The First Day of Class: Starting With an Activity or Syllabus?
The first day of class matters; it sets the stage for the term. Students form impressions of instructors on the first day of class, and these evaluations persist throughout the semester (Laws, Apperson, Buchert, & Bregman, 2010). Further, students who experience a positive first day of class compared to those who had a negative first-day experience report more positive attitudes at the end of the first day and a higher motivation throughout the course (Wilson & Wilson, 2007).Handing out a syllabus and leaving on the first day of class communicates to students that class time is not valuable and even diminishes the first-day excitement (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). It has been suggested that the first day of class may be best used by setting expectations and reviewing the syllabus (Duffy & Jones, 1995; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). In addition to these activities, some instructors may use the first day to engage the students with material or employ a teaching demonstration (Perlman & McCann, 2004). In fact, due to instructors considering the first day of class as a blank slate for a number of teaching activities, an entertaining list of 50 fun things for professors to do on the first day of class has been created (see Meiss, 2000, 2010). Although some of these suggestions are humorous, such as delivering your lecture through the use of a hand puppet, they may not elicit the response that many instructors are seeking or facilitate the type of learning environment desired.
Researchers have suggested the importance of investigating which first-day activities may nurture beneficial environments (Hermann, Foster, & Hardin, 2010). A specific activity involving a reciprocal interview on the first day has recently been investigated. This activity was developed for teaching industrial/organizational psychology students how to effectively communicate with employers and was subsequently implemented within the classroom (Case et al., 2008). The activity involves students forming small groups and having 10 to 15 minutes to discuss course related topics. Following the discussion, the representative from each group interviews the instructor to ask questions about the course. This activity has revealed several benefits, including more positive course evaluations, more student satisfaction, greater clarity about responsibilities, more instructor support, a more comfortable class room environment, and greater student interest and caring (Case et al., 2008; Hermann et al., 2010; McGinley & Jones, 2014).
Similar to the reciprocal interview, other discipline-specific first-day activities have been developed (e.g., Curtis & Gray, 2012). One first day activity that involves assessing students' first impressions of an instructor has been suggested to foster enduring positive first impressions and engage students (Curtis & Gray, 2012). This first day activity involves the instructor entering the classroom and beginning class by not speaking and turning on a PowerPoint (PPT) presentation slide. Students appraise their first impressions of the instructor through the PPT slide prompt, which asks students to write down the first five things they thought or felt related to the instructor. Afterwards, the instructor verbally greets the class. Then, some students volunteer to share what they have written down. The instructor discusses the activity, how it relates to the course, and how it relates to how each student uses psychology in their lives. This activity has been proposed as a means to demonstrate the utility of psychology and to engage students on the first day of class.
Much attention has been given to the most effective use of the first day of class, with good reason. Though instructors are motivated to be intentional in their approach to the first day (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006), there are numerous approaches that instructors may consider. Recently, first day activities have been deemed worthy of empirical investigation, and several studies have shown how using the first day can benefit students and instructors (e.g., Hermann et al., 2010). Motivation is another variable of interest when examining first day activities (Bassett & Nix, 2010; McGinley & Jones, 2014; Wilson & Wilson, 2007). Motivation is considered an important predictor for success in all levels of education. McGinley and Jones (2014) assessed the effect of a first-day activity, based on the reciprocal interview, on motivation by using the MUSIC model of Academic Motivation. The results of this study found that the first-day activity increased three components of student motivation: individual interest, academic caring, and personal caring. While the MUSIC model has empirical merit (McGinley& Jones, 2014), self-determination theory, which was used as one of the foundational theories for the MUSIC model, offers other components of motivation worthy of investigation.
