Research with the QTI has shown that teacher-student communication patterns remain relatively stable in classrooms (Wubbels, Creton & Hooymayers, 1985, 1987; Wubbels & Levy, 1993) and these patterns are distinct and take typical recognisable forms (e.g., Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Hermans, 1987; Wubbels & Levy, 1991).
The QTI has also been used to develop typologies of teacher interpersonal behaviour in the USA, the Netherlands (Wubbels, Brekelmans, Creton, & Hooymayers, 1990) and Australia (Rawnsley, 1997). The eight types of patterns of interpersonal relationships as found in the Dutch and American studies were Directive, Authoritative, Tolerant/Authoritative, Tolerant, Uncertain/Tolerant, Uncertain/Aggressive, Repressive and Drudging whereas there were seven types
found in the Australian study ( Rickards, den Brok, & Fisher, 2005). Four of the profiles in both typologies were classified as similar, namely Tolerant/Authoritative (Australian type 1), Authoritative (Australian type 2), Directive (Australian type 4) and Uncertain/Aggressive (Australian type 7). It was found that 73.1% of the teachers in the Australian sample belonged to one of these four types. The patterns of the other three types of teachers deviated from the original Dutch/American typology. These eight profiles consistently appeared in both American and Dutch samples of teachers (e.g. Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998). The eight types can be characterised by means of the two dimensions in the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour. The Authoritative, the Tolerant/Authoritative and the Tolerant type are profiles in which students perceive their teachers to be relatively high on the Proximity dimension whereas the Tolerant type has profiles lowest on the Influence dimension. The Directive type, the Uncertain/Tolerant and the Drudging type are less cooperative than the earlier types with the Uncertain/Tolerant type lowest on the Influence dimension. The least cooperative of the interpersonal relationships are the Repressive and Uncertain/ Aggressive type. Repressive teachers are the most dominant of all eight types.
The eight interpersonal types have also been linked to student outcomes (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993). Repressive teachers, followed by Tolerant and Directive teachers, realised highest cognitive achievement. Lowest achievement was found in classes of Uncertain/Tolerant and Uncertain/Aggressive teachers. Highest motivation has been found in classes of Authoritative, Tolerant/Authoritative and Directive teachers, while lowest motivation occurred in classes of Drudging and Uncertain/Aggressive teachers. The pattern found for the Tolerant/Authoritative teachers approximates the image of the `best’ or `ideal’ teacher.
Teacher types associated with the greatest student cognitive and affective gains were Directive (characterised by a well structured task oriented learning environment) and Tolerant/Authoritative (characterised by a pleasant well structured environment in which the teacher has a good relationship with students). Uncertain/Aggressive (characterised by an aggressive kind of disorder) and Uncertain/Tolerant teacher types were associated with the lowest student gains.
In Figure 2.3, the types are characterised by means of graphic representations using the eight sections of the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour. The greater the shaded part in each section the more the pattern of interpersonal relationships is characterised by this sector.
The typology found was further validated by observations in classrooms showing qualitative differences between each of the eight types. A separate hand-sort of ‘teaching profiles’, for instance, visual representations of scale scores on the QTI conducted by the researchers involved (Brekelmans, Levy, & Rodriguez, 1993) also resulted in a set of types similar to the one found by statistical analyses.
In much earlier research of Dutch and American interpersonal teacher behaviour, results indicated that Dutch and American teachers displayed the same interpersonal behaviour toward their students in many aspects. However, it was found that American teachers wanted to be stricter than did their Dutch colleagues; and that Dutch teachers wanted to give students more responsibility and freedom (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). In another study, Rickards, den Brok, and Fisher (2005) found that compared with the USA and the Netherlands, interpersonal communication between teachers and students in the classroom in Australia might be characterised by a higher degree of respect and formality in some schools. However, Fisher, Henderson, and
Fraser (1997) in another cross-national study of teacher interpersonal behaviour in Singapore and Australia found that Australian teachers were perceived as giving more responsibility and freedom to their students while the teachers in Singapore were perceived as stricter.
In another study of cross-national comparisons of secondary teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in Singapore, Brunei and Australia, it was found that teachers were rated highest on the Influence dimension in Brunei and lowest in Australia (den Brok, Fisher, Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Rickards, 2006). However, differences in influence ratings between Australia and Singapore were only minimal, with Brunei teachers being rated somewhat higher from teachers in the other two countries which was rather surprising given that cultural differences in pedagogy between Singapore and Brunei would be smaller than that compared to Australia. Teachers were rated highest on the proximity dimension in Singapore and lowest in Brunei, with Australian teachers rated somewhat in the middle.
Interestingly, in a Thai study by Santiboon (2006), comparison of the sector profiles of physics teachers in Thailand with an Australian QTI-based typology, showed that Thai teachers could be described as authoritative. Furthermore, it was found that Thai students preferred authoritative teachers.
In this study, one of the aims was to compare the profiles obtained from mathematics and English teachers in Singapore with the typologies that exist in Dutch, American and Australian studies.
Directive Authoritative Tolerant/ Authoritative Tolerant Uncertain/ Tolerant Uncertain- Aggressive Repressive Drudging
Figure 2.3. Graphic depiction of the sample cluster solution in terms of the eight QTI scales (Brekelmans, Levy, & Rodriguez, 1993).
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Type 4 Type 5 Type 6
Type 7
Figure 2.4. Graphical depiction of the sample cluster solution in terms of the eight QTI scales of Australian typology (Rickards, den Brok, & Fisher, 2003).
2.11 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND