International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

2009, Volume 21, Number 3, 299-309

ISSN 1812-9129

Effective Teaching Behaviors in the College Classroom:

A Critical Incident Technique from Students Perspective
Kanika Aggarwal Khandelwal
Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi
Teaching is a multidimensional, complex activity. The use of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
has the potential to be effective in improving teaching as it reveals successful behaviors by
identifying key actions associated between excellent/poor performances. The present study sought to
identify teaching behaviors that differentiate excellent and very poor performance of undergraduate
college teachers in India using CIT, from the perspective of students. Two hundred thirty-seven
critical incidents were collected from 60 female students from three different undergraduate
humanities courses using questionnaires and personal interviews. Qualitative procedures
emphasizing the verbatims students generated were used for data analysis. The data generated from
the incidents was subjected to content analysis, and sorted into 6 categories. The six categories
identified were: rapport with students, course preparation and delivery, encouragement, fairness,
spending time with students outside of class, and control. The frequency with which students
reported each behavior as either good or bad is presented. The study yields specific behaviors for
faculty to follow to yield improvement in teaching evaluations by students. A list of critical
behaviors may have implications in selection, training and performance evaluation of teachers. The
present study also underlines the robustness of CIT in education research.

What constitutes effective teaching in the context

of higher education has proven rather elusive to
describe. Multiple criteria of teaching effectiveness
abound, including self-ratings, peer ratings, student
ratings, and measures of research performance. Selfratings have proven to be rather contaminated, as they
are influenced by prior experience with student
evaluations (Centra, 1979). Further, faculty on average
may have unrealistically high self-perceptions of their
own teaching effectiveness (Marsh & Dunkin, 1997, p.
276). Peer ratings, too, have rather unequivocally been
criticized as indicators of effective teaching (Centra,
1979; Murray, 1980; Marsh, 1987; Braskamp,
Bradenburg & Ory, 1985). Validity of research
productivity as a measure of teaching effectiveness
remains unclear. While some (Gavlick, 1996; Stack,
2003; Hong, Xuezhu, & Zhao, 2007) have found
research productivity and teaching effectiveness to be
positively correlated, others (e.g. Feldman, 1987) have
found measures of research to share little or no variance
with measures of teaching. This leaves us with student
evaluations, a rather complicated measure of teaching
effectiveness. Proponents of student evaluations
(Cashin, 1988 and 1995; Cohen, 1981; dApollonia and
Abrami, 1997; Dunkin & Barnes, 1986; Greenwald,
1997; Theall, Abrami & Mets, 2001) have argued that
student ratings are generally both reliable and valid.
Critics of student evaluations have pointed out
conceptual weaknesses (Williams & Ceci, 1997; Trout,
1997; Nerger, Volbrecht & Ayde, 1995) and misuses
(Cohen, 1986; Seldin, 1993; McKeachie, 1997).
Student evaluations are used for two main purposes
(Nuhfer, 2003): summative (those used to evaluate
teachers for rank, salary and tenure purposes) and
formative (those that diagnose in ways that allow

teachers to improve their teaching). While the use of

student evaluations for summative purposes remains
controversial, there is little disagreement about the
utility of formative evaluations in improving teaching
(Dunkin & Barnes, 1986; Stevens & Aleamoni, 1985;
Cashin, 1988). The present research uses students
evaluations for formative purposes. Inarguably,
students represent the most important stakeholders in
any given classroom, and their satisfaction is not a
trivial matter.
There is significant ambiguity in research on
student evaluations as well as in the work defining the
characteristics of effective teachers. Jackson et al.
(1999) compared the work of leading researchers and
concluded that there are common dimensions by which
students evaluate their classes. Although researchers
use different terms, there is a consensus regarding six
dimensions: rapport with students, course value, course
organization and design, fairness of grading, difficulty,
and workload. Ramsden (1992) lists six key principles
of effective teaching in higher education as: (a) Interest
and explanation, (b) Concern and respect for students
and student learning, (c) Appropriate assessment and
feedback, (d) Clear goals and intellectual challenge, (e)
Independence, control and active engagement, and (f)
Learning from students.
Feldman (1976) identified 22 constructs of
effective teaching, concluding that the two most highly
rated dimensions were stimulation of interest and
clarity of presentation. The most effective teachers were
perceived as very knowledgeable about subject matter,
organized, prepared for class and enthusiastic.
Relatively less important characteristics were course
management and interpersonal traits such as
helpfulness, openness, and friendliness.

