Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles Toward Students with Special Educational Needs in Chinese Inclusive Classrooms
Abstract
This study aims to develop and validate a questionnaire based on the model of interpersonal teacher behavior to assess teachers’ interpersonal styles with students with special educational needs (SEN) in inclusive education. The survey was administered to 1,695 regular education teachers in China. The findings of this study are that (1) Chinese teachers trained in inclusive education used interpersonal styles with students with SEN that were represented by a two-dimensional (control and affiliation) four-factor (understanding, support, indulgence, and conflict) model; (2) teachers perceived that they show high affiliation (understanding and support) and low control (indulgence and conflict) toward students with SEN; and (3) teachers’ interpersonal styles are affected by a series of factors: whether they are head teachers, their academic qualifications and the length of their inclusive education training, the grade level they teach, type of student disability, and class size. This study helps construct a conceptual framework and corresponding tools for inclusive education teachers in China to adapt their interpersonal styles. The theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Inclusive education has been recommended as best practice schooling for all students and identified by research as resulting in improved outcomes for students with and without disabilities (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). However, all inclusive education teachers face the instructional challenge of motivating their students with special education needs (SEN) to engage in and benefit from the learning activities they provide (Casale-Giannola, 2012). When students engage in learning, aspects of the teacher’s behavior, such as the teacher’s instructional style, typically play a role in the initiation and regulation of the engagement. Many researchers have reported that teacher interpersonal style is an important factor that considerably influences student educational outcomes (Mainhard et al., 2018; Pennings & Hollenstein, 2020). Therefore, examining the interpersonal style of teachers within inclusive education is crucial for the development of students with SEN and the advancement of inclusive educational practices. However, the research regarding teacher interpersonal style in inclusive education is scarce.
China initiated inclusive education, known as “Learning in Regular Classrooms” (LRC), in the 1980s. LRC aims to improve school accessibility for children with SEN, who had often been denied such opportunities in the past, enabling them to benefit from compulsory education (Deng et al., 2017). Influenced by Western mainstreaming concept, China launched pilot programs in several provinces in the 1980s to enroll children with visual impairments in regular primary schools near their villages. Since the 1990s, the Chinese government has implemented a series of policy initiatives and legislative reforms to advance inclusive education, resulting in the systematic integration of a substantial number of students with SEN into mainstream educational settings. This shift reflects a sustained institutional effort to align educational practices with evolving principles of equity. Since 2010, a series of policies have been enacted in China (Xie et al., 2021). These regulations expanded the restricted LRC model into more comprehensive, quality-oriented inclusive education initiatives (Yan et al., 2019). Currently, China has developed a special education placement model with its own unique characteristics. This model is based on LRC, supported by special education schools, and supplemented by home-based and distance education. LRC has become an important component of the educational placement for students with SEN, and its scale continues to expand. By 2023, China had 2,345 special education schools. A total of 154,977 students with SEN were enrolled nationwide in various forms, with 911,981 students in schools. Among them, 457,048 (50.12%) were in LRC programs (Ministry of Education, 2024).
The inclusive education teacher is a newly emerging teacher role in the Chinese education system; these teachers work in regular schools and teach students with and without SEN in their classrooms. Research has identified that Chinese inclusive education teachers generally hold a positive attitude toward integrated education (Tan et al., 2021). However, due to social prejudice against people with disabilities, negative attitudes of teachers towards students with SEN, lack of necessary knowledge and skills among teachers, and the influence of exam-oriented education, teachers’ responses to inclusive education vary greatly (Jia & Santi, 2021). These factors may influence the interpersonal behavior of teachers when they engage with students with SEN.
Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles
The concept of teachers’ interpersonal styles was formulated through Leary’s (1957) interpersonal theory and later studies (Brekelmans & Wubbels, 1991; Wubbels et al., 1985). A teacher’s interpersonal style develops in the early years of their educational career and then consolidates (Brekelmans & Wubbels, 2005). Research (Pennings & Hollenstein, 2020) has shown that teachers’ interpersonal styles are rather stable across and between school years and that differences between teachers are usually greater than within teachers. The variety in teachers’ interpersonal styles can be partly explained by student-related factors that affect perceptions (e.g., gender, ethnic background, age), class and school factors (e.g., school type, denomination, location, class size, grade level, subject matter), and teacher factors (e.g., gender, ethnic background, age, experience) (Fisher et al., 2006; Wubbels et al., 2006). Besides, because of differences societies and classroom environments, teachers in different cultural environments have different interpersonal styles. For example, directive and authoritative patterns were found to be the most common interpersonal style for Indonesian teachers (Maulana et al., 2011), but the tolerant-authoritative profile was the most common interpersonal style of Chinese teachers (Wei et al., 2009).
