Does negative teacher behavior influence student’s critical thinking?

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Exploring teacher agency, beliefs, identity, practices and quality

Proposal

Introduction
Critical thinking, one of the cognitive strategies aiding learning, is considered to be significant in enabling children to extend their learning to new situations and take decisions accordingly (Gracia & Pintrich, 1992). McKeachie and colleagues (1991) defined it as the ability to apply previously gained knowledge to new scenarios for problem solving, assessing any work for its quality with set standards, and taking decisions. Research has shown that critical thinking has to be carefully developed by teachers through curating the learning environment with open-ended activities (McBride & Bonnette, 1995; Daley, Shaw, Balistrieri, Glasenapp, & Piacentine, 1999) and providing constructive feedback through appropriate instructions (Cargas, Williams & Rosenberg, 2017). However, these strategies require a positive and psychologically safe environment in the classroom (Rieser, Naumann, Decristan, Fauth, Klieme, & Büttner, 2016). Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens and Dochy (2009) noted that when teachers provide both choice with rationale and express the goals in a non-controlling manner, students are more likely to experience psychological freedom, thereby enhancing their cognitive and metacognitive strategies such as critical thinking. In many countries such as India, classrooms operate with severe hierarchies, with the teachers taking the dominant role and the students acting as mere followers without agency in matters of content or activity. Even when it is banned by law classrooms are common sites of corporal punishment and verbal abuse (Anand, 2014; Tiwari, 2018).
Much of our understanding of critical thinking in the context of teacher-student relationships is largely informed by studies in Western contexts, which are usually characterized by features such as respect for students, support, and student autonomy (Pianta, 1999). Negative teacher behavior has rarely been the focus of research and requires further exploration, especially in hierarchical societies. It is in this context that we pose the question, “How does negative teacher behavior, specifically admonishing and dissatisfaction (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2006), influence students’ critical thinking? We also explore how this relationship operates for students with different levels of intrinsic goal orientation, as Gracia & Pintrich (1992) have noted that students with intrinsic goal orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988) tend to use deeper strategies while learning and so their intrinsic goal orientation correlates significantly with critical thinking.
Research Question and Hypothesis
Does negative teacher behavior influence student’s critical thinking?

Hypothesis 1: The effect of negative teacher behavior will be negatively related with students’ critical thinking.
Hypothesis 2: Negative teacher behavior will be negatively related to intrinsic goal orientation.
Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic goal orientation will mediate the relationship between negative teacher behavior and students’ critical thinking.
Method
Sample selection
Data was collected from 6293 students of grade seven (corresponding to age group of 12-13) at two time intervals at the beginning, Time T1, and, at the end, Time T2, of the academic year 2015-16. Students took a paper and pen survey which was administered by a research team. The data was divided into two parts; we conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the first half (n = 3185). We conducted confirmatory factor analysis on the second half to test our hypothesis. In the second half, 52% were female respondents.
Measures
We used Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993) to measure intrinsic goal orientation and critical thinking of students. In order to measure teacher behavior, we used the Questionnaire for teacher interaction (QTI) developed by Wubbels and Brekelmans (2006).
Control variables
For students, we controlled for gender and caste and for teacher behavior, we controlled for positive teacher behavior that students experience during their interaction. Along with this, we also controlled for students’ intrinsic goal orientation and critical thinking at T1.
Analysis
We conducted the analysis in AMOS 22 to test our hypothesis. The data showed good reliability for all the constructs with α = .80 for negative teacher behavior at T1, α = .76 and .75 for critical thinking at T1 and T2 respectively; α = .66 and .64 for intrinsic goal orientation at T1 and T2, respectively. Measurement model was tested for all the individual constructs to assess the model fit and then structural path was assessed to test the hypothesis. The overall measurement model, shown in Figure 1 fitted the data well with χ2 (356) = 764.67, p < .001; CFI = .98; GFI = .98; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .05.
In the absence intrinsic goal orientation as mediator, the total effect of negative teacher behavior on student’s critical thinking was negative with B = -.14, β = -0.09, p < .001 supporting the first hypothesis. The relationship between negative teacher behavior and intrinsic goal orientation was negative and significant with B = -.12, β = -0.08, p < .001, supporting our second hypothesis. As expected, intrinsic goal orientation was positively related with student’s critical thinking with B = .66, β = .67, p < .001. When intrinsic goal orientation was posited as a mediator, the indirect effect become highly significant with B = -.082, β = -.055, p < .001 and the direct effect became insignificant with B = .004, β = .003, p < .1.
Implications
The study presents the findings from a large scale study to point out the detrimental effect of negative teacher behavior on learning strategies of students. This has significant implications for learning since students’ critical thinking is hampered, resulting in an inability to apply knowledge in new scenarios to solve problems or to take decisions. The need for teacher education in India to take into account the impact of negative behavior on critical thinking skills of students is also indicated.
Figure 1: Structural equation model with standardized path coefficients


















Notes: n = 3108. The result indicates the standardized path coefficients of the structural model. Model fit: χ2 (631) = 2443.65 p < 0.00; CFI = 0.91; GFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR = 0.17. Control variables - gender and caste - and loadings of control variables - positive teacher behaviour (T1), critical thinking (T1) and intrinsic goal orientation (T1) - were not shown to keep presentation simple.

Authors

• Samvet Kuril, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

• Vijaya Sherry Chand, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

• Rukmini Avadhanam, University of Minnesota