Student perceptions of the importance of instructor traits: a cross-cultural study.

Alshare, Khaled A. ; Miller, Donald S.

INTRODUCTION

Instructional effectiveness is an integral component of the educational process. In practice, considerable time/effort and financial resources are devoted to formal preparation of learners for successful personal and professional lives. Even though cultures and modes of lifestyles may differ, the essential nature of meaningful educational experiences is most relevant to citizens and countries. Growing globalization and technological advances are likely to serve as further impetuses for value-added higher-education experiences.

Understanding student perceptions of an effective instructor has historically been an important consideration. However, with the introduction of online teaching and an increase in exchange programs among universities throughout the world, it becomes more urgent than before to understand what characteristics (traits) make an effective instructor from student perspectives across different cultures. Therefore, instructors should be aware of student expectations, especially if students are from different countries.

This study addresses relevant issues by comparing student perceptions of instructor traits in the USA, Jordan, and Chile. These three countries were primarily selected because they represent different sets of cultures according to Hofstede's cultural dimensions (the power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance). We believed that differences in these cultural dimensions among students in these three countries influence, to certain extent, their perceptions of traits associated with effective instructors.

BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVE

Students and professors may interact in dissimilar educational environments that differ in any number of ways, including instructional approaches as well as equipment and facility resources. Nevertheless, student perceptions regarding their educational experiences prevail. As noted by Doyle (1977), research efforts on teacher effectiveness involve numerous complications related to such things as consistency of outcomes, methodology, and theoretical considerations. Nearly two decades later, Tuckman (1995) noted the absence of consensus about definitions of effective teaching and lack of agreement over how to measure it.

Studies by Bousfield (1940), Duncan and Leach (1934), and Kilcoyne (1949) were among earlier research involving student ratings of instruction. By the 1960s, the topic continued to interest researchers. For instance, Voeks and French (1960) sought to learn if differences existed between student ratings and grades received. Quick and Wolfe (1965) examined student responses to learn factors that described ideal college professors. Cashin (1996) observed that considerable research on student evaluation of instruction evolved since the early 1970s. Seemingly, however, a dearth of reported studies on the topic exists for some countries, including Chile and Jordan.

Compared to Western societies, Anwar and Chaker (2003) noted that Arab society is more collective and less individualistic. Meleis (1982) commented that Arabs have higher orientation to verbal than written communication and also rely on persons who have more experience and education to be responsible for decisions involving educational experiences. Al-Hamdan (2007) surveyed students at Kuwait University and found that males gave higher average ratings to faculty on factors such as feeling respected and appreciated, managing the classroom with strictness, and setting good in-class modular examples. Badri, Abdulla, Kamali, and Dodeen (2006) reviewed student evaluations in business programs at United Arab Emirates University. Students who anticipated higher grades gave higher ratings to professors than those who expected lower grades. As related to grade-point averages, results were inconsistent; poor students and excellent students gave higher ratings than average students. Professors of second and fourth-year courses were rated higher than those teaching first and third-year courses.

Smart, Kelley, and Conant (2003) surveyed marketing professors who were considered to be superior teachers by their marketing department chairs. These professors associated success with characteristics reported by outstanding professors in several earlier studies, some dating from the 1980s. Valued characteristics included excellent communication skills, interactive teaching styles, a real-world focus, empathy for others, and both organization as well as presentation skills. Tang's analysis (1997) of responses from business students at a regional state university revealed several factors as predictors of teaching effectiveness. These factors included clarity of presentations, ability to answer questions, courteous/professional treatment of students, and preparation for class. Faranda and Clarke (2004) used interviews to ascertain business students' views of traits evidenced by effective professors, which included building rapport, developing an engaging learning environment, being knowledgeable, and practicing fairness.

Costin, Greenough, and Menges (1971) reviewed numerous studies involving relationships between student evaluations and grades. While some researchers reported no relationships, others found positive relationships that were significant. Ahmadi, Helms, and Raiszadeh (2001) sampled business students and reported they did not agree that giving higher ratings than professors deserved would negatively impact course grades. Also, students disagreed that higher ratings were given to professors who assigned little, if any, homework. Finally, respondents indicated that giving easy examinations did not result in getting higher ratings. Greenwald and Gillmore (1979) sampled 200 undergraduate classes at the University of Washington. Results supported the viewpoint that lenient instructors received higher student evaluations.

Sojka, Gupta, and Detter-Schmelz (2002) surveyed students and faculty at a Midwestern university to determine perceptions toward student ratings. Students tended not to agree that ratings of instructors led to changes in courses or even styles of teaching. Yet, faculty felt that easy and more entertaining instructors were apt to be more highly rated. Griffin's study (2001) of instructor reputations concluded that hearing of positive information about instructors led to higher student ratings for courses and instructors, as compared to ratings by students who heard negative information. Best and Addison (2000) examined instructor behavior and concluded that professors perceived to practice warm behaviors were more likely to receive higher student ratings.

Gender represents another variable that has been a focus of student-evaluation research. Bachen, McLoughlin, and Garcia (1999) studied instructional stereotypes associated with gender and found that females rated female professors higher across these gender-related dimensions; however, male students tended not to differentiate between male and female professors in terms of student ratings. Whitworth, Price, and Randall (2002) reviewed slightly more than 12,000 student evaluations and concluded that female instructors rated higher and were perceived to promote significantly greater amounts of learning. Centra and Gaubatz (2000) surveyed 741 classes to determine if gender bias existed in student ratings. While differences were not especially large, they reported some same-sex preferences, especially in situations involving female students rating female instructors.

Seemingly, the extent of student participation varies among faculty and classes. Fritschner (2000) used a nonparticipant observation technique and sociological interview approach to study student participation in introductory and higher-level classes. Students participated to a greater extent in higher-level classes, and she also reported that traditional students considered their nontraditional peers to be more driven as well as motivated. Fassinger (2000) studied data from 51 classes and found that classes with higher levels of participation tended to evidence greater cooperation and involvement with the professors viewed as being more approachable and supportive of students. In classes with lower student participation, professors held more positive views toward a class than those held by their students.

Hofstede's (1997) research on cultural dimensions provides a theoretical underpinning that might help in explaining differences in student perceptions of instructor traits. In his study, Hofstede surveyed 50 different countries, including the USA and Chile, and grouped together the Arab-speaking countries. He identified four dimensions that can be used to distinguish among different cultures: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. Figure 1 provides the index scores of these cultural dimensions for each country.

