The Effect of Teachers’ Dress on Students’ Attitude and Students’ Learning: Higher Education View

Abstract

Dress which has had the influences on the perceptions of viewers whether students or outsiders, is more than just a wearing. At first instance, the outlook imposes a very positive expectation subjective to the likeliness and behavior pattern of the students. A positive impression ultimately imposes a positive atmosphere of learning toward the students’ mind. How the dress usually influences the learning of students depending on students’ attitude is the prime concern of this study. For validation of ideas, 405 respondents' judgments were justified from eight private universities of Bangladesh through Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Depending on their relationship, three hypotheses such as students’ attitude to students’ learning, dress to students’ attitude, and finally dress to students’ learning were strongly supported, with path coefficients of 0.483, 0.533, and 0.425, respectively. These rationalizations finally signify the new mood of appearance in student learning paradigms in context to influential role-playing foundation of teachers into the mind of learners.

Full text

Research Article
The Effect of Teachers’ Dress on Students’ Attitude and Students’
Learning: Higher Education View
Mohammad Abul Kashem
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, Feni University, Feni, Bangladesh
Correspondence should be addressed to Mohammad Abul Kashem; mak.mktg@yahoo.com
Received 30 July 2019; Accepted 30 November 2019; Published 26 December 2019
Academic Editor: Yi-Shun Wang
Copyright ©2019 Mohammad Abul Kashem. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Dress which has had the influences on the perceptions of viewers whether students or outsiders, is more than just a wearing. At
first instance, the outlook imposes a very positive expectation subjective to the likeliness and behavior pattern of the students. A
positive impression ultimately imposes a positive atmosphere of learning toward the students’ mind. How the dress usually
influences the learning of students depending on students’ attitude is the prime concern of this study. For validation of ideas, 405
respondents’ judgments were justified from eight private universities of Bangladesh through Confirmatory Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling. Depending on their relationship, three hypotheses such as students’ attitude to students’ learning,
dress to students’ attitude, and finally dress to students’ learning were strongly supported, with path coefficients of 0.483, 0.533,
and 0.425, respectively. ese rationalizations finally signify the new mood of appearance in student learning paradigms in context
to influential role-playing foundation of teachers into the mind of learners.
1. Introduction
Dress is nothing in relation to learning of students. But, the
outlook of teacher creates a learning impression into the
minds of students at first look or first sight. e fact is
evidential naturally when a teacher presents before the
students in a new batch or a new class even in an old batch.
e psychology works at student’s mind that by a smart
outlook smart presentation is possible. ough irrelevant,
the impression of good-looking dress might get admiration
from the colleagues, subordinate staff, and even outsiders.
An individual’s personality can be revealed through ap-
pearance depending on importance of clothing [1], and
choice in clothing can communicate responsibility, status,
power, and the ability to be successful [2]. In students’
judgments, teachers’ formal dress represents competency
and e dress allows the person's speaking to take more
authorization of ideas [4]. e teacher should dress pro-
fessionally enough to establish authority and to maintain
professionalism [5]. Regardless of liberties, the teacher
should focus on students so that they will have to make to
their classroom learning friendly. Henceforth, how the
dress usually influences the learning of students depending
on students’ attitude is the prime concern of this study.
2. Students’ Attitude and Students’ Learning
Formal clothing has significance in not only to follow norms
but also to get respect, professionalism, and maintenance of
social distance. In an earlier study, students’ perceptions also
varied with dress by connotations “professional” and “un-
professional” [6]. In addition to considering influence of
dress cognitively, dress had impact on the processing style
that measures the changes of how objects, people, and events
are construed [7]. Clothing is also influenced by the im-
pressions of others [8] and signifies how others are treated
[7]. Wearing formal dress describes an individual as rational
and competent, but casual clothing refers to friendly and
laid-back [9]. Tatro [10] summarized that gender had little
effect on faculty evaluations [11–13]. However, students’
Hindawi
Education Research International
Volume 2019, Article ID 9010589, 7 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9010589

ratings are frequently influenced by factors that have very
little to do with teaching effectiveness [14]. In general, formal
or professional dress is the most positively perceived by most
of the observers [15, 16]. Consequently, this study hy-
pothesizes that students’ attitude is a significant predictor of
students’ learning.
