Association between the teacher–student relationship and teacher visual focus of attention in Grade 1: student task avoidance and gender as moderators

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables.

							Quality of teacher-student relationship				Teachers’ visual focus of attention		Student characteristics
	M(SD)F	MinF	MaxF	M(SD)S	MinS	MaxS	Clo (F)	Clo (S)	Con (F)	Con (S)	TFD (F)	TFD (S)	TAB (F)	TAB (S)
Student characteristics:
Gender^†	–	–	–	–	–	–	.228^η	.190 ^η	.179^η	.124 ^η	.091^η	.006 ^η	.022 ^η	.023 ^η
Task avoidant behaviour (TAB)	2.58 (1.19)	1	5	2.37 (1.17)	1	5	−.207** −.179 ^ρ**	−.166** −.196^ρ**	.535** .470 ^ρ**	.519** .472^ρ**	.104**	.088*
Teachers’ visual focus of attention: Total fixation duration (TFD) in seconds	25.75 (18.06)	0.40	129.64	26.63 (20.16)	0.16	162.22	.125**.136 ^ρ**	.085* .087 ^ρ*	.067 .025 ^ρ	.177** .153^ρ**
Quality of student-teacher relationship:
Closeness (Clo)	3.95 (0.67)	1.88	5	4.08 (0.69)	1.75	5
Conflict (Con)	1.50 (0.71)	1	4.43	1.46 (0.70)	1	4.57

Note.

** p < .001.

* p < .05.

F = Fall, S = Spring, ^†1 = female, 2 = male, ^ηEta-value, ^ρSpearman’s rho.

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics (Chi-square) for the nested models in Fall and Spring.

Model names	χ^2	df	Scaling correction index	Model comparisons with Satorra-Bentler-scaled χ^2 difference test
Constrained model with gender as moderator in fall—GF1	2.687	2	.885	GF1 vs GF2: Δ χ ^2 (Δdf = 2) = 2.687; p = .260 TABF1 vs TABF2: Δ χ^2 (Δdf = 2) = .346; p = .841
Unconstrained model with gender as moderator in fall—GF2	0	0	0
Constrained model with task avoidant behaviour as moderator in fall—TABF1	.346	2	.841
Unconstrained model with task avoidant behaviour as moderator in fall—TABF2	0	0	0
Constrained model with gender as moderator in spring—GS1	.763	2	1.523	GS1 vs GS2: Δ χ^2 (Δdf = 2) = .763; p = .682 TABS1 vs TABS2: Δ χ^2 (Δdf = 4) = 37.327; p = .000**
Unconstrained model with gender as moderator in spring—GS2	0	0	0
Constrained model with task avoidant behaviour as moderator in spring—TABS1	37.327	4	.573
Constrained model with task avoidant behaviour as moderator in spring—TABS2	0	0	0

Note. In bold—significant results at **p < .001.

Table 3. Students’ gender and task-avoidant behaviour moderating the association between quality of teacher-student relationship and teachers’ visual focus of attention.

	Students’ gender				Students’ task avoidant behaviour
	Fall		Spring		Fall			Spring
	Girls (N = 325) β(SE)	Boys (N = 323) β(SE)	Girls (N = 318) β(SE)	Boys (N = 310) β(SE)	Low (N = 164) β(SE)	Average (N = 340) β(SE)	High (N = 142) β(SE)	Low (N = 163) β(SE)	Average (N = 308) β(SE)	High (N = 154) β(SE)
Quality of teacher–student relationship → Teachers’ visual focus of attention
1. Closeness → Total fixation duration	.175(.04)**	.144(.04)**	.135(.05)*	.128(.05)*	.183(.05)**	.159(.04)**	.134(.03)**	.187(.04)*	.233(.07)*	−.037(.07)
2. Conflict → Total fixation duration	.059(.04)	.065(.05)	.209(.05)**	.198(.06)**	.007(.06)	.017(.05)	.021(.09)	.315(.12)*	.082(.06)	.246(.05)**

Note.

* p <.05.

** p <.001. → = regression, β = Beta coefficient, (SE) = Standard Error, Coefficients from unconstrained model in bold.