Student Reflections on Good &

Bad Teaching Among

Undergraduate Hospitality &
Tourism Management Students
Dr. Mick La Lopa
La Lopa Teaching and Learning Initiative
Chef John Folse Culinary Institute
February 19. 2015

Abstract
Memories of a good or bad teacher are unique for
each student that reflects upon the attributes of their
teacher, the pedagogy employed in the classroom,
and their focus on the student. Qualitative analysis of
student reflections of teaching demonstrate that good
teachers are caring, enthusiastic, have a relevant and
engaging instructional style, display content
expertise, and manage classroom discipline.

Abstract
Reflections on bad teaching tend to overlap with
aspects of instructional techniques and classroom
discipline where good teachers meet student
expectations in these areas or do not. Curiously, good
teaching overcomes negative reflections of poor
presentation and classroom discipline and provides an
environment that is empathetic toward student needs
and is delivered in an enthusiastic and engaging
manner (Jackson 2006).

Study Purpose

This study aims to describe student perceptions of

good and bad teaching among hospitality and
tourism students.
The students were essentially asked to use
anywhere between five and ten words or phrases
to first describe good and bad teachers.
The results are valuable to professors,
administrators, and instructional designers to do
those things that students consider to be good
teaching practices and avoid those that are not to
enhance student learning.

Background: Good Teaching

When instructional settings are active,

collaborative, geared toward student interest and
promote critical thinking, then the teaching
contributes toward positive outcomes (Astin,
1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

Background: Good Teaching

Teachers that encourage students to learn in social

settings, collaborate in groups, and employ
problem-based learning, tend to have positive
learning outcomes (Campbell & Evans, 2001;
Dart, 2006; LaLopa & McDonald, 2002; Wickens
& Tripe, 2006).

Background: Good Teaching

These engaging environments that effective

teachers create often involve a high level of
caring and empathetic commitment to student
learning that utilize effective activities, such as
reading, writing, and close collaboration with
peers and the teacher (Kuh, Hayek, Carini,
Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001; Kuh 2003;
Zhao & Kuh, 2004).

Background: Good Teaching

Parpala, Lindblom-Ylanne & Rytkonen, (2011)

surveyed first and third year students in
traditional and professional studies. The
qualitative content analysis yielded no difference
in student descriptions of good teaching, but there
were different conceptions of good teaching
amongst teachers within career fields such as
veterinary science.

Background: Good Teaching

Good teaching attributes were further detailed by

an analysis of student responses in a hospitality
human resource management course with the top
three attributes being enthusiastic about teaching,
relating of material to the real world, and holds
attention (LaLopa, 2011).

Background: Good Teaching

Good teaching attributes were further detailed by

an analysis of student responses in a hospitality
human resource management course with the top
three attributes being enthusiastic about teaching,
relating of material to the real world, and holds
attention (LaLopa, 2011).

Background: Good Teaching

Prior research has demonstrated good teaching by

observing expert teachers (Saunders & Saunders,
1995), but did not consider the student viewpoint.
Good teacher personal attributes included,
enthusiasm, content expertise, whereas pedagogy
included delivery techniques, and ability to relate
concepts to the real world. Respect for students
was demonstrated through listening to students,
expressing an empathetic nature, and maintaining
good rapport with students (Brodie and Dorfman,
1994).

Summary Table Good Teaching

Summarizes the findings within the three general categories of good teaching
(teacher attributes, classroom pedagogy, and student centered) that emerge from
related studies on good teaching (LaLopa 2011, Patrick and Smart, 1998; Smith
and Cranton, 1992).

Background: Bad Teaching

Jackson (2006) determined some overlap of good

and bad teaching. Of the characteristics of
teaching in the study, the teachers ability to
address classroom discipline and communication
skills were determined as good or bad by the
students. However, good teaching had far more
descriptors and focused much on the enthusiasm
and delivery of quality instruction.

Background: Bad Teaching

Contrary to the research on good teaching,

searches in the literature on bad teaching yields
less results, particularly when applied to a single
field of study such as hospitality management.

Background: Bad Teaching

Although not specifically referred to as bad

teaching a large body of research focuses on
teacher or learner centered instructional practices.
Teacher-centered employs pedagogy involving
themselves as the active participant through
lecture or demonstration where students are doing
the listening is opposed by student-centered
pedagogy that involves the student in active and
problem-oriented learning methods (Goe, 2007;
Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; Wenglinsky 2002).

Summary Table Bad Teaching

Attributes of Bad Teaching (derived from

Jackson, 2006)

Methods
Sample
The 250 students enrolled in a large introductory
class in hospitality were eligible to participate in
an online survey for extra credit. The class is a
mix of students from freshman through senior
year.
Procedures
Two questions were generated to gather
qualitative data from the students to allow them to
describe the traits of good and then bad teachers
in 5-10 key words.

Methods
Data Analysis
Qualitative analysis of the student responses were
analyzed for themes and trends to determine how
students viewed good and bad teaching within the
social context of a classroom (Achterberg &
Arendt, 2008; Marshal & Rossman, 2006,
Cresswell, 2007).
Lets check out what that means!

Results: Good Teaching

Results: Bad Teaching

Discussion: Good Teaching

The top theme that emerged from the student

responses was that the teacher should have
concern or empathy for the student needs.
Similarly previous research has described the
importance of establishing a good rapport with
students and having respect for them as key
aspects of good teaching (Patrick & Smart, 1998;
Smith & Cranton, 1992).

Discussion: Good Teaching

A good teacher must also be organized in their

design of the course, be knowledgeable and
demonstrate enthusiasm for their subject in their
communication to students, similar to Jackson,
(2006).
Unique to this study, the students described a good
teacher as not only being organized, but they need
to explain the material clearly.

Discussion: Good Teaching

Instruction needed to be interactive in nature and

related to the outside world. For these students it
appears that to be described as a good teacher, the
method of delivery must include interactive
methods and relevance to their career field.
Previous literature had not included such a strong
description of a teacher being funny or making
jokes in class. For these students, they described
good teaching as being a fun class, entertaining,
and humorous.

Discussion: Bad Teaching

There were almost a thousand more words

describing a bad teacher. Despite instruction to
respondents to mention only key words, students
were compelled to tell their stories.
All five descriptors were similar to Jackson (2006)
where a teacher with a patronizing approach to
students who delivers instruction poorly in a
monotone manor with endless monologues or
writing on the blackboard tends to bore students.

Discussion: Bad Teaching

The students in this study were most concerned

with teachers that had a negative demeanor,
followed by descriptors that related to their
lecturing style.

Conclusions - Implications

Faculty and Administrators who value the aspects

of student satisfaction regarding instruction can
look to the results of this study to frame faculty
development on classroom pedagogy. Should we
now focus classroom teaching efforts on being
engaging? Funny? Interactive?
The students in this study who described good
teaching as being interactive, relevant to the
outside world and delivered in a passionate, safe,
caring manor with good humor. In some respects,
it mattered not if the teacher lectured, what really
bothers them is when they are not good at it.

Conclusions - Implications

Study may be limited by 72% of students being

female, particularly when results indicated that
good teachers should have a strong concern for
students and not have a negative demeanor.
Future Study could be multi-institutional with
different class types.
Students wanted to tell stories regarding bad
teachers. Perhaps more open ended questions
could describe these stories in more detail.
Quantitative questionnaires may gauge differences
between; age, gender, class year, major, and types
of course.

What questions do you

have at this point?

What questions do you

have at this point?