Subject: Principles for Effective Teaching
From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8"
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:45:48 -0600

Reprinted from the Journal of Developmental
Education, Volume 26, Issue 3, Spring, 2003.

Principles for Effective
Teaching

By Patricia
Smittle

ABSTRACT: Effective teaching in developmental education is one of the
most challenging jobs in the college teaching profession. The search for
teaching excellence in this field extends beyond basic cognitive issues to
address noncognitive needs of underprepared students also. The six principles
for effective developmental education teaching reviewed in the article are the
product of integrating research findings from successful developmental education
programs and general principles for effective teaching in undergraduate
education. The principles focus on key elements that teachers may use to support
effective teaching.

Many teaching professionals spend their entire careers in search of
teaching excellence. This search may be even more important when students are
underprepared adults. These students lack the foundation and skills required for
rigorous college curriculum and many of them have adult responsibilities that
place excessive demands on their time and other resources. These students
present challenges to developmental educators that often far exceed those
presented by traditional college students: “How to guide and teach students who
are underprepared for traditional college level studies is the thorniest single
problem for community colleges” (Cohen & Brawer, 1982, p. 236 ). This
challenge extends throughout all levels of postsecondary education with
developmental education serving as a gateway to postsecondary education for many
students in this country. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), in 1999-2000, 32% of all freshmen in 4-year colleges and
universities and 41% of community college freshmen required remedial education
(NCES, 2001).

Research findings of successful developmental education programs and
general principles of effective practice in teaching offer a strong foundation
in the search for teaching excellence in developmental education. During the
last decade, much has been written about the characteristics of successful
developmental education programs. Boylan and Bonham (1998) provide a
comprehensive analysis of developmental education programs in “Improving
Developmental Education: What We’ve Learned from 30 Years of Research.” In this
study, they identify 20 characteristics of successful programs. Eight of those
characteristics relate directly to teaching: variety of teaching methods, sound
cognitive theory-based courses, computer-based instruction to supplement regular
classroom activities, classroom/laboratory integration, developmental course
exit standards that are consistent with entry standards for subsequent courses,
strategic learning that teaches students how to monitor their comprehension and
think strategically about learning, professional training for faculty and staff
who work with developmental students, and critical thinking that focuses on the
types of thinking required in college-level
courses.

Roueche and Roueche (1999) identify characteristics of successful
developmental education programs similar to those of Boylan and Bonham (1998),
with the addition of one very significant factor: recruiting, developing, and
hiring the best faculty. This characteristic may actually be the single most
important factor in successful programs.

Perhaps the most widely used college teaching guidelines relative to
general principles of effective practice in teaching are the “Seven Principles
of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987;
Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The guidelines suggest that good practices
encourage student-faculty contact, promote cooperation among students, encourage
active learning, give prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, communicate high
expectations, and respect diverse talents.

It is not surprising that there are many commonalities among these
studies. All of the elements required for effective college teaching apply to
effective developmental education teaching as well. However, it may be even more
imperative to apply them in work with developmental students and for
developmental teachers to be more precise and in-depth. For example, the teacher
of traditional college students can simply encourage active learning and usually
achieve the desired student outcome. On the other hand, encouragement is not
enough for most developmental students. The developmental education teacher must
structure and lead the activities for developmental students while teaching them
to become independent learners. Also, the issue of frequent feedback is more
demanding with developmental students since they usually lack the ability to
judge their own progress. Moreover, respect for diverse talents and ways of
learning takes on a deeper meaning when it is applied to developmental students
who are much less homogeneous than traditional college students. Nevertheless,
all the aspects of teaching excellence important to developmental education
students represent a model for teaching all
students.

Volkwein and Cabrera (1998) suggest that the single most important factor
in affecting multiple aspects of student growth and satisfaction is the
classroom experience. The key to teaching developmental students successfully is
to assure that teaching practices are consistent with the characteristics of
successful programs and the principles of effective teaching. The six principles
for effective teaching and their subsequent explanations are offered as a tool
to help developmental educators in their search for teaching excellence.
Additionally, institutions may find the principles helpful as they employ and
train teachers to build successful developmental and mainstream education
programs.

