The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Exemplary Chinese University Professors: Qualities and Impact onStudents

Eugene P. Kim and Mathias Olson

123

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Abstract
This study focuses on the qualities of Chinese university professors as perceived by theirstudents and the effects of those qualities on student learning and motivation. Specifically, what
qualities and personal characteristics do Chinese university students attribute to their favorite
and least favorite professors, and how do those qualities and characteristics affect Chinese
university students? Out of 280 students surveyed from three different universities, 226
surveys were completed, returned and included in the final analysis (response rate of 80.7%).
The research found that Chinese students favored professors who are entertaining, who help
them learn more and who provide them with helpful feedback on their assignments. Students
disfavor professors who are boring, arrogant and do not provide helpful feedback or help themlearn more. Linear regressions revealed a connection between high quality professors andstudent learning and motivation. Along with other studies, this research provides evidence that
effective university professors are those who not only possess expertise in their fields, but in
addition are engaging, student-focused and able to build rapport with their students.
Keywords: teacher quality; teacher evaluation; characteristics of teachers; model teachers;
teacher impact; teacher-student relationship; student motivation; student-centered education;affect in education

	
  

124

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Introduction
Stemming from a Confucian worldview, teachers have historically been honored and reveredin Chinese society. Over the past 2,500 years, generations of students have dedicatedthemselves to arduous study in order to meet the rigorous requirements of China’s civil
examination systems (Hayhoe, 1984). The Confucian worldview places importance on ahierarchical form of obedience in which students are submissive to teachers as children would
be submissive to parents. It also places morality and memorization as the cornerstones oflearning. In the past, students who were able to memorize the classics and carry themselveswith a high standard of moral uprightness were granted high places in government offices (Lee,1985). Beginning in the mid-19th century, China was exposed to outside influence and internalreorganization (the end of several millenia of dynastic rule) resulting in tumultuous changes
that left no sector unscathed, including the education system. The invasion of foreign powers,
the tenuous Republican experiment, and the subsequent Communist liberation led to diverse
and numerous reforms in Chinese education that have impacted how students in China learn
today.
In contemporary China, the past few decades have ushered in even greater liberalization andexperimentation in Chinese education. Deng Xiaoping’s initiated the Reform Era in 1979,
characterized by modernization, globalization and economic reform. Education in the Reform
Era has experienced many changes in its own lifespan, but has generally been known for its
emphasis on competition (Parker & Parker, 1986). Nonetheless, these changes are not without
precedence as seen in the increase in household spending on education with the sole focus of
preparation for the Gaokao, the standardized test – much like the civil examinations in the past
– taken at the end of a student’s high school career. The exam determines the higher education
prospects for and potential future earnings of each student. Competition is also seen in the
opening up of the private education sector with a plethora of private schools and test
preparation centers expanding throughout China. Some of these Chinese education companies
such as Xueda Education Group and New Oriental Education & Technology Group haverecord-breaking IPOs on the US stock exchange.
Teachers in China have traditionally been trained and expected to teach to the test; to help
students memorize the information that is needed to do well on what will be the most important
test of their lives. Recently however, research has indicated that rote memorization andstandardized testing may not be the all-encompassing indicator of a productive or successful
individual (Zhao & Ting, 2013). Although Chinese students rank high in standardized testscores when compared to the rest of the world (Al Jazeera, 2013), their perceived ability toinnovate and think creatively is lacking. This is seen in China’s Ministry of Education’s desire
to improve critical thinking skills (Ministry of Education, 2001). The traditional Chinese“virtuoso” teacher (Paine, 1990), a teacher with a vast knowledge base who teaches students
to recite what he knows, is becoming less relevant in an increasingly globalized China.
As education in China changes, so does the concept of good teaching. Tam, Heng and Jiang(2009) noted that Chinese official policy have pushed toward a jiaoren (to teach the people)
view of teaching and away from a jiaoshu (to teach books) view. Although some teachers andprofessors still hold to a more traditional view of what good teaching ought to be (Walsh &Maffei, 1994), there is a notable move towards student-centered teaching. Countries that haveembraced a more student-centered methodology of teaching correlate with higher levels ofcritical thinking skills developed in their students (Socha & Sigler, 2012), where teachers focus
on intrinsic motivation, learning for understanding, and open-ended instruction.

	
  

125

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Primary Research Question
The purpose of this study is to examine university student perceptions of teacher quality incontemporary China. What are Chinese university students' perceptions of their professors’
characteristics? How do they believe their professors affect student outcomes? In this study,
teacher quality is defined as the teacher’s “personality traits that help to build strong rapport
with students and knowledge and skills about subject content, curriculum, and instruction”(Tam, Heng, & Jiang, 2009, p. 151). Specifically, the study aims to learn what characteristics
university students attribute to exemplary and non-exemplary professors and how this might
affect their academic performance.
Other Research Questions to Consider
The study also aims to know the reasons behind student preferences and whether specificprofessor characteristics influence the academic performance of their students. Do students
work harder for professors they like? Do they learn more in their favorite professors’ classes?
What is the significance of student and teacher relationships? What do Chinese university
students value in their professors? A study done by Tam, Heng and Jiang (2009) suggested thatstudents in contemporary China are seeking not only a transformation of the mind, but also of
the heart, arguing for the importance of student-teacher relationships and affective teaching in
China.
This study is particularly relevant to university human resources offices in China and those
who make decisions regarding faculty hiring, training and supervision, as these results provide
evidence of characteristics and qualities that are prefered by and positively impact Chinese
university students. University faculty, particularly those primarily engaged in teaching, may
benefit greatly from the same results, which if applied can make them more effective in theclassroom and increase student learning and motivation. Research in this field is wellestablished in the West, but is relatively sparse in Asia, thus the results of this study can beused as a springboard for future research in the area of teacher effectiveness, teacher
qualification, and student impact.
Literature Review
Student Motivation
Student motivation is one of the most powerful determinants of student success in theclassroom (Dorneyi, 1994; 2000; Jung, 2011; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Williams, 1994). It
greatly influences student involvement and achievement (Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009). When
students are not motivated, they fail to grasp the concepts being taught. This is reflected in theirgrades and feedback from their instructors (Gan, Humphreys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004). There isa wide range of motivation types and consequently varied approaches to motivating students.
In this study, motivation will be categorized into two types, extrinsic and intrinsic. The study
will primarily deal with intrinsic motivation and how teachers play a role in intrinsicallymotivating students. Teachers also provide extrinsic rewards such as grades or special
treatment for high academic performance and participation.
Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation can be defined as the energy and desire one directs towards a certain task;
it is fueled by the possibility of external gains such as money, good grades, rewards, praise,and so on (Brown, 2007; Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009). Extrinsic motivation is also fueled by the