Self-Determination theory (SDT) is a well established and corroborated approach that affirms humans have three innate needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In an optimal environment, all three needs should be met (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In a classroom situation these needs are especially relevant. To succeed in a class, students must feel competent, that they are capable of doing the work which will influence their motivation. Autonomy is important as students who feel that their thoughts and ideas are encouraged and that they have some control of their learning are more likely to be motivated. Finally, relatedness is important because when students feel their instructor accepts and respects them, they are also more likely to be motivated. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness have been shown to predict college grade point average (GPA), intentions to persist in college, enjoyment and interest, and more positive instructor and course evaluations (Black & Deci, 2000; Filak & Sheldon, 2003; 2008; Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, & Abel, 2013; Larose, Tarabulsy, & Cyrenne, 2005). Research is limited on how first-day activities may affect motivational components (e.g., McGinley & Jones, 2014) and unclear how first-day impressions affect autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Though the use of various teaching activities for the first day of class have been suggested, research has primarily focused on the reciprocal interview activity (Case et al., 2008; Hermann et al., 2010; McGinley & Jones, 2014). Further, these research designs investigated the use of the activity not as the first activity but after having reviewed the syllabus. Moreover, the same empirically established motivational measures have not been examined. Thus, the purpose of the current research was to further investigate the effects of first day teaching activities by specifically examining their use as the primary and initial activity. Specifically, does introducing a syllabus or teaching demonstration at the onset of class affect impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions, and student motivation? Additionally, we wanted to explore if the effects of differing first day activities would be beneficial for impressions of instructors, student self-perceptions, and student motivation, in particular the three innate needs from SDT. From SDT we examined student perceptions of the autonomy support the instructor provides, perceived competence of the student for learning the course material, and the relatedness the student feels with the instructor. Hence, we examined the effects of first day activities compared to a syllabus review on first impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions of engagement and motivation, perceptions of the autonomy support, perceived competence of the student, and relatedness. We examined two different first-day activities delivered by two different instructors and predicted that a first day teaching activity would yield more positive impressions of instructors, more positive student self-perceptions, greater autonomy support, higher perceived competence, and more relatedness compared to a first day syllabus review for both instructor conditions.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants We recruited 277 participants from undergraduate psychology courses at a southwestern Hispanic Serving Institution. Of the 277 participants, 259 completed the study beyond the demographics questionnaire. Thus, the 18 participants who did not complete the study were excluded from analyses. From the 259 participants, 183 indicated that they had not taken a class from the professor. Due to the design's focus on assessing the effectiveness of a first day activity without the influence of previous exposure to the professor, only these 183 participants were included in analyses.
The participants ranged in age from 18 to 57 years old (M = 20, SD = 4.25). The majority of participants were female (66%). The majority of participants (54%) were Caucasian/European American, followed by Hispanic/Latina/Latino (33%). Most participants identified as First-Year Students (less than 30 credit hours; 52%) with an average self-reported GPA of 3.07 (SD = .68).
Materials The current study used four instruments: Instructor Impressions and Student Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (Appendix A), Perceived Competence for Learning Scale (Williams & Deci, 1996), Relatedness Scale (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), and Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams, Wiener, Markakis, Reeve, & Deci, 1994).
Instructor Impressions and Student Self-Perceptions Questionnaire. The Instructor Impressions and Student Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (IISSQ) is a 24 item questionnaire that was developed by the researchers to assess impressions of an instructor and student self-perceptions. The first four questions ask participants to identify their interest in taking the course and likelihood to attend subsequent courses on a semantic-differential scale (e.g., 1 = Not at all interested, 7 = Very much interested). Seven items ask participants to rate various self-perceptions (e.g., successful, engaged) based on taking a class with the instructor, on a 7 point Likert-type rating scale with the ratings anchored (1 = Not very, 7 = Very). These seven items demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha = .96).The last 12 items ask participants to indicate various impressions (e.g., successful, humorous) of an instructor on a 7 point Likert-type rating scale with the ratings anchored (1 = Not very, 7 = Very). These items had acceptable internal consistency reliability (alpha = .73).
Perceived Competence for Learning Scale. The scale consists of four items and measures perceived competence for learning (Williams & Deci, 1996). The scale uses a 7-point Likert-type rating scale (e.g., 1 = Not at all true, 7 = Very true). In the current study, the Perceived Competence Scale had high internal consistency reliability (alpha = .93).
Relatedness Scale. This scale consists of four items and measures relatedness to an instructor (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). The scale asks students to indicate their relatedness through items such as "With this instructor I feel accepted" on a 7 point Likert-type rating scale (e.g., 0 = Strongly disagree, 6 = Strongly agree). In the current study the scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (alpha = .81).
