Who is the Best Teacher? Do Different Kinds of Students Have Different Preference?

Abstract

As students have the closest relationship with teachers and are observers of teacher's methods and strategies on a daily basis, it is important to understand and value their views (Beishuizen et al., 2001). Yet, relatively few studies have surveyed the views of students regarding their perceptions of essential teacher attributes (Pang, 2000). In a study conducted in Australia (Vialle, 2002), investigating the qualities of effective teachers from the perspective of gifted students, it was found that the personal / social qualities of the teachers were more highly valued than their intellectual qualities. Similar results were found in studies conducted in the U.S.A (Abel & Karnes, 1994; Dorhout, 1983; Krumboltz & Farquhr, 1957; Lewis, 1982), while the Israeli study (Milgram, 1979) came to contrasting findings. In her study, Milgram added the dimension of teacher creativity. The subjects in that study demonstrated a strong preference for the intellectual qualities of the teacher above the other two dimensions. Yet, it is important to note, that while using the same instruments as Milgram did, Maddux (Maddux et al, 1985) found a preference of the personal I social characteristics of the teachers over the intellectual and creativity ones. In a previous study (1998), Vialle used semi-structured interviews and found that gifted children, aged 5–6 years, regarded personal qualities as highly as academic ones. Understanding and helpfulness were rated as the key qualities in their ideal teacher. A sense of humor, creativity, and curiosity were highly valued as well as the ability to make the work interesting and structured. The basic goal of the present study (conducted in Israel) is similar to that of Vialle's, yet it consists of a few independent variables: giftedness; religion; the quality of extraversion / introversion of the students (which was meant to explain the preference of the social qualities). As in the former studies, the gender and socioeconomic status were taken into account.