Ideal Teacher Behaviors

Abstract

Differences in students’ academic self-efficacy and motivation were examined in predicting preferred teacher traits. Undergraduates (261) completed the Teaching Behavior Checklist, Academic Self-Concept scale, and Academic Motivation scale. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that academic self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation explained 5–23% of incremental variance in the ideal traits of “caring” and “professional.” Students who lacked self-efficacy clearly valued the “caring” trait in an ideal teacher. Extrinsically motivated students strongly endorsed the importance of an ideal teacher being “caring” (encouraging and compassionate) and “professional” (knowledgeable and confident). Implications for instructors include rewarding extrinsically motivated student by recognizing their performance and mentoring students who lack self-efficacy.

Keywords

traits motivation self-efficacy teacher

In describing an ideal teacher, students differ in the importance they assign to various instructor traits and behaviors. Some students report a greater preference for teachers who excel in teaching techniques, whereas others favor teachers who are caring and approachable (Buskist, 2002; Keeley, Smith, & Buskist, 2006). However, because students themselves differ in various ways, is it possible that their preferences for teacher traits might be influenced by various individual difference factors such as self-efficacy or motivation? Is it likely that student with high self-efficacy or intrinsically motivated students might value instructor traits that are different from those preferred by students who are less self-efficacious or less motivated? Answers to these questions are addressed in the current study by examining perceptions of an ideal teachers’ behaviors in relation to individual differences in students’ academic self-efficacy and motivational orientations.

Ideal Teacher Behaviors

Although there are multiple contextual factors that might be relevant to teaching effectiveness, such as class size, type of course, differences in grading norms, and individual differences in students’ innate abilities, there appear to be specific instructor qualities associated with effective teaching (Young & Shaw, 1999). For instance, quality instruction includes the ability to induce intellectual excitement and establish positive rapport (Lowman, 1995). In a list of preferred personality attributes of instructors, two choices that rise to the top are “sociable” followed by “intelligent” and the two at the bottom are “defensive” and “neurotic” (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005). Qualities of ideal professors include being highly accessible, personable, creating comfortable learning environments, offering variety in the course curriculum, and receiving as well as incorporating student feedback in course design and planning (Epting, Zinn, Buskist, & Buskist, 2004). Both students and faculty members identify six desirable instructor behaviors and these include being interesting, knowledgeable, having realistic expectations, approachable, fair, and respectful as their top choices when describing effective teaching (Schaeffer, Epting, Zinn, & Buskist, 2003). To organize all the teacher traits and behaviors reflected in “master teaching” into a meaningful framework, Keeley, Smith, and Buskist (2006) categorized them into two broad dimensions: “caring and supportive” and “professional competency and communication skills.” The “caring and supportive” trait refers to qualities such as provides constructive feedback, rapport, encourages and cares for students, understanding, and accessible. The “professional competency and communication skills” trait refers to qualities such as confident, knowledgeable, prepared, respectful, and manages class time well.

Importance of Ideal Teacher Behaviors

It would benefit instructors and educators to be knowledgeable about qualities associated with good teaching as these are linked to critical outcomes such as student learning and performance. For instance, effective teaching is positively associated with students giving greater value to a course, motivating students to do their best, and creating a comfortable learning atmosphere (Young & Shaw, 1999). Further, both tenured faculty and upper class students report teacher-related variables such as instructor’s speaking style and respectfulness toward students to be more important for student learning compared to physical environment or student variables (Lammers & Smith, 2008). Teachers’ perceived personal qualities, such as warmth and likability, are also predictive of course evaluations and self-reports of learning and classroom performance (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Gurung & Vespia, 2007). Whether an instructor appears to exude warmth (Best & Addison, 2000) or displays immediacy behaviors such as making eye contact and using student names (Wilson & Taylor, 2001) appears to be a critical determinant of how instructors are perceived and evaluated. Building good rapport or a positive relationship with students goes beyond immediacy in predicting positive course and instructor ratings as well as degree of student motivation and learning (Wilson, Ryan, & Pugh, 2010).

