This article was downloaded by: [119.154.183.

69] On: 04 October 2011, At: 19:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of Education

Teacherstudent interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles and importance to student motivation

& Roel Bosker

Groningen Institute for Educational Sciences (GION), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
b

Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Available online: 21 Mar 2011

To cite this article: Ridwan Maulana, Marie-Christine Opdenakker, Perry den Brok & Roel Bosker (2011): Teacherstudent interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles and importance to student motivation, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31:01, 33-49 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.544061

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Asia Pacic Journal of Education Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2011, 3349

Teacher student interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: proles and importance to student motivation
Ridwan Maulanaa*, Marie-Christine Opdenakkera, Perry den Brokb and Roel Boskera
a Groningen Institute for Educational Sciences (GION), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; bEindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

(Received 9 February 2010; nal version received 1 September 2010) This study was designed to investigate the distribution of interpersonal proles based on students and teachers perceptions and to examine the associations between students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and learning motivation in Indonesia. Participants were 1900 secondary school students (grades 7 to 9) across 66 (Mathematics and EFL) classes from 11 public schools in Indonesia. The results show that a variety of interpersonal proles could be distinguished, that teachers perceive themselves more favourably than their students do, and that students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and their learning motivation are associated. Inuence and Proximity were found to be important determinants of student motivation; both dimensions are related to a more autonomous motivation, while Inuence is also associated with a more controlled motivation. Contrary to the existing knowledge base, this study reveals that the relationship between teacher interpersonal behaviour and student motivation is more strongly connected to Inuence than to Proximity. Keywords: interpersonal behaviour; student and teacher perceptions; secondary education; student motivation

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Rationale For the last three decades, scholars in the domain of learning environment research have shown a considerable interest in conceptualizing, measuring and examining perceptions of psychosocial characteristics of the learning environment in terms of teacher student interpersonal relationships (e.g., Fraser, 1998; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998). A number of studies have revealed the importance of teacher student relationships for student outcomes (e.g., den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 2000). Studies have shown that teacher student interpersonal relationships have effects on both teachers and students. Teachers experiencing healthy interpersonal relationships with their students are argued to experience better satisfaction with their job and with preventing of burnout (Ben-Chaim & Zoller, 2001). Similarly, students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour are strongly associated with their motivation and achievement in all subjects (den Brok et al., 2004). Hence, healthy teacher student interpersonal relationships set a prerequisite for students to engage in learning activities (Brekelmans, Sleegers, & Fraser, 2000).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

34

R. Maulana et al.

In Indonesia, research on teacher student interpersonal relationships is scarce. However, the small amount of studies mainly focusing on computer education in higher education indicates a similar importance of teacher student relationships (Margianti, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2001, 2002; Schibeci, Rideng, & Fraser, 1987; Soerjaningsih, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2002). The present study examines the extent to which interpersonal proles that were found in previous studies apply to Indonesian teachers of secondary education. The results of this study may be useful for teachers, teacher trainers and policy makers in Indonesia and neighbouring countries sharing similar cultural backgrounds, by providing empirical evidence of teacher behaviours that are common in the Indonesian (and SouthEast Asian) context. Moreover, this study may provide an additional knowledge base in terms of teacher student relationships from an Indonesian perspective. An interpersonal perspective on teacher behaviour Almost everyone has experienced different interpersonal teacher behaviour. Some teachers are distant and others sociable. Some are well-organized and others chaotic. Various kinds of interpersonal characteristics have served as the base for the conceptualization of teacher interpersonal behaviour (Wubbels, Creton, & Hooymayers, 1985). The development of research on teacher interpersonal behaviour has been closely in line with the Systems Approach to Communication (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967) and the Interpersonal Theory of Personality (Leary, 1957), which form the basis for the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behavior (MITB). In the MITB, teacher student interpersonal behaviour is mapped in a two-dimensional co-ordinate system. The dimensions are called Proximity (Cooperation Opposition, CO) and Inuence (Dominance Submission, DS). Proximity refers to the degree of teachers co-operative/friendly behaviour, while Inuence represents the degree of teachers control/dominance shown to students. Each quadrant of the co-ordinate structure represents two segments of behaviour. The sectors are variedly dened depending upon the degree of determined behaviours. For example, in the rst quadrant lies two different behaviours called Dominance Cooperation (DC) and Cooperation Dominance (CD). DC indicates actions that are characterized by high dominance and moderate cooperativeness, while CD represents actions with high co-operation and are fairly dominant. Subsequently, each quadrant of the model consists of two behavioural sectors, which are dened rstly from the most prevalent actions (high degree) followed by the second most prevalent actions (moderate degree) in the same dimension. The eight sectors of the MITB are: Leadership (DC), Helpful/Friendly (CD), Understanding (CS), Student Freedom (SC), Uncertain (SO), Dissatised (OS), Admonishing (OD) and Strict (DO). The graphic representation of the model can be seen in Figure 1. Having completed the formulation of the MITB, Wubbels and his colleagues pioneered the construction of an instrument to map teacher student interpersonal relationships. Using the MITB as the starting framework, they introduced a diagnostic instrument called the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). Prior research using the QTI Research using the QTI has contributed signicantly to our understanding of the complex interplay of teaching and student outcomes in classroom contexts. The instrument has been useful for mapping different teachers interpersonal styles that are transferable to different

