Dr Fox Experiments and Non-Verbal Teacher Behaviour
'Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theatre'- Gail Godwin
Contents:
Basic Definition
Introduction
If You Are Only Going to Read Two Papers, Read These!
Dr Fox Effect- Summary of Original Research
Other Recommended Reading (For Greater Interest and Understanding)
Related Research (Non-Verbal Teacher Behaviour)
Questions For Thought
Practical Implications and Conclusion
References
* 'Key Points' are highlighted to provide you with a quick overview of topic. 'Something to Consider' points aim to stimulate a degree of critical thought around the topic, if you so wish to research it further.
Basic Definition:
Key Point: The Dr Fox Effect is the 'lack of correspondence between ratings and substance of instruction under high expressive conditions'- Ware and Williams (1975)
Introduction:
In 1993, Ambady & Rosenthal found that after only one minute (and as little as 6 seconds!) student’s agreed with each other on evaluations of teacher. Even more interesting, these ratings predicted the long term evaluations of the teacher. This effect, present in many undergraduate courses, is both amazing and worrying!
This notion was first hinted upon in the Dr Fox Experiments where teacher's style of delivery distracts students from meaningless content, resulting in positive evaluations of the teacher. The Dr Fox Experiments are not, if being honest, the most captivating read, and it is difficult to find any explicit research on the effect past the 1980s. However, it is still more than worth a look! Why? Because the Dr Fox Effect is the beginning of a snowball leading to more recent, and hugely intriguing, research on non-verbal teacher behaviours.
If You Are Only Going to Read Two Papers, Read These!
Naftulin, D.H., Ware, J.E. & Donnelly, F.A. (1973) The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630-635.
This article explains the original Dr Fox Experiments. It is a good starter reference to get a general feel for the notion that expressive delivery of a lecture may override content and that this effect can influence both student learning and evaluations of teachers. I would also recommend watching the following 'You Tube' link which depicts the 1970s experiment; it is an interesting watch, providing both visual representation of the Dr Fox Effect and narrative explanation: (If video is being temperamental or failing to appear, please copy and paste the following URL into your internet browser: http://tinyurl.com/7s2fm6q).
Merritt, D.J. (2007) Bias, The Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching. St John's Law Review, 82, 235-287.
This easily accessible, well-written article is highly recommended to provide you with some basic insight into the current topic. It provides a thorough literature review of biases which can influence student evaluations, particularly from non-verbal teacher behaviours. Drawing upon the early findings of the Dr Fox Experiments, it acknowledges how these biases can distract students from content and genuine learning. Subsequently, the article highlights practical implications for students' evaluations of teachers.
Dr Fox Effect- Summary of Original Research:
Naftulin et al (1973) were the first to demonstrate the Dr Fox Effect, that teacher expressiveness can 'seduce' an individual into believing they have learned, even if content is poor. This study recruited a professional actor, Dr Fox, to teach a highly trained group of educators on the topic of 'Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education.' Dr Fox was instructed to present this topic using meaningless references to unrelated subjects, and lots of neologisms, contradictory statements and double talk. In other words, the content lacked any valuable substance. However, Dr Fox was also instructed to deliver content with warmth, humour and expressiveness.
Key Point: Despite the meaningless content of lecture, the educators demonstrated favourable attitudes to the lecture, due to high expressiveness.
Since the original experiment, subsequent investigations have varied in focus but consistently demonstrated the Dr Fox Effect. Ware & Williams (1975) manipulated content (high or low) and seductiveness of teacher (high or low), then had students complete an achievement test and rate presentation satisfaction. Results demonstrate that higher learning and greater satisfaction are a function of both high content and high seductiveness compared to low content and low seductiveness (Babad, in Smart 2007). Furthermore, there is an interaction effect: in high seduction conditions, content has no effect on ratings; but in low seduction conditions, high content produces higher ratings in comparison to low content. Ware & Willams (1975) conclude that seductiveness of a teacher can influence both achievement on tests, and students' ratings of satisfaction.
Key Point: Even if a highly seductive teacher gives students little content (leading to lower achievement), students are still likely to rate that teacher with high satisfaction.
