The Associations between Classroom Climate and Teacher-Student Interpersonal Behavior in Primary...

8/7/2019 The Associations between Classroom Climate and Teacher-Student Interpersonal Behavior in Primary Science Ulfa R

1/10

The Associations between Classroom Climate and Teacher-Student

Interpersonal Behavior in Primary Science

Ulfa Rahmi

Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics

South East Asian Ministers of Education OrganizationPenang, Malaysia

Abstract

The study explicates students responseon teachers interpersonal behavior and its relation

with the classroom climate in primary science. The questionnaires, WIHIC (What Is

Happening In This Class) and QTI (Questionnaires on Teacher Interaction (QTI) were used

to describe students perspectives towards classroom climate and teachers interpersonal

behavior, respectively. The questionnaires were translated into Bahasa and distributed to the

students at SDN 47 Jambi, Indonesia (n=143) as a sample. Using SPSS programme, the data

were statistically analyzed and the results reveal that the questionnaires are valid and reliable

(Cronbach Alpha Reliability range from 0.51 to 0.93). Students perceive positively toward

their classroom climate (mean from 2.40 to 3.43) confirming that they already have a good

learning environment and Teacher-Student Interpersonal (mean from 1.39 to 3.20)

designating the teachers have a good behavior in leadership, helping/friendly, understanding,

good in admonishing and strictness, and seldom for being uncertain and dissatisfy. This study

also confirmed that classroom climate is influenced by students perceptions on teachers

interpersonal behavior.

Keyword: Classroom Climate, Teachers Interpersonal Behavior, WIHIC, QTI.

Introduction

In Indonesia, science education is regarded as an important subject of the academic

curricula. Hence, it is implemented at primary level from grade four up to grade six in order

to develop an onset of students cognitive skills. Most science educators believe that a good

relationship with their student is a substantial matter to be present in the classroom. With

good interpersonal behavior from the teachers, we are expected to create a comfortable

climate in the classroom, thus the learning process will be more effective. As mentioned by

Brophy and Good (1986), effective teaching will be reflected by a conceptualization and

measurement of teacher effectiveness such as personality, attitude, experience and aptitude.But are the teachers perception of their interpersonal behavior and classroom climate the

same as their students? Is there any correlation between teachers interpersonal behavior and

the classroom climate?

The aims of this study are to answer such question above, by assessing teachers

interpersonal behavior and classroom climate using a convenient questionnaire (WIHIC and

QTI). The article also mentions previous research in using both types of the questionnaire and

examines correlation between the teachers interpersonal behavior as assessed by the QTI;

and classroom climate as assessed by the WIHIC.

Study into the classroom learning environment which is based on the students

perception of their classroom climate had been done by Frasser (1994). Furthermore,

researchers from Netherlands have swept this field by focusing in particular on theinterpersonal relationships between teachers and learners as assessed by the QTI (Wubbels,


2/10

Creton, & Hooymayers, 1992; Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The rationale here is that students

perception on teachers interpersonal behavior in classroom will influence their learning

environment.

What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) questionnaires

WIHIC, What is Happening in the Classroom, is a questionnaire which is applied to

ascertain the students perception about their classroom environment (Frasser, Fisher &

McRobbie, 1996; Rawnsley & Fisher, 1997). Previous study by Wahyudi (2004) came across

the relationship between learner performance and the classroom climates, using Indonesian

WIHIC.

The WIHIC version used in this study is the latest developed instrument that comprise

of 35 statements which read learner perception in seven scales, and it was already translated

into Indonesian language. These scales read students perception by the amount of Student

Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation

and Equity.

Table 1 points all the WIHIC instrument, with a sample item for each scale. Theinstrument has been pointed to be satisfactorily reliable and valid. These data have been

declared elsewhere (Frasser et al., 1996; Rawnsley & Fisher, 1997).

Table 1Description with example items for each WIHIC scale

Scale Description Example Item

Student

Cohesiveness

Extent to which students helping and

supporting each other.

Members of the class are my

friends

Teacher Support Extent to which the teacher helps and

shows interest in students.

The teacher is interested in

my problems

Involvement Extents to which students participate in

discussions, carry out additional work,

and enjoy the class.

I ask the teacher questions

Investigation Emphasis on the skill and processes of

inquiry and their use in problem solving

and investigation.