Learning Climate Questionnaire. The scale contains 15 items which measure the autonomy support of an instructor (Williams et al., 1994). The questionnaire asks students questions about whether they believe that their instructor is supportive of them and fosters student autonomy. Items such as "I feel understood by this instructor" are assessed on a 7point Likert-type rating scale (e.g., 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). This scale revealed high internal consistency reliability within the present study (alpha = .95).
Video Stimuli. Four videos were created of approximately eight minutes in length. The videos consisted of an instructor (male or female) beginning a first day of class with either a syllabus review or the first day activity. The instructors created both of their videos on the same day, wearing the same attire, in the same classroom, and with no one else in the room. In the videos of the syllabus review, the instructor (for male and female) verbally greeted the class, gave a brief personal introduction, and then discussed the syllabus.
The video of the male instructor's first day activity was created based on a first day, first-impressions, activity suggested by Curtis and Gray (2012). It begins by showing the male instructor standing and a PowerPoint (PPT) presentation slide behind him. The PPT slide reads: "Without talking to others, write down your first impressions of me. Write down 5 things you thought or felt about me. When you are finished remain quiet and look forward." Afterwards, the instructor verbally greeted the class. Then, the instructor discussed what students may have written. The instructor discussed the activity, how it relates to the course, and how it relates to how students use psychology in their lives.
The video of the female instructor's first day activity consisted of her verbally introducing herself, with a PPT presentation behind her. Then, she asks questions (also posted on the PPT slides) about herself that relate to different topics that will be discussed throughout the semester. Some of the questions were: "Am I smart? I remember exactly where I was 9-11-01. Why? Can I teach my cat to fetch as well as a dog? What educational level did my parents achieve? Where am I from?" She discusses how the different questions relate to the course and how it relates to students studying psychology.
Procedure
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants accessed the study online, through a psychology research host site. Participants completed the study for either a research component of a course or for extra credit. Participants were able to select a link to the study through an online research administration system. Once participants selected the link to the study, they were presented with an informed consent. After providing consent, participants were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: first day demonstration-male instructor, first day demonstration-female instructor, syllabus-male instructor, and syllabus-female instructor. Participants were asked to watch one of four videos, depending on the condition that they were assigned.
Following the videos, participants were asked to complete the IISSQ, Perceived Competence for Learning Scale, Relatedness Scale, and Learning Climate Questionnaire. Lastly, participants were provided a debriefing form, which informed the participants about the nature of the study and the conditions that students were randomly assigned.
Results
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to compare first impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions, perceptions of autonomy support, perceived competence of the student, and relatedness between the first-day activity and syllabus review for the male instructor. There was a statistically significant difference based on teaching condition, F (5, 80) = 2.96, p = .017; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.84, partial [eta]2 = .16. Univariate tests revealed statistically significant main effects for autonomy support, (F(1,84) = 5.87, p = .018, q2p= .07), student self-perceptions (F(1,84) = 10.50, p = .002, [eta]2p= .11), and impressions of the instructor, F(1,84) = 12.40, p = .001, [eta]2p = .13; see Table 1). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that differences in autonomy support were higher for the male activity compared to the male syllabus. Student self-perception ratings were higher for the male instructor's activity compared to the male instructor's syllabus. Impressions of the instructor were higher for the male instructor's activity compared to the male instructor's syllabus.
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to compare first impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions, perceptions of autonomy support, perceived competence of the student, and relatedness between the first-day activity and syllabus review for the female instructor. There was not a statistically significant difference based on teaching condition for all measures, F (5, 65) = 1.90, p = .13; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.87, partial [eta]2 = .13.
Lastly, a one-way MANOVA was conducted on all the measures for the syllabus condition between the male instructor and the female instructor. There was not a statistically significant difference based on syllabus condition, F (5, 78) = 0.81, p = .55; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.95, partial [eta]2 = .05.
Discussion
The current study revealed that using a first day teaching activity at the onset of class may be beneficial for autonomy support, student self- perceptions, and impressions of the instructor when compared to a syllabus review. However, these findings only supported the use of a specific teaching activity, the one suggested by Curtis and Gray (2012). While there were no statistically significant differences between the female instructor's teaching activity compared to the syllabus, this may be due to the differences between the male and female instructors' first day teaching activities. To test whether the effects of the teaching activity were due to instructor gender, a follow-up study was conducted to collect data on the female instructor using the same first-day activity as the male instructor.
