Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Graduate School of Child Development and Education
Children’s Drawings as a Nonverbal Way to Assess Young Children’s Perceptions of Their Relationships with Teachers:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Research Master Child Development and Education Research Internship
Name of the student: Analía Silberman Name of the supervisor: Debora Roorda
Name of the second reviewer: Helma Koomen
Abstract
The present study focused on cross-cultural differences in young children’s relationship drawings. First, we investigated cross-cultural differences in children’s drawings between China and the Netherlands. Second, we examined cross-cultural differences in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions (measured by the drawings) and their verbal perceptions (measured by an age appropriated questionnaire). Finally, we studied cross-cultural differences in the degree of agreement between children’s drawings and teachers’ relationship perceptions. The Dutch sample consisted of 111 children (46.8% girls) from kindergarten and first grade. The Chinese sample included 89 children (48.3% girls) from second and third year of kindergarten. Children´s nonverbal perceptions were assessed by relationship drawings (Pride/Happiness and Anger/Tension), coded by two independent raters. Furthermore, teachers (Closeness, Conflict) and children (Warmth, Conflict) completed questionnaires about their relationships. Independent samples t-tests showed that Chinese children’s drawings expressed more pride/happiness and less anger/tension than Dutch children’s drawings. Moreover, children’s verbal and nonverbal perceptions of positive dimensions were associated in the Chinese sample, whereas the negative dimensions were associated in the Dutch sample. However, agreement between children’s and teachers’ perceptions was not found at all in any of the countries. Therefore, relationship drawings might add a different perspective about the TSRs compared to children’s and teacher’s verbal perceptions.
Keywords: teacher-student relationships, cross-cultural differences, young children, nonverbal perceptions, relationship drawings
Children’s Drawings as a Nonverbal Way to Assess Young Children’s Perceptions of Their Relationships with Teachers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
The affective quality of teacher-student relationships (TSRs) during the first years at school influences students’ school engagement and impacts children’s behavioral and emotional adjustments (for meta-analytic overviews see Roorda, Jak, Zee, Oort & Koomen, 2017; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt & Oort, 2011; Lei, Cui & Chiu, 2016; Lei, Cui & Chui, 2018). However, most of the studies about TSRs in pre-school and primary education only considered teachers’ perceptions of the relationships (Roorda et al., 2017; Lei, Cui & Chui, 2016). Furthermore, focusing on
teachers’ perceptions of the relationships could give a restricted perspective of the affective quality of TSRs, considering that the agreement between teachers and students perceptions is rather low (Hughes, 2011; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015). In addition, most of the studies that did incorporate children’s perceptions of the relationships used verbal measures (Murray, Murray & Waas, 2008; Valeski & Stipek, 2001), even though young children may have difficulties to understand the abstract formulations of the instruments’ questions (Fury, Carlson, Sroufe, 1997). Therefore, some studies have used instruments that require less ability to understand verbal communication, such as relationship drawings (Harrison et al., 2007; McGrath, 2017). As this method is rather new in teacher-student relationship research, we looked further into its validity to examine young children’s perceptions of the relationships with their teachers (Harrison et al., 2007; McGrath et al., 2017).
Furthermore, based on research findings of cross-cultural studies (Bear et al., 2014; Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005; Chen, Zee, Koomen, Roorda, 2017), cultural context influences teachers’ and students’ perceptions of their mutual relationships. Whereas Eastern cultures value the interdependence between teachers and students, Western cultures prior independent
2005; Chen et al., 2017). Thus, teacher-student relationships are perceived with more closeness and less conflict in Eastern countries compared to Western countries (Aldridge & Fraser, 1999; Acar et al., 2019; Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005; Chen et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2018). However, cross-cultural differences on teacher-student relationships have not yet been investigated based on nonverbal measures. In the present study, we therefore examined possible differences in the relationship drawings of Chinese and Dutch children. To further investigate the validity of drawings as a measure of TSR perceptions, we also studied the cultural differences in the agreement between relationship drawings and a verbal measure of children’s perceptions. In addition, we analyzed the cross-cultural differences in the agreement between nonverbal children’s relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of TSRs.
Developmental System Theory
Developmental system theory (DST; Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003) has often been used to study TSRs. According to DST, the development of TSRs is affected by external influences such as the cultures in which the relationships of students and teachers develop. Culture considers the values and general norms that shape any social relationships. The differences in values and norms between groups have inspired the theoretical distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980), which is useful to understand the differences among the affective quality of the relationships in Eastern and Western countries. According to Hofstede and McCrae (2004), whereas Western countries emphasize the degree of autonomy of each person based upon weak ties among individuals, Eastern countries emphasize social integration of cohesive in-groups with a high interdependence among individuals. Thus, the stability of the relationships is a primary concern of collectivistic cultures, that avoid conflict through mediation strategies, such as obedience and respect to the authority (Triandis, 2001). Conversely, the
primary concern of individualistic cultures is achieving justice, so conflict is assumed as a way to resolve disputes within a relationship. Therefore, based on this individualistic/collectivistic
distinction, we expected that conflict would be more present in teacher-student relationship perceptions in individualistic countries compared to collectivistic countries, whereas closeness is expected to be more prominent in the relationship perceptions in collectivistic countries.
