Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320209599703
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Impact of Faculty-Student Interactions on
Teaching Behavior: An Investigation of Perceived
Student Encounter Orientation, Interactive
Confidence, and Interactive Practice
Robert Frankel & Scott R. Swanson
To cite this article: Robert Frankel & Scott R. Swanson (2002) The Impact of Faculty-Student
Interactions on Teaching Behavior: An Investigation of Perceived Student Encounter
Orientation, Interactive Confidence, and Interactive Practice, Journal of Education for Business,
78:2, 85-91, DOI: 10.1080/08832320209599703
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599703
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:45
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
The Impact of FacuIty-Student
Interactions on Teaching Behavior:
An Investigation of Perceived
Student Encounter Orientation,
Interactive Confidence, and
Interactive Practice
ROBERT FRANKEL
zyxwvut
zyxwvuts
East Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina
A
s a service that we deliver, teaching
has been identified as one of the
most intangible of products. “This intangibility has implications not only for ‘traditional’ service businesses, but also for
classroom education” (Straughan, 1998,
p.1). One consequence of the intangible
nature of teaching is the variability in
perceptions of the interactions that occur
with students. During faculty-student
encounters, a variety of things transpire
that can create satisfaction or dissatisfaction for either party. Several recent studies of higher education have examined
student satisfaction through consumer
perspectives (Davis & Swanson, 2001;
Guolla, 1999; McCollough & Gremier,
1999; Stafford, 1994). Unfortunately,
the faculty member’s perspective is
rarely, if ever, formally considered. In
fact, previous research has examined satisfactory and dissatisfactory professorstudent interactions and their impacts
only from the student’s perspective
(Davis & Swanson, 2001; Swanson &
Davis, 2000). Yet it is important to under-
SCOlT R. SWANSON
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Whitewater, Wisconsin
ABSTRACT. Previous research has
examined satisfactory and unsatisfactory faculty-student interactions from
only the student’s viewpoint. In this
research, the authors used a national
sample of marketing professors’ selfreported satisfactory and dissatisfactory critical incidents with students.
Their findings support previous incident classification schemes. They
identified five specific behavior outcomes resulting from critical interactions with students: method and
material changes; requirements clarification; reinforcing actions; student
praise; and greater authoritativeness.
The authors also introduce three constructs-student encounter orientation, instructor interaction confidence, and instructor interaction
practice-and discuss the relationship of constructs to incident classifications, the (dis)satisfactory nature of
an interaction, and behavioral
responses.
riences and improving their teaching
performance.
In this study, we examined professors’
self-reported (dis)satisfying critical interactions with students and the impact that
these encounters have had on their subsequent teaching behaviors. We also examined (a) the reported incidents through
faculty members’ perceptions of the student’s behavior during the encounter and
(b) the faculty members’ interaction
adaptability (i.e., confidence in, and
practice of, a variety of approaches based
on the teaching situation).
Specifically, we were guided by the
following questions:
zyxwvutsrq
zy
stand them from the educators’ perspective as well. We believe that identifying
commonly occurring incident types and
related response behaviors would help
professional educators assess their expe-
Are the incident group classifications of (dis)satisfactory professor-student encounters, as provided by professors, consistent with those identified in
student samples?
How do incident group classifications and the (dis)satisfactory nature of
interactions with students influence professors’ future teaching behaviors?
NovembedDecember 2002
85
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
Is the student’s encounter orientation, as perceived by the Iprofessor,
associated with particular incident
group classifications, the (dis)satisfactory nature of an interaction, and/or a
professor’s future behaviors?
Is a professor’s interaction adaptability associated with the (dis)satisfactory nature of an interaction and/or with
the professor’s future behaviors?
At a basic level, student-professor
interactions can be classified as satisfying or dissatisfying. Satisfaction is a
postconsumption evaluation. An individual relies on his or her expectations
to make a judgment regarding the
extent of generated fulfillment associated with level of satisfaction (Oliver
& DeSarbo, 1988; Yi, 1990). These
expectations constitute standards that
are compared with what the individual
believes or perceives has happened
during the interaction.
To better understand the faculty member’s perspective of professor-student
(dis)satisfactory interactions and the
impact of these experiences on teaching
behaviors, in this study we used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954).
A critical incident is “an observable
human activity that is complete enough
in itself to permit inferences to be made
about the person performing the act” and
that “contributes to or detracts from the
general aim of the activity in a significant
way” (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990,
p. 73). We examined these critical incidents with respect to (a) the encounter
orientation of the student (as perceived
by the professor) and (b) the professor’s
interaction adaptability.
Student encounter orientation represents the professor’s perceptions of a student’s behavior during a critical interaction that resulted in (dis)satisfaction. We
adapted the construct from Williams and
Spiro (1985) and introduced it into an
educational context. Specifically, we
defined student encounter orientation as
the student’s level of preoccupation with
self and his or her level of concern
regarding the instructor during a professor-student encounter. It measures a student’s friendliness and attentiveness
toward the instructor together with the
student’s self-concern.
We relied on previous sales literature
86
(Porter & Inks, 2000; Spiro & Weitz,
1990) for our definition of interaction
adaptability (the idea that instructors
may interact differentially with different students). Although the objectives
of selling and teaching can be quite different, the ability and willingness of a
salesperson to “connect” with his or her
intended target and modify his or her
strategy based on observed reactions to
solve a problem would appear to be
similar to that ability in an instructor.
Arguably, there are no universally
effective teaching methods. Student
learning takes place in a variety of situations (both inside and outside the
classroom) involving multiple professor-student interactions. We suggest
that professors become involved in a
variety of teaching situations and
encounter a wide range of students;
each situation and student may require
the adaptation of unique approaches
based on the learning objective at hand
or the knowledge level and personality
of the student. Some professors may be
more flexible in how they approach student encounters than others. Instructors
demonstrate an adaptive interaction
style when they have confidence in
their abilities and use a variety of
instructional approaches across various
learning encounters. They make adjustments based on the feedback that they
receive during these interactions. Those
with a nonadaptive interaction style, on
the other hand, use of the same procedure or approach for all encounters
with students.
Data Analysis
As the starting point for the content
analysis of the critical incidents collected in this study, we relied on previous
research on (dis)satisfactory service
encounters (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr,
1994; Bitner et al., 1990; Gremler &
Bitner, 1992; Kelley, Hoffman, &
Davis, 1993) as well as instructor-student interactions based on student samples (Davis & Swanson, 2001; Swanson
& Davis, 2000). We asked professors to
(a) think of a recent particularly satisfying or dissatisfying interaction with a
student and (b) describe the particular
situation in detail. Next, we asked each
respondent to discuss in an open-ended
question whether and how the student
interaction influenced the respondent’s
subsequent behaviors or actions.
After careful repeated readings, the
second author sorted similar (dis)satisfactory incidents and the reported subsequent behaviors into three and five categories, respectively. The first author then
independently sorted the 22 1 incident
forms into one of the three incident classification groups and five behavioral
outcome categories to assess the interrater reliability (Ir) of the category
assignments (Perreault & Leigh, 1989).
Interrater reliability (Ir) for agreement
among the three incident groups and five
behavioral outcome groups was 3 9 and
.9 1, respectively. We placed responses
for which there was disagreement in a
mutually agreed-upon category.