Power distance (PDI), defined as "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28) is larger for Arab countries than for Chile and the USA (80 vs. 63 vs. 40). In a school setting, larger values of power distance mean considerable dependence of students on teachers; students are unlikely to approach and contradict their teachers directly. Individualism (IDV), defined as "the interest of the individual prevails over the interest of the group" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 50) is significantly higher for the USA than Arab countries and Chile (91 vs. 38 vs. 23). Larger values of IDV mean more individualistic countries/societies.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Masculinity (MAS), defined as "pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 82) is higher for the USA than Arab countries and Chile (62 vs. 53 vs. 28). Larger values of MAS mean more distinct social roles between men and women with dominant societal values such as assertiveness, acquisition of money, and focus on material success. Finally, uncertainty avoidance (UAI) is defined as "the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 113) is stronger for Chile than for Arab countries and the USA (86 vs. 68 vs. 46). Larger values of UAI mean more avoidance to uncertainty. We believed that differences in Hofstede's cultural dimensions among students in these three countries influenced, to certain extent, their perceptions of importance of instructor traits.

Based on the above literature and due to the exploratory nature of this study, we formulated the following research questions:

RQ1: Is there any significant difference in perceptions of importance of instructor traits among American, Jordanian, and Chilean students?

RQ2: Does each trait have same perceived importance, regardless of the mode of delivering instruction (face-to-face and online)?

RQ3: Do gender, age, discipline, student classification, GPA, learning style, and prior online experience influence student perceptions?

More specifically, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H1: The perceived importance of instructor traits is significantly different among these three countries.

H2a: In the USA, there is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between online and face-to-face mode of instruction.

H2b: In Chile, there is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between online and face-to-face mode of instruction.

For each country:

H3a: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between male and female students.

H3b: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between traditional and non-traditional students.

H3c: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits among students' disciplines.

H3d: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between students with high GPA and those with low GPAs.

H3e: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits among student classifications.

H3f: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits among students' learning styles.

H3g: There is a significant difference in perceived importance of instructor traits between students who had online experience and those who did not.

METHODOLOGY

Instrument Development, Data Collection, and Statistical Techniques

Samples of 500 college students in each of the three countries-USA, Chile, and Jordan- were selected to participate in the study, which was conducted in the 2004-2005 academic year. To assure appropriate respondent understanding of survey questions, students in Jordan responded to a version written in English and Arabic, as professors as well as students were generally familiar with English and Arabic (AMIDEAST, 2004). As only about two percent of people in Chile who are 15 years of age or older have fluency in English (Miranda, 2004), a colleague facilitated translation of the questionnaire to Spanish. Feedback was solicited from several instructors and students to ascertain translation accuracy, and subsequently, a few minor modifications were included in a final version of the questionnaire.

Demographic variables, such as gender, age, educational background (discipline), GPA, and learning style were included in the questionnaire. In addition, the survey requested information about perceptions of importance for instructor traits. The framework for the questionnaire and many items were adopted from a study by Moorman (2004). Participants responded to statements using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from not important (1) to very important (5). The reliability of the instrument was tested using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The values of alpha for the three samples ranged from 0.83 to 0.91. These values are considered to be acceptable for an explanatory study (Hair et al., 1998). SPSS statistical software was used to compute frequencies, means, percentages, Cronbach's alpha, and factor analysis. T-test, paired sample t-test, and ANOVA procedures were used to test the hypotheses. When significant differences in group means were found, we extended the analysis by performing pairwise comparisons.

DATA ANALYSIS

Two-hundred fifty-four American students, 229 Chilean students and 190 Jordanian students returned completed surveys. This represented response rates of 51, 46 and 38 percent, respectively. Forty-five percent of American students were males, compared with 82 and 45 percent in the Chilean and Jordanian samples. In the three samples, students were undergraduates, and the majority was younger than 30 years old. The student samples represented different disciplines (business, hard sciences, and social sciences). Additionally, the three samples included students from lower-level classes (freshman and sophomore) and upper-level classes (junior and senior) as shown in Table 1. Eighty-nine percent of American students, 31 percent of Chilean students and 73 percent of Jordanian students had GPAs higher than or equal to 2.5 (A = 4.0). Forty-one percent of American students, 4 percent of Chilean students, and 25 percent of Jordanian students had taken online courses. The majority of students in the three countries (48 percent of American students, 43 percent of Chilean students, and 36 percent of Jordanian students) indicated that their learning style was "visual/verbal." A summary of frequency distributions by country for relevant variables is presented in Table 1.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Results are presented in three parts. The first part provides answers for research question RQ1 concerning students' perceptions of importance for instructor traits in these three countries. ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedures were used to perform the analysis for testing H1. We utilized country as the independent variable at three levels (USA, Jordan, and Chile). The dependent variables were the traits. The next part provides the answer to the second research question related to whether the perceived importance of instructor traits was affected by the mode of delivering instruction. Paired sample t-test was used to test hypotheses H2a-H2b. The third part presents the answer for the third research question related to the impact of demographic variables on students' perceptions. ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedures were employed to test hypotheses H3a-H3g. A Comparison of Student Perceptions

The ANOVA procedure revealed that there was a significant difference among students' perceptions in the three countries for all but two statements (identified as statements 18 and 28) as shown in Table 2. Thus, the first hypothesis was supported. Students in these three countries agreed with following statements (i.e., Students felt that these traits were important or very important.): Statements # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 44. However, they differed in the extent of their agreement. On the other hand, students in these three countries agreed that statement # 12 was "not important to somewhat important." Finally, students disagreed on the importance of the following traits: Statements # 2, 9, 15, 19, 34, 39, 43, and 45.

Since there were significant differences in students' perceptions, a post-test analysis using Bonferroni multiple comparisons was employed to see where the differences lie. The results are reported in Table 3.

The Impact of the Mode of Delivering Instruction on Perceived Importance of Instructor Traits

The results of the paired sample t-test showed that there were significant differences in students' perceptions of the importance for instructor traits between face-to-face and online modes. As shown in Table 4, there were only 6 statements for the American sample, compared to 11 statements for the Chilean sample, in which there were no significant differences in these perceptions for instructor traits between face-to-face and online methods of instruction. Thus, hypotheses H2a and H2b were partially supported. Data regarding online statements for Jordanian students were not available.

The Impact of Demographic Variables on Student Perceptions

The results of ANOVA procedure revealed that there were significant differences in perceived importance of instructor traits between male and female students for 14 statements, 11 statements, and 4 statements for American, Jordanian, and Chilean samples, respectively. With respect to the age factor, there were 3 statements for the American sample, compared to 2 statements for the Chilean, and one statement for the Jordanian sample, in which there were significant differences in perceived importance of instructor traits between traditional and non-traditional students. Academic disciplines had impact on the American and Jordanian students. There were 6 statements for the American students, compared to 8 statements for the Jordanian students, in which there were significant differences in perceived importance of instructor traits among business, social sciences, and "hard" sciences. Student GPA impacted one statement for American students, 2 statements for Jordanian students, and 5 statements for Chilean students. With respect to student classifications, there were significant differences in 6 statements for American and Jordanian samples and 8 statements for the Chilean sample. Student learning styles impacted American students in 5 statements, Jordanian students in 2 statements, and Chilean students in one statement. Finally, online course experience had impact on American students in 2 statements, Jordanian students in 5 statements, and Chilean students in one statement. Based on the above results, hypotheses H3a-H3g were partially supported.