	
  

126

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

avoidance of punishment (Brown, 2007). Many students are motivated extrinsically throughgrades, praise from their instructors, and the prospect of securing a good job in the future (Pratt,Agnello, & Santos, 2009; Rugutt & Chemositt, 2009). Extrinsic motivation helps to pushstudents toward a goal when there is a loss of intrinsic motivation. A study by Pratt et al. (2009)
found that the strongest motivator among Spanish language students to continue taking Spanishclasses was grades. In addition, students who received high marks persisted in studying thelanguage because they thought it would be relevant for their future and they felt competent in
the task of learning Spanish (Pratt et al., 2009). Another extrinsic motivator, which may also
be categorized as intrinsic, is personal relationships. Students are motivated by the relationships
they have with other students and faculty (Pratt et al., 2009; Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009). It is
however unclear as to whether relationships qualify as an extrinsic or intrisic motivator. Do
students achieve for the sake of developing positive relationships, or do existing positive
relationships intrinsically motivate them to achieve? Furthermore, do positive relationships
correlate with academic success and learning?
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation represents the energy and desire directed toward a particular task; it isfueled by an innate sense of satisfaction (Brown, 2007; Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009). Intrinsic
motivation is often stronger than extrinsic motivation, as it does not require an external reward
or punishment, rather, it involves innate desires which are typically more stable and enduring.
Students who desire to learn often have a high aptitude for a certain subject, prior knowledge,strong attention skills, and strong critical thinking skills; based on such intrinsic motivators,
they also have a statistically greater chance of academic success (Rugutt & Chemositt, 2009;
Socha & Sigler, 2012). This makes academic choice an important factor in motivating students.
Teachers and Students
The interaction between teachers and students has a noticeable effect on students’ motivations,attitudes, and success (Micari & Pazos, 2012). In more difficult university courses, students
may have less peer support and must rely on the relationships they have with their professor(Micari & Pazos, 2012). However, the impact of student–teacher interaction stretches beyond
difficult courses. Greater and more positive student–teacher interaction results in more engaged
students and a higher academic self-concept (Komarraju, Musulkin, & Bhattacharya, 2010;
Micari & Pazos, 2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). When considering this interaction, it isimportant to take into account the relationships that teachers develop with their students andthe effects these relationships have.
Teachers’ Relationships with Students
Human interaction has consequences that influence the behaviors and outcomes of ourselves
and others. In academia, it is no different. In the context of an organic chemistry course, a study
by Micari and Pazos (2012) revealed that students who felt they had a positive relationshipwith their professor scored higher in the course than those who felt they did not have a positive
relationship. In that study, the researchers defined a positive relationship as “looking up to theprofessor, feeling comfortable approaching the professor, and feeling that the professor
respects the students.” In other words, according to Micari and Pazos (2012), positive
relationships are correlated to positive academic results.
Estepp and Roberts (2013) found a positive relationship between rapport and student
expectancy for success. Students who have good relationships with their professors tend to
	
  