Hypothesis 1. Students’ attitude has a positive effect on
students’ learning.
3. Teachers’ Dress and Students’ Attitude
e well-dressed professors/teachers are considered to be
more organized, knowledgeable, and better prepared,
whereas professors/teachers who wore informal clothing
were seen as friendlier, flexible, sympathetic, fair, and en-
thusiastic by the judgment of the students [17]. It is also
considerable that the teacher-expressive characteristics like
warmth, enthusiasm, or extroversion apparently separate
effective teacher from ineffective in context to the students’
views [18, 19]. One of the studies has found that clothing is
being communicated about the wearer [20]. In other studies
by Landry and Sigall [21] and by Lapitsky and Smith [22], the
influence of clothing and physical appearance on perception
of task performance was found. Again, it is also observed in
research that dress affects person in formation of first im-
pressions and the clothing had a stronger influence on
impressions of sociability of an individual [23]. As a result,
this study hypothesizes that teachers’ dress is a significant
predictor of students’ attitude in learning.
Hypothesis 2. Teachers’ dress has a positive effect on stu-
dents’ attitude in classroom learning.
4. Teachers’ Dress and Students’ Learning
People made judgments about other people based on their
clothing attributing to a powerful appearance dimensions or
a sociable appearance dimension. ough formal attire
increases perceptions of authority, friendliness, and at-
tractiveness [24], the expectations grow up more for formal
dress upon a working woman than on a man [25]. With
respect to dress, teacher credibility comprises three com-
ponents like believability, trustworthiness, and goodwill
[26], but Teven and Herring [27] emphasized on power,
credibility, and student satisfaction. Again, clothing/dress
code can be determined as perceived status [28], but in some
cases, moderate level of dress intended more respect from
students than on more formal dress [29]. Again, Robertson
[30] identified the expression of person on dress code on the
basis of differences between generations. Usually, the
teacher’s dress was also a matter of personal preference along
with the factors of classroom conditions, class setting, de-
livery mood and personal preference, and comfort, even
though the attributes are also relating to class preparation,
knowledge of the subject matter, and ability [31]. With
different degrees of perceptions on casual and formal dress,
the style of dress and forms of address are also influential
factors that show teacher’s expertise, attractiveness,
credibility, and likeability [32]. As a consequence, the study
hypothesized that the dress is a significant predictor of
students’ leaning.
Hypothesis 3. Teachers’ dress has a positive effect on stu-
dents’ learning.
5. Methodology
Here, three variables have been considered such as teachers’
dress, students’ attitude, and students’ learning where
teachers’ dress is an independent variable and students’
attitude and students’ learning are dependent variables.
6. Conceptual Model
Based on the literature review, the hypothesis and mea-
surement model is formulated for the exogenous variable
and the endogenous variables as shown in Figure 1 to explain
the relationship among teachers’ dress, students’ attitude,
and students’ learning.
6.1. Measures. A structured questionnaire was used to
collect data. Here, the three key variables have been con-
sidered such as teacher’s dress, students’ attitude, and stu-
dents’ learning. In preliminary judgment to identify the
impact of students’ learning and students’ attitude, several
factors have been identified and used in this study. Along
with demographic questions in a format of open-ended
questions, scale questions had been set and rated accordingly
with a 5-point rating scales in between “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree.”
