interpersonal behaviour in senior high school biology classes

Research in Science Education, 1995, 25(2), 125-133

I n t e r p e r s o n a l B e h a v i o u r i n S e n i o r H i g h School Biology C l a s s e s

Darrell Fisher, David Henderson and Barry Fraser Curtin University of Technology

Abstract

This article describes the first use of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction in senior biology classes and describes students' perceptions of their interpersonal relationships with their teachers in the classroom environment. The article also describes associations between students' perceptions of interpersonal relationships with their teachers and student outcomes. The study confirmed the reliability and validity of the QTI when used in senior secondary biology classes. Generally, the dimensions of the QTI were found to be significantly associated with student attitude scores. In particular, students' attitude scores were higher in classrooms in which students perceived greater leadership, helpful/friendly, and understanding behaviours in their teachers.

International research efforts involving the conceptualisation, assessment and investigation of perceptions of psychosocial aspects of the classroom environment have firmly established classroom environment as a thriving field of study (see reviews by Fraser, 1994; Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Recent classroom environment research has focussed on science laboratory classroom environments (McRobbie & Fraser, 1993), constructivist classroom environments (Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994) and computer-assisted instruction classrooms (The & Fraser, in press).

Recently, a team of researchers in The Netherlands extended this research by focusing specifically on the interpersonal relationships between teachers and their students as assessed by the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction ( QTI) (Wubbels, Cr&on & Hooymayers, 1992; Wubbels & Levy, 1993). This article describes the first use of this instrument in senior biology classes and discusses students' perceptions of their interpersonal relationships with their teachers in the classroom environment. Furthermore, the article examines associations between students' perceptions of interpersonal relationships and their attitudinal, cognitive and practical performance outcomes. Before describing the study in detail, background information concerning research on classroom environments is provided in order to put this study into context.

Assessing Interpersonal Behaviour of Teachers in the Classroom

The Dutch researchers (Wubbels, Cr&on & Holvast, 1988) investigated teacher behaviour in classrooms from a systems perspective, adapting a theory on communication processes developed by Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967). Within the systems perspective on communication, it is assumed that the behaviours of participants influence each other mutually. The behaviour of the teacher is influenced by the behaviour of the students and in turn influences student behaviour. Circular communication processes develop which not only consist of behaviour, but determine behaviour as well.

126 FISHER, HENDERSON AND FRASER

With the systems perspective in mind, Wubbels, Crtton and Hooymayers (1985) developed a model to map interpersonal teacher behaviour extrapolated from the work of Leafy (1957). In the adaptation of the Leary model, teacher behaviour is mapped with a Proximity dimension (Cooperation, C - Opposition, O) and an Influence dimension (Dominance, D, - Submission, S) to form eight sectors, each describing different behaviour aspects: Leadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility and Freedom, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Admonishing and Strict behaviour. Figure 1 displays typical behaviours for each sector. The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) is based on this model.

The long form of the English version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction has 64 items which are answered on a five-point scale. The items belong to eight scales, each consisting of eight items and corresponding to one of the eight sections of the model. Examples of items are "This teacher is friendly" (CD) and "This teacher gets angry unexpectedly" (OD). The scores for each item within the same sector are added to obtain a total scale score. The higher the scale score, the more a teacher shows behaviours from that sector. Scale scores can be obtained for individual students, or can be combined to form the mean of all students in a class.

The QTI has been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). When the 64-item English version of the QTI was used with 1,606 students and 66 teachers in the USA, the cross-cultural validity and usefulness of the QTI were con_firmed. Using the Cronbach alpha coefficient, Wubbels and Levy (1991) reported acceptable internal consistency reliabilities for QTI scales ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 for student responses and from 0.74 to 0. 84 for teachers' perceptions of their own behaviours.

An economical short 48-item version of the QTI was developed in Australia. This version has six items for every sector of the model of interpersonal teacher behaviour depicted in Figure 1. When this version of the QTI was used with a sample of 792 grade 11 students and their 46 teachers, the alpha coefficients for QTI scales ranged from 0.80 to 0.95 for students and from 0.60 to 0.82 for teachers. This indicates that each QTI scale displays satisfactory internal consistency for scales containing only six items each.

When the QTI is administered to both teachers and their students, information is provided about the perceptions of teachers and the perceptions of students of the interpersonal behaviour of the teacher. The information obtained by means of the questionnaire includes perceptions of the behaviour of the teacher towards the students as a class, and reflects relatively stable patterns of behaviour over a considerable period.

One advantage of the QTI is that it can be used to obtain the perceptions of interpersonal behaviour of either students or teachers. Furthermore, students can be asked for their perceptions of their actual teacher or the teacher they consider to be their best teacher. Similarly, teachers can be asked for their perceptions of their own behaviour or the behaviour that they consider to be idea/. This allows at least four sets of perception scores to be obtained.

