Student Perceptions of Biology Teachers Interpersonal Teaching

Section 1: Introduction to the Study

The National Science Board (2010) warned of a “troubling decline” (p. 1) in the

number of U.S. citizens studying to become scientists and engineers, even as the number

of jobs requiring science and engineering training was growing. Their report concluded

that U.S. global leadership in science and technology was declining as foreign nations—

especially China and other Asian countries—were rapidly developing their national

innovation systems. In 2009, the respected Program for International Student Assessment

reported that in the United States 15-year-old students ranked 17th on science tests and

24th on math tests, compared with their peers from 29 other wealthy nations. Lemonick

(2006) provided additional support for this trend by noting that the number of American

students entering technical fields in undergraduate universities and graduate schools had

been plummeting.

For many decades, eager immigrants came to United States to earn advanced

degrees in science and engineering. Most of these graduates continued working in this

country even long after their graduation. The trend now is for these students to receive

their science education in the United States and return to their homelands with the new

knowledge. Lemonick (2006) called this trend a crisis and stated, “Unless things change,

they will overtake us, and the breathtaking burst of discovery that has been driving our

economy for the past half-century will be over” (p. 24). In 2007, 17% of all bachelor's

degrees awarded in the United States were in the sciences and engineering, while in

China, 52% of 4-year degrees focused on these areas (Zimmer, 2007). In Japan, South

Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland more than 40% of the graduate degrees were awarded in

science (Zimmer, 2007). These numbers, according to Zimmer (2007), indicate that the

American scientist population is not healthy, especially not in comparison to scientists in

other countries. Zimmer wrote that the inability of the United States to attract young

people to enroll in these fields will affect America's ability to retain its top place in the

global scientific and technological arena. The National Academies (2005), one of the

United States’ leading organizations in science, medicine, and engineering, noted that the

erosion of the nation’s scientific and technical strength threatened America’s strategic

and economic security. The United States has to reverse these trends to retain a

technological advantage in this highly globalized economy.

In a speech to members of the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, President

Obama (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2009) addressed the need to

improve science education in the United States. He outlined a number of budget and

policy priorities. Key among them: boosting interest among youngsters in science and

math-with an eye towards encouraging them to consider careers in allied fields (Science

Insider, 2009). Winters (2006) stated, “Perhaps, even more important than the struggle of

United States students to keep pace with their international peers is their failure to keep

up enthusiasm for the subject” (p.26). Research studies on the effect of motivation on

learning have shown that children are attracted to ideas that address both their cognitive

and affective needs (Butler & Nesbit, 2008). Young children, according to Butler and

Nesbit (2008), are excited about science when they are given the chance to explore

science. Children love to explore the natural world to make sense of it (Geary, 2008;

Tella, 2007, 2009). Some researchers have argued that children’s enthusiasm and

curiosity are squashed by fourth grade because of the manner in which American

educators teach science (Lesner, 2009; Winters, 2006). According to Winters (2006), if a

child loses enthusiasm and curiosity about science, it is awfully hard for the child to get

back into science in high school and college. Community college science faculty have a

difficult and extremely challenging task of keeping students’ enthusiasm and motivation

high while increasing their science achievement (Eddy, 2007; Huber, 1998; Murray,

2002). In the context of these findings, the United States must invest resources to

improve science education if it is to maintain its preeminence in science and engineering

innovation.

This study determined the relationship between students’ academic achievement

in a community college’s introductory biology courses and their perceptions of the

teachers’ interpersonal teaching behavior. In prescribed educational settings, students and

teachers spend a significant amount of time in classrooms interacting with each other.

Educators believe that good quality relationships between teachers and students are

crucial in the learning process (Klem & Connell, 2004; Muntner, 2008). Many variables

determine, to differing degrees, the success of any particular learning environment, and

one of the key variables is the nature and quality of the student-teacher interaction.

Studies have shown that students with caring and supporting interpersonal relationship

with their teachers reported more positive academic attitudes and satisfaction with school

(den Brok, Taconis, & Telli, 2010; Klemm & Connell, 2004; Koul & Fisher, 2004).

Arends (2001) wrote that establishing bona fide relationships with students is a

precondition to everything else in teaching. Research over the past two decades indicated

that effective teaching demands the use of a wide array of skills that must be adapted to

specific contexts. According to Koul and Fisher (2005), a teacher’s behavior, when

interacting with students, can have a lasting positive or negative impact on how the

students perceived the learning environment that teacher created. According to Good and

Brophy (2000), the ideal classroom starts with creating a supportive climate in which

students feel at ease asking questions and contributing to lessons without the fear of

embarrassment or ridicule. Good and Brophy concluded that teachers who emphasize this

type of environment tend to be more effective than those who emphasize their roles as

disciplinarians.

Attempts by researchers to quantify the impact of teacher effectiveness on

students' learning outcomes in science can be traced to the early 1950s. Many research

studies on teacher effectiveness consistently showed that effective teaching resulted in

increased science achievement for all students (Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007; Lynch,

Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Wojnowski, Bellamy, & Cooke; 2003). Johnson et al.

(2007), in a study designed to assesses the impact of teaching effectiveness on student

learning outcomes in science and the long-term consequences associated with their

science learning experience, found that effective teachers positively impact student

learning. Johnson et al. used a general linear mixed model approach to assess change in

student scores on the Discovery Inquiry Test as a function of time, race, teacher

effectiveness, gender, and impact of teacher effectiveness over a 3-year period. Effective

teaching in the study was identified through multiple classroom observations using the

local systemic change classroom observation protocol (Horizon Research, 1999). The

outcome of the study was important because it found that effective teaching not only

increased student achievement, but it also closed achievement gaps for all students.

Findings from this study strongly supported evidence from other studies that effective

teaching may hold the key to increasing student achievement and narrowing achievement

gaps in science.

The 2009 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) reported

that community colleges serve a diverse mix of students with dramatically varying goals

and levels of academic preparation. A good number of these students are returning from

the workforce to learn new skills. Many are first-generation college students who have

never been to a college campus. According to the CCSSE report “Most have significant

demands on their time as they juggle personal, academic, and financial challenges” (p. 5).

Many researchers studying 21

century students have described them as diverse

individuals with varying learning needs. For them to be successful in the classroom,

instruction must focus on the learning styles and preferences of the target population

(Brown, 2003; Byrd & Macdonald, 2005; Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Phillipe & Sullivan,

2005).

Data from the National Science Foundation’s 2001 National Survey of Recent

College Graduates showed that more than 40% of recent science and engineering

graduates attended community colleges at some point in their educational paths. A

majority of students going into the allied health field such as nursing began their

education in community colleges (Chen, 2008). In the last two decades, community

colleges have undergone considerable demographic change. According to the National

Center for Educational Statistics (2008), the median age of community college students

in 2008 was 24 years old. Thirty-five percent of community college students were 30

years old or older, 18% were between 24 and 29 years old, and 38% were between 19 and

23 years old (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008). The majority of these

students are returning students seeking retraining or new career skills, and the number of

women and minorities has been increasing (Phillipe & Sullivan, 2005). Community

college faculties, like many of their colleagues in higher education institutions, bring very

little experience and training to the teaching dimension of their roles (Grubb, 1999;

Wagoner, 2008). Wagoner (2008) said that even though teaching is the core process of

community colleges, many faculty members are hired for their expertise in a specific

content area such as biology with little to no background in pedagogy and curriculum

design. These faculty are also expected to be proficient in the use of the latest teaching

methodologies and instructional technologies, including presentation software such as

PowerPoint, and to teach in classrooms equipped with the latest technology to engage

students and lead them to academic success (Barrington, 2004; Galbraith, 2004; Sperling,

2003).

Many community college faculty members are not trained in graduate school to

face the pedagogical challenges of a diverse student population that requires using

different approaches to teaching and learning (Eddy, 2007; Murray, 2002). Faculty

members in community colleges spend the greatest portion of their professional time

devoted to teaching. The interactions that occur within the classroom environment are

where faculty and students have the greatest opportunities to connect. Faculty also

interacts with community college students in a variety of other ways outside the

classroom, from campus activities to formal and informal advising. Studies, however,

showed that it was the central role of instruction for which community college faculty

had the least preparation (Grubb, 1999; Wagoner, 2008). Even though educational

researchers have identified many pedagogical approaches and learning theories, there is

still a debate among educators about what approach works best for effective teaching and

learning (Chickering, 2006; Ediger, 2005; Erickson, Peters, & Strommer, 2006;

Fernandez, 2005; Grossman, 2005). According to Campbell (2009), “The apparent

disconnect between teaching preparedness of the varied methodologies and the diverse

learning needs of students come at a critical time when society is requiring increasingly

complex scientific skills of its members for them to be successful”. Professional

development for faculty could fulfill this need by providing appropriate learning

opportunities for them. Community colleges must be required as part of their core

mission to implement faculty development activities to assist faculty in developing the

skills and strategies necessary to provide effective instruction designed to improve

teaching and learning.

This study addressed the problem of inadequate teacher-student interactions in

community college introductory biology classrooms and their impact on student cognitive

outcomes. The study determined if there were relationships between students’ cognitive

outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions among students taking an

introductory biology course in a community college. Teachers are pivotal to student

perceptions of learning (West, 1994), inhibiting or facilitating student learning. Several

studies on teacher-student interaction and student achievement have shown that some of

the qualities that lead to effective relationships are positive affection, warm attitude, tact

of teaching, teacher immediacy and teacher power, teacher assertiveness and

responsiveness, and low differential treatment (Pekel, Demir & Yildiz, 2006; Santiboon

&Fisher, 2005; Scott & Fisher, 2001). A lack of any of the aforementioned traits may

negatively influence teacher student interactions (Pekel et al., 2006). This study is

important because it provides information that instructors can use to modify instructor-

student interactions and teaching strategies in a community college introductory biology

classroom to increase student achievement. The outcomes of the study can help in

building more positive teacher–student relationships through reflection. Potentially,

collecting information on students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior will

help in initiating and supporting activities in professional development programs in

community colleges.

Problem Statement

The problem of inadequate-teacher interactions in undergraduate introductory

biology classrooms has been linked to poor student performance, resulting in fewer

students pursuing advanced degree and careers in life science (National Science Board,

2008; Wood, 2009). Using data from its study of undergraduate institutions, the Center

for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis (IDEA; 2001) found that approximately

50% of students with an initial major in science switched to a nonscience major within

the first 2 years of enrollment. A majority of undergraduate students, regardless of their

majors, take at least an introductory biology course during their undergraduate career,

providing them with the best opportunity to learn about the basic facts of modern

biology. In a report on vision and change in undergraduate biology education, the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS; 2009) wrote:

Introductory biology courses provide students an opportunity to develop an

understanding of the nature of science and the scientific process so that when they

confront issues that involve science and technology, they can solve every-day

problems and use evidence and logic to reach sound conclusions (p. 5).

The authors of the report concluded that, no matter what their ultimate career paths, all

students will need these very basic skills to participate as citizens and prosper in the

modern world. For many undergraduate students, the course might be the only exposure

they have to the life sciences, or to any of the sciences. The course therefore is important

because it often serves as the best opportunity to interest students in a biomedical

research or other life science career.

Stokstad (2001), in a study measuring how well students learned the basics in

science, concluded that there was substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the

sciences—that is, teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage

undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning—can produce

significant levels of understanding and retention in introductory biology courses.

According to Stokstad, “Each year, hundreds of thousands of U.S. students get their only

exposure to science in an intro class--and most leave without understanding how science

works or with any desire to take further courses” (p. 1). Changing the way educators

teach introductory biology courses requires moving from a passive experience to an

active and engaged classroom, which will increase students’ interest in the subject.

Several variables in community college introductory biology classrooms were

examined in this study, two of which were ineffective teaching strategies and inadequate

teacher-student interactions and their impact on student learning outcomes. Arends

(2011) said that effective teaching requires thorough and insightful thought about what a

teacher does and the effect it has on students’ social and cognitive learning. Efforts to

address ineffective teaching would require increasing the frequency and quality of

interactions within university science courses including enhancing student-to-instructor

communications (Lee, & Rha, 2009; Mahle, 2011; Preszler, Dawe, & Shuster, 2007).

This study contributes to the body of knowledge needed to address this problem by

examining if there was an association between community college introductory biology

students’ perceptions of interpersonal teaching behaviors and their achievement in

introductory biology courses in a community college.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

This study investigated the relationship between teacher-student interactions and

students’ achievement in introductory biology in a suburban community college in a Mid-

Atlantic state. The following three research questions were formulated to guide the

exploration. Following the research questions are the corresponding hypothesis and null

hypothesis.

Research Question 1: How do students perceive the interpersonal behaviors of the

instructors of their introductory biology courses?

For Research Question 1, the hypothesis is exploratory in nature, and no specific

hypothesis is stated.

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal teaching behavior and student achievement in introductory biology

courses?

Null Hypothesis 2 (H

2): Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching

behavior will not be related to student achievement.

Alternate Hypothesis (H

2): Students’ achievement will be positively related to

students' perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviors in introductory biology courses.

In other words, the higher students' grades are in the course, the more positively they will

rate their teachers' interpersonal behaviors.

Research Question 3: Do student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior

differ based upon student achievement levels in introductory biology courses?

Null Hypothesis (H

3): Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior

will not differ based on students’ achievement levels in introductory biology courses.

Alternate Hypothesis (H

3): High achieving students (attaining grades of As and

Bs) will rate their teachers' interpersonal behavior significantly more positively than low

achieving students (students receiving grades of Cs, Ds, and Fs).

I discuss more details on the nature of this study and the research design in more detail in

Section 3.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine whether relationships exist

between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions

among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban community college in

a Mid-Atlantic state. Research conducted over the past 30 years has shown that the

quality of the classroom environment is a significant determinant of student learning

(Chua, 2009; Dorman, Aldridge, & Fraser, 2006, Fraser, 1998, Khine, 2002, 2005). That

is, students perform better and have more positive attitudes toward the subject taught

when they perceive the classroom environment positively.

Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical frameworks that anchored this investigation were Leary’s (1957)

theory on interpersonal communication and the systems communication theory of

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967). The interpersonal communication and systems

communication theory models were widely used in clinical and psychological settings but

were adapted by a team of Dutch researchers for use in the educational setting since the

early 1980s (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Levy; 2002).

Leary's Interpersonal Communication Theory

Rogers (1995) defined communication as a process in which participants create

and share information with one another in order to reach mutual understanding.

According to Rogers, communication is a social process in which individuals employ

symbols to establish and interpret meaning in their environment. The term interpersonal

communication refers to face-to-face communications that have high affectivity. It

involves investigating how relationships begin, the maintenance of relationships, and the

dissolution of relationships (West & Turner, 2007).

Leary (1957) developed interpersonal communication theory to describe and

measure specific interpersonal behaviors, primarily in a therapeutic setting. The Leary

model, with its two dimensions of influence and proximity, has been widely investigated

in clinical psychology and psycho-therapeutic settings and has proven to be a rather

complete model to explain interpersonal behaviors (Foa, 1961). The model of

interpersonal teacher behavior was an adaptation of the Leary model of interpersonal

behavior for use in education. Wubbels, Créton, and Hooymayers (1985) focused on the

teacher variable for improving the learning environment and developed a model to map

teacher interpersonal behavior. They mapped the behaviors of teachers along two-

dimensional axes: an Influence dimension (dominance and submission) and a Proximity

dimension (cooperation and opposition). The Influence dimension portrays who is

controlling or directing the communication process and how often; the Proximity

dimension indicates the degree of cooperation or closeness among those who are

involved in the process of communication (den Brok, Wei, & Zhou; 2009). Both

dimensions of Influence and Proximity are independent and reminiscent of effective

teacher behaviors that could influence classroom processes. For instance, directivity and

warmth were two descriptions of effective teacher behavior (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) that

bore strong resemblance to Influence and Proximity.

Systems Communication Theory

The systems communication theory (Watzlawick et al., 1967) postulates that,

among other important features, the occurrence of circular processes, stability, and

resistance to change are crucial for understanding human communication. Dutch

researchers (Creton, Hermans, & Wubbels, 1990) believed that these very features are

also present in classroom communication. Creton et al. (1990) described classes as

characterized by circular processes, stability, and resistance to change and interaction

between a teacher and the students is of pivotal importance in classroom communication.

In the context of the classroom, the behavior of the teacher not only influences student

behavior, but the behavior of the teacher is also influenced by the behavior of students.

Goh (1994) described how teacher communication behavior can convey different

underlying messages to students. For instance, when a teacher points out a student's

mistakes in class, one likely command message is “I want to help you to learn” while

another very different version could be “You are too stupid to learn.” It is, therefore

important, for teachers to be more conscious of the report and command aspects of their

messages as these may have a tremendous influence on teacher-student classroom

communication. Many research studies of biology classroom environment consistently

showed that interpersonal communication between teacher and students increased student

achievement in the subject by motivating students (Aydogan, 2008; Corrigan & Chapman

2008; Elias, 2006). Building a positive relationship between the teacher and students is

very important because it helps students become more successful in the classroom.

Operational Definitions

The following are definitions of technical terms used throughout the study. For

the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined and derived from the literature

related to the phenomenon.

Classroom environment or climate: Classroom climate is a term used by

educators to describe the learning environment on a number of dimensions including

student perceptions of personal support and encouragement for learning (Johnson &

Johnson, 1983). Instructors influence classroom climate by establishing and maintaining

the nature of the learning environment in terms of competition, collaboration, and caring

(Hirschy & Wilson, 2002). Maslowski (2003) described class climate as the collective

perceptions of students with respect to the mutual relationships within the classroom, the

organization of the lessons and the learning tasks of the students.

Community college: A 2-year traditional school, offering programs leading to the

associate's degree and, typically, many noncredit courses in arts, crafts, and vocational

fields for community members not seeking a degree. They typically have relatively low

admissions requirements, low tuition, and reside in populated areas, making college

education accessible to many.

Interpersonal teachers’ behaviors: This term refers to interactional aspects of

teacher behavior and is synonymous with the term interpersonal teacher behavior.

Wubbels et al. (1985) defined it as " behavior that refer to the relationship between the

teacher and his students and which is expressed in the interaction between the personal

communication in the classroom" (p. 3).

Introductory biology course: According to the 2008 learning outcomes

assessment at the community college that served as the research site, it is a course that

focuses on the basic biological principles common to all living things, including cell

structure and function, molecular, cellular reproduction, genetics, energy transformation,

and biotechnology. The introductory biology course is the first biology course taken by

science majors and the most common biology course taken by nonscience majors. A

course such as this exposes students to a broad body of knowledge about biology.

Student achievement: Academic achievement is all about what students can

actually do when they have finished a course of study. Students’ achievement in this

study was determined by student performance on an introductory biology comprehensive

final examination given to all students in the course as part of the ongoing learning

outcome assessment. Successful achievement was 70 points out of 100 points.

Teacher interaction: Teacher-student interaction, by its very nature, can be

characterized as a systematic and intensive social contact, necessitating a mechanism that

maintains order and control (Jackson, 1968). That is the academic relationship between

teachers and their students. The variables linked to the process of classroom interaction

are determined by school roles and the structure of the lesson itself.

