Assignment 2 Designing a Quantitative Research Project Noly Shofiyah (15749660)

COMPARING

TEACHER-STUDENTS

INTERACTION

TOWARD

PHYSICS

BETWEEN GIFTED AND NON-GIFTED CLASSES IN INDONESIA

Context of the Study Indonesians national education curriculum has constantly been undergoing changes aimed at preparing its people for the global knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century. Between the early 1990s and 2000s, two educational initiatives, namely Gifted Education and International School were launched in Indonesia. The acceleration programme for Gifted Education that developed in 1998 aims to provide opportunities for intellectually-gifted students at junior and senior high school to complete school education faster than in the determined time frame in order to improve their achievement and talent (Kasakeijan, 2005). While the school continues to prepare students for future challenges, psychosocial dimensions of classroom learning environment has a reference to determine the overall quality of teaching and learning in school. According to Fraser (2002, 2007), the learning environments have a significance influence on students outcomes and role to improve learning at all levels. The learning environment research provided the instruments for assessing students perception of classroom environment. One of the instruments is the Questionnaire on Teaching Interaction (QTI) that assesses students perception on teaching interaction. At the classroom level, teachers behaviours while interacting with students have been found to influence students like or dislike for learning (Goh, Young, & Fraser, 1995). In Indonesia, research on teacher-student interpersonal relationship is rare. However, some studies that conducted by Soerjaningsih, et al (2001) and Maulana, et al (2011) indicated the importance of teacher-student relationship. Therefore, this study will investigate and compare the teacher-students interaction in the physics learning environments that currently exist in stream students classrooms (gifted versus non-gifted) to know their inadequacies. The results then can help us to learn how best to treat either the gifted or non-gifted students. This will be the first major study of learning environment conducted among gifted students in Indonesia.

Theoretical Framework of Learning Environment History of the Learning Environment Field During the last three decades, considerable interest has been shown internationally in the conceptualization, measurement and investigation of perception of psychosocial characteristics of the learning environment in science classroom (Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Initially, learning environment research builds on earlier work, namely, the theoretical philosophy and consequent conceptual foundations that were developed by Lewin (1936) and Murray (1938). Lewin recognised that the powerful determinants of human behaviour are the environment and its interaction with personal characteristics of the individual (Fraser, 2007). Lewin introduced the formula B = f (P, E) to describe human behaviour (B) as a function of the person (P) and the environment (E) (Fraser, 2007). Building on the finding of Lewin, Murray (1938) identified a Needs-Press Model of Interaction in which personal needs that is motivational personality characteristics, represent the tendency for individuals to move towards goals, while the environmental press is the external situational counterpart that either supports or frustrates the expression of these needs. Murrays model then was popularised and clearly explained by Stern (1970). Stern (1970) developed a theory of person-environment congruence in which student outcomes are enhanced by combinations of personal needs and environment (Fraser, 2007). Lewin's and Murray's work has had extensive effects. It has influenced later developments, for example, Getzels and Thelen (in 1960) proposed a model for the class as a social system and suggested that personality needs, role expectations and classroom climate interact can be used to predict group behaviour including learning outcomes (Aldridge, 1995; Fraser, 1986). Further, the development of learning environment research provided the instruments for assessing students perception of classroom environment. Learning Environment Research Instruments Many instruments of classroom environment that have proved valid and useful internationally are available for researchers to use them in their studies. This section will discuss about such instruments briefly. Some of the instruments are Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), Classroom Environment Scale (CES), My Class Inventory (MCI), Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ), Science laboratory environment inventory (SLEI), and Questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI). a. The instruments are Learning Environment Inventory (LEI)

The Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) is a part of research and evaluation of the Harvard Project Physics that measures student perceptions of the social climate high school classrooms (Anderson & Walberg, 1967; Walberg, 1967; Walberg & Anderson, 1968). The LEI is an expansion and improvement of the Classroom Climate Questionnaire that was developed by Hemphill and Westie (Fraser, Anderson & Walberg, 1982). The last version of LEI contains a total of 105 statements which are classified into 15 dimensions and each dimension has seven items (Fraser, 1986). Those dimensions are Cohesiveness, Diversity, Formality, Speed, Material Environment, Friction, Goal direction, Favouritism, Difficulty, Apathy, Democracy, Cliqueness, Satisfaction, Disorganisation, and Competitiveness. The respondent expresses degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a four-point scale with response alternative of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree (Fraser, Anderson, Walberg, 1982). b. My Class Inventory (MCI) The My Class Inventory (MCI) is a simplified version of the LEI that is suitable for primary school students (Fraser, Anderson, Walberg, 1982; Fraser, 1986). The original form of MCI contains 38 items altogether in long form (six for Cohesiveness, eight for Friction, nine for Satisfaction, eight for Difficulty, and seven for Competitiveness) with Yes-No response format (Fraser, Anderson, Walberg, 1982; Fraser, 1986). The MCI also has short version that consists of 25 items with having the same five scales as the long form. c. Classroom Environment Scale (CES)

The Classroom Environment Scale (CES) is one of a set of nine perceptual which were developed by Rudolf Moos at Stanford University to measure a variety of human environments (Fraser, 1986). The final form of the CES consisted of 9 scales with 10 items of True-false response format in each scale and it has been designed to assess for both actual and preferred environment (Fraser, 1986). The scoring direction is reversed for half of the items in each CES scale including are called Involvement, Affiliation, Teacher Support, Task Orientation, Competition, Order and Organisation, Rule Clarity, Teacher Control and Innovation . d. Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ)

The Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) developed by Rentoul and Fraser in 1979 (as cited in Fraser, 1986) was used to distinguish more conventional classrooms from those where provides curricula focusing on individual needs (Fraser, 1986). The final development of the ICEQ contained 50 items with 10 statements in each scale for long version and 25 items with 5 statements in each scale for the short one. The scale including Personalisation, Participation, Independence, Investigation, and Differentiation are responded by five alternatives frequency scale, namely Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often and Very Often (Aldridge, 1995). e. Science laboratory environment inventory (SLEI)

The Science laboratory environment inventory (SLEI) that was developed by Fraser, Giddings and McRobbie (1992) is an instrument specially suited to assess the environment of science laboratory classes at the high and higher level of education (Fraser, 2007). The SLEI had a total of 35 items that are classified into 5 dimensions, namely Students Cohesiveness, OpenEndedness, Integration, Rule Clarity, and Material Environment and each of those is responded by five scales (from very often to almost never) (Fraser, 2007). The SLEI opened up the use of the personal form. f. Questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI)

The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) that initiated at Netherland focused on the characteristics of interpersonal relationship between teachers and students (Wubbles & Levy, 1993). The QTI was developed to assess students perceptions of students in eight behaviour aspects. Such aspects are Leadership, Helpful and Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility and Freedom, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict (Fraser, 2007). Each characteristic has four statements with a five-point response scale ranging from never to always. The details development of QTI will be explained in research methods section. Types of Learning Environment Research In order to figure out the usefulness of some of the many types of the learning environment instruments, such as LEI, MCI, ICEQ, CES, SLEI, and QTI, this section will reviews six forms of past research in the learning environment field. a. Association between Student Outcomes and Environment

