**Demographic Characteristics of the Sample **

The study population included 1300 students, and the sample size was 160 undergraduate students over the age of 18. Participants were chosen from the university's Pedagogical Institute.

Additionally, participants were chosen using a random sample technique. Table 1 includes demographic characteristics of participants by age and gender. The total number of participants is 160. To be precise, 120 undergraduates were 18 years old, and it is 75.0% of the sample.

Thirty students were 19 years old, 18.8%, seven were 20 years old, and 4.4 % and 3 were 21 years old, which is 1.9% of the participants. Furthermore, 30 students were male, 18.8% and 130 were females, 81.3%. This difference in the number of male and female students is сonsistent with the gender imbalance at the pedagogical institute.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics Of Participants

**Value ** **Frequency (f) ** **Percent (%) **

*Age *

18 y.o. 121 75.0%

19 y.o. 30 18.8%

20 y.o. 7 4.4%

21 y.o. 4 1.9%

Total 160 100.0%

*Gender *

Male 30 18.8%

Female 131 81.3%

**Descriptive Analysis Of Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

Data on informal faculty-student connections will be presented in this section, which includes descriptive statistics. Students' gender and age will also be considered while conducting a descriptive study of the relationships between faculty and students. This section will present a descriptive examination of five characteristics of informal faculty-student relationships. The numbers of participants, median and the mode for students' perceptions of informal faculty- student connections are shown in Table 2. The conclusions displayed that students prioritized characteristics of positive relationship (n = 161, Med = 6.00, Mo = 7.00) above all others.

Additionally, participants gave the lowest scores to negative characteristics such as

Insubordination (n = 156, Med = 2.00, Mo = 1.00) and a lack of communication (n = 160, Med =
4.00, Mo = 4.00). ** **

Table 1: Descriptive Analysis Of Informal Informal Faculty-Student Relationships

**n ** **Median (Med) ** **Mode (Mo) **

Support 161 5.00 7.00

Student Freedom 161 5.00 7.00

Positive relationship 161 6.00 7.00

Lack of communication 160 4.00 4.00

Insubordination 156 2.00 1.00

Frequency distribution of each dimension of informal faculty-student relationships is shown in Table 3. Can be seen form colum frequency that most of the students strongly agree with the all positive dimentions like support (f = 38, p = 23.6%, vp = 23.6%), student freedom (f

= 52, p = 32.2%, vp = 32.2%), and positiove relationship (f = 49, p = 30.4%, vp = 30.4%).

Likewise, that most of the students strongly disagree with the insubordination characteristic (f = 67, p = 41.6%, vp = 42.9%). However, most of the participants neither agree nor disagree with Lack of communication dimention (f = 47, p = 29.2%, vp = 29.4%). In general, based on the data, we can say that students positively assess the informal relationship of their teachers with students because all the positive attributes have a high rate and the negative attributes have the lowest scores.