DISCUSSION

A Comparison of Student Responses

Based on the information reported in Tables 2 and 3, Figure 2 was created to discuss the results. It is clear that students in the three countries agreed with 37 statements (traits) out of 45 statements used in the study. This indicated that regardless of students' backgrounds and cultures, these traits were either important, not important, or neither.

Thirty-Four of these 37 traits were considered by students to be important to very important. Even though students significantly differed on the extent of agreement for the importance of these traits, it was evident that it was vital for instructors to acquire and maintain such traits. Based on the factor analysis, these traits could be classified into 5 main categories: (traits related to instructor 1) personality (traits # 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 22, 25 and 37); 2) communication skills (traits # 16, 24); 3) style of class management and evaluation of student performance (traits # 4, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26, 27, 38); 4) qualification and credential (traits 6 and 10); and 5) teaching style (traits # 8, 11, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 44). Figure 3 provides a comparison among the three countries with respect to these five categories of traits. On the other hand, one can classify traits where students held significantly different opinions on their importance into 4 categories: traits related to instructor 1) qualifications and credentials (trait # 2); 2) evaluation of student performance (trait # 9); 3) teaching style (traits # 15, 34, 39, 43, and 45); and 4) communication skills (trait # 19), as shown in Figure 4.

As shown in Table 6, there were disagreements among respondents on the top five traits of effective instructors. While American and Jordanian students believed "respectful of students" was the most important trait, Chilean students felt that "good subject knowledge" was most relevant. As related to the second most important trait, American students identified "approachable in and out of class," and Jordanian students considered it to be "explaining course material clearly and concisely." Finally, Chilean students identified "respectful of students." The third most relevant traits were "clear class expectations" by Americans, "approachable in and out of class" by Jordanians, and "explaining course material clearly and concisely" by Chileans. While American students indicated "good verbal communication" as the fourth most important trait, Jordanian and Chilean students considered it to be "good subject knowledge" and "current in his/her academic field," respectively. Finally, based on responses from American students, the fifth most relevant traits were "good subject knowledge" and "explaining course material clearly and concisely." Jordanian students indicated "is courteous" to be ranked similarly; likewise, Chilean students considered "good verbal communication" to be of comparatively lesser importance.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The Impact of the Cultural Factor on Students' Differences

As shown in Table 2, American students, compared to Chilean and Jordanian students, felt more strongly that the instructor should be courteous, approachable, respectful to students, charismatic, flexible with students, concerned about students, and also have a sense of humor as well as a professional appearance. One could ascribe these findings to differences in cultural attributes among the three countries, especially individualism and power distance because these two cultural dimensions could affect personality traits. For example, American students had a high score on the individualism index (91), compared to 38 and 23 for Jordanian and Chilean students, respectively. Additionally, the American had a lower score on power distance index (40), compared to students from Jordan (80) and Chile (60).

American students, compared to Chilean and Jordanian students, felt more strongly about the importance of instructor communication skills, such as the verbal communication and making eye contact with students. Moreover, they felt more strongly about the importance of instructor traits related to class management and evaluation of student performance (such as giving rapid feedback on tests and assignments, being available outside the class, making class expectations clear, being able to control the class, communicating class rules, and demonstrating importance of the subject matter). However, Chilean students, compared to American and Jordanian students, felt more strongly about the importance of instructor qualifications (traits such as staying current in the academic field and demonstrating good subject knowledge). With respect to traits related to teaching style, American and Chilean students, compared to Jordanian students, felt more strongly about the importance of these traits. For example, they felt that using visual aids, involving students in "hands on" projects, inspiring students to set and achieve goals, encouraging students to use multiple resources to improve understanding, and relating course material to real life situations were important traits.

There were significant differences among students in the three countries with respect to the importance of traits related to instructor communication skills, class management, professional qualifications, and teaching style. As shown in Figure 2, American and Chilean students felt more strongly about the importance of having instructors with good publication records. On the other hand, Jordanian students felt neutral about the same issue. With respect to class management and student performance, Chilean students felt that instructors should be easy graders; American and Jordanian students were neutral on this issue. With respect to teaching style, Chilean students felt that "assigning group projects" was important, while American and Jordanian students were neutral. American and Chilean students believed that seeking feedback from students on the content of the course on the website and requesting students to report weekly on their progress in the class were important. On the other hand, Jordanians felt neutral about it (power distance). Regarding class management traits, American and Chilean students felt that it was important for instructors to have roles of formal authority and delegator. On the other hand, Jordanian students felt that these roles were somewhat important (power distance).

With respect to instructor communication skills, American and Chilean students felt that it was important that instructors use student names in the class, while Jordanian students felt neutral. Instructor gender was not an issue for students in the three countries; however, American students, compared to Jordanians, were more in disagreement with statement #12 that instructor gender was not important. While American and Chilean students felt gender was not important, Jordanian students felt that gender was "somewhat not important." One explanation for this could involve the masculinity cultural dimension.

The Importance of Instructor Traits in the Face-to-Face and Online Modes

In the USA and Chile, students felt the importance of many traits depended on the instruction delivery mode (face-to-face or online). On the other hand, there were traits in which the importance did not depend on the mode of instruction. As shown in Table 4, there were 6 statements for the American sample, compared to 11 statements for the Chilean sample, in which there was no significant difference between student responses in face-to-face and online settings. In both countries, students felt that it was important, regardless of the instruction mode used, that instructors gave rapid feedback on test/assignments, scheduled course work in a way that encouraged them to stay up-to-date with their work, and encouraged use of multiple resources for improved understanding. There was only one trait "is a specific gender" that was perceived by students as not important regardless of the instruction mode. On the other hand, there were 39 statements in the American sample, compared to 34 statements in the Chilean sample, in which there were significant differences between student responses in face-to-face and online settings. In most cases, it should be noted that some of these differences were in the extent of agreement. In both countries, for example, students felt that it was more important in the face-to-face mode for instructors to be approachable in and out of the class and respectful of students.

However, there were few traits in which student responses significantly differed between face-to-face and online modes. For example, students felt that it was important to very important in the face-to-face mode for instructors to have a sense of humor, be enthusiastic in the class, and have good verbal communication. In the on-line mode, students felt these traits were not important. It should be noted that students in both countries felt that it was important in the face-to-face mode that instructors play the role of "demonstrator," while it was important to play the role of "facilitator" in the online mode. Instructors need to pay more attention to some traits while teaching face-to-face and to other traits when teaching online courses. It should be noted that there was no significant difference in student responses between American and Chilean students in comparing the importance of instructor traits in the face-to-face and online modes.

The Impact of Demographic Factors on Students' Responses

Among the demographic factors, gender was the most significant one that influenced students' responses in the USA and Jordan. Student classification was the most significant factor that influenced Chilean student responses. On the other hand, age, grade-point average, learning style, and prior experience with online learning were the least influential factors.

