4.Studies of correlation between student engagement and teacher personality. The amount of time students allocate to learning activities was the first definition of student engagement in its infant stage (Brophy, 1983; Fisher et al., 1980; McIntyre et al.,1983). Although student engagement has long been solely associated with students; involvement in educational processes, the new perspective on the terms definition also includes cognitive and affective components. Astin (1984) referred to student engagement as «the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience», and highlighted that for an effort to be considered as engagement along with investing time, students must actively invest in intellectual capacities and their attention. In general, researchers (Kuh, 2003; Handelsman et al., 2005; Chapman, 2003) seem to concur on three major components in defining student engagement, which are cognitive, affective and behavioral efforts put by the students. Talking separately about each of these aspects, according to Chapman (2003) cognitive criteria indicates the focus devoted and the mental involvement when doing the tasks, second behavioral criteria indicates contributed responses to the offered tasks, third, affective criteria indicates the students investment level in the task and their emotional reactions to those tasks.
There are visible behavior patterns that assess student engagement possible. Franklin (2005) described some of these patterns as students «tendency to listen, respond to questions, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class.» Mentioned behavior models are likely to indicate student engagement in the classroom when monitoring. Not surprisingly, a high level of engagement is linked to high-quality learning outcomes (Krause & Coates, 2008).
The research conducted by Kiefer and Pennington (2017) intended to find out if there is a correlation between teachers perceived as supporters of autonomous learning and the engagement level that students show. The researchers concluded that not only teachers influence but «directly shapes» student engagement, and is crucial when examining the perspectives of school students. Cinches et al., (2017) highlighted the impossibility of accurate student engagement studies without counting the teachers impact.
Another study on teacher support and students well-being, conducted by Suldo et al. (2009), intended to explore the relationship between teacher support and student success, revealing that supportive teacher-student interaction is likely to result in students academic engagement. Apart from studies on the significance of teacher-student relationships, there is more research on factors that influence these relationships. Aiming to get a deeper understanding of the factors that matter in teacher-learner interactions, Split et al., (2012) surveyed 657 students. They revealed that a lack of good relationship between educators and their learners causes student anxiety and insecurity which intervenes their social and educational growth. In a Zepke et al., (2010) survey, where 1200 students took part, it was identified that 4 of the 10 factors that enhance student engagement were directly connected to teacher-learner relationships, and in fact, supportive teacher behavior plays a crucial role in building positive teacher-student relationships.
Federici and Skaalvik (2014) described that emotional support from teachers is manifested when they show their warmth, respect, love, and level of trust to their students. According to Tennant et al. (2015), when learners receive positive emotional support from their teachers they tend to score higher on standardized tests. Strati et al. (2017) state that when students face emotional obstruction such as, teachers disrespect, sarcasm, or negative attitude towards specific students, the level of student engagement declines. Suldo et al. (2009) emphasized the overwhelming impact of negative teacher behaviors by claiming that negative emotional obstruction is «easily recalled» compared to emotional support. Moreover, Mayer and Turner (2002) argued that a lack of support in an academic setting might lead to loss of motivation and decreased engagement. They suggested that the behavior displayed by the teacher might influence not only students behavior but also their educational and emotional success.
According to Sandlins (2019) case study, students believed that teachers personalities have a significant impact on their engagement. Most students identified agreeableness and extraversion as important traits for building classroom engagement. Tennent et al. (2015) also emphasized the importance of positive relationships between teachers and students in achieving desirable outcomes.
Conclusion. This paper highlights the importance of teacher personality and student engagement in academic performance. Positive teacher traits, such as friendliness, openness, agreeableness, competence, and responsibility, can lead to better engagement and academic outcomes. Negative traits, such as neuroticism and introversion, can have the opposite effect. Supportive attitudes and emotional support from teachers can improve engagement, while negativity can harm it. Further research should observe teachers and students in authentic environments to provide empirical evidence.
Reference
1. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2000, Vol. 126. No. 1, P. 325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
2. Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 2008, Vol. 76, No. 6, P. 15231544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x
3. Funder, D. C. The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton, 2004.
20. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005
4. McAdams, D. P. The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley, 2006.
5. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D. & John, O.P. Personality: theory and research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.
6. Mayer, J. D. Personality Function and Personality Change. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioners guide. Psychology Press, 2007, P. 125143.
7. Hogan, R. Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991, Vol. 2, P. 873919.
8. Burger J. M. Personality (9. ed.). Cengage Learning, 2015.
9. Guthrie, J.P., Coate, C.J., & Schwoerer, C.E. Career management strategies: the role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 1998. No. 13, P. 371386.
10. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (3rd edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. 2008.
11. Buss, A. H. Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 1989, Vol. 44, No. 11, P. 13781388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1378
12. Snow, R.E and Stemberg. Education and Intelligence. Handbook of human intelligence, New York Cambridge University Press. 1984.