Table 3: Descriptive Analysis Of Informal Faculty-Student Relationships* *

**Frequency (f) ** **Percent (p) ** **Valid Percent (vp) **
Support

Strongly disagree 5 3.1 3.1

Disagree 8 5.0 5.0

Somewhat disagree 18 11.2 11.2

Neither agree or disagree 32 19.9 19.9

Somewhat agree 33 20.5 20.5

Agree 27 16.8 16.8

Strongly agree 38 23.6 23.6

Total 161 100.0% 100.0%

Student Freedom

Strongly disagree 5 3.1 3.1

Disagree 7 4.3 4.3

Somewhat disagree 17 10.6 10.6

Neither agree or disagree 27 16.8 16.8

Somewhat agree 29 18.0 18.0

Agree 24 14.9 14.9

Strongly agree 52 32.3 32.3

Total 161 100.0% 100.0%

Positive relationship

Strongly disagree 2 1.2 1.2

Disagree 4 2.5 2.5

Somewhat disagree 11 6.8 6.8

Neither agree or disagree 25 15.5 15.5

Somewhat agree 30 18.6 18.6

Agree 39 24.2 24.2

Strongly agree 49 30.4 30.4

Total 161 100.0% 100.0%

Lack of communication

Strongly disagree 26 16.1 16.3

Disagree 26 16.1 16.3

Somewhat disagree 19 11.8 11.9

Neither agree or disagree 47 29.2 29.4

Somewhat agree 19 11.8 11.9

Agree 6 3.7 3.7

Strongly agree 17 10.5 10.6

Total 160 99.4% 100.0%

Insubordination

Strongly disagree 67 41.6 42.9

Disagree 22 13.7 14.1

Somewhat disagree 17 10.6 10.9

Neither agree or disagree 20 12.4 12.8

Somewhat agree 13 8.1 8.3

Agree 5 3.1 3.2

Strongly agree 12 7.5 7.7

Total 156 96.9% 100.0%

**Gender And Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

The number of participants and the median for informal faculty-student relationships are shown in Table 4. According to the results, male students (n = 30, Med = 6.00) had a somewhat better perception of the level of student freedom in their informal relationships with faculty than female students (n = 126, Med = 5.00). In addition, female students (n = 126, Med = 4.00) noted that they lacked communication with faculty rather than male students (n = 30, Med = 3.00).

However, the findings reveal no difference in how females and men view faculty characteristics such as positive relationships, student freedom, and subordination.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics For Informal Faculty-Student Relationships By Gender

**n ** **Median (Med) **

Support

Male 30 5.00

Female 126 5.00

Student Freedom

Male 30 6.00

Female 126 5.00

Positive relationship

Male 30 6.00

Female 126 6.00

Lack of communication

Male 30 3.00

Female 126 4.00

Insubordination

Male 30 2.00

Female 126 2.00

**Age And Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

The number of participants and the median of informal faculty-student relationships by age are shown in Table 5. According to the findings, we can say that 19-year-old students have the greatest informal relationships with teachers. The strongest difference is in the dimension of

support between students at the age of 19 (n = 30, Med = 5.50) and 21 (n = 3, Med = 3.00). The
similar tendency can be followed in the measurements in the item positive relationship where the
19-year-old (n = 30, Med = 6.00) student and 18-year-old (n = 117, Med = 6.00) student have
higher rating than 21-year-old students (n = 3, Med = 4.00). In addition to this measurement of
student freedom, most participants have approximately the same median results (Med = 5.00)
except for 19 one-year students (n = 30, Med = 5.50). According to the results, young students
have a more positive, informal relationship with professors than older students.** **

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics For Informal Faculty-Student Relationships By Age

**n ** **Median (Med) **

Support

18 y.o. 117 5.00

19 y.o. 30 5.50

20 y.o. 6 3.50

21 y.o. 3 3.00

Student Freedom

18 y.o. 117 5.00

19 y.o. 30 5.50

20 y.o. 6 5.00

21 y.o. 3 5.00

Positive relationship

18 y.o. 117 6.00

19 y.o. 30 6.00

20 y.o. 6 5.50

21 y.o. 3 4.00

Lack of communication

18 y.o. 117 4.00

19 y.o. 30 3.50

20 y.o. 6 2.50

21 y.o. 3 4.00

Insubordination

18 y.o. 117 2.00

19 y.o. 30 2.00

20 y.o. 6 1.00

21 y.o. 3 1.00

**Inferential Analysis of Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

This section will provide the findings from the inferential study of informal faculty- student interactions. Inferential analysis was performed on bivariate correlations using

Spearman's rho. In the beginning, the inferential analysis will be used to illustrate the influence of student gender on informal faculty-student relationships. The following section will give an inferential study of the influence of student age on faculty-student interactions.

**Effect of Gender on Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

Spearman's rho compared the overall informal faculty-student relationships aspects scores by gender. Looking at the dimension of lack of communication, we can see the correlation with the gender variable in Table 6. As can be seen, the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient is

0.191, a modest positive relationship. The significance level, given as 0.016, tells us that the relationship, though modest in strength, is. Lastly, the sample size is given as 160 students. In the other dimensions of the informal faculty-student relationship, the findings indicated no

statistically significant difference in gender scores.

