Factors Underlying the Attributes and Behaviours of Best Motivating Teachers: A Student Perspective

CPS Journals International Journal of Social Science Research

Centre for Postgraduate Studies ISSN: 2289-3318

Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp: 75-85 (2013)

© CPS Journals

Factors Underlying the Attributes and Behaviours of Best Motivating Teachers: A Student Perspective

Ebrahim Khodadady (corresponding author) Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Email: [email protected]

Zhila Ghaemi Asrar Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

This study explores the attributes and behaviours of high school teachers who motivate

their learners best. Upon eliciting them from eighty freshmen university students, the

attributes and behaviours were discussed in length in class, refined and converted into a forty-item best motivating teacher (BMT) questionnaire and administered to other four

hundred and two students. The application of Principal Axis Factoring and rotating the

extracted latent variables via Varimax with Kaiser Normalization showed that ten factors

underlie the BMT, i.e., Confidence Building, Pleasant Behavior, Admitting Errors, Loving

Learners, Planned Teaching, Success Modelling, Establishing Rapport, Loving Teaching,

Lenient Evaluation, and Valuing Attempt. With the exception of Valuing Attempt consisting

of only one item, the other nine factors enjoy acceptable levels of reliability. All the ten

factors also correlate significantly with each other and thus establish the BMT as a reliable

and factorial valid measure of teacher attributes and behaviours. The factors underlying the

BMT are discussed and suggestions are made for future research.

Keywords: Teacher Attributes, Teacher Behaviours, Motivation, Factor Analysis

JEL Codes: I20, I21

Received: May, 2013 Approved: July 2013 doi: 10.14239/IJSSR.2013.01202

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. INTRODUCTION

Teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) plays an indispensible role in societies where English plays a communicative role in EFL learners‟ everyday interactions neither with each other nor with the members

of their community. The lack of an authentic communicative role to be played by EFL learners opposes

the views of some scholars such as Yule (2006) who believed that foreign language learning is the same as

second language learning because the learners of both foreign and second languages “are simply trying to

learn another language” (p. 163). The same view is held by Sadeghi and Babai (2009).

Teaching EFL differs drastically from teaching English as a second language (ESL) for the very reason

that while there is no immediate communicative need for learning EFL, the ESL learners have no choice

but to employ it for a host of reasons chief among which is getting employed in jobs requiring interactions

in the ESL. The necessity of mastering the ESL to fulfil various immediate needs provides its learners

with a number of reasons which are basically missing in the EFL learners. It is argued in this paper that

this very difference affects the EFL learners and teachers‟ views as regards what abilities, attributes, and behaviours the EFL teachers should have in order to be as effective as teachers who offer courses such as

mathematics and science.

Moafian and Pishghadam (2008), for example, compiled a 47-item questionnaire to find out what factors

underlie the characteristics of effective/successful English language teachers (CEELT). They administered

Khodadady, E. & Ghaemi, Z.

International Journal of Social Science Research 76

it to 250 Persian EFL learners of various ages and educational backgrounds in Iran, applied Principal Axis

Factoring (PAF) to their responses, rotated the results via Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (VKN) and

extracted 12 factors having Eigenvalues of one and higher, i.e., teaching accountability, interpersonal

relationship, attention to all, examination, commitment, learning boosters, creating a sense of

competence, teaching boosters, physical and emotional acceptance, empathy, class attendance and

dynamism.

Feizbakhsh (2010) administered the CEELT and the Bar-On EQ-i to 1461 high school students and 83

EFL teachers, respectively, to explore the relationship between teacher effectiveness and emotional

intelligence. Based on the correlation results, she announced that unlike her “expectation emotional

intelligence does not play a key role in teachers' success at high schools” (p. 84). Feizbakhsh‟s results thus question the validity of both the CEELT and EQ-i because they seem to be closely related to each other.

Moafian and Pishghadam‟s (2008) second factor extracted from the CEELT is, for example, closely

related to one of the 15 competencies measured by the EQ-i, i.e., Interpersonal Relationship (IR).

Unfortunately, however, Feizbakhsh did not provide any correlation coefficients between the IR factor of

the CEELT and the IR competency of EQ-i, implying that she could not find any significant relationship

between the two.

Similarly, this study questions the validity of the CEELT on two grounds. First, Khodadady (2010)

administered it to 1469 high school students in Mashhad and extracted only five factors when he applied

the PAF to the data and rotated the latent variables via VKN, i.e., Rapport, Fairness, Qualification,

Facilitation and Examination. His results showed that the validity of the CEELT depends on the size and homogeneity of the sample. While 250 EFL learners aged between 14 and 36 (mean = 17.1) took part in

Moafian and Pishghadam‟s (2008) study, the age of Khodadady‟s 1469 participants ranged between 14

and 19 (mean = 15.8). Similarly, the participants of the former study came from all walks of life whereas

the latter were only high school students.

However, even the reduction of 12 factors underlying the CEELT to five does not produce meaningful

relationships between the teacher effectiveness and other psychological measures such as the NEO Five

Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) designed by Costa and McCrae (1992). Khodadady and Mirjalili (2012)

administered the CEELT and the Persian NEO-FFI to 1260 EFL learners and 118 EFL teachers and

obtained the correlation coefficients presented in Table 1. As can be seen, the CEELT and NEO-FFI

correlated significantly (r = .14, p <.01); however, it is not meaningful in that they explain only one

percent of variance in each other.

Table 1. Correlation coefficients between the NEO-FFI and CEELT

Personality and its

domains CEELT CEELT factors

Rapport Fairness Qualification Facilitation Examination

NEO-FFI .14** .12** .13** .15** .10** .04

Neuroticism .08** .05 .05 .08** .08** .11**

Extroversion .08** .12** .08** .06* .04 -.07*

Openness .08** .03 .07* .08** .08** .08**

Agreeableness .02 .02 .04 .03 -.02 -.03 Conscientiousness .08** .07* .07* .10** .06* -.02

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

As it can also be seen in Table 1, the Agreeableness domain of personality does not reveal any significant

relationship either with the CEELT or with its five factors. Furthermore, the Examination factor of the

CEELT correlates positively with Neuroticism (r = .11, p <.01) but shows a negative relationship with

Extroversion (r = -.07, p <.05). Extroversion, however, correlates significantly with Rapport (r = .12, p

<.01). Based on these results, Khodadady and Mirjalili (2012) announced that:



“Teachers high in Extroversion achieve establishing Rapport with the learners but should be

careful in their Examination in order not to let their students exploit their sociability and

have them compromise their evaluation of educational objectives pursued in their teaching

programs”

It is argued in this paper that the CEELT and similar scales such as the one developed by Babai (2010)

basically reflect the views of EFL teachers in that they were developed in consultation with them. The

CEELT in particular fails to reflect the views of learners to whom it was administered in so many studies

(e.g., Birjandi & Bagherkazemi, 2010; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010; Khodadady, 2012). As will be

discussed shortly, the students bring up a number of variables which are not brought up in the CEELT at

all. For them, teachers who motivate them to learn best do not, for example, humiliate them. They accept their students‟ criticisms and talk about moral and religious issues in their classes. The present study was,

therefore, designed to develop a questionnaire whose factors represent the attributes and behaviours of

teachers from the students‟ perspective only.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Participants

Four hundred and two, 218 female and 184 male, undergraduate first year university students at associate

diploma (n = 207, 51.5%) and bachelor (n = 195, 45.5%) degrees took part voluntarily in this study. Their age ranged between 16 and 41 (mean = 19.55, SD = 2.4). They were majoring in accounting, animal

husbandry, architecture, biology, civil engineering, computer, electronics, electronic engineering, English

language, English literature, environmental engineering, irrigation, management, medical engineering,

medical sciences, physics, plant protection, Russian language, and water engineering at Asrar University,

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Imam Reza University, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and

Sajjad University. They were speaking Persian (n = 380, 94.5%), Kurdish (n = 4, 1%), Lori (n = 3, .7%),

and Turkish (n = 15, 3.7%) as their mother language.

