This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 28 January 2015, At: 23:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Teacher
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

Assessing the Effects of Instructor

Enthusiasm on Classroom Engagement,
Learning Goal Orientation, and
Academic Self-Efficacy
Qin Zhang
Published online: 25 Sep 2013.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Qin Zhang (2014) Assessing the Effects of Instructor Enthusiasm on Classroom
Engagement, Learning Goal Orientation, and Academic Self-Efficacy, Communication Teacher, 28:1,
44-56, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2013.839047

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2013.839047

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015
 Communication Teacher
Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2014, pp. 44–56

Assessing the Effects of Instructor

Enthusiasm on Classroom Engagement,
Learning Goal Orientation, and Academic
Self-Efficacy
Qin Zhang
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

Enthusiasm is widely regarded as one of the most essential and desirable qualities and
characteristics of effective teachers. This study is designed to assess the effects of teacher
enthusiasm on student classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic
self-efficacy. Participants include 165 college students enrolled in basic communication
classes. Results indicate that teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement, intrinsic goal orientation, and
academic self-efficacy, but it is not a significant predictor of extrinsic goal orientation.
Consequently, this study demonstrates the power of teacher enthusiasm in predicting
and shaping students’ behavior in the classroom.

Keywords: Teacher Enthusiasm; Classroom Engagement; Goal Orientation; Self-

Efficacy

Enthusiasm is widely regarded as one of the most essential and desirable qualities and
characteristics of effective teachers (Bettencourt, Gillett, Gall, & Hull, 1983; Kunter,
Frenzel, Nagy, Baumert, & Pekrun, 2011; Wendel & Heiser, 1989). Derived from the
Greek origin meaning “possessed by a god” (Sanders & Gosenpud, 1986, p. 52), the
term “enthusiasm” is often used in instruction to connote a motivating, energetic,
passionate, and dynamic teaching style (Kunter et al., 2011). An enthusiastic teacher
often spices up the class with excitement, enjoyment, and anticipation, engages
students to participate, and stimulates them to explore (Patrick, Hisley, & Kempler,
2000). Clearly, teacher enthusiasm functions as a spark to ignite the flame of curiosity
of students and jump-start their intrinsic motivation to learn (Patrick et al., 2000).

Correspondence to: Qin Zhang, Department of Communication, Fairfield University, Fairfield CT, USA, 06824.
Email: qzhang@fairfield.edu

ISSN 1740-4622 (print)/ISSN 1740-4630 (online) © 2013 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2013.839047
 Communication Education 45
Consequently, teacher enthusiasm has been consistently linked with effective
teaching and optimal learning (Patrick et al., 2000; Stewart, 1989). Teacher
enthusiasm has been found to be correlated with better teaching evaluations, positive
attitudes toward teachers, better student performance, and improved classroom
behavior (Natof & Romanczyk, 2009; Patrick et al., 2000). Surprisingly, most of the
research on teacher enthusiasm has been conducted in the field of education and
psychology. Despite the recognized importance of teacher enthusiasm, very few
instructional communication studies have examined the effects of teacher enthusiasm
on teaching and learning. Only one scholarly article assessing the effects of teacher
enthusiasm can be found in communication journals, which was published in 1989
(Stewart, 1989). Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill the void in instructional
communication. Specifically, it attempts to assess the effects of teacher enthu-
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

siasm on student classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic

self-efficacy.

