1
The Examination of Teacher-Student Relations in Turkish First-Grade
Educational Settings
Fatih Koca
Texas Tech University
fatih.koca@ttu.edu
Ibrahim H. Yeter
Texas Tech University
ibrahim.yeter@ttu.edu
Abstract: The goal of the study was to examine patterns of teacher-student relationships established during the
first year of school in Turkish first grade contexts. Using a sample of urban public school Turkish children (N= 417)
and teachers (N=24), we assess the psychometric characteristics of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS;
Pianta, 2001), a measure that has been widely used with Western samples. Specifically, we examine the: (a)
dimensionality of the measure and provide initial evidence about the extent to which the STRS yields internally
consistent scales that are comparable to those reported with western samples; (b) extent to which the addition of
three culturally sensitive items to the STRS Dependency scale improves its psychometric qualities; (c) associations
between teacher-rated school adjustment (behavior, social skills, and academic competence) and the teacher-child
relationship quality. Exploratory factor analysis supported a three-dimensional structure (comprising Conflict,
Closeness, and Dependency) for both the original 28- and the enhanced 31-item versions of the STRS. As
hypothesized, there was no clear distinction between Closeness and Dependency. Children with high ratings on
relational conflict with teachers were also perceived as more behaviorally deviant and less competent socially and
academically. The reverse trend was identified for children with high ratings on relational closeness.
Introduction
For most Turkish children, entry into first grade is their first formal schooling experience. Understanding
how children negotiate this new experience and documenting the relationships that they build with teachers is
crucial, considering that early teacher-child relationships have important long term implications for children’s
school success (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). However, early childhood education in Turkey is relatively underdeveloped
compared to that in some developing countries including Mexico, Morocco (Kaytaz, 2005). Namely, only 15 % of
children, who are ages between 3 and 5, have a chance to go to preschool and kindergarten. It is clear that Turkey
does not have huge amount of early childhood researches and studies. Accordingly, there is insufficient research
about early childhood education in Turkey (Bekman, 1999) and there is a need for new measurement tools to
examine different dimensions of early childhood education processes, inputs, and outcomes. Child-teacher relations
play a prominent role in the development of competencies in the pre-school and early school-age years (Pianta
&Walsh, 1996; Pianta & Hamre, 2001). Recent studies support the significance of child-teacher relationships for (a)
for developing skills in peer relations (e.g., Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992; Howes, Hamilton, &Matheson,
1994); (b) many school adjustment competencies including attention, motivation, problem-solving, and self esteem
(Birch & Ladd, 1997; Baker, 2006). and (c) the prediction and prevention of the behavioral problems and
psychopathology (Campbell, 1994; Pianta, 1999; Pianta, 2001, Birch & Ladd, 1998). Accordingly, previous studies
have found that emotional and behavioral problems represent significant risk factors for negative outcomes in later
school life (Pianta & Hamre, 2001; Pianta, 1999).
In this study, we proposed to address this gap by focusing on the measurement of early teacher-student
relations in Turkish first grade classrooms. we examined the validity and reliability of the Student Teacher
Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta, 2001), a teacher-rating scale that has been widely used with Western samples. In
addition, we examine: (a) the extent to which the addition of culturally sensitive items to the dependency scale
improves its psychometric qualities; (b) relationships between the quality of the teacher-child relationship with
children’s behavioral orientations, social skills, and academic competence.
2
Literature Review
Supportive teacher-student relationship has a prominent role in children’s school adjustment and the
development of social competence and social skills (e.g., Pianta & Hamre, 2001; Pianta, 1999). Moreover,
children’s behavioral orientations may influence the quality of teacher-student relationship (Pianta, et. all., 1995).
Correlational evidence indicates that externalizing (i.e., aggressive and hyperactive behaviors) and internalizing
behaviors (i.e., asocial and anxious/avoidant behaviors) are negatively associated with the quality of early teacherchild relationship (Pianta &Steinberg, 1992; Birch & Ladd, 1998).” For instance, Birch and Ladd (1998) have
examined the association between kindergartners’ behavioral orientations and characteristics of their 1 st grade
teacher-child interactions (e.g., conflict, closeness, and dependency). They have found that early behavioral
orientations predicted the quality of teacher-student relationships. Children’s early antisocial and asocial behaviors
were negatively related closeness, however; positively related to conflict and dependency in their relationships with
teachers. However, despite of important behavioral problems, children who developed positive relationships with
their teachers characterized by low levels of negativity and high levels of closeness were less likely to have future
behavior problems (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Therefore, the adaptation of STRS (Pianta, 2001) in Turkish
Educational setting can be helpful to understand and document teach-student dyadic interaction in Turkish
educational settings is very crucial, considering that early teacher-child relations have many long term
developmental and social implications for the development of children’s socioemotional and academic competence.
