- 1 -
中国科技论文在线
Key factors in student-faculty interaction: An exploration of
student experience quality in Chinese Business College using
repertory grid technique.# 5
YIN Kexin, LIU Jinlan
**
(College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072)
Foundations: Major projects of social science of Tianjin Municipal Education Commission Foundation
(No2012JWZD6)
Brief author introduction:YIN Kexin(1990-), famale, master, focus on student experience and student-faculty
interaction in higher education
Correspondance author: LIU Jinlan(1964-),female, professor, focus on student experience and creativity in higher
education and applied statistics. E
Abstract: Identifying what kind of interaction between student and faculty can produce high quality
experience for undergraduates may be a benefit to effective teaching in higher education. In this study,
repertory grid technique was innovatively adopted to identify key factors in student-faculty interaction 10
in terms of students’ experiences at a Chinese Business College. With the help of this technique, we
were able to listen to students directly and to identify their hidden needs in interaction with faculty.
Through the mining of tacit knowledge, new measures for evaluating student experience in
student-faculty interaction were also found. Furthermore, based on personal construct psychology and
social psychology, the existence and composition of accessibility cues were studied and the reason why 15
they can make faculty seem to be accessible was discussed. We concluded the keywords of
accessibility cues as empathizing, encouraging, and enlightening, and such cues are like “rewards” that
arouse students’ affinity and motivation.
Key words: Higher Education; Student faculty interaction; Repertory Grid Technique;Accessibility
cues 20
0 Introduction
Since 1895, the establishment of Peiyang University—the first university in Chinese modern
history—the development of higher education in China has gone through approximately 120 years
of evolution. As a result of China’s current education system and student’s thinking habits, college 25
freshmen, who have just gone through multiple rounds of rigorous recruitment examinations, are
short in consciousness of initiative questioning and communication. Chinese teachers, as the
authority figure of classes, are trying to impart knowledge just like filling empty vessels, while
students are only receptive and passive. The calling for transforming the traditional lecture-based
courses from pedantic, teacher-led classrooms to active and collaborative student-centered 30
learning arenas
[1]
is also urgently needed in China.
In the evolution from teacher-centered, or teacher-directed, to learning-centered in higher
education, learning has been becoming more relational and social; it can take place anytime and
anywhere, including through student-faculty interaction
[2]
. Sufficient evidence by scholars shows
support for positive correlations between student-faculty interaction and various student outcomes 35
such as persistence
[2]
, academic attainment
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
, behavior
[3][5][7]
, career
[2][3][5][7]
,
satisfaction
[3][5][6][7][8][9]
, and social integration/adjustment
[2][10]
. The research on student-faculty
interaction has seen development from contact frequency to its impact and student experience.
Scholars recently suggested that the purpose and quality of student-faculty interactions may be
more important than their frequency
[2][9][11]
. Identifying what kind of interaction between student 40
and faculty can produce high quality experience for undergraduates may be a benefit to effective
teaching in higher education.
Following the newest conceptual wave of student-faculty interaction research in higher
education, we focus primarily on students’ experiences with faculty. Moreover, the most effective
- 2 -
中国科技论文在线
pedagogies and teacher behaviors in maximizing student satisfaction and gains were studied. In 45
order to develop better teaching practices in undergraduate education, knowing exactly what
students need should be a priority. Thus, Repertory Grid Technique, a psychological method that
can help researchers listen directly to respondents and extract their hidden needs in a given
situations, was used in this study. The technique was broadly applied in research of
manufacturer-supplier relationships
[12][13]
and customer experience
[12][14]
, but rarely found in 50
education research
[15][16]
.
In studies of student-faculty interaction, a set of faculty in-class behaviors and personal
characteristics called “accessibility cues” proved to have a positive impact on undergraduates’
engagement in out-of-class contact with faculty members
[1][4][11][17][18]
. With the help of repertory
grid, we also hope to prove the existence of such “social-psychological-accessibility” according to 55
personal construct psychology. Together with the theory of inner mechanism of student-teacher
interaction
[19][20][21]
and the theory of interpersonal attraction and empathy in social
psychology
[22][23][24]
, we further explain why and how certain faculty could attract and engage
undergraduates through such cues.
60
1 Literature Review
Student experience in student-faculty interaction
Surrounding the undergraduate experience and student learning, a considerable amount of
energy is placed on the two major responsibilities of faculty, teaching and research
[25][26]
. And
“frequent student-faculty contact in- and out-of-class is the most important factor in student 65
motivation and involvement”
[27]
(). In the famous Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education, “encourage contact between student and faculty” was mentioned
foremost
[27]
(). In a study of student experiences
[28]
, it is shown that students reflected a positive
effect of the seven principles, especially through increased student-faculty interaction. Other
scholars have also demonstrated enough evidence for the positive relationship between 70
student-faculty interaction and undergraduate outcomes
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][17]
. For example, in the
famous book How college affects students, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted that
student-faculty interactions have a positive impact on various undergraduate learning outcomes,
such as academic attainment, persistence and degree completion, career choice, occupational
status, and the bond between student and institution. 75
Attention and research to student-faculty interaction has been persistent throughout the years;
Cole and Griffin (2013) divide the past 50 years of student-faculty interaction research into four
conceptual movements. During the first conceptual wave, “faculty roles” (., educational advisor,
career advisor, counselor, instructor, campus citizen and friend) were taken as the key. For
example, Wilson et al. (1974) conducted their empirical studies through measuring the frequency 80
of faculty interaction with student across these faculty roles. Among these six faculty roles, faculty
reported greatest frequent of contacts were respond in their capacity as instructor and educational
advisor, for example: “to discuss intellectual or academic matters with student” and “to give basic
information and advice about his academic program”
[18]
(). And the amounts of contact with
student as career advisor, friend, counselor, and campus citizen were reported decreasingly. The 85
results revealed that most of the interaction between student and faculty outside of class might
occur as a “natural extension”
[18]
() of faculty in-class instruction
[29]
.
In the second conceptual movement, focus was on the inner processes of undergraduate
- 3 -
中国科技论文在线
retention and attrition
[29]
, the keyword in this wave was “integration.” Based on Spady’s theory
(1970,1971) of social integration, Tinto (1993) proposed a model that was described as 90
“interactive model of student departure”
[30]
(). There, integration was subdivided into
“academic integration” and “social integration”
[30]
(). Positive interaction experiences with
the formal/informal academic and social systems of the institution tend to increase integration and
absorb the individual into the institution’s academic and social communities. The increase of
integration strengthens students’ commitment to goal achievement through both their aspirations 95
and the institution. In Tinto’s (1993) model, “faculty/staff interaction” as a kind of informal
institutional experiences was allocated to “academic system” and leaded to “academic
integration”
[30]
(). That means student-faculty interaction was still accepted as an extension
or a part of academic instruction inside the classroom.