Instructor Enthusiasm
In spite of the steady interest in teacher enthusiasm over decades, there is a surprising
lack of a clear, specific, and unified definition of enthusiasm in educational
psychology (Kunter et al., 2011). As Burts, McKinney, and Burts (1985) noted, the
meaning of enthusiasm is ambiguous, and it is difficult to measure accurately. Early
studies tend to conceptualize teacher enthusiasm as the use of nonverbal commun-
ication in instruction, thus operationalizing it in terms of observed teacher nonverbal
behavior (Bettencourt et al., 1983). Collins (1978) identified eight nonverbal
indicators of teacher enthusiasm: uplifting vocal delivery, shining eyes, frequent
demonstrative gestures, large body movements, vibrant facial expressions, varied
word selection, animated acceptance of ideas and feelings, and exuberant overall
energy.
However, recent studies have largely tried to define enthusiasm as an affective
construct in the domain of positive emotions and intrinsic motivation (Kunter et al.,
2011; Patrick et al., 2000). According to Barsade and Gibson’s (2007) circumplex
model of affect, enthusiasm is high positive affectivity characterized by high
pleasantness and high energy. Indeed, teacher enthusiasm can be best conceptualized
as an affective teacher characteristic reflected in the expression of enjoyment,
excitement, and pleasure in the classroom (Kunter et al., 2011). In line with this
conceptualization, this study examines teacher enthusiasm and its effects within the
framework of positive emotions and motivation.
Recognized as a key element in a successful classroom, teacher enthusiasm serves
as an external catalyst stimulating student intrinsic motivation in the classroom
(Patrick et al., 2000). Not surprisingly, teacher enthusiasm has been empirically
associated with various positive learning outcomes, such as academic achievement
(Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1992; Sanders & Gosenpud, 1986), motivation and
vitality (Patrick et al., 2000), interest in the topic (Kunter et al., 2011), on-task
behavior and attention (Bettencourt et al., 1983), recall of information (Stewart,
 46 Q. Zhang
1989), and test performance (Marlin, 1991). The positive outcomes of teacher
enthusiasm are also consistent with the documented beneficial effects of positive
emotions in enhancing performance, success, and satisfaction (Fredrickson, 2001;
Wright, Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007).

Student Engagement
Conceived as an effective antidote to declining academic motivation and performance
and increasing alienation and boredom (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004), student
engagement is generally conceptualized as a tripartite construct comprised of beha-
vioral, cognitive, and emotional or affective dimensions (Appleton, Christenson, &
Furlong, 2008; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2005). Behavioral engagement
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

involves positive conduct, such as following rules, paying attention, and getting
involved in academic, social, or extracurricular activities (Appleton, Christenson, Kim,
& Reschly, 2006). Cognitive engagement concerns psychological investment in
learning, self-regulation, and willingness to go beyond the basic requirements to
master difficult skills (Fredricks et al., 2004, 2005). Emotional engagement focuses on
feelings, attitudes, and perceptions toward school, teachers, and peers, such as interest,
belonging, and liking (Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, & Pagani, 2009; Fredricks
et al., 2005).
Student engagement research roughly centers around two lines. The first line of
inquiry focuses on the outcomes of student engagement. The beneficial effects of
student engagement in the classroom have been well documented (Fredricks et al.,
2004). Student engagement has been found to be associated positively with positive
learning outcomes (e.g., grades and standardized tests; Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006;
Fredricks et al., 2004), motivation to learn (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), critical
thinking (Carini et al., 2006), and persistence (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea,
2008), but negatively with student dropout (Appleton et al., 2008). Notably, student
engagement is recognized as an effective school-based intervention to promote school
completion and prevent early dropout (Appleton et al., 2008; Archambault
et al., 2009).
The second line of inquiry involves the antecedents of student engagement. Student
engagement is largely malleable, responsive to contexts, and susceptible to environ-
mental change (Fredricks et al., 2004). Although student engagement can be
influenced by a myriad of contextual stimulants, including teachers, peers, family,
community, and culture, the teacher variable assumes a crucial role in determining
student engagement in the classroom (Fredricks et al., 2004). Teacher support and
caring have been found to be central to student engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004;
Klem & Connell, 2004). Similarly, teachers’ use of active and collaborative teaching
styles and interactions with students also stimulate student engagement (Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2005).
Although scholars have yet to establish a direct link between teacher enthusiasm
and student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement, prior studies showed
that enthusiastic teachers mobilize student interest, excitement, and curiosity in the
 Communication Education 47
class (Patrick et al., 2000), attract students to be more attentive and involved (Gillett
& Gall, 1982), and motivate them to exhibit more on-task behavior (Bettencourt
et al., 1983). In light of these positive effects of teacher enthusiasm on student
classroom behavior, it is likely that enthusiastic teachers engage students behaviorally,
cognitively, and emotionally in the classroom. Thus, we offer the hypothesis:

H1: Teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student behavioral, cognitive, and

emotional engagement.

