The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.04.006Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examined relationships between students’ perceptions of the school social environment and student outcomes, using U.S. data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2000 (OECD, 2000). The sample comprised 3748 fifteen-year-old 9th and 10th graders from 147 schools. The two-dimensional approach of parenting typology was here applied to the school environment. The results partially supported the advantage of authoritative schools with high levels of both demandingness (academic press) and responsiveness (the teacher–student relationship). Supportive teacher–student relationships and academic press were significantly related to behavioral and emotional student engagement whereas only the teacher–student relationship was a significant predictor of reading performance. The effects of the teacher–student relationship on student outcomes were not contingent on academic press of the school.

Highlights

► The advantage of authoritative schools was partially supported. ► Teacher–student relationships and academic press were significantly related to behavioral and emotional student engagement. ► The teacher–student relationship was a significant predictor of reading performance. ► The effects of the teacher–student relationship on student outcomes were not contingent on academic press.

Introduction

The present study investigated relationships between students’ perceptions of the school social environment and student outcomes (i.e., engagement at school and academic performance). To understand the relationships, the two-dimensional approach of parenting typology was applied to the school social environment. The two dimensions are demandingness (academic press) and responsiveness (the teacher–student relationship).

Research indicates that 25–60% of U.S. students are disengaged from school (Klem and Connell, 2004, Willms, 2003). This phenomenon is not unique to the United States and appears to be common and widespread. In a study using data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2000 (OECD, 2000), Willms (2003) found that 25% of students in the 43 countries studied reported a low sense of belonging, and 20% of students reported low participation.

Lack of student engagement at school is a serious concern for educators and policy makers because disengaged students are more likely to struggle academically, to drop out of school, and to have problem behaviors (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Researchers and educators (e.g., Lee & Smith, 1993) have emphasized the significant influence of schools on student engagement and academic performance.

Student engagement is a multifaceted concept. Researchers have identified several components of student engagement (e.g., behavioral, emotional/psychological, cognitive, and academic) (Appleton et al., 2008, Fredricks et al., 2004). Although there is no consensus on which of these components is important, most studies have included behavioral and emotional components. Behavioral engagement refers to the students’ participation in academic and nonacademic activities at school. Emotional engagement refers to the students’ sense of belonging at school and identification with school.

Student engagement is a robust predictor of student success at school. Studies have reported a positive association between student engagement and academic achievement regardless of race, gender, and socio-economic status (SES) (e.g., Klem & Connell, 2004). Highly engaged students are also less likely to drop out of school (Finn & Rock, 1997). Taking a developmental perspective, academic failure and dropping out are not isolated events but the result of a long-term process of disengagement from school (Alexander et al., 1997, Randolph et al., 2004). Thus, enhancing student engagement may help prevent these poor student outcomes.

The reported magnitude of the effect of student engagement varies depending on the components of engagement that are examined. In a study by Willms (2003), behavioral engagement was defined as attendance and punctuality and it had a moderate correlation (.48–.51) with students’ literacy skills at the school level. Further, a positive relationship between behavioral engagement and academic performance was found in studies that examined efforts in learning (Carbonaro, 2005), attendance (Lamdin, 1996), and extracurricular activities (Jordan, 1999). The positive effect of behavioral engagement on academic performance seems to be more evident among academically resilient students (Borman and Overman, 2004, Finn and Rock, 1997). For example, in a study of 925 low-SES minority students, Borman and Overman (2004) found that greater engagement in academic activities was a characteristic shared by all students who were deemed to be academically resilient, defined by having higher than predicted math scores (predictions were based on previous math scores and individual SES).

Evidence regarding the effect of emotional engagement on academic performance is mixed. Studies using measures of emotional engagement combined with behavioral engagement (Borman and Overman, 2004, Connell et al., 1994, Sirin and Rogers-Sirin, 2004) have generally found a positive relationship between engagement and academic performance. However, emotional engagement focusing on a sense of belonging or identification with school was not a strong predictor of academic performance in the PISA study (Willms, 2003) or in Finn's study (1993). On the other hand, a study of 214 Mexican American high school students (Gonzalez & Padilla, 1997) found that the level of sense of belonging at school was significantly associated with the grade point average (GPA) of a student. Nonetheless, research has supported the significance of emotional engagement in the decision to drop out (e.g., Ekstrom et al., 1986, Finn, 1989). For instance, in an ethnographic study of adolescents who dropped out of school (Fine, 1991), one of the primary reasons reported for dropping out was not being emotionally engaged with the school.