Cultural Considerations
Although attachment theory is one of the most influential conceptual frameworks, its universal application
and appropriateness across different cultures has not been established (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Early claims
that the key attachment concepts and frameworks are universal (Bowlby, 1969) are tempered by recent
acknowledgements that some attachment behaviors and patterns vary across cultural contexts (Grossmann,
Grossman, &Kepler, 2005; Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006; Posada & Jacobs, 2001). For instance, Rotbaum, Weisz,
Pott, Miyake, and Morelli (2000) investigated the applicability of attachment theory in the Japanese culture and
argued that attachment constructs and patterns are not culturally invariant. In subsequent research Rothbaum,
Kakinuma, Nagaoka and Azuma (2007) noted that, despite similarities in the manifestation of secure and insecure
attachment behaviors, there were also observable cultural differences between American and Japanese mothers.
Specifically, Japanese mothers linked security with more accommodative behaviors, whereas American mothers
associated security with more exploration and less aggression. Conversely, in Japanese mother-child dyads, the
child’s inappropriate behaviors were attributed to the need for security and interdependence.
Purpose
Together, the purpose of this study is to examine dimensionality of the measure and provide initial evidence about
the extent to which the STRS yields internally consistent scales that are comparable to those reported with western
samples; (b) extent to which the addition of three culturally sensitive items to the STRS Dependency scale improves
its psychometric qualities; (c) associations between teacher-rated school adjustment (behavior, social skills, and
academic competence) and the teacher-child relationship quality..
Method
Participants
The sample for this research comprised a group of 24 first grade teachers (12 male, 12 female) and their
students from five public schools located in two large school districts in a large urban city in Turkey. A total of 417
(207 female, 210 male) first grade students, ranging in age from 6 to 8 years (M = 7.09, SD = .29) participated in the
study. All participants were born in Turkey and were Turkish-speaking.
Procedure
The STRS and the SSRS were translated into Turkish for use in this study, because these scales were
originally developed in English. The translation will be conducted and evaluated by a group of translators who
3
included: (a) the author of this study; (b) a professor who is a native speaker of Turkish with expertise in crosscultural psychology; (b) three doctoral students who are native speakers of Turkish and are fluent in English, and
have expertise in cross-cultural psychology, cultural foundations of education, and American studies; (c) an English
Literature teacher in Turkey who is a native speaker of Turkish but is also fluent in English.
Measures
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001) is the most extensively validated with early elementary
samples and will be used in this study. The STRS is a 28-item teacher self-report Likert-type (5-point) scale
developed to assess a teacher’s feelings about her or his relationship with a particular student, the student’s
interactive behaviors with the teacher, and the teacher’s beliefs about the student’s feeling toward the teacher
(Pianta, 2001; Saft, 1994).
A Turkish version of the Social Skills Rating System, Elementary Teacher Form (SSRS-T, Gresham &
Elliot, 1990) was developed for this study. The SSRS measures a teacher’s perception of the child’s social skills
development, academic competence, and problem behaviors in the classroom. The SSRS-T is a 57-item long
measure that comprises social skills (Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Control), behavioral problems (Externalizing,
Internalizing, and Hyperactivity), and academic competence.
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the measure’s dimensional
structure and compare it to that identified with western samples. In line with the analyses reported in the STRS
manual (Pianta, 2001), principal components analysis followed by a Varimax rotated solution. The Closeness and
Dependency scales might be intercorrelated and therefore an oblique (promax) rotation was computed. The results
from the two solutions were compared. Following the factor analytic procedures, the measure’s internal consistency
reliability using Cronbach’s alpha were computed. Moreover, Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were
also computed to assess the correlations between TUR-STRS and SSRS scores in order to examine the validity of
STRS-TUR.
Results
In line with the analyses reported in the STRS manual (Pianta, 2001), principal-components extraction with
varimax rotation was conducted to examine the factor structure of the STRS-TUR with the original 28 items. This
analysis yielded three factors with both eigenvalues greater than 1 and variance accounted by unrotated factors >5%.
Based on the criteria for retaining factors outlined in the Data Analysis section, we retained three factors. The first
two of the factors alone accounted for 45.8% of the variance. All together, the three factors accounted for 52.3% of
the variance.
