Personal attributes of effective lecturers - Higher Education Academy

Personal attributes of effective lecturers: The importance 

of dynamism, communication, rapport and applied 

knowledge 

Troy Heffernan, University of Plymouth, UK, Mark Morrison, Charles Sturt University, 

Arthur Sweeney, Griffith University, and Denise Jarratt, Charles Sturt University, 

Australia 

DOI:10.3794/ijme.83.275 

Received: September 2008 

Revised: April 2009 

Accepted: September 2009 

Abstract 

An academic’s personal attributes, as well as attributes related to subject design, have been demonstrated to influence 

student learning. In contrast to previous research, this paper focuses solely on exploring the personal attributes of 

academics that increase their teaching effectiveness. From a literature review and focus groups, four constructs were 

identified that lead to effective teaching – dynamism, rapport, applied knowledge and effective communication. A twostage 

conceptual model was developed where all four constructs had direct effects on teaching effectiveness. Also, 

dynamism, rapport and applied knowledge had indirect effects via their effect on communication. Using structural 

equation modelling, being dynamic was found to be the most important attribute in explaining teaching effectiveness, 

followed by communication. Applied knowledge, however, was found to have only a small and indirect effect on 

communication effectiveness. Rapport was found to have a positive indirect effect on communication, but a small and 

negative direct effect on teaching effectiveness. This result explains some of the ambiguity in the literature about this 

construct, showing that being friendly can improve communication but being friendly with students alone does not 

necessarily improve teaching effectiveness. 

Keywords: management education; techer effectiveness; SEM 

Introduction 

Research in higher education has not arrived at a consensus on what constitutes “effective teaching”, an 

indication that it requires more study before we can say that the whole domain of this construct has been 

clearly articulated (Patrick & Smart, 1998; Reid & Johnston, 1999; Marks, 2000; Laverie, 2002; Voss & Gruber, 

2006). Certainly, there is agreement that effective teaching is multidimensional (Marsh & Roche, 1997), 

involving both the attributes of teachers and subject design and organisation. Nevertheless, there is no 

unanimity about the relative importance of each to student learning: for some scholars the attributes of the 

teacher are more important to student learning (Kelley et al., 1991), while others assert that the 

characteristics of the subject and its value or usefulness to students is most important (Young & Shaw, 1999; 

Seiler & Seiler, 2002). To add to the confusion, there is not always agreement between teachers and students 

over what characterises good teaching (Grunenwald & Ackerman, 1986; Reid & Johnston, 1999; Desai et al., 

Dr Troy Heffernan’s research interests are in the field of international relationship marketing and marketing 

education. He has over 40 international publications, and has published is such journals as the Journal of 

Marketing Education. In 2004 Dr Heffernan received the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy 

(ANZMAC) Marketing Educator of the Year Award. Currently Dr Heffernan is a senior lecturer at the 

University of Plymouth, Business School, United Kingdom. 

Mark Morrison is Professor in the Faculty of Business, and Director of Economics and Regional Development 

in the Institute for Land, Water and Society, at Charles Sturt University. He teaches market research and 

market analysis, and his areas of research interest marketing education, consumer behaviour, environmental 

marketing, technology adoption, non-market valuation, and market-based instruments 

Arthur Sweeney is a Lecturer, Department of Marketing Griffith University (Gold Coast, Queensland 

Australia) where he teaches both marketing and e-Commerce. Following a life in commercial marketing 

management positions, Arthur turned to the university sector where his teaching and research interests 

include relationship marketing, Internet marketing and marketing education, e-government and erelationships. 

Denise Jarratt is Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean (Research) Faculty of Business, Charles Sturt 

University, and is a key researcher in the Centre for Research in Complex Systems. Her research interests 

are: business networks and strategic alliances, scenario planning, relationship management, trust, 

competitive strategy. 

International Journal of Management Education 8(3) 

13

2001; Faranda & Clarke, 2004). Considering the lack of clarity in the literature, this study sought to explore 

the crucial personal components of an effective lecturer. Using the data collected from a survey of oncampus 

under-graduate marketing students, a conceptual model is developed and tested using structural 

equation modelling (SEM). 

The paper proceeds as follows. Firstly a literature review is undertaken of previous research exploring 

lecturer effectiveness. As the study investigates the personal effectiveness of management lecturers, 

specifically in marketing, the predominate body of literature examined explores studies within this discipline. 

However, research outside the field of general management education is also considered. Next, the 

methodologies used in this study are described, identifying and justifying both the qualitative and 

quantitative techniques employed. After that, findings from the qualitative focus groups are presented. 

These findings, coupled with the review of literature, form the bases for the development of the conceptual 

model. The findings from the structural equation modelling of the conceptual model are then presented. This 

is followed by implications for educators, including a set of strategies for improving teaching effectiveness. 

The paper finishes with conclusions, limitations and ideas for further research. 

Literature review 

Over the years, numerous studies have explored the concept of the effective lecturer. As stated previously, 

the concept of an effective lecturer is an illusive one. Consequently, in this paper an effective lecturer 

relates to an academic who can enhance students’ learning, someone who has a range of characteristics and 

skills that improve the knowledge of the student cohort. Therefore, this study attempts to identify and 

measure the drivers inherent in lecturers that increase student learning in a subject. 

Whilst the educational literature has identified both personal and organisational attributes of effective 

lecturers, this paper concentrates on the personal attributes. Indeed, Patrick and Smart (1998) called for 

further research into academics’ personal qualities and suggest that “perhaps the whole domain of effective 

teaching could be captured by the inclusion of the innate qualities of the teacher, thereby contributing to a 

clearer understanding of teacher effectiveness” (p. 168). In the general pedagogical literature there have 

been frequent attempts to identify the attributes of an effective lecturer. Ramsden (1992), in his seminal 

work, identified enthusiasm, communication skills, ability to develop rapport and well structured content as 

key constructs that contribute to students’ attitudes towards learning. Likewise, Lacoss (2000) found that 

communication skills, use of appropriate examples, availability of the lecturer, and rapport developed 

between the student and the lecturer, helped to enhance student learning. As can be seen from both of the 

studies above, the importance of the personal attributes of the lecturer tend to outweigh the subject-specific 

attributes in determining student learning. 

As personal attributes are the key variables examined, this research is anchored by the attribution theory 

(Heider, 1958). Fundamentally, attribution is the way in which one person makes inferences about the 

motives underlying others behaviour (Kelly & Michela, 1980): a cognitive process people use to assign an 

underlying explanation or cause to an observation made (Kelly, 1967). Theorists in this arena specify the way 

people interact with their social environment (Freedman, 1984). Consequently, a review of the literature was 

undertaken to isolate the key personal attributes that contribute to student learning. Four main individual or 

personal constructs were identified in the educational literature - dynamic delivery, rapport, applied 

knowledge and clear communication – and these are considered in turn. 

Dynamic delivery is the ability to motivate students through being enthusiastic and entertaining, for example 

the use of humour (Patrick & Smart, 1998; Young & Shaw, 1999; Pozo-Munõz et al., 2000). The concept is 

verging on the entertainment value of the lecturer (Jin, 2000). In a study published in The International 

Journal of Management Education, Jin (2000) identified words to describe the dynamism of a lecturer as 

interesting, charismatic and humorous. Dynamism has previously been directly linked to effective lecturing: 

Guolla (1999), Shevlin et al. (2000), and Seiler and Seiler (2002) found large and moderate effects on student 

satisfaction and learning. Similarly, Young and Shaw (1999) found that the ability to motivate students was 

one of the most discriminating variables between quality teachers and poor teachers. Further, Jin (2000) and 

Shevlin et al. (2000) identified a positive link between dynamism and communication, a result consistent with 

the qualitative findings of Faranda and Clarke (2004). 

The second characteristic of an effective lecturer related to the rapport developed with students. Two 

definitions of rapport are “the ability to maintain harmonious relationships based on affinity for others” 

(Faranda & Clarke, 2004, p. 274) and “a close harmonious relationship founded on mutual trust” (Weitz et 

al., 2007, p. 225). Words that researchers have used to describe this construct include care, respect, 

approachability, concern, empathy, fairness and friendliness (see Table 1). A number of these studies 

investigated the importance of rapport on teaching effectiveness. Granitz et al. (2009) identified a range of 

benefits of enhanced rapport for students, including greater learning and higher levels of involvement. 

Clayson and Haley (1990) and Marks (2000) found that rapport has almost double the effect of any other 

14 

International Journal of Management Education 8(3)

construct on student learning whereas other studies have found the effect to be similar or smaller than other 

constructs (Guolla, 1999; Young & Shaw, 1999). Thus the majority of previous studies have found that rapport 

positively influences teaching effectiveness, though there is some uncertainty about the magnitude of the 

likely effect. Further, there is evidence to support the link between rapport and enhanced communication. 

For example, Conant et al. (1988), Kelley et al. (1991), and Faranda and Clarke (2004) found links between 

rapport and communication; Smart et al. (2003) found links between respect and communication; and Young 

and Shaw (1999) found links between empathy and communication. 

Another important construct identified is a lecturer’s overall subject knowledge (Stringer & Irwing, 1998), 

with strong emphasis on “real world knowledge”, in other words an ability to integrate the theory with 

stimulating situations and relevant examples from the business world. Specifically, this construct relates to 

the lecturers knowledge, expertise and real-world perspective. Whilst this variable would seem critical in the 

attributes of an effective lecturer, it has received limited attention in the literature. One study by Clayson 

and Haley (1990) included a construct which they called “instructor”, which comprised the items 

“knowledgeable” and “interest in subject”. This construct is therefore somewhat broader than applied 

knowledge, and was found to have a moderate effect on learning and overall teacher evaluation. Moreover, a 

link between applied knowledge and communication was identified by Conant et al. (1988), Faranda and 

Clarke (2004), Kelley et al. (1991), and Smart et al. (2003). This is illustrated in the following: “Teachers 

should have knowledge of their subject and be able to communicate it clearly to their students” (Voss & 

Gruber, 2006, p. 230). 

The final construct related to the communication skills of the lecturer. By definition, communication is the 

sharing of meaning and timely information using formal and informal means (Anderson & Weitz, 1989). 

Effective communication has the elements of relevance and reliability, and transpires in a timely manner 

(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). With reference to the educational literature, communication relates to the lecturer’s 

ability to explain complex concepts clearly and skilfully (Greiniel-Fuhrmann & Geyer, 2003). In addition, 

classroom interaction, and the instructor’s encouragement of class discussions and sharing of student ideas 

with their peers, contribute to a lecturer’s ability to communicate effectively (Guolla, 1999). Communication 

has been recognised as one of the most critical factors influencing learning and student evaluations of 

teaching effectiveness (Grunewald & Ackerman, 1986; Kelley et al., 1991; Conant et al., 1988; Faranda & 

Clarke, 2004). 

A sample of the frequently cited research on the topic of personal attributes of effective lecturers is 

summarised in Table 1. This sample was generated from examining the extant research in this arena and 

identifying the most relevant and influential papers. While the four main attributes of effective marketing 

educators are apparent in the literature, there is less understanding of their relative importance. For 

example, in two of the qualitative studies (Patrick & Smart, 1998; Faranda & Clarke, 2004) and several of the 

quantitative studies (e.g., Marks, 2000; Desai et al., 2001), rapport, or treating students as equals and with 

respect, was found to be what students most desired from academics. However, in the case of Reid and 

Johnston (1999), clarity of communication followed by the ability to generate interest was most important to 

students, and being approachable had a relatively low importance. Other quantitative studies (e.g., 

Grunenwald & Ackerman, 1986; Smart et al., 2003) also found communication to be more important than 

rapport. Moreover, only one of the 14 studies reported (Reid & Johnston, 1999) managed to identify all four 

constructs, and this study did not quantitatively test the influence of these constructs on teacher 

effectiveness. Thus, there does not yet appear to be consensus about what attributes of marketing academics 

matter most to students. It is possible that this is because the importance of these attributes is context 

specific but it may also, in part, result from methodological differences in previous studies. 

Authors Method Teacher attributes Directions for 

Grunenwald 

and 

Ackerman 

(1986) 

Conant et al. 

(1988) 

Modified Delphi, n = 

148 business students 

and 20 faculty; 10 

point, bipolar and 100 

point constant sum 

scales; univariate 

statistics 

Mail survey of 

marketing educators, 

n = 104; univariate 

statistics 

Construct 1: 

Communication 

Communication 

skills 

Communication 

skills 


Construct 2: 

Rapport 

Construct 3: 

Dynamism 

Construct 4: 

Applied 

knowledge 

Subject 

knowledge 

Build rapport Real world 

cases 

future research 

relevant to this 

study 

Identify 

personalities of 

excellent educators 

and compare them 

with average 

teachers 

15


Clayson and 

Haley (1990) 

Kelley et al. 