127

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

think they will succeed in class. However, the quality of the teacher–student relationshipdepends both on the teacher as well as the student.
Teachers’ Influence on Student Motivation
Studies have shown that an emphasis on student–faculty interaction, encouraging students,
providing positive feedback to students, developing personal connections with students, andcultivating a positive environment in the classroom all strongly affect student motivation(Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009; Hardre, 2012; Hardre, Sullivan, & Crowson, 2009; Tam, Heng, &Jiang, 2009). Positive teacher interactions with students are a statistically significant predictorof student motivation, thereby influencing positive academic change (Rugutt & Chemosit,2009). Motivational teachers are able to identify learning barriers and create effective strategies
to help their students overcome them, most often giving relevance to the subject matter,creating student interest and developing a genuine and personal connection with students(Hardre, 2012; Hardre & Sullivan, 2009). One study showed that uninteresting classes and lackof will to study discouraged students from learning (Jung, 2011). Another found that
overarching themes of caring and high expectations motivated at-risk adolescent students tograduate from high school (Rowan, 2013). Students respond to teachers who are genuinely
interested in them as individuals, not just an audience to relay information to.
Teacher Qualities
The personal and professional qualities and characteristics of teachers influence the motivationand output of students at all school levels (Gennerman, 2009; Liu & Meng, 2000; Miller, 1987;
Reynolds & Tedlie, 2000). Teachers who have positive social, professional, and organizational
qualities tend to have students that are more likely to be motivated and produce quality learning
outcomes (Buchanan, 2007; Liu & Meng, 2009; Miller, 1987; Reynolds & Tedlie, 2000; Tamet al., 2009). When teachers are unorganized, unprofessional, apathetic, and boring, student
learning outcomes and motivation are negatively affected (Foote, Vermette, Wisniewski,
Agnello, & Pagano, 2000; Strickland, 1998). It is important to consider the personal andprofessional qualities of a teacher in light of the motivation and learning outcomes of students.
Characteristics of Exemplary Teachers
Great teaching is instruction communicated to students that is effectively processed by students
and applied to their studies and life. According to students in a study by Miller (1987),
exemplary teachers have contagious enthusiasm, time for student questions and comments,
control of the classroom pace, and competency in their chosen field. They are humorous,
encouraging, patient, caring, creative, and challenging. Effective teaching processes include
time management, classroom organization (preparing lessons in advance), explaining the
purpose and structure of the lesson, using effective teaching practices, and adapting practices
to different sets of learners (Liu & Meng, 2009; Reynolds & Tedlie, 2000). Exemplary teachers
put forth a persistent effort to see students achieve and want to grow in their own profession as
well (Gennerman, 2009).
Exmplary teachers possess a set of both internal and external characteristics. These internal
characteristics include a strong view of self, a positive view of others and the work of teaching,use of humor in the classroom, desire to learn continuously, and commitment to giving students
what they need (Gennerman, 2009). In conjunction, exemplary teachers possess the following
external characteristics: working in a risk-taking environment, using research-based practices,having a strong connection with students, and working together with colleagues and

	
  

128

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

administration. Numerous studies support these findings, reporting that exemplary teachers
have a strong connection with their students, are humorous in class, and tend to be positive(Buchanan, 2007; Liu & Meng, 2009; Miller, 1987; Reynolds & Tedlie, 2000; Tam et al.,2009).
In contrast, weak teachers do not have adequate knowledge of the subject they are teaching,have poor classroom control, act unprofessionally, focus on inappropriate teaching goals or
have no goals at all, and emphasize methods rather than students (Foote et al., 2000; Strickland,1998). Poor teachers make students dislike the subject matter by making it seem boring or
irrelevant (Foote et al., 2000). One obvious characteristic that weak teachers share isinconsistency (Foote et al., 2000; Strickland, 1998). They may be too strict at times and toolenient at other times, often emotionally temperamental and lacking self-control whendisplaying their displeasure with students. Weak teachers do not work well with theircolleagues and administration and are found to be lazy (Foote et al., 2000). Many of thecharacteristics of examplary teachers are the opposite of those of weak teachers.
Chinese Student Perceptions of Teachers
Student performance is influenced by their perceptions of and interactions with their teachers(Buchanan, 2007; Hardre, 2012; Hardre & Sullivan, 2009; Rugutt & Chemosit, 2009; Tam etal., 2009). In China, these effects are comparable with undergraduate students reporting thatthey desire teachers who are enthusiastic about their class, have a sense of humor, arecompetent, show a certain degree of expertise, are caring, are entertaining, use different
teaching methods, are able to communicate effectively, are fair and approachable, are able to
make students feel smart, are organized, use relevant material, lead lively discussions, andencourage students to be creative (Levy & Peters, 2002; Mu, 2002; Tam et al., 2009). Mu(2002) classified qualities of a good teacher into three categories, namely personality,competence, and delivery. Medical students in Mu’s (2002) study reported that their favorite
teachers were those who possessed these qualities. Although some of these attributes arecongruent with the traditional view of a Chinese teacher, many have been influenced by reformand globalization. Chinese undergraduate students in the 21st century have the world at theirfingertips. Because of the internet, different social and political ideologies are a finger click
away. They exercise a greater amount of freedom than their parents and have not experienced
major social or political commotion in their lifetime (Tam et al., 2009). These factors, among
others, influence what Chinese undergraduate students want from their professors. Students
want teachers who are competent and knowledgeable, genuinely interested in the subject, andchallenge their thinking. They want a close relationship with their teacher (Buchanan, 2007).
In contrast, students do not want teachers and professors who are arrogant, selfish, and teachdirectly from the book (Buchanan, 2007; Hardre, 2012; Hardre & Sullivan, 2009, National
Public Radio [NPR], 1977). They want to be interested in the subject they are studying, andthey want their teachers to make the subject interesting.
Methodology
Approach
Empirical survey research, soliciting both quantitative and qualitative data, was utilized forthis study. Data was collected from January to March, 2014 in Shanghai.

	
  