Learning Goal Orientation

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

Learning goal orientation concerns the student perceptions of the reasons why they
engage in a learning task (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Learning goal
orientation can be intrinsic and extrinsic (Pintrich et al., 1991). Intrinsic goal
orientation, also referred to as mastery goal orientation, involves the student
perceptions of participating in a learning task for reasons such as mastery, challenge,
curiosity, and enjoyment; whereas extrinsic goal orientation, also known as
performance goal orientation, pertains to the student perceptions of participating in
a task for reasons such as performances, grades, rewards, and evaluations relative to
others (Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich et al., 1991).
For intrinsically goal-oriented students, engaging in a learning task is an end in
itself; but for extrinsically goal-oriented students, engaging in a learning task is the
means to an end (Pintrich et al., 1991). Consequently, students with mastery/intrinsic
goal orientation are intrinsically motivated to learn and react to challenging tasks as
an opportunity to enhance knowledge and competencies; in contrast, students with
performance/extrinsic goal orientation focus on trying to outperform others and
approach challenging tasks as a risk that potentially endangers good grades and
performance evaluations (Pintrich, 2000). Therefore, intrinsic goals are often
linked with adaptive outcomes, producing deeper engagement, higher persistence,
and better performance, but extrinsic goals are often associated with less adaptive
outcomes (Pintrich, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006).
One’s motivation to learn is subject to the influence of social and external contexts
(Deci & Ryan, 1991, 2004). Teacher enthusiasm has been identified as a powerful
source and predictor of student intrinsic motivation to learn (Patrick et al., 2000).
When students perceive their teachers as enthusiastic, energetic, and dynamic, they
are more likely to be interested, curious, and excited about learning, and intrinsically
motivated to pursue the task at hand (Patrick et al., 2000). It is conceivable that
teacher enthusiasm functions as an external stimulant for the intrinsic motivational
energy that may sometimes lay dormant within the student (Patrick et al., 2000).
Although early studies tend to conceptualize intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as
contradictory, recent studies find that extrinsic motivation does not necessarily
undermine intrinsic motivation and can actually enhance it (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2006). Similarly, intrinsic goal orientation can also help make extrinsic goal
 48 Q. Zhang
orientation generate more adaptive outcomes (Pintrich, 2000). So it is likely that
enthusiastic teachers may intrinsically and extrinsically motivate students to learn for
both knowledge and good grades. Thus, we offer:

H2: Teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student intrinsic and extrinsic goal
orientation.

Academic Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a self-appraisal of one’s ability to accomplish a task successfully
(Pintrich et al., 1991). Self-efficacy includes judgments about one’s confidence as well
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