Most of learning environment research conducted in past emphasized on the relationship between students learning outcomes and their perceptions of classroom climate (Fraser, 2002). Such studies have been replicated for a variety of cognitive and affective outcomes measures, a variety of classroom environment instruments and a variety of sample ranging many countries and grade levels. For example, In Singapore, Goh and Fraser (1998) used the MCI and QTI in a study involving the achievement attitudes of 1,512 elementary-school students. Fraser (2002) also mentions that Asian research have conducted a variety studies of the association between students outcomes and students perceptions of their learning environment. An important thing about Asian research is the use of not only English-language versions of questionnaire. b. Evaluation of educational Innovation The results of classroom environment studies can be used as one of valuable resources to evaluate educational innovation (Fraser, 2002, 2007). For example, in an evaluation of the Australian Science Education Project (ASEP), ASEP students recognized their classroom become more satisfying and individualised and having better material environment than a comparison group (Fraser, as cited in Fraser, 2002). c. Differences between Student and Teacher Perceptions of Actual and Preferred Environment Fisher and Fraser in their investigations that involved the use of ICEQ and CES concluded that there are differences between students and teacher in their perception of the same actual classroom environment and distinctions between the actual environment and the preferred one by students or teachers (Fisher & Fraser, 1983). Two interesting pattern that can be indentified from this study are that students tended to prefer a more positive environment than was actually classroom in terms of many of the scales assessed by the instruments, while teachers perceived their classes more favorably on numerous environment scales than their students in the same classrooms (Fisher & Fraser, 1983). d. Determinants of Classroom Environment Some classroom environment characteristics such as teacher personality, class size, grade level, subject matter, the nature of the school-level environment, and the type of school have been used as criterion to identify the effectiveness of classroom environment (Fraser, 1994). In

Korea, Lee and Fraser (2001, 2009) reported the use of SLEI, CLES, and QTI in investigating the differences between students of science-oriented stream and them from humanities-oriented stream in the student-perceived learning environment. For the use of QTI, the results from first four of the scales show a pattern that science-oriented stream students perceived their classroom more favourable than the humanities students did. e. Use of Qualitative Research Methods

Two significant progresses were found in learning environment research that involved both qualitative methods and combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same study of classroom environments (Fraser & Tobin, as cited in Fraser 2002). For example, Frasers multilevel study (as cited in Fraser, 2007) that incorporated a teacher-researcher and six university-based researchers perspective started his study with an interpretive study of a Grade 10 teachers classroom at a school which provided a challenging learning environment because many of students from working class backgrounds were experiencing problems at home and had English as a second language. Qualitative methods was conducted by several ways, such as visiting the class, using student diaries and interviewing the teacher-researcher, students, school administrators and parents. They also recorded the activities using a video camera and complemented with classroom environment questionnaire. The use of qualitative information was to help the researcher in providing consistent and plausible accounts of the teacher profiles scores on a classroom environment instrument that was responded by the students. f. Cross-National Studies

Cross-national studies offer much promise for generating new insight for at least two reasons (Fraser, 1997). First, there is greater variation in variables of interest such as teaching methods and students attitude in a sample drawn from multiple countries than from a single country sample. Second, when research involves two countries, the familiar educational practices, beliefs and attitudes become stranger and more questioned. For example, Dutch and American researchers have worked together in comparing interpersonal teacher behaviour using the QTI (Wubbles & Levy, 1989, 1991). From both studies can be concluded that people communicate according to two dimensions Dominance-Submission (DS) and Cooperation-Opposition (CO). Particularly, American and Dutch teachers showed similar interpersonal behaviour towards their students. However, in one aspect, American teachers wanted to be stricter while Dutch teachers wanted to give students more responsibility and freedom.

See the important of learning environment in the classroom this study will be focused on the learning environment field with The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) as the instrument to measure teachers-students interaction in the classroom. The QTI is chosen since in Indonesia, research that study about teacher behaviours is rare, whereas how teachers interact with students affects students perception for learning. Specific Research Questions This study will examine the differences of students perception of physic teacher interpersonal behaviour among two streams and gender differences in the physics learning environment in Indonesia. More specifically, the research questions for this study are:

1. 2. 3.

Is the translated the QTI scale valid and reliable instrument to assess teacher-student interaction at secondary school in Indonesia? What differences exist between the students perception of teacher-student interaction in gifted and non-gifted classes? Are there differences of students perception of teacher-student interaction between girls and boys in gifted and non-gifted classes?

