INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5902

www.rsisinternational.org

From Emotion to Action: The Impact of Teachers’ Affective

Attitudes on Intercultural Classroom Engagement

Hu Fen,

Chun Keat Yeap,

Kuldip Kaur Maktiar Singh,

Irene Yoke Chu Leong

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Melaka, Campus Alor Gajah, Malaysia,

International Education College Jiangxi University of Engineering, Xinyu, China

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Melaka, Campus Alor Gajah, Malaysia

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, City Campus, Melaka, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000485

Received: 24 October 2025; Accepted: 30 October 2025; Published: 17 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines how teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-Chinese students relate to their evaluations of

learning outcomes, teaching engagement, and perceptions of learning difficulties in intercultural classrooms.

Based on 196 valid questionnaires from Chinese primary school teachers in Selangor, Malaysia, the study adopts

a quantitative cross-sectional design using descriptive and inferential analyses. Results show that teachers’

affective attitudes (like / dislike / neutral) are not significantly associated with their teaching engagement or

evaluations, indicating professional consistency beyond emotional preference. Background variables such as age,

qualification, and homeroom status show no moderating effects. However, affective attitudes are significantly

related to perceived learning difficulties (χ² = 30.7, p < .01, Cramér’s V = 0.280): teachers with positive attitudes

emphasize expressive and literacy challenges, while negative-attitude teachers focus on memory and

uncontrollable barriers. The findings suggest that affective attitudes influence teaching indirectly through

attributional perceptions rather than direct behavioral engagement.

Keywords: affective attitudes, teaching engagement, intercultural classroom, learning difficulties, teacher

perception

INTRODUCTION

Research Background and Significance

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid globally to how teachers’ emotions and attitudes in the

classroom influence both teaching effectiveness and students’ overall development. Research indicates that

teachers’ affective states—both positive and negative—directly shape classroom climate and students’ learning

experiences, thereby affecting instructional quality. For instance, Reference [2]found that “teachers’ joyful

emotions are positively correlated with teaching quality, whereas anger and anxiety are negatively correlated.”

Similarly, Reference [10], through a newly developed assessment tool, revealed that when teachers express

negative emotions, students’ enjoyment and engagement in learning significantly decrease, highlighting the

crucial role of teacher emotions in shaping student learning attitudes.

Meanwhile, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) has received growing recognition as an essential

pedagogical approach, with teachers’ intercultural attitudes serving as a core component. Reference [1] found

Corresponding author: Chun Keat Yeap, Universiti Teknologi MARA Campus Alor Gajah Melaka, Malaysia, Email: chunkeat@uitm.edu.my; orcid.org/0000-

0002-8106-4406

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5903

www.rsisinternational.org

that teachers who possess positive multicultural attitudes and strong perspective-taking abilities tend to

implement socially and culturally sensitive teaching more frequently, with a particularly pronounced effect in

culturally responsive practices.

Although prior studies have examined either “teachers’ emotions” or “multicultural attitudes,” few have

explored the behavioral mechanism linking teachers’ subjective affective attitudes (such as liking, disliking, or

neutrality) to their teaching engagement. In multicultural contexts, especially those involving non-Chinese

students, little empirical research has addressed how teachers’ emotional attitudes toward such students influence

their classroom behavior and level of instructional commitment.

Within research frameworks that often focus on students’ learning attitudes and achievements, teachers’

affective dispositions are frequently overlooked. This oversight is particularly salient in multilingual and

multiethnic educational settings such as Malaysia’s Chinese-language schools, where the proportion of non-

Chinese students continues to grow. Teachers’ emotional attitudes toward these students may have profound,

though underexplored, implications. Yet, no study has systematically investigated whether teachers’ subjective

preferences (e.g., “liking” or “disliking” non-Chinese students) affect their teaching engagement, effort, and

evaluation of student performance.