129

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Sampling
This study used convenience sampling and purposive sampling, similar to the sampling
employed by Tam et al. (2009). Surveys were sent out to three different universities inShanghai, and Chinese students ages 18–36 were recruited as participants. The sampling was
focused on students who had completed at least one year of university, as their responses would
more likely reflect their experience with higher education rather than secondary schooling. The
participants were limited to English majors or those with a sufficient command of the English
language as the survey was written in English. Students in English elective courses on thecampuses of Chinese universities were surveyed. In addition, participants were solicited in hightraffic areas of the campus. The total number of surveys distributed was 279. Only 226 surveys
were completed thoroughly enough to be suitable for analysis.
Instrument
Participants were asked to provide demographic information such as their age, gender, major,
average grade point average (GPA), home province, and year of school. They were then asked
to identify the ethnicity of their favorite teacher and their least favorite teacher, the subjects
they taught, and three qualities to describe each of the two teachers. A five-­‐point Likert scale
was then employed to determine whether students completely disagreed or completely agreed
with a set of 10 statements about their favorite professor and their least favorite professor. The
first five statements were about professor characteristics: expertise, caring, entertaining, highexpectations, and good lecturing ability . The next five statements focused on student feelingsin the class: feeling smarter, learning more, feeling respected, receiving helpful feedback, andtrying harder. The final question was open ended and asked students to finish the statement
taken from the survey by Tam et al. in their 2009 study: “I wish my university professor
would…” The surveys were anonymous and the information provided was given voluntarily.
Similar to Tam et al. (2009), the qualitative data collected were analyzed, coded, andcategorized according to similar words, phrases, and sentences. Descriptives and regressions
were applied to the quantitative data.
Demographics
Age of Participants
The youngest student surveyed was 18 years old and the oldest was 36 years old at the time ofthe survey. The range of ages spanned 18 years. The mean age of students surveyed was 21.5
years (SD=2.8). The median age of students surveyed was 20.5 years. The mode age of students
surveyed was 20 years.
Gender of Participants
Of the students surveyed, 55% (119) were male and 45% (97) were female. Ten respondents
did not answer the gender question on the survey. In 2009, the ratio between males to femalesin Shanghai was 103–107 males to every 100 females (Caguioa, 2010), and between 50.3%
and 51.9% of college admissions in China were female in 2013 (Xinhuanet.com, 2013). The
data collected slightly exceeded the normal population distribution as reported by Caguioa(2010). It was also off by approximately 5% in relation to the male to female ratio among
students in Chinese universities.

	
  

130

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Household Income of Participants
The average Chinese national monthly income is 2,600 RMB; however, Shanghai has a higher
average monthly income, at 3,200 RMB (NY Times, 2013). The vast majority of student
households earned above the national average of 2,600 RMB per month. In fact, they earned
more than double the national average. Only 16% (30) of participants’ families earned similar
to or less than the national average. Exactly 84% (152) of participant’ families earned morethan the national monthly average, while 51% of participants’ families earned more than double
the national monthly average. The average monthly income in China varies greatly dependingon location (rural or urban, coastal or inland) and educational background (Gaokao, college
graduates). It is expected that their status as elite university students contributes to the higher
than average family income ranges.
Participants’ Majors
Student majors were broken down into seven categories, which included medical,
humanities/communications, engineering/technology, language, life/physical sciences, math,or economics/business majors. The medical major category included nursing, pre-med, surgery
and gynecology students. Humanities included law, art history, and philosophy. Language
majors (of which there were only 10; 5% of the sample) were studying Chinese language,
English, and teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages. Life and physical science majors
included biology, physics, chemistry, and anatomy. Math and economics/business majors wereself-inclusive. Of the 226 students surveyed, 28 (12%) left the question of college major blank,
which left the participant pool at N=198. Most of the students were majoring in the fields oftechnology/engineering (33%) and medicine (29%). As stated above, only 5% of participantsstudied a language. However, the lowest percentages were found in economics/business andmath, only 8% of the sample.
Data Analysis
The following data reveals what undergraduate college students in Shanghai think of theirfavorite and least favorite teachers visualized through frequency tables and descriptive
statistics. The goal during analysis was to determine the qualities of students’ favorite teachers
and least favorite teachers and identify attributes that favorite teachers have in common with
one another and that least favorite teachers have in common with one another. Frequency tables
show how common answers were distributed among survey participants.
Favorite Professors
The first five items related to characteristics of favorite professors and the next five related to
how favorite professors made students feel. The first five items were as follows:“My favorite professor is an expert in his/her field,”“My favorite professor cares about students,”“My favorite professor is entertaining,”“My favorite professor has high expectations of his/her students,”“My favorite professor is a strong lecturer.”
Students indicated greatest agreement concerning three characteristics of favorite teachers,
namely expertise (85%), being entertaining (84%), and caring (83%).
The next five statements concerning favorite professors were directed at how the professors
made the student feel and act. These statements were as follows:
	
  

131

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

“As a student, I feel smarter in my favorite professor’s class,”“I learn more in my favorite professor’s class,”“I feel respected by my favorite professor,”“I receive helpful feedback from my favorite professor,”“I try harder for my favorite professor.”
Students indicated greatest agreement with three effects on students, as follows: feelingrespected (82%), learning more (79%), and receiving helpful feedback (78%).
Linear Correlations for Respondents’ Favorite Professor
As seen in Table 1, the mean scores for favorite professor characteristics ranked expertise in
the field as the highest ranked (mean = 4.34, s.d.=0.99). Entertaining (mean = 4.28, s.d. =1.04) and cares about students (mean = 4.23, s.d. = 0.98) rank second and third. Ranking bymean score ran parallel to the results of frequencies measuring agreement with the samecharacteristics of favorite professors.
In addition, we measured means and standard deviations of questions evaluating students’
perceptions of the effect that favorite professors had on them. As seen in Table 1, amongst thefive questions, students rated “feeling respected” highest (mean = 4.21, s.d. = 1.03), followedby “learning more” (mean = 4.19, s.d. = 1.01) and “receiving helpful feedback” (mean = 4.12,
s.d. = 0.99). Similarly, these rankings by mean scores were identical to the rankings whenmeasuring agreement with the respective set of questions measuring student perceptions offavorite professors’ effects on student outcomes.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of how participants think and feel about their favorite
professors
Teacher Quality
Expert in the Field
Cares about Students
Entertaining
Has High Expectations
Strong Lecturer
Professor’s Effect on Student
Feeling Smarter
Learn MoreFeel Respected
Receive Helpful Feedback
Try Harder

Mean
4.34
4.23
4.28
4.07
4.15

Standard Deviation(0.99)(0.98)(1.04)(0.99)(1.01)

3.89
4.19
4.21
4.12
4.04

(1.02)(1.01)(1.03)(0.99)(1.03)

Participant responses were measured on a Likert scale where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree.

