Variation skills

1

INTRODUCTION

Teaching effectiveness has been associated with variation skills of the teacher. Variation

skills refer to the teacher’ skills to stimulate the students, increase their active participation,

enthusiasm and spirit of study to avoid boredom. It has been generally observed that children are

not able to attend to one thing for a very long period especially children. The teacher has to focus

on stimulus variation such as teacher movement, teacher gesture, changes in speech pattern and

changes in posture (Tafesse, 2003).

The teaching skill is a specific activity or behavior of a teacher through which he makes

his teaching effective. Allen and Ryan (1969) have suggested the 14 teaching skills or stimulus

variation of teaching which are set induction, closure, silence and non-verbal ones, re-enforcing

pupil participation, fluency in making questions, probing questions, higher order questions,

divergent questions, recognizing attending behavior, illustrations and use of examples, lecturing,

planned repetition and completeness.

The teacher uses hand gesture, body movement, facial expression, pause etc. in order to

draw students’ attention and to sustain it. The behavior of the teacher is a stimulus to the

students. However, continued use and over used of it may lead to students’ inattention and

disinterest. The teachers must be skilled in sustaining the attention of their students. According to

K. Nath (2009), continuous stimulation to a particular stimulus causes fatigue and leads to

boredom. Hence varying stimulus accordingly is the only remedy to relieve boredom and sustain

attention.

Stimulus variation deals with a change or variation in the stimuli available in the learners’

environment. The teachers should know when, how and what to change so that their students are

attentive into the lessons. Thus the skills of stimulus variation may be defined as a set of

behavior for bringing about a desirable change in variation in the stimuli which can be used to

sustain the students’ attention towards classroom activities (Abraham, 2012).

2

All the teaching skills that have been suggested by experienced persons are believed can

stimulate students’ spirit and interest in teaching and learning process in the classroom. Teachers

are highly encouraged to have that skills and practice stimulus variation in their teaching so that

they can deliver the lessons effectively. Regardless what kind of school or learning institution it

is, teacher or lecturer must have awareness on stimulus variation because the main mission is to

give knowledge to the students. In order to give knowledge to students, teachers or lecturers

must use effective ways to attract students’ attention. One of the effective ways is stimulus

variation that cannot be ignored by teachers and lecturers.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate variation skills that practiced by IIUM

lecturers in their classroom. This study also investigates the dominant variation skills which have

been employed by lecturers. The variation skills that we are going to investigate are eye contact,

movement, voice, facial expression, gesture, physical contact, pause, interaction style and

focusing. These skills are the most common and necessary skills needed during delivery session

in the classroom.

CASE PROBLEM

The changing characteristics of students entering university today have raised concerns

about teaching in higher learning institutions. Conventional teaching approaches that have been

successfully used in the past are no longer adequate for present day students. Being traditionally

unprepared in the art and science of teaching, some of lecturers in university may not be able to

adequately address the learning needs of their students.

Thus, there has been increase concern over the effectiveness of teaching in higher

learning institutions either in private or government sector. This study however investigated what

goes on in the classroom by looking at the lecturer’s variation skills in university. This study also

3

measured the dominant variation skills of the lecturers. Hence, by identifying variation skills that

has been employed by lecturers; it can help educators to improve their variation skills to best

meet the needs of their students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Throughout this case study, I have reviewed several literatures related to the variation

skills in teaching. Stimulus variation is defined as the change in teacher behavior to attract pupil

attention. The teacher uses various stimuli in the class room so that they may produce maximum

responses. Sinha Johsi writes, “What to change, when to change and how to change requires a

skill on the part of the teacher for securing and sustaining attention at high level, such a skill is

named as stimulus variation. “For securing the attention of the students, we have to create

stimulating learning strategies. Variation in stimulus secures more attention among the students.

It includes movement, gestures, change in voice, focusing, change in interaction style, change in

oral- visual switching, pause and physical movement (Malik & Pandith, 2011).

Remesh (2013), in his work mentioned about stimulus variation. It stated that securing

and sustaining the attention of the learner is imperative for a good teacher. The effective

components of the skills are gestures, change in speech pattern, and change in interaction style.