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI): An instrument developed specially

for evaluating teacher-student relationships in secondary classrooms (Wubbels,

Brekelmans, & Hoomayers, 1991). The instrument has been modified and used in

postsecondary classrooms. The QTI was developed in the Netherlands between 1978 and

1984 to gather student and teacher perception data (Wubbels et al., 1985) based on the

model for interpersonal teacher behavior (MITB). Research with the QTI has resulted in a

vast and evolving knowledge base on teacher–student interpersonal behavior (Fraser

1998; Levy et al. 2003; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998; Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok,

& van Tartwijk, 2006).

Assumptions, Limitations, Scope and Delimitations

Assumptions

An assumption is defined as a limitation about a study that is purposely not

controlled and is assumed to be true (Best &Kahn, 2003; Davis & Parker, 1997;

Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). Participants’ knowledge about effective teaching and learning

for this quantitative study was aligned with other quantitative studies conducted on

students’ perceptions of interpersonal teaching behavior and student achievement in

biology (Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser; 2000; Lee & Fraser; 2003; Telli, den Brok, &

Cakiroglu, 2007). Within the system theoretical perspective of communication, the basis

for this study, I assumed that participants would mutually influence each other. The

behavior of the teacher influences that of the students (den Brok & Cakiroglu, 2007). The

majority of the studies on students’ perceptions of interpersonal teaching behavior using

the QTI were done at the elementary and high school levels. In those educational

environments, students spend considerably more time with the same teacher compared to

the tertiary level. The survey for this study was conducted with students who had

successfully completed an introduction to biology course in the prior semester and

enrolled in upper level biology courses. I assumed that the students would have spent

enough time in a classroom situation with the instructor to provide an honest report of

their perceptions of the teacher’s interpersonal teaching behavior. To ensure participants

answered the survey questions openly and truthfully, privacy of all participants was

assured and maintained. Additionally, participants were made aware that as volunteers

they would have the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time without adverse

consequences.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations are conditions that cannot be controlled and potential weaknesses of

the study (Best & Kahn, 2003; Creswell, 2003; Pajares, 2007; Patton, 2002). The

limitations in this study were the small number of participants, utility of theoretical

frameworks, quantitative research design, narrow use of achievement outcomes, and

generalizability. The research was limited to a quantitative study conducted a one college

and limited to students taking an introductory biology course. The theoretical frameworks

were limited only to the communications methods used by a teacher to students in a

biology classroom.

Small number of participants. This quantitative study involved only a selected

small number of students from a large population of students taking an introduction to

biology course in one suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic state.

Utility of theoretical frameworks. This study focused on only the interpersonal

communication between teachers and students in a single semester in a single day of a

typical introductory biology class and how that communication influenced both the

teacher and student behavior.

Sampling method. Purposive, nonprobability, convenience sampling method was

used to select participants for this study. Because participants were nonrandomly

selected, results from this study cannot speak for the entire population of students taking

introduction to biology courses at the community college.

Narrow use of achievement outcomes. This study included only those

achievement outcomes that were measurable. Students’ responses to survey questions

were compared with their final grade in introductory biology courses at a suburban

community college in a Mid-Atlantic state.

Generalizability. Generalization of this study to other populations was restricted

by the type of sample (convenience) used. Convenience sampling is a nonprobability

sampling technique where subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility

and proximity to the researcher (Pajares, 2007). Participants were selected because they

were willing and available to be studied (Creswell, 1998). Because convenience sample

may not be a true representation of the population being studied, the results of the study

cannot speak for the entire population of students taking introduction to biology courses

at community colleges in this region.

Delimitations

This study was specifically limited to the interpersonal teaching behaviors

occurring between students and teachers in introductory biology classes. To narrow the

focus, this study delimited itself to surveying 318 students taking introductory biology in

a large suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic state. The study was further

limited because the data were recorded from the perspective of the students only.

Previous research has shown that students produce data that are more reliable and valid

than teacher self-report data (Wubbels, Creton, Levy, & Hooymayers, 1993). While the

study supported the fact that teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors impact students’

attitude, the study did not make any claims regarding the causal nature of this

relationship. Because it is very likely that positive attitudes may have an effect on

teachers’ interpersonal behavior as well, other types of analyses will be needed in future

research to provide more insight on this issue.

Significance of the Study

A quantitative study of the effect of teacher interaction and student achievement

in introductory biology in a suburban community college was significant because it

contributed to the body of knowledge needed to address the problem of inadequate

teacher-student interactions in undergraduate introductory biology classrooms and its link

to poor student performance these courses. Community college classrooms are becoming

more socially and culturally diversified, so understanding students’ different perceptions

about science learning and teaching would provide educators with valuable information

that can be used to improve instruction and learning.

Application to a Local Problem

In the United States, more than 40% of students in undergraduate institutions

attend community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Kisker & Outcalt, 2005; Mellow &

Heelan, 2008). While much is known from research studies about the demographic

profile of students in these colleges (Chen, 2009; Moltz, 2008; Phillippe & Sullivan,

2005), research focusing on community college classroom practices and student

perceptions of teaching and learning, including factors that influence faculty

interpersonal teaching style, has been lacking (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Isaac & Boyer,

2007; Outcalt, 2005; Sperling, 2003). The results of this research study will contribute to

current research on teaching and learning processes in community college classrooms

from the prospective of students.

A study of the relationship between students’ perceptions of interpersonal

teaching behaviors and student achievement is very important for science educators as

well as for other disciplines (Callahan, Clark, & Kellough, 2002; Fraser & Fisher, 1982;

Telli et al., 2007). This study is important because it represents one of only a few studies

in the United States that have focused on the science learning environment at the college

level. The results of this study of instructor-student interaction in community college

introductory biology classrooms help clarify the nature, level, and patterns of instructor-

student interactions that are needed at the undergraduate level to increase student

achievement. This study provided information that instructors can use to modify their

interactions with students in order to cater more adequately to their learning needs.

Arends (2001) stated that establishing authentic relationships with students is a

prerequisite to everything else in teaching.

Professional Application

This study provided important useful information to the community college where

the data were gathered that can be used to advance new strategies for improving

classroom practices, management, and administration policies for introductory biology

courses. The results of the study also offer a road map to other community colleges in the

region regarding improved student outcomes in introductory biology courses. Teachers

are crucial to student perceptions of learning, inhibiting or facilitating student learning

(Pekel et al., 2006). The outcomes of the study help to build more positive teacher–

student relationships by improving the level of interactions.

Implications for Positive Social Change

Walden University (2006) defined positive social change as a deliberate process

of creating and applying ideas, strategies, and actions to promote the worth, dignity, and

development of individuals, communities, organizations, institutions, cultures, and

societies. This study applies to Walden University's definition of social change in that the

study addressed strategies and ideas of best practices in teaching to affect students'

achievement and perceptions of science. As classrooms become more socially and

culturally diversified, understanding students’ different perceptions about science

learning and teaching would provide educators with valuable information they can use to

improve instruction and learning.

According to data from a national profile of community colleges (Phillippe &

Sullivan, 2005) as well as a survey of American community colleges (Cohen & Brawer,

2003), the demographic breakdown of students at the suburban community college

chosen for this study closely resembled that of similar community colleges throughout

the United States. The findings from this study therefore may have applicability

nationwide.

The study will contribute to positive social change for students and faculty by

providing current research data that can be used to guide and encourage administrators to

support faculty development activities in pedagogy that will lead to increased student

engagement, success, and retention in science majors not only in the community college

where the study was conducted, but also in suburban community colleges in the United

States.

Summary

The problem of inadequate teacher-student interactions in undergraduate

introductory biology classrooms has been linked to poor student performance, resulting in

fewer students pursuing advanced degrees and careers in life science (National Science

Board, 2008; Wood, 2009). In a study of active learning in undergraduate biology

classrooms, Taraban et al, (2007) found that classrooms in which the teacher acted as a

facilitator, creating the learning conditions in which students actively engage in

experiments and interpret and explain data, increased student achievement and retention.

According to Wood (2009), most college science classes, particularly large introductory

courses, are not designed around the principles of active learning, and this could be one

reason for the high attrition rates. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine

if there was an association between community college introductory biology students’

perceptions’ of interpersonal teaching behaviors and their achievement in introductory

biology courses in a suburban community college. The conceptual framework, Leary’s

(1957) theory on interpersonal communication and the systems communication theory of

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) explained how interpersonal communication

between teacher and students can increase students’ achievement in biology and why

building a positive relationship between the teacher and students is very important as it

helps students become more successful in the classroom. Operational definitions

explained the educational technical terms used throughout the study. The assumptions,

limitations, scope, and delimitations of the study were clearly defined. Finally, the

significance of the study and its application to a local problem, professional application,

and contribution to social change were explained. Section 2 will present, analyze, and

summarize the literature related to completed studies of teacher-student interpersonal

behavior and cognitive achievement in biology. Literature supporting the validation and

reliability of the study instrument QTI will also be reviewed. Section 3 will present the

research design used for the study. Section 4 includes data analysis and research findings,

and Section 5 includes conclusions and recommendations for future research.

Section 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Researchers have linked inadequate teacher-student interactions in undergraduate

introductory biology classrooms to poor student performance, resulting in fewer students

pursuing advanced degrees and careers in life science (Doyle, 2002; National Science

Board, 2008). The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine relationships

between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions

among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban community college in

a Mid Atlantic State. This research was intended to identify which forms of interactions

were likely to promote better student outcomes in introductory biology courses in order

to identify ways in which the college can enhance the teaching and learning process of

students in introductory biology courses. The research questions for this study were

developed to determine if students’ perceptions of teacher interactions in introductory

biology courses affected student achievement.

Content and Organization of the Review

Given the nature of the study, the review included literature on the science

learning environment and teachers’ interpersonal behavior and its impact on student

achievement in biology; literature on student perceptions of teacher-student interaction

and cognitive outcomes; and literature on the instruments used to assess students’

perceptions of teacher interaction. This basic search resulted in many good current and

old articles dealing with the concept of teacher interaction, cognitive outcomes, and the

science classroom environment. The classroom environment is a very important

determinant of learning outcomes (Fraser, 1994 & 1998); therefore, the factors that

contribute to a good classroom environment were reviewed. Finally, literature on the

theoretical frameworks, interpersonal communication theory by Leary (1957) and the

systems communication theory by Watzlawick et al. (1967), were reviewed. Both

theories deal with how humans communicate with each other and have been shown to be

applicable to educational settings. The section concludes with a summary of literature

related to the methods chosen for the study.

Strategy Used for Searching the Literature

In collecting literature for this study, I began with a search request using the

Google Scholar search engine. The following key words were used in this search:

classroom environment, teachers’ classroom behavior and student achievement in

science, teaching strategies, interpersonal teaching behavior, teacher student interaction

and student achievement, and student perceptions of teaching and learning. This basic

search retrieved many viable articles introducing the concept of teacher interaction and

cognitive outcomes and science classroom environment.

Current peer-reviewed journals were used to retrieve literature related to the

association between students’ personal perceptions of teacher-student interactions and

their effect on student achievement in biology. The literature reviewed in this section was

compiled using multiple author and keyword searches in Academic Search Premier,

Education Research Complete, and the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC),

as well as SAGE Online Journals relating to education. Search terms included

interpersonal teaching behavior, learning environment, effective teaching, student

perceptions of teaching and learning, student achievement, community college education,

and community college students and faculty.

I also obtained copies of texts examining the works of Leary and Watzlawick et al

dealing with interpersonal communication theory, and other print sources addressing the

process of conducting a quantitative study.

Literature on Communications Theories

The systems communication theory (Watzlawick et al., 1967) and Leary (1957)

model of interpersonal communication are two theories describing how teachers and

students interact in the classroom. Research studies on the science classroom

environment have shown that when analyzing teachers’ contributions to relationships

with students, their behavior can be considered a form of communication (Santiboon &

Fisher, 2005; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). Wubbels and Brekelmans (2005) examined

teaching from an interpersonal perspective in terms of the relationship between teacher

and students. They reported that there are two elements central to this viewpoint: the

communicative systems approach and a MITB. While the systems approach focuses on

the pragmatic aspects of communication—that is, the effects on the other person

involved—the MITB focuses on the interpersonal aspects of communication (Wubbels &

Brekelmans, 2005).Teaching and learning styles are communicative behaviors that occur

when teachers and students interact in a classroom environment. Teaching behaviors

reveal the beliefs and values that teachers hold about the learner’s role in the exchange

(Heimlich & Norland, 2002). Communication is an important part of the social

interaction that occurs in an educational setting. Thus, the effectiveness of the teaching

and learning in the school environment is determined by the quality of the

communication process.

The Systems Communication Theory

The conceptualization of teacher-student interpersonal behavior in relation to

education evolved partially from the systems communication theory of Watzlawick et al.

(1967), who conceived classroom groups as continuing systems. A systems approach to

communication is a rewarding theoretical framework of reference for studying teacher

behavior (Kim, Fisher, & Fraser, 2000; She & Fisher, 2002; Wubbels, Creton, & Holvast,

1988).

This approach to communication was originally designed by Watzlawick et al.

(1967) in the context of family therapy. Using this approach to study teacher behavior in

the classroom implies that the behavior of a person is not just as a characteristic of a

person, but rather the characteristic of a communication that an individual has with others

involved in the process. Within the systems perspective on communication, it is assumed

that behaviors of participants influence each other mutually. The behavior of the teacher

both influences and is influenced by the behavior of the students (Wubbels, Brekelmans,

& Hooymayers, 1991). The result is a circular communication process that not only

consists of behavior, but also determines behavior (den Brok, Fisher, & Scott; 2005).

According to the systems approach, every form of communication has a content

and relation aspect (Watzlawick et al., 1967, Wubbels et al., 2006), also referred to as the

report and the command aspects of behavior (La France & Mayo, 1978, Wubbels &

Brekelmans; 2005). The content conveys information or description; the relational aspect

carries instructions about how to interpret the content. Consequently, in a class, teacher

and students often communicate in ways that are outside the subject matter (content). The

systems approach to communication breakdowns communication into three

distinguishable levels.

The lowest level. The message level consists of one single unit of behavior that

has a content and relation aspect. For instance, the words, “I want to help you to learn,”

can be combined with either a smile or a frown. In the latter case, the interpersonal aspect

of this communication may be perceived as: “I think you are too stupid to learn”

(Wubbels et al., 2006, p. 3; Burgoon et al., 2006, Marshall & Weinstein; 1986). The

content of a message conveys information with words, while the relationship level of

communication “refers to what sort of message it is to be taken as, and, therefore,

ultimately to the relationship between communicants” (Watzlawick et al, 1967, p. 50).

That is, every communication reveals not only explicit information, but also highlights

the implicit beliefs each communicant holds about the relationship by the way he or she

presents information. The relational aspect of communication includes nonverbal

behaviors such as facial expression and putting vocal emphasis on specific words.

Research showed that, more often than not, relational information was more important

than content (Brekelmans, den Brok, Bergen, & Wubbels, 2004; Craig, 2007).

There have been very few studies on students’ perceptions at the message level.

Tartwijk (1993) and Tartwijk, Brekelmans, Wubbels, Fisher, and Fraser (1998) reported

studies where an instrument was used to measure students’ perceptions of interpersonal

messages. In both studies observers were trained to assume the role of students. These

observers viewed lessons that had been videotaped from the back of the classroom and

gave their estimation of the students’ perceptions of teacher behavior. Different

fragments of the video showing the teacher in various situations were viewed by the

observers. In one a teacher is writing on the blackboard with his back to the classroom,

and some students are listening, whereas others are talking. Another example shows the

teacher speaking angrily to a student who was hitting another student with the class

looking on. The studies showed a non-significant correlation between the perceptions of

the observers and the students who actually sat through the teaching.

The second level. The second communicative level is called an interaction which

is a series of exchanged interpersonal messages is called an interaction. An example of

classroom interaction occurs when the teacher asks a specific student a question, and the

student ignores the teacher. The teacher responds to the silent treatment by asking another

student the same question, without paying any further attention to the first student. The

students in the class will recognize from this event that the teacher wants to avoid a

confrontation with the first student. Therefore, they may expect that they can determine

their own activities in this classroom without a very high risk of confronting the teacher.

The third level. Pattern level is the third and most extended level of

communication. The longer the students and the teacher interact, the more their behavior

becomes predictable, because their mutual expectations get confirmed and reconfirmed.

The pattern level is important in describing the stable interpersonal relationships that

determine the working atmosphere of classrooms. This study will focus on students’

perceptions of this last level of interaction.

Because of the availability of reliable measuring instruments such as the QTI,

more research studies have been conducted looking at the perceptions of teachers and

students at the pattern level (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; Zhu, 2010;

Petegem, Creemers, Rosseel, & Aelterman, 2007). Brok, Brekelmans, and Wubbels

(2004), in a study of the effectiveness of secondary education teachers’ interpersonal

behavior on learning outcomes found that interpersonal behavior explained more than

half of the variance in student outcomes at the teacher-class level. The outcomes

suggested that interpersonal behavior as perceived by students may be an important

variable for educational effectiveness researchers (Brok, Fisher, & Koul, 2006, Zhu,

2010).

Many research studies of biology classroom environment consistently show that

interpersonal communication between teacher and students increases student achievement

in the subject by motivating students (Aydogan 2008; Corrigan & Chapman 2008; Elias

2006; Smart, & Marshal, 2012). Building a positive relationship between the teacher and

students is very important because it helps students become more successful in the

classroom.

Interpersonal Communication Theory

Interpersonal teacher behavior refers to the relationship between the teacher and

his students and expressed in the interaction between the personal communications that

occur in the classroom (den Brok, Fisher, & Koul, 2006; Wubbels et al., 1985). The

interpersonal teaching behavior model (Wubbels et al., 1985; Wubbels & Creton, 1990;

Wubbels et al., 1993) is predicated on the communication theory of Leary (1957). This

model is based on Leary’s research on the interpersonal diagnosis of personality and its

application to teaching (Wubbels et al., 1985). The Leary model has been investigated

extensively in clinical psychology and psychotherapeutic settings and has proven

effective in describing different facets of human interaction (Foa, 1961; Lonner, 1980, &

Strack, 1996). Although not conclusive, there is evidence from numerous studies that the

Leary model is cross culturally generalizable (Brown, 1965; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974;

Lonner, 1980; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990).

In the Leary model, two dimensions of interpersonal communications are

important. Leary called them Dominance-Submission and Hostility-Affection. Even

though these two dimensions have occasionally been given other names-for example,

Brown (1965) used Status and Solidarity while Dunkin and Biddle (1974) used Warmth

and Directivity-they have generally been universally accepted as descriptors of human

interaction. The two dimensions have also been applied to education. Slater (1962) used

these dimensions to describe pedagogical relationships and Dunkin and Biddle (1974)

demonstrated their importance in teachers’ efforts to influence classroom events.

Robertson (2002) used two similar dimensions, assertiveness and cooperation, to describe

classroom management behaviors.

Literature on Learning Environments

In the past three decades, more attention has been paid to the study of learning

environment by researchers, teachers, and administrators. The conceptual view of

environment in relation to educational settings refers to the atmosphere, tone, or climate

that permeates the particular setting. It is a place where learners and teachers interact with

each using a variety of tools and information resources in their pursuit of learning

activities (Fout & Myers, 1998; Mucherah, 2008). Even though classroom environment is

an understated concept, significant progress has been made over the last 50 years to

conceptualize, assess, and research into it (Fraser, 200, Telli, den Brok, Tekkaya, &

Cakiroglu, 2009). Classrooms are specific places in schools where the outcomes of

education, that is, teaching, learning and application of knowledge is achieved, and these

places have a lot of influence on students (Fraser, 1981). Historically research on learning

environments has focused on the psychosocial dimensions, which is the facet of the

environment concerned with human behavior in origin or outcome (Boy & Pine, 1988).

Many research studies of science learning environment have focused on areas such

associations between classroom environment and outcomes, evaluation of educational

innovations, differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of classrooms,

comparisons of actual and preferred environments, and using environment instruments to

facilitate changes in classroom life (Dorman, 2002; Fraser, 1998, Goh & Khine, 2002;

Khine & Fisher, 2003). The outcomes of these studies have reinforced the view held by

educators that the quality of the classroom environment is a significant determinant of

student learning.

Students spend a vast amount of time in school classrooms during primary and

secondary schooling. As a result the quality of life in these classrooms is of great

importance and students’ reactions to and perceptions of their school experiences are

significant (Mucherah, 2008). Research studies in the United States and other countries

suggest that classroom environments have significant influences on student outcomes

(Adeyemo, 2010; Allen & Fraser, 2002; den Brok, Ruurd, & Fisher, 2010; Dorman,

2003; Umo, 2010). Pierce (1994) found that classroom climates that were high in

cooperation and cohesion were linked with a reduction of inappropriate behavior, an

increase in attendance, and a reduction in the number of assignments not completed. In a

similar study, students who perceived their classroom to be high in cooperation

experienced significant academic improvement and positive attitudes toward school

(Johnson et al. 1983). Adeyemo (2010) in a study of the impact of background and

classroom correlates on students’ achievement in physics found that there is a significant

association between classroom correlates and students achievement in physics. The

outcome of the study showed that classroom interactions have a significant impact on

students’ achievement in physics rather than family background. The result of this study

is consistent with other studies showing that when the learning environment is made

conducive, that is, adequate school physical resources, teacher quality and children’s

demographic and family background, the learners becomes willing to study, which

increases motivation that culminates into good academic performance.

Haukoos and Penick, (1983 and 1985) described the effect of two specific

classroom environments on the learning of science process skills and content

achievement in college level biology classes. In the study two classroom climates were

established and designated as discovery classroom climate (DCC) and non-discovery

classroom climate (NDCC). The term discovery denotes the degree of freedom the

teacher established in classroom interactions, both verbal and nonverbal. Verbal

interactions were monitored with the Science Laboratory Interaction Categories. These

data indicate that students in the two classroom climates achieved equally as well on

learning of biological content of the course, but students in the discovery classroom

climate achieved significantly higher scores in science process skills as measured by the

Welch Science Process Inventory. In addition, the discovery climate facilitated the

development of science process skills which were significantly better than the

comparison class.

Student Perceptions About Learning

Allport (1966) defined perception as the way individuals’ judge or evaluate others

with whom they are familiar in everyday life. Eggen and Kauchak (2001) described the

cognitive aspect of perception as the process by which people connect meaning to

experiences. That is people go to certain stimuli in their sensory memories, and

processing continues with perception. Perception is important because it influences the

information that enters working memory. Student perceptions are thoughts, beliefs, and

feelings about persons, situations, and events (Adediwura &Tayo, 2007; Schunk, &

Meece, 1992). Prior to the1990s; very little consideration was given to the study of

students’ perceptions even though the practice of seeking a student’s perception of

instruction was introduced into higher education in North America in the mid-1920s

(d’Apollonia & Abrami, 1997). The desire by educators clarify the correlation between

effective teaching and learning outcomes in higher education has led to the acceptance

and recognition that seeking students’ perceptions may provide important information on

teaching and the learning interaction in the higher education classrooms (Akey, 2006;

Delaney, Johnson, & Treslan, 2010; Akoyunlu & Soylu, 2008; Payne &Wagner, 1998).

The call for shaping students’ perspectives in education was recognized in the

works of Bloom (1983), Combs (1982), Sizer 1992, and Marjoribanks & Mboya, 1997.

Bloom (1983) said that student’s motivation to learn new tasks is an affective

characteristic. Combs (1982), described the affective domain as being an important

component of the education process. Combs also said that good education cannot be

achieved without addressing both the cognitive and affective domains. Affective factors

involve the individuals’ feelings and emotion towards a given set of circumstances or

conditions. Examples of these factors include students’ attitude towards their learning

environment, motivation to learn, how they interact with one another and the

relationships they share with their significant others, particularly their parents and

teachers (Marjoribanks & Mboya, 1997). Sizer (1992) said that educational goals will

vary as students themselves vary, and that learning should be personalized to the

maximum feasible extent. Darling-Hammond (1996) wrote that the job of a teacher is

complex and one skill they cannot afford to be without is the knowledge of the way

students think and perceive learning. According to Schunk (1997), perceptions can assist

teachers by showing how students think, which is helpful for teaching. These studies

highlight the importance of seeking students’ perceptions of their educational

environment and its usefulness in modifying and improving the quality of educational

environment.

Goodlad (1984) and Schneider (1996) in two independent studies noted that

students’ perceptions about learning are rarely sought, and students rarely make decisions

about their own learning. Barell (1995) in describing the standard for effective learning

said that students; are in charge of their own learning essentially, directing their own

learning processes. Aregbeyen (2010) investigated and analyzed students’ perceptions

effective teaching and effective lecturer characteristics. The study explored 35 critical

teaching effectiveness elements organized into five major sub-headings that included

analytical/synthetic approach, organization/clarity of teaching, lecturer-group

interactions, lecturer-individual student interaction and dynamism/enthusiasm of the

lecturer. In conclusion Aregbeyen wrote “effective teaching requires a lecturer to strike a

good balance between his teaching methodology and his personality characteristics”

(p.1). Beane (1993) said that the missing link in educational reform efforts at all levels is

student perceptions. Beane concluded that suitable curriculum must begin with relevant,

accurate, and up to date knowledge students’ perceptions of effective teaching and

learning. It is clear from the literature that educators should reconsider their view of the

learning process in order to change students sense of alienation over what is happening to

them academically (Adediwura & Tayo, 2007; Oerlemans & Jenkins, 1998).

In the last three decades there has been a gradual, but significant, increase in the

number studies on the subject of student perceptions. More educational researchers are

now attempting to study students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment

than at any other time in the history of American education (Fraser, 1998). Recently,

Giles (2009) investigated college students’ perceptions about their workload and their

academic performance. Johnson and Johnson (2006) sought to understand the

relationships between college student perceptions of classroom climate and academic

achievement. Brok, Fisher, Rickards and Bull (2006) examined factors that influence

Californian students’ perceptions of their learning environment. Weglinsky (2003)

analyzed teachers’ classroom practices (teacher input and characteristic practices) and its

impact on students’ academic performance. Campbel, Smith and Boulton-Lewis et al

(2001) considered students’ approaches to learning in regard to their teachers’ approaches

to teaching. Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg (2001) studied student perceptions of

family and school and how these perceptions affected academic achievement. One

common theme that permeates all these studies is that the climate of any learning

environment is an important component of the educational experience. Learning

environments are constructed by interactions that take place within a classroom between

a teacher and students. It is within this environment that the foundation of learning

transpires. In conclusion, student learning according to Wenglinsky (2003) is a product of

the interactions that occur in the classroom between students and teachers, and both

parties play a part in this interaction.

Cochran-Smith (2003) writing about the unforgiving complexity of teaching

reminded educators of the complexity involved in teaching and the mishap we create by

attempting to over-simplify descriptions of the process. The intent of this study is not to

oversimplify effective teaching and learning in Community College introductory biology

classrooms. Effective teaching is defined in this study as simply the ability to help

students learn effectively. The focus of this study is on the impact of students’

perceptions of effective teaching in community college introductory biology courses on

student achievement.

Teacher-student Relationships and Student Achievement

Many research studies have shown that when students experience a sense of

belonging at school and supportive relationships with teachers and classmates, they are

motivated to participate actively and appropriately in the life of the classroom (Anderman

& Anderman, 1999; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Although the vast

majority of the research on social relatedness and engagement has been conducted with

students in Grades 3 and higher, recent research suggests that children’s social

relatedness in the primary grades may establish patterns of school engagement and

motivation that have long-term consequences for their academic motivation and

achievement beyond grade school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd,

Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Stipek, 2002).

Many research studies looking into the impact teacher-student relationships have

on student achievement have found that this variable has a significant influence on

student achievement. According to Klem and Connell (2004), students need support from

their teachers in order learn what effectively. Montalvo, Mansfield, and Miller (2007)

said that teacher traits serve as strong indicators of students’ like or dislike for school.

Borich (2000) wrote, “A teacher who is excited about the subject being taught and shows

it by facial expression, voice inflection, gesture, and general movement is more likely to

hold the attention of students than one who does not exhibit these behaviors” (p. 25).

Hallinan (2008) stated that when teachers meet students’ needs to be valued and

respected, their attachment to school increases.

In the past decade the use of data has become more central to how many

educators evaluate their practices and monitor students’ academic progress due to

increasing pressure from federal, state, and local education policy makers to improve

student achievement (Aarons, 2009, Sanders, 2000). Student achievement is typically in

practice measured using standardized tests (Armrein & Berliner, 2002; Bastera, 1999;

Dorn, 2003; Haydel & Roser, 2002). Using standardized tests to measure student

achievement are questionable (Ballard & Bates, 2008; Bassett, 2002; Zwick, 2002).

Research studies looking at the impact of standardized testing on learning outcomes have

shown that it actually debilitates many students (Hamel & Hamel, 2003; Glass, 2003;

Stiggins, 2002). There are many factors other than instruction that can influence how

students perform on standardized tests. Motivation and responsibility of the individual

student, socioeconomic status and parental level of education as well as the home/family

background have been found to be uncontrollable factors in the classroom where

standardized tests are used as the main measure of student achievement (Ballard & Bates,

2008). Glass (2003) called for a re-examination of assessment with great emphases on

formative assessment and how assessment might improve student learning.

Standardized high-stakes tests limit the scope of the classroom instruction and

student learning in undesirable ways (Stecher & Barron, 1999). Cankoy and Tut (2005)

conducted a study to determine if there is correlation between students’ performance on

non-routine math story problems and how much class time they spent on taking skills. In

the study one group spent 70% of class time on test-taking skills, a second group spent

50% of class time on test-taking skills, and a third group only spent 30% of class time on

test-taking skills. Test-taking skills in the study included completing test questions from

former tests, giving tests for drill, teaching procedures for answering multiple-choice

questions, and memorizing rules. The study found that there was no correlation between

the amount of time and students performance. The study also found that there was no

difference in the three groups’ performances on non routine math story problems, and

spending more class time on test-taking skills did not affect the non routine story problem

solving.

In community colleges students taking developmental courses have to take

standardized tests before placement regular credit courses. There is controversy over

whether these tests reflect classroom instruction and student learning. Popham (2005)

said that because these tests are one size fits all and test items are not always aligned with

instruction, there is a mismatch between what is taught and what is tested. According to

Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004) the quality of a teacher in the

classroom is the single most important factor in determining how well a child learns.

Classroom environment research indicates that student perceptions can mediate the

relationship of teacher behaviors to student achievement, thus reinforcing the notion that

teaching can influence student perceptions, which in turn affects student achievement

(Klem & Connell, 2004; Wubbel & Brekelmans, 2005; Schunk, 1992; Stronge, Ward

&Grant, 2011). According to Klem and Connell (2004), student achievement increases

when students feel that teachers are caring and that they are participants in a classroom

where expectations are appropriate, fair and clearly communicated.

Literature on Interpersonal Teaching Behavior

Teaching is a complex activity that is affected by many factors such as classroom

environment, subject matter, time availability, teacher character, learner disposition and

availability of resources. Classroom environment from an interpersonal perspective on

teaching according to Williams and Burden (1997), concerns creating and maintaining a

positive, warm classroom atmosphere conducive to learning. The focus is on the

relationship between students and teachers in terms of the direct and an indirect influence

on students and the impact the contribution has on learning environment. Many studies

have found that teaching behavior, teaching styles and student perception of the learning

environment is related to student learning outcome (Bennet, 1976; Brophy & Good,

1986; Fraser et al., 1991; Houser & Frymier, 2009). The contribution made by teachers to

students has been studied mainly in terms of imparting knowledge within the

instructional framework (Galbo, 1984). Wang, Haertel, and Walberg, (1998) wrote that

teachers not only impart knowledge and skills to students, but also serve as confidants

and role models When students develop strong and meaningful relationships with their

teachers, they not only identify with the school but also with their teachers (Nieto, 2000).

According to Nieto, when students have frequent opportunities to interact socially with

teachers it enhances their sense of belonging. While instructional methodology is an

important consideration, exceptional teaching can also be described in terms of teacher-

student relationships (Wubbels, Levy, & Brekelmans, 1997). Teacher interpersonal

behavior is a major component of classroom management (Doyle, 1986). Positive

teacher-student relationships and a positive classroom environment promote improved

student outcomes and are worthwhile process goals of education (Fraser& Walberg,

2005). Research on teacher-student interaction is not only of interest to educational

researchers, but also to policy makers who wish to improve student outcomes through

positive teacher-student interactions (Fraser & Walberg, 2005). Teacher behaviors have

both direct and indirect influence on students and as a result they contribute to the

learning environment of students. Many studies on science classroom environment show

that teaching behaviors, teaching styles and student perceptions of the learning

environment are related to student learning (den Brok, Fisher, & Koul, 2007; She, &

Fisher, 2002; Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2005).

The relationship between students and teachers is an important dimension of class

climate (Moos 1979). According to Moos there are three dimensions of classroom

atmosphere. The three dimensions are relationships within the classroom, personal

development and goal orientation, and maintenance and changes within the system. From

an interpersonal perspective, the first dimension is the focus of this study. This dimension

focuses on the nature of the personal relationships within the classroom, specifically the

support that a teacher offers his students. Based on these three dimensions, Maslowski

(2003) described class climate as ‘the collective perceptions of students with respect to

the mutual relationships within the classroom, the organization of the lessons and the

learning tasks of the students’ (p. 2). That is the relationship between students and

teachers is very much related to the classroom climate.

Teacher behavior influences that of students, and the behavior of students

influences that of the teacher. In the classroom, the effects of this circular communication

process can lead to the creation and maintenance of a good classroom climate, and the

behaviors that determine the quality of relationships and feelings (Georgiou, &

Kyriakides, 2012; Petegem, Creemers, Rosseel, & Aelterman, 2007). The link between

teacher behavior and student behavior suggests that teachers can benefit directly from

knowing how their interpersonal behavior affects student behavior (Taylor & Parsons,

201; Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The classroom environment is very complex, and will

require multiple perceptions to get a comprehensive image of the education process.

Because perceptions are the result of an interaction between the person and his

environment, they show how someone experiences a classroom situation.

Students and teachers spend a considerable amount of time in a formal school

setting. Research studies show that teacher’s behavior, when interacting with students,

have a considerable impact on the nature of learning environment that is created (Brok,

Brekelmans & Wubbels, 2004; Marzano, 2003; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004;

Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2005). According to Marzano (2003), teachers' actions in

classrooms have twice the impact on student achievement as do school policies regarding

curriculum, assessment, staff collegiality, and community involvement. In a meta-

analysis study of more than 100 studies, Marzano, (2003) found that the quality of

teacher-student relationships is the keystone for all other aspects of classroom

management. According to Marzano, teachers who had high-quality relationships with

their students had 31 percent fewer discipline problems, rule violations, and related

problems over a year's time than did teachers who did not have high-quality relationships

with their students.

QTI

The modern era of classroom environment research began with independent

research agendas of Moos and Walberg in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s (Dorman,

2002). Since then, many instruments have been developed and used to conduct research

focusing on the classroom environment. To describe the perceptions students have of

teacher-student interpersonal behavior in the classrooms, Wubbels et al. (1985, as cited in

Wubbels & Levy, 1993) developed a model for interpersonal behavior by applying the

Leary (1957) general model for interpersonal relationships to the specific context of

education. The Leary model has been extensively investigated in clinical psychology and

psychotherapeutic settings (Strack, 1996). It has been proven and accepted as a complete

model for describing interpersonal relationships (e.g., Foa, 1961; Lonner, 1980). The

Leary model has two important dimensions. Leary called them the Dominance-

Submission axis and the Hostility-Affection axis. While the two dimensions have

occasionally been given other names, - Brown (1965) used Status and Solidarity, Dunkin

and Biddle (1974) Warmth and Directivity - they have generally been accepted as

universal descriptors of human interaction. The two dimensions have also been easily

transferred to education. Slater (1962) used them to describe pedagogical relationships,

and Dunkin and Biddle (1974) demonstrated their importance in teachers’ efforts to

influence classroom events.

Wubbels et al. (1993) relying on the Leary Model, developed the MITB and

subsequently designed the QTI in the early 1980s. The original version of the QTI was in

Dutch and it had 77 questions. An American version of the QTI was developed which

had 64 questions. The Australian version of the QTI contains 48 questions that are

answered using a five-point response scale (Wubbels, 1993). Teacher behavior is mapped

on a Proximity dimension [Cooperation or Opposition] and on an Influence dimension

[Dominance or Submission] to form four quadrants. These are then divided into a total of

eight sectors, each describing different behavior characteristics that a teacher may

exhibit.

Figure 1. The model for interpersonal teacher behavior. From (Wubbels & Levy, 1993).

Used with permission.

Since its development, the Questionnaire on Teacher Student Interaction (QTI)

has been extensively used and accepted as a reliable research instrument. Wubbels and

Levy (1993) reported the acceptable internal consistency reliabilities for the QTI as

ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 for student responses. Research in the USA (Brok, Levy,

Rodriguez, & Wubbels, 2002; Brok, Levy, Wubbels, & Rodriguez, 2003; Levy, Brok,

Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2003; Levy, Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1992; Wubbels & Levy,

1993) and in Australia (Fisher, Fraser, & Rickards, 1997; Henderson, 1995; Rawnsley &

Fisher, 1997; Rickards, 1998; Rickards & Fisher, 1997; 2000) has shown that several

student, class and teacher characteristics are related to students’ perception of their

teacher. Among these associated characteristics are student and teacher gender, student

and teacher ethnic background, socio-economic status, attitude and achievement, age,

teacher experience and subject taught.

Literature on Community College Education

Mission and Purposes of Community Colleges

According to the 2007 report of the American Association of Community

Colleges (AACC) and Chen (2007), community colleges are diverse institutions that

serve a wide variety of needs. These include the students who come to upgrade their

skills for a particular job, students who are pursuing an associate degree to transfer to a 4-

year institution and students who come to pursue a hobby (such as learning a language).

The educational outcomes of community college students reflect this diversity. Vaughn

(2006) described community colleges as centers of educational opportunity. They are an

American invention that put publicly funded higher education at close-to-home facilities,

beginning nearly 100 years ago with Joliet Junior College. Since then, they have been

inclusive institutions that welcome all who desire to learn, regardless of wealth, heritage,

or previous academic experience (AACC, 2007).

