Order Description

Read the article entitled “Hypotheses”. Write a 1-page reaction (approximately 300 words) explaining the variables used in this study and the hypotheses created in this study. Also report the conclusions of this study. What does this study tell us about effective teaching?

For Peer Review Only

Intellectually Stimulating Students’ Intrinsic Motivation:
The Mediating Influence of
Affective Learning and Student Engagement

Journal:  Communication Reports
Manuscript ID:  RCRS-2014-0016.R1
Manuscript Type:  Original Article
Keywords:
intellectual stimulation, intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership,
affective learning, student engagement

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports
For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 1

Abstract

Motivating students is an important part of effective instruction. Thus, researchers have been
interested in learning how to promote motivation, specifically intrinsic motivation, in students.
One way of achieving this goal is through the use of intellectually stimulating behaviors. Though
scholars know that the promotion of these behaviors works to influence students’ intrinsic
motivation, what has yet to be explained is how. Results indicated that both affective learning
and student engagement mediated the influence of intellectual stimulation on students’ intrinsic
motivation. Implications for students’ course workloads and instructors are discussed.

Keywords: intellectual stimulation, transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation,
affective learning, student engagement

Page 1 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports
For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 2

Intellectually Stimulating Students’ Intrinsic Motivation: The Mediating Influence of
Affective Learning and Student Engagement
Motivation is a “foundation for effective instruction” (Christophel, 1990, p. 324) and is
related to a variety of positive classroom outcomes. In fact, promoting motivation is so essential
that some researchers claim it is one of the most important concepts in education (Vallerand et
al., 1992). However, the way motivation is typically operationalized in studies of instructional
communication (e.g., “motivated” and “excited”; Christophel, 1990) may not provide researchers
with a precise picture of the relationships between motivation and student learning outcomes
because motivation is not a singular concept. Instead, motivation is multidimensional including
constructs such as intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Deci & Ryan,
2000) and should be studied with specificity to produce a more thorough understanding of its
impact in the classroom. That said, though motivation has been demonstrated to be important in
the field of instructional communication, researchers who examine student outcomes outside the
discipline tend to emphasize the importance of intrinsic motivation in the classroom because of
the benefits this specific type of motivation confers on students.
In the context of educational settings, intrinsic motivation represents students’ interest in,
and value attributed to, the course (Wolters, 1998). This is in contrast to extrinsic motivation
which is related to factors including grades and other external rewards such as the approval of
teachers or parents (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Intrinsic motivation is
important for students because it affects a variety of educational behaviors and outcomes. For
example, compared to students who are not intrinsically motivated, students who are persist
longer on tasks and “show more adaptive cognitive and achievement outcomes” (Wolters, 1998,
p. 226). In addition, students’ intrinsic motivational orientation has been associated positively
Page 2 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 3

with their self-regulated learning and classroom performance (Pintrich, 1999). Moreover,
intrinsic goal orientation has been correlated positively with students’ final course grades, critical
thinking, and effort (Pintrich et al., 1993).
Importantly, motivation in the classroom is largely a function of how students’ are taught
(Christophel, 1990), and intrinsic motivation can be facilitated by teachers’ behaviors (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). One set of behaviors that has been found to influence students’ intrinsic motivation
is intellectual stimulation (Bolkan, Goodboy, & Griffin, 2011). Intellectual stimulation is one of
three components of transformational leadership and, in organizational contexts, is defined as a
leader’s ability to stimulate thought and help followers look at problems in creative ways (Bass,
1985). In the classroom, intellectual stimulation has been defined as instructors’ ability to
challenge students and promote intellectual growth, and is operationalized as a constellation of
three behaviors including an interactive teaching style (e.g., using exciting teaching techniques
and unique activities), challenging students (e.g., making sure students know the material well
and pushing students to do their best), and encouraging independent thought (e.g., helping
students think critically and helping students come to their own conclusions about course
material; Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010).
Though instructors’ use of intellectually stimulating behaviors has been found to
influence students’ intrinsic motivation, scholars are still not sure how this takes place. One
concept that might help explain this relationship is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,
2000). According to this theory, the fulfillment of individuals’ fundamental needs of
competence, relatedness, and autonomy results in self-determined individuals who are
intrinsically motivated to pursue their goals. That said, intellectual stimulation may influence
students’ sense of autonomy by creating an atmosphere students want to be a part of (Van den
Page 3 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 4

Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). This conclusion has support from
scholars who have shown that intellectual stimulation positively impacts students’ respect and
appreciation for class (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; 2010) and creates “an environment that
naturally engages student interests” (Bolkan, 2011, p. 343). Thus, two reasons intellectual
stimulation promotes intrinsic motivation may include its impact on students’ affective learning
and its ability to foster student engagement. The purpose of this study was to examine these
relationships.
Literature Review
Scholars who study academic demands and their associations with student outcomes
claim there is a myth that teachers can reduce workloads and create easy classes as a way of
obtaining high student evaluations (Marsh, 2001). According to Marsh (2001), this is a myth
because difficult and challenging courses tend to be evaluated more favorably. In fact, the
researcher claims that “if success is too easily won as a result of an overly light workload,
students may lose interest and not value such learning” (Marsh, 2001, p. 185). These findings are
corroborated by research demonstrating that most individuals prefer challenging tasks compared
to the easiest ones (Shapira, 1976). Similarly, though some scholars claim that university
instructors face a challenge of maintaining intellectual rigor in response to student expectations
for reduced workloads (e.g., Mottet, Parker-Raley, Cunningham, & Beebe, 2005), others suggest
that students appreciate and prefer instructors who provide a challenging classroom atmosphere
(e.g., Gillmore, 2001).
Importantly, the difference in students’ preferences for challenge is not related to
workload as a general construct. Instead, the difference may be a function of good (or useful)
workloads (i.e., hours spent on course material that are considered to be important to advancing
Page 4 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 5

the students’ educations) versus bad workloads (i.e., busy work or work not deemed important to
advancing students’ educations). Whereas overall teacher ratings, perceived learning, and
appreciation of the field are correlated positively with good workloads, the same outcomes are
negatively related to bad workloads (Marsh, 2001).
The notion of intellectual stimulation approximates Marsh’s (2001) conception of a good
workload insofar as it reflects instructors’ interest in providing an intellectual challenge for
students. Thus, it makes sense that intellectual stimulation should lead to positive classroom
outcomes for students. This conclusion is supported by researchers who have shown that students
believe they learn more from “professors who get them excited and involved in the learning
process, challenge them to be the best students they can be, show them that hard work is worth it,
and help them think deeply and critically about course concepts” (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010, p.
103). Still, though scholars know that intellectual stimulation positively affects students’
outcomes, they have yet to demonstrate how this influence works. As mentioned in the
introduction, this study focuses on two variables to help explain the relationship between
intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation. These variables include affective learning and
student engagement.
Affective learning. Affective learning reflects changes in students’ attitudes and
emotions as they relate to classroom content, behaviors recommended in the course, and the
instructor (McCroskey, Richmond, Plax, & Kearney, 1985). This concept is an important
measure of instructional effectiveness (Mottet & Beebe, 2006) and several scholars claim it is an
important mediator of instructional outcomes as well (e.g., Goodboy & Bolkan, 2009;
Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006). In order to mediate the relationship
between intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation, intellectual stimulation must associate
Page 5 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 6

with affective learning. This relationship exists theoretically considering transformational
leadership, of which intellectual stimulation is a part, functions largely by aligning followers’
goals and values with those of the leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This effect is similar to
affective learning which occurs when students appreciate and respect the knowledge they are
acquiring (Mottet & Beebe, 2006). Researchers have also shown that the link between
intellectual stimulation and affective learning exists empirically (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009;
2010).
Additionally, it may only be plausible to claim that affective learning mediates the
relationship between intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation if the link between
affective learning and motivation exists as well. Researchers have found this to be the case
(Goodboy & Bolkan, 2009; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006). Moreover, according to Mottet and Beebe
(2006), one indication that affective learning has occurred is when students become self-motivated rather than extrinsically motivated. According to these authors then, affective learning
is directly linked to intrinsic motivation.
Because affective learning has been shown to mediate the relationship between
instructors’ behaviors and students’ outcomes, and because it is related to both intellectual
stimulation and intrinsic motivation, it may be the case that affective learning mediates the
relationship between intellectual stimulation and students’ intrinsic motivation.
H1: Affective learning will mediate the relationship between instructors’ intellectual
stimulation and students’ intrinsic motivation.
Student engagement. According to Weber (2003), “one way to increase student
motivation is through the manipulation of interest” (p. 377). This is because “there is a positive
relationship between interest and internal motivation” (Weber, 2003, p. 381). Other researchers
Page 6 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 7

