Okay, it's official. Microlearning has arrived. The Wall Street Journal says so…
Yes, of course, they oversimplify, they misrepresent lots of learning stuff, but still… time to pay attention…
Check out the Wall Street Journal article.
Okay, it's official. Microlearning has arrived. The Wall Street Journal says so…
Yes, of course, they oversimplify, they misrepresent lots of learning stuff, but still… time to pay attention…
Check out the Wall Street Journal article.
In a recent research article, Tobias Wolbring and Patrick Riordan report the results of a study looking into the effects of instructor “beauty” on college course evaluations. What they found might surprise you — or worry you — depending on your views on vagaries of fairness in life.
Before I reveal the results, let me say that this is one study (two experiments), and that the findings were very weak in the sense that the effects were small.
Their first study used a large data set involving university students. Given that the data was previously collected through routine evaluation procedures, the researchers could not be sure of the quality of the actual teaching, nor the true “beauty” of the instructors (they had to rely on online images).
The second study was a laboratory study where they could precisely vary the level of beauty of the instructor and their gender, while keeping the actual instructional materials consistent. Unfortunately, “the instruction” consisted of an 11-minute audio lecture taught by relatively young instructors (young adults), so it’s not clear whether their results would generalize to more realistic instructional situations.
In both studies they relied on beauty as represented by facial beauty. While previous research shows that facial beauty is the primary way we rate each other on attractiveness, body beauty has also been found to have effects.
1.
They found that ratings of attractiveness are very consistent across raters. People seem to know who is attractive and who is not. This confirms findings of many studies.
2.
Instructors who are more attractive, get better smile sheet ratings. Note that the effect was very small in both experiments. They confirmed what many other research studies have found, although their results were generally weaker than previous studies — probably due to the better controls utilized.
3.
They found that instructors who are better looking engender less absenteeism. That is, students were more likely to show up for class when their instructor was attractive.
4.
They found that it did not make a difference on the genders of the raters or instructors. It was hypothesized that female raters might respond differently to male and female instructors, and males would do the same. But this was not found. In previous studies there have been mixed results.
5.
In the second experiment, where they actually gave learners a test of what they’d learned, attractive instructors engendered higher scores on a difficult test, but not an easy test. The researchers hypothesize that learners engage more fully when their instructors are attractive.
6.
In the second experiment, they asked learners to either: (a) take a test first and then evaluate the course, or (b) do the evaluation first and then take the test. Did it matter? Yes! The researchers hypothesized that highly-attractive instructors would be penalized for giving a hard test more than their unattractive colleagues. This prediction was confirmed. When the difficult test came before the evaluation, better looking instructors were rated more poorly than less attractive instructors. Not much difference was found for the easy test.
First, let me caveat these thoughts with the reminder that this is just one study! Second, the study’s effects were relatively weak. Third, their results — even if valid — might not be relevant to your learners, your instructors, your organization, your situation, et cetera!
Wolbring, T., & Riordan, P. (2016). How beauty works. Theoretical mechanisms and two
empirical applications on students’ evaluation of teaching. Social Science Research, 57, 253-272.
Connie Malamed, one of the learning industry's most insightful thinkers when it comes to the visual aspects of instructional design, has produced a series of podcasts interviewing some of the most thoughtful folks in the field. In her most recent podcast, she interviews me about my book, Performance-Focused Smile Sheets: A Radical Rethinking of a Dangerous Art Form.
Click here to listen to (or download) the podcast…
Connie is a real pro, as you can hear in her podcasts. She not only finds great people to interview, but she crafts the interview questions after having done her homework–and she edits the podcasts herself! A labor of love it seems. Indeed, for our interview, Connie had clearly read my book and came ready with insights of her own.
Let me recommend Connie's book, Visual Design Solutions: Principles and Creative Inspiration for Learning Professionals, which I'm right now in the middle of reading myself. As designers of learning, we are not maximizing our effectiveness without bringing design principles and visual aesthetics into our work.
Click here to learn more about Connie's book…
Next Thursday March 10th, I'll be speaking on Performance-Focused Smile Sheets at the Charlotte, North Carolina chapter of ISPI.
Want to get unstuck? Accelerate your career? Learn foundational research-inspired ideas? Bring more joy into your work?
You choose what to pay him:
https://www.worklearning.com/coaching/
This will close in 20 seconds
LTEM Boot Camp Finally Available to All!
Will Thalheimer is offering a workshop on LTEM.
This will close in 20 seconds