In the next section of the questionnaire, we adapted previously developed
scales to measure (a) the perceived student encounter orientation and (b) the
professor’s interaction adaptability. We
measured student encounter orientation, as perceived by marketing professors in the reported critical incidents,
through six modified items from
Willams and Spiro (1985). Higher
scores on the scale suggest that the professor perceived that the student whom
he or she interacted with was personable and attended to what the professor
said, whereas lower scores imply that
the student was not easy to talk to or
interested in what the professor had to
say. We measured interaction adaptability through seven modified items from
Spiro and Weitz (1990).
zyxwvuts
Method
Data Collection
Using a commercially purchased listing, we randomly selected 1,508 marketing professors in the United States for a
questionnaire mailing. We sent a followup reminder card 1 week after the initial
mailing. A total of 47 envelopes were
returned as undeliverable. Out of 267
surveys (18.3%) returned by the respondents, 221 were complete and used in
Our
(nsatisfactory = 35; ‘dissatisfactory
= 86). Seventy-six percent (168) of the
respondents were men, and the respondents reported a college teaching experience of 2 to 45 years (m = 18.9 years).
zyxwvut
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqpo
Journal of Education f o r Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
We conducted exploratory factor
analysis to determine the factor structure of the scales that we used. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation revealed a three-factor structure. All factors had eigenvalues of 1.0
or greater, surpassed a minimum factor
loading of .40, demonstrated strong
levels of reliability (alphas of
0.82-0.88), and exhibited no substantially significant crossloadings. Taken
together, the three factors accounted for
66.0% of the total variance. These
results support previous research
(Marks, Vorhies, & Badorick, 1996) in
their suggestion that adaptive behaviors
may be two-dimensional. We provide
the factor loadings and corresponding
questions in Table 1.
Findings
of the classification scheme found in
those previous studies.
Critical Incident Group 1: Service system failure. This category, representing
professor response to service delivery
system failures ( n = 20), comprises incidents directly related to failures in the
core services offered. These included
incidents in which the services normally available were absent or delayed.
Failing to acknowledge a problem or
ignoring student requests for help in
understanding materials were associated with reported dissatisfactory experiences. Satisfactory encounters were
reported when things were well
explained and detailed feedback was
provided for the creation of a complete
understanding of the issues involved.
involved student acknowledgment of his
or her own mistake (e.g., not following
directions when performing work, missing scheduled exams and classes, or losing assignments).
Critical Incident Group 3: Unprompted
professor actions. This final category
consisted of incidents ( n = 84) that were
directly attributable to the professor’s
actions, which often exceeded students’
current expectations or adjusted students’ future expectations. Incidents in
this group were related to particularly
extraordinary professor actions or
expressions, attention paid to the student, and professor behaviors related to
norms such as honesty and fairness.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
Critical Incident Groups
Three general group classifications
emerged from our analysis of the provided incidents. These group classifications are similar to those found in both
the general services literature (Bitner et
al., 1994; Bitner er al., 1990) and previous professor-student
interaction
research (Davis & Swanson, 2001;
Swanson & Davis, 2000). Thus, they
provide support to the generalizability
Critical Incident Group 2: Response to
student needs and requests. In this
group of incidents ( n = 107), students
were viewed as responsible for creating
the initial situation. Specifically, student
errors and preferences (e.g., the familiar
refrain “I have a problem”) fell into this
category. Responses to student preferences included incidents in which the
student made requests to m i s s a class or
change a test or presentation date, paper
due date, or grade. Admitted student
error occurred if the triggering event
Behavioral Responses to
Critical Incidents
After describing a (dis)satisfactory
incident, respondents stated whether the
interaction influenced their subsequent
behaviors or actions. Several respondents (n = 18) provided indefinite statements such as “it is too early to know
how it will influence my future actions,”
“the interaction was too recent to
respond to this question,” or “time will
tell.” The majority of the subjects ( n =
203), however, reported a behavioral
response to the provided critical inci-
z
TABLE 1. Measures and Rotated Factor Pattern
Construct
Scale itema
F1
F2
F3
Student
encounter
orientation
(a= 38)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The student was easy to talk with.
The student seemed interested in me not only as a professor, but also as a person.
The student was friendly.
The student tried to dominate the conversation.b
The student was most interested in getting across what s h e had to say.b
The student was more interested in himher self than in what I had to say.b
.84077
,73487
.85508
.80877
.68967
33451
.13478
.I8754
.09323
.06361
.I2707
.00230
.03555
.14925
.I 1617
.O 1848
,10938
.00300
Interaction
practice
( a= .82)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Each student requires a unique approach.
I feel that most students can be dealt with in pretty much the same manner.b
I don’t change my approach from one student to another.b
I treat all of my students in pretty much the same way:
Basically I use the same approach with most students.b
.04275
,10446
.13995
.I2840
.08450
.72945
.84195
.70226
.72742
.75906
.09338
.02556
.25040
.00542
.I4162
,02165
,03725
.13024
.I5741
.90562
.89502
Interaction
confidence
(a= 33)
zyxwvutsrq
1. I easily can use a wide variety of teaching approaches.
2. I find it difficult to adapt my teaching style to certain studenkb
Note. Italic figures represent items that loaded on the respective factor.
“All questions were answered on a 7-point response scale ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).bThese items were reverse scored.
NovembedDecember 2002
87
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvut
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
dent. Five specific categories emerged
from the analysis; we summarize these
findings in Table 2.
Behavior Change 1: Change in teaching
methods or materials. Responses classified into this group (n = 37, 18.2%).
focused on the instructor’s incorporation of new material into classes (e.g., “I
have tried to be more creative in terms
of problems, cases, and projects within
the course structure”), making adjustments in response to student requests
(e.g., “I now both formally and informally survey my students to determine
how effective my techniques have been.
Then I modify my approach to
reachhnfluence others in the future”),
and providing additional attention to
identified problem areas (e.g., “I now
try to integrate a review of key concepts
before tests”). All the cases in this category focused on changing either the
method of presentation of the class
materials (e.g., “I will take unpopular
stands in order to encourage and foster
student debate and increase studentteacher interactions in class”) or actually changing the class materials (e.g.,
“focus on more challenging papers and
assignments”).
Behavior Change 2: Clar$cation of
requirements. A number of professors
(n = 31, 15.3%) suggested that the
reported critical incident had influenced them to do a better job in clarifying their course requirements or assignment instructions. Responses in this
category involved the professors’ focusing “on developing more objective
standards, clearer standards” that
“communicate to students that certain
things are expected-whether written
or not.” Other representative responses
included “be more detailed in my comments” and “explain to the entire class
the nature of my expectations in the
course.” In addition to class discussion,
clarifying syllabi was also widely
emphasized (e.g., “reworded syllabus
to emphasize adherence to course
requirements”; “included in my syllabus a clear statement of policy regarding how the corrections to exam scores
shall be handled”).
