part of any effectively functioning institution of advanced learning or if they will disappear as a fad. Observing the insufficient commit- ment of those leading higher education, Popham concludes that "current odds favor the faddish demise".

While I accept much of Popham's analysis and criticism of the present situation, I am not as pessimistic. I tend to believe that sooner or later, societal pressures will force institutions of higher learning to be accountable for what they are doing and produce evidence that their instructional efforts, which are one of their main tasks, are effective. The main problem will then be to find effective systems to improve instruction in higher education.

Improvement as a process of re-education and change

Improvement of teaching could be regarded as a process of re-education and change, and it is therefore valuable to adopt Lewin's (1948) analysis of this process. He differentiates between three levels of change - cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral - and states that the re-educative process fre- quently reaches the first two levels, while the third is not significantly affected. Applying Lewin's concept of levels of change in an evaluation of the present efforts to improve teaching in higher education, the above analysis seems to be a fair description of the situation.

Until recently, most of the activities designed to improve teaching were limited to dissemination of written material, lectures, symposia and confer- ences on teaching problems. These, at best, achieve cognitive and attitudinal

138

changes. Even students' evaluation of instruction, a practice which has picked up momentum in recent years, may provide convincing feedback about the need to improve instruction but does not assure behavioral change in the classroom.

The problem lies in the fact that the professors who through literature, conferences, and feedback received from students realise the need to im- prove their teaching, usually lack help or systematic advice on how to do so. Most of the centers and agencies for instructional development established at universities are understaffed and have very few experts to assist them.

Lewin and other psychologists warn that bringing about cognitive and attitudinal change without facilitating behavioral change may do more harm than good, because the professor who is convinced that his teaching should be improved but does not know how to go about it may develop guilt feelings, frustration or cynicism as a defense mechanism. Another factor which contributes to his frustration lies in the fact that the evaluation program may help him realize that his teaching needs improvement and that he must do something about it, but the reward system of the university tells him that it is research that counts. He is thus torn between the need to improve his teaching and his goal to advance and be promoted, which can only be achieved through devoting most of his time, attention and energy to research.

The above description may give the impression that university campuses where evaluation of instruction is taking place are full of frustrated and troubled professors who are torn between different needs. This is not the case. Professors, like all human beings, employ defense mechanisms to keep their sanity and instead of getting frustrated, most of them prefer to rationalize that the evaluation procedures are not adequate, that the ques- tionnaires are at fault, that the students are not reliable or capable of evaluating them, that the statistics are probably wrong, or that they just don't care.

It seems that at the present moment most programs to improve univer- sity teaching are geared mainly to those who are interested in looking at themselves and in doing something about their teaching in spite of the non-rewarding conditions. In order not to discourage them, they need programs which will assure not only cognitive and attitudinal changes but behavioral change in the classroom as well. The purpose of the following discussion is to propose the use of laboratory systems to improve university teaching. On the basis of an analysis of the fundamentals of this approach and on the basis of evidence from research and experience, it would seem that this could contribute greatly to the efforts to bring about behavioral changes and thus contribute to the improvement of university teaching.

139

The teaching laboratory

"Learning by doing" and intensive involvement are the basic principles on which the teaching laboratory is based. While learning takes place throughout life by trial and error or by guided experience, it is commonly agreed that it is desirable that practice in simulated situations in laboratory settings should precede practicing and learning through real life situations. This concept has been accepted in the professional training of scientists, engineers and other professions and more recently has become common practice in the training of behavioral scientists and many others (Golem- biewski and Blumberg, 1970). Its application in education is of particular interest. Teacher educators are unhappy with traditional teacher training models where the emphasis lies on lectures, reading and acquisition of a theoretical body of knowledge. They have been advocating that greater emphasis should be given in preservice professional education to student- teachers' involvement in simulated teaching-learning situations conducted in teaching laboratories and to a more effectively supervised practice in the field. There are a growing number of teacher educators who believe that the latter will become the most important phase of future teacher education programs.

The teaching laboratory should not be perceived as a physical facility, but as a concept of a training system which encompasses a multiple set of activities in which a person is involved individually or in small groups. Some of these may take place in specially designed facilities such as an experimen- tal classroom equipped with instrumentation which can provide feedback, while others may take place elsewhere. Neither is involvement in the teach- ing laboratory limited to the practice of teaching skills only. The person engaged is involved in a wide range of activities such as analysis of his instruction based on various sources of feedback, experiencing self-confron- tation, design of instructional and learning systems, practice in teaching skills and strategies, supervised experimentation, and evaluation of new instruc- tional systems in the classroom.

