Exploring the Contexts of Relationship Quality between Middle School Students and Teachers Author(s): HeatherA.

Davis Reviewed work(s): Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 106, No. 3 (January 2006), pp. 193-223 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501483 . Accessed: 26/04/2012 05:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Elementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Exploring the Contexts of Relationship Quality between Middle School Students and Teachers
Heather A. Davis
Ohio State University

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to introduce a framework for understanding relationship quality between middle school students and their teachers. The framework draws on ndings from 3 literatures (motivation, attachment, and sociocultural) and from analyses of a year-long case study in a rural middle school. I begin with a brief overview of the framework and identify constructs from the literature incorporated into the framework. I describe the design and methods employed to explore student-teacher relationship quality and its effect on student motivation and achievement. Synthesizing across survey data from 905 students and 25 teachers, interview data collected from 6 students and 6 teachers, and journal data from 28 teachers, I elaborate on 4 contexts I believe exert a press on teacher-student dyadic relationship quality. These include the context of the student, the teacher, the peers, and the interpersonal culture of the classroom and school. Finally, I explore the implications of the framework for practice, policy, and future research.

Research on Relationships between Middle School Students and Teachers

Over the past 20 years, there has been considerable research on how relationships between students and teachers affect the quality of students motivation and classroom learning experiences (Davis, 2003). Operating as socializing agents, teachers can inuence students social and intellectual experiences via their abilities to instill values in children such as the motivation to learn; by providing classroom contexts that stimulate students motivation and learning; by addressing students need to belong; and by serving a regulatory function for the devel-

The Elementary School Journal Volume 106, Number 3 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2006/10603-0002$05.00

194

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

opment of emotional, behavioral, and academic skills. Moreover, supportive relationships with teachers may play an important developmental role during the transition to and through middle school. However, developing relationships with an early adolescent presents unique challenges to middle grades teachers. Researchers seeking to understand the middle school experience have argued that the transition to and through middle school is particularly difcult and results in changes in students academic motivations and performance (Eccles et al., 1993; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993). In fact, middle schools, compared to elementary schools, have been criticized for their increasingly impersonal structure and atmosphere combined with increased student-teacher ratios. During the transition, students begin to report feeling less competent and autonomous and less supported by the classroom context, and they are more likely to endorse less adaptive learning goals. Moreover, changes across the two school environments are also reected in students reports of feeling greater anonymity with their middle school teachers and the other students in their classes. Students generally reported feeling that their middle school teachers were less friendly, less supportive, and less caring than their elementary school teachers (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Despite declines in teacher-student relationship quality, ndings have also suggested that adolescents benet, both socially and academically, when they experience supportive relationships with their teachers (Resnick et al., 1997). For example, our1 research indicated that middle grades students who perceived their relationships with their teachers as supportive tended to report enhanced motivation (Davis, Davis, Smith, & Capa, 2003; Davis, Schutz, Chambliss, & Couch, 2001), perceive more facilitative classroom climates (Davis et al.,

2003), and receive higher grades (Davis, 2001b; Davis et al., 2001, 2003). Moreover, we found that students generally dened their academic work differently depending on whether they perceived they had a good relationship with their teacher (Davis et al., 2001). Few students in our study were regularly experiencing conict in their relationships with teachers. Instead, the six students we interviewed contrasted good relationships with merely getting along with teachers whom they perceived as mean or distant. When students felt they got along with a teacher, they reported experiencing their academic tasks as coercive, repetitive, isolated, irrelevant, and often as obstacles to their social and academic goals. This feeling of coercion was most associated with students understandings of why students would resist or choose to engage in academic tasks for mean teachers (see also DeVries & Zan, 1996; Manke, 1997; West, 1994). They contrasted this kind of work with the fun they were having in classes where they had a good relationship with a teacher. In the latter, they found academic tasks as meaningful, personal, complementing their other goals, and as focusing on promoting their understanding. Likewise, the teachers in our study (Davis & Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001) believed that supportive relationships promoted classroom learning and motivation by creating a safe context for students to open up and listen to the teacher and take intellectual risks. They believed students worked harder for teachers they liked and that they could push students to do more challenging work when they had a good relationship with them. In this way, many of the teachers in our study found that investing the time to develop supportive relationships with students paid off throughout the year by becoming a source of their own motivation to be creative in their instruction, to persist with challenging content, to re-teach units if necessary, and to work through conict with students.
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

195

Purposes of the Article

My primary objective in this article is to introduce a new framework for understanding relationship quality between middle school students and their teachers. This framework draws from ndings identied across motivation, attachment, and sociocultural literatures and from our analyses of mixed-method data we collected during a year-long study of relationship quality.2 Specically, I describe four contexts I believe exert a press on teacher-student relationship dyads: the context of the teacher, the student, the peers in the classroom, and the interpersonal culture of the classroom and school. This concept of the press of a context is not new to the eld of child development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Durkin, 1995, pp. 1011). In this article I use press to refer to factors (both internal and external) that shape students and teachers behaviors, affect, motivation, and cognition surrounding classroom interactions and relationships. Middleton and Blumenfeld (2000) discussed the role of press in the classroom by elaborating the ways in which teacher behaviors create a culture or climate supporting motivation and learning. They identied three types of academic press: press for understanding, for performance, and for competition. Middleton and Blumenfeld (2000) conceptualized academic press as the enactment of teachers beliefs, motives, and values regarding their subject matter, teaching, and learning. In a parallel fashion, I view relational press as the enactment of students and teachers beliefs, motives, and values regarding relationships in the classroom. For example, Birch and Ladd (1997) and Ladd, Birch, and Buhs (1999) described the press students behaviors may exert on teacher relationship quality. They classied kindergartners behavioral orientations as moving towards, moving away, or moving against developing relationships with teachers. Drawing from this perspective, dyadic relationship quality between a stu-

dent and teacher reects both the reciprocal presses of the teacher and student contexts as well as each members attempts to negotiate alternative relationship opportunities (e.g., a peer context) and the interpersonal culture of the classroom and the school. These presses constrain the dyads opportunities to interact with each other. For example, classroom norms about interactions shape where, when, and how teachers and students perceive they can respond to each others press for developing a relationship. Moreover, I argue that these interpersonal presses affect how teachers and students engage each other in academic tasks. A secondary objective of this article is to describe how ndings from our case study contributed to the development of the model and to our understanding of studentteacher relationship quality. I begin with an overview of the three literatures and identify ndings we incorporated into the framework.3 Then I provide an overview of the design and methods we employed to explore middle school student-teacher relationship quality and its effect on motivation and achievement. I outline the multiple passes we made through the data and describe how ndings provided unique insights into relationship dynamics within and across the four contexts. Finally, I explore the implications of the framework for future research, policy, and teacher education.

Theoretical Perspectives on Relationship Quality

Motivation Perspectives Learner-centered psychological principles (LCPPs). Underlying studies of the classroom context is the premise that teachers instructional decisions affect student learning and motivation. In an attempt to provide a framework for designing effective learning environments, the Task Force on Psychology in Education of the American Psychological Association (APA, 1997) outlined 14 principles that dene what it

196

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

means to be learner centered from a research-validated perspective (see Appendix). McCombs and colleagues argued that learner-centeredness goes beyond the instructional decisions teachers make to encompass learners perceptions of the classroom context and the interactions of these perceptions with the beliefs, dispositions, and practices of their teachers (McCombs, 2004; see also Lambert & McCombs, 1998). The research on effective educational principles and practices based on the LCPPs has characterized learning as a whole-person phenomenon (McCombs, 2003). These domains reect the holistic nature of factors inuencing learners and learning (cognitive and metacognitive, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and other individual differences) (McCombs, 2004, p. 94). Research by McCombs (2003; see also McCombs, Perry, & Daniels, 2004) has indicated that, among the domains of the learner-centered principles, positive interpersonal relationships and classroom climates are among the most consistent, signicant predictors of student motivation and achievement. These ndings converge with research documenting the important role of students feelings of belonging to their school and class (Osterman, 2000) and their perceptions of their teachers as caring and supportive (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Harter, 1996; Wentzel, 1997) for predicting academic outcomes including academic efcacy, positive school affect, the pursuit of adaptive goals, helpseeking, and achievement (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Wentzel, 1998). It is beyond my scope in this article to review research documenting how teachers pedagogical decisions with regard to the cognitive and motivational LCPP domains can shape students classroom learning experiences. However, it is important to highlight the role teachers beliefs play in their instructional and classroom-management decisions (Weinstein, 1998). Findings from

the research on motivation have shown that teachers beliefs about the nature of schooling, knowledge, and learning; about themselves as teachers; about their subject matter; and about their students abilities, motivations, and behavior (Hoy, Davis, & Pape, in press) shape the instructional decisions they make and, in turn, affect their relationships with students. For example, teachers may differ in their understandings of how to manage adolescent behavior (Martin, 2004; Martin, Yin, & Baldwin, 1998). Research on classroom management has indicated that teachers may approach adolescent behavior from either a custodial or caregiver orientation (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967). Although both of these perspectives see discipline as an important component of classroom management, teachers holding custodial and caregiver orientations have different views of appropriate and inappropriate classroom behavior (Wolfgang, 2001). Many studies of motivation have documented the importance of student perceptions and teacher beliefs about the social contexts of learning; however, few studies elaborated on the types of social interactions and communications (see Appendix, Principle 11: Social inuences on learning) that contribute to relationship quality (see Neill, 1986, 1989; Turner et al., 1998, 2002). The press of teacher beliefs, motivations, and behaviors. There is a rich history in the eld of motivation of exploring how instructional contexts support students motivation and learning (APA, 1997; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; see also Summers, 2006, this issue). Moreover, work by Middleton and Midgley (2002) on the motivational consequences of teachers press for understanding suggested that teachers may experience relational benets from incorporating instructional strategies and engaging in interactions that exert a press for understanding. When conceptualizing the internal presses teachers may experience toward or away from relationships, I drew from research on the role of teachers beJANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

