Statistically significant differences were observed in students’ ego orientation (t_1,258 = −2.11, p < 0.05) between the two genders of the students(“Table 1”), while there were no differences between gender in argumentativeness (t_1,258 = 0.19, p = 0.85), democratic style (t_1,258 = 0.45, p = 0.66), autocratic style (t_1,258 = −0.11, p = 0.92) and task orientation (t_1,258 = 1.85, p = 0.07).

Additionally, sstatistically significant differences were observed in students’ ego orientation (t_1,258 = −1.99, p < 0.05) between the two classes of the students (“Table 1”). Specifically, the 5^th grade of primary school proved to have the higher score on ego orientation in comparison to 6^th grade. There were no statistically significant differences between classes in argumentativeness (t_1,258 = 0.42, p = 0.67), democratic style(t_1,258 = 1.33, p = 0.18), autocratic style(t_1,258 = −1.36, p = 0.17) and task orientation (t_1,258 = 0.59, p = 0.56).

A correlation analysis was conducted, the results of which are presented in “Table 2”. As it can be seen, there was a negative significant relationship between instructors’ argumentativeness with autocratic style (r = −0.49) and ego

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001, α = Cronbach’s alpha.

orientation (r = −0.26) and a positive significant relationship between argumentativeness with democratic style (r = 0.60) and task orientation(r = 0.53). At the same time, “Table 2” presents the Cronbach’s alpha, mean scores and standard deviations of the variables.

Moreover, a series of simple regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which teaching leadership style and students’ goal orientations could be predicted from the ratings of instructor’s argumentativeness. The results indicated that perceived argumentativeness could predict significant variance in leadership style (F_(2,251) = 84.43, p < 0.001) with an R₂ of 40.2%. Perceived argumentativeness explained 21.5% of the variance in democratic style (β = 0.48, t₍₂₅₄₎ = −8.30, p < 0.001) and 6.5% of the variance in autocratic style (β = −0.22, t₍₂₅₄₎ = −4.16, p < 0.001). Another linear regression analysis was conducted to predict students’ goal orientations based on instructor argumentativeness. The results indicated that perceived instructor argumentativeness could predict significant variance in goal orientations (F_(2,240) = 50.73, p < 0.001) with an R₂ of 29.7%. Argumentativeness explained 24.8% of the variance in task orientation (β = 0.67, t₍₂₄₃₎ = 8.90, p < 0.001) and 2% of the variance in ego orientation (β = −0.12, t₍₂₄₃₎ = −2.21, p < 0.05). The results of the regression analyses are presented in “Table 3”.

In “Table 4”, four types of relations between instructors’ and students’ options appear: 1) “learning by democracy and arguing”, 2) “just democracy and arguing”, 3) “just ego without learning” and 4) “learning by arguing”.

Goal of this study is: a) to explore differences between genders and classes regarding argumentativeness, leadership style and goal orientations, b) to examine the relationship between perceived physical education instructors’ argumentativeness and leadership style as perceived by students and students’ goal orientations, c) to discuss the influence of instructor argumentativeness on their leadership style and student goal orientations and d) to suggest instructors’ and students’ typology. According to the results, statistically significant differences were observed in students’ ego orientation between the genders and the classes of the students. Perceived instructors’ argumentativeness was positively related to democratic teaching leadership style, students’ task orientations and was negatively related to autocratic teaching leadership style, students’ ego orientations.

**p < 0.001, *p < 0.05.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 8 components extracted.

Also, perceived instructors’ argumentativeness could significantly predict the variables of teaching leadership style and students’ goal orientations. Four behavioral types are revealed: 1) “learning by democracy and arguing”, 2) “just democracy and arguing”, 3) “just ego without learning” and 4) “learning by arguing”.

The findings of the present study seem to be consistent with the results of previous research, showing that instructors’ argumentativeness is related with their behavioral characteristics in the classroom such as the relaxed and friendly attitude toward their students, as teachers themselves are considered to open to dialogue and different opinions, and to have the ability to listen carefully and comprehensively [39] [73] . However, the multilevel correlation conducted in this research is supposed to offer an overview of interactions. In addition, the argumentativeness was positively related to with the democratic leadership style and involves the active participation of students in decision-making and the respect and encouragement by the instructor to freely express ideas and to take initiatives [74] [75] . On the other hand, the negative correlation of argumentativeness with autocratic leadership style may be attributed to the fact that educators characterized by authoritarianism tend to give orders without taking into account the views of their students and not to justify their decisions [74] [76] .

