1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Education is the process of learning and acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and

learning habits. Educational method involve different kinds of learning approaches as well as

teacher to help others to acquire knowledge, proficiency and principles. Learning is the desire of

knowledge. More of an epistemological approach, we learn to acquire new or existing

knowledge in order to obtain evidences of knowledge. Knowledge comes from learning.

Teaching and learning are the two sides of a coin. The most accepted criterion for measuring

good teaching is the amount of student learning that occurs. There are consistently high

correlations between students’ ratings of the “amount learned” in the course and their overall

ratings of the teacher and the course. Those who learned more gave their teachers higher ratings

(Cohen, 1981; Theall and Franklin, 2001). A teacher effectiveness is the amount of student

learning. There is a relationship between teaching’s approaches, their conception of teaching and

their perception of teaching atmosphere. There are different types of students who wants to adopt

a deep approach take an active role and see learning as self-learning, whereas those who adopt a

surface approach take a passive role and see learning as something that just happens to them.

A teaching method consist of the principles and methods used by teachers to allow student

learning. These strategies are determined partially on subject matter to be taught and partially by

the essence of the learner. Interestingly, teacher and students' races have been differentially

related to teachers ‘perceptions of student behavior (Downey & Pribesh, 2004).

1.1 TEACHING METHOD

1.1.2 Approaches to learning:

There are various methods adopted by the students in order to acquire knowledge and

knowledge comes from learning. Britain and Sweden interviewed during the 1970s had
 2

identified three predominant approaches to studying in higher education: a deep approach, based

upon knowing the meaning of course materials; a surface approach, based upon recalling the

course materials for the purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining

the highest grades. Even so, same students could perform different methods to learning

approaches, depending upon the demands of different course units (Eley, 1992), the quality of

the teaching (Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999), and the nature of the assessment

(Scouller, 1998). Those students who adopted prpblem-based curricula are more likely to choose

deep learning approach in order to acquire and solve the problem and doesn’t recommend

surface learning method (Newble & Clarke, 1986; Sadlo & Richardson, 2003). Ramsden (1991)

devised the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). The 30 item scale included different

aspects of effective guidance: good teaching; clear goals and standards; appropriate workload;

appropriate assessment; and emphasis on independence. The result revealed that there is a

relationship between student’s perception of the characteristics of their subjects and the

approached to studying they adopt (Richardson, 2005). Those students who recommend deep

approach are performing an active role and self-studying have five different conceptions: they

see learning as the increase of knowledge; learning as recalling, learning the acquisition of facts

or procedure, Learning as the abstraction of meaning and Learning as an interpretative process

aimed at the understanding of reality (Säljo,1979). Students who hold a procreative conception

of learning through exposure to a subject-based curriculum may simply find it hard to adapt to a

more student-centered curriculum (e.g., Newman, 2004).

1.1.3 Approaches to teaching:

Trigwell and Prosser (1996) found that teachers who held student centred conceptions of

teaching also held student centred approach towards teaching. Further it has been noted that
 3

controlling for different institutions, concept of teaching varied with the discipline that was

taught (Norton et al., 2005). In other words, teachers’ beliefs varied across disciplines but not

within disciplines. Prosser and Trigwell (1993) interviewed 24 chemistry and physics teacher

and developed Approaches to Teaching Inventory which has been used quantitatively to show

that student focused teaching determines more desirable student approaches to learning

(Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse, 1999). Later Prosser and Trigwell (1997) invented the

Perceptions of the Teaching Environment Inventory to measure situation of the teacher. The

results of their research showed that student focused teachers revealed more autonomy over

teaching and more positive views about the department.

1.1.4: STUDENT TEACHER RELATIONSHIP

Before we start the discussion, it is important to understand that measures of student

teacher relationships by themselves do not predict good academic achievements. There can be

poor academic achievement despite good relationships, however this relationship generally does

add to other variables to produce better results. This is not to say that this variable is

unimportant. In fact, schools and colleges frequently invest more on the size of the class and

availability of instructional supplies and underrate the relationships between students and

teachers. The underlying assumptions in these investments could not be further from the truth.

According to a study of 4000 elementary and middle school students, positive relationships was

a stronger predictor of math performance than experience of the teacher, size of the class or

availability of teaching facilities (Borman & Overman, 2004). Furthermore, positive student

teacher relationships and teacher support have been shown to moderate the impact of low

parental expectations and other risk factors for low income, racially diverse students (Wood,

Kaplan, & McLoyd, 2007). Positive student teacher relationships have not only predicted better
 4

academic performance (Goodenow, 1993) but also have predicted indicators of better academic

performance which include improved study habits (Stewart, 2007), engagement (Green, Rhodes,

Hirsch, Suarez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008), increased academic aspirations (Eccles & Wigfield,

2002; McCollum & Yoder, 2011), while dropout rate has been predicted by negative teacher

relationships (Wentzel, 2002).

Positive student-teacher relationships predict better grades, more resiliency in academic

achievement, improve social skills and adjustment in school (Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004;

Birch & Ladd, 1997; Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Hamre &

Pianta, 2001; Rudasill, Reio, Stipanovic, & Taylor, 2010). Students who had a positive

relationship were reported by the teacher to not only be more motivated but also to have

decreased absence rates, to appear more self-directed and cooperative (Birch & Ladd, 1997;

Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007; Klem & Connell, 2004).

1.2 METHODOLOGY

Correlational strategy was used to find correlation between four variables

Sample and sampling technique: the sample consisted of experienced 87 teachers aged 30-60

from different departments of university and has been collected though stratified sampling

technique.

Instruments: the questionnaire was self-developed and contained 18 items which includes four

variables; student-teacher relationship, student types, approaches to studying and approaches to

teaching.
 5

Inclusion criteria: Stratified random sampling technique was used. Experienced teachers were

included. Exclusion criteria: Visiting faculties and fresh teachers were excluded.

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW.