To address this gap, the present study draws on 196 valid teacher questionnaire responses to examine how

teachers’ emotional attitudes translate into teaching behaviors—i.e., the emotion-to-action mechanism. It further

seeks to uncover the underlying pathways and potential moderating factors in this process.

Research Objectives

This study aims to:

Examine the relationship between teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-Chinese students (like / neutral /

dislike) and their evaluations of these students’ learning attitudes and learning outcomes;

Analyze whether teachers’ affective attitudes influence their level of teaching engagement, such as perceived

effort or teaching confidence;

Test whether teachers’ background variables (e.g., age, educational qualification, or homeroom teacher status)

play a moderating role in the relationship between affective attitudes and teaching engagement.

Through these investigations, the study seeks to uncover the practical impact of teachers’ subjective emotional

attitudes in intercultural classroom teaching and to provide insights for teacher development and intercultural

education practices.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Teachers’ affective attitudes are widely recognized as a key factor shaping classroom climate and students’

learning experiences. Previous studies have shown that teachers’ attitudes toward students not only vary among

individuals but may also differ within the same teacher’s perceptions of different students in [13]. For instance,

reference[13] revealed that teachers’ attitudes are not always directly aligned with students’ academic

performance but are often reflected through classroom interactions and informal feedback. This suggests that the

mechanism through which teachers’ affective attitudes influence student performance is complex.

Reference [15] found that teachers’ negative attitudes and inappropriate instructional practices can lead to

decreased student motivation and even feelings of frustration. This finding implies that teachers’ attitudes may

indirectly affect learning outcomes by shaping students’ emotional states and motivation. Similarly, Reference

[10]reported that when teachers expressed more negative emotions, students’ enjoyment and engagement in

learning significantly declined. The impact was particularly pronounced when most teachers displayed

predominantly positive emotions, whereas a small number who exhibited negative emotions for as much as 80%

of class time caused noticeable harm to students’ classroom experiences.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5904

www.rsisinternational.org

In an experimental study, reference [2] introduced an affective support teaching intervention, which included

positive classroom climate, teacher sensitivity, and respect for students’ perspectives. The results demonstrated

that students’ perceptions of teachers’ emotional support increased over time, fulfilling their basic psychological

needs (such as autonomy and relatedness), and consequently enhancing positive emotions (reduced anxiety,

increased enjoyment) and emotional engagement.

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) emphasizes that teachers should integrate students’ cultural backgrounds

and experiences to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of instruction in[7]. Research has also shown that

teachers with positive multicultural attitudes and perspective-taking abilities tend to implement CRT more

frequently and with higher quality, thereby fostering student engagement and achievement. Reference [6]

explored the integration of Social–Emotional Learning (SEL) and CRT, suggesting that incorporating both

components in teacher education programs helps teachers develop emotional resilience, maintain psychological

well-being, and more effectively support culturally diverse students.

Through qualitative interview analysis, reference [13] revealed that teachers often perceive emotions as both a

resource and a burden: on the one hand, they use emotions to motivate teaching; on the other, emotional

dysregulation may lead to negative consequences, hindering both teacher and student development.

Teaching engagement, meanwhile, is an important indicator of the effort and energy teachers invest in the

instructional process. The meta-analysis by [8] showed that teaching engagement is more strongly related to

teachers’ self-efficacy, personality traits, and work stress rather than being determined solely by affective

attitudes. Similarly, reference[14], in developing the College Teacher Teaching Engagement Scale, pointed out

that teaching engagement is a multidimensional construct encompassing time, energy, and cognitive investment.

Overall, existing studies indicate that teachers’ expressed emotions have significant effects on students’ affect

and classroom engagement in [2]&[10]. Multicultural education research underscores the importance of teachers’

cultural attitudes; however, the role of teachers’ subjective affective preferences (e.g., “liking” or “disliking”

non-Chinese students) remains underexplored. Moreover, emotions can serve as both a valuable teaching

resource and a potential burden in[13].

Hence, this study focuses on how teachers’ subjective affective attitudes (like / dislike / neutral) translate

into concrete teaching engagement behaviors, addressing the current gap in understanding the emotion–behavior

transformation mechanism within CRT and teacher emotion research.