The community college's mission is the fountain from which all of its activities

flow. In simplest terms, the mission of the community college is to provide education for

individuals, many of whom are adults, in its service region (Vaughan). According to

AACC (2007), most community college missions have basic commitments to:

•

serve all segments of society through an open-access admissions policy that

offers equal and fair treatment to all students

•

provide a comprehensive educational program

•

serve its community as a community-based institution of higher education

•

teaching

•

lifelong learning

Bailey & Morest (2004) said that community colleges are a vital part of the

postsecondary education delivery system. They serve almost half of the undergraduate

students in the United States, providing open access to postsecondary education,

preparing students for transfer to four year institutions, providing workforce development

and skills training, and offering noncredit programs ranging from English as a second

language to skills retraining to community enrichment programs or cultural activities.

Community College Students

According to current data from the American Association of Community Colleges

and Community college survey of student engagement, the typical college student no

longer is an 18 to 24-year-old, living on campus and attending one school full time in the

United States. In fact, that description applies to only one in six undergraduate students in

the United States (AACC, 2011, CCSSE, 2010). Most community colleges in the United

States have an open-door admission policy designed to provide education for all. Because

of their open access admission policies and low tuition costs, community colleges attract

a higher proportion of low-income and minority students than four-year institutions

(Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Saenz, 2004; Zeidenberg & Bailey, 2010). The open-door

policy provides access to college for low-income, immigrant, and first-generation college

students. The average tuition in 2007 was about $2,500 a year, less than half the average

tuition for public four-year institutions (AACC, 2011). Many studies have shown that

lower tuition increases college enrollment (Long, 2009; Zeidenberg & Bailey, 2010).

According to the National Science Board 2012 report, enrollment in U.S. institutions of

higher education at all levels rose from 14.5 million students in fall 1994 to 20.7 million

in fall 2009, with most of the growth occurring in the last 10 years. According to the NSB

report 8.2 million or 40% of all students were enrolled in community colleges. These

colleges serve diverse groups of students with lower college attendance rates in past

generations. About 45% of all minority students in the U.S. attend a community college

(AACC, 2010; Karp, 2008; Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Quigley & Bailey, 2003). Majority

of community college students are not traditional. Over 60% of the credit students in

community colleges are enrolled part time and majority of these students work full time

or part time. Community colleges enroll many adult students and the average age of a

community college student is 29, although a large fraction — 43 percent — are age 21 or

younger. Sixteen percent are age 40 or older. Most (60 percent) are women; 35 percent

are minorities, and 39 percent are members of the first generation in their family to attend

college (AACC, 2010). Even though diversity exists in age, gender, race, ethnicity, and

academic preparation, critics have stated that “higher education has been slow to take

diversity into account in the teaching/learning process” (Barrington, 2004, p. 425).

Many research studies on diversity in today’s classrooms have concluded that

people of different ages, gender, race, and culture have different needs in the classroom

and that different people learn differently (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Jones, Reichard, &

Mokhtari, 2003; Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Milliron & De Los Santos, 2004; Mupinga,

Nora, & Yaw, 2006). To meet the needs of these students, many community colleges

have found that modifying existing general curriculum is an effective way to create more

accessible learning environments to support all students and their teachers in various

educational contexts. The curriculum modification involves change to a range of

educational components in a curriculum, such as content knowledge, the method of

instruction, and student’s learning outcomes, through the alteration of materials and

programs (Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2011; King-Sears, 2001; MacMackin & Elaine,

1997; Reisberg, 1990).

As more students from diverse backgrounds populate 21st century classrooms,

efforts to identify effective methods to teach these students and the need for pedagogical

approaches that are culturally responsive intensify. To meet this challenge, teachers must

employ not only theoretically sound but also culturally responsive pedagogy. To be

successful teachers must create a classroom cultural environment where all students,

regardless of their cultural background, are welcomed, supported and provided with the

best opportunity to learn. Because community college students have different needs in the

classroom, there is no agreement in terms of which specific teaching and learning

theories or any one method that a teacher should teach or be trained to ensure student

learning. It is important that faculty be continuously trained on the latest teaching

methodologies to increase student success.

In many community colleges, policies and services were developed and

implemented based on the old profile of a “traditional” community college student,

defined as white, male, and between 18-24 years of age (Jones et al., 2003). Community

college students are now older than the traditional student and the number of female and

minority students is increasing. Majority of community college students do not live on

campus and many do not attend full-time. Teacher-centered strategies based on the

traditional student are less applicable at community colleges today due to the diversity

and uniqueness of their student population (Mellow & Heelan, 2008; Saenz, 2004).

Community College Faculty

Approximately one-third (31 percent) of the American professoriate teach at the

nation’s 1,449 community colleges ("Almanac," 2005, Huber, 1997; National Center for

Postsecondary Improvement, 1998). "Community college faculty receive scant attention

from postsecondary researchers--or worse, are simply dismissed as a separate, and by

implication lesser class of college professors" (National Center for Postsecondary

Improvement, 1998, p. 43). Even though this statement is more than 10 years old, it still

holds true today, with few exceptions. What is intriguing about the neglect of community

college faculty members in the research literature and the lack of respect they often

receive is that their numbers alone suggest they should at least merit attention. As of fall

2003, 43% of all full- and part-time faculty members in public, nonprofit higher

education institutions were in public community colleges ("Almanac," 2005). In addition,

community college faculty members teach around 37% of all undergraduates, including

about half of all freshmen and sophomores. Among these students are more than half of

all Hispanic and American Indian students and approximately 40% of African American

and Asian students ("Almanac" 2005).

In reviewing literature, a clear demographic picture of community college faculty

members, both full- and part-time emerges from the literature. The data consistently

indicate that 80% of the community college faculty is White, a higher percentage than

might be expected, given the demographics of the student body (Townsend & Wilson,

2006). The community college professoriate is evenly split between men and women,

thus making this group of faculty members more gender balanced than the faculty

members in any other higher education sector (Townsend & Twombly, 2007a). It is

somewhat more difficult to determine the average age of community college faculty

members. Some studies have shown the average age of full-time faculty members to be

50 (Rosser & Townsend, 2006). Looking at age in another way, the U.S. Department of

Education (2005) determined that approximately 36% were younger than 44, whereas

32% were between the ages of 45 and 54 and 22% were between the ages of 55 and 64;

only 8% were older than 65

In the past two decades, reform efforts in teacher education has led to the

introduction of new teaching styles, learning styles, and student-centered learning

methods, all of which have led to increase in motivation and student learning (Campbell,

2009). Community college faculty like many of their colleagues in higher education

institutions bring very little experience and training to the teaching dimension of their

roles (Grubb 1999, Stahl, Simpson & Hayes, 1992). In many institutions support for

teachers and teaching though professional development is limited. Increase in enrolment

and cuts in budget have decreased time and resources available to encourage faculty to

adequately learn new teaching methods and technology (Barrington, 2004; Eddy, 2007;

Gerstein & Ragey, 2008; Huber, 2008; Sperling, 2003). Sperling (2003) wrote, even

though the primary goal of the community college faculty is teaching, the lack of support

is contradictory. Barrington (2004) stated that there is a lack of institutional commitment

to make the necessary improvement of teaching to help their faculty fulfill their primary

function.

Faculties in many community colleges are not trained as educators and arrive with

little to no background in pedagogy and curriculum design (Grubb, 1999; Wagoner,

2008). Hence they lack the training in effective teaching strategies designed to increase

learning and achievement. Community college faculty are generally hired for their

expertise in a specific content area, and then learn about teaching and learning through

mentoring, peer observation, collegial discussion, and their own prior educational

experiences (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004). According to Pratt (2002), in order to improve

teaching and learning faculty must understand what they do and why.

In post secondary institutions including community colleges, majority of faculty

still use traditional lecture methods to impart the knowledge they believe that students

need (Colbeck, Cabrera, & Marine, 2002; Howell, 2002). Colbeck et al., in a study of

classroom practices in higher education classrooms found that more than three-fourths of

faculty in their study were using lecture as their primary teaching method. Howell (2002)

argued that this traditional approach to teaching often leads to student disinterest and

passivity leading to early students’ withdrawal from school. To meet the learning needs

of a diverse student population, faculties in community colleges must modify their

approach to teaching. Brown (2003, p.1) said “how educators select their teaching

strategies and implement techniques is a function of their beliefs and values regarding the

methods and can be modified to fit within the unique belief system of the educator”. The

choice of method whether traditional lecture, discovery-based learning or discussion

should be a reflection of the faculty’s teaching philosophy (Heimlich and Norland 2002).

Therefore as teachers attempt to develop more flexible teaching styles, it is important that

they are receptive to the idea of change, beginning with a change in their beliefs about the

students’ roles in the learning environment.

Literature Related to the Methods

Several research studies were examined and analyzed for this literature review

and they included reading of various quantitative, mixed-method and qualitative research

approaches. The final research design chosen for this study as well as the specific

research questions and goals for this study evolved from review of current literature

relating to research design and methodology (Creswell, 1998, 2003; Hatch, 2002,

Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Weimer, 2006;

Yin, 2003 Creswell (2003) suggested that when designing research, one should take into

account the epistemology that informs the research, the theoretical perspective behind the

questions to be answered, the methodology or plan of action that links the methods to

outcomes, and the techniques and procedures intended to be employed to collect data.

McMillan and Schumacher (1993, p. 479) defined qualitative research as,

“primarily an inductive process of organizing data into categories and identifying patterns

(relationships) among categories.” This definition implies that data and meaning emerge

“organically” from the research context. Qualitative researchers focus on the way people

interpret and make sense of their experiences and the world in which they live (Atkinson,

Coffey, & Delamont, 2001). Qualitative researchers in attempting to understand the

nature and reasons for human behavior generally focus on a smaller sample by using a

case study, interviews, focus groups, or observation. One drawback to qualitative study,

however, is that the rich description makes it difficult to determine the generalizable

themes (Trochim, 2008) and “lacks quantitative research’s power to generalize” (Seale,

Gobo, Silverman, & Gurbium, 2007, p. 283). Qualitative research crosses disciplines,

fields, and subject matter and has an “interconnected family of terms, concepts” (Denzin

& Lincoln, 2000, p. 2) surrounded by assumptions. According to Thomas (2003), the

qualitative approach describes the characteristics of people using an interpretive

naturalistic approach, such as case studies, interviews, or observations.

Creswell (2003) defined quantitative research as a strategy of inquiry using

experiments or surveys to collect data. According to Creswell (1994), quantitative

research is a type of research that explains phenomena by collecting numerical data that

are analyzed using mathematically based methods (in particular statistics). A quantitative

approach is easily replicable by other researchers and can be generalized to other persons

and places (Thomas, 2003). Quantitative research summarizes large amounts of data to

enhance the applicability and generalizations of findings (Trochim, 2008, Johnson,

Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). Additionally, a quantitative approach based on the

numerical data and scientific approach leads to scientific predictions (Black, 2002).

Trochim (2008) favored the quantitative research method because of its confirmatory and

deductive nature.

There is a very narrow distinction between qualitative and quantitative approaches

due to their overarching characteristics. Qualitative data is always quantitatively coded,

and, similarly, qualitative measures such as perception, beliefs, and attitudes are

quantified, “opening for new possibilities for interpretation and all quantitative data is

based on qualitative judgment” (Trochim, 2008, p. 9). Thomas (2003) recommended

blending qualitative with quantitative research methods in dissertations, arguing that both

the methods complement one another. Creswell (2009) noted that in a mixed method

approach, the researcher brings together the best of both the approaches. According to

Creswell (2003), the mixed-method in which quantitative and qualitative techniques are

mixed in a single study is an attractive alternative (when it is appropriate) to quantitative

and qualitative research. The goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of

these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of

both in single research studies and across studies (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner,

2007).

The goal of this correlational quantitative research study is to examine whether

relationships exist between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-

student interactions among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban

community college in Mid-Atlantic state by gathering and analyzing data of students’

perceptions of teacher-student interactions. Quantitative methodology will be used to

determine the statistical association between students’ perceptions of teacher interactions

and student achievement in introductory biology courses. According to Williams, &

Monge, (2001), statistics in the quantitative method is a powerful tool for a descriptive

study or to find answers to the research questions. The survey approach is preferred as it

is an “easier, quicker, less expensive, or more accurate way for getting accurate, reliable,

and valid” needed information to answer important questions (Alreck & Settle, 2004, p.

3). Schuman and Presser (1996) justified the continued used of the survey method

because researchers can obtain information efficiently and because the survey method

allows the sampling procedure to represent a relatively small number to a much larger

population. Thomas (2003) recommended a quantitative study and the use of a grounded

theory in it “to extract theory out of the collected information itself (p. 3).

Explaining phenomena is a key element of all research, be it quantitative or

qualitative (Creswell, 2003). When people set out to do research, they are always looking

to explain something. The type of questions asked in the study determines the choice of

method. The type of questions asked in the study determines the choice of method.

Examples of research questions in educations are: “Does increase in the frequency of

teacher interaction in a biology classroom increase student achievement?” or “What

factors influence student achievement in learning biology?” All research methods have

strengths and limitations. The benefit of quantitative method is that it totally eliminates

bias. By encouraging researchers to keep a short distance from the participating subjects,

the researcher can more easily overcome biases and make inferences and evaluations

about the subject(s) of study thereby improving the overall quality of research (Creswell,

2003; Johnson & Christensen, 2004).

Summary and Implications

Section 2 began with a summary of problem statement, purpose and research

questions, followed by an explanation of the content and organization of the review. The

strategy used for searching the literature was described and an extensive review of

literature relating to the study problem was fully discussed.

Systems communication theory and Leary’s interpersonal communications theory

are two theories used to describe how teacher and students interact in the classroom.

Literature review of the two theories traced their origin from clinical psychology to their

subsequent adaptation to education. Integration of the two theories helped explain the

importance of teacher-student interpersonal relations in science classrooms.

A summary of literature relating to student perceptions of classroom environment

and student cognitive achievement was also presented. A brief history of survey research

that sought student perceptions from the 1970s to the present was presented. The review

showed how listening to students and their perceptions is an integral part of research

efforts to improve science teaching and learning outcomes in biology classrooms in all

levels of education. Examples of studies that sought to improve learning environments by

way of survey instruments such as Questionnaire of Teacher Interaction (QTI) was

provided. A brief introduction to QTI provided an explanation of how the survey can be

used as a means to classify responses provided by students.

Mission and purposes of community colleges followed by a demographic profile

of community college student and faculty was presented. The demographic profile

showed that community college students are very diverse with regards to age, gender and

race. The profile help explain why community college faculty have to use different

teaching styles in the classroom to meet the different learning styles of their student.

Implications for the study suggest that researchers continue to conduct studies to

understand what specific teacher interpersonal classroom behaviors have the most

significant influence on student achievement in biology. Student perceptions of what goes

on in the classrooms will provide teachers with the information and tools to improve

learning outcomes. While data from this quantitative study may not apply to other

community colleges, the process will provide guidance to other community colleges

interested in conducting a similar study. Section 3 will explain the methodology to be

used in this quantitative study.

Section 3: Research Method

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the relationships between

students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions among

students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban community college in a Mid-

Atlantic state. This study was also designed to establish whether teacher-student

interaction variables associated with community college introductory biology instruction

could predict students’ academic success in biology. The teacher–student interpersonal

interaction extends beyond the biology classroom and the school community. This study

focused on interactions between teachers and students in a single semester in a single day

of a typical introductory biology class. Rather than focusing on individual students, this

study examined whole classroom interactions and how students who successfully

completed introduction to biology courses had perceived them. I conducted this study

with community college students’ who took introductory biology courses during the

academic year the study data were collected.

Inadequate student-teacher interactions in undergraduate introductory biology

classrooms have been linked to poor student performance in introductory biology

courses, resulting in fewer students pursuing advanced degree and careers in life science

(Doyle, 2002; National Science Board, 2008; Wood, 2009). Research studies on student

perceptions of teacher interactions in biology classrooms linked adequate teacher

interaction to improved student performance in the subject (Blickenstaff, 2005; Nelson et

al., 2009). The majority of these studies focused on the elementary and high school

levels. However, few researchers have examined the same problem at the tertiary level of

education, particularly in community colleges in the United States.

I chose a correlational, quantitative methodological approach for this study. I used

a survey instrument, the QTI, to collect data on students’ perceptions of teacher

interaction behaviors and their impact on achievement in introductory biology courses.

The QTI was developed in the early 1980s in the Netherlands, relying on the Leary model

for interpersonal teacher behavior (Wubbels et al., 1985). Since its development, the QTI

has been extensively used and accepted as a reliable research instrument. The original

version of the QTI was in Dutch and had 77 questions. Later, an American version of the

QTI was developed that had 64 items (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). The Australian version of

the QTI contains 48 questions on a 5-point response scale (Wubbels, 1993). A review on

the validity and reliability of over 20 studies that have used the QTI at all levels of

education (primary, secondary, and tertiary) during the last 20 years showed that

reliability of the eight scales (sectors) is satisfactory and consistent across classes (den

Brok, 2001). In each of these studies, the Cronbach alpha reliability for each scale was

greater than 0.70 at the student level and greater than 0.80 at the class level. The internal

consistencies (Cronbach’s α) usually are above 0.90.

Creswell (2003) wrote “the main purpose of the survey approach is to generalize

from a sample to a population so that inferences can be made about some characteristic

attitude or behavior of this population” (p. 154). I used the survey approach to quantify

students’ perceptions of teacher interaction behavior. According to Creswell (2003),

quantification of the perceptions helps the researcher in a quantitative study to establish

the relationship between variables. It was critical to understand the impact of teacher

interaction behaviors from students’ perspectives because this understanding would

provide classroom teachers with important data that they can use to change their

approach to teaching in order to increase student achievement. Students' learning,

according to Wenglinsky (2003), is a product of the interactions that occur in the

classroom between students and teachers, and both parties contribute to this interaction.

Description of the Research Design and Approach

I used a quantitative method with a correlational design for this research study to

determine if teacher-student interaction had an impact on student achievement in

introductory biology courses. According to Cook and Cook (2008), a quantitative study

with correlational research design is useful in finding relationships among variables and

describing a phenomenon. I chose a quantitative approach over other methods because it

allowed me to identify a cause-and-effect relationship between the two variables of

teacher interaction and student achievement from the perceptions of a large population of

students who have taken introductory biology courses in a suburban community college.

Other reasons for choosing quantitative method were that data generated often reveals

measurements that provide meaningful information about the subject(s) of the study, and

also statistics used in quantitative research allow for inferences and evaluations to be

made about the subject(s) of study. Creswell (2003) noted that the choice of research

approach depends on “research problem, personal experiences, and audience” (p. 23).

The quantitative survey approach was most suitable for answering the research questions

for this study because it was time efficient and cost effective. Several studies have used

the quantitative survey design to gather numerical data on students’ perceptions of

teacher interactional behavior in science classrooms (Creemers, Rosseel, & Aelterman,

2006; Crews, 2007; She & Fisher, 2002). Malmberg (2008) noted that a key approach for

the success of the study is to develop an accurately designed research model.

This correlational quantitative research study was conducted in two phases. In the

initial phase, I administered the anonymous survey to students (ages 19 to 45 years old)

who took introduction to biology courses in a suburban community college in a Mid-

Atlantic state and volunteered to participate in the study. The survey was used to gather

data on students’ perceptions of teacher-student interpersonal interaction behaviors and

their impact on student achievement. I chose survey method because it allowed for a

large population to be studied in a relatively short time frame. The survey method is an

appropriate choice when the goal of the research and researcher is to “apply the findings

beyond research participants and to influence policymakers” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,

2006). Surveys provide descriptive data (Cook & Cook, 2008). The second phase of the

study involved statistical analysis comparing the perceptions data to students’ final grade

which they self-reported on the survey form, to determine if there was a correlation

between the two variables.

Setting and Sample

Description of the Population

The site for this study was a large suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic

state. According to data from Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2010), the

college had a population of 26,425 students enrolled in credit courses on three campuses

and two extension centers. In any given semester, about 2,000 students are enrolled in

introduction to biology courses across all three campuses and two extension centers. In

terms of gender, 62% of the students are female and 38% are male. The racial breakdown

is 49% White, 38% African American, and 13% other races. The age range of the

students is 19 to 45 years. The population for this quantitative study was drawn from a

population of about 2,000 students who had successfully completed introductory biology

courses and volunteered to participate in the study.

Sampling Method

I used a single-stage purposive sampling method to select participants for this

study from a population of about 2,000 students who take introduction to biology courses

every semester at the college. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method

in which a researcher knowingly selects specific elements or subjects for inclusion in a

study in order to ensure that the elements will have certain characteristics that is relevant

to the study (Patton, 2002). The research questions answered by this study required input

from community college students. The specific characteristics of the desired population

were students who had successfully completed introduction to biology courses and were

currently enrolled in other biology courses at the college.

For practical reasons, it was not possible for me to obtain a random sample of

students for this study due to the large number of students enrolled in these courses, time

constraints and the long distance between the three main campuses and the two extension

centers that make up the community college where the study was conducted. The sample

for this study was therefore drawn from two of the three main campuses. Babbie (1990)

wrote that this method is useful if a researcher wants to study “a small subset of a larger

population in which many members of the subset are easily identified but the

enumeration of all is nearly impossible” (p. 97).

Sample Size

The sample size for the quantitative study was 318 students who were non-

randomly selected to participate in the study. The sample size was based on a sample size

calculator (American Research Group, 2000), which recommended the size of the sample

to be about 318, at a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of 5% for a

population size of 2000.

Eligibility Criteria for Participants

Eligibility criteria required that the participants be currently enrolled in the

college and have successfully completed an introduction to biology course in the

semester before data collection, and volunteered to participate in the study. This sample

frame corresponded to the population I wanted to explore and describe because the

participants had recently spent several months in a classroom setting with their teachers.

The eligibility criteria therefore ensured that participants chosen for the study were

qualified to provide an honest and objective evaluation of the nature of their interactions

with their introduction to biology teachers including any effect it may have had on their

success.

Characteristics of the Selected Sample

The participants in this study were first or second year students taking upper level

biology courses at a suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic State. Because

purposive non-probability convenient sample was used for this study, the characteristic

description of the participants was generated from the demographic information they

provided when they completed the survey. That information is included in the final

summary of the study.

Instrumentation and Materials

The instrument used to collect quantitative data on students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors is the QTI. The QTI was developed by Wubbels

et al. (1985) specifically for evaluating teacher-student relationships in secondary

classrooms. It focuses on the nature and quality of interpersonal relationships between

teachers and students. The QTI was originally developed in the Netherlands, and a 64-

item American version was also constructed in 1988 (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). The

questionnaire for this study consists of 48 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale with

options from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The items are divided into eight subscales including

Leadership, Helpful/friendly, Understanding, Student responsibility/freedom, Uncertain,

Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict.

The eight subscales of the QTI describe the extent to which the teacher is

perceived to have or demonstrate certain behavioral characteristics (Coll, Taylor, &

Fisher, 2002; Fisher & Rickards, 1996). The eight subscales and the characteristics of

each are described as follows:

Leadership items are designed to describe the extent, to which the teacher leads,

organizes, gives orders, and determines procedures and structures in the classroom.

Helpful/friendly describes the extent to which the teacher shows interest behaves

in a friendly or considerate manner, and inspires confidence and trust.

Understanding describes the extent to which the teacher listens with interest,

demonstrates empathy, shows confidence and understanding, and is open with students.

Student responsibility/freedom items are designed to describe the degree to which

the teacher provides opportunities for independent work and gives freedom and

responsibility to students.

Uncertain describes the extent to which the teacher behaves in an uncertain

manner and keeps a low profile.

Dissatisfied describes the degree to which the teacher expresses dissatisfaction,

criticizes, and looks unhappy.

Admonishing describes the level at which the teacher gets angry, expresses

irritation and anger, or forbids and punishes.

Strict describes the extent to which the teacher checks, maintains silence, and

strictly enforces the rules.

Even though the strict dimension may be considered a negative trait, research

indicates that students prefer teachers who are strict (Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999).

Fisher and Rickards (1996) indicated that students consider the best teachers to be those

who are strong leaders, more helpful/friendly, and more understanding than the average

teacher. Student responsibility/freedom was seldom mentioned as a significant factor in

existing research.

Reliability and Validity of the Instrument

Several studies have confirmed the reliability and validity of the QTI

(Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Creton, 1990; Creton & Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels et al., 1985).

A review on the validity and reliability of over 20 studies that have used the QTI at all

levels of education (primary, secondary and tertiary) during the last 20 years showed that

reliability of the eight scales (sectors) is satisfactory and consistent across classes (den

Brok, 2001). The review also showed that the theoretical configuration of the MITB was

represented in the items and scales of the instrument. In each of these studies, the

Cronbach alpha reliability for each scale was greater than 0.70 at the student level and

greater than 0.80 at the class level. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) usually are

above 0.90. Other strengths of the measure are its length, simplicity of the items, and ease

of scoring. The questionnaire instructs students to respond to a statement on a scale with

five choices, A through E, with A being never and E being always. The scoring guide

indicates that items are scored as follows: 0 (never) to 4 (always). The subscale item

scores are added and the sum is divided by the number of items to make a profile.

Because the instrument was used in this study without alteration, calculation of

Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to measure internal consistency, and determine the

degree to which items in the same scale measure the same aspects of students' perception

of teacher behavior was not necessary.

An external validity estimate confirmed the extent to which the perception of the

318 participants applies to all community college students in the Mid-Atlantic States.

External validity refers to the extent to which a research result can be generalized to

beyond the sample used in the study (Burn & Grove, 2001). The external validity of a

research project can be threatened by several factors, the Hawthorne effect, the type of

sampling method used, and the validity of the research instrument. The Hawthorne effect

is the behavior that is displayed by participants just because they are aware that they are

involved in a study (Polit & Hungler, 1999). All students taking courses at the college

complete an evaluation of their instructors every semester making this a less likely threat

as the participants being upper level students have had more than one opportunity to

participate in evaluation. A valid instrument measures the concept in question accurately

(De Vos, 1998). In this study the validity of the measuring instrument has been found in

several studies to be consistently valid, predictive and reproducible (Brekelmans et al.,

1990; Creton & Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels et al., 1985). Because the instrument will be

used in this study without alteration makes it a less likely threat. The most likely threat to

external validity of this study is the sampling method. According to Polit and Hungler

(1999), the type of sampling method used in a study affects the generalizability of the

research result findings to the entire population, thereby threatening the external validity

of the results. A non-probability convenient sampling method was used in this study and

therefore the results obtained may not apply to other students taking introduction to

biology in other community colleges in the Mid-Atlantic States.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Collection

The data collection strategy chosen for this quantitative correlational study was

the administration of a questionnaire. After fulfilling the requirements to obtain

university internal review board and college approval, I collected data from student

participants who have successfully completed the introduction to biology course in a

prior semester and enrolled in upper level biology courses. The rationale for choosing this

group of students was based on the fact that it takes a number of lessons (weeks or

months) for the students to develop ideas about their emerging relationship with their

teacher (Telli, den Brok & Cakiroglu; 2007). Once students’ ideas become stabilized,

they can tell what kind of teacher they had. This gradual stabilization of perceptions

applies equally to the teachers as well as to the students and once the tone is set, it is

difficult to modify, and both students and teachers resist changes (Telli, den Brok &

Cakiroglu, 2007).

The QTI, which is similar to a psychometric test on a 5-point Likert scale, was

employed to measure students’ perceptions. The participants were asked to rate each of

the six items arranged into eight scales corresponding to the eight interrelated sections of

the MITB on a 0-to-4 response scale (0 = never; 4 = always). According to McCall

(2001), a properly developed Likert scale is a useful tool in “addressing the need to

consider opinions and attitudes towards potential policy decisions” (p.1). The scale

enabled the students to rate each of the variables in this study with a degree of certainty,

as perceived by them. All data collection took place at the end of regular scheduled

classes or laboratory sessions. The impact of the research on instructional time was

minimal. Prior to data collection, all participants were given consent forms to review

prior to completing survey. Completion and submission of survey was used as implied

consent attesting to their agreement to take part in the study.

Data Analysis

This study was designed to test two hypothesized relationships, teacher

interpersonal teaching behavior and effective teaching and learning. The main predictor

variables were teacher characteristics, as measured by student ratings on each of the eight

scales of QTI. The QTI is a survey instrument that looks at the nature of interactions

between teacher and students at a classroom level. The items on QTI are intended to

extract the perceived nature of the classroom environments from the perspectives of the

students.

The appropriate level of analysis was the individual student because it is the

individual students’ perceptions of teacher's interpersonal teaching behaviors that were

assessed by the QTI. I analyzed all data with the Statistical Analysis Package for the

Social Scientist, version 22 (SPSS). Because I collected data in one interval, I tested the

proposed hypothesis with Nonparametric Spearman’s correlations to examine the

relationships between student achievement (continuous grades) and the 8 interpersonal

behaviors examined. Mann-Whitney U tests was conducted to examine differences in the

8 interpersonal behavior variables based on whether students scored high or low in the

course. Nonparametric Spearman’s rank correlations’ was chosen because it allowed me

to examine the strength of relationships between student grades and student perceptions

of teacher interpersonal behaviors. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient is the

recommended data analysis method because of its ability to identify and test the strength

of a relationship between two sets of data. (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005). In analyzing the

data, I was mindful of overestimation of the influence of interpersonal teacher behaviors

on student achievement (den Brok, Fisher, & Scott, 2005).

To answer the first research question (How do students perceive of the

interpersonal behaviors of the instructors of their introductory biology courses?),

descriptive statistics were used to examine means, standard deviations, minima, and

maxima for the 8 interpersonal behavior variables to determine how students perceive of

their biology instructors. To answer the second research question (What is the

relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior and

student achievement in introductory biology courses?), I performed Nonparametric

Spearman’s correlations to examine the relationships between student achievement

(continuous grades) and the 8 interpersonal behaviors examined. For Research Question

3, I performed Mann-Whitney U tests to examine differences in the 8 interpersonal

behavior variables based on whether students scored high or low in the course.

Protection of Participants

Ethical Considerations

I made every effort to protect the rights and privacy of participants during all

stages of the study, including data collection, data analysis and interpretation, as well as

the writing and distribution of the research. According to the Ethical Standards of the

American Educational Research Association (AERA), “It is of paramount importance

that educational researchers respect the rights, privacy, dignity, and sensitivities of their

research populations and also the integrity of the institutions within which the research

occurs (American Educational Research Association, 2002, p. 3). Creswell (2003) wrote,

“As researchers anticipate data collection, they need to respect the participants and the

sites for research” (p. 64). According to Creswell many ethical issues arise during this

stage of research and therefore it is important not to put participants at risk, participation

should be voluntarily and participants must be informed that they have a right to

withdraw at any time. They should also understand the purpose and procedures of the

study. Creswell also noted that permission of the individuals in authority at the data

collection site must be gained to provide access to study participants prior to initiating

data collection. I took several steps to secure the ethical protection of the research

participants. All of the materials and the research design methodology used in this study

were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) where the study was conducted

(See Appendix D for approval letter). This study was also approved by Walden

University IRB, approval number 08-27-13-0123018. The IRB application described the

objectives of the research study and the researcher’s role. If additional questions and

concerns of research procedures needed to be clarified, the researcher’s contact

information was given to the chairman, the committee members, and the IRB.

In other to maintain confidentiality and honest feedback from the students,

participants remained anonymous because they were not required to identify themselves

either by name or student identification number. All data collected are locked in a locked

file cabinet and on a personal computer at the researcher’s home and will remain there for

five years after the dissertation is approved. I will have access to the collected data. I

treated all participants in accordance with the ethical standards of the American

Psychological Association (APA) and Code of Conduct (APA, 2001).

Role of Researcher in Data Collection

Data were collected in the form of paper surveys by me with the help of course

instructors whose role was limited to distribution of survey. I performed all statistical

analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. I will

personally be responsible for storing the generated statistical data in a locked file for five

years, accessed solely by myself. Individual participants and the college where the study

was conducted would receive upon request a copy of the cumulative results of this study.

Role of Researcher in Past or Current Professional Roles and Implications

I am currently a biology professor and I also teach two online sections of

introductory biology courses every semester at the college where the study will be

conducted. Because I have taught introduction to biology courses there is a possibility

that some of the student participants may have taken the course with me. The College has

three big campuses that were formally three independent Community Colleges merged

into one college. Majority of students enrolled in the college take courses on the same

campus during their tenure at the college. Therefore, in an effort not to compromise the

findings and eliminate any issues related to bias, data was gathered from the two

campuses where I do not teach. To maintain anonymity, student participants were not

required to identify themselves either by name or student identification number on the

survey. Student participants were not required to indicate on the questionnaire the name

of the professor who taught them the course. The students were not interviewed and they

self reported their final grade on the survey instrument. My role with data collection was

strictly limited to handing out and collecting the anonymously completed survey

instrument. These efforts helped generate confidence in the accuracy of the results

findings.

Summary

This quantitative research study investigated whether relationships exist between

students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions among

students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban community college in Mid-

Atlantic state. This section addressed the methods and procedures I used in the study to

determine if there is an association between the two variables in the study, teacher

interaction and cognitive outcomes. I also included information relative to study sample,

research design, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. In Section 4, I

reported the research results. In Section 5, I made interpretations and drew conclusions.

Section 4: Results

The purpose of this correlational quantitative study was to determine the

relationships between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student

interactions among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban

community college. An additional purpose of the study was to examine whether teacher-

student interaction variables associated with community college introductory biology

instruction could be used to predict students’ academic success in introductory biology

courses. The QTI developed by Wubbels et al. (1985) specifically for evaluating teacher-

student relationships was used to collect data on students’ perceptions of teacher

interaction behaviors and their impact on achievement in introductory biology courses.

Summary of Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses guided this exploration:

Research Question 1: How do students perceive of the interpersonal behaviors of

the instructors of their introductory biology courses?

For Research Question 1, the hypothesis is exploratory in nature, and no specific

hypothesis is stated.

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal teaching behavior and student achievement in introductory biology

courses?

2: Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior will not be

related to student achievement.

2: Students’ achievement will be positively related to students' perceptions of

teacher interpersonal behaviors in introductory biology courses. In other words, the

higher students' grades are in the course, the more positively they will rate their teachers'

interpersonal behaviors.

Research Question 3: Do student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior

differ based upon student achievement levels in introductory biology courses?

3: Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior will not differ based

on students’ achievement levels in introductory biology courses.

3: High achieving students (attaining grades of As and Bs) will rate their

teachers' interpersonal behavior significantly more positively than low achieving students

(students receiving grades of Cs, Ds, and Fs).

The independent variable for this study was students’ self-reported final grades

and the dependent variables were students’ perceptions of teacher behavior measured by

the QTI (see Appendix A for complete instrument). The questionnaire for this study

consisted of 48 items, each with a 5-point Likert-type scale. Options range from 0 (never)

to 4 (always). The items are separated into eight subscales including Understanding,

Leadership, Helpful/friendly, Student uncertain, Dissatisfied, Responsibility/freedom,

Admonishing, and Strict. The research questions in this study addressed the relationship

between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions

among students who took introductory biology courses in a suburban community college.

This section will describe the sample, present an overview of the statistical procedures,

and report the findings related to each research question. Section 5 will present the

interpretation of the findings.

Research Tool

The instrument used to collect quantitative data on students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors was the QTI (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The QTI

was designed to evaluate teacher behavior inside the classroom, their communication

with their students, and the diverse perceptions or responses to these communications.

The theoretical frameworks were based on the conceptualization of teacher-student

interpersonal behavior as partly having evolved from a systems approach to

communication (Watzlawick et al., 1967), and the Leary-based model for interpersonal

behavior. The QTI instrument evolved from the model for interpersonal behavior

developed in 1993 by Wubbels et al. (Lourdusamy & Swe-Khine, 2001). The QTI

(Wubbels & Levy, 1993) used in this study contained 48 items aligned to eight domains:

Leadership, Understanding, Helpful/friendly, Dissatisfied, Admonishing, Strict,

Uncertain, and Student/responsibility/freedom. The 48-question, Australian version,

which uses a 5-point Likert scale, was used for this study with no modification. Because

no adjustments or modification were made to the instrument, there was no need to

determine validity and reliability of the instrument because several studies have

confirmed the reliability and validity of the QTI (Brekelmans et al., 1990; Creton &

Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels et al., 1985).

A review on the validity and reliability of over 20 studies that have used the QTI

at all levels of education (primary, secondary, and tertiary) during the last 20 years

showed that reliability of the eight scales is satisfactory and consistent across classes (den

Brok, 2001). In each of these studies, the Cronbach alpha reliability for each scale was

greater than 0.70 at the student level and greater than 0.80 at the class level. Because the

instrument has been found to be consistently valid and reliable, the findings in this study

were consistent with other studies done with this instrument (Brekelmans et al., 1990;

Creton & Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels et al., 1985). Permission to use the instrument was

requested and granted (see Appendix B for the approval letter).

I collected data that were used to statistically determine the relationship between

students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors and cognitive outcomes.

Both descriptive and nonparametric measures were used to answer the research questions

in the study.

Characteristics of the Sample

The population for this study included first- or second-year students who had

successfully completed introductory biology courses and were currently enrolled in upper

level biology courses at a suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic state. I collected

the data after permission to collect and use the data was granted by the IRB of Walden

University and the community college where the data were collected. The target sample

size for this quantitative study was 302 students who were nonrandomly selected to

participate in the study. To ensure that 302 properly completed survey questionnaires

were returned to me, 400 students were given a consent form and survey questionnaire to

complete. Of the 340 completed and returned questionnaires, 22 of them were rejected

because they were improperly completed. The final size of the data sample used for

statistical analysis was 318.

Overview of the Statistical Procedures

Data collected from 318 students were used to create one master data set. Eight

other data sets based on scores to questions related to each of the eight sub-scale

dimensions of teacher behavior were also created. The results were analyzed using SPSS.

Descriptive statistics were used to examine means, standard deviations, minima, and

maxima for the eight interpersonal behavior variables to determine how students perceive

of their biology instructors. Nonparametric Spearman’s correlations were then conducted

to examine the relationships between student achievement (continuous grades) and the

eight dimensions of interpersonal behaviors were examined. Finally, Mann-Whitney U

tests were conducted to examine differences in the eight interpersonal behavior variables

based on whether students scored high or low in the course.

Results for Research Question 1

Research Question 1: How do students perceive of the interpersonal behaviors of

the instructors of their introductory biology courses?

