Student achievement, or lack thereof, is a major topic of interest today to policymakers, educators, and parents. The single most important teacher factor influencing student achievement is that of teacher effectiveness (Jordan, Weerasinghe, & Mendro, 1997; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). As aptly noted by Henson (2008), “Good teachers make the difference in who succeeds in school” (p. 2). Effective teachers have an influence on students that is powerful and long-lasting, an idea that is emphasized in the federal government’s “highly qualified teachers” component (The No Child Left Behind Act, 2001, Title IX, 9191{23} A-C; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Unfortunately, in our opinion, the federal government’s focus is overly narrow as passing tests and earning credentials essentially comprises effective teachers for the federal government.

Previous researchers, however, have well documented that effective teachers have not only content knowledge expertise but, also important, possess the ability to connect, emotionally and socially, with their students (Aagaard & Skidmore, 2002; Foote, Vermette, Wisniewski, Agnello, & Pagano, 2000; Henson, 2008; Quereshi, 1980). Far too many other researchers and organizations have contended that the affective domain must be given credence as well (e.g., Cotton, 2000; Good & Brophy, 2003; Goodlad, 1984; Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, & James, 2002; National Association of Secondary Principals and The Education Alliance, 2008; Peart & Campbell, 1999; Witcher, Onwuegbuzie, & Minor, 2001). In addition, concerns exist about the social and cultural contexts of teaching (e.g., Banks, Gay, Nieto, & Rogoff, 2007; Lopez, Gonzalez, & Fierro, 2006), meaning that effective teaching occurs within the context of schools and schooling.

Several researchers (e.g., Minor et al., 2002; Wang, Gibson, & Slate, 2007; Witcher et al., 2001) have provided lists of effective teaching characteristics for K-12 teachers. For example, Wang et al. provided 24 discrete effective teaching characteristics: helping; teaches well; motivating; teaches for understanding; service; explains material well; caring; communication; fun; good attitude; builds relationships; uses different modalities; challenges students; makes learning interesting; passion; involving; being understanding; patience; friendly; being respectful; and, being fair (p. 286). Many of these themes fit under Witcher et al.’s (2001) more global analysis: student-centeredness; enthusiasm for teaching; ethicalness; classroom and behavior management; teaching methodology; and knowledge of subject (p. 49). Similar findings were present in Minor et al.’s (2002) study: student centered; effective classroom and behavior manager; competent instructor; ethical; enthusiastic about teaching; knowledgeable about subject; and professional.

Readers should note that these effective teaching characteristics were generated for K-12 teachers and not specifically for teachers at the elementary, middle, or high school levels. Only two studies were located in which effective teaching characteristics were delineated for teachers at a specific school level. Slate, Capraro, and Onwuegbuzie (2007) analyzed 72 undergraduate teacher education students’ stories of their best K-5 teachers. Fourteen themes emerged that they indicated were indicative of effective teaching at the elementary school level: female teachers; caring; good attitude; uses different modalities; involving; teaches well; passion toward job; fun; motivating; creative; builds relationships; respectful; makes learning interesting; and classroom management. More recently, Schulte, Slate, and Onwuegbuzie (2009) analyzed 615 college students’, predominantly Hispanic, characteristics of effective high school teachers. Their qualitative analyses revealed 24 themes: caring; communication; creative; disciplinarian; fairness; flexible; friendly; fun; knowledgeable; listening; manages classroom; uses different modalities; involving; motivating; organized; passion for teaching; patience; builds relationships; shows others respect; challenges; service; teaches well; good personality; and understanding. Both studies have characteristics in common, both with each other, and with the studies depicting characteristics of effective K-12 teachers.

The culture of teaching includes teacher preparation/orientation programs, as well as the sentiments which can be attributed to the teaching profession. Educating teacher candidates can be a lesson in the perpetuation of a cycle—we, teacher educators, tend to produce teachers just like ourselves. Teacher candidates mimic and replicate practices they witness from their mentors (Kagan, 1992), teachers and professors they have had in their preparation programs as well as their own experiences as students in classrooms. Although an abundance of research exists that identifies strong, positive changes for teacher education programs, people still tend to be wary of outside sources of information when it comes to education and they tend to connect their current practices to their educational instructors. As Lortie (1975) alleged, people tend to believe they know what it encompasses to be a teacher, because, after all, they have spent many years in the classroom. Outside knowledge—outside of the teacher candidates’ own knowledge base, still occupies the realm of esoteric knowledge. Therefore, exploring teacher candidates’ perception of best teacher characteristics is worth investigating to address what they believe and the suitability of these beliefs within the realm of best practices for the classroom.