Besides the general framework for the cross-cultural analysis, the concept of mental
representations plays a central role in the DST (Pianta et al., 2003). Mental representations refer to a person’s feelings, ideas, thoughts, and emotions about him/herself (e.g., student), their relationship partner (e.g., the teacher), and their mutual relationships (Pianta et al., 2003). Teachers’ and students’ mental representations of their mutual relationships are formed by their own relational histories such as family relationships and previous social experiences in the classroom. Because these relational histories are different for students than for teachers, their mental representations may also differ and, hence, teachers’ and students’ reports about their mutual relationships may also be different. Most of the research on teachers’ mental
representations of TSRs has distinguished between positive and negative dimensions of the relationships. The positive dimension, called closeness, refers to the degree of warmth, support and openness in the teacher-student relationships (Pianta, 2001; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). The negative dimension, namely conflict, refers to the degree of discordance, lack of rapport and coercion in the teacher-student dyad (Pianta, 2001; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Also, a third dimension of dependency has been often distinguished as a negative aspect of the relationships, however, it was not included in the present study.
Measuring Young Children´s Relationships Perceptions in a Nonverbal way
Young children’s perceptions about teacher-child relationships have been mostly studied through verbal measures that rely on abstract comprehension of questions and statements (Harrison Clarke & Ungerer, 2007; Murray, Murray & Waas, 2008; Valeski & Stipek, 2001). However, due to developmental factors, young children may have difficulties to understand verbal
statements and maintain their attention on them (Irwin, 1985). In addition, these verbal
instruments are usually based on Likert-scales, and 5 to 6-year-old children tend to answer at the extremes of this kind of scales because they are likely to have a more global or unidimensional self-concepts (Chambers & Johnston, 2002; Hughes, 2011). In order to overcome these limitations related to age, Harrison et al. (2007) proposed the use of children’s drawings as a measure of young children’s perceptions of TSRs, similarly than Fury, Carlson and Sroufe (1997) had previously done to assess parent-child relationships. Compared to verbal methods, drawings do not require abstract understanding of language, and they are commonly used by children between 5 and 11 years old as a way to express their feelings, thoughts and emotions (Fury et al., 1997). In addition, the coding system of the relationship drawings contains more dimensions than
questionnaires, so they might be more suitable to describe TSRs with more completion and details. The drawing coding system measures eight dimensions of the affective quality of TSRs (Harrison et al., 2007). This coding system contains two positive dimensions: Vitality-creativity, which measures the degree of emotional investment in the drawings, and pride-happiness, which measures the positive emotional connectedness of the student with the teacher. In the present study, the only positive dimension of children’s perceptions we analyzed was pride/happiness because it is more theoretically related with teachers’ perceptions of closeness than vitality-creativity. Children’s drawings expressing pride/happiness in their relationships show happy
figures of teachers and students, who appear to be enjoying activities together and sometimes, holding their hands. In addition, the coding system contains six negative dimensions.
Anger/tension indicates the child’s negative feelings concerning his/her relationships with a teacher , which can be observed in the drawings by negative facial expressions, absence of colors, rigid and constricted figures, false start or carelessness. This dimension is most closely related with teachers’ perceptions of conflict; hence, it was selected in the present study leaving out the bizarreness-dissociation dimension. The other 3 negative dimensions of the coding system are:
vulnerability, emotional distance, and role reversal. Finally, the coding system has a summary rating, called global pathology, which measures how the child feels in the relationship with his/her teacher. However, we only analyzed pride/happiness and anger/tension in order to measure
children’s nonverbal perceptions of their relationships with their teachers.
Two empirical studies have used drawings as a nonverbal measure of children’s perceptions of their relationships with teachers. Harrison et al. (2007) investigated the validity of the drawings to assess children’s perceptions of TSRs among children aged 5 years old. For this purpose, these authors computed a composite score of relational negativities, which included five dimensions of the drawing coding system: pride/happiness (reversed), emotional distance, anger-tension,
bizarreness/dissociation, and global pathology. Harrison et al. (2007) also used a questionnaire to measure children’s verbal perceptions and analyzed the association between its results and the relational negativity in the drawings. The results showed a moderate negative association (r = -.44) between children’s perceptions of relational negativity and children’s verbal perceptions of teacher acceptance. Later, McGrath et al. (2017) were able to distinguish between the eight dimensions of the drawing coding system among children from six kindergartens in Sydney, Australia. This study provided further evidence of the validity of the drawing coding system to measure children’s perceptions, even though it did not measure children’s verbal perceptions. Thus, further analysis is needed to validate drawings as a nonverbal measure of children’s
perceptions, comparing their results with verbal measures and analyzing them in different cultural contexts.
Differences in Teachers’ and Students’ Relationship Perceptions
The degree of convergence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of teacher-student relationships have been studied in several researches. For example, Koomen and Jellesma (2015) analyzed the agreement between students’ and teachers’ reports of their mutual relationships
among students from grade 4, 5 and 6 and their regular teachers. The authors found that
agreement between teachers’ and students’ perceptions was stronger for conflict (r = .59) than for closeness (r = .38). In another study, with third and fourth graders, both teachers and students reported about their perceptions of teacher-student support (Hughes, 2011). Again, the authors found that students’ and teachers’ perceptions of conflict were significantly related (r = .43), whereas teachers’ and children’s reports of teacher-support did not have a significant association. Some studies analyzed the agreement between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of their mutual relationships focusing in younger children. For example, Mantzicopoulos and Neuharth-Pritchett (2003) studied the associations between teachers’ and children’s perceptions of their mutual relationships to validate a new instrument adapted to young children from head start to first grade. The results showed that warmth/support dimension of children’s perceptions was associated with teachers’ perceptions of security among kindergarteners (r = .23) and first graders (r = .27) and with teacher perceptions of improvement also among kindergarteners (r = .27) and first graders (r = .18). However, children’s perceptions of autonomy and conflict was not significantly related with none of the dimensions of teachers’ perceptions. Continuing with the analysis of young children’s perceptions of TSRs, Spilt, Koomen and Mantzicopoulos (2010) also studied the agreement between teachers and children reports of their mutual relationship among
kindergarteners. The authors found that children’s perceptions of warmth and conflict were associated with teachers’ report of closeness (r = .22) and conflict (r = .17)., respectively. In addition, children’s perceptions of autonomy were also associated with teachers’ perceptions of closeness (r = .25).
Finally, Harrison et al. (2007) analyzed the agreement between kindergarteners’ nonverbal relationship perceptions, measured by drawings, and teachers’ relationship perceptions. The authors found that teachers’ report of conflict was significantly associated with the relational negativity of children’s drawings (r = .28) whereas closeness obtained a significant negative
association with drawings’ relational negativity (r = -.28). This is the only study that analyzed the agreement between nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions, and it only analyzed one cultural context, Australia. Thus, the present study provided further analyses of the agreement between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions. By comparing its results in different cultural contexts, this work also collaborated in the validation process of the relationship drawings as a cross-cultural measure of young children’s relationship perceptions.
Cross- Cultural Differences in Teacher-Student Relationships
A few studies have examined the cross-cultural differences in teacher-student relationships, comparing teachers’ perception of closeness and conflict between Western and non-Western countries. For example, Beyazkurk and Kesner (2005) compared American and Turkish teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with six-year-old children average. They found that Turkish teachers perceived significantly more closeness in their relationships with students, compared to American teachers. However, this study did not find significant differences between USA and Turkey in the amount of perceived conflict in teacher-student’s relationships.In another study, teachers in Turkey and USA reported about their relationships with preschoolers (Acar et al., 2019). The authors found that Turkish teachers perceived significantly less conflict than American teachers, whereas no significant differences were found in teachers’ perceptions of closeness between the two countries.Some studies also analyzed cross-cultural differences in students’ perceptions of teacher-student’s relationships. For instance, Yang et al. (2013) analyzed students’ perceptions of positive teacher-student relationships in China and USA among elementary, middle, and high school students. The results showed that Chinese students perceived
significantly more positive teacher-student relationships than American students. Bear et al (2014) carried out a similar study in elementary, middle, and high schools comparing students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their positive relationships in China and USA. The authors showed that in
elementary school, students’ perceptions of TSRs did not have significant differences, whereas teachers’ perceptions did obtain significant differences, with less favorable Chinese teachers’ perceptions compared to American teachers.
Finally, in a recent study (Chen et al., 2019) upper elementary students and their teachers from China and the Netherlands reported about their mutual relationships. The results showed that Chinese students reported more closeness and less conflict in their relationships with teachers than Dutch students. Chinese teachers also experienced less conflict with their students than Dutch teachers, whereas no differences were found on teachers’ perceptions of closeness. In addition, Chen at al. (2019) found higher degree of agreement between children’s and teachers’ perceptions of closeness among the Chinese group (r = .36), comparing to the Dutch teacher-student dyad (r =.15). However, teachers’ and students’ perceptions of conflict obtained lower degree of
agreement among Chinese dyads (r = .17) compared to the Dutch group (r = .42). Considering all these findings, the present study incorporated two new elements to the cross-cultural research of student-teacher relationships: the analysis of young children’s relationship perceptions, and the use of children’s drawings as a nonverbal measure of them.
The Present Study
This study analyzed kindergarteners’ and first graders’ nonverbal perceptions of their relationships with their teachers in two different cultural contexts: China and the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to analyze the validity of children’s drawings as a way to measure young children’s perceptions of two dimensions: pride/happiness and anger/tension. Thus, we analyzed these drawings dimensions in the Netherlands and China, comparing the degree of agreement of the nonverbal perceptions with children’s verbal relationship perceptions and with teachers’ relationship perceptions. For that purpose, we answered the following three research questions:
Research question 1: Are there differences between children from China and the Netherlands in their nonverbal perceptions of their relationships with teachers?
Based on previous research with verbal measures (Acar et al., 2019; Bear et al., 2014; Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005; Chen et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2013), we expected that Chinese children’s drawings would contain more indications of pride/happiness and less indications of anger/tension than Dutch children’s drawings.
Research question 2: Are there cross- cultural differences in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal and verbal perceptions of their affective relationships with teachers?
Based on Harrison et al. (2007) we expected a moderate agreement between children’s verbal and nonverbal perceptions of their relationships with teachers among the Dutch sample. Thus, we anticipated a moderate agreement between children’s perceptions of warmth and pride/happiness, and between children’s perceptions of conflict and anger/tension. However, due to a lack of previous studies, we could not make any hypothesis related to the Chinese sample, and about the cross-cultural differences in degree of agreement between verbal and nonverbal
relationship perceptions.
