What Can We Learn About Teaching Excellence from Our Students? Lessons From Six Years of Teaching Award Data

Abstract

Teaching excellence in higher education can be defined and studied in different ways, but research efforts to date have often focused on institutional or instructor perspectives. This article uses a data set of over 500 open-ended comments submitted by Political Science undergraduates as part of a teaching award process to identify themes that matter most to students. We find that being supportive, bringing humor, enthusiasm, and passion to the classroom, and engaging students with relevant, challenging, and exciting activities are what defines teaching excellence from a student’s perspective. Building on these themes and using quotes to illustrate key concepts, we offer specific and concrete guidance to instructors about how to introduce these elements into their teaching.

Key Words:

• Teaching excellence
• undergraduate education
• teaching awards

Introduction

Teaching excellence is an important topic for all Political Science faculty to consider. How do we achieve and sustain instructional excellence in our undergraduate classes? Guidance on this topic can come from many different sources, including peer evaluations (Esterhazy et al. 2021; Thomas et al. 2014), formal training opportunities (Trowbridge and Woodward 2021), and immersion in the growing body of literature on the scholarship of teaching and learning (Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone 2011). In this article, we focus on a fourth option by exploring what students can teach us about high-quality instruction. Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) via standardized course evaluations offer some insight in this regard, but there are significant concerns regarding the validity of these data (Berezvai, Lukáts, and Molontay 2021; Martin 2016; Mitchell and Martin 2018). Accordingly, we turn to an underutilized resource for learning what students value in their professors: university teaching awards.

This study uses an original dataset of over 500 nominations submitted by Political Science majors over six years as part of the College of Urban and Public Affairs’ teaching excellence award program at Portland State University. Portland State University is a large regional university in the Pacific Northwest. Over the time of study, there were roughly 400 Political Science majors at any given time. Instructors in the college are a mix of tenure-track, non-tenure-track long term appointments, and adjunct faculty with a small number of graduate student instructors as well. Class sizes rarely exceed 40 students in any of the college’s programs and most are substantially smaller. None have separate TA-led sections so that was not a consideration that needed to be addressed. Students with qualifying GPAs and class standing were invited each spring to nominate up to three faculty and to document via open-ended text boxes why these instructors merited recognition. Analysis of these qualitative data highlight themes that instructors can use to improve their instructional practices and build rapport with students.

Research on teaching excellence

The idea of measuring excellence in teaching is not new, but the specifics of defining and measuring this construct remains contested terrain. Excellence can be characterized from the institutional, instructor, or student perspective and research in these three domains generates variability in the specific behaviors or characteristics associated with instructional mastery. Institutional definitions of excellence have received the most attention in the academic literature. Gunn and Fisk (2013) articulate four different elements of teaching excellence from an institutional perspective. These include allowing students to achieve an appropriate level of disciplinary mastery, the development of an appropriate level of transferable attributes for students, enabling students to enter into a profession, and facilitating student awareness of and engagement with the knowledge economy, social justice, or political needs (Gunn and Fisk 2013, 12–13). The United Kingdom adopted a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) in 2017 that took this further, defining excellence across ten different metrics for evaluation and assessment.¹ These included student engagement, feedback, personalized learning, and employability skills. Relying on this perspective alone, however, does not fully capture the dimensions of teaching excellence. The TEF framework, as noted by critics like French and Thomas (2020), focuses primarily on narrow criteria that speak to the needs and interests of institutions rather than the lived realities of the people within those institutions.

A second approach to defining excellence shifts from an institutional perspective to the perspective of instructors. This work relies on personal narratives (Genovese 2021) or surveys, focus groups, and interviews, often with faculty who are deemed outstanding (Bartram, Hathaway, and Rao 2019; Benekos 2016; Boyd 2001; Buskist and Keeley 2018; Carnell 2007; Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist 2016; Wood and Su 2017). There is consistency in the findings of this research. Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist (2016) observe that master teachers recognize the importance of enthusiasm, listening, being prepared, encouraging students and caring for them. Miller-Young et al. (2020) in their survey of the literature identify repeated references to characteristics such as subject expertise, relating to students, transparent learning objectives, communication and dialogue with students, and an environment where students help one another learn. This work highlights the perspectives of the professionals who teach but may not fully capture what students themselves value in their faculty.

Research addressing student assessments of teaching excellence aligns more closely with the work done in the present study. Three primary data sources have been used in this area of research. First, there is an extensive body of literature on formal course evaluations submitted by students (Green, Hood, and Neumann 2015; Spooren, Brockx, and Mortelmans 2013). These studies highlight a connection between student satisfaction and perceived instructor characteristics (e.g., enthusiastic, approachable, supportive, fair, respectful), pedagogical abilities (e.g., course organization, presentation skills, student engagement, feedback), and subject matter expertise. Unfortunately, studies also find that SETs are heavily impacted by factors that have nothing to do with instructional quality. This includes the student’s preexisting interest in the course, instructor demographics, grading distributions, class size, meeting time, instructional modality, and even campus social life (Berezvai, Lukáts, and Molontay 2021; Green, Hood, and Neumann 2015; Kreitzer and Sweet-Cushman 2022; Kwok and Potter 2022; Martin 2016; Mitchell and Martin 2018; Spooren, Brockx, and Mortelmans 2013). Studies also find that student evaluations are minimally associated with objective learning outcomes (Uttl, White, and Gonzalez 2017), raising questions about their utility for the development of instructional skills and faculty promotions.

