Advertisement

Relationships Between Student Perception of Teacher-Student Relations and PISA Results in Mathematics and Science

  • Jaan Mikk
  • Heiki Krips
  • Ülle Säälik
  • Karmen Kalk
Article

Abstract

Teacher-student relations have a significant correlation with student motivation, academic performance and discipline. For example, the meta-analysis by Hattie (2009) revealed an effect size of d = 0.72 for the effect of relations on achievement, and the meta-analysis by Finn, Schrodt, Witt, Elledge, Jernberg & Larson (Communication Education, 58(4), 516–537, 2009) showed a correlation of 0.55 between the perceived care by teachers and student achievement. These were established by comparing students, but comparisons of schools or countries with high or low levels of teacher-student relations are missing. The present paper analyses the correlation between teacher-student relations and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 results in science and mathematics on three levels: student, school and country level. The study shows a weak positive relationship (correlations up to 0.16) at the student level, and a positive relationship (up to 0.34) at school level. The multilevel analysis revealed a negative relationship between teacher-student relations and PISA results (r = −.51) at the country level. To understand the negative relationship, also known as an ecological fallacy, the countries were grouped into geographical regions in which the relationship was insignificant and the positive effect of teacher-student relations was found by comparing with some neighboring countries. Implications for practice and further studies are proposed on the basis of these findings.

Keywords

Ecological fallacy Multilevel analysis Physics and mathematics education PISA Teacher-student relations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the European Social Fund No 1.2.0302.09-004.

We are also thankful to Karin Täht for the data analysis.

