Instructional Interaction Barriers of Mathematics Teachers in Saudi Arabia

Background/purpose. Instructional interaction barriers—including physical, psycho-emotional, perceptual, semantic, and management-related factors—can impede learning and diminish the overall effectiveness of classroom practice. This study examines the barriers faced by mathematics teachers in Saudi Arabia and their differences across gender, school type, school level, and teaching experience.

Materials/methods. A descriptive research design was employed using a purposive sample of 270 mathematics teachers from Al-Ahsa schools during the 2023–2024 academic year. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analyzed in SPSS 25.0 with independent-samples t(268) tests, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey post hoc comparisons.

Results. Male teachers reported significantly higher levels of instructional interaction barriers than female teachers (t(268) = 2.81, p = .005, Cohen’s d = 0.35). Public school teachers experienced greater challenges than those in private schools (p < .05). Secondary school teachers reported higher psycho-emotional, management, and perceptual barriers than primary and intermediate teachers (p < .01). Teaching experience was associated with differences in physical and perceptual barriers, with less experienced teachers reporting higher levels of barriers.

Conclusion. Demographic and institutional factors meaningfully shape classroom interaction for mathematics teachers. Targeted professional development and structured mentoring—particularly pairing expert teachers with novice ones—are recommended to strengthen teacher–student interaction across educational settings in Al-Ahsa and comparable contexts.

Limitations and implications. The study is limited to a single educational region and relies on self-reported data, which may affect generalizability. Future research should employ broader sampling and mixed data sources.

Keywords: Instructional interaction, mathematics education; teacher–student interaction, educational barriers, Saudi Arabia

References

Abed, L. G., Abed, M. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2024). Does student–instructor interaction in universities influence academic attainment? The context of Saudi Arabia. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2173270

Abu-Shawish, R. K. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to effective teaching in Qatar’s government schools. European Journal of Education, 59(4), e12711. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12711

Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2021). Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher–student interactions and student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y

Al-Harthy, I. S. (2018). Barriers to teacher–student interaction in Omani classrooms: A qualitative perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1125a

Alhazmi, A., & Nyland, B. (2013). The Saudi Arabian international student experience: From a gender-segregated society to studying in a mixed-gender environment. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(3), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.722347

Alrabai, F. (2022). Teacher instructional interaction and learner willingness to interact instructionally in English as a foreign language: A structural equation modeling approach. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 2(2), 45–67.

Alsaeed, M. S., & Aladil, M. K. (2024). Digital and physical interactive learning environments: Early childhood mathematics teachers’ beliefs about technology through reflective writing. Education Sciences, 14(5), 517. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050517

Bratchuk, H., & Smith, P. (2023). Overcoming of communication barriers in the classroom. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 1(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v1i1.6

Çelik, Ö. C., & Alpan, G. (2023). The impact of an effective instructional interaction course with enhanced student engagement on instructional interaction skills and empathic tendency of preservice teachers. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(2), 33–58.

Chang, Y. (2022). A meta‑analysis based study of the factors influencing students’ engagement in classroom learning. Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (IC‑ICAIE 2022), 772–777. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-040-4_117

Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2013). Critiquing of higher education policy in Saudi Arabia: Towards a new neoliberalism. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 6(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/17537981311314709

Emslander, V., Holzberger, D., Ofstad, S. B., Fischbach, A., & Scherer, R. (2025). Teacher–student relationships and student outcomes: A systematic second-order meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(3), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000461

Hofkens, T., Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2023). Teacher–student interactions: Theory, measurement, and evidence for universal properties that support students’ learning across countries and cultures. In L. E. Suter, E. A. Smith, & B. Denman (Eds.), Effective teaching around the world (pp. 399–422). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_18

Hussain, M. A., & Alghamdi, A. H. (2020). Teacher autonomy and instructional engagement in GCC countries: A comparative study. Arab Gulf Journal of Education, 8(2), 101–119.

Hussain, N., Muhammad, N., & Yasin, M. (2021). An analysis of the effects of instructional interaction barriers on students’ achievements at university level. Journal of Education and Social Studies, 2(1), 15–19.

Kakepoto, I., Laghari, A., & Laghari, T. (2022). Communication skills across engineering curriculum: A case study. Global Language Review, VII (I), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2022(VII‑I).03

Li, J., & Xue, E. (2023). Dynamic interaction between student learning behaviour and learning environment: Meta-analysis of student engagement and its influencing factors. Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010059

Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2019). Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement in high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000317

Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001

Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007

Mohamed, R. H., Khalil, I. A., & Awaji, B. M. (2023). Mathematics teachers’ awareness of effective teaching practices: A comparative study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), em2230. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12962

Pianta, R. C., & Hofkens, T. (2023). Defining early education quality using CLASS-observed teacher–student interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1110419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110419

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2020). Teacher–student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the classroom interaction. Educational Psychologist, 55(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1718866

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

Sellami, A., Santhosh, M., Bhadra, J., & Ahmad, Z. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to STEM teaching in Qatar’s secondary schools: A structural equation modeling analysis. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1333669. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.133366

Susanto, R., Agustina, N., & Rozali, Y. A. (2020). Analysis of the application of the pedagogical competency model: Case study of public and private primary schools in West Jakarta Municipality, DKI Jakarta Province. Elementary Education Online (Ilkogretim Online), 19(3), 167–182.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-

Vargas‑Madriz, L. F., Konishi, C., & Wong, M. E. (2024). A meta-analysis of the association between teacher support and school engagement. Social Development, 33(2), e12745. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12745

Wang, L.-H., Chen, B., Hwang, G.-J., Guan, J.-Q., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2022). Effects of digital game‑based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta‑analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0

Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., & Amemiya, J. (2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological functioning: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 57, 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912

Zheng, J. (2021). A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 712419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712419

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!