Table 4: Inferential Statistics of Gender And Informal Faculty-Student Relationships
**Support ** **Student **

**Freedom **

**Positive **
**relationship **

**Lack of **
**communication **

**Insubordination **

Gender Correlation Coefficient

- .102 - .085 - .041 .191* - .015

Sig. (2-tailed) .199 .282 .605 .016 .850

N 161 161 161 160 156

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01

**Effect of Age on Informal Faculty-Student Relationships **

The output of Spearman's rho analysis of age and informal faculty-student relationships is
presented in table 7 and gives us information on the correlation coefficient, significance level (2-
tailed), and sample size. If we look across the row of dimensions of informal faculty-student
relationships, we can not see the correlation of the variable with the age variable. These findings
indicate that age has no impact on how students view their interactions with professors.** **

Table 5: Inferential Statistics Of Age* *And Informal Faculty-Student Relationships
**Support ** **Student **

**Freedom **

**Positive **
**relationship **

**Lack of **
**communication **

**Insubordination **

Age

Correlation Coefficient

- .039 .033 .009 - .089 - .094

Sig. (2-tailed) .627 .677 .909 .262 .242

N 161 161 161 160 156

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01

**Descriptive Analysis of Students' Motivation **

This section will give data on student motivation and descriptive analysis. While conducting descriptive research on student motivation, the gender and age of the students will also be considered. This section will examine four dimensions of student motivation as assessed by The Student Motivation Scale (SMS). Table 8 contains the participant count, median, and mode for students' evaluations of their motivation.

The data stated that students prioritized learning focus qualities (n = 161, Med = 7.00, Mo

= 7.00) and value of school dimension (n = 161, Med = 7.00, Mo = 7.00). Furthermore, participants gave negative features such as lack of control the lowest marks (n = 159, Med = 2.00, Mo = 1.00). We can conclude from the data that students see their motivation favourably since all positive traits have the highest rates, while negative attributes have the low rate.

Table 6: Descriptive Analysis Of Students' Motivation

**n ** **Median (Med) ** **Mode (Mo) **

Value of schooling 161 7.00 7.00

Learning focus 161 7.00 7.00

Persistence 161 5.00 7.00

Low control 159 2.00 1.00

Frequency distribution of each dimension of students' motivation is shown in Table 9.

You can see form column frequency that most of the students strongly agree with the all positive dimensions as value of schooling (f = 95, p = 59.0%, vp = 59.0%), learning focus (f = 103, p = 64.0%, vp = 64.0%), and persistence (f = 46, p = 28.6%, vp = 28.6%). Likewise, that most of the students strongly disagree with negative dimensions as low control (f = 55, p = 34.2%, vp = 34.6%). In general, based on the data, we can say that students positively assess their motivation because all the positive attributes have a higher rates and students rated the negative attribute with lowest scores.

Table 7: Descriptive Analysis of Students' Motivation

**Frequency (f) ** **Percent (p) ** **Valid Percent (vp) **
Value of schooling

Strongly disagree 1 0.6 0.6

Disagree 3 1.9 1.9

Neither agree or disagree 12 7.5 7.5

Somewhat agree 20 12.4 12.4

Agree 30 18.6 18.6

Strongly agree 95 59.0 59.0

Total 161 100.0 100.0

Learning focus

Somewhat disagree 1 .6 .6

Neither agree or disagree 6 3.7 3.7

Somewhat agree 14 8.7 8.7

Agree 37 23.0 23.0

Strongly agree 103 64.0 64.0

Total 161 100.0 100.0

Persistence

Strongly disagree 6 3.7 3.7

Disagree 5 3.1 3.1

Somewhat disagree 6 3.7 3.7

Neither agree or disagree 28 17.4 17.4

Somewhat agree 37 23.0 23.0

Agree 33 20.5 20.5

Strongly agree 46 28.6 28.6

Total 161 100.0 100.0

Low control

Strongly disagree 55 34.2 34.6

Disagree 28 17.4 17.6

Somewhat disagree 12 7.5 7.5

Neither agree or disagree 22 13.7 13.8

Somewhat agree 14 8.7 8.8

Agree 11 6.8 6.9

Strongly agree 17 10.6 10.7

Total 159 98.8 100.0

**Gender and Student Motivation **

Table 10 displays the number of participants and the median for student motivation by
gender. Female students (n = 130, Med = 7.00) scored fairly higher than male students (n = 29,
Med = 6.00) on the value of schooling aspect. Likewise, female students (n = 130, Med = 6.00)
showed somewhat higher perception of their motivational persistence than male students (n = 29,
Med = 5.00). Female students (n = 130, Med = 3.00), on the other hand, reported being less in
control than male students (n = 29, Med = 1.00). Additionally, the data indicate no difference in
how females and males perceive features of student motivation such as learning concentration.** **

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Informal Faculty-Student Relationships by Gender

**n ** **Median (Med) **

Value of schooling

Male 29 6.00

Female 130 7.00

Learning focus

Male 29 7.00

Female 130 7.00

Persistence

Male 29 5.00

Female 130 6.00

Low control

Male 29 1.00

Female 130 3.00

**Age and Student Motivation **

Table 11 shows the number of participants and the median for student motivation by age.

