Does the appearance of an instructor and the format of the class influence student grades and learning? We tested this question with 861 undergraduate students who completed an online questionnaire rating their instructors. Students were equally spread across class year and were from different majors. We used multiple regression analyses and found that likable, good-looking, well-dressed, and approachable teachers had students who said they learned more, had higher grades, and liked the class better.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbadyN.RosenthalR. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.
2.
BabadE.Avni-BabadD.RosenthalR. (2004). Prediction of students' evaluations from brief instances of professors' nonverbal behavior in defined instructional situations. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 3–33.
3.
BestJ. B.AddisonW. E. (2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professor and student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 60–62.
4.
BuckS.TieneD. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 172–177.
5.
BuskistW.SikorskiJ.BuckleyT.SavilleB. K. (2002). Elements of master teaching. In DavisS. F.BuskistW. (Eds.), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer (pp. 27–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.
7.
EaglyA. H.AshmoreR. D.MakhijaniM. G.LongoL. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128.
8.
EptingL. K.ZinnT. E.BuskistC.BuskistW. (2004). Student perspectives on the distinction between ideal and typical teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 181–183.
9.
FeeleyT. H. (2002). Evidence of halo effects in student evaluations of communication instruction. Communication Education, 51, 225–236.
10.
FeltonJ.MitchellJ.StinsonM. (2004). Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness, and sexiness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 91–108.
11.
FrymierA. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87–105.
12.
GreenwaldA. G.GillmoreG. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209–1217.
13.
GriffinB. W. (2001). Instructor reputation and student ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 534–552.
14.
HamermeshD. S.ParkerA. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Professors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, 24, 369–376.
15.
LangJ. M. (2005, July 27). Looking like a professor. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, C2–C3.
16.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
17.
RomanoS. T.BordieriJ. E. (1989). Physical attractiveness stereotypes and students' perceptions of college professors. Psychological Reports, 64(3, Pt. 2), 1099–1102.
18.
SchaefferG.EptingK.ZinnT.BuskistW. (2003). Student and faculty perceptions of effective teaching: A successful replication. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 133–136.
19.
WeedenJ.SabiniJ. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.
20.
WilsonJ. H.TaylorK. W. (2001). Professor immediacy as behaviors associated with liking students. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 136–138.