Williams & Ware (1976) contribute additional consideration of student incentive- needing to learn material either before or after the lecture. They support the results of earlier research finding that as content increases, student achievement also increases. Furthermore, they contribute understanding that incentive to learn before lecture produces higher learning. They also maintain the previously noted interaction of content only influencing student satisfaction under low, not high, expressiveness. However, expressiveness did not have a significant influence on student achievement. This is most likely explained by their inclusion of learning incentives.
Key Point: If students have an incentive to learn the lecture (higher willpower), it can override low teacher expressiveness resulting in learning achievement.
In Summary: From the Dr Fox findings, it is apparent that teacher expressiveness can facilitate cognitive and learning gains, through increased motivation and affective conditions (Babad, in Smart 2007), although in a meta-analysis, Abrami et al (1982) conclude that expressiveness effect on student achievement is only small. Student incentives or willpower may also play an important role in learning. Expressiveness has a more susbtantial effect on teacher ratings, and can create illusion of a better teacher even when content is poor. In low expresiveness, content can influence ratings but in high expressiveness, it has no effect.
Other Recommended Reading (For Greater Interest and Understanding):
The following three articles are all in support of the Dr Fox Effect. They are very similar so may be slightly repetitive, but are worth reading to enhance your understanding and knowledge.
Meier, R.S. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1979) Another Look at Dr. Fox: Effect of Stated Purpose for Evaluation, Lecturer Expressiveness, and Density of Lecture Content on Student Ratings, Journal of Educational Psychology 71(3), 339-345
Marsh, H.W. & Ware, J.E. (1982) Effects of Expressiveness, Content Coverage, and Incentive on Multidimensional Student Rating Scales: New interpretations of The Dr. Fox effect, Journal of Educational Psychology 74 (1), 126-134
Perry, R.P., Abrami, P.C., Leventhal, L. (1979) Education Seduction: The Effect of Instructor Expressiveness and Lecture Content on Student Ratings and Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 107-116
Related Research (Non-Verbal Teacher Behaviour):
Enthusiasm: Murray (1983) claims that communication of enthusiasm is what separates a teacher with high student ratings, from one with low ratings. Enthusiasm includes non-verbal behaviours such as gesturing with hands, eye contact, facial expressions, and smiling or laughing. Enthusiasm can capture and maintain attention of students resulting in a positive correlation with ratings of teacher and, although weaker effect, performance on final exams. Do you think this is true, are your favourite lecturer's enthusiastic? Perhaps next time you are bored in a lecture, question what it is about the lecturer's delivery style that may be losing your attention?
Something to Consider: Kunter (2011) also acknowledges enthusiasm, but states that casual direction is not always clear; non-verbal behaviours such as teacher enthusiasm may create better learning, but its also plausible that a class high in motivation and achievement could increase teacher enthusiasm.
Gender: Basow (1990) maintains notion of higher teacher expressiveness resulting in higher student ratings. However, he also acknowledges a gender effect with expressiveness only having a positive influence on ratings for a female teacher. Furthermore, both teacher and student gender interacted with expressiveness on the outcome of student achievement. This study concludes that gender is an important mediating factor to consider in the relationship between expressiveness, student ratings and student achievement.
Something to Consider: Basow (1990), like many other similar studies, employs only a very short teacher presentation. Thus, it lacks ecological validity, not easily generalising to a real-life teaching situation where teaching exposure is longer and has other confounds present.
Attractiveness and Teacher Clothing: Dunbar and Segin (2012) found teachers who wore formal, rather than informal, clothing were rated with higher credibility. Most interestingly, students learned best when teacher was wearing 'moderate' clothing rather than casual. Dunbar & Segin (2012) explain that 'moderate' clothing is less likely to distract students, making them focus their attention more on learning. Other research, such as Freng & Webber (2009) claims that teacher attractiveness explains 8% of the variance for students' teacher evaluations. Have you ever rated a lecturer more positively due to their appearance, even if their content was not adequate? Or perhaps decided upon their teaching value (based on a dodgy looking outfit) within the first few minutes of meeting them?
