Empirical Rationale As opposed to simply looking at organizational outcomes (satisfaction, extra effort, and effectiveness) in a classroom setting, we opine that it is important to examine more traditional learning outcomes. The outcomes we chose to assess in our study include: cognitive learning, affective learning, state motivation, and student communication satisfaction. Cognitive learning ranges from the simple retention of information to the complex synthesis of material (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971). Affective learning involves student feelings, emotions, and degrees of acceptance toward the subject matter (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). State motivation to learn refers to student attempts to obtain academic knowledge or skills from classroom activities by finding these activities meaningful (Brophy, 1987). Student communication satisfaction refers to an affective response to the accomplishment of communication goals and expectations (Hecht, 1978). These variables were chosen because they represent several ways to examine student success in the classroom and have been associated with effective teaching behavior (Goodboy & Myers, 2008). Given that instructors who employ transformational leadership in their classrooms are perceived as effective teachers (Walumbwa et al., 2004) and students are willing to exert extra effort for such teachers and are satisfied (Pounder, 2008), students should report increases in traditional learning outcomes when they perceive their instructors as transformational. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited: H1: Student perceptions of their instructors' transformational leadership will be positively associated with student learning outcomes including cognitive learning, affective learning, state motivation, and communication satisfaction. In addition to the student learning outcomes presented above, we measured student participation and student perceptions of teacher credibility. Student participation refers to any comments or questions that students offer or raise in class (Fassinger, 1995a). Participation was included in this study because it is an indirect indicator of student achievement (Voelkl, 1995). That is, students who participate in class tend perform better on exams (Reinsch & Wambsganss, 1994), are more motivated (Junn, 1994), and possess more confidence in the classroom (Fassinger, 1995a). Considering that students are more involved in the classroom when an instructor employs transformational leadership (Harvey et al., 2003),the following hypothesis is presented: H2: Student perceptions of their instructors' transformational leadership will be positively associated with student participation in the classroom. Credibility was examined in this study as it refers to three components. These components include: competence (e.g., intelligent, informed), goodwill (e.g., cares about students, understanding), and trustworthiness (e.g., honest, moral, ethical) (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Perceived teacher credibility is a desirable perception achieved through effective instruction with students (Martin, Chesebro, & Mottet, 1997; McPherson & Liang, 2007; Mottet, Parker-Raley, Beebe, & Cunningham, 2007; Schrodt, Turman, & Soliz, 2006; Schrodt & Witt, 2006) and jeopardized through ineffective instruction (Edwards & Myers, 2007; Schrodt 2003; Teven, 2007). Consequently, student perceptions of teacher credibility are shaped through positive classroom experiences. For instance, Edwards, Edwards, Qing, and Wahl (2007) revealed that positive word of mouth concerning an instructor increases student perceptions of instructor credibility. Chory (2007) found that perceptions of classroom fairness are positively predicted by instructor credibility. Moreover, Beatty and Zhan (1990) discovered that students rate teaching favorably and intend on taking future courses from credible instructors. Therefore, it is no surprise that students report more cognitive learning, affective learning, and motivation from credible instructors (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004; Pogue & AhYun, 2006). Brann, Edwards, and Myers (2005), revealed that instructors who employ a progressive teaching philosophy (i.e., allow students to rely on their own experiences and promote active learning through motivation and discussion) versus a transmissive philosophy (i.e., traditional transfer of knowledge through lecture) are rated as more credible. Since transformational leadership in the classroom is based on admiration, motivation, empowerment, and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1999),transformational instructors would almost certainly possess a progressive teaching philosophy rather than a transmissive one. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posted: H3: Student perceptions of their instructors' transformational leadership will be positively associated with student perceptions of their instructors' credibility including their: competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness. Method Participants Participants were 165 undergraduate students enrolled in one of eight introductory or upper level communication courses at a mid-sized Eastern university. Participants were 64 men and 101 women whose ages ranged from 18 to 30 years (M = 19.95, SD = 1.72). Thirty five participants were freshmen, 79 participants were sophomores, 17 participants were juniors, and 34 participants were seniors. Procedures and Measurement Participants completed a series of instruments and provided demographic data. Participants completed the instruments in reference to the instructor of the course