A content analysis of the respondents’ answers to the open-ended questions yielded eight emergent themes as shown in Table 2. The theme that was stated by the largest number of participants (n = 120; 48.2%) concerned the participants’ best teachers as those teachers who incorporated a variety of teaching strategies into their teaching. We named this category “teaching strategies.” Responses relevant to this theme generally began with participants citing their best teacher as one who incorporated many different strategies into their teaching, followed by a description of its meaning to them.

In their description, participants incorporated and explained subsets of this theme, which included the following descriptors: build confidence, incorporated Bloom’s taxonomy, fun, challenging, accountable. For instance, when speaking of teaching strategies, participants mentioned that teachers challenged them to move from lower level (concrete) to higher level (abstract) (i.e., Bloom’s taxonomy). This response means that learning at higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels. As such, this approach addressed the students’ diverse and varied levels of thinking skills, which then aided in their learning by providing opportunities for more in-depth learning of the material presented.

The second most salient theme that emerged in our participants’ descriptions of their “best teacher” was “caring/concern” (n = 102, 41%). The subsets that emerged from this theme included encouraging/supportive, compassionate, and open-minded. Our participants’ descriptions were based upon the teachers’ level of concern and support for their students. Participants considered the characteristics of encouraging/supportive, compassionate and open-minded as indicative of a teacher who exhibited a high level of caring and concern for their students.

We labeled the third most significant theme “rapport” (n = 70; 28.1%). These characteristics included ones of a funny, interactive, and personable teacher. Our analysis of what respondents described as “rapport” revealed that the teacher developed a good rapport with the students. Participants focused on the teacher’s personality.

Our fourth category is based on the participants’ description of their best teacher as one who exhibited characteristics of being “passionate” (n = 68, 27.3%). These characteristics included the subset of those descriptions of a teacher who was inspiring in regard to the subject matter content as well as being enthusiastic and energetic. These teachers appeared to our respondents to love the subject that they were teaching and to be energized and enthused by it. These attributes stimulated the students, who felt that they were inspired by these teachers to learn the content, even though some students claimed to dislike the subject area.

“Committed/professional” is how respondents described best teacher characteristics for the fifth category (n = 40, 16.1%). It is interesting that the participants’ definition of this category included the terms “available,” “trustworthy,” “role model,” “dependable” and “poised.” These characteristics were not a “warm and fuzzy” description; rather, they hinge on the students’ accessibility to the teacher. In their discussion of a committed teacher, participants spoke of a person who was dedicated to teaching and students.

“Classroom management” was the sixth theme (n = 37; 14.9%) that emerged in regard to the characteristics of a best teacher. Subsets for this category, as defined by participants, included terms such as “fair” and “disciplines well”. These characteristics reflect a teacher who does not favor one student over another and who applies the rules and consequences to all students.

The seventh area was termed “knowledgeable” (n = 26, 10.4%). Descriptors used to define this category included “intelligent.” Participants were aware of their teacher’s knowledge of the material and content matter. In this theme, respondents described a teacher who was conversant in the subject area and who was able to reply in a knowledgeable fashion to questions about the material.

“Respect” held the eighth position (n = 11; 4.4%) of the themes of best teacher characteristics. As defined by our respondents, these teachers respected their students. They listened to student ideas and were not dismissive of them or their views. Students described feeling valued because they were treated with respect as a person and as a student.

The eight emergent themes can be separated into two larger overarching categories: those categories that pertain to the cognitive domain, including “teaching strategies,” and “knowledgeable” and those categories focusing primarily on the affective domain, including “caring/concern,” “rapport,” “passionate,” “committed,” “professional,” and “respect.” Perhaps due to their cognitive development, the most salient theme that emerged was that the preservice teachers were more interested in the expansion of their knowledge base (cognitive domain) than that of teachers’ personalities (affective domain). Participants’ comments centered on those best teacher characteristics and focused on more than just the affective domain. They were also attentive to those teacher characteristics that fueled their interest in the subject matter. It was also suggested that teachers who possessed these best teacher characteristics were responsible for these preservice teachers’ academic achievement. In our participants’ own words, a good teacher is one whose characteristics enable their students, through whatever means, be it a caring, passion, commitment or rapport, to achieve academic success.

