1
INSTRUCTIONAL CONSULTING:
A GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE
by
L. Dee Fink
A consultant, by definition, is someone whose prior knowledge about a subject allows them
to be of help to someone else. In this sense, instructional consultants are similar to lawyers,
doctors, car mechanics, tax consultants, farm extension agents, etc. Like these counterparts, the
“prior knowledge” needed by an instructional consultant may take two forms. The first form,
useful in simpler problems, is specific knowledge that allows the consultant to give a direct
answer to the client’s question. For example, a teacher may contact a consultant and ask: “What
are the advantages and disadvantages of essay tests versus multiple choice tests?” In this case, a
well-informed consultant should be able to identify two or three advantages and disadvantages of
each form of testing (or be able to pull a book or article from their collection that would do the
same thing with somewhat more detail).
A second and very different form of knowledge, though, is needed to deal with more
complex problems. This is conceptual knowledge, i.e., the analytical framework that allow the
consultant to (a) identify the source of the client’s problem or question, and (b) identify what
needs to be learned in order to solve the problem or answer the question.
For example, when a teacher comes in and says: “My students don’t like my teaching” (i.e.,
they give me low teacher evaluations), or “My students don’t seem to be learning what they
should”, their questions really are: “What is causing this?” and “What can I do about it?” In
order to answer such questions of “cause” and “response”, the consultant needs (a) a model of
the act of teaching that will guide their efforts to collect the information necessary to identify
the cause of the problem, and (b) a knowledge of alternative responses in the act of teaching
that will enable the client to make some changes.
2
In this chapter, I will present two models: one of the teaching/learning situation and one of
the act of teaching, both of which can be useful as a conceptual or analytical framework for
analyzing the problems of teachers. I will then present some ideas and resources for identifying
alternative responses in the act of teaching.
The Teaching/Learning Situation
Whenever a teacher intends to teach, he or she must recognize that this situation involves
three key factors: the teacher, the learner and a subject. The relationships between these three
factors can be illustrated in the following diagram:
Figure 1 - "The Teaching Situation"
This diagram reminds us of the importance of the four overlapping areas: A, B, C, and D.
“A” represents the knowledge the teacher has about the subject. The diagram highlights the
reality that the teacher cannot convey all of his own knowledge to the students. This “fact”
implies a basic principle of course planning: the teacher must exercise restraint when selecting
the goals and scope of the course.
“B” refers to the knowledge or relationship the teacher has or can have with the learner.
Sometimes this knowledge or information about the learners as students or as individuals can be
3
helpful in building motivation to learn. It can also be helpful in finding analogies to explain the
subject matter of the course.
“C” represents the prior knowledge or beliefs the learner may have about the subject
before the course even begins. The extent and validity of this knowledge will vary from almost
nothing to a considerable amount, depending on the subject and the student. Either way, it is
important for the teacher to take into account what learners know or what they believe they know
about a subject, before undertaking to expand that knowledge.
“D”, however, is the most critical area. This is where the teacher, the learner, and the
subject all come together and interact for a period of time. The intended beneficiary of this
interaction is the learner; the primary goal is to enlarge the learner’s knowledge or understanding
of the subject; but the primary initiator of action is the teacher.
How then can the teacher understand his or her own responsibilities in this critical center
of interaction? The following model of the four dimensions of teaching can help explain what all
teachers do when they teach.
The Four Dimensions of Teaching
The basic idea of this model is that everyone who teaches, regardless of the subject and
regardless of how good or poor they are as teachers, engages four dimensions of teaching: skills,
decisions, philosophies, and attitudes. The model also implies that the four dimensions have a
hierarchical relationship to each other, i.e., the higher dimensions are dependent in an important
way on the lower or more fundamental dimensions.
4
Figure 2 - "The Four Dimensions of Teaching"
In the next portion of this chapter, I will comment in more detail on each of the four dimensions.
Skills in Teaching
The first dimension refers to the many skills that a teacher needs when interacting with
students. Many of these are communication skills that take place in the classroom. The two
most common are undoubtedly lecturing and leading discussions. These are clearly important
skills and are used to some degree or other in nearly all courses, regardless of which general
teaching strategy is used. Sub-components of these more general skills usually include such
things as: explaining a concept, providing a metaphor or analogy for a relationship, asking
thought-provoking questions, generating humor, revealing one’s own experiences and/or
shortcomings, giving students critical feedback on their responses without being condescending
or making the student feel inept, developing rapport with students, providing closure for a given
session, linking one session’s topic to the subject of other sessions, etc.
