Conference Theme: Designing Higher Education of the Future
Enhancing Higher Education Students’ Cognitive Achievement in Statistics through Instructor Expressiveness Teaching Behaviour
By
Dr. Babalola. J. Ogunkola
School of Education,
University of the West Indies,
Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, Barbados.
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of instructor expressiveness teaching behaviour on some higher education students’ cognitive achievement in Statistics. The study employed a quasi- experimental design in which one hundred and twenty (120) students were selected from a class of two hundred students offering a course titled Introduction to Statistics in Olabisi Onabanjo
University, Ago – Iwoye, Nigeria and were used as the study sample. The one hundred and twenty students (120) were divided into two groups of sixty students each. One of the two groups was used as the experimental group and the second group was used as the control group. Both groups were made to respond to a Pre-lecture Achievement Test (PAT 1). The experimental group was then exposed to lectures handled by an expressive instructor while the control group was handled by an instructor who used the convectional teaching behaviour. This treatment lasted for six weeks for both groups. All the students were then made to respond to a Post-lecture Achievement Test (PAT 2).
Findings revealed that although there was no significant difference between the pretest scores of the experimental and control group ( t= 0.214, 59 ) which was taken before variation in treatment, there was a significant difference between the posttest scores of the two groups which was taken after variation in treatment ( t= -17.379, 59 ). It can therefore be inferred that it was the expressiveness of the instructor of the experimental group that led to the enhancement of the cognitive achievement of the students in the experimental group over that of the students of conventional teaching behaviour( control group). It is hereby recommended that teachers in higher institutions should adopt the features of expressive teaching behaviour when teaching their students because of its facilitative effect on students’ cognitive achievement.
Keywords : Higher education, cognitive achievement, instructor expressiveness, teaching behaviour, statistics
1

Background to the Problem
In general, students capture only 20 – 40 percent of a lecture’s main ideas in their notes (Kiewra, 2002). Without reviewing the lecture material, students remember less than 10 percent after three weeks (Bligh, 2000). The challenge posed by these figures is that except deliberate efforts are made to search for ways of improving quality of instruction and learning, students will be graduating from schools with little or nothing to show for the years they spent in schools.
Improving the quality of instruction in higher education for all students requires researchers to focus on factors that potentially influence learning
(Schonwetter, Rodney, Clifton and Perry, 2002). Of particular interest are effective teaching behaviours. Recent research on effectiveness of teaching revealed a number of teaching behaviours that can have positive consequence for students’ academic development (e.g. Schonwetter et al, 2006). Some of the teaching behaviours are clarity, warmth, organization and expressiveness.
Instructor expressiveness which refers to a teaching behaviour that emphasizes how a teacher communicates what he/she intends to teach through words, gestures and looks, is an important, though infrequently studied aspect of classroom life (Smith, 1995). Instructor expressiveness is measured in terms of four specific observable behaviours involving physical movements, voice inflection, eye contact and humour. Decreased or increased frequencies of these behaviours represent low and high expressive conditions.
2

In teaching, frequent use of gestures has been associated with a more affective classroom style that elicits liking and cooperation from others.
Feldman and Rime (1991) affirm that in a classroom, the physical movements and the posture of the teacher are relevant non-verbal factors. They opined that teachers who have good control of their classes and who are accessible to their students tend to manifest a relaxed and open bearing toward their students.
Moreover, use of the eyes, or gaze, according to Axtell (1991) has been implicated repeatedly in considerations regarding effective teacher behaviour in
North American classrooms. In these settings, Smith (1995) states that, increased numbers of disruptions are observed whenever the teacher does not maintain eye contacts with the students. In essence, for instructional purpose, looking at the students promotes their attentiveness, involvement and positive regard for the teacher. Phillips (1983) in his submission states that one facial behaviour with important classroom implication, is smiling. Some studies (Perry and Dickens,1984; Marsh, 1984) have found that teachers who smile are associated with thoughtful and responsive students over a variety of performance measures. Smiling can also be related to warmth which fosters supportiveness and non-threatening classroom climates that promote development of students’ achievement.
Paralanguage which is another feature of instructor expressiveness constitutes non-verbal characteristics of speech such as voice speech, volume, tempo and intensity, intruding sounds and silent pauses. In general, according to Bot (1999), it appears that teachers who use lower voice volume and pitch are perceived to be in better control of their classes than teachers who shout constantly at high voice pitch.
3

The background provided so far emphasized the fact that the manner in which information is presented during teaching goes a long way in determining the performance of the students and that the need for a study that tries to find out the teaching behaviour(s) that could increase students’ achievement in statistics is worthwhile. Moreover, the situation in Nigeria higher institutions is such that much of the learning that actually takes place is one of reception with the teacher (or text) presenting verbal expositions of the facts or concepts to be learned (Mansaray, 1995). It should be useful, then, to investigate the role that the features of instructor expressiveness (physical movements, eye contacts, voice inflection and humour) play in enhancing learning.
Against this backdrop, this study sought to determine the effect of
Instructor expressiveness teaching behaviour on students’ cognitive achievement in Statistics in Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago – Iwoye. To this end, the following hypotheses were generated and tested:
1. There is no significant difference between the pretest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) and the control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
2. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
4