There were significant differences in traits related to teaching style and class management between American male and female students. For example, American male students, compared to their female counterparts, felt more strongly that the instructor should be an easy grader and request students to report weekly on their progress in the class. On the other hand, female students felt more strongly that the instructor should be available outside class and able to control the class. Jordanian female students felt more strongly that the instructor should be an easy grader.

With respect to traits related to teaching style, American female students felt more strongly that the instructor should be enthusiastic in the class, use good examples, explain course material clearly, and assume the role of facilitator. Jordanian female students felt more strongly that instructors should be enthusiastic, assign group projects, use visual aids, and schedule course work in such a way that encouraged students to stay up to date. With respect to personality traits, Jordanian female students felt more strongly that the instructor should be courteous, flexible with students, and have charisma.

The second most influential factor was student classification. Chilean students at lower class levels (freshmen and sophomore), compared to upper-class level (junior and senior), felt that the instructor should use visual aids, inspire students to set and achieve challenging goals, schedule course work in such a way that encouraged students to stay up to date in their work, encourage students to use multiple resources to improve understanding, and exert formal authority.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous factors influence student perceptions of effective instruction. These factors can involve culture, gender, instructor traits, and demographics. Even though various country-specific differences existed, some degree of consistency was apparent in viewpoints toward commonly-held beliefs related to instructor effectiveness. However, cultural dimensions did influence perceptions of student respondents and certainly could not be discounted in terms of importance. As related to valued instructor traits, the medium of delivery (face-to-face or online instruction) did not appear to reflect many differences among students in the various countries. However, within each country sample there were significant differences in student responses between face-to-face and online instruction as had been anticipated, since these mediums for delivery of instruction are sometimes thought to be appealing to different types of learners.

Some variables, such as grade-point average, age, and learning style, were not major factors influencing student perceptions. Given commonly-held viewpoints, especially as American students were compared to those in the other countries, this outcome was somewhat surprising. Yet, it was not surprising that differing perceptions were held by American students related to variables such as the relevance of communication skills and view toward formal authority.

In summary, the merit of understanding student perceptions toward instructor traits certainly cannot be underestimated and likely might become even more critical with evolving changes in instructional methodology as well as advances in technology. As might be anticipated, cultural dimensions must be recognized, as individuals certainly are conditioned by environmental factors and behavioral expectations. Nevertheless, numerous perceptions toward instructor traits appeared that might customarily be expected, regardless of the part of the world in which learners resided.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study is exploratory in nature and thus has several limitations that should be recognized. The use of self-report scales to measure student perception raises the possibility of common-method variance. Furthermore, the relatively small size of samples certainly should be noted. Future research might include the investigation of student perception of instructor traits in private and public schools and also include a considerably-larger number of respondents.

In addition, it could be interesting to design a follow-up study to gain insight into perceptions held by students several years after their college graduation. Furthermore, a subsequent study might involve respondents from a greater number of countries having differing cultural characteristics to determine their perceptions toward various instructor traits.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, M., Helms, M., & Raiszadeh, F. (2001). Business students' perceptions of faculty evaluations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 12-22.

Al-Hamden, J. (2007). Higher education classroom management: Kuwait University students' views. College Student Journal, 41, 572-582.

AMIDEAST (2004), "English Language Training," Retrieved March, 2004 from http://www.amideast.org/offices/jordan/programs_services/elt.htm

Anwar, S., & Chaker, M. (2003). Globalization of corporate America and its implications for management styles in an Arabian cultural context. International Journal of Management, 20, 43-55.

Bachen, C., McLoughlin, M., & Garcia, S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students' evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48, 193-210.

Badri, M., Abdulla, M., Kamali, M., & Dodeen, H. (2006). Identifying potential biasing variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 43-59.

Best, J., & Addison, W. (2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professor and student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 60-62.

Bousfield, W. (1940). Students' rating of qualities considered desirable in college professors. School and Society, 51, 253-256.

Cashin, W. (1996). Developing an effective faculty evaluation system. IDEA Paper No. 33, Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development.

Centra, J., & Gaubatz, N. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 17-33.

Costin, F., Greenough, W., & Menges, R. (1971). Student ratings of college teaching: reliability, validity, and usefulness. Review of Educational Research, 41, 511-535.

Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 163-198.

Duncan, H., & Leach, W. (1934). Student-teacher relationships. Sociology and Social Research, 18, 535-540.

Faranda, W., & Clarke, I. (2004). Student observations of outstanding teaching: implications for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 271-281.

Fassinger, P. (2000). How classes influence students' participation in college classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35, 38-47.

Fritschner, L. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 342-362.

Greenwald, A., & Gillmore, G. (1979). No pain, no gain? the importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743-751.

Griffin, B. (2001). Instructor reputation and student ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 534-552.

Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham and W. Black. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.

Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival New Jersey.: McGraw-Hill.

Kilcoyne, F. (1949). He sure knows his stuff, but he's a lousy teacher. School and Society, 69, 437-438.

Meleis, A. (1982). Arab students in Western universities: social properties and dilemmas. The Journal of Higher Education, 53, 439-447.

Miranda, N. (2004). Las formulas mas atractivas para aprender Ingles. La Tercera, online edition, 2004. www.tercera.cl/articulo/0,5819,3255_5726_ 63463513,00.html (accessed March, 2004).

Moorman J. (2004). Traits of Effective Professors. The International Academy of Business and Public Administration Conference Proceedings. Tunica, Mississippi, May 2004.

Quick, A., & Wolfe, A. (1965). The ideal professor. Improving College and University Teaching, 13, 133-134.

Smart, D., Kelley, C., & Conant, J. (2003). Mastering the art of teaching: pursuing excellence in a new millennium. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 71-78.

Sojka, J., Gupta, A., & Detter-Schmelz, D. (2002). Student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching. College Teaching, 50, 44-49.

Tang, T. (1997). Teaching effectiveness at a public institution of higher education: factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 26, 379-387.

Tuckman, B. (1995). Assessing effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 127-138.

Voeks, V., & French, G. (1960). Are student ratings of teachers affected by grades? The Journal of Higher Education, 31, 330-334.

Whitworth, J., Price, B., & Randall, C. (2002). Factors that affect college of business student opinion of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 282-289.

Khaled A. Alshare, Emporia State University

Donald S. Miller, Emporia State University

Table 1. Frequency Distributions of Key Variables by Country.