agree. For example Herndon (1987) stated that students who are interested in classroom tasks are
more likely to be intrinsically motivated to work on those tasks compared to students who are
not. Relatedly, Keller (1987) claimed that one of the pre-requisites for motivating students is
gaining their attention. Thus, if instructors can get students engaged in the topics being covered
in the course, they may find their students more intrinsically motivated to pursue their studies
(Lo & Hyland, 2007).
According to Bolkan et al. (2011), one way to get students engaged in their courses is to
intellectually stimulate them. Harvey, Royal, and Stout (2003) would support this conclusion
insofar as they found instructors’ intellectually stimulating behaviors were related to students’
classroom involvement. Similarly, intellectual stimulation has been related to students’ self-reported participation (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009), and perceptions that their classes were
meaningful, important, and valuable (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010). From these results we may
conclude that intellectual stimulation does what its moniker suggests and stimulates students to
be engaged in their courses.
Because intellectual stimulation may promote student engagement, and because student
engagement may lead to intrinsic motivation, it may be possible that engagement mediates the
relationship between instructors’ intellectual stimulation and students’ intrinsic motivation.
H2: Student engagement will mediate the relationship between instructors’ intellectual
stimulation and students’ intrinsic motivation.
Method
Participants and Procedure
After gaining IRB approval, students were recruited from upper-division communication
classes and offered minimal extra credit in return for their participation in this study. Participants
Page 7 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 8

included 234 individuals (67 men and 166 women, one unreported) enrolled in courses at a large
university on the West Coast with ages ranging from 19 to 51 (M = 22.75, SD = 3.87). Students
were asked to think about the teacher from the class immediately preceding the one in which
their participation was solicited regarding the measures reported below.
Instrumentation
Intellectual stimulation was measured using a 10-item scale from Bolkan and Goodboy
(2010) which asks respondents to report the frequency with which their instructors: employ an
interactive teaching style (e.g., “Uses exciting teaching techniques in class” and “Helps students
get excited about learning through classroom activities”), challenge students (e.g., “Challenges
me to be the best student I can be” and “Makes me work hard to ensure that I really know the
material well”), and encourage independent thought (e.g., “Helps me think deeply about the
concepts taught in class” and “ Wants me to think critically about what we are learning”). The
scale measuring interactive teaching style includes four items, the scales for both challenging
students and encouraging independent thought include three items. Each scale was measured
with responses ranging from (1) never to (7) always. The alpha reliability was .96 (M = 4.43, SD
= 1.81) for interactive teaching style, .93 (M = 4.71, SD = 1.76) for challenging students, and .92
(M = 4.99, SD = 1.63) for encouraging independent thought.
Intrinsic motivation was measured using the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1991) which assesses students’ intrinsic goal orientations toward a
particular course. This measure has four items with response options ranging from (1) not at all
true of me to (7) very true of me. Examples of items from the scale include, “In this class, I prefer
course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn” and “The most satisfying
Page 8 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 9

thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible” (M =
4.90, SD = 1.12, ? = .78).
Affective learning was measured using three subscales from McCroskey et al. (1985)
representing students’ affect toward course content, the course instructor, and behaviors
recommended in the course. Each of the subscales was measured using four, seven-step bi-polar
items anchored with words such as “good/bad” and “worthless/valuable.” Students’ affect toward
the course content had an alpha reliability of .90 (M = 5.54, SD = 1.42). Students’ affect toward
the instructor had an alpha reliability of .92 (M = 5.69, SD = 1.46). Finally, students’ affect
toward behaviors recommended in the course had an alpha of .93 (M = 5.62, SD = 1.32).
Sustained attention, involvement, and boredom were selected as the measures
representing student engagement. Sustained attention was assessed using Wei, Wang, and
Klausner’s (2012) measure of attention paid to classroom activities, lectures, and discussions.
Six items (e.g., “I never shift my attention to other non-task-oriented learning activities in this
class” and “I pay full attention to the lecture during class”) were presented to students with
response options ranging from (1) not at all true of me to (7) very true of me. The alpha
reliability of this scale was .91(M = 4.80, SD = 1.38). Involvement was measured using a
subscale of Miserandino’s (1996) perceived behavioral engagement scale. This scale is seven
items with response options ranging from (1) not at all true to (4) very true. Examples of items
include “I listen carefully in class” and “I work hard when we start something new in class” (M =
3.40, SD = .56, ? = .87).  Finally, boredom was measured using an adapted version of the five-item boredom subscale from the larger perceived emotional engagement scale (Miserandino,
1996). Items were adapted by making the focus of students’ boredom general classroom activity
instead of classwork in specific. This measure included statements such as “When I am in class, I
Page 9 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 10

