This consensus has always been an interesting topic in educational policy developments, due to greatly determining the quality of education (Alsalahi, 2015; Gunawan et al., 2020). Also, the meaning of professionalism contains complexity, both as work tools and concepts, which are related to social politics and power (Vu, 2016; Amirova, 2020). Moreover, promoting this professionalism was considered as a strategy to overcome various problems in learning practice (Rusznyak, 2018). The mapping against previous studies showed that the consensus on professional teachers was more determined by external authorities, especially the government (Evans, 2011). The problem of professional consensus also depended on the autonomy of teachers and the authority to self-regulate, in order to carry out their duties (Kolsaker, 2008). As explained by Hargreaves and Connor (2018) and Sachs (2016), autonomy and professional self-regulation are the absolute standards of a profession. Therefore, a new perspective on teacher professionalism was needed (Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009; Sachs, 2016). However, this study aims to use student perspectives to construct a professional teacher consensus. The consensus about professional teachers in this study refers to the agreement on the characteristics and indicators of professional teachers that are jointly constructed by a group of people. The consensus generated by the students’ voices can complement as well as criticize the conventions that have been formed previously. This is also very important, due to the perspectives being expected to provide students with detailed views in their sentences, complex analysis from multiple sources, and specific secondary school contexts that shaped experiences about the professional teacher (Sweetman et al., 2010). These perspectives also offer the opportunity to engage secondary school students as co-experts, a data collection procedure used to enhance adolescents’ views, without being contaminated by adult contexts. Moreover, the concept of a great teacher (Benekos, 2016; Holbrook, 2016; Robertson-kraft and Zhang, 2018) is used to maintain neutrality in the data collection process. This concept also makes it easier for the knowledge of students, compared to the use of more normative and professional techniques, as well as class bias (Sachs, 2016).

This study used an interpretive phenomenology approach (Smith et al., 2009; Creswell, 2013), due to its attempt to understand the meaning of a great teacher. Therefore, the themes indicated in the research data were the subjective views of students. The interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) is known as one of the most effective and qualitative analytical method, used for understanding new and emotionally charged topics (Smith and Osborn, 2008; Smith and Osborn, 2015). Science is also very suitable in investigating and explaining students’ experiences, during the conceptualization of professional teachers in their schools. IPA also offers detailed data analysis, in order to understand each case of study according to its merits, before advancing to the general cross-case analytical method (Smith et al., 2009). According to personal experiences, science was suitable for completing this study. This was due to having a deeper understanding of students’ perceptions, regarding the conceptualization of professional teachers.

The participants were determined using the purposive sampling technique (Springer, 2010; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Robson and McCartan, 2016). These samples were also students at the secondary school level in Yogyakarta City, and their selection was carried out through the following criteria, 1) Students should be from one of the high schools in the Yogyakarta city, 2) Students should be willing to participate until the final stage, 3) Student selections should be based on the recommendation of the principal/vice principal, with the consideration of having the ability to answer questions, 4) Consideration about the ability to behave objectively.

The total number of participants were 15 (10 women and 5 men), with age ranging between 16 and 19 years (mean age = 17.2 years). These age groups were within the period of adolescence, which is often a population between 10 and 19 years (WHO, 1999). This was because the students in Indonesia were based on the elementary (7–12 years), as well as junior and senior high (13–15 and 16–18 years) school ages, respectively (Kemendikbud, 2021). However, a student is either 1–2 years early or late in entering formal education, leading to being below or above the general school age range. According to the APA (2016), all names were also written via the code P1-P15, in order to ensure the confidentiality of participants. Also, before the process of data collection, participants received sufficient information about the objectives and background of the study. All fifteen participants were found to express consent, as they were also provided with an option to withdraw from the study at any time. However, the participants were not compensated, due to their voluntary participation.