Variable USA (n1=254)

 No. of (%)
 Responses
Gender:
 Male 115 45.28
 Female 139 54.72
Age:
 <= 22 years 203 79.92
 > 22 years 51 20.08
Class rank:
 Freshman 51 20.1
 Sophomore 68 26.8
 Junior 78 30.7
 Senior 45 17.7
 Graduate 11 4.3
 Other 1 0.4
GPA:
 < 2.5 27 10.6
 >= 2.5 227 89.4
Had online courses:
 Yes 103 40.6
 No 151 59.4
Learning Method:
 Visual/Verbal 121 47.6
 Visual/Nonverbal 25 9.8
 Tactil/Kinesthetic 82 32.3
 Auditory/Verbal 26 10.2

Variable Chile (n2 = 229)

 No. of (%)
 Responses
Gender:
 Male 187 81.7
 Female 42 18.3
Age:
 <= 22 years 163 71.18
 > 22 years 66 28.82
Class rank:
 Freshman 74 32.3
 Sophomore 25 10.9
 Junior 27 11.8
 Senior 103 45.0
 Graduate 0 0
 Other 0 0
GPA:
 < 2.5 158 69.0
 >= 2.5 71 31.0
Had online courses:
 Yes 8 3.5
 No 221 96.5
Learning Method:
 Visual/Verbal 98 42.80
 Visual/Nonverbal 18 7.90
 Tactil/Kinesthetic 87 38.0
 Auditory/Verbal 26 11.4

Variable Jordan (n3=190)

 No. of (%)
 Responses
Gender:
 Male 85 44.7
 Female 105 55.3
Age:
 <= 22 years 165 86.8
 > 22 years 25 13.2
Class rank:
 Freshman 45 23.7
 Sophomore 48 25.3
 Junior 56 29.5
 Senior 41 21.6
 Graduate 0 0
 Other 0 0
GPA:
 < 2.5 52 27.4
 >= 2.5 138 72.6
Had online courses:
 Yes 48 25.3
 No 142 74.7
Learning Method:
 Visual/Verbal 69 36.3
 Visual/Nonverbal 45 23.7
 Tactil/Kinesthetic 41 21.6
 Auditory/Verbal 35 18.4

Table 2: The Results of ANOVA Procedure for Three Countries

When evaluating a professor, how important it is that
the professor ...

 USA Chile

 # Trait Mean Std. Mean Std.

 1 Is courteous? 4.65 .64 4.62 .73
 2 Is well published in her/his 4.03 1.0 3.86 1.0
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out of 4.74 .50 4.61 .60
 class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on test/ 4.52 .73 4.11 .89
 assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students? 4.82 .46 4.81 .54
 6 Stays current in her/his 4.64 .57 4.75 .54
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor? 4.19 .93 3.70 1.1
 8 Uses visual aids such as 3.88 1.0 3.83 .92
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 3.26 1.2 4.91 .32
10 Demonstrate good subject 4.68 .54 4.88 .39
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 4.53 .71 4.29 .84
12 Is a specific gender? 1.59 1.1 1.67 1.2
13 Is flexible with students? 4.22 .81 3.67 .94
14 Is available outside class? 4.55 .61 4.36 .68
15 Assigns group projects? 3.01 1.3 3.41 .94
16 Has good verbal communication? 4.69 .63 4.65 .58
17 Makes class expectation clear? 4.70 .64 4.48 .71
18 Is a full-time professor? 3.12 1.5 3.00 1.2
19 Uses students' names? 4.17 .96 3.55 1.2
20 Uses good examples for content 4.55 .66 4.64 .55
 application?
21 Is organized? 4.59 .71 4.60 .57
22 Is concerned about students? 4.60 .61 4.38 .76
23 Is able to command the class' 4.53 .65 3.96 1.0
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with students 4.43 .77 4.11 .90
 during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance? 4.12 1.0 3.78 1.2
26 Communicates class rules? 4.42 .72 4.51 .78
27 Demonstrates the importance and 4.61 .61 4.42 .73
 significance of the subject
 matter?
28 Stimulates students to 4.06 .97 3.91 1.0
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most courses?
29 Explains course material clearly 4.68 .68 4.78 .47
 and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas and 4.07 .98 3.70 .99
 experiences with others whose
 viewpoints differ from their
 own?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 4.16 .96 4.13 .90
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and 4.24 .79 4.20 .85
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 3.79 1.1 4.12 .91
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students 3.64 1.2 3.45 1.1
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty 4.16 1.0 3.74 1.0
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits, emails,
 chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 4.43 .77 3.95 .91
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their work?
37 Has charisma? 4.29 .84 4.02 1.1
38 Provides students access to 4.17 .93 4.00 1.0
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on 3.24 1.30 3.27 1.1
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use 4.13 .89 4.13 .84
 multiple resources to improve
 understanding?
41 Relates course material to real 4.50 .68 4.33 .88
 life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator? 4.26 .81 4.13 .91
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal authority? 4.01 1.1 3.84 1.0
 ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator? 4.38 .75 4.01 .95
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator? 3.64 1.2 3.29 1.1
 ("do it yourself")

 Jordan

 # Mean Std. F *

 1 4.24 1.1 13.69
 2 3.02 1.1 49.55
 3 4.45 .86 9.94
 4 3.61 1.2 51.91
 5 4.62 .77 6.85
 6 4.12 .98 44.51
 7 3.72 1.1 16.35
 8 3.21 1.1 26.85
 9 3.04 1.2 233.58
10 4.32 .92 38.23
11 4.09 .97 14.01
12 2.04 1.5 6.53
13 4.11 .95 23.19
14 4.05 .95 22.01
15 2.96 1.1 10.07
16 4.02 1.0 47.98
17 3.74 1.1 79.63
18 2.95 1.3 0.925^
19 2.98 1.3 58.15
20 4.23 .93 17.11
21 4.20 .91 18.58
22 4.10 .94 22.08
23 4.33 .81 27.48
24 3.42 1.1 64.29
25 3.36 1.3 23.1
26 3.38 1.0 105.7
27 3.84 1.1 48.54
28 3.9 1.1 1.54^
29 4.56 .71 5.468
30 3.7 1.0 9.07
31 3.33 1.2 43.50
32 3.55 1.2 33.75
33 3.15 1.3 36.61
34 2.99 1.2 15.49
35 3.50 1.2 19.13
36 3.80 1.0 28.87
37 3.17 1.4 57.40
38 3.92 1.0 3.46
39 2.74 1.2 10.60
40 3.29 1.1 50.33
41 3.89 1.0 24.88
42 3.89 1.1 7.08
43 1.97 1.3 189.91
44 3.89 1.0 16.71
45 2.59 1.3 40.83

*. Values in bold are not significant;
the rest are significant at p<0.05.

Note: Values in bold are not significant indicated with ^.