Past uses of the QTI

Wubbels (1993) used the QTI with a sample of 792 students and 46 teachers in Western Australia and Tasmania. The results of this research were similar to previous Dutch and American research in that, generally, teachers do not reach their ideal and d.iffer from the best teachers as perceived by students. It is noteworthy that the best teachers, according to students, are stronger leaders, more friendly and understanding, and less uncertain, dissatisfied and admonishing than teachers on average.

When teachers described their perceptions of their own behaviour, they tended to see the learning environment a little more favourably than did their students. The average teachers'

INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOUR IN BIOLOGY CLASSES 127

perceptions of their behaviour were between the students' perceptions of actual behaviour and the teachers' ideal. An interpretation of this is that teachers think that they behave closer to their ideal teacher's behaviour than do their students.

Another use of the QTI in The Netherlands involved investigation of relationships between perceptions on the QTI scales and student outcomes (Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Hooymayers, 1991). Regarding students' cognitive outcomes, the more that teachers demonstrated strict leadership, and helpful/friendly behaviour, then the higher were cognitive outcomes scores. Conversely, student responsibility and freedom, uncertain and dissatisfied behaviour were related negatively to achievement.

DOMrN~NCE

Z

Q

Z 0

0 0 U

SUBMISSION

Figure 1. The model for interpersonal teacher behaviour.


Variations in the students' appreciation of the subject and the lessons could be characterised on the basis of the proximity dimension: the more cooperative the behaviour displayed, the higher the affective outcome scores (Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Hooymayers, 1991). That is, student responsibility and freedom, understanding, helpful/friendly and leadership behaviours were related positively to student attitudes. Uncertain, dissatisfied, admonishing and strict behaviours were related negatively to attitudes. Overall, previous studies have indicated that interpersonal teacher behaviour is an important aspect of the learning environment and that it is related strongly to student outcomes.

Levy, Cr&on and Wubbels (1993) analysed data from studies in The Netherlands, the USA and Australia where students were asked to use the QTI to rate their best and worst teachers. Students rated their best teachers as being strong leaders and as friendly and understanding. The characteristics of the worst teachers were that they were more admonishing and dissatisfied.

In a further investigation into the characteristics of teachers, Wubbels and Levy (1991) compared Dutch and American teachers and found very few differences, although American teachers were perceived as stricter and Dutch teachers as giving their students more responsibility and freedom.

The QTI also has been used to develop typologies of teacher interpersonal behaviour in The Netherlands (Wubbels, Brekelmans, Cr&on, & Hooymayers, 1990). Using cluster analysis, eight types were distinguished. The behavioural patterns on the eight teacher types were characterised as directive, authoritative, tolerant/authoritative, tolerant, uncertain/tolerant, uncertain/aggressive, repressive, and drudging. Teacher types associated with the greatest student coguitive and affective gains were directive and tolerant/authoritative. Uncertain/aggressive and uncertain/tolerant teacher types were associated with lowest student gains.

In one of the first uses of the QTI in Australia (Fisher, Fraser, & Wubbels, 1993), associations were investigated between teachers' perceptions of their work environment, using the School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ), and students' and teachers' perceptions of their classroom interactions. Results from this study indicated that relationships between SLEQ and QTI scores generally were weak, thus suggesting that teachers believed that they had considerable freedom to shape their own classrooms regardless of the school atmosphere.

Method

Although past studies have examined associations between student perceptions of the learning environment in science classes and student outcomes (Fraser, 1994), this study is unique in that it examined student outcomes in three distinct areas: student attitude, achievement in a written examination, and performance on practical tests. Furthermore, this study is distinctive in that it is centred on students in biology classes, whereas previous research on the science classroom and laboratory learning environments has focused largely on students in physics classes.

This study involved students in senior secondary biology classes in Tasmania, Australia. Students in Tasmanian government schools complete their high school education at the end of Grade 10. Those students continuing their studies in Grades 11 and 12 attend one of the 8 secondary colleges, which offer only senior secondary courses.-.The sample was composed of students from 6 of the secondary colleges and two of the independent schools which offer senior secondary courses. A total of 489 students in 28 biology classes were involved, representing nearly half of all the students taking senior biology courses in Tasmania in 1991.

Associations between students' perceptions of their interpersonal relationships with their teachers and their attitudinal, cognitive and practical performance outcomes were examined in this


study. The 48-item short form of the QTI (Wubbels, 1993) was used to gauge students' perceptions of student-teacher interactions. Student attitudes were assessed with an eight-item Attitude to Science Laboratory Work, an instrument adapted from the Test of Science-Related Attitudes [TOSRA] (Fraser, 1981), and a seven-item Attitude To This Class scale, which also was based on the TOSRA.

