This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 05 March 2015, At: 09:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Students’ and Teachers’ Thinking Styles and Preferred

Teacher Interpersonal Behavior
a
Chang Zhu
a
Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Belgium
Published online: 09 May 2013.

To cite this article: Chang Zhu (2013) Students’ and Teachers’ Thinking Styles and Preferred Teacher Interpersonal Behavior,
The Journal of Educational Research, 106:5, 399-407, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2012.736431

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.736431

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Journal of Educational Research, 106:399–407, 2013
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 online
DOI:10.1080/00220671.2012.736431
Students’ and Teachers’ Thinking
Styles and Preferred Teacher
Interpersonal Behavior
CHANG ZHU
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
ABSTRACT. In the learning environment, teacher–student
interaction plays a major role in influencing the cognitive and
affective development of students. Teacher–student interac-
tion is also an important parameter of educational quality.
Teachers’ and students’ preferences of teacher interpersonal
behavior are linked to their individual characteristics and
styles. The author examined students’ and teachers’ think-
ing styles and their preferences for teacher–student interper-
sonal behaviors. A total of 325 students and 146 teachers
from 2 secondary schools were involved in this study. The
results show that there were divergences between students’
and teachers’ thinking styles and their preferences of teacher
interpersonal behavior. Convergences between students and
teachers were also found, as both had preferences for cooper-
ative teacher interpersonal behavior.
Keywords: secondary school, teacher interpersonal behavior,
thinking styles
S tudents and teachers bring their own individual
characteristics and styles to the learning environ-
ment. Among the personal characteristics, thinking
styles are relevant to the ways teachers teach and students’
preferences for learning. At the same time, a learning envi-
ronment can shape students’ specific styles in learning and
teachers’ teaching styles. Teaching and learning is a recip-
rocal process. Students’ learning styles can be developed by
teachers’ teaching styles, and teachers’ teaching styles may
be influenced by students’ learning preferences. Previous re-
searchers have argued that a convergence between teachers’
teaching styles and students’ learning styles can enhance stu-
dent learning outcomes (Adderley, 1987; Malinsky, 2001;
Zhang, 2006). In addition, another key variable that con-
tributes to the success of a learning environment is the nature
of the student-teacher interaction. Teacher–student inter-
action is a powerful force that can play a major role in influ-
encing the cognitive and affective development of students
(Arends, 2001). Teacher interpersonal behavior is closely
linked to the quality of the educational processes and, thus,
is an important component of educational quality. Educa-
tors believe that good relationships between teachers and
students are important in the learning process. For example,
when teachers demonstrate supportive and helpful interper-
sonal behaviors, students could be more actively involved
in learning and develop deep learning approaches (Brekel-
mans, Wubbels, & den Brok, 2002; Dart et al., 2000). As the
teacher–student relationship is integral to the educational
process, it is important to equip preservice and in-service
teachers with relevant knowledge about interaction models
between teachers and students.
In this light, two issues come into major concern: What
are teachers’ and students’ thinking styles and their pre-
ferred teacher–student interpersonal behavior, and is there
convergence or divergence between teachers and students?
Although there has been a series of studies conducted to
investigate either teachers’ or students’ thinking styles, and
their perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior, there
are not sufficient studies to examine the convergent or di-
vergent styles and perceptions of interpersonal behaviors of
both teachers and students at the same time. Therefore, this
research aims to empirically examine teachers’ and students’
thinking styles, as well as the convergence or divergence
between students’ and teachers’ preferences of interper-
sonal behavior and the possible associations between their
thinking styles and preferred teacher–student interpersonal
behavior.
Thinking Styles of Students and Teachers
The theory of mental self-government (Sternberg, 1997)
describes 13 thinking styles referring to people’s preferred
ways of using the abilities that they have. Recent research
conceptualizes that intellectual style is an overarching con-
cept encompassing the meanings of all style constructs and
distinguishes three types of styles, namely Type I, Type II,
and Type III thinking styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005,
Address correspondence to Chang Zhu, Department of Educa-
tional Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. (E-mail:
chang.zhu@vub.ac.be)
 400
2006). Type I thinking styles include legislative, judicial,
hierarchical, global, and liberal thinking styles. Character-
istics of people with dominant Type I thinking styles pre-
fer to work on complex and creative-generating activities,
and they are more effective in producing positive behavior.
People with dominant Type II thinking styles show a domi-
nant tendency to engage themselves in more simplistic and
norm-favoring activities. Type II thinking styles include ex-
ecutive, monarchic, local, and conservative thinking styles.
Finally, the last group of thinking styles is known as the
Type III thinking styles, which include oligarchic, anarchic,
internal, and external thinking styles. The characteristics of
people with dominant Type III thinking styles are inclined
to act in a more situational-dependent manner. They can
sometimes exhibit behavior that characterizes the features
of Type I thinking styles, and at other times they may show
the behavior that characterizes Type II thinking styles.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
Preferred thinking styles can be applied to different types
of activities, including teaching and learning. Relevant in-
ventories can be used to assess thinking styles as mani-
fested in teaching and preferred thinking styles in learning
(Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993; Zhang, 2007). Previous re-
searchers have examined the features of teachers’ and stu-
dents’ thinking styles. For example, Yu and Zhu (2011)
indicated that Hong Kong teachers showed a higher pref-
erence for legislative, hierarchic, executive, and external
thinking styles than other thinking styles. Zhu and Zhang
(2011) found that Chinese university students had a higher
preference for legislative, hierarchic, judicial, global, execu-
tive, and external thinking styles than other thinking styles.
In addition, studies have found that students’ with domi-
nant preference for Type I intellectual styles show a strong
commitment in learning, want to do well, and engage in
a higher cognitive level of processing information, whereas
students with a dominant preference for Type II intellectual
styles show less commitment in learning and prefer to use a
lower level of cognition to handle academic work (Biggs &
Tang, 2007). Type III intellectual styles basically manifest
the behavior of either Type I or Type II intellectual styles
(Zhang & Sternberg, 2006).
Preferred Teacher Interpersonal Behavior
The model of interpersonal teacher behavior was devel-
oped by Wubbels, Créton, and Hooymayers (1985) and
the conceptualization is based on the perception of stu-
dents or teachers of the behavior of the teacher. The model
maps interpersonal teacher behavior along two dimen-
sions: influence (dominance–submission [DS]) and prox-
imity (cooperation–opposition [CO]; Kiesler, 1996). The
influence dimension represents the degree of dominance
or control displayed by the teacher, while proximity de-
scribes the level of cooperation between teacher and stu-
dents. The Questionnaire for Teacher Interaction (QTI;
Wubbels, Créton, & Hooymayers, 1992) was developed and
used to measure teaching styles in terms of teachers’ interper-
sonal behavior in teaching. The QTI can be used to diagnose
The Journal of Educational Research
the nature of the interaction between students and teachers.
Interaction is one of the most important factors in teaching
(Veenman, 1984). Good teacher–student interaction is an
important parameter of educational quality. In the learning
environment, teachers present certain types of interpersonal
behavior toward students, while students also have their
preferences of teacher interpersonal behavior. The research
of den Brok, Brekelmans, Levy, and Wubbels (2002) sug-
gests that measuring teachers’ interpersonal behavior can be
helpful for teachers to reflect on their outcomes, especially
on differences between their own perceptions and their stu-
dents’ perceptions. Without such a reflection, teachers are
not inclined to change their behavior. Through reflection,
teachers can gain deeper insight into their communication
style with students, and the results can be used for coaching
or clinical supervision for teacher professional development
when needed.
The QTI has been widely used in many countries for
measuring secondary students’ and teachers’ perceptions of
teacher interpersonal behavior. The two-dimensional co-
ordinate system represents the interpersonal behavior map
which shows the degree of cooperation between the individ-
uals communicating on the horizontal axis, and the degree
of control over the communication process of the commu-
nicator along the vertical axis (Wubbels et al., 1992). The
model identifies eight different types of teachers’ interper-
sonal behaviors: leadership, helpful/friendly (helpfulness),
understanding, student responsibility/freedom (freedom),
uncertainty, dissatisfaction, admonishment, and strictness.
Previous researchers have argued that teachers need to
ensure a balance between control and freedom for students
(Khine & Atputhssamy, 2005). Within the systems perspec-
tive on communication, it is assumed that the behaviors
of participants influence each other mutually (Brekelmans
et al., 2002). The behavior of the teacher is influenced by
the behavior of the students and in turn influences student
behavior. As such, I can well predict that teachers’ preferred
interpersonal behavior is not only affected by their own
characteristics such as thinking styles and teacher beliefs
(Xin, Lin, & Yu, 2000), but also affected by student behavior.
Thinking Styles of Students and Teachers and Their Preferred
Teacher–Student Interpersonal Behavior
According to the principles of student–teacher interac-
tion (Wubbels et al., 1985; Wubbels & Levy, 1993), teachers
and students contribute to development of teachers’ teach-