197

liefs, motivations, and behaviors (see Appendix, Principles 6, 7, and 11). I began by classifying factors implicated by the literature into two categories: the resources teachers draw on for providing instructional support and for providing affective support (see Fig. 1). Next I differentiated between the beliefs and perceptions teachers hold about themselves and their students as instructors and as interaction partners (e.g., self-other perceptions) and the knowledge base they develop with regard to classroom teaching (e.g., instructional design and classroom climate). Beliefs exerting a press toward relationship development and the establishment of supportive relationships might include teachers efcacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Teachers who feel condent in their ability to meet students instructional needs generally focused more on the task of teaching and less on their sense of self. From this perspective, a greater sense of efcacy for teaching may free emotional resources teachers need for coping with students interpersonal and intellectual needs. Moreover, a greater sense of efcacy may lead to more condence when interacting with students. Attachment Perspectives Attachment theory suggests that studentteacher relationships may be inuenced by students beliefs about adults, teachers, themselves, and the nature of adult-child interaction (Pianta, 1999). These beliefs can shape students social motivational beliefs and their sense of academic and social competence, their values, and their pursuit of academic and social goals in the classroom. Perhaps the most signicant contribution of attachment theory to the study of student-teacher relationships has been to provide a framework for how to evaluate the quality of an adult-child relationship. From the attachment perspective, good (or secure) relationships with nonparental adults (i.e., teachers) are dened by low levels of conict with accompanying high

levels of closeness and support. Additionally, attachment research has contributed to an understanding of how teachers responses to childrens demands in the classroom contribute to relationship quality. Specically, ndings have shown that adults affective tenor, responsivity to childrens demands, and consistency in responding have important consequences for relationship quality. Finally, attachment perspectives have contributed to our understanding of the factors that may shape relationship quality. These include students relationship history, their internal models of teacher relationships, and the repertoire of interpersonal skills they bring to the relationship. Importance of relationship history. Attachment theory posits that the quality of relationships between students and teachers will, in part, reect the parent-child relationship (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Pianta, 1996, 1999). For example, children who experience conict in the primary caregiver relationship generally experience conict with nonparental adults and peers and are generally wary of new situations. Furthermore, relationship status with primary caregivers continues to predict childrens social and cognitive development throughout adolescence and adulthood (Kobak & Seery, 1988). Internal models of relationships. Central to an attachment perspective on student-teacher relationships is the belief that students bring to the classroom schemas, or models, about the nature of their social world and of social relationships. A growing body of research has examined the nature of students relational schemas for teachers and their inuence on students relationships with current teachers and their academic motivation and learning (Davis, 2001a; Davis & Lease, 2000; Gurland, 1999; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Research has indicated that elementary students schemas for teachers predicted their expected liking of and a supportive relationship with their current teacher (Davis, 2001b; Gur-

198

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Fig. 1. The context of the teacher

land, 1999) as well as their self-efcacy for academic work (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997). From an attachment perspective, students internal models of their relationships with teachers guide their behavior during interactions with teachers by providing a framework for interpreting their teachers behaviors and intentions. Development of interpersonal skills. Researchers drawing from attachment theory posit that, through learning how to interact with their primary caregiver, children develop the skills necessary to negotiate both their social and physical worlds. Speci-

cally, children learn how to regulate their behavior and affect and the conditions for seeking help from adults. Findings from psychology have indicated that students social competence, such as their social skills (Merrell & Gimpel, 1998) and nonverbal communication skills (Halberstadt & Hall, 1980; Nowicki & Duke, 1992), is associated with the quality of their peer and teacher relationships as well as their academic achievement, even when controlling for performance on standardized measures of intellectual ability. Moreover, Pianta (1999) argued that, because of teachers
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

199

ability to help children accurately label, manage, and express emotion experiences in the classroom, teacher relationships become increasingly important in the process of emotion and behavior regulation. For example, students interactions with teachers help them learn how to interpret and manage unpleasant classroom emotions such as frustration and anxiety (see also Thompson, 1994). The press of student beliefs, motivations, and behaviors. When conceptualizing the internal presses students may experience toward or away from relationships, I drew from attachment theorys articulation of the salience of relationship history and relational schemas as well as the development of interpersonal skills (see Fig. 2). For example, supportive parent relationships paired with a history of supportive relationships with teachers would be reected in students expectations for future relationships with teachers (e.g., their relational schemas). Thus, students who expect to develop a good relationship with their teachers are more likely to experience a press toward developing relationships with teachers. Moreover, students who, in their prior relationships with teachers and with their parents, developed relevant interpersonal skills (e.g., interpret teachers verbal and nonverbal emotion cues, accurately express emotion, and regulate emotions and behaviors in the classroom) are also likely to experience a press toward relationships because they are likely to feel competent and condent in their relationships with teachers. Sociocultural Perspectives When conceptualizing the presses students experience toward or away from relationships with teachers, I also drew from research on the role of students academic beliefs, motivations, and behaviors (see Appendix, Principles 7, 8, 10, and 12). Research based on social-cultural theory has indicated that relationships between students and teachers reect the interpersonal culture of classrooms and schools, the oppor-

tunities students and teachers have to develop alternative relationships, and their abilities to connect with each other through the material (Davis, 2003). Sociocultural perspectives on student-teacher relationships, specically, social-constructivist theories, recognize that individual units (e.g., student-teacher dyads) cannot be separated from their classroom and school contexts (Brown & Campione, 1998; Yowell & Smylie, 1999). Furthermore, social-constructivist theories posit that teachers and students negotiate meaning about cognitive activities (e.g., learning mathematics) and social-cognitive activities (e.g., use of humor). This includes negotiating language (Bremme & Erickson, 1977; Mehan, 1984), activities (Finders, 1997; Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamachi, 2000), and power (Manke, 1997; Thomas & Oldfather, 1997) in the classroom. Motivation and learning as constructed within relationships. Using an inductive approach, social-constructivist researchers have documented the ways in which relationship quality is embedded in the social context of the classroom (Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Goldstein, 1999; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Sivan, 1986). Findings have suggested that students conceptions of school, including their motivation for academic tasks, affect their relationships with their teachers. Cobb and Yackel (1996) argued that students and teachers organize and reorganize beliefs about a domain (e.g., mathematics) in their attempts to solve problems that are essentially social in nature (e.g., how to complete tasks in the classroom, how to get along with or understand teachers). From this perspective, to help students master intellectual as well as social knowledge, teachers need to nd ways to connect with students understandings of the academic domain as well as the domain of adult-child relationships (Moje, 1995; West, 1994). Because of their emphasis on connecting with students conceptions of academics and relationships, social constructivists push us to consider students unique understandings

200

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Fig. 2. The context of the student

of relationships that result from their ongoing process of meaning-making (Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993). Relationships as constructed within academic content. Findings from sociocultural studies of student-teacher relationships also prompted us to consider two limitations of current research on studentteacher relationships from motivation and attachment perspectives. First, although a wealth of data exists on the effects of students academic beliefs and social perceptions on achievement, motivation, and learning, few studies have considered the effect of students achievement beliefs on their relationships with teachers. From a sociocultural perspective, students prior academic experience, including their expectations of success and valuing of each subject (Davis, 2001b), may shape their classroom relationships because, within the structure of middle schools, relationships

with teachers are embedded within the subject matter taught (Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995, 2001). Thus, in our case study we were interested in exploring the extent to which students prior academic motivations shaped their relationships with their teachers. In other words, how much did students liking or disliking math generalize to liking or disliking their math teachers? Second, we wondered about middle school students and teachers conceptions of caring, support, and good relationships. For example, Goldstein (1999) challenged our understanding of what caring might mean in the context of a student-teacher relationship. She argued that teachers can demonstrate caring through their use of scaffolding techniques in the classroom, for example, by matching the demands of each task to students needs and interests and by providing instrumental support to maximize students likelihood of success. Teachers can also demonstrate caring in their abilJANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

201

ity to attain intersubjectivity, to create a shared intellectual space with their students. In the process of reaching intersubjectivity, teachers attempt to share with students their own constructions of concepts while at the same time trying to understand students existing constructions. This process involves reciprocity, a commitment to supporting students autonomy in making meaning and solving problems, and being cognitively engaged. In our case study, we explored how teachers and students behaviors, as well as the types of interactions afforded by the classroom interpersonal and intellectual norms, created opportunities to achieve intersubjectivity.

