Who are the good teachers? Have you ever wonders?

Introduction

For any education system, teacher quality is the most important factor in school to achieve education quality . Teacher reforms with the aim to improve teacher quality have been the focus of governments around the world. Although there is general agreement on the importance of teacher quality, teachers, researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and the public have been unable to reach a consensus about what constitutes teacher quality. Quality is a value-laden term and is open to different interpretations, which leads to questions such as who is defining it based on what perspective and to what purpose. Teaching is a complex, dynamic, and context-specific function which makes it further difficult to reach an agreement on the definition. The investigation of such complex phenomenon is never easy.

The way teacher quality is defined by an education system will have implications for educational policies and practices, especially related to teachers, such as selection, development, evaluation, and compensation . The review attempts to bring together different streams of literature in one place. The literature on teacher quality can be divided based on different characteristics of teachers, teacher practices and their results. However, successful education systems around the world tend to focus on all aspects.

I divided the literature of teacher quality into five categories:

a) personal characteristics of a teacher

b) teacher qualifications and experience

c) Teaching quality

d) students learning outcomes and e) broader outcomes.

Personal Characteristics

The first body of research focuses on identifying certain personality and psychological traits that may distinguish a good teacher from a not-so-good teacher (Thompson, 2016). The characteristics or attributes of a quality teacher has been a topic of research for a long time, such as Plato examining the unusual and highly effective teaching method of Socrates (Watson et al., 2010). Since the 1920’s many perspectives have emerged on the characteristics of a quality teacher. Each of these perspectives falls under one of two main categories: teacher personality and teacher ability (Beishuizen et al., 2001). Some of these characteristics such as personality, beliefs, attitudes, and verbal ability may vary over time for a given teacher (Strong, 2011). Researchers have explored the characteristics of a quality teacher in the perception of students, teachers, parents, administrators, and education professors (Watson et al., 2010). For this section, I focused only on the studies that discuss teacher personal characteristics based on the opinions of students (Beishuizen et al., 2001; Hollis, 1935; Kutnick & Jules, 1993; Szűcs Ida, 2017; Taylor, 1967; Walker, 2008; Witty, 1947),  and teachers (Rushton et al., 2007; Watson et al., 2010).

In the 1930s, German researchers interviewed 10,000 students to explore the characteristics of a good teacher. Good teachers for most of them were joyful, patient, friendly, objective, understanding, and fair in student assessment (Szűcs Ida, 2017). In the context of the UK, Hollis (1935) asked 8,043 students of different ages to rank seven teacher personality traits. The quality of ‘explaining difficulties patiently’ was top on the chart. ‘Being friendly and sympathetic’ was ranked second. The third was ‘just and fair’ with ‘humor’ ranked fourth. The fifth characteristic was ‘allowing [students] to ask plenty of questions,’ whereas ‘having wide interests’ was sixth and ‘discipline’ was seventh most important. In an attempt to answer the question of ‘What are the outstanding characteristics of a good teacher? Paul Witty (1947) reviewed the letters from 12,000 students in the USA on the assumption that ‘the statements of large numbers of pupils will indicate factors of real significance in successful teaching’ (p. 662). The author found twelve characteristics that appeared the most in the letters i.e., 1) cooperative, democratic attitude 2) kindliness and consideration for the individual 3) patience 4) wide interests 5) personal appearance and pleasing manner 6) Fairness and impartiality 7) Sense of humor 8) Good disposition and consistent behavior 9) Interest in pupils’ problems 10) Flexibility 11) Use of recognition and praise 12) Unusual proficiency in teaching a particular subject.

The comparatively latest similar study is a longitudinal study by Robert J. Walker (2008), who collected students’ responses included in essays from different pre-service undergraduate students in the USA over a period of 15 years. The author asked the students to write an essay on the most effective teacher (i.e., a teacher who had been most successful in helping them to learn) from their school lives. Students read their essays in the class and discussed the characteristics (teacher personal qualities) of the most effective teacher in their opinion. The author identified twelve most common personal and professional characteristics that include: prepared, positive attitude, high expectation, creativity, fairness, approachability, sense of belonging, compassion, sense of humor, respect for students, forgiving, and admit mistakes. Notably, students emphasized the personal qualities of their memorable teacher rather than academic qualifications although the question they were asked to address was focused on effectiveness in helping them. ‘Students seldom mentioned where teachers attended school, what degrees they held, or whether they had been named a “Teacher of the Year.” Instead, students focused on these teachers’ nurturing and caring qualities.’ (Walker, 2008, p. 64).

The above-reviewed literature on the personal traits of a quality teacher based on the student’s perceptions is diverse in terms of context and timeline. However, many of the personal traits such as friendliness, sense of humor, positive attitude, fairness, respect, and patience are common.

The strand of research based on the perceptions of teachers regarding a quality teacher attribute is far smaller than the literature (Watson et al., 2010). The research into teacher personality traits from teachers’ perspectives also generates a long list of characteristics, and like the research based on students, there are many traits such as fairness, caring, enthusiasm and like or love to children that are common in the literature (Strong, 2011; Stronge, 2007, 2018). Watson and others (2010) conducted 66 focus group sessions with middle school teachers in the USA over a period of three years to explore the teacher’s perspective of the effective teacher with each session comprised of 8 to 12 teachers with a total of 738 participants. The researcher identified 28 personal traits of an effective teacher. Caring, dedication, interaction, and enthusiasm were the top four categories that emerged from the responses which represent about forty-five percent of the total responses. These four teacher quality qualities were also part of Stronge’s (2007) teacher attribute list under the ‘teacher as a person’ section based on extensive literature review. The other traits in Stronge’s list include fairness and respect, positive attitude, and reflections.