John Dallat (2009) in his article underlined the meaning of stimulus variation. It means

changing from one form of instructional media to another, so as to stimulate, motivate and

maintain or increase attention. A contemporary term for stimulus variation is multi-sensory

teaching (MST). When MST is used effectively, it is more likely that all types of learners,

including those who are visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners, will be engaged. Teacher voice

usage, teacher movement, teacher interaction with students, as well as student movement and the

use of stimulating visuals, are all practical forms of stimulus variation.

4

Dallat quoted the idea of Perrot (1988) saying that, the purpose of variation skills is to

arouse attention while the most effective way of doing this is to make the content itself

interesting, this is not sufficient by itself. An interesting subject can be made tedious by the

manner in which it is presented. Stimulus variation is necessary, if attention to learning is to be

sustained for as long as possible. Without it, interest may quickly diminish and then prove

impossible to retrieve.

M. Parimala & R. Saravanakumar (2012) in their article “Effect of stimulus variation

techniques on enhancing students’ achievement was aimed to highlights the stimulus variation

techniques in classroom teaching and to find the effectiveness of stimulus variation techniques in

classroom teaching and to find the effectiveness of stimulus variation techniques on students’

attention and their achievement. They were talk about the importance of stimulus variation in

teaching and learning. They claimed that stimulus variation is normally a variation and

application of systematic techniques in the three main areas which are personal teaching styles,

media and materials of instructions and teacher- student interaction. They also stated that the

main objectives of stimulus variation are to make teaching skills more professional and

demanding. The impact of stimulus variation is concerned basically with arousing students’

attention and further sustains it, motivating learning through new exploration and investigation,

building positive feelings towards teacher and school and also catering to individual sensory

preferences and facilitating learning.

The authors elucidated to the readers that enhancing attention through stimulus variation

provides greater opportunity to the learner to take part in the process of learning activity in all

the stages. Instead of making the learner simply reproduce the textual materials with or without

understanding, the effect of stimulus variation on enhancing attention will encourage learner to

think and understand the subject matter. This technique may increase interest and involvement in

the learner.

5

Based on the findings of the study, it can be shown clearly that the use of effectiveness of

stimulus variation technique on enhancing students’ attention in the teaching process positively

influence and improve the students’ achievement. The table of finding result in the article

confirmed that there is significant difference between pre- test and post- test performance of the

students in the experimental group. Students who had been taught through effective stimulus

variation on enhancing attention technique perform better in their achievement. In the last part of

this article, the authors concluded that stimulus variation techniques have produced tangible

effect. Furthermore, stimulus variation provides better opportunity to the learners to take part in

the learning activity. They also claimed that stimulus variation offers greater opportunity for

active participation in teaching and learning for both the teacher and students.

Another article is ‘Applying the Theory of Variation in Teaching Reading’, written by

Siu Yin Annie Tong (2012). Interestingly, this article presents a model of collaborative and

reflective professional development for teachers that focuses on student learning. It was focused

on a specific reading skill that had been identifies as problematic for students which is the

inferring of characters’ traits from the events of a story. The learning activities that were

incorporated in the lessons were underpinned by the Theory of Variation proposed by Marton

and Booth (1997) which allows teachers and students to understand the particular skill to be

learnt in which it may enhance both student learning and teacher professional development. In

this theory, it requires teachers to engage closely with their students to grasp the variations in

understandings and knowledge so that they can take an account of this diversity in structuring the

learning activities in a lesson.

Stimulus variation, in the Stanford sense, focuses mainly on the latter. Some of the things

the student teacher is trained in are the use of movement in a systematic way and the avoidance

of teaching from one spot, the use of gestures, and the development of verbal and non-verbal

methods of focusing children’s attention, the development of teaching methods other than the

teacher monologue by encouraging students participation, the systematic use of pauses, and the

6

controlled use of different sensory channels by switching primary modes of communication (K.

Maheswari, 2011).

K.Nath (2009) in his work asserted that stimulus variation is a vital skill which helps to

keep students remains attentive in the class and to sustain their motivation. The skill involves

using various attention producing behavior patterns from the part of the teacher, in order to

sustain the interest and attention of the students. The significance of stimulus variation is directly

proportional to attention span of students. The change in stimulus variation is necessary to keep

the learners consistently on track.

POPULATION AND SETTING

The population of this study was carried out in International Islamic University Malaysia

which located in Gombak, Selangor. It is aimed at undergraduate Malaysian students since they

have high expectation on lecturers when entering to university. They were seventy survey sheets

distributed to the students asking them to rate their lecturers’ stimulus variation in the classroom.