Constructing a Framework to Understand Relationship Quality

Research based on sociocultural perspectives on relationship quality has elaborated on how students and teachers negotiate the internal presses of their own beliefs, motivations, and behaviors with those of their relationship partner and the classroom context. For example, Goldstein (1999) and Tharp et al. (2000) argued that, through the processes of joint activity and intersubjectivity, teachers demonstrate care for individual students as well as for the subject matter they teach. Tharp et al. (2000) added to our conceptual framework by discussing the role of propinquity, joint activity, afnity, and intersubjectivity in establishing and maintaining relationships and promoting learning. Propinquity refers to the role of physical closeness, of spending time together in promoting relational development. Joint activity refers to the activities teachers and students engage in, in which they share common motives and work toward common goals. Joint productive activity is the most reliable and potent force inuencing the development of afnities (Tharp et al., 2000, p. 57). And afnity refers to an inclination toward relationship, to the voluntary pairing or the autonomy to choose relational partners. Tharp et al. (2000) argued that, when afnity is present

in a student-teacher dyad, it works in a cyclical manner to promote propinquity and joint activity. Their elaboration of concepts helped us to think about how the structure of classrooms (particularly how teachers negotiate their instructional and affective resources as well as their own identity) may affect the quality of relationships that can emerge. Results from our case study not only claried our understanding of how the constructs we identied in our framework (see Fig. 3) shape relationship quality but made several novel contributions to the framework. In the following sections I describe ndings from our case study and the contributions of our ndings to the framework I developed. I begin with an overview of the method, including the mixed-method design and analysis plan. Over an academic year, we assembled a large database that included both quantitative (self-report survey) and qualitative (interview and journal) data. All quantitative data were analyzed in a deductive, theoretically driven manner. Specically, for all analyses we drew from prior research to construct theoretically defensible models. We then submitted each model to analysis and compared the t of our models with the pattern of relationships in the data. We analyzed all qualitative data in an inductive manner. In doing so, we attempted to set aside our biases and our knowledge of each theory in order to identify themes emerging from participants experiences. Finally, when constructing the framework presented here, I compared across both sets of data, looking for convergences and divergences, and attempting to synthesize what we learned from the data with ndings from the eld.

Overview of Case Study

Method Participants and procedures. All data were collected from one large middle school in a predominantly rural, agricultural county. The district served predomi-

Fig. 3. Four contexts of relationship quality. (Constructs in bold represent new contributions from mixed-method data.)

RELATIONSHIPS

203

nantly lower- and middle-income families, with approximately 22% of the 4,000 children reported to live in poverty. We collected multimethod data simultaneously throughout the 19992000 school year (see Table 1). When using deductive methods, we focused on the role of students and teachers perceptions of the quality of their relationships. We began by developing theoretical models about the nature of relationships between middle school students and their teachers. We drew constructs from across attachment, motivation, and sociocultural perspectives on relationship quality previously discussed. From attachment perspectives, we selected measures to capture relationship quality between a student and a teacher (e.g., closeness, conict, and dependency; Pianta 1996, 1999), relationship history (e.g., parent-child relationships; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), students schemas for teacher relationships (Davis, Schutz, & Chambliss, 2000), and students interpersonal skills (Merrell, 1993). From motivation perspectives we selected measures to capture students and teachers motivations. For students, this included measures of domain-specic expectations and values of success (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) and, for teachers, perceptions of personal, general, and team-teaching efcacy (Dembo & Gibson, 1985) and expectations for students academic success (modied from Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). From sociocultural theory, we selected measures to capture students perceptions of classroom climate (e.g., organization and rule clarity; Moos & Trickett, 1974), students and teachers perceptions of the interpersonal climate of the school (Vessels, 1998), and structural constraints such as amount of time spent with teacher, class period, absences, and perceived teacher liking (Davis, Williams, Bouistead, Axelberd, & Lease, 2005). We collected survey data at four times from students and three times from teachers (see Table 1). Students completed surveys in class at their own pace. We organized makeup sessions for the few students who

did not have enough time to nish in class and to attempt to catch as many students who missed the administration sessions as we could. At each grade level, students were divided into two teams (approximately 150 students per team) with ve teachers for their core academic classes of English, reading, math, social studies, and science. Throughout the year, we collected data from 903 students (446 boys, 457 girls) from one sixth-, two seventh-, and two eighth-grade teams and from 45 teachers (including 28 homeroom teachers). This represented approximately 75% of the entire student and faculty population of the school. Student samples sizes, however, varied for each data collection (based on absences, transience, etc.). Of the possible 750 students on the ve participating teams, we collected data from an average of 700 of these students at times 1, 3, and 4 (about 90%) and approximately 600 students at time 2 (about 80% participation). Participation rates were lower at time 2 largely due to an outbreak of inuenza. Teachers completed surveys on their own time. Most teachers returned survey packets within 1 week of receiving them. When using inductive methods, we explored from interview and journal data students and teachers conceptions of relationships with each other. We interviewed a subset of six students and six teachers three times during an academic year. Teachers were sampled using criterion-sampling methods. They were identied by their principal as exemplary in developing relationships with students. Participants included two male teachers (a special educator and a music teacher) and four female teachers (two general educatorsone from reading and one from Englisha gifted educator, and the teacher of intervention classes for underachieving seventh- and eighth-grade students). Students were selected using convenience sampling methods. Participants included a boy and a girl from each grade level. The purpose of these interviews was to explore the students and

204

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Table 1. Quantitative Data-Collection Schedule and Measures Administered Time 1 Student measures: Relationship with parents (Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) Beliefs about teachers (Relational Schema ScaleTeachers; Davis et al., 2000) Domain-specic expectations of academic success (Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, MSLO; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) Domain-specic value of academic success (MSLO; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) Domain-specic classroom climate (Classroom Environment Scale; Moos & Trickett, 1974, 1994) Domain-specic quality of relationship with teacher (modied Student-Teacher Relationship Scale, STRS; Pianta, 1996) Amount of time and class period spent with each academic teacher Interpersonal climate of school (Vessels School Climate Questionnaire; Vessels, 1998) Absences and grades for each academic subject Teacher measures:a Personal and general teaching efcacy (Teachers Sense of Efcacy; Dembo & Gibson, 1985) Interpersonal climate of school (Vessels School Climate Questionnaire; Vessels, 1998) Expectations of success for homeroom students (modied MSLO; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) Rating of academic social skills for homeroom students (School Social Behavior Scales; Merrell, 1993) Quality of relationship with homeroom students (STRS; Pianta, 1996)
a

Time 2

Time 3

Time 4

X X X X X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

There were only three data-collection points for the teacher data.

teachers understandings of the relationships they developed and observed in their classrooms throughout an academic year. Interview questions were based on pilot data (Davis, 2001b), with subsequent questions developed from themes that emerged from the data. The rst interview with students and teachers took place prior to the rst day of school, the second after the winter break, and the third during the month before the last day of school. Regarding journal data, 28 teachers, including homeroom/academic and auxiliary (e.g., music, gym, special education) teachers, were asked to complete journals at the beginning of the year about their beliefs about relationship quality and again at the end of the year reecting on the role of relationship quality in promoting their students motivation and learning (Davis & Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001).

Data analysis4 Deductive analyses.At the outset of this project, we hypothesized specic, time-ordered, complex relations among the constructs we attempted to assess. Because our approach was to evaluate the utility of the theoretical models we developed, we employed path analysis (LISREL; Joreskog, 1993; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) to examine the structure of interrelations within the data. Path analysis is essentially a directional regression analysis. There are several benets to using path analysis in lieu of multiple regression analysis. For example, path analysis is based on conceptual or theoretical reasoning and enables researchers to test ideas. Furthermore, because path analysis outlines the direction of relationships, decomposes correlations, and then examines the variance uniquely associated
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

205

with each factor, it can alleviate some of the problems associated with multicollinearity (Bollen, 1989). Due to the size of our dataset (in terms of the number of data collection times, the number of factors assessed, and that domain-specic data were obtained for ve academic subjects), data were analyzed in stages. When working with student data, we completed separate analyses for each academic subject (math, reading, English, social studies, and science) using a method comparable to seemingly unrelated regression (SUR; Bollen, 1989) analyses. The purpose of these analyses was to examine whether patterns of relationships that remained were similar within each subject. Below are summaries of each pass we made through the data and the models we submitted for analysis. In all cases, to evaluate the t of all path models we used indices comparing our t with optimal t (chi square) and with the null model (CFI). We also examined how well the model was reproducing observed data (SRMR), an index of stability (RMSEA), and estimates of residual error (Psi and Theta Epsilon Matrices). Pass 1: Modeling students perceptions of relationship quality: We began by revising an attachment model of student-teacher relationships (Davis et al., 2001). A traditional attachment model would argue that students relationship history (e.g., parent relationships), internal models of teacher relationships (e.g., relational schemas), and interpersonal skills predict relationship quality with individual teachers. In addition, we believed subject-specic, baseline motivation would predict students relationships with their teachers. Regarding attachment perspectives, we were interested in the relative contribution of relationship history to students internal models of relationships with teachers. Second, regarding motivation and sociocultural perspectives, we wondered whether relationship quality was embedded in the subject matter taught (i.e., Does disliking a subject generalize to disliking a teacher?).

