Читать книгу Труды IV Республиканской научно-практической online-конференции «Образование XXI века: проблемы, тенденции и перспективы» - Николай Сергеевич Лустов - Страница 4

(Suleyman Demirel University)

Abstract. This review explores the relationship between teacher personality and student engagement, drawing on advancements in personality theory to understand how teacher personality affects education. It highlights certain characteristics that lead to more student engagement and others that cause anxiety and insecurity, leading to poor academic performance. The findings suggest the need for more empirical research to improve teacher effectiveness. Keywords: student engagement, teacher personality, review, personality theory.

Introduction. This paper discusses the relationship between teacher personality and student engagement, which has been understudied compared to the attention given to student engagement alone. Teacher personality is an important factor in teacher effectiveness and can influence student engagement, which in turn affects academic performance. Addressing disengagement requires understanding the reasons behind it, and the teacher-student relationship plays a crucial role in this. Personality traits should be considered when recruiting teachers, and the Five-Factor Model of personality is a useful framework for understanding teacher personality. Multiple scales are available to measure the Big Five domains.

1.Studies of personality traits. This passage examines different definitions of personality and their fundamental aspects. Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) define personality as distinctive psychological traits that direct people’s actions, beliefs, and emotions in various contexts. Mayer (2007) combines four mostly accepted definitions to create a consensus definition, describing personality as «a system of parts that is organized, develops, and is expressed in a person’s actions.» Guthrie et al. (1998) and Larsen and Buss (2008) view personality as an individual’s response to the environment based on organized and consistent psychological traits and mechanisms. Buss (1989) attributes traits as defining and distinctive features of personality, while Snow (1984) reports that traits are hereditary, permanent, and physically based. Recent research (Roberts et al., 2017) has shown that personality can be changed with clinical intervention and nonclinical methods (Hudson & Fraley, 2015). Jackson et al. (2012), Lüdtke et al. (2011), Specht et al. (2011), and Roberts et al (2006) argue against the idea of traits being immutable and permanent over a lifetime.

3.Studies of teacher personality and students (BFI related). According to Stronge et al. (2004), a teacher’s personality refers to their inner qualities reflected through values, beliefs, behavior, and attitude that impacts teaching performance, practice, and effectiveness (Curtis & Liying, 2001). Teacher personalities influence material choices, strategy, classroom management, and student relationships. Hashim et al. (2014) suggest that administrators should consider humanistic factors alongside educational qualifications when hiring teachers. Assessments of a teacher’s personality by students are influenced by the personality traits of the assessors (Göncz et al., 2014). Desired teacher traits include moderate extraversion, openness to new experiences, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Students prefer teachers who demonstrate respect, understanding. openness to cooperation, and good lecturing skills (Sánchez et al., 2011).

4.Studies of correlation between student engagement and teacher personality. The amount of time students allocate to learning activities was the first definition of student engagement in its infant stage (Brophy, 1983; Fisher et al., 1980; McIntyre et al.,1983). Although student engagement has long been solely associated with students; involvement in educational processes, the new perspective on the term’s definition also includes cognitive and affective components. Astin (1984) referred to student engagement as «the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience», and highlighted that for an effort to be considered as engagement along with investing time, students must actively invest in intellectual capacities and their attention. In general, researchers (Kuh, 2003; Handelsman et al., 2005; Chapman, 2003) seem to concur on three major components in defining student engagement, which are cognitive, affective and behavioral efforts put by the students. Talking separately about each of these aspects, according to Chapman (2003) cognitive criteria indicates the focus devoted and the mental involvement when doing the tasks, second behavioral criteria indicates contributed responses to the offered tasks, third, affective criteria indicates the students’ investment level in the task and their emotional reactions to those tasks.

There are visible behavior patterns that assess student engagement possible. Franklin (2005) described some of these patterns as students’ «tendency to listen, respond to questions, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class.» Mentioned behavior models are likely to indicate student engagement in the classroom when monitoring. Not surprisingly, a high level of engagement is linked to high-quality learning outcomes (Krause & Coates, 2008).

The research conducted by Kiefer and Pennington (2017) intended to find out if there is a correlation between teachers perceived as supporters of autonomous learning and the engagement level that students show. The researchers concluded that not only teachers influence but «directly shapes» student engagement, and is crucial when examining the perspectives of school students. Cinches et al., (2017) highlighted the impossibility of accurate student engagement studies without counting the teacher’s impact.

Another study on teacher support and students’ well-being, conducted by Suldo et al. (2009), intended to explore the relationship between teacher support and student success, revealing that supportive teacher-student interaction is likely to result in students’ academic engagement. Apart from studies on the significance of teacher-student relationships, there is more research on factors that influence these relationships. Aiming to get a deeper understanding of the factors that matter in teacher-learner interactions, Split et al., (2012) surveyed 657 students. They revealed that a lack of good relationship between educators and their learners causes student anxiety and insecurity which intervenes their social and educational growth. In a Zepke et al., (2010) survey, where 1200 students took part, it was identified that 4 of the 10 factors that enhance student engagement were directly connected to teacher-learner relationships, and in fact, supportive teacher behavior plays a crucial role in building positive teacher-student relationships.

Federici and Skaalvik (2014) described that emotional support from teachers is manifested when they show their warmth, respect, love, and level of trust to their students. According to Tennant et al. (2015), when learners receive positive emotional support from their teachers they tend to score higher on standardized tests. Strati et al. (2017) state that when students face emotional obstruction such as, teacher’s disrespect, sarcasm, or negative attitude towards specific students, the level of student engagement declines. Suldo et al. (2009) emphasized the overwhelming impact of negative teacher behaviors by claiming that negative emotional obstruction is «easily recalled» compared to emotional support. Moreover, Mayer and Turner (2002) argued that a lack of support in an academic setting might lead to loss of motivation and decreased engagement. They suggested that the behavior displayed by the teacher might influence not only students’ behavior but also their educational and emotional success.

According to Sandlin’s (2019) case study, students believed that teachers’ personalities have a significant impact on their engagement. Most students identified agreeableness and extraversion as important traits for building classroom engagement. Tennent et al. (2015) also emphasized the importance of positive relationships between teachers and students in achieving desirable outcomes.

Conclusion. This paper highlights the importance of teacher personality and student engagement in academic performance. Positive teacher traits, such as friendliness, openness, agreeableness, competence, and responsibility, can lead to better engagement and academic outcomes. Negative traits, such as neuroticism and introversion, can have the opposite effect. Supportive attitudes and emotional support from teachers can improve engagement, while negativity can harm it. Further research should observe teachers and students in authentic environments to provide empirical evidence.

Reference

1. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2000, Vol. 126. No. 1, P. 3—25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

2. Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 2008, Vol. 76, No. 6, P. 1523—1544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x

3. Funder, D. C. The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton, 2004.

20. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005

4. McAdams, D. P. The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley, 2006.

5. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D. & John, O.P. Personality: theory and research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.

6. Mayer, J. D. Personality Function and Personality Change. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. Psychology Press, 2007, P. 125—143.

7. Hogan, R. Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991, Vol. 2, P. 873—919.

8. Burger J. M. Personality (9. ed.). Cengage Learning, 2015.

9. Guthrie, J.P., Coate, C.J., & Schwoerer, C.E. Career management strategies: the role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 1998. No. 13, P. 371—386.

10. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (3rd edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. 2008.

11. Buss, A. H. Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 1989, Vol. 44, No. 11, P. 1378—1388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1378

12. Snow, R.E and Stemberg. Education and Intelligence. Handbook of human intelligence, New York Cambridge University Press. 1984.

13. Gregoire, C.Seven habits of natural leaders. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/traits‐that‐make‐a-leader_n_5959298.html

14. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. Achievement tests and the role of character in American life. In J. J. Heckman, J. E. Humphries, & T. Kautz (Eds.), The myth of achievement tests: The GED and the role of character in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2014. P.23—54

15. Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W., & Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L. Can an old dog learn (and want to experience) new tricks? Cognitive training increases openness to experience in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 2012, No. 27, P. 286— 292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025918

16. Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, No. 101, P. 620— 637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023743

17. Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean‐level and rank‐order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, No. 101, P. 862— 882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950

18. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. Patterns of mean‐level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2006, No. 132, P. 1— 25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.132.1.1

19. Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 2017, No. 143, P. 117— 141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088

20. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015, No. 109, P. 490— 507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021

21. Sronge, J. H., Tucker, P. D. & Hindman, J. L. Handbook for Qualities of Effective Teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). 2004.