Research question 3: Are there cross-cultural differences in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with children?
Based on research with verbal measures (Chen et al., 2019), we hypothesized that Chinese children’s nonverbal perceptions of pride/ happiness and teachers’ perceptions of closeness would have a larger degree of agreement compared to Dutch teacher-child dyads. However, we expected that Chinese children’s nonverbal perceptions of anger/tension and teachers’ perceptions of conflict would have a lower degree of agreement compared to Dutch teacher-child dyads.
Method
Participants
The Dutch sample consisted of 111 children (53.2% boys; 46.8% girls) from 25 classrooms in 12 schools along the Netherlands. Children were either in kindergarten (82.9%) or in first grade (17.1%) and were on average 5.50 years old (SD = 0.70; range = 4 to 7 years). According to teachers, most of the children in the Dutch sample had a Dutch background (76.5%). The rest of the children (23.5%) had a background from different cultural minorities (such as Moroccan, Arabic, Syrian, among others). The Dutch sample also included 24 teachers (100 % female). Most of the Dutch teachers worked five days (58.3%) or four days (25%) a week. The Dutch teachers had on average 16.79 years of teaching experience (SD = 13.33; range = 3 to 40 years).
The Chinese sample consisted of 89 children (51.7% boys; 48.3% girls) from 19 classes in 3 schools of two regions: Lishui (70.8%) and Wenxi County (29.2%). Students were either in second year (36%) and third year (64 %) of kindergarten and were on average 5.57 years old (SD = 0.50; range = 5 to 6 years). According to teachers, all the Chinese children had a Chinese background (100%). Chinese sample also included 19 teachers (100 % female). All the Chinese teachers worked five days (100 %) a week. Chinese teachers had on average 10.47 years of teaching experience (SD = 5.15; range = 4 to 25 years).
Procedure
The data collection in the Netherlands was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Amsterdam (file number: 2018-CDE-9440). As there is no official ethical
committee in China, an independent senior researcher reviewed the proposal and agreed that the data collection procedure matched the laws and rules in China. Schools in both countries were invited via telephone or e-mail to participate in the present study. If schools agreed to participate, kindergarten teachers and first grade teachers received information letters about the aim of the
study and were asked whether they were willing to participate. If teachers agreed to participate, children’s parents received an information letter via email. In the Netherlands, parents were asked to provide active consent for their child’s participation. In China, parents got the opportunity to object to their child’s participation (passive consent). For the present study, only children for whom coded drawings were available were selected for participation.
Data collection took place between February and June 2019. Children completed the relationship drawings in a small group outside the classroom. The verbal measure of children’s relationship perceptions was completed individually and outside the classroom. Both the drawings and the verbal measure were completed at the same day. The drawings took 10 minutes to
complete and the administration time for the verbal measure was 15 minutes on average.
Both Dutch and Chinese teachers reported about the quality of their relationship with 1 to 12 children in their classroom. Dutch teachers answered the questions online, whereas Chinese teachers completed the questionnaires on paper. The questionnaire took approximately 10 to 40 minutes to complete, depending on the number of children for whom the teachers completed the questionnaire. Teacher reports were available for 102 Dutch children (52.9 % boys, 47.1 % girls) and for 38 Chinese children (55.3% boys, 44.7% girls).
Measures
Children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions. Children’s nonverbal relationship
perceptions were measured with relationship drawings. Children were asked to draw themselves with their teachers on a standard sheet of white paper (A4). Children could use all the drawing materials they wanted, such as pencils and crayons of different colors. Children did not receive any more guidelines for their drawings than simple ‘Please, draw yourself and your teacher on this paper’ and they were not allowed to see other children´s work. When they finished, they indicated to the assistant who was whom in the drawings.
Drawings were coded with the coding manual (Zee & Roorda, 2019) by two independent coders, who previously participated in a training session of two hours. Before the training session, the research assistants coded six drawings, writing down the reasons of the score given. During the training, the lecturer exposed a presentation with the main guidelines, and the coded drawings were discussed. Drawings were coded on eight subscales (Zee & Roorda, 2019). For the present study, only the subscales Pride/Happiness and Anger/Tension were relevant (see Table 1 for a description of these subscales). All subscales were coded on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (very high) to 7 (very low).
Previous studies found support for the reliability and validity of the relationship drawings as a way to measure young children’s perceptions of their relationships with teachers (Harrison et al., 2007; McGrath et al., 2017).In the present study, all drawings were double coded by a research master student and a Chinese researcher. The intraclass correlations for the interrater reliability were .78 and .67 for Pride/Happiness, .87 and .60 for Anger/Tension, for the Dutch and Chinese sample, respectively.
Table 1
Description of the Relationship Drawings subscales of Pride/Happiness and Anger/Tension Subscale Description High Rating Low Rating
Pride/ Happiness Student’s feelings of emotional connection with his/her teacher, security and enjoyment in the relationships
Figures with positive facial expressions, usually doing something fun together.
Figures have neutral or negative facial
expressions. Student and teacher do not have any contact. Colorless and chaotic drawings. Anger/ Tension The degree of negative emotions, anger, aggression, or frustrations in the drawing
Rigid figures with angry facial expressions. General impression is tense, with false starts, scratches, or broken lines
Drawings do not have a tense appearance, and they are animated and colorful.