Pass 2: Modeling teachers perceptions of relationship quality: Next, we developed and tested a model designed to predict middle school teachers perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their homeroom students (Davis, Davis, & Murphy, 2002). Drawing from motivation and sociocultural theories, we asked teachers to evaluate their own efcacy for teaching and to report their perceptions of students academic and social competencies. Using sociocultural theory, we asked teachers to report their views on the interpersonal climate of the school (administrator-teacher, teacher-teacher, and student-teacher relationships throughout the school; Vessells, 1998). We believed that, with limited resources, teachers would use this information to select relationship partners in the classroom. Passes 3 and 4: Models to predict student motivation and learning: In our third model, we drew from the homeroom teacher database (N 28) to explore the relations between teachers perceptions of relationship quality at the beginning of the year and student motivation and achievement at the end of the year (Davis et al., 2002). In our fourth model, we examined the role of social contextual factors in predicting students motivation and achievement (Davis et al., 2003). In this model, we emphasized the complex interplay of relationship quality, classroom organizational climate, and gender. We believed the pattern of relations among students perceptions of relationship quality, classroom climate, motivation, and achievement would depend on the subject matter as well as gender and grade level. This is because we predicted that students understanding of relationship quality, classroom climate, and motivation would depend on the academic context in which their relationship with the teacher was developing (see also Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Inductive analyses.The interviews were semistructured and topical. Analysis began after the rst interview and was ongoing. Two broad research questions guided the collection and coding of interview data:

206

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

How do these middle school students (teachers) understand their relationships with teachers (students)? and What factors do they identify as shaping relationship quality? Following each interview we identied critical events, actions, and interactions from the tapes and notes. Notes were then coded into meaningful units of data, and themes were inductively generated following the constant comparative method of data analysis (Bogdan & Bilken, 2002; Dey, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Constant comparative analyses were also used to analyze teacher journal data (Davis & Ashley, 2003; Davis, & Couch, 2001). Constant comparative analysis is an iterative process of data reduction. This method provided a feedback loop (Oldfather, 1994) that shaped both the collection and analysis of the data. Through iterations of thinking about, coding, and organizing data, we identied emerging themes that we used to construct subsequent interview questions that asked respondents to reect or elaborate on ideas they labeled as signicant. In an attempt to assess participants conceptions of their relationships, we rst examined themes within each participant. To do this we constructed proles of each student and teacher. Then we determined the extent to which themes emerged across participants (e.g., cross-case analysis). To examine the accuracy of our representations of students, their teachers, and the themes we identied, we wrote a manuscript describing the interview ndings and gave it to the teachers at the participating school. Both positive and negative cases and student and teacher examples of each theme were elaborated in full (Davis, 2001a). To further establish the extent to which interview ndings represented the experience of participating students and teachers, we shared our ndings from survey and interview data with the faculty and staff for a member check. During a workshop, teachers and researchers discussed the ndings. These discussions claried our understanding of the use of humor, teachers attempts to manage

the peer context, and their understanding of their resources for relationship quality. In the event of a discrepancy between the ndings from students interviews and surveys and the teachers experience, the group worked together to reconcile why students might view the context differently from their teachers. Findings: Four Presses on Relationship Quality The context of the student. When conceptualizing the internal presses students may experience toward or away from relationships, I drew from attachment theorists articulation of the salience of relationship history and relational schemas as well as the development of interpersonal skills (see Figs. 2 and 3) and from motivation theorists focus on students academic motivations. Our data not only corroborated ndings regarding the importance of students relationship history with teachers but also underscored the dominance of prior teacher experiences over the quality of the parent relationship. Findings from our interviews also added to our understanding of the role of students interpersonal skills, including their use of humor and their identication with being a student. Beliefs about teachers.Our quantitative data suggested that students relationship history (experiences with teachers and the quality of their parent relationship) predicted their perceptions of relationship quality with their current teachers. In other words, students who held positive schemas for teacher relationships generally reported increased baseline motivation, received higher ratings by their teacher of academic social skills, and, in turn, reported more positive perceptions of their relationships with their teachers. Interestingly, we found that, although parent relationships contributed to predicting the quality of students relationships with teachers, the effect was indirect and mediated through the beliefs students developed about teachers and students motivation for school. These ndings
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

207

were consistent across all ve academic subjects and are consonant with attachment theories of teacher-child relationships. Moreover, both our inductive and deductive data converged and spoke to the ways in which relationship history and internal models of teacher relationships operate in the classroom. Again, when modeling the factors that predict relationship quality, we identied direct effects of students schemas for teacher relationships on their classroom behavior, motivation, and perceptions of relationship quality with individual teachers. In contrast, their relationship with their parents only evidenced indirect effects on these factors. Analysis of interview data revealed that, although students mentioned the role their parents played in shaping their relationships with teachers, parental support was not a consistent theme across their interviews (Davis et al., 2001). These ndings are relevant for attachment theorists seeking to understand the structure and coordination of multiple relational schemas (Davis & Lease, 2000; Howes, Hamilton, & Philipsen, 1998) as well as for classroom practice. They suggest that students relational schemas for teachers may exert a more powerful inuence, both in scope and magnitude, than parent schemas on predicting social and academic outcomes in the classroom. Our data also indicated that parent and teacher schemas, though not independent of each other, may not be structured in a hierarchical fashion with parent relationships shaping all future relationships. Instead, these schemas may operate more integratively, with students differentiating new schemas to understand new types of relationships (e.g., teacher, peer). Although schemas of teacher relationships may reect the integration of similar data, these schemas may operate as their own lens and organizing framework when students are confronted with a new relationship (e.g., a new teacher) of a similar type. When, then, or under what conditions, do students draw on their understanding of parent relationships? In the interviews, stu-

dents reported they drew on their parental relationship only when experiencing conict in the teacher relationship. These results may also have implications for the ways in which teachers interact with students. When making attributions, or judgments, about the source of problems in a relationship with a student, it can be easy to blame the students relationships with his or her parents. This attribution is consistent with a more traditional view of attachment theory, suggesting that the schema developed in the primary caregiver relationship will act as a lens for interpreting all other relationships. Instead, by middle school, parent relationships may have a less deterministic effect on students abilities to interact with their teachers. Thus, teachers may need to consider middle school students history with their elementary and other middle school teachers (see also Howes et al., 1998) and the extent to which students responses conrm or disconrm students expectancies about teacher relationships. Academic motivation.Our qualitative and quantitative data showed that students and teachers motivations affected relationship quality. For example, students academic motivation (from an expectancyvalue framework) and their ability to regulate their behavior in the classroom were signicant predictors of relationship quality. Thus, students who liked the subject matter, expected to do well, and had the social skills necessary to self-regulate tended to report more supportive relationships with their teachers (Davis et al., 2001). These ndings align with sociocultural research and suggest that relationships between students and teachers are co-constructed within the context of academic content (Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Moje, 1995; Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Likewise, we found that subject-specic motivation was both a consistent predictor and outcome of relationship quality, with relationship quality at mid-year directly and indirectly (via perceptions of classroom climate) predict-

208

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

ing students end-of-year motivation. Because we hypothesized that students endof-year motivation may become their baseline motivation for the following year, this nding somewhat concerned us, because we may have identied a cyclical pattern. In this cycle, good relationships enhance motivation and thus increase the likelihood of good relationships forming with the next teacher. In contrast, students who are either relationally or motivationally at risk may suffer from a cycle of bad relationships that leads to diminished motivation. For middle school teachers, however, our survey data also indicated that motivating students may require more than developing a supportive relationship with them. It may require rethinking the nature of the classroom climate. We found that students baseline motivation in a course did not consistently predict their perception of the organizational climate of the classroom (Davis et al., 2003). Students who reported feeling condent and valuing mathematics, English, and social studies at the beginning of the year tended to see their classrooms as organized and with clearer rules. However, this did not parallel ndings in reading and science, which showed no relation between motivation and organizational climate. Moreover, organizational climate was not a consistent predictor across domains of motivation, relationship quality, and achievement at the end of the year. McCaslin and Good (1992) noted that, although some orderliness may be necessary to promote students abilities to focus and learn material, school and classroom policies with too strong an emphasis on student obedience may undermine teachers attempts to develop self-motivated, active students willing to take intellectual risks. Our ndings converge with socialconstructivist perspectives of motivation by suggesting that students understandings of classroom activities and tasks are shaped not only by the quality of their relationships with teachers but also by their understand-

ing of what it means to learn in a particular academic domain. We believe students develop expectations about the kinds of activities, type of work, norms for classroom behavior, and types of interactions that are typical within a domain. For students who feel condent and appreciate the domain, these expectations may serve an organizing function enabling students to nd meaning for the work they are completing as well as for classroom routines. In contrast, for students who do not feel condent or who do not appreciate the domain, these expectations may interfere with their ability to nd meaning and manage teacher expectations, activities, routines, and interactions with a new teacher. It is important to note that, in this project, we used a narrow conceptualization of student motivation to include students subject-specic expectations and values of success (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Wigeld & Eccles, 1992 2000). This reected, in part, pragmatic concerns about the large amount of data requested from students and in part my orientation toward expectancy-value theoretical frameworks. However, the six students we interviewed described their motivations for school in more complex ways that included a variety of types of engagement, self-regulatory behaviors, goals, interests, and attributions about the sources of success and failure (in relationships and academic tasks; Davis, 2001a). Although our ndings point to the critical role students motivation plays in shaping relationships with teachers, future studies should expand our framework. Social competence.In line with attachment perspectives on relationship quality, we found that students who could regulate their academic behaviors and emotions in the classroom generally reported more positive relationships with their teachers. Likewise, teachers reported having more supportive relationships with these students. As with indicators of relationship history, these ndings were consistent across academic domains and with ndings from the
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