4. There is no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) and control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
Method
This research study employed a quasi-experimental design in which instructor expressiveness was manipulated at two levels i.e. expressive teaching behaviour and convectional teaching behaviour
Simple random sampling was used to select one hundred and twenty (120) students out of two hundred (200) students offering the course titled Introduction to Statistics in Industrial and Labour Relations’ programme in Olabisi Onabanjo
University, Ago – Iwoye, Nigeria. In all, the sample consisted of 120 students (55 males, 65 females). The sampled students were then randomly assigned into two groups after they have responded to the Pre-lecture Achievement Test. 60 students were used as experimental group while 60 students were used as control group.
Instruments
Three valid and reliable instruments were used to collect data for this study.
These were:
(a) Instructor-Expressiveness Observation Schedule (Inter-observer reliability gave a Scott-Pie = 0.86 to 0.92) for monitoring the experimental
5

and control groups teachers to ensure that each lecturer exhibit the peculiar features of the treatments.
(b) Pre-lecture Achievement Test (Split-half reliability coefficient of 0.73):
This was used as pretest to determine the academic achievement of the students before receiving treatments
(c) Post lecture Achievement Test (Split-half reliability coefficient of 0.72) for determining the cognitive achievement of the students after the experiment.
General Procedure
The investigation period was divided into three phases:
(a) Pre-treatment Activities: The researcher personally used the Instructor-
Expressiveness Observational Schedule (INEXOS) to observe five science education lecturers who had been teaching statistics in the University when teaching. Each of them was observed three times. Only two of the teachers tended towards expressive teaching behaviour hence regarded as being trainable and one of them was selected, further trained and used to exhibit expressive teaching behaviour in teaching the experimental group. Out of the other four lecturers remaining, one was selected, eventually trained and used as the lecturer for the control group representing conventional teaching behaviour.
(b) Treatment Implementation: At the beginning of the week after the students wrote the pre-tests, the lecturers of the two treatment conditions began to teach students some predetermined topics in Introduction to Statistics based on their modes of treatment:
6

Experimental Group
The peculiarity of the experimental group is that the students here were exposed to expressive teaching behaviour as exhibited by the trained lecturer.
Stated below are the components of expressive teaching behaviour as diagrammatically represented by Ogunkola (2000): i) Physical Movement: Teacher
1.
2.
Moves to help: Moves from one place to another in order to assist students to learn.
Not less than 60%
Demonstrates: Uses hands or elsewhere in the body of the total time. to support explanation or uses teaching aids etc. ii) Eye contact: Teacher
3.
4.
Looks into the eyes: Maintains eye contact with students
Cautions: Corrects students not concentrating Not less than 60% of the total time. iii) Voice Inflection: Teacher
5.
6.
Speaks out: Speaks using rising voice pattern
Emphasizes: Stresses important words e.g. writing it on the chalkboard, etc.
Not less than 60% of the total time. iv) Humour: Teacher
7.
Smiles: Relieves tension but not at the expense of another individual.
8.
Praises: Makes statements that make students happy, encouraged, relaxed etc.
20% to 30% of the total time.
Control Group
In the conventional teaching behaviour, the teacher minimized hand gestures and physical movements. The teacher did not smile and he minimized
7

voice inflection and facial expressiveness as he has also been trained. The teaching of the two groups lasted for six weeks during which the trained observers paid some random and unannounced visits to each teacher and coded interactions during their lessons. The researcher and observers painstakingly checked that each teacher implemented the treatments correctly.
(c) Post-treatment Events: At the beginning of the week following the treatment,
Post-lecture Achievement Test was administered, collected and scored as posttests for the experimental and control groups.
Data Analysis
The data collected were analyzed using t-test statistical tool to test whether differences in the achievements of both experimental and control groups were significant or not.
Results
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the pretest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) and the control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
8

Table 1: Comparison of the pretest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers
Teaching behaviour
Convectional
Expressive
N Mean Std.
Dev.
60 23.083 2.818
60 22.983 2.896
Std.Mean
Error
0.363
0.373
Df t P Remark
NS = Not significant (p>0.05)
Table 1 above shows that there is no significant difference between the pretest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers. The figures shown in the table reveal that students of convectional teaching behaviour lecturer have a mean of 23.083 and those of expressive teaching behaviour have 22.983. This result implies that the two groups did not differ significantly in cognitive achievement at the beginning of the experiment.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in Statistics
59 0.214 0.831 NS
9

Table 2: Comparison of the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the convectional teaching behaviour lecturer
Convectional teaching
N Mean Std.
Dev.
Std.Mean
Error behaviour
Pretest score
Posttest score
60 23.083 2.818 0.363
60 23.267 2.839 0.366
NS = Not significant (p>0.05)
Df t P Remark
59 0.357 0.723 NS
Table 2 above shows that there is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the convectional teaching behaviour lecturer. The figures shown in the table reveal that students of convectional teaching behaviour lecturer have a pretest score of 23.083 and posttest score of
23.267. This result implies that the students taught using convectional teaching behaviour did not improve to the point of recording significant difference in their cognitive achievement before and after the teaching. In other words, the convectional teaching behaviour does not enhance cognitive achievement.
Hypothesis 3 : There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) in Statistics
10