The common method of rating teachers at the end of the course has been a matter of hot

debate since 1920s, when they were first employed (Chang, 2001). Student ratings are being

used in 90% of the colleges in USA (Cuseo, n.d.) and in similar rates worldwide. According to

Ory, students’ ratings of teachers is the most common tool in the entire higher education

scientific research and the topic has compiled over 2000 books and articles. Many researchers

have questioned whether students can give a rational judgement about the better teacher, and the

findings indicate that students are reliable and rational judges of teacher effectiveness (Arreola,

1995; Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Pratt, 1997). Others have questioned the definition of teacher

effectiveness (Centra; 1993); Braskamp, and Ory; 1994).

A meta-analysis of 41 studies concluded that although student ratings of teachers does not

measure teacher effectiveness, it does measure a strong predictor of effective teaching; student

satisfaction (Theall and Franklin, 2001).” The general conclusion of this research has been that

student ratings are useful, reliable, unbiased and valid (Murray, 1994). Over time, this method

has evolved in methodology and is now being used by teachers as feedback, by students to

choose courses (Ory, 2000) and by administrators to make decisions regarding promotion,

tenure, hiring, teaching awards and most importantly in assigning teachers to courses.

A study was conducted in Pakistan to explore the effectiveness of different teaching

techniques used for teaching students at graduate level (Dr. Shahida Sajjad, 2011). A sample of

two hundred and twenty undergraduate students studying in 11 different departments were
 6

selected through purposive sampling and were interviewed about their opinion of their favorite

effective teaching techniques. Findings suggested that the teaching technique was the first and

group discussion was the second best technique according to students because it is time saving as

well as creative.

1) STUDENT TEACHER RELATIONSHIP

Picture a student who visits his teacher in counseling hours regularly, feels a strong

connection with the teacher and receives more praise and encouragement from the teacher; will

not the student also behave better in class? Another picture of a positive relationship can be a

male student who feels comfortable admitting his inability to understand a concept even though

his whole class has understood. We can also imagine a student who is able to discuss that she is

getting bullied.

Before we start the discussion, it is important to understand that measures of student

teacher relationships by themselves do not predict good academic achievements. There can be

poor academic achievement despite good relationships, however this relationship generally does

add to other variables to produce better results. This is not to say that this variable is

unimportant. In fact, schools and colleges frequently invest more on the size of the class and

availability of instructional supplies and underrate the relationships between students and

teachers. The underlying assumptions in these investments could not be further from the truth.

According to a study of 4000 elementary and middle school students, positive relationships was

a stronger predictor of math performance than experience of the teacher, size of the class or

availability of teaching facilities (Borman & Overman, 2004). Furthermore, positive student

teacher relationships and teacher support have been shown to moderate the impact of low
 7

parental expectations and other risk factors for low income, racially diverse students (Wood,

Kaplan, & McLoyd, 2007).

The widespread assumption that positive emotional interactions are only important for

elementary students is a myth. For kindergarteners, a positive relationship predicts decreased

loneliness, increased attraction towards school and even better grades (Birch & Ladd, 1997).

Similar results apply to fifth graders; higher emotional support from the teacher predicted more

motivation, enjoyment and willful cooperation even for a subject like mathematics (Rimm-

Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, Curby, & Abry, 2014). The fact is that middle and high school

students benefit from such interactions as well (Allen et al., 2013; Meece, Herman, & McCombs,

2003; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012). Although the same behaviors (kissing

the cheek) could be perceived by a kindergartener as nurturing and by a middle schooler as

cringe worthy. Furthermore, as students grow older, research has shown that the gap widens

between students’ perception of teachers and teachers’ perception of themselves (McCombs &

Miller, 2006).

Positive student-teacher relationships predict better grades, more resiliency in academic

achievement, improve social skills and adjustment in school (Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004;

Birch & Ladd, 1997; Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Hamre &

Pianta, 2001; Rudasill, Reio, Stipanovic, & Taylor, 2010). Students who had a positive

relationship were reported by the teacher to not only be more motivated but also to have

decreased absence rates, to appear more self-directed and cooperative (Birch & Ladd, 1997;

Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007; Klem & Connell, 2004).

Teachers who report having poor relationships with students view the students as less

academically competent (Hughes, Gleason, & Zhang, 2005), less likely to do well (Chavous et
 8

al., 2008; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010), and less motivated (Hughes & Kwok,

2007; Hughes et al., 2008; Seifert, 2004). Students who experience negative relationships with

teachers report lower levels of self-worth (Juvonen, 2006), less perceived support and respect

(Roesner, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000), and feel less academically competent (Juvonen, 2006;

Paulson et al., 1998).

Positive student teacher relationships have not only predicted better academic

performance (Goodenow, 1993) but also have predicted indicators of better academic

performance which include improved study habits (Stewart, 2007), engagement (Green, Rhodes,

Hirsch, Suarez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008), increased academic aspirations (Eccles & Wigfield,

2002; McCollum & Yoder, 2011), while dropout rate has been predicted by negative teacher

relationships (Wentzel, 2002).

On the opposite end, students who rate their teachers as caring display higher levels of

academic engagement (Green, Rhodes, Hirsch, Suarez-Orozco, & Camic, 2008; O’Connor &

McCartney, 2007; Wentzel, 2002) and feelings of academic competence (Hughes, Gleason, &

Zhang, 2005; Paulson, Marchant, & Rothlisberg, 1998; Stewart, 2007), both of which are linked

to academic achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; McCollum & Yoder, 2011).

Even teaching practices that are more relationship oriented (learner-centred) produced

students with greater achievement motivation than teaching practices that were less relationship

oriented (teacher-centred) (Daniels & Perry, 2003). Variables measuring perceived fairness and

respect from teachers have also been consistently associated with student levels of motivation

(Murdock & Miller, 2003), classroom engagement (Goodenow, 1993), and academic outcomes

(McCollum & Yoder, 2011; Wentzel, 2002).

 9

Finally, the findings have been evidenced through the experimental method as well.

Students with emotional and behavioral problems were assigned to an intervention which

included monthly calls to the student and weekly visits to the teacher. These students

demonstrated better academic performance over the 5 month period compared to the control

group (Murray & Malmgren, 2005). In another study, researchers from the University of

California Santa Barbara oversaw an intervention in which trained marriage and family

counselors were hired to develop close relationships with students at severe risk of dropping out.