2.2. Instruments

Two instruments were employed in this study: A bio questionnaire and a questionnaire containing the

characteristics and behaviors of participants‟ best teachers in high school.

a. Bio Questionnaire

A bio questionnaire was developed to elicit the information related to participants‟ age, level of language

proficiency, gender, marital status, field of study, degree of study, and mother language. It also required

them to name the institute where they studied English and the university in which they pursued their

higher education. Furthermore, the participants were asked to specify their field of study and whether it

could be subsumed under the broad domains of agriculture, engineering, humanities, medicine, and

sciences.

b. Best Motivating Teacher Questionnaire

The best motivating teacher (BMT) questionnaire was developed in this study by eliciting the opinions of 80 undergraduate university students in a pilot study. They were asked to write what characteristics their

BMTs had and how they behaved in their classes. The written responses were then discussed to make the

elicited attributes and behaviors as clear as possible. The two processes resulted in the identification of 40

statements which were then converted into items consisting of six choices requiring the indication of

whether the respondents‟ BMT never, seldom, sometimes, often, usually or always exhibited the

characteristics and behaviors brought up in the statements. The values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were then

assigned to these choices to run the statistical analyses.



2.3. Procedure

After eliciting the freshmen undergraduate university students‟ descriptions of their BMTs and converting

them into a 40-item questionnaire, instructors teaching first year students in five universities were

contacted and asked for cooperation. Upon their agreement and approval of their students to take part in

the project voluntarily, one of the researchers attended the classes and administered the bio and BMT

questionnaires in a single session. Although the participants were encouraged to rise whatever questions

they had, none was posed due to the clarity of the statements and their being in Persian.

2.4. Data Analysis

In addition to running the descriptive statistical analysis of data, The Cronbach‟s Alpha was employed to

estimate the reliability of the BMT questionnaire. After ensuring the suitability of factor analysis through

the KMO statistic, the PAF was applied to the six points specified for each of the 40 statements to extract

the latent variables underlying the BMT. The eigenvalue of one and higher was adopted as the criterion to

determine the number of factors. They were then rotated via VKN and items having the loadings of .30

and higher were chosen as contributing to the factor upon which they loaded. If a given item cross loaded

acceptably on more than one factor, the highest loading on a single factor was adopted arbitrarily as

contributing to that particular factor and its cross loadings on other factors were removed. The descriptive

statistics, reliability and correlation coefficients of these rotated factors were then estimated to answer the

research questions.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before estimating the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficient of the BMT the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) measure of Sampling Adequacy was employed to find out whether employing factor analysis to

extract latent variables was appropriate. The KMO statistic obtained in this study was .90, which is,

according to Kaiser and Rice (1974), marvellous in terms of the sample selected in this study. The

significant Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericity, i.e., X2 = 4619.977, df = 780, p < .001, showed that the correlation

matrix was not an identity matrix.

Table 1 presents the ordered initial and extracted communalities (ECs) obtained via the PAF from the 40-

item BMT. As can be seen, the ECs range from .60 to .12. Costello and Osborne (2005) believed that getting ECs in the order of .40 to .70 is common in social sciences. The results of this study, however,

question such as a belief. None of the ECs reaches .70 and fifteen items (37.5%) fall below .40. It is,

therefore, suggested that no specific values be set in advance.

Table 1. Ordered initial communalities (IC) and extracted communalities (EC) obtained via PAF from the

40-item BMT

Item IC EC Item IC EC Item IC EC Item IC EC Item IC EC

I16 .50 .60 I38 .42 .54 I04 .39 .47 I12 .34 .39 I10 .32 .33

I25 .46 .49 I05 .42 .49 I19 .38 .41 I17 .33 .40 I23 .30 .36

I27 .45 .45 I40 .42 .40 I11 .37 .45 I26 .33 .34 I01 .28 .28

I14 .45 .47 I08 .41 .44 I13 .37 .40 I09 .33 .45 I32 .26 .28

I30 .44 .52 I33 .41 .40 I28 .37 .39 I03 .33 .42 I37 .23 .22

I31 .43 .47 I35 .40 .43 I02 .35 .38 I06 .33 .35 I20 .23 .30

I15 .43 .52 I34 .40 .48 I22 .34 .36 I07 .32 .35 I24 .15 .16

I39 .43 .43 I36 .39 .58 I29 .34 .40 I21 .32 .41 I18 .15 .12



Table 2 presents the items and their loadings on ten factors extracted via the PAF and rotated via the

VKN. As can be seen, three items, i.e., 18, 35 and 37, do not load acceptably, i.e., 0.30 and higher, on any

factor. However, item 14 loaded acceptably on three factors, i.e., 1 (.31), 2 (.41) and 3 (.33). Since it had

its highest acceptable loading on factor two, its two lower cross loadings on factors one and three were

removed as the same was done to other cross loading items to estimate the descriptive as well as

referential statistics of the ten factors extracted. (The attributes and behaviours stated in the 40 items and

their single loadings on a specific factor have been given in Appendix 1).

