Responsibility in instruction: Who is doing the learning here?

Abstract

One of the most challenging elements of being a teacher is that we are considered responsible for our student's learning. And yet, we cannot learn for our students; student learning is an activity done by the student not by the teacher. So, how teachers are responsible for student learning becomes a relevant and interesting question. In what ways can we be responsible for an outcome which, ultimately, is not under our control? The essays by Central States Communication Association teaching award winners for 2002 provide some insights into this issue. Stephen Hunt (2003) argues that teachers are responsible for student learning by actively engaging in practices which research shows makes learning more likely while Lynn Bryant (2003) discusses the teacher's responsibility to not put barriers in the way of learning. Both focus on the processes of communication in and out of the classroom which create or hinder student learning. There is also a third factor affecting communication processes which is controlled by neither teacher nor student that affects learning: the environment in which instruction occurs. Proactive Practices Promoting Learning Much past instructional communication research has focused attention on such teacher communicative behaviors as non-verbal immediacy (e.g., McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, & Barraclough, 1996), confirmation (e.g., Ellis, 2000), and clarity (e.g., Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001). We know that these behaviors are associated with student learning. Hunt, however, goes beyond a simple focus on individual teacher behaviors and argues that teachers are responsible for implementing communication processes that enable and support student learning. Hunt (2003) draws on Astin's theory of involvement to argue that student involvement facilitates student learning. We would expect that behaviors like nonverbal immediacy also promote involvement--and, in fact, Hunt refers to using such behaviors as an integral part of his pedagogical practices. But he goes beyond a focus on individual behaviors to draw attention to the fact that effective instructional communication is a process. His essay reflects on those pedagogical processes which promote interaction between faculty and student, active student learning, and cooperation among students. He highlights the joint nature of instruction by discussing exchanges of student questions and instructor feedback, instructor expectations and student performance. Hunt's (2003) essay is consistent with the growing emphasis, nationwide, on interactive instructional practices (Shelton, Lane, & Waldhart, 1999). Research has demonstrated that out-of-class faculty-student contact improves student motivation (Jaasma & Koper, 1999) and that instructor use of powerful language increases classroom interaction (Halenta, 1996). Hunt's focus on interactivity, however, argues for the joint responsibility of teacher and student to make learning a success. The teacher sets the stage for learning. It is up to the student to follow through. Avoidance of Barriers to Learning While instructional communication research has investigated factors which promote student learning, less attention has been paid to qualities which hinder student learning. Bryant (2003) draws on facework theory to explain why we might tend to avoid discussing our instructional errors. Her reflection on her own teaching mistakes highlights how a lack of student respect for the teacher can be a barrier to effective instruction. The ongoing tension between student liking and respect and instructor self-disclosure and respect are effectively illustrated in Bryant's analysis as is the role that professional distance plays in maintaining that respect. Bryant's (2003) essay is consistent with the literature on facework, including Kerson-Griep's (2001) analysis of the role that instructor behaviors play in threatening or supporting student face. …