they attended immediately prior to the data collection (Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986). Participants also provided the initials of the instructor to ensure this procedure was followed correctly and to provide a cognitive reference for reporting. Data were collected during the last week of class before finals to guarantee that participants were familiar with their instructors' classroom behaviors. Participants completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985), the Class Participation Scale (Fassinger, 1995b), the Revised Cognitive Learning Indicators Scale (Frymier & Houser, 1999), the Affective Learning Scale (McCroskey, Richmond, Plax, & Kearney, 1985), the Student Motivation Scale (Richmond, 1990), The Source Credibility Scale (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), and the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale (Goodboy & Martin, 2006), in reference to their class. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on all scales for validity purposes (Levine, 2005; Levine, Hullett, Turner, & Lapinski, 2006). As suggested by Kline (2005), we assessed model fit using the model chi square, the Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI), and the standard root mean square residual (SRMR). Values larger than .10 for the RMSEA indicate a poor approximation of the model (Browne & Cudeck, 1993),values of the CFI greater than .95 indicate reasonably good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and values of the SRMR smaller than .08 indicate a reasonably good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Although most studies of transformational leadership use a version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire originally created by Bass (1985) to measure leadership qualities, researchers have yet to decide upon a common standard of measurement. For example, while some researchers use the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) in its short form (e.g., Pounder, 2008; Walumbwa, Wu, & Ojode, 2004), other scholars use other versions of the scale (e.g., a modified version of the MLQ (not short form) Harvey et al., 2003) and some researchers use yet other measures of leadership (e.g., Baba & Ace, 1989--student end of semester evaluations; Cheng, 1994--the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire). In the current study we adapted the full version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass, 1985) to measure transformational leadership in the classroom. The 28-item measure contains 18-items measuring charisma and inspiration, 7-items measuring individualized consideration, and 3-items measuring intellectual stimulation. Items ranged from not at all (0) to very often (4). Cronbach's alpha was .98 for charisma, .91 for individualized consideration,. 87 for intellectual stimulation, and .98 for the overall scale. The 3-factor model was fitted to the data with the ML method of LISREL 8.8. The model indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (344) = 710.86, p < .01; CFI = .99; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .08. The Revised Cognitive Learning Indicators Scale is seven items and asks participants to report on behaviors or activities associated with learning course content. Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (0) never to (4) very often. In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .91 for the summed scale. The 1-factor model was fitted to the data and indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (11) = 18.74, p = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .06. The Affective Learning Scale is 12 items and asks participants to report on their levels of affect for the course content, course instructor, and behaviors recommended in the course. Responses were solicited using three 7-point bipolar adjective subscales. In this study, the confirmatory factor analysis suggested that a single factor solution did not fit the data, [chi square] (54) = 792.35, p < .01; CFI = .87; SRMR = .08; RMSEA = .29. Therefore, we treated the subscales separately. Cronbach's alpha was .92 for course content, .95 for course instructor, and .94 for behaviors recommended in class. The 3-factor model was fitted to the data and indicated an acceptable fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (45) = 107.10, p < .01; CFI = .99; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .09. The Student Motivation Scale is five items and asks participants to report on their levels of state motivation toward a specific course and instructor. Responses were solicited using a 7-point bipolar adjective scale. In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .95 for the summed scale. The 1-factor model was fitted to the data and indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (5) = 5.40, p = .37; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01; RMSEA = .02. The Student Communication Satisfaction Scale is 10 items and is a global assessment of student satisfaction resulting from communication encounters with an instructor. It uses a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). In this study, the obtained Cronbach alpha was .97. The model was fitted to the data and indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (32) = 58.07, p < .01; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; RMSEA = .07. The Class Participation Scale is six items and asks participants to report on how often they participate during class. Five items were used in this study. One item was omitted because it was a frequency count of participation in a given class. Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (0) never to (4) very often. Cronbach's alpha was .90 for the summed scale. The 1-factormodel indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (3) = 5.95, p = .11; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .02; RMSEA = .08. The Source Credibility Scale includes 18 items and measures three dimensions of credibility (six items each): competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness. It uses a 7-point semantic differential response format. In this study, obtained reliability coefficients were .93 for competence, .93 for goodwill, .93 for trustworthiness, and .96 as a single measure. The 3-factor model was fitted to the data and indicated a good fit. Values of selected fit indices are as follows: [chi square] (127) = 239.55, p < .01; CFI = .98; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .07. Results Hypotheses To test Hypothesis 1-3, Pearson Product-Moment Correlations were observed between the three components of transformational leadership and their associations with cognitive learning, affective learning, state motivation, communication satisfaction, student participation and instructor credibility. Findings are reported in Table 1. Results from the correlation analyses revealed moderate to strong positive relationships between the components of transformational leadership and the various instructional outcomes examined in this study (accounting for between 12% and 71% of the variance). Discussion Overall, the results from this study support the idea that transformational leadership is positively related to student learning outcomes, student participation, and perceptions of teacher credibility. These findings help corroborate past research in university classroom environments and suggest that the association of transformational leadership in the classroom may be more far reaching than previously thought. That is, each of the components of transformational leadership produced strong positive associations with all learning outcomes and teacher credibility and moderate associations with student participation as hypothesized. Therefore, in addition to enhancing satisfaction, extra effort, and effectiveness in a classroom setting, the results of this study suggest that transformational leadership is also positively related to traditional instructional outcomes and student behavior. These findings may be explained, in part, by research on personalized education (Waldeck, 2006). Waldeck (2007) discovered that when students believe their education is personalized, they report greater learning outcomes and satisfaction. This perception of personalized education is based on (a) instructor accessibility (e.g., socializing with students, advice, availability), (b) course-related practices (e.g., interactive activities, collaborative encouragement, individual requirements), and (c) instructor interpersonal competence (e.g., friendliness, approachability, dynamism). Instructors who employ transformational leadership in the classroom focus on individualized consideration where students are treated according to their individual needs and capabilities. Waldeck suggests that student perceptions of personalized education experiences are dependent on such considerations, which she labeled "course-related practices." For instance, course related practices include designing course activities based on student interests and understanding that students have individual requirements that are unique from the rest of the class (Waldeck, 2007). Transformational leadership, then, may foster learning outcomes, participation, and teacher credibility because students perceive these educational practices as "personalized" through the individual consideration of each student. Furthermore, in college environments, a personalized educational experience may make a substantial difference because learning in this context is relationally driven (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Two of the components of transformational leadership are particularly important to this point. That is, teachers that are charismatic (e.g., dynamic, trusting, attractive, competent, and enlivening) and that show individualized consideration (e.g., are thoughtful and mentor students) should help students become excited about the information being presented. In addition, teachers that take the time to discover students' personal needs and attend to them both inside and outside of the classroom are likely to engender positive learning results in their classrooms (Brann et al., 2005; Myers & Bryant, 2004). The items in the Bass (1985) scale may help illustrate why transformational leadership is so important in the classroom. Several items measure a leader's ability to foster admiration. For example, subordinates rate their leaders on a measure of being a model to follow, inspiring loyalty, and inspiring respect. In addition, several items measure a leader's ability to foster learning in the classroom. For example, items ask students to rate their teacher's ability to make people enthusiastic about assignments, transmit a sense of mission, encourage students to express ideas, and see what is important for students to consider. It is not surprising that the combination of cultivating admiration and promoting learning in the classroom is important in a university setting. Doing so represents a progressive approach to teaching which emphasizes the relationship between teachers and students. A limitation of the current study is the sample size collected. Although we made efforts to gather student perceptions of a large sample of instructors, the sample size may limit the generalizability of the results. Moreover, data was collected at a single mid-size university