209

Learner-Centered Psychological Principles (see Appendix, Principles 10 and 11, APA, 1997; Lambert & McCombs, 1998). For example, in their interviews and journals, the teachers agreed that students who were organized, conscientious, honest, and exhibited respect for themselves and their peers were more attractive relationship partners. They also noted that students who were shy or disruptive were harder to get to know and get along with. I should note that our operationalization of regulating academic behaviors and emotions in the surveys was broad. Similarly, our interview and journal data showed that students and teachers saw a broad spectrum of student behaviors as shaping relationship quality. In contrast, researchers examining self-regulation and emotional regulation in the classroom have tended to examine sets of beliefs and behaviors (see Patrick & Middleton, 2002; Perry, 1998; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, & Nordby, 2002; Schutz & Davis, 2000). Future research in this area may want to deconstruct our more global indicator of academic and emotional regulation to examine the extent to which relationship quality is affected by students self- and emotionregulation skills. Findings from the interviews and journals pointed to humor as a means by which students and teachers developed connections with each other. Students frequently reported that their teachers used humor to deal with mild misbehavior and to gain and maintain students attention and interest in academic material. Teachers, too, appreciated students who could be funny in appropriate ways. Both groups identied incidents where students use of humor helped them develop rapport with teachers and/or facilitated the teachers learning goals. These ndings parallel others in the eld suggesting the complex role humor may play in relationship building (Moje, 1995; Pianta, 1999). Yet, our data also indicated that the use of humor by a student or a teacher could be risky. Students noted incidents where teachers sarcastic comments

were taken the wrong way or taken personally as well as incidents where students attempts at humor, because they competed with the teachers learning goals, were met with reprisal. Constructing a student identity. The interview and journal data showed that the quality of students interactions and relationships with teachers reected the way in which they understood what it meant to be a student and the extent to which they identied with that role. The six students we interviewed tended to report that being a student involved doing work, participating in class, paying attention, following rules, and refraining from distracting behaviors. To teachers, however, having a student identity was synonymous with having students express the desire to work toward the common goal of learning. In fact, the teachers viewed this student identity as something that went beyond having interpersonal and organizational skills to reect students attitudes toward school, learning, and their class. For teachers, being a student epitomized inquisitive, self-motivated, and self-disciplined behavior. Teachers reported that it was easier to develop relationships with students who realized the importance of school and who shared the same beliefs and values about schooling. Both the teachers and students interviewed agreed that being a student meant that teachers did not need to coerce (and should not have to coerce) a student into performing academic behaviors. Rather, teachers (and students) appreciated when everyone in the classroom identied with the common goal of learning (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). To students, the sense of being a student was so strong that they viewed acting as a student (e.g., exhibiting greater effort, improving performance in class) or defying the student identity (e.g., acting out in class) as ways of gaining power in their classes. In contrast, teachers reported struggling with how to interact with students who had constructed their student identity around

210

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

being argumentative, defensive, or deant. They tended to see these students as engaging in attention seeking and struggled with how to respond. A number of researchers have examined how identication with academics may affect student motivation and learning. They noted that identication is one mechanism underlying alienation (Ladson-Billings, 2001; Osborne, 1995; Steele 1997; Tatum, 1997) and the socialization of academic values (Deci et al., 1991). Our ndings add to this literature by suggesting that students clarity of and commitment to being a student may have relational implications in the classroom and could serve as an obstacle to motivation and learning. The Context of the Teacher When conceptualizing the internal presses teachers experience toward or away from relationships, I drew from research on the role of teacher beliefs, motivations, and behaviors. Although our ndings converged with those from the literature on teacher beliefs, the most important contribution of our results is (1) to elaborate on the types of beliefs teachers have concerning developing relationships with students and (2) to describe teachers struggles to negotiate relationships with their students given their personal and teaching identities. Providing instructional support. As I stated earlier, ndings from research based on motivation theory have indicated that a central component of effective instruction and classroom management is the judgments teachers make about themselves as teachers and about their condence for managing classroom life (Hoy & Davis, in press). This research has suggested that teachers condence in their ability to teach content, manage their classrooms, and engage students may have important consequences for student motivation, learning, and behavior. When looking at our model to predict teachers perceptions of relationship quality, we found that teachers who tended to see educators in general, as well as themselves, as capable of managing stu-

dents academic and behavior problems in the classroom tended to report more positive relationships with their students (Davis et al., 2002). These ndings are consistent with the literature on teacher efcacy (TschannenMornan et al., 1998). Likewise, consistent with the literature on teacher expectations, students who were perceived by their homeroom teachers to be more academically and socially competent tended to be rated by their teachers at mid-year as having better relationships with teachers (Davis et al., 2002). Our research has shown that teachers beliefs about themselves and their expectations for their students not only affect their instruction but also their interactions with students. Providing affective support. High condence in ones teaching ability and a exible and dynamic understanding of instruction may not be enough to support good decisions in the face of student conict. As I mentioned earlier, when faced with deciding how to respond to students who express frustration, anger, or apathy, teachers rely on their conceptions of what it means to be a student (Davis & Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001). This includes their implicit understanding of what constitutes typical, good, and problem adolescent behavior; of their responsibilities as adult caregivers in a classroom; as well as of what constitutes effective discipline. Teachers journals suggested that they may differ in whether they view attending to the interpersonal climate and developing relationships as central or supercial to their tasks as teachers. In contrast, the six teachers we interviewed, identied by their principal for their abilities to develop rapport with students, believed that all of their students needed a relationship with them. These teachers held generally optimistic views of students, focused on student potential, and saw themselves as playing a central role in cultivating potential. We believe these conceptions of whether relationships are important may affect the types of climates and relationships teachers develop in their
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

211

classrooms as well as the students learning experience. A growing literature has also examined the role of teachers perceptions of the school academic climate (see Hoy & Sabo, 1998), as well as their perceptions of collective efcacy, in their instruction (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). However, few studies have examined the effect of teachers perceptions of the interpersonal school climate on their attempts to develop relationships with students. We found that homeroom teachers who perceived a more supportive interpersonal climate in the school generally reported more supportive relationships with their homeroom students. In fact, teachers perceptions of the interpersonal culture of the school exerted both a direct inuence on relationships as well as indirect effects via teachers perceptions of individual students social and academic competence and their own feelings of self-efcacy. Classroom climate. Central to several denitions of classroom climate are students perceptions of their relationship with their teachers (Goodenow, 1993; Moos, 1973). Our survey data showed that students who perceived supportive relationships with their teachers generally reported feeling more motivation in their classes and received higher grades (Davis et al., 2003). Moreover, in the interviews students described experiencing schoolwork differently. When they perceived they had a good relationship with their teacher, they generally experienced their schoolwork as engaging and as related to their lives (Davis et al., 2001). Likewise, many teachers wrote in their journals about the benets of building relationships. They noted that students were more likely to present positive attitudes in class, take risks, and expend effort (Davis & Couch, 2001). In contrast, conict in relationships was often accompanied by student misbehavior, expressions of disrespect, and use of the poor relationship quality as an excuse to quit when students perceived their academic tasks as too challenging (Davis & Couch, 2001). These nd-

ings parallel those from the motivation literature suggesting that the interpersonal climate of the classroom in terms of the affective tenor of teacher verbal (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Turner et al., 1998, 2002; Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003) and nonverbal messages (Brooks & Woolfolk, 1987; Neill, 1986, 1989), the press toward belonging (Goodenow, 1993; Osterman, 2000), and the press toward social responsibility and prosocial behavior (Wentzel, 1998) have important consequences for relational and academic outcomes. Although there is increasing research on the role of the interpersonal or affective climate of the classroom, fewer studies have examined how the organizational or system maintenance (Moos & Trickett, 1974, p. 3) climate of the classroom affects relationships (S. Davis, 2004; Davis et al., 2003). Moos and Trickett (1974) described system maintenance (including the press toward order and organization, toward rule clarity, and toward teacher control) as the extent to which classroom activities, in their purpose and frequency, are directed toward maintaining a functioning and orderly classroom. Perhaps the most widely studied dimension of system maintenance is teacher control. Research has indicated that teachers who balance their need for structure with students need for autonomy increase students sense of responsibility for their own learning, intrinsic motivation for academic tasks, feelings of competence, and use of strategies leading to conceptual understanding (see Reeve, 2006, this issue; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999). Findings from student surveys showed that teachers decisions regarding classroom organization and rule clarity affected their relationships with students and students motivation and performance (Davis et al., 2003). However, as I noted earlier, these effects were not consistent across the ve academic subjects. We believe this may reect differences in the value, or importance, students place on the organizational