Behavior Change 3: Reinforcement of
actions. Most responses in this category (n = 83, 41%) related to the incident’s having motivated the respondent
to continue or strengthen his or her
resolve or reinforce the approach used
during the student encounter. Some representative responses to satisfactory
incidents were “I will continue to try to
notice behaviors that indicate problems
and will try to help where I can” and “it
reinforced my conviction that students
who are advised and encouraged
thoughtfully and caringly, with attention to both their intellectual and their
emotional situation, virtually always
respond positively.” Many of the behaviors associated with reported dissatisfactory incidents also reinforced, or
failed to result in changes to, respondents’ actions (e.g., “I don’t know how
to deal with these situations in a manner which will please a student. I try to
get them to see things from my perspective, which is difficult”).
Behavior Change 4: Praising students
more. This category involved responses
related to additional efforts to encourage, strengthen, and praise students (n =
36, 17.7%). Instructors noted that they
now “focus on the positive instead of
the negative” and “have tried to be even
more courteous and helpful” as a result
of the reported critical incident. This
emphasis on complimenting students
more was tempered by some respondents’ preference for using additional
praise under only certain conditions
related to class work (e.g., “I have tended to increase my use of praise of good
work as opposed to negative comments
about less good work” and in-class
behaviors (e.g., “I try to make sure I
praise those who come to class and are
prepared for discussion”).
Behavior Change 5: Increase in authoritativeness. These responses ( n = 36,
17.7%) were all associated with dissatisfactory incidents (20.8%). In all of
these cases, the professors noted that
they were taking a more authoritative
and less friendly stance in confrontations with students. This stance
appeared to be brought on by breaches
of trust (e.g., “I am not as trusting
regarding these students”) or professor
expectations not being met (e.g., “it is
embarrassing to coddle them”). As a
result, respondents became less flexible
(e.g., “I have become more hardnosed”) and began setting policies “with
no exceptions.”
Through a chi-square analysis, we
found that professor behavioral
response was related to the (dis)satisfac-
z
TABLE 2. Critical incident Type by Behavioral Responsea
(%)
Responses referring
to satisfactory
incidents (%)
Responses referring
to dissatisfactory
incidents (%)
18.2
15.3
41.0
17.7
7.8
20.2
9.7
45.2
25.0
0.0
15.6
24.7
33.8
5.2
20.8
All responses
Behavioral response
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
Total
~~~~~
31
31
83
36
16
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
203
~
2*(4,N = 203), = 45.44;p < ,001
00
No. of responses
Journal of Education for Business
100
100
100
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvu
z
tory nature of critical student-professor
interactions (p < .001). Satisfactory
incidents overwhelmingly generated
one of three reactions: (a) reinforcement
of respondent behaviors, (b) engaging
in additional efforts to praise students,
or (c) changing teaching methods or
materials to create similar experiences
in the future. Dissatisfactory incidents
generated a somewhat broader, more
balanced set of reactions: (a) reinforcement of professor behaviors, (b) working to clarify course requirements or
assignment instructions, and (c) becoming more authoritative or changing
teaching methods or materials to avoid
similar experiences in the future.
It is interesting to consider the five
response behaviors with regard to the
three incident group classifications. Differences in reported teaching behavior
changes emerged across critical incident
types (see Table 3). Reinforcement of
the professors' actions was the most
prominent response in each critical incident group type. No other response
behavior exhibited the same consistency
across critical incident group type.
The Role of (Perceived)
Student Encounter Orientation
To explore further professor-student
interactions and postincident professor
behaviors, we used perceived student
encounter orientation. As shown in
Table 4, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
indicated a statistically significant relationship (p < .001) between perceived
student encounter orientation and (a)
whether the incident reported was satisfactory or dissatisfactory, (b) the critical
incident classification, and (c) reported
behaviors.
First, not surprisingly, compared
with the responses of professors reporting dissatisfactory encounters, the
responses of professors discussing satisfying incidents referred to students'
being easier to talk with, friendlier, and
more interested in the professors' viewpoint. Duncan's posthoc test findings
suggested that orientation scores were
significantly lower in incidents attrib-
TABLE 3. Critical Incident Categories (CIG) by Behavloral Responsea
System failures
Student initiated
Professor initiated
(%)
(%I
(%I
37
31
83
36
16
10.0
25.0
30.0
20.0
15.0
15.7
21.6
37.3
12.7
12.7
24.1
5.1
46.8
22.8
1.3
203
100.0
100.0
100.0
5 P e of
behavioral response
No.
Change teaching methods/materials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
Total
%*(8, N = 203), = 24.05;p < .01.
zy
TABLE 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Student Encounter Orientation and IncidentType, Incident Category, and Behavioral Response
Item
M
SD
Incident type"
Satisfactory
Dissatisfactory
Critical incident category (CIG)b
1. System failure
2. Student initiated
3. Professor initiated
5.44
3.24
1.10
I .44
4.85
3.84
5.45
1.55
1.64
1.16
Behavioral responseC
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
4.86
4.16
4.59
5.50
2.7 1
1.73
1.53
1.63
1.25
-69
T ( I , 207) = 154.98,p < .001. bF(l,206) = 28.45,p c ,001. 'F(4, 195) = 10.58.p c .001.
NovembedDecember 2002
89
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr
TABLE 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Professor Interaction Practice and IncidentType and Behavioral Response
Item
Incident typea
Satisfactory
Dissatisfactory
Behavioral responseb
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
M
SD
4.88
4.3 1
1.19
1.27
4.35
4.40
4.81
5.12
4.27
1.16
1.16
1.37
I .02
1.27
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvutsrq
aF(l,208) = 10.77, p < .01. bF(4, 197) = 2.85, p < .05.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
ple reported dissatisfactory events most
frequently when professors’ responses
were unprompted and unsolicited
(55.1%). They found that, from the students’ perspective, system delivery failure (26.5%) and student-provoked incidents (18.4%) were less likely to create
dissatisfying encounters. Professors
willing to consider this difference in
perspective (or perhaps even query their
own students) may discover avenues for
self-improvement in their teaching style
and process.
Discovering where a professor-student “disconnect” exists provides a
potential opportunity for teaching
improvement. Finally, these findings
imply that the faculty member’s perspective must be considered in an
administration’s attempt to measure student satisfaction. Education is an interactive process; an attribution bias suggests that only one party’s perspective is
being measured and that the results may
be distorted.
An additional insight concerns our
finding that professors’ responses to
these critical incidents do influence a
broad spectrum of future teaching-related behaviors. It is interesting to note
that, despite frequent commentary suggesting that professors are unwilling to
experiment or alter their classroom
approach because they have little motivation to do so, respondents in our study
indicated that they were making
changes in response to both satisfactory
and dissatisfactory encounters with students. In other words, professors are
indeed interested and willing to change
and experiment.
We also found that student encounter
orientation plays an influential role in
faculty perceptions. Specifically, the
more a student is perceived to be preoccupied with him- or herself, the more
likely that the incident will be recalled as
dissatisfying and the more likely that the
instructor will become more authoritative in similar future situations. Conversely, when a student is perceived as
entering an encounter with interest in the
instructor’s viewpoint, the encounter is
more likely to be recalled satisfactorily
and to result in greater student praise and
better clarification of course requirements and assignment instructions in the
future. It should come as no surprise that
uted to student actions. In addition, relative to all other behavior categories,
the category involving students’ being
perceived as having tried to dominate a
critical classroom interaction elicited
the most professor responses involving
a desire to increase authoritativeness in
the future. Higher perceived student
encounter orientation scores were associated with praising behaviors, reinforcement, and the clarifying of
requirements.
