- Title: Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning
- Authors: Scott Titsworth, Joseph P. Mazer, Alan K. Goodboy, San Bolkan & Scott A. Myers
- Access the original paper here
- Listen to a deep-dive podcast:
Paper summary
This article presents two meta-analyses investigating the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. The first meta-analysis, encompassing 144 studies, reveals that teacher clarity accounts for about 13% of the variance in student learning, with a stronger effect on affective learning than cognitive learning. The second meta-analysis, involving 46 studies, confirms a moderate effect of teacher clarity on both affective and cognitive learning, but finds that study design significantly moderates the effect on affective learning. Both meta-analyses highlight the heterogeneity of results, suggesting the need for further research to identify moderating variables and refine the operationalization of teacher clarity. The authors recommend a return to low-inference behavioral measurements of teacher clarity.
What are the key implications for teachers in the classroom?
The sources highlight some key implications for teachers in the classroom regarding teacher clarity and its impact on student learning.
The meta-analyses in the sources demonstrate that teacher clarity has a statistically significant, positive impact on both student cognitive and affective learning. The effect is stronger for affective learning, meaning that clear teaching has a greater impact on students’ attitudes and emotional responses to the material and the teacher than on their understanding of the material itself. However, the analyses also reveal considerable heterogeneity, meaning that the relationship between clarity and learning varies depending on other factors. This suggests that teachers need to consider the diverse ways in which clarity can be communicated and the factors that can influence how students perceive clarity.
- Focus on low-inference behaviors: Teachers should focus on specific, observable behaviors that promote clarity rather than relying on general impressions of their teaching style. These behaviors can include things like clearly previewing the main points of a lesson, providing clear and concise explanations, using relevant examples, and checking for student understanding.
- Consider specific clarity dimensions: The authors of the second meta-analysis point to the need to treat instructor clarity as a multidimensional construct. They specifically recommend focusing on process clarity, which involves communicating clear expectations, feedback, emails, and course content.
- Use a variety of methods to assess clarity: Given the diverse ways in which clarity can be understood and operationalized, teachers should use a variety of methods to assess their clarity, including student feedback, peer observation, and self-reflection.
- Recognize the limitations of high-inference measures: While student perception surveys can be helpful, they don’t always accurately capture the specific behaviors that contribute to clarity. Teachers should use these surveys in conjunction with other methods to get a more complete picture of their teaching.
- Be mindful of the potential for “too much clarity”: While clarity is generally positive, it’s possible to be too clear, leading to redundancy and frustration for students. Teachers need to find a balance between providing enough clarity to support learning and avoiding excessive repetition or overly detailed explanations.
The sources suggest a need for further research to better understand the nuances of teacher clarity and how it impacts learning in different contexts. However, the findings underscore the crucial role that clear communication plays in effective teaching. By focusing on specific, observable behaviors, using a variety of methods to assess their clarity, and being mindful of the potential pitfalls of excessive clarity, teachers can create a more supportive and engaging learning environment for all students.
Quote
Instructors are well advised to continue using clarity to foster student learning. However, much of the quality experimental work is dated, and current instructional communication research on teacher clarity has been stagnating. Instructional communication scholars should consider how to advance our current understanding of clarity through low-inference experimental investigations that explain how clarity is communicated as a process and at the microlevel of incorporating cues or behaviors that enhance students’ understanding.