212

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

dimensions of classroom climate depending on the subject matter (Stodolosky & Grossman, 1995). For subjects that have traditionally been dened more narrowly in terms of content, scope, stability, and status (e.g., mathematics and English), viewing the classroom as orderly and having clear rules may be more important to predicting students motivation and achievement. We believe this may be because students expectations about these subjects and about how to interact with those teachers may be more rigid and established. Differential ndings across subjects have prompted us to wonder about the interplay among teachers instructional design (e.g., epistemology, pedagogy, method), management, and student outcomes (e.g., relationship quality, motivation). We believe teachers working in narrowly dened subjects who attempt to employ more constructivist, discoveryoriented pedagogies may face a great deal of resistance from and/or conict with students, because those methods and pedagogies may challenge students expectations. Is this conict a problem? Not necessarily. In fact, there may be long-term developmental benets for students who learn how to be successful, to self-regulate, and to stimulate their own motivation across a variety of pedagogical approaches and in classrooms with diverse norms (Bjorklund, 2005). Moreover, learning how to navigate conict in a relationship with an adult, to express confusion and frustration appropriately and resolve conict, as well as to identify their own needs and limits and to seek help and persist in the face of difculty may help students develop interpersonal exibility and resilience that enable them to interact more adeptly with a diverse population of adults and peers. However, the decision to select a pedagogical approach outside of the tradition of an academic eld may have short-term relational consequences that teachers may need to anticipate in order to feel condent and be successful. Constructing a teaching identity. When looking across all of the beliefs we identi-

ed, we nd they are united in their attempt to describe the way in which teachers view their tasks as teachers. This may include their task as an instructor, as a representative of their content area, and as a role model for their students. As teachers construct their tasks, they in effect construct their identities as teachers (Danielewicz, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 2001). However, our data indicated that teachers must consider how their personal and teaching identities affect their attempts to facilitate classroom interactions. When comparing students interview responses with the teachers journals, we found that students and teachers generally held different conceptions of who is responsible for developing good relationships in the classroom. The six students we interviewed were clear about the bidirectional nature of the student-teacher relationship. They believed that students and teachers shared responsibility for developing and maintaining relationships. In contrast, over a third of the teachers reported feeling uncertain about the extent to which developing relationships was their responsibility, with several teachers arguing that they were not obligated to meet students relational needs. For these teachers, the tension over whether they should support students emotional and interpersonal needs appeared to stem from their uncertainty about the possible effect of relationship quality on motivation and learning. In fact, out of the six groups of teachers we classied from the journal data, two groups reported either being uncertain about this effect or believed good relationships had no effect or a potentially negative effect (Davis & Ashley, 2003). Additionally, a third group reported that only relationships that evidenced a great deal of conict might hinder students motivation and learning. Our ndings indicated that it may also be important for teachers to consider the dilemma of negotiating dual relationships with students (Richmond & Padgett, 2003). Dual relationships can occur when teachers
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

213

use their relationships with students to simultaneously meet their own needs. Research has shown that new teachers often want to be seen by students as a friend (Spence, 1999). Likewise, our journal data showed that teachers sought to establish relationships with students who reected the dimensions of their personal or teaching selves or who validated their instruction. In attempting to evaluate whether they are involved in a dual relationship with a student, teachers may need to ask themselves: Do I need this student to like me in order to feel effective? What happens when teachers view student-teacher relationship quality (in terms of roles and responsibility) as involving dual-relationship dimensions (i.e., motivator, mentor, coach, friend, caregiver)? Few studies have examined the ways in which teachers use their classrooms and their relationships with students to meet their own psychological needsor the effects of these decisions on students learning and development (Morrison, 1985). Yet these explorations could help educators understand the nature and implications of teaching students who may not look the same, hold the same values, or use the same communication and interaction patterns as their teachers (Ladson-Billings, 2001; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Tatum, 1997). The Peer Context Until now, our model has described presses that are internal (students and teachers beliefs, values, skills, identity) to each member of the dyad. However, several ndings in our case study spoke to the potential role of presses that are external to the dyad. In both the interviews and journals, students and teachers framed their relationships as reecting the peer relationship structures in the classroom. These ndings indicated that the culture of the school; the composition of a class, including class size and the individual and collective assets of students; and the outside observations of teacher preference (Davis et al., 2005) may

make some relationships more likely to develop than others. For example, the six teachers we interviewed emphasized the power of having a class that gelled. They believed their classes came together to form a collective identity and that classes that gelled provided intellectual and social momentum and pressed students to interact with each other and with content. Classes that did not gell led to intellectual and social inertia. In interviews and journals, teachers and students noted the ways in which peer relationships provided alternative sources of support for students in the classroom. For example, during conicts with teachers, two students frequently reported turning to their friends for support and comfort in lieu of trying to resolve the conict with their teacher. In these cases, the aligning of peer relationships against a teacher frequently led to erosion of the rapport in that teacherstudent dyad. Moreover, this form of coping with conict could also taint peers perceptions of that teacher. Students also discussed how peers views of the teacher could represent a type of social inertia in the classroom, either encouraging or blocking the development of relationships. This was particularly true when teachers developed a reputation among students for being mean. Such a reputation, regardless of credibility, primed students to feel apprehensive or nervous in class and when interacting with a teacher. Because peer relationships were not the foci of our research questions, ndings regarding the press of peer relationships and classroom group dynamics on studentteacher interaction emerged as unsolicited discussions in the interviews and journals. As such, we view this component of our model to be the most underdeveloped. However, a growing literature suggests that students abilities to coordinate, or nd ways to concurrently pursue, intellectual and peer goals in the classroom may inuence their relationships with teachers (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Cabello &

214

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Terrell, 1994; Juvonen, 1996; Juvonen & Murdock, 1993). Classroom Interpersonal Culture Norms about relationships. Our ndings have also prompted us to consider how the culture(s) students and teachers construct affect the development of relationships (Brown & Campione, 1998). As I noted, we found that students and teachers beliefs about the nature of academic subjects may shape their opportunities to connect in class by establishing norms for how, when, and where teachers and students (as well as students with students) may talk with each other about classroom work. The students we interviewed reported that the most motivating relationships were with teachers who talked about their experiences in middle school, their own difculties learning, and their families; spoke informally with students; and allowed students time for socializing with peers. These norms and routines that prescribed the types and frequency of interactions also had important consequences for the types of discourse among students and teachers as well as the opportunities for teachers and students to develop afnity for each other and achieve intersubjectivity (Tharp et al., 2000). Classroom discourse. From our interviews with students, we identied three types of classroom discourse (Davis et al., 2001): talking to/talking with, talking at, and talking out. Students described talking to teachers, or when teachers talked with them, as a kind of informal, personal, and meaningful form of talk. This form of talk could occur during class discussions or lectures when teachers tried to make subject matter personal, during instructional conversation, or before or after class. Students argued that this form of talk was essential for establishing and maintaining supportive relationships, claiming that it helped them to feel involved in the class. Likewise, teachers reported in their journals being sensitive to the amount of talking with

each of their students in their classes. They frequently commented that they used talking with a student as an indicator that they had developed a relationship with the student. We found that the six students we interviewed weighed the amount of talking to their teachers against the amount of talking at and talking out that occurred (Davis et al., 2001) in the classroom. Students dened talked at as a form of talk teachers engaged in when they spoke around students. In other words, teachers talked at students when teachers used language that was inaccessible to explain content, or they talked to a student as if he or she was just another member of the class. Students viewed this discourse pattern as inappropriate and damaging to the studentteacher relationship because it made them feel like the teacher did not know them or understand their needs. Likewise, the students we interviewed described a form of talk students could engage in that did not support developing relationships with teachers. They described talking out as a form of talk that occurred when students could not control their talk (to their peers and the teacher) in the classroom. Talking out included the ways students in the class could interrupt learning by asking questions that were irrelevant or tangential, talking to their peers when they should be listening or participating, and interrupting teachers one-on-one instructional conversations. Often, this type of talk frustrated both the teacher and the other students in the class because it frequently resulted in teachers having to re-teach material. The notion that students and teachers discourse affects their relationships with each other as well as students learning is not new (Turner et al., 1998, 2002, 2003). For example, Delpit (1995) found that mismatches in teachers and students intercultural communication patterns and interaction styles often resulted in both relational and cultural conicts in the classroom. FuJANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

215

ture research on discourse could consider the effects of teachers and students use of direct and indirect speech patterns, symmetries and asymmetries in dyads, perspective taking, and having a single listener or multiple listeners (Krauss & Fussell, 1996) on relationship quality and classroom interpersonal culture.