Data Sources The sample of this study will consists of 495 students at tenth levels from 18 classes in 9 schools in East Java, Indonesia. Of the 18 classes, 9 classes consist of gifted students in the Acceleration programme (that serves students to complete their school in two years) and 9 classes consist of non-gifted students in the Regular programme (that serves students to complete their school in three years). The students from the two streams do not share the same physics teacher. One class from both gifted and non-gifted classes in each of 9 schools will take part in this study. Since each school only provides one gifted class at each level and the number of students in the gifted classes was generally smaller (about 25 students per classes) than in the non-gifted classes (about 40 students per classes), thus all students in these gifted classes participate in the study. However, only thirty of non-gifted students from a non-gifted class in each school will be selected randomly from among the larger number of non-gifted students in these schools. Both of gifted and non-gifted classes that will be selected as samples consist of both girl and boy students. Data Collection

The Development and the Description of the QTI Since this study will measure students perception of their physics teachers among gifted and non-gifted classes quantitatively, the data will be collected using the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). Originally, the QTI was developed in early 1980s by team of Dutch researchers at the University of Utrecht in Netherland to measure secondary students and teachers perceptions of teacher personal behaviour (Wubbels, et al, 1997). The QTI was adapted from Leary model of interpersonal behaviour that describes interpersonal behaviours along the two dimensions; of DominanceSubmissiveness and HostilityAffection (Wei et al, 2009). Learys model then was adapted to education by creating a model for teacher behaviour (Wubbels et al. 1985), the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour (MITB). The MITB uses a proximity dimension (Cooperation, C Oppositions, O) to measure the degree of cooperation of their teacher felt by students and an influence dimension (Dominance, D Submission, S) to measure the degree of dominance or control of the teacher over the communication process (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). Those dimensions can be represented in coordinate system as shown in figure 1. Figure 1: The Coordinate System of the Leary Model
Dominance Influence Opposition Proximity

Cooperation

Submission

The MITB are then divided into eight equal behaviour sectors, namely, Leadership (DC), Understanding (CS), Uncertain (SO), Admonishing (OD), Helpful/Friendly (CD), Student Freedom (SC), Dissatisfied (OS) and Strict behaviour (DO) (Wubbels et al. 1985, Wubbels and Levy 1993). Such divisions can be seen in figure 2. Figure 2: The Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour

Although the QTI originated in The Netherlands, research involving the QTI has spread widely in recent times. According to Fraser and Walberg (2005), the QTI has been translated into and validated in at least 15 languages, namely English, French, German, Hebrew, Russian, Slovenian, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Singaporean Chinese, Indonesian, Malay and Korean. Many studies with the QTI have also conducted at various grades and levels in the U.S.A. (Wubbles & Levy, 1993) and Australia (Fisher, Henderson & Fraser, 1995). A shorter version of 48 items of the QTI (Wubbles, 1993) has been widely used in many countries, including Australia (Fisher, Fraser, & Rickards, 1997; Wubbles, 1993), Singapore (Goh & Fraser, 1998, 2000; Goh, Young & Fraser, 1995; Lang, Wong & Fraser, 2005), Korea (Kim, Fisher & Fraser, 2000; Lee, Fraser & Fisher, 2003); Indonesia (Soerjaningsih, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2001; Maulana, Opdenakker, Brok & Bosker, 2011) and Brunei (Riah, Fraser & Rickards, 1997). The original Dutch version of the QTI consists of about ten items in each scale with a total of 77 items which are answered on a five-point Likert scale from Never to Always (Wubbels, Creton, Levy, & Hooymayers, 1993). The American version which is developed in the late 1980s has eight items in each scale with a total of 64 items and similar response scale (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). Both versions of the QTI were developed in secondary schools for educational research purposes (Aldridge, 1995). In Australia, the QTI has long version that contains a total of 64 items with similar response scale. Each scale has eight items that corresponding to one of the eight scales (Wubbels, 1993). In order to make the QTI more accessible to teachers, the short version of the QTI was developed by Wubbels (1993). This version consists of a total of 48 items with similar eight scales in which six items for each scale. The QTI was also adapted by Goh and Fraser (1995) from two existing secondary school version of the QTI: The long 64 items form of the Australian version and the short 48 items form for use in primary schools in Singapore. The short version of the QTI has 8 scales with a total of 48 items. It assesses the eight characteristics of teacher behaviour in classroom as described below (Aldridge, 1995:52, Wubbels & Levy, 1991:8):
1. Leadership (DC) shows the degree to which the teacher provides leadership to the class

and holds the students attention. It means that the teacher is a good leader.
2. Helpful/Friendly (CD) refers to the degree to which the teacher is friendly and helpful

towards the students or the teacher is someone that students can depend on.