Table 3: The Results of Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni

Trait (I) country (J) country Mean Difference (I-J)

v1 USA Jordan .381 (*)
 Chile Jordan .349 (*)
v2 USA Jordan 1.000 (*)
 Chile Jordan .802 (*)
v3 USA Chile .154 (*)
 Jordan .280 (*)
v4 USA Chile .397 (*)
 Jordan .909 (*)
 Chile Jordan .512 (*)
v5 USA Jordan .190 (*)
 Chile Jordan .186 (*)
v6 USA Jordan .500 (*)
 Chile Jordan .625 (*)
v7 USA Chile .475 (*)
 Jordan .459 (*)
v8 USA Jordan .675 (*)
 Chile Jordan .614 (*)
v9 USA Chile -1.655 (*)
 Chile Jordan 1.870 (*)
v10 USA Chile -.194 (*)
 Jordan .351 (*)
 Chile Jordan .545 (*)
v11 USA Chile .245 (*)
 Jordan .421 (*)
v12 USA Jordan -.417 (*)
 Chile Jordan -.374 (*)
v13 USA Chile .530 (*)
 Chile Jordan -.436 (*)
v14 USA Chile .201 (*)
 Jordan .477 (*)
 Chile Jordan .276 (*)
v15 USA Chile -.397 (*)
 Chile Jordan .444 (*)
v16 USA Jordan .640 (*)
 Chile Jordan .621 (*)
v17 USA Chile .194 (*)
 Jordan .949 (*)
 Chile Jordan .755 (*)
v19 USA Chile .641 (*)
 Jordan 1.182 (*)
 Chile Jordan .540 (*)
v20 USA Jordan .308 (*)
 Chile Jordan .397 (*)
v21 USA Jordan .370 (*)
 Chile Jordan .399 (*)
v22 USA Chile .230 (*)
 Jordan .492 (*)
 Chile Jordan .262 (*)
v23 USA Chile .556 (*)
 Jordan .194 (*)
 Chile Jordan -.362 (*)
v24 USA Chile .314 (*)
 Jordan 1.005 (*)
 Chile Jordan .691 (*)
v25 USA Chile .369 (*)
 Jordan .779 (*)
 Chile Jordan .411 (*)
v26 USA Jordan 1.030 (*)
 Chile Jordan 1.095 (*)
v27 USA Chile .189 (*)
 Jordan .751 (*)
 Chile Jordan .562 (*)
v29 Chile Jordan .203 (*)
v30 USA Chile .340 (*)
 Jordan .337 (*)
v31 USA Jordan .824 (*)
 Chile Jordan .784 (*)
v32 USA Jordan .679 (*)
 Chile Jordan .651 (*)
v33 USA Chile -.304 (*)
 Jordan .655 (*)
 Chile Jordan .959 (*)
v34 USA Jordan .619 (*)
 Chile Jordan .438 (*)
v35 USA Chile .415 (*)
 Jordan .627 (*)
v36 USA Chile .475 (*)
 Jordan .611 (*)
v37 USA Chile .281 (*)
 Jordan 1.118 (*)
 Chile Jordan .837 (*)
v38 USA Jordan .230 (*)
v39 USA Jordan .471 (*)
 Chile Jordan .469 (*)
v40 USA Jordan .809 (*)
 Chile Jordan .797 (*)
v41 USA Jordan .581 (*)
 Chile Jordan .429 (*)
v42 USA Jordan .333 (*)
v43 USA Jordan 2.012 (*)
 Chile Jordan 1.850 (*)
v44 USA Chile .373 (*)
 Jordan .468 (*)
v45 USA Chile .390 (*)
 Jordan 1.061 (*)
 Chile Jordan .672 (*)

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Table 4: The Results of Paired Sample T-test (USA and Chile) *

 USA

 Mean T

 # Trait F-2-F online

 1 Is courteous? 4.65 3.73 11.536
 2 Is well published in her/his 4.03 3.71 5.037
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out of 4.74 4.02 8.802
 class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on test/ 4.52 4.50 .274^
 assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students? 4.82 4.40 6.783
 6 Stays current in her/his 4.64 4.49 3.511
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor? 4.19 3.20 11.653
 8 Uses visual aids such as 3.88 3.59 3.440
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 3.26 3.27 -.260^
10 Demonstrate good subject 4.68 4.46 4.418
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 4.53 3.06 15.313
12 Is a specific gender? 1.59 1.59 -.094^
13 Is flexible with students? 4.22 4.03 2.771
14 Is available outside class? 4.55 3.98 7.160
15 Assigns group projects? 3.01 2.31 9.235
16 Has good verbal communication? 4.69 3.22 15.251
17 Makes class expectation clear? 4.70 4.56 3.218
18 Is a full-time professor? 3.12 2.83 4.222
19 Uses students' names? 4.17 3.33 9.878
20 Uses good examples for content 4.55 4.36 3.255
 application?
21 Is organized? 4.59 4.41 3.429
22 Is concerned about students? 4.60 4.32 5.159
23 Is able to command the class' 4.53 2.72 17.708
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with students 4.43 2.20 21.941
 during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance? 4.12 2.34 17.038
26 Communicates class rules? 4.42 3.76 8.501
27 Demonstrates the importance and 4.61 4.35 5.338
 significance of the subject
 matter?
28 Stimulates students to 4.06 3.90 2.498
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most courses?
29 Explains course material clearly 4.68 4.51 3.357
 and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas and 4.07 3.47 8.576
 experiences with others whose
 viewpoints differ from their
 own?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 4.16 3.48 9.456
 projects such as research, case
 studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and 4.24 3.90 6.195
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 3.79 4.54 -8.350
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students 3.64 4.42 -8.435
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty 4.16 3.92 3.309
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits, emails,
 chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 4.43 4.33 1.810^
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their work?
37 Has charisma? 4.29 3.25 12.091
38 Provides students access to 4.17 4.30 -1.656^
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on 3.24 3.57 -4.147
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use 4.13 4.07 1.122^
 multiple resources to improve
 understanding?
41 Relates course material to real 4.50 4.22 4.592
 life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator? 4.26 4.01 4.589
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal authority? 4.01 3.35 8.647
 ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator? 4.38 3.51 10.272
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator? 3.64 3.80 -2.707
 ("do it yourself")

