Effective Teaching throughout the Day:
“Exploring the Relationship between Teaching and Time”
Mark Adamshick
This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher
Program, a 2-year faculty professional development program conducted by the Center for
Teaching Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2012.
Overview: The variables that influence teacher effectiveness and student learning are seemingly
infinite. Many of these variables including teaching methods, technology, student motivation,
textbooks, lesson plans, etc. have been studied in great detail and have informed a legion of
teachers and learners on ways to continually improve the process. Two variables, teaching
method and teacher communication style have been studied using large student cohorts and the
influence each has on student engagement and student learning. Students prefer certain teaching
methods such as lecture, small group discussions, video, independent work, etc. and these
preferences align with a student’s learning style preference. Similar to teaching methods,
students often have a preference for certain teacher communication styles such as directness,
humor, cordiality, politeness, etc. and these too can influence effective learning. A third
variable, student attentiveness has also been researched. Most students are simply more attentive
during different times of the day and different days of the week and this too can be correlated
with effective learning. Recognizing these variables, this preliminary research is designed to
determine if a student’s preference for a specific teaching method and communication style is
related to their level of classroom attentiveness. More simply, does time of day matter to
teachers when determining the methods they use and how they communicate in the classroom.
1
Background: It is now widely accepted that differences in student learning styles do in fact
exist. Although definitions of learning style may vary, findings have shown there are clear-cut
and systematic differences in learning style preferences within any given classroom of students.
Research has shown that learning style matching can and does have a positive impact on student
achievement, interest, and/or motivation. This finding confirms what many experienced teachers
have long believed-that students learn best when the method of instruction aligns with their
learning style preferences (Smith & Renzulli, 1984). Active learners tend to favor hands-on
activities while reflective learners prefer to work alone. Sensors like facts and figures while
intuitors are comfortable with formulas and theorems. Visual learners like videos while verbal
learners prefer lectures. Sequential learners like a step-by-step approach to problem solving
while global learners grasp understanding once they see the “big picture”. In most cases, a
student’s preference for teaching method is closely linked to their learning style.
The importance of communicator style in an educational context lies in its potential as a
predictor of teaching effectiveness or positive student behavior. For instance, teachers who are
perceived by students to use attentive, impression leaving, dramatic and relaxed styles are
viewed by students as effective (Nussbaum, 1981), as better instructors (Schroeder & Leber,
1993), and as agents of influence on student’s perceptions of their own cognitive learning
(Meyers & Horvath, 1997). A friendly communicator style has been found to be the best
predictor of students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediacy (Anderson et al., 1981). Immediacy in
the teacher-student relation context infers a sense of psychological closeness. The way in which
students respond to teachers’ communication in the classroom is associated with important
learning and classroom level outcomes (Witt, et al., 2004). Humor, when appropriately used by
2
a teacher has the potential to humanize, illustrate, defuse, encourage, reduce anxiety, and keep
people thinking (Torok, et al., 2004).
Educators acknowledge the important relationship between student attentiveness and
classroom instruction. Surprisingly, however, educational researchers have afforded limited
consideration to attentiveness as an educational research variable (Grobe & Pettibone, 1975).
Research has revealed that students’ alertness and attentiveness are affected by time of day
preferences. A review of relevant literature indicated that preferences are significant in
predicting performance levels for students, and that matching students with peak times is not
only beneficial for academic subjects, but also influences discipline and test-taking (Ammons, et
al., 1995). Two studies found that students hold themselves responsible for their own motivation
to learn, but hold teachers responsible for their demotivation. (Christophel & Gorham, 1995;
Gorham & Christophel, 1992).
Methodology: Given the importance of the aforementioned variables, preliminary research was
conducted at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, investigating the relationship
between student attentiveness and their preferences for certain teaching methods and teacher
communications style. During the 2011-12 academic terms, two sections of MX400 students
were surveyed using the question bank in Appendix A. MX400 is the Superintendent’s capstone
course on Officership. It is a two credit course that follows the seminar style format. Class size
is small and the course meets 28 times during a semester. There are no exams. Students are
graded on written assignments and class participation. One section of seventeen students met in
the fall from 0730-0825 and the second section of fifteen students met in the spring from 1505 to
3
1600. 29 of the 32 students participated in the voluntary survey. Survey data was collected
using the on-line survey tool “Survey Monkey”. Survey questions are included in Appendix A.