The intervention cut the dropout rate in half.

It is important to note that there are also long term impacts of the student teacher

relationships. One study reported improved social skills in middle schoolers who had positive

relationships in kindergarten compared to kindergarteners with negative relationships (Berry &

O'Connor, 2009), and another study reported decreased academic performance in Math and

English and increased behavioral issues in eighth grade of students who had more conflictual or

dependent relationships in kindergarten (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

There are many theories that are needed to explain why positive teacher student

relationships matter. According to attachment theory, students with strong bonds with the

teachers view their teachers as strong foundation from which exploration of the classroom

becomes possible. These students can recover through failure easily and don’t resist the ever

increasing challenges of student life. According to this theory, secure attachment with the teacher

can even heal wounds of insecure attachment with the parents (O'Connor & McCartney, 2007).

On the other hand, Social cognitive theory posits that the relationship with the teacher

effects students by affecting their self-efficacy and by modelling behavior. Academic self-
 10

efficacy is the student’s perceived ability to succeed in academics and modelling behavior is

behavior students observe and copy from the teacher.

Students have greater self-efficacy and perform better in school if the teacher encourages

them both in actions and in words. Students understand both explicit and implicit messages of

the teacher and can decipher if they do not synchronize (Pianta, et al., 2001; Rimm-Kaufman et

al., 2002; Hemmeter & Conroy, 2012).

Students copy most of the behavior that teacher does, whether students know it or not.

This is especially powerful when the teacher creates better relationships with students and among

students (Charney, 2002; Donahue, Perry & Weinstein, 2003; Wentzel, 2010). It has been

demonstrated that taking an active stance for positive classroom atmosphere by persistently

modeling prosocial behavior is better than a passive stance which takes action after negative

interactions have occurred (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Students have also been reported to be

noticing teacher’s reactions to stress e.g. negative strategies would include making mean or

disrespectful jokes about colleagues (Jones, Bouffard, & Weissbourd, 2013).

According to a third theory, the quality of student teacher relationships can predict

teacher expectations, which positively predicts student outcome expectations and self-efficacy

(McCollum & Yoder, 2011). The effects of expectations on academic achievement have been

proved through rigorous scientific research. In another study, a sample of college students with

equal math ability was taken by Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, (1999). The control and experimental

group were given a math test, but the experimental group was told in addition that the test had

shown sex differences in results while the control group was told the test was gender neutral.
 11

Females had equal scores in the control group and lower scores in the experimental group. In

another study, only a sample of male students was taken and primed with information about

female excellence in academics (Hartley and Sutton, 2013). This had a strong impact on their

abilities across a range of subjects; reading, writing and math. Even when girls are achieving

better than boys in math related skills, parents still expect boys to get achieve more in math

related skills (Frome & Eccles, 1998).

Negative student teacher relationships are evidenced by teacher frustration, irritability

and anger towards that student. Negative student teacher relationships predict increased stress for

both students and teachers (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Lisonbee, Mize, Payne, & Granger,

2008) and have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on the students’ emotional and

social development (McCormick & O'Connor, 2014; O'Connor, Collins, & Supplee, 2012). What

about students who have serious discipline problems? Research shows again and again that

strong bonds with these students helps them more than ordinary students, although it may require

more investment on the teacher’s part (Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Pianta, 1999; Rudasill, Rimm-

Kaufman, Justice, & Pence, 2006; Spangler Avant, Gazelle, & Faldowski, 2011). It is important

to note that probably no other teacher is looking after problem children and the teacher should

not be expecting immediate changes to occur in these children either.

If these students are more than a few, than the teacher resorts to yelling and punitive

control which further distorts the relationship between teachers and students. Student bullying

eventually becomes a routine occurrence in these classrooms (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2006).

Effects of student teacher relationships don’t act like a law, in reality there are a lot of

individual differences. One study found equally beneficial effects for children belonging to poor

and rich families, and for children belonging to single parent and dual parent families (Merritt,
 12

Wanless, Rimm-Kaufman, Cameron, & Peugh, 2012). Furthermore, emotionally supportive

classrooms predicted decreased levels of aggression and increased levels of self-control among

first graders in the same study. Other studies have shown significant individual differences

classifying children differently. In one study, bold and outgoing kindergarteners were more

affected by emotionally sensitive classrooms than shy children, although both the groups showed

significant differences in increased self-reliant behavior and decreased off task and aggressive

behavior (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002). Secondly, children at risk of failure showed greater

improvement in grades as a consequence of teacher’s emotional support compared to their

average performing peers (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Thirdly, these positive relationships were

more helpful for students with internalizing problems (anxiety etc.), externalizing problems

(aggression etc.) and learning problems (attention deficit etc.) than for the control group (Baker,

2006). It has to be noted that students with internalizing problems demonstrate greater

dependency on the teacher and those with externalizing problems show more conflict (Murray &

Murray, 2004; O'Connor et al., 2012).

There are also individual differences in the groups of people who usually face a lack of

positive relationships. Firstly, Hughes and Kwok (2007) found that African Americans had

worse relationships with their teachers compared to Caucasian and Hispanic children. In

addition, they found that worse relationships in first grade contributed to decreased engagement

and academic performance in second grade. More accurately, research has shown that teachers

develop closer bonds with students sharing their ethnicity (Kesner, 2000).

Secondly, teachers usually rate their relationships with female students as more positive

regardless of race (Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008; Murray, Murray, & Waas, 2008; Sirin &

Rogers-Sirin, 2005). Moreover, boys demonstrate decreased closeness and increased conflict
 13

compared to the opposite sex (Baker, 2006; Howes et al., 2000; Hughes, Cavell, & Wilson,

2001), although conflict has increased negative impact for girls compared to boys (McCormick

& O'Connor, 2014). Although before jumping to conclusions we have to realize that teachers

expect more from boys in math skills even when boys are achieving lower than girls (Herbert &

Stipek, 2005). In another study of third and fourth grade teachers rated boys as more capable in

math despite students who had no variation in math grades (Jussim and Eccles, 1992). On the

other hand, a significant negative effect of teachers’ gender stereotypes on students’ reading self-

concept has been recorded for boys but not for girls (Retelsdorf et al., 2014).