Because the researchers expected the Closeness and Dependency scales to be intercorrelated, we also
computed an oblique (promax) rotation and compared the results from the two solutions, specifying two-factor,
three-factor, four-factor, and five-factor solutions. However, both varimax and promax rotations produced
comparable solutions that appeared to echo the three-factor solution (i.e., conflict, closeness, and dependency) of the
original STRS. In all of the analyses, we obtained a fairly robust Conflict factor that was comparable to that of the
original STRS. As hypothesized, the correspondence of the Closeness and Dependency factors between the Turkish
and original versions of the STRS was less well established.
The addition of culturally sensitive items
The researcher hypothesized that the addition of culturally sensitive items would improve the psychometric
characteristics of the Dependency scale. In the varimax-rotated solution of the 31 items, shown in Table 1, three
factors emerged and accounted for 52.31% of the variance. The pattern of items loading on the three factors was
comparable to that obtained with the 28-item solution. Of the three new Dependency items, D3 loaded on Factor 1,
whereas D1 and D2 had high loadings on Factor 2.
Because we expected that the scales would be intercorrelated, we conducted a principal-components
extraction followed by a promax rotation with the 31 items of the STRS-TUR. Three factors were extracted,
4
accounting for 51.24% of the variance. Results are shown in Table 1. Again, the pattern of findings was comparable
to the 31 items. In this analysis, six items (3, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24) had significant loadings on two of the scales.
Table 1
Pattern Matrix with STRS-TUR with 29 Items
Items
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1.
Warm relationship
.06
-.03
.85
2.
Always struggling with each other
.62
-.05
-.10
3.
Seeks comfort from me
-
-
-
4.
Uncomfortable with physical affection
.65
.03
-.02
5.
Values relationship
.05
.27
.57
Needs to be in my sight all the time
.08
.67
-.04
6.
Hurt /embarrassed when corrected
.53
.12
.25
7.
When praised, s/he beams with pride
.13
.05
.76
8.
Reacts strongly to separation from me
-.13
.83
-.15
9.
Shares information about him/herself
.20
.06
.73
-.02
.78
-.02
D1.
10.
Overly dependent on me
11.
Easily becomes angry
.67
-.03
.08
D2.
Keeps a close eye on me all day
.08
.67
-.04
12.
Tries to please me
.00
.60
.34
13.
Feels s/he is treated unfairly
.72
-.05
.01
14.
Asks for unneeded help
.65
.00
.14
15.
Easy to be in tune with this student
.03
.47
.33
16.
Sees me as a source of punishment
.67
.02
-.07
17.
Express hurt or jealous
-
-
.-
18.
Remains angry after s/he is disciplined
.85
-.18
.15
19.
Responds well to my look or tone of voice
.52
-.24
.33
D3.
Seeks constant affirmation
.36
.31
-.03
20.
Drains my energy
.55
-.02
-.32
21.
Copies my behavior or ways of doing
.16
.62
.01
22.
Bad mood, we are in for a long or difficult day
.54
.20
-.14
23.
Feeling can be unpredictable or can change
.42
.20
-.33
24.
I am uncomfortable with this child
.55
.13
-.32
25.
Whines or cries
.27
.08
-.46
26.
Sneaky and manipulative
.19
.00
-.56
27.
Shares feelings openly with me
-.23
.17
.40
5
28.
Interactions make me feel effective
.01
.54
.24
Note: Items loading on a single factor are bolded.
Factor 1 (Conflict) had an eigenvalue of 7.44 and accounted for 24% of the total variance. Fourteen items
with factor loadings ≥.36 loaded on Factor 1. Ten of these items (e.g., “This child and I always seem to be struggling
with each other,” “This child sees me as source of punishment and criticism,” “Dealing with child drains my
energy”) were originally part of the STRS Conflict scale. However, two of the original Dependency items (item 6,
“This child appears hurt or embarrassed when I correct him/her” and item 14, “This child asks for my help when
she/he really does not need help”) and one Closeness item ( item 4, “This child is uncomfortable with physical
affection or touch from me”) loaded on Factor 1. Of the three new dependency items, D3 (“This child seeks constant
affirmation”) loaded on Factor 1.
Factor 2 (Dependency) had an eigenvalue of 6.57 and accounted for 21.20% of the total variance. It
comprised eight items with factor loadings ≥.47 (D1, 8, 10, 12, D2, 15, 21, 28). Three of the items were part of the
original STRS Closeness subscale: items 12 (“This child tries to please me”), 15 (“It is easy to be in tune with what
this child is feeling”), and 21 (“I have noticed this child copying my behavior or ways of doing things”). Items 8
(“This child reacts strongly to separation from me”) and 10 (“This child is overly dependent on me”) were part of
the original Dependency scale. In addition, two of the new items hypothesized to improve the psychometric
properties of the STRS Dependency subscale, (“This child needs to be in my sight all the time” and “This child
keeps a close eye on me all day”) loaded on this factor.