Each student's Ix~rformance on the external end-of-year examination was used as a measure of cognitive achievement and, because students had undertaken one of two common external examinations, Human Biology or Biology, standardised scores (expressed in terms of the number of standard deviations above or below the group mean) were calculated to enable meaningful comparison. Because the two biology courses are based on the same inquiry-oriented problem- solving approach and have considerable overlap in their content and skills objectives it appeared justifiable to use the standardised achievement score on either test as the students' cognitive outcome measure.

In view of the amount of time devoted to practical work in senior biology classes in Tasmania (about one-third of the total course time) and the fact that practical work is seen as a distinct mode of instruction involving skills at least in some ways different from those used in non- practical work (Tamir, 1991), assessment of students' practical perfomaance was used to provide a third distinctive outcome measure in this study. A subsample of one third of the students attempted one or more of a battery of four practical tests based on the Practical Test Assessment Inventory [PTA1] ~ramir, Nussinovitz & Friedler, 1982). Standardised scores on these tests were used as a measure of students' practical skill performance.

Using the scales of the QTI as independent variables, associations were computed with attitude to the class, attitude to laboratory work, achievement on external examinations, and performance on practical tests. Simple correlations were calculated between each QTI scale and each student outcome. Also a multiple regression analysis, involving the whole set of QTI scales, was conducted for each student outcome to provide a more conservative test of the association between each QTI scale and an outcome when all other QTI scales were mutually controlled.

Results

Table 1 provides some cross-validation information for the QTI when used specifically in the present sample of biology classes. Statistics are reported for two units of analysis, namely, the student's score and the class mean score. As expected, reliabilities for class means were higher than those where the individual student was used as the unit of analysis. Table 1 shows that the alpha reliability figures for different QTI scales ranged from 0.63 to 0.83 when the individual student was used as the unit of analysis, and from 0.74 to 0.95 when the class mean was used as the unit of analysis. The values presented in Table 1 for the present sample provide further cross- validation information supporting the internal consistency of the QTI, with either the individual student or the class mean as the unit of analysis.

Another desirable characteristic of any instrument like the QTI is that it is capable of differentiating between the perceptions of students in different classrooms. That is, students within the same class should perceive it relatively similarly, while mean within-class perceptions should vary from class to class. This characteristic was explored for each scale of the QTI using one-way ANOVA, with class membership as the main effect. It was found that each QTI scale differentiated significantly (p<.001) between classes and that the eta 2 statistic, representing the proportion of variance explained by class membership, ranged from 0.20 to 0.48 for different classes.


Table 1 Internal Consistency (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient) and Ability of the QTI to Differentiate between Classrooms.

Scale

AlphaReHabiH~ ANOVA

S~dent Class Resul~

DC Leadership 0.83 0.95 .48*

CD Helping/friendly 0.82 0.91 .33"

CS Understanding 0.78 0.92 .29*

SC Student responsibility/freedom 0.66 0.81 .28"

SO Uncertain 0.77 0.91 .38*

OS Dissatisfied 0.75 0.85 .20*

OD Admonishing 0.71 0.77 .25*

DO Strict 0.63 0.74 .30* *p<.001

Associations Between Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour and Student Outcomes

Table 2 reports the results for associations between students' perceptions of teacher/student interpersonal behaviour and students' attitudinal, cognitive and practical performance outcomes when the data were analysed using both simple and multiple correlations.

Whereas the simple correlation (r) describes the bivariate association between an outcome and a QTI scale, the standardised regression weight (/3) characterises the association between an outcome and a particular QTI scale when all other QTI dimensions are controlled.

An examination of the simple correlation (r) fignres in Table 2 indicates that there were 17 significant relationships (p<.05), out of 32 possible, between student/teacher interactions and student outcome variables; this is 10 times that expected by chance alone. An examination of the beta weights reveals seven out of 32 significant relationships (p<.05), which is four times that expected by chance. Two of the four multiple correlations were significant.

The multiple correlation (R) data reported in Table 2 indicate that associations were strongest between students' perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and attitudinal outcomes. Simple correlation (r) figures indicate statistically significant associations between students' attitudinal outcomes (both to class and laboratory work) and all QTI scales except Student Responsibility/Freedom. The beta weights show that some of these associations, notably those between Leadership and both of the attitudinal outcomes, retain their significance in a more conservative test with all other QTI scales controlled. In classes where the students perceived greater leadership and helpin~fxiendly behaviours in their teachers, there was a more favourable attitude towards the class and laboratory work. The converse was true when the teacher was perceived as strict. Cognitive achievement was higher where the teachers demonstrated leadership behaviour. The only effect on practical performance was that strict teacher behaviour correlated negatively with practical test performance.


Table 2 Associations between QTI Scales and Students'Attitudinal, Cognitive and Practical Performance Outcomes in Terms of Simple Correlations (r) and Standardised Regression Coefficients (fl)(n=489).