ing styles and students’ learning styles. An individual’s be-
havior can be explained by the variances in their thinking.
Previous research identified that teachers’ thinking styles
are closely related to their preferred teacher–student in-
terpersonal behavior (Yu & Zhang, 2011). Similarly, stu-
dents’ thinking styles may also be associated with their
preference for specific teaching and teachers’ interper-
sonal behavior. Previous research has studied the kind of
teaching styles that students prefer that their teachers use
(Zhang, 2008). The results indicate that students have a
 The Journal of Educational Research
stronger preference for teachers to teach in Type I teach-
ing styles over Type II teaching styles (Weng, 2002; Zhang,
2008). Although both students’ and teachers’ thinking styles
and preferred interpersonal behavior have been studied,
available research on thinking styles and teacher interper-
sonal behavior has focused on their influence on student
achievement (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000). Empirical re-
search on the convergence/divergence between students’
and teachers’ thinking styles and preferred interpersonal be-
havior perspectives is lacking and does not provide sufficient
knowledge about the real gap between students and teach-
ers, if any. The aim of this study was to examine what are
the convergences/divergences between students and teach-
ers with regard to their thinking styles and preferred teacher
interpersonal behavior and the relationship between them
in secondary school settings.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were 325 students and 146 teach-
ers from two senior high schools in Guangzhou, China. The
students were from 14–18-year-olds, and all participating
teachers gave lessons covering the main teaching subjects
(language, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, his-
tory) for the senior secondary grades. Among them, 170 stu-
dents and 76 teachers were from School A, and 155 students
and 70 teachers were from School B. All student partici-
pants were pupils of the teacher participants. Not all teacher
participants were teachers of the pupil participants, but all
of them were teachers of the senior grades (Grades 4–6 of
secondary school). The composition of the participants is
presented in Table 1.
Instruments
Two instruments were used. The first inventory was the
Thinking Styles Inventory–Revised II (TSI-R2; Sternberg,
Wagner, & Zhang, 2007), which comprised 65 statements,
assessing 13 thinking styles: legislative, judicial, hierarchi-
cal, global, liberal (Type I); executive, monarchic, local,
conservative (Type II); and oligarchic, anarchic, internal,
external (Type III). The main meanings of the 13 thinking
TABLE 1. Composition of Participants
School A
Student (n = 170) Teacher (n = 76)
Male 50
Female 120
Average age (years) 15.9
Age range (years) 14–17
401
styles are: legislative (being creative), judicial (evaluative of
other people or products), hierarchical (prioritizing tasks),
global (focusing on the holistic picture), liberal (taking a
new approach to tasks), executive (implementing tasks with
given orders), monarchic (working on one task at a time),
local (focusing on details), conservative (using traditional
approaches to tasks), oligarchic (working on multiple tasks
with no priority, anarchic (working on whatever tasks that
come along), internal (an individual’s working on his or her
own), and external (working with others). The teacher ver-
sion and student version were used for teachers and students
respectively. The students and teachers were asked to rate
themselves on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not
at all well) to 7 (extremely well) about their preferred ways of
solving problems, carrying out tasks, and making decisions.
The TSI-R2 has been validated in other studies (e.g., Hig-
gins & Zhang, 2009). The Chinese version of the TSI-R2 was
used, which has been applied in the Chinese context in some
previous studies (Zhang, 2009, 2010; Zhu & Zhang, 2011).
The second instrument was the QTI (Wubbels et al.,
1985). The Chinese version with 40 items was used (Chen &
Chen, 2001). Eight preferred teacher–student interpersonal
behaviors are assessed: leadership, helpful/friendly, under-
standing, student responsibility/freedom, uncertain, dissatis-
fied, admonishing, and strict. The teachers were asked to rate
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all well)
to 7 (extremely well) their preferred ways to interact with stu-
dents, while the students were asked to rate their preferences
of teachers’ interpersonal behaviors with students. The QTI
has been shown to be a reliable instrument (den Brok, Fisher,
Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Richards, 2006; Wubbels & Levy,
1993) and has been cross-validated in different contexts and
cultures. The reliability of the scales of the two instruments
in this study is reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Procedure
First, the school central administrators of the two schools
were contacted to get approval from the schools for this
research. All the main subject teachers for the senior
grades (except the sport teachers) from the two schools
were selected for this research. For the teachers, the paper
questionnaires were distributed during the staff meetings
School B
Student (n = 155) Teacher (n = 70)
31 62 29
45 93 41
37.5 16.2 38.2
21–57 14–18 20–58
 402 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 2. Characteristics of Thinking Styles of Students and Teachers