Table 2. Rotated factor matrix of 40 items comprising the BMT

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I01 * * * * .47 * * * * * I21 * * * * * * * * .48 *

I02 * * * .30 * * .39 * * * I22 * * * * .47 * * * * *

I03 * * * .60 * * * * * * I23 * * * * * .52 * * * *

I04 * * * .68 * * * * * * I24 * * * * * .33 * * * *

I05 * * * .54 * .31 * * * * I25 * .54 * * * * * * * *

I06 * * * .53 * * * * * * I26 * .52 * * * * * * * *

I07 * * .45 * * * * * * * I27 * .47 * * * * * * * *

I08 .35 * .48 * * * * * * * I28 .31 * * * * * * * * *

I09 * * .38 * * * * * * .44 I29 .52 * * * * * * * * *

I10 * * .50 * * * * * * * I30 .44 * * * .48 * * * * *

I11 * * .51 * * * * * * * I31 .45 * * * * * * * * *

I12 * * * * * * * * .47 * I32 .47 * * * * * * * * *

I13 * * .40 * * * * * * * I33 .38 .37 * * * * * * * *

I14 .31 .41 .33 * * * * * * * I34 .52 * * * * * * * * *

I15 * .50 * * .31 * * * * * I35 * * * * * * * * * *

I16 * .56 * * * * .40 * * * I36 * * * * * * * .67 * *

I17 * * * * * .50 * * * * I37 * * * * * * * * * *

I18 * * * * * * * * * * I38 * * * * * * .61 * * *

I19 .50 * * * * * * * * * I39 * * * * .33 * * .36 * *

I20 * * * * * * * * .50 * I40 * * * * * .34 * * * *

* Loadings less than .30

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics as well as reliability coefficients (RCs) of the BMT and its ten

underlying latent variables called Confidence Building, Pleasant Behaviour, Admitting Errors, Loving

Learners, Planned Teaching, Success Modelling, Establishing Rapport, Loving Teaching, Lenient

Evaluation, and Valuing Attempt in this study. As can be seen, the alpha RC obtained on the BMT, i.e.,

.90, provides the answer to the first question, how reliable is the BMT questionnaire, and shows that it is a

highly reliable measure of attributes and behaviours which are exhibited by best teachers who motivate

their high school students to learn.

The results presented in Table 3 also answer the second research question, i.e., how reliable are the

factors extracted from the BMT. As can be seen, the alpha RCs range from .77 to .50. The lowest RC

belongs to factor nine called Lenient Evaluation in this study. The loading items on this factor are very

controversial, if not unacceptable to many teachers. For example, in response to Item 20, ignored students’

cheating in the testing session, out of 402 students, 45.1% have declared that the best motivating teachers

sometimes (18.2%), often (9.5%), usually (8.2%), and always (9.2%), ignored their cheating! (The

descriptive statistics as well as the percentage of times each of six points have been chosen by participants

are given in Appendix 2).



Table 3. Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of BMT and its ten underlying factors

Factor N Mean SD Eigenvalues % of V % CV Alpha

1 Confidence Building 7 36.4 5.2 2.71 6.78 6.78 0.77

2 Pleasant Behaviour 6 32.2 4.3 2.48 6.19 12.97 0.77

3 Admitting Errors 5 23.8 4.8 2.36 5.90 18.87 0.71

4 Loving Learners 4 12.6 5.2 1.88 4.70 23.57 0.69

5 Planned Teaching 3 15.1 2.8 1.34 3.36 26.93 0.55

6 Success Modelling 4 18.4 4.2 1.33 3.32 30.24 0.59

7 Establishing Rapport 2 10.2 2.1 1.27 3.17 33.42 0.55

8 Loving Teaching 2 10.8 1.9 1.21 3.02 36.43 0.60

9 Lenient Evaluation 3 11.4 3.2 1.06 2.64 39.07 0.50

10 Valuing Attempt 1 5.0 1.4 0.51 1.28 40.36 -

BMT 40 190.7 24.4 0.90

The first rotated factor, Confidence Building, has the highest RC among the ten extracted latent variables,

i.e., α = .77. It consists of items 19, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34. According to students, Confidence Building

teachers motivate their learners by being orderly, having positive views, repeating the educational material

without getting tired, encouraging learners to try more, employing simple speech and clear examples and

communicating with glances while teaching. Out of 40.36 of rotated extracted variance, Confidence

Building explains 6.78% of variance in the BMT.