The third conceptual movement, according to Cole and Griffin (2013), measuring student 100
experience in student-faculty interactions primarily through a series of questions about contact
frequency; both academic and social contact were concerned and more attention was paid to
out-of-class interaction. Prior to Pascarella (1985), there was a two-item measure of student’s
interaction and familiarity with faculty and staff in terms of social integration
[8]
():
“(student) was a guest in a teacher's or administrator's home”, “called a teacher or an 105
administrator by his or her first name.” Then Astin’s measures (1993) of student-faculty
interaction extended into four items: “being a guest in a professor's home”, “working on a
professor's research project”, “assisting faculty in teaching a class”, and “talking with faculty
outside of class.” When Ewell and Jones (1996) noted indicators of “good practice” in higher
education, they listed five indicators in students’ experiences of “student-faculty contact”; three 110
of which concerned frequency and the other two referred to relationship quality
[31]
.
In the College Student Experiences Questionnaire
[32]
, there are 10 measures in the section of
student experience with faculty. In addition to academic-related measures, four more measures
came down to individual attention (., “Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty
member”) and influence of faculty’s feedback or expectation (., “Worked harder as a result of 115
feedback from an instructor”). Erekson (1992), Kuh & Hu (2001) and Cole (2010) applied these
items to provide insights on how student-faculty interaction affects undergraduate’s college effort
and gain. Padgett & Johnson (2012, ) used a 23-item scale of “good teaching/high quality
interactions with faculty” which included subscales as “faculty interest in teaching and student
development” and “quality and impact of non-classroom interactions with faculty.” Changes 120
emerge gradually as measures start to include faculty helpfulness and concerns for teaching
effectiveness and student development
[29]
.
In the coming fourth wave, with the changes form teacher-centered to student-centered
pedagogies, “a more comprehensive framing of teaching practices and active learning pedagogies
is becoming more popular among constructions of student-faculty interactions”
[29]
(p. 566). The 125
idea that faculty practices, such as active learning and higher-order cognitive activities, will build
appropriate environments which contribute to undergraduate engagement has been supported by
many scholars
[2][30][27][31][33][34]
. In addition, growing attention was paid to the influence of
teacher’s pedagogies and teaching behaviors on student engagement as well as overall experiences
in the student-faculty interaction
[1][11][16][18][34][35]
. Umbach & Wawrzynski (2005) depicted the role 130
of college faculty in undergraduate learning and experience by six constructs focused more on
teacher’s teaching pedagogies and attitude than previous studies (., “faculty use of active and
collaborative learning techniques”, “level of importance faculty placed on enriching educational
experience”). Kim and Sax (2009) employed two additional variables regarding satisfaction to
- 4 -
中国科技论文在线
examine student’s perception of interaction experiences with faculty: “satisfaction with advising 135
by faculty on academic matters” and “satisfaction with access to faculty outside of class”
[5]
().
As faculty in-class practices and pedagogies were taken into consideration, measures applied
by scholars to evaluate undergraduate experiences in student-faculty interaction appeared to
overlap with those dimensions in the study of Student Ratings. Feldman (2007) rewrote his classic 140
meta-analysis in identifying exemplary teaching practices through Student Ratings. Concerning
the importance shown regarding the correlation with student achievement and overall evaluations,
Feldman allocated 24 instructional dimensions into four levels of importance; all the instructional
dimensions were about teacher’s teaching skills and pedagogies
[36]
. It is worth noting that these
constructs like “frequent feedback from faculty” or “friendliness of the teacher” which attracted 145
much attention in the research of student-faculty interaction
[4][6][37][38]
were not in Feldman’s (2007)
list of most or moderate important dimensions. In Feldman’s (2007) list, only a few dimensions
were involved in the study of student-faculty interaction. We could not clearly know whether other
practices, which were even absent in Feldman’s list, have impact on the quality of student-faculty
interaction. Thus we may ask the question whether or not the measures used in existing studies 150
cover all the aspects of student experience with faculty, or whether these measures are
suitable to all kinds of students?
Although the items for evaluating undergraduate experiences in student-faculty interaction
mentioned above came through changes in focus from type and frequency of out-of-class contact
to teacher’s teaching practice and attitude, they were almost all intended as “customer ratings,”
[31]
155
collected directly from students by traditional questionnaires. The measures in these
questionnaires were almost exclusively based on reports of frequency or duration of all kinds of
interactions
[4][5][6][11][34] [37]
. The exception here are the studies by Cotten and Wilson (2006) and
Kim and Sax (2009) which concerned students’ feeling and satisfaction, students’ perceived value
and quality of their experience in such interaction were usually absent. Scholars confirmed the 160
positive correlation between various types of student-faculty interaction and student engagement
as well as college outcomes through different mathematical methods such as multilevel analysis
[17]
,
hierarchical linear modeling
[11][34]
, regression analysis
[4][5][6][38]
, and structural equation
modeling
[11]
based on thousands of respondents. However, such analysis is unable to directly
match students with faculty
[34]
and we could not know whether individual student’s perceived 165
value in those good teaching practices just as analyzed together with other respondents as a group.
In a study of customer experience quality, basing on the conclusion from Joy and Sherry Jr.
[39]
that experience exists at a conscious and unconscious level, Lemke and colleagues (2011)
conceived that “eliciting the constructs by which customer experiences are judged appears to be
one such topic where knowledge is partially tacit”
[14]
. The articulation of tacit knowledge is 170
difficult to achieve, but direct interaction and storytelling make it possible to convert it into
explicit knowledge which would provide for breakthrough innovations
[40]
. By eliciting constructs
to conduct the conversion of tacit knowledge, repertory grid technique was widely used by
scholars
[12][13][14][40][41][42]
. To explore the quality of students’ experiences with tacit knowledge,
we choose repertory grid technique in our study to address a common desire among these 175
deep-hidden dissimilarities, hoping that by doing so we can ultimately inspire new awareness in
our understanding of interaction between Chinese undergraduates and faculty.
Accessibility Cues
In the most recent studies, it is worth mentioning the discussion of “accessibility cues” which
- 5 -
中国科技论文在线
can be significantly instructive in teacher’s teaching practice. Wilson et al. (1974) first proposed 180
that the amount of out-of-class contact was related to faculty accessibility for such interaction,
among which the most important indicators of “social-psychological-accessibility” were teaching
practices used by faculty inside their classroom. It is well supported by literature that faculty
practices such as active/collaborative learning techniques and helpful/encouraging behaviors can
create learning environments that positively results in increased student engagement and 185
motivation
[1][3][27][30][31][33][34]
. In the study by Cole
[4][17]
(2007, 2010), “accessibility cues” were
more interpreted as indicators of faculty’s interests or desire to interact with students outside of
class, and “accessibility cues include not only faculty behavior but also student experience and
perceptions of the classroom”
[17]
(p. 250).