Thirdly, those students with mild intellectual retardation or internalizing problems

(Murray & Greenberg, 2001), confident students with weak language skills (Rudasill et al.,

2006) and students who have developed problem behaviors at home and school (Birch & Ladd,

1998; Murray & Murray, 2004; O'Connor et al., 2012) have increased chances of developing

negative relationships with their teacher.

There is a research gap investigating the characteristic of the teacher that has positive

relationships with students although this research could play a vital role in the selection of

teachers. Although most research has focused on kindergarteners, it has been found that teachers

who remember a nurturing upbringing (Kesner, 2000) and teachers who used student centered

strategies (Manticopoulous, 2005) report improved relationships with preschoolers.

In middle school, perception of the teacher’s support in addition to parental support

predicts their motivation in school (Wentzel, 1997). In high school, parent and teacher support

coupled with teacher and parent monitoring and high expectations predict performance in math

(Gregory & Weinstein, 2004).

 14

After all this has been said, it is important to remember Getzels and Jackson (1963, p.

574) words about teacher student relationships which will lead us to the next section:

“For example, it is said after the usual inventory tabulation, that good teachers are

friendly, cheerful, sympathetic and morally virtuous rather than cruel, depressed, unsympathetic

and morally depraved. But when this has been said, not very much that is especially useful has

been revealed. For what conceivable human interaction-and teaching implies first and foremost a

human interaction-is not better if people involved are friendly, cheerful, sympathetic and

virtuous rather than the opposite. What is needed is not research leading to the reiteration of the

self-evident, but to the discovery of specific and distinctive features of teaching personality and

of the effective teacher.”

2) TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

A qualitative and quantitative analysis suggested the policies supported by the states

regarding teacher education; licensing, hiring and professional growth may make important

differences in the qualifications and capacities that teachers bring to their work. Using data from

a 50-state survey of policies, the study analyzed the ways in which teacher qualifications and

other school guidance were related to student achievement across states. The findings of both the

qualitative and quantitative analyses recommended that improvement in student performances

was related to policy investments in the quality of teachers. Also the teachers’ preparation and

certification were the strength of student achievement in reading and mathematics. These State

policy surveys and case study data were used to evaluate policies that influence the overall level

of teacher qualifications. Many studies have provided that inexperienced teachers are less

effective in teaching perspective than more senior teachers because the older teachers continue to
 15

grow and learn and may grow tired in their jobs additionally benefits of experience may interact

with educational opportunities.

a) Education

Teacher’s education has been operationalized in prior literature by the number of college

courses taken within that subject area or a subject knowledge test. Although most of the initial

studies had concluded that there was no relationship between level of education and students’

performance, the new results paint a picture of a curvilinear relationship.

According to the one of the oldest reviews, which had focused on math teaching had

found no linear relationship of number of courses with teacher performance (Begle and Geeslin,

1972). According to another review, 17 studies had shown a positive relationship while 14 had

shown no relationship at all (Byrne, 1983). It is important to note the fact that according to

Byrne, the no relationship studies had shown insignificant variability in teacher knowledge

making the insignificant findings almost inevitable. Another review (Ashton and Crocker, 1987)

reported an even smaller number of studies to have a positive relationship (5 of 14). On the other

hand, the studies that have measured subject knowledge through standardized tests (National

Teacher Examinations) have found statistically insignificant correlations (positive and negative)

with either student performance or ratings by supervisors (Quirk, Witten, & Weinberg, 1973;

Andrews, Blackmon & Mackey, 1980; Madaus, & Kreitzer, 1986; Ayers & Qualls, 1979;

Haney,; Summers & Wolfe, 1975).

Firstly, since most of the prior mentioned research has taken place in USA, it is worth

mentioning that most of USA’s tests have used multiple choice tests that are not valid for

measuring application of knowledge or ability to analyse. More valid tests, such as a French

spoken language test has found significant correlations to student performance measured by
 16

spoken language tests (Carroll, 1975). This also explains why measures of course taking have

been more frequently related to teacher performance.

Secondly, the prior mentioned studies do not take into account high achieving or low

achieving students, the nature of the relationship over time and differing grade levels of students.

For example, one study that controlled for the school setting along with years of teaching

experience found that returns to subject matter expertise were significant, especially for algebra

courses (Hawk, Coble, & Swanson, 1985). This finding is mirrored in a review of 65 studies that

found that teacher’s educational achievement in education and science was correlated positively

to achievement in science courses, especially in higher level science courses (Druva and

Anderson, 1983).

Thirdly, given that subject expertise matters more for higher level courses we can also

assume that subject matter would stop having a relationship with student performance beyond a

level that exceeds the needs of the curriculum. Analysing data of 2829 participants from the

Longitudinal Study of American Youth, it was found that the relationship between teacher’s

subject expertise in math and science with student performance is curvilinear (Monk, 1994). In

other words, beyond a certain level of study teacher’s academic achievement ceased to matter.

Fourthly, teacher’s academic achievement measured in degrees has predicted positive

effect on student performance and decreased dropout rate (Council for School Performance,

1997; Knoblock, 1986; Sanders, Skonie-Hardin, & Phelps, 1994).

Fifth, it also matters if the degree is done in education or in the subject matter. Generally

education degrees have proven to have a more positive effect than subject matter degrees. Begle

(1972) who had found no relationship of number of courses with teacher performance in his

review, found that number of credits in mathematics methods courses was a more strongly
 17

related to student achievement compared to number of credits in math courses, after reviewing

results of the National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities (Begle, 1979). While

Ashton and Crocker (1987) had found 5 out of 14 studies showing a positive correlation between

subject expertise and student achievement, it had found 4 out of 7 studies showing a positive

correlation between subject expertise and student achievement. Similarly, Monk (1994) had

found that teacher education courses were sometimes more strongly correlated to student

performance than subject matter courses.