Table 4 presents the correlation coefficients obtained among the ten latent variables underlying the BMT. As can be seen, they answer the third research question, how strongly are the extracted factors related to

each other, and show that the strength of relationship depends on the nature of factors. Confidence

Building, for example, correlates significantly with the other nine factors extracted from the BMT. It does,

however, reveal the highest significant relationship with Pleasant Behaviour, i.e., r = .62, p <.01,

indicating that the more confident the teachers are, the more pleasantly they behave in their classes.

Table 4. Correlations among the underlying factors of BMT

BMT and its factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Confidence Building 1 .62* .54* .23* .48* .42* .41* .41* .22* .34*

2 Pleasant Behavior .62* 1 .51* .20* .37* .40* .45* .46* .26* .34* 3 Admitting Errors .54* .51* 1 .34* .35* .44* .38* .42* .32* .46*

4 Loving Learners .23* .20* .34* 1 .17* .39* .35* .14* .18* .25*

5 Planned Teaching .48* .37* .35* .17* 1 .34* .26* .41* .07 .23*

6 Success Modeling .42* .40* .44* .39* .34* 1 .40* .30* .22* .26*

7 Establishing Rapport .41* .45* .38* .35* .26* .40* 1 .37* .28* .29*

8 Loving Teaching .41* .46* .42* .14* .41* .30* .37* 1 .17* .29*

9 Lenient Evaluation .22* .26* .32* .18* .07 .22* .28* .17* 1 .17*

10 Valuing Attempt .34* .34* .46* .25* .23* .28* .29* .29* .17* 1

BMT .79* .75* .78* .54* .56* .68* .62* .57* .43* .50*

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Similar to Confidence Building, Pleasant Behaviour enjoys the highest RC among the ten extracted latent variables, i.e., α = .77. It consists of six items, i.e., 14, 15, 16, 25, 26 and 27. The Pleasant Behaviour of

best teachers is reflected in their being well-disposed, respecting learners, never looking down on them,

controlling the class well, being kind and sympathetic and transferring the content of instructional

materials by speaking well. Out of 40.36% of rotated extracted variance, Confidence Building explains

6.19% of variance in the BMT.



The third factor called Admitting Errors, has the second highest RC among other factors, i.e., α = .71. Five

items, i.e., 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13, loaded acceptably on this factor among which item 11, apologized

whenever committed a mistake or error, had the highest loading (.51). Admitting Errors allows BMTs to

apologize for their mistakes, involve learners in running the class and discussing lessons, motivate them to

do research and study more, devote their time to the students before and after the class and have the ability

to discover students‟ talents. It explains 5.90 % of rotated variance in the BMT questionnaire and shows

the highest relationship with Confidence Building, i.e., r = .54, p <.01.

Factor four, Loving Learners, has an alpha RC of 0.69. It consists of items 3, 4, 5 and six and explains

4.70 % of rotated variance in the BMT. Best teachers who love their learners seek their past history, contact their family regarding their achievement, help them solve their personal problems like a councillor

and address them in their first name. Loving Learners which explains 4.70% of variance in the BMT

correlates the highest with the sixth factor, i.e., r = .39, p <.01.

Planned Teaching underlies the BMT as its fifth factor and enjoys the alpha coefficient of .55 as its

reliability index. It comprises three items, i.e., 1, 22, and 30, among which the last, entered the class with

a preplanned design, has the highest loading (.48). In addition to having a preplanned design for each

session of teaching, the BMTs attended their classes in time and marked carefully whatever assignments

they gave to their students. While Planned Teaching explains 3.6% of variance in the questionnaire, it

correlates the highest with the eight factor, i.e., r = .41, p <.01.

The sixth factor, Success Modelling, enjoys a relatively moderate level of reliability, i.e., α = .59, and

consists of four items, 17, 23, 24, and 40. Since items 23 and 17 have the highest loadings on Success

Modelling, i.e., .52 and 50, respectively, they show that BMTs talk not only about their own memories to

produce variety in class but also about successful individuals. They also model good speech themselves

and embody religious and ethical principles in their lessons. The factor explains 3.2% of variance in the

questionnaire and correlates the highest with Admitting Errors, i.e., r = .44, p <.01.