Research Questions:

1. Are teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-Chinese students (like / dislike / neutral) related to their

evaluations of students’ learning attitudes and outcomes?

2. Do teachers’ affective attitudes influence their level of teaching engagement (e.g., “worked hard and

achieved good results” vs. “worked hard but results were average”)?

3. Do teachers’ background variables (e.g., age, educational qualification, homeroom teacher status) moderate

the relationship between affective attitudes and teaching engagement?

4. Do teachers’ affective attitudes affect how they perceive and interpret students’ learning difficulties?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study adopts a quantitative research design to statistically analyze questionnaire data collected from

teachers, aiming to examine the relationship between teachers’ affective attitudes and their classroom teaching

engagement. The study employs a cross-sectional survey research approach, integrating

both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to reveal the correlations and predictive relationships among

variables.

The choice of a quantitative approach is grounded in the study’s objective—to test and validate the mechanism

through which teachers’ affective attitudes influence teaching engagement, rather than to explore individual case

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5905

www.rsisinternational.org

experiences. Therefore, statistical testing provides the necessary objectivity and replicability for empirical

verification in[5].

Participants and Sampling

The participants of this study were teachers from various Chinese primary schools in Selangor, Malaysia, who

have experience teaching non-Chinese students. A total of 196 valid questionnaires were collected, covering

demographic variables such as gender, age (below 30, 30–40, 41–50, and above 51), educational

qualification (secondary / diploma/bachelor’s / postgraduate), teaching level (Grades 1–2, 3–4, or 5–6),

and homeroom teacher status (yes/no).

A convenience sampling method was employed to ensure feasibility while securing a sufficient sample size for

statistical analysis, meeting the requirements for detecting medium effect sizes in[4]. The detailed demographic

distribution is presented in Table 1.

Table I Distribution of Teachers’ Demographic Information (N = 196)

Variable

Category

Frequency (n)

Percentage（%）

Gender

Male

7.1

Female

182

92.9

Age

Below 30

16.8

30-40

100

51.0

41-50

18.9

Above 51

13.3

Educational Qualification

Secondary/Teacher Training

22.4

Diploma

129

65.8

Bachelor’s Degree

11.2

Postgraduate

0.5

Homeroom Teacher

Yes

175

89.3

10.7

Teaching Level

Grades 1-2

15.3

Grades 3-4

25.5

Grades 5-6

50.5

Others

8.7

The sample consists predominantly of female teachers (92.9%), most of whom are aged between 30 and 40 years

(51.0%) and hold a diploma-level qualification (65.8%). A large majority serve as homeroom teachers (89.3%)

and teach upper primary levels (Grades 5–6).

Research Instrument

The research instrument used in this study was a self-designed and revised questionnaire titled “Teacher

Questionnaire on Teaching Chinese to Non-Chinese Students.” The questionnaire consisted of three sections:

1. Section I: Demographic Information — including teachers’ gender, age, educational qualification, teaching

level, and homeroom teacher status.

2. Section II: Teaching Evaluation — assessing teachers’ overall evaluation of non-Chinese students’ learning

attitudes, learning methods, and learning outcomes. A four-point Likert scale was used: Excellent, Good,

Fair, and Poor.

3. Section III: Learning Context and Affective Attitudes — covering teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-

Chinese students (like, dislike, or neutral), difficulties encountered in teaching, and their self-perceived

teaching status (e.g., “worked very hard and achieved good results” or “worked very hard but results were

average”).

The questionnaire was reviewed by two experts in language education and one expert in psychology to

ensure the content validity of all items.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5906

www.rsisinternational.org

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through a combination of paper-based questionnaires and online forms over a two-week

period. The process strictly adhered to principles of anonymity and confidentiality, and participants were not

required to provide any personally identifiable information.After data collection, responses were organized and

imported into SPSS version 26.0 for statistical analysis. The following analytical methods were employed:

1. Descriptive Statistics — to present the overall distribution of teachers’ demographic information and

affective attitudes;

2. Chi-square Test — to examine the association between teachers’ affective attitudes and their evaluation of

students’ learning outcomes;

3. Correlation and Multiple Regression Analyses — to explore the predictive effect of teachers’ affective

attitudes on their teaching engagement, while controlling for variables such as gender, age, educational

qualification, and homeroom teacher status;

4. One-way ANOVA — to test whether differences exist in affective attitudes and teaching engagement across

teachers with different background variables.All statistical tests were conducted at a significance level of p

< .05

FINDINGS

Distribution of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes

Table II Distribution of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes Toward Non-Chinese Students (N = 196)

Option

Frequency (n)

Percentage (%)

45.4

Dislike

1.5

Neutral / Acceptable

106

54.1

Others

1.5

The majority of teachers reported a neutral or generally positive attitude toward non-Chinese students.

Specifically, 54.1% indicated a neutral (“acceptable”) stance, while 45.4% expressed that they liked teaching

non-Chinese students. Only a very small proportion (1.5%) reported a dislike, suggesting that overall teacher

affective attitudes in intercultural classrooms are largely positive.

Relationship Between Affective Attitudes and Student Learning Evaluation

Table III Cross-Tabulation of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes × Evaluation of Students’ Learning Outcomes

Evaluation of Students’ Learning Outcomes

Teachers’ Affective

Attitudes

χ²/p/φ

Excellent n (%)

Good n (%)

Fair n (%)

Poor n (%)

Total

16.0/<.001/0.286

1(1.1)

12(13.5)

66(74.2)

10(11.2)

Dislike

4.4/0.187/0.15

0(0.0)

1(33.3)

2(66.7)

Neutral

13.3/0.004/0.260

0(0.0)

2(1.9)

78(73.6)

26(24.5)

108

Others

1.13/0.770/0.0759

0(0.0)

3(100)

0(0.0)

Total

1.90/0.929/0.0697

143

196

Significance: Chi-square test results show that teachers in the “Like” and “Neutral” groups demonstrated

a significant association with their evaluation of students’ learning outcomes (p < .01), whereas

the “Dislike” and “Others” groups did not reach significance.

Effect Size: Cramer’s V coefficients ranged between 0.260–0.286, indicating a moderate effect size (where 0.1

≈ small effect, 0.3 ≈ medium, and 0.5 ≈ large effect).

Residual Analysis: Cells corresponding to “Like × Good” and “Neutral × Fair” showed observed values

significantly higher than expected. This suggests that teachers with positive affective attitudes were more

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5907

www.rsisinternational.org

inclined to give students better evaluations, whereas those with neutral attitudes tended to rate students’ learning

Summary: Overall, the cross-tabulation analysis revealed no significant overall relationship between teachers’

affective attitudes and their evaluations of students’ learning outcomes (χ² = 1.90, p = .929, φ = 0.0697). However,

when examined by subgroup, a clear pattern emerged: teachers with “Like” attitudes were significantly more

likely to rate non-Chinese students as “Good”, while those with “Neutral” attitudes were more likely to

assign “Fair” or “Poor” evaluations. Due to the small number of teachers in the “Dislike” group (n = 3), no

statistically meaningful difference could be established for that category.

In sum, these findings suggest that teachers’ affective attitudes play a meaningful role in shaping how they

evaluate students’ learning performance, even if the overall statistical association is modest.