(1991) 

Patrick and 

Smart 

(1998) 

Reid and 

Johnston 

(1999) 

Young and 

Shaw (1999) 

16 

Case study of marketing 

undergraduates in a 

midsized, regional, 

Midwestern university in 

USA, n = 587; tested a 

new evaluation of teacher 

instrument against a 

current one using 

structural equation 

modelling (SEM) 

Convenience survey of 189 

marketing students; 

univariate statistics 

Qualitative study of 

teacher effectiveness, 

n = 148 undergrads; 

quantitative study of 

teacher effectiveness, 

n = 266 undergrads; factor 

analysis 

Qualitative research, 

n = 48 students and staff; 

quantitative survey of 204 

students and staff; factor 

analysis plus correlations 

25-item instrument, 

n = 912 students; multiple 

regression, discriminant 

and cluster analysis 

Marks (2000) Questionnaire 

administered to business 

students, n = 700; factor 

analysis, SEM 

Pozo-Munoz 

et al. (2000) 

Desai, 

Damewood 

and Jones 

(2001) 

Paswan and 

Young (2002) 

n = 2221 students; 

semantic differential 

scale; univariate 

statistics; exploratory 

factor analysis 

51-item Likert scale, mail 

survey of faculty, n = 172, 

and students, n = 461 

students; MANOVA 

21 item Likert scale, 

n = 2059 students; 

structural equation 

modelling using the SIRS 

scale 

Construct 1: 

Communication 

Communication 

skills 

Clarity of 

presentations 

Good 

communication 

Instructor 

presents 

material clearly 

Ability to 

express oneself 

clearly and 

fluently 

(teacher 

competency) 

Lecturers 

stimulated class 

discussion and 

related 

information 

systematically 

(studentinstructor 

interaction and 

course 

organisation) 

Construct 2: 

Rapport 

Care by 

building 

rapport 

Respect (treat 

as equal, with 

respect, 

interest in 

students, 

caring etc) 

Construct 3: 

Dynamism 

Construct 

4: Applied 

knowledge 



study 

Personality More SEM and 

experimentation 

studies on the 

link between 

personality and 

learning 

Challenge 

students to 

higher 

standards 

Approachability Ability to 

stimulate 

interest and 

entertaining 

Concern for 

learning and 

respect for 

students 

Ability to 

motivate 

students 

A real-world 

focus, 

knowledge 

Depth of 

knowledge 

Link effective 

teaching to 

learning; 

interview 

students for 

impact on 

teaching styles 

of teacher 

personality 

How well does 

effective 

teaching 

contribute to 

learning 

outcomes 

Liking/concern Test model at 

other 

institutions 

Empathy, 

attractiveness, 

kindness, 

sensitivity and 

trust (teacher 

appearance) 

Treat students 

fairly and 

impartially; 

listen and 

value ideas; be 

positively 

supporting 

Help and 

concern 

(instructor 

involvement) 

Ability to 

motivate and 

stimulate 

interest 

(teacher 

competency) 

Enthusiasm 

and interest 

in teaching 

(instructor 

involvement) 

Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

Follow up in 

five years; study 

importance of 

technology 

Nil 



Seiler and 

Seiler (2002) 

Smart et al. 

(2003) 

Faranda and 

Clarke (2004) 

Voss and 

Gruber 

(2006) 

34 items using 

Semantic 

Differential and 

Likert scales, 

n = 520 accounting 

students; structural 

equation modelling 

Mail survey of 

marketing 

educators, n = 107; 

content analysis, 

univariate statistics 

In-depth interviews 

with business 

students, n = 28 

In-depth interviews 

using a semistandardised 

qualitative 

technique called 

laddering 

Construct 1: 

Communication 

Table 1: Some illustrative studies of effective university teachers 

Given this lack of consensus, the attributes of effective academics and their effect on student evaluations of 

academics were investigated. As recommended by Kelley et al. (1991), and guided by the directions for 

future research summarised in the last column of Table 1, a conceptual model of the impact of personal 

qualities of educators on their teaching effectiveness was developed from qualitative research and the 

existing literature discussed above. 

Methodology 

Following the literature review, focus groups were used to provide greater clarity about the variables 

responsible for the effectiveness of academics. A focus group methodology was adopted because the 

interactions can generate deep understanding about issues of concern (Morgan, 1996). Eight focus groups of 

7-10 undergraduate marketing students at an Australian university were conducted. In total, 61 marketing 

students participated in the focus groups, of which 30 were female and 31 were male. Procedures identified 

by Malhotra and Birks (2007) were followed, in an attempt to enhance the validity and reliability of the 

findings. The moderator used for these focus groups was an academic staff member who, in the majority of 

cases, had not taught the students previously and, as the line of enquiry was general in nature, no confusion 

or influence of the students was anticipated if the moderator had taught participants. An inductive approach 

was used to allow a range of concepts to emerge without direct prompting. This involved starting the focus 

groups with broad questions about what participants considered to be the attributes of an effective 

marketing academic, and allowing the discussion to continue with minimum involvement of the moderator. 

However, some of the questions used to guide the focus group included: 

• Tell us about your experience of learning marketing at [the university]? 

• Thinking about lecturers in general, what do you think makes a good lecturer? 

• What characterised a lecturer who taught you the most? Please explain. 


Construct 2: 

Rapport 

Fairness 

(Primary 

professor 

characteristics: 

traits aimed at 

build rapport) 

Caring, 

empathy 

Delivery Rapport, 

fairness 

Approachability 

, friendliness 

Construct 3: 

Dynamism 

Humour, 

originality, 

enthusiasm, 

encouragement 

of critical 

thinking 

(Secondary 


characteristics: 

traits related 

to presentation 

style ) 

Construct 4: 

Applied 

knowledge 

Responsibility, 

knowledge and 

clear thinking 

(Primary 


characteristics) 

Real-world 

perspective 

Knowledge and 

credibility 



study 

Determine 

whether models 

of teaching 

effectiveness 

should be 

specific to 

departments and 

universities or 

generalised 

models 

Identify true 

master educators 

and examine 

them in depth 

Quantitative 

study, use 

graduates, test in 

other 

institutions, test 

on different class 

sizes, 

instructional 

pedagogy, 

subject, distance 

learning and 

marketing 

curriculum 

Enthusiasm Knowledge First study to use 

a means end 

approach and the 

laddering 

technique 

17

18 

• What characterised a lecturer who taught you the least? Please explain. 

• If you were to evaluate a lecturer’s overall performance, what three factors would you use to make 

this evaluation? 

A questionnaire was developed for a quantitative survey using information derived from the literature review 

and focus groups. The survey was administered to students taking an undergraduate marketing subject. The 

students were surveyed within class, using a non-probabilistic sampling procedure. Marketing classes were 

selected on the basis of the willingness of lecturers to allow their students to participate. Whilst completing 

marketing subjects, the respondents could have been studying for degrees in a range of disciples in the social 

sciences. A total of 174 useable questionnaires were received, yielding a response rate of approximately 80% 

of those sampled. Students who had participated in the focus groups approximately three months previously 

had the potential to be selected in the quantitative stage but the number involved was not measured. 