The above activities could be performed in the framework of existing agencies and centers or in specially designed clinics for improving university teaching (Melnik, 1973), which will be described later. The following discus- sion will focus only on several of the activities with which the author has had intensive clinical and research experience. These include feedback mecha- nisms, self-confrontation processes, simulation, and microteaching in the teaching laboratory.

140

Feedback and self-confrontation as facilitators of change

Solid research evidence and ample testimonials from practitioners in different fields of the behavioral sciences have shown that feedback and self-confrontation, when properly used, can be very effective in motivating and facilitating behavioral changes (Fuller and Manning, 1974). The psycho- logical explanation for this phenomenon is that the feedback receiver or the person confronting himself identifies discrepancies between actual and desired performance. Festinger (1957) refers to this discrepancy as a "disso- nance" which creates tension, dissatisfaction and even anxiety, and which activates a motivating force leading to its own reduction, i.e., change in self-perception or behavior or both.

It is important to note that the terms feedback and self-confrontation are complementary. A person confronts himself when he receives feedback messages through different sources, as for example classroom disruptive behavior, systematic students' evaluation of instruction, and audio and or video recording of classroom sessions. All these are examples of feedback which may lead to self-confrontation. Their intensities vary, the strongest impact probably being achieved by video self-confrontation.

Feedback does not have to be channeled through mediators. When a person realizes a gap between his intentions and the respective outcome without the aid of others, he is said to have perceived a discrepancy. Such discrepancies are frequently experienced but overlooked. However, when the person realizes the necessity of their elimination, he develops a need or drive which activates him to do so. The degree of importance attached to the elimination of the discrepancy is a function of the extent to which it violates his internalized aspirations, standards and self-interests. The overall proba- bility that he will act in order to bridge the gap or the discrepancy is a function of the intensity of the need created by the discrepancy and the availability and awareness of opportunities and resources through which he can satisfy these needs (Glasman, et al, 1974).

THE USE OF FEEDBACK AND SELF-CONFRONTATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION - ADVANTAGES AND DANGERS

Effective use of feedback and self-confrontation seems to be one of the most important elements in any program designed to improve university teaching, particularly in the teaching laboratory. This is the trigger which activates the system and creates the psychological readiness of the individual to be involved in a program which aims at achieving change in the classroom.

Theoretically, university faculty could obtain feedback about their teaching from their superiors (deans, department heads), peers and students. In reality very little systematic feedback has been given to them for guidance

141

purposes by their superiors or peers. Although deans have the prerogative of visiting their faculty's classes and are even obliged to do so in the case of their junior faculty, they seldom do so. The reasons for this are varied: lack of time and interest, skepticism about its usefulness, acceptance of the notion that the classroom is the teacher's castle which should not be invaded, and the desire not to infringe on academic freedom. Peers do not have the same privileges and obligations and it is not common for them to visit each other's classes.

Therefore, the only available source of systematic feedback is the student evaluation of instruction. According to Costin, et al. (1971), who reviewed the literature on student ratings of college teaching, "the past several years have seen a striking increase in attempts to evaluate college teaching," especially " through formal students' appraisal of courses and instructors". He further points out that there is resistance to the use of student ratings due to the following reasons:

They claim that student ratings are unreliable, that the ratings will favor an entertainer over the instructor who gets his material across effectively, that ratings are highly correlated with expected grades (a hard grader would thus get poor ratings), and that students are not competent judges of instruction since long-term benefits of a course may not be clear at the time it is rated. Finally, where criteria for pay and promotion are concerned, some faculty members claim that since good teaching and good research go hand in hand, it is sufficient, to reward the good researcher.

There are various reasons for objecting to student rating; however, in most cases these reasons seem to be defense mechanisms, and Costin cites enough evidence to conclude that: " I f teaching performance is to be evalu- ated, either for purposes of pay and promotion or for individual improve- ment, a systematic measure of student attitudes, opinions, and observations can hardly be ignored. The data which have been reviewed strongly suggest that the use of formal student ratings provides a reasonable way of mea- suring student reaction."