Khandelwal

Feldman (1998) found the dimension most

important in producing student learning to be attention
to course organization and preparation. Ironically, this
was found to be only the sixth most important practice
for producing high ratings of student satisfaction.
Feldman (1986) also showed that some aspects of
professors personalities, such as enthusiasm and selfesteem, affect students ratings of overall teaching
effectiveness. Similarly, Murray, Rushton, and Paunnen
(1990) reported that forty to seventy percent of the
variance in student teacher ratings could be
accounted for by six personality traits, namely
leadership, extroversion, liberalism, supportiveness,
intellectual curiosity, and changeableness.
To complicate matters, educational research
organized, prepared for class, and enthusiastic.
Relatively less important characteristics were
course management and has shown that there are
many factors other than actual student learning that
lead to students evaluations of teacher
effectiveness To complicate matters, educational
research has shown that there are many factors
other than actual student learning that lead to
students evaluations of teacher effectiveness.
Student ratings are derived from students overall
feelings that arise from an inseparable mix of
learning, pedagogical approaches, communication
skills and affective factors that may or may not be
important to student learning. Research reveals that
student evaluations are based on students prior
motivation or desire to take the course, factors that
may or may not be important to student learning.
Research reveals that student evaluations are based
on students prior motivation or desire to take the
course (Marsh, 1984), anticipated grades (Howard &
Maxwell, 1982), workload (Greenwald & Gillmore,
1997; Marsh and Roche, 2000), course level
(positive relationship - Braskamp et al., 1985), class
size (negative relationship - Cashin & Slawson,
1977; Smith & Glass, 1980), and grading leniency of
the instructor (Greenwald, 1997). Cashins review
(1988)
concluded
that
student
motivation
(willingness to participate actively in the learning
process) has the greatest positive influence on
student satisfaction than any other instructional
factor like grade expectations, sex of teacher/student,
age of teacher/student, time of day, etc. Further, the
relative importance of teacher behaviors varies
between disciplines (Erdle & Murray, 1986; Murray,
Rushton, & Paunnen, 1990). Researchers have
estimated the effect of these bias-factors on overall
teacher effectiveness, to range from 12-14 per cent
(1980), 16-20 per cent (Koon & Murray, 1995), to
even 80 per cent (Cohen, 1986).
The literature outlined above illustrates an
important point: Teaching is a multi-dimensional,

Effective Teaching Behaviors

300

complex activity (Marsh & Roche, 1997). Good

teaching can be defined and evaluated with the aid
of student evaluations, but not by such evaluations
alone. Nonetheless, in order to render our teaching
more appealing and perhaps even useful to students,
it is imperative to understand what constitutes
effective teaching in the eyes of the students.
The use of the Critical Incident Technique
(Flanagan, 1954) has the potential to be effective in
improving teaching because it identifies key actions
associated
with
effective
or
ineffective
performance. The Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
is an epistemological process in which qualitative,
descriptive data are provided about real-life
accounts (Di Salvo, Nikkel, & Monroe, 1989, pp.
554-555). The CIT involves collecting factual
stories or episodes about job behaviors that are
crucial in performing a job effectively. Participants
own words provide greater clarity and specificity
than any checklist of job skills or tasks to which
they may respond. This technique allows
researchers to more clearly capture employees
interpretations of their work settings and can
appropriately analyze jobs in the social context in
which they occur.
Research has shown extensive use of the CIT for
identifying critical job requirements for jobs as diverse
as dormitory resident assistants (Aamodt, Keller,
Crawford, & Kimbrough, 1981), surgery residents
(Edwards, Currie, Wade & Kaminski, 1993), leaders
(Lambrecht, Hopkins, Moss, & Finch. 1997), bankers
(Bacchus & Schmidt, 1995), nurses (Bjorklund &
Fridlund, 1999; Zhang, Luk, Arthur, & Wong, 2001;
Narayanswamy & Owens, 2001), community health
care workers (Ferguson, Waitzkin, Beekmann, &
Doebbeling, 2004), and teachers (Schmidt, Finch &
Faulkner, 1992; Lambrecht, 1999). Increasingly,
educational psychologists are using CIT to describe
job competencies and derive educational program
requirements.
The Present Study
There exists a large and growing body of
research on student evaluations of teaching
effectiveness; however, the fact that most studies
identify characteristics instead of behaviors reduces
their utility. Merely knowing that a particular
characteristic of effective teaching exists does not
tell a teacher how to enact that characteristic. For
example, knowing that rapport is a common
characteristic of excellent teaching does not provide
any detail of the behaviors that convey or
communicate rapport. There is more potential for
improvement of teaching if behavioral items such as
Uses humor or Gives real life examples are

Khandelwal

Effective Teaching Behaviors

used, instead of abstract, general statements like

good presentation.
The purpose of the present study is to identify
specific
behaviors
that
represent
those
characteristics present in excellent teaching. The
objectives of this study include.

The identification of specific behaviors that

differentiate excellent and very poor
performance of undergraduate college
teachers in India using CIT, from the
perspective of students.
To reduce some of the ambiguity
concerning specific behaviors associated
with
excellent teaching.
The identification of specific behaviors that
constitute effective teaching, so that faculty
may apply them as a means of improving
teaching quality.