Cronbach’s alpha Student sample Teacher sample

Student sample Teacher sample M SD M SD Mean difference

Type I style
Legislative .71 .76 5.20 0.94 5.05 0.79 0.15∗∗
Judicial .79 .70 4.96 1.01 4.50 0.70 0.46∗∗∗
Hierarchic .78 .80 4.93 0.96 5.11 0.80 −0.18∗
Global .60 .61 4.23 0.93 4.20 0.65 ns
Liberal .85 .84 4.62 0.84 4.52 0.75 0.10∗
Type II style
Executive .70 .71 3.17 0.80 5.17 0.73 −2.00∗∗∗
Monarchic .69 .79 4.56 1.03 4.66 0.70 −0.10∗
Local .61 .63 4.45 0.97 4.31 0.78 0.14∗
Conservative .77 .78 4.55 1.02 4.66 0.86 −0.11∗
Type III style
Oligarchic .78 .75 4.76 0.98 4.24 0.81 0.52∗∗∗
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015

Anarchic .57 .62 4.42 0.92 3.85 0.83 0.57∗∗∗

Internal .68 .79 4.41 0.99 4.10 0.85 0.31∗∗∗
External .79 .76 5.14 0.95 5.01 0.90 0.13∗
∗p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

and the questionnaires were returned within 1 week to a Results

designated administrative staff. The classes were randomly
selected from the senior grades from the two schools. For ex-
ample, if the same grade had Classes A and B, Class A or B
was randomly selected for this study. The informed consent
was sent beforehand to the parents of the students from these
classes. The students whose informed consent was signed
participated in this research. The questionnaire was filled in
during an organized self-study hour of the classes involved.
The questionnaires were not administered on the same day
for all the classes, but were collected in the classroom dur-
ing the self-study hour to ensure the timely return from
students.
Thinking Styles of Students and Teachers
First of all, the normality of data distribution was checked
by the side-by-side box plots and multiple histograms. The
normality of data was assumed. Then analyses of variance
were conducted to compare the thinking styles of students
and teachers. The results show that students and teach-
ers had significant differences with regard to their thinking
styles (Table 2). Students displayed higher preferences for
three of the five styles of Type I thinking style (legisla-
tive, judicial, liberal), however, teachers displayed higher
hierarchic thinking style than students, F(1, 473) = 6.40,

TABLE 3. Students’ and Teachers’ Preferred Teacher–Student Interpersonal Behavior