as capacities to master a task (Bandura, 1977; Pintrich et al., 1991). Three types of
self-efficacy have been identified: general, social, and academic (Harrison, Chadwick,
& Scales, 1996; Zhang, 2004). General self-efficacy focuses on the global confidence in
one’s ability without reference to specific behavioral domains, and social self-efficacy
emphasizes the confidence in social interactive situations (Harrison et al., 1996).
Academic self-efficacy, on the other hand, concerns the confidence in one’s capacity
to attain designated performances in learning situations (Jinks & Morgan, 1999;
Zhang, 2004).
Self-efficacy is an important determinant of behavior (Bandura, 1977). Not
surprisingly, substantial studies demonstrate that self-efficacy plays a critical role in
affecting performance and behavior, independent of task type (Christie & Segrin,
1998; Salili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Vrugt, Langereis, & Hoogstraten, 1997). Notably,
academic self-efficacy has also been found to be positively associated with learning
goals, test performance, achievement, and adjustment (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001;
Salili et al., 2001; Zhang, 2004). Similarly, Vrugt et al. (1997) found that students with
higher self-efficacy appraisals tend to pursue more challenging goals, worker harder,
and accomplish higher levels of performance than those with lower self-efficacy
appraisals.
Interestingly, existing research on self-efficacy in learning contexts largely focuses
on the beneficial effects of academic self-efficacy on performance (Chemers et al.,
2001; Vrugt et al., 1997), and few studies have examined its antecedents. However,
student academic self-efficacy can be affected by a variety of personal, cognitive, and
environmental stimuli (Bandura, 1977), including teachers’ characteristics and
behavior. For example, Tuckman and Sexton (1991) found that teacher encourage-
ment has a positive effect on student academic self-efficacy. Similarly, Fencl and
Scheel (2005) found that teaching strategies influence student self-efficacy. Consider-
ing the compelling evidence of the positive functions of teacher enthusiasm on
student behavior and achievement (Bettencourt et al., 1983; Patrick et al., 2000), we
offer the following hypothesis:

H3: Teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student academic self-efficacy.

 Communication Education 49
Method
Participants
Participants for this study included 165 college students (52 males and113 females)
recruited from basic communication classes at a medium-sized private university in
the Northeast. The average age of the participants was 19.37 (SD = 1.48), and most of
them were first year students and communication majors. Their ethnicities were 89%
White, 4% African, 1% Asian, and 6% Hispanic.

Instruments
Teacher enthusiasm
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

Teacher enthusiasm was assessed with six five-point Likert-type items (5 = “strongly
agree,” 1 = “strongly disagree”) based on Kunter et al.’s (2011) and Patrick et al.’s
(2000) measurement of teacher enthusiasm. All items were prefaced with the phrase,
“The instructor of my previous class…” Sample items included: “teaches with great
enthusiasm” and “is full of dynamic energy when s/he teaches.” The reliability for
this study was 0.93.

Student engagement
Student engagement was assessed with 14 five-point Likert-type items (5 = “strongly
agree,” 1 = “strongly disagree”) based on Fredricks et al.’s (2005) school engagement
scale designed to measure the three dimensions: emotional, behavioral, and cognitive
engagement. Students were asked to rate their level of engagement in the preceding
class. Behavioral engagement was assessed with four items, and sample items
included: “I pay attention in class” and “I follow the rules at school.” Cognitive
engagement had five items, and sample items included: “I study for the class even
when I don’t have a test” and “I check my schoolwork for mistakes.” Emotional
engagement consisted of five items, and sample items included: “I feel happy in
school” and “I feel excited by the work in school.” The reliability for this study was
0.76 for behavioral engagement, 0.81 for cognitive engagement, and 0.95 for
emotional engagement.

Learning goal orientation

Learning goal orientation was measured with the goal orientation subscale from
Pintrich et al.’s (1991) motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ)
developed to assess college students’ motivation and learning strategies. The goal
orientation subscale consisted of two dimensions: intrinsic and extrinsic goal
orientation. Intrinsic goal orientation was assessed with four five-point Likert-type
items (5 = “strongly agree,” 1 = “strongly disagree”). Sample items included: “In a
class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new
things.” Extrinsic goal orientation was also operationalized with four five-point Likert-
type items (5 = “strongly agree,” 1 = “strongly disagree”). Sample items included: “My
main concern in that class is getting a good grade.” The reliability for this study was
0.82 for intrinsic goal orientation and 0.79 for extrinsic goal orientation.
 50 Q. Zhang
Academic self-efficacy
Academic self-efficacy was measured with the self-efficacy subscale from Pintrich
et al.’s (1991) motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). The academic
self-efficacy subscale consisted of eight five-point Likert-type items (5 = “strongly
agree,” 1 = “strongly disagree”). Sample items included: “I believe I will receive an
excellent grade in this class” and “I expect to do well in this class.” The scale was
found to have good reliability and validity (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,
1993). The reliability for this study was 0.94.