	
  Analyzing for relationships between the questions measuring favorite professor qualities andthose measuring effect of favorite professors, a linear correlation was conducted with thefollowing results (see Table 2).

	
  

132

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 2. Correlations between five teacher qualities and five effects on participants for favorite
professors
Measures1.   Expertise2.   Caring
3.   Entertaining
4.   Expectations
5.   Good Lecturer
6.   Feel Smarter7.   Learn More
8.   Feel Respected9.   Good Feedback
10.  Try Harder

1
0.68
0.62
0.57
0.64
0.57
0.59
0.63
0.58
0.55

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.68
0.58
0.61
0.58
0.57
0.68
0.61
0.56

0.46
0.61
0.55
0.50
0.61
0.51
0.45

0.59
0.44
0.39
0.51
0.45
0.44

0.58
0.56
0.52
0.59
0.56

0.63
0.51
0.52
0.51

0.64 0.64 0.69 0.62 0.59 0.66 -Participant responses were measured on a Likert scale where 1 = completely disagree and 5 = completely
agree.
All p-values < 0.05.

As seen in Table 2, all questions measuring favorite teachers’ qualities revealed a moderatecorrelation with questions measuring student perceptions of favorite teachers’ affect on student
outcomes (with correlation coefficents ranging from r = 0.39 to r = 0.68, p < 0.05). The
strongest correlations were seen between feeling respected and caring (r = 0.68, p < 0.05),
feeling respected and expertise (r = 0.63, p < 0.05), feeling respected and entertaining (r = 0.61,
p < 0.05) and good feedback and caring (r = 0.61, p < 0.05). Caring had the highest averagecorrelation with student outcomes (rave = 0.60, p < .05). High expectations had the weakest
average correlation with student outcomes (rave = 0.45, p < .05).
Favorite Professor Qualities
Student participants were asked to name three qualities of their favorite professor. Throughopen and selective coding, nine types of qualities that students attributed to their favorite
professor were identified. These were as follows: appearance, ease, enthusiasm, experience,
entertaining, intelligence, professional skills, personal relationship, and negative qualities.

	
  

133

Frequency	
  of	
  Participant	
  Response	
  in	
  %

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 1. Percentage of all responses to the prompt “Name three qualities of your favorite
professor” (N = 207).
When we aggregated all three responses from each student (see Figure 1), relational connection(32%) and keeping students interested (24%) were the top ranked characteristics offered by
students.
Least Favorite Professors
The first five items in this section of the survey related to characteristics of least favorite
professors and the next five related to how least favorite professors made students feel. The
first five items were as follows:“My least favorite professor is an expert in his/her field,”“My least favorite professor cares about students,”“My least favorite professor is entertaining,”“My least favorite professor has high expectations of his/her students,”“My least favorite professor is a strong lecturer.”
For the majority of students, their least favorite professors lacked all of the qualities that theirmost favorite professors possessed. Out of the five characteristics, expertise was ranked themost prevalent characteristic (45%) for least favorite professors. However, only 19% of
students agreed that their least favorite professor was entertaining. Likewise, less than one thirdof participants agreed that their least favorite professor was caring (28%), had highexpectations (29%) or was a good lecturer (30%).
The next five statements concerning least favorite professors were directed at how the professor
made the student feel and act. These statements were as follows:“As a student I feel smarter in my least favorite professor’s class,”“I learn more in my least favorite professor’s class,”“I feel respected by my least favorite professor,”“I receive helpful feedback from my least favorite professor,”“I try harder for my least favorite professor.”
	
  

134

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

There was no effect that reached the threshold of 25% of the sample. The greatest agreement
was found for the responses “feel respected” (24%) and “try harder” (23%). Relatively few
participants in the sample indicated agreement that their least favorite professor helped themto learn more (15%), feel smarter (16%) or receive helpful feedback (18%).
Linear Correlations for the Least Favorite Professor
As seen in Table 3, the mean scores for least favorite professor characteristics ranked expertisein the field as the highest ranked (mean = 3.33, s.d.= 1.71). High expectations (mean = 2.90,
s.d. = 1.20) and cares about students (mean = 2.80, s.d. = 1.13) rank second and third. Though
the highest ranked category remained the same, the mean scores largely differed from thefrequency analysis of agreement with the same characteristics of least favorite professors.
In addition, we measured means and standard deviations of questions evaluating students’
perceptions of the effect that least favorite professors had on them. As seen in Table 3, amongst
the five questions, students rated “feeling respected” highest (mean = 2.73, s.d. = 1.15),
followed by “try harder” (mean = 2.68, s.d. = 1.20) and “feel smarter” (mean = 2.55, s.d. =1.15). These rankings by mean scores were similar to the rankings when measuring agreementwith the respective set of questions measuring student perceptions of least favorite professors’
effects on student outcomes.
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of How Participants Think and Feel about Their Least
Favorite Professors
Teacher Quality
Mean
Standard Deviation
Expert in Field
3.33(1.71)
Cares about Students
2.80(1.13)
Entertaining
2.34(1.25)Has High Expectations
2.90(1.20)
Strong Lecturer
2.78(1.23)
Professor’s Effect onStudents
Feel Smarter
Learn MoreFeel Respected
Receive Good Feedback
Try Harder

2.55
2.53
2.73
2.54
2.68

(1.15)(1.17)(1.15)(1.16)(1.20)

Participant responses were measured on a Likert scale where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree.