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

35

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Figure 1. The Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior (MITB; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005).

cultural conditions. Many have found that various interpersonal styles are connected to student outcomes. Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour styles According to Brekelmans, Levy and Rodriguez (1993), a typology of teacher interpersonal behaviour can be categorized into eight types: Directive, Authoritative, Tolerant/Authoritative, Tolerant, Uncertain/Tolerant, Uncertain/Aggressive, Repressive and Drudging (see Figure 2). The Directive, Authoritative and Tolerant/Authoritative types all display about the same amount of Inuence; these three types are all characterized by fairly dominant behaviour. However, they differ in the amount of Proximity. The Directive teacher is the least co-operative, as indicated by the relatively low scores on the co-operation scales but a high score on strictness, while the Tolerant/Authoritative teacher is considered the most co-operative. The Tolerant teacher is about as co-operative as the Authoritative teacher, but differs from the Authoritative teacher in regard to the degree of dominance. The remaining types all show much lower levels of co-operation with varying degrees of dominance (see Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993, for a detailed review). Amongst all the types mentioned, the Directive, Authoritative, Tolerant and Tolerant/Authoritative are found to be representative of the most common teacher

36

R. Maulana et al.
Directive Authoritative Tolerant and Authoritative Tolerant

(1) Uncertain/Tolerant

(2) Uncertain/Aggressive Repressive

(3) Drudging

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Figure 2. Proles of teacher interpersonal behaviour (Brekelmans, 1989).

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

student interactions and of an activity-based learning environment, which correlates positively with students engagement and motivation in classrooms (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993). Although all eight types were found in Dutch and American classrooms with similar frequencies of occurrence, they were also found in other countries with different frequencies of occurrence. For example, the Authoritative, Tolerant/Authoritative and Directive styles tend to be the major prevailing styles of secondary teachers in countries like Australia, Singapore and Brunei (den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans, Rickards, et al., 2003). However, other studies show that earlier classications only partially apply to the Australian primary education because six distinct types, rather than eight, appeared and only three of them resembled previously found proles (e.g., Tolerant/Authoritative, Drudging and Repressive). Primary teachers in Australia might have different interpersonal styles compared to secondary teachers as they experience different classroom climates (Fisher, Waldrip, Dorman, & den Brok, 2007). In general, the typology of the eight proles is comparatively stable and applicable to other countries. Nonetheless, differences are expected as various proles can be found among teachers of different classes (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). In addition, teachers seem to switch interpersonal teaching styles over the period of their teaching careers (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & den Brok, 2002). Differences between students and teachers perceptions of interpersonal behaviour Most of the research on interpersonal behaviour concentrates on student perceptions. However, some researchers have incorporated teachers perceptions. A few studies are found in which researchers compare students and teachers perceptions with respect to the two dimensions of interpersonal behaviour. In general, these studies indicate that students perceptions of Inuence and Proximity are lower than teachers perceptions of their own behaviour (den Brok, 2001; Rickards & Fisher, 2000; van Oord & den Brok, 2004). On average, teachers report higher scores on their own leadership skills, helpful/friendly and understanding behaviour than do their students. In contrast, teachers rate themselves lower on their uncertain, dissatised and admonishing behaviour than do their students (e.g., den Brok, Levy, Rodriguez, & Wubbels, 2002; Fisher & Rickards, 1999; Rickards & Fisher, 2000). Other studies also indicate higher teacher than student perceptions of strict behaviour, whereas teachers report lower perceptions of their own student freedom behaviour (Fisher & Rickards, 1999; Rickards & Fisher, 2000).