A second body of research examines student preferences independent of formal course evaluations. Buskist and Keeley (2018), for example, reviewed 15 different studies that use the Teacher Behavior Checklist (TBC) tool to capture student perspectives on quality instruction. These studies show variability across students, but still generate some consistent findings. Being knowledgeable ranked in the top 10 responses across all studies. Being enthusiastic, approachable, an effective communicator, and offering fair assessments of student performance are consistently cited as features of exceptional faculty. Goldman et al. (2017) conducted a study asking students to comparatively rank 10 different instructional behaviors and characteristics. The authors found teacher clarity, competence, and relevance as the most important characteristics reported by students. One disadvantage of these studies is that they rely on a pre-established list of instructor characteristics that students evaluate using a numerical scale. Novel or situationally specific factors that students value may be left out in these studies. Moreover, knowing that students assign a higher mean score to one discrete characteristic (e.g., enthusiastic) than another (e.g., humble) may not provide sufficient context to guide instructors seeking to improve their teaching. Qualitative data from students may help in this regard.

The third source of data reflecting on students’ assessment of instructional excellence, and the one least utilized to date, involves data resulting from teaching awards. Annual teaching awards are common at many colleges and universities, and some professional organizations issue awards for instruction or mentoring (Chism 2006; Huggett et al. 2012; Miller-Young, Sinclair, and Forgie 2020). The procedures for nominating faculty vary considerably, but often involve input from students in the form of letters or brief written statements. While award nominations are still subject to bias (e.g., Kwok and Potter 2022), they may benefit from being collected independent of a specific class wherein students are concurrently evaluated. As such, they can provide a valuable source of information on student preferences. Bradley et al. (2015), for example, inserted two open-ended questions into the student teaching award nomination process at Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom. Students were asked how the instructor made a difference in their experience. The comments revealed themes ranging from maintaining student engagement in class to encouraging student success to a passion for the subject area. Rapport with students was also an important theme, including being supportive and approachable. Finally, individuals who were role models and well organized were valued. Lubicz-Nawrocka and Bunting (2019) conducted similar research at the University of Edinburgh, reviewing the nominations across campus to student-led teaching awards for one year. They find that visible effort, a commitment to engaging students, breaking down teacher-student barriers, and consistent support appeared frequently in student comments. Notably for the present paper, neither of these two studies were specific to the field of Political Science, nor were they conducted in American universities (see Tight 2022 for a discussion of the differences between U.S. universities and others around the world).

Methodology

In a recent publication Murphy et al. (2023) called for those studying the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Political Science to “integrate and foreground” student voices. One way of achieving this goal is to expand the limited body of research using data from teaching award nominations. The current study analyzes more than 500 nominations submitted by Political Science undergraduate majors. Our primary research question is a simple one: What do Political Science students value or appreciate in their instructional faculty?

Nomination procedures

Each spring between 2013 and 2018, Political Science majors with at least a 3.0 GPA were invited by the Dean’s office to submit nominations for the college’s annual Teaching Excellence award.² The online form emailed to the students explained the awards process and they were provided with a list of the instructors who taught in the college during the academic year. This included tenure track, non-tenure track, adjunct, and graduate student instructors.³ Respondents were allowed to select and rank order up to three nominees. Along with each name submitted, students were encouraged to include an explanation for why they nominated the given instructor: “Use the space below to briefly explain your FIRST NOMINEE. What does this person do that makes them an outstanding professor?” These text submissions represent the main source of data for the current study.⁴

Identification of themes

While the focus of the current study is undergraduate Political Science majors, our procedure for thematically coding the nomination data started with the submissions for the entire College of Urban and Public Affairs. This included data from undergraduate and graduate students majoring in Community Health, Criminology & Criminal Justice, Economics, International Studies, Public Administration, and Urban Studies & Planning. A total of 6,196 students were invited to participate over the 6-year study period resulting in the participation of 2,125 students for a 34.3% response rate. ⁵ The full database included 4,709 nominations.⁶

To analyze these data, we adopted the method of iterative categorization (Neale 2016; see more generally Schreier 2014). The first step involved the three coauthors reviewing a random sample of 500 nominations to identify preliminary themes. This work was guided by previous research discussed in our introduction. From this we generated an initial codebook with 17 themes. In the second step, the coders examined several hundred additional nominations, clarifying the thematic categories as needed to increase differentiation. For the third step, we formally tested the interrater reliability of our codebook by having two coauthors independently code a random sample of 300 nominations. The interrater reliability results showed large agreements across most categories with Kappa coefficients ranging from .525 to .882, but this also highlighted some areas that needed further clarification. Our final codebook consisted of 14 themes that are discussed in the findings.