Teachers’ interpersonal styles are argued to be one of the main factors determining students’ success at school. In particular, teachers’ positive interpersonal behavior, characterized by affect and proximity, encourages and stimulates successful interactions between teachers and students, satisfying students’ need for emotional and interpersonal support, and resulting in a lively classroom (Pishghadam et al., 2021). Students’ well-being, learning motivation, self-confidence, and classroom participation are improved, and their academic performance will be enhanced accordingly. On the contrary, when teachers exhibit more excessively severe, hostile, or conflict behaviors, students’ motivation to learn decreases and their academic performance suffers.
Most research on interpersonal teacher behavior is based on the model of interpersonal teacher behavior (MITB). In its initial form, MITB described two interpersonal dimensions: dominance–submission and hostility–affection (Leary, 1957). Other researchers adopted a similar approach but used slightly different names for the dimensions, such as competence and warmth (Fiske et al., 2007). In its newest version, teachers’ interpersonal behaviors are described along two dimensions: control and affiliation (Leary, 1957; Wubbels et al., 2012). The control dimension reflects the degree to which the teachers exercise control over their students, and the affiliation dimension represents the cooperation between teachers and their students. Compared with control, affiliation is more conducive to positive student outcomes; however, control is not always negative: when a teacher uses an appropriate level of control, students can feel safe and cared for. Nevertheless, if the teacher excessively uses controlling behavior, students might feel unequal, and their internal motivation could decrease (Misbah et al., 2022). The dimensions of control and affiliation are considered to be independent of each other (i.e., orthogonal), which means that a teacher’s interpersonal behavior can be high in both dimensions, high in one and low in the other, or low in both of them. According to the MITB, teacher–student interpersonal behaviors are operationalized based on eight types of behavior: leadership, helpfulness/friendliness, understanding, student responsibility/freedom, uncertainty, dissatisfaction, admonishment, and strictness (Wubbels et al., 2006). Although the MITB framework was initially conceptualized within Western cultural contexts, it has demonstrated considerable cross-cultural applicability. Nevertheless, empirical studies have revealed notable variations in interpersonal styles among educators across differ contexts, suggesting the necessity of contextualized adaptations when applying the framework in multinational educational settings (Bahoo et al., 2020). In China, Li and Shi (2008) conducted a study involving 4,848 compulsory education students in Beijing, using the MITB framework to examine their perceptions of head teachers’ interaction styles. Their research identified four distinct interaction styles: rule-oriented, tolerant and indulging, kind and authoritative, and indifferent and autocratic. However, the scarcity of research on MITB within the context of inclusive education in China highlights a significant gap in the literature, which this study aimed to address as a key innovation.
Interpersonal Styles with Students with Disabilities
Interpersonal styles are a contemporary field of research in the study of challenging behaviors of people with disabilities (Willems et al., 2010, 2014). Students with SEN are often exposed to isolation and victimization (DeVries et al., 2018), and teachers’ positive interpersonal competencies can reduce students’ challenging and disruptive behaviors and promote their academic, emotional, and social skills development (Hopman et al., 2018). Willems et al. (2010) developed a scale based on Leary’s (1957) model to examine caregivers’ behavior when supporting people with intellectual disability with challenging behavior, which had four interpersonal factors (assertive control, hostility, friendliness, and support seeking) and three intrapersonal factors (proactive thinking, self-reflection, and critical expressed feelings). Alevriadou and Pavlidou (2015) applied interpersonal theory to Greek general and special education teachers in the school environment. They found that the “friendliness” style seemed to be enhanced by teachers’ expertise in special education, whereas “hardness,” “control,” and “nagging” styles were mainly predicted by causal attributions for challenging behaviors and teachers’ negative feelings.