Table 2 shows the measures, with corresponding Cronbach’s alpha scores, used for this research. In most 

cases scales were drawn from previous research. The SIRS variables used in marketing education previously 

(Paswan & Young, 2002) were not adopted, as these factors did not cover all the personal attributes of an 

effective lecturer identified in the literature. Whilst insight was gained from the SIRS variables, it did not 

cover the areas of applied knowledge, some of the key variables to emerge from the qualitative research, 

consequently the items were not used in this study. Measures selected to represent dynamic delivery were 

drawn from Shevlin et al. (2000), and Seiler and Seiler (2002), while measures used to represent rapport were 

taken from Aigner and Thum (1986), Jackson et al. (1999) and Shevlin et al. (2000). Measures used to 

represent communication were taken from Aigner and Thum (1986) and Young and Shaw (1999). Measures 

capturing real world experience were drawn from Kelley et al. (1991), Bailey et al. (2000), Seiler and Seiler 

(2002), but one item (“the lecturer just taught from the text”) was developed from focus group findings. The 

dependent variable for this study is teaching effectiveness. The measures used in this study for this construct 

have previously been used by Stringer and Irwing (1998), Jackson et al. (1999), Young and Shaw (1999), and 

Seiler and Seiler (2002). The statements, which are shown in Table 2, were scored on five-point Likert scales 

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 

SEM (using EQS) was used to analyse the data, as SEM had been used in several of the previous studies 

examining teaching effectiveness (Arbuckle, 2006). Further, this multivariate technique has been shown to 

have several advantages when used to examine teacher effectiveness (Paswan & Young, 2002). Principally, it 

can be used to show the relationships between multi-item constructs, which is one of the goals of this study. 

Second, it is possible to test multiple level models. Third, there is greater capacity to deal with issues of 

multi-collinearity resulting from correlated independent variables, compared to multiple-regression analysis 

(Hair et al., 2006). In SEM, measurement models are used to evaluate the reliability of individual 

factors/constructs, usually through construct and discriminant validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Construct validity 

is shown through the internal consistency or reliability of each scale and in this study was demonstrated 

through the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach’s alpha tests (Bollen, 1989). Discriminant 

validity refers to the degree to which a construct differs from other constructs and was assessed through 

pairwise CFA. This involves forcing items of different latent constructs into a single factor and testing 

whether the model fit is decreased when compared to a two-construct solution for each pair of constructs 

using chi-square tests (Hair et al., 2006). 

Structural models are used to evaluate the significance of the structural paths with the SEM model, and the 

explanatory power of the structural equations. In terms of the estimation procedure for the SEM model, 

ROBUST was selected to estimate the coefficients, as it performs better than uncorrected statistics where 

the assumption of normally distributed data cannot be upheld (Hair et al., 2006). The significance of the 

individual paths is demonstrated by t-statistics and chi-square tests. The explanatory power of the model is 

demonstrated through the use of several goodness of fit measures, including the comparative fit index (CFI) 

and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). These measures provide indications of fit relative to a baseline model. 

The CFI indicates the reduction in model misfit in relation to a null model (i.e., independence). The NNFI 

shows the proportion of total covariance amongst observed variables explained by the model when using a 

null model as the baseline. For both indices, a value of 0.90-0.95 indicates an acceptable fit (Hair et al., 

2006). 

Qualitative data analysis and findings 

From the focus groups, four constructs were found to enhance teaching effectiveness, being; communication 

effectiveness, rapport, dynamism and applied knowledge. In this section each of these constructs are 

discussed and then a conceptual model which shows the linkages between these constructs and teaching 

effectiveness is presented. 

Communication effectiveness 

The first characteristic of an effective academic identified in the focus groups was communication 


effectiveness, Construct 1 in Table 1 (Conant et al., 1988; Reid & Johnston, 1999; Pozo-Munoz et al., 2000; 

etc.). This characteristic has already been noted above, and dynamism, rapport and applied knowledge were 

suggested to influence communication effectiveness. However, what is involved in being an effective 

communicator? Participants identified three aspects of effective communication: clarity, speaking style, and 

an ability to communicate so that students can understand. 

Clarity related to: 

… good English skills, clear pronunciation of words, so it is easy to understand… Just clarity of speech, 

how clear they make what’s expected. 

Speaking style reflected the pitch, volume and tone used. As one student said: 

I think you can hear it in their voice. It is really monotone. How do they expect us to get excited about it 

if they aren’t even excited? 

Participants indicated that they retained less during lectures delivered using a poor speaking style, as this 

comment suggests: 

I am looking at the lecturer and all I can hear is Homer Simpson: “Blar Blar Blar Blar”. It goes in one ear 

and out the other. 

The third aspect of effective communication identified was the ability to convey information so that it was 

not too difficult and could be understood. Participants wanted marketing lecturers “to communicate to the 

level of the student”. However, the students noted that some lecturers “assume you already know what’s 

going on, when you don’t have any idea”. 

Rapport 

The second construct leading to teaching effectiveness identified by focus group participants was rapport, 

consistent with Construct 2 of Table 1 previously identified by Clayson and Haley (1990), Kelley et al. (1991), 

Reid and Johnston (1999), Marks (2000), and others. Participants identified four main aspects of rapport: 

being friendly, respecting students, showing empathy, and being approachable. 

Participants indicated that they were more willing to have in- and out-of-class discussions with friendly 

academics. As one commented, “with a friendly lecturer, if you get it wrong it does not matter”. However, 

one participant also commented there was a limit to how friendly an academic should be with their students: 

Good to be friendly, but not too friendly, as you are less inclined to do work, because you get away with 

so much more. So they still need to keep the superior status. They need to know where to draw the line. 

These comments potentially explain the ambiguity in the literature regarding the effect of rapport on 

teacher effectiveness. Clayson and Haley (1990) found this construct (which they labelled “personality”) to 

have a positive effect on student evaluations and it had the largest coefficient of any construct they 

included. Marks (2000) produced similar findings and his construct, liking/concern, had a positive and 

significant effect on the evaluation of the academic, and the size of this coefficient exceeded the 

coefficients for all other constructs. However, Guolla (1999) found that this construct, which he also labelled 

“rapport”, had a negative and significant effect on course satisfaction, and an insignificant effect on 

instructor satisfaction with a sample of MBA students. For undergraduate students, Guolla (1999) found this 

construct to have a small and positive effect on both course and instructor satisfaction but did not offer an 

explanation for this conundrum. 

The second aspect of the rapport construct involves respecting students. Participants did not like being made 

to feel inferior by academics. As one student commented, “there is nothing worse than asking a question and 

being cut down”. Further, another participant noted: 

I think treating you as a peer rather than a subordinate is important. I know that sounds like a small 

thing, but to treat you like an adult, not a child, like at school. 

Students indicated that a lack of respect shown to students would discourage participation in class. As one 

said: 

Lecturers talking at you like you are not a person, they try to be intimidating, conveying an attitude that, 

“I really don’t think you can learn this, however I will try to teach you as I am paid to”. That is 

discouraging! 


19

Having respect for students was related to the next aspect of this construct, which was being approachable 

or accessible to students with problems or concerns. For example, [academic’s name] “was a nice guy to talk 

to and he was approachable, so you liked to listen to him”. Note the effect of being approachable – students 

liked to listen to this academic. 

Finally, students value academics that “empathise with your [the student’s] situation”. Like the other aspects 

of this construct, marketing academics that showed empathy were perceived to encourage communication 

and achieve better learning outcomes. 

Dynamism 

The third characteristic of an effective academic identified through the focus groups was dynamism. In the 

words of one of the participants, “dynamic lecturers are ones that put their back into to it. [They are] 

animated, they put a bit of energy into it”. Dynamism appears to result from three factors: the academics’ 

enthusiasm and passion for the subject, creativity, and use of humour. The following quotes illustrate these 

factors: 

20 

I think what differentiates some lecturers, like most lecturers have the knowledge behind them about the 

topic, but it’s little things on top that makes them stand out, like their enthusiasm perhaps. Or their 

sense of humour. Turning a dry subject into something that’s interesting! 

He was great! He was such a hoot. He made a topic that I think lots of people couldn’t give two stuffs 

about and he made it really fun. 

Dynamism is therefore consistent with Construct 3 of Table 1, the ability to motivate or stimulate students, 

as well as the use of humour, originality, enthusiasm and encouragement of critical thinking previously 

identified in the literature by Reid and Johnston (1999), Young and Shaw (1999), and Seiler and Seiler (2002). 

Also, dynamism influences teaching effectiveness particularly how much students listen (i.e., communication 

effectiveness) and how much they learn. These two outcomes are highlighted in the following quotes: 

If they are enthusiastic you will tend to learn more! 

You can tell when they are interested in what they are teaching you, and it really reflects on how much 

you learn. 

Applied knowledge 

The final characteristic of effective teachers identified in the focus groups related to applied knowledge. 

This construct is similar to Construct 4 of Table 1, previously identified by Conant et al. (1988), Kelley et al. 

(1991), Reid and Johnston (1999), Smart et al. (2003), and Faranda and Clarke (2004). Specifically, our focus 

group participants noted that the use of real life scenarios, real world experiences and knowledge by 

marketing academics, helped in understanding theory and placing it within context. 

Bringing applied knowledge to the classroom has a number of advantages. Participants valued the ability of 

academics to understand the theory they are teaching and relate it to their subject area: “It’s relating the 

knowledge that they have from reading four-and-a-half million text books”. Further, “it’s good to know that 

the person that actually is teaching you knows what they are talking about”. Participants commented on the 

difference between those who had real world experience and those who did not: “I must say that the 

lecturers that have worked in the real world are very different to those that are just academics”. Like the 

other constructs identified, applied knowledge appears to influence communication effectiveness and 

learning outcomes. This is demonstrated in the following two quotes: 

You get lecturers that teach to the textbook and not so much out in the real world. 

Real world examples make it a lot easier to remember, and I learn the most from a lecturer that has had 

practical experience. 

The conceptual model 

The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 draws together the findings from the literature review and 

the qualitative focus groups. As was shown in the literature there was a link between the four personal 

attributes and teaching effectives. This was also evident in the focus groups. Consequently, dynamism, 

rapport, applied knowledge and effective communication are hypothesised to directly influence teaching 

effectiveness. For most of these constructs, the direction of their impact on teaching effectiveness is clear. 

Dynamism creates interest in a subject and a desire for students to learn, which we believe will improve 

teaching effectiveness. Applied knowledge allows students to picture marketing theory in a “real world” 

scenario, thus improving learning. And effective communication leads to better teaching effectiveness by 


encouraging interest and improving understanding. However, for rapport, the direction of the effect of this 

construct on teaching effectiveness is less clear: being friendly can encourage class participation and 

students seeking help when it is needed, but being too friendly can result in students not applying themselves 

as fully. 

Further, the literature review identified links between communication and dynamism, rapport and applied 

knowledge. This was supported in the focus groups. Consequently, we hypothesise a conceptual model in 

which dynamism, rapport and applied knowledge lead to effective communication, which in turn leads to 

effective teaching. Specifically, lecturers who are dynamic encourage their students to engage with them, 

which in turn improves the effectiveness of their communication. Friendly lecturers make their students feel 

more able to talk with them, both in- and out-of-class, which encourages communication. Also, marketing 

lecturers with applied knowledge of their subject, who can therefore draw on a reserve of real-world 

experiences and examples, are more effective communicators. 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of marketing educator effectiveness 

Quantitative data analysis and findings 

Before testing the SEM model, it is important to evaluate its quality (see Table 2), and the contribution of 

each of the variables to the constructs (see β values). Firstly, CFI and robust comparative fit indices (RCFI) 

values meet the minimal acceptable criterion of 0.9 for a robust model (Hair et al., 2006). Secondly, there is 

evidence of construct validity in the measurement model, with the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) 

for the latent constructs being greater than 0.74 (minimum 0.7). In addition, the chi-square difference for 

each pair of latent constructs was significant in each case, confirming discriminant validity (Anderson & 

Gerbing, 1988). 

When considering the measurement model it is instructive to consider the items that load onto each of the 

constructs (see Table 2). For all of the constructs, the findings were consistent with the expectations 

generated during the focus groups. For example, with the dynamism construct the items that loaded most 

highly were related to creativity, use of humour and being dynamic. Our expectations were also confirmed for 

the constructs relating to communication and applied knowledge. However, the make-up of the rapport 

construct was different to our expectations. The findings from the focus groups indicated that the construct 

was related to being friendly and approachable, respecting students and showing empathy. However, the first 

of these aspects – being a friendly person – was not included as an item in this construct as it’s loading on the 

rapport construct was below acceptable levels (see Table 2). The items that load most highly on this 

construct are related to the academic being approachable or making students feel welcome to seek advice or 

help. This is closer to the construct previously identified in the literature by Reid and Johnston (1999), Pozo- 

Munoz et al. (2000), and others, than the focus group findings. 

In the structural model, the goodness of fit measures (CFI = 0.90, NNFI = 0.88) indicate an acceptable fit (see 

Table 3). One variation to the conceptual model was made when estimating the structural model as analysis 

of the residual covariance matrix revealed strong interaction effects between measures representing 

dynamism and measures representing rapport. When these two constructs were allowed to co-vary (the 

correlation was significant), a CFI of .90 (NNFI = .88) with independence chi-square of 2428.24 based on 136 

degrees of freedom was achieved, indicating a high degree of bad fit between the hypothesised model and 

the null model. That is, a fairly robust model was estimated. In testing the conceptual model (Figure 1), we 


21

identified the significance, sign and magnitude of the coefficients for the structural paths between the 

constructs (see Table 3 and Figure 2). Most of the results are consistent with the hypotheses. Dynamism, 

rapport and applied knowledge had a positive and significant influence on communication. The effect of 

dynamism (0.70) was much greater than the effect of either rapport (0.24) or applied knowledge (0.17) on 

communication. In terms of the factors that influence teaching effectiveness, dynamism (0.64) has by far the 

biggest influence on teaching effectiveness, followed by communication effectiveness (0.44). Rapport (-0.15) 

had a negative and significant effect on teaching effectiveness and the direct effect of applied knowledge 

was found to be insignificant. 