Political Science sample and student characteristics

Our initial sample of undergraduate Political Science majors consisted of 707 students who were invited to participate in the nomination process across the six years. One-third (32.0%; N = 226) of the students submitted at least one nomination during this period.⁷ Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and GPA of the initial sample and the subset who participated in the award process. The starting sample was mostly White (81.4%), non-Hispanic (82.1%), and evenly divided between men (47.9%) and women (52.1%). The group’s average age was higher than most universities (M = 24.6), reflecting the fact that our institution attracts a high proportion of nontraditional students and transfers. The GPAs, institutional and overall, were also high due to the 3.0 minimum eligibility criteria. Chi-square and ANOVAs were used to identify differences between those participating in the nomination process and those who did not. Participants were disproportionately female, older, and had higher GPAs.

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of Political Science UG Students Invited to Participate and Association to Submitting a Nomination (N = 707^a).

		Submitted nomination?
Variables	Full sample	No	Yes
	% or M (SD)	% or M (SD)	% or M (SD)	F or χ^2
Sex (legal)				4.02*
Male	47.9%	71.7%	28.3%
Female	52.1%	64.7%	35.3%
Race				4.02
Asian	5.5%	78.8%	21.2%
Black or African-American	2.5%	73.3%	26.7%
Other	1.8%	81.8%	18.2%
White	81.4%	66.5%	33.5%
2 or More Races	8.8%	62.3%	37.7%
Ethnicity				1.17
Hispanic/Latino	17.9%	72.9%	27.1%
Non-Hispanic	82.1%	67.8%	32.2%
Age	24.59 (6.52)	24.07 (5.81)	25.72 (7.72)	9.90**
Institutional GPA	3.46 (.31)	3.41 (.30)	3.55 (.31)	30.42***
Overall GPA	3.39 (.30)	3.36 (.28)	3.45 (.31)	13.45***

^a Sample size varies slightly by comparison due to missing data.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The 226 participating Political Science students submitted 523 nominations in total, with 78 instructors receiving at least one vote over the 6-year period. The nominations were randomly divided between the three coauthors and coded using the final codebook described earlier. Throughout the coding, we kept in contact and discussed edge cases to ensure consistent categorization. Reviewing the entire data set rather than relying on a saturation approach (Saunders et al. 2018) allowed us to quantitatively compare the occurrence of each theme across the dataset. The nomination texts each contained an average of 2.42 (SD = 1.35) themes.

Results

The 10 most prevalent themes found in the nomination data are presented below in descending order of frequency. For each theme, we also specify some concrete actions that instructors can take to strengthen those characteristics in their own work that are derived both from the nomination data and engagement with students and colleagues on these topics.

Table 2. Themes related to teaching excellence.

Theme (% of comments)	Description
Supportive (40.9%)	The instructor was supportive, helpful, and caring toward students. This includes the provision of emotional and instrumental support
Knowledgeable and Intelligent (31.2%)	The instructor had expertise and a deep understanding of the topic(s) covered in the course.
Engaging and Facilitates Student Involvement (29.3%)	The instructor created opportunities for the students to actively engage with and think critically about course content. This includes facilitating discussions about course materials, activities to broaden students’ perspectives, or simply being thought-provoking in how the material is presented. Also includes generic references to the instructor being engaging.
Entertaining and Enjoyable (21.4%)	The instructor created a positive emotional environment in class using humor, by being entertaining, or through activities that are fun and exciting to students.
Approachable and Friendly (20.3%)	The instructor was seen as easy to approach, friendly, and readily available to students. This involved perceived characteristics of the instructor as opposed to specific actions they took to provide emotional or instrumental support.
Passionate and Enthusiastic (19.1%)	The instructor was passionate, enthusiastic, and excited about the course material, teaching, and interacting with students.
Challenging and High Expectations (16.3%)	The instructor is demanding in terms of student performance. A recurring feature in the comments makes reference to courses from these instructors being challenging and difficult, with high expectations.
Explains Well and Simplifies Complex Material (14.5%)	The instructor was good at explaining difficult concepts, simplifying course content to help students understand the material, and making sure people understood before proceeding.
Relevant and Practical Content (12.2%)	The instructor connected course content to real-world experiences. Includes providing students with practical knowledge they will use in their future careers, giving clear examples that make the content more immediately relevant to students, or connecting their expertise to the course material.
Organized and Prepared (12.0%)	The instructor provided a well-organized course and/or was consistently prepared for class sessions. It implies intentional design and clear communication about assignments and expectations.
Inspiring (7.8%)	The instructor was inspiring, considered by students as a role model, or was seen as important in their field of study, the community, or their academic unit. Includes when students report that they changed their career goals as a result of interacting with the instructor.
Fair and Balanced (7.5%)	The instructor treated students fairly during class, personal interactions, and when evaluating their work. Includes neutrality in the presentation of class material and openness to different perspectives.
Adaptable and Responsive (6.7%)	The instructor was adaptable and flexible in their teaching methods. Includes the use of multiple modalities to reach a variety of students, and being willing to adapt the course in response to feedback from students.
Constructive and Timely Feedback (3.1%)	The instructor provided feedback that was helpful or constructive. Includes the timely delivery of feedback, regular feedback, and feedback that was specific with regard to how students could meet course expectations.