Research has shown the robustness of the CIT

as an appropriate tool that can be used to analyze
jobs in the social context in which they occur, and
in particular, for the job of a college teacher.
Identification of exemplary teaching behaviours
may help teachers in applying them as a means of
improving teaching quality. From the findings of
this study, further research may be developed to
examine social and institutional factors that may
constrain or support effective teaching.
Sample
The sample consisted of 60 female students
from three different undergraduate humanities
courses in a womens college in University of
Delhi. Their age ranged from 18-21 years (M=19.24
and SD=1.48) and they all come from relatively
upper middle class socio-economic backgrounds.
Procedure
Students were informed about the general
purpose of the study.
They were told their
participation was voluntary and their responses
would be kept confidential. They were assured that
the exercise would have no bearing on their grades.
In each case, all students agreed to participate.
Students were asked to write two factual
incidents, each of times that they saw teachers
perform in (a) an especially outstanding way, and
(b) an especially poor manner. It was explained that
the incident was to be described in terms of the
precise behavior that the teacher demonstrated, and
not traits. They were permitted to ask questions for

301

clarification and then asked to list the critical

incidents. The critical incident cards were taken
back in a one-to-one setting, and reviewed for
accuracy and usability. After reading the incidents,
follow-up in-person interviews were conducted to
seek clarifications, probe for details and react to
nonverbal communication. This was deemed
necessary as many incidents were devoid of
necessary details and were very subjective and
emotion-laden. Some critical incidents were written
too vaguely (good teaching) or described teachers
in terms of traits such as liberal.
Two hundred and thirty seven incidents were
collected from the students. Three of the students
could not generate an incident each, even after
probing, hence reducing the number to 237 instead
of the expected 240.
Analysis
The critical incidents were analyzed with
qualitative procedures emphasizing the studentgenerated narratives. The data generated from the
incidents was subjected to content analysis, and
sorted into 10 categories on the basis of similarity
of incidents. The incidents in each category were
then re-read in order to name and define the
categories. Classification and analysis of critical
incidents are the most difficult steps because the
interpretations are more subjective than objective
(Di Salvo, Nikkel, & Monroe, 1989). In fact,
Flanagan (1954) himself acknowledged that it was
not usually possible to obtain as much objectivity in
analysis of data as in the collection of data.
To verify the judgments made by the present
researcher, three experts (two teachers and one
psychology student) were given the incidents and
category names and asked to sort the incidents into
the newly created categories. If two of the three
experts sorted an incident into the same category,
the incident was considered as part of that category.
Any incident that was not agreed upon by two
sorters was either discarded or placed into a new
category. This step was necessary to ensure
reliability and validity of findings. The final
categories were then reduced from 10 to 6.
Results
Table 1 presents the category-wise frequencies of
excellent and poor incidents. The categories provide the
important behavioral dimensions of the job of a teacher,
while the numbers provide the relative importance of
these dimensions. The six dimensions revealed are:
rapport with students, course preparation and delivery,
encouragement, fairness, spending time with students
outside of class, and control.

Khandelwal

Effective Teaching Behaviors

Table 1
CIT Categories and Frequencies for Effective and
Ineffective College Teachers
Category
Excellent Poor Total
Rapport with Students

41

42

083

Course Preparation and Delivery

33

28

061

Encouragement

36

08

044

Fairness

05

29

034

Time Spent with Students Outside

of Class

10

02

012

Control

00

03

003

Total

237

Given the volume of critical incidents, it is not

possible to report each one individually. However, the
verbatim incidents presented for each dimension reflect
the type of critical incidents, both positive and negative,
associated with each dimension.
Rapport with Students
The rapport with students dimension refers to a
harmonious relationship between faculty and students.
Such a relationship goes beyond the contractual
relationship between student and teacher. Empathy
and nurturance seem to be the building blocks for
rapport. It is interesting to note that there are as many
positive incidents (41) as there are disapproving ones
(42). The positive narratives used terms like
thoughtful, kind, helpful, considerate, never
felt hesitant in approaching her, being in sync/on the
same wavelength, gives sympathy and comfort,
and indulgent. Many episodes focused on how the
teacher went out of her way to help a student during
a time of need. Three such episodes are reported:
Once my ring got stuck on the little finger and it was a
class in which the teacher was supposed to give us an
assignment. The lecturer realized that my finger was
really swollen and something needed to be done about
it. Since she was aware of the fact that I wasnt a
Delhite (sic) and hence wouldnt know where to go in
order to get the ring removed, she did not care about
the assignment and took me to the doctor immediately
for which Ill be grateful to her all my life.
The teacher I consider best is one who especially
made a card for me with a prayer when my father
expired and came to my place and was very supportive
during that phase. I found that very sweet of her.
When a fellow class mate got ill and was
hospitalized, this teacher especially went to the
hospital to meet her.

302

The negative incidents, on the other hand, were full

of episodes where the teacher was rude, humiliating,
punishing, authoritarian (throwing copies away,
flunking the entire class, etc.), judgmental, passing
snide remarks, making fun of questions asked in
class, and the like. When the dialogue is threatening or
viewed as abusive, students see this as inappropriate and
appear to regard the teacher as inhuman, particularly if
such comments were made in public settings such as the
classroom. For instance, consider these episodes:
It once happened in college when I wanted hostel
accommodation. I had approached a senior teacher to
guide me and help me out. I needed recommendation
from her side so that I could show it to the hostel warden.
But the teacher was very rude and started quoting the
example of another girl from my class who, according to
her, needed it more (even though that girl scored less
than me in all class assignment and in Class XII)*. The
teacher said that I didnt look as needy as the other girl
and even told me that I shouldnt have come to Delhi if I
didnt like living in PG (Paying Guest accommodation).
It was very rude of her and if she didnt want to
recommend me, she could have very well said it rather
than saying nasty things to me.
(Note*: Admission to the hostel in this college is done
on the basis of merit/marks)
The incident that I remember is when Maam X
embarrassed me in front of the whole class for
pronouncing a word incorrectly. She asked me to
stand up in front of the whole class and said that
my pronunciations were bad. I felt that the teacher
should
have
simply
checked
me
for
mispronouncing the word instead of embarrassing
me in front of everybody. I am sure this incident
has not helped me as for a very long time after it I
became very conscious about my pronunciations.
Course Preparation and Delivery
The second most important dimension, course
preparation and delivery, centers on presentation style
and the manner in which information is delivered in the
classroom setting. For this dimension, positive and
negative critical incidents were almost evenly distributed.
Interestingly, use of Power Point presentations in a
mechanical manner resulted in negative evaluations. On
the other hand, teachers who relate concepts to real life,
who share their own experiences, and who use case
studies and stories with interesting characters and events
(often make believe as students discovered later) are
regarded as more enjoyable than those teachers who use
a more linear information transfer model that occurs in
many classroom presentations.