Children’s verbal relationship perceptions. To measure children’s verbal relationship perceptions, the Warmth and Conflict subscales of the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support were used (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003; Spilt et al., 2010). The Warmth subscale (10 items) measures the degree of teacher support and acceptance perceived by the child in his/her relationships with the teacher, such as “Miss….likes you” and “Miss….tells you you’re smart”. The Conflict subscale (10 items) refers to the degree of negativity, tension and anger in the relationship with the teacher, such as “Miss….often says that you are bad” and “ Miss …easily gets angry with you”. Each item was presented on small cards and was read to the child
by the examiner. The child should put the card in a mailbox, if he/she felt that the statement was true (coded as 2), or in a trashcan if he/she felt that the item was false (coded as 1).
Previous research has supported the reliability and validity of the Y-CATS in American and Dutch contexts (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003 Spilt et al., 2010). For the Chinese sample, the Y-CATS was translated with back-translation procedure. In the present study Cronbach’s alpha were .33 for Warmth and .78 for Conflict in the Dutch sample, and .64 for Warmth and .60 for Conflict in the Chinese sample.
Teachers’ relationship perceptions. Teachers reported about their relationships with individual children on the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001). The STRS has three subscales to measure the affective quality of TSRs: Closeness, Conflict, and
Dependency. However, Dependency was leaved out from the present study due to its lack of directed relationship with the relationship drawings dimensions, and due to its validity problems when using it with young children (Doumen et al., 2009). The Closeness subscale (5 items) refers to the degree of warmth, teacher support, open communication, and trust in the relationships, with statements such as “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child” and “This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me”. The Conflict subscale (5 items) refers to the degree of tension, anger and negativity between teacher and student, with statements such as “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other” and “This child feels that I treat him/her unfairly”. Teachers indicated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, varying from 1 (definitively does not apply) to 5 (definitively applies).
Previous research has supported the reliability and validity of the short versions of the Dutch STRS and of the Chinese translation of the STRS (Chen et al., 2017; Koomen et al., 2012; Zhang, 2010). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for Closeness and .79 for Conflict in the Dutch sample, and .74 for Closeness and .84 for Conflict in the Chinese sample.
Analyses
The analyses were conducted with SPSS version 26. To investigate whether there are differences between students from China and the Netherlands in their nonverbal relationship perceptions (research question 1), two independent-samples t-tests were used. In these t-tests, Country (0 = Netherlands, 1 = China) was the independent variable and Pride/Happiness and Anger/Tension were the dependent variables.
To examine whether there are cross- cultural differences in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal and verbal relationship perceptions (research question 2), two Pearson’s bivariate correlations (r) were calculated separately for the Dutch and Chinese sample, that is, the correlation between Pride/Happiness and Warmth and between Anger/Tension and Conflict. Subsequently, two t-tests for comparison of correlations (http://vassarstats.net/rdiff.html) were conducted to test whether the strength of correlations differed across countries.
Finally, to examine whether there are cross-cultural differences in the degree of
convergence between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions (research question 3), Pearson’s bivariate correlations (r) were calculated separately for the Dutch and Chinese sample, that is, the correlation between Pride/Happiness and Closeness, and between Anger/Tension and Conflict. Subsequently, two t-tests for comparison of correlations
(http://vassarstats.net/rdiff.html) were conducted to test whether the strength of correlations differed across countries.
Results
Cultural Differences in Children’s Nonverbal Relationship Perceptions
Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations for children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions, separately for the Dutch and Chinese sample. The independent-samples t-test for Pride/Happiness was significant, t (198.86) = -5.88, p < .001. The drawings of the Chinese
children showed more indications of pride/happiness (M = 5.28, SD = 0.86) than the drawings of the Dutch children (M = 4.50, SD = 1.04). Furthermore, the independent-samples t-test for Anger/Tension was significant, t (197.51) = 5.23, p < .001. The drawings of the Chinese children showed less indications of anger/ tension (M = 2.13, SD = 0.81) than the drawings of the Dutch children (M = 2.88, SD = 1.01)
Table 2
Means (standard deviations) and ranges of children’s nonverbal and verbal relationship perceptions, and teachers’ relationship perceptions for the Dutch and Chinese samples
Dutch Chinese
Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range
Pride/Happiness 4.50 (1.04) 2.00, 6.50 5.28 (0.85) 2.50, 7.00 Anger/Tension 2.88 (1.01) 1.00, 6.00 2.13 (0.81) 1.00, 5.00 Warmth 1.91 (0.11) 1.50, 2.00 1.18 (0.18) 1.00, 1.80 Conflict-C 1.24 (0.24) 1.00, 2.00 1.68 (0.20) 1.00, 2.00 Closeness 4.43 (0.62) 2.80, 5.00 4.24 (0.60) 2.80, 5.00 Conflict-T 1.54 (0.69) 1.00, 4.00 1.76 (0.76) 1.00, 3.80 Note: Conflict-C = children’s verbal relationship perceptions of conflict. Conflict-T = teachers’ relationship perceptions of conflict.