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

37

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and their affective outcomes Previous studies have shown that students perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour are related to their affective outcomes. Brekelmans and Wubbels (1991) discovered an association between Proximity and student motivation. Den Brok (2001) found a strong correlation between Proximity and pleasure, relevance, condence and effort in English classrooms, while Inuence correlated less strongly with those outcomes. Likewise, van Amelsvoort (1999) found that elements of interpersonal behaviour like Helpful/Friendly and Understanding correlate positively with those outcomes. In addition, Brekelmans (1989) reported that Authoritative and Directive teachers tend to have the strongest effects on students attitude. Overall, the research shows that Proximity has a stronger effect on affective outcomes than Inuence (e.g., den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). Furthermore, den Brok, Levy, Brekelmans and Wubbels (2005) reported a strong effect between Proximity and students attitudinal outcomes. They also found a positive effect of Inuence on those outcomes, which is in line with previous studies (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004). Moreover, a study in Turkey showed a stronger effect of Proximity than Inuence on subject-related attitudes (Telli, den Brok, & Cakiroglu, 2007). Research in India showed that both Inuence and Proximity were positively associated with students attitudes (den Brok, Fisher, & Koul, 2005). A strong and positive effect of both dimensions on students enjoyment of Brunei primary Science classes was found (den Brok, Fisher, & Scott, 2005). A study in Canadian secondary schools supported the evidence of the positive effects of interpersonal behaviour on student motivation (Lapointe, Legault, & Batiste, 2005). Van Petegem, Aelterman, Rosseel, and Creemers (2008) found that the interpersonal behaviour of Belgian language teachers was a strong predictor of students well-being. Quek et al. (2007) also found positive relationships between interpersonal teacher behaviour and students attitudes toward subjects in Singapore. Finally, Henderson and Fisher (2008) discovered a positive relationship between several aspects of interpersonal behaviour and students attitudes in a study on Australian vocational education. General features of Indonesian culture Indonesian society is characterized by a very high power distance index, indicating a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society as well as high uncertainty avoidance index, illustrating a low level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, 1991). The combination of these two cause inequalities of power and wealth to grow within society, while strict rules, regulations, policies and controls have been implemented to minimize the amount of uncertainty. In contrast, Indonesia has a very low index regarding individualism, indicating that the society is, to a great extent, collectivist (Hofstede, 1991). In a collective society like Indonesia, interpersonal closeness, represented by the substantial contact among individuals in their daily lives, is highly valued (Hall, 1966). The classroom context, in particular, may also reect the unique features of Indonesian society because the classroom can be regarded a social unit within the society. Teacher student relationships can be described within the cultural context of Indonesian society, which are inuenced by pervasive cultural values, including those related to power distance such as paternalism and respect for older individuals, implicitly regulating interactions between the young and the old (Liem, Martin, Nair, Bernardo, & Prasetya, 2009; Liem, Nair, Bernardo, & Prasetya, 2008). Order and neatness are maintained by the elders and the younger generation is expected to follow the rules. This

38

R. Maulana et al.

conservative situation allows the gap to grow and forms a directing following interactional pattern between the two generations, which is reected in the school system as hierarchical and monotonous (Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). Considering the unique nature of Indonesian classroom learning environments as described above, we expect that these features will be mirrored in the proles of interpersonal teacher behaviour. There is no empirical evidence as to whether or not various teacher interpersonal styles, as were found in the Netherlands and the USA, exist in Indonesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted with two objectives. First, we aimed at investigating the extent to which proles found in earlier studies also apply to a sample of Indonesian secondary school teachers, by gathering perceptions from both students and teachers. Second, we assessed whether associations exist between the two dimensions of teacher student interpersonal relationships and student motivation to learn. Method Participants A total of 1900 students (grades 7 9) from 11 public schools in three provinces in Indonesia participated in this study. Data was collected from 55 teachers from 66 Mathematics and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes. The sample of students comprised 793 (42%) boys and 1101 (58%) girls; six (0.3%) students did not indicate their gender. Of these, 630 (33.2%) students were in grade 7; 825 (43.4%) students were in grade 8; and 445 (23.4%) students were in grade 9. The student ratio between Mathematics and English classes was 50:50. Class size in the schools varied from 12 to 39 students, with an average of 32 students. A total number of 24 (41%) male and 33 (59%) female teachers participated in the study. Teachers professional experiences ranged from one year to more than 30 years. Instrumentation All students responded to two sets of questionnaires, namely the Indonesian version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI; Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, in press; see Table 1) and the Questionnaire on Motivational Dimensions (QMD; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004), provided on a 5-point Likert scale. All students responded to the QTI (8 scales; 57 items) but only 1012 students responded to the QMD (4 scales; 16 items). All teachers responded to the QTI selfperception version.
Table 1. Typical items of the Indonesian QTI scales. Example of items Scale Leadership Helpful/friendly Understanding Student freedom Uncertain Dissatised Admonishing Strict Student version This teacher This teacher This teacher This teacher This teacher This teacher This teacher This teacher teaches enthusiastically is friendly trusts us gives us freedom in class is often uncertain thinks we cheat looks down on us is very discipline Teacher version I teach enthusiastically I am a friendly teacher I trust students I give students freedom in class I am often uncertain I think students cheat I look down on students I am very discipline