Principle #1: Commit to Teaching Underprepared
Students

Unfortunately, some teachers teach developmental students for reasons
that are not in the best interest of students. Perhaps the developmental class
fits their desired teaching schedules, they think the developmental course will
require less preparation and they will have more time to spend on their higher
level courses or some other activity, or they may be teaching out-of-field and
the college will not allow them to teach anything else. In some cases, their
performance may be unsatisfactory in other areas so they are assigned to teach
developmental courses. Further, research of staffing patterns has indicated that
“among all institutions and all subject 72% of those teaching developmental
courses are part-time” (Boylan, Bohham, Jackson, & Saxon, 1994), a pattern
that does not exhibit strong institutional commitment to developmental
education. In reality, teachers who choose to teach developmental students must
have visions for those students, know they can make a difference, and be willing
to work hard to help students succeed.

The literature is replete with admonitions to select teachers who are
interested and desire to teach underprepared students. For example, Roueche and
Roueche (1993) have suggested this in the first national study on remedial
programs in 1968.

Because teacher attitudes are
probably related to student achievement, no teacher should be arbitrarily
assigned to teach a remedial class if he or she would rather not teach that
class, nor should any teacher be assigned who is only mildly interested in
doing so: uninterested teachers cannot be expected to motivate students who
are typically characterized by a lack of motivation.
(p.58)

Another early warning was issued by Cross in 1976. She observed that a
lack of achievement was more than a simple cognitive issue, so she admonished
that knowledge of learning problems, along with interest and commitment, were
critical factors in choosing staff to work with developmental students. These
strong admonitions are still relevant n the 21st century. Selection
of teachers to work with this special population is an important issue that
should not be taken lightly.

Principle #2: Demonstrate Good Command of the Subject
Matter and the Ability to Teach a Diverse Student Population

Proficiency in subject matter is critical for developmental education
teachers. Since developmental students have generally been unsuccessful with
traditional instructional methods and materials, effective developmental
teachers must be able to present the subject matter in different ways, requiring
teachers to have in-depth knowledge of the concepts and skills they’re teaching
as well as higher level content knowledge in the field.

When selecting teachers, it is important to follow the credential
standards set forth by the college’s accrediting agent for all teachers
including developmental education instructors. For example, the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACS; 1998)
requires,

Faculty members who teach in
remedial programs must hold a baccalaureate degree in a discipline related to
their assignment and have either teaching experience in a discipline related
to their assignment or graduate training in remedial education. (p. 43)

Although subject matter knowledge that is documented by professional
credentials is critical, it is not enough for effective developmental education
teachers. The ability to convey that knowledge to students who lack the subject
matter foundation is the major challenge. Unfortunately, many new teachers try
to employ the same teaching techniques their graduate professors used
successfully, since this is their most recent experience with the
teaching/learning environment. This is one of the biggest mistakes teachers can
make, especially with developmental students who may have had little academic
success.

First, when working with at-risk students,  teaching and learning activities must be
highly structured, with all requirements and standards clearly stated (Boylan
& Bonham, 1998). Developmental students need to know exactly what is
expected of them and when it is due. Teaching students how to pace their work is
one of the most important things a teacher can do. Students often underestimate
the amount of work required and the time required to complete it, so teachers
need to help students develop specific plans. A helpful strategy is to require
students to turn in drafts or small segments of their work as they proceed
toward the final product. Second, many developmental students require a lot of
time-on-task. Scheduled and supervised activities in class, in labs, and with
tutors facilitate the “pacing skills” often lacking for at-risk students. Third,
developmental students perform better when the curriculum they are studying
relates to the real world and their specific interests (Cross, 2000). Fourth,
information should be presented in small chunks that allow students to link new
material to something they already know. Fifth, since developmental education is
providing the foundation for more advanced learning, mastery of the content is
important. If students fail to master one set of skills, concepts, or knowledge
before they move on to the next level, gaps similar to the problems the students
are already experiencing are created. Finally, frequent testing and immediate
feedback are critical for developmental students. Wambach, Brothen, and Dikel
(2000) report that many developmental students lack the ability to provide their
own feedback. These authors note, “highly skilled students are better able to
know they have understood what they have read, to know whether they are prepared
for an exam, and to evaluate how well they have done on exams. They know the
difference between simply doing and actually learning assignments” (p. 8).
Therefore, early, frequent, meaningful, and clear feedback is a major factor in
helping students hone their metacognitive skills.