Constructs Variables (statements) Variable 

contribution 

(ß solution)* 

Dynamism The L** enhanced presentations with humour 

The L was dynamic when teaching the subject 

The L was creative 

The L was enthusiastic about the subject 

Rapport The L made students feel welcome in seeking help/advice 

The L was approachable 

The L had a genuine interest in me 

The L empathised with me 

Communication The L carefully explained subject materials 

The L communicated ideas effectively 

The L style of presentation held my interest 

Students were given meaningful answers 

Teaching 

effectiveness 

Applied 

knowledge 

Table 2: Latent constructs – measurement model 

* T values in parentheses – ROBUST statistics; ** L = lecturer 

Table 3: The structural model 

* T values – ROBUST statistics. Critical t values for 136 degrees of freedom applied. 

Figure 2: Teacher effectiveness: SEM results; *sig. at 5% level, ** sig. at 1% level 

22 

My interest in this subject has been stimulated by this L 

I learned a great deal from this L 

Compared to other L’s at ___, what is your overall evaluation of 

this L’s teaching effectiveness 

The lecturer used real world examples 

The lecturer spoke about real life experiences 

The lecturer appeared knowledgeable about the subject matter 

0.80 

0.81 (11.49) 

0.86 (13.76) 

0.74 (8.60) 

0.92 

0.92 (14.17) 

0.68 (9.75) 

0.60 (8.54) 

0.81 

0.87 (11.94) 

0.79 (9.65) 

0.72 (9.09) 

0.75 

0.96 (11.46) 

0.77 (10.61) 

0.78 (11.39) 

0.86 

0.58 (8.71) 

CFI and 

reliability 

coefficient 

CFI = 0.98 

RCFI = 0.97 

Chi-square 

(df) 

386.19 (6) 

α = 0.88 

CFI = 0.99 488.23 (6) 

RCFI = 0.99 

α = 0.89 

CFI = 1.00 353.42 (6) 

RCFI = 1.00 

α = 0.87 

CFI = 0.99 254.94 (3) 

RCFI = 0.99 

α = 0.86 

CFI = 0.94 124.08 (3) 

RCFI = 0.91 

α = 0.74 

Linkages in the models Standardised solution Significance t statistic * Model diagnostics 

Dynamism Rapport 0.74 5.22, p < .005 Independence 

Dynamism Communication 0.70 5.86, p < .005 2428.24 (136 df) 

Dynamism Teaching effectiveness 0.64 3.25, p < .005 

Rapport Communication 0.24 2.10, p < .05 

Rapport Teaching effectiveness -0.15 -1.99, p < .05 CFI=0.90, NNFI= 0.88 

Applied knowledge Communication 0.17 2.14, p < .05 

Applied knowledge Teaching effectiveness ns 

Communication Teaching effectiveness 0.44 2.27, p < .05 


Discussion 

The personal attributes of a lecturer have been identified in the literature as critical in the development of 

learning outcomes within students (Patrick & Smart, 1998). Consequently, this research sought to identify and 

measure the key personal constructs significant in the development of the effective lecturer. Some of the 

recommendations in the literature were followed by testing a model focused on teachers’ personal qualities 

and their importance to effective teaching. 

Four constructs that lead to teaching effectiveness were identified and, in the order of their largest direct 

effect, they are dynamism, effective communication, rapport (negative), and applied knowledge (not 

significant). It was also found that dynamism, rapport, and applied knowledge affect communication, which 

then affects teaching effectiveness, thus highlighting the importance of personal attributes in first enhancing 

communication as a precursor to teaching effectiveness. 

Looking at the model in greater detail, dynamism is comprised of creativity, humour and enthusiasm, in that 

order, which is consistent with the attributes of humour, originality and enthusiasm found by Seiler and Seiler 

(2002). However, they found that these were of secondary importance whereas this study found that, as part 

of dynamism, they were most important. The explanation for this apparent contradiction lies partly in the 

different focus of the two studies: Seiler and Seiler (2002) tested for the relative importance of course and 

teacher characteristics whereas this study was concerned exclusively with teacher characteristics. Moreover, 

the strong links between dynamism and communication, and between dynamism and teaching effectiveness 

are not found in the literature and is an original contribution of this research. 

Regarding the importance of rapport to communication, the findings are also supported by the literature. For 

example, links have been identified previously between rapport and communication (Conant et al., 1988; 

Kelley et al., 1991; Faranda & Clarke, 2004), respect and communication (Young & Shaw, 1999), and empathy 

and communication (Smart et al., 2003). However, the finding that rapport has a negative direct effect on 

teaching effectiveness and a positive indirect effect via improved communication was not found in the 

literature and is a contribution of this study. This implies that being friendly to students (i.e., making 

students welcome, being approachable, taking a genuine interest in and empathising with students) will not 

improve teacher effectiveness unless it also enhances the quality of communication. 

The findings also suggest a link between applied knowledge and communication, which has also been 

identified by other researchers (Conant et al., 1988; Kelley et al., 1991; Smart et al., 2003). The use of real 

world examples, reinforced by experiences in business, enhances a lecturer’s ability to communicate with 

students and makes for more effective learning. However, no direct link was found between applied 

knowledge and teaching effectiveness. It is tempting to think that industry experience alone can make an 

affective academic. However, these results suggest that the main route through which applied knowledge 

leads to effective learning is via improved communication. Thus, academics that have a history of working in 

industry also need to place an emphasis on ensuring that they have good communication skills. This will 

ensure that the natural advantages they have through their real world experiences will lead to improved 

communication and better teaching effectiveness. 

Also, the findings on the impact of particular communication skills on teaching effectiveness are consistent 

with but also extend the literature. For example, Faranda and Clarke (2004), Grunenwald and Ackerman 

(1986), and Smart et al. (2003), among others, noted the importance of general communication skills. 

However, it was found that the type of communication that students specifically require needs to be clear 

and effective, it has to be accompanied by an engaging delivery style, and answers to student questions have 

to be perceived as meaningful. Some of these items are consistent with the general rubric of “clear” or even 

“good” communication found in previous studies (Reid & Johnston, 1999; Young & Shaw, 1999; Marks, 2000; 

Pozo-Munoz et al., 2000). 

In terms of the relative importance of the four constructs, the results have some consistency with the 

existing literature. In this study, dynamism had the largest influence on teacher effectiveness, as well as on 

communication. This is consistent with the findings of Seiler and Seiler (2002), but other researchers such as 

Reid and Johnston (1999) found communication to be more important than dynamism. Kelley et al. (1991) 

also found that communication was the most important characteristic that differentiated effective and 

average teachers but they found that attributes related to dynamism were the most important in terms of 

lecturing ability. Communication was the second most important construct in this research, contributing more 

to teacher effectiveness than either rapport or applied knowledge. Both Kelley et al. (1991) and Reid and 

Johnston (1999) found communication to be more important than either rapport or applied knowledge, while 

Grunenwald and Ackerman (1986) found communication to be more important than applied knowledge. In this 

study, rapport and applied knowledge were found to have the smallest impact on academic effectiveness, 

which is consistent with the findings of Kelley et al. (1991), and Reid and Johnston (1999). Rapport had a 

slightly larger influence on communication than applied knowledge which is consistent with Kelley et al. 