Supportive (40.9%)

The most common theme found in the data, present in 40.9% of all nominations submitted, was the perception that the instructor was supportive of students’ academic and personal success. Keywords reflecting this theme include ‘supportive’, ‘helpful’, ‘understanding’, ‘encouraging’, and ‘caring.’ Quotes illustrating this theme include:

• ‘Dr. ___ is one of the most caring, intelligent, and supportive professors that I’ve had the privilege to study under.’

• ‘She has frequently taken the time to meet with me regarding my work, research, and personal issues in my life in a way that makes her a distinct and compassionate educator.’

• ‘He actively works to get to know his students and ensure their success.’

Students often provided additional detail in their commentary allowing us to identify two subcategories of support. The first, appearing in 25.2% of nominations, focused on what we characterize as emotional support. Often this involved distinct actions taken by the instructor that left the students feeling cared about, encouraged, or valued. In other cases, the students were less specific about the behaviors contributing to the positive feelings and rapport.

• ‘He cares about his students, acknowledges their struggles, and is empathetic to their stress in a way that is unique and very beneficial to learning.’

• ‘…facilitates an excellent environment for learning about community leadership and development, and leaves students feeling encouraged and empowered to become leading citizens throughout their lives.’

• ‘___ is one of the most kind and caring professors that I have ever encountered in my entire academic career.’

Other students articulated the concept of support in more concrete terms, which we categorized as instrumental support. This was associated with words like ‘helpful’ and expressions like ‘connecting to resources.’ It could relate to offering assistance in class, with assignments, providing career guidance, or serving as a mentor. These types of comments appeared in 19.3% of the nominations.

• ‘She is always available and eager to assist students in any fashion and has abundant resources to help them get where they need to be.’

• ‘___ has time and again acted as a mentor, encouraging development in the student him/herself.’

• “Professor ____ supported my area of expertise by providing me with the option to do research on a topic that benefited my community, challenged me, and helped me understand an issue I was still exploring.”

Taken together, these concepts highlight the ways in which students value instructors who make an effort to show that they care. Just as developing rapport is important in therapeutic settings (Leach 2005), it also has benefits in an academic setting. Improved retention, motivation, and attention are all associated with instructors who are perceived as supportive (Dickinson and Kreitmair 2021; Glazier 2016; Roberts 2021; Wilson, Ryan, and Pugh 2010). This is a relatively straightforward concept that instructors can incorporate into their interactions with students.

Practical suggestions

Faculty looking to improve their emotional support can do things like sincerely telling students you want them to succeed and offering them assistance and encouragement when they are struggling. This can also be strengthened by learning students’ names and using them in class. Listening attentively and empathetically when students talk about difficulties they are facing makes a difference as well. For instrumental support, this can involve connecting students with campus resources to support writing, learning disabilities, mental health needs, or even links to emergency fund support the institution may provide. Sometimes instrumental support might manifest as offering alternative ways to complete the coursework for those who have challenges. It can also involve providing students with guidance on internships, applying to a graduate program, or how to prepare for a job interview.

Knowledgeable (31.2%)

The second most common category of comments were those who appreciated how knowledgeable their instructor was about the subject matter. It matters to students that their instructor conveys a sense of understanding about what they are covering, although these comments do not speak to their ability as a teacher in bringing that expertise into the classroom in any specific way.

• ‘It is clear that she is knowledgeable about the topics in the class.’

• ‘___ has first-hand knowledge of the topic he was teaching.’

• ‘He comes to his position as a teacher with a wealth of knowledge.’

• ‘___ brings a large and well-versed knowledge of politics.’

While students may not be in a position to evaluate the full depth of an instructor’s understanding of the content, it matters to students that their professors are prepared and possess an understanding of what they are teaching. It is obviously helpful to develop effective methods of communicating that information, but it is also worth remembering that students do value the underlying foundation of knowledge upon which that is based.

Practical suggestions

While the most obvious suggestion here is to make sure you have a solid and thorough understanding of the material being taught, a secondary consideration is to avoid undermining students’ confidence in your expertise by reporting that you are relatively new at teaching or teaching the given topic. Trust that you will still know the subject matter much better than your students. Another recommendation involves sharing your scholarly works, employment history, and other professional accomplishments in a way that demonstrates your content expertise and builds students’ interest in the course material.

Engaging and Facilitates Student Involvement (29.3%)

The third theme that appears in the nominations centers around the ways in which the instructor connects students to the material they are learning. Opportunities to actively engage with the course content and think critically about it appear repeatedly in these types of comments. This can present as general statements regarding the instructor being engaging, but it also includes more specific statements regarding facilitating discussions about course materials, activities intended to broaden a student’s perspective, and thought-provoking presentations. In some cases, students mentioned specific assignments or the approach to topics that stood out.

• ‘Dr. ___ is an engaging professor whose passion for her subject shines through in her teaching.’

• ‘I took an online course with Professor ___ over the summer, and it was hands down the most well-put-together, engaging, and productive online class I have ever taken.’

• ‘Dr. ___ has a unique ability to engage students in incredibly difficult subject matter while maintaining a safe space to interact…encourages students to go above and beyond their personal ideologies.’

• ‘She is able to take complex arguments and break them down so that students are able to both understand and actively engage in scholarly debates using critical analysis of the arguments…I have really grown as a scholar and critical thinker under her guidance.’

• ‘Each student also was asked to write multiple policy memos for the simulation, which required students to view European politics from an insider’s perspective rather than as an observer.’

• ‘He does not ever tell students that they are wrong but engages them to think about their opinions and encourages them to present ideas that can be supported.’

This theme maps well onto the benefits identified around active learning in political science and other fields (Archer and Miller 2011; Bromley 2013). There is a burgeoning literature on how to introduce active learning into Political Science classes (see, for example, Collins and Nyenhuis 2021; Lovell and Khatri 2021; McMonagle and Savitz 2023) and the evidence from our study suggests that students appreciate and value this approach.

Practical suggestions

Ensuring that there is a respectful environment for student participation greatly eases anxiety that students have about speaking up in class. In this regard, your response to student comments is critical. This is particularly true when a comment is tangential, involves inaccuracies, might be offensive to other students, or involves an overly personal disclosure. When this happens try to find a way to link their comment back to the intended material. Students often have multiple components to their commentary allowing you to highlight the one that best fits the context. Successful engagement also involves careful selection of when student-led activities will be most effective and when they risk reducing overall understanding of the material by the class. Student engagement is something more than just free-wheeling debate, although that can be appropriate at times.

Entertaining and enjoyable (21.4%)

Though related to the concept of engaging, students expressing a positive emotional experience in the class appeared to be a distinct theme. This often manifested in references to the instructor using humor or being entertaining, but also included the instructor using activities that are fun and exciting to students. Facilitating a positive emotional experience was often tied to better learning outcomes from the students’ perspective and did not negate the possibility that the class was still intellectually challenging.

• ‘Her lectures are both inspiring and humorous.’

• ‘Dr. ___ made the lecture interesting to listen to by inserting his own sense of humor.’

• ‘Professor ___’s class was one of the more creative, exciting, and fun classes I have ever taken.’

• ‘He makes learning about politics fun.’

• ‘He is very passionate, funny, and enthusiastic. He turns the class into a discussing style instead of lecturing.’

• ‘I thought his class was challenging and a lot of fun.’

Practical suggestions

Bringing humor to the classroom is certainly a way to make class more entertaining and enjoyable, but doing so productively is not always easy to do. Not all instructors are, or need to be, born comedians and not all topics provide equal opportunity for humor. Beyond that, instructors can do things like sharing your sense of wonder about a topic with students. Instructors do not have to hide the messiness and complexity of what we teach. Also consider the value of stories as a way to make difficult content more enjoyable and memorable. In addition, it is important to leave space for students to be lighthearted at times as well. Even in classes with serious and distressing content, taking a break for air can help create a better environment for learning.

Approachable and friendly (20.3%)

While the most common theme of comments related to instructors being supportive, another sizeable number of comments captured the importance of their professors seeming approachable and friendly. This involves perceived characteristics of the professor rather than any actions that the professor takes. Are they someone who the students feel is easy to approach and available to help them?

• ‘Professor ___ is very approachable when students have questions, as well as friendly.’

• ‘Professor ___ is always approachable and is diligent in trying to resolve student issues.’

• ‘Dr. ___ made me feel as welcome as any other student in that class. She is always approachable and is willing to hear anyone out.’

• ‘Professor ___ is one of the nicest professors I have had.’

Taken together, these indicate that students value when their professors are open to questions, willing to be of assistance, and express friendliness. Professors can be intimidating for many students, so steps taken to ease that intimidation are welcomed. Combining approachability with being supportive is likely to be particularly effective.

Practical suggestions

Communicating to students that you want them to reach out to you to ask questions and go over assignments is a simple and concrete expression that decreases student anxiety about approaching professors. Demystifying office hours helps with this as well. Giving examples of good issues, concerns, and questions to bring up helps students understand your expectations. When students are brave enough to come to office hours, tell them you are glad they came and that you are happy to see them. Finally, sharing some information about interests or hobbies that you have outside of school both humanizes you and may offer a shared interest that makes it easier for a student to approach you.

Passionate and enthusiastic (19.1%)

The next concept arising in the nominations shines light on another way in which instructors’ actions are positively regarded by students. Students remember and appreciate professors who communicate their passion, excitement, and enthusiasm about what they are teaching. This theme involves the instructor’s demeanor and how they convey their interests to students. Some of these comments speak to the energy that the professor brings to the classroom. Others talk about the ways in which the instructor’s passion about the material is passed on to them. A final dimension of this theme involves the evident excitement that a professor has for their own scholarship or service. It seems clear from the comments that students appreciate when the material in a class is of interest to the professor.