Interpersonal behavior is recognized as a crucial element of education. Empirical research on inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal behaviors is scarce in China and other countries. In China, most previous research has focused on theoretical reflections, stakeholders’ attitudes, student development, and classroom strategies related to inclusive education (Xu et al., 2022; Yan & Deng, 2018). Besides, no validated instruments are available to evaluate the inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate an instrument to evaluate the general characteristics of inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles based on the MITB and determine how teachers’ interpersonal styles are influenced by key variables. The specific research questions are: (1) What is the factor structure of teachers’ interpersonal styles in inclusive education in China? (2) What are the current general characteristics of inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles? and (3) What factors affect teachers’ interpersonal style?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study were inclusive education teachers from primary and secondary schools in 11 provinces and cities of China, who at that time taught students with SEN. These provinces are located in the eastern, central, and western regions of China, and their level of inclusive education development is representative of the overall situation of inclusive education in China. Participants were investigated in two phases. In the first phase, a total of 550 teachers were selected from four provinces and cities in China using convenience sampling, which is a widely used sampling method that relies on data collection from the population who are available to participate in an investigation (Dhivyadeepa, 2015). A total of 515 questionnaires were found to be valid for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with a response rate of 93.64%. In the second phase, participants were randomly selected from seven provinces of China. This investigation yielded 1,180 valid questionnaires from the sampled population (N = 1290) for further confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and examined the characteristics of inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles and their influencing factors. Table 1 presents the specific demographic information of the inclusive education teachers from both studies.
Instrumentation
The 16-item “Questionnaire of Inclusive Education Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles” (QIETIS) was designed to measure the interpersonal styles of inclusive education teachers. We developed and validated the QIETIS through the following steps. First, we analyzed the theoretical literature and empirical studies on interpersonal styles in general, special, and inclusive education to generate a pool of items. Second, we conducted interviews with LRC teachers and other relevant professionals and revised the project according to the information obtained from the interviews. The following information was obtained through interviews: the personality traits of teachers, their thoughts and feelings towards inclusive education and students with SEN, their perceptions regarding their teaching practices, the communication approaches with students with SEN, and how they manage their classrooms and challenging behavior of students. We use the information to enrich and modify our pool of items. A draft QIETIS was subsequently developed and formatted. Third, a committee comprising five professors specializing in special and inclusive education and five regular education teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience in inclusive education were invited for two rounds of discussions on the items and structure of the questionnaire. Specifically, they checked the proposed items for clarity, conciseness, readability, face and content validity, and redundancy and offered suggestions for revising or adding items. The 34-item initial version of the QIETIS was developed and used for further testing. Finally, a two-phase pilot study was conducted to validate the internal factor structure of the questionnaire.
A final version of the questionnaire containing 16 items was confirmed with two dimensions (affiliation and control) and four factors (understanding, support, indulgence, and conflict). Understanding (e.g., “I can accept the fault of students with SEN in the interactions”) and support (e.g., “I provide individual instructions for students with SEN”) belong to affiliation; indulgence (e.g., “As long as they do not disturb the classroom discipline, students with SEN may not listen to the class”) and conflict (e.g., “I have conflicts with students with SEN during interactions”) belong to control. All items are rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Additionally, the questionnaire included questions about participants’ age, gender, teaching experience, educational level, student disability types, and grade. These demographic items and an introductory statement were placed at the beginning of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was designed and answered in Chinese. It was translated into English in three steps at the time of submission. First, an independent translation from simplified Chinese to English was conducted by two translators, who were Chinese PhD candidates majoring in special education with relevant research experience and fluency in English. Second, two researchers of this study and the aforementioned translators assess and agree on the first version of the translated scale, to ensure an accurate linguistic and academic reflection of the original QIETIS. Third, two university professors with research experience in English-speaking countries performed the final review and validation of the questionnaire.
Procedure
Data collection occurred in two phases. In the first phase, the researchers contacted the principals and teachers of primary and secondary schools and managers of the Special Education Resource Centers in Beijing, Fujian Province, Guangdong Province, and Gansu Province. The researchers’ universities have established productive collaboration with these principals and teachers, who were willing to provide their support for this study. The survey was conducted online. Schools were selected via convenience sampling, under the premise that principals and teachers were willing to cooperate and that the investigation would last 3 weeks.