The survey was designed to investigate several areas for improving my teaching
effectiveness and student learning. Because I have been teaching at the undergraduate and
graduate level for five years, I have developed a fairly consistent approach to classroom methods
and communication techniques. I intentionally selected a morning class and an afternoon class
to collect data because I was curious to see if my methods and style were equally effective
throughout the day or if I needed to consider alternatives given variations in student
attentiveness. My hypothesis is that there would be a correlation between a student’s selfreported attention proclivities (time of day, day of week), and their preferences for certain
teaching methods and teacher communication styles. Ideally, a teacher could match their
teaching strategies with a student’s learning style preference when they were most attentive to
maximize learning and vary their strategies when students were less attentive. The more
important question is what happens when a student is at their lowest state of attentiveness? Do
they still prefer alignment with their learning preferences or are different teaching methods and
communication styles more effective during these times?
During the study period, the most prevalent teaching method I used was classroom
discussion. I would start the conversation with a question or prompt and then facilitate a
discussion on a relevant topic. On occasion I would break the class up to do small group work
followed by a team out brief to the entire class. On rare occasions, I would show a short video as
a precursor to a follow on discussion. My communication style is very animated and engaging.
I try very hard to establish a friendly and open environment for discussion and rarely cold call on
individuals to participate. I frequently use humor as a way of inviting student engagement.
4
While my humor is light and often self-directed, I am extremely careful not to stereotype, indict
the institution (West Point or the Army), satirize policies and programs, or hurt or humiliate a
person or groups of people.
Results: Of the 29 students that participated in the survey, fifteen students were in the early
morning class and 14 were in the late afternoon class as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
1. When did you have class with Captain Adamshick?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Morning (0730-0825)
51.7%
15
Afternoon (1505-1600)
48.3%
14
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Relying on a self-reported assessment of their own attentiveness, almost 80 percent of the
students reported they were most attentive during morning classes as opposed to classes in the
afternoon (Table 2).
Table 2
2. When are you most attentive in class?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Morning
79.3%
23
Afternoon
20.7%
6
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 3 shows the results of student’s preferences for certain teaching methods. The
survey statement was rated using a Likert scale from 1 (not effective) to 7 (very effective).
Class discussion was rated as the most effective teaching technique (6.41) while small group
work was rated the least effective method (2.41). Videos were rated as the second most effective
teaching method while lecture and small group discussion were rated as only slightly better than
moderately effective.
5
Table 3
3. Regarding your experience in class with Captain Adamshick, rate the effectiveness of each teaching
method in optimizing your learning?
Answer Options
Not
Effective
2
7
Moderately
Effective
4
4
3
Class Discussion
0
0
0
2
Small Group work
0
4
2
Video
0
0
Independent Work
10
6
Lecture
4
Very
Effective
5
Rating
Average
4.17
Response
Count
29
0
11
16
6.41
29
4
13
3
3
4.62
29
2
6
10
6
5
5.21
29
6
5
2
0
0
2.41
29
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 4 shows almost two-thirds of the students surveyed prefer a variation in teaching
methods based upon the time of day they are in class. This data highlights only a preference for
method variation but does not reveal a correlation between what methods are preferred during a
specific time of day.
Table 4
4. Does your preference for teaching method vary based upon time of day?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes
65.5%
19
No
34.5%
10
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 5 shows student preferences for certain teacher communication styles. Like the
data on teaching methods, students were asked to respond to the survey statement on a 1 to 7
Likert scale with 1 being “not effective and 7 being “very effective”. Styles were not defined in
the instrument. Students were expected to interpret the meaning of each style and rate the
effectiveness in keeping them engaged in class. Humor, openness, enthusiasm, and friendliness
were rated as very effective while directness, precision and immediacy scored just slightly higher
than moderately effective.
6
Table 5
5. Regarding your experience in class with Captain Adamshick, rank each communication style on its
effectiveness in keeping you engaged.