From the questionnaire point of view, all the items se-
lected for this study are based on the ideology and workable
hypotheses from the earlier researches on the same field with
a rare minor revision where necessary. In the same order, the
most frequent measurement of teacher’s dress related items
whether male or female was derived from the research
studies of Fortenberry et al. [28], Kwon and Johnson-Hillery
[25], Lukavsky et al. [29], Patton [33], and Robertson [30]. In
addition, the impact of dress for credibility, learning, and
understanding was selected from the research studies of
Johnson and Miller [34], Martinez-Egger and Powers [35],
Nadler and Nadler [36], Schrodt [37], and Teven and
McCroskey [38]. Arguably, another crucial and embodied
item-attitude has considered with learning measurement on
earlier researches on Sebastian and Bristow [32]; Kwon and
Johnson-Hillery [25] and Harris et al. [16]. However, the
consideration of Bassett et al. [15] was separately treated, and
few items for the same were included. Again, the items of
learning were adapted from the several earlier research
studies especially of Lukavsky et al. [29] and Rollman [17]. In
addition, few other items were materialized and revised
based on the earlier research of Smith et al. [39].
6.2. Sampling. e survey was addressed to the students of
University of Information Technology & Sciences (UITS),
Port City University, Feni University, BGMEA Institute of
2Education Research International

Fashion and Technology, East Delta University, University
of Creative Technology Chittagong, University of Science
and Technology Chittagong, and Southern University at
Chittagong particularly for students’ attitude measurement.
Both of the respondents were asked to opine both for
teachers’ dress and perceptions about outsiders’ dress. e
sample size is in total 430, but 405 were found effective after
data screening. To justify the sample/respondents, the fol-
lowing assumptions have been set:
(i) e students having a positive attitude towards the
teaching profession have given a more realistic
opinion than those having a negative attitude
(ii) e students who care about their own dress opine
perfectly on teachers’ dress
(iii) e students who attend classes regularly can judge
teacher better than those who attend irregularly
6.3. Data Analysis. To assess the relationships among the
studied variables, the researcher has performed confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation modeling [40]. SPSS 22
and AMOS 22 had been used to perform these analyses. ese
analyses are supposed to help understand which model fits the
data best while presenting a credible assessment on the impact
of dress on students’ attitude and learning.
7. Result
Statistical techniques were applied to assess the reliability
and validity of the survey and to obtain more clarity re-
garding the influence of the selected variables on students’
learning.
7.1. Reliability. e reliability coefficient for the different
constructs was measured using the reliability procedure in
SPSS 22. e reliabilities of the entire construct used in this
study were found to be above the standard set which is 0.70
[41]. e range of Cronbach alpha shows the reliability of the
variables of research ranges from α�0.806 to α�0.857,
where mean scores had been computed by equally weighting
the mean scores of all the relevant to each construct.
Table 1 shows Cronbach’s alpha of each of the variables
where the variable students’ learning has the highest alpha
values and dress has the lowest but all are out of the issue of a
minimum acceptable limit of 0.70.
7.2. Normality Test. With the previous set guidelines for
checking normality, skewness and kurtosis were used where
positive and negative value indicate the direction of positive
and negative relations, respectively [42], and the threshold
values for justification were ±3 and ±10 for skewness and
kurtosis, respectively [43]. At this point, Table 2 shows that
the mean for dress (4.02) was the highest while students’
learning (3.59) had the lowest mean value. Yet again, the
skewness and kurtosis are ranged from 0.052 to 0.549, but
within the expected values of skewness and kurtosis.
Henceforth, the data are normally distributed.
7.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Confirmatory
factor analysis was used here to measure the construct
validity of the model, whereas convergent validity is for
existence of construct determined by the correlations
exhibited by independent measures of the construct. To
assess convergent validity, the loading estimates and con-
struct reliability were investigated. In AMOS 22.0, conver-
gent validity can be measured using the measurement model
by determining the significant value of each item’s estimated
pattern coefficient on its posited underlying construct factor
[40].
To measure the unidimensionality and convergent and
discriminant validity through AMOS 22.0, the CFA provides
overall fit indices (χ
2
�219.153), chi-square degrees of
freedom �63, RMSEA (root mean square error of
estimation) �0.0181, GFI (goodness-of-fit indices) �0.927,
AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit indices) �0.905, CFI
(comparative fit indices) �0.954, and NNFI (nonnormed fit
indices) �0.938.