13. Gregoire, C.Seven habits of natural leaders. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/traits‐that‐make‐a-leader_n_5959298.html
14. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. Achievement tests and the role of character in American life. In J. J. Heckman, J. E. Humphries, & T. Kautz (Eds.), The myth of achievement tests: The GED and the role of character in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2014. P.2354
15. Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W., & Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L. Can an old dog learn (and want to experience) new tricks? Cognitive training increases openness to experience in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 2012, No. 27, P. 286 292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025918
16. Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, No. 101, P. 620 637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023743
17. Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean‐level and rank‐order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, No. 101, P. 862 882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950
18. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. Patterns of mean‐level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2006, No. 132, P. 1 25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.132.1.1
19. Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 2017, No. 143, P. 117 141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088
20. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015, No. 109, P. 490 507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021
21. Sronge, J. H., Tucker, P. D. & Hindman, J. L. Handbook for Qualities of Effective Teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). 2004.
22. Curtis, & Cheng, Liying. Teachers Self-evaluation of Knowledge, Skills and Personality Characteristics Needed to Manage Change. Asia-pacific Journal of Teacher Education ASIA-PAC J TEACH EDUC. 2001, No. 29, P. 139152. 10.1080/13598660120061327.
23. Hashim, Nik Mohd Hazrul & Alam, Syed & Yusoff, Norazlina. Relationship between Teachers Personality, Monitoring, Learning Environment, and Students EFL Performance. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies. 2014, No. 14. P. 101116. 10.17576/GEMA-2014-1401-07.
24. Göncz, A., Göncz, L., & Pekić, J. The influence of students personality traits on their perception of a good teacher within the five-factor model of personality. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2014, No. 11, P. 65 86. doi:10.12700/APH.11.03.2014.03.5
25. Göncz, L. Teacher personality: a review of psychological research and guidelines for a more comprehensive theory in educational psychology, Open Review of Educational Research, 2017, No. 4, P. 7595, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2017.1339572
26. Suplicz, S. What makes a teacher bad? Trait and learnt factors of teachers competencies. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2009, No. 6, P. 125138.
27. Sánchez, M. M., Pecino, R. M., Rodríguez, Y. T., & Melero, P. T. Student perspectives on the university professor role. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2011, No. 39, P. 491496. doi:10. 2224/sbp.2011.39.4.491
28. Brophy, J. Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 1983, No. 18, P. 200215.
29. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham
& A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. 1980.
30. McIntyre, D.J., Copenhaver, R.W., Byrd, D.M., & Norris, W.R. A study of engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics class. Journal of Educational Research, 1983, No. 77 (1), P. 5559.
31. Astin, A. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development. 1984, No. 25, P.297308.
32. Kuh, G. D. What were learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 2003, No. 35 (2)..
33. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 2005, No. 98, P. 184191.
34. Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2003, No. 8. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13
35. Franklin, E.E. Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artist Journal, 2005, No. 3, P. 148157
36. Krause, K.L. and Coates, H. Students Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, No. 33, P. 493505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
37. Kiefer, S., and Pennington, S. Associations of teacher autonomy support and structure with young adolescents motivation, engagement, belonging, and achievement. Middle Grades Res. J. 2017, No. 11, P. 29.
38. Cinches, Ma. Florecilla & Russell, Ruth Love & Chavez, Judith & Ortiz, Rosella. Student engagement: Defining teacher effectiveness and teacher engagement. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia. 2017, No. 15. P. 519.
39. Suldo, Shannon & Friedrich, Allison & White, Tiffany & Farmer, Jennie & Minch, Devon & Michalowski, Jessica. Teacher Support and Adolescents Subjective Well-Being: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. School Psychology Review. 2009, No. 38, P. 6785. 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850.
40. Spilt, Jantine & Hughes, Jan & Wu, Jiun-yu & Kwok, Oi-Man. Dynamics of TeacherStudent Relationships: Stability and Change Across Elementary School and the Influence on Childrens Academic Success. Child development. 2012, No. 83. P. 118095.
10.1111/j.14678624.2012.01761.x.
41. Zepke, N., L. Leach, & P. Butler. Student engagement: What is it and what influences it? Wellington, Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. 2010. http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9261-Introduction.pdf
42. Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. Students perception of instrumental support and
effort in mathematics: The mediating role of subjective task values. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 2014, No. 17 (3), P. 527540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9264-8
43. Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S, Alber J. eHealth Literacy and Web 2.0 Health Information Seeking Behaviors Among Baby Boomers and Older Adults J Med Internet Res. 2015, 17 (3):e70
Karibayeva Lazzat
Challenges in Online Education in the Context of English Language Teaching and Learning
(Master student at Suleyman Demirel University)
Abstract
After sudden and abrupt changes due to the pandemic outburst during 20192021, many students and teachers had to experience all the benefits and drawbacks of remote study and work. Flexibility and easy access as opposed to the internet connection and technology failure, unfamiliar technological tools and the lack of personal communication were the issues that caused mixed perceptions towards studying under the conditions of being locked at home. This article seeks to explore the challenges that learners faced over the recent two years. However, apart from evaluating what issues are engendered by the exposure to distance learning, this paper addresses the challenges in learning English remotely by investigating and elaborating on solutions suggested by researchers in this area. The paper concludes by outlining recommendations for English language teachers to make the process of distance learning less challenging.