Relationship Between Affective Attitudes and Teaching Engagement

Table Ⅳ Cross-Tabulation of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes × Teaching Engagement Level

Teaching Engagement Level

Teachers’

Affective Attitudes

χ²/p/φ

Very Good

n(%)

Moderate

n(%)

Beginning to

Try n(%)

Casual n(%)

Total

3.76/<0.289/0.138

35(18.3)

91(47.6)

57(29.8)

8(4.2)

191

Dislike

6.93/0.074/0.188

0(0.0)

1(25)

2(50)

1(25)

Neutral

5.32/0.150/0.165

0(5.7)

1(100.0)

0(0)

Total

6.5/0.370/0.129

35(17.9)

93(47.7)

59(30.1)

9(4.6)

196

Percentages in parentheses represent row percentages. The original questionnaire contained five options for

teaching engagement, but one option was not selected by any respondent and is therefore omitted from the

table.The Pearson Chi-square test results indicate that the overall difference between teachers’ affective attitudes

and their level of teaching engagement was not statistically significant (χ²(6, N = 196) = 6.50, p = .370, φ = .129).

The effect size falls within the small-to-moderate range. Sample Size Consideration:The “Dislike” (n = 4) and

“Neutral” (n = 1) groups had extremely small sample sizes, so their results should be interpreted with caution.

Most teachers who reported a “Like” attitude toward non-Chinese students described themselves as “working

hard but with average results” (47.6%), followed by “working hard and achieving good results” (18.3%)

and “beginning to put in effort” (29.8%). This pattern suggests that while teachers generally demonstrated high

engagement levels, affective attitudes did not significantly predict differences in engagement intensity.

Overall, the cross-tabulation results indicate that although teachers tend to invest substantial effort in teaching,

their affective attitudes toward students did not significantly influence their self-perceived level of teaching

engagement.

Table Ⅴ Regression Analysis of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes on Teaching Engagement

Dependent Variable

(Constant)

.519

.643

.807

.421

Teachers’ Affective Attitudes

.347

.279

.088

1.244

.215

Gender

.152

.220

.050

.692

.490

Age

.076

.065

.087

1.174

.242

Educational Qualification

.090

.099

.067

.910

.364

Teaching Grade Level

.098

.067

.106

1.466

.144

Homeroom Teacher Status

-.493

.184

-.194

-2.682

.008

Note. Statistical significance was determined at p < .05.

The results of the multiple regression analysis (see Table 5) indicate that the overall model had limited

explanatory power for teachers’ teaching engagement levels (R² = .062, adjusted R² = .032). The model

showed marginal significance (F(6, 189) = 2.065, p = .059).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5908

www.rsisinternational.org

Among the predictor variables, only homeroom teacher status emerged as a significant predictor of teaching

engagement (B = –0.493, β = –.194, t = –2.682, p = .008), suggesting that non-homeroom teachers exhibited

significantly higher levels of teaching engagement compared to their homeroom counterparts.

Other variables—including teachers’ affective attitudes (B = 0.347, β = .088, p = .215), gender (B = 0.152, β

= .050, p = .490), age (B = 0.076, β = .087, p = .242), educational qualification (B = 0.090, β = .067, p = .364),

and teaching grade level (B = 0.098, β = .106, p = .144)， did not show significant predictive effects on teaching

engagement.

In summary, the regression results suggest that while the model only explains a small proportion of variance in

teaching engagement, the role of homeroom teachers may entail additional responsibilities that reduce their

perceived teaching investment, whereas affective attitudes and demographic variables do not significantly

account for variations in engagement levels.

Analysis of Differences Based on Background Variables

To examine whether teachers’ background characteristics influenced their affective attitudes and levels of

teaching engagement, a series of independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were conducted for gender,

age, educational qualification, teaching grade level, and homeroom teacher status.

Table Ⅵ Effects of Teachers’ Background Variables on Affective Attitudes

Background Variable

Category

t/F

Effect Size

Gender(t-test)

Male（n=14）

1.0000

.87706

t=-.593

194

0.554

-0.0628

Female（n=182）

1.2308

.78066

Homeroom Teacher (t-test)

Yes（n=175）

1.2629

.78017

t=2.526

194

0.012

0.0363

No（n=21）

.8095

.74960

Age (ANOVA)

Below 30 (n=33)

1.1515

.87039

F=0.412

192

0.745

η²=0.774

30–40 (n=100)

1.1800

.75719

41–50 (n=37)