Answer
Options
Humor
Not
Effective
0
0
Moderately
Effective
0
9
Very
Effective
19
Rating
Average
6.6
Response
Count
29
0
1
Immediacy
2
4
0
1
5
13
4
5.0
29
Relaxed
nature
Openness
0
0
0
6
2
7
14
6.0
29
0
0
0
0
0
11
18
6.6
29
Enthusiasm
0
0
0
0
0
9
20
6.7
29
Friendliness
0
0
0
0
0
7
22
6.8
29
Attentiveness
0
0
0
4
6
10
9
5.8
29
Precision
0
0
6
8
6
4
5
4.8
29
Directness
5
4
0
3
4
8
5
4.4
29
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Like teaching method, students were asked if their preference for communication style
varied throughout the day. Almost 70 percent of the students preferred the same communication
style regardless of what time they were in class (Table 6).
Table 6
6. Does your preference for communication style vary based upon the time of day?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes
31.0%
9
No
69.0%
20
answered question
29
skipped question
0
In an attempt to compare attentiveness and willingness to participate, students were asked
to assess when they considered themselves most prepared to participate in class. Table 7 shows
that more than half of the students feel they are most willing to participate during morning
classes while 31 percent say their preparation does not vary based upon time of day. 17 percent
say they are most prepared to participate in the afternoon.
7
Table 7
7. Which class period are you most prepared to participate?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Morning classes
51.7%
15
Afternoon classes
17.2%
5
My preparation does not vary
31.0%
9
answered question
29
skipped question
0
The survey asked students to rank their level of engagement/willingness to participate
based upon the day of the week. The same Likert scale was used ranging from “not engaged” to
“highly engaged”. Wednesday scored the highest rating at 5.52 while Monday’s and Friday’s
were ranked below the moderately engaged level at 3.66 and 3.31 respectively. Tuesdays and
Thursdays revealed similar results producing a ranking above the moderately engaged level
(Table 8).
Table 8
8. Given the day of the week, rank the level of your classroom engagement/willingness to participate
Answer Options
Monday
Not
engaged
2
4
Moderately
engaged
10
6
Tuesday
0
Wednesday
3
Highly
engaged
1
Rating
Average
3.66
Response
Count
29
3
1
1
11
6
8
2
4.86
29
0
1
0
5
6
11
6
5.52
29
Thursday
0
3
3
5
4
10
4
4.93
29
Friday
6
7
1
7
4
3
1
3.31
29
answered question
29
skipped question
0
The following two tables show students’ opinions on teacher variation of method and
communications style. The results are similar. The thirds of all students surveyed believe a
teacher should vary both method and style based upon the time of day and the day of the week.
8
Table 9
9. Should a teacher vary their teaching methods/communication style based upon time of day?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes
65.5%
19
No
34.5%
10
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 10
10. Should a teacher vary their teaching methods/communication style based upon the day of the week?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes
69.0%
20
No
31.0%
9
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 11 shows response data correlating student alertness and their preference for
teaching method. Almost three quarters of the students said that it is most important for their
teacher to use a student’s preferred teaching method when they are least alert and only 17.2
percent when they are most alert.
Table 11
11. When is it most important a teacher uses your preferred teaching method?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
When I am most alert
17.2%
5
When I am least alert
72.4%
21
Does not vary
10.3%
3
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Table 12 reveals that over half the students surveyed believe their preferred teacher
communication style is not related to their level of attentiveness although almost one third
9
believe it is most important for a teacher to use their preferred communication style when they
are least alert.