feel bored” and “When I’m in class I feel sleepy” with response options ranging from (1) not at
all true to (4) very true (M = 2.21, SD = .71, ? = .81).  See Table 1 for intercorrelations between
variables.
Results
To test the hypotheses, a measurement model was first examined. This model was an
acceptable fit to the data (x
2
= 162.46, df = 59, p < .01, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .09).
Next, the composite model was tested. This model predicted that intellectual stimulation would
influence students’ affective learning and engagement which would, in turn, influence their
intrinsic motivation. Results revealed that this model fit the data relatively well (x
2
= 162.68, df =
60, p < .01,CFI = .95, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .09; see Figure 1). Because composite model fit
statistics are heavily influenced by the measurement model (for a discussion see O’Boyle &
Williams, 2011), the model RMSEA-P was calculated to determine the relative fit of the path
model alone. Results indicated that the RMSEA-P for this model was .00 suggesting a close fit of
the path model to the data (O’Boyle & Williams, 2011). Follow up mediation analyses were
conducted for unstandardized indirect effects computed with 5,000 bootstrapped samples and a
95% confidence interval. Bias-corrected estimates showed that both student engagement (SE =
.04, CI = .02 to .16) and affective learning (SE = .05, CI = .02 to .21) mediated the relationship
between intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation.
Discussion
According to Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991), ideal school systems are those
that promote “genuine enthusiasm for learning” (p. 325) because they result “in high-quality
learning and creativity” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). This might be the case because, by
influencing students’ intrinsic motivation, instructors have been shown to help students develop
Page 10 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 11

deep and strategic learning styles and avoid surface-level study habits (Bolkan et al., 2011).
Moreover, when students’ intrinsic motivation is bolstered, they tend to use cognitive strategies
in their courses such as elaboration and meta-cognitive regulation which are important for
learning (Wolters, 1998).
Unfortunately, though scholars note that “achieving optimum motivation of learners is a
central… goal of the instructional development process,” prescriptions for doing so remain rare
(Herndon, 1987, p. 11). However, one set of behaviors known to influence intrinsic motivation is
transformational leadership which emphasizes intrinsic motivation by building identification
with, and aligning followers’ goals and values with, those of the leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
The focus of the current study was on one aspect of transformational leadership, intellectual
stimulation, which has been known to influence students’ motivational orientations. Results from
this study indicate that intellectual stimulation in the college classroom is an important part of
teachers’ behavioral repertoire and leads to a variety of positive student outcomes.
In support of the first hypothesis, affective learning was shown to mediate the
relationship between intellectual stimulation and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, it seems that
one explanation for why intellectual stimulation leads to intrinsic motivation is that students
enjoy their coursework and their teachers more when their instructors employ these behaviors.
These results suggest that students appreciate and value being asked to critically analyze their
learning. Moreover, results from the analysis support hypothesis 2 and confirm that students
become more engaged when their instructors are intellectually stimulating. As was mentioned in
the introduction, these results may be explained by concepts associated with self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Ultimately, instructors who create positive affect in the classroom
and engage their pupils may help their students believe they are participating in an activity they
Page 11 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports
For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 12

want to be doing and, in turn, fulfill their fundamental need of autonomy (Van den Broeck et al.,
2010). By fulfilling students’ need for autonomy, instructors may help their pupils become self-determined (Deci et al., 1991) which may lead to their becoming intrinsically motivated (Deci &
Ryan, 2000).
In the end, results from this study indicate that when students become engaged in the
classroom and enjoy their coursework they work harder in their classes with the goal of
mastering the material instead of simply working for a grade. These results make sense
considering Mottet and Beebe (2006) claim that affective learning has a direct connection to
intrinsic motivation and takes place when students appreciate, respect, and value their learning –
the definition of a good workload. Thus, the results support previous researchers who have
claimed that students “prefer more challenging classes over less challenging classes” (Gillmore,
2001, p. 2), and “put more effort into classes that demand more effort for them to be successful”
(p. 1). This conclusion challenges the existence of a culture of “college-lite” on university
campuses and provides support for the notion that the positive impact of intellectual stimulation
may stem from a more rigorous workload that is engaging and considered valuable to students
(Marsh, 2001).
Instructional Implications
The findings from the current study support the contention that students “value learning
and achievement more highly when it involves a substantial degree of challenge and
commitment” (Marsh, 2001, p. 185). Therefore, implications for instructors include the provision
of intellectually stimulating behaviors in their classrooms as a way of enhancing their leadership
potential and transforming the nature of their classrooms. Specifically, as it pertains to this
study’s findings, instructors should focus on using an interactive teaching style (e.g., using
Page 12 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 13

exciting teaching techniques and unique activities), challenging students (e.g., making sure
students know the material well and pushing students to do their best), and encouraging
independent thought (e.g., helping students think critically and helping students come to their
own conclusions about course material; Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010) as a way of enhancing
students’ intrinsic motivation in their courses.
First, instructors can use an interactive teaching style to get students involved and excited
about course material. Ways to do this include helping students learn in a novel manner by using
unique activities to get students involved with the course and by varying course material to get
students engaged in class in a variety of ways (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010, 2011). Because
“intrinsic motivation is derived from factors that are inherent in task completion” (Wolters, 1998,
p. 226), using an interactive teaching style may allow instructors to facilitate students’ work on
tasks by making them inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). And, by getting students
excited about the course material, students may come to enjoy what they are learning in class
which may lead to a focus on learning and mastery as opposed to a focus on grades and others’
approval (Pintrich et al., 1993).
In addition, instructors should promote an optimal challenge to their students to facilitate
their enjoyment of, and involvement in, the class. Importantly, this may take assessing students’
abilities and tailoring course assignments to fit with students’ capabilities. Additionally, this may
mean promoting participation in class and pushing students to support their positions with
evidence (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011). Though some instructors may balk at the idea of
challenging students when they engage in classroom participation, researchers have shown that
making students think deeply about their contributions is associated with student communication
satisfaction and affective learning (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010). As long as teachers are careful to
Page 13 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 14

protect the face of their students (e.g., Trees, Kerssen-Griep, & Hess, 2009; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011), these behaviors may lead to enhanced classroom outcomes.
Finally, instructors may consider encouraging independent thought in their classrooms as
a way of enhancing affective learning, student engagement, and intrinsic motivation. This may
stem from asking students to come to their own conclusions regarding course material and
encouraging differing points of view (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011). Moreover, achieving this goal
may be facilitated by asking students to apply course concepts to parts of their lives and asking
pupils to communicate their questions or disagreement in course discussions. Alternatively,
encouraging independent thought may include asking students to critically analyze course
concepts. By inviting students to come to their own conclusions regarding course material,
instructors may ultimately help students appreciate and value their educations.
Limitations and Future Directions
One limitation of this study includes the sample from which the data were drawn.
Because this study used a convenience sample from one university, it is difficult to know
whether these findings translate to the larger population of students. Future researchers should
continue testing the relationships examined in this project to determine if the associations
presented hold true for different populations of students.
Another limitation of this study concerns its scope. Though this study focused on two
mediators in particular, there are a variety of mediators that may influence intrinsic motivation.
Future researchers should continue to examine multiple models using mediating variables to
determine which explanation best fits the relationships between important teaching behaviors
and student outcomes.
Page 14 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 15

Finally, only one independent variable was studied in this project; clearly others have the
potential to influence affective learning, student engagement, and intrinsic motivation. These
include other transformational behaviors such as charismatic leadership and individual
consideration, and variables such as nonverbal immediacy. Thus, future researchers may
consider examining various models of instructional communication to determine the impact of
other variables on students’ intrinsic motivation.

Page 15 of 22
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcrs  Email: comreports@callutheran.edu
Communication Reports

For Peer Review Only
Intellectual 16

References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering
student learning, student participation and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 36, 296-306.
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the classroom: The
development and validation of the student intellectual stimulation scale. Communication
Reports, 23, 91-105. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511399
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Behavioral indicators of transformational leadership in the
college classroom. Qualitative Rese