Here goodness of fit of the final model indicated “rea-
sonable or good fit” or RMSEA �0.0181. It is suggested that
0.05 <RMSEA <0.08 is for good fit [44]. In this study,
CFI �0.954 demonstrates reasonable fit. A rule of thumb for
the CFI and the incremental indexes is that values greater
than roughly 0.90 may indicate reasonably good fit of the
researcher model [45]. GFI �1.0 refers to perfect fit [46].
erefore, a GFI �0.927 indicates reasonably good fit for the
researcher’s model in this study. e AGFI of 0.905 indicates
reasonably good fit for the researcher model. e NNFI
(nonnormed fit index) or Tucker-Lewis Index has been
recommended a value of 0.90 or better for good fit [44, 47].
us, an NNFI �0.938 for this study implies good fit. From
the above goodness-of-fit evaluation, confirmatory factor
Student’s
attitude
Student’s
learning
Dress
Figure 1: eoretical model of the study.
Table 1: Reliability statistics.
Items Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items
Students’
learning 0.856
Students’ attitude 0.819
Dress 0.806
Education Research International 3

analysis for the final measurement model reasonably sup-
ported the model’s fit.
8. Measurement Model
8.1. Structural Equation Model (SEM). A structural model is
fit to the teachers’ dress, students’ attitude, and students’
learning data according to the model structure given in
Figure 1.
ree paths (teachers’ dress to students’ attitude,
teachers’ dress to students’ learning, and students’ attitude to
students’ learning) are found to have significant positive
standardized path coefficients that are not dropped se-
quentially based on Wald test. e goodness-of-fit indices
for the final structure model, shown in the bottom part of
Table 3, suggests a good fit to the data: the small ratio of chi-
square to degree of freedom (<2), great values of GFI, AGFI,
CFI, NFI (>0.9) and RMSEA (<0.05).
e estimation results in Table 4 and Figure 2 indicate
that the three hypotheses, H
1
(students’ attitude ⟶students’
learning), H
2
(teachers’ dress ⟶students’ learning), and H
3
(teachers’ dress ⟶students’ attitude) are strongly sup-
ported, with path coefficients of 0.317, 0.302, and 0.577,
respectively.
In accordance with the parameter estimates shown in
Table 5, students’ attitude is positively and significantly
related to students’ learning (coefficient �0.483, p<0.05), as
this finding proposed in H
1
. In the same way, as proposed in
H
2
and H
3,
teachers’ dress has a positive and significant effect
on students’ learning (coefficient �0.425 p<0.05) and
students’ attitude (coefficient �0.533, p<0.05), respectively.
8.2. e Hypothesized Casual Structure Model. As shown in
Table 5, the regression weight of students’ attitude to stu-
dents’ learning (t�4.494; p<0.05), teachers’ dress to stu-
dents’ learning (t�4.749; p<0.05), and teachers’ dress to
students’ attitude (t�7.739; p<0.05) was found to be sig-
nificant. is indicated that dress had significant direct effect
on both students’ attitude and learning.
9. Discussion
In a very common phenomenon, student and teacher
interacted comparatively more on classrooms. Based on this
ideology, this study generalizes the scenario of learning with
respect to dress via impact on attitude with much care, which
is not contradict the caution of over-generalizing the
classroom effects of dress [3]. In a view point of importance
of dress, this interaction and surrounding factors associated
with it are aiding significant contribution in learning as like
as similarities with the impact of a dress on other profes-
sional settings. Very earlier research of Newhouse [48]
identified the role of dress-based discrimination of per-
ception of students about their teacher. at study also gave
the importance of attire of a teacher which literally sup-
ports the findings of this study. In addition, the findings of
Lang [49] defends positively the impact of the dress of this
study.