However, different from such studies which accepted or supported the hypothesis that 190
teacher’s in-class pedagogies or behaviors can predict the frequency of out-of-class interactions
[1][4][17][18]
, Cox and colleagues (2010) reported that instructors’ classroom pedagogical practices
can increase the frequency of student contact out of class, but the effect was only confined to a
limited degree (9-11%). Furthermore, the authors proposed that other “more subtle indicators”
[11]
(p. 786) such as voice or facial expressions might also send signals to students which could be 195
more effective than those learning tasks assigned by the teachers
[11]
. However, the hypothesis of
such “accessibility cues”
[18]
(Wilson et al., 1974) were not supported in their study.
Existing studies have often used quantitative methods to prove the relationship between
accessibility cues and student engagement in out-of-class contact with faculty
[1][4][11][17][18]
,
however such relationships do not explain why student contact was initiated, or how accessibility 200
cues incentivize undergraduates to have more interaction after class. In addition, as a kind of
psychological cue, few studies can be found to prove the existence of accessibility cues directly
guided by psychological theories and techniques. It is important to know how the interaction was
initiated and why students were attracted to those teachers, as it may facilitate faculty to develop a
more effective practice in enhancing student engagement and experience in undergraduate 205
education.
Research on the inner mechanism of student-faculty interactions may give some insight into
the answer to this question. Between teacher behavior and student motivation, there is a reciprocal
relationship
[19][21]
called “resonance”
[20]
, and the process is “magnificatory”
[21]
() or
self-reinforcing
[20]
. The expectations teachers have for their students’ responses influence their 210
own behavior, which in turn have an effect on teacher-student interaction
[43]
. In the study by van
Uden and colleagues
[44]
, perceived interpersonal teacher behavior was proved to have a
relationship to all types of student engagement. Korthagen et al. (2014) used a lemniscate to
illustrate teacher-student contact: “a teacher’s own thinking, feeling, and wanting influences the
teacher engages in interactions with students through doing (verbal and non-verbal behavior), as 215
the teacher’s awareness of students’ thinking, feeling, and wanting (expressed in the student’s
behavior) influences his/her own thinking, feeling, and wanting”
[20]
(p. 30). Taking the theories
above into consideration, we hope to shed light on the generation and function mechanism of
predictors as well as accessibility cues of student-faculty interaction in higher education.
220
With the above literature foundation, there are four questions we want to discuss in this
paper:
1. What are the key factors of student-faculty interaction in terms of student experience at the
Chinese Business College? Is there a common demand between different individuals?
2. With tacit knowledge considered, can we find something new when defining the quality of 225
- 6 -
中国科技论文在线
student experiences in student-faculty interactions by repertory grid technique?
3. Do accessibility cues truly exist?
4. What kind of teacher in-class behaviors will be received as accessibility cues and why do
these cues seem to make teachers be accessible?
230
2 Method
Sample
Normally, 30 repertory grid interviews are sufficient to identify all the constructs from a
certain group
[12]
. The 30 respondents are graduates came from College of Management and
Economics, Tianjin University, who had already experienced most of their college life. All the 235
interviews were conducted face to face and ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Details of respondents
are shown in Table 1.
Sample Details
Details
Major
Business Administration-4*; Electronic Commerce-4; Industrial Engineering-4; Information
Management and Information System-4; Logistics Management-4; Financial Management-4;
Finance-3; Project Management-3;
Gender Male-14; Famle-16.
Where to go
after graduation
Work-13; Continue education in China-12; Continue education aboard-5;
Note: Figure represents the number of respondents 240
Repertory Grid Technique
Repertory grid technique is a structured form of interview developed by George Kelly in the
1950s and is based on Personal Construct Psychology and aids in breaking complex personal
views into manageable sub-components of meaning
[14]
. In his Personal Construct Psychology,
Kelly proposed that in trying to make sense of the world, everyone develops “rules” by which 245
people, relationships or even any phenomenon are viewed
[12][45]
. Moreover, those rules are our
personal constructs. Personal constructs are bipolar dimensions created and formed by each person
into a system, and through which we interpret our experience of the world
[46]
.
For interviewers, it is an attempt to stand in others’ shoes, to see their world as they see it,
and understand their situation and concerns
[13][46][47]
. The interviews help respondents identify the 250
issues they face, rather than channeling their thinking into predefined terminologies or
categories
[12]
. It is particularly useful in studies where respondents find it hard to articulate their
opinions with clarity
[42]
, as constructs are tacit knowledge created before given verbal labels
[46]
.
Experience exists at a conscious and unconscious level, and eliciting constructs for judging
students’ experiences can also be taken to be a topic similar to customer experience, where 255
knowledge is partially tacit
[14]
.
In this study, the operation of repertory grid technique is closely follows that used by
Goffin
[12][41][42]
and Lemke
[13][14]
. Each respondent was asked to name nine teachers with they have
interacted during their college, three in “High Level”, three in “Low Level”, and three in
“Average.” Each of the teacher’s names was then written on a numbered card, the order of which 260
was randomized. Those teachers who were selected are “elements”. Then, the interviewee was
presented with a random set of three cards, which was termed a “triad”, and asked: “why are two
of these teachers similar and different from the third in terms of the experience you have with
- 7 -
中国科技论文在线
them?” The basis of this question refers to Goffin’s
[42]
(p. 13) statement and Lemke’s
[14]
(p. 852)
question. 265
The interviewee’s response was a “construct” that to be elicited, just as one of the teachers
can “communicate frequently in- and out-of class” with students, whereas the other two “rarely
communicate.” Then, a mutual understanding of the construct’s name is achieved by open-ended
questions
[42]
. Then, a 5-point Likert scale
[12][13][14][42][46]
was used for rating, where a rating of 1
relates to the positive pole on left-hand side of the grid and a rating of 5 relates to the positive pole 270
on the right-hand side
[46]
, an example is shown in the Appendix 1. When the rating is finished, we
will return to Step 2 and elicit more constructs.
In order to obtain meaningful constructs, only those card combinations are selected in which
at least two elements are changed between each triad
[41][46][48]
. Repetition of the same construct
was not allowed so that new constructs could be elicited from each new triad, and the 275
interviewee’s thinking of the relationship was stimulated more and more deeply as the interview
progressed
[42]
.
Analysis
Commonly, there are three parts in analyzing repertory grid data to ensure reliability and
provide proof for results
[46][49]
: a) analysis for single grid, b) categorization of constructs, and c) 280
identification of key constructs.
3 Result
Analyzing a Single Grid
The cognitive map.
Each repertory grid was analyzed with the software IdioGrid and SPSS , and an 285
example of Principle Component Analysis (PCA) is shown in Figure 2. The figure was drawn
according to Lemke et al.
[13]
() and Goffin et al.