23

(1991), although Reid and Johnston (1999) found the opposite. 

Implications for academics 

This research is an important step towards the identification and measurement of the critical personal 

variables needed by lecturers to enhance student learning. Four constructs were identified: dynamism, 

rapport, applied knowledge and communication. As these constructs are all within the control of the lecturer, 

they can consider a number of strategies to increase their performance in these areas. Ideas to enhance 

teaching effectiveness under these four areas are presented below and in Table 4. However, these are just a 

starting point and lecturers should reflect on their own circumstances and creativity when attempting to 

develop their effectiveness. 

A range of strategies can be adopted to enhance an academic’s effectiveness in terms of being dynamic. For 

example, displaying a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for the subject is a starting point. This can be 

helped by using body language clues such as dress, posture, and facial expressions. Drama can also be 

injected into the teaching experience by moving around the room instead of presenting the lecture from one 

static location (for related topics regarding drama in management education see Pearce, 2004). The use of 

humour was also found to be a contributor to dynamism (Glenn, 1995), although lecturers may wish to check 

the reactions of their class to determine whether it has been successful! Some academics may cringe at these 

suggestions if they are not naturally humorous or extroverted. However, it is noteworthy that the item with 

the highest loading on dynamism was creativity. Thus, it is worthwhile to look at the work of Titus (2007), 

who presented a framework to enhance creative instruction when teaching. While the dynamism of an 

academic is in part personality-based, any academic can be more dynamic by being creative in the design of 

subject assessment activities, in-class activities and visual aids. In addition, as the majority of marketing 

students are visual and active learners (Morrison et al., 2003), introducing visual prompts into the class (like 

products, pictures and DVDs) and running in-class activities will help to reinforce the learning outcomes of 

the topic by maintaining the interest levels of the students. 

Additionally, marketing educators can become better communicators by working on their rapport with 

students (Granitz et al., 2009). As demonstrated by the SEM results, the goal is not simply to become friends 

with the students. Rather, rapport is needed in order to enhance communication. For this purpose, academics 

especially need to be welcoming and approachable and this can be achieved in several ways. For example, 

lecturers could introduce themselves with a handshake at the first meeting and make clear that they are 

there to help the students succeed (Jacobi, 1991). An open door policy rather than limited consulting hours 

would also help, and regularly reminding students that they are welcome to see the lecturer if they have any 

questions. Further, lecturers can show students that they are welcoming by how they respond to questions 

and requests, and by treating students with respect (Patterson, 2004). It is also important, although to a 

lesser extent, to have a genuine interest in students and empathise with them if any difficulties arise. In 

summary, educators need to be friendly to students, and can be so without being their friends. 

Developing a real-world focus can be developed by collecting current and interesting commercial examples 

that express the theory being discussed. Further, lecturers can demonstrate the link between theory and 

practise by describing practical marketing experiences or consultancies that they have been involved with. If 

work experience is limited, they can look for real world examples from associates in industry, trade 

publications and other mainstream press or case studies, other than from the textbook. Additionally, 

educators should possess a strong knowledge of the course and be able to show how it fits within the wider 

business environment. 

Finally, to ensure that effective communication results in being an effective educator, lecturers should work 

on their diction and pronunciation, and repeating important or complex concepts can help. The pitch, volume 

and tone of presentations should be varied to keep students interested and frequent pauses for a number of 

seconds during a lecture can refocus the students. The information must be conveyed at an appropriate level 

for the cohort that is being taught. For example, language and explanations of concepts should be different 

for undergraduate first year students compared with Masters students. Also, it is important to be an active 

listener and be honest and straight forward when communicating (Campbell & Davis, 2006). 

The implications present above, and in Table 4, are just a sample of possible strategies that can be put in 

place in an attempt to increase teaching effectiveness. It is suggested that educators consider their own 

strengths and weaknesses in relation to the constructs that have emerged from this research, and develop 

personalised strategies to capitalise on their strengths and build on their weaknesses. 

24 


Construct Teaching strategies 

Dynamic delivery • Display a genuine interest in and enthusiasm for the subject 

• Use drama in your lectures. This can be as simple as the gestures made in class 

• Move around the room 

• Integrate humour or a sense of fun into your lectures 

• Mentally prepare yourself before the lecture to display a level of excitement in the topic 

you are presenting 

Clear communication • Work on your diction and pronunciation 

• Repeat important or complex concepts 

• Vary the pitch, volume and tone of your presentation 

• Use pauses and silence during lectures to refocus students 

• Attempt to cater for all types of learning styles in your communication 

Applied knowledge • Integrate theory and practice by describing your marketing experiences or consultancies 

• Collect current and interesting commercial examples 

• Look for real world examples from associates in industry, trade publications and other 

mainstream press or case studies 

• Possess a strong knowledge of the course and be able to show how this fits within the 

wider business environment 

Rapport • Remind students regularly that they are welcome to see you if they have any questions 

• Be mindful of the non-verbal cues that indicate how approachable you are 

• Treat students with respect 

• Be friendly to students, without being their friends 

Table 4: Strategies to enhance teaching effectiveness 

Conclusions, limitations and further research 

This study sought to identify the personal attributes of academics that are important to student learning 

using a qualitative methodology, which has not been the norm in previous studies. The resulting conceptual 

model was then empirically tested using SEM. We found that dynamism, rapport, applied knowledge and 

effective communication are all important to the effectiveness of marketing academics, with dynamism of 

the academic being the most important variable, followed by effective communication. While both rapport 

and applied knowledge have the capacity to improve teaching effectiveness, this is via improved 

communication. 

The results from this study emerged from a student’s point of view. They identified the personal attributes of 

a lecturer that were seen to be important in their learning. An interesting side note to this research was a 

recent study that identified lecturers’ beliefs about what constitutes good teaching in higher education 

(Fitzmaurice, 2008). Lecturers identified honesty, respect, care and compassion, as fundamental to good 

teaching. Whilst these concepts fall nicely in the rapport category of effective teaching identified in this 

research, lecturers did not identify the variables of dynamism, applied knowledge and communication. So far 

only considered in one study (Fitzmaurice, 2008), an interesting future research stream would be to identify 

and measure the differences between students and lecturers perceptions of effective teaching. 

There are a number of limitations associated with this study. Firstly, the sample for this study was collected 

at two campuses of one university in New South Wales, Australia. Further research should be conducted with 

students in different universities in different countries to ascertain cultural dimensions relating to the 

personal attributes of effective lecturers. Similar, research could be undertaken with students studying nonmarketing 

courses. Whilst the sample used in this research was drawn from marketing classes, the majority of 

the students would have had experience of a range of social science subjects. Nevertheless, it would be 

interesting to replicate this study for different discipline areas like medicine, for example. A larger sample 

would also enable analysis of how the results presented here differ according to gender, age and year of 

study, providing a fuller understanding of the importance of the personal attributes of academics for 

improving learning outcomes. 