1.3243

.85160

Above 51 (n=26)

1.2692

.72430

Educational

Qualification (ANOVA)

Secondary / Teacher

Training (n=44)

1.1591

.71343

F=.143

192

0.934

η²=.269

Diploma (n=129)

1.2248

.80273

Bachelor (n=22)

1.2727

.88273

Postgraduate (n=1)

1.0000

Teaching Grade

Level (ANOVA)

Grades1–2 (n=30)

1.2667

.86834

F=1.446

192

.231

η²=2.673

Grades 3–4 (n=50)

1.0800

.77828

Grades 5–6 (n=99)

1.2121

.77292

Others (n=17)

1.5294

.71743

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation; t = independent-samples t-test value; F = one-way ANOVA value; d

= Cohen’s d; η² = Eta squared. p < .05 indicates statistical significance.

The independent samples t-test results revealed that there was no significant difference in teaching engagement

levels between male and female teachers (t(194) = –0.593, p = .554, d = –0.06).

However, a significant difference was found between homeroom and non-homeroom teachers (t(194) = 2.526,

p = .012, d = 0.36). Specifically, homeroom teachers (M = 1.26, SD = 0.78) reported significantly higher levels

of teaching engagement than non-homeroom teachers (M = 0.81, SD = 0.75). This finding suggests that the

additional responsibilities associated with managing a class may enhance teachers’ perceived investment in

teaching activities.

The one-way ANOVA results showed no significant differences in teaching engagement across age

groups (F(3,192) = 0.412, p = .745, η² = .01), educational qualification levels (F(3,192) = 0.143, p = .934, η²

= .00), or teaching grade levels (F(3,192) = 1.446, p = .231, η² = .02). Although teachers who taught “other

grades” recorded the highest mean engagement score (M = 1.53), the overall differences did not reach statistical

significance.

Among all background variables, only homeroom teacher status significantly influenced teaching engagement

levels. Gender, age, educational qualification, and teaching grade level showed no significant impact. This

suggests that administrative and pastoral responsibilities associated with being a homeroom teacher may

increase teachers’ perceived engagement in instructional tasks.

Affective Attitudes and Perceived Teaching Difficulties

Teachers generally reported that non-Chinese students in Chinese language learning face several key

challenges: difficulty understanding teachers’ explanations, inability to express themselves, reading and writing

difficulties, limited collaboration skills, memory retention problems, and fast forgetting rates.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5910

www.rsisinternational.org

Table Ⅷ Cross-Tabulation of Teachers’ Affective Attitudes × Perceived Learning Difficulties (N = 196)

Teachers’

Affective

Attitudes

Perceived Learning Difficulties

Cannot

Understand n

(%)

Cannot

Express n

(%)

Reading

Difficulty n

(%)

Poor

Collaboration n

(%)

Forget

Easily n (%)

Others n

(%)

Total n (%)

191

0.5

34.0

33.5

16.2

15.2

0.5

100.0

Dislike

0.0

50.0

0.0

25.0

100.0

Neutral

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Total

196

0.5

33.2

33.7

16.3

15.3

1.0

100.0

Note. χ² = 30.7, df = 1, p < .01; Cramér’s V = 0.280 (medium effect size).

shown in Table 8, there is a significant association between teachers’ affective attitudes and their perceptions of

non-Chinese students’ learning difficulties (χ² = 30.7, df = 1, p < .01; Cramér’s V = 0.280), indicating a moderate

effect size.

Overall, teachers most frequently identified “inability to express” (33.2%) and “reading difficulties” (33.7%) as

the main challenges faced by students, followed by “poor collaboration” (16.3%) and “forgetting easily”

(15.3%).

When analyzed by affective attitude group: Teachers with a “Like” attitude emphasized expressive difficulties

(34.0%) and reading problems (33.5%), reflecting a more constructive and improvement-oriented perception of

students’ challenges. Teachers with a “Dislike” attitude focused more on reading difficulties

(50.0%) and forgetting easily / other issues (25.0% each), indicating a tendency to attribute students’ struggles

to more persistent or less controllable obstacles.