[12]
(). The PCA result is shown in a
two-dimensional component space where the axes are labeled by two components, and the circle
defines component space (the interviewee’s frame of perception)
[12]
. The figure represents the
correlations between elements and constructs
[13]
. The distance between construct poles and the 290
component axes indicates the level of correlation
[13]
. Figure 2 shows Component 1 and 2 derived
from the 10 constructs and both poles of each construct are annotated around the circle.
- 8 -
中国科技论文在线
Cognitive Map (Based on the Output of IdioGrid ) 295
In this example, % of the variability is explained by Components 1 and 2. According to
the element loadings, the points of nine teachers can be located on the cognitive map. The map
clearly reveals that the “High Level” group (., 3, 4, and 6) separate distinctly from the “Low
level” group (., 1, 2, and 5), whereas the “Average Level” group (., 7, 8, and 9) distribute
between the two extremes. In the respondent’s view, the teacher, with whom the interaction 300
improved his/her college outcomes in a high level (., teacher 4), can be characterized by items
such as “Stimulate Interest and Inspire Thinking” and “Common Touch and Facilitate
Communication.” A teacher in a low level (., teacher 1) can be described by items such as
“Only Theory Teaching” and “Ignore Individual Difference.”
Finding the Accessibility Cues. 305
In order to find Accessibility Cues, correlations between constructs were explored.
Correlations provide us with a familiar and readily interpretable index of association, if
“clever-not bright” is very closely associated (r=) with “respected-not respected,” this
indicates that a person who is regarded as bright is also likely to be viewed as respected and vice
versa, while a person who is seen as not bright tends also to be construed as not respected
[46]
. By 310
such analogy, for one respondent, the Accessibility Cues can be found through other constructs,
which have a deductive relationship with those constructs that describe student’s interaction
motivations such as “Common Touch and Facilitate Communication.” Based on the output of
IdioGrid , an example of construct correlation analysis of one grid is displayed in Table 2.
Correlations among Constructs 315
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Common Touch and Facilitate
Communication
2. Emphasize Undergraduate
Education
3. Combine Practice Training
4. Add Ingredients for Pleasant
Atmosphere
5. Stimulate Interest and Inspire
Thinking
6. Cultivate Interest and Ability in
- 9 -
中国科技论文在线
Research
7. Teach without Personal Bias
8. Care Individual Difference
9. Erudite
10. Give Impressive Lecture
According to Table 2, those constructs that describe a teacher’s teaching practice and
behaviors as “Emphasize Undergraduate Education”, “Erudite”, “Stimulate Interest and Inspire
Thinking”, and “Give Impressive Lecture”, which have high correlations (r>) with “Common
Touch and Facilitate Communication”, will be regarded as Accessibility Cues. Taking for instance, 320
the construct “Emphasize Undergraduate Education”, teachers who were seen as working
earnestly and prioritizing undergraduate teaching are also likely to be viewed as ones to be
approached for further communication after class. On the other hand, the respondent may not
desire more contact with the teacher who behave casually and desultorily in class.
Analyzing a Series of Grids 325
Categorization of the Constructs.
Before the categorization, the name of each construct was standardized
[14][42]
. There are two
researchers summarizing those constructs with similar meaning and the final decision was made
through in-depth discussion. This process combined the 325 items from 30 interviews into 43
constructs. Following the categorizing steps recommended by Goffin et al. (2010) and Lemke 330
(2011), these 43 constructs were categorized into five experience categories, the final
categorization was decided and reported in Table 3. Multiple coders and inter-coder reliability
checks were used
[14]
. An inter-coder reliability index was the level of agreement of the two
categorizations, it was computed three times through the discussion between research group and
three coders and the indexes were 56%, 72% and 86% respectively, the details of its calculation 335
can be found in Lemke et al. (2011).
Identifying Key Constructs.
In order to identify key constructs, the combination of frequency and Average Normalized
Variability was applied
[12][13][14][42]
. In terms of frequency, a construct that has been mentioned by
at least 25% of respondents is considered to convey more importance than other constructs
[42]
. In 340
this study, the threshold value is 8 as the frequency should be greater than (30/4). Variability is
another indicator for the most important constructs as it helps to identify what constructs can most
strongly differentiate between the elements
[12][42]
. The variability of a given construct represents its
contribution in explaining the total variance
[13]
. The number of construct is different in each grid,
so if the compare conducted across all the respondents, the Average Normalized Variability (ANV) 345
needs to be calculated. The details of its calculation can be found in Goffin et al. (2006) and
Goffin et al. (2010).
There were, on average, constructs mentioned per interview, and the average
variability per construct, which was taken as the threshold value for average normalized variability
(ANV), was (., 100/)
[12][13][42]
. A construct with an ANV greater than means it 350
can differentiate more strongly between the teachers, while the opposite less strongly indicates
distinguishing capacity
[12][42]
. The procedure of identifying key constructs is shown in Table 3, the
category and definition of each key construct is shown in Table 4. A comparison to the result from
Feldman’s meta-analysis based on Student Rating is also shown in Table 3, column “Mentioned as
Important Practice by Feldman.” 355
- 10 -
中国科技论文在线
The Identification of Key Constructs
Category # Construct
Average
Normalized
Variability
Frequency
Average
Rating
Key
Construct
?
A.
Teaching
Ability
1 Give Impressive Lecture 2 3
2
Understandability and Good Speech
Skills
11 √
3
Control the Rhythm and Capacity of
Course
6
4 Full of Personal Opinion, not Scripted 3
5
Stimulate Interest and Inspire
Thinking
11 √
6 Have Systematic Course Plan 11
7
Create Interactional Classroom, not
Indoctrinate Students
7
8 Know the Subject Matter 3
9
Add Ingredients for Pleasant
Atmosphere
12
B.
Course
Content
10
Sign Homework and Feedback
Timely
1
11
Couple Course Content Closely with
Student Major
2
12
Incorporate Practical Applications
and Various Sources
16 √
13 Combine Practice Training 8 √
14
Make Curriculum Advance with the
Times
2
15 Adopt Various Class Forms 6
C.
Teaching
Attitude
16 Teach without Personal Bias 6
17 Emphasize Undergraduate Education 14 √
18 Prepare Fully and Earnestly 8 √
19 Rigorous Classroom Management 5
20
Give Clear Examination Scope and
Assess Seriously
7
D.
Teaching
Concept
21
Cultivate Students’ Innovative
Thought
2
22
Considerate towards Students and
Make Perspective Taking
15 √
23
Focus on Student’s Development and
Long-term Plan
5
24
Cultivate Interest and Ability in
Research
9 √
25
Clarity of Teaching Goals and
Requirement
5
26
Educate Progressively, Concern for
Student’s Growth
9
27
Cultivate Correct Outlook on Life and
Value
9
28
Emphasize Independent Thinking and
Learning
9
- 11 -
中国科技论文在线
29
Encouraging, Protect Student’s
Enthusiasm
6
30
Place High Expectation and
Requirement on Student
4
E.