Procedure
Following University IRB approval, the questionnaire was administered in basic
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

communication classes, and participants received extra credit for participation.

Participants were asked to respond in reference to the class immediately preceding
the research session to maximize the number of target instructors and to reduce social
desirability bias. It took approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Participation was anonymous.

Results
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations
for all the variables in this study, appear in Table 1. H1 hypothesized that teacher
enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional
engagement. Separate multiple regression analyses were conducted to test H1. The
independent variable was teacher enthusiasm, and the dependent variables were
student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement respectively. Regression
results indicated that teacher enthusiasm was an effective predictor of all three
dimensions of student engagement: behavioral engagement, F(1, 161) = 38.52, R2 =
0.19, p < 0.001; cognitive engagement, F(1, 161) = 102.06, R2 = 0.38, p < 0.001; and
emotional engagement, F(1, 160) = 88.55, R2 = 0.35, p < 0.001. Teacher enthusiasm
accounted for 19% of the variance in student behavioral engagement, 38% in
cognitive engagement, and 35% in emotional engagement. Thus, H1 was supported.
Table 2 reports the summaries of the regression analyses.

Table 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for All Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD
1. Enthusiasm 4.26 1.22
2. Behavioral Engagement 0.31** 4.51 0.54
3. Cognitive Engagement 0.62** 0.46** 3.56 0.91
4. Emotional Engagement 0.60** 0.33** 0.80** 3.69 1.14
5. Intrinsic Goal Orientation 0.44** 0.28** 0.60** 0.51** 3.40 0.90
6. Extrinsic Goal Orientation 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.01 4.40 0.89
7. Academic Self-Efficacy 0.46** 0.30** 0.63** 0.58** 0.55** 0.20* 3.97 0.76
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
 Communication Education 51
Table 2 Summary of Regression Analysis for Teacher Enthusiasm Predicting Student
Engagement, Goal Orientations, and Academic Self-Efficacy

Variable B SE B Beta t p
Behavioral Engagement 0.19 0.05 0.31 4.07 0.000
Cognitive Engagement 0.47 0.05 0.62 10.10 0.000
Emotional Engagement 0.56 0.06 0.60 9.41 0.000
Intrinsic Goal Orientation 0.32 0.05 0.44 6.11 0.000
Extrinsic Goal Orientation 0.09 0.06 0.12 1.45 0.149
Academic Self-Efficacy 0.29 0.04 0.46 6.58 0.000
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

H2 hypothesized that teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student

intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation. Separate regression analyses (see Table 2 for
summaries) were also conducted to test the hypothesis. The independent variable was
teacher enthusiasm, and the dependent variables were student intrinsic and extrinsic
goal orientation respectively. The results showed that teacher enthusiasm was an
effective predictor of student intrinsic goal orientation, F(1, 159) = 37.34, R2 = 0.19,
p < 0.001, explaining 19% of the variance in intrinsic goal orientation, but it was not a
significant predictor of student extrinsic goal orientation, F(1, 158) = 2.11, R2 = 0.01,
p = ns, explaining 1% of the variance in extrinsic goal orientation. Thus, H2 was only
partially supported.
H3 hypothesized that teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student
academic self-efficacy. Regression analysis (see Table 2 for summaries) was conducted
to test the hypothesis. The independent variable was teacher enthusiasm, and the
dependent variable was student academic self-efficacy. The results showed that
teacher enthusiasm was an effective predictor of student academic self-efficacy,
F(1, 158) = 43.33, R2 = 0.21, p < 0.001, explaining 21% of the variance in academic
self-efficacy. Thus, H3 was supported.