e hypotheses were set for this study legibly support
the findings of earlier studies where identified the fact that
more respect goes with the teacher’s appearance by a
formal attire [50]. Prior to this, dress affects the way of a
judgment of the students [51]. Very positively, the attire is
not only an influential fact for the students but also in-
fused the others’ view on institution. at is why the
charm of the dress code is supposed to be a solid-gravity
for the culture of the institution. ough it is surprisingly
forcing toward regulation, dress ultimately displays a
standard view to the outsiders. So, the dress is marked for
qualitatively different stance both for students and out-
siders. In this sense, the competency of the teacher that was
aroused by the clothing had a good sense. Hence, the
uniform should imbue the perceived differences toward
appropriate awareness. Consequently, it can hold the
similar expectation what arises through attire for the de-
velopment of positive attitude which ultimately leads to the
development of a very positive learning paradigm for the
students.
e significant differences for a modest formal or
informal attire either casual or business casual have been
subjected to the opinions and perceptions of the students.
e relatability of the students’ views about the dress of a
teacher or an instructor is somewhat creating a miscon-
ception owing to the situation. It may depend on gender
biasedness of the students or their interpersonal or social
characteristics [39]. Again, it is ideally true where gender
ratio produced more effective learning with contradiction.
So, what is supposed to be true for a particular situation
might not be true for the rest of scenario depending on the
assumption. Nevertheless, the outcome of the similar
study of Martin et al. [52] about cognitive learning also
gauged the similar result in this study. Again, the hy-
pothesis of students’ attitude to students’ learning is also
justified by the scenario of credibility perception of stu-
dents about their teacher which was too relevant to the
findings of weatt and McCroskey [53]. So, these find-
ings profusely support the appearance of the educator role
for creating a scratch into students’ minds. In no doubt,
teachers' wear should copiously dignify the institutional
value with a high degree of decency. As teachers, they
Table 2: Descriptive statistics.
Mean Std. deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error
Students’ learning 3.59 0.486 0.074 0.172 0.549 0.342
Students’ attitude 3.69 0.482 0.292 0.172 0.052 0.342
Dress 4.02 0.687 0.525 0.172 0.178 0.342
Descriptive Statistics: the following is the attempt undertaken to justify the result of the study.
4Education Research International

should be a role player of personification before the
students duly on voice, gesture, chastisement, and finally
on outlook.
10. Recommendations
e direction towards the importance of dress should be
under the cognizance of a teacher especially for the classes
may be either as a professional or even appear to be
professional outlook. Seemingly, teaching profession, a
visceral activity, is encompassed on lot of body movement
henceforward, different categories of dress ware were (viz.,
formal, informal or casual) preferred for. With respect to
earlier researches and evidential support, someone’s de-
sirability goes with a dress code for professional.
Depending on the aesthetic look, however, teacher should
dress decently so that students should allow them in all
aspects. Without any doubt, the dress preference of a
teacher for a particular style is considered construal rather
professional. Additionally, the dress of the teacher is
influenced through and matched with age, sex, and status.
Very personally, it should focus on show-up appearance or
lifestyle of a faculty member.
On the other hand, a very positive outlook is quite
necessary owing to the self-respect or even for the working
institution. e way the students accept, the more likely to
engrave very positive attitude toward the personnel. Be-
sides, it is a general belief that the selection of dress has a
visual paradox meaning to wear a very formal dress does
not change a teacher's attitude, or a very tidy outlook
considers very intimated. But the dress reveals one’s in-
tention and inherent aesthetic view. Likewise, some stu-
dents believe that the dress would reflect purity of an
individual for any profession. On that scenario, the dress
should be admirable and adorable. is is not a blasphemy
to reevaluate a teacher by students’ perception that a well-
dressed teacher will be well planned and modest about his
profession. Furthermore, the dress reinforces the existing
power hierarchy of a teacher solely on mind but very
strangely on delivery.
Whatever the scenario, the entrusted role of a teacher
owing to the positional value and responsibility should
concentrate with no exception of standards of conduct and
behavior. It supports to dress look-alike to honor rather
learning for how to set costume perfectly for a profession.