The seventh factor, Establishing Rapport, consists of items 2 and 38. In spite of its relatively fewer items,

factor seven enjoys an acceptable level of reliability, i.e., α = .55, and specifies wearing smile and

establishing rapport as two important behaviours shown by BMTs. It explains 3.2% of variance in the

questionnaire and correlates the highest with Pleasant Behaviour, i.e., r = .45, p <.01.

Similar to factor seven, the eighth factor, Loving Teaching, comprises two items, i.e., 36 and 39, having

the acceptable loadings of .67 and 36, respectively. Its RC is, however, higher than Establishing Rapport,

i.e., α = .60, and explains 3% of variance in the questionnaire. Factor eight shows that BMTs are interested

in their career and keep their promises as a tangible token of their honesty. Loving Teaching correlates the

highest with Pleasant Behaviour, i.e., r = .46, p <.01, as well.

The ninth factor, Lenient Evaluation, consists of three items, i.e., 12, 20 and 21, having the loadings of

.47, .50, and .48, respectively. This factor is unique to this study in that it reveals that teachers who ignore

their students‟ errors as well as cheating in the testing session and accept their criticisms readily are

viewed as BMTs by the students. It correlates the highest with Admitting Errors, i.e., r = .32, p <.01.

Lenient Evaluation is also the only factor which shows no significant relationship with Planned Teaching.

Item nine gave more importance to students’ struggle to learn than their scores, is the only item which

loads acceptably on factor 10, Valuing Attempt (.44). It explains 1.28% of variance in the BMT and

correlates the highest with Admitting Errors, i.e., r = .46, p <.01, indicating that BMTs who admit their

own errors do realize how important it is to support English learners when they do their best but score low

on tests. Thus, appreciating students‟ attempts and treating them as hard working individuals regardless of

their low scores establishes itself as an important factor contributing to teacher effectiveness in its own

right.



4. CONCLUSION

While some studies have approached effective teacher characteristics from both students and teachers‟

perspectives, none of them have developed and validated a questionnaire measuring teacher attributes and

behaviours from students‟ perspective only. This study was therefore designed to find out what teachers

did in high schools which best motivated their students to learn what they taught. To this end, the topic

was brought up by the researchers in their general English classes at two universities and the views of

eighty freshmen students were elicited in writing, discussed in details and refined into forty statements

presented in the BMT questionnaire. The factor analysis of the responses showed that thirty seven items

loaded acceptably on ten rotated factors, i.e., Confidence Building, Pleasant Behaviour, Admitting Errors,

Loving Learners, Planned Teaching, Success Modelling, Establishing Rapport, Loving Teaching, Lenient Evaluation, and Valuing Attempt.

As the first factor, Confidence Building shows the highest correlation with the second, Pleasant

Behaviour, highlighting the fact that teachers can help their students gain confidence not only by being

kind and sympathetic towards them but also by respecting them as active learners. Confidence Building

also shows the highest correlation with the third factor, Admitting Errors, requiring teachers to apologize

whenever they committed an error and to involve the learners in running the class and discussing lessons

in order to help them build their confidence in learning.

As the fourth factor, Loving Learners correlates the highest with the sixth factor, Success Modelling, in

that BMTs relate personally to their students not only by talking about their own memories to produce variety in class but also by talking about the individuals they consider successful. In contrast, Planned

Teaching, the fifth factor, reveals the highest correlation with Confidence Building, reiterating the

important role of having a preplanned design, attending the class in time and marking assignments as

significant indicators of building learners‟ confidence in their teachers‟ ability.

The seventh factor, Establishing Rapport, shows the highest level of relationship with the second,

Pleasant Behaviour, as does the eighth factor, Loving Teaching. These factors explain how BMTs being

well-disposed, respecting learners, never looking down upon them and being kind and sympathetic help

them establish rapport with them and convince the learners of their keen interest in teaching as their

career.