The Role of Interaction Con3dence and
Interaction Practice
We next sought to explore the potential relationship of the professors’ interaction confidence and interaction practice to the (dis)satisfactory nature of the
critical incidents and the reported
behaviors. We display these results in
Table 5. Self-reported confidence in
using a variety of different teaching
approaches was not significantly related
(p > .05) to the (dis)satisfactory nature
of the reported incident or to subsequent
reported behaviors. However, interactive practice was significantly related to
the satisfactory or dissatisfactory nature
of a reported incident (p c .Ol), as well
as to postincident behaviors (p < .05).
Duncan’s posthoc test results indicated
that professors who had a higher level of
interaction practice were significantly
more likely to engage in encouragement
and praising of students than in clarification of requirements, changing teaching materials or methods, or being more
authoritative.
90
Journal of Education for Business
Discussion
In this study, we uncovered new
information pertaining to critical professor-student encounters by examining
professors’ perspectives of these incidents rather than the student viewpoint,
as previous researchers have done.
Despite its exploratory nature, this
research adds to the business education
literature in several notable ways.
First, similarly to previous critical
incident research in the services (Bitner
et al., 1994; Bitner et al., 1990) and education (Swanson & Davis, 2000), this
study indicates three incident groupings: service system-based, studentbased, and professor-based groupings.
Thus, our results are consistent with the
findings of a limited but growing body
of work aimed at developing a rigorous
taxonomy of critical incidents. Our
results suggest that education is in fact
similar to services in its delivery and
evaluation processes.
Research comparing professor-student interactions based on a student perspective rather than the professor’s
viewpoint appear to have an attribution
bias (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1980,
1985). In this study, professors reporting a student-provoked incident overwhelmingly indicated that the interaction was dissatisfying (82.9%), and
critical incidents based on system delivery failures (1 1.O%) or unprompted and
unsolicited professor actions (6.1%)
were dramatically less likely to be
reported as dissatisfying. Swanson and
Davis (2000) noted that a student sam-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
most professors would find themselves
more receptive to students who show
interest and concern for their teacher’s
role in their learning. Conversely,
instructors should be conscious of not
overreacting to a dissatisfactory incident
in such a way that it punishes future students with overly authoritative actions.
Finally, we suggest that professors
should encounter a variety of learning
situations that require (a) confidence in
using different approaches when necessary and (b) the practice of those different approaches. Confidence in using a
variety of interaction methods was not
significantly related to the (dis)satisfactory nature of the reported incidents or
to subsequent faculty behaviors. This
result is very interesting and contrary to
our expectations. We interpret this lack
of statistical significance as an indication that such a characteristic is a belief
or self-confidence that a professor
inherently develops and possesses. In
most cases, this development is an
important component of the “training”
experience for (new) professors during
a doctoral program. On the other hand,
interaction practice wus significantly
related to what a professor reported as a
defining critical student encounter and
subsequent faculty behaviors. Professors who used a variety of interaction
approaches were more likely to recall
satisfying encounters with students. In
addition, these instructors were significantly more likely to make additional
efforts to encourage, strengthen, and
praise students to support appropriate
behaviors. The implication is that practicing adaptability creates a “win-win”
or positive feedback atmosphere more
effectively than does clarification,
changes in materials, or increased levels
of authority.
studies hold promise for excellent application of attribution theory. Second,
teaching has traditionally occurred in an
environment where students directly
interact with each other and their professors. The growth of Internet-based
course delivery raises questions in
regard to the types of interactions that
may lead to satisfactory or dissatisfactory experiences when there is naphysical
classroom. Similarities and differences
in critical incidents for environments
where it is difficult to duplicate the faceto-face experience need investigation.
Third, replicating this study in a global
environment ( e g , several different
countries and cultures) would be
intriguing. Education is an important
component of the global economy. As
more professors become involved in
teaching outside of their home country
and classroom setting, understanding
the similarities and differences (of professors) will likely be an important
resource for those entering a culturally
“different” classroom.
Finally, we can assume that greater
experience developed over time will
improve professors’ interaction skills
and enable them to recognize a wider
variety of incident situations and thus
facilitate a greater range of responses
when interacting with students. Nevertheless, in this study we found that years
of experience was not significantly
related to either greater interaction confidence or practice in this study. Other
researchers may wish to consider other
variables antecedent to these constructs
to provide a more complete understanding of what leads to both confidence in
and actual practice of greater adaptability in teaching encounters. Exploring
these research avenues should contribute to a better understanding of professor-student encounters.
ing, 54(January), 71-84.
Davis, J., & Swanson, S. (2001). Navigating satisfaction and dissatisfactory classroom incidents.
Journal of Education for Business, 76(5),
245-250.
Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique.
Psychological Bulletin, Sl(July), 327-358.
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(Summer), 87-97.
Gremler, D., & Bitner, M. (1992). Classifying service encounter satisfaction across industries. In
C. Allen et al. (Eds.), Marketing theory and
application (pp. 111-1 18). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, N Y John Wiley and
Sons.
Kelley, S., Hoffman, D., & Davis, M. (1993). A
typology of retail failures and recoveries. Journal of Retailing, 69(Winter), 429-452.
Marks, R., Vorhies, D., & Badovick, G. (1996). A
psychometric evaluation of the ADAPTS scale:
A critique and recommendations. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16
(Fall), 5 3 4 5 .
McCollough, M., & Gremler, D. (1999). Guaranteeing student satisfaction: An exercise in treating students as customers. Journal ofMarketing
Education, 2I(August), 118-130.
Oliver, R., & DeSarbo, W. (1988). Response
determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal
of Consumer Research, 14(March), 495-507.
Perreault, W., & Leigh, L. (1989). Reliability of
nominal data based on qualitative judgments.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May).
135- 148.
Porter, S., & Inks, L. (2000). Cognitive complexity and salesperson adaptability: An exploratory
investigation. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, l(Winter), 15-21.
Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling:
Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research,
27(February), 61-69.
Straughan, R. (1998). Delivering a satisfactory
educational experience: The other half of the
picture. Marketing Educator; 17(Spring), 1.5.
Stafford, T. F. (1994). Consumption value and the
choice of marketing electives: Treating students
like customers. Journal of Marketing Educalion, 16(Summer), 26-33.
Swanson, S., & Davis, J. (2000). A view from the
aisle: Classroom successes, failures, and recovery strategies. Marketing Education Review,
lO(Summer), 17-25.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York,
N Y Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of
achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(0ctober), 548-573.
Williams, K., & Spiro, R. (1985). Communication
style in the salesperson-customer dyad. Journal
of Marketing Research, 12(November),
434-442.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of customer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp. 68-123). Chicago, L:American Marketing Association.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
Future Research Directions
Findings of this study suggest several
important and interesting future
research avenues. First, replication of
this study is necessary to validate the
differences in satisfactory versus dissatisfactory professor perceptions. Such
REFERENCES
Bitner, M., Booms, B., & Mohr, L. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(October),
95-106.
Bitner, M., Booms, B., & Tetreault, M. (1990).