Discussion
Teacher enthusiasm has long been regarded as a critical component of effective
teaching (Kunter et al., 2011; Patrick et al., 2000), but few studies have examined the
effects of teacher enthusiasm on student learning and behavior in instructional
communication. This study is designed to assess the effects of teacher enthusiasm on
student classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy.
Results of regression analyses indicate that teacher enthusiasm is an effective
predictor of student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement, intrinsic goal
orientation, and academic self-efficacy, but it is not a significant predictor of student
extrinsic goal orientation. Consequently, this study demonstrates the power of teacher
enthusiasm in predicting students’ positive behavior in the classroom.
As expected, results show that teacher enthusiasm is a significant predictor of
student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement in the classroom. Teacher
 52 Q. Zhang
enthusiasm accounts for 19%, 38%, and 35% of the variance in student behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional engagement respectively. The more enthusiastic and
dynamic teachers are, the more engaging students become behaviorally, cognitively,
and emotionally. This finding replicates the prior arguments highlighting the
desirable functions of teacher enthusiasm in the classroom (Natof & Romanczyk,
2009; Patrick et al., 2000; Stewart, 1989). This finding makes sense because student
engagement is malleable and responsive to teachers’ emotions and teaching styles
(Fredricks et al., 2004; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), and positive emotions likely
produce prosocial behaviors (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).
Interestingly, teacher enthusiasm seems to have a weaker predicting effect on
student behavioral engagement than on cognitive and emotional engagement. Two
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

explanations are offered here. First, enthusiastic teachers motivate students to engage
behaviorally, but even when teachers are extremely boring, dull, and not enthusiastic
at all in the classroom, students may still follow rules, pay attention, avoid getting in
trouble, and complete homework on time because these behaviors could directly
affect their final grades for the course. Thus, it is likely that students engage
behaviorally in the class for the sake of grades even in the absence of teacher
enthusiasm. Second, the powerful predicting effect of teacher enthusiasm on student
emotional engagement may be related to emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1993), wherein teachers transfer their enthusiasm and energy to students
(Patrick et al., 2000). Indeed, emotions can occur intra-psychically, but they are
largely shared and contagious, creating collective emotions (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).
Consequently, this emotional engagement may also promote student psychological
investment in learning, enhance their willingness to master more challenging tasks,
and stimulate more cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004, 2005).
Notably, teacher enthusiasm is found to be an effective predictor of student
intrinsic goal orientation but not a significant predictor of student extrinsic goal
orientation. One plausible explanation for the significant effect of teacher enthusiasm
on student intrinsic goal orientation may be that, according to the self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991, 2004), external contexts that enhance self-determination
promote intrinsic motivation. Teacher enthusiasm serves as such a positive external
catalyst facilitating student interest, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation to learn
(Patrick et al., 2000). Since teacher enthusiasm as a form of positive emotion is
contagious and social, students may converge emotionally and mimic to synchronize
the teacher’s positive energy consciously or unconsciously (Barsade & Gibson, 2007),
and as a result, they become more passionate and intrinsically motivated to master
the task. Intriguingly, teacher enthusiasm is not found to be a significant predictor of
student extrinsic goal orientation. Maybe this is because students who are motivated
by enthusiastic teachers to learn are more oriented toward knowledge, competence,
and ability than toward grades, performance, and rewards. Enthusiastic teachers
appear to motivate students to master the content more than to outperform others.
Results also show that teacher enthusiasm is an effective predictor of student
academic self-efficacy. Although prior studies largely focus on the impact of academic
 Communication Education 53
self-efficacy on student performance and achievement (Chemers et al., 2001; Vrugt
et al., 1997), academic self-efficacy is also reactive to environmental contexts,
including teacher behavior (Bandura, 1977). This finding concerning the sizable
effect of teacher enthusiasm on student academic self-efficacy also complements
nicely the existing studies that demonstrate the considerable influence of teacher
encouragement (Tuckman & Sexton, 1991) and teaching strategies (Fencl & Scheel,
2005) on student academic self-efficacy.
The findings offer important practical implications for educators. First and
foremost, this study provides further empirical evidence for the recognized
importance of teachers’ positive emotions in the classroom. Although teacher
enthusiasm is not a panacea for all behavior problems in the classroom (Patrick
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