For Research Question 1, the hypothesis is exploratory in nature, and no specific

hypothesis is stated.

Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine how students perceive the

interpersonal behaviors of their introductory biology course instructors. Students’ grades

ranged from 0 being an F to 4 being an A (M = 2.87, SD = .77). Participant’s scores on

the leadership subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 2.88, SD = .93), scores on the

understanding subscale ranged from .33 to 4 (M = 2.93, SD = .93), and scores on the

uncertain subscale ranged from 0 to 3.17 (M = .69, SD = .77). Participants’ scores on the

admonishing subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = .76, SD = .84), scores on the

helping/friendly subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 2.76, SD = 1.03), and scores on the

Student Responsibility subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 1.17, SD = .68). Finally,

participant’s scores on the dissatisfied subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = .82, SD = .93)

and scores on the strict/freedom subscale ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 1.90, SD = .85). The

means and standard deviations for the continuous independent and dependent variables

are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Continuous Independent and Dependent Variables

N M SD Min Max

Grade 318 2.87 .77 .00 4.00

Leadership 318 2.88 .93 .00 4.00

Understanding 318 2.93 .93 .33 4.00

Uncertain 318 .69 .77 .00 3.17

Admonishing 318 .76 .84 .00 4.00

Helping/Friendly 318 2.76 1.03 .00 4.00

Student Responsibility 318 1.17 .68 .00 4.00

Dissatisfied 318 .82 .93 .00 4.00

Strict/Freedom 318 1.90 .85 .00 4.00

In review of the overall means and standard deviations results, it appeared that the

community college students perceive their introductory biology teachers as having strong

skills in leadership, understanding, and helpfulness domains of teacher behavior. The

understanding behaviors domain with a mean of 2.93 would suggest that community

colleges students perceive their teachers as empathetic, patient, understanding, open, and

attentive. The students reported a mean of 2.76 in the helpful/friendly behaviors domain

and a mean of 2.88 in the leadership behaviors domain. These ratings suggest that

teachers inspire confidence and trust, structure in the classroom situation, lead, organize,

assist, and show interest in the students. Also, the negative aspects of the teacher-student

interaction were rated fairly low by the students as teachers seldom exhibit admonishing

behavior (mean: 0.76), are less dissatisfied (mean: 0.82) and less uncertain (mean: 0.69).

This result is consistent with recent studies of science classroom environment using QTI.

(Gupta & Fisher, 2011, den Brok, Taconis, & Fisher, 2010)

Results for Research Question 2

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal teaching behavior and student achievement in introductory biology

courses?

2: Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior will not be

related to student achievement.

Nonparametric Spearman correlations were conducted to examine the relationship

between students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors and student

achievement in introductory biology courses. The null hypothesis states that student

perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior will not be related to student

achievement. As shown in Table 2, the results revealed a significant positive correlation

between grades and students’ perceptions of teacher leadership, understanding, and

helpful/friendly subscales (all ρs, p < .001), suggesting that as grades increased, students

perceived their teachers as being higher in leadership, understanding, and

helpfulness/friendliness. In addition, grades were negatively correlated to student

perceptions of teacher uncertain, admonishing, dissatisfied, and strict/freedom subscales

(all ρs, p < .001), suggesting that as grades increased, students perceived their teacher as

being less uncertain, admonishing, dissatisfied, and strict. However, there was no

significant correlation between grades and student perceptions of teachers’ insistence on

student responsibility, p > .05. Overall, these results reject the null hypothesis by

supporting the alternative hypothesis that student achievement is positively related to

students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior in introductory biology courses.

Table 2

Spearman’s Rank Correlations Among Teacher Interpersonal Behaviors and Student Achievement

Grade Leadership

Understanding

Uncertain

Admonishing

Helping/

Friendly

Student

Responsibility

Dissatisfied

Leadership .366

Understanding .338

** .812

Uncertain -.244

** -.675

** -.585

Admonishing -.220

** -.479

** -.633

** .606

Helping/

Friendly .356

** .714

** .795

** -.500

** -.565

Student

Responsibility -.019

.053

.189

** .206

** -.034

.305

Dissatisfied -.277

** -.538

** -.654

** .596

** .729

** -

.609

** .064

Strict/Freedom

-.164

** -.207

** -.341

** .288

** .556

** -

.395

** -.197

.577

Note. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The results show that the three scales of leadership, understanding and

helping/friendly is absolutely important which implies that understanding of students’

needs and providing them with care and support may aid in increasing their academic

achievement scores. On the other hand, uncertain and admonishing behavior by the

teacher may lead to a decline in academic achievement.

Results for Research Question 3

Research Question3: High achieving students (grades of As and Bs) will rate their

teachers' interpersonal behavior significantly more positively than low achieving students

(grades of Cs, Ds, and Fs).

3: Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior will not differ based

on student achievement levels in introductory biology courses.

The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to test if student

perceptions’ of teacher interpersonal behavior differed based on student achievement

levels in introductory biology courses. The null hypothesis states that student perceptions

of teacher interpersonal behavior will not differ based on student achievement levels in

introductory biology courses. As shown in Table 3, the results revealed a significant

difference between grade level and student perception of teacher leadership, U =

7284.500, p < .001. The mean rank for students who received a high grade were

significantly greater (MR = 179.48, Sum of Ranks = 37331.50) than were the mean ranks

for students who received a low grade (MR = 121.72, Sum of Ranks = 13389.50). Results

also revealed a significant difference between grade level and student perception of

teacher understanding, U = 7778.00, p < .001. The mean rank for students who received a

high grade were significantly greater (MR = 177.11, Sum of Ranks = 36838.00) than

were the mean ranks for students who received a low grade (MR = 126.21, Sum of Ranks

= 13883.00). Results also revealed a significant difference between grade level and

student perception of teacher helping/friendliness, U = 7718.00, p < .001. The mean rank

for students who received a high grade were significantly greater (MR = 177.39, Sum of

Ranks = 36898.00) than were the mean ranks for students who received a low grade (MR

= 125.66, Sum of Ranks = 13823.00).

Results also revealed a significant difference between grade level and student

perception of teacher uncertainness, U = 8730.00, p < .001. The mean rank for students

who received a low grade were significantly greater (MR = 184.14, Sum of Ranks =

20255.00) than were the mean ranks for students who received a high grade (MR =

146.47, Sum of Ranks = 30466.00). Results also revealed a significant difference

between grade level and student perception of teacher admonishing, U = 9104.50, p <

.05. The mean rank for students who received a low grade were significantly greater (MR

= 180.73, Sum of Ranks = 19880.50) than were the mean ranks for students who received

a high grade (MR = 148.27, Sum of Ranks = 30840.50). Results also revealed a

significant difference between grade level and student perception of teacher

dissatisfaction, U = 8285.50, p < .001. The mean rank for students who received a low

grade were significantly greater (MR = 188.18, Sum of Ranks = 20699.50) than were the

mean ranks for students who received a high grade (MR = 144.33, Sum of Ranks =

30021.50). Finally, results revealed a significant difference between grade level and

student perception of teacher strictness/freedom, U = 9331.00, p < .05. The mean rank for

students who received a low grade were significantly greater (MR = 178.67, Sum of

Ranks = 19654.00) than were the mean ranks for students who received a high grade (MR

= 149.36, Sum of Ranks = 31067.00). However, there was no significant difference

between grade level and student perception of student responsibility, p > .05. Overall,

these results reject the null hypothesis by supporting the alternative hypothesis that high-

achieving students rate their teachers’ interpersonal behaviors significantly more

positively than low-achieving students.

Table 3

Mann-Whitney U Tests Between Teacher Interpersonal Behaviors and Student

Achievement

Leadership 7284.50

< .001

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

14.87

5.98

121.72

High Grade (A, B) 208

18.54

4.87

179.48

Understanding 7778.00

< .001

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

15.37

6.15

126.21

High Grade (A, B) 208

18.71

4.84

177.11

Uncertain 8730.00

< .001

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

5.56

5.32

184.14

High Grade (A, B) 208

3.36

4.04

146.47

Admonishing 9104.50

.002

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

6.13

5.99

180.73

High Grade (A, B) 208

3.77

4.24

148.27

Helping/Friendly 7718.00

< .001

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

14.29

6.29

125.66

High Grade (A, B) 208

17.72

5.77

177.39

Student Responsibility 10908.50

.494

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

7.24

4.25

164.33

High Grade (A, B) 208

6.92

4.00

156.94

Dissatisfied 8285.50

< .001

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

6.84

6.39

188.18

High Grade (A, B) 208

3.91

4.77

144.33

Strict/Freedom 9331.00

.007

Low Grade (C, D, F) 110

12.46

5.63

178.67

High Grade (A, B) 208

10.86

4.76

149.36

These results show students scoring high grades (As or Bs) rated their teachers as

significantly higher in leadership, understanding, and helping/friendly than students

scoring low grades (Cs, Ds, or Fs). Specifically students with high grades perceived that

their teachers were better leaders, more understanding, and more helping/friendly.

Summary

The purpose of this correlational quantitative study was to determine whether

relationships exist between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-

student interactions among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban

community college. This section presented the statistical analysis procedures used in this

research and the facts obtained from those analyses. Data were methodically collected

and analyzed with descriptive statistics to examine means, and standard deviation, for the

8 interpersonal behavior variables to determine how students perceive of their biology

instructors. Nonparametric Spearman’s correlations were then conducted to examine the

relationships between student achievement (continuous grades) and the 8 dimensions

interpersonal behaviors examined. Finally Mann-Whitney U tests was conducted to

examine differences in the 8 interpersonal behavior variables based on whether students

scored high or low in the course.

The research study findings revealed significant relationships between students’

perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors and student achievement in

introductory biology courses. The findings associated with hypothesis one revealed a

significant positive correlation between grades and students’ perceptions several

interpersonal teaching behaviors. The nonparametric Spearman’s correlations revealed a

significant correlation between grades and students’ perceptions of teacher Leadership,

Understanding, and Helping/Friendly subscales (all ρs, p < .001), suggesting that as

grades increased, students’ perceived their teachers as being higher in leadership,

understanding, and helpfulness/friendliness. In addition, grades were negatively

correlated to student perceptions of teacher Uncertain, Admonishing, Dissatisfied, and

Strict/Freedom subscales (all ρs, p < .001), suggesting that as grades increased, students

perceived their teacher as being less uncertain, admonishing, dissatisfied, and strict. The

findings allowed the researcher to reject the null hypothesis by supporting the alternative

hypothesis that student achievement is positively related to students’ perceptions of

teacher interpersonal behavior in introductory biology courses.

The findings associated with hypothesis two revealed significant effect of grades

on several teacher interpersonal behaviors. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests

revealed a significant difference between grade level and student perception of teacher

leadership, U = 7284.500, p < .001, understanding, U = 7778.00, p < .00, and

helping/friendliness, U = 7718.00, p < .001. The results also revealed a significant

difference between grade level and student perception of teacher admonishing, U =

9104.50, p < .05, dissatisfaction, U = 8285.50, p < .001, strictness/freedom, U = 9331.00,

p < .05. However, there was no significant difference between grade level and student

perception of student responsibility, p > .05. In other words, students with high grades

perceived that their teachers were better Leaders, more Understanding, and more

Helping/Friendly. Further, students scoring high grades rated their teachers as

significantly lower in Uncertain, Admonishing, Dissatisfied, and Strict than students

scoring low grades. The findings allowed the researcher to reject the null hypothesis by

supporting the alternative hypothesis High achieving students (grades of As and Bs) will

rate their teachers' interpersonal behavior significantly more positively than low

achieving students (grades of Cs, Ds, and Fs).

Section 5 will present detailed interpretation of findings in the context of the

literature, discuss practical implications for social change and recommendations for

further research.

Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Inadequate teacher interactions in undergraduate introductory biology classrooms

have been linked to poor student performance in introductory biology courses resulting in

fewer students pursuing advanced degree and careers in life science (National Science

Board, 2008; Wood, 2009). According to data from IDEA (2001), approximately 50% of

undergraduate students with an initial major in science switched to a nonscience major

within the first 2 years of enrollment. Studies showed that students with caring and

supporting interpersonal relationship with their teachers reported more positive academic

attitudes and satisfaction with school (den Brok, Taconis, & Telli, 2010; Klemm &

Connell, 2004; Koul & Fisher, 2004).

Many different factors influence student achievement. The first goal of this study

was to understand students' perceptions of their teachers and get a better knowledge of

the dynamics of student-teacher relationships and their effect on student achievement.

The second goal of the study was to determine whether teacher-student interaction

variables associated with community college introductory biology instruction could

predict students’ academic success in introductory biology courses. The independent

variable for this study was students’ self-reported final grades and the dependent

variables were students’ perceptions of teacher behavior measured by the QTI (see

Appendix A for complete instrument). The scope of this correlational quantitative study

was to administer and analyze a teacher interaction survey to correlate students’

perceptions of teacher interaction behaviors to achievement in introductory biology

courses. The research questions in this study addressed the relationship between students’

cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-student interactions among students who

took introductory biology courses in a suburban community college in a Mid-Atlantic

state.

Data generated with the QTI survey were analyzed using nonparametric statistical

measures. The decision to use nonparametric measures was made after cleaning and

prepping the data for analyses and examining the distributions of the variables (grades

and the eight QTI subscales); I determined that responses on most of these subscales (all

except Strict and Student responsibility/freedom) were nonnormally distributed.

Specifically, they either showed ceiling or floor effects. Therefore, parametric statistics

measures became an invalid method of examining the data. The data set was analyzed to

determine association between community college introductory biology students’

perceptions of interpersonal teaching behaviors and their achievement in introductory

biology courses.

Descriptive statistics were used to examine means, standard deviations, minima,

and maxima for the eight interpersonal behavior subscales to determine how students

perceived their biology instructors. Nonparametric Spearman’s correlations were then

conducted to examine the relationships between student achievement (continuous grades)

and the eight dimensions of interpersonal behaviors examined. Finally, Mann-Whitney U

tests were conducted to examine differences in the eight interpersonal behavior subscales

based on whether students scored high or low in the course.

Limitations of the Study

In addition to the design and methodology weaknesses anticipated prior to the

study, this study was further limited because the data were collected from students who

had successfully taken an introductory biology course within one year of the date of data

collection. Because of that it is possible some of the students’ recollections of their

interaction may not be as clear had they taken the course the prior semester. Data

collection process was the most challenging part of the research project. Even though the

data was collected from the type of environment most supportive of this study, a large

sub-urban community college, the size, multi campus structure required traveling long

distance to multiple campuses which extended the time it took to complete data

collection. Future studies on this topic would do well to make an effort to avoid or

overcome this limitation. Finally, by not requiring students to provide demographic

information on the survey may have failed to capture what may be a discriminating

factor. To extend the research on this subject I would enlarge the survey to explore if

there are differences in students perceptions of teacher behavior based on demographic

factors such as race and gender.

Interpretation of Findings

Research Question 1

How do students perceive of the interpersonal behaviors of the instructors of their

introductory biology courses? For Research Question 1, the hypothesis is exploratory in

nature, and no specific hypothesis is stated.

As demonstrated in Section 4, the result of descriptive statistics of means and

standard deviation conducted to determine how students perceived the interpersonal

behaviors of their introductory biology course instructors showed that community college

students perceived their introductory biology teachers as having strong skills in

leadership, understanding, and helpfulness/friendly domains of teacher behavior. The

result also showed that negative aspects of the teacher-student interaction were rated

fairly low by the students as teachers seldom exhibited admonishing behavior (mean:

0.76), were less dissatisfied (mean: 0.82), and less uncertain (mean: 0.69). Scores on

most scales were similar to those found in other studies (Brekelmans et al., 2002; den

Brok et al., 2004; den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Rickards, 2006), Wubbels

& Levy 1993). These mean scores would imply that the community college students in

this study did not regularly perceive their teachers as angry, punishing, critical, and

apologetic.

The Theoretical framework discussion for research question 1 was based on the

systems communication theory (Watzlawick et al., 1967) and Leary (1957) model of

interpersonal communication. They are two theories describing how teachers and

students interact in the classroom and formed the basis of the model of interpersonal

teaching behavior. Communication is an important part of the social interaction that

occurs in an educational setting (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Rickards, 2006). A major

conclusion from the overall descriptive statistical analysis of means and standard

deviation is that community college introductory biology students generally perceived

that their science teachers displayed cooperative behaviors (Leadership, Helping/Friendly

and Understanding), rather than oppositional behaviors (Uncertain, Dissatisfied,

Admonishing).

Research Question 2

What is the relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal

teaching behavior and student achievement in introductory biology courses?

2: Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior will not be

related to student achievement.

As demonstrated in Section 4, the result of nonparametric Spearman correlations

revealed a significant positive correlation between grades and students’ perceptions of

teacher Leadership, Understanding, and Helping/friendly subscales (all ρs, p < .001),

suggesting that as grades increased, students perceived their teachers as being higher in

leadership, understanding, and helpfulness/friendliness. In addition, grades were

negatively correlated to student perceptions of teacher Uncertain, Admonishing,

Dissatisfied, Strict, and Student responsibility/freedom subscales (all ρs, p < .001),

suggesting that as grades increased, students perceived their teacher as being less

uncertain, admonishing, dissatisfied, and strict.

The Theoretical framework discussion for research question 2 was based on the

Leary (1957) model of interpersonal communication. Leary said that people

communicate according to two dimensions – a dominance/submission (influence) and

cooperation/opposition (proximity). The influence dimension focuses on who is

controlling the communications while proximity focuses on how much cooperation is

present between the people who are cooperating. The findings in this study showed a

significant positive correlation between grades and students’ perceptions of teacher

Leadership, Understanding, and Helping/friendly subscales adjacent to each other

satisfied the assumptions of Leary’s (1963) that there was a higher correlation between

scales adjacent to each other and that the correlations became smaller for scales located

further from each other.

Many research studies in the past have indicated that a teacher’s interpersonal

behavior is strongly related to students’ achievement at various grade levels of education.

The findings in this study were consistent with two studies published in 2010 (Aldridge,

Fraser, and Soerjaningsih, 2010), and 2011(Fisher and Gupta, 2011) looking at the

relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal teaching behavior and

student achievement in science classrooms using QTI.

In a study that examined associations between perceived interpersonal instructor

behavior and students’ cognitive outcomes at the university level in Indonesia using QTI,

Aldridge, Fraser, and Soerjaningsih (2010) found significant association between teacher

interpersonal teaching behaviors and student achievement. Using the individual student

as component of analysis, they performed simple correlation analysis to determine which

teacher behavior scales were significantly correlated to student course achievement

scores. The results showed that Leadership, Helpful/friendly and Understanding scales of

QTI were statistically significant and positively related to student course achievement

scores, while Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict scales were also statistically

significant but negatively associated to student course achievement scores.

In a study looking at teacher student interaction in a technology supported science

classroom in India, Fisher and Gupta (2011) found a significant correlation between

several teacher interpersonal teaching behaviors and student achievement. Analyzing QTI

data from 705 students, simple and multiple correlation analysis revealed that seven of

the eight scales of the QTI had a significant relationship with the academic achievement

scores. The scales of Leadership, Helping/friendly, Understanding, and Student

responsibility/freedom were positively correlated and Uncertain, Dissatisfied, and

Admonishing were negatively correlated with achievement scores. The Strict scale

showed no association.

