Teachers’ View of Content and Education Professors’ Qualities that Shaped Them: Community,
Cognition, Work Commitment, Rigor in f2f and Distance Classrooms
Robin Spruce and Robert Lucking
Old Dominion University
USA
rspruce@odu.edu
rlucking@odu.edu
Introduction
The word on campus is that Education courses are much less demanding than the content courses
in colleges of science and those in the humanities, yet both provide the foundation for future teachers’ view
of how learning takes place. If there is any truth to the adage that teachers learn to teach from the way they
are taught, educators of all stripes can gain a great deal from understanding what these prospective teachers
identify as the character of their classroom experience and how the dynamics of learning and classroomrelated variables interact. This research presentation attempts to shed light on these questions by comparing
data gathered from students’ observations about their Education classes with those about their content
classes. More specifically, this research focused on the relationships between and among five sets of
variables: prospective teachers’ sense of community in the classroom, their perceived learning, their
perception of course rigor, their work commitment, and their view of each professor’s most noteworthy
characteristics. Additionally, these variables were examined in the context of face-to-face instruction as
compared with distance instruction.
While these variables have been examined previously in isolated form, very little research has
been done which focuses on the interactions and relationships that exist among them; further, this study
attempted to make key comparisons between students’ observations about content classes vis-à-vis
Education classes and between f2f and distance classes. These data analyses were devised to yield insights
into the qualities of collegiate classrooms that prospective teachers experience in their academic
preparation to be able to plan and carry out the learning experiences of young people.
The researchers in this study have collected data from Education classes over the past five years
demonstrating the concept of “connectedness” serves as an effective indicator of student satisfaction with
their learning experience. However, this presentation of the most recent round of data-gathering offers new
insights into how differently students view their Education classes from those in the college of sciences and
college of arts and letters.
Background
While little contemporary research exists, teacher education classes have been criticized for grade
inflation and lack of rigor (Weiss & Rasmussen, 1960). A more recent study found undergraduate
Education majors earn much higher grades in their Education courses than do students enrolled in courses
from other disciplines (Koedel, 2011). This author notes Education majors score lower on college entrance
exams than do students entering other academic programs, therefore asserting that Education majors are
higher quality students does not explain this grade discrepancy.
Moreover, teachers’ preparation to teach specialized subjects has also been called into question
(Ramirez, 2004; Harrell, 2009; Matthews, Rech, & Grandgenett, 2010), which in turn, casts doubt on the
adequacy of teacher mastery of the content classes in which they are enrolled. Many teacher preparation
programs are taking steps to improve the quality of their classes and to better integrate content course work
into them (Paige, Lloyd, & Chartres, 2008; Kennelly, Taylor, & Maxwell, 2008). However, learning is a
complex process, influenced by many factors; student perception of their classes and the professors
teaching them, may well influence their acquisition of material in content area and education courses. To
extrapolate on these ideas further, a discussion of literature addressing how sense of community, course
rigor, workload, and professorial characteristics contribute, or detract, from learning follows.
Much of the early work in students’ sense of community was carried out by Rovai (2002). He
argues that members of classroom communities have degrees of feelings of trust and shared goals. Learning
thus represents the common purpose of the community, and members of the community grow to feel that
their educational needs are being satisfied through active participation in the community. More recently,
Lucking and Rovai (2006) have shown that students’ sense of classroom community tends to vary
depending on the type of classroom and the pedagogical choices of the instructor.
Likewise, student perception of course workload and difficulty has most commonly been studied
via student attitude questionnaires and student completed teacher evaluations. Teacher evaluations have
been observed to be higher if a course is easier than students anticipate and conversely lower if a course is
more difficult than anticipated independent of grade earned (Addison & Warrington, 2006). Expected and
received grades have also been noted as impacting student evaluations of professors resulting in more
positive evaluations, but the same researcher found evidence discounting this conclusion (Aleamoni, 1999).
A synthesis of research on student/faculty interaction in the 1990s found that the more time students spent
on academics, the more they interacted with faculty outside of the classroom, which in turn positively
impacted student satisfaction (Kuh & Hu, 2001). Since student effort must be greater in more difficult
courses, this research suggests that there is a potential correlation between course difficulty and student
learning.
Moreover, students’ effort and an appropriate level of course difficulty have been positively
correlated with positive teacher evaluations and, amongst other variables, a greater report of course value
and learning (Heckert, Latier, Ringwald, & Silvey, 2006). After examining data over a twelve year period
at a large university, Marsh & Roche (2000) found courses with a larger workload and perceived difficulty
were rated more positively in the domain of student learning and satisfaction.
Considerable debate exists about what makes an effective professor. Much research has examined
this issue from the perspective of student perception as evidenced in end-of-course evaluations or
questionnaires designed to isolate which characteristics correspond to positive and/or negative reviews of
professors. Interestingly, students' first impressions of their professors seem to better correlate with end of
semester evaluations than does previous knowledge of those professors, i.e. teacher reputation (Buchert,
Laws, Apperson, & Bregman, 2008). Moreover, some research has found student perceptions vary from
student to student, and may not coincide with what experts deem effective teaching (Obenchain, Abernathy,
& Wiest, 2001). Peitrzack, Duncan, and Korcuska, (2008) found that there was great variability amongst
their sample in articulating teacher effectiveness within four domains: perception of faculty knowledge,
delivery style, course organization, and course workload. Nonetheless, additional studies have identified
specific characteristics, they include: professor knowledge, interesting and creative lectures, professor
approachability, enthusiasm, fair expectations, humor, and positivity (Vulcano, 2007).