Cultural Differences in the Agreement Between Nonverbal and Verbal Relationship Perceptions
In Table 3, the correlations between children’s nonverbal and verbal relationship
perceptions can be found, separately for the Dutch and Chinese sample. The t-test for comparison of correlations indicated that the difference in the association between Pride/Happiness and Warmth across countries was marginally significant, Z = 1.74, p = .082. The correlation between
Pride/Happiness and Warmth was significant and negative in the Chinese sample (r = -.27, p = .011), whereas it was not significant in the Dutch sample (r = -.02, p = .831).
The t-test for comparison of correlations showed that the association between Anger/Tension and Conflict significantly differed across countries Z = 2.16, p = .036. The
correlation between Anger/Tension and Conflict was significant and positive in the Dutch sample (r = .20, p = .043), whereas it was not significant in the Chinese sample (r = -.11, p = .314).
Table 3
Correlations between children’s nonverbal and verbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ relationship perceptions for the Dutch and Chinese samples
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Pride/Happiness - -.89** -.02 - .24* .20* -.12 2. Anger/Tension -.83** - .04 .20* -.24* .14 3. Warmth -.27* .20 - -.19* .10 -.31 4. Conflict-C .18 -.11 -.21* - -.07 .18 5. Closeness -.10 -.14 .10 .18 - -.19 6. Conflict-T .21 -.04 -.01 -.37* -.30 -
Note. * p <.05, ** p < .01. Correlations for the Dutch sample are above the diagonal; correlations for the Chinese sample are below the diagonal.
Cultural Differences in the Agreement between Children’s and Teachers’ Relationship Perceptions
Table 3 provides the correlations between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ relationship perceptions, separately for the Dutch and Chinese sample. The t-test for comparison of correlations indicated that the association between Pride/Happiness and Closeness did not significantly differ across countries, Z = 1.49, p = .136 (see Table 3). The t-test for comparison of correlations between Anger/Tension and Conflict was also not significant, Z =
0.20, p = .407. Thus, there appeared to be no significant differences between the Dutch and Chinese sample in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ relationship perceptions.
Discussion
The present study used teacher-child relationship drawings to measure young children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions in classrooms from Dutch and Chinese samples. First, we investigated whether there were differences in children’s nonverbal perceptions of pride/happiness and anger/tension between the two countries. Second, in order to get some indications of the validity of the relationship drawings as a measure of TSRs, we examined cross-cultural
differences in the degree of convergence between children’s nonverbal and verbal perceptions, and between children’s nonverbal perceptions and teachers’ relationship perceptions.
Cross-Cultural Differences in Children’s Nonverbal Relationship Perceptions
In line with our expectations (Chen et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2013), the results showed that Chinese children expressed more pride/happiness and less anger/tension in their relationship drawings than Dutch children. As such, the present study confirmed the findings from studies with older children and their verbal relationship perceptions (Chen et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2013). More specifically, these studies also found that children in collectivistic countries experience higher levels of teacher support, warmth, open communication and enjoyment (closeness and pride/happiness) and less discordance, coercion and negative feelings (anger/tension and conflict) with their teachers compared to children in individualistic countries. Therefore, the present study reinforces these previous findings as the same cross-cultural differences were found among younger children and using nonverbal measures. Hence, cross-cultural differences in TSRs appeared to be present earlier than previous studies have showed, even in the beginning of the school life.
Therefore, future studies should take the cultural context into account when they examine young children’s relationship perceptions, and they might not simply generalize their findings. For school practice, these findings mean that interventions focusing on relationships between teachers and young children developed in Western contexts, such as the Relationship-focused reflection program (Spilt et al., 2011) or Banking Time (Driscoll & Pianta, 2010) cannot be literally applied in different cultural settings. Indeed, the aims of the relationships-focused interventions may differ in each cultural context. For example, a relationship - focused intervention to promote warmth and support such as RFRP might not be needed in China, and if so, the teacher-coaching should be adapted to Chinese cultural features, such as the different interpretation of conflict within the relationships. Thus, further research should study how adapt or change these kinds of relationship-focused interventions to be applied in China or other non-Western countries.
Cultural Differences in the Agreement between Nonverbal and Verbal Relationship Perceptions
Due to the lack of studies about the convergence between children’s verbal and nonverbal relationship perceptions in Eastern contexts, we were only able to formulate hypotheses for the Dutch sample (Harrison et al., 2007). In line with the findings of Harrison et al. (2007), there was some agreement in children’s nonverbal and verbal relationship perceptions in the Dutch sample. More specifically, children nonverbal perceptions of anger/tension were associated with verbal reports of conflict, even though this degree of agreement appeared to be weaker than in Harrison et al. (2007). Interestingly, in the Dutch sample, the verbal report of conflict was associated with both nonverbal dimensions: anger/tension and pride/happiness. However, there was no agreement at all between nonverbal perceptions of anger/tension and verbal report of conflict in the Chinese sample. Chinese children might have difficulties to answer statements about conflict because it is less accepted in collectivistic countries as conflict threatens teachers’ authority (Bear et al., 2014). In addition, children’s verbal perceptions might be more permeated by cultural values and norms
than nonverbal relationship perceptions. Indeed, verbal statements might be interpreted by children through their cultural background, whereas the relationship drawings did not require children’s interpretation that may result in a lack of agreement. Conversely, in the Netherlands conflict is more accepted and, therefore, children might find easier to answer and understand statements about it. Hence, more agreement between verbal and nonverbal perceptions of anger/tension and conflict, respectively, was found in the Dutch sample. Conflict was even also negatively related to pride/happiness, showing a convergent validity of this dimension in the Netherlands. Due to the lack of agreement of the negative dimensions in the Chinese sample, we suggest the use of interviews together with classroom observations, in order to confirm and understand the possible reasons of the Chinese children’s difficulties to deal with perceptions of conflict in their relationships with teachers. In addition, it is especially important to include both verbal and nonverbal perceptions when studying children’s perceptions of conflict in China, as these measures may provide a different view of the relationships with teachers.
Differently from conflict, the agreement between children’s nonverbal perceptions of pride/happiness and verbal perceptions of warmth was there for China, not for the Netherlands. Unexpectedly, there was a negative association between pride/happiness and warmth in the Chinese sample. A methodological problem in the construction of the Warmth subscale, either in the Dutch and Chinese sample, may explain these results. First, in the Dutch sample, this subscale obtained a low reliability (.33), showing a problem of internal consistency. Second, in the Chinese sample, the negative association implicates that the greater was the children’s agreement with the statements about closeness and support with their teachers (warmth), the lower were children’s feelings of belongness, happiness and support (pride/happiness) represented in the relationship drawings. Thus, it might be a convergent validity problem of the measures for the Chinese sample that should be invetigated in further research, comparing the results of the relationship drawings and verbal measures with other possible measures of TSRs, such as teachers’ reports of
or observational measures of teacher-child relationship quality. In addition, the warmth subscale should be improved for the Dutch sample, and further research is needed then to find out whether there is still a lack agreement between children’s nonverbal and verbal perceptions.
Furthermore, it should be remarked the fact that children’s nonverbal and verbal perceptions, either positive or negative, obtained, at best, only a moderate association in both samples. Thus, relationship drawings may express different perceptions that are not contemplated in the verbal measure. However, as the present study is, as far as we know, the second to analyze the degree of convergence between children’s verbal and nonverbal relationship perceptions, more research may continue investigating the validity of the relationships drawings, comparing their agreement with other possible verbal measures (Spilt et al., 2010) in different cultural contexts.
Cultural Differences in the Agreement Between Children’s Nonverbal Perceptions and Teachers’ Perceptions
Unexpectedly and in contrast with the study of Chen et al. (2019), there was no agreement at all between children’s nonverbal relationship perceptions and teachers’ perceptions, neither in China nor in The Netherlands, so no cross-cultural differences were found. The younger age of the children and the use of a nonverbal measure distinguished the present study from the study of Chen et al. (2019), and these differences may explain the lack of agreement between children’s and teachers’ perceptions. Therefore, future research should find out which one is the most likely explanation. For this purpose, we suggest the analysis of nonverbal relationship perceptions among older children through relationship drawings.
In addition, differently than in the study of Chen et al. (2019), the present study compared two kinds of measures in children and teachers, verbal and nonverbal, which might also influence in the lack of agreement. Therefore, another measure of teachers’ perceptions might be used in further research. For example, similarly to what the relationship drawings do with children’s
relationship perceptions, the Teacher Relationship Interview (TRI; Pianta,1999) was used to elicit teachers’ representations of their relationships, with more freedom of expression than
questionnaires. In addition, like the relationship drawings, teachers’ narratives obtained through the TRI were coded through a flexible scoring system (Pianta, 1999). Therefore, the TRI might be considered a nonverbal measure of teachers’ perceptions and could be used in future research to find out whether there is some agreement between children’s and teachers’ nonverbal perceptions.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
There are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of the present study. First, we were not able to control for the nested structure of the data because several classrooms contained data for one child only. Thus, future research should consider a minimum number of children per classroom in its design, in order to conduct a hierarchical linear model. This statistical analysis would make possible to account for potential dependent perceptions about TSRs that children from the same class might have.
Second, the relatively small sample of children and teachers may restrict the generalizability of these results to larger populations. For example, the present study did not include enough teachers and children with diverse ethnicity backgrounds in The Netherlands, considering the multicultural feature of this society, or from other regions in China, considering that only two regions of this large country were included . Therefore, future studies are encouraged to have larger sample of teachers and children, to investigate whether our findings are generalizable to all other regions and ethnical groups in China and The Netherlands, respectively.
Finally, the warmth subscale of the children’s verbal measure obtained a low reliability among the Dutch sample, which, fortunately, only limit the findings of one research question concerning the agreement between children´s verbal and nonverbal positive perceptions. Therefore, further
research might improve the warmth subscale of the verbal measure to be used with young children.
Conclusion
Relationship drawings of Chinese children in kindergarten expressed more pride and happiness and less anger and tension in their relationships with teachers than the drawings of their Dutch counterparts. Therefore, we might affirm that there are cross-cultural differences at the beginning of the school life, earlier than previous studies have already showed. Hence, the
relationship-focused interventions for young children planned for individualistic countries should not be literally applied in collectivistic countries, and a cultural adaption of the interventions is needed. Furthermore, when looking into the agreement between children’s nonverbal and verbal perceptions, we also found cross-cultural differences. Indeed, the positive dimensions
(pride/happiness and warmth) were only associated in the Chinese sample, whereas the negative dimensions (anger/tension and conflict) only agreed in the Dutch sample. Therefore, future research should incorporate both verbal and nonverbal perceptions to analyze young children’s perceptions of their relationship with teachers, as they might provide a different view of these relationships. This should be done especially for the analysis of children’s negative perceptions in China, considering the difficulties that these children might have to understand the statements about conflict. Finally,there were no cross-cultural differences in the agreement between children’s nonverbal perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of their mutual relationship.