Future Directions
The purpose of this article was to present a new framework for thinking about the factors that affect relationships between middle school students and teachers. In addition to guiding future investigations of relationship quality, the model may be useful for practitioners interested in identifying sources of conict in relationships and reecting on strategies for improving relationships. In the nal section of this article, I pose three questions that will motivate our research program and discuss the implications of our ndings for policy and practice. Research How are relationship partners selected? Our ndings contribute to an understanding of the processes of selecting relationship partners in the classroom. Teachers and students talked about good relationships as developing when they perceived similarity in their relationship partner. Middle school teachers reported that they enjoyed interacting more with students who reected some aspect of their selves. For teachers, this draw toward similarity translated into tension over how to choose relationship partners. Should they choose an appealing partner who evidenced the skills necessary to develop and maintain a good relationship, a student who appeared at risk for a relationship, or a student who reected something intrinsic to their teaching or personal identity? These ndings are not surprising given the literature on effects of perceived similarity on the development of friendships and the selection of relationship partners. They are likely relevant for teachers who

are working with increasingly diverse student populations. However, considering the increased research on the effects of race, gender, culture, socioeconomic status (SES), and ability/disability on students motivation and learning, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our ndings and the resultant framework. Our sample was fairly homogeneous with regard to race, SES, and ability/disability. In future studies of relationship quality, researchers will need to look at more diverse populations of students (including students in urban settings), at students who may feel alienated from the classroom context or who may be struggling to interact with teachers (Murdock, 1999; Nagle, 2001; Smyth & Hattam, 2004), and at students attending schools with different types of interpersonal cultures. We believe, however, that the patterns we identied in our data are likely to be found among diverse populations of students. For example, Delpit (1995; see also Stodolsky & Grossman, 2000) found that teachers efforts to establish and maintain relationships with minority students could transform alienated students attitudes and achievement patterns. This was particularly true when teachers supported students in negotiating conict and regulating unpleasant emotions in the classroom (e.g., frustration, apathy). How do poor relationships become institutionalized? In their reformulation of the social information-processing model, Crick and Dodge (1994) discussed the increasing rigidity of social information processing across time. In other words, once established, patterns of interpreting behavior, selecting responses, enacting strategies, and evaluating the efcacy of ones responses become more predictable. Results from our surveys also illustrated the constraints on relationship quality and how poor quality can become institutionalized (Gottfried, 2003). These ndings prompt us to consider the ways in which students and teachers beliefs about relationships, classroom norms and cultures, and interaction pat-

216

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

terns interact to generate developmental trajectories in which students who have relational assets reap the benets of being selected as relationship partners by their teachers. Given this pattern, what are the implications for working with populations of students identied as at risk for alienation and school dropout (Nagle, 2001; Smyth & Hattam, 2004)? Should the goal be good relationships? In light of the consequences of poor relationships, we believe it is important for teachers to identify and attempt to intervene with students who have a history of relationship difculty. However, at this point it is important to question whether we are looking for a quality or type of relationship to develop. On the one hand, it is important to nd ways to identify maladaptive relationship patterns and to intervene so that poor relationships with teachers do not become a pattern. However, should we argue for interventions designed to make teachers better at relating to students, and, if so, what might be the implications of such interventions? Moreover, relationship conict may serve a developmental purpose (Bjorklund, 2005) in promoting students interpersonal and academic skills (i.e., goal clarity, commitment, self-regulation, helpseeking, persuasive communication). Relationships are challenging. We believe that attempts to remove conict from the classroom may result in articial and inauthentic interactions among teachers and students (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). There are benets to students learning to interact with teachers with whom they do or do not get along. Learning how to manage the expectations of others as well as the emotions associated with conict with peers and teachers may be important interpersonal skills students develop through challenging relationships. Thus, good relationships may also be seen as those where, in lieu of closeness, students experience a balance of conict, academic press, and support. Given alternative representations of quality, are there ways to increase school and classroom connectivity

without removing opportunities for teachers to model how to regulate unpleasant affect, behave, and maintain a focus on learning in the face of relational conict? Policy and Practice The federal No Child Left Behind Act has had sweeping effects on U.S. federal and state policies, particularly with regard to its emphasis on increasing student achievement and improving teacher quality. State and national concerns about student performance have prompted initiatives to improve the training and certication of new teachers and the professional development of practicing teachers and have increased attempts to implement accountability measures for schools and teachers. To a great extent, policy implementation has focused on improving teachers knowledge of content and of methods for teaching content. However, we argue that, although teachers preparation programs may provide them with the knowledge and skills to plan developmentally appropriate and engaging activities, anticipate classroom difculties, reect on outcomes of instruction, and make needed modications (e.g., see section on Providing Instructional Support), teaching remains largely an interpersonal activity. Moreover, we argue that one means of improving social connectivity, academic engagement, and achievement in schools is to improve the quality of teacher-student relationships. Consistent across teacher education programs is the inclusion of courses in the science of learning (e.g., basic educational psychology, learning theory, or child and adolescent development). However, these courses are few and are often criticized by those who are unsure of the role of foundational courses in teacher preparation programs (for review of this argument see Tom, 1997). Our ndings and those from across motivation, attachment, and sociocultural literatures respond to these critiques by endorsing the need for courses on the science of learning as well as the addition of courses
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

217

and professional development in the science of human interaction. Access to research and to constructs drawn from the areas of social development and applied social psychology may increase teachers condence and their abilities to meet students needs and to develop connections in their schools and communities by providing a new set of tools for decision making and problem solving. Moreover, by providing tools for interacting with students who present interpersonal challenges, such coursework may encourage teachers to pursue teaching positions in areas of critical need such as working with urban, low-income, or at-risk students. Finally, courses in the science of human interaction may guide teachers in supporting students to develop their intellectual as well as their civic, moral, and interpersonal potential. In the interviews, students reported that they felt more connected to their teachers and to content when norms for engagement were explicit. This nding leads us to think about the value of curricula designed to promote students knowledge of social relationships. A dilemma in integrating [socialemotional learning, SEL] programs into academic curricula is the view that they detract from the real mission of schools teaching content knowledge and skills. A related concern is that programs supporting social-emotional learning will interfere with parents roles in teaching social and emotional skills, thus undermining their teaching of moral values and character (McCombs, 2004, p. 24). Our ndings suggest that social-emotional learning programs add to the curriculum by making explicit norms, behaviors, and strategies for interactions with teachers and among peers.

tive when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience. Principle 2: Goals of the learning process. The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge. Principle 3: Construction of knowledge. The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways. Principle 4: Strategic thinking. The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals. Principle 5: Thinking about thinking. Higherorder strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical thinking. Principle 6: Context of learning. Learning is inuenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology, and instructional practices. Motivational and Affective Factors Principle 7: Motivational and emotional inuences on learning. What and how much is learned is inuenced by the learners motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is inuenced by the individuals emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of thinking. Principle 8: Intrinsic motivation to learn. The learners creativity, higher-order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difculty, relevant to personal interests, and providing for personal choice and control. Principle 9: Effects of motivation on effort. Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without learners motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion. Developmental and Social Factors Principle 10: Developmental inuence on learning. As individuals develop, they encounter different opportunities and experience different constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account. Principle 11: Social inuences on learning. Learning is inuenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others. Individual Difference Factors Principle 12: Individual differences in learning. Learners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity.

Appendix The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles 5

Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors Principle 1: Nature of the learning process. The learning of complex subject matter is most effec-

218

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Principle 13: Learning and diversity. Learning is most effective when differences in learners linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account. Principle 14: Standards and assessment. Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner and learning progress including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessmentare integral parts of the learning process.

work was presented prior to describing ndings from the case study. However, it is important to note that the research team developed the framework as a result of analyzing data from the case study. 4. Manuscripts that include full information regarding design, sample, psychometric properties of measures, data analyses, and ndings are available from the author. 5. Summarized from APA (1997).

Notes Portions of this article were presented as part of the Symposia on Interpersonal Contexts of Motivation and Learning at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. Many people have contributed over the past 4 years to the success of this project. In particular, I acknowledge the contributions of the middle school faculty and staff. Additionally, I am grateful to Courtney Chambliss and Kathy Couch from the University of Georgia and Sarah Ashley, Shana Axelberd, Susan Davis, Ann Jan, Rashida Williams, and Erica Murphy at the University of Florida for the invaluable roles they played in data collection, entry, and analysis. I would also like to thank Martha Carr, Claire Hamilton, Michele Lease, Penelope Oldfather, and Dan Hickey at the University of Georgia; Robert Pianta at the University of Virginia; and Mirka Koro-Ljungberg at the University of Florida for their intellectual contributions during the design, analysis, and interpretation phases of this project. Finally, I acknowledge the contribution of Anita Hoy, Pamela Richmond, Nan Kurz, Melissa Newberry, and Jessica Emrick of Ohio State, and also Jessica Summers, for their invaluable contributions to the preparation of the article. 1. The use of us, we, and our refers to the collaborative efforts of three research teams at the University of Georgia, the University of Florida, and Ohio State University in conducting the case study, analyzing the data, and developing the framework. The use of I refers to my attempt to synthesize ndings across multiple presentations and written reports. 2. Due to space limitations, no data are presented in this article; only summaries of ndings are included. Manuscripts that include full information regarding design, sample, psychometric properties of all measures, data analyses, and ndings are available from the author. 3. Through revisions of this article, I determined the article was clearer when the frame-

