Advertisement

No Hugs Required: University Student Perspectives on the Relationship Between Excellent Teaching and Educational Rapport

  • Leonie RowanEmail author
  • Geraldine Townend
Chapter
  • 693 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter investigates issues relating to student satisfaction with their university teaching experiences. Acknowledging previous literature that has often linked student ratings of teachers and courses with factors such as lecturer personality, course content, grade inflation and academic achievement, this chapter revisits the question of “what makes students happy?” Drawing upon innovative data collection techniques including doorstop interviews—and involving undergraduate students as co-researchers making sense of the data collected—the paper explores a range of significant and unexpected differences between what staff and students identify as the key features of quality teaching and factors that impact most significantly upon student satisfaction. With a particular focus on actions that make students feel valued, respected and included, the chapter provides valuable insights into the creation of student-centred learning environments.

Keywords

Higher education pedagogy Rapport Relationship-centred pedagogy Students as co-researchers Student engagement 

References

  1. Anderson, H.M., Cain, J., & Bird, J. (2005). Online student course evaluations: Review of literature and a pilot study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, P., & Copp, M. (1997). Gender matters most: The interaction of gendered expectations, feminist course content, and pregnancy in students’ course evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 25(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Delucchi, M. (2000). Don’t worry, be happy: Instructor likeability, student perceptions of learning, and teacher ratings in upper-level sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 22(3), 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliott, K.M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209. doi: 10.1080/1360080022000013518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emery, C.R., Kramer, T.R., & Tian, R.G. (2003). Return to academic standards: A critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Gruber, T., Reppel, A., & Voss, R. (2010). Understanding the characteristics of effective professors: The student’s perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(2), 175–190. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2010.526356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 317–338.Google Scholar
  11. Johnsen, H.L., Pacht, M., Van Slyck, P., & Tsao, T.M. (2009). The messy teaching conversation: Toward a model of collegial reflection, exchange, and scholarship on classroom problems. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 37(2), 119–136.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, J. (1989). Students’ ratings of teacher personality and teaching competence. Higher Education, 18(5), 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krause, K.-L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Krause, K.-L., McEwen, C., & Blinco, K. (2009). E-learning and the first year experience: A framework for best practice. Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE Australasia Conference, Perth, Western Australia, May 3–6, 2009. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/31818/61094_1.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 26 April 2016.
  15. Larkin, K., Rowan, L., Garrick, B., & Beavis, C. (2016). Student perspectives on first year experience initiatives designed for pre-service teachers in their first weeks of university study. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1), 7.Google Scholar
  16. Li-Ping Tang, T. (2001). Teaching evaluation at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell, D.M. (2014). Evolving practice: A relational framework for developing understandings of university teaching practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(10), 29–46. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n10.3.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. doi: 10.1080/08923648909526659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palmer, P. (1997). The heart of a teacher: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Rowan, L. (2013). What price success? The impact of the quest for student satisfaction on university academics. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(2), 132–146.Google Scholar
  21. Rowan, L., & Bigum, C. (Eds.). (2012). Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Titus, J.J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winstone, N., & Parker, M. (2015). The role of students in pedagogical research projects: Subjects, participants, partners, consultants. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/role-students-pedagogical-research-projects-subjects-participants-partners-consultants. Accessed 13 March 2016.
  26. Wright, R., Jones, G., & D’Alba, A. (2013). Person over pedagogy: Rapport-building traits of online instructors. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 1603–1612). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor at Griffith Institute for Educational ResearchGriffith University in QueenslandQueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith UniversityQueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.Research Fellow at Griffith Institute for Educational ResearchGriffith University in QueenslandQueenslandAustralia
  4. 4.School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith UniversityQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations