Student performance is linked to connecting effectively with teachers

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine student performance on both criterion- and norm-referenced measures, linked with teacher and student communication orientations. Design/methodology/approach – The study used a pre-post design. During the pre-study phase, teachers underwent three days of intensive training in the Process Education Model®. In total, 21 middle and high school teachers at an independent school were the subject group. Each teacher identified ten students, five of whom they classified as “easy to communicate with” and five others whom they classified as “difficult to communicate with.” Approximately, 200 students participated in the study. Teachers and students provided communication preferences via the Kahler Personality Pattern Inventory® (1996). Performance data were gleaned from student grade point averages (GPAs) and grade-appropriate versions of ACT instruments. Findings – The PPI reveals, in part, perceptual preferences in an assessing matrix. Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations were one set of distinctions. Most (more than 85 percent) of the teachers had intrinsic orientations, compared with 63 percent of the “easy” students and 47 percent of the “difficult” students. Both GPA and ACT comparisons were significantly different (p<0.001) on both pre- and post-measures, with the easy students outstripping their difficult counterparts. No significant differences were observed on the ACT Aspire, taken by students in grades 6–9. Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted at one site. Practical implications – Student performance appears to be linked with connecting with teachers’ preferred delivery and communication styles. The more like their teachers the students are, the better their performance. Reinforcing new knowledge and skills was recognized as an important component of training. Originality/value – If connecting better with students is tied with performance, teachers who learn how to shift their delivery methods may foster better outcomes. Also, attention should be paid on how distress may impact teacher performance, especially as they interact with students whose communication preferences may differ from theirs.

Keywords

• motivation
• teacher effectiveness
• student performance
• communication preferences
• instructional delivery
• training reinforcement