Khandelwal

Positive incidents used comments like seeks

understanding and synthesis, arouses curiosity of
ideas, intellectually challenges and encourages
independent thought, uses latest references, gives
examples and illustrations, communicates effectively,
maintains eye contact with everyone, uses body
language, gestures and postures effectively, does not
sit throughout the class, gives clarity not only from the
examination point of view but also for our basic
foundation, explained things logically, gave us links to
connect concepts, uses diagrams, devised some
mnemonic strategies for us, gives hand outs of her
notes and other references used, allows us to
participate, invites questions, shifts between lecture
and discussion, uses humor, and the like. Some
incidents recorded by the students are as follows:
While teaching, this teacher gives clear-cut points
and a general guideline of the whole chapter,
stressing on important and new terms which helps
us attain better insight and also generates interest in
the chapter and subject. She also checks and
returns reports on time with clear guidelines as to
what to write first of all and rewrite in case of any
problem. This gives clarity to students and also
they can remember the whole thing, if they are
given back in time.
She taught very well- covering new and
interesting topics, making us look at topics from
new angles, and encouraging challenging
presentations.
This teacher made a presentation and it was
fascinating the way she made a very ordinary
topic so lively and interesting that she had all of
us hooked. She gave examples to explain many
concepts and the examples were so funny they
had all of us laughing. Till now I remember some
of them because they were so real. The teacher
was really good and she really seemed to know
how to communicate effectively.
The negative incidents mentioned not finishing
the course on time, leaving more than half the
syllabus, reading from the book, confusing,
does not provide any examples or explanations,
ineffective organization of the course, lack of
clarity of speech, speaks too fast, etc. Interestingly,
while not finishing the course on time was cited as
ineffective performance, no teacher was lauded for
finishing the course on time. Perhaps that is taken to
be part and parcel of a teachers responsibility and
thus is an example of average performance. Three
example of negative performance reported by students
include the following:

Effective Teaching Behaviors

303

This teacher did not cover the entire syllabus and

concentrated on one particular topic, which was
her favorite. Even when we told her that she
needed to cover other topics, she didnt. This
resulted in poor results for the entire class for that
paper.
This particular teacher is very boring. She
couldnt generate interest in the subject-does not
go beyond the textbook, even read lengthy
paragraphs from the book. And what was worse
was that the references and definitions provided
were very out-dated. I ended up hating the subject
because of her!
Maam Y would enter the class, begin with a
power point presentation and finish the topic
simply reading from the slides. There was no
attempt to explain or discuss the concepts.
Encouragement
The next dimension, encouragement, refers to
providing support, confidence, or hope to the
student(s). It implies recognition of heterogeneity in
the class and responding to it appropriately, whether
motivating slow learners or challenging the brighter
ones into exploring their potential. It differs from the
first dimension, rapport with students, as
encouragement stresses stimulating the development
of intellectual or subject related skills and interests
and eliciting student contributions, while rapport
focuses on the teachers help and support during
times of personal need (like an accident, a personal
tragedy or crisis). There were six times as many
positive critical incidents as there were negative
ones. Some positive episodes are described as
follows:
I realized what a great teacher she was when I
had missed many assignments, instead of making
rude judgments about me like the other teachers,
she calmly called me and asked me why I was
not giving my assignments. And now I suppose
am quite regular and try my best to do it. That
teacher would even call me if I missed a class.
She is a good teacher because after teaching (i.e.
having a hectic job), she cares for slow learners
like me and motivates them.
Once I had to make a decision about my project.
This teacher sat with me for at least an hour
helping me to focus on my strengths. I was not
sure whether I could take it on but thanks to her
by the end of the conversation, I decided to give
it a chance.

