02188791%2e2011%2e544061

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [119.154.183.69]On: 04 October 2011, At: 19:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Teacherstudent interpersonal

relationships in Indonesia: profiles and

importance to student motivationRidwan Maulana

a, Marie-Christine Opdenakker

a, Perry den Brok

b & Roel Bosker aa

Groningen Institute for Educational Sciences (GION), University

of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlandsb

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. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.544061http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

2/18

Teacher student interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles and

importance to student motivation

Ridwan Maulanaa*, Marie-Christine Opdenakkera, Perry den Brokb and Roel Boskera

aGroningen 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; final version received 1 September 2010)

This study was designed to investigate the distribution of interpersonal profiles basedon students and teachers perceptions and to examine the associations between

students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and learning motivation inIndonesia. Participants were 1900 secondary school students (grades 7 to 9) across 66(Mathematics and EFL) classes from 11 public schools in Indonesia. The results showthat a variety of interpersonal profiles could be distinguished, that teachers perceivethemselves more favourably than their students do, and that students perceptions ofteacher interpersonal behaviour and their learning motivation are associated. Influenceand Proximity were found to be important determinants of student motivation; bothdimensions are related to a more autonomous motivation, while Influence is alsoassociated with a more controlled motivation. Contrary to the existing knowledge base,this study reveals that the relationship between teacher interpersonal behaviour andstudent motivation is more strongly connected to Influence than to Proximity.

Keywords: interpersonal behaviour; student and teacher perceptions; secondary

education; student motivation

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 teacherstudent 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).

ISSN 0218-8791 print/ISSN 1742-6855 online

q 2011 National Institute of Education, Singapore

DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2011.544061

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Journal of Education

Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2011, 3349

y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

3/18

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 profilesthat 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 South-

East Asian) context. Moreover, this study may provide an additional knowledge base in

terms of teacherstudent 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 (CooperationOpposition, CO)

and Influence (DominanceSubmission, DS). Proximity refers to the degree of teachers

co-operative/friendly behaviour, while Influence represents the degree of teacherscontrol/dominance shown to students. Each quadrant of the co-ordinate structure

represents two segments of behaviour. The sectors are variedly defined depending upon

the degree of determined behaviours. For example, in the first quadrant lies two different

behaviours called Dominance Cooperation (DC) and Cooperation Dominance (CD).

DC indicates actions that are characterized by high dominance and moderate co-

operativeness, 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 defined firstly 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), Dissatisfied (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 significantly 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

34 R. Maulana et al.

y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

4/18

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/Author-itative, 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 Influence; 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

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

Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35

y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

5/18

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, Toleran-

t/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 classifications only

partially apply to the Australian primary education because six distinct types, rather than

eight, appeared and only three of them resembled previously found profiles (e.g.,

Tolerant/Authoritative, Drudging and Repressive). Primary teachers in Australia mighthave 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 profiles is comparatively stable and applicable to other countries.

Nonetheless, differences are expected as various profiles 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 Influence 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, dissatisfied 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).

Directive

(1) (2) (3) (4)

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Authoritative Tolerant and Authoritative

Uncertain/Tolerant Uncertain/Aggressive Repressive Drudging

Tolerant

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


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

6/18

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, confidence and effort in Englishclassrooms, while Influence 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 Influence (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 Influence 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 Influence on subject-related attitudes (Telli, den Brok, & Cakiroglu, 2007).

Research in India showed that both Influence 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 inSingapore. 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 togrow 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 reflect the unique

features of Indonesian society because the classroom can be regarded a social unit within

the society. Teacherstudent relationships can be described within the cultural context of

Indonesian society, which are influenced 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


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

7/18

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

8/18

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 coefficients (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 classlevel. 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 Influence and Proximity. Cronbachs

alpha coefficients 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),

identified 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 first 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 Indonesianteachers 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 profile. 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

profiles (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993). To answer the second research question,

Table 2. Typical items, reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) and average correlation between scales ofthe QMD.

Scale Typical itemsCronbachsa (n 1012)

Average correlationsbetween scales

Extrinsic I study this subject because myparents expect me to

0.65 0.19

Introjected I study this subject because I wouldfeel ashamed if I dont do so

0.63 0.34

Identified I study this subject because itspersonally important to me

0.72 0.39

Intrinsic I study this subject becauseI enjoy doing it

0.76 0.37

Note: p , .05.