And finally, similar to the sixth factor, Success Modelling, the ninth, Lenient Evaluation, and tenth, Valuing Attempt, factors correlate the highest with the third factor, Admitting Errors. It seems that the

learners approach teachers‟ commitment of errors as legitimate excuses for the acceptability of their own

errors and thus a justification for their cheating in testing sessions and the plausibility of teachers‟

approval of their action. Similarly, the learners seem to have replaced the scores as tangible indicators of

objectives pursued in educational programs with their teachers‟ subjective consideration of their learners‟

struggles as criterion for achievement. Future research must show what type of relationships these ten

factors show with the learners‟ performance on achievement and proficiency tests.

REFERENCES Babai, H. (2010) „The relationship between Iranian English language teachers‟ and learners‟ gender and

their perceptions of an effective English language teacher‟, English Language Teaching, 3(3), 3-10.

Birjandi, P., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2010) „The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers critical

thinking ability and their professional success‟, English Language Teaching, 3 (2), 135-145.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-

factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual, Odessa, Psychological Assessment Resources.

Feizbakhsh, M. (2010) The Role of Emotional Intelligence in EFL Teachers‟ Success at schools and

institutes, Unpublished MA thesis, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2010) „The role of EFL teachers emotional intelligence in their

success‟, ELT Journal, 64 (4), 424-435.



Kaiser, H. F. & Rice, J. (1974) „Little Jiffy, Mark IV‟, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34,

111-117.

Khodadady, E. (2010) „Factors Underlying Characteristics of English Language Teachers: Validity and

Sample Effect‟, Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 47-74.

Khodadady, E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with English teaching effectiveness,

Manuscript submitted for publication.

Khodadady, E., & Mirjalili, P. (2012) „Exploring the relationship between English teachers‟ effectiveness

and their personality‟, Continental J. Education Research, 5 (1), 1 – 11.

Moafian, F. & Pishghadam, R. (2008) „Construct validation of a questionnaire on characteristics of

successful EFL teachers‟, Pazhuhesh-e Zabanhe-ye Khareji Journal, 54, 127-142.

Pishghadam, R., & Moafian, F. (2006) „The role of English high school teachers‟ multiple intelligences in their teaching success‟, Pazhuheshe Zabanheye Khareji Journal, 42, 5-22.

Sadeghi, K & Babai, H. (2009) Becoming an effective EFL teacher: Living up to the expectations of L2

learners and teachers of English, Saarbrücken, VDM Verlag.

Yule, G. (2006) The study of language (3rd ed.), Cambridge, CUP



Appendix 1

The items comprising the BMT questionnaire, their acceptable loadings and the factors upon which they

have loaded

Item The best teacher who motivated me to learn in high school … Factor Loading

I01 Attended the class in time. 5 0.47

I02 Established rapport with you. 7 0.39 I03 Contacted your family regarding your achievement 4 0.60

I04 Sought your past history. 4 0.68

I05 Like a councilor helped you solve your personal problems 4 0.54

I06 Addressed you in your first name 4 0.53

I07 Devoted his time to the students before and after the class. 3 0.45

I08 Provided you and your friends with a motive to do research and study more 3 0.48

I09 Gave more importance to students‟ struggle to learn than their scores 10 0.44

I10 Involved students in running the class and discussing lessons 3 0.50

I11 Apologized whenever committed a mistake or error 3 0.51

I12 Ignored your errors. 9 0.47

I13 Had the ability to discover students‟ talents 3 0.40

I14 Was able to speak well and transfer the content of lessons 2 0.41

I15 Controlled the class well 2 0.50

I16 Was well-disposed 2 0.56

I17 Talked about successful individuals 6 0.50

I18 Was creative in teaching

I19 His positive view created self-confidence and made our views positive 1 0.50

I20 Ignored students‟ cheating in the testing session 9 0.50

I21 Accepted students‟ criticisms readily. 9 0.48

I22 Marked assignment carefully 5 0.47

I23 Talked about his memories to produce variety in class 6 0.52

I24 In addition to lessons, talked about religious and ethical principles 6 0.33

I25 Respected students 2 0.54

I26 Never looked down at students 2 0.52

I27 Was kind and sympathetic 2 0.47

I28 Communicated with glances while teaching 1 0.31

I29 Wrote contents orderly and in good hand writing on the board 1 0.52

I30 Entered the class with a preplanned design 5 0.48

I31 Encouraged students to try more 1 0.45

I32 Did not become tired of repeating the lesson 1 0.47

I33 Enhanced learning by employing simple speech and clear examples 1 0.38

I34 Increased self-confidence to reach higher scientific degrees 1 0.52

I35 Was serious in teaching

I36 Was interested in his career 8 0.67

I37 Challenged the class through questions

I38 Had a smile on his lips 7 0.61

I39 Was honest and kept his promises 8 0.36

I40 Taught good speech via his speech style. 6 0.34



Appendix 2

The descriptive statistics as well as the percentage of six points chosen for the items comprising the BMT