These results suggest that teachers’ affective attitudes not only influence how they evaluate student performance

but also shape how they interpret and attribute learning difficulties. Positive-attitude teachers are more likely to

focus on skill-based and remediable issues (e.g., expression, reading), while negative-attitude teachers tend to

perceive students’ difficulties as inherent or difficult to overcome. This finding underscores the emotional

lens through which teachers perceive student ability and classroom challenges in intercultural teaching contexts.

DISCUSSION

This study found no significant correlation between teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-Chinese students

(like / dislike / neutral) and their evaluations of students’ learning attitudes and outcomes. This result suggests

that teachers’ emotional preferences do not directly translate into their academic evaluations of students.

Similarly, reference [12] noted that teachers’ attitudes toward different students vary both across and within

individuals, but such differences may not necessarily appear in grades or formal assessments; rather, they tend

to manifest in informal interactions and classroom climate. Accordingly, this study aligns with previous literature

in suggesting that teachers’ evaluations are more strongly constrained by institutional and professional norms

than by personal emotions.

The findings also revealed that teachers’ affective attitudes did not significantly predict their level of teaching

engagement. In other words, even teachers who hold neutral or negative attitudes toward non-Chinese students

maintained a consistent level of professional investment in teaching. This finding echoes the work of [14], who

reported that university teachers’ “teaching engagement” is largely driven by institutional and professional

expectations rather than by affective preferences. Likewise, reference [8] meta-analysis emphasized that

teaching engagement is more closely associated with psychological factors such as self-efficacy and work stress,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5911

www.rsisinternational.org

rather than with simple emotions or attitudes. This indicates that teachers’ professionalism may serve as

a buffering mechanism, reducing the influence of affective attitudes on their instructional commitment.

Further analysis examined whether background variables such as age, educational qualification, and homeroom

teacher status moderated the relationship between affective attitudes and teaching engagement, but none of these

effects were significant. This finding corresponds with [9], who grouped teachers according to their attitudes

toward differentiated instruction and found that while attitudes varied, teaching performance did not consistently

differ across attitude types. This suggests that teachers’ personal backgrounds and attitudinal profiles cannot be

used as straightforward predictors of their teaching engagement patterns.

Although teachers’ affective attitudes were not significantly related to teaching engagement or learning

evaluations, they showed a notable association with perceived teaching difficulties. The present study revealed

that teachers with positive affective attitudes were more attentive to students’ expressive and literacy-related

challenges, whereas those with negative attitudes tended to focus on issues such as forgetting and uncontrollable

learning barriers. Reference [15] likewise observed that teachers’ negative affective orientations may reinforce

students’ sense of helplessness through negative attributions, thereby undermining their learning motivation.

This finding suggests that the influence of affective attitudes may not manifest directly through teaching

engagement, but rather indirectly by shaping how teachers perceive and attribute students’ learning difficulties—

ultimately affecting instructional quality.

Nevertheless, the cross-sectional design of this study limits its ability to establish causal relationships or trace

how teachers’ affective attitudes evolve over time. While a longitudinal design would provide stronger evidence

of the dynamic interplay between affective attitudes and attributional perceptions, such an approach was not

feasible due to time and resource constraints. Future research could adopt longitudinal or mixed-method designs,

incorporating classroom observations and interviews, to investigate how affective attitudes and attributional

tendencies develop over time and influence long-term teaching practices as well as student learning outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Based on 196 questionnaires collected from teachers in ten Chinese primary schools in Selangor, this study

examined the relationships among teachers’ affective attitudes toward non-Chinese students, their evaluations

of students’ learning outcomes, teaching engagement levels, and perceptions of learning difficulties, while also

testing the moderating effects of age, educational qualification, and homeroom teacher status.