Student engagement at school is influenced by various individual and family factors (e.g., gender, grade level, race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, and socioeconomic status). For example, Finn (1989, as cited in Marks, 2000) found that girls were consistently more engaged than boys. Student engagement is also related to grade level. According to Klem and Connell (2004), students become less engaged with school as they progress from elementary to middle school and from middle to high school. There has been a consistent and significant achievement gap among racial/ethnic groups, and emotional disengagement of students of color has been offered as one explanation for this phenomenon. Steele (1997), for example, argued that African American students disidentify with school due to frustration caused by a “stereotype threat”—the anxiety that their actions will confirm existing negative stereotypes about African Americans. For non-native English speakers, the language spoken at home can be related to student engagement because it may reflect the acculturation and English proficiency of students. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that family socioeconomic status (SES) is significantly related to student outcomes (Henderson and Berla, 1994, Henderson and Mapp, 2002).

The current study, however, focused on the effect of the school environment, because school is the setting where student engagement actually occurs. Schools exert great influence on a student's engagement by promoting or constraining an individual student's opportunities for engagement. There has been a controversy over which classroom and school characteristics matter most, both for schools and for students (Gill et al., 2004, Lee and Smith, 1999). Some advocated academic press because they believed that valuing academic success and holding high academic expectations for students promote student achievement (e.g., Goddard et al., 2000, McDill et al., 1986). However, this view was challenged by researchers who advocated a communal perspective that emphasizes shared values, supportive teacher–student relationships, and a caring atmosphere at school (e.g., Battistich et al., 1995, Bryk and Driscoll, 1988).

Academic press is the normative and behavioral environment of a school that emphasizes academic excellence and conformity to academic standards (Goddard et al., 2000, Lee and Smith, 1999). A normative environment emphasizing academic excellence creates expectations of behaviors of teachers and students and imposes sanctions when individuals deviate from the expectations (Goddard et al., 2000). Relevant terms used in the literature include academic emphasis, academic optimism, teacher expectations, and academic standards. Academic press has been reported to be positively associated with students’ sense of belonging, attendance, and academic performance (Goddard et al., 2000, Lee and Smith, 1999, Ma, 2003, Phillips, 1997). For example, in a study with 2429 students from 45 elementary schools, Goddard et al. (2000) found that academic emphasis by a school explained about 50% of between-school variability in mathematics and reading.

Supportive teacher–student relationships are a critical aspect of the interpersonal climate in schools. Relevant concepts in the literature include teacher support, social capital in school, school as a community, and responsiveness of the school. Although different terms were used, studies found positive effects of supportive teacher–student relationships on various student outcomes. A supportive teacher–student relationship was positively related to social self-concept, school adjustment and grade, whereas it was negatively associated with externalizing behavioral problems, internalized symptoms, and school dropout (Baker, 2006, Brewster and Bowen, 2004, Hamre and Pianta, 2001, Meehan et al., 2003, Miller, 2000, O’Connor et al., 2011). Students were more behaviorally and emotionally engaged when they had positive relationships with their teachers and this further contributed to their academic achievement (Hughes et al., 2008, O’Connor and McCartney, 2007).

Although studies reported that academic press and supportive teacher–student relationships each significantly predicted student outcomes, several studies examining multiple school factors simultaneously indicated the possible existence of optimal combinations of school factors (Gill et al., 2004, Pellerin, 2005, Shouse, 1996). For example, in a study with 30,000 sixth and eighth graders from 304 Chicago public elementary schools, Lee and Smith (1999) found that the relationship between social support and learning are contingent on the academic press of the school. The effects of social support on math and reading were greater in schools with higher levels of academic press. Shouse (1996), in a study of the mathematics achievement of 398 high school students, also found that high levels of communality in schools had a positive effect on academic performance in low-SES schools only when accompanied by high academic press and a disciplinary climate. Based on these findings, Luyten, Visscher, and Witziers (2005) suggested that examining meaningful combinations of school factors may be more important than studying a single factor and may, in fact, better reflect the complex school realities experienced by students.