Table 3: Comparison of the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the expressive teaching behaviour lecturer
Expressive teaching
N Mean Std.
Dev.
Std.Mean
Error behaviour
Pretest score
Posttest score
60 22.983 2.896 0.374
60 33.183 3.039
* = Significant (p<0.05)
0.392
Df t P Remark
59 17.6 0.00 *
Table 3 above shows that there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the expressive teaching behaviour lecturer. The figures shown in the table reveal that students of expressive teaching behaviour lecturer have a pretest score of 22.983 and posttest score of
33.183. This result implies that the students taught using expressive teaching behaviour improved significantly in their cognitive achievement after the teaching. In other words, expressive teaching behaviour has the capacity to enhance cognitive achievement.
Hypothesis 4. There is no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group (students taught using expressive teaching behaviour) and control group (students taught using convectional teaching behaviour) in
Statistics
11

Table 4: Comparison of the posttest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers.
Teaching behaviour
Convectional
Expressive
N Mean Std.
Dev.
60 23.268 2.839
60 33.183 3.039
Std.Mean
Error
0.366
0.392
Df t P Remark
59 17.38 0.00 *
* = Significant (p<0.05)
Table 4 above shows that there is a significant difference between the posttest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers. The figures shown in the table reveal that students of convectional teaching behaviour lecturer have a mean of 23.268 and those of expressive teaching behaviour have 33.183 and the t-value of 17.38 with degree of freedom of 59 gave p value of 0.00 which is less than 0.05. This result implies that the two groups differed significantly in cognitive achievement at the end of the experiment in favour of students taught by the expressive teaching behaviour lecturer.
Discussion
Obviously, results presented indicated that :
 there was no significant difference between the pretest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers.
 there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the convectional teaching behaviour lecturer.
12

 there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of students taught by the expressive teaching behaviour lecturer.
 there was a significant difference between the posttest scores of students taught by expressive and convectional teaching behaviour lecturers.
The result showed the more facilitative potential of expressive teaching behaviour to improve achievement over the conventional teaching behaviour, thereby supporting the advocates of instructor expressiveness ( Perry and
Dickens, 1984; Smith, 1995 ). Expressiveness in particular, is effective because it activates selective attention (Perry and Penner, 1990). Previous findings (
Elmore and Lapointe, 1985; Ogunkola, 2000) reveal that teachers who smile, gesticulate and express enthusiasm are viewed by students as being more student-oriented, stimulating and knowledgeable and as having more rapport.
Such qualities may make the teacher to be better liked.
Conclusion
The poor performance of the control group in this study has demonstrated the weakness of the conventional teaching behaviour as a means of promoting learning in Statistics. However, this study has been able to offer a more promising teaching behaviour. The expressive teaching behaviour has been found in this study to promote students’ achievements in Statistics. Obviously, the advantage derivable from this finding is that the declining performance of students in numerical courses like Statistics may be arrested through the use of expressive teaching behaviour.
13

References
Axtell, R. E. (1991): Gestures: The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language around the
World . Wiley, New York.
Bligh, Donald A (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Bot. T. O. (1999): Non-verbal Communication: Conceptual Model, Strategies and
Implications for the Mathematics Teacher. Conference Proceedings of
STAN , Paper 51, pp. 247 – 251.
Elmore, P. B. and Lapointe, K. A. (1985). (1985): Effects of Teacher Sex and
Student Sex on the Evaluation of College Instructors. Journal of Educational
Psychology ,, 66, pp. 386 – 389.
Feldman, R. S. and Rime B. (Eds.) (1991). Fundamentals of Non-verbal
Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, pp. 92 – 97.
Kiewra, Kenneth A (2002) ‘How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn’ Theory into Practice, 41(2), 71-80
Marsh, H. (1984). Students’ Evaluation of University Teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational
Psychology , 76, pp. 707 – 754.
Ogunkola, B.J. (2000). Instructor Expressiveness, Locus of Control and Conitive
Entry Behaviour as Determinants of Students’ Academic Achievement in and Attitude towards Biology. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of
Ibadan.
Perry, R. P. and Dickens, W. J. (1984): Perceived control in the college classroom: The effect of response outcome contingency training and instructor expressiveness on students’ attributes and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 76, 981 – 996.
14

Perry, R. P., and Penner, P. C.(1990): Educational seduction: The effect of instructor expressiveness and lecture content on student ratings and achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology , 71, 107 – 116.
Phillips, S. (1983): The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the warm springs Indian reservation .
New York: Longman.
Schonwetter, D.J ; Clifton, R.A & Perry, R.P. (2006). Content Familiarity:
Differential Impact of Effective Teaching on Student Achievement
Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 43(6),625 – 655.
Smith, H. A. (1995): Non-verbal classroom behaviour in the International
Encyclopedia of Education (2 nd Edition) . Torstan Hussen and T. Neville
Postle Waite (Ed.) pp. 4171 – 4175.
15