WHAT MAKES A
GOOD INSTRUCTOR?
Many people
believe that good instructors are born; that instructional excellence is somehow
innate or genetically determined. Instructors such as this, so the logic goes,
typically possess a kind of charismatic presence that results in aroused or
highly motivated listeners. Such an affect is of course desirable, even
laudable, but it tends to emphasize individual instructor characteristics at the
expense of criteria focused on what happens to learners. This view also tends to
result in instructors more likely to credit their own performance as the key to
learning regardless of consequences for learners.
At the opposite
end of the spectrum are those who believe that instructional ability is
something acquired; it involves training, discipline, and a good deal of
patience. These type of instructors are constantly at work trying to improve
themselves and their teaching. They strive for instructional excellence, tend to
be learner advocates, and assess their effectiveness in relation to how well
learners perform. Instructors such as these are usually aware of the conflict
over how their instructional efforts are measured. For example, they readily
understand the differences between one's public reputation and the objective
assessment of their instructional quality. For them, career success is less tied
up in the size and frequency of salary increases and promotions, and more in the
satisfaction of assisting learners to become more than they were.
Writers who have
studied this situation offer similar conclusions. Ericksen (1985) believes that
"good teachers select and organize worthwhile course material, lead students to
encode and integrate this material in memorable form, ensure competence in the
procedures and methods of a discipline, sustain intellectual curiosity, and
promote learning how to learn independently" (p. 5).
Highet (1950), in
his classic, The Art of Teaching, describes three essential elements that
constitute good instruction: knowledge of the subject; personal love of the
material; and a high regard for learners. He goes on to describe some personal
qualities that tend to distinguish good instructors from poor ones. These
include exceptionally wide and lively intellectual interests and a good sense of
humor. Speaking about essential personal abilities, Highet suggests that good
instructors possess a well developed memory, a strong sense of will-power or
determination, and a limitless store of genuine kindness.
McKeachie (1986)
has studied the subject of good instruction for several decades in the context
of colleges and universities. He maintains that instructors who are more
attentive to individual learners are more likely to be effective instructors
than those less attentive to learners. McKeachie also notes that "students in
classes stressing competition for grades show more tension, self-doubt, and
anxiety than those in classes structured for cooperative achievement" (1986, p.
250).
Another perceptive
observer of good instruction is Kenneth Eble, who like McKeachie, has devoted
considerable attention to instruction at the collegiate setting. Eble (1979)
believes that although master instructors may have a combination of personal
qualities and behaviors that seem to defy precise analysis, they share in common
a love for instructing and learning. He summarizes his stance on instruction
this way:
I believe that
teaching is a presence of mind and person and body in relation to another mind
and person and body, a complex array of mental, spiritual, and physical acts
affecting others. Moments of direct interaction expand into the lives of both
students and teachers, keeping alive the desire to learn and the will to make
learning count. Any one part of teaching--conducting classes, making
assignments, testing and grading, directing work, counseling and advising,
writing books and preparing means for independent learning--is but a small part
of the forces that affect a student's learning. Before that fact, teachers must
necessarily be humble. But humility should not stop one from recognizing that
teaching does matter and that developing teaching skills is a good way of
furthering learning (1979, p. 8).
One of the
earliest adult educators to write on the subject of good instruction was
Overstreet (1941). He believed that a competent instructor should possess at
least four qualities: (a) must want to personally go on learning; (b) must have
some expertise that gives a vertebrate character to what is said and done; (c)
must have a sense of relationships broad enough to counter any narrow
specialization; and, (d) must have a sense of community--a power to think and
act in terms of any real problems and resources.
Writing some years
later, Kidd (1973) examined the attributes and motivations necessary to be an
accomplished instructor. He concluded that a good instructor must be clear in
speech and writing, possess enthusiasm and a good sense of humor, be personally
engaged in learning, exhibit imagination, be tolerant of opposing points of
view, and be able to deal effectively with controversy. Above all, Kidd believed
that a good ". . . teacher must be a learner, must . . . possess strong motives
and a positive attitude toward learning" (1973, p. 296).
Another adult
educator, Knox (1986), has studied how instructors can enhance learning. He
suggests that there is a strong relationship between effective instruction and
effective learning. For him, pertinent characteristics that contribute to
effective instruction include aspects of an instructor's personality such as
enthusiasm, humor, and clarity of _expression_, attitudes toward learners and
their subject matter, as well as their expertise and content mastery. Knox
believes that effective instructors are those who look for ways of matching
individual learning styles to their own instructional style. By matching both of
these learners are more likely to learn effectively in the present as well as in
the future.
ol
Al