et al., 2000), it is a powerful source of student behavioral, cognitive, and emotional

engagement, intrinsic goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. When students
perceive their teachers as enthusiastic and energetic, they are more likely to be
intrinsically motivated to learn, and engage behaviorally, cognitively, and emotion-
ally. It appears that the more enthusiasm teachers exhibit in the classroom, the more
efficacious, engaged, and excited students become about learning.
Thus, teachers need to be particularly cognizant of the infectious ripple effects of
emotional contagion in the classroom. Emotional convergence and collective affect
generally occur in groups (Barsade & Gibson, 2007), in this case largely with students
modeling, mimicking, and thus acquiring teachers’ emotions in the classroom. In
organizational settings, research shows that enthusiastic leaders tend to rub off their
enthusiasm on group members, fostering an increased incidence of prosocial,
supportive, and cooperative behavior; conversely, leaders’ negative emotions tend to
provoke an increased presence of anti-social, disruptive, and deviant behavior
(Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Hence, to facilitate student engagement and enhance
student intrinsic motivation to learn, teachers are advised to be enthusiastic and
positive in the classroom, even if it means sometimes they have to engage in
emotional labor and act positive and cheerful on the surface (Hochschild, 2003;
Zhang & Zhu, 2008).
Three limitations need to be addressed for this study. The first limitation involves
the reliance on student reports to collect data. Students’ perceptions of teachers’
displayed enthusiasm might be different from teachers’ felt or actual enthusiasm,
partly due to perceptual bias and distortion. However, we need to note that the
students’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm may play a more important role in
affecting student learning than teachers’ actual enthusiasm itself. The second
limitation concerns the use of a convenience sample from a liberal arts university
in the Northeast. The participants are largely White, young, and communication
majors, so they may not well represent the diversities of the existing college student
population, which could also limit the generalizability of the findings to other student
populations. The third limitation pertains to the potential social desirability bias with
the measurement of learning goal orientation. Although students were asked to
respond anonymously in reference to the preceding class, which could help lower the
 54 Q. Zhang
possible social desirability bias, it was still likely that students might over-report their
learning motivation to gain a favorable image in the survey. Thus, the findings should
be viewed with caution.
In summary, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the effects of teacher
enthusiasm on student classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and
academic self-efficacy. The findings demonstrate the power of teacher enthusiasm
in predicting students’ positive behavior in the classroom. In light of the enormous
effects of teacher enthusiasm in shaping student classroom behavior and influencing
learning outcomes, future research could consider exploring specific strategies of
helping teachers experience and express positive emotions, in this case enthusiasm, in
the classroom (Patrick et al., 2000). Since teachers’ dynamic teaching style acts as a
“motivational embellishment” (Patrick et al., 2000, p. 234), intrinsically motivating
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

students to learn (Patrick et al., 2000), teacher training programs could also broaden
the scope from the traditional focus on pedagogy to the examination of emotional
aspects in teaching.

