ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of
Educational Research 43 (2005) 6–24
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Chapter 1
Two decades of research on teacher–student
relationships in class
Theo WubbelsÃ, Mieke Brekelmans
Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140,
3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract
This paper reports on results of research from a 25-year program of studies investigating
teacher–student relationships in secondary classrooms. The authors review the research that
examines teaching from an interpersonal perspective using a communicative systems approach and
propose a model to describe teacher–student relationships in terms of teacher behavior. The studies
used the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) to collect data on students’ and teachers’
perceptions of the teacher–student relationship. The authors review studies showing that
teacher–student relationships appropriate for high student outcomes are characterized by a rather
high degree of teacher influence and proximity towards students. Studies on non-verbal behavior and
the spatial position of the teacher in the class support the need for beginning teachers to portray the
image of an experienced teacher whenever they address the class as a group. The paper concludes that
the QTI is a useful research tool, but research on the QTI as a feedback instrument for teachers is
insufficient to prove its usefulness.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Teacher–student relationship; Student outcomes; Non-verbal behaviour
1. Introduction
This paper reports on results of research from a 25-year program of studies investigating
teacher–student relationships in secondary classrooms (Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, &
Tartwijk, 2006). Starting in the Netherlands, this line of research now has developed to
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +31 302533910; fax: +31-302537731.
E-mail address: T.Wubbels@fss.uu.nl (T. Wubbels).
0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
7
many other countries such as Australia, Canada, Israel, Slovenia, Turkey, Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore and the US. In our research we analyze teaching from an interpersonal
perspective; that means in terms of the relationship between teacher and students. Two
elements are central to this perspective: the communicative systems approach and a model
to describe teacher–student relationships in terms of teacher behavior. We will discuss
these two elements before turning to measurement instruments developed to map
teacher–student relationships. The remainder of the paper reviews studies on diverse issues
covering teacher–student relations and student outcomes, non-verbal behavior and the
spatial position of the teacher in the class, differences between teacher and student
perceptions of the relationship, and finally interventions to improve relationships in class.
2. The communicative systems approach
Our conceptualization of teaching considers teaching as a form of communication.
Following Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967), we assume that every behavior that
someone displays in the presence of someone else is communication. This choice is an
element of the so-called ‘systems approach’, that assumes that one cannot not communicate
when in the presence of someone else, whatever a person’s intentions are, others will infer
meaning from this behavior. For example, if teachers ignore students’ questions because
they do not hear them, students might make a variety of inferences (i.e., that the teacher is
too busy, the teacher thinks the students are too dull to understand, or that the teacher
considers the questions impertinent).
The systems approach focuses on the pragmatic aspects of communication; that is the
effects on the other involved. According to the systems approach, every form of
communication has a content and a relation aspect (Watzlawick et al., 1967). We
distinguished two levels of communication. The lowest level consists of one single unit of
behavior, the message level having a content and a relation aspect. For instance, the words,
‘I want to help you to learn,’ (content aspect) can be combined with either a smile or a
frown (relation aspect). In the latter case, the relation may be perceived as: ‘I think you are
too stupid to learn’ (Marshall & Weinstein, 1986). When the students and the teacher have
interacted for some time their mutual perceptions are confirmed and reconfirmed, and thus
form a stable basis for reactions. Typical relational patterns then evolve and these relations
form the second level, the pattern level.
The pragmatic orientation of the communicative systems approach (i.e., what is the
effect of communication on someone else) has evolved in our conceptualization of the
interpersonal perspective as we focused on the perceptions of students of the behavior of
their teachers. We have focused not so much on the stated intentions of the teacher, but on
the students’ perceptions evoked by what occurs in the classroom, what students think
about their teacher, and what they learn and do. Of course, intentions are important
variables; they may influence the teacher’s way of teaching, and thus they, for example,
may help explain differences in relationships of teachers with different classes, or with
different students in one class.
3. The model for interpersonal teacher behavior
The perceptions of students about their relationships with their teacher have been
mapped and studied in the research in this issue with the Model for Interpersonal Teacher

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
Behavior (MITB). This model is based on Timothy Leary’s research on the interpersonal
diagnosis of personality (1957) and its application to teaching (Wubbels, Cre´ton, &
Hooymayers, 1985). The Leary model has been investigated extensively in clinical
psychology and psychotherapeutic settings and has proven effective in describing human
interaction (Lonner, 1980). While not conclusive, there is evidence that the Leary model is
cross-culturally generalizable (Brown, 1965; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Lonner, 1980; Segall,
Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990). In the MITB the two dimensions are Influence
(Dominance—Submission) and Proximity (Opposition—Cooperation). These dimensions
can be represented in an orthogonal coordinate system (see Fig. 1). The two dimensions,
represented as two axes, underlie eight types of teacher behavior: leading, helpful/friendly,
understanding, student responsibility and freedom, uncertain, dissatisfied, admonishing
and strict (see Fig. 2).