Effective teachers use knowledge of their students' varied learning
styles as they plan their instruction. Boylan and Bonham (1998) report that
developmental students learn in ways not generally accommodated through
traditional instruction. However, many teachers still teach the way they were
taught. This pattern is likely to be least effective in the developmental
classroom where most students failed to learn the course content in traditional
high school classes; it is unlikely that they’ll learn via the same
instructional methods in college. Knowledge of whether students are visual,
auditory, or tactile learners and whether they prefer to work individually or in
groups should shape the instructional delivery system and learning materials
offered. Boylan and Bonham (1998) cite several studies which reveal that many
developmental students are hands-on learners. Research indicates that
collaborative learning, when well structured as part of the learning activities,
is helpful in getting students actively involved. Cross (2000) reports, “There
is strong support from neuroanatomy and from cognitive science for the thesis
that students must actively involve themselves in their own learning” (p. 28).
Moreover, she reports that students are well-motivated to get involved in
learning when they are faced with peers who depend on them and, in turn, nurture
them in challenging learning tasks. Research from Casazza and Silverman (1996)
shows that students in remedial courses are more likely to be successful when a
variety of instructional methods are used.

Principle #3: Address Noncognitive Issues that Affect
Learning

Underprepared adults in developmental education programs often carry many
nonacademic problems with them when they enroll in college. Therefore, the
successful developmental education teacher must develop the whole student rather
than solely deal with cognitive skill deficits. According to Astin (1984),
successful developmental education programs for underprepared students must deal
with affective as well as cognitive needs.

Teachers indicate that motivating students to learn and to participate in
learning activities may be the most difficult task, especially in working with
developmental students. Related affective characteristics, such as
self-regulation and academic procrastination, can be influenced by motivation.
Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter (2001) have reported that procrastination
“compromises an individual’s ability to set and achieve personal, academic, and
career related goals” through self-regulated behavior. Further, Wambach et al.
(2000) state that students who can self-identify skill areas that need
improvement and are motivated to pursue assistance to gain appropriate skills
are self-regulated. “The conscious development of self-regulation is the task
that might distinguish developmental education programs from other postsecondary
education programs” (p. 3). Some teachers, especially those with graduate school
mentalities, declare that it is not their responsibility to motivate students.
These teachers need to engage in professional development quickly. It is,
indeed, the responsibility of developmental education and all education to help
students sustain the motivation that led them to enroll in courses at the
beginning of the semester and strengthen that motivation as the term progresses.
Teachers are challenged to try to determine how and when students lost their
motivation and help them regain that initial vision. Of course, motivation is a
team effort: No teacher can motivate a student who does not want to join the
effort.

McCombs (1991) and the Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching
(“Speaking of,” 1998) recommend these strategies for motivating students: define
course goals and help students think about personal learning goals, make use of
students’ interests and background knowledge, show the relevance of material,
teach students skills for independent learning, and give helpful and frequent
feedback.

Helping students set goals is critical to maintaining motivation.
Unfortunately, many teachers assume that adults in college have well-defined
goals for their lives and they should recognize that the developmental courses
are the first step toward achieving those goals. It is the responsibility of the
teacher to help students set both short- and long-term goals. At this point
professional teamwork is vital, and the teacher may need to call on the advisors
to help. Goal setting may well be the factor that determines if the student will
complete the developmental course and continue in school long enough to achieve
those goals. Tinto (1993) reported that students who have clear goals are more
likely to be retained. An effective developmental education teacher helps each
student create a vision and see how the course and everyday activities help to
achieve that goal, a first step that should be repeated throughout the student’s
academic career.

Developing and maintaining positive self-esteem is important for
developmental students. Although some of them don’t show it, they often have low
self-esteem, especially in regard to academic work. Teachers can help students
overcome those perceptions that impede learning by using suggestions from
research: create a supportive environment among students, enhance self-esteem
through comments such as “you’re on the right track...,” simplify objectives and
learning, use success in learning to promote student satisfaction, demand
specificity in learning, advise and coach frequently, and avoid excessive
negative feedback (Presiosi, 1990).

Principle #4: Provide Open and Responsive Learning
Environments

Cross (2000) reports, “Research clearly shows that students who are most
likely to drop out of college are students who are not connected with the people
and events of the college” (p. 1). She notes that the connections need not
always be face-to-face. They can be electronic via email or chat rooms,
telephone calls, or letters, but humans need some way to feel that they belong.
It is easy for developmental students to convince themselves that they are so
far behind that the teacher would not want them back in class. A phone call or
letter can be all it takes to assure most students that they still belong in the
class and they will receive support to help them catch up. It is important for
teachers to obtain local telephone numbers, addresses, and e-mail addresses from
students on the first day of class. Tinto (1993) reports that being connected to
the classroom and college has a significant effect on
retention.

Students need to know that teachers recognize them as individuals.
Goodman (2001) has found that simply calling students’ names aloud when checking
attendance has a positive effect on attendance. He has concluded that teachers
could enhance retention and attendance by orally calling the class roll and
making individual comments when returning papers to
students.

Another strategy to promote feelings of belonging is for the teacher to
arrange to meet with individual students during office hours. Although office
hours are posted and announced, many students will not take the initiative to go
to the teacher’s office without a personal invitation or appointment.
Ironically, teachers often feel rejected when students don’t respond to their
open announcement of office hours. This feeling of rejection may create a
barrier between the teacher and student. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) report,
“The educational impact of a college’s faculty is enhanced when their contacts
with students extend beyond the formal classroom to informal non-classroom
settings” (p. 620). Such interaction gives the teacher the opportunity to get to
know students better, and it helps students learn the value of using office
hours that teachers set aside for them.

Principle #5: Communicate High
Standards

It is important that academic standards in developmental classes be
established in cooperation with the college-level curriculum to which students
will advance (Boylan & Bonham, 1998). Teachers must have clear
understandings of the subsequent curriculum and how it relates to the
developmental education curriculum. Otherwise, they may give developmental
students false security and preparation that may doom them to failure when they
move into college-level work. One measure of a successful developmental
education program is the success of the students in subsequent courses, data
used by administrators and system evaluators as well. Moreover, teachers can
also use this information as one gauge of their own teaching
success.

Maintaining high performance standards may have other benefits. Wambach
et al. (2000) discuss the importance of students learning self-regulatory
behaviors that help them take responsibility for their own actions and learning.
They suggest that self-regulation is developed through demanding situations.
Therefore, it seems important for developmental educators to hold students to
high standards of excellence and expectations.

Some students, especially those who recently graduated from high school,
may engage in behaviors that are disrespectful to teachers and other students. A
major responsibilitiy of classroom teachers is to maintain a good learning
environment for the entire class; they should not allow disrespectful behavior
to disrupt this environment.

Principle #6: Engage in Ongoing Evaluation and Professional
Development

Boylan and Bonham (1998) and Roueche and Roueche (1993) both examined
successful developmental programs and identified program evaluation as a key
element.  However, program
evaluation does not always include faculty evaluation and subsequent improvement
in faculty performance. Faculty improvement is usually achieved through
professional development activities that include reading professional journals,
writing professional articles, taking courses, and attending professional
workshops and conferences. These activities are time-consuming, but effective
developmental educators make this a part of their continuing
education.

Baiocco and DeWaters (1998) contend that professional development is the
key to helping effective teachers manage change that is inherent in the
21st century. Effective teachers are constantly embracing change in
their quest for improvement and also applying findings from evaluation outcomes
to enhance teaching effectiveness and student
success.

Maxwell (2000) stressed the critical need for professional development in
the field of developmental education: “Few of the approximately 104,000
individuals working in developmental education were specifically trained to work
with developmental students, or for that matter to teach college students” (p.
vii-xi). She adds that there are only four graduate training programs for
training professionals in developmental education, “thus most are trained to
teach in specific disciplines or to work with younger or older populations” (p.
vii-xi). She suggested developing a certification system, such as the one
offered by the Kellogg Institute, to expand certification of individuals and
prepare master teachers who can mentor their fellow professionals in given
programs. In his policy paper to the Education Commission of the States, Spann
(2000) has recommended that colleges “require initial training and ongoing
professional development by educators working with underskilled students in a
multicultural society” (p. 3). Effective teachers wholeheartedly embrace these
opportunities.