In the second phase, we selected Jilin Province, Liaoning Province, Shandong Province, Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province, Yunnan Province, and Shanxi Province. Similarly, we invited the principals and teachers of primary and secondary schools and the managers of the Special Education Resource Centers to send the online questionnaires to teachers. To facilitate communication with respondents regarding any inquiries, the researchers’ email and phone numbers were included in the questionnaire. Participants were required to complete the questionnaires within 6 weeks.
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university. All participants provided written informed consent and were assured that they could withdraw at any time and that their participation and views would remain confidential.
Data Analysis
First, data from phase one (515 questionnaires) were systematically coded and entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows 24.0 for EFA. This was to identify latent factors and explore a plausible interpretation of the relationships among the specific items. Second, CFA was used with the data from the second phase (1,180 questionnaires) to examine the factor structure of the questionnaire and convergent validity of the factors (Byrne, 2001) using Amos 23.0. Third, the data acquired in the second phase were further analyzed using SPSS 24.0. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe participants’ demographic characteristics and to examine the teachers’ interpersonal styles with students across the factors. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences in interpersonal styles of teachers at different demographic variables. Least significant difference (LSD) post hoc multiple comparisons were performed after ANOVA analyses.
Results
Factor Structure of Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles
Item analysis and EFA.
Item analysis was first conducted to analyze every item in the questionnaire and delete the poor-quality items. The 515 questionnaires were divided into two groups using the high-low-27% group technique (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013). According to the item analysis, 7 items had internal consistency coefficients lower than .4 and were deleted.
EFA was used to determine the structure of the QIETIS. The test results showed that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .894, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 = 4046.11, p < .001) indicated that the questionnaire was appropriate for factor analysis. Five factors were selected for this study. Then, according to the results of the EFA, the unsuitable items in the questionnaire were deleted according to the following criteria: (1) items with a loading value of less than .3; (2) commonness less than .3; and (3) a double loading item. All items were individually screened based on the above criteria, and 11 items were deleted. The fifth factor was deleted because it had only one item and a loading value less than .3. Overall, 65.40% of the variance was explained, as indicated in Table 2.
To determine the name of each factor, we analyzed the meaning and keywords of every item. In the first factor, teachers expressed that they can “understand some of the problems exhibited by students with SEN” and that “students with SEN also have their strengths;” thus, this factor was defined as “understanding.” In the second factor, teachers expressed that students with SEN can do what they want as long as they do not disturb others; thus, we defined this factor as “indulgence.” In the third factor, teachers expressed that they “trust students with SEN” and give them instruction and help; we defined this factor as “support.” In the final factor, teachers expressed that the teacher–student relationship was not harmonious and was even conflicted; thus, we defined this factor as “conflict.” Based on affiliation and control in the MITB, understanding and support are categorized under affiliation, with understanding representing a lower level of affiliation and support a higher level. Both indulgence and conflict fall within the realm of control; indulgence is characterized by low control, whereas conflict is associated with high control.
CFA result.
CFA was used in this study to measure whether the QIETIS items that were found to be associated with specific factors were valid in another sample. The results show that the standardized factor loadings for the 16 items ranged from .51 to .85. Additionally, the four factors were significantly correlated with each other. The factor model was then examined using the chi-square goodness-of-fit and fit index tests. The values of the chi-square test were 215.16, df = 98, p < .01; the χ2/df ratio was 2.20; the normed fit index was .88; the incremental fit index was .93; the Tucker–Lewis index was .91; the comparative fit index was .93; and the root mean square error of approximation was .07. These values suggested an adequate model fit.
Reliability and validity.
An analysis of QIETIS revealed good internal consistency, as shown in Table 3. The alpha coefficient of the total score was satisfactory (.84). The alpha coefficients of the sub-scales of QIETIS ranged from .72 to .91, which are all within the acceptable range. The split-half reliability was also considered acceptable, with the alpha coefficient of the QIETIS being .82 and the coefficients of the sub-scales ranging from .71 to .92.
The content validity of the questionnaire was evaluated through a systematic review of the literature and expert reviews as mentioned above. Table 4 shows the correlation matrix of the extracted factors indicating moderately significant correlations with each other. There was also a significant correlation between each factor and the total scale. The correlations indicated that each factor had independent characteristics and contributed to the total scale.