Our teacher education preservice participants’ involvement in an array of education classes, in accordance with their hands-on experiences in the classroom alongside their master/mentor teachers, affords them a view of teaching and teacher quality that is well informed. In addition to these experiences, 46(18%) reported that they were also parents. This added parental experience allowed for a type of triangulation of understanding of what constitutes best teachers.

Our themes of Rapport, Caring/Concern, and Teaching Strategies are congruent with Ruben and Justice (2005) who reported that their sample of preservice teachers viewed effective teachers as making learning fun, as being caring, and as being challenging. Our themes are also in agreement with a very recent study by Schulte, Slate, and Onwuegbuzie (2009) in which they asked 615 college students, not just preservice teachers, to list characteristics of effective high school teachers. In Table 2, readers can see that our themes and the characteristics subsumed under each correspond well to the 24 themes identified in their study: Caring; Communication; Creative; Disciplinarian; Fairness; Flexible; Friendly; Fun; Knowledgeable; Listening; Manages classroom; Uses different modalities; Involving; Motivating; Organized; Passion for Teaching; Patience; Builds relationships; Shows others respect; Challenges; Service; Teaches well; Good personality; and Understanding.

Interestingly, our eight themes generated from students’ stories of their best high school teachers were also congruent with a very recent study of the views of 437 Hispanic college students regarding characteristics of effective elementary school teachers (Slate, Onwuegbuzie, & Schulte, 2009). In their study, Slate et al. reported five factors: (a) Student-centered and Transmitter; (b) Responsive; (c) Enthusiastic, Empathetic, and Communicative; (d) Professional and Director; and, (e) Expert and Connector in which 20 dominant themes were incorporated. All of the themes elicited in our study specifically for high school teachers fit under these five factors for effective elementary school teachers.

Some differences were present, as readers might expect, given the differences in the focus of high schools from elementary schools. Specifically, Slate et al. (2009) indicated that Loving was their seventh highest ranking theme, out of 20 themes, whereas the theme of Loving did not appear in our analysis. Similarly, more themes in the area of caring and being compassionate were also reported in the Slate et al. study than our sample of preservice teachers provided. In a study of the perceived characteristics of effective middle school teachers, Schulte, Slate, and Onwuegbuzie (2009) reported the presence of 38 dominant themes. This large number of themes, in our opinion, may reflect the complexity and uniqueness of working with middle school students.

We contend that our results, along with the results of other studies discussed above, suggest that characteristics beyond content knowledge are essential for effective teaching. This finding came as a surprise to us because we anticipated that the concept of “content knowledge” would rate high on what secondary students deemed an important characteristic of a “best teacher.” Adolescents, as Steinberg (2007) contended, are moving toward developing their independence and, as such, we had assumed that they would be less likely to value the characteristics of the affective domain. Our results, however, revealed that our sample rated affective domain characteristics quite highly. The themes of Caring/Concern, Rapport, Passionate, Professional, and Respect do not pertain to content knowledge but rather to characteristics that are present in the emotional/social realm (e.g., Cotton, 2000; Good & Brophy, 2003; Goodlad, 1984; Minor et al., 2002; Peart & Campbell, 1999; Witcher et al., 2001). These themes also could be considered aspects of what Reed and Bergemann (1992) referred to as non-measurable skills of effective teachers.

We believe that, to make the best use of our findings, teacher preparation programs and the faculty members involved therein need to include better screening of teacher education candidates to identify their possession of the above-mentioned characteristics. We also contend that consideration should be given to modifying teacher education curricula to include pedagogy that teaches candidates strategies to utilize these “best teacher” qualities within their classrooms. For faculty members, these characteristics need to become part of their instructional practices within the authentic environment of their own classrooms.

As stated in the introductory part of this article, we believe that our findings pertain to school climate. School climate refers to “the quality and character of school life. It is based on patterns of school life experiences and reflects norms, goals, values interpersonal relationships, teaching learning and leadership practices and organizational structures” (National School Climate Center, 2007, p.5). Who better to help establish the quality of the school climate than the site-based administrator? To generate a positive school climate, school leaders need to see that positive “best teacher”- student relationships are developed, particularly through a whole school approach. We contend that if the school administrator works to foster these qualities in teachers through in-services and workshops as well as in hiring practices, then the characteristics of a positive school climate, as identified by CPSV, may become a reality.