The sectors are labeled DC, CD, etc. according to their position in the coordinate system
(much like the directions in a compass). For example, the two sectors ‘leading’ and
‘helpful/friendly’ are both characterized by Dominance and Cooperation. In the DC-
sector, the Dominance aspect prevails over the Cooperation aspect covering teacher
enthusiasm, motivating, and the like. The adjacent CD-sector includes more cooperative
and less dominant perceptions; the teacher shows helpful, friendly, and considerate
behavior. Fig. 2 provides an overview of typical teacher behaviors that relate to each of the
eight sectors of the Model.
4. Measurement of perceptions of teacher–student relationships
For the measurement of students’ perceptions of teacher–student relationships in terms
of teacher behavior, different instruments are needed, for the message and for the pattern
level.
Dominance (D)
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
proximity
Opposition (O)
Cooperation (C)
Submission (S)
Fig. 1. Two-dimensional coordinate system of the model for interpersonal teacher behavior.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
9
Fig. 2. Model for interpersonal teacher behavior.
Dominance (D)
Submission (S)
The teacher determines the 5--4--3--2--1
The students can determine
students' activities.
their own activities.
Cooperation (C)
Opposition (O)
The teacher shows approval 5--4--3--2--1
The teacher shows disapproval
of the students and their
of the students and their
behavior.
behavior.
Fig. 3. Rating scales for observation of students’ perceptions at the message and interaction level.
4.1. Message level
At the message level, not much research on student perceptions has been carried out.
Van Tartwijk (1993) and van Tartwijk, Brekelmans, Wubbels, Fisher, and Fraser (1998)
report studies using an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of interpersonal
messages. These studies used two rating scales corresponding to the two dimensions of the
Model (see Fig. 3).

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
10
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
Table 1
Number of items and typical item for each of the eight scales of the Dutch and US version of the QTI
No. of items
Typical item
Dutch
US
DC
Leading
10
7
S/He is a good leader
CD
Helpful/friendly
10
8
S/He is someone we can depend on
CS
Understanding
10
8
If we have something to say s/he will listen
SC
Student responsibility/freedom
9
8
S/he gives us a lot of free time in class
SO
Uncertain
9
7
S/He seems uncertain
OS
Dissatisfied
11
9
S/He is suspicious
OD
Admonishing
9
8
S/He gets angry
DO
Strict
9
9
S/He is strict
4.2. Pattern level
The perceptions of teachers and students at the pattern level can be measured with the
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). The QTI was designed according to the two-
dimensional Leary model and the eight sectors to map teacher–student relationships,
(Wubbels et al., 1985). It was originally developed in the Netherlands, and a 64-item
American version was also constructed in 1988 (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). The Dutch items
were formulated, based on large numbers of interviews with both teachers and students
(Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The original Dutch version consists of 77 items to be rated on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Never/Not at all’ to ‘Always/Very’. The items are
divided into eight scales corresponding with the eight behavior types. The instrument has
been translated into the following languages: English, French, German, Hebrew, Russian,
Slovenian, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Singapore Chinese
and Indonesian.1 In Table 1 typical items are provided for each of the eight sectors of the
QTI.
Students can rate their current teacher on the QTI, and teachers can also record their
perceptions about their own behavior (their self-perceptions). Teachers may also record
their responses from the perspective of how they would like to be (their ideal perceptions).
Each completed questionnaire yields a set of eight scale scores, the sum of all item scores
rescaled to range between 0 and 1. When the QTI has been administered to students, scale
scores of students from the same class can be aggregated to a class mean.
In some studies reviewed for this paper, teacher–student relationships were analyzed on
the basis of dimension scores (i.e., the scale scores are converted linearly to dimension
scores2). The closer sectors are to the Dominance/Submission dimension (strict, leading,
1The QTI was intended for use in Secondary Education and formed the basis of several new versions such as for
Primary Education (e.g. Goh, & Fraser, 1996) and for Higher Education teachers (e.g. Soerjaningsih, Fraser &
Aldridge, 2002), for supervisors of student teachers (Kremer-Hayon & Wubbels, 1993a), and one for teachers
about school managers (the Questionnaire on Principal Interaction, e.g. Kremer-Hayon & Wubbels, 1993b; Fisher
& Cresswell, 1998). The instrument also formed the starting point for adaptations that are being used in post-
compulsory education (Hockley & Harkin, 2000).