Cronbach’s alpha Student sample Teacher sample

Student sample Teacher sample M SD M SD Mean difference

Leadership .72 .69 5.25 1.04 5.47 0.68 −0.22∗

Helpful .83 .70 5.67 0.93 5.68 0.65 ns
Understanding .79 .65 5.75 0.81 5.74 0.58 ns
Freedom .58 .57 4.48 0.88 4.45 0.65 ns
Uncertain .71 .68 1.89 0.76 2.49 0.80 −0.60∗∗∗
Dissatisfying .81 .70 1.85 0.90 2.87 0.90 −1.02∗∗∗
Admonishing .66 .61 1.99 0.76 2.33 0.65 −0.34∗∗∗
Strict .58 .66 3.69 0.87 4.02 0.81 −0.33∗∗∗
∗p < .05. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 The Journal of Educational Research
p < .05. Students had lower preferences for three of the four
styles of Type II thinking style (executive, monarchic, con-
servative), F(1, 472) = 4.78, 4.12, and 4.57, respectively,
p < .05; and students showed higher tendencies of Type III
thinking styles compared to teachers. The results demon-
strated that in general, compared to teachers, students were
more creative-generating oriented (Type I) and situation-
dependent oriented (Type III), and less norm-favoring ori-
ented (Type II). The differences between male and female
teachers and those between male and female students were
not significant (p > .05), except for one thinking style (hi-
erarchic), for which the female students scored significantly
higher than the male students, F(1, 324) = 5.71, p < .05.
Students’ and Teachers’ Preferred Teacher–Student
Interpersonal Behavior
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
First, equal variances of the student and teacher group
were checked with Levene’s test and showed that equal vari-
ances were assumed. Results from the t test indicated that
students and teachers had convergent preferences for three
types of teacher–student interpersonal behaviors (help-
ful/friendly, understanding and freedom; p > .05). How-
ever, they differed significantly in their preferences of the
other five types of interaction behavior. Compared to the
students, teachers showed higher preferences for leadership,
uncertain, dissatisfied, admonishing and strict interpersonal
behaviors (p < .05; Table 3).
Relationship Between Thinking Styles and Preferred
Teacher–Student Interpersonal Behavior: Teachers
and Students
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to study
the relationship between thinking styles and preferred
teacher–student interpersonal behaviors (Table 4). For each
type of preferred teacher interpersonal behavior, multiple
regression analyses were conducted predicting from Type I,
II, and III thinking styles. The results indicate that conver-
gence and divergence occurred regarding the relationship
between thinking styles and preferred interpersonal behav-
iors between students and teachers. As to the convergence,
we found that for both students and teachers, Type I think-
ing styles were related to proximity (leadership, helpful, un-
derstanding, and freedom) interpersonal behaviors, but not
related to influence (uncertain, dissatisfying, and admonish-
ing) interpersonal behaviors. However, for teachers, Type I
thinking styles were also related to strict interpersonal be-
havior; but this was not the case for students. For students
and teachers, Type II thinking styles were related to help-
ful, understanding, freedom, dissatisfying, and strict interper-
sonal behaviors. However, the link between Type II thinking
styles and leadership, uncertain, and admonishing interper-
sonal behaviors was not significant for teachers, while it was
significant for students. For students and teachers, leader-
ship, helpful, understanding interpersonal behaviors could
403
also be predicted from Type III thinking styles; however, di-
vergence of predictions was detected between students and
teachers. For teachers, Type III thinking styles were also
associated with freedom and strict interpersonal behaviors,
but this was not significant for the students. The regression
results and the significant predicting variables are presented
in Table 4.
Discussion
Convergence/Divergence Between Students’ and Teachers’
Thinking Styles and Preferred Teacher Interpersonal Behavior
In the present study I examined the thinking styles and
preferred teacher interpersonal behaviors among senior sec-
ondary students and teachers; more importantly, the con-
vergence/divergence between students and teachers was in-
vestigated. The results show that on average, students are
more inclined to use Type I and Type III thinking styles
compared to teachers and teachers seem to be more inclined
to use Type II thinking styles compared to students. This
finding seems to indicate that secondary school students are
more free thinking and more creative generating than their
teachers. In available literature, it seems it is not easy to
find similar evidence to support this argument. However,
in real educational contexts, as secondary school students
have a lot of access to other sources of information and
influence of Internet and other mass media, it could well
explain that secondary school students can have a freer style
than the teachers in average. On the other hand, as the
life experiences of students are less rich than their teachers,
the students seem to be more context-dependent than their
teachers. The results indicate that the teachers are more
norm-favoring than students; this could be related to the
fact teachers are more inclined to take into consideration of
the existing rules and regulations when making decisions or
taking actions.
Palmer (1998) indicated that teachers bring their prior
experiences of the teacher–student relationship into their
teaching positions, while students have their own prefer-
ences for teacher interpersonal behavior. The results of this
study suggest that there were significant discrepancies in
the profile of preferred teacher interpersonal behavior be-
tween teachers and students. Compared to students, teach-
ers are more inclined to prefer dominant teacher interper-
sonal behaviors, although teachers’ preference for uncertain,
dissatisfying and admonishing interpersonal behaviors were
much lower than the other interpersonal behaviors with the
mean scores lower than 2.5, while the other scales were
scored higher than 4.0. It seemed logical that teachers are
more inclined to prefer leadership and strict interpersonal
behavior toward students, at least in the Chinese context,
as teachers believe that teachers need to take a leading role
and give clear guidance to students and provide them with
the knowledge base, and students need to be disciplined
(Zhu, Valcke, & Schellens, 2010). The research of Wei, den
 Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015

404
TABLE 4. Predictions of Teacher–Student Preferred Interpersonal Behaviors from Thinking Styles: Comparing Students and Teachers

Scale

Leadership Helpfulness Understanding Freedom Uncertain Dissatisfying Admonishing Strict

Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher

R2(Type I styles) .16 .24 .22 .31 .18 .27 .12 .30 .014 .03 .022 .05 .048 .04 .006 .12
β .23Jud∗ .25Hie ∗ .44Jud ∗∗ .31Lib ∗ .38Jud ∗∗ .31Lib ∗ .26Leg ∗ .20Glo ∗
.26Glo ∗ .23Leg ∗
R2(Type II styles) .20 .06 .23 .22 .23 .15 .13 .16 .42 .02 .52 .13 .65 .06 .14 .20
β .22Exe∗ .30Exe ∗ .43Con ∗∗ .24Con ∗ .26Con ∗ −.56Exe ∗∗∗ .57Exe ∗∗∗ .64Exe ∗∗∗ .33Exe ∗ .35Exe ∗
.24Exe ∗ .19Con ∗ −.18Mon ∗ .19Con ∗
R2(Type III styles) .18 .16 .17 .19 .13 .18 .045 .26 .038 .03 .09 .05 .047 .02 .034 .11
β .31Ext∗ −.36Ana ∗ .25Ext ∗ .31Ext ∗ .19Ana ∗ −.26Int ∗ −.24Oli ∗ −.19Ext ∗ .21Oli ∗
.26Ext ∗ .22Int ∗ −.24Ext ∗
R2(total) .30 .25 .41 .32 .33 .34 .23 .33 .46 .10 .56 .14 .70 .06 .18 .24
F 3.04∗ 2.55∗ 4.88∗∗∗ 4.23∗∗∗ 3.44∗∗ 3.15∗∗ 2.80∗ 3.31∗∗ 7.68∗∗∗ 1.05 11.52∗∗∗ 1.15 20.35∗∗∗ 1.02 1.72 2.14∗