The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Market-
NovembedDecember 2002
91
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Impact of Faculty-Student Interactions on
Teaching Behavior: An Investigation of Perceived
Student Encounter Orientation, Interactive
Confidence, and Interactive Practice
Robert Frankel & Scott R. Swanson
To cite this article: Robert Frankel & Scott R. Swanson (2002) The Impact of Faculty-Student
Interactions on Teaching Behavior: An Investigation of Perceived Student Encounter
Orientation, Interactive Confidence, and Interactive Practice, Journal of Education for Business,
78:2, 85-91, DOI: 10.1080/08832320209599703
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599703
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:45
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
The Impact of FacuIty-Student
Interactions on Teaching Behavior:
An Investigation of Perceived
Student Encounter Orientation,
Interactive Confidence, and
Interactive Practice
ROBERT FRANKEL
zyxwvut
zyxwvuts
East Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina
A
s a service that we deliver, teaching
has been identified as one of the
most intangible of products. “This intangibility has implications not only for ‘traditional’ service businesses, but also for
classroom education” (Straughan, 1998,
p.1). One consequence of the intangible
nature of teaching is the variability in
perceptions of the interactions that occur
with students. During faculty-student
encounters, a variety of things transpire
that can create satisfaction or dissatisfaction for either party. Several recent studies of higher education have examined
student satisfaction through consumer
perspectives (Davis & Swanson, 2001;
Guolla, 1999; McCollough & Gremier,
1999; Stafford, 1994). Unfortunately,
the faculty member’s perspective is
rarely, if ever, formally considered. In
fact, previous research has examined satisfactory and dissatisfactory professorstudent interactions and their impacts
only from the student’s perspective
(Davis & Swanson, 2001; Swanson &
Davis, 2000). Yet it is important to under-
SCOlT R. SWANSON
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Whitewater, Wisconsin
ABSTRACT. Previous research has
examined satisfactory and unsatisfactory faculty-student interactions from
only the student’s viewpoint. In this
research, the authors used a national
sample of marketing professors’ selfreported satisfactory and dissatisfactory critical incidents with students.
Their findings support previous incident classification schemes. They
identified five specific behavior outcomes resulting from critical interactions with students: method and
material changes; requirements clarification; reinforcing actions; student
praise; and greater authoritativeness.
The authors also introduce three constructs-student encounter orientation, instructor interaction confidence, and instructor interaction
practice-and discuss the relationship of constructs to incident classifications, the (dis)satisfactory nature of
an interaction, and behavioral
responses.
riences and improving their teaching
performance.
In this study, we examined professors’
self-reported (dis)satisfying critical interactions with students and the impact that
these encounters have had on their subsequent teaching behaviors. We also examined (a) the reported incidents through
faculty members’ perceptions of the student’s behavior during the encounter and
(b) the faculty members’ interaction
adaptability (i.e., confidence in, and
practice of, a variety of approaches based
on the teaching situation).
Specifically, we were guided by the
following questions:
zyxwvutsrq
zy
stand them from the educators’ perspective as well. We believe that identifying
commonly occurring incident types and
related response behaviors would help
professional educators assess their expe-
Are the incident group classifications of (dis)satisfactory professor-student encounters, as provided by professors, consistent with those identified in
student samples?
How do incident group classifications and the (dis)satisfactory nature of
interactions with students influence professors’ future teaching behaviors?
NovembedDecember 2002
85
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
Is the student’s encounter orientation, as perceived by the Iprofessor,
associated with particular incident
group classifications, the (dis)satisfactory nature of an interaction, and/or a
professor’s future behaviors?
Is a professor’s interaction adaptability associated with the (dis)satisfactory nature of an interaction and/or with
the professor’s future behaviors?
At a basic level, student-professor
interactions can be classified as satisfying or dissatisfying. Satisfaction is a
postconsumption evaluation. An individual relies on his or her expectations
to make a judgment regarding the
extent of generated fulfillment associated with level of satisfaction (Oliver
& DeSarbo, 1988; Yi, 1990). These
expectations constitute standards that
are compared with what the individual
believes or perceives has happened
during the interaction.
To better understand the faculty member’s perspective of professor-student
(dis)satisfactory interactions and the
impact of these experiences on teaching
behaviors, in this study we used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954).
A critical incident is “an observable
human activity that is complete enough
in itself to permit inferences to be made
about the person performing the act” and
that “contributes to or detracts from the
general aim of the activity in a significant
way” (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990,
p. 73). We examined these critical incidents with respect to (a) the encounter
orientation of the student (as perceived
by the professor) and (b) the professor’s
interaction adaptability.
Student encounter orientation represents the professor’s perceptions of a student’s behavior during a critical interaction that resulted in (dis)satisfaction. We
adapted the construct from Williams and
Spiro (1985) and introduced it into an
educational context. Specifically, we
defined student encounter orientation as
the student’s level of preoccupation with
self and his or her level of concern
regarding the instructor during a professor-student encounter. It measures a student’s friendliness and attentiveness
toward the instructor together with the
student’s self-concern.
We relied on previous sales literature
86
(Porter & Inks, 2000; Spiro & Weitz,
1990) for our definition of interaction
adaptability (the idea that instructors
may interact differentially with different students). Although the objectives
of selling and teaching can be quite different, the ability and willingness of a
salesperson to “connect” with his or her
intended target and modify his or her
strategy based on observed reactions to
solve a problem would appear to be
similar to that ability in an instructor.
Arguably, there are no universally
effective teaching methods. Student
learning takes place in a variety of situations (both inside and outside the
classroom) involving multiple professor-student interactions. We suggest
that professors become involved in a
variety of teaching situations and
encounter a wide range of students;
each situation and student may require
the adaptation of unique approaches
based on the learning objective at hand
or the knowledge level and personality
of the student. Some professors may be
more flexible in how they approach student encounters than others. Instructors
demonstrate an adaptive interaction
style when they have confidence in
their abilities and use a variety of
instructional approaches across various
learning encounters. They make adjustments based on the feedback that they
receive during these interactions. Those
with a nonadaptive interaction style, on
the other hand, use of the same procedure or approach for all encounters
with students.
Data Analysis
As the starting point for the content
analysis of the critical incidents collected in this study, we relied on previous
research on (dis)satisfactory service
encounters (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr,
1994; Bitner et al., 1990; Gremler &
Bitner, 1992; Kelley, Hoffman, &
Davis, 1993) as well as instructor-student interactions based on student samples (Davis & Swanson, 2001; Swanson
& Davis, 2000). We asked professors to
(a) think of a recent particularly satisfying or dissatisfying interaction with a
student and (b) describe the particular
situation in detail. Next, we asked each
respondent to discuss in an open-ended
question whether and how the student
interaction influenced the respondent’s
subsequent behaviors or actions.
After careful repeated readings, the
second author sorted similar (dis)satisfactory incidents and the reported subsequent behaviors into three and five categories, respectively. The first author then
independently sorted the 22 1 incident
forms into one of the three incident classification groups and five behavioral
outcome categories to assess the interrater reliability (Ir) of the category
assignments (Perreault & Leigh, 1989).
Interrater reliability (Ir) for agreement
among the three incident groups and five
behavioral outcome groups was 3 9 and
.9 1, respectively. We placed responses
for which there was disagreement in a
mutually agreed-upon category.