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

39

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

The quality of the student QTI was checked in a number of ways. First, reliability analyses were calculated. Next, class-level variance was computed by means of multilevel intra-class correlation coefcients (using Mplus; Muthen & Muthen, 1999). Cronbachs alpha for the various QTI scales ranged between 0.60 (Strict) and 0.78 (Understanding, Admonishing) at the student level and 0.81 (Strict) to 0.92 (Understanding) at the class level. The amount of variance in scale scores at the class level ranged from 0.19 (Understanding) to 0.27 (Uncertain). This indicates that the instrument was able to differentiate between classes and teachers. Exploratory factor analyses showed the existence of the two dimensions that represented Inuence and Proximity. Cronbachs alpha coefcients of teacher data ranged between 0.52 (Strict) and 0.80 (Understanding). The QMD was originally constructed for the Flemish context (Belgium) to assess the extent to which students engage in learning for four different reasons (see Table 2): external motivation (caused by external forces or pressures), introjected motivation (derived from internal forces like guilt or the intention to maintain ones self-esteem), identied motivation (indicating ones self-endorsed values) and intrinsic motivation (triggered by intrinsic pressures for the sake of enjoyment). The instrument was based on the academic self-regulation scale of Ryan and Connell (1989). The rst two scales refer to a more controlled regulation style, while the last two scales refer to a more autonomous regulation style. Prior to data collection, the instruments were adapted and developed for use in Indonesian secondary schools (Maulana et al., in press). The surveys were administered in the middle of the school year. Data analysis To obtain a sample (country) description of the interpersonal behaviour of Indonesian teachers as perceived by students, mean scores of scales and dimensions and standard deviations of the QTI were computed. The scale scores were transformed into proportion scores (e.g., a value between 0 and 1 representing the score out of the maximum possible on the scale). Missing cases (less than 3%) were excluded from the data. Next, these average scores were transformed into a graphical prole. The same procedure was also applied to the teacher data set. Then, students ratings on the QTI scales were aggregated to the class level prior to comparing it to the existing interpersonal behaviour-related proles (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993). To answer the second research question,

Table 2. Typical items, reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) and average correlation between scales of the QMD. Scale Extrinsic Introjected Identied Intrinsic
Note: p , .05.

Typical items I study this subject because my parents expect me to I study this subject because I would feel ashamed if I dont do so I study this subject because its personally important to me I study this subject because I enjoy doing it

Cronbachs a (n 1012) 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.76

Average correlations between scales 0.19 0.34 0.39 0.37

40

R. Maulana et al.

Pearson-correlational and multilevel analyses (using MLwiN; Rasbash, Woodhouse, Yang, & Goldstein, 1995) were conducted on the four motivational scales with QTI dimensions as predictors (only signicant ndings are reported). Results Proles of Indonesian teacher interpersonal behaviour The results show that students generally perceive more co-operative teacher behaviours (Leadership, Helpful/Friendly and Understanding) than hostility behaviours (Uncertain, Dissatised, Admonishing). However, the students also rated their teachers high on the Strict scale (Table 3). With respect to the two dimensions of teacher interpersonal behaviour (Figure 3), the results show that students perceived their teachers as moderately dominant (DS 0.50)1 and co-operative (CO 0.57). The results in Figure 3 generally represent a combination of the Directive and Authoritative teacher proles; relatively moderate scores on the cooperation scales and a rather high score in strictness generate this particular prole. Moreover, teachers perceptions of their interpersonal behaviour show a similar pattern compared to their students perceptions; teachers feel they have displayed more leading, helpful/friendly and understanding behaviours over oppositional ones (Figure 4). Their perceptions of strictness are also rather similar to what their students thought. Teachers perceived themselves as moderately dominant (DS 0.57) and very cooperative (CO 1.01). In general, both students and teachers rated the teachers higher on Proximity than on Inuence. However, the teachers ratings on positive behaviour were higher than their students ratings, but their ratings on negative behaviour were lower than their students. Teachers reported higher perceptions of their own leading, helpful/friendly and understanding behaviour than did their students, but they reported lower ratings of their own uncertain, dissatised and admonishing behaviour than did their students. The graphic in Figure 4 roughly represents the prole of a Tolerant/Authoritative teacher. This prole results from relatively high scores on the co-operation scales, while the scores on the Inuence dimension are about similar with Directive and Authoritative proles.
Table 3. Relibalities (Cronbachs alpha), intra-class correlations (ICC), mean scores and standard deviations (SD) of the Indonesian QTI. Cronbachs a Scale Leadership Helpful/friendly Understanding Student Freedom Uncertain Dissatised Admonishing Strict Inuence Proximity Student (N 1900) 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.61 0.64 0.71 0.78 0.60 Class (N 66) 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.90 0.81 Teacher (N 55) 0.78 0.67 0.80 0.54 0.66 0.56 0.60 0.52 ICC 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.20 Student data (N 1900) Mean 0.71 0.63 0.66 0.37 0.32 0.39 0.36 0.55 0.50 0.57 SD 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.31 0.57 Teacher data (N 55) Mean 0.78 0.73 0.84 0.42 0.24 0.38 0.27 0.57 0.57 1.01 SD 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.24 0.41

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

41

Figure 3. Graphical prole of average students perceptions of teacher interpersonal styles and dimension scores of Indonesian teachers.