I explain the meaning of

statement, diagram, and

graphs

Task

Orientation

Extent to which it is important to solve

activities planned and to stay on thesubject matter.

I pay attention during this

class

Cooperation Extent to which students cooperate rather

than compete with others on learning

tasks.

I work with other students on

projects in this class

Equity Extent to which students are treated

equally by the teacher.

My work receives as much

praise as other students work


3/10

Questionnaires on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

A key to escalate students performance and demeanor somehow is always connected

to the teachers interpersonal behavior. It is also always related to create such a good learning

environment. One distinctive development in classroom environment research originally

happened in the Netherlands by focusing particularly on the interaction between teachers andstudents as assessed by the QTI (Wubbles et al., 1992; Wubbels & Levy, 1993). Hereupon,

the Dutch Researchers (Wubbles et al, 1988) explored teacher behavior in a class by adapting

communication process theory, from a system perspective which developed by Watzlawick,

Beavin and Jackson (1967). With those system, the behavior of participants is assumed

influence each other mutually . In addition, using an adaptation of the work of Leary (1957),

Wubbles, Creton and Hooymayers (1985) developed a model to map interpersonal behavior.

Leary concluded that there are two main dimension of interpersonal behavior described,

namely influence dimension (Dominance-D and Submission-S) and proximity dimension

(Cooperation-C and Opposition-O). These dimensions are represented in coordinate system

divided into eight equal sector, as in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The model for teachers interpersonal behavior (Wubbels et al., 1993)

This model was developed in the early 1980s in Netherlands with the first version of

the Questionnaires on Teacher Interaction (QTI) had 77 item consisting of eight scales based

on the eight parts of the model (Wubbels, Creton, & Hooymayers, 1985).

Later, the QTI has shown to be a valid and reliable instrument when USA version of

the QTI was used in California. Furthermore, it is also used in Australia, containing 48 items

which were applied in research involving upper secondary science classes in eight scales. The

scales are Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility/Freedom,

Uncertain, Dissatisfaction, Admonishing and Strict (as shown in Table 2).


4/10

Table 2Description with example items for each QTI scale

Scale Description Example

Leadership Extent to which the teacher able to lead a

class and hold students attention.

This teacher is a good

leader.

Helping/Friendly Extent to which the teacher is friendly and

helpful towards students.

This teacher is friendly.

Understanding Extent to which the teacher understands and

cares the students.

This teacher realizes we

do not understand.

Students

Responsibility/

Freedom

Extent to which students are given

opportunities.

This teacher lets us fool

around in class.

Uncertain Extent to which the teacher indicates his/her

uncertainty.

This teacher is hesitant.

Dissatisfaction Extent to which the teacher dissatisfy with

students.

This teacher puts us

down.

Admonishing Extent to which the teacher shows anger in

classroom.

This teacher is too quick

to correct us when we

break a rule.

Strict Extent to which the teacher strict with and

demanding of students.

We have to be silent in

this teachers class.

In previous study conducted in Singapore primary level, students perception on the

teachers interpersonal behavior had a high score in Leadership, Helping/Friendly and

Understanding scale and had a lower score for being uncertain, dissatisfy, admonish and strict

(Goh & Fraser, 1998). With slight differences, similar condition happened in Brunei

Darussalam elementary school, by using the Australian version of the QTI, had confirmed

that the QTI was valid and reliable. The study also cited that students viewed their teachers as

mostly good in leading the students, a helpful teacher, understand their student and strict, but

seldom allowing student to be free in the classroom.

Research Question

The study is part of monitoring the learning climate in the classroom. The essential

questions to this paper are:

1. Are the Questionnaires on Teacher Interaction (QTI) and What Is Happening In ThisClass (WIHIC) questionnaires valid and reliable?

2. What are students perceptions toward teachers interpersonal behavior?3. What are students perceptions toward classroom climate?4. Are there any correlation between students perspectives on teachers interpersonal

behavior and their classroom climate?


5/10

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to identify and reflect students perspective on teachers

behavior and classroom climate and its correlation, hence it would be very convenient to use

the Indonesian version of Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) which derive from the

Australian 48-item version of QTI (Fisher, Henderson, & Fraser, 1995) and The What IsHappening In This Class (WIHIC) questionnaires (Fraser et al., 1996). The QTI scales

comprise 8 scales with 40 questions in it and the WIHIC scales comprise 7 scales with 35

questions.

A sample of 143 students in Grade 4,5 and 6 from primary school at SDN 47 Jambi,

Indonesia were surveyed. Those grades were chosen for this study because their age was a

critical factor where the teacher played a substantial role for them, also they have to face an

examination at the end of the primary level which the content start from grade 4 till grade 6.

Using SPSS programme, the questionnaires (QTI and WIHIC) are analyzed by using

Cronbach Alpha Reliability (Cronbach, 1951) to ascertain its reliability and validity. After the

questionnaire is confirmed as reliable and valid, then the students perspective of each

questionnaire was being measured by using the Average Item Mean and standard deviation.Next, to find out the correlation between teachers interpersonal and classroom climate, the

simple correlation and linear regression are used.

Finding and Discussion

Reliability and Validity of WIHIC and students view on classroom climate

Table 3 provides the statistics on the WIHIC for the present situation in the

classroom. It shows that the questionnaire is reasonably reliable and valid where the

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) ranged from 0.69 to 0.91 for each

scale of WIHIC. The students' perception on the classroom climate was obtained using scale

item mean. Using the four mean range value as following; poor (0.5-1.5), fair (1.5-2.5), good

(2.5-3.5) and excellent (3.5-4.0), the data were being interpreted. The result indicates that

students already experience a good learning environment which shows in the scale item mean

(range 2.40 to 3.43). In detail, the scores for each scale as follow; Student Cohesiveness

(mean = 3.43), Teacher Support (2.77), Involvement (mean = 2.66), Task orientation (mean =

3.38), Cooperation (mean = 2.76) and equity (mean = 2.99). The lowest score is for

Investigation scale (2.40). This indicates that the students experience investigation activity,

occasionally. With a small number of the standard deviation which is less than 0.73, there

was not large diversity in the students perception. Overall, the students already experienced

a good classroom climate.

Table 3. Cronbach alpha reliability () and Average Mean of WIHIC scales

Scale Mean SDStudent Cohesiveness 0.90 3.43 0.49

Teacher Support 0.74 2.77 0.68

Involvement 0.69 2.66 0.57

Investigation 0.80 2.40 0.73

Task Orientation 0.91 3.38 0.48

Cooperation 0.69 2.76 0.60

Equity 0.86 2.99 0.68


6/10

Reliability and Validity of QTI and students view on teachers interpersonal behavior

The reliability and validity of the QTI instrument was checked using Cronbach alpha

reliability coefficient and the students' perception on the teacher interpersonal behavior was

obtained using scale item mean. There are four range value to interpret the data from the item

mean, as following; poor (0.5-1.5), fair (1.5-2.5), good (2.5-3.5) and excellent (3.5-4.0). Allthe value is applied to the positive scale (Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, and

Student Responsibility/Freedom), while the negative scale (Uncertain, Dissatisfaction,

Admonishing, and Strict) is being conversed.

Table 4. Cronbach alpha reliability () and Average Mean of QTI scales

Scale Mean SDLeadership 0.73 3.20 0.54

Helping/Friendly 0.70 2.66 0.62

Understanding 0.66 3.19 0.55Students Responsibility/ Freedom 0.59 2.10 0.55

Uncertain 0.87 1.39 0.40

Dissatisfaction 0.93 1.45 0.53

Admonishing 0.78 1.66 0.50

Strict 0.51 2.48 0.54

As shown in table 4, the alpha ranged from 0.51 to 0.93 confirming that each QTI

scale has acceptable reliability. The scale item mean (range 1.39 to 3.20) showed that the

scale of Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, and Strict behavior were the most

strongly perceived while the less desirable scale is Uncertain, Dissatisfaction, andAdmonishing. The students view that the teacher is a good leader in the classroom (mean =

3.20), care to help (mean = 2.66) and understand the students (mean = 3.19). Moreover, the

students view that the teachers only have a fair/average freedom (2.10). On the other hand,

for a negative scale, Uncertain and Dissatisfaction scale have considerably low scores 1.39

and 1.45, respectively-meaning that the students view the teacher having an excellent

behavior for being certain and satisfied with the student whereas for the Admonishing (mean

= 1.66) and Strict (mean =2.48) scale, students view that the teacher is good in admonishment

and strictness. In addition, the values of standard deviation for all scales are less than 0.62,

indicates that there was a small diversity in the students perspectives. Overall, the students

perceive a very positive behavior from the science teacher.