Arguably, the articulation and policy guidelines are not the
solutions for the effective learning or attitudinal change but
relatively affective for upholding the responsibility of the
teacher himself/herself. Hoping to perfection, an institution
can set official dress code or even set guidelines appropriate
wearing for classroom. A good-to-go comfortable wears,
neutral as mix and match, avoid skin revealing dresses, clean
or any dress for a more put-together look should be pref-
erable and suggested for a teaching professional. us,
framing the strict policy for the instructor’s outfit is
somewhat initiatives for discipline against the erring indi-
viduals supposed to be worthwhile if encouraging or related
to individual conduct. In fine, from moral obligation, the
teachers’ active role both in and outside the classroom is
necessarily inspiring toward goal achievement of the
students.
Table 4: Standardized regression weights.
Estimate
Student’s attitude ⟵dress 0.577
Student’s learning ⟵student’s attitude 0.317
Student’s learning ⟵dress 0.302
Student’s
attitude
Student’s
learning
Dress
0.30
0.32
0.58
Figure 2: Standardized estimates.
Table 5: Summary of hypothesis testing results.
Estimate S.E. C.R. PLabel
Student’s attitude ⟵dress 0.533 0.069 7.739 ∗∗∗
Student’s learning ⟵
student’s attitude 0.483 0.107 4.494 ∗∗∗
Student’s learning ⟵dress 0.425 0.090 4.741 ∗∗∗
Note. S.E. �standard error; C.R. �critical ratio; ∗p<0.01.
Table 3: Goodness-of-fit results of the study.
Goodness-of-fit statistics Values for smart dress Desired range of values for a good fit
Chi-square test Χ
2
219.153
Degrees of freedom Df 63 ≥0
Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio Χ
2
/df 3.478 2 to 5
Goodness-of-fit index GFI 0.927 >0.90
Root mean square error of approximation RMSEA 0.018 <0.08
Incremental fit measures
Adjusted good-of-fit index AGFI 0.905 >0.90
Tucker–Lewis index TLI 0.938 >0.90
Comparative fit index CFI 0.954 >0.95
Normed fit index NFI 0.928 >0.90
Education Research International 5

11. Conclusion
It is obvious from the analysis that dress creates a strong
favorable image into the minds of students by assuming
teachers’ family background, personality, choice, or product
of preferences by viewing his or her clothing, values, and
social status. e research study was conducted to find the
impact of dress on students’ attitude and students’ learning
among the university students in particular and higher
education in general. Research indicates that both dress and
students’ attitude are the important factors to increase
weight on students’ learning. e research can be replicated
in the same manner with a large sample size and more
variety of variables affecting the learning of the students.
Although SEM provides a good fit to the hypothesized
model, future research could use a different design to ex-
amine causal relationships posited by theories, such as to
explore other antecedents on students’ attitude in other
academic institutions and other countries or different global
regions.
Data Availability
e data used to support the findings of this study have not
been made available because of confidentiality.
Conflicts of Interest
e author declares that there are no conflicts of interest
regarding the publication of this paper.
References
[1] T. W. Johnson, S. K. Francis, and L. D. Burns, “Appearance
management behavior and the five factor model of person-
ality,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, vol. 25, no. 3,
pp. 230–243, 2007.
[2] D. M. Turner-Bowker, “How can you pull yourself up by your
bootstraps, if you don’t have boots? work-appropriate
clothing for poor women,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 57,
no. 2, pp. 311–322, 2001.
[3] T. L. Morris, J. Gorham, S. H. Cohen, and D. Huffman,
“Fashion in the classroom: effects of attire on student per-
ceptions of instructors in college classes,” Communication
Education, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 135–148, 1996.
[4] L. L. Cornelius and L. R. Herrenkohl, “Power in the class-
room: how the classroom environment shapes students’ re-
lationships with each other and with concepts,” Cognition and
Instruction, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 467–498, 2004.
[5] G. Steve and H. Richard, “Establishing a classroom envi-
ronment that promotes interaction and improved student
behavior,” e Clearing House, vol. 63, no. 8, p. 376, 1990.