Khandelwal

This teacher encouraged me to carry out a rather

unconventional project I had proposed, and
praised me when it turned out to be good.
I missed a class assignment because of my
illness. Although I got a scolding from this
teacher, she really motivated me later and
explained the importance of giving assignments.
I later got the desired result because of her and
will always be thankful to her for this.
In contrast, one example of a negative incident
states:
It was the time for doing an event, which was being
done after a long time. The teacher, instead of
being supportive, criticized our efforts and made a
mockery of how we havent been doing anything
productive. That was very mean and demoralizing.
Fairness
The next dimension, fairness, refers to behavior by
the teacher that is just or appropriate in the
circumstances. It also means treating students equally
and not having personal biases or favorites. It is
noteworthy that very few instructors were lauded for
meeting these standards. Not meeting them, however,
resulted in negative student reactions. There were
almost six times as many disapproving critical incidents
(29), as there were positive ones (5). Two episodes of
excellent performance include the following:
Since I was an avid reader, she invited me to
accompany her for a meeting where books and
poems were being discussed. I was given an
opportunity to talk about what books I had read.
And the best part was that she was so fair in her
approach as otherwise the same girls were being
sent for various activities by the college.
There was this teacher who was neutral towards
everyone. She did not have any favorites, like most
other teachers. She reminded me of my mother.
Contrast the examples of excellent performance
with the following episodes of poor performance:
This teacher was obviously not very fond of me,
especially because I used to correct her in class.
During the mid-term exams, she had given me 5
out of 8 in an answer, which was identical to
another girls answer, but she had given her 7 out
of 8. I went and fought with her over it and she had
to finally give me 7 out of 8.

Effective Teaching Behaviors

304

There was an essay competition in college and the

judge was a teacher who disliked me. She did not
even read my essay and got it disqualified on some
flimsy pretext. It was not even evaluated.
There was this teacher in college who developed a
sort of a bias against a girl in my class and she
always did insult her and said sarcastic things to
her-that was really bad because even when her
answer was the same as somebody else, the teacher
would give her low marks and say something or the
other.
Spending Time with Students Outside of Class
For the next dimension, spending time with students
outside of class, positive narrartives focused on
availability, giving time despite hectic schedules, giving
(her) personal phone number and email id and responding
quickly, while negative ones mentioned not having any
time and not answering questions outside the class.
Similar to encouragement, there are five times as many
positive incidents (10) as negative ones (2). Episodes of
positive performance include the following:
Once I had to make a decision about my project. This
teacher sat with me for at least an hour helping me to
focus on my strengths. I was not sure whether I could
take it on but thanks to her by the end of the
conversation, I decided to give it a chance.
We were participants in a competition- which
required help from a teacher. So we approached this
teacher- who was kind to give us time and explain to
us in detail everything that we needed to know.
Another teacher helped us in organizing an important
event- she spared her time to share her expertise with
us- so that the event would be good and well
organized. Whats most memorable for me is that she
didnt have to!
On the other hand, an episode of poor performance is
recorded as follows:
This teacher never allowed us to ask questions outside
her class. She always said, Not now, I have to rush
for a meeting, etc. But the worst part was that when
we asked questions in class, she would say that the
course will never get finished if there are so many
interruptions!
Control
The final dimension, control, refers to the ability to
maintain discipline and decorum in the classroom. A

Khandelwal

Effective Teaching Behaviors

balance on the continuum between a laissez-faire

approach to classroom management and an excessively
strict, micromanaged environment is preferable.
Although there were only three incidents (negative, no
positive) generated, this category could not be
combined with any other. One incident (negative) is as
follows:
The teacher would teach us unaware of all the
tamasha [sic] and ruckus we were creating in the
class. As a result, we never understood what she
taught and we all ended up disliking the subject.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to
empirically identify specific behaviors of excellent
college teachers from India. The CIT method identified
six areas that distinguish excellence from mediocrity
and poor performance. It is important to recognize that
these behavioral dimensions are not mutually exclusive.
For instance: encouragement, giving time outside of
class, and rapport with students, often go hand in hand.
The behavioral dimensions identified by the
present study are somewhat in line with previous
studies. For example, Cohen (1987) presented results
from a meta-analysis of 41 well-designed studies; the
correlations between achievement and different student
evaluation components included structure (.55),
interaction (.52), skill (.50), overall course (.49), overall
instructor (.45), learning (.39), rapport (.32), evaluation
(.30), feedback (.28), interest/motivation (.15), and
difficulty (-.04), all but the last two being statistically
insignificant. This skill dimension was represented by
3 dimensions- instructors knowledge of the subject,
clarity, and teacher sensitivity to class level and
progress (Feldman, 1989). Marsh and Dunkin (1997)
identified nine characteristics of effective teaching as
learning/value, enthusiasm, organization, breadth of
coverage, group interaction, individual rapport,
examinations/grading, assignments, and workload
difficulty. Using CIT, Varca and Pattison (2008)
identified four sets of behaviors as key to overall
teaching excellence: administration, course preparation
and delivery, student interaction, and teacher
motivation.
The significant point of departure of the present study
from previous researches is the resounding importance of
rapport. While most researchers have underlined the
importance of instructional strategies (for e.g., Marsh &
Ware, 1982; Schmidt, Finch, and Faulkner, 1992), the
importance of rapport is somewhat unclear. While some
(Erdle and Murray, 1986; Jackson et al., 1999; Marsh and
Dunkin, 1997) have emphasized rapport, Cohen (1981)
found that particular affective practices contributed only
moderately to higher ratings (Teacher rapport r = 0.31).