 Chile

 Mean T

 # Trait F-2-F online

 1 Is courteous? 4.62 3.32 13.901
 2 Is well published in her/his 3.86 4.09 -3.150
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out of 4.61 3.95 7.864
 class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on test/ 4.11 4.09 .399^
 assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students? 4.81 4.20 8.181
 6 Stays current in her/his 4.75 4.70 1.315^
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor? 3.70 2.62 12.755
 8 Uses visual aids such as 3.83 3.96 -1.559^
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 4.91 4.86 2.211
10 Demonstrate good subject 4.88 4.47 6.046
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 4.29 2.96 13.159
12 Is a specific gender? 1.67 1.54 2.116
13 Is flexible with students? 3.67 3.55 2.836
14 Is available outside class? 4.36 3.94 5.778
15 Assigns group projects? 3.41 2.86 7.594
16 Has good verbal communication? 4.65 3.03 15.738
17 Makes class expectation clear? 4.48 4.45 .749
18 Is a full-time professor? 3.00 2.64 4.991
19 Uses students' names? 3.55 3.00 6.344
20 Uses good examples for content 4.64 4.62 .491
 application?
21 Is organized? 4.60 4.47 2.484
22 Is concerned about students? 4.38 3.96 7.716
23 Is able to command the class' 3.96 2.22 16.170
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with students 4.11 2.09 18.191
 during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance? 3.78 2.64 11.389
26 Communicates class rules? 4.51 4.32 3.494
27 Demonstrates the importance and 4.42 4.34 2.156
 significance of the subject
 matter?
28 Stimulates students to 3.91 3.71 3.213
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most courses?
29 Explains course material clearly 4.78 4.71 1.497^
 and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas and 3.70 3.24 6.140
 experiences with others whose
 viewpoints differ from their
 own?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 4.13 3.92 4.459
 projects such as research, case
 studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and 4.20 3.97 4.425
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 4.12 4.69 -9.763
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students 3.45 4.24 -10.121
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty 3.74 3.58 2.257
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits, emails,
 chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 3.95 3.94 .097^
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their work?
37 Has charisma? 4.02 2.88 11.318
38 Provides students access to 4.00 4.02 -.506^
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on 3.27 3.39 -1.874^
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use 4.13 4.12 .192^
 multiple resources to improve
 understanding?
41 Relates course material to real 4.33 4.15 2.932
 life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator? 4.13 4.02 1.778^
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal authority? 3.84 3.09 8.571
 ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator? 4.01 3.67 5.356
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator? 3.29 3.04 3.431
 ("do it yourself")

*. T-Values that are not significant were marked in bold,
the rest of t vales are significant at p<0.05

Note: T-Values that are not significant were marked in bold
indicated with ^.

Table 5: The Results for the Impact of
Demographic Factors (P-value for ANOVA)

When evaluating a professor,
how important it is that the
professor ...

 Gender

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous? 0.01 0.017
 2 Is well published in her/his 0.042
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out 0.01
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor?
 8 Uses visual aids such as 0.001
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 0.001 0.012
10 Demonstrates good subject 0.027
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 0.013 0.013
12 Is a specific gender? 0.014
13 Is flexible with students? 0.041 0.008
14 Is available outside class? 0.011
15 Assigns group projects? 0.018
16 Has good verbal communication? 0.042
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor? 0.002
19 Uses students' names? 0.022
20 Uses good examples for content 0.005
 application?
21 Is organized? 0.001
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class' 0.043
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance?
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material 0.012
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on"
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 0.042
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 0.025
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma? 0.005
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on 0.001
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator? 0.002
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal 0.038
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 Age

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor?
 8 Uses visual aids such as
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 0.011
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 0.009
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students?
14 Is available outside class?
15 Assigns group projects?
16 Has good verbal communication?
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor? 0.012
19 Uses students' names?
20 Uses good examples for content
 application?
21 Is organized?
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance?
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on"
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 0.026 0.038
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to 0.044
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal 0.045
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 Educational
 Background

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out 0.041
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on 0.014
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor?
 8 Uses visual aids such as 0.016
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 0.001
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class?
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students? 0.029
14 Is available outside class?
15 Assigns group projects? 0.001
16 Has good verbal communication? 0.001
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor?
19 Uses students' names? 0.022
20 Uses good examples for content
 application?
21 Is organized?
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with 0.011
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance? 0.019
26 Communicates class rules? 0.028
27 Demonstrates the importance
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on"
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 0.039 0.028
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 GPA

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor? 0.009
 8 Uses visual aids such as
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 0.021
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class?
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students?
14 Is available outside class?
15 Assigns group projects?
16 Has good verbal communication?
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor? 0.047
19 Uses students' names?
20 Uses good examples for content 0.004
 application?
21 Is organized? 0.030
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance?
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to 0.05
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on"
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 0.015
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal 0.027
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 Student classification

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out 0.019
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on 0.015
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor?
 8 Uses visual aids such as 0.001
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader?
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 0.012
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students? 0.022
14 Is available outside class? 0.013 0.027
15 Assigns group projects?
16 Has good verbal communication? 0.002
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor?
19 Uses students' names? 0.004
20 Uses good examples for content
 application?
21 Is organized? 0.037
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with 0.044
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance?
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance 0.030
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to 0.013
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on"
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and 0.033
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 0.008
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways 0.008
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to 0.016
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use 0.011
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal 0.021
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 Learning Style

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor?
 8 Uses visual aids such as 0.012
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader? 0.02
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class?
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students?
14 Is available outside class?
15 Assigns group projects?
16 Has good verbal communication?
17 Makes class expectation clear? 0.003
18 Is a full-time professor?
19 Uses students' names?
20 Uses good examples for content
 application?
21 Is organized?
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance? 0.013
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material 0.001
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 0.001
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course 0.048
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on 0.038
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

 Prior Experience of online

 # Trait USA Chile Jordan

 1 Is courteous?
 2 Is well published in her/his
 discipline?
 3 Is approachable in and out
 of class?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on
 test/assignment?
 5 Is respectful of students?
 6 Stays current in her/his 0.046
 academic field?
 7 Has a sense of humor? 0.041
 8 Uses visual aids such as
 PowerPoint/?
 9 Is an easy grader?
10 Demonstrates good subject
 knowledge?
11 Is enthusiastic in class?
12 Is a specific gender?
13 Is flexible with students?
14 Is available outside class?
15 Assigns group projects?
16 Has good verbal communication? 0.005
17 Makes class expectation clear?
18 Is a full-time professor?
19 Uses students' names?
20 Uses good examples for content
 application?
21 Is organized?
22 Is concerned about students?
23 Is able to command the class'
 attention without shouting?
24 Makes eye contact with
 students during the class?
25 Has a professional appearance?
26 Communicates class rules?
27 Demonstrates the importance 0.017
 and significance of the
 subject matter?
28 Stimulates students to
 intellectual effort beyond
 that required by most
 courses?
29 Explains course material
 clearly and concisely?
30 Asks students to share ideas 0.042 0.001
 and experiences with others
 whose viewpoints differ from
 their own?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 0.034
 projects such as research,
 case studies, or "real life"
 activities?
32 Inspires students to set and
 achieve goals which really
 challenged them?
33 Provides access to course
 material via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students 0.006
 on the course web site
 content?
35 Encourages student/faculty
 interaction outside of class
 time? (office visits,
 emails, chat rooms)
36 Schedules course work in ways
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their
 work?
37 Has charisma?
38 Provides students access to
 frequently asked questions?
39 Requests students to report on
 their progress in the class
 weekly?
40 Encourages students to use
 multiple resources to
 improve understanding?
41 Relates course material to
 real life situation?
42 Has a role of facilitator?
 ("try this")
43 Has a role of formal
 authority? ("now hear this")
44 Has a role of demonstrator?
 ("watch me, now")
45 Has a role of delegator?
 ("do it yourself")

Table 6 Student Responses in a Descending Order (USA)

When evaluating a professor,
how important it is that the
professor ...