The most striking fact about Costin's review, and similar reviews, is the lack of any evidence that student rating of college teaching does improve teaching. No studies were cited showing that changes occurred with those who had received feedback and saw discrepancies, experienced dissonance, and developed needs. On the contrary, Costin cites evidence that teachers who were rated "good" and teachers who were rated "bad" at the beginning of the year were rated the same way by the same students at the end of the year, i.e., the status quo was apparently maintained.

The recent advent of portable videotape recorders has opened new opportunities to provide instant and accurate feedback. Fuller and Manning (1974), in a most comprehensive review of the literature on self-confronta- tion through video, suggest that "in the name of education, training, or

142

the rapy , t housands o f peop le have ' c o n f r o n t e d ' themse lves" . The use o f the po r t ab l e v ideo recorder , which was deve loped on ly a decade ago, has spread quickly and m a n y o f its users claim tha t it is the m o s t p o w e r f u l tool in

br inging a b o u t behaviora l change.

Encou raged by the wide and successful use o f v ideo se l f - con f ron ta t i on

techniques in t eache r educa t ion , the u t i l i za t ion o f this m e t h o d has been

growing also in the area of i m p r o v e m e n t of teaching in higher educa t ion . The

p ro fe s so r is n o w able to receive f eedback a b o u t his ins t ruc t ion in the regular

c lass room wi th a m i n i m u m of i n t e r rup t i on o f regular c lass room in te rac t ion .

All tha t remains necessary is tha t he will agree to be recorded , will have the

courage to c o n f r o n t himself , and will c o m p a r e his in ten t ions wi th the ac tual

o u t c o m e .

In the previous discussion on f e e d b a c k th rough s tuden t eva lua t ion o f

ins t ruc t ion , it was s tressed tha t its psycholog ica l i m p a c t m a y be grea ter than

m a n y o f its users realize. This is even t rue r for v ideo se l f - conf ron ta t ion .

Based on the i r review o f the l i tera ture , Ful ler and Manning s tate that :

Self-confrontation is a stressful, arousing, partly covert experience with potential for harm as well as help. Its most frequently observed effects are intense focusing on the self, general activation of the system, and increased realism about the s e l f . . . Effects on performance are complex. Sometimes performance is improved, and sometimes it is disrupted. Changes in behavior are sometimes quite temporary, and sometimes they persist. The effects of self-confrontation on performance seem to depend upon characteristics of the person, the feedback, and the playback, and perhaps of processes not yet understood.

It is a novel, powerful source of information about those aspects of the self which are perceived by others but not by the self. Its peculiar value lies in its ability to communicate negative information which others could, but are loath to commu- nicate, and usually cannot communicate in a totally acceptable manner.

This information, if it is bad news about the self, is disorganizing, at least temporarily. Its disruptive effects may be most apparent for strong people who are open and trusting. The treatment "takes," and they reveal their disorganization by decrements in behavior. Those who are more "closed" and defensive probably benefit less in the long run, but appear to be more poised and less disorganized than those who benefit more. Assessing the effects of confrontation may thus be difficult.

Those who are vulnerable and without capacity to change can be damaged. It is possible that the true potential of this treatment has never been completely tapped because immediate effects are so powerful that the helper senses the potential for harm and either tries to protect the person from its impact by a task orientation (as in microteaehing), or else fails to follow-through to the in vivo situation (as in psychotherapy).

In sum, self-confrontation now seems to us more promising than we had dared hope and more dangerous than we knew to fear.

The above q u o t a t i o n s are bu t a few selected c o m m e n t s f r o m Ful ler and

143

Manning's detailed analysis and discussion of the problem. In view of these comments, it would seem that many practitioners "play around" with video self-confrontation without fully comprehending its advantages and disadvan- tages, without realizing its great potential which is being wasted because of improper use.

To the best of my knowledge, no studies have been conducted to assess the damage which has been caused by improper use of student ratings and of video self-confrontation. However, based on logical analysis and on my experience as a practitioner, it is my assumption that providing feedback and self-confrontation alone without any provisions to help those who as a result of it are in need of help, is unethical, harmful, and damages the whole concept.