Factor 3 (Closeness) had an eigenvalue of 2.01 and accounted for 6.49% of the total variance. It consisted
of seven items with factor loading ≥.40. Five original STRS Closeness items (“I share an affectionate, warm
relationship with this child,” “This child values his/her relationship with me,” “When I praise this child, he/she
beams with pride,” “This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself,” and “This child openly
shares his/her feelings and experiences with me”) loaded on this factor, two of which were part of the original STRS
Conflict subscale: (“This child is sneaky and manipulative with me” and “This child whines or cries when he/she
wants something from me”).
SRTS-TUR Reliability
The internal consistency reliability for the three, 29-item STRS-TUR subscales was computed using
Cronbach’s alpha. Internal consistency reliability was calculated for both the total scale and each subscale. The
following alpha coefficients were obtained: .86 (STRS-TUR Total scale), .89 (Factor 1), .61 (Factor 2), and .89
(Factor 3). These alphas reflect a high level of internal consistency for STRS-TUR Total, as well as for Factor 1 and
Factor 2. Factor 3 has a more moderate level of internal consistency.
STRS-TUR Intercorrelations
The total scale score had high to moderately low correlations with subscale scores. As shown in Table 4,
correlations between the four STRS-TUR scales ranged from .24 to -.93, indicating 5% to 87% of shared variance.
Factor 1 (Conlict) was most highly correlated with STRS-TUR Total. However Factor 1 had moderately low
correlations with the other two factor subscales. Factor 2 (Dependency) had the least amount of shared variance with
the other subscale scores and with the STRS-TUR total.
Relationships between the STRS-TUR and External Criteria of School Adjustment
To establish data on the validity of the STRS-TUR, children’s scores on the STRS-TUR subscales were
correlated with the independent measures examined in this study. As expected, significant but modest correlations
were found between STRS-TUR scores and the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) scores. Children’s scores on the
Conflict subscale were significantly and positively associated with scores on the Externalizing, Internalizing, and
Hyperactivity subscales as well as the total Problem Behavior score.
Discussion and Future Directions
The majority of studies about the teacher–student relationship have been conducted in the United States
(e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Limited research has been conducted with Western European
6
samples (e.g., Buyse et al., 2008; Gregoriadis & Tsigilis, 2008) or samples from developing countries, including
Turkey (e.g., Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005). Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine the psychometric
properties of the STRS in the Turkish cultural context, which differs from that of the United States. Results from this
study indicate that the underlying structure of the STRS was replicated when used by a sample of Turkish first-grade
teachers and that a 29-item version can be considered a valid and reliable instrument to measure three dimensions of
teacher–student relationships in Turkish first-grade educational settings. As hypothesized, the meaning of the
dependency dimension had positive meaning in the Turkish educational setting. Specifically, children with high
ratings of relational closeness and dependency were perceived as more competent socially and academically.
Conversely, children with high ratings of relational conflict were perceived as behaviorally deviant and less
competent socially and academically.
Limitations
Although, this analysis provided initial evidence on the construct validity of the STRS in a Turkish
educational setting, this study had certain limitations stemming from its reliance upon the teachers’ perspectives to
examine teacher–child relationships. Although, the teachers’ perceptions are very important, teachers may have
some perceptual and response biases embedded within their relationships with their students. In addition, the
construct-level relationship dimensions examined by the STRS-TUR may be specific to the teachers’ perspective. If
the students’ perspectives regarding their dyadic interactions with their teachers were investigated (e.g., via
structured interview and scale), factor analysis might yield a somewhat different set of teacher–student relationship
dimensions.
7
References
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary
school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997).The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of
School Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.
Campbell, S.B. (1994). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Externalizing behavior, social competence, and family
context at two-year-follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 147-166.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliot, S. N. (1990). The Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Systems.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school
outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.
Howes, C.; Hamilton, C.E.; Matheson, C.C. (1994). Children's relationships with peers: Differential association with
aspects of the teacher-child relationship.Child Development, 65, 253-263.
Kaytaz, M. (2005). Türkiye'de Okulöncesi EğitimininFayda-Maliyet Analizi. İstanbul, AÇEV
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H. & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten:Related
spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Pianta,
Psychological Association.
R.C, & Hamre, B. K. (2001). Students, teachers, and relationship support (STARS).Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. In Pianta,
R. C. (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives. New Directions for Child
Development, No.57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships
and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295-312.
Pianta, R., & D. Walsh. 1996. High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. NewYork:
Routledge.
Pederson, E., Faucher, T.A., & Eaton, W.W. (1978). A new perspective on the effects of first teachers on children’s
subsequent adult status. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 1-31.