305

Cultural factors may account for these unexpected

results. The dimension of rapport encompasses
elements of nurturance and care giving. While it is at
odds with the prevalent stereotype of generation I, it
must be noted that 70-80% of these girls are living
away from home, perhaps for the first time in their
lives. An exemplary teacher perhaps fulfills the void of
a mother figure in their lives. Kakar (1978) would
ascribe this to an unconscious tendency to submit to
an idealized omnipotent figure, both in the inner world
of fantasy and in the outside world of making a living;
the lifelong search for someone, a charismatic leader or
a guru, who will provide mentorship and a guiding
world-view, thereby restoring intimacy and authority to
individual life. Drawing upon Indian familial values of
affection, a strong emotional connectedness...a
constant mutual indulgence of warmth and concern
(Roland, 1988, p. 196-197), dependency and need for
personalized
sneh-shradha
(affection-deference)
relationships (Sinha & Kanungo, 1997), it is no surprise
that a teacher who conveys warmth and nurturance in
her behavior is regarded as excellent. Other researchers
have also commented on the efficacy of a nurturant
superior (Kakar, 1971) and the nurturant-task leader
(Sinha, 1980).
What is interesting to note is not just the sheer
number of incidents in each dimension, but also the
distribution of positive and negative incidents generated
under each dimension. These findings lend themselves
to several interesting interpretations. There are two
dimensions under which positive and negative incidents
are equally distributed: rapport with students and course
preparation and delivery. Coupled with the fact that
these two are also the dimensions under which the
maximum number of incidents has been generated, it is
evident that while a teachers rapport with her students
leads to her effectiveness, lack of rapport leads to
negative evaluations. Similarly, presentation style and
the manner in which information was delivered in the
classroom setting were important. Relating concepts to
real life, the use of a variety of instructional strategies,
the use of humor, and the use of nonverbal behavior led
to positive evaluations, while ineffective organization
of the course, not providing examples or explanations,
and a lack of clarity of speech led to negative
evaluations.
In the present study, there are two dimensions
under which positive episodes outweigh negative ones:
encouragement and spending time with students outside
of class. This implies that students do not really expect
to see motivated effort on the part of their teachers but
evaluate those who do demonstrate extra effort in a
highly positive manner. Similarly, students do not
really expect a teacher to give extra time, but evaluate
those who do favorably. It appears that students
recognize quality service. Behaviors such as allowing

Khandelwal

students to access one at home, providing support, and

meeting extra hours before an exam are highly regarded
and even respected. It would not be wrong to interpret
these two dimensions as value added from the
students perceptions. Research, however, shows that
only about 10% of the students in many classes ever go
to the professors office for help (Nuhfer, 2003). Thus,
if faculty were to appreciate the importance of extra
time or encouragement provided, it would not be very
difficult to practice (considering only about 10% of any
class would actually need it)!
Lastly, there is only one dimension- fairnesswhere the behaviors cited details of overwhelmingly
negative performance. Most critical incidents
associated with fairness were negative, describing
what an instructor should not do. Students, it seems,
are
unwilling
to
tolerate
unfairness
and
discrimination in the classroom setting. They expect
faculty to be objective, fair and unbiased. If they are,
it is regarded as part and parcel of their job and it
seems it does not warrant a positive evaluation, but if
they are not, then negative evaluations seem to be the
order of the day.
One element that might restrict the implications
and use of the present findings is the sample. Female
humanities students represent a sample that is rather
small, and data were collected at a single college, in
an urban city in India. It is possible that a larger,
more rural group representing sciences or health
sciences might have different expectations for their
teachers. In any case, research clearly shows that the
subject one teaches (Erdle & Murray, 1986) and the
profile of students (Cashin, 1988) significantly
impact student evaluations.
The critical incident method does not produce a
complete job description, outlining everything a
person must do to be successful.
Further, its
emphasis on the difference between excellent and
poor performance ignores routine duties. As a
conversational approach, the anecdotes and stories
often colorfully reveal the humor, excitement, and
drama of working life, while normal, successful
work incidents may be taken for granted and undervalued. For instance, not one incident mentioned
administrative work like attendance, invigilation,
paper setting, etc., that all teachers carry out
routinely. In using CIT, there is also a danger of
over-elaboration of anecdotes and the problems of
reliability, subjectivity and interpretation. Sometimes
people cannot think of relevant incidents or are
unwilling to discuss certain types of incident with
insiders especially in instances of failure. On the
other hand, some people may find it easier to narrate
incidents that had not gone well. These may be more
vivid in recollection.