Personal
Characte
ristics
31 Remain Sincere 3
32 Have Rich Social Resources 1 3
33 Noble and Outstanding 8
34
Hold Rigorous and Diligent
Academic Attitude
4
35 Good Personal Image 5
36 Have Rich Life Experience 7
37 Erudite 22
F.
Interacti
on
Facilitati
on
38
Respect Student Choices and
Intention
5
39
Communicate Frequently in- and
out-of-class
11 √
40
Common Touch and Facilitate
Communication
16 √
41
Patiently Help with Whatever is
Required
13 √
42 Care for Individual Differences 6
43
Have Emotional Communication,
Like Friend
10
Definition of Key Constructs
Category # Key Construct Definition
Teaching
Ability
A-2
Understandability and Good
Speech Skills
Gives clear description of course content, well
organized language, and explicit emphasis on key
points to facilitate student’s understanding;
Uses proper grammar and easy-to-understand language,
while full of linguistic charms;
Enunciate clearly with good pronunciations and speaks
loudly.
A-5
Stimulate Interest and Inspire
Thinking
Make class instructive, stimulate enthusiasm and inspire
thinking;
Encourage students to ask questions for deeper
understanding;
Arouse students’ interests in exploring their major.
Course
Content
B-12
Incorporate Practical
Applications and Various
Sources
Set example by work-related or practice-related
applications;
Use own work experience as an example;
Give abundant examples and lay the foundation for
practice;
Use cases during narrating.
B-13 Combine Practice Training
Uses knowledge initiated from books, put into practice,
and returned to the classroom;
Assign practice tasks;
Not limit teaching in textbooks and PowerPoint;
Make theory meet practice.
Teaching
Attitude
C-17
Emphasize Undergraduate
Education
Prioritize undergraduate teaching;
Teach and answer professional questions elaborately
and responsibly;
Keep improving one’s teaching ability;
Regard students as a priority, work as a “hands-on”
professor in undergraduate teaching.
C-18 Prepare Fully and Earnestly
Prepare fully and carefully before class;
Give lectures coherently and logically;
Elaborate PPT, with video and audio incorporated;
- 12 -
中国科技论文在线
Be familiar with textbook contents;
Demonstrate personal scholarship.
Teaching
Concept
D-22
Considerate towards Students
and Make Perspective Taking
Understand student’s situations and dilemmas, engage
in trans-positional thinking;
Full of empathy and mutual understating;
Concerned with students’ actual need, not imposing
personal will;
Be magnanimous toward students, not sarcastic.
D-24
Cultivate Interest and Ability
in Research
Cultivate research ability, arrange tasks with graduate
student standards;
Introduce scientific achievement to stimulate research
passion;
Give opportunity to students who have potential or
interest in research.
Interacti
on
Facilitati
on
F-39
Communicate Frequently in-
and out-of-class
Have frequent communication in- and out- of-class;
Build close relationship with students;
Take initiative in communicating with students.
F-40
Common Touch and Facilitate
Communication
Amiable and friendly, make student willing to
approach;
Never talk over student, make student desire to have
further contact;
Not leave any sense of distance, remain approachable;
Be warm and affectionate like a family member.
F-41
Patiently Help with Whatever
is Required
Be enthusiastic and patient in helping students;
Understand students’ concerns and solve their problems;
Provide additional help outside the classroom;
Answer questions earnestly and patiently out-of-class.
4 Discussion 360
Key factors of student experience in student-faculty interaction in a
Chinese Business College
New factors of student experience in student-faculty interaction.
With the help of repertory grid as a research technique, the quality of student experiences in
student-faculty interaction, which was thought to be a kind of tacit knowledge, was articulated. 365
Take the key construct A-2 “Understandability and Good Speech Skills” as an example, it was
mentioned by % of respondents in different statements, such as “uses clear description of
course content, well organized language, and explicitly emphasizes key points to facilitate
student’s understanding” and “enunciates clearly with good pronunciations and speaks loudly.”
The relatively high ANV () indicates its strong differentiating capacity among teachers. 370
Using speech capability as a measure in student-faculty interaction can be rarely found in existing
higher education literature
[3][4] [5][6][8][31][32][34]
. If not for repertory grid, we might not include any
measure referring to presentation ability in the study of student experiences; this is the mining and
consideration of tacit knowledge
[40]
.
According to Table 3 and Table 4, the quality of the student-faculty interaction experience 375
of Chinese undergraduates can be divided into six categories: Teaching Ability, Course Content,
Teaching Attitude, Teaching Concept, Personal Cultivation, and Interaction Facilitation.
Compared to the result from Feldman’s meta-analysis based on student ratings, there are 17
constructs in Table 3 (% of all the constructs) and 5 in Table 4 (% of all the key
constructs) that overlap. The details are in the column titled, “Mentioned as Important Practice by 380
Feldman (2007)” in Table 3. In addition, those dimensions, in correspondence to our key
constructs A-2, “Understandability and Good Speech Skills”, A-5, “Stimulate Interest and Inspire
Thinking”, and C-18, “Prepare Fully and Earnestly” were also allocated to the High Importance
- 13 -
中国科技论文在线
group in Feldman’s study (2007). Clearly, teacher’s teaching capability and in-class behavior are
of vital importance to the quality of Chinese students’ experiences. 385
The exception here is key construct F-39, “Communicate Frequently in- and out-of-class,”
which is often referred to in measuring student-faculty interaction
[3][4][6][8][31][32][37][38]
. The five
other key constructs, B-13, “Combine Practical Training”, C-17, “Emphasize Undergraduate
Education”, D-22, “Considerate towards Students and Make Perspective Taking”, D-24,
“Cultivate Interest and Ability in Research” and F-40, “Common Touch and Facilitate 390
Communication” are also rarely referred.
The key factors of student in-class experiences with faculty.
We can draw a vision of superior student in-class experience with faculty by taking
constructs A-2, A-5, B-12, B-13, C-17, C-18, D-22, and D-24 into consideration together. The
emphasis from our respondents on classroom teaching manifests Chinese students’ value 395
proposition of “learning.” The “Chinese education” they received from childhood makes them
attach great importance to in-class teaching; the idea that “teachers teach and students listen” is
deeply rooted in Chinese students’ minds. In our result, constructs related to classroom teaching
account for % of all the key constructs, and % of all the constructs, which revealed the
fact that the core value encounter between Chinese student and faculty was mostly occurred in 400
classes.