Furthermore, in this modern age, students are now able to evaluate their professors at any time via
online rating sites including Rate My Professor. In a study using data from this site, it was found that
students value professors who demonstrate enthusiasm, knowledge, and respect for their students (Silva,
Silva, Quinn, Draper, Cover, & Munoff, 2008). Several other have also used Rate My Professor in an
attempt to tease out effective teaching as perceived by students (Kindred & Mohammed, 2005; Felton,
Mitchell & Stinson, 2004). However, this growing body of empirical research has yet to examine the
relationship between faculty characteristics and perceived learning within the context of sense of
community across course type (face to face and distance) while contrasting content area and Education
courses.
Instrumentation and Methodology
One primary instrument used in this body of research was the Classroom Community Scale
(Rovai, 2002), which has undergone recent revision. Additionally, items were drawn from the work of
Rovai, Wighting, Baker, & Grooms (2009) to measure perceived learning using the CAP Perceived
Learning Scale. The authors of this research then designed items, drawn from review of literature, that
determined students’ assessment of their own expenditures of work applied to the preparation for classes,
tests, and projects; these students were asked to rank their professors, some education professors, others
content area, on seven characteristics found most prominent in the literature on teacher effectiveness.
Demographic items, such as age, gender, level of education etc. were also included in the instrument.
The researchers combined items from the previous instruments developed to measure both sense
of community and perceived learning. Participants were also asked to rank the amount of work they
expended in preparing for the courses and in their perception of the rigor applied by the professor in
judging the quality of students’ work. Finally, these teacher-students ranked the professors on qualities that
rose to the topic in importance in previous research.
A link to the questionnaire, written using Inquisite software, was sent electronically to prospective
teachers, undergraduates and graduate students, who were enrolled in a one unit pre-student teaching
course in the College of Education at a public university. All responses were anonymous and any
identifying information was kept confidential.
Findings
Initial analyses indicate that significant differences arise when comparing prospective teachers’
view of their learning experiences in Education classes compared with their content classes. These
differences reflect that content classes are, indeed, found to be more challenging, and this factor has an
impact on the relationship among the test variables. Further data analyses will be conducted and reported.
References
Addison, W.E., Best, J., & Warrington, J.D. (2006). Students’ perceptions of course
difficulty and their ratings of the instructor. College Student Journal, 40(2), 409-461.
Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to
1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13 (2), 153-166.
Buchert, S., Laws, E. L., Apperson, J. M. , Bregman, N. J. (2008). First impressions and
professor reputation: Influence on student evaluations of instruction. Social
Psychology Education, 11, 397-408.
Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations
between perceived quality, easiness and sexiness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29, 91-108.
Harrell, P. E. (2009). Do state examinations measure teacher quality? Educational Studies, 35 (1), 65-79.
Heckert, T., Latier, A., Ringwald, A., & Silvey, B. (2006). Relation of course, instructor,
and student characteristics to dimensions of student ratings of teacher
effectiveness. College Student Journal, 40 (1), 195-203.
Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., Maxwell, T. W. (2008). Addressing the challenge of preparing
Australian pre-service primary teachers in environmental education. Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development, 2. DOI: 10.1177/097340820800200211.
Kindred, J., & Mohammed, S. N. (2005). "He will crush you like an academic ninja!":
An analysis of Ratemyprofessor.com. Journal of Computer Meditated Communication, 10.
Koedel, C. (2011). Grade inflation for Education majors and low standards for teachers: When everyone
makes the grade. Education Outlook, 7, 1-6.
Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s.
The Review of Higher Education, 24 (3), 309-322.
Lucking, R. & Rovai, A. (2006). “The Role of Sense of Community in Education:
Cultural Identity and Resilience.” The Second International Conference on Environmental,
Cultural, Economic Sustainability, Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Malikow, M. (2007). Professors' irritating behavior. College Student Journal, 41 (1), 25-33.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workload on
students' evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent
bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 202-228.
Matthews, M., Rech, J., & Grandgenett, N. (2010). The impact of content courses on preservice elementary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge. IUMPST: The Journal, 1, 1-11.
McMillan, D.W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4),
315-
325.
Ovenchain, K., Abernathy, T., & Wiest, L. (2001). The reliablity of students' ratings of
teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 49, 100-105.
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Chartes, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: An ecological sustainable
focus for science and mathematics pre-service edcuation in the primary/middle years. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 19-33.
Pietrzak, D., Duncan, K., & Korcuska, J. S. (2008). Counseling students' decision making regarding
teaching effectiveness: A conjoint analysis. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48, 114-132.
Ramirez, M. J. (2004). Understanding the low mathematics achievement of Chilean students: A crossnational analysis using TIMSS data. Unpublished dissertation.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.
Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197-211.
Rovai, A.P, Wighting, M., Baker, J.D. & Grooms, L.D. (2009) Development of an
instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in
traditional and virtual classroom high education settings. The Internet and Higher Education,
12(1), 7-13.
Silva, K., Silva, F., Quinn M., Draper, J., Cover, K., Munoff, A. (2008). Rate my professor: Online
evaluations of psychology instructors. Teaching of Psychology , 35,
71-80.
Vulcano, B. A. (2007). Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviors constituting effective
teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 114-117.