The research experts coordinated and collaborated with the school authorities, namely the principal, vice and deputy principals, as well as the staff, in order to select students according to the selection criteria. Furthermore, an interview schedule was prepared, which was in accordance with the APA guidelines (Smith et al., 2009). These interviews were repeatedly conducted through electronic mails and zoom meetings. This indicated that seven students were interviewed only once (via mails), while the others were analyzed twice through mails and zoom meetings. The difference in the number of interviews was based on the expanded data of each participant. After the initial analytical process, the interview data were found to still need further deepening and expansion. After these, the interview guidelines that had been prepared based on the main indicators of professional teachers were used. Moreover, these guidelines were discussed with experts and had received input before being used. After being revised according to the expert’s input, the interview guideline was ready to be used for data collection. Based on this study, the interview guide contained 6 questions as follows,

1. The most enjoyable experience while studying at this school.

This open practice was also observed to be carried out flexibly. Meanwhile, the interview through zoom meetings were recorded automatically and the results were transcribed carefully. In addition, the shortest and longest interviews lasted for 18 and 45 min, respectively.

Data analysis was carried out by the following two stages: The first stage, this was carried out by the open coding of the raw interview data (Robson and McCartan, 2016). According to the open coding process, a deep reading of all data was conducted, resulting in the collection of respondents stories (Smith et al., 2009). Afterwards, this was accompanied by a systematic reading, which used side comments to identify various emerging themes and sub-themes. Moreover, the open coder aims to identify instances, when explaining characteristics of a great teacher. The second stage, based on the use of analytic coding, the connection of various similar codes (and breaking them) was carried out in this process, in order to obtain conclusions from the results of the first stage (Robson and McCartan, 2016). After these, the emergence of themes was observed. These themes were also revised, recombined, and grouped into a more complete description of the student’s experience. At this stage, three themes were found in this study, namely teacher-student interpersonal relationships, great teacher personality, and teaching skills. The teacher-student interpersonal relationships had several codes, such as “my teacher motivates me,” where a participant stated that “When a teacher provides advice, students become motivated…He is a great teacher.” A great teacher’s personality also had several codes such as “my teacher has a pleasant personality,” where a participant stated that “I like certain subjects because the teacher’s nature brings fun material.” Also, these theme tables were created by the first and second experts, via the comparisons of respective notes. Moreover, the tables were further revised at the end of the procedures, by the first expert (Smith et al., 2009).

The first theme that emerged was the great teachers’ interpersonal relationships with students. This relationship was also characterized by the teacher’s ability to act as friends to students, as well as motivate and understand them. Moreover, the teacher made students feel important, and cared about the problems they encountered. Generally, this teacher-student interpersonal relationships was reported by 100% of the respondents (n = 15).

Teachers’ personality was the second theme of the student responses. This theme consisted of four sub-themes, namely, 1) my teacher has a pleasant personality, 2) my teacher is like a parent at school, 3) my teacher is not favoritism, 4) My teacher is funny. Generally, the teacher’s personality themes were expressed by 13 respondents.

The teachers’ teaching ability was a theme also mentioned by all respondents (n = 15). Also, three sub-themes were identified in this themes, namely 1) my teacher teaches with fun, 2) my teacher’s teaching is easy to understand, 3) my teacher’s teaching provokes students’ curiosity.

The ability to establish interpersonal relationships with students was a priority for adolescents, in order to perceive a great teacher. This interpersonal relationship was characterized by the ability to motivate, act as friends, consider students important and care about their problems, and create conditions where learning processes are easily understood. These sub-themes showed that for students, the characteristics of great teachers depended on the dynamics of their mental development. Even though great teachers were not sufficiently shown in the form of teaching expertise in the classroom, the ability to immerse themselves in the youthful world was very much important. Besides dealing with subject matters at school, they often contend with adolescents’ development, with all its dynamics.

These results corroborate several previous studies, which highlighted the importance of interpersonal relationships between teachers and students. Several previous studies suggested that teachers that had the ability to build good relationships with students, contributed to students’ motivation (Hamre and Pianta, 2005; Buyse et al., 2008; Koca, 2016), self-esteem (Spilt et al., 2011), daily welfare level (Seligman, 2012), mental enhancement (Wubbels and Brekelmans, 2005), participation (Thijs and Koomen, 2008), and achievement in school (Roorda et al., 2011). One of the sub-themes in this result (the teacher’s ability to show a caring attitude towards students), also had a profound impact on students’ psychology. There were also significant effects on the welfare of those that were cared for by teachers (Lavy and Naama-Ghanayim, 2020). When students know that others care about their conditions and needs, their self-esteem increases, while having the impression that their presence was important to others. Also, when students know that they have a positive relationship with their teachers, their attachment to school tends to become stronger (Martin and Collie, 2018). The method teacher’s use in building interpersonal relationships with students is also very influential on emotions (Mainhard et al., 2018). Therefore, these results also supported the previous thesis, which stated that teachers functioned as meaningful adult figures for adolescent life, in order to make students feel valued (Lavy and Naama-Ghanayim, 2020).

A basic component of this interpersonal relationships was the students’ perception that teachers cared and supported them. Caring is known to be a core element in creating this type of relationship (Orkibi and Tuaf, 2017). Caring teachers showed affection for students, listened to their opinions, understood, motivated, and made learning interesting for them (Noddings, 2013). Teachers that cared about students were more responsive to their feelings, which in turn led to protection, safety, and support (Mayseless, 2015). The need for attention was also very important for adolescents, due to this age being related to the school hierarchy (Karna et al., 2010). Therefore, students need a sense of security to step out of their “comfort zone”, into an environment full of uncertainty (Mayseless, 2015). Several empirical evidence also proved that students that felt valued and cared for by their teachers in school, were able to achieve better cognitive, affective, and psychomotor results (Kunter et al., 2013; McGrath, 2015; Vandenbroucke et al., 2018). Therefore, valuing and caring for students was the teacher’s main role in the learning process. This also helped to create development and happiness (Noddings, 2012). The need for attention was also a basic human emotional desire, which supported individual comfort and development (Lavy and Naama-Ghanayim, 2020).

Besides being good for students, the ability to build interpersonal relationships was also important for the professional development of the teachers. Furthermore, the great teachers that built positive interpersonal relationships with students, helped in improving welfare, and vice versa (Butler, 2012; Klassen et al., 2012). Moreover, this interpersonal relationship played an important role in increasing emotional experiences (Hagenauer et al., 2015), as well as involvement and motivation in the classroom (Henry and Thorsen, 2018). Also, quality interpersonal relationships were characterized by closeness, warmth, low conflict, respect, and low levels of dependence (Hummer et al., 2010; Claessens et al., 2016; de Hong et al., 2018). When they are more connected with their students, teachers were also observed to teach with enthusiasm and fun (Aldrup et al., 2018). Therefore, building good interpersonal relationships with students was the main identity of professionalism (Prøitz, 2015).

The second result also stated that a pleasant personality was an important indicator of a great teacher. Teachers with a pleasant personality were enthusiastic, patient, friendly, and calm. Also, the presence of these teachers were often anticipated by students. This results also confirmed the studies of Miron and Mevorach (2014)and Benekos (2016) which stated that when students were told to describe a good teacher, they discussed more about the qualities that reflected the educator’s personality (enthusiastic, easy to contact, humble, pleasant, funny, inspiring, and energetic) than the pedagogical skills.

Several studies also showed that teachers’ personality contributed 27% to student learning motivation (Jahangiri, 2016). Personality is known as the unique psychological qualities that influences individual behaviours, thoughts, and feelings (Roberts and Jackson, 2008). It also plays a role in increasing the effectiveness of teachers’ work (Holmes et al., 2015). A good teacher’s personality towards students was more important than teaching knowledge and skills. This personalities towards students includes commitment, responsibility, and enthusiasm, which are used in developing the teaching profession at the core of teachers’ professionalism (Capen, 2017).

According to respondents, great teaching skills were described by teachers that taught in a funny and easy-to-understand manner. Moreover, this was observed to increase the curiosity of the students. When told to confirm the description of the great teacher’s teaching skills, students also emphasized on the method being used to convey the materials (in a funny way).

Teachers that taught with fun were the sub-themes most mentioned by students. This was due to the emotions they had, which also affected the students. These teachers had an impact on students, due to the provision of an enjoyable and comfortable learning process (Becker et al., 2014). The delivery method in class also had an impact on students’ positive emotions, such as the feelings of enjoyment and pride (Goetz et al., 2013). Moreover, teacher teaching skills improved students’ control and academical achievements (Muntaner-Mas et al., 2017). The teachers that taught with enthusiasm and fun also improved motivation and student learning outcomes (Kunter et al., 2013; Keller et al., 2014).

Furthermore, there was no code about the great teachers being a role model. This result was surprising, as none of the students perceived that a great teacher was an example in their life. Moreover, this result also contradicted most of the previous studies, which stated that one of the indicators of professionalism was a teacher being a role model to students (Hadisaputra et al., 2018; Jimung, 2019; Ramdan and Fauziah, 2019; Suyatno et al., 2019). Ramdan and Fauziah. (2019), for example, stated that a teacher should have the ability to be a role model for students in attitude and personality, honesty, discipline, responsibility, and religion. According to the Regulation of the Indonesia Minister of National Education Number 16 of 2007, this indicator was also observed as the main characteristic of teacher personality competence. This regulation was concerned with Academic Qualification Standards and Teacher Competencies, which stated that educators should also be a role model for students and the society.

The next surprising result was the absence of codes, which also pointed to the importance of teacher professional competence. According to classroom learning, students focused more on the methods used in presenting materials (funny, friendly, simple, or easy-to-understand manners), which also represented the pedagogical competence. Meanwhile, the teachers’ mastery of the material being taught was included in the professional competence, as stated in the Regulation of the Minister of National Education of Indonesia Number 16 of 2007. This regulation was also concerned with Academic Qualification Standards and Teacher Competencies, which explained that professional competence was all about mastering the material, structure, concepts, and scientific mindset that supported the subjects being taught. Therefore, the results of this study did not support generalizations, especially the Regulation of the Minister of National Education of Indonesia Number 16 of 2007. This difference was probably due to the emotional condition of adolescent students, where the adequacy of meeting emotional needs was prominently felt, compared to the mastery of subject matter in school. Moreover, this consensus was observed to be in line with previous studies, which emphasized more on commitment to work (Timperley and Alton-Lee, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2009), ability to innovate in learning (Lai and Lo, 2007), and responsibilities in carrying out duties (Appel, 2020). Therefore, a good teacher’s personality seemed more meaningful to students than the mastery of materials presented to them. Also, the teachers’ personalities, such as commitment, responsibility, and enthusiasm, were at the core of professionalism (Capen, 2017). However, these results need to be the object of future studies, in order to identify more valid evidence.

The results indicated that students’ perspectives on a great teacher relied on the educator’s ability to build interpersonal relationships, as well as possess pleasant personalities and good teaching skills. This embodied the qualities that should be possessed by a professional teacher (Kim et al., 2021). Therefore, implications for the professional development of teachers was futuristically necessary and essential. These were in line with Kuhlee and Winch (2017), which indicated the importance of teacher professionalism not being interpreted as a universal value. This was due to the variations of professionalism notions in different contexts.

Based on teacher professional development in Indonesia, the results became an additional “homework”, which was quite complicated for teachers and the Ministry of Education. This was because previous studies explained that teaching was not an autonomous profession in Indonesia, due to being prioritized to comply with the government (Savira and Khoirunnisa, 2018). Based on this perception, teachers were less flexible in developing their professionalism features, especially accommodating students’ expectations regarding quality. This was because teachers prioritize top-down demands from the authorities, leading to a bad impact due to being locked within ingrained routines (Nairz-Wirth and Feldmann, 2019).

Several practical implications were also applied as a follow-up to this study. Firstly, the main objective of the study was to resolve the issues of consensus, which was only based on external perspectives, especially those made by the government. Furthermore, future consensus on professional teachers needs to include student perspectives. As described by Aldrup et al. (2018), considering the voices of students was a promising solution to reducing various problems in education. Also, the second implication was the importance of emphasizing interpersonal relationships in teachers’ educational programs (both in the implementation of undergraduate and science education in the faculties of teacher training, as well as teacher professional education/PPG) and professional development services (Claessens et al., 2016). Moreover, undergraduate education providers also need to provide adequate interpersonal relationship methods, due to their experiences playing a key role in developing professionalism (Chang and Park, 2019). Finally, the description of a great teacher that represented the voices of students, should be elaborated in compiling competency indicators. Therefore, professional teacher consensus was more legitimate in the perspective of students.