As indicated by key constructs B-12, “Incorporate Practical Applications and Various
Sources” and B-13, “Combine Practice Training”, students’ concentration on the integration of
theory with practice as well as practical applications may partly be due to their professional
business background, something which different from engineering students with a solid 405
foundation of practice and science students who are pure theoretical researchers. For key construct
B-12, respondents described their demand as “take faculty’s own work experience as case
examples” or “set example by work-related or practice-related applications.” These comments
from students are echoed in the attribute from Ewell et al. (1996) for good faculty practice as
“integrating education and experience,” where faculty who “model” their own work in classroom 410
was identified as the best example. In accordance with the good practice attribute of “ongoing
practice of learned skills”
[31]
, the resonance there we found in construct B-13 confirmed the
important role of practice in undergraduate teaching.
In recent years, growing attention was paid to the cultivation of undergraduate capabilities in
research
[4][5][50]
. In this study, key construct D-24, “Cultivate Interest and Ability in Research” 415
with high ANV () and had an influence in students’ evaluation of faculty in the
student-faculty interaction. This result demonstrates that the preliminary shape of scientific
thinking and ability has become a crucial requirement among these students. Our respondents
were sorted out of 324 undergraduate students of the College of Management and Economics,
Tianjin University, who finished their study in the summer of 2014. Among these students, 420
% (143/324) of them decided to continue education at home (83/143) or abroad (60/143).
Such data may partly explain the experimental results in which 30% (9/30) of respondents
expressed their expectation for improving scientific ability during undergraduate studies. However,
its relatively low average rating () revealed the fact that the role Chinese faculty played in
strengthening undergraduate research abilities was not enough in the eyes of students. 425
The key factors of student out-of-class experience with faculty.
Compared to models in existing literature which contain both academic and social
faculty-student interaction
[3][8][31][32]
, taking “was a guest in a teacher's or administrator's home”
[8]
- 14 -
中国科技论文在线
() as an example, the appearance of indicators related to informal contact was rare in our
study. In the elicitation of high frequency construct F-43, “Have Emotional Communication, Like 430
Friend”, respondent Xin said, “the communication between me and my teacher is not only about
academic issues and exams, he can talk with me fatherly to solve my confusion in life,” and
respondent Yanan said “she is a friend more than a teacher, we can chat with equality about
everything, like interpersonal relationships or even romance.” Apparently, students want to
develop intimate and harmonious relationships with faculty beyond the classroom. The construct’s 435
low ANV () and average rating (), however, reveal the fact that most Chinese teachers
ignore out-of-class contact with undergraduates.
The combination of key constructs F-39, “Communicate Frequently in- and out-of-class”,
F-40, “Common Touch and Facilitate Communication”, and F-41 “Patiently Help with Whatever
is Required”, uncovers Chinese students’ position of the quality of the faculty-student relationship. 440
For key construct F-39, all eleven respondents (the frequency of construct F-39 is 11 in Table 3,
that means totally 11 respondents have mentioned this construct) expressed their desire for
establishing close relationships with faculty. However, it is noteworthy that almost all the students
mentioned that they want faculty to take the initiative in their communication. This result gave
evidence to the fact that Chinese students were often accustomed to stay at the passive end of their 445
interaction with teachers, while the embedded concept of being subordinated hindered students to
take initiative. The high ANV () and relatively low average rating of construct F-39 revealed
the vital role it played when students judged the quality of their experience in interacting with
faculty.
Accessibility Cues truly exist in student-faculty interaction 450
What are Accessibility Cues for Chinese Undergraduates?
Along with analysis of the example mentioned in section , there were 16 respondents
who mentioned key construct F-40 “Common Touch and Facilitate Communication.” Construct
Correlation Analysis was conducted on these sixteen grids. Constructs, which have deductive
relationships with construct F-40, are regarded as accessibility cues. The chosen constructs should 455
belong to these category of faculty teaching practices and attitudes (., Teaching Ability, Course
Content, Teaching Attitude, and Teaching Concept); they should also have a correlation index
greater than and be mentioned more than four times (16/4) among these 16 respondents.
Through this screening method, there are four constructs that met the criteria: A-5, “Stimulate
Interest and Inspire Thinking”, D-22, “Considerate towards Students and Make Perspective 460
Taking”, D-26, “Educate Progressively, Concern for Student’s Growth”, and D-29, “Encouraging,
Protect Student’s Enthusiasm.” Confined to our research technique, existing results cannot provide
us with evidence to prove whether faculty in-class behavior can improve the frequency of
interactions. However, in accordance with the study by Gasiewski et al. (2012), the above result
truly demonstrates that there is a set of faculty behaviors that can give student signals and cues 465
that their teachers are available for them; these signals then influence their motivation and desire.
It is noteworthy that the constructs such as B-12, “Incorporate Practical Applications and
Various Sources” and B-13, “Combine Practice Training,” which echo Core’s (2010) variables of
Accessibility Cues as “Thought about practical applications” or “Integrated ideas from various
sources”, are absent in our list. Compared with faculty in-class pedagogical practices, as those 470
constructs belong to category “Course Content”, faculty interpersonal behaviors such as
encouragement or consideration can more effectively signal to students that they are available than
simple active or collaborative teaching strategies. When respondents mentioned these constructs,
- 15 -
中国科技论文在线
which turned out to be Accessibility Cues, the description we heard were more focused on words
like “respect”, “mutual understanding”, “encouraging”, “consideration” and “enlightening.” This 475
result supports the inference in the qualitative study by Cox et al. (2010) that indicators such as
teachers’ voice or facial expressions might send signals which could be more effective than the
assigned in-class learning tasks. Students were more concerned about the integration of faculty’s
ideas and attitudes in their teaching practice. That means, in the condition of the Chinese
University, if faculty rigidly implement active learning pedagogies like American\European 480
colleges in order to improve student engagement or build learner-centered classes, the effect may
not be as effective as expected.
The Keywords of Accessibility Cues: Empathizing, Encouraging and Enlightening.
Among the sixteen respondents, 50% (8/16) took construct D-22, “Considerate towards
Students and Make Perspective Taking” as an accessibility cue, where the average correlation is 485
. When talking about this construct, student Yingqi said, “teacher A was more considerate
of our difficulties, he/she can always be patient when we make mistakes and never seriously
pissing off students”, and student Zehui said “when we have different opinions toward something,
he/she won’t impose personal wishes but widely sought opinions from students to get common
agreement.” Construct D-26, “Educate Progressively, Concern for Student’s Growth” was taken 490
by % (5/16) respondents as accessibility cues, for this construct, respondent Li said that
“teacher will pay close attention to the learning process of most students, not make a teaching
schedule according to a few excellent students”, and student Xin said “he/she was more sensitive
to students’ feedback and repeated the knowledge which was mentioned by us as not clear.” These
characters, which make faculty viewed as amiable and communication promoting could be 495
concluded by three keywords: “empathizing”, “encouraging”, and “enlightening.”
The thing that truly motivates students can be concluded as a kind of “social approval”
[22][23]
.
