Guided by Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory, this study examined college students' perceptions of effective teaching behaviors. Specifically, students (n = 209) were asked to design their ideal instructor by prioritizing ten teaching behaviors and characteristics from rhetorical and relational traditions (i.e., assertive, responsive, clear, relevant, competent, trustworthy, caring, immediate, humorous, disclosure). Results indicated that students preferred teacher clarity, competence, and relevance from their instructors. Teacher self-disclosure, immediacy, and caring were considered to be luxury behaviors rather than necessary behaviors. Academic beliefs (i.e., learning orientation, grade orientation, academic entitlement) were significantly related to many student preferences for effective teaching behaviors.

1. My Ideal Professor: Examining College Students’
Preferences for Effective Teaching Practices
Zachary W. GoldmanA, Gregory A. CranmerA, Michael SollittoB,
Sara LaBelleC, & Alexander LancasterA
West Virginia UniversityA, Texas A&M - Corpus ChristiB, & Chapman UniversityC
The instructional communication literature has a rich history of examining
effective teaching practices. Guided by Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory,
this study attempted to further this literature by exploring the qualities and
behaviors that today’s students prefer from their college instructors. Following
the design put forth by Senko, Belmonte, and Yakhkind (2012), undergraduate
students were asked to rank order certain instructional qualities and behaviors
(i.e., assertiveness, responsiveness, clarity, relevance, competence,
trustworthiness, caring, immediacy, humor, disclosure) as an attempt to
develop their “ideal instructor”. Academic beliefs (i.e., entitlement, learning and
grade orientation) were thought to influence students’ choices.
Method
Rationale
Research Questions
RQ1: Which effective teaching behaviors and characteristics (i.e., clarity,
credibility, content relevance, socio-communicative style,
immediacy, self-disclosure, and humor) do college students find
most desirable in their ideal instructors?
RQ2: Which effective teaching behaviors (i.e., clarity, credibility, content
relevance, socio-communicative style, immediacy, self-disclosure,
and humor), if any, are considered to be a luxury rather than a
necessity for ideal instructors?
RQ3: To what extent do academic beliefs (i.e., learning orientation,
grade orientation and academic entitlement) relate to students’
preferences for effective teaching behaviors?
Participants (N = 209: 118 men, 91 women) were solicited from
undergraduate communication courses at a large Mid-Atlantic university. The
age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 31 (M = 20.37, SD = 2.20).
Participants represented 16 different majors and 31% were first-year
students, 23% were sophomores, 21% were juniors, and 25% were seniors.
Results
RQ1: Significant differences were observed in students’ preferences for ideal
teaching practices. Students varied considerably in their allocation of funds
(ranging from 4.35% to 19.25% per behavior/quality). Specifically, instructor
clarity was significantly more preferred than any other teaching practice.
Students also preferred competence and relevance (i.e., 2nd and 3rd
respectively) in comparison to all other characteristics. Teacher self-disclosure,
assertiveness, and immediacy were the least preferred behaviors/
qualities based upon the allocation of hypothetical funds.
RQ2: Three instructor behaviors/qualities were more likely to be considered a
“luxury” based on budget allocation, these included (in ranked order)
self-disclosure, immediacy and caring.
RQ3: With a limited budget, academic entitlement and grade orientation were
related positively with preferences for humor and caring and negatively with
perceptions of clarity and competence. With a luxury budget, entitlement was
related negatively to competence and positively with immediacy and caring.
Learning orientation was related positively to competence and disclosure.
For more information about this study please contact Zachary W. Goldman, Department
of Communication Studies, 108 Armstrong Hall P. O. Box 6293, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506. Email: zgoldman@mix.wvu.edu
Rationale
Participants
Description of Instructor Qualities
____________________________________________________________________________
Assertive: This instructor defends their beliefs in the classroom, has a strong personality, is
independent, competitive and even forceful or dominate.
Responsive: This instructor is compassionate, sympathetic, helpful, sincere, friendly, warm,
and sensitive to the needs of students.
Clear: This instructor presents knowledge in a way that students understand, answers
questions clearly, has clear course objectives, and is straightforward in lecture.
Relevant: This instructor uses examples, explanations, and exercises to make course
content relevant to students’ career and personal goals or needs.
Competent: This instructor is an expert in their field, is intelligent, and well trained.
Trustworthy: This instructor is honest and trustworthy to students, works under a set of morals
and ethics, and is genuine
Caring: This instructor cares about their students, understands their students, and has
their students’ best interest at heart
Immediate: This instructor smiles at students, uses expressive hand and facial gestures
when lecturing, nods their head in understanding when students talk, makes eye
contact with students when lecturing, and changes vocal tones when lecturing
Humorous: This instructor uses humor in the classroom frequently, they are funny, and easily
incorporate jokes into lectures
Discloses: This instructor reveals an appropriate amount of positive information about
themselves to students during lecture, when doing so is relevant to the topic.
____________________________________________________________________________
Implications
1) Students strongly desire rhetorical teaching behaviors and characteristics
(i.e., clarity, competence, relevance) for their “ideal instructors”.
2) Traditionally effective teaching practices such as immediacy, self-disclosure,
and caring are certainly still desirable, but may be considered
more of a “luxury” than a “necessity” when students are forced to
allocated their preferences based upon limited and flexible budgets.
3) Students’ beliefs influence what they want to see in their ideal instructor.
Tables
Measures
In addition to ranking their preferences of effective teaching practices,
students completed the Learning-Orientation Grade-Orientation II measure
(LOGO II; Eison, Pollio, & Milton, 1982) and the Academic Entitlement
Questionnaire (AEQ; Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011).
Data collection procedures were modeled after Senko et al. (2012). Students
were given two hypothetical “budgets” (i.e., 20 and 60 dollars) which they
were allowed to use to purchase the instructional practices of their ideal
instructor. The 20 dollar limited budget represented the necessities of their
ideal instructor while the 60 dollar budget represented luxuries of their ideal
instructor. Differences were examined within each condition (i.e., limited and
luxury) as well as between the two conditions. Additionally, correlational
analyses were conducted to determine if students’ preferences were related
to their academic entitlement, grade orientation, and learning orientation.
Mean percentages of student investments toward limited and luxury budgets
Behavior/Characteristic
Limited Budget
(20 dollars)
Luxury Budget
(60 dollars)
Change in
Spending
Assertiveness
4.75%a
5.35%a
+0.60%
Responsiveness
10.45%bd
10.93%b
+0.48%
Clarity
19.25%c
14.35%c
-4.90%***
Relevant
12.15%d
12.13%b
-0.02%
Competence
13.40%d
12.83%b
-0.57%
Trustworthiness
8.50%e
9.23%d
+0.73%
Caring
10.15%be
11.53%b
+1.38%*
Immediacy
5.70%a
7.25%e
+1.55%***
Humor
11.60%bd
10.45%b
-1.15%
Disclosure
4.35%a
5.95%a
+1.60%***
Notes. For each budget column, values with unshared subscripts differ significantly at p < .05.
Differences in spending percentages are flagged for significance, * p < .05, *** p < .001. Table
modeled after Senko et al. (2012).
Contact Information