[6] D. Carr, A. Lavin, and T. Davies, “e impact of business
faculty attire on student perceptions and engagement,”
Journal of College Teaching and Learning, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 41–49, 2009.
[7] M. L. Slepian, S. N. Ferber, J. M. Gold, and A. M. Rutchick,
“e cognitive consequences of formal clothing,” Social
Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 661–
668, 2015.
[8] A. Reid, V. Lancuba, and B. Morrow, “Clothing style and
formation of first impressions,” Perceptual and Motor Skills,
vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 237-238, 1997.
[9] J. V. Peluchette and K. Karl, “e impact of workplace attire
on employee self-perceptions,” Human Resource Development
Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 345–360, 2007.
[10] C. Tatro, “Gender effects on student evaluations of faculty,”
Journal of Research and Development in Education, vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 169–173, 1995.
[11] J. Centra, Determining Faculty Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, Inc,
San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979.
[12] K. Doyle, Student Evaluation of Instruction, D. C. Heath,
Lexington, MA, USA, 1975.
[13] K. A. Feldman, “Consistency and variability among college
students in rating their teachers and courses: a review and
analysis,” Research in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 223–274, 1977.
[14] N. A. Bowling, “Does the relationship between student ratings
of course easiness and course quality vary across schools? e
role of school academic rankings,” Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 455–464, 2008.
[15] R. E. Bassett, A. Q. Staton-Spicer, and J. L. Whitehead, “Effects
of source attire on judgments of credibility,” Central States
Speech Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 282–285, 1979.
[16] M. B. Harris, J. James, J. Chavez et al., “Clothing: commu-
nication, compliance, and choice,” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 88–97, 1983.
[17] S. Rollman, “Some effects of teachers’ style of dress,” in
Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the Southern Speech
Communication Association Annual Meeting, ERIC, Bir-
mingham, AL, USA, April 1980.
[18] S. A. Basow, “Best and worst professors: gender patterns in
students’ choices,” Sex Roles, vol. 43, no. 5-6, pp. 407–417,
2000.
[19] K. A. Feldman, “e perceived instructional effectiveness of
college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal
characteristics: a review and synthesis,” Research in Higher
Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 139–213, 1986.
[20] J. L. Parr and M. S. Halperin, Children’s Impressions of the
Social Meaning of Clothing, Report No. PS 009920, ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 154 911, University
of Delaware, Department of Educational Foundations,
Newark, DE, USA, 1978.
[21] D. Landry and H. Sigall, “Beauty is talent: task evaluation as a
function of the performers’ physical attractiveness,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 299–304,
1974.
[22] M. Lapitsky and C. M. Smith, “Impact of clothing on im-
pressions of personal characteristics and writing ability,”
Home Economics Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 327–335,
1981.
[23] B. H. Conner, K. Peters, and R. H. Nagasawa, “Person and
costume: effects on the formation of first impressions,” Home
Economics Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 32–41, 1975.
[24] G. L. Brase and J. Richmond, “e white-coat effect: physician
attire and perceived authority, friendliness, and attractive-
ness,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 34, no. 12,
pp. 2469–2481, 2004.
[25] Y.-H. Kwon and J. Johnson-Hillery, “College students’ per-
ceptions of occupational attributes based on formality of
business attire,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 87, no. 3,
pp. 987–994, 1998.
[26] S. R. Banfield, V. P. Richmond, and J. C. McCroskey, “e
effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect
6Education Research International

for the teacher,” Communication Education, vol. 55, no. 1,
pp. 63–72, 2006.
[27] J. J. Teven and J. E. Herring, “Teacher influence in the
classroom: a preliminary investigation of perceived instructor
power, credibility, and student satisfaction an earlier version
of this paper was presented on a program of the communi-
cation education interest group at the annual convention of
the central states communication association, milwaukee, WI,
April 2002,” Communication Research Reports, vol. 22, no. 3,
pp. 235–246, 2005.