Establishing a working alliance with students seems to contribute to an environment that is conducive for learning, promoting a sense of trust, and repairing relationships when conflict might occur (Meyers, 2008). Further, instructors who successfully establish good rapport with their students are more likely to experience valued student outcomes like increased attendance, increased attention in class, greater enjoyment of course material, and more fruitful communication during office hours or via e-mail (Benson, Cohen, & Buskist, 2005). Various teacher behaviors that appear to be helpful to students include being more motivated about teaching so as to generate greater motivation in students (Atkinson, 2000) and giving students useful feedback to help correct performance so as to promote greater self-determination (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Teachers who display an interest in their students, show that they are concerned, offer emotional assistance, and take time to know their students are more likely to satisfy students’ relatedness needs and contribute to greater student self-determination (Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). Further, teachers who provide more task structure through added information, such as a more detailed syllabus, are more likely to receive higher ratings on qualities of master teaching and other outcomes like recommending the course to other students and taking another course from the same instructor (Saville, Zinn, Brown, & Marchuk, 2010). Thus, practicing effective teaching behaviors is associated with a wide variety of valued outcomes for students and instructors.

Individual Differences in Students’ Preferences for Ideal Teacher Behaviors

Although there is some consensus regarding the qualities of an ideal teacher, students seem to value these qualities differentially depending on their own backgrounds such as socioeconomic status (SES), gender, or year in college. For example, Brophy (1985) reported that low-SES students are likely to feel anxious or alienated relative to high-SES students who are likely to be more confident and ready to face challenges. As such, students from lower SES backgrounds might benefit from more active instruction, greater degree and frequency of feedback, more support and warmth, as well as more teacher encouragement and praise for successful attempts (Brophy, 1985).

Gender differences indicate that male students give more favorable ratings to male professors relative to female professors on all teaching evaluation criteria and female students do the same on half the criteria, even after controlling for courses, teaching experience, and tenure status (Basow & Silberg, 1987). Gender also played an important role when students were asked to identify and rate the qualities of their “best” professors (Basow, Phelan, & Capotosto, 2006). In this case, the two main dimensions that consistently emerged as being important and being displayed by best professors (irrespective of gender) were active instrumental and expressive nurturant. However, what is interesting is the finding that relative to female students, male students gave greater importance to the active instrumental trait when rating “best” male professors and the expressive nurturant trait when rating “best” female professors. Thus, stereotypical gender qualities seem to influence male students’ ratings of male and female instructors.

Year in college also appears to be of relevance as instructors who are perceived to be sociable and attentive to students, liberal, and extraverted, receive higher student ratings in undergraduate courses, whereas traits such as ambition, orderliness, and endurance are positively associated with ratings for graduate courses (Murray, Rushton, & Paunonen, 1990). Junior and senior undergraduate students do not appear to differ in their ratings of “ideal” teachers and “typical” professors; however, certain desirable behaviors, such as using humor and soliciting student input, are more pronounced in ideal teachers compared to typical teachers (Epting et al., 2004).

There are very few studies that have gone beyond an examination of demographic variables to investigate variations in personality, intelligence, self-efficacy, or motivation as predictors of preferred teacher traits. When considering personality and intelligence, students appear to favor instructors who have traits similar to themselves, such as openness, agreeableness, or conscientiousness (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005). In addition, it is noteworthy that students scoring higher on fluid intelligence prefer emotionally stable instructors who have some degree of disagreeableness. Perhaps, students who are intellectually superior might enjoy aggressive teaching styles that promote open debate and offer intellectual stimulation. There is also some acknowledgment that instructors could potentially enhance self-regulated learning and academic achievement through modeling, verbal persuasion, and direct assistance (Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). Self-determination theory indicates that teachers who provide clear structure, clarify expectations, and extend a caring and supportive relationship, are more likely to satisfy students’ needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy and this is associated with more engagement in the classroom, putting forth more effort, and also feeling more positive affect (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). When both structure and warmth are missing, students are likely to display less engagement and feel more coerced. Brattesani, Weinstein, and Marshall (1984) support the notion that teachers’ expectations of students can serve as self-fulfilling prophecies that offer specific messages to students. Although students have their own expectations of themselves, their conclusions about their own abilities are influenced by what their teachers expect of them. Thus, this review of individual difference factors suggests that more empirical work regarding individual differences in students’ academic self-efficacy and motivational orientations in predicting preferences for ideal teacher traits is needed. The current study aims to bridge this gap in the literature.