Students at the age of 18 (n = 118, Med = 6.00) and the age of 20 (n = 7, Med = 6.00) showed somewhat higher score in persistence than 21 years old students (n = 3, Med = 4.00). On the other hand, 18 years old students (n = 118, Med = 3.00) reported being less in control than 19 years old students (n = 30, Med = 1.00) and the students of 21 years old (n = 3, Med = 1.00). The analysis shows that motivation levels in all groups are manifested differently in different

dimensions; from this, we cannot say that any group of students was more motivated depending
on their age.** **

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Informal Faculty-Student Relationships by Age

**n ** **Median (Med) **

Value of schooling

18 y.o. 118 7.00

19 y.o. 30 6.00

20 y.o. 7 7.00

21 y.o. 3 7.00 Learning focus

18 y.o. 118 7.00

19 y.o. 30 7.00

20 y.o. 7 7.00

21 y.o. 3 7.00

Persistence

18 y.o. 118 6.00

19 y.o. 30 5.00

20 y.o. 7 6.00

21 y.o. 3 4.00

Low control

18 y.o. 118 3.00

19 y.o. 30 1.00

20 y.o. 7 2.00

21 y.o. 3 1.00

**The Relationship Between Informal Faculty-Student Relationships and Student Motivation **
Previously, I presented the findings of an investigation on the impact of students' gender
and age on informal faculty-student relationships and students' motivation. Here, I will provide
the findings of an inferential study I conducted to determine the impact of relationships between
faculty and students on student motivation.

Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the link between overall student motivation (as assessed by the Student Motivation Scale – SMS) and informal faculty- student relationships. Table 12 shows the study's correlation matrix for the various factors.

Furthermore, there is a strong positive relationship between students motivation and support dimension, r = 0.458, n = 161, p < 0.01. In other terms, there was a positive link between student motivation and the support factor. Likewise, the dimension of student freedom has positive correlation with student motivation, r = 0.458, n = 161, p < 0.01. Similarly, there was a modest, positive correlation between student motivation and positive relationship component, r = 0.448, n

= 161, p < 0.01. This means that the informal positive relationship of the faculty with the student has a positive impact on the students' motivation. However, there was no correlation between student motivation and the aspects of lack of communication and insubordination. In general, it can be argued that the informal relationship between the faculty and students positively

correlates with student motivation.

Table 10: Intercorrelation Matrix Among Informal Faculty-Student Relationships and Student Motivation Related Variables (Kendall’s tau-b)

**SMS Support Student **
**Freedom **

**Positive **
**relationship **

**Lack of **
**communication **

**Insubordination **

SMS Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .458** .458** .448** .065 .045

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .322 .504

N 161 161 161 161 160 156

Support Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .595** .658** -.198** .082

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .001 .201

N 161 161 161 160 156

Student Freedom Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .633** -.180** .049

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .004 .446

N 161 161 160 156

Positive relationship Correlation

Coefficient

1.000 -.238** .032

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .621

N 161 160 156

Lack of communication Correlation

Coefficient

1.000 .056

Sig. (2-tailed) . .384

N 160 156

Insubordination Correlation Coefficient

1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .

N 156

**p < 0.01

This section illustrates the findings of a correlational examination of informal faculty-student relationships and student motivation. The data display a substantial correlation between trait student motivation and informal faculty-student relationships.

**Summary **

The chapter began with a discussion of the sample's demographic characteristics. Then, we presented a descriptive and inferential analysis of informal faculty-student relationships.

Additionally, a frequency distribution of each dimension of informal faculty-student relationships is shown. Descriptive statistics on informal faculty-student relationships were presented by gender and age. Then, using Spearman's rho, the overall informal faculty-student relationship aspects scores were compared by gender and age. Following that, descriptive and inferential analysis of students' motivation is demonstrated, and the frequency distribution of each dimension of students' motivation. Descriptive statistics on informal faculty-student relationships were presented by gender and age. Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient was

presented at the conclusion to demonstrate the relationship between overall student motivation
and informal faculty-student relationships.** **