Finally, we believe that additional research is needed -to determine and differentiate the characteristics of effective and ineffective teachers as well as teaching practices at each of the three school levels: elementary, middle, and secondary. Identifying the unique characteristics of teachers and teaching practices has the potential to lead to changes in teacher education programs , at the university level as well as to generate professional development activities specific to each school level.

Aagaard, L., & Skidmore, R. (2002, November). Preservice teacher perceptions of their best and worst K-12 teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN.

Banks, J. A., Gay, G., Nieto, S., & Rogoff, B. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. (Report). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments Center.

Carson, B. H. (1999). Bad news in the service of good teaching: Students remember ineffective professors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 10(1), 91-105.

Center for Collaborative Education. (2008). The pivotal role of middle school teachers. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.turningpts.org/beliefs.htm

Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory & Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Foote, C., Vermette, P., Wisniewski, S., Agnello, A., & Pagano, C. (2000). The characteristics of bad high school teachers reveal avoidable behaviors for new teachers. Education,121, 128-134.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking into classrooms(9th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Henry, M. A. (1977). The impact of field experience on student’s perceptions of good and poor teaching. Teacher Educator, 13(2), 18-22.

Henson, S. (2008, April 28). Looking back at teachers: Good and bad. The Saginaw News [Online], Retrieved January 23, 2009, http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/04/looking_back_at_teachers_good.html

Jordan, H., Weerasinghe, D., & Mendro, R. (1997). The effects of teachers on longitudinal student achievement. Presentation at the 1997 CREATE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129-169.

Lopez, G. R., Gonzalez, M. L., & Fierro, E. (2006). Educational leadership along the U.S. –Mexico border: Crossing borders/embracing hybridity/building bridges. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 279-306). New York: Pearson.

Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers.Journal of Educational Research, 96, 116-127.

National Association of Secondary School Principals and The Education Alliance. (2004). Executive summary: Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Retrieved on January 26, 2009, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sslc/institutes_2005/documents/Ollarvia_executive_summary.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peart, N. A., & Campbell, F. A. (1999). At-risk student’s perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5, 269-284.

Quereshi, M. Y. (1980). Perceptions of traits that identify the best and worst teachers in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Education, 49(1), 4-8.

Reed, A. J., & Bergemann, V. E. (1992). In the classroom: An introduction to education. Guilford, CT: Dushkin.

Rubin, B. C., & Justice, B. (2005). Preparing social studies teachers to be just and democratic: Problems and possibilities. In N. M. Michelli & D. L. Keiser (Eds.), Teacher education for democracy and social justice (pp. 57-86). New York: Routledge – Taylor & Francis Group.

Saban, A. (2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary teachers and their views of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 829-846.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Schulte, D. P., Slate, J. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009a). Characteristics of effective high school teachers: A mixed analysis. International Journal of Educational Research. Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.12.001

Schulte, D. P., Slate, J. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009b, February). Hispanic college students’ views of effective middle school teachers: A multi-stage mixed analysis. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Conference. Dallas, TX.

Schunk, D. H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation in education: Theories, research and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Slate, J. R., Capraro, M. M., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Students’ stories of their best and poorest K-5 teachers: A mixed data analysis. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 7(2), 53-79.

Slate, J. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Schulte, D. P. (2009). Hispanic college students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective elementary school teachers: A multi-stage mixed analysis. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 9(2), 1-23.

Steinberg, L. D. (2007). Adolescence. 8th edition. McGraw Hill.

Stover, D. (2005). Research Brief: School climate. Retrieved from The Principals’ Partnership at http://www.principalspartnership.com

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

United States Department of Education. (2008). The facts about good teachers. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/teachers.pdf

Wang, J., Gibson, A. M., & Slate, J. R. (2007). Effective teachers as viewed by students at a 2 year college: A multistage mixed analysis. Issues in Educational Research, 17(2), 272-295.

Willie, C. V. (1985). Good and bad teaching that adults remember: An essay on effective education. Equity and Choice, 1(3), 19-24, 32.

Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 45-57.