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Influence Dimension scores 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Influence Proximity

Proximity

Figure 4. Graphical prole of average teachers perceptions of their interpersonal styles and dimension scores.

Table 4. Frequency of occurrences of interpersonal proles. Prole Directive Authoritative Tolerant/Authoritative Tolerant Uncertain/Tolerant Uncertain/Aggressive Repressive Drudging Class (%) (n 67) 29.8 24 15.7 2.3 1.6 2.6 10.7 12.6 Teacher (%) (n 57) 17.9 35.7 39.3 7.1

All eight interpersonal proles were found in the student data (Table 4). Distribution of the proles in class perceptions are as follows: 30% Directive classes, 24% Authoritative classes, 16% Tolerant/Authoritative classes, 13% Drudging classes, 11% Repressive classes, and about 2% Tolerant, Uncertain/Tolerant and Uncertain/Aggressive classes. In general, students attributed positive proles to their teachers (Directive, Authoritative and Tolerant/Authoritative), with Directive as the most common prole. These three proles are known for their positive effects on students affective (and cognitive) outcomes. However, two less positive proles (Repressive and Drudging) were also rated relatively high.

42

R. Maulana et al.

Table 5. Correlations between the two dimensions of interpersonal behaviour and student motivational scales (n 1012). Motivational scales Dimension Inuence Proximity
*p , .05; **p , .01.

External 0.08*

Introjected 0.19** 0.09*

Identied 0.31** 0.24**

Intrinsic 0.26** 0.27**

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

On the other hand, only four proles were found based on the teacher data. The Tolerant/Authoritative prole was rated most frequently (40%), followed by the Authoritative prole (36%), the Directive prole (18%) and the Drudging prole (7.1%). In general, teachers tended to rate themselves more positively into proles that are most favourable to the promotion of student learning (Tolerant/Authoritative, Authoritative and Directive). Particularly, most teachers perceived themselves to have an ideal prole (Tolerant/Authoritative). This prole has proven to have the most positive effect on student outcomes. Surprisingly, some teachers indicate that they have a Drudging prole. Out of the existing proles, this prole is argued to have a negative impact on student outcomes.

Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and learning motivation Students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour are associated with their learning motivation (Table 5). Proximity is positively associated with introjected motivation (r 0.09, p , .05), identied motivation (r 0.24, p , .05) and intrinsic motivation (r 0.27, p , .05). Moreover, Inuence is related positively to all motivational scales, with identied and intrinsic motivation having the highest correlation with this dimension (r 0.31 and 0.26, p , .05 respectively). In general, Inuence is more closely correlated with motivational scales than Proximity. Outcomes of the multilevel analyses revealed a similar pattern, in which Inuence is signicantly associated ( p , .01) with all motivational scales except external motivation, while Proximity is only signicantly ( p , .01) related to the identied and intrinsic motivation scales (Table 6). Supplementary analyses revealed that differences between classes as well as between students within classes regarding learning motivation (Table 7). Both dimensions are not signicant in predicting differences between students in external motivation. For introjected motivation, an intra-class correlation of r 0.05 was found, which means that 5% of the variance in introjected motivation is bound to the class level. Inuence is a signicant predictor ( p , .05) of student introjected motivation and could explain 2% of the variance in introjected motivation between students and about 22% of the variance between classes. Furthermore, an intra-class correlation of r 0.11 was found for identied motivation, which means that 11% of the variance in identied motivation is between classes. Both the Inuence and Proximity dimensions signicantly predict identied motivation ( p , .01) and could explain 13% of the variance in identied motivation between students and about 37% of the variance between classes. Similarly, both Inuence and Proximity signicantly predict intrinsic motivation and explains 11% of the variance in intrinsic motivation between students and about 42% of the variance between classes (about 8% variance in intrinsic motivation is at the class level).

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Table 6. Results of multilevel analysis to explain variation in student motivation; parameter estimates (n 469). External motivation Model 1 3.10 (.07) 0.19 (.12) 0.039 (.02) 0.402 (.03) 925.049 2.511 (df 1) Introjected motivation Model 0 3.64 (.05) 0.018 (.01) 0.425 (.03) 941.943 11.817 (df 1)** 3.49 (.06) 0.42 (.12)* Model 1 Model 2 3.58 (0.06) 0.13 (.07) 0.022 (.01) 0.431 (.03) 950.134 3.626 (df 1) Model 3 3.47 (.07) 0.38 (.13) 0.06 (.07) 0.018 (.01) 0.424 (.02) 941.269 12.491 (df 2)** 0.039 (.02) 0.404 (.03) 926.996 0.564 (df 1) 3.15 (.05) 0.05 (.07) Model 2 Model 3 3.10 (.08) 0.18 (.12) 0.02 (.07) 0.039 (.02) 0.402 (.03) 924.994 2.566 (df 2)

Model 0 3.17 (.06)

Fixed effects Constant Inuence Proximity Random effects Class level Student level Deviance Decrease in deviance

0.039 (.02) 0.405 (.03) 927.560

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

Fixed effects Constant Inuence Proximity Random effects Class level Student level Deviance Decrease in deviance

0.023 (.01) 0.434 (.03) 953.760

(Continued.)