References

  1. Adams, R. & Wu, M. (Eds.) (2002). PISA 2000 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/33688233.pdf.
  2. Ammermueller, A. & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Peer effects in European primary schools: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 315–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein-Yamashiro, B. & Noam, G. G. (2013). Teacher-student relationships: A growing field of study. New Directions for Youth Development, 137, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowlby, J. (1969). Loss. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, P. & Venaik, S. (2014). The ecological fallacy in National Culture Research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 1063–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley, J. (2009). Cross-national response styles in international educational assessments: Evidence from PISA 2006. Retrieved from https://edsurveys.rti.org/PISA/documents/Buckley_PISAresponsestyle.pdf.
  8. Collinson, V., Killeavy, M. & Stephenson, H. (1999). Exemplary teachers: Practicing an ethic of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5, 349–366.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, J. P. & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology, 22 (pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crosnoe, R., Morrison, F., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Keating, D., Friedman, S. L. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2010). Instruction, teacher–student relations, and math achievement trajectories in Elementary School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Database—PISA (2009). Retrieved from http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/downloads.php.
  13. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fan, F. A. (2012). Teacher: Students’ interpersonal relationships and students’ academic achievements in social studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fast, L. A., Lewis, J. L., Bryant, M. J., Bocian, K. A., Cardullo, R. A., Rettig, M. & Hammond, K. A. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K. A. & Larson, L. M. (2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58(4), 516–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finney, J. W., Humphreys, K., Kivlahan, D. R. & Harris, A. H. S. (2011). Why health care process performance measures can have different relationships to outcomes for patients and hospitals: Understanding the ecological fallacy. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1635–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, D. & Rickards, T. (1998). Associations between teacher-student interpersonal behaviour and student attitude to mathematics. Mathematics Education Research, 10(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Henno, I. (2015). Loodusteaduste õppimisest ja õpetamisest Eesti koolides Rahvusvaheliste võrdlusuuringute taustal [Science learning and teaching in Estonian schools behind international comparative studies]. Tallinn, Estonian: Tallinn University (In Estonian).Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-student relationship qualities on academic adjustment. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., Kwok, O., Villarreal, V. & Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher–student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 350–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kamens, D.H. & Benavot, A. (2011). National, regional and international learning assessments: trends among developing countries, 1960–2009. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2), 285–300. Retrieved from doi: 10.1080/14767724.2011.577337.
  29. Kjærnsli, M. & Lie, S. (2011). Students’ preference for science careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korthagen, K., Klaassen, C. & Russell, T. (2000). New learning in teacher education. In R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 243–259). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  31. Krips, H. (2014). Õpetaja Suhtlemiskompetentsusest ja Selle Arendamisest Õpetajakoolituses [Teachers` Communication Competence and its Development in Teacher Training]. In Edgar Krull et al. (Eds.), Õpetajate Professionaalne Areng ja Selle Toetemine (pp. 103–117). Estonia: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  32. La Paro, K. M. & Pianta, R. C. (2003). CLASS: Classroom Assessment Scoring System. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  33. Leikin, R. & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loogma, K., Ruus, V. R., Talts, L. & Poom-Valickis, K. (2009). Õpetaja professionaalsus ning tõhusama õpetamis- ja õppimiskeskkonna loomine. OECD rahvusvahelise õpetamise ja õppimise uuringu TALIS tulemused. [Teacher’s professionalism and creating more effective teaching and learning environment. The results of OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey]. Tallinn, Estonian: Tallinna Ülikooli haridusuuringute keskus. [In Estonian].Google Scholar
  35. Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marzano, R. J. & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6–13.Google Scholar
  37. Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S. & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  38. McCormick, M. P., O'Connor, E. E., Cappella, E. & McClowry, S. G. (2013). Teacher–child relationships and academic achievement: A multilevel propensity score model approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 611–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E. & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010a). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do—Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). Paris, France: Author. Google Scholar
  42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010b). PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful?—Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris, France: Author. Google Scholar
  43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  44. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing student-teacher relationships: A developmental systems perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Planel, C. (1997). National cultural values and their role in learning: A comparative ethnographic study of state primary schooling in England and France. Comparative Education, 33(3), 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riconscente, M. M. (2014). Effects of perceived teacher practices on Latino High School Students’ Interest, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rindermann, H. & Ceci, S. J. (2009). Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L. & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.Google Scholar
  50. Rutter, M. & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Säälik, Ü., Mikk, J., Krips, H. & Kalk, K. (2014). Õpilaste poolt õpetaja käitumisviisidele antavate hinnangute seostest õpilaste õpihuvi ning õpieduga [The relationship between stdents` assessments of teachers` behaviour and students` interest in learning and success]. In E. Krull et al. (Eds.), Õpetajate professionaalne areng ja selle toetamine (pp. 83–102). Estonia: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  52. Sanders, M. G. & Jordan, W. J. (2000). Student-Teacher relations and academic achievement in high school. In M. G. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk (pp. 53–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lSltA45YAkQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=related:Qv2gopEKF94J:scholar.google.com/&ots=MgD_Im30ad&sig=BrAmHvUfOoMcfiEDFliaoIkWU18#v=onepage&q&f=false.
  53. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R. & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shen, C. & Tam, H. P. (2008). The paradoxical relationship between student achievement and self-perception: A cross-national analysis based on three waves of TIMSS data. Educational Research & Evaluation, 14(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, R. B. (2009). Global human development: Accounting for its regional disparities. Quality & Quantity, 43(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Täht, K. (2012). The cross-cultural view on students’ motivation to learn. Dissertationes Psychologicae Universitatis Tartuensis, 37. Tartu, Estonia: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  57. Täht, K. & Must, O. (2013). Comparability of educational achievement and learning attitudes across nations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tao, Y., Oliver, M. & Venville, G. (2013). A comparison of approaches to the teaching and learning of science in Chinese and Australian elementary classrooms: Cultural and socioeconomic complexities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teven, J. J. & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Urdan, T. & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Veiga, F. H. (2005). What is missing for students to be good at mathematics. Psicologia Educação Cultura, 9(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
  62. Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Motivating students to behave in socially competent ways. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaan Mikk
    • 1
  • Heiki Krips
    • 1
  • Ülle Säälik
    • 1
  • Karmen Kalk
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Education, University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations