Influence of Instructor Personality on Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Comparison between English Majors and Non-English Majors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
160 non-English major students studying at a four-year university and 193 English major students studying at a career college of foreign language in Japan completed a questionnaire regarding instruction and instructor personality. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether the students’ instructional and personality ratings predicted their general evaluation of course. This study also investigated whether the relations between instructional and personality ratings and the general course evaluation varied by major. A significant correlation was found between the instructional scale and the overall evaluation of the course regardless of students’ majors: The more the students found the class interesting and was appropriately managed, the higher the overall evaluation. However, the findings indicate that while teacher’s extroversion, thoughtfulness and neuroticism mattered to the non-English major group when evaluating the overall effectiveness of the class, teacher personality did not influence the English major group. The authors believe the findings of the present study could contribute to a better understanding of the nature of student evaluations that have always been a source of controversy, and sometimes discontent during their history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".