• ‘___ is an excellent professor and it is obvious how passionate she is.’

• ‘Professor ___ has all the qualities of an outstanding professor: he is passionate about the subjects he teaches, he is an engaging lecturer…’

• ‘Prof. ___ is interested in the class topic and politics and current events in general, delivering instruction and lectures with animation and enthusiasm.’

• ‘Professor ___ is a bright and energetic professor, who leads his classes with enthusiasm and passion.’

• ‘Dr. ___ is a fireball! His commitment to great public access is contagious.’

• ‘Dr. ___’s passion is contagious.’

• ‘Professor ___ is passionate about her work.’

• ‘___has enthusiasm for politics.’

Practical suggestions

Bringing passion and enthusiasm into the classroom is a great way to engage your students. One option is to share stories about your introduction to the given content during your undergraduate or graduate training. What did you find exciting about the material? Why did you decide to devote so much energy and time to this discipline? Another approach is to share your passion for current research or other academic projects. If you feel excited about your discipline, your students are more likely to feel the same.

Challenging and high expectations (16.3%)

The evidence of connections between easy grading and higher scores on student evaluations of teaching (SET) (Berezvai, Lukáts, and Molontay 2021; Stroebe 2020) has added to the perception that students value and prefer easier classes. Our findings strongly contradict that perception, with 16.3% of comments highlighting the demanding nature of an instructor’s course as one of the key reasons why the student regarded them as an excellent teacher. These students appreciated the high expectations and challenging nature of the courses enough to single that characteristic out. Some students even directly addressed the connection to grades, noting that difficulty in earning high grades was part of the appeal.

• ‘Success in any of ___'s courses demands dedication, concentration, and hard work, which are qualities all students need to have in college and life in general.’

• ‘She has high expectations and is exacting in her grading.’

• ‘She has high expectations of her students, and is constantly encouraging us to pay greater attention to detail, and think more critically about world politics.’

• ‘Through her teaching and high expectations of students, my writing and critical thinking has improved dramatically.’

• ‘He is a pretty tough grader which makes me challenge myself to get an A with him.’

These comments all support the conclusion that students value and appreciate a challenging academic environment. Students, after all, are choosing on their own to identify this characteristic as a component of why they nominated this instructor for an award. As a further check on this, we included a 15^th theme we labeled Easy. The goal was to capture statements about the instructor meriting the teaching award because they were easy graders, did not require much homework, or had low expectations of students. We excluded this theme from our final list because we did not find a single instance across the 523 nominations submitted. In short, the associations that have been found between SETs and grading, including grade inflation (Berezvai, Lukáts, and Molontay 2021) may speak more to the context in which these data are collected. When asked to evaluate instruction outside of a reciprocal evaluation setting, higher GPA students value faculty who challenge them and set high expectations. This does leave open the very real possibility that easier grading may still matter on average for students with GPAs that fall below the 3.0 threshold of this study.

Practical suggestions

The tricky part about embracing this theme is how to do so in a way that does not alienate students. Designing assignments that produce an end product students will find meaningful makes it more rewarding to put the effort into a challenging project. Be clear about expectations and provide instructions that make it possible to attain them. Be realistic about what is attainable, but don’t be afraid to require students to stretch their abilities. Instructors can also offer supplemental assignments for those who want to learn more and be challenged further.

Explains well and simplifies complex material (14.5%)

This theme focuses on the success with which a professor communicates their ideas and the content of the class. Particularly as classes get more advanced, the material can become quite complex. Being able to break that down in comprehensible ways for students was a skill that appeared in the comments for many different instructors. Some comments address specific strategies that were adopted. Most, however, are more general and speak to an overall ability to frame things in ways that students are able to follow.

• ‘Dr. ___ is a very thoughtful professor. He condenses material into cluster concepts that make it possible to comprehend complex subject matter.’

• ‘She always gives plenty of examples for theories she explains so everyone understands better.’

• ‘Her lectures also include useful diagrams that explain federalism in a clear way.’

• ‘He is able to make the very difficult easy to understand.’

• ‘Dr. ___ is an exceptional professor who makes learning a difficult subject much less challenging for his students.’

It is possible that the ability to simplify complex material is related to other characteristics such as enthusiasm or identifying how the material is relevant in the lives of students (our next theme), but this concept stood on its own in enough comments to justify its inclusion here. Making material accessible for students, while continuing to challenge them, was a valued characteristic for students.

Practical suggestions

One way this theme can be put into practice is through scaffolding progression through the material in the syllabus. A logical development as the course moves forward helps students make the connections that they need to make. It is also important not to assume an understanding of the fundamentals, even in an advanced class. That does not mean having to reteach everything from scratch, but at least reminding students about those fundamentals can help link them to more advanced material. In addition, adopting diagrams, pictures, and other visual aids can help students learn key concepts.