In addition, there are a number of important teaching skills that occur outside the
classroom. These include writing tests, designing in-class activities for individuals and/or
groups, and critiquing written material.
One important point to remember about skills is that they are, by definition, learnable and
hence can be improved. A second important point is that not all courses require the same skills.
A course that is essentially a lecture course does not require discussion leading skills; a
discussion course does not require as much in the way of presentational skills; a course built
5
around “team learning” depends more on skills in designing effective group activities for in-class
use.
Instructional consultants need to be familiar with published material that can help
professors learn and develop the skills they need. Much of the literature on college teaching is
focused on the skill dimension of teaching. Selected items are provided in the "List of
References" in Appendix II of this chapter.
Decisions about Course Design
The second dimension, “Decisions”, refers to the decisions all teachers need to make,
primarily before a course starts, about the design of a course. Any course, if it is to be a good
course, must have a good design. And designing a good course calls for the same balance of
technical knowledge and creative imagination as the task of designing a building or designing a
picture.
This particular dimension is one where consultants can have a big impact on the teaching
done by faculty in a relatively short amount of time. Therefore I am going to make some
extended comments on two different tools that have been helpful in working with many faculty
members on course design: five principles of good course design (described below) and an 11step "Decision Guide" contained in Appendix I.
The basic idea behind what I have whimsically come to call "Fink's Five Principles of
Fine Course Design" is that any course, to be a good course, must:
1. Challenge students to higher level learning.
2. Use active learning.
3. Give students frequent and immediate feedback on
the quality of their learning.
4. Use varied forms of learning.
5. Have a fair system of testing and grading.
My proposition is that, if a course does these five things well, the results will be good, no matter
what else is bad about the course. What do these principles mean and how do they affect
decisions about course design?
6
1. Challenge students to higher level learning. The proposition here is that there are
two levels of learning: higher and lower. Both are important. Lower level learning refers to
simply understanding and remembering basic information and ideas. All significant learning
requires a certain amount of this. But higher level learning refers to such things as critical
thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, decision making, etc. My argument is that, unless
students achieve a significant amount of higher level learning, the course simply will not make a
major contribution to the students’ “higher education.”
When designing a course, a teacher must find a way to incorporate both types of learning
in the course. This is the main task of Step Two in the "Decision Guide" shown in the Appendix.
One response is to design the course so that students spend the first half of the course learning
the basic material, and the second half working on higher level learning. A more creative
approach might be to have them learn the basic concepts about just one topic and then learn how
to use these concepts (by thinking critically about them, solving problems with them, making
decisions, or whatever), before moving on to the next topic.
2. Use active forms of learning. The idea here is that there are two basic kinds of
learning: passive and active. I define passive learning as receiving information or ideas, i.e., as
what typically happens when someone reads a book or listens to a lecture. Active learning, on
the other hand, occurs when a person uses information or ideas to engage in a complex
intellectual activity such as decision making or critical thinking.
As an analogy, try to imagine teaching someone who does not know how to do push-ups,
to do push-ups. Lecturing to them about the muscle groups involved and the movements needed
can be helpful. Even modeling some push-ups can be helpful. But eventually, if the person is
going to learn to do push-ups, they are going to have to do push-ups themselves--repeatedly, and
preferably with immediate and frequent feedback.
The same thing is true with anyone trying to learn how to do “intellectual push-ups” (i.e.,
critical thinking, problem solving, etc.). Providing relevant information and modeling can be
helpful, but eventually the learner has to DO the “intellectual push-ups” him/herself--repeatedly,
7
preferably with immediate and frequent feedback. The basic argument here is that a student
CANNOT acquire higher levels of learning with passive learning; such learning requires active
learning.
When designing the course, the teacher must decide when, where and how the passive
and active learning will occur. These are the questions involved in Steps Five and Six of the
"Decision Guide". Whereas teachers often use class time for lectures (usually a passive form of
learning), a better strategy might be to motivate students spend more time reading before coming
to class, and then use class time to have students actively engage in decision making, problem
solving, or whatever--with periodic feedback from the professor.