General Characteristics of Inclusive Education Teachers’ Interpersonal Styles
This study found four types of interpersonal styles across two dimensions, perceived by inclusive education teachers, namely: affiliation (understanding and support) and control (indulgence and conflict). The descriptive analysis showed that the scores rank in order from highest to lowest as understanding (M = 4.54, SD = .48), support (M = 4.44, SD = .66), indulgence (M = 2.22, SD = 1.06), and conflict (M = 1.73, SD = .80). This indicates that the interpersonal style of Chinese inclusive education teachers is characterized by high affiliation (high understanding and support) and low control (low indulgence and conflict).
Teachers’ Interpersonal Style Differences in Demographic Variables
To examine the influence of demographic variables on teachers’ interpersonal style, T-tests and ANOVA were used.
Comparison among teachers based on whether they serve as gead teachers.
The results showed a significant difference between the teachers who served as head teachers and those who did not in terms of indulgence (t = −2.29, p < .05) and support (t = 3.89, p < .01). The post hoc analysis using the LSD showed that nonhead teachers adopted a more indulgent style toward students with SEN than head teachers (Mno = 2.29, SD = 1.06; Myes = 2.15, SD = 1.06), and head teachers adopted a more supportive style than nonhead teachers (Myes = 4.51, SD = .63; Mno = 4.36, SD = .68). No significant differences were found in understanding and conflict among teachers regardless of whether they were head teachers.
Comparison among teachers based on academic qualifications.
The ANOVA results in Table 5 indicate significant differences in the conflict style among teachers with different academic qualifications (F = 5.08, p < .01). The post hoc analysis showed that teachers with academic qualifications below the bachelor’s degree level have significantly more conflict in their interpersonal styles (Mbelow bachelor = 1.84, SD = .99; Mbachelor = 1.60, SD = .88) than those with bachelor’s degrees. No significant differences were found in the other factors among teachers with different academic qualifications.
Comparison among teachers based on the length of inclusive education training.
The ANOVA findings in Table 5 show that significant differences existed among teachers with different lengths of training in terms of understanding (F = 7.24, p < .01), support (F = 4.00, p < .01), and conflict (F = 2.64, p < .05). The post hoc analysis using the LSD indicated that inclusive education teachers with more than 20 days of training showed significantly greater use of understanding style (MMore than 20 days = 4.75, SD = .36; MNever = 4.50, SD = .49; M1-5 days = 4.59 SD = .46) than those who had never been trained and those who had 1–5 days of training. Teachers who had more than 20 days of training possessed significantly more supportive elements in their style (MMore than 20 days = 4.65, SD = .48; MNever = 4.40, SD = .66) than those who had not been trained. Teachers who had never received training had significantly more conflict in their styles (Mnever = 1.67, SD = .86; M1-5 days = 1.48, SD = .68; M6-10 days = 1.45 SD = .70) than those who had 1–5 days and 6–10 days of training. No significant differences were found in indulgence among teachers with different lengths of inclusive education training.
Comparison among teachers based on grade level taught.
Table 5 shows significant differences among teachers of different grade levels in the support (F = 4.043, p < .05) style. The post hoc analysis revealed that teachers in Grades 3–4 have a more supportive style (M3-4 = 4.53, SD = .63; M1-2 = 4.41, SD = .69; M7-9 = 4.31, SD = .60) compared to teachers in Grades 1–2 and 7–9. No significant differences were found in other factors among teachers teaching different grade levels.
Comparison based on the type of student disability.
Due to the small number of students with visual disorders and hearing disorders in this study, they are collectively referred to as students with sensory disorders in this research. The ANOVA findings in Table 5 show that significant differences in interpersonal styles existed among teachers of students with different types of disabilities in terms of understanding (F = 6.839, p < .01) and support (F = 5.580, p < .01). The post hoc analysis showed that teachers have a more understanding (MSensory = 4.64, SD = .44; Mintellectual = 4.51, SD = .51; Memotional and behavioral = 4.40, SD = .46) style with students who have a sensory processing disorder than with students who have intellectual disabilities or emotional and behavioral disorders. In addition, teachers have a more supportive style (MSensory = 4.59, SD = .64; Mintellectual = 4.36, SD = .63; MAutism = 4.33, SD = .74; Memotional and behavioral = 4.37, SD = .66; MOthers = 4.48, SD = .64) with students with sensory disorders than with students with other types of disability. No significant differences were found in indulgence and conflict styles among teachers based on the different types of student disabilities.