2To this end the eight scores are represented as vectors in a two-dimensional space, each dividing a section of
the model of interpersonal behavior in two and with a length corresponding to the height of the scale score. We

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
11
uncertain and student responsibility/freedom) the more they contribute to this dimension,
and similarly helpful/friendly, understanding, dissatisfied and admonishing contribute
most to the Cooperation/Opposition dimension. Graphic representations of the eight scale
scores (‘interpersonal profiles’) also can be used to report on the teacher–student
relationship (see Fig. 5 for examples).3
Several studies have been conducted on the reliability and validity of the QTI. These
have included among others Dutch (e.g. Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Cre´ton, 1990; den Brok,
2001; Wubbels et al., 1985), American (Wubbels & Levy, 1991) and Australian (Fisher,
Fraser, & Wubbels, 1992; Fisher, Henderson, & Fraser, 1995). Recently, a cross-national
validity study was completed comparing students’ responses to the questionnaire in
Singapore, Brunei, US, The Netherlands, Slovakia and Australia (den Brok et al., 2003). In
all these studies, both reliability and validity were satisfactory. The agreement between the
scores of students in a single class usually meets the general requirements for observer
agreement. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s a) usually are above 0.90 (Brekelmans,
et al., 1990). Internal consistencies for teacher self-perceptions and teacher ideals are
usually a bit lower, but hardly ever below 0.65. The variance in students’ ratings at the
class level is much higher than for most other learning environments questionnaires
indicating that the QTI discriminates well between classes. Although most of the variance
in students’ ratings is at the teacher level, there is an interaction between teacher level and
the class level indicating that students perceive their teachers as varying in their
relationships across classes (den Brok, 2001; Levy, den Brok, Wubbels, & Brekelmans,
2003). This effect is, however, not very large. From a generalizability study (Shavelson,
Webb, & Burstein, 1986) on students’ ratings, it was concluded (Brekelmans 1989) that the
QTI should be administered to at least ten students in a class for the data to be reliable.
The QTI does not need to be administered more than once per year, since interpersonal
style remains relatively stable. At least two classes of students should complete the
questionnaire for each teacher for a reliable measure of overall style.
With respect to validity, for example, factor analyses on class means and LISREL
analyses (den Brok, 2001; den Brok, Levy, Wubbels, & Rodriguez, 2003; Wubbels & Levy,
1991) determined that the two-factor structure did indeed support the eight scales. For
both students’ ratings and teacher self- and ideal perceptions, scales appear to be ordered
in a circumplex structure, meaning that two, independent factors are found, with a circular
ordering of the scales (Wiggins, Philips, & Trapnell, 1989).
4.3. Interpersonal profiles
To describe research results for interpersonal profiles, we first turn to the profiles that
have been found with the help of the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior and the
QTI. A profile is the particular combination of eight scale scores resulting from the
(footnote continued)
then compute the two coordinates of the resultant of these eight vectors. Dimension scores are computed as
follows: Influence ¼ (.92ÃDC)+(.38ÃCD)À(.38ÃCS)À(.92ÃSC)À(.92ÃSO)À(.38ÃOS)+(.38ÃOD)+(.92ÃDO);
Proximity ¼ (.38ÃDC)+(.92ÃCD)+(.92ÃCS)+(.38ÃSC)À(.38ÃSO)À(.92ÃOS)À(.92ÃOD)À(.38ÃDO).
3These graphic representations are achieved by shading in each sector of the model of interpersonal teacher
behavior. The ratio of the length of the perpendicular bisector of the shaded part and the length of the
perpendicular bisector of the total sector equals the ratio of the observed score and the maximum score for that
sector.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
12
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
D
1
R
Di
A
TA
Dr
O
C
-1.5
T
1.5
UA
UT
-1
S
Fig. 4. Main points of the eight types of patterns of interpersonal relationships. A ¼ Authoritative,
Di ¼ Directive,
Dr ¼ Drudging,
T ¼ Tolerant,
R ¼ Repressive,
TA ¼ Tolerant/Authoritative,
UA ¼ Uncertain/Aggressive, UT ¼ Uncertain/Tolerant.
administration of the QTI. When describing patterns of teacher–student relationships in
classrooms using cluster analyses of students’ ratings, eight different types of profiles could
be distinguished in Dutch and American classes (Brekelmans, 1989; Brekelmans, Levy, &
Rodriguez, 1993).