Something to Consider: This research may be plausible, although unlikely to translate into any practical teaching changes as it is one of many small teacher effects. Furthermore, it would not be ethical to select teachers based on physical appearance! However, this research is a valuable reflection of how teachers can influence student satisfaction in many ways, resulting in learning being a complex area of study.
Other Non-Verbal Behaviour: Ambady & Rosnethal (1993) identified non-verbal teacher behaviours which produced higher student evaluations of teacher effectiveness. Teachers rated most effective were perceived to be optimistic, dominant, active, confident, enthusiastic, likeable, warm, supportive and competent, based on their non-verbal behaviours. Teachers who obtained lower ratings tended to engage in non-verbal behaviour such as fidgeting with hands, frowning, or gazing downwards. Student achievement scores were not significantly correlated to evaluations of teacher effectiveness, suggesting students have the ability to learn regardless of teacher non-verbal behaviour.
Something to Consider: This study draws some parallels with the Dr Fox Effect, showing that individual differences in students- such as motivation or willpower- can influence learning, regardless of teacher effect. It is an important reminder that both teacher and learner, and the interaction between them, all have a degree of importance in the learning process.
Questions For Thought:
A lot of this research creates more questions than answers. For anyone interested in future research, it would be worth questioning what exactly is going on in the non-verbal effects. Do non-verbal behaviours like smiling or eye contact make students feel like they are receiving an unspoken individual dialogue, increasing connectedness or accountability in an often anonymous lecture? Or is it all about atmosphere and mood in a lecture hall created by a lecturer, influencing attention and/or motivation? Alternatively, does it come down to social psychology such as first impressions and judgements of likeability or attractiveness?
Practical Implications and Conclusion:
With regard to student evaluations, the Dr Fox Effect and other non-verbal factors are widely supported. Thus, feedback on lecturers should be organised in a multidimensional way which will not merely reflect 'likeability' of lecturer, per se. It is evident that first impressions and superficial judgements can influence students' evaluations. However, it is also questionable whether the Dr Fox Effect exists to the same extent in real-life education. Many studies lack ecological validity by only conducting one-off lectures. Initial inspiration and energy are likely to wear thin if students have a block of lectures where they need to learn the material, and content is poor.
It is also important to remember that a teacher does not focus solely on delivery, with other areas producing influential learning gains, such as creating activities for learning or designing content. This reason, along with small non-verbal effect sizes and outcome mainly on evaluations instead of learning, may explain the low priority nature of current topic. However, this area may be warranted more attention. If the best teachers are still failing to articulate what it is they are doing so well, perhaps part of the answer is going un-spoken, literally.
References:
Abrami,P.C., Leventhal,L. & Perry,R.P. (1982) "Educational Seduction" Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 446-46
Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1993) Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluatons From Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431-441
Babed, E. (2007). Teachers Non-Verbal Behaviour and its Effects on Students in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume 22. John C Smart, Ed, 219-280
Basow, S.A. (1990) Effects of Teacher Expressiveness: Mediated by Teacher Sex-Typing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 599-602
Dunbar, N.E. & Segrin, C. (2012) Clothing and Teacher Credibility: An Application of Expectancy Violations Theory. ISRN Education
Freng, S. & Webber, D. (2009) Turning Up the Heat on Online Teaching Evaluations: Does 'Hotness' Matter? Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 189-193
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J. & Pekrun, R. (2011) Teacher Enthusiasm: Dimensionality and Context Specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 289-301
Merritt, D.J. (2007) Bias, The Brain, and Student Evaluation's of Teaching. St John's Law Review, 82, 235-287
Murray, H.G. (1983) Low-Inference Classroom Teaching Behaviors and Student Ratings of College Teaching Effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 138-149
Naftulin, D.H., Ware, J.E., Jr., & Donnelly, F.A. (1973) The Doctor Fox lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630-635
Ware, J.E. & Williams, R.G. (1975) The Dr. Fox Effect: A Study of Lecturer Effectiveness and Ratings of Instruction, Academic Medicine, 50(2), 149-56
Williams,R.G. & Ware,J.E. (1976) "Validity of Student Ratings of Instruction Under Different Incentive Conditions: A Further Study of The Dr. Fox Effect.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 48-56
//