Comparison based on class size.
The ANOVA results in Table 5 indicate significant differences in understanding (F = 3.320, p < .01), support (F = 2.649, p < .05), and conflict (F = 3.288, p < .01) styles among different class sizes. The post hoc analysis showed that teachers had more understanding (M41-45 = 4.61, SD = .45; M26-35 = 4.46, SD = .56) in their style with students in classes of size 41–45 than in classes of size 26–35. Teachers were more supportive (M41-45 = 4.53, SD = .61; M26-35 = 4.46, SD = .56) in classes of size 41–45 than in classes of size 26–35. Teachers had more conflict (Mless than 25 = 1.88, SD = .99; M36-40 = 1.63, SD = .84; M41-45 = 1.51, SD = .69) styles in classes with sizes of less than 25 students than teachers in classes of 36–40 and 41–45 students. No significant differences were found in indulgence style among different class sizes.
Discussion
Teacher interpersonal behavior plays an important role in the development of students with SEN (Hopman et al., 2018). Grounded in the MITB framework, the purpose of this study was to develop a reliable scale to measure the interpersonal styles of inclusive education teachers in China. A new 16-item scale, named QIETIS, was developed and employed to investigate the characteristics and factors of Chinese inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles.
This study found that inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles can be divided into four types (understanding, indulgence, support, and conflict) along two dimensions (control and affiliation). The dimensions of control and affiliation are considered to be independent of each other (i.e., orthogonal). The focus of this study was on teachers involved in inclusive education in China, who work in regular schools and teach students with and without SEN in the same classroom. Additionally, it must be considered that some students with SEN have interpersonal communication barriers. The two-dimension–four-type model represents a refinement and expansion of the two-dimensional–eight-type MITB, distinguishing it from the findings of other researchers (Fiske et al., 2007; Li & Shi, 2008; Willems et al., 2010).
Generally, Chinese inclusive education teachers reported higher ratings in terms of affiliation interpersonal behaviors than control ones. This suggests that Chinese inclusive education teachers show more cooperative than control behavior. This is consistent with previous studies; for example, Wei et al. (2015) found that Chinese teachers score higher on leadership, helpfulness/friendliness, understanding, and student freedom items and lower on uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and admonishment items. Zeng (2007) found that teachers’ attitude to LRC is generally aspiring and positive, and most teachers actively select strategies to help students with SEN to learn. Teachers’ positive and cooperative interpersonal style is conducive to reducing challenging behaviors, building good relationships with students, and promoting student engagement (Breeman et al., 2015; Geng et al., 2020). Furthermore, an appropriate level of teacher control is beneficial, whereas exaggerated control is harmful (Misbah et al., 2022). Therefore, teachers should show appropriate interpersonal behaviors when interacting with students with SEN.
The results show that a teacher’s role (whether they serve as head teachers) influences the teacher’s interpersonal style: the head teacher provides more support to students with SEN. This is consistent with previous studies that suggest that head teachers of primary and secondary schools showed obvious affinity and friendly attitudes (Li & Shi, 2008; Miao, 2014). Additionally, other researchers found that head teachers provide psychological, social, cultural, and policy support for inclusive education (Stylianou & Zembylas, 2018). In China, a head teacher is the teacher in charge of a class. They assume greater responsibility for student performance and have access to more tools to manage students (Feng & Li, 2016). Therefore, they must provide care and support to each student; otherwise, the overall class development may be affected, which would reflect a failure in the responsibilities of the head teacher. However, it should be noted that these roles are specific to Chinese head teachers, and head teachers in other countries may have different responsibilities.
Compared with teachers with a bachelor’s degree, teachers who have less than a bachelor’s degree have more conflict with students in their interpersonal styles. Some researchers (Hsien et al., 2009) show that teachers with higher educational qualifications in special education were more positive about inclusion and students. Alevriadou and Pavlidou (2015) found that the friendliness style seemed to be enhanced by teachers’ expertise in special education.
