This article was downloaded by: [188.250.24.

247]
On: 28 April 2014, At: 18:27
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

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Teacher–student interpersonal
relationships in Indonesia: profiles and
importance to student motivation
a a
Ridwan Maulana , Marie-Christine Opdenakker , Perry den Brok
b a
& Roel Bosker
a
Groningen Institute for Educational Sciences (GION), University
of Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
b
Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of
Technology , Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Published online: 21 Mar 2011.

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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.544061

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

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. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education
Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2011, 33–49

Teacher –student interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles 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; final version received 1 September 2010)

This study was designed to investigate the distribution of interpersonal profiles based
on students’ and teachers’ perceptions and to examine the associations between
students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and learning motivation in
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 profiles 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. Influence
and Proximity were found to be important determinants of student motivation; both
dimensions are related to a more autonomous motivation, while Influence 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 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 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: r.maulana@rug.nl

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
 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 profiles
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 South-
East 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
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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, Créton, & 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 Influence (Dominance – Submission, DS). Proximity refers to the degree of teachers’
co-operative/friendly behaviour, while Influence 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 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
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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/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 –
 36 R. Maulana et al.

Directive Authoritative Tolerant and Authoritative Tolerant

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

Uncertain/Tolerant Uncertain/Aggressive Repressive Drudging

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

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

Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 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 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).
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 37

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 English
classrooms, 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,
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 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 reflect 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 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
 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 reflected 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 profiles 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 profiles 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
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 self-
perception version.

Table 1. Typical items of the Indonesian QTI scales.

Example of items
Scale Student version Teacher version
Leadership This teacher teaches enthusiastically I teach enthusiastically
Helpful/friendly This teacher is friendly I am a friendly teacher
Understanding This teacher trusts us I trust students
Student freedom This teacher gives us freedom in class I give students freedom in class
Uncertain This teacher is often uncertain I am often uncertain
Dissatisfied This teacher thinks we cheat I think students cheat
Admonishing This teacher looks down on us I look down on students
Strict This teacher is very discipline I am very discipline
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 39

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). Cronbach’s
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 Influence and Proximity. Cronbach’s
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 one’s self-esteem),
identified motivation (indicating one’s self-endorsed values) and intrinsic motivation
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

(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 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 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 (Cronbach’s alpha) and average correlation between scales of
the QMD.
Cronbach’s Average correlations
Scale Typical items a (n ¼ 1012) between scales
Extrinsic I study this subject because my 0.65 0.19
parents expect me to
Introjected I study this subject because I would 0.63 0.34
feel ashamed if I don’t do so
Identified I study this subject because it’s 0.72 0.39
personally important to me
Intrinsic I study this subject because 0.76 0.37
I enjoy doing it
Note: p , .05.
 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 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 ¼ 0.50)1
and co-operative (CO ¼ 0.57). The results in Figure 3 generally represent a combination
of the Directive and Authoritative teacher profiles; relatively moderate scores on the co-
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 ¼ 0.57) and very co-
operative (CO ¼ 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 of
their 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 (Cronbach’s alpha), intra-class correlations (ICC), mean scores and standard
deviations (SD) of the Indonesian QTI.
Student data Teacher data
Cronbach’s a (N ¼ 1900) (N ¼ 55)
Student Class Teacher
Scale (N ¼ 1900) (N ¼ 66) (N ¼ 55) ICC Mean SD Mean SD
Leadership 0.75 0.90 0.78 0.20 0.71 0.15 0.78 0.13
Helpful/friendly 0.76 0.91 0.67 0.22 0.63 0.17 0.73 0.12
Understanding 0.78 0.92 0.80 0.19 0.66 0.16 0.84 0.11
Student Freedom 0.61 0.83 0.54 0.26 0.37 0.16 0.42 0.13
Uncertain 0.64 0.85 0.66 0.27 0.32 0.14 0.24 0.11
Dissatisfied 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.23 0.39 0.15 0.38 0.13
Admonishing 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 0.10
Influence 0.50 0.31 0.57 0.24
Proximity 0.57 0.57 1.01 0.41
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 41

Influence
Dimension scores
1
0.8

Proximity 0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Influence Proximity

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

Influence
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

Dimension scores
1
0.8
Proximity 0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Influence Proximity

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

Table 4. Frequency of occurrences of interpersonal profiles.

