Classroom management styles and teacher - Student relationship congruency: its influence on student learning outcomes

Ss of the teachers as 
perceived by the students and teachers 
themselves. It can be gleaned from the table 
that 700 or 39% are utilizing authoritarian 
style, 364 or 20.28% are users of eclectic 
style, 336 or 18.72% have democratic style, 
268 or 14.93% are utilizing autocratic style 
and 127 or 7.08% are using laissez faire. The 
highest use of authoritarian style by the 
teachers indicates they have high expectations 
of appropriate behavior, they have clear 
statements about why certain behaviors are 
acceptable and others are not acceptable, and 
they have warm student-teacher relationships. 
The finding also implies that TNU teachers 
place limits and controls on the students but 
simultaneously encourage independence. The 
authoritarian style relates well with the 
assertion of [7] whose belief suggests that 
students will support rules they establish as 
they have a sense of ownership on them. For 
an effective teacher, authoritative style can 
produce socially competent and responsible 
students. Whereas, low frequency on the use 
of laissez faire by the teachers suggests that 
both the teachers and students believe that 
this classroom management style is not 
adopted by the teachers. The teachers do not 
just accept the students‟ impulses and actions 
because they are more likely to monitor their 
behavior. They do not find difficulty saying 
no or enforcing rules in the classroom. When 
a student interrupts a lecture, the teacher 
accepts the interruption with the belief that 
the student must surely have something 
valuable to add. 
Table 1. Frequency and percentage distribution of CMSs of teachers as perceived by the students and 
teachers themselves 
Classroom Management Style 
Teachers Students and Teachers Total 
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 
Authoritarian 52 56.40 648 38.05 700 39.00 
Autocratic 1 0.01 267 15.68 268 14.93 
Democratic 15 16.85 321 18.85 336 18.72 
Laissez-Faire 3 3.50 124 7.28 127 7.08 
Eclectic 21 23.30 343 20.14 364 20.28 
Total 92 100 1,703 100 1795 100 
Table 2. Comparison between the assessments of the teachers and students on the teachers’ CMSs 
Group Mean SD Std. Error of Difference t-value Probability 
Teachers 35.38 5.493 
0.582 4.104** 0.000 
Students 37.77 4.230 
** = significant at .01 level 
It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference in the assessment of the teachers and 
students the teachers‟ classroom management style. Table 2 showing the comparison between the 
assessment of the teachers and students on the teachers‟ classroom management style reveals that 
there is a significant difference in the assessment of both respondents at 0.01 level of 
significance. The t-value for this comparison is 4.104 with a probability of 0.000 and with a 
Bui Thi Kieu Giang et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 11 - 16 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 15 
standard error of difference at 0.582. This finding reveals that the hypothesis is rejected as there 
is a significant difference in the assessment of the teachers and students on the teachers‟ 
classroom management style. The students have more favorable rating to their teachers than the 
rating of the teachers to themselves as reflected in the mean of 37.77 for the students and 35.38 
for the teachers. The finding indicates the belief of the teachers that CMSs are just suggestive in 
nature, which is recommendatory to teachers based on the kind of learning environments that 
they are into. 
Table 3. Interrelationship among CMSs of the teachers, teacher-student relationship congruency 
and extent of learning 
Variables 
Classroom 
Management Style 
Teacher - Student 
Relationship 
Congruency 
Extent of 
Learning 
Classroom Management Style - 
Teacher-Student Relationship 
0.252
* 
(0.015) 
- 
Extent of Learning Outcomes 
0.349** 
(0.001) 
0.342** 
(0.001) 
- 
** = significant at 0.01 level 
* = significant at 0.05 level 
It was hypothesized in the study that there is a significant relationship between CMSs of the 
teachers, teacher - student relationship and extent of learning outcomes. Table 3 reveals that the 
hypothesis is rejected at .05 level of significance. The significant relationship between teacher - 
student relationship with CMSs is reflected in the correlation coefficient of 0.252 and probability 
value of 0.015. On the other hand, the significant relationship between extent of learning and 
classroom management is seen in the computed correlation coefficient of 0.349 and probability 
value of 0.001 while the relationship between extent of learning with teacher - student 
relationship congruency is indicated in the correlation coefficient of 0.342 and 0.001 probability 
value. The significant relationship between teacher - student relationship with the classroom 
management means that healthy and sound teacher-student relationship influences to a great 
extent how teachers establish and enforce routines and rules inside the classroom and how they 
plan and prepare the instructional materials. Besides, the significant relationship between the 
extent of learning with teacher - student relationship indicates that the better the teacher-student 
relationship is, the higher the extent of learning is. In short, students are able to learn more when 
they experience healthy teacher student relationship. 
Table 4. Relationship between the CMSs of the teachers and their select profile variables 
Variable Correlation Coefficient Probability Statistical Inference 
Sex 0.114 0.277 Not significant 
Age 0.062 0.518 Not significant 
Educational Attainment 0.257 0.013 Significant at 0.05 
Number of years in the service 0.119 0.257 Not significant 
Universities -0.059 0.577 Not significant 
It was hypothesized in the study that there is 
no significant relationship between the CMSs 
of the teachers and their profile variables. 
Table 4 reveals that educational attainment 
has significant relationship with CMSs but 
not for sex, age, number of years in the 
service and universities. Thus, the null 
hypothesis is accepted only for the 
educational attainment variable. It is 
suggested that the use of CMSs is influenced 
by the level of educational attainment of the 
teachers. The higher educational attainment 
Bui Thi Kieu Giang et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 11 - 16 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 16 
provides more theories, principles and 
insights about teaching and learning. The 
positive relationship between the classroom 
management style of the teachers and their 
educational attainment is supported by earlier 
researches [8], [9]; their findings reveal that 
having successful classroom management 
skills are thought to be necessary in fostering 
effective student learning. Teachers who are 
weak at classroom management skills should 
be provided with necessary theoretical 
approaches and classroom disciplines as well 
as useful tips on implementation. 
4. Conclusions 
On the basis of the foregoing findings, the 
study concludes that TNU teachers are indeed 
second parents to their students considering 
that they serve as „loco parentis‟ to their 
students. There is substantial imposition of 
rules but there is also promotion of 
independence. Interestingly, there is also a 
healthy connection between the teachers and 
students inside the classroom which is 
manifested in the low teacher anxiety. 
Teachers and students cultivate their 
relationships and use this healthy relationship 
to ensure a “nurturing pedagogy”. Moreover, 
the study concludes that there exists a 
congruency between classroom management 
style and teacher - student relationship as well 
as student learning outcomes. The extent of 
learning obtained by the students is to a great 
extent determined by the kind of CMSs 
utilized by the teachers. Of all CMSs, it is the 
authoritarian style that plays a crucial role in 
determining higher learning. Finally, the study 
proves that the teacher student relationship 
positively influences CMSs of the teachers. It 
also asserts that the teacher - student 
relationship is positively associated by the 
degree of learning that takes place inside the 
classroom; with classroom management style 
as well as teacher - student relationship. 
REFERENCES 
[1]. Williams, M. and Burden, R., Psychology for 
Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist 
Approach. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, 1997. 
[2]. Norris J. A., Looking at Classroom Management 
Through a Social and Emotional Learning Lens. 
Classroom Management in a Diverse Society. 
Vol. 42, Iss. 4, pp. 313-318, 2003. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4204_8 
[3]. Latham, G. I., Behind the schoolhouse door: 
Eight skills every teacher should have. In G.I. 
Latham, Behind the schoolhouse door: 
Managing chaos with science, skills, and 
strategy (pp. 11-41). North Logan, UT: P & T 
Ink. 2002. 
[4]. Charles C. M., Today's best classroom 
management strategies: paths to positive 
discipline. Boston: Pearson/Allyn Bacon, 2008. 
[5]. Jerry D. L., Three Approaches to Classroom 
Management: Views from a Psychological 
Perspective. The Educational Forum. Vol 48, 
Iss. 1. pp. 124-125, 1982. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728309335886 
[6]. Given L. M., Convenience Sample. The 
SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research 
Methods. SAGE Publications, 2008. 
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n68 
[7]. Dunbar, C. Jr., Classroom Management 
(Monograph). East Lansing, MI. Michigan 
State University Outreach, 2004. 
[8]. Emmer, E., & Aussiker, A., School and 
classroom discipline pro- grams: How well do 
they work? In O. C. Moles (Ed.), Student 
discipline strategies: Research and practice 
(pp. 129–166). Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 
1990. 
[9]. Jones, F., & Jones, L.S., Comprehensive 
Classroom management. Boston: Allyn & 
Bacon, 2001.