Method

Procedure

Data were collected from a sample of 261 undergraduates at a medium sized, public, Midwestern university. Participants were recruited primarily from the introduction to psychology subject pool and completed the survey in small groups of about 10–12 students for course credit. In addition, participants were recruited from an undergraduate psychology course in which they were given the survey at the end of the class and completed it in a large class setting for extra credit. The sample consisted of 55% males, with an average age of 20.13 (standard deviation of 3.4), and an ethnic/racial composition of 67% European American, 24% African American, and 9% Asian/Latin/Native American/other. Participants completed a survey including demographic information, the Teaching Behavior Checklist (TBC; Keeley et al., 2006), Academic Self-concept scale (ASCS; Reynolds, 1988), and Academic Motivation scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1992); and these were presented in sequential order. The order in which the measures were presented remained the same across all participants.

Measures

The 28-item TBC (Keeley et al., 2006) assesses students’ preferences for two broad categories of ideal teacher’s traits: “caring” and “professional.” Participants thought of their ideal teacher and then indicated how important it would be for their ideal teacher to have each of the 28 teacher qualities and corresponding behaviors. The specific instructions they received were, “Listed below are 28 teacher qualities and the behaviors that define them. Please think of your ideal teacher and indicate how important it would be for the ideal teacher to have each of these qualities and corresponding behaviors.” The “caring” dimension consisted of 11 items (α = .78) and a sample item is, “Encourages and Cares for Students (Provides praise for good student work, helps students who need it, offers bonus points and extra credit, and knows student names).” The “professional” dimension consisted of 13 items (α = .82) and a sample item is, “Presents Current Information (Relates topic to current, real life situations; uses recent videos, magazines, and newspapers to demonstrate points; talks about current topics; uses new or recent texts.” The psychometric properties of the TBC have been established through an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis along with test–retest reliability (Keeley et al., 2006).

The 40-item ASCS developed by Reynolds (1988) has seven subscales that were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) scale and assessed students’ academic self-efficacy. Participants received the following instructions, “Listed below are a number of statements concerning school-related attitudes. Rate each item as it best describes your personality.” The seven subscales were grades and effort, study habits, peer evaluation of academic ability, self-confidence in academics, satisfaction with school, self-doubt regarding ability, and self-evaluation with external standards. There were 8 items measuring grades and effort (α = .81); sample item, If I try hard enough, I will be able to get good grades, 6 items measuring study habits (α = .78); sample item, I am good at scheduling my study time, 8 items measuring peer evaluation of academic ability (α = .83); sample item, Others view me as intelligent, 3 items measuring self-confidence in academics (α = .69); sample item, Most of the time while taking a test I feel confident, 4 items measuring satisfaction with school (α = .57); sample item, Being a student is a very rewarding experience, 8 items measuring self-doubt regarding ability (α = .84); sample item, I often get discouraged about school, and finally 3 items measuring self-evaluation with external standards (α = .63); reverse scored sample item, Most of my classmates do better in school than I do.

The 28-item AMS (Vallerand et al., 1992) is based on Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory of motivation and was designed to assess the reasons why students attend college. Participants received the following instructions, “Using the following scale, indicate to what extent each of the following items presently corresponds to one of the reasons why you go to college.” The authors report extensive support for the reliability as well as the concurrent and construct validity of the scale (Vallerand et al., 1992). The AMS assessed three types of academic motivation: intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation was measured with 12 items (α = .92) and assessed students’ drive to attend college so as to gain stimulation from engagement in learning activities, gain understanding and meaning, and experience feelings of competence and satisfaction from achieving; a sample item, Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things. Extrinsic motivation was measured with 12 items (α = .89) and assessed students’ drive to attend college out of compliance with external rewards or punishments, due to reasons such as gaining a job or better income, and finding value for being in college even if they are not enjoying it; a sample item, Because eventually it will enable me to enter the job market in a field that I like. Amotivation was assessed with 4 items (α = .88) and measured the extent to which students felt apathetic and disinterested in being in college; a sample item, I can’t see why I go to college and frankly, I couldn’t care less. All the subscales were rated on a 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly) scale (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Mean, SD, Cronbach’s α Values for Each of the Subscales of the Teacher Behavior Checklist, Academic Self-Concept Scale, and the Academic Motivation Scale.