Effective Teaching Behaviors

306

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to develop a
behavioral profile of excellence on the job for college
teachers, as seen by students. The present research has
underlined the robustness of the CIT in education
research. Data from other techniques may be used to
provide information on the understated aspects of work.
The study yields very specific behaviors for faculty to
follow that should yield improvement in at least
students perception of the quality of instruction. The
excellent behaviors under the various behaviorial
dimensions, such as rapport with students, course
preparation and delivery, spending time with students,
and providing encouragement are not very difficult to
perform, and the poor behaviors such as treating
students unfairly are equally simple to avoid.
A list of critical behaviors may provide a sound
basis for making inferences as to requirements in terms
of aptitudes for selection, training, and perhaps
performance evaluation of teachers. Selection practices
in colleges traditionally focus on knowledge, skills and
abilities (often judged by ones published work,
research, and paper presentations, which find no
mention under excellence in teaching as identified by
students!), as also non-job related criteria like goalorientation, interpersonal skills, or even value
congruence. The behavioral dimensions identified in
this study may aid in the development of valid selection
instruments and procedures, such as a situational test or
a situational interview to assess candidates aptitude or
potential for the same. Further, trainers may design
developmental programs around the behaviors that
separate excellent from mediocre performance.
Training programs can be skill-based, focusing on
imparting skills of empathy, communication, feedback,
and course organization. Departmental leaders and
administrators can also give precise feedback as to what
behaviors new entrants fail to demonstrate or
inappropriately demonstrate. Teacher evaluations may
be based on techniques that generate data through
critical incidents. The benefit of exposure of specific
behaviors, the critical incidents of performance, is that
myths and legends surrounding excellence are
dispelled. Once the mystique surrounding excellent
performance is penetrated, faculty may apply them as a
means of improving teaching quality.
References
Aamodt, M. G., Keller, R. J., Crawford, K. J., &
Kimbrough, W. W. (1981). A critical incident
job analysis of the university housing resident
assistant position. Psychological Reports, 49,
983-986.

Khandelwal

Bacchus, R. C., & Schmidt, B. J. (1995). Higher-order

critical thinking skills used in banking. NABTE
Review, 22, 25-28.
Bjorklund, M., & Fridlund, B. (1999). Cancer patients
experiences of nurses behavior and health
promotion activities: A critical analysis. European
Journal of Cancer Care, 8(4), 204-212.
Braskamp, L. A., Brandenberg, D. C., & Ory, J. C.
(1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: A
practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cashin, W. E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A
summary of the research. Idea Paper No. 20.
Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and
Development in Higher Education.
Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The
research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 23. Manhattan,
KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and
Development in Higher Education.
Cashin, W. E. & Slawson, H.M. (1977). Description of
data base 19761977, IDEA Technical Report No.
2. Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation
and Development in Higher Education.
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty
effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research and
service for personnel decisions and improvement.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, P. A., (1981). Student ratings of instruction
and student achievement: A meta-analysis of
multisection validity studies. Review of Education
Research, 51, 281 - 309.
Cohen, P. A. (1986). An updated and expanded metaanalysis of multisection student ratings validity
studies. Paper presented to the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Cohen, P. A. (1987). A critical analysis and reanalysis
of the multisection validity meta-analysis. Paper
presented to the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, D.C.
DApollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating
student ratings of instruction. American
Psychologist, 52, 1198-1208.
Di Salvo, V. S., Nikkel, E., & Monroe, C. (1989).
Theory and practice: A field investigation and
identification of group members perceptions of
problems facing natural work group. Small Group
Behavior, 20(4), 551-567.
Dunkin, M. J., & Barnes, J. (1986). Research on
teaching in higher education. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp.
754-777). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Edwards, J. C., Currie, M. L., Wade, T. P., &
Kaminski, D. L. (1993). Surgery resident selection
and evaluation: A critical incident study.
Evaluation & the Health Professions, 16(1), 73-86.
Erdle, S., & Murray, H. G. (1986). Interfaculty
differences in classroom teaching behaviors and

Effective Teaching Behaviors

307

their relationship to student instructional ratings.

Research in Higher Education, 24(2), 115-127.
Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher
from the students view. Research on Higher
Education, 5, 243-288.
Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional
effectiveness of college teachers as related to
their personality and attitudinal characteristics:
A review and synthesis. Research in Higher
Education, 24, 129-213.
Feldman, K. A. (1987). Research productivity and
scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as
related to their instructional effectiveness: A
review and exploration. Research in Higher
Education, 26, 227-98.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between
student ratings of specific instructional
dimensions and student achievement: Refining
and extending the synthesis of data from
multisection validity studies. Research in Higher
Education, 30(6), 583-632.
Feldman, K. A. (1998). Identifying exemplary
teachers and teaching: Evidence from student
ratings. In K.A. Feldman and M.B. Paulsen
(Eds.). Teaching and Learning in the College
Classroom (pp. 391-414). Needham Heights,
MA: Simon & Schuster.
Ferguson, K. J., Waitzkin, H., Beekmann, S. E., &
Doebbeling, B. N. (2004). Critical incidents of
nonadherence
with
standard
precautions
guidelines among community health care
workers. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
19(7), 726-731.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident
technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327358.
Gavlick, M. (1996). Triangulating the relationships
among publication productivity, teaching
effectiveness, and student achievement. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 90, 49-56.
Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and
usefulness of student ratings of instruction.
American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). No
pain, no gain? The importance of measuring
course workload in student ratings of instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 741-743.
Hong, W., Xuezhu, C., & Zhao, K. (2007). On the
relationship between research productivity and
teaching effectiveness at research universities.
Frontiers of Education in China, 2(2), 298-306.
Howard, G. S., & Maxwell, S. E. (1982). Do grades
contaminate student evaluations of instruction?
Research in Higher Education, 16, 175-188.
Jackson, D. L., Teal, C. R., Raines, S. J., Nansel, T.
R., Force, R. C., & Burdsal, C. A. (1999). The