3. Understanding

(CS)

explains

the

degree

to

which

the

teacher

shows

understanding/care/concern towards the students. In other word, the teacher is patient.

4. Student Responsibility/Freedom (SC) describes the degree to which the teacher gives their

students a lot of time to assume responsibility.

5. Uncertain (SO) demonstrates the degree to which the teacher exhibits uncertainty or she/he

seems uncertain.
6. Dissatisfied (OS) expresses the degree to which the teacher displays dissatisfaction

towards the students or she/he is suspicious.

7. Admonishing (OD) states the degree to which the teacher gets angry, admonishes, or loses

his/her temper with the students.

8. Strict (DO) clarifies the degree to which the teacher strict and maintains control over the

students. Each characteristics of questionnaire above has six statements which are responded on a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from Never to Always which is scored from 0 to 4. In order to facilitate hand scoring, the items are arranged in cyclic order and in blocks of four. The first 24 items assess the four scales namely Leadership, Understanding, Uncertain and Admonishing behaviour while the items 25 to 48 assess the scales Helpful/Friendly, Student Responsibility/Freedom, Dissatisfied and Strict behaviour. In the top half of the questionnaire in the Supplement, the first item in every block assess Leadership behaviour, the second one Understanding behaviour, the third one Uncertain behaviour and the fourth one Admonishing behaviour. The items in the lower half of the questionnaire in the Supplement are also grouped in blocks of four assess Helpful/Friendly behaviour, Student Responsibility/Freedom behaviour, Dissatisfied behaviour and Strict behaviour. Translation of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) Fraser (2002) mentioned that Asian researchers have been active in adapting, translating and cross validating numerous classroom learning environment questionaries for use in their countries. In Indonesia, the QTI was modified, translated and used at among 422 students in 12 classes in a private university in Indonesia (Soerjaningsih, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2001). The

classes were selected from two departments within the university, namely Computer Science and Management. Data analyses supported the QTIs validity, revealed differences between a computer science and a management department in terms of instructor-student interactions, and identified which types of instructor-student interactions are most likely to promote student outcomes at the university level. Recently, the QTI also has been translated into bahasa Indonesia and validated among 1900 students (grade 7-9) and 55 teachers from 11 public school in three provinces in Indonesia to investigate teachers profiles based on students and teachers perception and to examine the association between students perception of teacher interpersonal behaviour and student motivation (Maulana, Opdenakker, Brok & Bosker, 2011). The results showed that a variety of interpersonal profiles could be distinguished, that teachers perceive themselves more favourably than their students do, and that students perceptions of teacher interpersonal behaviour and their learning motivation are associated. The Indonesian version of the QTI has been available, but it was modified to be used at Lower secondary school (Maulana, et al, 2011) and University level (Soerjaningsih, et al, 2001). So that in this study, the short version of the 48 items Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) will be translated into bahasa Indonesia and developed to be used by students in Higher secondary school. This study is distinctive from the previous studies because the QTI will be used among gifted and non-gifted classes. The QTI will be translated into bahasa Indonesia using a rigorous process of back-translation. Firstly, the English version of the QTI will be translated into bahasa Indonesia. Secondly, to ensure that each item retains its original meaning, the results of the translation will be back translated into English by an independent party that allow the comparison of the two English. In order to further check the comprehensibility and clarity of the items, tenth grades from different achievement levels (high, medium, low) will be asked to respond to the questionnaire in the form of semi-structured interviews. Any misunderstanding will be reported and the difficult words that are identified, especially by low-achieving students, will be changed to the simpler words. The final Indonesian version of the QTI then will be distributed to both students in gifted and non-gifted classes. The questionnaire that is filled by students will be scored manually. The total score of a certain scale is the sum of the circled numbers for the six items belonging to the scale. The omitted or invalid responses are scored 3. Data Analysis and Interpretation