Scale and Subscales	Number of Items	M	SD	Range
Teacher traits	28
Caring	13	4.17	.48	1–5
Professional	11	4.26	.45	1–5
Academic self-concept	40
Grades and effort	8	3.02	.50	1–4
Study habits	6	2.20	.54	1–4
Peer evaluation of academic ability	8	2.84	.46	1–4
Self-confidence in academics	3	2.49	.57	1–4
Satisfaction with school	4	2.73	.47	1–4
No self-doubt about ability	8	2.83	.58	1–4
Self-evaluation against external standards	3	2.82	.55	1–4
Academic motivation	28
Intrinsic motivation	12	4.14	1.24	1–7
Extrinsic motivation	12	5.33	1.11	1–7
Amotivation	4	1.96	1.37	1–7

Results

Correlation Analyses

The relationship between the predictor and outcome variables were examined via correlation analyses and these revealed significant associations between several subscales of both academic self-concept and motivation and each of the teacher traits “caring” and “professional” (see Table 2). In particular, it is interesting that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were positively associated with each of the “caring” and “professional” dimensions of teacher traits. In contrast, amotivation (lack of motivation) was negatively associated with both teacher traits and its relationship with the “professional” trait reached significance. Further, two subscales of academic self-concept (peer evaluation and satisfaction with school) had significant positive relationships with both the “caring” and “professional” teacher traits.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Teacher Traits, Academic Self-Concept Subscales, and Academic Motivation.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Caring trait	1.00
2. Professional trait	.76**	1.00
3. Grades and effort	.04	.07	1.00
4. Study habits	.08	.06	.32**	1.00
5. Peer evaluation	.22**	.17**	.68**	.44**	1.00
6. Self-confidence	.01	−.00	.47**	.33**	.62**	1.00
7. Satisfaction school	.23**	.20**	.48**	.47**	.61**	.40**	1.00
8. No self-doubt ability	.05	.06	.61**	.43**	.68**	.57**	.46**	1.00
9. Self-evaluation	.03	.08	.59**	.38**	.60**	.48**	.42**	.69**	1.00
10. Intrinsic motivation	.32**	.31**	.29**	.21**	.41**	.24**	.53**	.36**	.29**	1.00
11. Extrinsic motivation	.38**	.44**	.17**	.03	.26**	.00	.25**	.09	.02	.49**	1.00
12. Amotivation	−.12	−.17**	−.37**	−.22**	−.47**	−.20**	−.34**	−.38**	−.32**	−.15*	−.33**	1.00

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Regression Analyses

Given that there were several significant correlations, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to obtain a more parsimonious and insightful understanding of how individual differences in students’ academic self-concept and academic motivation explained variance in preferred teacher qualities. To predict variance in the ideal teacher trait “caring,” we controlled for gender by entering it in the first block, and then entered the seven subscales of academic self-concept in the second block, and finally entered the three types of academic motivation in the third block (see Table 3). Gender explained 4% of the variance F(1, 257) = 10.14, p < .002, academic self-concept explained an additional 9% of unique variance, F(7, 250) = 3.98, p < .000, with grades and effort (β = −.17) and peer evaluation (β = .31) as significant predictors, and academic motivation explained an incremental 9% of the variance, F(3, 247) = 8.60, p < .000, with extrinsic motivation as a significant predictor (β = .26). Together these three predictors explained 22% of the variance in the “caring” teacher trait, F(11, 247) = 6.20, p < .001.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Gender, Academic Self-Concept, and Academic Motivation Predicting the Caring Teacher Trait.

Factor	Step	Predictor	β	R ²	Cohen’s f ²
Caring	1	Gender	.10	.04	.04
	2	Academic self-concept subscales		.13	.15
		Grades and effort	−.17*
		Study habits	.01
		Peer evaluation of academic ability	.31**
		Self-confidence in academics	−.10
		Satisfaction with school	.07
		No self-doubt about ability	−.06
		Self-evaluation against external standards	−.02
	3	Academic motivation subscales		.22	.28
		Intrinsic motivation	.11
		Extrinsic motivation	.26**
		Amotivation	.06

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Similarly, to predict variance in the ideal teacher trait “professional,” we controlled for gender by entering it in the first block, and then entered the seven subscales of academic self-concept in the second block, followed at the end by the three types of academic motivation in the third block (see Table 4). Gender explained 5% of the variance, F(1, 257) = 13.46, p < .000, academic self-concept explained an additional 5% of unique variance, F(7, 250) = 2.16, p < .04, and academic motivation explained an incremental 13% of the variance, F(3, 247) = 13.21, p < .000, with extrinsic motivation as a significant predictor (β = .36). Together these three predictors explained 23% of the variance in the “professional” teacher trait, F(11, 247) = 6.63, p < .001.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Gender, Academic Self-Concept, and Academic Motivation Predicting the Professional Teacher Trait.