However, again it has to be noted that these are simply correlational studies. It is not sure

if it is the knowledge acquired or the enthusiasm for learning in the teacher that cause a positive

influence on student behaviour (Murnane, 1985). Conclusively, regardless of knowing the true

cause we can say that subject matter prowess can predict better student behaviour in a curvilinear

way, with the threshold being higher for more complicated courses.

b) Teaching experience.

It is very easy to operationalize teaching experience which is usually measured in years.

The relationship. While many studies have compared less experienced teachers (<3 years) with

more experienced teachers to find a positive relationship (Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Klitgaard &

Hall, 1974), it has to be said that these studies are susceptible to cohort effects and the perks of

experience only matter to a certain threshold. In other words, there is a curvilinear relationship

between teaching experience and student performance. This is because teachers with more than 3

year experience usually continue with higher education and they do not always continue to learn

in their jobs. This explains why teachers in settings that emphasize teacher learning continue to

learn and improve student performance beyond the threshold (Rosenholtz, 1984).
 18

Closer to our topic, if a teacher has a higher amount of education done before a high

amount of teaching experience, we can say that expertise in that subject has become old and

might not be as useful as it was in the few years after completing degree or as it was with fewer

years of teaching experience. The recency of educational achievement has been proved to have a

relationship with student performance (Hanushek, 1971).

c) Approaches to teaching

It is obvious to understand that when confronted with the situation, teachers respond with

varied approaches. Researchers have attributed this variability to styles of thinking and

personality attributes. More important to our discussion, some researchers have attributed this

variability to variability in the concept of teaching. Kember (1997) pointed out that most of the

interview based research on teachers’ conceptions have merged to 5, which can best be

described as either teacher focused aimed at transmission of knowledge or student centered

aimed at transformation of concepts. Prosser and Trigwell (1993) interviewed 24 chemistry and

physics teacher and developed Approaches to Teaching Inventory which has been used

quantitatively to show that student focused teaching determines more desirable student

approaches to learning (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse, 1999). Later Prosser and Trigwell

(1997) invented the Perceptions of the Teaching Environment Inventory to measure situation of

the teacher. The results of their research showed that student focused teachers revealed more

autonomy over teaching and more positive views about the department.

Secondly, Trigwell and Prosser (1996) found that teachers who held student centred

conceptions of teaching also held student centred approach towards teaching. Further it has been

noted that controlling for different institutions, concept of teaching varied with the discipline that
 19

was taught (Norton et al., 2005). In other words, teachers’ beliefs varied across disciplines but

not within disciplines.

3) STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

a) Approaches to studying in students

Learning styles have been measured by instruments such as Approaches to Studying

Inventory

(Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) or the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987). Initial

research has shown that the same students change their learning styles when any one of these

three variables are manipulated: demands of different course units (Eley, 1992), the quality of the

teaching (Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999), and the nature of the assessment (Scouller,

1998). However subsequent interventions manipulating these variables have been proven to be

ineffective (Gibbs, 1992; Hambleton, Foster, & Richardson, 1998; Kember, Charlesworth,

Davies, McKay, & Stott, 1997). This is because interventions lacking any difference were

perceived in different ways by different students (Eley, 1992). For this purpose, Course

Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) has been developed to measure student perception of academic
 20

context which has shown reliability and validity across countries and disciplines (Ramsden,

1991).

However, after taking into control their their perceptions, students are still found to vary

in their approach to studying (Sadlo & Richardson, 2003). These approaches could either be deep

focusing on a conceptual transformation or surface focusing on transmission of knowledge

(Marton, 1976).

b) Interaction of teacher types with student types

It has been assumed that there is a “right” mixture of personality traits, teaching styles

etc. of the teacher which can provide maximum benefit to students. However, Newsom, Ucherrs,

and Looft (1972) have argued that research on teacher performance has seldom disputed yet

frequently ignored the role of individual differences as researchers aim to discover general laws

of learning. Similarly, Glasser (1967) thought educational psychologists were too optimistic to

discover general laws of learning. This has resulted in the suggestion of investigators that the

same teaching style will not be effective with all types of learning styles (Bloom, 1968;

Cronbach, 1957; Gagne, 1967; Glasser, 1967). Bush (1954) and Heil, Powel, and Feifer (1960)
 21

have suggested that identification of both teacher types and student types is essential to

understand teacher effectiveness because no teacher is effective with all students. This lead

Thelen (1968) to suggest that a teacher’s class should be composed of students he had most

successfully taught.

Further, a study predicted that types of students tend to differ in the advantage that they

make acquire from various type of teachers. Purposive sampling technique was used and the

kindergarten children selected. The sample was grouped into 4 different types of students and 4

different types of teachers. The results calculated through ANOVA showed that variance of the

effectiveness of the teachers on the same student type depended on the type of the teacher. The

implications of this research include a scientific basis for student teacher matching.

4) ATMOSHPHERE

One study used MCI to measure classroom atmosphere and compared it to student ability

and teacher characteristics. The MCI assessed five areas of perceived classroom climate:

Satisfaction, Cohesiveness, Competitiveness, Difficulty, and Friction. Teacher characteristics can

be viewed as one of the factors that set the climate because the teacher was considered to be the

most influential person in the classroom. Walberg (1968) suggests that the teacher's personality

is associated with patterns of classroom climate: “The personality patterns of the teacher, his

needs, values, attitudes, predict the climate of classes." (Walberg, 1968, p. 168).

Secondly, classroom atmosphere was analyzed in contrast to student ability. The MCI,

administered to both the gifted and non-gifted classes of these eight teachers in grades two, three,

four, five, six, and eight. The student population comprised of 275 students, 139 gifted students

and 136 non-gifted students who were compared on their scores on the MCI. The study found
 22

that gifted students' perceptions of Cohesiveness and Competitiveness were greater that those

compared to the norms for the MCI. This study lastly determined that there is greater level of

satisfaction in gifted students than non-gifted.