The sheets were given randomly to the students regardless their course and students’ gender but

concerned on the lecturers’ gender and exemption for practical course such as architecture and

engineering because most of their time in studio doing practical subjects.

7

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Findings 1

Frequencies

Statistics

70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Valid

Missing

N

bodymovement gesture voice

silence/pause

facialexpression

interactionstyle eye contact focusing

physicalcontact

Frequency Table

body movement

2 2.9 2.9 2.9

11 15.7 15.7 18.6

33 47.1 47.1 65.7

24 34.3 34.3 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

weak

average

good

very good

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

8

gesture

13 18.6 18.6 18.6

31 44.3 44.3 62.9

26 37.1 37.1 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

voice

1 1.4 1.4 1.4

11 15.7 15.7 17.1

22 31.4 31.4 48.6

36 51.4 51.4 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

weak

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

silence/ pause

1 1.4 1.4 1.4

3 4.3 4.3 5.7

23 32.9 32.9 38.6

25 35.7 35.7 74.3

18 25.7 25.7 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

very weak

weak

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

facial expression

9 12.9 12.9 12.9

29 41.4 41.4 54.3

32 45.7 45.7 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

9

interaction style

7 10.0 10.0 10.0

31 44.3 44.3 54.3

32 45.7 45.7 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

eye contact

10 14.3 14.3 14.3

28 40.0 40.0 54.3

32 45.7 45.7 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

focusing

2 2.9 2.9 2.9

35 50.0 50.0 52.9

33 47.1 47.1 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

10

physical contact

3 4.3 4.3 4.3

6 8.6 8.6 12.9

14 20.0 20.0 32.9

28 40.0 40.0 72.9

19 27.1 27.1 100.0

70 100.0 100.0

very weak

weak

average

good

very good

Total


CumulativePercent

The variation skills were measured using Likert- scale ranging from very weak (1), weak

(2), average (3), good (4), and very good (5). The students only need to rate nine items of

variation skills provided that has been used by their lecturers in the classroom which are body

movement, gesture, voice, pause, facial expression, interaction style, eye contact, focusing and

physical contact.

The tables of findings 1 have shown the frequency of each skill that has been used by

IIUM lecturers rated by students. For body movement, the highest rate is ‘good’ which is 33

(43.8%), followed by ‘very good’ which is 24 (34.2%) and the lowest rate is ‘weak’ which is 2

(2.7%). The highest rating for gesture is ‘good’ which is 31 (41.1%), followed by ‘very good’

which 26 (37.0%) and the lowest is average which is 13(17.8%). While for voice, the highest is

‘very good which is 36 (50.7%), followed by ‘good’ which is 22 (28.8%) and the lowest is weak

which is only 1(1.4%). The highest rate for pause is ‘good’ which is 25 (32.9%), followed by

average which is 23 (30.1%) and the lowest frequency is very weak which is 1(1.4%).

For facial expression, the highest frequency is 32 (43.8%) represents scale of ‘very good’,

followed by 29 (39.7%) which is for ‘good’ and the lowest is 9 (12.3%) which is for average.

The ‘very good’ is the highest scale rated for interaction style which is 32 (45.2%), followed by

‘good’ which is 31 (41.1%) and the lowest is ‘average’ which is 7 (9.6%). The highest rate for

11

eye contact is ‘very good’ which is 32 (43.5%), followed by ‘good’ which is 28 (38.4%) and the

lowest is ‘average’ which is 10 (13.7%). For focusing skill, 35 (47.9%) is the highest rate for

‘good’, followed by 33 (45.2%) which is for ‘very good’ and the lowest is 2 (2.7%) which is for

‘average’. While for physical contact, ‘good’ is the highest scale rated by students which is 28

(37.0%), followed by 19 (28.8%) which is ‘very good’ and the lowest is 3 (4.1%) which is ‘very

weak’.

Based on the result above, it shows that the dominant variation skill which has been

employed by lecturers is voice skill while the lowest variation skill is physical contact. The

frequency for voice is 36 compared to physical contacts are only 19. The average usage of

variation skills included gesture, facial expression, interaction style, eye contact and focusing.

Since this research was conducted on university students, the physical contact skill is

seems unnecessary. This is because the contact between male and female has its own limit. There

is impossible to male lecturer to make physical contact to female students and vice versa. This is

the possible reason that lead physical contact is less practiced in IIUM, otherwise the students

and the lecturer have the same gender.