22. Curtis, & Cheng, Liying. Teachers’ Self-evaluation of Knowledge, Skills and Personality Characteristics Needed to Manage Change. Asia-pacific Journal of Teacher Education – ASIA-PAC J TEACH EDUC. 2001, No. 29, P. 139—152. 10.1080/13598660120061327.

23. Hashim, Nik Mohd Hazrul & Alam, Syed & Yusoff, Norazlina. Relationship between Teacher’s Personality, Monitoring, Learning Environment, and Students’ EFL Performance. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies. 2014, No. 14. P. 101—116. 10.17576/GEMA-2014-1401-07.

24. Göncz, A., Göncz, L., & Pekić, J. The influence of students’ personality traits on their perception of a good teacher within the five-factor model of personality. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2014, No. 11, P. 65— 86. doi:10.12700/APH.11.03.2014.03.5

25. Göncz, L. Teacher personality: a review of psychological research and guidelines for a more comprehensive theory in educational psychology, Open Review of Educational Research, 2017, No. 4, P. 75—95, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2017.1339572

26. Suplicz, S. What makes a teacher bad? Trait and learnt factors of teachers’ competencies. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2009, No. 6, P. 125—138.

27. Sánchez, M. M., Pecino, R. M., Rodríguez, Y. T., & Melero, P. T. Student perspectives on the university professor role. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2011, No. 39, P. 491—496. doi:10. 2224/sbp.2011.39.4.491

28. Brophy, J. Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 1983, No. 18, P. 200—215.

29. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham

& A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. 1980.

30. McIntyre, D.J., Copenhaver, R.W., Byrd, D.M., & Norris, W.R. A study of engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics class. Journal of Educational Research, 1983, No. 77 (1), P. 55—59.

31. Astin, A. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development. 1984, No. 25, P.297—308.

32. Kuh, G. D. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 2003, No. 35 (2)..

33. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 2005, No. 98, P. 184—191.

34. Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2003, No. 8. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13

35. Franklin, E.E. Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artist Journal, 2005, No. 3, P. 148—157

36. Krause, K.L. and Coates, H. Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, No. 33, P. 493—505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892

37. Kiefer, S., and Pennington, S. Associations of teacher autonomy support and structure with young adolescents’ motivation, engagement, belonging, and achievement. Middle Grades Res. J. 2017, No. 11, P. 29.

38. Cinches, Ma. Florecilla & Russell, Ruth Love & Chavez, Judith & Ortiz, Rosella. Student engagement: Defining teacher effectiveness and teacher engagement. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia. 2017, No. 15. P. 5—19.

39. Suldo, Shannon & Friedrich, Allison & White, Tiffany & Farmer, Jennie & Minch, Devon & Michalowski, Jessica. Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Subjective Well-Being: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. School Psychology Review. 2009, No. 38, P. 67—85. 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850.

40. Spilt, Jantine & Hughes, Jan & Wu, Jiun-yu & Kwok, Oi-Man. Dynamics of Teacher—Student Relationships: Stability and Change Across Elementary School and the Influence on Children’s Academic Success. Child development. 2012, No. 83. P. 1180—95.

10.1111/j.1467—8624.2012.01761.x.

41. Zepke, N., L. Leach, & P. Butler. Student engagement: What is it and what influences it? Wellington, Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. 2010. http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9261-Introduction.pdf

42. Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. Students’ perception of instrumental support and

effort in mathematics: The mediating role of subjective task values. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 2014, No. 17 (3), P. 527—540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9264-8

43. Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S, Alber J. eHealth Literacy and Web 2.0 Health Information Seeking Behaviors Among Baby Boomers and Older Adults J Med Internet Res. 2015, 17 (3):e70