5) AVAILABILITY OF TOOLSSimilarly a study in an aviation course at Florida university

explored that how technology-based teaching techniques affect students’ overall performance.

The sample consisted students in the spring of 2004 enrolled in the technology-based teaching

methods course. The same course was taught once with traditional-based teaching methods in the

spring of 2003. Ex-post facto data was used from the spring 2003 course.

1.4 RESULT

This part of study presents results of Independent-Sample t-test Pearson Product Moment

Correlation and Regression Analysis run to this study hypotheses. Along with inferential

statistics and Descriptive Such as Mean, Standard deviation and frequencies.

Table 1

Independent Sample t-test Comparing Student Teacher Relationship in Male and Female
Teachers (N=87)

Variable Men Women 95% CI

(n=51) (n=36)
t(85) P Cohen’s d
M SD M SD LL UL
Student teacher relation 11.77 2.395 10.83 2.118 -1.888 .062 -1.93 .05 -0.409
Note. CI= Confidence Interval, LL= Lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit

The result of the above table revealed that there were significant difference were found

between male and female teacher’s ratings of student teacher relationship. Men rated higher

scores of student teacher relationship (M=11.77, S.D=2.395) compared to women (M=10.83,

S.D= 2.118). The effect size was small (r=0.2006).

 23

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of Sample

Measures f % M S.D
Age (years) 35.03 7.244
21-31 29 33.1
32-60 58 66.1
Gender .5862
Male 51 58.6
Female 36 41.4
Teaching 7.25 .49537
Experience
1 3 3.4
2 6 6.9
3 9 10.3
4 8 9.2
5 14 16.1
6 8 9.2
7 9 10.3
8 7 8.0
9 2 2.3
10 7 8.0
12 4 4.6
13 1 1.1
15 1 1.1
16 1 1.1
17 2 2.3
18 2 2.3
20 1 1.1
22 1 1.1
28 1 1.1
Education 1.71 .548
PHD 29 33.3
M/Phil 54 62.1
Graduate 4 4.6
Note, f= frequency, M= mean, S.D= standard deviation, %= percentage
 24

Table 3

Independent Sample t-test Comparing Approaches to teaching in Male and Female Teachers
(N=87)

Variable Men Women 95% CI

(n=51) (n=36)
t(85) P Cohen’s d
M SD M SD LL UL
Approaches to teaching 11.29 2.31 9.80 3.26 -2.488 .015 -2.68 -.299 -0.53
Note. CI= Confidence Interval, LL= Lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit

The results revealed that there were significant difference were found between male and

female teacher’s ratings approaches to studying. Men rated higher scores of approaches to

teaching methods (M= 11.29, S.D= 2.31) compared to women (M= 9.80, SD= 3.26). The effect

size was small (r=0.206).

Table 4

Correlation among Age, Teaching experience, teacher reported student’s ability of Spoken English and
Presentation as a cause of confidence, Availability of facilities and Usage of teaching techniques (n=87).

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age - .633** -.007 -.161 .122 -.099 -.053

2. Teaching experience - -.034 .034 .021 -.151 -.219*

3. Confidence building up due - .150 .360** -.002 .181*

to presentation

4. Facing difficulties to - .201* .139 -.050

understand spoken English

5. Student-teacher relationship - -.238* -.209*

 25

6. Availability of facilities .356**

7. Usage of teaching techniques

* P<.05, ** P<.01, P<.001 Note, Gender, Men=51, Women= 36

The result of the Pearson Product moment Correlation revealed that there is a significant

positive correlation between Student teacher relationship and student difficulties in

understanding English (r= .360**) and the development of confidence due to presentation

(r=.201*). That is to say that teachers who reported better relationship with students had greater

complaints of students’ difficulty in comprehending English and the development of confidence

due to presentation. Teachers’ usage of teaching techniques was significantly negatively

correlated with teaching experience and student teacher relationship, while it was positively

significantly related with reports of availability of facilities and confidence development due to

presentation.

DISCUSSION

Men reported better relationship with students in our study. Firstly, this could be due to

decreased representation of female teachers in our study. Perhaps female definitions of better

relationships are of higher standards compared to men. For example, a female teacher who

strongly agrees to the question: “do students visit regularly in counselling hours?” would mean

10 visits of students per week, while according to men strongly agreeing to the same question

would mean 2 visits per week.

Another hypotheses tested was the correlation between teacher education and student

teacher relationship. The results showed utterly no correlation. Perhaps a degree in education

rather than a degree in the subject taught is a better predictor of student teacher relationship.
 26

Teachers who reported better relationship with students had greater complaints of

students’ difficulty in comprehending English and the development of confidence due to

presentation.

Teachers’ usage of teaching techniques was significantly negatively correlated with

teaching experience and student teacher relationship. This means that teachers who are more

experienced report decreased usage of teaching techniques. This is a very counterintuitive

finding as one expects more experienced teachers to report increased usage of teaching

techniques. Further, those who reported higher usage of teaching techniques had reported

decreased relationship with students. Whether this is because of their better knowledge of student

teacher relationship and hence higher standards or any other factor can only be speculated.

While many studies have compared less experienced teachers(<3 years) with more

experienced teachers to find a positive relationship (Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Klitgaard & Hall,

1974), it has to be said that these studies are susceptible to cohort effects and the perks of

experience only matter to a certain threshold. In other words, there is a curvilinear relationship

between teaching experience and student performance.

Implications

These results can become important suggestions for future policy decisions in Universities for

their entry tests and their English courses.

Recommendations for future research

There needs to be more research trying to understand why more experienced teachers report

decreased usage of teaching techniques and why exactly usage of teaching techniques is

negatively correlated with student teacher relationship.

Limitations and suggestions

 27

1) No mediation analyses were conducted.

2) There was a gender bias in the study with 51 males and 36 females.

3) Secondly, sample of the study was restricted to only one university in Lahore. Further

research needs to manipulate demographic variables by taking different samples.

4) Thirdly, the questionnaire was self- developed and hence its reliability can be questioned.