43

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Table 6. (Continued)
Identied motivation Model 0 4.17 (.06) 0.028 (.01) 0.284 (.01) 761.195 43.921 (df 1)** Intrinsic motivation Model 0 3.96 (.05) 0.025 (.01) 0.343 (.02) 846.769 29.205 (df 1)** 3.73 (.06) 0.59 (.11)** Model 1 Model 2 3.80 (.05) 0.33 (.06)** 0.019 (.01) 0.346 (.02) 848.021 27.953 (df 1)** Model 3 3.67 (.06) 0.45 (.11)** 0.24 (.06)** 0.018 (.01) 0.335 (.02) 832.267 43.707 (df 2)** 0.029 (.01) 0.294 (.02) 778.492 26.624 (df 1)** 3.92 (.06) 0.67 (.09)** 4.02 (.06) 0.30 (.06)** Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 3.87 (.06) 0.56 (.10)** 0.19 (.06)** 0.024 (.01) 0.278 (.02) 750.361 54.755 (df 2)**

44 R. Maulana et al.

Fixed effects Constant Inuence Proximity Random effects Class level Student level Deviance Decrease in deviance

0.038 (.02) 0.310 (.02) 805.116

Fixed effects Constant Inuence Proximity Random effects Class level Student level Deviance Decrease in deviance

0.031 (.02) 0.364 (.02) 875.974

*p , .05; **p , .01.

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

45

Table 7. Distribution of the total variance over the class, student and occasion level of the QMD (percentages). External Class level Student level 9% 91% Introjected 5% 95% Identied 11% 89% Intrinsic 8% 92%

Discussion This study examined the proles of interpersonal teacher behaviour based upon student and teacher perceptions and investigated the associations between student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and student motivation. Generally, students reported higher ratings in terms of positive interpersonal behaviours than negative ones. This suggests that Indonesian teachers are perceived to be more co-operative than hostile, which is in accordance with most ndings in other countries in that students tend to perceive higher levels of co-operative than dominant teacher behaviour (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The students rating of teacher strictness was quite high, indicating that despite the co-operative behaviour, Indonesian teachers still seem to maintain dominant behaviour. The high rating of teacher strictness was also found in the Turkish sample (Telli et al., 2007). Perhaps the rather large class size in both countries plays a role in this. Nevertheless, ndings in other countries generally show lower ratings on this scale (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & den Brok, 2002; den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Rickards, 2006). Furthermore, students reported that both co-operation and dominance were displayed by Indonesian teachers to a moderate degree. Most students agreed that their teachers were directive or authoritative. This nding might relate to culture and teaching method perspectives in Indonesian secondary classrooms. The teaching profession is commonly considered a highly respected occupation in Indonesia. Hence, teachers enjoy high status and respect from students and other members of society. Teachers mostly maintain a distance, physically and psychologically, with their students, implicitly showing that they are in charge of the learning process. Conicts between teachers and students occur frequently due to unequal power relations between them, but in the end teachers tend to gain control over students, which indicates the existence of a high power distance (Hofstede, 1991) and a directing following interaction pattern in Indonesian classrooms. Concerning teaching methods, it is common that many secondary Mathematics and EFL teachers practise traditional (teacher-centred) lecturing instead of implementing other, more interactive methods (Kaluge, Setiasih, & Tjahyono, 2004). Class or group discussions are hardly present and interaction between teachers and individual students is often missing (Zulkardi & Nieveen, 2001) because teachers are used to teaching the whole class in a frontal way with a great emphasis on the transmission of knowledge (Utomo, 2005). However, classroom observations need to be conducted to validate these ndings. The degree of co-operation displayed by Indonesian teachers, as perceived by their students, was rather low in comparison to that of teachers in some other countries (e.g., Australia, Singapore and Turkey). However, the degree of Indonesian teacher dominance is comparable with that of their Turkish colleagues (Telli et al., 2007), indicating the presence of a high power distance in the two cultures (Hofstede, 1991). Teachers perceptions of their interpersonal behaviour indicated a similar pattern with their students perceptions, that is, higher ratings on positive behaviour than negative