Conclusion

If the democratic ideals of our educational and governmental systems are
to be supported by American higher education, it is essential that higher
education is truly open to all interested citizens. Further, in order for higher
education to serve the needs of our general populace, quality teaching in higher
education is imperative. Faculty at postsecondary institutions must recognize
and embrace the importance of developing teaching skills that enhance learning
for all types of students in tandem with continuing development of their
content-area knowledge.

The principles for effective teaching presented in this article apply to
all instructors and all students. Since many developmental students have already
demonstrated a lack of success in learning environments which do not apply such
principles, they may be the students most likely to fail without the benefit of
instructors trained to help them meet their full potential. “Colleges must
increase the support and structure they offer at-risk students, who need support
and structure more than any other students in higher education” (Roueche &
Roueche, 1999, p. 2). Student classroom experiences provide myriad opportunities
for developing the whole student. Teachers can use and apply the principles of
commitment; command of subject matter and ability to teach diverse students;
integration of affective skill development; provision of connected, open
learning environments; high-performance expectations; and ongoing evaluation and
professional development to offer their best to
students.

An anonymous writer defined ignorance as “doing the same thing over and
over while expecting a different outcome.” Unfortunately this fits the practices
of some colleges and teachers as they relate to instructing developmental
students. Colleges must support effective teaching in developmental education as
a base and expand it across the entire curriculum in order to avoid dismal
outcomes. The application of principles for effective teaching will help better
prepare teachers in their quest to assist students in meeting their
goals.

References

Astin, A.
(1984). A look at pluralism in the contemporary student
population. NASPA Journal, 21(3), 2-11.

Baiocco, S.A., & DeWaters, J.N. (1998).
Successful college teaching: Problem-solving strategies of distinguished
professors. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boylan, H.R., & Bonham, B.S. (1998, March). Improving
developmental education: What we’ve learned from 30 years of research. Paper
presented at the National Association for Developmental Education Conference,
Detroit,
MI.

Boylan, H.R., Bonham, B.S., Jackson, J., & Saxon, D.P. (1994).
Staffing patterns in developmental education programs: Full-time, part-time,
credentials, and program placement. Research in Developmental Education,
11(5), 1-4.

Casazza, M., & Silverman, C. (1996). Learning assistance and
developmental education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher
Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and
identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1982). The American community
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, P. (1976). Accent on learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cross, P. (2000). Collaborative learning 101. The Cross papers #
4. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College,
Educational Testing Service.

Goodman, M. (2001). Attending to attendance for retention and results. In
NISOD Abstracts XXIII (p. 27). Austin: University of Texas at
Austin.

Kachgal, M.M., Hansen, L.S., & Nutter, K.T. (2001). Academic
procrastination prevention/intervention: Strategies and recommendations.
Journal of Developmental Education, 25(1), 2-12.

Maxwell, M. (2000). Forward. In R.F. Flippo & D.C. Caverly (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. vii-xi). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCombs, B. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational
Psychology, 26(3&4), 117-127.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Percent of
degree-granting institutions offering remedial services, by type and control of
institution; 1987-88 to 2000-01. Digest of Education Statistics, 2001.
Retrieved February 8, 2003 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt313.asp

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Preziosi, R. (1990, November). Instructors impact on self-esteem. The
Teaching Professor, 4(9), 5.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard
place: The at-risk student in the open-door college. Washington, DC: The
American Association of Community Colleges, The Community College
Press.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1999). High stakes, high
performance: Making remedial education work. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges, The Community College Press.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges.
(1998). Criteria for accreditation commission on colleges. Decatur, GA:
Author.

Spann, M.G. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21st
century learning society. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States
(ECS).

Speaking of teaching. (1998, Fall). Stanford University Newsletter on
Teaching, 10(1), 2-4.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of
student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Volkwein, J.F., & Cabrera, A. (1998, June). Student measures
associated with favorable classroom experiences. Paper presented at the
Association of Institutional Research (AIR) Annual Forum, Minneapolis,
MN.

Wambach, C., Brothen, T. & Dikel, T. (2000). Toward a developmental theory
for developmental educators. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1),
2-10.