In the next section of the questionnaire, we adapted previously developed
scales to measure (a) the perceived student encounter orientation and (b) the
professor’s interaction adaptability. We
measured student encounter orientation, as perceived by marketing professors in the reported critical incidents,
through six modified items from
Willams and Spiro (1985). Higher
scores on the scale suggest that the professor perceived that the student whom
he or she interacted with was personable and attended to what the professor
said, whereas lower scores imply that
the student was not easy to talk to or
interested in what the professor had to
say. We measured interaction adaptability through seven modified items from
Spiro and Weitz (1990).
zyxwvuts
Method
Data Collection
Using a commercially purchased listing, we randomly selected 1,508 marketing professors in the United States for a
questionnaire mailing. We sent a followup reminder card 1 week after the initial
mailing. A total of 47 envelopes were
returned as undeliverable. Out of 267
surveys (18.3%) returned by the respondents, 221 were complete and used in
Our
(nsatisfactory = 35; ‘dissatisfactory
= 86). Seventy-six percent (168) of the
respondents were men, and the respondents reported a college teaching experience of 2 to 45 years (m = 18.9 years).
zyxwvut
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqpo
Journal of Education f o r Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
We conducted exploratory factor
analysis to determine the factor structure of the scales that we used. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation revealed a three-factor structure. All factors had eigenvalues of 1.0
or greater, surpassed a minimum factor
loading of .40, demonstrated strong
levels of reliability (alphas of
0.82-0.88), and exhibited no substantially significant crossloadings. Taken
together, the three factors accounted for
66.0% of the total variance. These
results support previous research
(Marks, Vorhies, & Badorick, 1996) in
their suggestion that adaptive behaviors
may be two-dimensional. We provide
the factor loadings and corresponding
questions in Table 1.
Findings
of the classification scheme found in
those previous studies.
Critical Incident Group 1: Service system failure. This category, representing
professor response to service delivery
system failures ( n = 20), comprises incidents directly related to failures in the
core services offered. These included
incidents in which the services normally available were absent or delayed.
Failing to acknowledge a problem or
ignoring student requests for help in
understanding materials were associated with reported dissatisfactory experiences. Satisfactory encounters were
reported when things were well
explained and detailed feedback was
provided for the creation of a complete
understanding of the issues involved.
involved student acknowledgment of his
or her own mistake (e.g., not following
directions when performing work, missing scheduled exams and classes, or losing assignments).
Critical Incident Group 3: Unprompted
professor actions. This final category
consisted of incidents ( n = 84) that were
directly attributable to the professor’s
actions, which often exceeded students’
current expectations or adjusted students’ future expectations. Incidents in
this group were related to particularly
extraordinary professor actions or
expressions, attention paid to the student, and professor behaviors related to
norms such as honesty and fairness.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
Critical Incident Groups
Three general group classifications
emerged from our analysis of the provided incidents. These group classifications are similar to those found in both
the general services literature (Bitner et
al., 1994; Bitner er al., 1990) and previous professor-student
interaction
research (Davis & Swanson, 2001;
Swanson & Davis, 2000). Thus, they
provide support to the generalizability
Critical Incident Group 2: Response to
student needs and requests. In this
group of incidents ( n = 107), students
were viewed as responsible for creating
the initial situation. Specifically, student
errors and preferences (e.g., the familiar
refrain “I have a problem”) fell into this
category. Responses to student preferences included incidents in which the
student made requests to m i s s a class or
change a test or presentation date, paper
due date, or grade. Admitted student
error occurred if the triggering event
Behavioral Responses to
Critical Incidents
After describing a (dis)satisfactory
incident, respondents stated whether the
interaction influenced their subsequent
behaviors or actions. Several respondents (n = 18) provided indefinite statements such as “it is too early to know
how it will influence my future actions,”
“the interaction was too recent to
respond to this question,” or “time will
tell.” The majority of the subjects ( n =
203), however, reported a behavioral
response to the provided critical inci-
z
TABLE 1. Measures and Rotated Factor Pattern
Construct
Scale itema
F1
F2
F3
Student
encounter
orientation
(a= 38)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The student was easy to talk with.
The student seemed interested in me not only as a professor, but also as a person.
The student was friendly.
The student tried to dominate the conversation.b
The student was most interested in getting across what s h e had to say.b
The student was more interested in himher self than in what I had to say.b
.84077
,73487
.85508
.80877
.68967
33451
.13478
.I8754
.09323
.06361
.I2707
.00230
.03555
.14925
.I 1617
.O 1848
,10938
.00300
Interaction
practice
( a= .82)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Each student requires a unique approach.
I feel that most students can be dealt with in pretty much the same manner.b
I don’t change my approach from one student to another.b
I treat all of my students in pretty much the same way:
Basically I use the same approach with most students.b
.04275
,10446
.13995
.I2840
.08450
.72945
.84195
.70226
.72742
.75906
.09338
.02556
.25040
.00542
.I4162
,02165
,03725
.13024
.I5741
.90562
.89502
Interaction
confidence
(a= 33)
zyxwvutsrq
1. I easily can use a wide variety of teaching approaches.
2. I find it difficult to adapt my teaching style to certain studenkb
Note. Italic figures represent items that loaded on the respective factor.
“All questions were answered on a 7-point response scale ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).bThese items were reverse scored.
NovembedDecember 2002
87
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvut
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
dent. Five specific categories emerged
from the analysis; we summarize these
findings in Table 2.
Behavior Change 1: Change in teaching
methods or materials. Responses classified into this group (n = 37, 18.2%).
focused on the instructor’s incorporation of new material into classes (e.g., “I
have tried to be more creative in terms
of problems, cases, and projects within
the course structure”), making adjustments in response to student requests
(e.g., “I now both formally and informally survey my students to determine
how effective my techniques have been.
Then I modify my approach to
reachhnfluence others in the future”),
and providing additional attention to
identified problem areas (e.g., “I now
try to integrate a review of key concepts
before tests”). All the cases in this category focused on changing either the
method of presentation of the class
materials (e.g., “I will take unpopular
stands in order to encourage and foster
student debate and increase studentteacher interactions in class”) or actually changing the class materials (e.g.,
“focus on more challenging papers and
assignments”).
Behavior Change 2: Clar$cation of
requirements. A number of professors
(n = 31, 15.3%) suggested that the
reported critical incident had influenced them to do a better job in clarifying their course requirements or assignment instructions. Responses in this
category involved the professors’ focusing “on developing more objective
standards, clearer standards” that
“communicate to students that certain
things are expected-whether written
or not.” Other representative responses
included “be more detailed in my comments” and “explain to the entire class
the nature of my expectations in the
course.” In addition to class discussion,
clarifying syllabi was also widely
emphasized (e.g., “reworded syllabus
to emphasize adherence to course
requirements”; “included in my syllabus a clear statement of policy regarding how the corrections to exam scores
shall be handled”).
Behavior Change 3: Reinforcement of
actions. Most responses in this category (n = 83, 41%) related to the incident’s having motivated the respondent
to continue or strengthen his or her
resolve or reinforce the approach used
during the student encounter. Some representative responses to satisfactory
incidents were “I will continue to try to
notice behaviors that indicate problems
and will try to help where I can” and “it
reinforced my conviction that students
who are advised and encouraged
thoughtfully and caringly, with attention to both their intellectual and their
emotional situation, virtually always
respond positively.” Many of the behaviors associated with reported dissatisfactory incidents also reinforced, or
failed to result in changes to, respondents’ actions (e.g., “I don’t know how
to deal with these situations in a manner which will please a student. I try to
get them to see things from my perspective, which is difficult”).