Khandelwal

dimensions of students perceptions of teaching

effectiveness. Education and Psychological
Measurement, 59(4), 589-590.
Kakar, S. (1971). Authority patterns and subordinate
behaviour
in
Indian
organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 298-307.
Kakar, S. (1978). The inner world: A psycho-analytic
study of childhood and society in India. Oxford,
CT: Oxford University Press.
Koon, J., & Murray, H. G. (1995). Using multiple
outcomes to validate student ratings of overall
teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Higher
Education, 66(1), 61-81.
Lambrecht, J. J. (1999). Developing employmentrelated office technology skills. (MDS 1199).
Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education, University of California.
Lambrecht, J. J., Hopkins, C. R., Moss, J. Jr., &
Finch, C. R. (1997). Importance of on-the-job
experiences
in
developing
leadership
capabilities.
(MDS-814).
Berkeley,
CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, University of California.
Marsh, H. W. (1980). The influence of student,
course, and instructor characteristics in
evaluations of university teaching. American
Educational Research Journal, 17, 219-237.
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students evaluations of university
teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity,
potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 707-754.
Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1997). Students
evaluation
of
university
teaching:
A
multidimensional perspective. In R.P. Perry & J.C.
Smart (Eds.). Effective Teaching in Higher
Education: Research and Practice (pp. 241-320).
New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students
evaluation teaching effectiveness effective: The
critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American
Psychologist, 52(11), 1187-1197.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading
leniency and low workloads on students evaluations
of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity or innocent
bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
202-208.
Marsh, H. W., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Effects of
expressiveness, content coverage, and incentive on
multidimensional student rating scales: New
interpretations of the Dr. Fox effect. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 126 - 134.
McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity
of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
Murray, H. G. (1997). Effective teaching behaviors in
the college classroom. In R. P. Perry & J. C.
Smart (Eds.). Effective teaching in higher

Effective Teaching Behaviors

308

education: Research and practice (pp. 11-60).

New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Murray, H. G., Rushton, J. P., & Paunnen, S. V.
(1990). Teacher personality traits and student
instructional ratings in six types of university
courses. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(2), 250-261.
Murray, H. J. (1980). Evaluating university teaching:
A review of research. Toronto, CA: Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations.
Narayanswamy, A., & Owens, J. (2001). A critical
incident study of nurses responses to the
spiritual needs of their patients. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 446-455.
Nerger, J. L., Volbrecht, V. J., & Ayde, C. J. (1995).
Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: Use and
misuse. The Midwest Quarterly, 38, 218-233.
Nuhfer, E. (2003). Of what value are student
evaluations?
Retrieved
from
http://www.isu.edu/ctl/facultydev/ extras/ studentevals.html
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher
education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and
Japan: Towards a cross-cultural psychology.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmidt, B. J., Finch, C. R., & Faulkner, S. L.
(1992). Teachers roles in the integration of
vocational and academic education (MDS-275),
Berkeley: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education, University of California
at Berkeley.
Seldin, P. (1993). The use and abuse of student
ratings of professors. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 39(46), A40.
Sinha, J. B. (1980). The Nurturant Task Leader. New
Delhi: Concept.
Sinha, J. B., & Kanungo, R. N. (1997). Context
sensitivity and balancing in organizational
behaviour. International Journal of Psychology,
32, 93-105.
Smith, M., & Glass, G. (1980). Meta-analysis of
research on class size and its relationship to
attitudes and instruction. American Education
Research Journal, 17, 419-433.
Stack, S. (2003). Research productivity and student
evaluation of teaching in social science classes:
A research note. Research in Higher Education,
44(5), 539-556.
Stevens, J. J., & Aleomoni, L. M. (1985). The use of
evaluative
feedback
for
instructional
improvement: A longitudinal perspective.
Instructional Science, 13, 285-304.
Theall, M., Abrami, P. C., and Mets, L. M. (Eds.)
(2001). The student ratings debate: Are they
valid? How can we best use them? (New

Khandelwal

Directions for Institutional Research, n. 109).

San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Trout, P. A. (1997). What the numbers mean:
Providing a context for numerical student
evaluations of courses. Change, 29(5), 24-30.
Varca, P. E., & Pattison, P. (2008). Attaining
teaching excellence: A critical incident
technique. Journal of Legal Studies Education,
19(2), 153-185.
Williams, W., & Ceci, S. (1997). Navigating student
ratings of instruction. American Psychologist,
52, 1198-1208.
Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective
college and university teachers. Journal of Higher
Education, 70(6), 670-86.
Zhang, Z., Luk, W., Arthur, D., & Wong, T. (2001).
Nursing competencies: Personal characteristics
contributing to effective nursing performance.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 467-474.

Effective Teaching Behaviors

309

_______________________
DR KANIKA AGGARWAL KHANDELWAL is
Reader, Department of Psychology, Lady Shri Ram
College for Women, University of Delhi. A gold
medalist from Lady Shri Ram College and doctorate in
psychology from University of Delhi, she has over 12
years of teaching and research experience. She has
published several articles in leading journals and has
presented several papers in both national and
international conferences. She has recently written a
book In search of Indianness: Cultures of
Multinationals (2009) and has earlier co-edited a book
titled The Child in the new millennium (2002). She
conducts workshops and counseling sessions for parents
on effective parenting, child behaviour patterns, and sex
education for leading schools in Delhi.