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

46

R. Maulana et al.

behaviour. This nding is in accordance with previous studies (Fisher & Rickards, 1999; Rickards & Fisher, 2000). However, teachers ratings on Proximity were twice as high as students ratings. Teachers generally reported that they had a Tolerant/Authoritative prole. This prole is characterized by a relatively high degree of co-operation and is somewhat dominant. In brief, results from students and teachers perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour showed a relatively similar story regarding Inuence, but quite a different one regarding Proximity. It seems that many secondary teachers in Indonesia have a more positive opinion about teacher student relationships than their students do, which may indicate a miscommunication between the two groups. Interestingly, it is still uncommon for Indonesian teachers to receive personal feedback from students due to the distance between them. Quite often, feedback from students is regarded as a threat by teachers. The fact that teachers have a more favourable view of the learning environment is in agreement with previous studies conducted in other countries (den Brok, Levy, Rodriguez, & Wubbels, 2002; Fisher & Rickards, 1999; Harkin & Turner, 1997; Rickards & Fisher; 2000; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). Moreover, all eight interpersonal features were found, with the Directive prole being most often assigned by students. Surprisingly, only four proles were found for teachers perceptions, with the Tolerant/Authoritative prole being most common. Previous studies generally were able to distinguish seven or eight proles (den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Rickards, 2006; Rickards, den Brok, & Fisher, 2005), although the four proles mentioned seem to appear more frequently than the other ones in almost all studies (den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans, Rickards, et al., 2003; Telli et al., 2007). Relatively high ratings on Drudging and Repressive proles for both student and teacher perceptions indicate problematic teacher student relationships in some Indonesian classrooms. In this study, relatively moderate correlations between Inuence and Proximity and motivational scales were found. Multilevel analyses revealed that the highest correlations were found for the more autonomous regulation scales. Inuence tends to predict student motivation more than Proximity (particularly the more controlled and less autonomous motivation). This nding is contrary to previous studies indicating that the effect of Proximity on affective outcomes was stronger than that of Inuence (Brekelmans & Wubbels, 1991; Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). This conicting nding might relate to cultural issues, that is, differences between Western and non-Western classroom environments. There is an indication that the more teachers exhibit dominance and co-operation, the more students are motivated to engage in learning. In addition, the results seem to suggest that the effects of the two dimensions on identied motivation are more pronounced than on the other types of motivation. The results of this study may help to boost teacher professional development in Indonesia. Both inexperienced and experienced teachers can make use of this study and the QTI as a personal feedback instrument to optimize the quality of teacher student relationships. When teachers can see which prole ts them best, they can reect on their good and bad points, providing them with a way to learn to improve their teaching skills. This research might also be useful for school leaders, policy makers, educational assessors and other stakeholders, since students perceptions of their teachers interpersonal behaviour is related to their affective (and cognitive) outcomes. Scientically, this study adds to the knowledge base on the importance of interpersonal teacher behaviour in relation to student motivation, conrming previous ndings from related studies, including cultures that share similar characteristics as Indonesia. Furthermore, this study has revealed that there are differences between student and teacher perceptions of

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

47

interpersonal behaviour. Further research is needed to investigate the causes of these differences by utilizing qualitative and more advanced statistical methods.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on the previous manuscript. This study was conducted as part of the PhD study of the rst author while the second author was supported with a grant from a Rosalind Franklin Fellowship (University of Groningen).

Note
1. Dimension scores range between 23 and 3. A score of 0 represents equal amounts of dominance and submissiveness, co-operation and opposition respectively. The ranges of scores are: 0 0.5 (moderately positive), 0.5 1.00 ( positive) and above 1 (very positive) (den Brok, et al., 2004.

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

References
Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2001). Self-perceptions versus students perceptions of teacher interpersonal style in college science and mathematics courses. Research in Science Education, 31, 437 454. Brekelmans, M. (1989). Interpersonal teacher behavior in the classroom. Utrecht: W.C.C. Brekelmans, M., Levy, J., & Rodriguez, R. (1993). A typology of teacher communication style. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? (pp. 46 55). London: Falmer Press. Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., & Fraser, B.J. (2000). Teaching for active learning. In P.R.J. Simons, J.L. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 227 242). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (1991). Student and teacher perceptions of interpersonal teacher behavior: A Dutch perspective. The Study of Learning Environments, 5, 19 30. Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & den Brok, P. (2002). Teacher experience and the teacher student relationship in the classroom environment. In S.C. Goh & M.S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective (pp. 73 100). Singapore: World Scientic. Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Student performance, attitudes, instructional strategies and teacher-communication style. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? (pp. 56 63). London: Falmer Press. Central Intelligence Agency. (2007). The world fact book: Indonesia. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/id.html Den Brok, P.J. (2001). Teaching and student outcomes: A study on teachers thoughts and actions from an interpersonal and a learning activities perspective. Utrecht: W.C.C. Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behavior and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407 442. Den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Brekelmans, M., Rickards, T., Wubbels, T., Levy, J., & Waldrip, B. (2003). Students perceptions of secondary teachers interpersonal style in six countries: A study on the validity of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Rickards, T. (2006). Secondary teachers interpersonal behavior in Singapore, Brunei and Australia: A cross-national comparison. Asia Pacic Journal of Education, 26, 79 95. Den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Koul, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal behavior for secondary science students attitudes in Kashmir. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40, 5 19. Den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Scott, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal behavior for student attitudes in Brunei primary science class. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 765 779.