Behavior Change 4: Praising students
more. This category involved responses
related to additional efforts to encourage, strengthen, and praise students (n =
36, 17.7%). Instructors noted that they
now “focus on the positive instead of
the negative” and “have tried to be even
more courteous and helpful” as a result
of the reported critical incident. This
emphasis on complimenting students
more was tempered by some respondents’ preference for using additional
praise under only certain conditions
related to class work (e.g., “I have tended to increase my use of praise of good
work as opposed to negative comments
about less good work” and in-class
behaviors (e.g., “I try to make sure I
praise those who come to class and are
prepared for discussion”).
Behavior Change 5: Increase in authoritativeness. These responses ( n = 36,
17.7%) were all associated with dissatisfactory incidents (20.8%). In all of
these cases, the professors noted that
they were taking a more authoritative
and less friendly stance in confrontations with students. This stance
appeared to be brought on by breaches
of trust (e.g., “I am not as trusting
regarding these students”) or professor
expectations not being met (e.g., “it is
embarrassing to coddle them”). As a
result, respondents became less flexible
(e.g., “I have become more hardnosed”) and began setting policies “with
no exceptions.”
Through a chi-square analysis, we
found that professor behavioral
response was related to the (dis)satisfac-
z
TABLE 2. Critical incident Type by Behavioral Responsea
(%)
Responses referring
to satisfactory
incidents (%)
Responses referring
to dissatisfactory
incidents (%)
18.2
15.3
41.0
17.7
7.8
20.2
9.7
45.2
25.0
0.0
15.6
24.7
33.8
5.2
20.8
All responses
Behavioral response
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
Total
~~~~~
31
31
83
36
16
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
203
~
2*(4,N = 203), = 45.44;p < ,001
00
No. of responses
Journal of Education for Business
100
100
100
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvu
z
tory nature of critical student-professor
interactions (p < .001). Satisfactory
incidents overwhelmingly generated
one of three reactions: (a) reinforcement
of respondent behaviors, (b) engaging
in additional efforts to praise students,
or (c) changing teaching methods or
materials to create similar experiences
in the future. Dissatisfactory incidents
generated a somewhat broader, more
balanced set of reactions: (a) reinforcement of professor behaviors, (b) working to clarify course requirements or
assignment instructions, and (c) becoming more authoritative or changing
teaching methods or materials to avoid
similar experiences in the future.
It is interesting to consider the five
response behaviors with regard to the
three incident group classifications. Differences in reported teaching behavior
changes emerged across critical incident
types (see Table 3). Reinforcement of
the professors' actions was the most
prominent response in each critical incident group type. No other response
behavior exhibited the same consistency
across critical incident group type.
The Role of (Perceived)
Student Encounter Orientation
To explore further professor-student
interactions and postincident professor
behaviors, we used perceived student
encounter orientation. As shown in
Table 4, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
indicated a statistically significant relationship (p < .001) between perceived
student encounter orientation and (a)
whether the incident reported was satisfactory or dissatisfactory, (b) the critical
incident classification, and (c) reported
behaviors.
First, not surprisingly, compared
with the responses of professors reporting dissatisfactory encounters, the
responses of professors discussing satisfying incidents referred to students'
being easier to talk with, friendlier, and
more interested in the professors' viewpoint. Duncan's posthoc test findings
suggested that orientation scores were
significantly lower in incidents attrib-
TABLE 3. Critical Incident Categories (CIG) by Behavloral Responsea
System failures
Student initiated
Professor initiated
(%)
(%I
(%I
37
31
83
36
16
10.0
25.0
30.0
20.0
15.0
15.7
21.6
37.3
12.7
12.7
24.1
5.1
46.8
22.8
1.3
203
100.0
100.0
100.0
5 P e of
behavioral response
No.
Change teaching methods/materials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
Total
%*(8, N = 203), = 24.05;p < .01.
zy
TABLE 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Student Encounter Orientation and IncidentType, Incident Category, and Behavioral Response
Item
M
SD
Incident type"
Satisfactory
Dissatisfactory
Critical incident category (CIG)b
1. System failure
2. Student initiated
3. Professor initiated
5.44
3.24
1.10
I .44
4.85
3.84
5.45
1.55
1.64
1.16
Behavioral responseC
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
4.86
4.16
4.59
5.50
2.7 1
1.73
1.53
1.63
1.25
-69
T ( I , 207) = 154.98,p < .001. bF(l,206) = 28.45,p c ,001. 'F(4, 195) = 10.58.p c .001.
NovembedDecember 2002
89
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr
TABLE 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Professor Interaction Practice and IncidentType and Behavioral Response
Item
Incident typea
Satisfactory
Dissatisfactory
Behavioral responseb
Change teaching methoddmaterials
Clarify requirements
Reinforce actions
Praise students more
Be more authoritative
M
SD
4.88
4.3 1
1.19
1.27
4.35
4.40
4.81
5.12
4.27
1.16
1.16
1.37
I .02
1.27
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvutsrq
aF(l,208) = 10.77, p < .01. bF(4, 197) = 2.85, p < .05.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
ple reported dissatisfactory events most
frequently when professors’ responses
were unprompted and unsolicited
(55.1%). They found that, from the students’ perspective, system delivery failure (26.5%) and student-provoked incidents (18.4%) were less likely to create
dissatisfying encounters. Professors
willing to consider this difference in
perspective (or perhaps even query their
own students) may discover avenues for
self-improvement in their teaching style
and process.
Discovering where a professor-student “disconnect” exists provides a
potential opportunity for teaching
improvement. Finally, these findings
imply that the faculty member’s perspective must be considered in an
administration’s attempt to measure student satisfaction. Education is an interactive process; an attribution bias suggests that only one party’s perspective is
being measured and that the results may
be distorted.
An additional insight concerns our
finding that professors’ responses to
these critical incidents do influence a
broad spectrum of future teaching-related behaviors. It is interesting to note
that, despite frequent commentary suggesting that professors are unwilling to
experiment or alter their classroom
approach because they have little motivation to do so, respondents in our study
indicated that they were making
changes in response to both satisfactory
and dissatisfactory encounters with students. In other words, professors are
indeed interested and willing to change
and experiment.
We also found that student encounter
orientation plays an influential role in
faculty perceptions. Specifically, the
more a student is perceived to be preoccupied with him- or herself, the more
likely that the incident will be recalled as
dissatisfying and the more likely that the
instructor will become more authoritative in similar future situations. Conversely, when a student is perceived as
entering an encounter with interest in the
instructor’s viewpoint, the encounter is
more likely to be recalled satisfactorily
and to result in greater student praise and
better clarification of course requirements and assignment instructions in the
future. It should come as no surprise that
uted to student actions. In addition, relative to all other behavior categories,
the category involving students’ being
perceived as having tried to dominate a
critical classroom interaction elicited
the most professor responses involving
a desire to increase authoritativeness in
the future. Higher perceived student
encounter orientation scores were associated with praising behaviors, reinforcement, and the clarifying of
requirements.