3. Give students frequent and immediate feedback on the quality of their learning.
One of the main findings in a recent study of quality teaching at Harvard (The Harvard
Assessment Seminars, First Report, by Richard J. Light, 1990) was that students thought
"immediate and detailed feedback on both written and oral work" was critically important (p. 8).
To extend the "push-up" analogy given above, the professor may need to give the student
periodic feedback on where to place the hands, how to hold the back, etc. It is also likely that the
feedback will be more important in the early phase of learning than in the later phases of practice
and strengthening.
When planning a course, then, a teacher needs to find ways of giving students weekly or
even daily feedback of some kind. This might take the form of frequent short quizzes, responses
to short written work, oral comments, as well as more substantial graded work. If one accepts
the importance of "frequent feedback," then the widespread practice of using "two mid-terms and
a final" simply does not suffice as sufficient feedback.
4. Vary the forms of learning used. This has value for two reasons. The first is simply
that variety adds interest. No matter how good a teaching technique is, it can become repetitious
and boring if it is used over and over.
The second reason, though, relates to the fact that different students learn differently.
Some are inductively inclined, others prefer deductive reasoning; some work best in verbal
8
forms, others in visual forms; some like to work individually, others in groups; etc. If a course
offers different kinds of learning opportunities, a greater number of students will probably find
one or more modes of learning that work well for them.
When designing a course, the teacher needs to identify different kinds of in-class and outof-class learning activities, and then fit these together in a dynamic way.
5. Have a fair system for grading. Nothing leaves a sour taste in students’ mouth more
than working hard in a class, feeling like they have learned something significant, and then
having the professor give them grades that is significantly lower than they think they deserved.
Fairness in tests can be enhanced by: formulating questions that focus on stated learning
objectives and that also stay within the confines of what the class actually did; using several
different kinds of questions (e.g., multiple choice, essay); and using grading standards that are
appropriate for the institution, level of students, etc..
Fairness in the grading system can be enhanced by such things as using several kinds (at
least 4) of graded activities (e.g., tests on recall information, application exercises, formal essays,
small group tests), providing flexibility (e.g., drop one of 7 quizzes), and having the grading
system communicated clearly in writing (see Step 10 of the "Decision Guide").
Longer-Term Changes: Philosophy and Attitudes
The third dimension of the act of teaching, “Philosophy”, refers to the many values and
beliefs that a teacher has, values and beliefs about knowledge, teaching and learning. Teaching is
a goal-seeking behavior and, as such, it forces us to make choices about which goals are
preferable (values) and how best to attain them (beliefs). What is knowledge? Teaching?
Learning? What is good knowledge? Good teaching? Good learning?
Most professors have difficulty articulating their philosophy of teaching because they have
not thought extensively about it. A good way to coax these philosophies out for more careful
examination is to ask them either to draw a picture of the teaching and learning process, or to
identify a metaphor. Most metaphors will fall into one of four categories:
9
Transferring - The teacher knows a lot and his/her task is to transfer as much as possible to
the students. The teacher is a "pitcher" and the student is a "vessel."
Shaping - The teacher is a coach or trainer or pottery maker. The teacher’s task is to shape
the student into a desirable form.
Travelling - The teacher is a guide or leader, someone who points the way. The task is to
lead the students on an exploration of new places and vistas.
Growing - The teacher is a gardener who develops, cultivates or nurtures students. The
task is to provide proper support, but the growing comes from something innate in the
student.
The fourth and final dimension, “Attitudes”, refers to the feelings and images we have:
about the subject, about the students and about ourselves. Do we have a love for the subject, or
is it just something we learned along the way and can tell others about if necessary? How do we
FEEL about the students? Can we see that which is attractive in them as learners, or only that
which is negative (e.g., their ignorance of the subject, their lack of motivation, etc.)? How do we
feel about ourselves? Do we like ourselves and feel good about how we act and what we know?
Or do we feel inept and incomplete in our knowledge? What images do we have of the subject,
of the students, and of ourselves that give rise to these feelings? If we were asked to draw
pictures of the subject, the students, and ourselves, what would the pictures look like?
