The Doctor Fox effect
I discovered this gem in my wife's late husband's papers. At first, I thought that it was off topic but then realised it could apply to modern liturgical experts. To me calling in the experts is the sign of a failing institution, whether in politics, business or religion but this is a debate that goes back to Socrates! Even the cleverest can be deceived by experts.
So,
THE DOCTOR FOX EFFECT
EVALUATION of a teacher is difficult because of the large number of variables to be taken into account. In one survey 1 students identified " teacher charisma or popularity " as the most important rating factor. Two years ago, Naftulin a tested the hypothesis that, given a sufficiently impressive lecture set-up, even an experienced group of educators would be satisfied that they had learned something—even when the content of the lecture had been irrelevant, conflicting, and meaningless. They chose a professional actor who looked distinguished and sounded authoritative. Naming him Dr Myron L. Fox, and arming him with a highly impressive and wholly fictitious curriculum vita;, they presented him to a distinguished audience to speak on Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education. He was carefully coached so as to cope with his lecture and the question-and-answer session with heavy use of double-talk, neologisms, non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, meaningless references to unrelated topics—and some good jokes. Responding to a questionnaire, the audiences, which included some 55 psychiatrists, psychologists) and social workers, rated the lecture highly.
At the thirteenth Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education (33 years ago-they are now on the 46th), in Chicago, Ware and Williams reported a further investigation of the Dr Fox effect. The same actor was used, and he delivered a series of videotaped lectures on the Biochemistry of Memory. Three scripts were prepared—high-content (covering numerous substantial teaching points), medium-content, and low-content. When major teaching points were removed from the script they were replaced with experimental details without results, discussion of unrelated examples, and circular discussions of unimportant or meaningless thoughts. Three lectures, one at each content level, were delivered in a highly seductive manner (using enthusiasm, humour, friendliness, expressiveness, charisma, and personality) and three in a flat, unseductive manner. Students, randomly allocated to groups, attended the lectures, and then completed a questionnaire rating the lecture and did a multiple-choice-question test on the subject.
Though both content and seductiveness affected ratings and test performance, seductiveness was the more important factor. At each content level, students who viewed high-seduction lectures performed better in cognitive tests than did those who viewed the same lectures delivered in an unseductive manner. The next move, doubtless, is to derive an optimum content/ seductiveness ratio.
1. Coats, W. D., Swierenga, L. J. tduC, Res. 1972, 6S, 357.
2. Naftulin, D. H., Ware, I, E., Donnelly, F. A. J. mud. Educ. 1973,
4B, 630.
So,
THE DOCTOR FOX EFFECT
EVALUATION of a teacher is difficult because of the large number of variables to be taken into account. In one survey 1 students identified " teacher charisma or popularity " as the most important rating factor. Two years ago, Naftulin a tested the hypothesis that, given a sufficiently impressive lecture set-up, even an experienced group of educators would be satisfied that they had learned something—even when the content of the lecture had been irrelevant, conflicting, and meaningless. They chose a professional actor who looked distinguished and sounded authoritative. Naming him Dr Myron L. Fox, and arming him with a highly impressive and wholly fictitious curriculum vita;, they presented him to a distinguished audience to speak on Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education. He was carefully coached so as to cope with his lecture and the question-and-answer session with heavy use of double-talk, neologisms, non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, meaningless references to unrelated topics—and some good jokes. Responding to a questionnaire, the audiences, which included some 55 psychiatrists, psychologists) and social workers, rated the lecture highly.
At the thirteenth Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education (33 years ago-they are now on the 46th), in Chicago, Ware and Williams reported a further investigation of the Dr Fox effect. The same actor was used, and he delivered a series of videotaped lectures on the Biochemistry of Memory. Three scripts were prepared—high-content (covering numerous substantial teaching points), medium-content, and low-content. When major teaching points were removed from the script they were replaced with experimental details without results, discussion of unrelated examples, and circular discussions of unimportant or meaningless thoughts. Three lectures, one at each content level, were delivered in a highly seductive manner (using enthusiasm, humour, friendliness, expressiveness, charisma, and personality) and three in a flat, unseductive manner. Students, randomly allocated to groups, attended the lectures, and then completed a questionnaire rating the lecture and did a multiple-choice-question test on the subject.
Though both content and seductiveness affected ratings and test performance, seductiveness was the more important factor. At each content level, students who viewed high-seduction lectures performed better in cognitive tests than did those who viewed the same lectures delivered in an unseductive manner. The next move, doubtless, is to derive an optimum content/ seductiveness ratio.
1. Coats, W. D., Swierenga, L. J. tduC, Res. 1972, 6S, 357.
2. Naftulin, D. H., Ware, I, E., Donnelly, F. A. J. mud. Educ. 1973,
4B, 630.
.jpeg)
Comments