Profile Class (%) (n ¼ 67) Teacher (%) (n ¼ 57)

Directive 29.8 17.9
Authoritative 24 35.7
Tolerant/Authoritative 15.7 39.3
Tolerant 2.3 –
Uncertain/Tolerant 1.6 –
Uncertain/Aggressive 2.6 –
Repressive 10.7 –
Drudging 12.6 7.1

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.
 42 R. Maulana et al.

Table 5. Correlations between the two dimensions of interpersonal behaviour and student
motivational scales (n ¼ 1012).
Motivational scales
Dimension External Introjected Identified Intrinsic
Influence 0.08* 0.19** 0.31** 0.26**
Proximity – 0.09* 0.24** 0.27**

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

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
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 ¼ 0.09, p , .05), identified motivation (r ¼ 0.24, p , .05) and intrinsic motivation
(r ¼ 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 ¼ 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 external
motivation. For introjected motivation, an intra-class correlation of r ¼ 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 ¼ 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).
 Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

Table 6. Results of multilevel analysis to explain variation in student motivation; parameter estimates (n ¼ 469).

External motivation
Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Fixed effects
Constant 3.17 (.06) 3.10 (.07) 3.15 (.05) 3.10 (.08)
Influence – 0.19 (.12) – 0.18 (.12)
Proximity – – 0.05 (.07) 0.02 (.07)
Random effects
Class level 0.039 (.02) 0.039 (.02) 0.039 (.02) 0.039 (.02)
Student level 0.405 (.03) 0.402 (.03) 0.404 (.03) 0.402 (.03)
Deviance 927.560 925.049 926.996 924.994
Decrease in deviance – 2.511 (df ¼ 1) 0.564 (df ¼ 1) 2.566 (df ¼ 2)

Introjected motivation

Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed effects
Constant 3.64 (.05) 3.49 (.06) 3.58 (0.06) 3.47 (.07)
Influence – 0.42 (.12)* – 0.38 (.13)
Proximity – – 0.13 (.07) 0.06 (.07)
Random effects
Class level 0.023 (.01) 0.018 (.01) 0.022 (.01) 0.018 (.01)
Student level 0.434 (.03) 0.425 (.03) 0.431 (.03) 0.424 (.02)
Deviance 953.760 941.943 950.134 941.269
Decrease in deviance – 11.817 (df ¼ 1)** 3.626 (df ¼ 1) 12.491 (df ¼ 2)**
Asia Pacific Journal of Education

(Continued.)
43
 Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

Table 6. (Continued)
44

Identified motivation

Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed effects
Constant 4.17 (.06) 3.92 (.06) 4.02 (.06) 3.87 (.06)
Influence – 0.67 (.09)** – 0.56 (.10)**
Proximity – – 0.30 (.06)** 0.19 (.06)**
R. Maulana et al.

Random effects
Class level 0.038 (.02) 0.028 (.01) 0.029 (.01) 0.024 (.01)
Student level 0.310 (.02) 0.284 (.01) 0.294 (.02) 0.278 (.02)
Deviance 805.116 761.195 778.492 750.361
Decrease in deviance – 43.921 (df ¼ 1)** 26.624 (df ¼ 1)** 54.755 (df ¼ 2)**

Intrinsic motivation

Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed effects
Constant 3.96 (.05) 3.73 (.06) 3.80 (.05) 3.67 (.06)
Influence – 0.59 (.11)** – 0.45 (.11)**
Proximity – – 0.33 (.06)** 0.24 (.06)**
Random effects
Class level 0.031 (.02) 0.025 (.01) 0.019 (.01) 0.018 (.01)
Student level 0.364 (.02) 0.343 (.02) 0.346 (.02) 0.335 (.02)
Deviance 875.974 846.769 848.021 832.267
Decrease in deviance – 29.205 (df ¼ 1)** 27.953 (df ¼ 1)** 43.707 (df ¼ 2)**

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

 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 45

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%

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 other
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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, 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 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 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
 46 R. Maulana et al.

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 of
interpersonal 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
teacher – student 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;
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 teacher – student relationships in some Indonesian classrooms.
In this study, relatively moderate correlations between Influence and Proximity and
motivational 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 on
identified 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 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
 Asia Pacific 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 first
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 þ3. 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,
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

et al., 2004.

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 Scientific.
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
Pacific 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-specific 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.
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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 influence 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, 177–187.
 Asia Pacific 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, 749–761.
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.
Downloaded by [188.250.24.247] at 18:27 28 April 2014

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., Créton, 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.