STUDY 2
One of the limitations of the first study was the gender differences of the instructors. Some comparisons were left unexamined due to this variable. Further, the teaching activities had some differences. The researchers wanted to examine the effects of gender differences on motivation, first impressions of the instructor, and student self-perceptions of engagement and motivation when using the same first-day teaching activity. To examine gender differences the researchers created another video of the female instructor using the same first-day activity used by the male instructor. Some literature has indicated that students hold gender biases when rating instructor effectiveness (Young, Rush, & Shaw, 2009). However, it was unclear how instructor gender may impact motivation and student self-perceptions. Thus, instructor gender was exploratory in nature and no formal hypotheses were formed.
Method
Participants We recruited 23 participants from the same institution. The smaller sample size in this study was designed to collect a sample for comparison that approximated the size of the conditions from the first study. From the 23 participants, 16 participants indicated that they had not taken a class from the professor. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years old (M = 19.81, SD = 1.38). The majority of participants were female (88%). Most participants identified as Caucasian/European American (44%), Hispanic/Latina/Latino (38%), Asian/Asian American (13%), and African American (6%).
Materials The follow-up study used the same measurements used in the first study: IISSQ (alpha = .94; .93), Perceived Competence for Learning Scale (Williams & Deci, 1996; alpha = .94), Relatedness Scale (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; alpha = .82), and Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams et al., 1994; alpha = .96).
The video created by the female instructor was the same video created by the male instructor in the first study. The video begins by seeing the instructor standing in front of a PowerPoint (PPT) presentation slide. The PPT slide read: "Without talking to others, write down your first impressions of me. Write down 5 things you thought or felt about me. When you are finished remain quiet and look forward." Afterwards, the instructor verbally greeted the class. Then, the instructor discussed what students may have written. The instructor discussed the activity, how it relates to the course, and how it relates to how students use psychology in their lives.
Procedure The study was approved by the IRB. The procedure used in the additional data collection was identical to that in the first study. Participants who had not completed the first study were recruited to complete the current study online. Participants who provided consent were asked to watch the video of the female instructor delivering a first day activity. Subsequently, participants completed the same questionnaires from the first study and were given a debriefing. The additional data were compared to the data from the first study.
Results
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to compare first impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions, perceptions of autonomy support, perceived competence of the student, and relatedness for the same first-day activity between the male and female instructor. There was a statistically significant difference based on instructor gender, F (5, 42) = 5.03, p= .001; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.63, partial [eta]2 = .38. Univariate tests revealed statistically significant main effects for impressions of the instructor, (F(1,47) = 8.36, p = .006, [eta]2p= .15). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that differences in impressions of the instructor were higher for the female instructor compared to the male (see Table 2).
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to compare first impressions of the instructor, student self-perceptions, perceptions of autonomy support, perceived competence of the student, and relatedness between female instructor's activity to the female instructor's syllabus review video from the first study. There was a statistically significant difference based on instructor gender, F (5, 41) = 8.90, p< .001; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.48, partial [eta]2 = .52.Univariate tests revealed statistically significant main effects for impressions of the instructor, (F(1,45) = 19.13, p< .001, [eta]2p = .3). Post- hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that differences in impressions of the instructor were higher for the female instructor following the activity compared to the syllabus (see Table 3).
Lastly, a one-way MANOVA was conducted between the two different activities performed by the female instructor (i.e., activity from study one compared to the activity in study two), revealing a statistically significant difference based on activities, F (5, 44) = 4.41, p = .002; Wilk's [LAMBDA] = 0.67, partial p2 = .33. Univariate tests revealed statistically significant main effects for impressions of the instructor, (F(1,48) = 14.92, p< .001, [eta]2p= .24). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that differences in impressions of the instructor and perceived autonomy support were higher for the female instructor performing the first day activity suggested by Curtis and Gray (2012) compared to the female first day activity referenced in study one (see Table 4).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The first day of class is a blank slate of opportunities. Our findings suggest that a first day teaching activity may be a beneficial method for starting a class on the first day compared to beginning with a syllabus review for aspects of student motivation, fostering positive impressions of instructors, and increasing positive student self-perceptions. These results add to the existing literature (e.g., Case et al., 2008; Hermann et al., 2010) that indicates the benefits of using a first day teaching activity at the start of class.
The current results have implications for instructors deciding to use first-day teaching activities. The actual activity almost certainly matters. We discovered that when testing two different first-day teaching activities, the teaching activity asking students to silently write down five things about the instructor yielded higher scores on some measures of motivation, impressions of instructors, and student self-perceptions when compared to a syllabus review. The teaching activity recommended by Curtis and Gray (2012) appears to be favorable compared to a syllabus review on the first day of class and compared to another first day teaching activity.
The gender of the instructor was a factor in executing a first-day activity. Specifically, the same first-day activity conducted by a female instructor led to higher student ratings of instructor impressions compared to a male instructor. One of the reasons for this finding is regarding "thin slices" of impressions and gender bias (Nadler, Berry, & Stockdale, 2013). Nadler and colleagues (2013) examined familiarity and gender based stereotypes on impressions of faculty and found that familiarity mitigated gender bias. Specifically, the researchers argued that because psychology is more of a female dominated profession, then female faculty may be rated more favorably due to perceived fit (Fino & Kohout, 2009 in Nadler et al., 2013).
When comparing students' first exposure to the syllabus review to the first-day activity there were some motivational measures that demonstrated differences based on the gender of the instructor. For the male instructor, autonomy support and student self-perceptions were greater in the first-day activity condition. Higher levels of relatedness were found for the female instructor when she used the first-day activity compared to a syllabus review. This could also be related to Theyson's (2015) findings in that students perceived that the female instructor was easier to relate to when she used the first day activity. However, the current studies did not assess these mechanisms and further investigation in this area is warranted to determine how gender influences first-day activities and motivation.
The first-day teaching activity, for both instructors, produced more positive first impressions of instructors. There has been much discussion over the importance of the first day of class and its use for first impressions. Some have argued that first impressions can extend beyond the first day, into the first week or two (Kunz, 2014). However, an abundance of literature has advocated the position that the first day and first impressions formed on that day are of grave importance (e.g., Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Anderson, Mcguire, & Cory, 2011; Buchert, Laws, Apperson, & Bregman, 2008; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). In fact, people form impressions of instructors' personalities in as little time as six seconds (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). Further, one study found that first impressions supersede pre-existing instructor reputation on student evaluations (Buchert et al., 2008).Thus, regardless of what others have heard about a professor from peers, social media, or web pages designed to rate professors, it appears that the impressions students form of their instructors outweigh preconceived ideas of the instructor.
Though our findings suggest that a first day activity may enhance instructor impressions, it is important to note that these impressions varied for the activity type. Thus, positive impressions of instructors were primarily a function of one teaching condition. It is not clear if the impressions were directly related to the activity or the brief exposure to other aspects of the instructors (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993).
There are some limitations of the current research worth addressing. A first day of class could entail the use of a syllabus review and teaching activity. The use of one or the other is not exclusive and many professors may implement both on the first day. The current studies did not manipulate a condition in which an activity was followed by a syllabus review or vice versa. The intent of the current studies was to determine if the initial presentation of an activity or syllabus review had any impact on students' impressions, self-perceptions, and motivation. By isolating the two variables of interest, the study does not reveal the effectiveness of any ordering effects, in that whether an activity following a syllabus may produce the same effects as introducing the activity initially. Future research may benefit from looking at ordering effects of activities and syllabus reviews.
The current study aimed to manipulate the first interaction an instructor has with students through showing students videos on a first day of class. Due to the use of videos, external validity is compromised. Future research may want to explore the current variables as they occur on an actual first day of class rather than on videos. Also, it may behoove instructors and researchers to further explore how first day activities may impact ongoing aspects of learning, learners, and instructors.
When comparing first day activities to syllabus reviews, we did not explore the success of the activity as a variable. Future studies may consider exploring a comparison of successful first day activities to unsuccessful activities. Successful versus unsuccessful first day activities may contribute to a positive first day, which would increase student motivation (Wilson & Wilson, 2007). Further, researchers may investigate the effects of various first day activities to explore which aspects of the activity are the most impactful.