5) Fourthly, more innovative demographic variables could be added such as Degree in

Education or Degree in subject that the teacher teaches. Another variable that could make

a difference is when the degree was attained. The recency of educational achievement has

been proved to have a relationship with student behavior (Hanushek, 1971). Another

variable could be if the teacher is currently studying or is finished with his degrees.

6) Environmental variables such as teacher stress should be controlled some how. A teacher

7) English version of scale was used which might have different meaning in our country.

Urdu language scale should be used to better assess the relationship in the sample if

university students.

8) Student teacher relationship has been reported only by the teacher, that too only once. A

more robust study would take more than one reports from the teacher to ensure reliability

and should take reports from the students to ensure convergent validity.
 28

References

Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations

of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary classrooms: Predicting student achievement

with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System — Secondary. School Psychology Review,

42 (1), 76-98.
 29

Andrews, J.W., Blackmon, C.R., and Mackey, J.A. (1980). Preservice performance and

the National Teacher Examinations. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(5), pp. 358-359.

Ashton, P. & Crocker, L. (1987, May-June). Systematic study of planned variations: The

essential focus of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 2-8.

Ayers, J.B., and Qualls, G.S. (Nov/Dec 1979). Concurrent and predictive validity of the

National Teacher Examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 73 (2), pp.86-92.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school

adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school

intervention on students' "connectedness" to school and social adjustment during middle

school. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 243-262.

Beaty, E., Dall’Alba, G., & Marton, F. (1997). The personal experience of learning in

higher education: Changing views and enduring perspectives. In P. Sutherland (Ed.), Adult

learning: A reader (pp. 150–165). London: Kogan Page the Open University, UK.

Berry, D., & O'Connor, E. (2009). Behavioral risk, teacher-child relationships, and

social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of

change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-14.

Begle, E.G. and Geeslin, W. (1972). Teacher effectiveness in mathematics instruction.

National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities Reports No. 28. Washington,

D.C. Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.
 30

Begle, E.G. (1979). Critical Variables in Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C.:

Mathematical Association of American and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and early school

adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 55(1), 61-79.

Bloom, B. S. Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1 (2), May 1968 (Centre for

the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs, UCLA).

Borman, G. & Overman, L. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics among poor and

minority students. Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 177-195.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. New York: Basic

Books.

Bush, R. N. The teacher-pupil relationship. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Byrne, C.J. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher effectiveness: A literature review,

theoretical analysis and discussion of research strategy. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Northwestern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.

Carroll, J.B. (1975). The teaching of French as a foreign language in eight countries.NY:

John Wiley and Sons.

Council on School Performance (1997). Teachers with advanced degrees advance student

learning. Atlanta: Council for School Performance, Georgia State University.

Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Teacher-child interactions

and children's achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of

Educational Psychology,101 (4), 912-925.

 31

Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). "Learner-centered" according to children. Theory

Into Practice, 42(2), 102-108.

Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviorally at-risk African

American students: The importance of student-teacher relationships for student

outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 83-109.

Donohue, K. M., Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). Teachers' classroom practices

and children's rejection by their peers. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 91-118.

Doyle.T. (n.d.). Evaluating Teachers Effectiveness. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from

ferris.edu/fctl/Teaching_and_Learning_Tips/.../EvalTeachEffec.htm.

Dr. Shahida Sajjad (2011) Assistant Effective teaching methods at higher education level

Professor Department of Special Education University of Karachi Pakistan 2011.

Druva, C.A., & Anderson, R.D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher

behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 20,5, 467-479.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.

Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom

Helm.
 32

Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students.

Higher Education, 23, 231–254.

Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher-

child relationship quality and children's behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 24(1), 92-105.

Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement-related

perceptions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(2), 435-452.

Gage, N. L., & Unruh, W. R. Theoretical formulations for research on teaching. Reviewz

of Educational Research, 1967, 37, 358.

Glaser, R. Some implications of previous work on learning and individual differ- ences.

In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and individual differences. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1967.

PP. 1-18.

Glass V Gene (2000) Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy

Evidence, educational analysis archives Volume 8 Number 1 January 1, 2000, College of

Education, Arizona State University

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol, UK: Technical and

Educational Services.

Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior

in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337-353.

Green, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A. H., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Camic, P. M. (2008).

Supportive adult relationships and the academic engagement of Latin American immigrant

youth. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 393-412.

 33

Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans:

Defiance and cooperation in the high school classroom. The Journal of School Psychology,

46(4), 455-475.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students’

relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21-43.

Gunningham G. William (1975) The Impact of Student-Teacher Pairings on Teacher

Effectiveness American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring, 1975), pp. 169-

189.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the rajectory

of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

Hartley, B. L., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). A stereotype threat account of boys' academic

underachievement. Child Development, 84(5), 1716-1733. doidoi:10.1111/cdev.12079

Hanushek, E.A. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement:

Estimation using micro data. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 280-288.

Heil, L. M., Powel, M., & Feifer, I. Characteristics of teacher behavior and competency

related to the achievement of different kinds of children in several elementary grades. (U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research

Project No. 7285) Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn College, 19.

Hemmeter, M. L., & Conroy, M. A. (2012). Supporting social competence of young

children with challenging behavior in the context of Teaching Pyramid model. In R. C. Pianta,

W. S. Barnett, L. M., Justice, & Sheridan, S. M. (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood

education (pp. 416-434). New York: Guilford Press.

Hawk, P.; Coble, C.R.; and Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It Does Matter, Journal of
 34

Teacher Education, 36 , 3, 13-15.

Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support,

effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1

Hughes, J., & Kwok, O.-M. (2007). Influence of student teacher and parent-teacher

relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39

Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’

perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade

students. Journal of School Psychology, 43(4), 303–320. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.07.001

Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support,

effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and

emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational

Research,79(1), 491-525

Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M., & Weissbourd, R. (2013). Educators' social and emotional

skills vita to learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 62-65.