These profiles have been named Directive, Authoritative, Tolerant/Authoritative,
Tolerant, Uncertain/Tolerant, Uncertain/Aggressive, Drudging and Repressive. In Fig.
4, we summarize each of the eight types on the basis of the two dimension scores of the
profile by means of a main point in the coordinate system. Although we characterize these
profiles in terms of the teacher’s style, it is important to remember that these are
descriptions of a single teacher in one particular class.
The Authoritative, the Tolerant/Authoritative and the Tolerant type are patterns
wherein students perceive their teachers as relatively high on the Proximity Dimension,
with the Tolerant type lowest on the Influence Dimension. Less cooperative than the three
previous types are the Directive, the Uncertain/Tolerant and the Drudging type, with the
Uncertain/Tolerant type lowest on the Dominance Dimension. The least cooperative
patterns of teacher–student relationships have been indicated as Repressive and Uncertain/
Aggressive. In Repressive type classes, teachers are the most dominant of all eight types.
5. Teacher–student relationships and cognitive and affective outcomes
Classroom environment studies that have included the interpersonal perspective on
teaching usually indicate a strong and positive relationship between perceptions of
Influence and Proximity or their related subscales and cognitive and affective student
outcomes.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
13
5.1. Profiles
The Brekelmans (1989) study with physics teachers investigated the relationship between
student outcomes and students’ perceptions of teacher–student relationships. In terms of
the interpersonal profiles results showed that, on average, the teacher with a Repressive
profile has the highest achievement outcomes. Teachers with disorderly classrooms, the
Uncertain/Tolerant, Uncertain/Aggressive, and Drudging profiles reflect relatively low
student achievement, whereas Directive, Authoritative and Tolerant teachers have
relatively high outcomes. The Authoritative and Directive teachers have the highest
student attitude scores. Students of the Drudging, Uncertain/Aggressive and Repressive
teachers have the worst attitudes toward physics.
5.2. Scales, dimensions and cognitive outcomes
In terms of dimensions, Brekelmans’ (1989) study showed that students’ perceptions of
teacher Influence were related to cognitive outcomes. The higher a teacher was perceived
on the Influence dimension, the higher the outcomes of students on a Physics test. In her
study, teacher influence was the most important variable at the class level. Other studies
found positive correlations or regression coefficients for the scale Leading and cognitive
student outcomes (Goh & Fraser, 2000; Henderson, 1995).
Similar relationships have also been found for the Proximity dimension and Proximity
related scales such as helpful/friendly and understanding, and to a lesser degree student
responsibility/freedom (Goh & Fraser, 2000; Henderson, 1995; Evans, 1998). The more
teachers were perceived as cooperative, the higher students’ scores on cognitive tests.
However, relationships between proximity and cognitive outcomes are not always
straightforward. In some studies, it could only be shown that opposition, or dissatisfied
and admonishing behavior were related to lower performance, but not that friendly and
understanding behavior were related to higher performance (Rawnsley, 1997). In other
studies, the relationship between proximity and cognitive outcomes is not linear, but
curvilinear (i.e., lower perceptions of proximity go with low outcomes, but intermediate
and higher values with higher performance until a certain ceiling of optimal proximity has
been reached; den Brok, 2001; den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004). Fig. 5 shows a
Fig. 5. Interpersonal profiles of teachers with relatively high and low student outcomes.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
graphical profile of two Physics teachers (from the Brekelmans study), one with relatively
high and one with relatively low student achievement.
5.3. Scales, dimensions and affective outcomes
Studies investigating associations between the teacher–student relationships and
affective outcomes display a much more consistent pattern than studies investigating the
relationship with cognitive outcomes. All studies find a positive relationship of both
influence and proximity with affective outcome measures, usually measured in terms of
subject-specific motivation. Generally, effects of proximity are somewhat stronger than
effects of influence. In a study with Physics teachers and their students, Brekelmans (1989)
found a clear relationship between proximity and student motivation for Physics. In Fig. 6
graphical profiles are presented for two Physics teachers, one with relatively low and one
with relatively high student attitudes.
The higher the perception of proximity, the higher the motivation of the students is.