Microteaching techniques

The use of video recordings as the basis for diagnosis and treatment in modifying university teaching behavior is not novel. The introduction of closed-circuit television systems in universities and the taping of single lectures of full courses for television have, in some cases, provided staff members with the opportunity to view themselves and, consequently, to make changes in their presentation, particularly to suit the requirements of television directors and producers. But only a very small select group of teachers have been involved, obviously those who felt at ease in front of the camera and those who were relatively good teachers.

Microteaching, as developed by Allen and his associates (1969), aims at providing prospective teachers with substantial teaching practice preceding their actual teaching assignments in schools. It usually takes place in a teaching laboratory where the teacher gives microlessons lasting from five to twenty minutes to classes of from three to six students. A different skill (for example, lecturing, questioning, discussing, and demonstrating) is practiced at each lesson; and the lessons, which are videotaped, are viewed immediate- ly after the presentation. The teacher analyzes his performance with the aid of a consultant's critique and the written feedback provided by the students of the laboratory classroom. He then plans an "improved" version of the same lesson; and he can choose to reteach it immediately to another class, or he can reteach it a few days later. He can also choose to view a model film or tape of an experienced teacher performing the specific teaching skill before either the first or second teaching experience.

Microteaching has been used in numerous universities and educational institutions, not only in preservice teacher education and as a research tool to explore training effects under con.trolled conditions, but also as a tool in inservice education whereby experienced teachers gain understanding of

144

their interaction with students. In their discussion of the various uses of microteaching, Allen and Ryan (1969) and Borg, et al. (1970) provide evidence for the insight gained by experienced teachers in their teaching and interaction with students when using microteaching techniques. It also enables new teaching approaches to be tried without risking failure in the regular classroom (Perlberg 1970, 1972, 1974, 1975).

THE USE OF MICROTEACHING AND VIDEO RECORDINGS IN HIGHER EDUCA- TION - SOME CASE STUDIES

The technological development of portable video recorders, which happened around 1965, coincided with the development of microteaching as a laboratory technique in teacher training. It occurred to several researchers that these techniques might also be used with university professors. From 1966 to 1968 Perlberg and O'Bryant (1970) in a study conducted at the University of Illinois explored some uses of microteaching techniques and videotape recordings to improve university teaching. Two models were used in the taping of classroom teaching situations, analysis, and reteaching. They were the "individual model," in which "a helping relationship" was estab- lished between a senior faculty member and a teaching consultant, and the "group model," involving a weekly seminar for all new instructors during which their tapes were analyzed and evaluated by their peers. The overall results of the Illinois study confirmed the hypothesis that both micro- teaching and videotape recordings were instrumental in achieving behavioral changes in classroom teaching.

On the basis of the experience of the studies conducted at the Univer- sity of Illinois, Perlberg, et al. (1972) conducted from 1970 to 1972 a more elaborate study in the Dental Division, Faculty of Continuing Medical Education, Tel-Aviv University. The purpose of the study was fourfold. It was designed (a) to explore the potential of the self-confrontation process, using the videotape recording as a means of motivating university faculty to engage in activities designed to modify their teaching behavior despite the absence of any extrinsic reward; ( b ) t o evaluate the effectiveness, both qualitatively and quantitatively, of microteaching techniques and videotape recordings in modifying university teaching behavior; (c) to bring about a change in participants' teaching styles, that is, to effect a change from " teacher-or lecture-centered" or from "subject matter emphasis" to "class- room interaction" (questioning techniques and seminar discussion); ( d ) t o identify the relationship of specific attitudes to "openness" to behavioral change and acceptance of innovation.

It was hypothesized that participants completing the study would show a greater tendency to select "student-centered" and classroom interaction teaching styles than previously. It was further assumed that the extent of the

145

change effected by microteaching procedures would bear a direct relation- ship to a participant's openness, that is, the more dogmatic and authoritarian his attitudes toward education, the less he would be expected to change.