Another drawback of the study regarding student self-perceptions is that the effects of these perceptions are unclear. We did not explore how these perceptions may affect subsequent study behaviors, course retention, or learning outcomes. Further, it is not known how long these perceptions may persist. For example, the students may be excited and engaged in learning on the first day but as the course continues, the excitement may habituate.
Another limitation of the study is that we did not investigate perceptions of attractiveness. Theyson (2015) discovered that students rated professors more favorably when they were perceived as attractive or "hot." The differences between student ratings of male and female professor impressions could have been due to perceived attractiveness. Further, while there was a gender difference for impressions of professors, this gender difference was not found for all variables. Additionally, effects based on participant gender would be worthy of future exploration.
The current findings suggest that investigation of first day teaching activities, and their use, may be a worthwhile endeavor. While first day activities did not reveal differences in all aspects of motivation, they did appear to elicit some motivational changes, positive impressions of the instructor, and increased student excitement, engagement, and passion toward learning. As suggested by others (Hermann, et al., 2010), instructors are encouraged to intentionally contemplate their approach to the first day and consider implementing a first day activity, whether it is from those previously offered or the currently proposed one. Simply, our findings do not indicate a one-size-fits-all approach to first day teaching activities. Therefore, finding an activity that will serve your teaching goals, that is congruent with your teaching style, and that is empirically supported, may be best.
REFERENCES
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting instructor evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431-441
Anderson, D. M., McGuire, F. A., & Cory, L. (2011). The first day: It happens only once. Teaching In Higher Education, 16(3), 293-303. doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.546526
Bassett, J. F., & Nix, P. M. (2011). Students' first day of class preferences: Factor structure and individual differences. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 373-381
Bassett, J. F., & Nix, P. M. (2010). Preparing for the first day: What do the data say? White Board, 2(8), 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.lander.edu/ docs/white-board newsletters/August_2010.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
Buchert, S., Laws, E. L., Apperson, J. M., & Bregman, N. J. (2008). First impressions and professor reputation: Influence on student evaluations of instruction. Social Psychology of Education, 11(4), 397-408.
Case, K., Bartsch, R., McEnery, L., Hall, S., Hermann, A., & Foster, D. (2008). Establishing a comfortable classroom from day one: Student perceptions of the reciprocal interview. College Teaching, 56(4), 210-214.
Curtis, D. A., & Gray, A. (2012, April). Using psychology to teach psychology: First impressions on the first day. Talk presented at the 58th Annual Conference of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Oklahoma City, OK
Duffy, D. K., & Jones, J. W. (1995). Teaching within the rhythms of the semester. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college instructor-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 235-247.
Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Instructor support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college instructor course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model. Educational Psychology 28(6), 711-724.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.
Guiffrida, D. A., Lynch, M. F., Wall, A. F., & Abel, D. S. (2013). Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A test of a motivational model from a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 121-139.
Hermann, A. E., Foster, D. A., & Hardin, E. E. (2010). Does the first week of class matter? A quasi-experimental investigation of student satisfaction. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 79-84.
Higgins, P. (2001). Excitement on the first day? College Teaching, 49, 2.
Hofer, B. K. (2006). Motivation in the college classroom. In W. J. McKeachie & M. D. Svinicki (Eds.), McKeachie's teaching tips : Strategies, research, and theory for college and university instructors (12th ed.; pp. 140-150). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company
Kunz, M. B. (2014). First impressions: Extending the first day to the first week, or two. Proceedings of The Marketing Management Association, 106-107.
Larose, S., Tarabulsy, G., & Cyrenne, D. (2005). Perceived autonomy and relatedness as moderating the impact of instructor-student mentoring relationships on student academic adjustment. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 111-128.
Laws, E. L., Apperson, J. M., Buchert, S., & Bregman, N. J. (2010). Student evaluations of instruction: When are enduring first impressions formed? North American Journal of Psychology, 12, 81-91.
McGinley, J. J., & Jones, B. D. (2014). A brief instructional intervention to increase students' motivation on the first day of class. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 158-162.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. D. (2006). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university instructors (12th ed.) Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company
Meiss, A. (2010). 50 Fun things for professors to do on the first day of class. Retrieved from http://www.aaaugh.com/meiss/humor/profs.html
Nadler, J. T., Berry, S. A., & Stockdale, M. S. (2013). Familiarity and gender based stereotypes on instant impressions of male and female faculty. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 517-539.