Note. Jud = judicial; Leg = legislative; Lib = liberal; Glo = global; Hie = hierarchic; Exe = executive; Con = conservative; Mon = monarchic; Ext = external; Ana = anarchic; Int = internal;
Oli = oligarchic.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 The Journal of Educational Research
Brok, and Zhou (2009) also stated that Chinese teachers are
expected to be stern in front of students and students are
expected to show absolute respect to their teachers. How-
ever, we found that students and teachers had consistent
preferences for cooperative teacher interpersonal behaviors.
This supports previous statement that teachers’ supportive
and cooperative behaviors are conducive to student perfor-
mance and are important for teachers to establish a har-
monious relationship with their students (e.g., Wei, den
Brok, & Zhou, 2009). The pattern of preferences of both
students and teachers are similar, showing higher prefer-
ences for helpful, understanding, leadership, freedom, and
strict styles over uncertain, dissatisfying and admonishing
styles. Previous studies seem to have identified similar stu-
dent perceptions of their best teachers, namely being strong
leaders, friendly and understanding, but not uncertain, ad-
monishing, or dissatisfied (van Oord & den Brok 2004; Wei
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
& Onsawad 2007; Wubbels & Levy, 1991). Additionally,
the best interpersonal teacher provides some freedom to stu-
dents and can sometimes be strict. The study of Wubbels and
his colleagues also presented the profiles of an ideal teacher
(Wubbels & Levy, 1993; Wubbels, Levy, & Brekelmans,
1997). According to those research data, the best teachers
are strong classroom leaders who are friendly and under-
standing, and not uncertain, dissatisfied and critical. At the
same time, the best teachers allow students more freedom
than the norm. Our data add that in the Chinese context,
being strict is also considered qualities of a good teacher.
Therefore, in the eyes of Chinese teachers and students,
ideal teachers should be strong leaders, being friendly, un-
derstanding, allowing freedom, as well as being strict. The
profiles of ideal teachers can be used in teacher education
to nurture in-service or preservice teachers about their in-
terpersonal and communication styles. Some preservice and
in-service teacher education programs have sought to value
the relational connectedness of teachers with their students.
Wettasinghe and Lourdusamy (2002) also argued that stu-
dents’ perceptions of their teachers’ behavior should not be
underestimated, rather it should be considered as an impor-
tant mediator between the instructional characteristics and
student academic achievement. This study brought us im-
portant insights about the perceptions and preferences of
teachers and students. Teachers need to first be aware of the
possible convergence or divergences between students and
teachers before they can possibly adapt and facilitate student
active learning.
The Relationship Between Thinking Styles and Teacher
Interpersonal Behavior
This study provides evidence that for students and teach-
ers, Type I thinking styles are associated with preferences for
cooperative teacher interpersonal behaviors, but not domi-
nant teacher interpersonal behaviors. The relationships be-
tween Type II and III thinking styles and preferred teacher
405
interpersonal behaviors seem to be more mixed; however,
we found that compared to Type I and Type III thinking
styles, Type II thinking styles seemed to have higher associ-
ations with dominant teacher interpersonal behaviors. This
finding is congruent with previous research indicating that
Type I thinking styles had more correlations with coopera-
tive or student centered interpersonal behaviors and Type II
thinking styles had more significant correlations with dom-
inant or teacher centered interpersonal behaviors (Yu &
Zhu, 2011). The results are supportive to the argument of
Zhang and Sternberg (2006, 2009) that intellectual styles
are value-laden, in which Type I intellectual styles are more
effective in producing positive behavior than others.
Limitations and Implications of This Study
The results of this study need to be interpreted with con-
sideration of the following limitations. First, the student
and teacher samples are from two secondary schools. They
may not be representative of the population in other sec-
ondary schools. Second, this study measures students’ and
teachers’ general preferred teacher interpersonal behaviors.
I am aware that the students and teachers may not be in
the same classroom environment, although they may be in
the same school environment. Therefore, the perceptions
of the students may not be directly convergent or divergent
with their own teachers. Third, I investigated students’ and
teachers’ preferred student–teacher interpersonal behavior,
which may not be fully correspondent to the actual behaviors
of the participants.
Nevertheless the results of this study provide us with rich
insights about the characteristics of students and teachers
with regard to their thinking styles and their general prefer-
ences for teacher interpersonal behavior. This information is
important for teachers, school leaders and researchers to en-
rich their understanding about the possible differences that
exist between students and teachers and how certain think-
ing styles and student–teacher interpersonal behavior could
be adjusted, for example, from the teacher side to better ac-
commodate students’ styles and preferences that could be
more conducive for students’ achievement (MacNeil, 1980;
Smutz, 2003). This research contributes to the research in
the filed of teacher interpersonal behavior as it examines
the issue from students’ and teachers’ perceptions. This can
lead to more accurate interpretations of the learning envi-
ronment and the characteristics of teachers and students. In
addition, the valuable information gathered by the TSI-R2
and the QTI can be used as a basis for reflective practice
both by teachers and students.
The findings of this study can have educational impli-
cations for teachers and teacher education. Given the im-
portance of teacher interpersonal behavior for educational
quality, it is useful to include in teacher education pro-
grams subjects related to the knowledge and development
of teacher interpersonal behaviors. Measuring preservice or
 406
in-service teachers’ interpersonal behavior can help teach-
ers to reflect on and adapt their teaching and interaction
with students. In addition, teachers could use the outcome
of this study to possibly adapt their interpersonal behavior
based on students’ preferences, for example by reducing some
of the dominant interpersonal behaviors. Researchers have
reported how teachers can use students’ perceptions or pre-
ferred teacher interpersonal behavior as a basis for identifi-
cation of discrepancies between preferred and teacher actual
behaviors and a systematic attempt can be made to improve
education (e.g., Yarrow, Millwater, & Fraser, 1997). Teach-
ers have to endeavor to optimize circumstances so that a
powerful learning environment can be developed. Based on
this information, teachers might be capable of creating a
more agreeable learning environment that is characterized
by positive interpersonal relationships.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the directors and the teachers from the two schools
in Guangzhou, China, for their support and help in administering the
questionnaires at their schools.
REFERENCES
Adderley, K. B. V. (1987). The effects of student cognitive style, teacher