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

9/18

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 significant findings are reported).

Results

Profiles 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,

Dissatisfied, 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 profiles; relatively moderate scores on the co-

operation scales and a rather high score in strictness generate this particular profile.

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 co-

operative (CO 1.01). In general, both students and teachers rated the teachers higher on

Proximity than on Influence. 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 oftheir own uncertain, dissatisfied and admonishing behaviour than did their students.

The graphic in Figure 4 roughly represents the profile of a Tolerant/Authoritative

teacher. This profile results from relatively high scores on the co-operation scales, while

the scores on the Influence dimension are about similar with Directive and Authoritative

profiles.

Table 3. Relibalities (Cronbachs alpha), intra-class correlations (ICC), mean scores and standarddeviations (SD) of the Indonesian QTI.

Cronbachs aStudent data(N 1900)

Teacher data(N 55)

ScaleStudent

(N 1900)Class

(N 66)Teacher

(N 55) ICC Mean SD Mean SD

Leadership 0.75 0.90 0.78 0.20 0.71 0.15 0.78 0.13Helpful/friendly 0.76 0.91 0.67 0.22 0.63 0.17 0.73 0.12Understanding 0.78 0.92 0.80 0.19 0.66 0.16 0.84 0.11Student Freedom 0.61 0.83 0.54 0.26 0.37 0.16 0.42 0.13Uncertain 0.64 0.85 0.66 0.27 0.32 0.14 0.24 0.11Dissatisfied 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.23 0.39 0.15 0.38 0.13Admonishing 0.78 0.90 0.60 0.24 0.36 0.18 0.27 0.12

Strict 0.60 0.81 0.52 0.20 0.55 0.14 0.57 0.10Influence 0.50 0.31 0.57 0.24Proximity 0.57 0.57 1.01 0.41


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

10/18

All eight interpersonal profiles were found in the student data (Table 4). Distribution of

the profiles 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 profiles to their teachers (Directive, Authoritative

and Tolerant/Authoritative), with Directive as the most common profile. These three

profiles are known for their positive effects on students affective (and cognitive)

outcomes. However, two less positive profiles (Repressive and Drudging) were also rated

relatively high.

Influence

Influence

Proximity

Proximity

0

0.2

0.40.6

0.8

1

Dimension scores

Figure 3. Graphical profile of average students perceptions of teacher interpersonal styles anddimension scores of Indonesian teachers.

Influence

Influence

Proximity

Proximity0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Dimension scores

Figure 4. Graphical profile of average teachers perceptions of their interpersonal styles anddimension scores.

Table 4. Frequency of occurrences of interpersonal profiles.

Profile Class (%) (n 67) Teacher (%) (n 57)

Directive 29.8 17.9Authoritative 24 35.7Tolerant/Authoritative 15.7 39.3Tolerant 2.3 Uncertain/Tolerant 1.6 Uncertain/Aggressive 2.6

Repressive 10.7 Drudging 12.6 7.1


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

11/18

On the other hand, only four profiles were found based on the teacher data. The

Tolerant/Authoritative profile was rated most frequently (40%), followed by the

Authoritative profile (36%), the Directive profile (18%) and the Drudging profile (7.1%).

In general, teachers tended to rate themselves more positively into profiles that are most

favourable to the promotion of student learning (Tolerant/Authoritative, Authoritative and

Directive). Particularly, most teachers perceived themselves to have an ideal profile(Tolerant/Authoritative). This profile has proven to have the most positive effect on

student outcomes. Surprisingly, some teachers indicate that they have a Drudging profile.

Out of the existing profiles, this profile 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), identified motivation (r 0.24, p , .05) and intrinsic motivation(r 0.27, p , .05). Moreover, Influence is related positively to all motivational scales,

with identified and intrinsic motivation having the highest correlation with this dimension

(r 0.31 and 0.26, p , .05 respectively). In general, Influence is more closely correlated

with motivational scales than Proximity.

Outcomes of the multilevel analyses revealed a similar pattern, in which Influence is

significantly associated (p , .01) with all motivational scales except external motivation,

while Proximity is only significantly (p , .01) related to the identified 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 significant in predicting differences between students in externalmotivation. For introjected motivation, an intra-class correlation ofr 0.05 was found,

which means that 5% of the variance in introjected motivation is bound to the class level.

Influence is a significant 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 identified

motivation, which means that 11% of the variance in identified motivation is between

classes. Both the Influence and Proximity dimensions significantly predict identified

motivation (p , .01) and could explain 13% of the variance in identified motivation

between students and about 37% of the variance between classes. Similarly, both Influence

and Proximity significantly 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).

Table 5. Correlations between the two dimensions of interpersonal behaviour and studentmotivational scales (n 1012).

Motivational scales

Dimension External Introjected Identified IntrinsicInfluence 0.08* 0.19** 0.31** 0.26**Proximity 0.09* 0.24** 0.27**

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


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

12/18

Table6.

Resultsofmultilevelanalysisto

explainvariationinstudentmotiv

ation;parameterestimates(n469).

Externalmotivation

Model0

Model1

Model2

Model3

Fixedeff

ects

Consta

nt

3.1

7(.06)

3.1

0(.07)

3

.15(.05)

3.1

0(.08)

Influen

ce

0.1

9(.12)

0.1

8(.12)

Proxim

ity

0

.05(.07)

0.0

2(.07)

Random

effects

Classlevel

0.0

39(.02)

0.0

39(.02)

0

.039(.02)

0.0

39(.02)

Studen

tlevel

0.4

05(.03)

0.4

02(.03)

0

.404(.03)

0.4

02(.03)

Devian

ce

92

7.5

60

925.0

49

926

.996

92

4.9

94

Decrea

seindeviance

2.5

11

(df

1)

0.56

4(df

1)

2.56

6(df

2)

Introjectedmotivation

Model0

M

odel1

Model2

Model3

Fixedeff

ects

Consta

nt

3.6

4(.05)

3.4

9(.06)

3

.58(0.0

6)

3.4

7(.07)

Influen

ce

0.4

2(.12)*

0.3

8(.13)

Proxim

ity

0

.13(.07)

0.0

6(.07)

Random

effects

Classlevel

0.0

23(.01)

0.0

18(.01)

0

.022(.01)

0.0

18(.01)

Studen

tlevel

0.4

34(.03)

0.4

25(.03)

0

.431(.03)

0.4

24(.02)

Devian

ce

95

3.7

60

941.9

43

950

.134

94

1.2

69

Decrea

seindeviance

11.81

7(df

1)**

3.62

6(df

1)

12.4

91(df

2)**

(Continued

.)


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

13/18

Identifiedmotivation

Model0

M

odel1

Model2

Model3

Fixedeff

ects

Consta

nt

4.1

7(.06)

3.9

2(.06)

4

.02(.06)

3.8

7(.06)

Influen

ce

0.6

7(.09)**

0.5

6(.10)**

Proxim

ity

0

.30(.06)**

0.1

9(.06)**

Random

effects

Classlevel

0.0

38(.02)

0.0

28(.01)

0

.029(.01)

0.0

24(.01)

Studen

tlevel

0.3

10(.02)

0.2

84(.01)

0

.294(.02)

0.2

78(.02)

Devian

ce

80

5.1

16

761.1

95

778

.492

75

0.3

61

Decrea

seindeviance

43.92

1(df

1)**

26.624(df

1)**

54.7

55(df

2)**

Intrinsicmotivation

Model0

M

odel1

Model2

Model3

Fixedeff

ects

Consta

nt

3.9

6(.05)

3.7

3(.06)

3

.80(.05)

3.6

7(.06)

Influen

ce

0.5

9(.11)**

0.4

5(.11)**

Proxim

ity

0

.33(.06)**

0.2

4(.06)**

Random

effects

Classlevel

0.0

31(.02)

0.0

25(.01)

0

.019(.01)

0.0

18(.01)

Studen

tlevel

0.3

64(.02)

0.3

43(.02)

0

.346(.02)

0.3

35(.02)

Devian

ce

87

5.9

74

846.7

69

848

.021

83

2.2

67

Decrea

seindeviance

29.20

5(df

1)**

27.953(df

1)**

43.7

07(df

2)**

*p,

.05;

**p,

.01

.

Table6.

(Continued)


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

14/18

Discussion

This study examined the profiles 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 findings in othercountries 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, findings 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 finding 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. Conflicts 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 directingfollowing 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 findings.

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

Table 7. Distribution of the total variance over the class, student and occasion level of the QMD(percentages).