Strength of Environment - Outcome Association

Attitude to QTI Scale Attitude to Class Laboratory Examination Practical Test

Work Score Performance

r fl r fl r fl r fl

Leadership .49** .24** .40** .40** -.12" .24" -.06 .00

Helpful/friendly .49** .21"* .36** .15 .06 -.08 .04 -.01

Understanding .49** .11 .32** -. 11 .05 -.06 .07 .22

Student -.05 -.07 .00 .00 .I0 .14" .19" .08 responsibility/ freedom

Uncertain -.36** -.02 -.20** .11 -.04 .00 .13 .08

Dissatisfied -.35** -.03 -.27"* -.08 .00 .02 .01 .06

Admonishing -.31"* -.01 -.23** -.03 .00 .01 .00 .15

Strict -.17"* -.17"* -.15"* -.11 -.03 -.05 -.25** -.23*

Multiple Correlation, R .58** .45** .19 .31

*p <05 **p <.01

Conclusion

This study confirmed the reliability and validity of the QTI when used in senior secondary biology classes. Generally, the dimensions of the QTI were found to be significantly associated with student attitude scores. In particular, students' attitude scores were higher in classrooms in which students perceived greater leadership, helpfial/friendly, and understanding in their teachers' interpersonal behaviours. Conversely students' attitude scores were lower in classrooms in which students perceived greater uncertainty, dissatisfaction, admonishing, and strictness in their teachers' interpersonal behaviours. I f biology teachers want to promote favourable student attitudes to their class and laboratory work, they should ensure the presence of these interpersonal behaviours.

Associations between outcomes and interpersonal behaviour as assessed by this instrument were stronger with attitudes than with either achievement or practical outcomes. However, the association between leadership and cognitive outcomes is important. Biolog2r teachers who are leaders in their classrooms and demonstrate such behaviours as noticing what is happening,


organising, setting tasks and holding attention when explaining are more likely to have higher achieving students in their classes.

The Strict scale, the extent to which teachers keep the reins tight, maintain silence and consistently check the rules, correlated negatively with performance on practical tests. It might b e that students with these teachers are not given enough freedom to practise their practical skills and consequently perform poorly in practical tests. This opinion is reinforced by the positive significant correlation between giving students responsibility and freedom and practical test performance.

The study is distinctive in that it was the first to investigate student perceptions of the interpersonal behaviour of biology teachers and its association with three categories of student outcomes. A particular value of the study is that associations between these perceptions and student outcomes provide biology teachers with information about the kind of interpersonal behaviour that is likely to promote desirable student outcomes in terms of both attitudes and achievement.

Biology teachers can make use of this instrument to monitor students' views of their classes, investigate the impact that different interpersonal behaviours have on student outcomes, and provide a basis for guiding systematic attempts to improve this aspect of their teaching. Furthermore, the QTI could be used in assessing changes that result from the introduction of new curricula or teaching methods, and in checking whether the teacher's interpersonal behaviour is seen differently by students of different gender, abilities or ethnic backgrounds.

Correspondence: Dr Darrell Fisher, National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, 6001, Australia. Internet email: [email protected]

References

Fisher, D. L., Fraser, B. J., & Wubbels, T. (1993). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and school climate. In T. Wubbels and J. Levy, rEds.), Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education. (pp. 103-112). London: The Falmer Press.

Fraser, B. J. (198 I). Test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.

Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Leafy, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald-Press. Levy, J., Cr&on, H., & Wubbels, T. (1993). Perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour. In T.

Wubbels and J. Levy, (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. (pp. 29-45). London: The Falmer Press.

McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science laboratory environments. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 78-85.

Tamir, P. (1991). Practical work in school science: An analysis of current practice. In B. E. Woolnough fEd.), Practical science: the role and reality of practical work in school science, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.


Tamir, P., Nussinovitz, R., & Friedler, Y. (1982). The design and use of a practical tests assessment inventory. Journal of Biological Education, 16, 42-50.

Taylor, P C., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. (1994, April). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development ofconstructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

The, G., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of �9 achievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Education.

Wubbets, T. (1993). Teacher-student relationships in science and mathematics classes (What research says to the science and mathematics teacher, No. 11). Perth: National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Crrton, H., & Hooymayers, H. (1990). Teacher behaviour style and learning environment. In H. C. Waxman, and C. D. Ellett (Eds.), The study of learning environments (Vol. 4), (pp. 1-12). Houston, TX: University of Houston.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. (1991). Interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom. In B. J. Fraser and H. I. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences, (pp. 141-160). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Wubbels, T., Crrton, I-I. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1992). Review of research on teacher communication styles with use of the Leafy model. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 1-12.

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behaviour of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 1-18.

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. CEds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London, England: Falmer Press.

interpersonal behaviour in senior high school biology classes

Documents