The longer their inclusive education training, the more positive teachers’ interpersonal styles. This is consistent with the attitudinal studies confirming the influence of training in the formation of positive attitudes toward inclusion and students with SEN (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Lifshitz et al., 2004), as training support increased levels of acceptance and understanding of students with SEN (Monsen et al., 2014).
Teachers in grades 3–4 had the highest level of support in their interpersonal styles. Moreover, with the increase in grade level, teachers’ supportive interactions with students gradually decreased. Grades 3–4 play a connecting role throughout primary education. The knowledge span is large and not easy to manage. However, students’ personalities, adaptability, and psychological qualities are not mature (Liang et al., 2017), which means that they need more support from teachers to help them adapt to the change.
Types of disabilities have an important impact on teachers’ interpersonal styles. Teachers have a higher understanding and are more supportive of students with physical, visual, and hearing disorders than of other students. This is consistent with previous studies that found that teachers have more conflictive interactions with students with autism spectrum disorders (Roorda et al., 2021) and emotional and behavioral difficulties (de Swart et al., 2023) than with other students due to the behavioral problems that those pupils display. Children with sensory disorders who are unaffected by intellectual disabilities can obey the teachers’ instructions; thus, the teachers provide them with additional understanding and support.
Class size has an important effect on the personal style of teachers. Overall, teachers had more understanding and support when the class size was 41–45 than with smaller classes. This is not fully consistent with previous studies that reported that teachers’ interpersonal styles benefit from small class sizes (Finn et al., 2003). However, some studies report different results; for example, Camacho et al. (2022) found that a larger class size was associated with higher emotional support. Additionally, Song et al. (2015) found that in China, small to moderate class sizes are conducive to positive interactions. In addition, this study found that teachers showed more conflictive styles in small class sizes (less than 25 students). This may be because classes with fewer than 25 students are more often located in rural areas (Liu et al. 2022) because of the rapid urbanization of China. Teachers in rural areas face more barriers to inclusive instruction while receiving less support (Li & Li, 2020).
This study has significant theoretical and practical implications. At a theoretical level, it provides additional evidence regarding the cross-cultural validation of MITB and the complexity of the interactive nature of the learning environment. At a practical level, inclusive education teachers can examine their interpersonal styles based on their own responses to the QIETIS. Therefore, they can gain a clearer understanding of their own behaviors and attitudes towards students with SEN, and adjust their teaching strategies to improve teaching effectiveness. Teachers modify their interpersonal behavior in accordance with the characteristics and requirements of students, enabling students to perceive the teachers’ care and respect and thereby promoting the teacher-student relationship. Additionally, having a good relationship with students makes it easier for the teacher to solve emerging challenging behavior of students with SEN.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study has several notable limitations. The four dimensions in this scale were drawn from the interview data. The items were not created based on existing scales, which may have resulted in a limited understanding of the interpersonal styles employed by Chinese inclusive education teachers. To address this issue, future research should incorporate some mature interpersonal style scales to further verify the differences and similarities of the interpersonal styles between inclusive education teachers and other teachers. This study measures teachers’ interpersonal styles using self-report, and some studies have found differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of interpersonal behavior (Maulana et al., 2011). Therefore, in future research, scholars may consider studies from the perspective of students with SEN. Furthermore, the findings of the present study suggest that the QIETIS can be applied to Chinese inclusive education teachers; however, its implementation in other countries should be approached with caution, due to the potential cultural variations in teachers’ interpersonal styles, as indicated by previous research (Jowett et al., 2017).
Conclusion
This research shows that Chinese inclusive education teachers’ interpersonal styles can be divided into two dimensions (control and affiliation) and four types (understanding, indulgence, support, and conflict). Chinese inclusive education teachers show high affiliation (understanding and support) and low control (indulgence and conflict) toward students with SEN. Teachers’ interpersonal styles are affected by a series of factors: whether they are head teachers, their academic qualifications and length of inclusive education training, grade level, type of student disability, and class size.
Funding
This work was supported by the key project of 2022 in the 14th Five-Year Plan of Chongqing Education Science “Research on the Integrated Development of Special Education and the Construction of Quality Assurance System” [grant number: K22YB202010].
Contributor Notes