It is important to note that the participation in the microteaching laboratory was not the faculty's first encounter with activities designed to improve teaching. The faculty members had been involved in such activities for more than two years prior to the study reported here. They had participated in a biweekly seminar devoted to theoretical examinations of philosophies of education, psychological concepts, curriculum planning, and teaching methods. However, despite their many efforts and a highly moti- vated dean who very strongly encouraged their activities devoted to im- proving their teaching abilities, the faculty members were somewhat frus- trated by their inability to apply the many theories they had learned to their daily problems. It was at this stage that microteaching was introduced to the group and favorably accepted by most of its members. A microteaching laboratory was organized and medical students were hired as paid learners; each faculty member visited the laboratory once a week, in two sequences of five weeks each, and went through a cycle of teach-critique-plan-reteach and recritique. The teaching skills to be practiced were agreed upon by the faculty member and his consultant; and as soon as they were reasonably satisfied with the achievement, practice on another teaching skill was started. Originally, twenty faculty members - males ranging in age from thirty to sixty years - comprised the population of the study. However, four of them dropped out at the beginning, leaving a population of sixteen, all of whom received individual microteaching treatment. A group of five who had formed a curriculum committee before the commencement of the study received in addition a group microteaching treatment.

For the first lesson given in the laboratory, each member was asked to choose the subject matter and the teaching strategy (lecture, questions, discussions, or other). The tapes of these lessons were considered to be pretreatment tapes. For the last lesson, faculty members were asked to teach the same subject matter they taught in the first laboratory session and again were given free choice in regard to the teaching strategies. These last lessons were considered posttreatment tapes. The skills practiced between pretreat- ment and posttreatment were lecture, providing examples, fluency in ques- tions, probing questions, high-order questions and divergent questions. Pre- treatment and posttreatment tapes were rated by a panel of judges on a five-point rating scale, which included all the skills practiced in the labora- tory. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out to determine

\

significant changes. The Flanders Interaction Analysis (in Simon and Gil, 1970) was also used to identify changes shown by pretreatment and post- treatment tapes.

The results of this study have indicated that the videotape recording

146

was a cardinal factor in motivating the majority of the faculty involved in the study to participate regularly. For a few, however, the shock of the experience was too strong; they abandoned the project after their first self-confrontation.

Evaluation of microteaching in modifying teaching skills was the second purpose of this study. Present university teaching styles depend heavily on presentation skills such as lecturing; therefore, emphasis was given in the study to the acquisition and utilization of student-involvement skills such as questioning and leading discussions. Table I shows the difference between pretreatment and post treatment performance for the microteaching skills practiced.

TABLE l

Mean Ratings for Pretreatment and Posttreatment Performance in Teaching Skills

Skill Pre- Post- Difference p treatment treatment Mean Mean

1. Lesson organization 3.54 3.96 0.42 0.01 2. Lecture style 2.95 3.68 0.73 0.01 3. Providing examples 2.93 3.78 0.85 0.01 4. Fluency in questions 2.56 3.80 1.24 0.01 5. Probing questions 2.25 3.27 1.02 0.01 6. High-order questions 2.18 3.42 1.24 0.01 7. Divergent questions 1.95 3.20 1.25 0.01

Total 2.62 3.58 0.96 0.01

There was an overall improvement in each teaching skill, as shown by the difference between the pretreatment and post treatment rating means.

Some different approaches to the use of self-confrontation and micro- teaching were investigated by Melnik (1972), Noam (1973), and Koffman (1973) in a "Clinic to Improve University Teaching". They used multiple sources of information and analysis concepts which were aimed at providing maximum data for analysis of the faculty member lesson, but of greater importance was the development of multiple discrepancies.

When a faculty member expressed interest in the work of the Clinic, he was asked to be videotaped. After this, students filled out "Student Centered Analysis of Teaching Instruction" (SCAT) questionnaires, which included questions relating to a list of twenty-four skills of teaching. The faculty member himself was also asked to fill out two of the same questionnaires. In the first one, he was asked to rate himself, and in the second, he was asked

147

to estimate student responses to the questionnaire. The computer printouts of the instruments and the videotape of his lesson provided the basis for an analysis by him and the Clinic diagnostician. The major motivating force in this process was the dissonance created. There were discrepancies between the professor's own evaluation, his estimation of student evaluation, and the actual student rating. In addition, there was the tape which provided some additional information which could not have been received through the instruments, as well as information which supported or contradicted the information from the instruments. This multiple discrepancy, even though presented as a philosophy of multiple sources of information, became a very powerful source of motivation. A series of interviews between the Clinic diagnostician and the faculty member were devoted to discussion of the data and identification of the problem area and of the kind and type of compe- tency on which he would like to work. In order to gain competence in the areas which were identified, various training alternatives, such as micro- teaching techniques, were used.