Relevant and practical content (12.2%)

Our ninth theme is related to the previous one and can provide some valuable guidance to instructors. Students appreciated when their professors connected what they were teaching to relevant and practical content in their lives. This fell broadly into three subcategories of comments. The most common appreciated the ways in which their instructors linked the course material to illuminate current events and contemporary challenges in the world. Another cluster of comments centered on the instructor connecting material in ways that would be useful to them in their careers or just moving forward in life. The third cluster of comments centers around the ways in which the instructor brings their own personal experience on a topic to bear. Students clearly benefited from the efforts made by instructors to make these connections and bring the material to life.

• ‘She also was able to foster an environment where students were able to successfully relate course material to current events.’

• ‘___ is excellent at giving real-world examples of whatever concept we’re studying at any given time.’

• ‘She makes theory classes more approachable and always relates course material to important contemporary issues.’

• ‘___ has an exceptional ability to explain complex concepts in a way that enables you to remember and utilize those concepts in your daily life.’

• ‘He’s also very candid about what practicing law entails, providing highly relevant information for students.’

• ‘___ was able to give us first-hand knowledge of the criminal justice system and used his personal experiences to teach about certain topics.’

Practical suggestions

In political science, there is fortunately no shortage of current events that shows how theories may be applicable to contemporary issues. Using those does require instructors to stay on top of current events, even outside of the realm of politics alone. That allows faculty to draw connections to course content. This is not limited to current events, though. Sharing stories about work you or others may be doing with community partners or organizations helps to highlight the relevance of course material.

Organized and prepared (12.0%)

The tenth and final theme that emerged from our analysis of the nominations related to the evident work that instructors put in to organizing the structure of a course and the preparation they engaged in before each class. While students are obviously not in a position to observe exactly what an instructor did in advance of a class, they are sensitive to and appreciative of the impression that a class is well-constructed. This extends to the preparation that goes into each individual class period. Strength of organization is also sometimes perceived as a manifestation of the care and support offered by that instructor.

• ‘His classes are precisely structured and organized, and he is legitimately interested in the success of his students.’

• ‘He is very structured and takes care to organize the class in a way that constantly reminds students about what they should be learning.’

• ‘His lectures are logically, intuitively structured.’

• ‘Excellent classroom preparation and delivery. ___ is by far the most prepared educator on campus!’

• ‘One of the things that causes Dr. ___ to stand out is his preparation and organization. He obviously cares a great deal about his students.’

Practical suggestions

This theme requires instructors to put the work in beforehand so they can show up to class prepared to go. Using the syllabus to provide a clear structure and schedule can help manage student expectations. Communicating key concepts that will be covered in each class helps students know what to look for. In online classes, having the whole course site developed, or at least outlined, before the term starts helps ensure a clear understanding of what to expect for students.

Less common themes

While we have discussed the top ten themes in greater depth, these are not the only codes that we looked for in our data set. The full set of codes is presented in Table 2 along with their prevalence in our data set. Inspiring, Fair and Balanced, Adaptable and Responsive, and Constructive and Timely Feedback all appeared in less than 10% of responses, although they were prevalent enough to justify including in our codebook.

Gender differences?

Given the extensive literature on how gender impacts student evaluations of instructors (Holman, Key, and Kreitzer 2019; Kreitzer and Sweet-Cushman 2022; MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt 2015; Mengel, Sauermann, and Zölitz 2019; Sprague and Massoni 2005), we anticipated seeing gender effects in the results of our study.⁸ We especially expected our concepts of support to be raised more frequently when it comes to female instructors than male instructors. As Sprague and Massoni (2005) found in a review of comments from students about their best and worst teachers, there were gendered expectations and the burdens placed on women by those expectations were more labor-intensive because they tended to be related to providing care and support.

However, as Table 3 shows, in our data only one of the themes was different based on gender in a statistically significant way- Engaging & Facilitates Student Involvement. Students in our sample were more likely to use language that fits this theme to describe women instructors than men instructors. No other themes demonstrated gender bias, which matched our impression during the coding process. Emotional support language, where we would have most expected to see a gender difference, appeared slightly more frequently for women, but not in a way that was even close to statistical significance.

Table 3. Themes found in nominations for female and male instructors.^a

Theme	Female	Male	χ^2
Supportive total	40.9%	40.9%	.00
Emotional	27.4%	24.0%	.73
Instrumental	17.2%	20.5%	.82
Knowledgeable & Intelligent	31.7%	30.9%	.04
Engaging & Facilitates Involvement	34.9%	26.1%	4.52*
Entertaining & Enjoyable	17.7%	23.4%	2.31
Approachable & Friendly	16.7%	22.3%	2.32
Passionate & Enthusiastic	20.4%	18.4%	.32
Challenging & High Expectations	20.4%	13.9%	3.70
Explains Well & Simplifies	16.7%	13.4%	1.06
Relevant & Practical Content	10.2%	13.4%	1.10
Organized & Prepared	11.8%	12.2%	.01
Inspiring	10.8%	6.2%	3.39
Fair and Balanced	7.5%	7.4%	.00
Adaptable & Responsive	8.1%	5.9%	.87
Constructive & Timely Feedback	2.7%	3.3%	.13

*p < .05.