Unexpectedly, there was no agreement at all, neither in China nor in The Netherlands. The young age of the children or the use of nonverbal measures are both likely explanations of the lack of agreement, that should be investigated in further research.
This study was the first one to make a cross-cultural comparison of children’s nonverbal perceptions of TSRs through the relationship drawings. However, future research should continue
investigating the validity of the relationship drawings, considering the lack or low agreement of children’s nonverbal perceptions with teachers’ and children’s verbal perceptions.
References
Acar, I. H., Veziroglu-Celik, M., Garcia, A., Colgrove, A., Raikes, H., Gönen, M., & Encinger, A. (2019). The Qualities of Teacher–Child Relationships and Self-Regulation of Children at Risk in the United States and Turkey: The Moderating Role of Gender. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(1), 75–84. doi:10.1007/s10643-018-0893-y
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101–134.
doi:10.1023/A:1026599727439
Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Glutting, J., Huang, X., He, X., Zhang, W., & Chen, D. (2014).
Understanding Teacher-Student Relationships, Student-Student Relationships, and Conduct Problems in China and the United States. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 2(4), 247–260. doi:10.1080/21683603.2014.883342
Beyazkurk, D., & Kesner, J. E. (2005). Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United States schools: A cross-cultural study. International Education Journal, 6(5), 547–554. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ855008
Chambers, C. T., & Johnston, C. (2002). Developmental differences in children’s use of rating scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 27–36. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.27
Chen, M., Zee, M., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Roorda, D. L. (2019). Understanding cross-cultural differences in affective teacher-student relationships: A comparison between Dutch and Chinese primary school teachers and students. Journal of School Psychology, 76(7), 89– 106. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.011
Doumen, S. (2009). Further Examination of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Infant and Child Development, 18(6), 238–254. doi:10.1002/icd
Driscoll, K. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Banking time in head start: Early efficacy of an
intervention designed to promote supportive teacher-child relationships. Early Education and Development, 21(1), 38–64. doi:10.1080/10409280802657449
Fury, G., Carlson, E. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Children’s representations of attachment relationships in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 1154–1164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01991.x
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(2), 625–638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Harrison, L. J., Clarke, L., & Ungerer, J. A. (2007). Children’s drawings provide a new
perspective on teacher-child relationship quality and school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 55–71. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.10.003
Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-student relationship qualities on academic adjustment. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 38– 60. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hughes, J. N. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and school adjustment: Progress and remaining challenges. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 319–327. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672288
Hui, E. K. P., Sun, R. C. F., Chow, S. S. Y., & Chu, M. H. T. (2011). Explaining Chinese
students’ academic motivation: Filial piety and self-determination. Educational Psychology, 31, 377–392. doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.559309
Irwin, E. C. (1985). Puppets in therapy: An assessment procedure. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 39, 389- 399. doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1985.39.3.389
Jia, Y., Ling, G., Chen, X., Ke, X., Way, N., Hughes, D., … Lu, Z. (2018). The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents, Child Development, 80(5), 1514–1530. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01348.x
Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jellesma, F. C. (2015). Can closeness, conflict, and dependency be used to characterize students’ perceptions of the affective relationship with their teacher? Testing a new child measure in middle childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 479–497. doi:10.1111/bjep.12094
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Chiu, M. M. (2016). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ externalizing behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(8), 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01311.
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Chiu, M. M. (2018). The relationship between teacher support and students' academic emotions: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,1–12.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02288.
Mantzicopoulos, P., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2003). Development and validation of a measure to assess head start children’s appraisals of teacher support. Journal of School Psychology, 41(6), 431–451.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.08.002
McGrath, K., Bergen, P., Sweller, N. (2017). Adding color to conflict: Disruptive student’s drawings of themselves with their teachers. The Elementary school journal,117, 642- 663. doi:10.1086/691567
Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher– student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29,49−61.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.006
Pianta, R. C. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 15–31. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(94)90026-4
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Assessing child-teacher relationships. Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 85-104. doi:10.1037/10314-005
Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. Handbook of psychology, 7, 199–234. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei0710
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261.
doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A
meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. doi:10.3102/0034654311421793
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (2010). Young children’s perceptions of teacher-child relationships: An evaluation of two instruments and the role of child gender in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 428–438.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.006
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Thijs, J. T., & van der Leij, A. (2012). Supporting teachers’ relationships with disruptive children: The potential of relationship-focused reflection. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 305–318. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672286
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34(4), 363– 374. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.11.004
Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. J. (2001). Young children’ s feelings about school. Child Development 72(4), 1198–1213. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00342
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205–211.
doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672260
Yang, C., Bear, G. G., Chen, F. F., Zhang, W., Blank, J. C., & Huang, X. (2013). Students’ perceptions of school climate in the U.S. and China. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 7– 24. doi:10.1037/spq0000002
Zee, M., Roorda, D. (2019). Coding manual student-teacher relationship drawings.Unpublished manuscript, Department of Developmental Disorders and Special Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