Melnik describes the Clinic as a process of successive stages of inter- action between the Clinic personnel and the teacher, and suggests that a trust and willingness to proceed in the Clinic program is engendered through this gradual, progressive interaction. The basic procedures described above, with some variations, were used by Noam and Koffman.

Concluding remarks

As was already stressed thoughout this paper, the academic community at present does not reward efforts by its members to make the conscious and sustained expenditure of time and energy necessary to achieve a significant improvement in their teaching ability. When and if such activities are carried out, they are based on the university teachers' intrinsic motivation, irrespec- tive of an unrewarding atmosphere. Thus, the main problem confronting those interested in the improvement of university teaching is how to aug- ment such intrinsic motivation when it exists and how to generate it where it does not exist. From the results obtained in studies cited earlier in this paper, from testimonials in the literature, from personal communication to the author, and from practice in the field, it appears that the unique attributes of videotape recordings and microteaching could motivate partici- pation in activity designed to improve university teaching behavior and could facilitate desired changes.

The trauma of self-confrontation experienced by the participants in the present study as a result of watching their teaching behavior on tape, has generated, in general, a feeling of dissatisfaction and a need to improve or modify their teaching behavior. This is probably the most important asset of

148

videotape recording that one should capitalize on when encouraging univer- sity teachers to engage in activities aimed at the improvement of their teaching. The feedback provided by the videotape recordings was also helpful in eliminating unnecessary arguments about "what happened exact- ly," which in many cases were mainly the expression of defense mechanisms, and thus prepared the ground for constructive discussion on the improve- ment of teaching.

The microteaching technique, by virtue of offering a practical acceler- ated training method which promises a real change in the classroom seems to have a special appeal for university teachers. It is unrealistic to expect them to engage in lengthy courses and seminars on pedagogy, especially when there is no assurance that such engagement will bring about change and improvement in teaching. On the other hand, involvement in activities that may bring about immediate changes is likely to stimulate greater interest in educational problems beyond the simplistic level of practicing teaching skills (Perlberg, 1970, 1972). Involvement in the microteaching laboratory has encouraged participants to express their willingness to be taped also in their regular classrooms and to analyze the tapes with the researchers who con- tinue to serve as educational consultants to the faculty and work with them in areas such as curriculum planning, teaching strategies, instructional mater- ials, and evaluation.

Experimentation with microteaching techniques and video recordings in higher education is relatively new, and many problems regarding its use are still open. One of these problems is the extent of stability in changes resulting from the treatment. In order to answer this question, there is a need for follow-up studies conducted over a period of time, and these have not yet been conducted. However, through personal communications with the Illinois and Tel-Aviv groups, it appears that the changes achieved there still persist and that the activities which evolved around the projects and beyond their original scopes still continue.

Another problem which requires further study is in the realm of teacher effectiveness. The researchers were asked many times whether a change in teaching style from professor-centered or lecture-centered to student- centered and classroom interaction would increase learning. Despite some quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of certain teaching methods, it was difficult at times to convince those who were doubtful of the validity of this proof, a doubt shared even by many researchers and reviewers of the literature on teachers' effectiveness.

One aspect of the problem of teachers' effectiveness is that the partici- pants in our studies were interested in measuring only academic achieve- ments for which certain teaching styles were more appropriate. However, higher education has objectives other than the mere accumulation of knowl- edge. For example, there is the need to develop the ability to analyze,

149

interpret, evaluate, and communicate ideas and to stimulate divergent think- ing and creativity. The effect of a change from a lecture-centered style to classroom interaction cannot be measured by tests designed to examine factual knowledge alone. There is a great need for research designed to measure relations between process (teaching) and product (learning). The project cited, however, focused on achieving change in the process.

It is important to note that the complexities of research on the effectiveness of teaching at all levels of education are magnified many times when done in higher education. There is great reluctance among university teachers to submit themselves to structured quantitative research, even at times when they themselves are involved in similar research. Researchers in higher education will have to rely in many cases on research on the effective- ness of teaching which is carried out with other populations.

Another problem relates to the practical aspects of the role and work- ing strategies of the educational consultant or "diagnostician" (in the "Clin- ic" model), tn comparison to the role and task of a consultant who deals with course design or evaluation technique, which is basically a cognitive discourse, the consultant in a self-confrontation situation is involved in a highly intense, emotional interaction. In view of what is known about the complexities o f this situation and the danger of improper use of these techniques, there is a need for bet ter preparation of the consultants working with these techniques. The above-mentioned problems are only a few of the problems involved in the use of these techniques; this discussion did not a t tempt to deal with all of them.