cognitive style, and instructional method on the achievement of bac-
calaureate nursing students. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 47(8), 2949.
Arends, R. I. (2001). Learning to teach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university.
New York, NY: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & den Brok, P. (2002). Teacher experience
and the teacher-student relationship in the classroom environment. In S.
C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments
an international perspective (pp. 73–99). Singapore: World Scientific.
Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles:
An analysis of their relationship and influence on academic achievement.
Educational Psychology, 20, 413–430.
Chen, Q., & Chen, W. (2001). You in the eyes of your students: research of
teacher-student interaction [In Chinese]. Unpublished manuscript, Depart-
ment of Applied Social Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, China.
Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J.,
& Smith, D. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom
environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational
Research, 93, 262–270.
den Brok, P. J., Brekelmans, J. M. G., Levy, J., & Wubbels, T. (2002).
Diagnosing and improving the quality of teachers’ interpersonal behavior.
International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 176–184.
den Brok, P. J., Fisher, D., Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Richards, T.
(2006). Secondary teachers’ interpersonal behavior in Singapore, Brunei
and Australia: A cross-national comparison. Asia Pacific Journal of Edu-
cation, 26, 79–95.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Thinking styles in teaching
inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Higgins, P., & Zhang, L. F. (2009). The thinking styles of human resource
practitioners. The Learning Organization, 16, 276–289.
Khine, M. S., & Atputhasamy, L. (2005, May/June). Self-perceived and stu-
dents’ perceptions of teacher interaction in the classrooms. Paper presented at
the Conference on Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, and Prac-
tice, Singapore.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Person-
ality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Wiley.
MacNeil, R. D. (1980). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional
style to the learning performance of undergraduate students. The Journal
of Educational Research, 73, 354–359.
The Journal of Educational Research
Malinsky, M. A. (2001). Matched learning styles of teacher and student:
A study of its relationship to achievement and self-esteem. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(3),
901.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape
of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smutz, R. P. (2003). The effect of teaching style–learning style
match/mismatch on learning effectiveness in computer-based training.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sci-
ences, 63(8), 2845.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking styles
inventory–revised II. Unpublished test, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
Van Oord, L., & den Brok, P. (2004). The international teachers: Students’
and teachers’ perceptions of preferred teacher-student interpersonal be-
haviour in two United World Colleges. Journal of Research in International
Education, 3, 131–155.
Veenman, S. A. M. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 54, 143–178.
Wei, M., den Brok, P., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Teacher interpersonal behaviour
and student achievement in English as a foreign language classrooms in
China. Learning Environments Research, 12, 157–174.
Wei, M., & Onsawad, A. (2007). English teachers’ actual and ideal in-
terpersonal behaviour and students’ outcomes in secondary schools of
Thailand. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4, 1–29.
Weng, C. Y. (2002). The relationship between learning style prefer-
ences and teaching style preferences in college students. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(9),
2966.
Wettasinghe, C. M., & Lourdusamy, A. (2002, September). Teachers’ and
students’ perception of interpersonal relationship in the classroom. Paper pre-
sented at the International Educational Research Conference, Singapore.
Wubbels, T., Créton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985, April). Discipline
problems of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED260040)
Wubbels, T., Créton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1992). Review of
research on teacher communication styles with use of the Leary model.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 1–11.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of the interpersonal be-
haviour of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Inter-
cultural Relations, 15, 1–18.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Ed.). (1993). Do you know what you look like:
Interpersonal relationships in education. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Wubbels, T., Levy, J., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). Paying attention to rela-
tionships. Educational Leadership, 54, 82–85.
Xin, Z., Lin, C., & Yu., G. (2000). The preliminary revision and application
of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Science of Psychology, 23,
404–407.
Yarrow, A., Millwater, J., & Fraser, B. (1997). Improving university and
primary school classroom environments through perservice teachers’ ac-
tion research. International Journal of Practical Experience in Professional
Development, 1, 68–93.
Yu, T. M., & Zhu, C. (2011). Relationship between teachers’ preferred
teacher-student interpersonal behaviour and intellectual styles. Educa-
tional Psychology, 31, 301–317. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.548116.
Zhang, L. F. (2006). Does student-teacher thinking style match/mismatch
matter in students’ achievement? Educational Psychology, 26, 395–
409.
Zhang, L. F. (2007). Preferred thinking styles in learning inventory. Unpub-
lished test, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Zhang, L. F. (2008). Preferences for teaching styles mater in academic
achievement: Scientific and practical implications. Educational Psychol-
ogy, 28, 615–625.
Zhang, L. F. (2009). Anxiety and thinking styles. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 347–351.
Zhang, L. F. (2010). Do thinking styles contribute to metacognition beyond
self-rated abilities? Educational Psychology, 30, 481–494.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual
styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 1–53.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 The Journal of Educational Research 407

Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intel- AUTHOR NOTE
lectual styles. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the
nature of intellectual styles (pp. 63–85), New York, NY: Springer. Chang Zhu is a Professor in Educational Sciences at the
Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of
teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her main research interests in-
learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33, clude student and teacher interaction in the learning envi-
147–165. ronments and how the interaction and interpersonal behav-
Zhu, C., & Zhang, L. (2011). Thinking styles and conceptions of creativity
among university students. Educational Psychology, 31, 361–375.
ior are related to student and teacher characteristics.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:18 05 March 2015