Perlman, B., & McCann, L.I. (2004). The first day of class. American Psychological Society Observer, 17. Retrieved from http://www. psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2004/january-04/ the-first-day-of-class.html
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Theyson, K. C. (2015). Hot or not: The role of instructor quality and gender on the formation of positive illusions among students using ratemyprofessors.com. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(4), 1-12.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767.
Williams, G., Wiener, M., Markakis, K., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (1994). Medical students' motivation for internal medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9(6), 327.
Wilson, J. H., & Wilson, S. B. (2007). The first day of class affects student motivation: An experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 226-230.
APPENDIX A Instructor Impressions and Student Self-Perceptions Questionnaire 1. How interested are you in taking this course? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much 2. What is your attitude towards this course? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Negative Very Positive 3. How interested are you in continuing to attend the class? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much 4. How likely would you attend the class subsequently? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much (5-11) If you were to take a class with this instructor, then you would be: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Successful Successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Studious Studious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Committed Committed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Passionate towards Passionate towards learning learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Motivated Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Excited Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Engaged Engaged (12-23) This instructor is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Successful Successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Professional Professional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Personal Personal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Approachable Approachable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Predictable Predictable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Pleasant Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Lazy Lazy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Awkward Awkward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Knowledgeable Knowledgeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Intelligent Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Likeable Likeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very Very Humorous Humorous
Drew A. Curtis & Kristi Moore
Angelo State University
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Drew A. Curtis, Ph.D. Department of Psychology & Sociology, Angelo State University, ASU Station10907, SanAngelo, TX76909-0907 E-mail: drew.curtis@angelo.edu
TABLE 1. Means for Male Instructor Conditions
Condition M SD N
Self Perceptions ** activity 40.39 7.01 36
syllabus 34.64 8.83 50
Instructor Impressions ** activity 61.08 8.21 36
syllabus 54.66 8.44 50
Relatedness activity 18.00 4.36 36
syllabus 17.26 4.85 50
Perceived Competency activity 27.53 5.45 36
syllabus 26.80 4.41 50
Perceived Autonomy Support * activity 80.39 15.51 36
syllabus 72.02 16.01 50
* p < .05; ** p < .01
TABLE 2. Male & Female Instructor Means
Measure Condition M SD N
Self Perceptions Male 40.39 7.01 36
Female 39.77 6.94 13
Instructor Impressions ** Male 61.08 8.21 36
Female 69.46 10.83 13
Relatedness Male 18.00 4.36 36
Female 17.92 4.33 13
Perceived Competency Male 27.53 5.45 36
Female 26.38 4.15 13
Perceived Autonomy Support Male 80.39 15.51 36
Female 83.46 15.27 13
* p < .05; ** p < .01
TABLE 3. Means for Female Instructor Conditions
Measure Condition M SD N
Self Perceptions syllabus 37.97 7.57 34
activity 39.77 6.94 13
Instructor Impressions ** syllabus 57.26 7.56 34
activity 69.46 10.83 13
Relatedness syllabus 17.18 3.79 34
activity 17.92 4.33 13
Perceived Competency syllabus 27.59 4.37 34
activity 26.38 4.15 13
Perceived Autonomy Support syllabus 74.85 15.75 34
activity 83.46 15.27 13
* p < .05; ** p < .01
TABLE 4. Means for Female Instructor Activities
Measure Activity M SD N
Self Perceptions Study 1 36.89 7.32 37
Study 2 39.77 6.94 13
Instructor Impressions ** Study 1 59.14 7.25 37
Study 2 69.46 10.83 13
Relatedness Study 1 17.32 4.27 37
Study 2 17.92 4.33 13
Perceived Competency Study 1 26.35 4.81 37
Study 2 26.38 4.15 13
Perceived Autonomy Support * Study 1 74.14 13.35 37
Study 2 83.46 15.27 13
* p < .05; ** p < .01
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Curtis, Drew A.; Moore, Kristi |
|---|---|
| Publication: | North American Journal of Psychology |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Date: | Dec 1, 2018 |
| Words: | 6199 |
| Previous Article: | The Impact of Memory Retrieval on Deception and Truth Telling. |
| Next Article: | Perfectionism in Past and Present Anorexia Nervosa. |
| Topics: | |