References American Psychological Association, Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 2137. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427454. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137151. Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacherchild relationship and childrens early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 6179. Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Childrens thinking: Developmental function and individual differences (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2002). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Bremme, D. W., & Erickson, F. (1977). Relationships among verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors. Theory into Practice, 16, 153 161. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brooks, D. M., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). The effects of students nonverbal behavior on teachers. Elementary School Journal, 88, 5163. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

219

and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 153186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cabello, B., & Terrell, R. (1994). Making students feel like family: How teachers create warm and caring classroom climates. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 29, 1723. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175190. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, cannons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 331. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social-information processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101. Danielewicz, J. (1997). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Davis, H. A. (2001a). Making the connection: A multi-method case study of relationships between middle school students and teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Davis, H. A. (2001b). The quality and impact of relationships between elementary school students and teachers. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 431453. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and inuence of student-teacher relationships on childrens social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207234. Davis, H. A., & Ashley, S. M. (2003, August). Middle school teachers conceptions of their relationships with their students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. Davis, H. A., & Couch, K. N. (2001). Tensions to relate: Middle school teachers understandings of their relationship with their students. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, Columbus. Davis, H. A., Davis, S., & Murphy, E. (2002, April). Relationships between middle school students and teachers: Views from the front of the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Davis, H. A., Davis, S., Smith, T., & Capa, Y. (2003, April). Exploring the social contexts of motivation and achievement: The role of relationship quality, classroom climate, and subject mat-

ter. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL. Davis, H. A., & Lease, A. M. (2000, April). Cognitive representations of self, mother, and teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Davis, H. A., Schutz, P. A., & Chambliss, C. B. (2000). Developing a measure of elementary and middle school students relational schemas for teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, Columbus. Davis, H. A., Schutz, P. A., Chambliss, C. B., & Couch, K. N. (2001, April). Making the connection: A multi-method case study of relationships between students and teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. Davis, H. A., Williams, R., Bouistead, A., Axelberd, S., & Lease, A. M. (2005, August). Perceived organizational structure of teacher liking: Third person perception in the development of student-teacher relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Davis, S. (2004). The role of classroom climate in predicting academic motivation and achievement in middle school mathematics. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325346. Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples children: Cultural conict in the classroom. New York: New York Press. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers sense of efcacy: An important factor in school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 173189. DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1996). A constructivist perspective on the role of the socio-moral atmosphere in promoting childrens development. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 103119). New York: Teachers College Press. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A userfriendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge. Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Oxford: Blackwell. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigeld, A., Bichanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment t on young adolescents experiences in schools

220

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90 101. Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133156. Finders, M. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York: Teachers College Press. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efcacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 30, 313. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647673. Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 2143. Gottfried, A. (2003, April). Discussant comments: Symposium on school atmosphere, motivation, and achievement. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL. Gurland, S. T. (1999, April). A developmental perspective on adult-child rapport: The role of expectations and autonomy support. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. Halberstadt, A., & Hall, A. (1980). Whos getting the message? Childrens nonverbal skill and their evaluation by teachers. Developmental Psychology, 16, 564575. Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate inuences on scholastic motivation, self-esteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding childrens school adjustment (pp. 1142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Philipsen, L. C. (1998). Stability and continuity of child-caregiver and child-peer relationships. Child Development, 69, 418426. Hoy, A., & Davis, H. A. (in press). Teacher selfefcacy and its inuence on adolescent achievement. In T. Urdan & M. F. Pajares (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Volume 5. Self-efcacy beliefs during adolescence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hoy, A. W., Davis, H. A., & Pape, S. J. (in press). Teacher knowledge, beliefs, and thinking. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2d ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software International. Juvonen, J. (1996). Self-presentation tactics promoting teacher and peer approval: The function of excuses and other clever explanations. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding childrens school adjustment (pp. 4365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social approval: Effects of audience and achievement outcome on publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 365376. Kobak, R. R., & Seery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135146. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. L. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives in socially shared cognition (pp. 172200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Childrens social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of inuence? Child Development, 70, 13731400. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Childrens relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 8199. Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998, April). Classroom management training, class size and graduate study: Do these variables impact teachers beliefs regarding classroom management style? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 420 671) Martin, S. D. (2004). Finding balance: Impact of
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

221

classroom management conceptions on developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 405422. McCaslin, M., & Good. T. L. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21, 417. McCombs, B. L. (2003). Providing a framework for the redesign of K12 education in the context of current educational reform issues [Special issue on learner-centered principles]. Theory into Practice, 42, 93101. McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing a focus on academic achievement with a focus on social and emotional learning needs. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 2339). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McCombs, B. L., Perry, K. E., & Daniels, D. H. (2004). Revealing childrens and teachers perceptions with the K3 assessment of learnercentered practices (ALCP). University of Denver Research Institute, Denver. Manuscript submitted for publication. Mehan, H. (1984). Language and schooling. Sociology of Education, 57, 174183. Merrell, K. W. (1993). School social behavior scales. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. A. (1998). Social skills of children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment and treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Middleton, M. J., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2000, April). Types and sources of academic press in middle school science classrooms. In P. C. Blumenfeld (Chair), Inquiry-based science supported by technology. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (2002). Beyond motivation: Middle school students perceptions of press for understanding in math. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 373391. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes towards mathematics before and after the transition to junior high. Child Development, 90, 981992. Moje, E. B. (1995). I teach students, not subjects: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172195. Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualization of human environments. American Psychologist, 28, 652 665. Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom

Environment Scale: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. (1994). A social climate manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Morrison, T. L. (1985). Personal and professional boundary attitudes and effective group leadership. Journal of Psychology, 119, 101111. Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning: Dynamics of the teacher-student relationship from each perspective. Urban Education, 34, 292337. Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 6275. Nagle, J. (2001). Voices from the margins: The stories of vocational high school students. New York: Peter Lang. Neill, S. R. St. J. (1986). Childrens reported responses to teachers non-verbal signals: A pilot study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 12, 5363. Neill, S, R. St. J. (1989). The effects of facial expression and posture on childrens reported responses to teacher nonverbal communication. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 195204. Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1992). The association of childrens nonverbal decoding abilities with their popularity, locus of control, and academic achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 385393. Oldfather, P. (1994). When students do not feel motivated for literacy learning: How a responsive classroom culture helps (Perspectives in Reading Research Report No. 8). Athens: National Reading Research Center, Universities of Georgia and Maryland. Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139158. Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, H. J. (1993). Gaining and losing voice: A longitudinal study of students continuing impulse to learn across elementary middle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17, 125. Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the disidentication hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 455459. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323367. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers communication of goal orientations in four

222

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

fth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3558. Patrick, H., Hicks, L., & Ryan, A. (1997). Relations of social self-efcacy and social goal pursuit to self-efcacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 109128. Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when selfregulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37, 2739. Perry, N. E. (1998). Young childrens self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715729. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacherstudent interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 515. Pianta, R. C. (1996). Manual and scoring guide for the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340. Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benet. Elementary School Journal, 106, 225236. Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomysupportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537548. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. E., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R. E., Shaw, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L. H., & Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823832. Richmond, P. A., & Padgett, D. L. (2003). Finding the line: Boundary decisions in resident treatment. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 20, 5366. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408422. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 460.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226249. Saft, E., & Pianta, R. (2001). Teachers perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 514. Schutz, P. A., & Davis, H. A. (2000). Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. Educational Psychologist, 35, 243255. Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21, 209233. Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (2004). Dropping out, drifting off, being excluded: Becoming somebody without school. New York: Peter Lang. Spence, S. (1999). Do they really need another friend? Dual relationships in child and youth care work. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 14, 4348. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 316329. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of ve academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227249. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (2000). Changing students, changing teaching. Teachers College Record, 102, 125172. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Summers, J. E. (2006). Effects of collaborative learning in math on sixth graders individual goal orientations from a socioconstructivist perspective. Elementary School Journal, 106, 273290. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: Basic. Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview. Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (1997). Intrinsic motivations, literacy, and assessment practices: Thats my grade. Thats me. Educational Psychologist, 32, 107123. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of denition. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotional regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations (pp. 25 52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
JANUARY 2006

RELATIONSHIPS

223

Tom, A. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efcacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202248. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D., Anderman, E., Midgley, C., Green, M., Kang, Y., & Partick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. C., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730745. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and sixth graders reported affect and achievement in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357382. Vessels, G. (1998). The Vessels School Climate Questionnaire. In Character and community development: A school planning and teacher training handbook. Westport, CT: Praeger. Weinstein, C. S. (1998). I want to be nice, but I have to be mean: Exploring prospective teachers conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 153163.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411419. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202209. West, J. (1994). Childrens perceptions of fun and work in literacy learning (Perspectives in Reading Research Report No. 7). Athens: National Reading Research Center, Universities of Georgia and Maryland. Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265310. Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancyvalue theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 6881. Willower, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology (Penn State Studies Monograph No. 24). University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Wolfgang, C. H. (2001). Solving discipline and classroom management problems: Methods and models for todays teachers (5th ed.). New York: Wiley. Yowell, C. M., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). Self-regulation in democratic communities. Elementary School Journal, 99, 469490.