This passage examines different definitions of personality and their fundamental aspects. Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) define personality as distinctive psychological traits that direct people’s actions, beliefs, and emotions in various contexts. Mayer (2007) combines four mostly accepted definitions to create a consensus definition, describing personality as «a system of parts that is organized, develops, and is expressed in a person’s actions.» Guthrie et al. (1998) and Larsen and Buss (2008) view personality as an individual’s response to the environment based on organized and consistent psychological traits and mechanisms. Buss (1989) attributes traits as defining and distinctive features of personality, while Snow (1984) reports that traits are hereditary, permanent, and physically based. Recent research (Roberts et al., 2017) has shown that personality can be changed with clinical intervention and nonclinical methods (Hudson & Fraley, 2015). Jackson et al. (2012), Lüdtke et al. (2011), Specht et al. (2011), and Roberts et al (2006) argue against the idea of traits being immutable and permanent over a lifetime.

3.Studies of teacher personality and students (BFI related). According to Stronge et al. (2004), a teacher’s personality refers to their inner qualities reflected through values, beliefs, behavior, and attitude that impacts teaching performance, practice, and effectiveness (Curtis & Liying, 2001). Teacher personalities influence material choices, strategy, classroom management, and student relationships. Hashim et al. (2014) suggest that administrators should consider humanistic factors alongside educational qualifications when hiring teachers. Assessments of a teacher’s personality by students are influenced by the personality traits of the assessors (Göncz et al., 2014). Desired teacher traits include moderate extraversion, openness to new experiences, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Students prefer teachers who demonstrate respect, understanding. openness to cooperation, and good lecturing skills (Sánchez et al., 2011).

4.Studies of correlation between student engagement and teacher personality. The amount of time students allocate to learning activities was the first definition of student engagement in its infant stage (Brophy, 1983; Fisher et al., 1980; McIntyre et al.,1983). Although student engagement has long been solely associated with students; involvement in educational processes, the new perspective on the term’s definition also includes cognitive and affective components. Astin (1984) referred to student engagement as «the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience», and highlighted that for an effort to be considered as engagement along with investing time, students must actively invest in intellectual capacities and their attention. In general, researchers (Kuh, 2003; Handelsman et al., 2005; Chapman, 2003) seem to concur on three major components in defining student engagement, which are cognitive, affective and behavioral efforts put by the students. Talking separately about each of these aspects, according to Chapman (2003) cognitive criteria indicates the focus devoted and the mental involvement when doing the tasks, second behavioral criteria indicates contributed responses to the offered tasks, third, affective criteria indicates the students’ investment level in the task and their emotional reactions to those tasks.

There are visible behavior patterns that assess student engagement possible. Franklin (2005) described some of these patterns as students’ «tendency to listen, respond to questions, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class.» Mentioned behavior models are likely to indicate student engagement in the classroom when monitoring. Not surprisingly, a high level of engagement is linked to high-quality learning outcomes (Krause & Coates, 2008).