The results revealed no significant relationship between teachers’ affective attitudes and their evaluations of

students’ learning outcomes or teaching engagement levels, indicating that teachers maintained objectivity and

stability in their professional evaluations and commitment, independent of personal emotions. Background

variables likewise showed no significant moderating effects on the relationship between affective attitudes and

teaching engagement. Notably, teachers’ affective attitudes were significantly associated with their perceptions

of students’ learning difficulties (χ² = 30.7, p < .01, Cramér’s V = 0.280): teachers with positive attitudes focused

more on improvable challenges such as expression and literacy, while those with negative attitudes tended to

attribute learning problems to less manageable factors such as memory and forgetting. These findings suggest

that while affective attitudes do not directly affect teaching engagement or evaluation, they may indirectly

influence teaching practices through differing attribution patterns regarding students’ learning difficulties.

Overall, this study offers new empirical evidence on teachers’ affective attitudes within intercultural education

contexts, suggesting that their influence operates primarily through teachers’ cognitive interpretations of students’

learning difficulties rather than through direct effects on engagement or assessment. From a practical standpoint,

the findings underscore the importance of teacher training programs that cultivate positive attributional styles

and prevent emotional preferences from lowering expectations of students’ potential. Furthermore, educational

administrators should monitor the workload of homeroom teachers and provide structural support to maintain

their teaching engagement.

Despite certain methodological limitations—namely the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported

data—the present findings yield valuable insights for future research. Subsequent studies could adopt

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5912

www.rsisinternational.org

longitudinal or classroom-based observational designs to examine the long-term dynamics of affective attitudes

and explore how teaching beliefs, self-efficacy, and school culture mediate or moderate the relationship between

emotion and behavior.

REFERENCES

1. Abacıoğlu, C. S., Karataş, Ş., & Gür, H. (2019). Teachers' multicultural attitudes and perspective taking

as predictors of culturally responsive teaching. Frontiers in Education.

2. Alrabai, F., & Algazzaz, W. (2024). The influence of teacher emotional support on language learners’

basic psychological needs, emotions, and emotional engagement: Treatment-based evidence. Studies in

Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.39329

3. Burić, I. (2023). Teacher emotions are related to students' ratings of teaching quality: joy positively,

anger and anxiety negatively. Teaching and Teacher Education.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101822

4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

5. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches(5th ed.). Sage Publications.

6. Donahue-Keegan, D., Villegas-Reimers, E., & Cressey, J. M. (2019). Integrating social-emotional

learning and culturally responsive teaching in teacher education preparation programs: The

Massachusetts experience. Teacher Education Quarterly

7. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 37–41. (Definition cited

in EdWeek article) https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/culturally-responsive-teaching-

culturally-responsive-pedagogy/2022/04

8. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness:

A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001

9. Letzel, V. (2023). Challenging but positive! – An exploration into teacher attitude profiles based on their

attitudes towards differentiated instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12535

10. McLean, L., & Jones, N. (2025). Emotional transmission in the classroom: how teachers’ emotional

expressions affect students’ learning attitudes. Contemporary Educational Psychology.

11. Leigh McLean, Nathan Jones. (2025). Using an observational measure of elementary teachers’ emotional

expressions during mathematics and English language arts to explore associations with students’ content

area emotions and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 80.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102352.

12. Schwab, S., & Alnahdi, G. H. (2023). Does the same teacher’s attitude fit all students? Uncovering

student-specific variance of teachers’ attitudes towards all of their students. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 28(14), 3502–3517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2221235

13. Stark, K., Cummings, C. (2023). Emotions as Both a Tool and a Liability: A Phenomenology of Urban

Charter School Teachers’ Emotions.Urban Rev 55, 337–363 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-022-

00649-y

14. Sun L, Zhang H and Xu J (2021). Factor Structure and Validation of the Undergraduate Teaching Faculty

Investment Questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 11:593571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593571

15. Tang Y and Hu J (2022) The impact of teacher attitude and teaching approaches on student demotivation:

Disappointment as a mediator. Front. Psychol. 13:985859. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985859