Table 12
12. When is it most important a teacher uses your preferred communication style?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
When I am most alert
10.3%
3
When I am least alert
31.0%
9
Does not vary
58.6%
17
answered question
29
skipped question
0
Analysis:
The motivation behind this research was based upon my curiosity and ambition to
improve my teaching methods and communication style as I have become a more experienced
teacher and have become somewhat settled into my ways. I have always felt I connected with
my students because of my outgoing and friendly personality in the classroom and my
commitment to making the class come alive. I have tended to teach social/behavioral sciences
throughout my teaching career and most of these subjects lend themselves well to active learning
such as classroom interactive activities and classroom discussions. Most of my classes have
been small seminar types which lend themselves well to facilitated dialoging amongst class
members. In the fall of 2011 I started to notice that many of my MX400 instructor colleagues
complained about how inattentive and quiet their first period students were. My experience was
quite the opposite. I found my first period class to be highly engaged and eager to participate
although I did notice a difference in their energy on Monday’s and Fridays. I started wondering
if this was just the luck of the draw (perhaps I just had some really motivated students) or was
there something I was doing as a teacher that invited active participation and attentiveness. In an
effort to research some preliminary ideas about teaching effectiveness and student learning, I
volunteered to teach a late afternoon class in the spring of 2012 to see if: a) student attentiveness
varied; b) my teaching methods were more or less effective during different times of the day and
different days of the week; c) did I need to adjust my communication style throughout the day to
achieve an effective level of student engagement; and d) did students have a preference for these
10
teaching variables given their self-reported assessment of their own attentiveness and learning
style preferences.
Recognizing the student sample was relatively small, I was able to achieve a 91 percent
response rate on the survey I administered to both sections of students. The sample included
almost an identical number of respondents from both the morning and afternoon class. 8 out of
10 students reported they were most alert in the morning which correlates well with my
qualitative observations in the classroom. There was no doubt that it required much more energy
and creativity to keep my afternoon students engaged than my morning students. While I was
not able to determine learning style preferences using an inventory, I did ask students to indicate
their preferences for certain teaching methods. Not surprisingly, classroom discussion emerged
as the preferred teaching method for keeping students engaged. While this remains my primary
teaching method, I recognize that some students may have a learning style preference that aligns
with a different method such as independent work or the use of videos. Surprisingly, students
did not have a strong preference for small group work. MX400 leans heavily on small group
work and it is a method I often use in class. Although I could not correlate student attentiveness
with a preference for small group work, my intuition tells me they probably have less of a
preference for small group work when they are less attentive.
If I was to vary my teaching method to meet the learning needs of all students, the
question is when is the best time to do this? Should I vary methods when a student is most alert
or when they are least alert? Two thirds of the students suggested a teacher should vary teaching
methods and over 70 percent reported a teacher should vary their teaching methods when they
are least alert. I found this data to be consistent with my teaching experience. During my
morning class, I had little trouble getting students to participate in a robust and engaging
classroom discussion while my afternoon class was much more difficult. I found myself having
to adjust my teaching methods in the afternoon to get folks engaged, involved, and motivated to
participate. For example, in the morning I could start the class off with a provocative statement
or question from the readings and the discussion would spread like wildfire. I would try the
same technique in the afternoon and you could hear the crickets chirping outside of the
classroom. I was forced to try different methods to get students engaged which is consistent with
the survey data. I tried starting class with a short video to set the stage for discussion. On other
occasions I would make students role play or force students out of their seats to conduct a mock
11
press interview to get some energy and motivation on the topic. While small group work was
rated fairly low as a preferred teaching method, sometimes in the morning I would have the
students conduct small group work and report out to the rest of the class with effective results. I
suspect this has something to do with higher student attentiveness in the morning. On most
occasions, small group work in the afternoon is ineffective.
Teacher communication style varies at military institutions of higher education and
across academic disciplines. There are officer faculty members who are very precise, direct and
strict and there are others who are much more informal, non-threatening, and inviting. I was
curious if my propensity for friendliness, humor and enthusiasm was effective throughout the
day. While I did not try to study my own energy level based upon time, it seemed students
preferred these styles in general, and also preferred them regardless of the time of day. Alert or
not, 70 percent of students prefer the type of communication style that aligns very precisely with
my own style in the classroom. I was curious to obtain this data because I questioned whether a
consistent communication style would remain effective throughout the day. One might theorize
that a more direct, focused and deliberate communication style might be more effective when
students are least alert. The data reveals this to be not so. While I did notice a less appreciably
response to my humor in the afternoon classes, the survey data shows that time of day plays
some part in communication effectiveness. While most of my students responded favorably to
my communication style in the morning, I had to vary my style in the afternoon. Many times I
would have to explain my jokes to students in the afternoon. Additionally, I would often have to
use more forceful language, more passionate pleas for focus and more emotional stories relating
content relevance to afternoon students. The afternoon students responded but it took
appreciably more energy and enthusiasm on my part. Contrary to teaching methods, almost 60
percent of the students surveyed prefer my communication style regardless of their attentiveness
while 30 percent prefer this style when they are least alert.