Secondary school teachers in Greece considered flexibility in disseminating knowledge, social ability in communication, objectivity, strictness, demandingness, initiation, friendliness, open-heartedness, and open-mindedness as the main characteristics of a good teacher (Koutrouba, 2012). Another way of looking at good teacher personal traits is to look at what is lacking in a not-so-good teacher. K-12 teachers in the USA reported that those ineffective are less disciplined, have a negative attitude, are not active or lazy, whereas effective teachers are caring, creative, and up to date (Walls et al., 2002).

Teacher qualification and Experience

While the previous sections focused on the personal characteristics of a quality teacher, the current section will present the review of literature of teacher quality as it relates to teacher qualifications such as undergraduate minor and major, graduate degree attained, courses taken, certificates that determine teacher knowledge (Voss et al., 2011), and teacher experience. These qualifications can be grouped under three categories: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching experience. A large number of studies have explored the relationship between teacher qualifications and teacher quality(Kennedy, 2008). But there is a lack of consensus on the effectiveness of teacher qualification in improving teacher quality, there is also a lack of coherent theoretical foundations about how teacher qualifications can contribute to teacher quality (Kennedy, 2008).

Content Knowledge

Content knowledge is related to teacher academic qualifications. The importance of content knowledge for improving teacher quality is based on the commonsense hypothesis that “you can’t teach what you don’t know” (Kennedy, 2008). Education research has identified three core dimensions of teacher knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and generic pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986). A teacher may formally gain content knowledge, also referred to as subject knowledge, from academic education (Kennedy, 2008; Shakman et al., 2007). Teachers with insufficient content knowledge are unable to represent and explain the content to the student in a sense-making way and this deficit cannot be filled by pedagogical skills (Baumert et al., 2010).

         Researchers used undergraduate minor and major, graduate degree, certificates, test scores, number of courses taken to determine the level of content knowledge (Kennedy, 2008; Strong, 2011; Stronge, 2018) and ratings of educational institution, standardized test score, researchers designed test score, researcher observations, teacher self-reporting, and teacher students’ test score to determine the quality of content knowledge (Kennedy, 2008; Wang and Youngs, 2002). Scholars studying teacher quality have consistently considered content knowledge as an essential element (Baumert et al., 2010; Shakman et al., 2007; Strong, 2011). Teachers also identify content knowledge as an integral part to quality teaching (Watson et al., 2010). Teachers with strong subject knowledge are not only able to impart textbook knowledge effectively but also go beyond textbooks to generate meaningful engagement with students through discussion and student-centered activities (Stronge, 2018). Students with a teacher who has higher subject knowledge perform better as compared to students that are taught by a teacher with a low level of subject knowledge (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Ganley et al., 2009; Rockoff et al., 2011). Teachers tend to ask questions that encourage healthy discussion in a class with a subject that the teacher knows well (Carlsen, 1997). Within a subject, students perform well on the questions related to a concept (i.e., multiplication) that teacher has a better command of, as compared to a concept (i.e., division) that teacher has less expertise (Buckreis, 1999). Less solid content knowledge can lead a teacher to focus on exams or tests only rather than providing a foundation for future learning in that subject (Stein et al., 1990). Other studies suggest that teachers with strong content knowledge are more likely to adopt such education strategies that help students in knowledge construction and internalization (Stronge, 2018). Blasquez (1998) found that the teacher with higher conceptual understanding was more likely to ask students to justify their ideas, was able to extend or elaborate on student ideas, and was more likely to track students understanding level.

Pedagogical Knowledge

Content knowledge carry a little value in relation to teacher quality if a teacher is not able to convert it into students learning (Hill et al., 2005). Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) are the kind of teacher knowledge ‘necessary for teaching that subject matter effectively’ (Strong, 2011, p. 28). Generic PK can be defined as ‘the knowledge needed to create and optimize teaching-learning situations across subjects, including declarative and procedural knowledge of classroom management, teaching methods, classroom assessment, and student heterogeneity’ (Voss et al., 2011, p. 952). The term PCK was coined by Shulman (1986). He defined it as “the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (p. 8).  PCK is comprised of teachers’ understanding of the student learning process, and the use of teaching practice that is highly topic-specific, person-specific, and situation-specific (Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, 2010).

Baumert and colleagues (2010) found that ‘PCK explained 39% of the between-class variance in achievement at the end of Grade 10’ (p. 166) through cognitive activation and individualized learning support. They also argued that PCK is inconceivable without a sufficient level of content knowledge, but content knowledge cannot replace PCK. Hill and others (2005) explores whether and how teacher knowledge of mathematics for teaching contributes to students’ mathematics achievement gains. They found that better student results were associated with higher mathematics teaching knowledge. The score on mathematical teaching knowledge has higher predictive power of teacher effectiveness than other factors, such as time spent teaching mathematics, certification, and preparation program.