As Ellegaard concluded, “approval fulfills others’ needs by confirming their judgment, justifying
their conduct, validating their beliefs, and improving their self-esteem
[23]
(p. 1222).”
Why Accessibility Cues Make Faculty Seem to be Accessible? 500
Considering the lemniscate illustration provided by Korthagen and colleagues (2014), which
depict teacher-student contact as a spontaneously resonance process moving along the lemniscate
with snowball phenomenon on both teacher and student. For combining this theory with our
results, we may first get some support from interpersonal attraction theory. In social psychology,
scholars found a reward mechanism which can generate interpersonal attraction. People will tend 505
to more frequently approach those who can give them perceived rewards. There exists a
reinforcing cycle of reciprocity that once the individual was attracted, the reverse process will be
triggered simultaneously and increasingly rewarding interactions between the interacting
individuals will occur
[23]
. These rewards are not only confined in money, services, or information,
individuals also use their verbal or nonverbal behavior such as help, favors, advice, and conflict 510
resolution to provide rewards
[22][23]
. If we suppose good student-teacher contact as such an
exchange reinforcing the lemniscate, the verbal or nonverbal behavior used by teachers should be
the medium conveying empathy, mutual understanding and so on. Those faculty in-class behaviors
such as active and collaborative pedagogies which were taken as accessibility cues by Wilson et al.
(1974), Cole (2007, 2010) and Gasiewski (2012) may only surface solutions. 515
The above results also support the point that teacher empathy plays an important role in good
student-faculty contact
[20]
. In our list of key constructs or accessibility cues, teacher empathy not
only acts as a key element of the student quality experience, it also stimulates student motivation
- 16 -
中国科技论文在线
for further interaction. In students’ eyes, they want their teachers to be more considerate regarding
their status, understand the world from their perspectives, but not just give lectures. We need 520
teacher to make perspective taking in their relationship with students. Empathy, which is a central
mechanism for driving individuals to generate positive feelings toward perspective takers, will
increase people’s affinity and pro-social behavior towards their counterpart
[24]
. When insufficient,
student-teacher contact, as a reciprocal process
[19][20][21]
, may not simply be due to students’ lack
of motivation rather, teachers need to have more awareness of students’ needs and circumstances. 525
5 Conclusion and Implications
In this paper, repertory grid technique was used to study undergraduate’s experience with
faculty in a Chinese Business College. Through the mining of tacit knowledge, we identify the
best teacher behaviors and practices in student-faculty interaction directly from the perspective of
student. Listening directly to students, some new constructs were used for measuring student 530
experience in student-faculty interactions, which were absent before, such as key construct A-2,
“Understandability and Good Speech Skills” and D-24, “Cultivate Interest and Ability in
Research.” In our six categories, constructs related to classroom teaching account for % of
all the key constructs, and % of all the constructs. This result revealed the fact that, in the
opinion of Chinese students, the key factors in measuring the quality of student-faculty interaction 535
experiences were largely found in classes where the core value encounter occurred.
Considering the reform from “teacher-centered” to “student-centered” education in which
learning can take place anytime and anywhere
[2]
, classrooms should not be the only place where
core encounters between faculty and students occur. Although some scholars suggest that informal
or social interactions between students and faculty can only have limited impact on student 540
educational outcomes
[6]
, according to our results as well as conclusions from Cotten and Wilson
(2006), we think more attention should be paid to interactions apart from academic issues. Both
faculty and institution should not discount the benefit of informal interactions, while institution
may undertake more responsibility to create opportunity and spaces, which can motivate both
faculty and students to participate after class. Moreover, enough attention should be paid to faculty 545
motivation to engage in informal, social interaction with students.
When discussing accessibility cues, it is noteworthy that those accessibility cues, as active or
collaborative teaching pedagogies, which were accepted by many scholars
[1][4][17][18]
, were absent
in our list. However, the psychological cues we got such as empathizing, encouraging and
enlightening revealed the inner mechanism of this motivational incentive process. Together with 550
the reciprocal theory of teacher-student contact
[19][20][21]
and interpersonal attraction theory from
social psychological
[22][23][24]
, we came to the conclusion that teacher’s perceived empathy and
mutual understanding were quite important in inspiring students’ motivation for further interaction.
These verbal or nonverbal behaviors convey teachers’ empathy and social approval are just as
“reward” (in interpersonal attraction theory) to individual students that arouse students’ affinity 555
and pro-social behavior toward their teachers. Furthermore, consistent with the conclusion from
Einarson and Clarkberg (2004), we accept the conclusion that interpersonal knowledge and ability
of faculty members can be a predictor for engagement in out-of-class interactions. Therefore, for
the individual teacher, they should gradually change their role from traditional lecturer to “campus
citizen” and take their social responsibility in education. Meanwhile, finding students’ individual 560
differences, faculty, if it is possible, may put themselves in student’s shoes to care for their
development.
- 17 -
中国科技论文在线
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Professor Keith Goffin (professor from Innovation and New Product Development
at Cranfield School of Management) provided us with generous instruction and help. 565
References
[1] Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. From gatekeeping to engagement:
A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses[J].
Research in higher education, 2012, 53(2), 229-261. 570
[2] Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Feldman, K. A. How college affects students[M]. Location: Jossey-Bass
San Francisco, 2005.
[3] Astin, A. W. What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited[R]. Location: Jossey-Bass San Francisco,
1993.
[4] Cole, D. The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students' college grades: Differences between 575
aggregated and disaggregated data[J]. Journal of the Professoriate, 2010, 3(2), 137-160.
[5] Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender,
race, social class, and first-generation status[J]. Research in Higher Education, 2009, 50(5), 437-459.
[6] Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s[J]. The Review of Higher
Education, 2001, 24(3), 309-332. 580
[7] Pascarella, E. T. Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes[J]. Review of educational research,
1980, 50(4), 545-595.
[8] Pascarella, E. T. Students' affective development within the college environment[J]. The Journal of Higher
Education, 1985, 640-663.
[9] Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants[J]. Higher Education, 585
2006, 51(4), 487-519.
[10] Schwitzer, A. M., Griffin, O. T., Ancis, J. R., & Thomas, C. R. Social adjustment experiences of African
American college students[J]. Journal of Counseling & Development, 1999, 77(2), 189-197.
[11] Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., & Quaye, B. R. L. Pedagogical signals of faculty
approachability: Factors shaping faculty-student interaction outside the classroom[J]. Research in Higher 590
Education, 2010, 51(8), 767-788.
[12] Goffin, K., Lemke, F., & Koners, U. Identifying hidden needs: creating breakthrough products[M]. Location:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
[13] Lemke, F., Goffin, K., & Szwejczewski, M. Investigating the meaning of supplier-manufacturer partnerships:
an exploratory study[J]. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2003, 33(1), 595
12-35.
[14] Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. Customer experience quality: an exploration in business and consumer
contexts using repertory grid technique[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2011, 39(6), 846-869.