Item Mean SD Missing

%

Never

%

Seldom

%

Sometimes

%

Often

%

Usually

%

Always

%

I01 5.38 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.7 2.2 4 30.3 60

I02 5.12 1.2 0.2 2.5 1.7 6.7 11.4 24.4 53

I03 2.75 1.7 0.2 31.3 21.1 17.4 9.7 10.7 9.5

I04 2.6 1.6 0.2 34.1 21.9 16.4 10.2 10.9 6.2

I05 3.59 1.8 0.7 17.4 15.2 14.4 13.4 18.4 20.4

I06 3.64 2.1 0 28.9 9.2 8.2 7.5 15.7 30.6

I07 4.71 1.4 0.7 3 4.7 11.4 13.2 29.9 37.1

I08 4.66 1.4 0.7 1.7 8 10.9 15.4 24.9 38.3

I09 5.03 1.4 1.5 3.2 2.2 6 9.2 26.6 51.2

I10 4.74 1.5 1.2 3.5 5.2 8.5 12.9 29.4 39.3

I11 4.78 1.5 1.5 3.2 3.5 11.4 14.4 20.1 45.8

I12 4.22 1.5 1 4.5 8.7 14.9 21.1 28.1 21.6

I13 4.85 1.3 1 2 4.5 7.5 14.2 30.1 40.5

I14 5.58 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.2 2 4.5 17.2 74.1

I15 5.49 0.9 0 1 0 2.7 7.2 23.4 65.7

I16 5.44 1 0.2 0.5 1.7 2.7 7.7 21.4 65.7

I17 4.79 1.4 0.2 3.5 5.7 9 12.7 27.1 41.8

I18 5.17 1.2 0.7 2 1.7 5.2 10.2 25.4 54.7

I19 4.9 1.3 0.7 2.7 2 9.7 13.4 27.6 43.8

I20 2.64 1.7 1 32.1 21.9 18.2 9.5 8.2 9.2

I21 4.5 1.4 0.7 3.2 4.7 14.2 19.9 28.1 29.1

I22 4.69 1.5 1 4.5 5 8.2 15.9 25.9 39.6

I23 4.41 1.7 1.2 6.5 10 10.9 11.9 22.6 36.8

I24 4.08 1.6 0.7 7.5 12.4 15.7 15.7 22.4 25.6

I25 5.36 1 0.2 0.7 1.5 3.2 10 23.6 60.7

I26 5.02 1.4 0.2 4 5 7.2 8.2 18.7 56.7

I27 5.35 1.1 0 1.5 1.2 5.2 8.7 19.7 63.7

I28 5.24 1.2 0 1.7 2.7 5.2 7.7 24.9 57.7

I29 5.13 1.2 0.2 1.7 3.2 6 12.2 21.6 55

I30 5.05 1.3 0.2 3 3.2 4.2 11.9 28.6 48.8

I31 5.33 1 0.2 0.5 1.7 3.7 9.7 25.1 59

I32 5.29 1.2 1 2.2 0.7 3.7 8.5 22.6 61.2

I33 5.32 1 0.5 1 0.5 5 8.5 26.1 58.5

I34 5.19 1.1 0.5 0.7 2 4.5 13.7 25.6 52.7

I35 5.4 0.9 0 1.5 0.5 2 9 26.6 60.4

I36 5.55 1 1 0.5 1.7 2.2 3.7 15.7 75.1

I37 4.28 1.7 1 9.7 8.7 10 14.4 24.1 32.1

I38 5.08 1.3 0.7 2.5 3 7.7 9 21.6 55.5

I39 5.25 1.2 0.7 1 2.2 4.5 9.7 24.1 57.7

I40 5.08 1.2 0 2.5 3.5 6.2 9.2 28.1 50.5

Factors Underlying the Attributes and Behaviours of Best Motivating Teachers: A Student Perspective

Documents