Analyzing for relationships between the questions measuring least favorite professor qualities
and those measuring effect of least favorite professors, a linear correlation was conducted withthe following results (see Table 4).

	
  

135

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 4. Correlations between Five Teacher Qualities and Five Effects on Participants Related
to Least Favorite Professors
Measures1.   Expertise2.   Caring
3.   Entertaining
4.   Expectations
5.   Good Lecturer
6.   Feel Smarter7.   Learn More
8.   Feel Respected9.   Good Feedback
10.  Try Harder

1
0.53
0.28
0.40
0.50
0.23
0.27
0.35
0.33
0.35

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.53
0.45
0.52
0.45
0.56
0.58
0.53
0.47

0.43
0.46
0.49
0.58
0.49
0.59
0.51

0.52
0.35
0.42
0.38
0.47
0.44

0.41
0.55
0.45
0.50
0.51

0.73
0.59
0.66
0.55

0.53 0.72 0.64 0.64 0.53 0.62 -Note. Participant responses were measured on a Likert scale with 1=completely disagree and 5=completely
agree.
All p-values = < 0.05.

As seen in Table 4, questions measuring favorite teachers’ qualities revealed a range ofcorrelation coefficients with questions measuring student perceptions of least favorite teachers’
affect on student outcomes (with correlation coefficents ranging from r = 0.23 to r = 0.59, p <0.05). The strongest correlations were seen between entertaining and good feedback (r = 0.59,
p < 0.05), entertaining and learn more (r = 0.58, p < 0.05), and caring and feel respected (r =0.58, p < 0.05). Caring had the highest average correlation with student outcomes (rave = 0.60,
p < .05). High expectations had the weakest average correlation with student outcomes (rave =0.45, p < .05).
Qualities of the Least Favorite Professor
Student participants were also asked to name three qualities of their least favorite professor.
Through open and selective coding, nine types of quality that students attributed to their least
favorite professor were found: poor appearance, difficult, irresponsibility, unfriendliness,dullness, arrogance, lack of qualifications, communication issues, and positive qualities.

	
  

136

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Frequency	
  of	
  Participant	
  Response	
  in	
  %

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 2. Percentage of all responses to the prompt, “Name three qualities of your favorite
professor” (N =164).
When we aggregate all three responses from each student (see Figure 2), boring (29%) is themost common characteristic attributed to least favorite professors by our sample.
Communications issues (13%), difficulty (13%), and arrogance (11%) were also common
responses offered by students.
Comparing Favorite and Least Favorite Professors
On average, students agreed that their favorite professors possessed the five positive
characteristics; at the same time, relatively few agreed that their least favorite professors
possessed those same characteristics. Likewise, most students agreed that their favorite
professors had effects on student outcomes, but the majority did not express agreement that
their least favorite professors had a similar effect.

	
  

137

Percentage	
  of	
  Participants	
  in	
  Agreement

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Favorite	  Professor
Least	  Favorite	
  Professor

Figure 3. Percentage of participants in agreement or complete agreement with each of the fivestatements about the favorite and least favorite professors (N = 209).

Percentage	
  of	
  Participants	
  in	
  Agreement

As seen in Figure 3, there is a range, 40% to 65%, of gaps between characteristics of favorite
and least favorite professors. The gap between favorite and least favorite professors is greatest
in “entertaining” with a 65% difference. The characteristic with the smallest gap between
favorite and least favorite professors is “expertise” with a 40% difference.

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Favorite	  Professor
Least	  Favorite	
  Professor
Effects	
  on	
  Participants

Figure 10. Percentage of participants in agreement or complete agreement with each of thefive statements about favorite and least favorite professors’ effects on students (N = 209).
As seen in Figure 10, there is a 43% to 53% gap between the impact of favorite and least
favorite professors. The gap between favorite and least favorite professors is greatest in “feelrespected” with a 53% difference. The characteristic with the smallest gap between favorite
and least favorite professors is “feel smarter” with a 43% difference.

	
  

138

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Conclusions
SummaryThis study examined Chinese university students’ perceptions of their professors’
characteristics. Students described their favorite professors as entertaining and caring experts
in their field; these results were confirmed by both means of responses as well as frequenciesof agreement. Similarly, two of those same characteristics were missing from students
descriptions of their least favorite professors: entertaining and caring; this was again confirmed
by both means of responses as well as frequencies of agreement. Finally, when we examine
responses to the open-ended question “Name three qualities of your favorite professor” we see
further confirmation. The top three most frequently cited qualities of favorite professors were:relational (similar to caring), keeps student interest (similar to entertaining), and professional
skill (simliar to expertise). Chinese university students, in summation, value professors who
are relational and caring, entertaining and interesting, skilled and experts.
We also examined how students believe their professors affect student outcomes. The results
based on an analysis of means of responses as well as frequencies of agreement, indicate thatprofessors influence students in divergent ways. Students expressed that they feel more
respected, learn more and receive helpful feedback from their favorite professors. They do not
express the same sentiment towards their least favorite professors, with the greatest differencein opinion in regards to feeling respected. In fact, every characteristic differed in agreement
by at least 45%.
In this study, we sought out to examine the relationship between professors’ chracteristics andstudent outcomes. Though all professors’ characteristics had moderate correlations withstudent outcomes, “caring” had the strongest correlations with student outcomes. “Feelingrespected” had the strongest correlations with professors’ characteristics.
Discussion
University students in China value many of the same characteristics that their peers all aroundthe world do. They value professors that are entertaining, caring and experts in their fields.
They expect these same professors to respect students, result in gains in student learning, andprovide helpful feedback.
The data reiterates the importance of student–faculty interaction, relationships and rapport.
Students also desire what previous studies have shown to be the characteristics of greatteachers. As mentioned above, Miller’s (1987) study demonstrated that great teachers havecontagious enthusiasm and time for student questions and comments. They are encouraging,patient, and caring (Miller, 1987). Students identified similar characteristics as desirable intheir professors. Enthusiasm, encouragement and care were all repeatedly listed by theparticipants as qualities of favorite professors.
Encouraging students, providing positive feedback, developing personal connections withstudents, and cultivating a positive environment in the classroom all positivitely andsignificantly affect student motivation (Hardre 2012; Hardre et al., 2009; Rugutt & Chemosit,
2009; Tam et al., 2009). The majority of students in our study desire professors who care about
them, show an interest in them, and give feedback that can profitably influence their learning.
When professors make their classes interesting and entertaining, it beneficially affects students’
intrinsic motivation.