In summary, the personal attributes of an effective lecturer is a complex phenomena. Nevertheless, this 

paper’s objective was to explore and provide findings on this important topic. However, the real contribution 

of this paper lies in lecturers comparing this emerging theory with their own personal attributes when 

teaching, and acting on it to reduce weaknesses and build on strengths. In the end, this can only enhance the 

students learning experience. 

References 

Aigner, D. J., & Thum, F. D. (1986). On student evaluation of teaching ability. Journal of Economic Education, 17, 243-265. 

doi:10.2307/1182148 

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step 

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 


25

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science, 

8(4), 310-324. 

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS. 

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing 

Science, 16, 74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327 

Bailey, C. D., Gupta, S., & Schrader, R. W. (2000). Do students’ judgment models of instructor effectiveness differ by course 

level, course content, or individual instructor? Journal of Accounting Education, 18, 15-34. doi:10.1016/S0748- 

5751(00)00006-3 

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. 

Campbell, K. S., & Davis, L. (2006). The sociolinguistic basis of managing rapport when overcoming buying objections. 

Journal of Business Communications, 43, 43-66. doi:10.1177/0021943605282098 

Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (1990). Student evaluation in marketing: What is actually being measured? Journal of 

Marketing Education, 12(3), 9-17. doi:10.1177/027347539001200302 

Conant, J. S., Smart, D. T., & Kelley, C. A. (1988). Master teaching: Pursuing excellence in marketing education. Journal of 

Marketing Education, 10(3), 3-13. doi:10.1177/027347538801000302 

Desai, S., Damewood, E., & Jones, R. (2001). Be a good teacher and be seen as a good teacher. Journal of Marketing 

Education, 23, 136-144. doi:10.1177/0273475301232007 

Faranda, W. T., & Clarke, I., III (2004). Student observations of outstanding teaching: Implications for marketing educators. 

Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 271-281. doi:10.1177/0273475304268782 

Freedman, S. C. (1984). Attribution theory and management education. Training and Development Journal, 38(11), 95-99. 

Fitzmaurice, M. (2008). Voices from within: Teaching in higher education as a moral practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 

13, 341-352. doi:10.1080/13562510802045386 

Glenn, P. J. (1995). Laughing at and laughing with: Negotiations of participant alignments through conversational laughter. In 

P. Ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 

43–56). Washington, DC: University Press of America. 

Granitz, N. A., Koerning, S. K., & Harich, K. R. (2009). Now it’s personal: Antecedents and outcomes of rapport between 

business faculty and their students. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 52-65. doi:10.1177/0273475308326408 

Greiniel-Fuhrmann, B. & Geyer, A. (2003). Students’ evaluation of teachers and instructional quality-analysis of relevant 

factors based on empirical evaluation research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 229-238. 

doi:10.1080/0260293032000059595 

Grunenwald, J. P., & Ackerman, L. (1986). A modified delphi approach for the development of student evaluations of faculty 

teaching. Journal of Marketing Education, 8(2), 32-38. doi:10.1177/027347538600800206 

Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research 

in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 87-97. 

Hair, J, F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, J., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed). Upper Saddle 

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1037/10628-000 

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 

505-532. 

Jin, Z. (2000). The learning experience of students in Middlesex University Business School (MUBS): Why do they enjoy some 

modules/lectures and dislike others? International Journal of Management Education, 1(1), 22-36. 

doi:10.3794/ijme.11.c 

Kelly, H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 192-240). 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Kelly, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of 

psychology: Vol 31 (pp. 457-501). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. 

Kelley, C. A., Conant, J. S., & Smart, D. T. (1991) Master teaching revisited: Pursuing excellence from the students’ 

perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 1-10. doi:10.1177/027347539101300202 

Lacoss, J. (2000). In their words: Students’ ideas about teaching. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from 

http://trc.virginia.edu/Publications/Teaching_Concerns/Spring_2000/TC_Spring_2000_Lacoss_Making.htm 

Laverie, D. A. (2002). Improving teaching through improving evaluation: A guide to course portfolios. Journal of Marketing 

Education, 24, 104-113. doi:10.1177/0273475302242003 

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach (3rd European ed.). New York: Financial 

Times Prentice Hall. 

Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of 

Marketing Education, 22, 108-119. doi:10.1177/0273475300222005 

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of 

validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1187 

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 

Morgan, R. M., & Shelby, D. H. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 

20-38. doi:10.2307/1252308 

Morrison, M., Sweeney, A., & Heffernan T. (2003). Learning styles of on-campus and off-campus students: The challenge for 

marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 208-218. doi:10.1177/0273475303257520 

Paswan, A. K., & Young, J. A. (2002). Student evaluation of instructor: A nomological investigation using structural equation 

modelling. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 193-202. doi:10.1177/0273475302238042 

Patrick, J., & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. 

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, 165-178. doi:10.1080/0260293980230205 

Patterson, C. H. (2004). Do we need multicultural counselling competencies? Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 26, 67- 

73. 

Pearce, G. (2004). The advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (weaknesses) of educational drama: Perceptions of students 

studying marketing at university. International Journal of Management Education, 4(2), 29-46. 

Pozo-Munõz, C., Rebolloso-Pacheco, E. and Fernández-Ramierz, B. (2000). The “ideal teacher”: Implications for student 

evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 253-263. 

doi:10.1080/02602930050135121 

26 


Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. 

Reid, D. J., & Johnston, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student and teacher perspectives. Educational 

Studies, 25, 269-281. doi:10.1080/03055699997792 

Seiler, V. L., & Seiler, M. J. (2002). Professors who make the grade. Review of Business, 23(2), 39-44. 

Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation in higher education: Love me, 

love my lectures. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 397-405. doi:10.1080/713611436 

Smart, D. T., Kelley, C. A., & Conant, J. S. (2003). Mastering the art of teaching: Pursuing excellence in a new millennium. 

Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 71-78. doi:10.1177/0273475302250575 

Stringer, M. & Irwing, P. (1998). Students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A structural modelling approach. British 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 409-426. 

Titus, P. A. (2007). Applied creativity: The creative marketing breakthrough model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 262- 

272. doi:10.1177/0273475307307600 

Voss, R., & Gruber, T. (2006). The desired teaching qualities of lecturers in higher education: A means end analysis. Quality 

Assurance in Education, 14, 217-242. doi:10.1108/09684880610678540 

Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 

670-686. doi:10.2307/2649170 

Weitz, B. A., Castleberry, S. B., & Tanner, J. F. (2007). Selling: Building partnerships (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw- 

Hill/Irwin. 


27

Personal attributes of effective lecturers - Higher Education Academy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?