As [41] have argued, when instructors use arguments in the classroom, students are more satisfied with their communication and tend to develop positive emotions, both towards educators and towards the lesson. Additionally, instructors’ argumentativeness is related with the achievement of students’ personal goals, increased motivation for learning, facilitating the learning process, and improved interpersonal relations at class level, as the educator encourages students by arguing [27] [38] [77] [78] [79] .

In this study, it was also found that teaching democratic style was positively correlated with their students’ task orientation and negatively correlated with their ego orientation. These findings are in accordance with previous research indicating that the perceived teaching democratic style was positively correlated with students’ task orientation in the physical education lesson while the autocratic leadership style was linked to the students’ ego orientation [80] [81] . [74] found that adolescent athletes who regarded their coaches as supportive, are ready to offer guidance and positive feedback and less oriented towards achieving high performance or winning a race.

Many studies have also studied the effects of the perceived climate created by the educator on the motivation of children in sport [82] [83] [84] [85] . In particular, [86] found that students who thought their educators were supportive and that they had the ability to view and select activities during the physical education lessons were more entertained showed more interest in the lesson and they felt confident about their abilities. [82] found similar results indicating that pupils who had the ability to view and select activities during their physical education course believed that their instructors were promoting learning and participation, they enjoyed the lesson and continued to try, even if they did not succeed immediately.

As for the differences among argumentativeness, leadership style and personal orientations on the basis of gender and class, it was found that only the ego orientation depends on gender and class of students. It was found that the girls were more ego-oriented than the boys and that the students of the 5^th class were more ego-oriented compared to the children of the 6^th grade. The findings regarding the differences of ego orientation according to the class of students are in inconsistency with those of [87] , who argued that the ego orientation is also increasing with the age. On the other hand, [88] found that the larger ones were more task-oriented than the smaller ones, and attributed this finding to maturity of older students and their long-term goals, according to which success is intertwined with the effort. Also, [89] found that the older ones enjoyed sport more than the younger ones. Finally, concerning the differences of the ego orientation in relation to the gender of the students, the findings of this research contradict the previous research. In particular, [87] , through the study of children aged 10 - 17 who participated in the physical education lesson, found that boys were more ego-oriented than girls. The same conclusion was reached by other researchers who dealt with children’s personal orientations either in physical education or in the sport they practice individually [88] [90] . The differentiation of the findings of this research could be attributed to the fact that previous surveys included children from different levels of education at the same time and possibly the developmental changes that take place play a role in changing children’s orientations.

The results of the present study are compatible with these of previous research suggesting that instructors’ argumentativeness helped students express themselves freely improving their self-confidence and learning [9] [43] [44] [61] [91] [92] . Further research supported that instructors’ personality plays a determinant role in the relationship with their students and influences their behavior, emotions, tactics and attitudes [78] [79] [93] . This study, particularly, revealed that instructor’s perceived argumentativeness emerged as the most important predictor of teaching leadership style and of students’ goal orientations, which is in accordance with previous findings showing that instructors’ argumentativeness is positively related to their interpersonal attraction and responsibility, as well as to intrinsic reasons for discipline [36] [44] .

Moreover, four types of relations between instructors’ and students’ options appear: 1) “learning by democracy and arguing”, 2) “just democracy and arguing”, 3) “just ego without learning”, 4) “learning by arguing”. The type 1 reflects a pattern of cooperation which could be regarded as quite “constructive” and “modern”. The main goal of student is to learn (not to emphasize their ego). This seems to be achieved through a democratic and argumentative style in the part of instructors. It seems to be a quite sociable and learn-effective cooperation pattern. The type 2 is a unilateral tactic of the instructors. It depicts a class climate where the instructors are loyal to democratic and argumentative style, disregarding however the reaction of the students. The type 3 is a similar pattern in the part of students. Particularly, it depicts a class climate where the students’ “ego” mentality dominates, independently of the instructors’ style. Finally, the type 4 appears as sub-model of the type 1. Namely, learning is achieved by argumentation, independently of any democratic style. Such typologies have also been suggested in previous papers [94] - [107] but not so extensively focusing on the particular parameters and with the particular quantitative method.

Concisely, this study not only contributes to our understanding of factors associated with instructors’ argumentativeness but also corroborates the results produced in previous studies. Enlarging the sample to various regions, age classes and social milieus constitutes a challenge for future research. The insightful analysis of more determinants is also an open question.

There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.

Bekiari, A. and Balla, K. (2017) Instructors and Students Re- lations: Argumentativeness, Leadership and Goal Orientations. Open Journal of Social Sci- ences, 5, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.57009