	
  

139

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

In addition to caring professors, those that were good lecturers and experts in their fields werehighly correlated with increased student learning and student effort. These results confirm thefindings of Foote et al. (2000) that demonstrate that students are motivated to learn when they
have teachers who understand their subject matter and can make learning relevant. More often
than not, educational rhetoric poses subject matter knowledge and pedagogy as the opposite
poles of a stark dichotomy. Rather, our results illustrate the two working in tandem along withpositive rapport with students.
Our conclusions are supported by additional qualitative data included at the end of the survey,
where participants were told to finish the sentence, “I wish my university professor would…”
Out of the 226 participants, 57% (N = 129) responded. Of those who gave a response, 30% (N= 68) of participants mentioned “fun,” “funny,” “humor,” “interesting,” or “entertaining.” Forexample, a 27-year-old male biology student stated, “I wish my university professor would befunny, knowledgeable and focus on the details of our class.” A 24-year-old male medical
student, made the following statement, “I wish my university professor would be an expert inhis or her field and organize the class very well… He should also be interesting.” Again,
Chinese university students wanted professors who were interesting, entertaining and experts
in their field. Several also desired interaction with their professors in and out of the classroom.
Despite these findings, many participants provided examples of extrinsic motivation in regards
to their perceptions and expectations of their professors, confirming the findings of Pratt et al.
(2009) and Rugutt and Chemosit (2009), who reported that many students are motivatedextrinsically, for example through grades and test scores.
Limitations
Among the possible confounding variables and limitations, we highlight the following three:cultural and linguistic bias, leading questions, and subjectivity of qualitative coding. The
surveys were distributed to Chinese university students in college-level English courses withthe assumption of their English ability based on their enrolment in the courses. It must be
noted, however, that it would be reasonable to expect some variability in English fluency andability. If the survey had been translated into Chinese, some of these concerns would be
mitigated. The likert scale questions, though based on the findings in the literature review,
could lead to results that were self-fulfilling. As seen in the results for the likert scale questions,frequencies of agreement were uniformly high as were the correlation coefficients. In our study,
we followed up with several open-ended questions which verified the results of our likert scalequestions. Expanding the list of characteristics to 10 or more would have potentially provided
greater variability in the results. The open-ended questions, although potentially more authentic
and valid, were subjectively coded and categorized. Again, the qualitative coding process was
systematic and informed by the literature review, but we admit the subjectivity of this approach.
Additional coders, checking for coding consistency, may have increased the reliability of thedata.
Implications
The extensions of this study are numerous and varied. Studies in other national and culturalcontexts could be applied and those results could be compared to ours. Additional
characteristics could be added so that a larger range of teacher qualities could be evaluated andcorrelated with student outcomes.
Admissions and recruiting offices would be advised to expand their application requirements
so that candidates would provide evidence not only of pedagogical and subject matter expertise,
	
  

140

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

but in addition, demonstrate their capacity to develop rapport with students and their ability tomake learning interesting and engaging, screening out those who lack those key qualifications.
Pre- and in-service training may benefit from adding curriculum that develops compassion,
care and interpersonal skills in addition to strategies for infusing fun, excitement andengagement into their pedagogy.
We believe that the question of what makes an exemplary teacher is one that must becontinually and repeatedly asked. There are notions of teaching that persist through generations
and across contexts, but at the same time, these characteristics are not static but vary in theirappearance and outcomes. According to our data, exemplary teachers are those that care about
students, make learning interesting, and possess expertise in their field. Just a few decades ago,expertise may have had greater prominance compared to caring and entertaining as
characteristics of exemplary teachers. Most of us had a favorite teacher that stands out becauseof some set of traits or behaviors that impressed us, changed us, gave us a reason to learn. If
nothing more, our data confirms the value of teachers and their impact on our lives.