I turned my research attention to day of the week. My theory was that Mondays and
Fridays were the toughest days to get students to be both prepared, and eager to participate in
classroom discussions. The data affirmed this hunch. Mid-week is the time when a teacher has
the flexibility to change their methods and communication style while Mondays and Fridays
represent the times when they must lean on students’ preferences. 70 percent of students affirm
the need for a teacher to vary both their teaching methods and communication style to optimize
12
student engagement and student learning. My experience in the classroom is consistent with
these findings. Monday mornings and afternoons along with Friday afternoons are the times
when I must be both creative and enthusiastic regarding classroom management and lesson plan
execution. On Mondays I would ease into the lesson by asking students to personalize their prior
week’s experience invoking the theory that students will talk about themselves, rather than
lesson content when they are least enthused about engaging in a discussion. If I showed personal
enthusiasm and energy on a Monday morning or Friday afternoon, there was a greater likelihood
I could break through the learning apathy. My intent was to get those students least enthused
about participating to join the conversation. Another technique that seemed effective was for me
to start class with a personal story about either a personal experience I just had or to tell a story
about a professional experience that was funny, light and relevant to the topic for that day. I
also experimented with moving the location of my class during these “down” periods of
attentiveness. I tried moving the class to an empty classroom or marching the section over to
Grant Hall or the Honor Court. This technique seemed effective particularly on Friday
afternoons when students were least interested in a robust class discussion.
Recognizing this was a limited study with relatively few participants, it does illustrate a
potential area for further study. It is vitally important a teacher vary their methods to ensure they
are meeting every student’s learning style preference while considering the variation in student
attentiveness. However, there should be a deliberate consideration regarding which methods and
styles work best when and why. Random variation may in fact be counter-productive. This
research seems to suggest that students prefer variation in methods when they are least alert and
prefer a consistent communication style throughout the day.
13
References
Anderson, J.F. & et al., “Three Investigations Exploring Relationships Between Perceived
Teacher Communication Behaviors and Student Learning.” Communication Education,
30 (1981), 377-392.
Ammons, L.T., et al., “The Effects of Time of Day on Student Attention and Achievement.”
University of Virginia Technical Report, 143 (1995), 1-17.
Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. S. “A Test-Retest Analysis of Student Motivation, Teacher
Immediacy, and Perceived Sources of Motivation, And Learning.” Communication
Education, 44 (1995), 292-306.
Fredrick, W. C., & and Walberg, H.J., “Learning as a Function of Time.” The Journal of
Educational Research, 73(4) (1980), pp. 183-194.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. “Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Behaviors as Motivating
and Demotivating Factors in College Classes” Communication Quarterly, 40 (1992).
239-252.
Grobe, T.P., & Pettibone, T.J. Effect of Instructional Pace on Student Attentiveness. The Journal
of Educational Research, 69(4) (1975), 131-134.
Meyers, S.A. & Horvath, C.W., A Further examination of Teacher Communicator Style and
College Student Learning.” Journal of Illinois Speech and Theatre Association.” 38
(1997), 37-48.
Nussbaum, J. “Effective Teaching: A Communication Nonrecursive Causal Model.”
Communication Yearbook, 5 (1981), 737-752.
Schroeder, A.B. & Leber, R.L., “Communicator Style Perceptions of “Best and Worst Teachers.”
Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, 78 (1993), 11-15.
Smith, Linda H. & Renzulli, J.R. “Learning Style Preferences: A Practical Approach for
Classroom Teachers.” Theory into Practice , Vol. 23, No. 1, Matching Teaching &
Learning Styles, (1984), 44-50.
Torok, S.E., et al., “Is Humor an Appreciated Teaching Tool? Perceptions of Professors'
Teaching Styles and Use of Humor.” College Teaching, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Winter, 2004),
pp. 14-20.
14
Witt, P.L., et al., “A Meta-analytical review of the Relationship between Teacher Immediacy and
Student Learning.” Communication Monographs, 71(2) (2004), 184-207.
15