[15] Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E., & Blettner, D. P. How useful are the strategic tools we teach in business
schools?[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2013, 50(1), 92-125. 600
[16] Zuber-Skerritt, O. A repertory grid study of staff and students' personal constructs of educational research[J].
Higher Education, 1987, 16(5), 603-623.
[17] Cole, D. Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual
self-concept[J]. The Journal of Higher Education, 2007, 78(3), 249-281.
[18] Wilson, R. C., Woods, L., & Gaff, J. G. Social-psychological accessibility and faculty-student interaction 605
beyond the classroom[J]. Sociology of Education, 1974, 74-92.
[19] Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. Student-Teacher Relationships[R]. 2006.
[20] Korthagen, F. A., Attema-Noordewier, S., & Zwart, R. C. Teacher-student contact: Exploring a basic but
complicated concept[J]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2014, 40, 22-32.
[21] Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and 610
student engagement across the school year[J]. Journal of educational psychology, 1993, 85(4), 571.
[22] Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life[M]. Location: Transaction Publishers, 1964.
[23] Ellegaard, C. Interpersonal attraction in buyer-supplier relationships: A cyclical model rooted in social
psychology[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2012, 41(8), 1219-1227.
[24] Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S., & Shapiro, J. R. Perceived perspective taking: When others walk in our 615
shoes[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2014, 106(6), 941.
[25] Fairweather, J. S., & Beach, A. L. Variations in faculty work at research universities: Implications for state
and institutional policy[J]. The Review of Higher Education, 2002, 26(1), 97-115.
[26] Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness:
Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs?[J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2002, 603-641. 620
[27] Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education[R].
Location: AAHE bulletin, 1987, 3, 7.
[28] Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. A comparison of student experiences with good practices in undergraduate
education between 1990 and 1994[J]. The Review of Higher Education, 1997, 21(1), 43-61.
[29] Cole, D., & Griffin, K. A. Advancing the Study of Student-Faculty Interaction: A Focus on Diverse Students 625
- 18 -
中国科技论文在线
and Faculty Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 561-611)[J]. Location: Springer, 2013.
[30] Tinto, V. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.)[M]: ERIC, 1993.
[31] Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. Indicators of" Good Practice" in Undergraduate Education: A Handbook for
Development and Implementation[M].Location:none, 1996.
[32] Gonyea, R. M., Kish, K. A., Kuh, G. D., Muthiah, R. N., & Thomas, A. D. College Student Experiences 630
Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition[R]. College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment Program
(NJ1), 2003.
[33] Tinto, V. Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in student departure[J].
Reworking the student departure puzzle, 2000, 81-94.
[34] Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and 635
engagement[J]. Research in Higher Education, 2005, 46(2), 153-184.
[35] Young-Jones, A., Cara, K. C., & Levesque-Bristol, C. Verbal and behavioral cues: creating an
autonomy-supportive classroom[J]. Teaching in Higher Education, 2014, 19(5), 497-509.
[36] Feldman, K. A. Identifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching: Evidence from Student Ratings[A].Editor.
The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93-143)[C]. 640
Location: Springer, 2007.
[37] Erekson, O. H. Joint determination of college student achievement and effort: Implications for college
teaching[J]. Research in Higher Education, 1992, 33(4), 433-446.
[38] Padgett, R. D., Johnson, M. P., & Pascarella, E. T. First-generation undergraduate students and the impacts of
the first year of college: Additional evidence[J]. Journal of College Student Development, 2012, 53(2), 243-266. 645
[39] Joy, A., & Sherry Jr, J. F. Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory approach to
understanding aesthetic experience[J]. Journal of consumer research, 2003, 30(2), 259-282.
[40] Goffin, K., & Koners, U. Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and new product development[J]. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 2011, 28(2), 300-318.
[41] Goffin, K. Repertory grid technique. Essential skills for management research[M]. Location:none, 2002, 650
198-225.
[42] Goffin, K., Lemke, F., & Szwejczewski, M. An exploratory study of 'close'supplier-manufacturer
relationships[J]. Journal of operations management, 2006, 24(2), 189-209.
[43] De Jong, R., Van Tartwijk, J., Verloop, N., Veldman, I., & Wubbels, T. Teachers' expectations of
teacher-student interaction: Complementary and distinctive expectancy patterns[J]. Teaching and Teacher 655
Education, 2012, 28(7), 948-956.
[44] van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal
teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education[J]. Teaching and Teacher Education,
2014, 37, 21-32.
[45] Fransella, F. International handbook of personal construct psychology[M]. Location: Wiley Online Library, 660
2003.
[46] Kelly, G. The Psychology of Personal Constructs[M]. Volume Two: Clinical Diagnosis and Psychotherapy:
Routledge, 2003.
[47] Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. A manual for repertory grid technique[M]. Location: John Wiley &
Sons, 2004. 665
[48] Bender, M. Provided versus Elicited Constructs: an Explanation of Warr & Coffman's (1970) Anomalous
Finding[J]. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 13(3), 329-330.
[49] Jankowicz, D. The easy guide to repertory grids[M]. Location: John wiley & sons, 2005.
[50] Eagan Jr, M. K., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., Mosqueda, C. M., & Chang, M. J. Engaging undergraduates in
science research: not just about faculty willingness[J]. Research in higher education, 2011, 52(2), 151-177. 670
基于个人构念积储格的中国商学院学
生师生互动体验及关键因素研究
殷可欣，刘金兰 675
（管理与经济学部，天津大学，天津 300072）
摘要：本文紧跟当前国际高等教育师生互动研究的最新思潮，利用工商管理学界顾客体验研
究中常用的个人构念积储格（RGT, Repertory Grid Technique）访谈方法，对天津某大学的
30 名大四毕业生进行了为时 30-60 分钟不等的面对面访谈。进而，本文利用 IdioGrid 软
件及 SPSS 软件对每一位受访者的数据进行了主成分分析，并绘制思维地图（Conceptual 680
Map）。进而，在同时考虑构念出现频率及平均标准变异度（ANV, Average Normal Variety）
的情形下，对关键构念（Key Construct）进行了提取。即得到了科学评价中国商科学生在师
生互动中体验的指标组合。在对关键构念的提取中，发现某些构念能够体现出学生对与教
师进行进一步互动的动机和期望。故在提取出的关键构念中选择构念“平易近人，愿与沟
通”作为标志构念，利用皮尔森相关指数（Pearson Correlation Coefficient）计算了构念相关685
- 19 -
中国科技论文在线
性，找出每位受访者的可接近暗示（Accessibility Cues）进行汇总。在联系社交心理学人际
吸引理论，及师生互动内在机制相关理论进行讨论后，本文最终将可接近暗示总结为：同
理心、启发性与鼓励性。
关键词：高等教育；师生互动；个人构念积储格; 可接近暗示
中图分类号：G645 690