Findings 2

lecturer's gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid male 35 50.0 50.0 50.0

female 35 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 70 100.0 100.0

12

lecturer's gender * body movement Crosstabulation Count

body movement

Total weak average good very good lecturer's gender

male 2 11 22 0 35 female 0 0 11 24 35

Total 2 11 33 24 70

lecturer's gender * gesture Crosstabulation Count

Gesture

Total average good very good lecturer's gender

male 13 22 0 35 female 0 9 26 35

Total 13 31 26 70

lecturer's gender * voice Crosstabulation Count

Voice

Total weak average good very good lecturer's gender

male 1 11 22 1 35 female 0 0 0 35 35

Total 1 11 22 36 70

lecturer's gender * silence/ pause Crosstabulation Count

silence/ pause

Total very weak weak average good very good lecturer's gender

male 1 3 23 8 0 35 female 0 0 0 17 18 35

Total 1 3 23 25 18 70

13

lecturer's gender * facial expression Crosstabulation Count

facial expression

Total average good very good lecturer's gender

male 9 26 0 35 female 0 3 32 35

Total 9 29 32 70

lecturer's gender * interaction style Crosstabulation Count

interaction style

Total average Good very good lecturer's gender

male 7 28 0 35 female 0 3 32 35

Total 7 31 32 70

lecturer's gender * eye contact Crosstabulation Count

eye contact


male 10 25 0 35 female 0 3 32 35

Total 10 28 32 70

lecturer's gender * focusing Crosstabulation Count

focusing


male 2 33 0 35 female 0 2 33 35

Total 2 35 33 70

14

lecturer's gender * physical contact Crosstabulation Count

physical contact

Total very weak weak average good very good lecturer's gender

male 3 6 14 12 0 35 female 0 0 0 16 19 35

Total 3 6 14 28 19 70

A total of seventy lecturers were evaluated by the students which thirty five are male and

the remaining lecturers are the female. The equal division has been made which is thirty five of

female lecturers and thirty five of male lecturers are to facilitate the researcher to compare the

stimulus variation skills between male and female lecturers in the classroom.

Findings 2 show that female lecturers are more dominant than male lecturers in term of

body movement where the ‘very good’ frequency is 24 for female and 0 for male. The highest

rating for male lecturer for body movement is in the ‘good’ level which is 22. For gesture, it

seems that female lecturers are more dominant where the frequency for ‘very good’ level is 26

for female and 0 for male. Male lecturers only reached the level of ‘good’ which is 22. In term of

voice, the highest frequency of ‘very good’ also conquered by female lecturers which is 18 and 0

for male. Male lecturers obtained the highest frequency for ‘average’ level.

15

Conclusion

For the success of any lesson, it is essential to secure and sustain the attention of the

students-learning is optimum when the students are fully attentive to the teaching-learning

process. How to secure and sustain the attention is main theme of this stimulus variation skill. It

is known on the basis of psychological experiments that attention of the individual tends to shift

from one stimulus to other very quickly. It is very difficult for an individual to attend to the same

stimulus for more than a few seconds. Therefore, for securing and sustaining the attention of the

students to the lesson, it is imperative to make variations in the stimulus. This is because

attention is the necessary pre-requisite for learning.

From the result obtained, the dominant variation skill which has been employed by

lecturers is voice skill while the lowest variation skill is physical contact. In average, most

lecturers did not fail to apply these variation skills which are gesture, facial expression,

interaction style, eye contact and focusing. Therefore, it can be understood that most lecturers in

IIUM are actively applying the variation skills in the classroom.

16

References

http://www.vkmaheshwari.com/WP/?p=212

John Dallat (2009) entitled ‘Learning and Teaching’

M. Parimala & R. Saravanakumar (2012) in their article “Effect of stimulus variation techniques

on enhancing students’ achievement

‘Applying the Theory of Variation in Teaching Reading’, written by Siu Yin Annie Tong from

The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Pratheesh Abraham, 2012. The skills of stimulus variation.

http://etefmgu.blogspot.com/2012/05/achievement-test-record.html

Ramesh. A. (2013). Microteaching: an efficient technique for learning effective teaching. Journal

Research in Medical Sciences. www. mui.ac.ir

K.Nath. (2009). Revising Teaching Skills for Professional Empowerment.