48

R. Maulana et al.

Den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2005). The effect of teacher interpersonal behavior on students subject-specic motivation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 20 33. Den Brok, P., Levy, J., Rodriguez, R., & Wubbels, T. (2002). Perception of Asian-American and Hispanic-American teachers and their students on interpersonal communication style. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 447 467. Fisher, D.L., & Rickards, T. (1999). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior as perceived by science teachers and their students. Paper presented at the second international conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Taipei. Fisher, D., Waldrip, B., Dorman, J., & den Brok, P. (2007, April). Interpersonal behavior styles of science teachers in primary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7 33. Fraser, B.J., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Harkin, J., & Turner, G. (1997). Patterns of communication styles of teachers in English 16 19. Education Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2, 263 281. Henderson, D.G., & Fisher, D.L. (2008). Interpersonal behavior and student outcomes in vocational education classes. Learning Environment Research, 11, 19 29. Henderson, D., Fisher, D.L., & Fraser, B.J. (2000). Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learning environments, and student outcomes in senior biology classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 26 43. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its important for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kaluge, L., Setiasih, & Tjahjono, H. (2004). The quality improvement of primary children learning through a school-based program in Indonesia (Unpublished research paper). Universitas Surabaya, East Java. Lapointe, J.M., Legault, F., & Batiste, S.J. (2005). Teacher interpersonal behavior and adolescents motivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 39 54. Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press. Liem, G.A.D., Martin, A.J., Nair, E., Bernardo, A.B.I., & Prasetya, P.H. (2009). Cultural factors relevant to secondary school students in Australia, Singapore, Philippines and Indonesia: Relative differences and congruencies. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 19(2), 161 178. Liem, A.D., Nair, E., Bernardo, A.B.I., & Prasetya, P.H. (2008). The inuence of culture on students classroom social interactions: Implications for best teaching and learning practice in multicultural and international education. In D.M. McInerney & A.D. Liem (Eds.), Teaching and learning: International best practice (pp. 377 404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.-C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (in press). Teacher-student interpersonal relationships in Indonesian lower secondary education: Teacher and student perceptions. Learning Environment Research. Margianti, E.S., Fraser, B.J., & Aldridge, J.M. (2001, December). Investigating the learning environment and students outcomes in university computing courses in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Australia. Margianti, E.S., Fraser, B.J., & Aldridge, J.M. (2002, April). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement: Assessing the perceptions of Indonesian university students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (1999). Mplus users guide: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen. Quek, C.L., Wong, A.F.L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W.C., Peer, J., & Williams, M.D. (2007). Secondary school students perceptions of teacher-student interaction and students attitude toward project work. Learning Environment Research, 10, 177187.

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011

Asia Pacic Journal of Education

49

Rasbash, J., Woodhouse, G., Yang, M., & Goldstein, H. (1995). MLn: Software for multilevel analysis, command reference. London: Institute of Education. Rickards, T., den Brok, P., & Fisher, D. (2005). The Australian science teacher: A typology of teacher-student interpersonal behavior in Australian science classes. Learning Environments Research, 8, 267 287. Rickards, T., & Fisher, D.L. (2000, April). Three perspectives on perceptions of teacher-student interaction: A seed for change in science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana. Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749761. Schibeci, R.A., Rideng, I.M., & Fraser, B.J. (1987). Effects of classroom environment on science attitudes: A cross-cultural replication in Indonesia. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 169 186. Soerjaningsih, W., Fraser, B.J., & Aldridge, J.M. (2002, April). Instructor-student interpersonal behavior and student outcomes at the university level in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior in secondary science classes in Turkey. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42, 31 40. Utomo, E. (2005). Challenges of curriculum reform in the context of decentralization: The response of teachers to competency based curriculum (CBC) and its implementation in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246 260. Van Amelsvoort, J. (1999). Perspective on instruction, motivation and self-regulation [in Dutch]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Van Oord, L., & den Brok, P. (2004). The international teacher: Students and teachers perceptions of preferred teacher-student interpersonal behavior in two United World Colleges. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(2), 131 155. Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Rosseel, Y., & Creemers, B. (2008). Student perception as moderator for student wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 83, 447 463. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (1998). The teacher factor in the social climate of the classroom. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 565 580). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6 24. Wubbels, T., Creton, H.A., & Hooymayers, H.P. (1985, March April). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED260040). Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? London: Falmer Press. Zulkardi, & Nieveen, N. (2001, August). CASCADE-IMEI: Web site support for student teachers learning Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) in Indonesia. Paper presented at the ICTMT5 conference, Klagenfurt.

Downloaded by [119.154.183.69] at 19:04 04 October 2011