In conclusion, results from this study together with support from other studies

demonstrated that understanding of the needs of students, and giving them some freedom,

opportunities and responsibility, and providing them with care, may assist in increasing

their academic achievement scores. On the other hand, admonishing and uncertain

behavior by the teacher may lead to a decrease in their academic achievement.

Research Question 3

Do student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior differ based upon

students’ achievement levels in introductory biology courses?

3: Student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior will not differ based

on student achievement levels in introductory biology courses.

As established in section 4, the results of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests

conducted to test if student perceptions’ of teacher interpersonal behavior differed based

on student achievement levels in introductory biology courses revealed significant effect

of grades on several teacher interpersonal behaviors. Specifically, students scoring high

grades (As or Bs) rated their teachers as significantly higher in Leadership,

Understanding, and Helping/Friendly than students scoring low grades (Cs, Ds, or Fs). In

other words, students with high grades perceived that their teachers were better Leaders,

more Understanding, and more Helping/Friendly. Further, students scoring high grades

rated their teachers as significantly lower in Uncertain, Admonishing, Dissatisfied, and

Strict than students scoring low grades. Whether students had high or low grades was not

related to their perceptions of teachers’ insistence on Student Responsibility.

These findings show that leadership, understanding, and helping/friendly teacher

behaviors positively influenced the students' final grade, whereas uncertain, admonishing,

dissatisfied and strict teacher behaviors negatively influenced the students' final grade.

While prior researchers had examined the Proximity and Influence axes collectively (e.g.,

Aldridge, Fraser & Soerjaningsih, 2010; Fisher and Gupta, 2011; Wubbels &

Brekelmans, 1997; Fisher & Rickards, 1998; den Brok, Brekelmans & Wubbels, 2004),

this author investigated all of the dimensions individually to gain a better knowledge of

teacher behavior effects on student achievement.

Analyses of QTI data from 318 community college students in this study satisfy

the assumptions of the theoretical frameworks that anchor this investigation, Leary’s

(1957) theory on interpersonal communication and the systems communication theory of

Watzlawick et al. (1967). The prototype of scale inter-correlations for the QTI in general

satisfy the supposition of Leary’s model of interpersonal human behavior that there was a

higher correlation between scales adjoining to each other and that the correlation became

100

smaller for scales located further from each other (Aldridge, Fraser & Soerjaningsih,

2010)

The findings in this study further validates many past research studies that have

consistently replicated the advantages of positive teacher-student relationships and a

positive learning environment in promoting better student achievement in science

classrooms. Developing positive teacher-student relationships should be one of several

goals to help develop new teachers and maintain effective tenured teachers in community

colleges.

Implications for Positive Social Change

This research study found a strong correlation between teacher interpersonal

teaching behaviors and student achievement. Because undergraduate introductory biology

courses often serve as the best opportunity to interest students in a biomedical research or

other life science career signifies that change must occur in the way introductory biology

courses are taught in community colleges. A very significant element of the research is

the fact that a plethora of information is available on what constitutes "quality teaching"

(Aldridge, Fraser & Soerjaningsih, 2010; Fisher & Gupta, 2011; Wubbels & Levy, 1993).

According to 318 community college introductory biology students, the finest teachers

are powerful classroom leaders who are more understanding and friendlier, and they are

less critical uncertain, and dissatisfied, than the majority teachers. In general, good

teachers are both highly dominant and highly cooperative (den Brok, Brekelmans, Levy

& Wubbels, 2002).

101

This study applies to Walden University's definition of social change in that the

study addressed strategies and ideas of best practices in teaching to affect students'

achievement and perceptions of science. In the past two decades community college

science classrooms have become more socially and culturally diversified. The findings in

this study will lead to positive social change for students and faculty by providing current

research data that can be used to guide and encourage administrators to support faculty

development activities in pedagogy that will lead to increased student engagement,

success and retention in science majors not only in the Community College where the

study was conducted, but also in other sub-urban Community Colleges in the United

States.

Recommendations for Action

Recommendation1:

The findings in this study further validates the use of the QTI as a statistically

dependable and a useful tool that can be used by teachers effectively as a feedback tool

for self-reflection. The information derived from this instrument has the potential to

promote changes in teacher actions that can positively influence students on a day-to-day

basis. The findings support their use as a tool for instructive development and

improvement. To fulfill one of the IRB requirements about disseminating the study

findings I plan to present it to the faculty at the Community College where the study was

conducted. Based on the results of this study, I will recommend to the academic

leadership to integrate components of QTI findings as part of a sequence of professional

development tools for introductory biology faculty. Interaction is one of the most

102

important factors in teaching as it directly relates to order in the classroom, one of the

most common problem areas in education according to teachers (den Brok, et. al., 2010;

& Veenman, 1984). Teachers can use these findings to modify their interactions with

their students and to work toward increasing student achievement in introductory biology

courses possibly leading increased retention.

Recommendation 2:

This study will also provide important useful information to the Community

College in which data was gathered that can be used to advance new strategies for

improving classroom practices, management and administration policies for introductory

biology and other science courses. My recommendation is that the results of the study be

used as a road map for other suburban Community Colleges in the Mid-Atlantic States

regarding efforts to improve student outcomes in introductory biology courses. Teachers

are crucial to student perceptions of learning, inhibiting or facilitating students’ learning

(Pekel et al., 2006). The outcomes of the study can help to build more positive teacher–

student relationships by improving the level of interactions.

Recommendations for Further Studies

The QTI has been proven over and over again to be a useful self-reporting

questionnaire for assessing teacher behavior inside the classroom, their interaction with

their students and the varied perceptions or responses to these interactions. The results of

this study highlight the need for more extensive research in this domain.

103

Recommendation 1

A future path for this study would be to continue the perceptions studies of high

and low achieving students in introductory biology courses in rural and urban community

colleges. Use of tests scores from a standardized common final exam can be used to

measure academic success rather than students' self-reported final grade. Because final

grade determination can vary from one instructor to another, I recommend using a

common assessment will provide a more reliable means of assessing the impact of

teacher behavior on achievement. Better insight into other introductory science courses

such as chemistry, physics and mathematics would also be useful as the present data is

limited to the subject area of biology.

Recommendation 2

Another extension of the QTI would be to look into differences in

students’ perceptions based on race and gender, where there is little available data in the

United States on the relationship between teacher behavior dimensions as defined by the

QTI model and student outcomes among students of different gender and ethnic

backgrounds.

The United States is currently experiencing racial and ethnic gaps in education

outcomes. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in suburban Community colleges with

large minority student populations where more than one half of the students are enrolled

in development math courses. The quality of teacher-student interactions is another area

that has the potential to improve the mathematics achievement of minority students

(Holloway, 2004). Many research studies have found that teacher behaviors make a

104

difference in minority student achievement in mathematics and that minority students

benefit from teachers who expect students of all racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds

to achieve (Holloway, 2004; Lubienski, 2002; & Robelen, 2012). Closing achievement

gaps and improving science learning outcomes for all students are educational priorities, I

recommend expanding the use of QTI to examine if there are differences in students’

perceptions of teacher behavior in science classrooms based on race and gender.

Conclusion

The focus of this correlational quantitative study was to determine whether

relationships exist between students’ cognitive outcomes and the quality of teacher-

student interactions among students taking introductory biology courses in a suburban

community college. An additional focus of the study was to determine whether teacher-

student interaction variables associated with community college introductory biology

instruction can be used to predict students’ academic success in introductory biology

courses.

A comparison of community college students’ introductory biology final grades

and the main teacher-student relationship traits, as indicted by the QTI can be used to

predict student achievement. The findings revealed that teacher leadership,

understanding, and helping/friendly behaviors had a significant impact on the prediction

for student success. Teacher behaviors have both direct and indirect influence on students

and as a result they contribute to the learning environment of students. Many studies on

science classroom environment show that teaching behaviors, teaching styles and student

perceptions of the learning environment are related to student learning (den Brok, Fisher,

105

& Koul, 2007; She, & Fisher, 2002; Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2005). According to Fraser

and Walberg, 2005, positive teacher-student relationships and a positive classroom

environment promote improved student outcomes and should be a worthwhile process

goal of education.

Community college students taking introductory biology courses spend a vast

amount of time in the classroom and laboratory every semester. As a result the quality of

life in these classrooms is of immense importance and students’ reactions to and

perceptions of their school experiences are important. Research studies in the United

States and other countries suggest that classroom environments have significant

influences on student outcomes (Adeyemo, 2010; Allen & Fraser, 2002; den Brok,

Ruurd, & Fisher, 2010; Dorman, 2003; Umo, 2010). The findings in this study of

instructor-student interaction in community college introductory biology classrooms

provides information needed to clarify the nature, level and patterns of instructor-student

interactions needed at the undergraduate level to increase student achievement.

106

References

Adediwura, A., & Bada, T. (2007). Perception of teachers’ knowledge, attitude and

teaching skills as predictor of academic performance in Nigerian secondary

schools. Journal of Educational Research and Review, 2(7), 165-171.

Adediwura, A. A., & Tayo, B. (2007). Perception of teachers’ knowledge attitude and

teaching skills as predictor of academic performance in Nigerian secondary

schools. Educational Research and Review, 2(7), 165-171.

Adeyemo, S. A. (2010). Teaching/learning of physics in Nigerian secondary schools: The

curriculum transformation, issues, problems and prospects. International Journal

of Educational Research and Technology, 2 (1), 99-111.

Aarons, D.I. (2009). Leading the charge for real-time data: An Oklahoma district earns

praise for its number sense. Education Week, 28(33), 25-27.

Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M.Y. (2008). A study of students’ perceptions in a blended

learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology

& Society, 11(1), 183-193.

Akey, T. M. (2006, January) School context, student attitudes and behavior, and

academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. Retrieved from MDRC website:

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/419/full.pdf

Allen, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2002). Parent and student perceptions of the classroom

learning environment and its influence on student outcomes. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New

Orleans, LA. April, 1-5.

107

Allport, G. W. (1996). Pattern and growth in personality. London, UK: William Clowes

and Sons, Ltd.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, S. B. (2004). The survey research handbook. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2007). Community college research.

Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from

www.aacc.nche.edu/

American Association of Community Colleges. (2011). Community college research.

Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from

www.aacc.nche.edu/

Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). The impact of high-stakes tests on student

academic performance, Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Education Policy

ResearchUnit (EPRU). Retrieved from

http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-126-EPRU.pdf

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’

achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, S. B. (2004). The survey research handbook. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Vision and change in

undergraduate biology education: A call for action.

http://www.visionandchange.org

108

Aregbeyen, O. (2010). Students’ perceptions of effective teaching and effective lecturer

characteristics at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social

Sciences, 7, 62-69.

Arends, R. (2001). Learning to teach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2001). A debate about our cannon. Qualitative

Research, 1(1) 5-21.

Aydogan, I. (2008). Favoritism in the classroom: a study on Turkish schools. Journal of

Instructional Psychology. 35(2) 159-168

Babbie, E. (2007). Sampling. Ch. 7 in E. Babbie. In The Practice of Social Research.

11th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bailey, T.R., Jaggars, S.S., & Jenkins, D. (2011). Strengthening Student Success in the

Community College. Working Brief #4 for the 21st Century Commission on the

Future of Community Colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of

Community Colleges.

Basterra, M. (1999). Using standardized test to make high-stakes decision on English

language learners: dilemmas and critical issues. Equity Review. Retrieved

November 7, 2004, from http://www.maec.org/ereview1.html.

Ballard, K., & Bates, A. (2008). Making a connection between student achievement,

teacher accountability and quality classroom instruction. The Qualitative Report,

13(4), 560-580.

Barrell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance

intellectual development. White Plains, NY: Longman.

109

Bassett P.F (2002) Testing, Accountability, and Independence

http://www.edweek.org/ew/author (Accessed April 30th, 2003)

Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple

intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 421-432

Beane, James A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.).

Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Bennett, N. (1976). Teaching Styles and Pupils Progress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2003). Research in education (9th ed.). Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Beutel, D. A. (2010). The nature of pedagogic teacher-student interactions: a

phenomenographic study. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2). pp. 77-91.

Birch S.H, & Ladd G.W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early

school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology.35:61–79.

Black, N. (2002). Why we need qualitative research. Editorial Journal of Epidemiology

and community health. 1994; 48: 425-426

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?

Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386.

Bloom, B. S. (1983). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York, McGraw-

Hill.

Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2004). Perspectives and principles for designing learning.

Learning Abstracts, 7(6), 1-4. www.league.org

110

Borich, G. (2000). Effective Teaching Methods, (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Boy, A. V., & Pine, G. J. (1988). Fostering psychosocial development in the classroom.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., Bergen, T., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Exploring students’

perceptions of their teachers’ interpersonal communication style. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San

Diego, Ca. April, 12-16.

Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New

York: MacMillan.

den Brok, P.J., Levy, J., Rodriguez, R., & Wubbels, Th. (2002) Perceptions of Asian-

American and Hispanic-American teachers and their students on interpersonal

communication style. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 447-467.

den Brok, P. J., Levy, J., Wubbels, T., & Rodriguez, M. (2003) Cultural influences on

students’ perceptions of videotaped lessons, International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 27, 3, 355-378.

den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behavior and

student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 407-

442.

111

den Brok, P., Fisher, D. L., & Scott, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal

behavior for student attitudes in Brunei primary science classes. International

Journal of Science Education, 7 (3), 765-779.

den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behavior and

student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15 (3/4), 407-

442.

den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2006). Multilevel issues in research using

students’ perceptions of learning environments. The case of the Questionnaire on

Teacher Interaction. Learning Environment Research, 9, 199–213.

den Brok, P., Fisher D., & Koul, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal

behavior for secondary science students in Kashmir. Journal of Classroom

Interaction; 40(2): 5-19.

den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Rickards, T., & Bull, E. (2006). Californian Science Students’

Perceptions of their Classroom Learning Environments. Educational Research and

Evaluation, (1) No.1 Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. London: Collier-

McMillan.

den Brok, P.J., Telli, S., Cakiroglu, J., Taconis, R. & Tekkaya, C. (2010). Learning

environment profiles of Turkish secondary biology classrooms. Learning

Environments Research, 13(3), 187-204.

den Brok, P; Taconis, R. & Fisher, D. (2010). How well do science teachers do?

Differences in teacher-student interpersonal behavior between science teachers

and teachers of other (school) subjects. Open Education Journal; (3), 44

112

Brown, B (2003). Teaching Style vs. Learning Style. Educational Resources Information

Center, 26, http://eric.ed.gov/ Retrieved August 10, 2010, from

http://www.calpro-online.org/eric/docs/mr41.pdf

Brown, D. (Ed.). (2003). Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies

to enhance teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Butler, M. B., & Nesbit, C. (2008). Using science notebooks to improve writing skills

and conceptual understanding. Science Activities, 44, 137-145.

Burgoon, J., Blair, P. J., & Strom, R. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue

availability in detecting deception. Journal of Human Communication Research

Volume 34:4

Burns, N., & Grove, S., K. (2001). The practice of nursing research. Conduct, critique

and utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

Byrd, K. L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out:

First generation college student perspectives. Community College Review, 33(1),

22-37.

Callahan, J., Clark, L., & Kellough, R. (2002). Teaching in the Middle and Secondary

Schools. Upper River, NJ: Merrill Prentice.

Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P., Carrington, S., et

al. (2001). Students’ perceptions of teaching and learning: The influence of

students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching. Teachers

and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 173-187.

113

Campbell, S.J., (2009). A Survey of Community College Faculty, Their Teaching

Methodologies, and Congruence with Student Learning Needs. Doctoral

dessertation, Walden University.

Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of

fourth graders in north cyprus. Journal of Educational Research, 98 (4), 234-243.

Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis. 2001. 1999–2000 SMET Retention

Report. Norman: University of Oklahoma.

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2010). The Heart of Student

Success: Teaching, Learning, and College Completion (2010 CCCSE Findings).

Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership

Program.

Chen, X. (2007). Part-Time undergraduates in Postsecondary education: 2003–04

(NCES 2007-165). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Chen, G. (2009). Changing Student Demographics: Rising Number of Professional

Students. Community College Review LLC.

Chickering, A.W. (2006). Every student can learn if … About Campus, 11(2), 9-15.

Chua, S. L. (2009). Associations between Chinese Language classroom environments and

students’ motivation to learn the language. Australian Journal of Educational &

Developmental Psychology. Vol. 9, 2009, pp 53-64.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: the education of teacher educators.

Teaching and Teacher Education 19 5–28

114

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American Community College. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002). Faculty motivation to use

alternative teaching methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002).

Sponsored by the National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED465342).

Combs, A.W. (1982). Affective education or none at all. Educational Leadership, April,

495-497.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). Committing to student

engagement: Reflections on CCSSE’s first five years: 2009 findings. Retrieved

from http://www.ccsse.org/publications/2007NatlRpt-final.pdf

Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). Non-experimental quantitative research and its role in

guiding instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 98-104.

Corrigan, M., & Chapman, P. (2008). Trust in teachers: A motivating element to learning,

Radical Pedagogy, 9(2). Retrieved October 4, 2009, from

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue9_2/Corrigan_Chapman.html

Craig, C. (2007). Illuminating qualities of teachers’ knowledge communities in a school

portfolio-making context. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(6),

617-636.

115

Creton, H. A., Hermans, J. J., & Wubbels, Th.(1990). Improving interpersonal teacher

behavior in the classroom: A systems communication perspective. South Pacific

Journal of Teacher Education, 18, 85-94.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design; qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crews, I. T. (2007). Identification of Teacher Interpersonal Relationship Behaviors

Related to High School Hispanic Student Success. Electronic Theses &

Dissertations, paper 295. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd

d'Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction.

American Psychologist, 52, 1198- 1208.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996, March). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher

development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Davis, G. B., & Parker, C. A. (1997). Writing the doctoral dissertation: A systematic

approach (2nd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Educational Series.

Delaney, J.G., Johnson, A.N., Johnson, T.D., & Treslan, D.L. (2010). Students’

Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Higher Education. St. John’s, NL: Distance

Education and Learning Technologies

116

Dorman, J.P., Aldridge, J.M., & Fraser, B.J. (2006). Using students’ assessment of

classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms.

International Education Journal, 7(7), 906-915.

Dorman, J. (2003). Testing a model for teacher burnout. Australian Journal of

Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3, 35-47.

Dorn, S. (2003, January 1). High-Stakes testing and the history of graduation, Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 11(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/

Doyle, M. B. (2002). The paraprofessional's guide to the inclusive classroom: Working

as a team (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), 392-432. New York, NY:

Macmillan.

Dunkin M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Exploring the

concept of Student Engagement and its implications for Teaching and Learning in

Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association (CEA), 1-22.

Eddy, P. L. (2007). Faculty development in rural community colleges. New Directions

for Community Colleges, 137, 65-76

Eggen P., & Kauchak D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. New

Jersey Prentice Hall, Inc

117

Ediger, M. (2005). How to generate student excitement in science. Science Activities:

Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas 41: 15-17.

Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social and emotional learning.

In M. J. Elias & H. Arnold (Eds.), The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence

and academic achievement (pp. 4–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Erickson, B.L., Peters, C.B., & Strommer, D.W. (2006). Teaching First-Year College

Students. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson study: A means for elementary teachers to develop the

knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical

Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 265-289.