141

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

References
Abrahamson, C. (2011). Methodologies for motivating student learning through personalconnections. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2011(3).
Al Jazeera (2013, December 4). Global education survey puts Shanghai on top. Al
Jazeera America.
Brown, L. V. (2007). Psychology of motivation. New York: Nova Publishers.
Buchanan, M. T. (2007). Senior school religious education curriculum: What do students want?
International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 95-102.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i02/46138
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H.
Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (169-206). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Duarte, F. (2013). Conceptions of good teaching by good teachers: Case studies from anAustralian university. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 10(1), 117.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284. Retrieved on January 05, 2016
from http://www.scribd.com/doc/60386128/Zoltan-Dornyei-1994-Motivation-andMotivating-in-the-Foreign-Language-Classroom.
Dornyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization of
student motivation. The British Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 519-538.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158281
Eichhorn, N. (2013). Teaching the survey non-traditional style. History Teacher, 46(3) 435454.
English.news.cn. (2013, September 25). China maintains “balanced” male to female ratio inuniversity admission. Xinhua English News. Retrieved on January 05, 2016 fromhttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-09/25/c_132750343.htm
Estepp, C., & Roberts, T. (2013). Exploring the relationship between professor/student rapportand students’ expectancy for success and values/goals in college of agricultureclassrooms. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(4), 180-194.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.04180
Foote, C., Vermette, P., Wisniewski, S., Agnello, A., & Pagano, C. (2000). The characteristics
of bad high school teachers reveal avoidable behaviors for new teachers. Education,
121(1), 128-135.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful andunsuccessful EFL students, 88(1), 229-244.
Gennerman, T. (2009). Great teachers: The internal and external characteristics that sustain
them (Order No. 3388813).
Grayson, J. P. (2004). The relationship between grades and academic program satisfaction overfour years of study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34(2).

142The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Greenwald, A. (1997). Validity concerns and the usefulness of student ratings. American
Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1182
Gruber, T., Lowrie, A., Brodowsky, G., Reppel, A., Voss, R., & Chowdhury, I. N. (2012).
Investigating the influence of professor characteristics on student satisfaction anddissatisfaction: A comparative study. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(4) 165-178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475312450385
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Standing in the gap: Research that supports strategies for motivating andretaining rural high school students. Rural Educator,1.
Hardré, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2009). Motivating adolescents: Teachers' beliefs, perceptions
and classroom practices. Teacher Development,13(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530902858469
Hayhoe, R. (1984). Contemporary Chinese education. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Jung, S. K. (2011). Demotivating and remotivating factors in learning English: A case of lowlevel college students. English Teaching, 66(2), 47-72.
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.66.2.201106.47
Komarraju, M., Musulkin S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student–faculty interactions
indeveloping college students’ academic self concept, motivation, and achievement.
Journal of College Student Development 51(3), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0137
Kourieos, S., & Evripidou, D. (2013). Students' perceptions of effective EFL teachers inuniversity settings in Cyprus. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n11p1
Lee, T. (1985). Government education and examinations in Sung, China. The Chinese
University Press, 5-17.
Levy, G., & Peters, W. (2002). Undergraduates’ views of best college courses. Teaching of
Psychology, 29(1), 46-48.
Liu, S., & Meng, L. (2009). Perceptions of teachers, students and parents of the characteristics
of good teachers: A cross cultural comparison of China and the United States.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 313-328.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9077-z
Micari, M. & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: Impact of the student-faculty
relationship in a highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60, 41-47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.627576
Miller, P. (1987). Ten characteristics of a good teacher. Reflections, 25(1), 36-39.
Ministry of Education (2001). Action plan for vitalizing education in the 21st century. Chinese
Education and Society, 34(4), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932340418
Mu, J. (2002). A research on developing criteria for teaching evaluation by students. Medical
Education (China).
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoreticalframework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02011.x
Paine, L. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College,92(1), 49-81.
Parker, F., & Parker, B. (1986). Education in the People’s Republic of China, past andpresent: An annotated bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing.
143

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Peterson, S., Schreiber, J., & Moss, C. (2011). Changing preservice teachers' beliefs
about motivating students. Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(1), 27-39.
Pratt, C., Agnello, M. F., & Santos, S. (2009). Factors that motivate high-school students'
decisions to study Spanish. Hispania, 92(4), 800-813.  
Reichel, N., & Arnon, S. (2009). A multicultural view of the good teacher in Israel. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802661329
Rugutt, J., & Chemosit, C. C. (2009). What motivates students to learn? Contributionof student-to -student relations, student-faculty interaction and critical thinking skills.
EducationalResearch Quarterly, 32(3), 16-28.
Rutherford, D. (1982). Developing university teaching: A strategy for revitalization. Higher
Education, 11(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139687
Samples, J. W., & Copeland, S. E. (2013). The universality of good teaching: A study ofdescriptors across disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 25(2), 176-188.
Socha, A., & Sigler, E. A. (2012). Using multidimensional scaling to improve functionality of
the revised learning process questionnaire. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 37(4), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.536835
Strickland, G. (1998). Bad teachers: The essential guide for concerned parents. New York:
Gallery Books.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectivenessresearch. London: Falmer Press.
Tam, K., Heng, M., & Jiang, G. (2009). What undergraduate students in China say about theirprofessors' teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 147-159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902757179
Umbach, P., & Wawrzynski, M. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty instudent learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
Vajoczki, S., Savage, P., Martin, L., Borin, P., & Kustra, E. D. H. (2011). Good teachers,
scholarly teachers and teachers engaged in scholarship of teaching and learning: A
case study from McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1),1-27.
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.1.2
Walsh, D., & Maffei, M. (1994). Never in a class by themselves: An examination of behaviors
affecting the student-professor relationship. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching,
5, 23-49.
Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in foreign and second language learning: An interactive
perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77-84.
Williams, W., & Ceci, S. (1997). How’m I doing? Problems with student ratings of
instructors and courses. Change, 29(5), 12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389709602331
Wilson, R. (1998, January 16). New research casts doubt on student evaluations of professors.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12A.
144

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Zhao, K., & Ting, K. (2013). Student attitudes towards teaching methods used in universities
the UK. Review of European Studies, 5(4), 71-81.

145