Once an instructional consultant recognizes the importance of professors’ philosophies and
attitudes, the action question then becomes: What can the consultant do to help professors
examine and modify their philosophies and attitudes?
First, a consultant needs to become familiar with the different beliefs and values (i.e.,
philosophies) related to teaching. Some of this familiarity comes from hearing people talk about
why they do what they do as teachers. But, with a few exceptions, most professors’ philosophies
of teaching are not very sophisticated because they haven’t read or thought that deeply about the
issues involved.
Second, a consultant needs to become familiar with alternative and more carefully
developed philosophies. Usually this comes from reading and sometimes from conversations
with people who have developed their philosophies with some care.
10
Three authors who have articulated different philosophies of teaching are Joseph Axelrod,
Kenneth Eble and Joseph Lowman. Axelrod described four "teaching prototypes" held by
different teachers in his study, The University Teacher as Artist (1973). These can be
summarized as: “I teach what I know”, “I teach what I am”, “I train inquiring minds”, and “I
work with students as people”. Eble was a thoughtful, witty, and prolific writer. In his book on
The Aims of College Teaching, he laid out what he considered to be the appropriate aims of
higher education, where instructors have strayed from them, and what should be done to rturn to
them. Lowman, in his book on Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, presents the view that
“masterful” teaching requires effectiveness in both of two different aspects of teaching:
intellectual excitement and interpersonal relationships.
These first two steps of becoming familiar both with professors’ actual philosophies and
attitudes and with alternative views, are necessary to prepare a consultant for addressing
questions related to these two dimensions of teaching. But what can the consultant do to help
professors make needed changes in this realm? The first part of the answer is “be patient”. It
takes time to engage a person at this level, and it takes time for changes to evolve. But I can
report from personal experience as a consultant that it is possible to promote and see significant
change at this level. And it is exciting and powerful when it happens.
One way to promote such change is to have sustained and recurring contact with a professor
in a one-on-one situation, usually in discussions about a given course or set of courses. By keeping
notes on discussions with clients, the consultant can begin to see patterns and make connections,
see what the values, beliefs, and feelings are behind the decisions and choices a professor has been
making as a teacher. Then, after making the professor conscious of these patterns, one can start the
process of evaluating their philosophy and attitudes, and examining alternatives.
A second way of addressing these two dimensions of teaching is through group discussions.
At the University of Oklahoma we have had an activity called “Faculty Luncheon Discussion
Groups” for many years. In these, fifteen or so faculty members meet every two weeks all year
long for a half-hour lunch and a one-hour discussion on some aspect of teaching. A feeling of
11
group rapport and trust develops that allows the participants not only to present their deepest
concerns about teaching, but also to challenge and be challenged on their beliefs, values, and
feelings about teaching. Again, because of the long-term nature of this contact and the degree to
which it engages people at fundamental levels, many professors have made significant changes in
their philosophies and attitudes.
Conclusions
This model of the four dimensions of teaching has two important values for instructional
consultants: it provides a framework for analyzing the more complex problems that teachers
bring us, and it offers guidance for our own professional development.
When faculty members come to us for assistance with a major teaching problem, we may
conclude that the source of the problem is located in one of the individual dimensions. For
example, they may need to improve a particular skill, or make different decisions in their course
design. On the other hand, their problem may be the result of dissonance between two or more of
the dimensions. For example, they may have chosen a course design that requires classroom
skills they don’t have. Such teachers could then either develop the needed skills or change their
course design. A second example may be someone who has selected a teaching strategy that
does not reflect their real philosophy or attitude. In this case, they need to think about whether
their philosophy and/or attitude or not; if not, they need to modify their philosophy or attitude, or
select a different teaching strategy.
The second value of this model of teaching concerns the professional development of
instructional consultants themselves. We need to learn about the various skills involved in
teaching, about traditional and alternative course designs, and about the variety of philosophies
and attitudes that people have towards teaching. We need to know what options and possibilities
exist in each of the dimensions, what their relative advantages and disadvantages are, and what
relationships exist between a given dimension and the other dimensions.
12
Learning about all this is a large agenda. But it is large because the act of teaching is
complex. On the one hand this makes the task of learning enough about teaching to be an
effective consultant a demanding task. On the other hand, this same complexity also makes the
study of teaching a source of enduring richness.