^a Based on 186 nominations for 26 female faculty members and 337 nominations for 52 male faculty members.

While this result is surprising given the existing research, there are some possible explanations for this outcome. First, the sample of students are all higher-achieving students with at least a 3.0 GPA. It is possible that the gendered effects found in student evaluations of teaching more generally are concentrated among less academically successful students. Second, it is possible that regional variations when it comes to gender norms (Scarborough and Sin 2020) played a role in our sample. According to Scarborough and Sin (2020), Portland, Oregon ranks quite highly on the Liberal-Egalitarian scale of gender norms which would make it less likely for gender bias to appear in these types of responses. Finally, it is possible that increased awareness of gender bias in student evaluations of teaching is leading some set of students to be more conscious of their own responses. One of the best practices for student evaluations of teaching today is to directly address the ways in which gender and race can influence the results when distributing the evaluations themselves. This can serve to increase awareness, especially among the most academically successful students, that there are issues to keep in mind.

Conclusion

Our review of open-ended student comments from six years of teaching awards provides a helpful roadmap for professors looking to improve student perception of their classroom performance. While there are clear overlaps with aspects of teaching excellence emerging from institutional and instructor perspectives, there are some distinctions as well. The role of Supportive, for example, is much more heavily emphasized in student responses than it is in institutional or instructor perspectives. This study gives specific student voice to what they value and appreciate in their instructors and paying attention to that matters. It can directly influence student retention in the major and student success in achieving course and program learning objectives.

Specifically, what we found was that beyond recognizing and appreciating the ways in which their instructors were knowledgeable about their subjects, students responded very positively when faculty offered forms of what we characterize as emotional or instrumental support. Communicating to students that you care about their success came up frequently among the valued characteristics. Helping students with coursework beyond the classroom and being approachable when students need help also appeared consistently. A similar frequency of comments addressed how the instructor was enthusiastic or passionate about the topic along with being entertaining, often through humor. And while 16.3% of all the comments positively mentioned that the classes were challenging or difficult, there were no comments that linked being an easy grader to teaching excellence. While undoubtedly some of the nominated instructors were easier graders than others, that is not what these students appreciated about them, although we recognize that the nature of the sample of higher-performing students could impact the results.

These results suggest that some fairly simple steps such as communicating caring for students can significantly improve student perceptions of instructor performance. Sharing with students your own excitement for the material and making it clear that you are willing to help them succeed in the class likewise pays off large dividends. Others involve advance work, especially the consideration given to the design and structure of our courses. It is important to note, though, that not every teacher has to embody every single one of these characteristics. Instructors can (and should) allow their individual personalities to inform how they approach teaching and that will result in some characteristics being emphasized more heavily than others. Some may be more comfortable using humor in the classroom while others will focus on encouraging active reflection and engagement with the content of the course. Finding the right combination for an individual professor is important. Different students, likewise, will respond in different ways. However, relatively small efforts in the direction of the most frequently noted concepts can make a difference for students. That is something that translates beyond just garnering recognition for teaching- many of these characteristics are also associated with student retention and success. It would serve us well as educators to pay attention to those things that we can improve in our own performance to help students and this article focuses on concrete and specific actions that can help.

Acknowledgements

This manuscript has been made open access through support provided by Portland State University Library.

Disclosure statement

The authors confirm that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christopher Shortell

Christopher Shortell is an associate professor of Politics and Global Affairs at Portland State University. His research focuses on law and courts in both the American and comparative perspectives and has been published in Political Research Quarterly, Politics & Gender, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Election Law Journal, and Justice System Journal.

Kris Henning

Kris Henning is a professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Portland State University. His current research and consulting focus is on helping criminal justice agencies improve decision-making through data analysis, evaluation design, and implementation of evidence-based practices. Dr. Henning’s research has been supported by a variety of federal and state agencies.

Carl Christiansen

Carl Christiansen is a Public Affairs and Policy doctoral student at Portland State University. Carl’s research is focused on nonprofit organizations. He is interested in how changes in nonprofit management affect worker burnout.

Notes

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teaching-excellence-and-student-outcomes-framework-specification.

2 Additional criteria included junior or senior standing for undergraduates, two or more terms completed at PSU, and current enrollment in at least one courses at the institution.

3 The only exception was individuals who won teaching awards the previous year. Their names were not an available option for students to select.

4 The rest of the award process is not particularly pertinent to the current study. Once all the responses were received, the scores were compiled with first-place votes counting as 3 points, second-place votes as 2 points, and third-place votes assigned 1 point. The instructors with the top point totals were forwarded to a student committee that met in person to review nomination materials and select a final winner.

5 Technically, these are persons per year as students could participate across multiple years.

6 Student responses were anonymized prior to review and the Portland State University Institutional Review Board acknowledged that the study was exempt (IRB protocol #217314-18).

7 This included 182 unique students since some participated in multiple years.

8 There are also theoretical reasons to expect race to play a role in responses, but as in many other efforts to explore this dynamic, we simply do not have enough racial diversity to statistically assess this.