In order to answer the three research questions above, the data that is gathered will be organized into two sections, namely validation of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) and comparing streams (gifted and non-gifted) and gender differences in students perception of interpersonal behaviour teacher in physics classes. Validation of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) While the QTI has been repeatedly judged to be an acceptable instrument for use in educational research many countries including Indonesia, it has never been used in senior high school in Indonesia. Therefore, it is important to re-examine whether the instrument still reflecting acceptable reliability and validity. The four kinds of analysis of validity and reliability that will be used in this study are: 1. Factor Analysis

Factor analysis will be used to determine whether items within scale are tapping into the same construct and whether each scale is assessing a distinct construct. Principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation is used to compare 48 items in eight scales with six items each. The two criteria that are the item must have a factor loading of at least 0.40 on its own scale and less than 0.40 on each of other 7 QTI scales will be used for determining whether an item is retained or excluded (Aldridge, et al, in press). 2. Internal Consistency Reliability

Because the QTI is multidimensional, it was important to retain all 8 scales when it is revealed by factor analyses. Therefore, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient also will be computed for each QTI scale as an index of scale internal consistency (Aldridge, et al, in press). If the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of each scale ranges more than 0.7, the questionnaires are valid and reliable. 3. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity describes the degree to which the scale does not correlate with other scales that it theoretically should not be correlated with. This validity can be gained from the factor analysis that scores on the QTI. As a convenient index of the discriminant validity of raw scores on different scales, the mean magnitude of the correlation of one scale with other scales in the QTI was calculated using two units of analysis, namely factor analysis and Rasch analysis (Aldridge, et al, in press). 4. Ability to Differences Between Classroom

In past research on classroom learning environments and teacher-student interpersonal interaction, an important and commonly-used indicator of validity is the ability of questionnaire scales to be capable of differentiating between the perceptions of students in different classrooms. Because different teachers exhibit different interpersonal behaviours, it is important that the questionnaire is sufficiently sensitive to be able to distinguish between the perceptions of students who are in classes with different teachers. As each class in this study has a different teacher, it is desirable to determine whether the QTI was able to differentiate between the 18 classes. To do this, a one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), with class membership as the independent variable (N=18) is computed for each QTI scales (Aldridge, et al, in press). Comparing Student-Teacher Interaction in Gifted and Non-Gifted Classes and in different gender To answer the second and the third research question, a two-way MANOVA and Effect Sizes will be used with the eight QTI scales as the dependent variables and with streams (gifted vs. non-gifted) and gender (boy vs. Girl) as the independent variables. When mulitivariate tests can prove significant (using Wilks lambda criterion), the univariate ANOVA can be interpreted for each individual scale. The MANOVA is used since this study has many independent variables and each variable will be compared to each other. It is used two-way because this study is looking at the impact four independent variables on a dependent variable. The Effect Sizes are used to examine the differences gender between the different groups (gifted vs. non-gifted). Limitations This study will present an overview of differences of students perception of interpersonal teacher behaviour in gifted and non-gifted classes in Indonesia. However, some limitations in terms of method and sample can make the results of this study slightly weak. First, the only quantitative method that is used to collect data makes it maybe provides poor description of students perception of teacher behaviour. So that researcher is unable to understand deeply the learning environment from the view of the participants. Second, this study covers a relatively small sample (located in 9 regions within one province) which the results cannot be generalised to the whole condition of teacher-students interaction in two streams classes in Indonesia. It is chosen since the writer only has limit time to do this study. Significance