Lisonbee, J., Mize, J., Payne, A. L., & Granger, D. (2008). Children's cortisol and the

quality of teacher-child relationships in child care. Child Development, 79(6), 1818-1832

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’

conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.

 35

Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher

relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 28(2), 135-149.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to

student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Knoblock, G.A. (1986). Continuing professional education for teachers and its

relationship to teacher effectiveness. Unpublished dissertation. Michigan State

University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2, 3325A, University microfilms no.

AAC8529729.

Manticopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and

their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School

Psychology, 43, 425-442.

Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view

of learning.

Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view

of learning. In N. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for research and development in higher education

(pp. 32–42). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger

McCormick, M. P., & O'Connor, E. E. (2014). Teacher-child relationship quality and

academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter? Journal of Educational

Psychology. Advanced online publication.

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2001). Relationships with teachers and bonds with

school: Social and emotional adjustment correlates for children with and without

disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 25-41.

 36

McCollum, E. C., & Yoder, N. P. (2011). School culture, teacher regard, and academic

aspirations among middle school students. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(2), 65–74.

McCombs, B. L., & Miller, L. (2006). The journey to learner-centered practices: A

series for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science

teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 2, 125-145.

Murnane, R.J. (1985, June). Do effective teachers have common characteristics:

Interpreting the quantitative research evidence. Paper presented at the National Research

Council Conference on Teacher Quality in Science and Mathematics, Washington, D.C.

Murnane, R.J., and Phillips, B.R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection:

Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance.Economics of

Education Review, 1fR, 4, 691-693.

Murray. C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher-student relationship

program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional and academic adjustment

and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 137-152.

Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher

student relationships; Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in

urban Kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 499-61.

Murray, C., & Murray, K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher-student

relationships: An examination of demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and

behavioral orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 41(7), 751-762.

 37

Meece, J. L., Herman, P., & McCombs, B. L. (2003). Relations of learner-centered

teaching practices to adolescents' achievement goals. International Journal of Educational

Research, 39(4-5), 457-475.

Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’

beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50, 537–571.

O’connor, E., & Mccartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and

achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research

Journal, 44(2), 340-369. doi: 10.3102/0002831207302172

O'Connor, E. E., Collins, B. A., & Supplee, L. (2012). Behavior problems in late

childhood: The roles of early maternal attachment and teacher-child relationship

trajectories. Attachment &Human Development, 14(3), 265-288.

Paulson, S. E., Marchant, G. J., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (1998). Early adolescents’

perceptions of patterns of parenting, teaching, and school atmosphere: Implications for

achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(1), 5-26. doi:

10.1177/0272431698018001001.

Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's

success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458.

Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K.,& Hamre, B. (2006). CLASS: Classroom Assessment Scoring

System Manual: K-3 Version. Charlottesville, VA: The Center for Advanced Study of Teaching

and Learning.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1993). Development of an Approaches to Teaching

questionnaire. Research and Development in Higher Education, 15, 468–473.

 38

Quirk, T.J., Witten, B.J., and Weinberg, S.F. (1973). Review of studies of concurrent and

predictive validity of the National Teacher Examinations. Review of Educational Research, 43,

89-114.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education:

The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150.0

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom

emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journalof Educational

Psychology, 104 (3), 700-712.

Richardson John T. E. the Open University, UK Students’ Approaches to Learning and

Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education Educational Psychology Vol. 25, No. 6,

December 2005, pp. 673–680.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Early, D., Cox, M., Saluja, G., Pianta, R., Bradley, R. et al.

(2002). Early behavioral attributes and teachers' sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior

in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 451-470.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T.

(2014). To what extent do teacher-student interaction quality and student gender contribute to

fifth graders' engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance

online publication.

Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (2000). School as a context of early

adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings.

Elementary School Journal, 100, 443-471.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). The organizational context of teaching. In Learning to Teach.

University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.

 39

Rudasill, K. M., Reio, T. G., Stipanovic, N., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). A longitudinal study

of student-teacher relationship quality, difficult temperament, and risky behavior from childhood

to early adolescence. Journal of School Psychology,48(5), 389-412.

Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the

academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-based curricula. Higher

Education Research and Development, 22, 253–274.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective: I. Some common-sense

assumptions (Report no. 76). Göteborg: University of Göteborg, Institute of Education.

Sanders, S.L., Skonie-Hardin, S.D., and Phelps, W.H. (1994, November). The effects of

teacher educational attainment on student educational attainment in four regions of

Virginia: Implications for administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-

South Educational Research Association.

Spangler Avant, T., Gazelle, H., & Faldowski, R. (2011). Classroom emotional climate as

a moderator of anxious solitary children's longitudinal risk for peer exclusion: A child x

environment model. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1711-1727.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math

performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4 - 28.

Stewart, E. B. (2007). Individual and school structural effects on African American high

school students academic achievement. The High School Journal, 91(2), 16–34.

doi:10.1353/hsj.2008.0002
 40

Sirin, S. R., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2005). Components of school engagement among

African American adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 9(1), 5–13.

doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0901_2

Summers, A.A., and Wolfe, B.L. (1975, February). Which School Resources Help

Learning? Efficiency and Equality in Philadelphia Public Schools. Philadelphia, PA: ED 102 716

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’

approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.

Thelen, H. A. Classroom groupingfor teachability. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.

Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Consistency and variability

of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1–21.

Walberg, H. J. (1968) Teacher personality and classroom climate. Psychology in the

Schools, _ 5, 163-169

Weber Louise Christine (1989), characteristics of teachers of the gifted and their students'

perceptions of classroom climate, Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University.

White Cornelius Jeffrey (2007), Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships Are

Effective: A Meta-Analysis Review of Educational Research association, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Mar.,

2007), pp. 113-143.

Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived

pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.

Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from

teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary

41
 42

IMPLICATIONS

Teacher education programs

Decrease teacher burnout and turnover rates

Perception of students can have an effect on students’ success 28.

Hypotheses Teacher satisfaction

The gap between the type of student teachers prefer and the type of students teachers

think exist in UMT.

Biases > perception of student behavior > job satisfaction > job attrition