 USA Chile

 # Trait Mean Std. Mean Std.

 5 Is respectful of students? 4.82 .46 4.81 .54
 3 Is approachable in and out of class? 4.74 .50 4.61 .60
17 Makes class expectation clear? 4.70 .64 4.48 .71
16 Has good verbal communication? 4.69 .63 4.65 .58
10 Demonstrates good subject knowledge? 4.68 .54 4.88 .39
29 Explains course material clearly and 4.68 .68 4.78 .47
 concisely?
 1 Is courteous? 4.65 .64 4.62 .73
 6 Stays current in her/his academic 4.64 .57 4.75 .54
 field?
27 Demonstrates the importance and 4.61 .61 4.42 .73
 significance of the subject matter?
22 Is concerned about students? 4.60 .61 4.38 .76
21 Is organized? 4.59 .71 4.60 .57
14 Is available outside class? 4.55 .61 4.36 .68
20 Uses good examples for content 4.55 .66 4.64 .55
 application?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 4.53 .71 4.29 .84
23 Is able to command the class' 4.53 .65 3.96 1.0
 attention without shouting?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on test/ 4.52 .73 4.11 .89
 assignment?
41 Relates course material to real 4.50 .68 4.33 .88
 life situation?
24 Makes eye contact with students 4.43 .77 4.11 .90
 during the class?
36 Schedules course work in ways 4.43 .77 3.95 .91
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their work?
26 Communicates class rules? 4.42 .72 4.51 .78
44 Has a role of demonstrator? 4.38 .75 4.01 .95
 ("watch me, now")
37 Has charisma? 4.29 .84 4.02 1.1
42 Has a role of facilitator? 4.26 .81 4.13 .91
 ("try this")
32 Inspires students to set and achieve 4.24 .79 4.20 .85
 goals which really challenged them?
13 Is flexible with students? 4.22 .81 3.67 .94
 7 Has a sense of humor? 4.19 .93 3.70 1.1
19 Uses students' names? 4.17 .96 3.55 1.2
38 Provides students access to 4.17 .93 4.00 1.0
 frequently asked questions?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 4.16 .96 4.13 .9
 projects such as research, case
 studies, or "real life" activities?
35 Encourages student/faculty 4.16 1.0 3.74 1.0
 interaction outside of class time?
 (office visits, emails, chat rooms)
40 Encourages students to use multiple 4.13 .89 4.13 .84
 resources to improve understanding?
25 Has a professional appearance? 4.12 1.0 3.78 1.2
30 Asks students to share ideas and 4.07 .98 3.70 .99
 experiences with others whose
 viewpoints differ from their own?
28 Stimulates students to intellectual 4.06 .97 3.91 1.0
 effort beyond that required by
 most courses?
 2 Is well published in her/his 4.03 1.0 3.86 1.0
 discipline?
43 Has a role of formal authority? 4.01 1.1 3.84 1.0
 ("now hear this")
 8 Uses visual aids such as PowerPoint/? 3.88 1.0 3.83 .92
33 Provides access to course material 3.79 1.1 4.12 .91
 via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students on the 3.64 1.2 3.45 1.1
 course web site content?
45 Has a role of delegator? 3.64 1.2 3.29 1.1
 ("do it yourself")
 9 Is an easy grader? 3.26 1.2 4.91 .32
39 Requests students to report on their 3.24 1.3 3.27 1.1
 progress in the class weekly?
18 Is a full-time professor? 3.12 1.5 3.00 1.2
15 Assigns group projects? 3.01 1.3 3.41 .94
12 Is a specific gender? 1.59 1.1 1.67 1.2

 Jordan

 # Trait Mean Std. F

 5 Is respectful of students? 4.62 .77 6.85
 3 Is approachable in and out of class? 4.45 .86 9.94
17 Makes class expectation clear? 3.74 1.1 79.63
16 Has good verbal communication? 4.02 1.0 47.98
10 Demonstrates good subject knowledge? 4.32 .92 38.23
29 Explains course material clearly and 4.56 .71 5.47
 concisely?
 1 Is courteous? 4.24 1.1 13.69 *
 6 Stays current in her/his academic 4.12 1.0 44.51
 field?
27 Demonstrates the importance and 3.84 1.1 48.54
 significance of the subject matter?
22 Is concerned about students? 4.10 .94 22.08
21 Is organized? 4.20 .91 18.58
14 Is available outside class? 4.05 1.0 22.01
20 Uses good examples for content 4.23 .93 17.11
 application?
11 Is enthusiastic in class? 4.09 1.0 14.01
23 Is able to command the class' 4.33 .81 27.48
 attention without shouting?
 4 Gives rapid feedback on test/ 3.61 1.2 51.91
 assignment?
41 Relates course material to real 3.89 1.0 24.88
 life situation?
24 Makes eye contact with students 3.42 1.1 64.29
 during the class?
36 Schedules course work in ways 3.80 1.0 28.87
 which encourages students to
 stay up-to-date in their work?
26 Communicates class rules? 3.38 1.0 105.7
44 Has a role of demonstrator? 3.89 1.0 16.71
 ("watch me, now")
37 Has charisma? 3.17 1.4 57.40
42 Has a role of facilitator? 3.89 1.1 7.08
 ("try this")
32 Inspires students to set and achieve 3.55 1.2 33.75
 goals which really challenged them?
13 Is flexible with students? 4.11 1.0 23.19
 7 Has a sense of humor? 3.72 1.1 16.35
19 Uses students' names? 2.98 1.3 58.15
38 Provides students access to 3.92 1.0 3.46
 frequently asked questions?
31 Involves students in "hand on" 3.33 1.2 43.50
 projects such as research, case
 studies, or "real life" activities?
35 Encourages student/faculty 3.50 1.2 19.13
 interaction outside of class time?
 (office visits, emails, chat rooms)
40 Encourages students to use multiple 3.29 1.1 50.33
 resources to improve understanding?
25 Has a professional appearance? 3.36 1.3 23.1
30 Asks students to share ideas and 3.70 1.0 9.07
 experiences with others whose
 viewpoints differ from their own?
28 Stimulates students to intellectual 3.90 1.1 1.54
 effort beyond that required by
 most courses?
 2 Is well published in her/his 3.02 1.1 49.55
 discipline?
43 Has a role of formal authority? 1.97 1.3 189.91
 ("now hear this")
 8 Uses visual aids such as PowerPoint/? 3.21 1.1 26.85
33 Provides access to course material 3.15 1.3 36.61
 via web sites?
34 Seeks feedback from students on the 2.99 1.2 15.49
 course web site content?
45 Has a role of delegator? 2.59 1.3 40.83
 ("do it yourself")
 9 Is an easy grader? 3.04 1.2 233.58
39 Requests students to report on their 2.74 1.2 10.60
 progress in the class weekly?
18 Is a full-time professor? 2.95 1.3 0.925
15 Assigns group projects? 2.96 1.1 10.07
12 Is a specific gender? 2.04 1.5 6.53