Finally, it should be emphasized that microteaching techniques, feed- back and videotape self-confrontation do not offer a panacea to all problems of university teaching. As was stated earlier in our discussion of the "Teaching Laboratory ," we view these techniques as part of the process of improve- ment which takes place in the laboratory. We have chosen to focus on them because we see them as a powerful trigger which could activate and motivate faculty members to engage in improvement of teaching activities. However, in some cases and for some faculty members', a more cognitive center t reatment (i.e., a scholarly discussion and analysis about their courses) is sufficient. The main problem still remains how to motivate participation even in cognitive processes; the techniques described seem to be one power- ful method.

This article was read at the International Conference "Improving University Teaching," 9-11 May, 1975, Heidelberg, Germany, and at the Third International Conference on on Higher Education, 1-5 September, 1975, University of Lancaster, England.

150

References

Alexander, L.T., and Yelon, S.L. (1972). "Instructional Development Agencies in Higher Education." Learning Services Educational Development Program, Michigan State University.

Allen, D. W., and Ryan, K. A. (1969). Microteaching. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley.

Bleger, T. C., and Cooper, R. M. (eds.)(1950). The Preparation of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, p. 123.

Borg, W. R., Kelley, M. L., Langer, P., Gall, M. (19;/0). The Mini-Course - A Micro- teaching Approach to Teacher Education. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, MacMillan Educational Services, Inc.

Costin, Frank, et al. (1971). "Student ratings of college teaching: reliability, validity, and usefulness," Review of Educational Research 41:5. (December).

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Fuller, F. F., and Manning, B. A. (1974). "Self-confrontation reviewed: a conceptualiza- tion for video playback in teacher education," Review of Educational Research 43:4.

Glasman, Naftaly, S., Kfllait, B. R. and Gmelch, W. (1974). Evaluation o f Instructors in in Higher Education: Concepts, Research and Development. University of California, Santa Barbara: UCSB Press.

Golembiewski, R. T., and Blumberg, A. (eds.) (1970). Sensitivity Training and the Labora- tory Approach. Itasca, Ill. : F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Koffman, M. L. (1973). "A Study of the Effects of Videotape Feedback and Analysis on the Classroom Behavior and Student Achievement of University Teaching Assistants." Ed. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Lewin, K. (1948). "Conduct Knowledge and Acceptance of New Values," in Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper and Brothers, p. 59.

MacKenzie, N., et al. (1970). Teaching and Learning. An Introduction to New Methods and Resources in Higher Education. Paris: Unesco/International Association of Univer- sities.

Melnik, Michael Alan (1972). "The Development and Analysis of a Clinic to Improve University Teaching." Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massa- chusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ed.D. degree.

Nisbet, Robert A. (1967). "Conflicting Academic Loyalties," in Lee, Calvin B. T. Im- proving College Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, p. 27.

Noam, Jael (I973). "Development and Evaluation of a Model for Improving University Teaching." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Perlberg, Arye (1972). "Microteaching-Part 5, application of research results," Internation- al Review of Education 18.4 (Special number).

Perlberg, Arye (1975). "Recent Approaches on Microteaching and Allied Techniques Which Can be Implemented Easily in Developing Countries." Invited paper for Unesco, Paris.

Perlberg, A., and O'Bryant, D. C. (1970). "Videotaping and microteaching techniques to improve engineering instruction," Journal of Engineering Education 60:741-744.

Perlberg, Arye, et al. (1972). "Microteaching and videotape recordings: a new approach to improving teaching," Journal of Medical Edueation 47 (January).

Perlberg, A., et al. (1974). "Modification of Teaching Behavior Through the Combined Use of Microteaching Techniques with the Technion Diagnostic System TDS," Journal of Instructional Science 3 : 177-200.

151

Popham, W. James (1974). "Higher education's commitment to instructional improve- ment programs," Educational Researcher 3:11.

Simon, A., and Gil, B. (eds.) (1970). Mirrors for Behavior II. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Wilson, Meredith, O. (1967). "Teach Me and I Will Hold My Tongue," in Lee, Calvin B. T., Improving College Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, p. 9.