The result of this study is consistent with the assertions yielded from the previousstudy (Goh & fraser, 1998; Scott, 2004) in which students viewed their teacher had a good

behavior in leadership, helping/friendly and understanding and less uncertain and dissatisfy.

Correlation ofTeachers interpersonal behavior toward classroom climate

The correlation of the QTI toward classroom climate was examined in two ways.

Firstly, simple correlation was calculated between each QTI and each WIHIC scale. (shown

in table 5). Secondly, using multiple regression analysis to assess the association more

accurately between each QTI and WIHIC scale. (as shown in table 6)


7/10

Table 5 Correlation teachers interpersonal behavior toward classroom climate using simple

correlation (r)

*p0.01**p0.005

Table 6Correlation teachers interpersonal behavior toward classroom climate using linear

regression analysis ()

*p0.01

**p0.005

To begin with, the table indicates that four simple correlations between the QTI scaleand students cohesiveness were significant ( 0.01). The students cohesiveness was

influenced if only the teacher has a decent behavior in leading the students, being

helping/friendly, show understanding, and being strict for them. However, analyzing the scale

by using standardized regression coefficient, which measures the association when the effect

of the other scale is held constant, there are only three scale that show a significant

correlation, namely Helping, Admonishing and Strict. It means, students will be experiencing

more cohesiveness if the teachers being helping/friendly, admonish and strict in the

classroom.

Secondly, it shows that most of the QTI scale has a significant correlation with

teacher support in the classroom. Base on the analysis, the student perceive positively on the

five scales as follow; Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, StudentResponsibility/Freedom, and Strict. The teacher support in the classroom is negatively

Scale

Simple correlation (r)

Students'

Cohesiveness

Teachers'

SupportInvolvement Investigation

Task

OrientationCooperation Equity

Leadership 0.37** 0.60** 0.50** 0.31** 0.49** 0.41** 0.59**

Helping/Friendly 0.49** 0.58** 0.53** 0.45** 0.47** 0.42** 0.54**

Understanding 0.51** 0.62** 0.59** 0.38** 0.48** 0.42** 0.59**

Students Responsibility/

Freedom

0.12 0.33** 0.39** 0.45** 0.17 0.37** 0.16

Uncertain -0.11 -0.08 -0.04 0.15 -0.09 0.08 -0.09

Dissatisfaction -0.21 -0.23* -0.14 0.02 -0.29** -0.04 -0.30**

Admonishing -0.21 -0.06 -0.09 -0.02 -0.22* 0.01 -0.26*

Strict 0.34** 0.22* 0.25* 0.1 0.22* 0.19 0.23*

Scale

Standardized Regression Coefficients ()Students'

Cohesiveness

Teachers'

SupportInvolvement Investigation

Task

OrientationCooperation Equity

Leadership -0.07 0.30* 0.14 0.02 0.2 0.24 0.28*

Helping/Friendly 0.36** 0.11 0.15 0.33* 0.22 0.18 0.17

Understanding 0.21 0.31* 0.35** 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.24Students Responsibility/

Freedom

-0.11 0.2 0.27** 0.33** -0.001 0.23* -0.07

Uncertain 0.01 -0.03 -0.09 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.09

Dissatisfaction 0.11 -0.04 0.12 0.15 -0.06 0.1 0.05

Admonishing -0.26* 0.1 -0.03 -0.03 -0.08 0.09 -0.18

Strict 0.31** 0.02 0.04 -0.08 0.15 0.02 0.14


8/10

associated with the dissatisfaction. Using the standardized regression coefficient, only two

scales show a significant contribution; Leadership and Understanding. This reflects, the

students view that support given by the teacher takes a place when the teacher provides a

better leadership and shows understanding.

Next, the correlation between QTI scale and the Involvement significantly appeared in

five scales by using the simple correlation. Having such a good behavior in the followingscale-Leadership, Helping/Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility and Strict-,

teacher might encourage the students involvement in the classroom. Furthermore, using the

standardized regression coefficient, the involvement was significantly encouraged by

teachers interpersonal behavior of understanding and student responsibility/freedom.

Then, it indicates that there are significant correlations between teachers

interpersonal behavior and investigation situation in the classroom. Using a simple

correlation analysis, it is found that teachers behavior on leadership, helping/friendly,

understanding students responsibility/freedom affected the students investigation in the

classroom. Meanwhile, analyzing with the standardized regression coefficient showed a

different result. Teachers interpersonal behaviors that could generate the students

investigation significantly are being helping/friendly and providing studentsresponsibility/freedom.

The table also shows that almost all of the QTI scales have significant correlations

with task orientation set by the teacher in the classroom climate. The correlation analysis

showed that the students perceive positively on the four scales in which Leadership,

Helping/Friendly, Understanding and Strict has affected the Task Orientation significantly.

Moreover, two scales, namely Dissatisfaction and Admonishing influenced negatively.

However, there are no significant correlation viewed using the standardized regression

coefficient.

The correlation between QTI scale and the Student Cooperation in the classroom is

only happened because of four scales. The result showed that the positive behaviors

specifically, leadership, being helping/friendly, showing understanding and giving student

responsibility/freedom from the teacher had generated the cooperation in the classroom. On

the other hand, analyzing by the more conservative correlation,-standardized regression

coefficient-, only student responsibility/freedom of teachers interpersonal behavior had

affected the learning and teaching situation significantly.

Finally, by referring to the simple correlation table, it indicates that the equity in the

classroom was correlated significantly. The equity was influenced when the teacher have a

good interpersonal behavior in leadership, helping/friendly, understanding, dissatisfaction,

admonishing and Strict. However, using the standardized regression coefficient, the result

showed that the equity only associated significantly when teachers show a leadership

behavior in the classroom environment.

Conclusion

This study has confirmed the reliability and validity of the QTI and WIHIC when

used in primary science classes. Overall, the students view that the teacher has a good

interpersonal behavior and also they have experienced a good classroom climate. The study

also confirmed that there are correlations between teachers interpersonal behavior and

classroom climate. The more positive student perception on teacher behavior, the better the

classroom climate is. Teachers interpersonal behaviors that always influence the classroom

climate are good leadership, willing to help/be friendly and have an understanding of the

students. Base on those findings, it is recommended for the teacher not only to maintain agood interpersonal behavior as previously achieved but also having to improve other


9/10

behaviors like giving student a responsibility and freedom in the classroom. In addition,

teachers have to diminish the negative behavior such as being uncertain, dissatisfied,

admonish, and strict.

In the future, it is recommended to do a further research for improving classroom

environments by matching students actual and preferred perception. Also, it is suggested to

do further investigation comparing the perception between teacher and student.

Reference

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.328-375). New York:

MacMillan.

Cronbach, D. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structured of test. Psychometrika, 16

(3), 297-334.

Fisher, D. L., Henderson, D. G., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Interpersonal behavior in senior high

school biology classes,Research in Science Education, 25(2), 125-133.

Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.),Handbook

of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.

Fraser, B. J., Fisher, d. L., &McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April).Development, validation and use

of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

New York, USA.

Goh S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environmentand student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments

Research, 1, 199-229.

Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald-Press

Company.

Rawnsley, D. G., & Fisher, D. L. (1997, January). Using personal and class forms of a

learning environment questionnaire in mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at

the International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,

Hanoi, Vietnam.

Scott, R. H., and Fisher, D. L. (2004). The impact of teachers interpersonal behavior on

examination result,Research in Science Education, 34, 173-194

Wahyudi. (2004).Educational practices and learning environments in rural and urban lower

secondary science classrooms in Kalimantan Selatan Indonesia. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication.

New York: Norton.

Wubbels, T., Creton, H. & Holvast, A. J. (1988). Undesirable classroom situation.

Interchange, 19 (2), 25-40

Wubbels, T., Creton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985, March-April). Discipline problems

of beginning teachers: Interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Paper presented at

Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.


10/10

Wubbels, T., Creton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1992). Review of research on teacher

communication styles with use of the Leary model.Journal of Classroom Interaction.

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal

relationships in education. London: Falmer.

The Associations between Classroom Climate and Teacher-Student Interpersonal Behavior in Primary...

Documents

Transcript of The Associations between Classroom Climate and Teacher-Student Interpersonal Behavior in Primary...