[28] J. H. Fortenberry, J. MacLean, P. Morris, and M. O’Connell,
“Mode of dress as a perceptual cue to deference,” e Journal
of Social Psychology, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 139-140, 1978.
[29] J. Lukavsky, S. Butler, and A. J. Harden, “Perceptions of an
instructor: dress and students’ characteristics,” Perceptual and
Motor Skills, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 231–240, 1995.
[30] B. E. Robertson, “Generations’ perceptions towards dress
policies,” University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, USA,
Doctoral Dissertation, 2007.
[31] A. M. Lavin, T. L. Davies, and D. L. Carr, “e impact of
instructor attire on student perceptions of faculty credibility,”
American Journal of Business Education, vol. 3, no. 6,
pp. 51–62, 2010.
[32] R. J. Sebastian and D. Bristow, “Formal or informal? the
impact of style of dress and forms of address on business
students’ perceptions of professors,” Journal of Education for
Business, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 196–201, 2008.
[33] T. O. Patton, “Ethnicity and gender: an examination of its
impact on instructor credibility in the university classroom,”
Howard Journal of Communications, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 123–
144, 1999.
[34] S. Johnson and A. Miller, “A cross-cultural study of imme-
diacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya,”
Communication Education, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 280–292, 2002.
[35] A. D. Martinez-Egger and W. G. Powers, “Student respect for
a teacher: measurement and relationships to teacher credi-
bility and classroom behavior perceptions,” Human Com-
munication, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 145–155, 2007.
[36] M. K. Nadler and L. B. Nadler, “e roles of sex, empathy, and
credibility in out-of-class communication between faculty and
students,” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 241–261, 2001.
[37] P. Schrodt, “Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of
students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communica-
tion,” Communication Education, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 106–121,
2003.
[38] J. J. Teven and J. C. McCroskey, “e relationship of perceived
teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation,”
Communication Education, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1997.
[39] S. W. Smith, C. L. Medendorp, S. Ranck, K. Morrison, and
J. Kopfman, “e prototypical features of the ideal professor
from the female and male undergraduate perspective: the role
of verbal and nonverbal communication,” Journal on Excel-
lence in College Teaching, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 5–22, 1994.
[40] J. C. Anderson and D. W. Gerbing, “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 411–423,
1988.
[41] J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric eory, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, USA, 1978.
[42] M. Saunders, P. Lewis, and A. ornhill, Research Methods for
Business Students, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Essex, UK,
2009.
[43] R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling, Guilford, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2005.
[44] J. F. J. Hair, R. P. Bush, and D. J. Ortinau, Marketing Research:
Within A Changing Information Environment, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 2006.
[45] L. T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus
new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multi-
disciplinary Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55, 1999.
[46] K. Joreskog and D. Sorbom, Interactive LISREL: A New In-
teraction for Windows, Scientific Software International,
Chicago, IL, USA, 1999.
[47] P. M. Bentler and D. G. Bonett, “Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures,”
Psychological Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 588–606, 1980.
[48] R. C. Newhouse, “Teacher appearance in cooperative initia-
tion processes,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, vol. 11,
pp. 158–164, 1984.
[49] R. M. Lang, “e hidden dress code dilemma,” e Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 277–279, 1986.
[50] B. Davis, A. R. B. Clarke, J. Francis et al., “Dress for respect:
the effect of teacher dress on student expectations of deference
behavior,” e Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 27–31, 1992.
[51] J. Gorham, S. H. Cohen, and T. L. Morris, “Fashion in the
classroom II: instructor immediacy and attire,” Communi-
cation Research Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11–23, 1997.
[52] M. M. Martin, J. L. Chesebro, and T. P. Mottet, “Students’
perceptions of instructors’ socio-communicative style and the
influence on instructor credibility and situational motiva-
tion,” Communication Research Reports, vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 431–440, 1997.
[53] K. S. weatt and J. C. McCroskey, “e impact of teacher
immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility,” Com-
munication Education, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 348–358, 1998.
Education Research International 7