Factor	Step	Predictor	β	R ²	Cohen’s f ²
Professional	1.	Gender	.11	.05	.05
	2.	Academic self-concept subscales		.10	.11
		Grades and effort	−.12
		Study habits	−.00
		Peer evaluation of academic ability	.10
		Self-confidence in academics	−.06
		Satisfaction with school	.06
		No Self-doubt about ability	−.05
		Self-evaluation against external standards	.10
	3.	Academic motivation subscales		.23	.30
		Intrinsic motivation	.08
		Extrinsic motivation	.36*
		Amotivation	.02

*p < .001.

Discussion

These results suggest that individual differences in students’ academic self-concept and motivational orientation predict what they value in an “ideal” teacher. When asked to rate the importance of various qualities and behaviors of an ideal teacher, all students did not respond in the same way. For example, when rating the importance of the “caring” trait in an ideal teacher, students who were extrinsically motivated and those who sought to prove their intelligence to others strongly endorsed this quality. In contrast, students who had higher self-efficacy about their efforts to succeed rated this quality as less important. Therefore, students who were driven to attend college for extrinsic reasons such as getting a better salary or proving to themselves that they could succeed seemed to need the support and encouragement of their teachers. Because they viewed a college education as a tool for future success, such students were more likely to view their teachers as a resource for facilitating their accomplishments in college. Thus, teachers who are accessible, build rapport, and provide constructive feedback might be perceived as more likely to assist extrinsically motivated students achieve good grades and prepare successfully for a future career.

Interestingly, self-sufficient and self-assured students appeared to be less concerned about whether or not a teacher was caring, understanding, humble, or accessible, relative to students who were unsure about their ability to succeed. Students who know that they can put in the effort and obtain successful outcomes may be more independent whereas students who lack confidence may need assistance from teachers who are caring, sensitive, encouraging, and flexible. Being “caring” appears to be a critical dimension for less confident and anxious students who might worry about their performance. Thus, instructors who can acknowledge their students’ challenges, provide them with information and feedback about how to do the task, and check to see how they are doing, are more likely to create a sense of connection with unsure students who value these behaviors (Taylor & Noumanis, 2007). According to self-determination theory, instructors who can create a classroom environment that makes students feel confident about being able to learn, and communicate that they care that students learn, are more likely to foster self-determination and motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Further, when considering the “professional” quality in an ideal teacher, once again, it is the extrinsically motivated students who place greater importance on this quality compared to students who are less extrinsically motivated. Extrinsically driven students see a college degree primarily as a means of obtaining a job or higher pay, rather than an opportunity for deeper learning. Such students might give greater importance to an ideal teacher’s ability to effectively deliver lectures, be well prepared, confident, authoritative, knowledgeable, and punctual. Such professionally competent teachers are more likely to be viewed as having the knowledge and resources to help externally motive students achieve their careers goals more effectively. Teachers who are aware of these differences in students’ motivational orientations and level of self-efficacy could potentially utilize a variety of behaviors in relating to different types of students.

Implications

The findings from this study could be applied to educational settings to inform teachers and educators in facilitating student motivation and performance. Students who might be most receptive to instructors appear to be those who are externally motivated and governed by rewards and punishments and those who are unsure of their ability to achieve high levels of performance. Talented instructors who teach effectively could reward extrinsically motivated and less self-assured students by taking an interest in them and encouraging them. For instance, instructors could play a vital role in reaching out to less-confident students and motivating them to remain in school and earn their degree. Teachers often wonder whether their efforts at teaching or relating effectively with students are consequential or not, whether these behaviors are valued or not. Results of this study offer support for the belief that these efforts are valued by extrinsically motivated, performance-oriented students who find pleasure and fulfillment in attaining good grades as proof of their intelligence; and by less-confident students who do not believe that their efforts will yield successful performance.

Furthermore, knowing that all students do not seek the same resources from an instructor could make it easier for instructors to accept and understand when some students do not respond to their efforts. For example, students who have a strong intrinsic motivation to learn and are sufficiently self-motivated and those who are extremely apathetic and disengaged may not give much importance to the efforts of the classroom instructor. Perhaps, early on in the semester or academic year, instructors could identify the students who are most likely to benefit from their attention and provide them with mentoring opportunities. This could be done by administering a survey assessing motivation for attending college, meeting individually with students during office hours, or keeping track of data such as attendance, completion of in-class items, or submission of homework assignments as a way of identifying extrinsically motivated or less self-assured students.

Future research could examine other individual difference factors that might influence students’ preferences of teacher traits. These could include students with high academic ability from schools with selective admission criteria, or from highly motivated students who enroll in professional schools, or students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds who might enroll in expensive private schools. It would also be useful to control for order effects by presenting the measures in different sequences to various participants. This would reduce any bias or priming effect that might have been generated in the current study by presenting the measure of an ideal teacher in the beginning. It might also be useful to go a step further and establish the causal relationship between preferred teacher traits and student performance. For instance, experimental studies comparing teachers who display strong and weak qualities of master teachers could be conducted to see if these yield any significant differences in measures of student learning. This could help identify causal links between teacher behaviors and classroom learning or achievement. This would give greater validation to efforts directed at training instructors for developing behaviors associated with “professional” and “caring” qualities of effective teaching. Thus, the findings of this study contribute to a critical gap in the literature by establishing the importance of individual differences in what college students seek in an ideal teacher.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ambady

Rosenthal

(1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.64.3.431

Atkinson

E. S.

(2000). An investigation into the relationship between teacher motivation and pupil motivation. Educational Psychology, 20, 45–57. doi:10.1080/014434100110371

Basow

S. A.

Phelan

J. E.

Capotosto

(2006). Gender patterns in college students’ voices of their best and worst professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 25–35. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00259.x

Basow

S. A.

Silberg

N. T.

(1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 308–314. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.79.3.308

Benson

T. A.

Cohen

A. L.

Buskist

(2005). Rapport: Its relation to student attitudes and behaviors toward teachers and classes. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 237–239. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3204_8

Best

J. B.

Addison

W. E.

(2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professor and student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 60–62.

Brattesani

K. A.

Weinstein

R. S.

Marshall

H. H.

(1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 236–247. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.76.2.236

Brophy

(1985). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069–1077.

Buskist

(2002). Effective teaching: Perspectives and insight from division two’s 2- and 4-year awardees. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 188–193. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_01

10.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(85)90020-0

11.

Epting

L. K.

Zinn

T. E.

Buskist

(2004). Student perspectives on the distinction between ideal and typical teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 181–183. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3103_5

12.

Furnham

Chamorro-Premuzic

(2005). Individual differences in students’ preferences for lecturers’ personalities. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 176–184. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.26.4.176

13.

Guay

Marsh

Boivin

(2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.95.1.124

14.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Vespia

K. M.

(2007). Looking good, teaching well? Linking liking, looks, and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 5–10. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3401_2

15.

Keeley

Smith

Buskist

(2006). The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 84–91. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3302_1

16.

Lammers

W. J.

Smith

S. M.

(2008). Learning factors in the university classroom: Faculty and student perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 61–70. doi:10.1080/00986280802004586

17.

Lowman

(1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Murray

H. G.

Rushton

J. P.

Paunonen

S. V.

(1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 250–261. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.82.2.250

19.

Meyers

S. A.

(2008). Working alliances in college classrooms. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 29–32. doi:10.1080/00986280701818490

20.

Reynolds

W. M.

(1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 223–240. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5202_4

21.

Saville

B. K.

Zinn

T. E.

Brown

A. R.

Marchuk

K. A.

(2010). Syllabus detail and students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 186–189. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.488523

22.

Schaeffer

Epting

Zinn

Buskist

(2003). Student and faculty perceptions of effective teaching: A successful replication. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 133–136.

23.

Skinner

E. A.

Belmont

M. J.

(1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.85.4.571

24.

Taylor

I. M.

Ntoumanis

(2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self-determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747–760. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.747

25.

Vallerand

R. J.

Fortier

M. S.

Guay

(1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high-school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.5.1161

26.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Blais

M. R.

Briere

N. M.

Senecal

Vallieres

E. F.

(1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025

27.

Wilson

J. H.

Ryan

R. G.

Pugh

J. L.

(2010). Professor–student rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 246–251. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510976

28.

Wilson

J. H.

Taylor

K.W.

(2001). Professor immediacy as behaviors associated with liking students. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 136–138.

29.

Young

Shaw

D. G.

(1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 670–686. doi:10.2307/2649170

30.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000). Self efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.