on the East Coast. It may be the case that students from different geographic or cultural regions will respond to transformational teachers in a variety of ways. For example, while a charismatic teacher may be the biggest predictor influencing cognitive learning in a university on the East Coast of the United States, intellectual stimulation may be more important in another context. To the point made above, Pounder (2008) notes that insufficient work has been done to examine how the results of transformational leadership (and the structural integrity of the scales used to measure it) can be replicated across cultural settings. That is, while it may be true that transformational leadership is valued in one culture, the same may not be true in other cultures. Interesting findings may be in store for scholars who choose to observe the effects of transformational leadership on university classroom learning outcomes in different cultural contexts. Another possible fruitful direction for communication research is the investigation of the various ways in which instructors can communicate transformational leadership in the classroom. While we know that transformational leadership is linked to many positive outcomes in the classroom, it would be beneficial to also determine which instructor behaviors in class lead to student perceptions of teachers as transformational leaders. For example, Myers and Bryant (2004) conducted a study to determine what behaviors students perceived as related to credibility. In doing so the researchers were able to articulate specific behaviors that are linked to students' perceptions of trustworthiness, goodwill, and competence. The same could be done for transformational leadership. Instructional scholars should ascertain which instructional behaviors (e.g., teacher confirmation, teacher self-disclosure, relevance) promote transformational leadership in the classroom. Considering this research suggests that students do indeed perceive instructors as transformational leaders and report greater learning and participation along with perceptions of teacher credibility, instructional researchers would be well-advised to determine how to promote such leadership in the classroom and to examine this leadership across cultures. References Baba, V. V., & Ace, M. E. (1989). Serendipity in leadership: Initiating structure and consideration in the college classroom. Human Relations, 42, 509-525. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Beatty, M. J., & Zahn, C. J. (1990). Are student ratings of communication instructors due to "easy" grading practices?: An analysis of teacher credibility and student-reported performance levels. Communication Education, 39, 275-282. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Boice, B. (1996). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37, 453-486. Brann, M., Edwards, C., & Myers, S. (2005). Perceived instructor credibility and teaching philosophy. Communication Research Reports, 22, 217-226. Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45, 40-48. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Catt, S., Miller, D., & Schallenkamp, K. (2007). You are the key: Communicate for learning effectiveness. Education, 127, 369-377. Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Teacher leadership style: A classroom-level study. Journal of Education Administration, 32, 54-71. Chory, R. M. (2007). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Communication Education, 56, 89-105. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. Den Hartog, D.N., De Hoogh, A.H.B.,& Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1131-1139. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. T. (2007). The influence of computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes toward learning course content. Communication Education, 56, 255-277. Edwards, C., & Myers, S.A. (2007). Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports, 24, 47-53. Fassinger, P.A. (1995a). Professors' and students' perceptions of why students participate in class. Teaching Sociology, 24, 25-33. Fassinger, P. A. (1995b). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors' contributions to students' silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 82-96. Frymier ,A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50, 1-12. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219. Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399. Goodboy, A. K., & Martin, M. M. (2006, November). Student communication satisfaction: The development of a global measure of interactional satisfaction with instructors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153-179. Harvey, S., Royal, M., & Stout, D. (2003). Instructor's transformational leadership: University student attitude and ratings. Psychological Reports, 92,395-402. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702. Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264. Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Junn, E. (1994). Pearls of wisdom: Enhancing student class participation with an innovative exercise. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21, 385-387. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Kramer, M. W., & Pier, P. M. (1999). Students' perceptions of effective and ineffective communication by college teachers. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 16-33. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 2: Affective domain. New York: McKay. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 201-227. Levine, T. R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in communication research. Communication Research Reports, 22, 335-338. Levine, T. R., Hullett, C. R., Turner, M. M., & Lapinski, M. K. (2006). The desirability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Communication Research Reports, 23, 309-314. Martin, M. M., Chesebro, J. L., & Mottet, T. P. (1997). Students' perceptions of instructors' socio-communicative style and the influence on instructor credibility and situational motivation. Communication Research Reports, 14, 431-440. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the class room V: Behavior alteration techniques, communication training and learning. Communication Education, 34, 214-226. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103. McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197-210. McPherson, M. B., & Liang, Y. J. (2007). Students' reactions to teachers' management of compulsive communicators. Communication Education, 56, 18-33. Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist "college lite": The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students' course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication Education, 56, 145-167. Myers, S.A., & Bryant, L. E. (2004). College students' perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 22-27. Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teaching behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. Pogue, L. L., & Ah Yun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55, 331-344. Pounder, J. S. (2003).Employing transformational leadership to enhance the quality of management development instruction. The Journal of Management Development, 22, 6-13. Pounder, J. S. (2008). Transformational classroom leadership: A novel approach to evaluating classroom performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 233-243. Reinsch, R., & Wambsganss, J. R. (1994). Class participation: How it affects results on examinations. Journal of Education for Business, 70, 33-37. Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 181-195. Schrodt, P. (2003). Students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121. Schrodt, P., Turman, P. D., & Soliz, J. (2006). Perceived understanding as a mediator of perceived teacher confirmation and students' ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 55, 370-388. Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students' attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students' expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1-20. Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect and perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 55, 433-450. Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 127-138. Waldeck, J. H. (2006). Raising the question #3: What does "personalized education" mean for faculty, and how should it serve our students? Communication Education, 55, 345-352. Waldeck, J. H. (2007). Answering the question: Student perceptions of personalized education and the construct's relationship to learning outcomes. Communication Education, 56, 409-432. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Ojode, L.A. (2004). Gender and instructional outcomes: The mediating role of leadership style. The Journal of Management Development, 23, 124-140. San Bolkan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Long Beach, CA. Alan K. Goodboy, Ph.D., Assistant Professors, Department of Communication Studies & Theatre Arts, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. San Bolkan sbolkan@csulb.edu. Table 1 Intercorrelations between variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Bass (C) 2. Bass (IC) .88 3. Bass (IS) .80 .82 4. Cognitive Learning .67 .64 .62 5. Affective Learning (C] .78 .72 .72 .63 6. Affective Learning (T) .84 .76 .66 .57 .73 7. Affective Learning (B) .75 .69 .64 .63 .78 .73 8. Motivation .80 .75 .65 .60 .72 .73 .68 9. Satisfaction .87 .78 .69 .64 .69 .85 .74 10. Participation .35 .37 .36 .52 .28 .32 .32 11. Credibility (C) .70 .59 .59 .47 .56 .68 .57 12. Credibility (G) .80 .75 .69 .56 .70 .82 .75 13. Credibility (T) .72 .66 .65 .49 .62 .71 .69 Variables 8 9 10 11 12 1. Bass (C) 2. Bass (IC) 3. Bass (IS) 4. Cognitive Learning 5. Affective Learning (C] 6. Affective Learning (T) 7. Affective Learning (B) 8. Motivation 9. Satisfaction .74 10. Participation .37 .40 11. Credibility (C) .57 .72 .22 12. Credibility (G) .70 .80 .23 .64 13. Credibility (T) .63 .73 .23 .72 .80 Note: N = 165. p < .01 for all correlations (one-tailed). Bass (C) = charisma, (IC) = individualized consideration, (IS) = intellectual stimulation; Affective Learning (C) = course, (T) = teacher, (B) = behaviors; Credibility (C) = competence, (G) = goodwill, (T) = trustworthiness. |
ระบบการเมืองที่ดีเหมือนปลาในอ่างแก้วที่มองเห็นตัวปลาชัดเจน
ระบบการเมืองอุปมาดั่งกับการเลี้ยงตู้ปลา ที่ประชาชนเป็นผู้นำปลามาเลี้ยง (เลือกตั้งคนเข้ามาเป็นตัวแทนของประชาชน) หากตู้ปลามีน้ำไม่สะอาด ปลาก็ขาดอ๊อกซิเจน ซึ่งหมายถึงสภาพของนักการเมืองภายใต้ระบบการเมืองที่ฟอนเฟะ หรือน้ำเน่า คุณภาพชีวิตของปลาที่อยู่ในตู้ปลาก็ไม่อยู่ในสภาพที่ดี และถ้าหากปลาที่อยู่ในตู้ปลามากัดกันเองเพื่อความยิ่งใหญ่ในตู้ปลาด้วยกันก็จะทำให้เกิดความเจ็บปวดด้วยกันทั้งคู่ ดังนั้นประชาชนชอบปลาที่มีสีสันต่างกันซึ่งก็เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่สามารถบังคับความชอบพอเป็นการส่วนตัวได้ กลุ่มบุคคลที่เป็นลักษณะสมบูรณ์แบบนิยมก็อยากเลือกตัวปลาที่ดี และสวยงามแต่ในสภาพเป็นจริงโอกาสที่คัดตัวปลาที่ดีอย่างนั้นก็ึขึ้นอยู่กับค่านิยม, ความชอบของคนที่ต้องการเลี้ยงปลา สิ่งสำคัญของการเลี้ยงตู้ปลาในตู้เดียวกันก็คือควรรักษาตู้ปลานี้อย่าให้แตกสลาย เพราะหากคนที่เลี้ยงปลาแบ่งกลุ่มแบ่งเหล่าก็จะมีทัศนคติในการเลี้ยงตัวปลาขัดแย้งกัน ก็จะเหมือนกับตาอินกับตานาทะเลาะกัน ตาอยู่ก็จะเอาไปกิน ในตู้ปลาหรือในอ่างปล่าขนาดใหญ่จะมีปลาหลายแบบหลายชนิด ถ้าเป็นปลาฉลามก็จะเป็นปลาที่ดุร้ายคอยกัดกินปลาตัวอ
