Boredom Analysis Checklist

Introduction

Even the best instructors have a bad day now and then. A lesson that looked fine in concept results in glazed eyes and fidgeting among at least some of the participants. Why does this happen? Sometimes we're too close to the content to anticipate these events and can benefit from an outside point of view.

The purpose of this checklist is to guide you through a systematic look at a boring lesson. It uses categories derived from several models of motivation which should lead fairly directly to suggestions for solutions.

As you examine each factor, give it a score from 0 to 3 to indicate the degree to which the factor was true and was likely to be a cause of the learners' lack of interest.

0 = not true at all. Not likely to be a cause of boredom
1 = slightly true. Perhaps responsible for some boredom.
2 = moderately true. Probably the cause of at least some of the boredom.
3 = definitely true and very likely to be a source of the problem.

Attention Factors

Rating

The format of the lesson (lecture, demonstration, etc) did not change over a long stretch of time.
0   1   2   3
What learners saw and heard did not change over a long stretch of time (e.g., all one voice, similar slides, etc.)
0   1   2   3
There were no conflicting or contradictory ideas described.
0   1   2   3
Learners were not called upon to respond or act for a long stretch of time.
0   1   2   3

Challenge Factors

Rating

The content was too easy or familiar to a significant number of learners.
0   1   2   3
The content was too difficult for a significant number of learners.
0   1   2   3
The learners have a history of dislike or failure with this content.
0   1   2   3
The content was fact-laden. There was a lot to keep track of and remember.
0   1   2   3
The content was abstract. It was hard to get a handle on the topic.
0   1   2   3

Relevance Factors

Rating

There was nothing done explicitly to tie the lesson to the learners' interests or past experience.
0   1   2   3
There was nothing done explicitly to tie the lesson to the learners' future goals or to near term course goals.
0   1   2   3

Interpersonal Factors

Rating

Learners could not identify with the instructor. She or he seemed very different from them.
0   1   2   3
Learners did not find the instructor completely credible with respect to this content.
0   1   2   3
The instructor did not show enthusiasm for the topic.
0   1   2   3
There was no opportunity for learners to interact with each other.
0   1   2   3
The content was unrelated to people. There were no references to individuals affecting or being affected by the content.
0   1   2   3


Bernie Dodge, San Diego State University. Return to the EDTEC 670 page.