The Role of Interaction Con3dence and
Interaction Practice
We next sought to explore the potential relationship of the professors’ interaction confidence and interaction practice to the (dis)satisfactory nature of the
critical incidents and the reported
behaviors. We display these results in
Table 5. Self-reported confidence in
using a variety of different teaching
approaches was not significantly related
(p > .05) to the (dis)satisfactory nature
of the reported incident or to subsequent
reported behaviors. However, interactive practice was significantly related to
the satisfactory or dissatisfactory nature
of a reported incident (p c .Ol), as well
as to postincident behaviors (p < .05).
Duncan’s posthoc test results indicated
that professors who had a higher level of
interaction practice were significantly
more likely to engage in encouragement
and praising of students than in clarification of requirements, changing teaching materials or methods, or being more
authoritative.
90
Journal of Education for Business
Discussion
In this study, we uncovered new
information pertaining to critical professor-student encounters by examining
professors’ perspectives of these incidents rather than the student viewpoint,
as previous researchers have done.
Despite its exploratory nature, this
research adds to the business education
literature in several notable ways.
First, similarly to previous critical
incident research in the services (Bitner
et al., 1994; Bitner et al., 1990) and education (Swanson & Davis, 2000), this
study indicates three incident groupings: service system-based, studentbased, and professor-based groupings.
Thus, our results are consistent with the
findings of a limited but growing body
of work aimed at developing a rigorous
taxonomy of critical incidents. Our
results suggest that education is in fact
similar to services in its delivery and
evaluation processes.
Research comparing professor-student interactions based on a student perspective rather than the professor’s
viewpoint appear to have an attribution
bias (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1980,
1985). In this study, professors reporting a student-provoked incident overwhelmingly indicated that the interaction was dissatisfying (82.9%), and
critical incidents based on system delivery failures (1 1.O%) or unprompted and
unsolicited professor actions (6.1%)
were dramatically less likely to be
reported as dissatisfying. Swanson and
Davis (2000) noted that a student sam-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:45 12 January 2016
most professors would find themselves
more receptive to students who show
interest and concern for their teacher’s
role in their learning. Conversely,
instructors should be conscious of not
overreacting to a dissatisfactory incident
in such a way that it punishes future students with overly authoritative actions.
Finally, we suggest that professors
should encounter a variety of learning
situations that require (a) confidence in
using different approaches when necessary and (b) the practice of those different approaches. Confidence in using a
variety of interaction methods was not
significantly related to the (dis)satisfactory nature of the reported incidents or
to subsequent faculty behaviors. This
result is very interesting and contrary to
our expectations. We interpret this lack
of statistical significance as an indication that such a characteristic is a belief
or self-confidence that a professor
inherently develops and possesses. In
most cases, this development is an
important component of the “training”
experience for (new) professors during
a doctoral program. On the other hand,
interaction practice wus significantly
related to what a professor reported as a
defining critical student encounter and
subsequent faculty behaviors. Professors who used a variety of interaction
approaches were more likely to recall
satisfying encounters with students. In
addition, these instructors were significantly more likely to make additional
efforts to encourage, strengthen, and
praise students to support appropriate
behaviors. The implication is that practicing adaptability creates a “win-win”
or positive feedback atmosphere more
effectively than does clarification,
changes in materials, or increased levels
of authority.
studies hold promise for excellent application of attribution theory. Second,
teaching has traditionally occurred in an
environment where students directly
interact with each other and their professors. The growth of Internet-based
course delivery raises questions in
regard to the types of interactions that
may lead to satisfactory or dissatisfactory experiences when there is naphysical
classroom. Similarities and differences
in critical incidents for environments
where it is difficult to duplicate the faceto-face experience need investigation.
Third, replicating this study in a global
environment ( e g , several different
countries and cultures) would be
intriguing. Education is an important
component of the global economy. As
more professors become involved in
teaching outside of their home country
and classroom setting, understanding
the similarities and differences (of professors) will likely be an important
resource for those entering a culturally
“different” classroom.
Finally, we can assume that greater
experience developed over time will
improve professors’ interaction skills
and enable them to recognize a wider
variety of incident situations and thus
facilitate a greater range of responses
when interacting with students. Nevertheless, in this study we found that years
of experience was not significantly
related to either greater interaction confidence or practice in this study. Other
researchers may wish to consider other
variables antecedent to these constructs
to provide a more complete understanding of what leads to both confidence in
and actual practice of greater adaptability in teaching encounters. Exploring
these research avenues should contribute to a better understanding of professor-student encounters.
ing, 54(January), 71-84.
Davis, J., & Swanson, S. (2001). Navigating satisfaction and dissatisfactory classroom incidents.
Journal of Education for Business, 76(5),
245-250.
Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique.
Psychological Bulletin, Sl(July), 327-358.
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(Summer), 87-97.
Gremler, D., & Bitner, M. (1992). Classifying service encounter satisfaction across industries. In
C. Allen et al. (Eds.), Marketing theory and
application (pp. 111-1 18). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, N Y John Wiley and
Sons.
Kelley, S., Hoffman, D., & Davis, M. (1993). A
typology of retail failures and recoveries. Journal of Retailing, 69(Winter), 429-452.
Marks, R., Vorhies, D., & Badovick, G. (1996). A
psychometric evaluation of the ADAPTS scale:
A critique and recommendations. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16
(Fall), 5 3 4 5 .
McCollough, M., & Gremler, D. (1999). Guaranteeing student satisfaction: An exercise in treating students as customers. Journal ofMarketing
Education, 2I(August), 118-130.
Oliver, R., & DeSarbo, W. (1988). Response
determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal
of Consumer Research, 14(March), 495-507.
Perreault, W., & Leigh, L. (1989). Reliability of
nominal data based on qualitative judgments.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May).
135- 148.
Porter, S., & Inks, L. (2000). Cognitive complexity and salesperson adaptability: An exploratory
investigation. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, l(Winter), 15-21.
Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling:
Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research,
27(February), 61-69.
Straughan, R. (1998). Delivering a satisfactory
educational experience: The other half of the
picture. Marketing Educator; 17(Spring), 1.5.
Stafford, T. F. (1994). Consumption value and the
choice of marketing electives: Treating students
like customers. Journal of Marketing Educalion, 16(Summer), 26-33.
Swanson, S., & Davis, J. (2000). A view from the
aisle: Classroom successes, failures, and recovery strategies. Marketing Education Review,
lO(Summer), 17-25.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York,
N Y Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of
achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(0ctober), 548-573.
Williams, K., & Spiro, R. (1985). Communication
style in the salesperson-customer dyad. Journal
of Marketing Research, 12(November),
434-442.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of customer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp. 68-123). Chicago, L:American Marketing Association.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
Future Research Directions
Findings of this study suggest several
important and interesting future
research avenues. First, replication of
this study is necessary to validate the
differences in satisfactory versus dissatisfactory professor perceptions. Such
REFERENCES
Bitner, M., Booms, B., & Mohr, L. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(October),
95-106.
Bitner, M., Booms, B., & Tetreault, M. (1990).
The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Market-
NovembedDecember 2002
91