What students can tell about lecturers when they are teaching: manifestations of confident and under-confident lecturers

Delivering a lecture requires confidence, a sound knowledge and well developed teaching skills (Cooper and Simonds, 2007, Quinn and Hughes, 2007). However, practitioners who are new to lecturing large groups in higher education may initially lack the confidence to do so which can manifest itself in their verbal and non-verbal cues and the fluency of their teaching skills. This results in the perception that students can identify the confident and non-confident teacher during a lecture (Street, 2007) and so potentially contributing to a lecturer’s level of anxiety prior to, and during, a lecture. Therefore, in the current educational climate of consumerisation, with the increased evaluation of teaching by students, having the ability to deliver high-quality, informed, and interesting lectures assumes greater significance for both lecturers and universities (Carr, 2007; Higher Education Founding Council 2008, Glass et al., 2006). This paper will present both the quantitative and qualitative data from a two-phase mixed method study with 75 nurse lecturers and 62 nursing students in one university in the United Kingdom. The study investigated the notion that lecturing has similarities to acting (Street, 2007). The findings presented here are concerned with how students perceived lecturers’ level of confidence and how lecturers believed they demonstrated confidence. In phase one a specifically designed questionnaire was distributed to both lecturers and students and a response rate of 91% (n=125) was achieved, while in phase two 12 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with lecturers. Results suggested that students in a lecture could identify if the lecturer was confident or not by the way they performed a lecture. Students identified 57 manifestations of non-confidence and lecturers identified 85, while 57 manifestations of confidence were identified by students and 88 by lecturers. Overall, these fell into 12 main converse categories, ranging from body language to the use of space within the room. Both students and lecturers ranked body language, vocal qualities, delivery skills, involving the students and the ability to share knowledge as the most evident manifestations of confidence. Elements like good eye contact, smiling, speaking clearly and being fluent in the use of media recourses where all seen as manifestations confidence, conversely if these were poorly executed then a presentation of under confidence was evident. Furthermore, if the lecturer appeared enthusiastic it was clearly underpinned by the manifestation of a highly confidence lecturer who was secure in their knowledge base and teaching abilities: Some lecturers do appear enthusiastic but others don’t. I think the ones that do know what they are talking about, you can see it in their voice and in their lively body language. I think they are also good at involving the students even. I think the good ones are able to turn boring subjects into lively and interesting ones. (Student 50) Significantly more lecturers than students felt the lecturer should appear confident when lecturing. The lecturers stated it was particularly important to do so when they did not feel confident, because they were concerned with appearing capable. It seems that these students and lecturers perceived that expressive and apparently confident lecturers can make a positive impact on student groups in terms of involvement in lectures; the data also suggested the reverse, for the under confident lecturer. Findings from phase two indicated that these lecturers assumed a persona when lecturing, particularly, but not exclusively, when they were nervous. These lecturers went through a process of assuming and maintaining this persona before and during a lecture as a way of promoting their internal perceptions of confidence but also their outward manifestation of confidence. Although assuming a convincing persona may have a degree of deception about it, providing the knowledge communicated is accurate, the deception may aid rather than hinder learning, because enhances the delivery of a lecture. Therefore, the deception of acting a little more confidently than one feels might be justified when the lecturer knows the knowledge they are communicating is correct, unlike the Dr Fox Effect where the person delivering a lecture is an actor and does not know the subject in any detail or depth and where the deception to be justified (Naftulin, et al., 1973). In conclusion, these students and lecturers perceive that confident and enthusiastic lecturers communicate their passion for the subject in an interesting and meaningful manner through the use of their voice, body, space and interactions in such a way that shows confidence in their knowledge as well as their teaching abilities. If lecturers, therefore, can take a step back to consider how they deliver lectures in apparently confident ways this may increase their ability to engage their students and not only help them being perceived as good lecturers, but also contribute to the genuine act of education.

Assessment of the impact of computed and measured fire environments on building evacuation using bench and real scale test data

This study investigates the use of computer modelled versus directly experimentally determined fire hazard data for assessing survivability within buildings using evacuation models incorporating Fractionally Effective Dose (FED) models. The objective is to establish a link between effluent toxicity, measured using a variety of small and large scale tests, and building evacuation. For the scenarios under consideration, fire simulation is typically used to determine the time non-survivable conditions develop within the enclosure, for example, when smoke or toxic effluent falls below a critical height which is deemed detrimental to evacuation or when the radiative fluxes reach a critical value leading to the onset of flashover. The evacuation calculation would the be used to determine whether people within the structure could evacuate before these critical conditions develop.

The reporting behaviours of student nurses who have experienced verbal abuse

Background: There is evidence that student nurses are vulnerable to experiencing verbal abuse from a variety of sources and under-reporting of verbal abuse is prevalent throughout the nursing profession. The objective of the study is to explore the reporting behaviours of student nurses who have experienced verbal abuse. Method: For this study a definition of verbal abuse was adopted from current Department of Health (England) guidelines. Questionnaires were distributed in 2005 to a convenience sample of 156 third year nursing students from one pre-registration nursing programme in England. A total of 114 questionnaires were returned, giving an overall response rate of 73.0%. Results: Fifty one students (44.7% of responses) reported verbal abuse; all of these completed the section exploring reporting behaviours. The incidents involved patients in thirty three cases (64.7%); eight cases (15.7%) involved visitors or relatives and ten cases (19.6%) involved other healthcare workers. Thirty two students (62.7%) stated that they did report the incident of verbal abuse they experienced and nineteen (37.3%) of respondents reported that they did not. Only four incidents developed from an oral report to being formally documented. There was a statistically significant association (P = 0.003) between the focus of verbal abuse (patient/visitor or colleague) and the respondents reporting practices with respondents experiencing verbal abuse from colleagues less likely to report incidents. Most frequent feelings following experiences of verbal abuse from colleagues were feelings of embarrassment and hurt/shock. Most frequent consequences of experiencing verbal abuse from patients or relatives were feeling embarrassed and feeling sorry for the abuser. When comparing non reporters with reporters, the most frequent feelings of non reporters were embarrassment and hurt and reporters, embarrassment and feeling sorry for the abuser. When considering levels of support after the incident the mean rating score of respondents who reported the incident was 5.40 (standard deviation 2.89) and of those that did not, 4.36 (standard deviation 2.87) which was not statistically significant (p = 0.220). Conclusions: 1. Not documenting experiences of verbal abuse formally in writing is a prevalent phenomenon within the sample studied and reporting practices are inconsistent. 2. Both Higher Education Institutions and health care providers should consider emphasising formal reporting and documenting of incidents of verbal abuse during student nurse training and access to formal supportive services should be promoted. 3. Effective incident reporting processes and analysis of these reports can lead to an increased awareness of how to avoid negative interactions in the workplace and how to deal with incidents effectively.