References
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical
conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the School, 45, 369–386.
doi:10.1002/pits.20303
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A.L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44, 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and
cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79,
408–415. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barsade, S.G., & Gibson, D.E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.24286163
Bettencourt, E.M., Gillett, M.H., Gall, M.D., & Hull, R.E. (1983). Effects of teacher enthusiasm
training on student on-task behavior and achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 20, 435–450. doi:10.3102/00028312020003435
Brigham, F.J., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Teacher enthusiasm in learning disabilities
classrooms: Effects on learning and behavior. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7,
68–73.
Burts, D.C., McKinney, C.W., & Burts, B.L. (1985). Effects of teacher enthusiasm on three- and
four-year-old children’s acquisition of four concepts. Theory and Research in Social
Education, XIII, 19–29. doi:10.1080/00933104.1985.10505493
Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D., & Klein, S.P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the
linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student
performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.93.1.55
Christie, V., & Segrin, C. (1998). The influence of self-efficacy and of gender on performance of
social and nonsocial tasks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 374–389.
doi:10.1080/00909889809365515
Collins, M.L. (1978). Effects of enthusiasm training on preservice elementary teachers. Research in
Teacher Education, 29, 53–57. doi:10.1177/002248717802900120
 Communication Education 55
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In
R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation
(pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press.
Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Engaging students: An examination of the effects of teaching
strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 35, 20–24.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K.A. Moore &
L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring
indicators of positive development (pp. 133–146). New York, NY: Springer Science and
Business Media.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. doi:10.3102/003465430
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

74001059
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 56, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Gillett, M., & Gall, M. (1982). The effects of teacher enthusiasm on the at-task behavior of students in
the elementary grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
Harrison, J.K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural
adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 167–188. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(95)00039-9
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.R., & Rapson, R.L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2, 96–99. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953
Hochschild, A.R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (2nd ed.).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 72, 224–230. doi:
10.1080/00098659909599398
Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273. doi:10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2004.tb08283.x
Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of
student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79, 540–563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm:
Dimensionality and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 289–301.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001
Marlin, J.W. (1991). State-mandated economic education, teacher attitudes, and student learning.
Journal of Economic Education, 22, 5–14. doi:10.2307/1182329
Natof, T.H., & Romanczyk, R.G. (2009). Teaching students with ASD: Does teacher enthusiasm
make a difference? Behavioral Interventions, 24, 55–72. doi:10.1002/bin.272
Patrick, B.C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?”: The effects of
teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 68, 217–236. doi:10.1080/00220970009600093
Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 545–555. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
 56 Q. Zhang
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychology
Measurement, 53, 801–813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
Salili, F., Chiu, C., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and content on students’ motivational
orientation and performance. In F. Salii, C.Y. Chiu, & Y.Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation:
The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–248). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Sanders, P., & Gosenpud, J. (1986). Perceived instructor enthusiasm and student achievement.
Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 52–55.
Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher
behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85, 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Stewart, R.A. (1989). Interaction effects of teacher enthusiasm and student note taking on recall and
recognition of lecture content. Communication Research Reports, 6, 84–89. doi:10.1080/
08824098909359838
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:58 28 January 2015

Tuckman, B.W., & Sexton, T.L. (1991). The effect of teacher encouragement on student self-efficacy
and motivation for self-regulated performance. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6,
137–146.
Umbach, P.D., & Wawrzynski, M.R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student
learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153–184. doi:10.1007/s11162-
004-1598-1
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-
determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 19–31. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Vrugt, A.J., Langereis, M.P., & Hoogstraten, J. (1997). Academic self-efficacy and malleability of
relevant capabilities as predictors of exam performance. Journal of Experimental Education,
66, 61–72. doi:10.1080/00220979709601395
Wendel, R., & Heiser, S. (1989). Effective instructional characteristics of teachers of junior high
school gifted students. Roeper Review, 11, 151–153. doi:10.1080/02783198909553192
Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D.G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive
well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93–104. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93
Zhang, Q. (2004). Self-efficacy and intercultural adaptation of Chinese students at U. S. American
universities. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 103–120.
Zhang, Q., & Zhu, W. (2008). Exploring emotion in teaching: Emotional labor, burnout, and
satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Communication Education, 57, 105–122. doi:
10.1080/03634520701586310