Although there are some limitations of this study, there are also at least three significance results that will be got from this study. Firstly, this study will provide valuable information either for teacher and school about how best to teach the students who have high ability academically. It also can help teacher, especially physics teachers, to reflect day to day interactions with students and their approach teaching. Secondly, this study will provide useful validation data for the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) when used with gifted and non-gifted students in senior high school. Finally, this study can give additional references for some researchers who want to perform study in the learning environment field, especially using the QTI for gifted students, because it is one of only few of studies in the field learning environment in gifted classes in Indonesia. References Aldridge, J. M. (1995). Interpersonal teacher behaviour, classroom environment and student satisfaction in upper primary classes. Bachelor. Curtin University of Technology, Perth. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Bell, L. M., & Dorman, J. (In press). Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of science Teacher Education. Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1967). Clasroom climate and group learning. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED015156 Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of research in science teaching, 20(1), 55-61. Fisher, D. L., Fraser, B. J., & Rickards, T. (1997). Gender and cultural differences in teacherstudent interpersonal behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Fisher, D. L., Henderson, D., & Fraser, b. J. (1995). Interpersonal behaviour in senior high school biology classes. Research in science Education, 25, 125-133. Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed), Handbook of research on science taeching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan. Fraser, B. J. (1997). NARSTs expansion, internationalization and cross-nationalization [1996 annual meeting presidential address]. NARST News, 40(1), 3-4. Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective. (pp. 1-25). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 103-124). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). Research on teacherstudent relationships and learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1-2), 103109.

Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED223649.pdf. Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1992). Assessing the climate of science laboratory classes. What research says to the science and mathematics teacher. Number 8. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom group as a unique social system. In N. B. Henry (Eds), The dynamics of instructional groups: Socio-psychological aspects of teaching and learning (Fifthy-Ninth Yearbook of national Society for Study for Education, Part 2, pp. 53-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behavior, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, 1, 199-229. Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Teacher interpersonal behavior and elementary students outcomes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 216-231. Goh, S. C., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Psychological climate and student outcomes in elementary mathematics classroom: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 29-40. Kasakeijan, D. (2005). Acceleration Programs for Gifted Education in Indonesia: Future Perspectives for Gifted Indonesian Children [online]. Talent (Eds), 23(1), 24-35. Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary school classes in Korea. Evaluation and Research in Education. 14, 3-22. Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Teacher student interaction and gifted students attitudes towards chemistry in laboratory classroom in singapore. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 18-28. Lee, S. S. U., & Fraser, B. J. (2001a, March). High school science classroom learning environment in Korea. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. Lee, S. S. U., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Korean high schools. Learning environments research, 12(1), 67 -84. Lee, S. S. U., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in Korean high school science classroom. International Journal of Science and mathematics Education, 1. 67-85. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw. Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M. C., Brok, P. D., & Bosker, P. (2011). Teacherstudent interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles and importance to student motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 31(1), 33-49 Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Riah, H., Fraser, B. J., & Rickards, T. (1997, May). Interpersonal teacher behaviour in chemistry classes in Brunei Darussalams secondary schools. Paper presented at the

International Seminar on Innovations in Science and Mathematics Curricula, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam. Soerjaningsih, W., Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. (2001, December). Learning environment, teacher-student interpersonal behaviour and achievement among university students in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Perth. Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. New York: Wiley. Walberg, H. J. (1967). Teacher personality and classroom climate. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED014471 Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(6, Pt.1), 414-419. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.ovid.com Wei, M., Brok, P. D., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Teacher interpersonal behaviour and student achievement in English as a Foreign Language classrooms in China. Learning environments research, 12(3), 157 -174. Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1989). A Comparison of Dutch and American Interpersonal Teacher Behavior. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting San Fransisco. Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014717679190070W. Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London, Washington, D. C.: The Falmer Press. Wubbels, T., Creton, H., Levy, J., & Hooymayers, H. (1993). The model for interpersonal teacher behaviour. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationship in education. (pp. 13-28). London, Washington, D. C.: The Falmer Press. Wubbels, Th., Brekelmans, M., van Tartwijk, J., & Admiraal, W. (1997). Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the classroom. In H. C. Waxman & J. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 151170). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Wubbels, Th., Creton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985, April). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behaviour mapped out. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Wubbles, T. (1993). Teacher-students relationships in science and mathematics classes (What Research Says to the Science and Mathematics Teacher). Perth, Australia: National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.