With more specific measures of students’ subject-specific motivation, other studies found
positive relationships for helpful/friendly and understanding behavior with pleasure,
confidence, effort and relevance of students (Derksen, 1994; Setz, Bergen, van Amelsvoort,
& Lamberigts, 1993; van Amelsvoort, 1999). Strong and positive associations have also
been demonstrated between several interpersonal scales, such as leading and helpful/
friendly, and affective outcomes, while negative relationships have been found with
admonishing, dissatisfied, and, in most cases, the strict scale (Goh & Fraser, 2000;
Henderson, 1995; Rawnsley, 1997; Evans, 1998; Setz, et al., 1993; van Amelsvoort, 1999).
The weakest associations have been found between teacher–student relationships and
confidence (Derksen, 1994; Setz, et al., 1993; van Amelsvoort, 1999). Van Amelsvoort
(1999) demonstrated that the effect of teacher–student relationships on students’ subject-
specific motivation is both direct as well as indirect via student motivation and regulation
processes. In his study, he tested a causal model that linked students’ perceptions on the
QTI (dimension scores) to students’ pleasure, confidence, and effort. He found two
(statistically) significant causal paths leading from proximity to students’ pleasure: one
path linked the two variables directly, the other path linked proximity to student
regulation of emotions, which in turn affected effort, with effort affecting pleasure.
Fig. 6. Interpersonal profiles of teachers with relatively high and low student attitudes.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Wubbels, M. Brekelmans / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 6–24
15
Teacher proximity as perceived by students may thus both directly affect students’ state-of-
mind, but also indirectly via learning activities performed by students.
In a recent study on English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, den Brok (2001) found
that the teacher–student relationship was mainly related to affective student outcomes,
whereas other environment characteristics were more relevant for cognitive outcomes. For
all of the affective student outcome variables—pleasure, relevance, confidence and effort—a
positive and strong effect was found for teacher proximity. For some of the affective
variables—pleasure, relevance and effort—influence also had a positive effect.
5.4. Students’ learning activities
Some of the most important mediating factors between students0 perceptions of teacher
student relationships and student outcomes are students’ learning activities (Shuell, 1996;
den Brok, Bergen, & Stahl, 2002). These learning activities are, in turn, very likely to
originate from students’ perceptions of their teachers’ regulation of learning activities and
teacher–student relationships. Brekelmans, Sleegers, and Fraser (2001) investigated
relations between students’ perceptions of teacher–student relationships and students’
perceptions of teacher elicitation and regulation of learning activities, in particular the
degree to which teachers activated students to perform and initiate learning activities by
themselves (teaching for active learning). Somewhat surprisingly, increasing perceptions of
teacher activation seemed to be helped by stronger perceptions of influence. A similar
result was found in another study on EFL teachers (den Brok, 2001). This may be
understood from the result reported by van Tartwijk et al. (1998) that teaching at central
moments in lessons (e.g. when the teacher is lecturing in front of the class) is crucial for the
kind of relationship that develops. From their study, to be discussed in more detail in the
next section, it appeared that central moments in lessons ask for leadership, whereas the
responsibility given to students comes more to the fore during group and independent
work. The latter lesson segments contribute less to the general perceived teacher–student
relationship. To give students appropriate freedom and responsibility during group and
independent work, it appeared to be important for a teacher to be a strong leader in central
lesson segments. The learning environment they create in central moments extends to
individual work.
5.5. Conclusion
In general, we conclude from the studies reviewed that with respect to student outcomes
appropriate teacher–student relationships are characterized by a rather high degree of
teacher influence and proximity towards students. Interestingly and more reassuring,
results of studies with students’ and teachers’ preferred teacher–student relationships (e.g.
Cre´ton & Wubbels, 1984) support the appropriateness of high amounts of influence and
proximity.
6. Teacher position in class and non-verbal behavior
This section reports on studies on the position of the teacher in class and teacher non-
verbal behavior. According to the systems approach, non-verbal behavior is particularly
important for the perception of the relationship aspect of communication. Differences

---

Document Outline

• Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class
  • Introduction
  • The communicative systems approach
  • The model for interpersonal teacher behavior
  • Measurement of perceptions of teacher-student relationships
    • Message level
    • Pattern level
    • Interpersonal profiles
  • Teacher-student relationships and cognitive and affective outcomes
    • Profiles
    • Scales, dimensions and cognitive outcomes
    • Scales, dimensions and affective outcomes
    • Students learning activities
    • Conclusion
  • Teacher position in class and non-verbal behavior
    • Position
    • Non-verbal behavior
    • Beginning teachers problems
  • Relations between teachers and students perceptions
  • Improving relationships
  • Concluding remarks
  • References

---