External Introjected Identified Intrinsic

Class level 9% 5% 11% 8%Student level 91% 95% 89% 92%


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

15/18

behaviour. This finding 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

profile. This profile is characterized by a relatively high degree of co-operation and is

somewhat dominant. In brief, results from students and teachers perceptions ofinterpersonal teacher behaviour showed a relatively similar story regarding Influence, but

quite a different one regarding Proximity.

It seems that many secondary teachers in Indonesia have a more positive opinion about

teacherstudent relationships than their students do, which may indicate a miscommu-

nication 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 profile being

most often assigned by students. Surprisingly, only four profiles were found for teachers

perceptions, with the Tolerant/Authoritative profile being most common. Previous studies

generally were able to distinguish seven or eight profiles (den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans,

Wubbels, & Rickards, 2006; Rickards, den Brok, & Fisher, 2005), although the four

profiles 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 profiles for both student and teacher perceptions

indicate problematic teacherstudent relationships in some Indonesian classrooms.

In this study, relatively moderate correlations between Influence and Proximity andmotivational scales were found. Multilevel analyses revealed that the highest correlations

were found for the more autonomous regulation scales. Influence tends to predict student

motivation more than Proximity (particularly the more controlled and less autonomous

motivation). This finding is contrary to previous studies indicating that the effect of

Proximity on affective outcomes was stronger than that of Influence (Brekelmans &

Wubbels, 1991; Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005).

This conflicting finding 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 onidentified 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 teacherstudent

relationships. When teachers can see which profile fits them best, they can reflect 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. Scientifically, this study

adds to the knowledge base on the importance of interpersonal teacher behaviour in

relation to student motivation, confirming previous findings 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


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

16/18

interpersonal behaviour. Further research is needed to investigate the causes of these

differences by utilizing qualitative and more advanced statistical methods.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructivefeedback on the previous manuscript. This study was conducted as part of the PhD study of the firstauthor 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 ofdominance and submissiveness, co-operation and opposition respectively. The ranges of scoresare: 00.5 (moderately positive), 0.51.00 (positive) and above 1 (very positive) (den Brok,

et al., 2004.

References

Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2001). Self-perceptions versus students perceptions of teacherinterpersonal 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. 4655). London: FalmerPress.

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. 227242). 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 teacherstudent

relationship in the classroom environment. In S.C. Goh & M.S. Khine (Eds.), Studies ineducational learning environments: An international perspective (pp. 73 100). Singapore:World Scientific.

Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Student performance, attitudes, instructionalstrategies and teacher-communication style. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what

you look like? (pp. 5663). 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 actionsfrom an interpersonal and a learning activities perspective. Utrecht: W.C.C.

Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behavior and studentoutcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407442.

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 thevalidity of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Rickards, T. (2006). Secondary teachersinterpersonal behavior in Singapore, Brunei and Australia: A cross-national comparison. AsiaPacific Journal of Education, 26, 7995.

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, 519.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.


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

17/18

Den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2005). The effect of teacher interpersonal

behavior on students subject-specific motivation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2),

2033.

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, 733.

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 1619.Education Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2, 263281.

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 adolescentsmotivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students.

International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 3954.

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),

161178.

Liem, A.D., Nair, E., Bernardo, A.B.I., & Prasetya, P.H. (2008). The influence of culture on studentsclassroom 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, 177 187.


y

8/3/2019 02188791%2E2011%2E544061

18/18

Rasbash, J., Woodhouse, G., Yang, M., & Goldstein, H. (1995). MLn: Software for multilevelanalysis, command reference. London: Institute of Education.

Rickards, T., den Brok, P., & Fisher, D. (2005). The Australian science teacher: A typology ofteacher-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-studentinteraction: A seed for change in science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examiningreasons 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 scienceattitudes: A cross-cultural replication in Indonesia. International Journal of Science Education,9, 169186.

Soerjaningsih, W., Fraser, B.J., & Aldridge, J.M. (2002, April). Instructor-student interpersonalbehavior and student outcomes at the university level in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior in secondaryscience classes in Turkey. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42, 31 40.

Utomo, E. (2005). Challenges of curriculum reform in the context of decentralization: The responseof 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, 246260.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), 131155.

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. 565580). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships inclass. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 624.

Wubbels, T., Creton, H.A., & Hooymayers, H.P. (1985, MarchApril). Discipline problems ofbeginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Paper presented at the 69thAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrievedfrom 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 ICTMT5conference, Klagenfurt.


y

02188791%2e2011%2e544061

Documents