Fisher, D. L., Fraser, B.J., & Rickards, T. (1997). Gender and cultural differences in

teacher-student interpersonal behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL., March 24-28.

Foa, U.G. (1961). Convergence in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior.

Psychological Review, 68, 341-353.

Fout, J. T., & Myers, R. E. (1998). Classroom environment and middle school students’

views of science. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 356-361.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1992.9941138

Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of classroom environment instruments. Journal of

Classroom Interaction, 26(2), 5-11.

118

Fraser, B.J. (1991). Two Decades of Classroom Environment Research. In B.J. Fraser &

H.J. Walberg (Eds.) Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and

Consequences, (pp. 3-29). Oxford: Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and

applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33.

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science learning environment: Assessment, effects and determinants.

In B.J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.

527-564). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours. Learning Environment Research, 4, 1-5.

doi:10.1023/A:1011406709483

Fraser, B.J., & Walberg, H.J. (2005). Research on teacher-student relationships and

learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of

Educational Research, 43(1&2), 103-109.

French, N. K. (2003). Managing para-educators in your school: How to hire, train, and

supervise non-certified staff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. A. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s

academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,

148–162.

Galbraith, M. W., & James, W. B. (2004). Mentorship of the community college

professor: One role among many. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 28(8), 689-701.

119

Galbo, J.J. (1984). Adolescents' perceptions of significant adults: a review of the

literature. Adolescence, 19, 951-970.

Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational

Psychologist, 43, 279-295.

Gerstein, A., & Ragey, N. (2008). The Foothill DE ANZA COLLEGE District Teaching

and Learning Project. http://www.foothill.edu/senate/documents/2008-

09/FALL_08/TeachingLearning.pdf

Giles, L. (2009). Effects of Students' Perceptions of Workload on the Quality of Learning

in Higher Education, International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 399-408.

Glass, G. (2003, February). Standards and Criteria Redux. Link reconfirmed August 22,

2008. http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/standards/ Updated version of Glass, G.

(1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement 15: 237–261.

Glatthorn, A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or Dessertation, A step-

by-step Guide. 2

edition. Corwin Press, A Sage Publications Company.

Goh, S. C (1990). Introducing a model of interpersonal teacher behavior. Teaching and

Learning, 15(1),30-40.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York, NY:

Longman.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral

sciences. Fifth Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

120

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M.

Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education. The report of

the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grubb, W.N. (1999). The Economic Benefits of Sub-Baccalaureate Education: Results

from the National Studies. CRCC Brief, Number 2. New York: Community

College Research Center, Columbia University. (ED 441549).

Gupta, A., & Fisher, D. (2011). Teacher-student interactions in a technology-supported

classroom environment in relation to selected learner outcomes: An Indian study.

MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices: 1 (1).

Hallinan, M. T. (2008). Teacher influences on students' attachment to school. Sociology

of Education, 81(3), 271-283. doi:10.1177/003804070808100303

Hamel, C.R., & Hamel, F. L. (2003). State-Mandated Testing: Why We Opt Out --

Education Week, 22(26), 32, 34

Holloway, J. (2004). Research Link/Closing the Minority Achievement Gap in Math.

Educational Leadership, 61(5), 84-86.

Houser, M.L., & Frymier, A.B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teachers

behaviors in students’ learner empowerment. Communication in Education, 58(1),

35-53.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 9, 17-25.

121

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the

first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?

Child Development, 76(5), 949-967.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: State

University of New York Press.

Haukoos, G.D., & Penick, J.A. (1983). The influence of classroom climate on science

process and content achievement of community college students. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 20(7), 629-637

Haukoos, G., & Penick, J. (1985). The Effects of Classroom Climate on College Science

Students: A Replication Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2),

163-68.

Haydel, A.M., & Roeser, R.W. (2002). On motivation, ability, and the perceived situation

in science test performance: A person-centered approach with high school

students. Educational Assessment, 8, 163-189.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93:17-25.

Henderson, D. G. (1995). A study of the classroom and laboratory environments and

student attitude and achievement in senior Secondary Biology classes.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Perth: Curtin University of Technology

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.

122

Hirschy, A. S., & Wilson, M. E. (2002). The sociology of the classroom and its influence

on student learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3), 85-100.

Howell, C. L. (2002). Reforming higher education curriculum to emphasize student

responsibility: Waves of rhetoric but glacial change. College Teaching, 50(3),

116-118.

Huber, M. T. (1997). “Community College Faculty Attitudes and Trends, 1997.”

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, http://ncpi. stanford.edu

Huber, M. T. (1998). Community college faculty attitudes and trends, 1997. Stanford,

CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University.

Huber, M. T. (2008). The promise of faculty inquiry for teaching and learning basic

skills. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Issac, E. P., & Boyer, P. G. (2007). Voices of urban and rural community college

minority faculty: Satisfaction and opinions. Community College Journal of

Research and Practice, 31, 359-369. Source: red Orbit (http://s.tt/186Wm)

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The pro-social classroom: Teacher social

and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived

academic and personal support within the classroom. Journal of Social

Psychology, 120, 77-82.

Johnson, G. M., & Johnson, J. A. (2006, October). Personality, internet experience and e-

communication preference. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

123

International Association for Development of the Information Society, Murcia,

Spain. (ERIC Document Reproductions Service No. ED494002.

Johnson, C., Kahle, J., & Fargo, J. (2007). Effective teaching results in increased science

achievement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371-383.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie., A. & Turner, L. (2007) “Toward a definition of mixed

methods research”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1, Issue 2, pp 112-

133.

Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are Students’ Learning Styles Discipline

Specific? Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27(5), 363-375.

Karp, M. (2008). Towards a community college research agenda. Summary of the

National Community College Symposium; June 19. Washington, DC.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cclo/cc-sympsm-smmry10-29-08-

final.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2011.

Kim, H.B., Fisher, D.L., & Fraser, B.J. (2000). Classroom environment and teacher

interpersonal behavior in secondary school classes in Korea. Evaluation and

Research in Education, 14, 3–22.

King-Sears, M. E. (2001). Institutionalizing peer-mediated instruction and interventions

in schools: Beyond "train and hope". Remedial & Special Education, 22(2), 89-

102.

124

Kisker, C. B., & Outcalt, C. L. (2005). Community college honors and developmental

faculty: Characteristics, practices, and implications for access and educational

equity. Community College Review, 33(2), 1-21.

Khine, M. S. (2002). Study of learning environment for improving science. In S. C. Goh

& M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An

international perspective. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. 2002, 241 pp.

ISBN 981-238-145-7, ISBN 981-238-056-6.

Khine, M.S (2005). Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological studies across

diverse cultures. Springer Science Business Publication.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to

student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 7, 262 – 273.

Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. L. (2004). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior and its

associations with cultural and gender differences, student attitudes and

achievements. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research

Forum 2004. http://www.waier.org.au/forums/2004/koul.html

Kyriakides, L; Christoforou, C., & Charalambos, Y. (2013). What matters for student

learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective

teaching. Teacher and Teacher Education, Vol. 36, p. 143-152

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in

Kindergarten: related spheres of influence. Child Development, 70, 1373-1400.

Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

125

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, volume 2, issue 1

Lee, H.-J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of Structure and Interaction on Student

Achievement and Satisfaction in Web-Based Distance Learning. Educational

Technology & Society, 12 (4),

Lee, S. S. U., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Teacher–student interactions in

Korean high school science classrooms. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education, 1, 67- 85.

Lee, H.-J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of Structure and Interaction on Student

Achievement and Satisfaction in Web-Based Distance Learning. Educational

Technology & Society, 12 (4), 372–382.

Lemonick, M. D. (2006). Are we losing our edge? Time, 23-26.

Levy, J., den Brok, P., Wubbels, Th., & Brekelmans, M. (2003). Significant variables in

students' perceptions of teacher interpersonal communication styles. Leaming

Environments Research, 6, 5-36.

Levy, J., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (1992). Student and teacher characteristics and

perceptions of teacher communication style. Journal of Classroom Interaction,

27, 23–39.

Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored

through the lens of the NSW Quality Teaching Model. Journal of Student

Engagement:Education matters. 2 (1), 2–9

126

Long, B., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do Community Colleges Provide a Viable Pathway

to a Baccalaureate Degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

forthcoming.

Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis, & W.

W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 143–204).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lubienski, S. (2002). Research, reform, and equity in U.S. mathematics education.

Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 103–125.

Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the Effects of a Highly

Rated Science Curriculum Unit on Diverse Students: Results from a Planning

Grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 912-946.

MacMackin, M. C., & Elaine, M. B. (1997). A change in focus: Teaching diverse learners

within an inclusive elementary school classroom. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 30(1), 32-38.

Mahle, M. (2011). Effects of interactivity on student achievement and motivation in

distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 207-215.

Malmberg, K. J. (2008). Recognition memory: A review of the critical findings and an

integrated theory for relating them. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 335–384

Marchant, G. J., & Paulson, S. B. (2001). Differential school functioning in a block

schedule: A comparison of academic profiles. High School Journal, 84(4), 12-21.

Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Classroom context of student-perceived

differential teacher treatment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(6), 441-453.

127

Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E x 2 instructional model: Uniting three

learning constructs to improve praxis in science and mathematics classrooms.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 501–516.

Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2010). The design and validation of EQUIP:

An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of

Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 299–312.

Marjoribanks, K., & Mboya, M.M. (1997). Family environmental correlates of students’

affective characteristics: A South African study. Educational Studies, 23(2), 243-

252.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maslowski, R. (2003). Klimaat in de klas. [Classroom climate]. HSO. B4200-1/28.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M-.C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2012) Teacher-student

interpersonal behavior in mathematics classrooms in Indonesia. International

Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 21-47. doi:

10.1007/s10763-011-9276-1

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M-C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2011). Teacher-student

interpersonal relationships in Indonesian secondary education: Profiles and

importance to student motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,31(1), 33 –

49.

128

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.C., den Brok, P.J., & Bosker, R. (2012). Teacher-student

interpersonal relationships in lower secondary education in Indonesia: teacher and

student perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 15(3), 251-271

McCall, C. H. (2001). An empirical examination of the Likert scale: Some assumptions,

development and cautions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the CERA

Conference, South Lake Tahoe, CA.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual

understanding. New York: HaprerCollins.

Mellow, G.O., & Heelan, C. (2008). Minding the Dream: The Process and Practice of

the American Community College. NY: Rowman and Littleman.

Milliron, D., & de los Santos, G. (2004). Making the most of community colleges on the

road ahead. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(2), 105–

122.

Moltz, D. (2008). The community college enrollment boom. Inside Higher Ed.

Montalvo, G. P., Mansfield, E. A., & Miller, R. B. (2007). Liking or disliking the teacher:

Student motivation, engagement and achievement. Evaluation and Research in

Education, 20(3), 144-158. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/eri406.0

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mucherah, W. (2008). Classroom climate and students, goal structure in high school

Biology classrooms in Kenya. Learning Environment Research, 11, 63-81.

doi:10.1007/s10984- 007-9036-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-007-9036-x

129

Muntner, M. (2008). Teacher-Student Interactions: The key to quality classrooms. The

University of Virginia Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning

(CASTL).

Mupinga, D. Nora, R.T., & Yaw, D.C. (2006). The learning styles, needs, and

expectations of online students. College Teaching. 54(1) 185-189. Retrieved May

30, 2006 from

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?di

rect=true&db=aph&an=19754741

Murray, J. P. (2002). Faculty development in SACS accredited community colleges.

Community College Review, 29(4), 50-67.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement (1998). Exceptional Teaching in

Community Colleges: An Analysis of Nominations for the U.S. Professors of the

Year Program, 1995-1997. U.S. Department of Education. Publication Number

NCPI-4-04.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2008), The condition of Education 2008.

Retireved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf

National Science Boards (2004). “An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and

Engineering Labor Force”, A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators

2004, NSB 04-07.

National Science Boards (2005). “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html.

130

National Science Board. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 Arlington, VA

(NSB 12-01)

Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., & Deuel, A. F. (2009). Three dimensions of teachers'

collaborative inquiry: Using data to improve science teaching and learning.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research

in Science Teaching.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural

Education, (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Nye, B., Spiros K., & Hedges, L. (2004). “How Large are Teacher Effects?” Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26: 237-257.

OECD, Programme for International Student Assessment (2009). http://www.oecd.org

Oerlemans, K., & Jenkins, H. (1998). ‘Their voice: student perceptions of the sources of

alienation in secondary school’. Paper presented at the WAIER 13th Annual

Research Forum, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, 29 August 1998.

http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1998/oerlemans.html

Okon, J. J. (2011). Role of Non-Verbal Communication in Education. Mediterranean

Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 2 (5)

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pajares, F. (2007). Elements of a proposal, available from the author at

www.aes.emory.edu/mfp/proposal.html,

131

Pascarella, E. (2006). How College Affects Students: Ten Directions for Future Research.

Journal of College Student Development. 47(5) 508-520.

Pekel, F. O, Demir, Y., & Yildiz, M. (2006). Biology Teachers’ Attitudes and

Communication Behavior in Turkey: From the View Point of Their Students. The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET January 2006 ISSN:

1303-6521 (5) Issue 1Article 3

Petegem, K., Creemers, B., Rosseel, Y., & Aelterman, A. (2007). The influence of

student characteristics and interpersonal teacher behavior in the classroom on

student’s wellbeing. Social Indicators Research (2007), 85, 279-291

Pierce, C. (1994) Importance of Classroom Climate for At-Risk Learners. The Journal of

Educational Research, 88(1), 37-42. Reprinted in SET Special No.10.

Phillippe, K. A., & Sullivan, L. G. (2005). National profile of community colleges:

Trends & statistics (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press for the

American Association of Community Colleges.

Popham, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (4th ed.).

Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 93, 5-15.

President Barack Obama (2009). Address at the 146th Annual Meeting of the National

Academy of Sciences PNAS 2009 106 (24) 9539-9543;

doi:10.1073/pnas.0905049106

132

Preszler, R.W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C.B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the Effects

of Student Response Systems on Student Learning and Attitudes over a Broad

Range of Biology Courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education 6, 29–41

Rawnsley, D., & Fisher, D. (1997). Teacher-student relationships: Do they affect student

outcomes? EQ Australia, 3, 34-35.

Reisberg, L. (1990). Curriculum evaluation and modification: An effective teaching

perspective. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(2), 99-105.

Rickards, T. (1998). The relationship of teacher-student interpersonal behavior with

student sex, cultural background and student outcomes. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

Rickards, T., & Fisher, D. L. (1997, July). A report of research into student attitude and

teacher student interpersonal behavior in a large sample of Australian secondary

mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Rickards, T., & Fisher, D. L. (2000, April). A comparison of teacher and student

perceptions of classroom interactions: A catalyst for change. Paper presented at

the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans,

LA.

Robelen, E. (2012). U.S. Math, Science Achievement Exceeds World Average.

Education Week, 32(15).

133

Robertson, J. (2002). The ambiguous embrace: twenty years of IT (ICT) in UK primary

schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 403–409.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rosser, V., & Townsend, B. (2006). Determining public 2-year college faculty’s intent to

leave: An empirical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 124-147.

Saenz, V. B. (2004). Hispanic students and community colleges: A critical point for

intervention. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/

Sanders, W. (2000). Value-added assessment from student achievement data:

opportunities and hurdles. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4),

329-339.

Santiboon, T., & Fisher, D. (2005). Associations between teacher-student interpersonal

behaviour and student attitudes in physics classes in Thailand. Paper presented at

the 31st Congress on Science and Technology of Thailand at Suranaree

University of Technology, 18–20.

Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.). (2007). Qualitative research

practice:Concise paperback edition. London: Sage.

Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (1990). Human

behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology.

New York: Pergamon.

Schneider, E. (1996). Giving students a voice in the classroom. Educational Leadership,

54 (1), 22-26.

134

Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. London:

Sage.

Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (Eds.). (1992). Student perceptions in the classroom.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schunk, D. H. (1997, March). Self-monitoring as a motivator during instruction with

elementary school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

She, H.C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with

students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 39, 63-78.

Scott, R. H., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). A Malay translation of an elementary school version

of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Journal of Applied Research in

Education, 5, 22-34.

Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s compromise: Redesigning American schools. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

She, H.C., & Fisher, D.L. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to describe science

teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia. Science Education, 84,

706–726.

She, H.C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behavior and its association with

students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 39, 63-78.

135

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects

of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.

Sperling, C. B. (2003). How community colleges understand the scholarship of teaching

and learning. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27(7), 593-

600.

Sperling, R. (2003). Student study guide to accompany L. R. Gay and Peter Airasian’s

educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Stahl, N., Simpson, M., & Hayes, C. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for

teaching high-risk college students [Electronic version]. Journal of

Developmental Education, 16(1), Retrieved from

http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/resources/reports/documents/10_Recommendations

_Article.htm

Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial Milepost Accountability Testing in

Kentucky. CSE Technical Report No. 505. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of

Evaluation, University of California.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment Crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi

Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.

Stipek, D. (2002). At what age should children enter kindergarten? A question for policy

makers and parents. Social Policy Report, Society for Research in Child

Development. 16(2), 3-16

136

Stokstad, E. (2001). "Reintroducing the Intro Course." Science 293: 1608-1610,

Strack, S. (1996). Special series: Interpersonal theory and the interpersonal circumplex:

Timothy Leary’s Legacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 211-307.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A

Cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student

achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 339-355. doi:

10.1177/0022487111404241

Tartwijk, J. van (1993). Sketches of teacher behavior: the interpersonal meaning of

nonverbal teacher behavior in the classroom. [In Dutch] Utrecht: W.C.C.

Tartwijk, J. van, Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1998).

Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal style: the front of the classroom as

the teacher’s stage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 1-11.

Tella (2007). The Impact of Motivation on Student’s Academic Achievement and

Learning Outcomes in Mathematics among Secondary School Students in

Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,

2007, 3(2), 149-156.

Telli S., den Brok P., & Cakiroglu J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of science teachers’

interpersonal behavior in secondary school: development of a Turkish version of

the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Learning Environment Research 10:

115-29.

137

Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). The importance of the teacher-student

interpersonal relationship for Turkish students’ attitudes towards science.

Research in Science and Technology Education, (RSTE), 28, 3, pp. 237-252.

Telli, S., den Brok, P.J., Tekkaya, C. & Cakiroglu, J. (2009). Turkish student’s

perceptions of their biology learning environments: the effects of gender and

grade level. Asian Journal of Educational Research and Synergy, 1(1), 110-124

Thomas, R.M. (2003). Blending quantitative and qualitative research methods in theses

and dissertation. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press, inc.

Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. (2006). “A hand hold for a little bit”: Factors facilitating

the success of community college transfer students to a large research university.

Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439-456. doi:10.1353/

csd.2006.0052

Townsend, B.K., & Twombly, S.B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and

undervalued. ASHE Higher Education Report: 32(6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Trochim, W. (2008). Web Centre for Social Science Research Methods. Retrieved: April

10, 2008 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php.

Umo, C. (2010). Classroom Environment as Correlate of Students’ Cognitive

Achievement in Senior Secondary School Igbo Language. Journal of African

Social Science Review,(4):1

Students also viewed