In an effort to identify the optimal combinations of school factors, a few researchers (Gill et al., 2004, Pellerin, 2005, Wentzel, 2002) have tested the typology of parenting style in school settings. An authoritative style, with both demandingness (e.g., academic press) and responsiveness (e.g., supportive relationship), is expected to provide the optimal conditions to achieve best student outcomes. The self-system processes model (Connell, 1990) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000a) help to explain the underlying mechanisms.

Children learn socially desirable behaviors and rules through the process of socialization, which allows them to adequately participate in a society (Handel, Cahill, & Elkin, 2007). One of the well-known conceptual frameworks in the socialization research is Baumrind's (1967) typology of parenting style: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Maccoby and Martin (1983) enhanced the generalizability of Baumrind's typology by creating a two-dimensional framework based on the levels of demandingness and responsiveness of the socialization agent—the parent. Demandingness is the socialization agent's willingness to socialize children to facilitate their integration into society; responsiveness is the socialization agent's recognition of a child's individuality. Accordingly, Maccoby and Martin added one more style (i.e., indifferent/neglectful) to the Baumrind's typology.

Studies of parenting style have reported that authoritative parenting, characterized by high demandingness and high responsiveness, is the most effective among these parenting styles (see, e.g., Aunola et al., 2000, Darling and Steinberg, 1993). Authoritative parents show high levels of involvement in their children's lives, behavioral control, and monitoring while also providing emotional support, open communication, trust of the child, and encouragement of psychological autonomy (Aunola et al., 2000, Slicker, 1998). As a result, children with authoritative parents have more adaptive achievement strategies (Aunola et al., 2000), fewer problem behaviors (Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002), higher levels of performance, and higher levels of school engagement (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992).

Although socialization style was originally developed to explain interpersonal phenomena between children and parents, the two-dimensional approach of parenting style has also been applied to teachers and schools. Demandingness of teachers and schools was represented by academic press, high expectations, and an orderly disciplinary climate, whereas responsiveness included supportive teacher–student relationships, a supportive school climate, and shared values. Studies found that an authoritative style was also effective in school settings. Pellerin (2005), for example, found that 10th and 11th graders in authoritative schools showed the lowest levels of behavioral disengagement, defined as absenteeism, tardiness, or turning in unfinished homework, whereas students in indifferent or neglectful schools presented the highest levels of disengagement.

The self-system processes model (Connell, 1990) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000a) help to explain the mechanism by which the social environment of a school influences student engagement and achievement. The essence of socialization is to develop self-regulation of one's own behavior (Handel et al., 2007). In the development of self-regulation, it is important to help children internalize the values and rules of the society. It is believed that children are more likely to internalize and adopt values and rules when their relationships with the socialization agents are nurturing and supportive (Grusec and Hastings, 2007, Ryan and Deci, 2000a).

Self-system processes are the result of a dialectic relationship between an individual's psychological needs (i.e., competence, relatedness, and autonomy) and social context (Connell, 1990). Social contexts that provide individuals with structure, autonomy support, and involvement promote the development of self-system processes because they satisfy an individual's psychological needs. As a result, individuals show a desired action, which in turn produces a desired outcome. When applied to the school setting, the social context of a school that satisfies an individual's psychological needs encourages the desired action of student engagement, which in turn produces the desired outcome of improved academic performance and student achievement. In this process, student engagement is pivotal because it is the link through which social context and student self-system influence achievement (Tucker et al., 2002).

According to the tenets of self-determination theory (SDT), social contexts that support an individual's psychological needs (i.e., competence, relatedness, and autonomy) promote motivated actions by facilitating the internalization of extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). There is an important distinction between motivation and engagement. If “to be motivated” is “to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 54), then “to be engaged” is “to do something” in a broader sense. Despite the distinction, the theory facilitates an understanding of the reasons behind student engagement. Support for the psychological needs of human beings (i.e., competence, relatedness, and autonomy) is critical in internalizing extrinsic motivation as well as maintaining intrinsic motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). In other words, the primary reason that people are willing to do uninteresting activities is that these activities are valued by significant others with whom they feel connected or have a sense of relatedness.

Authoritative schools with high levels of both demandingness and responsiveness can enhance student engagement and academic performance by providing optimal conditions to facilitate students’ self-system processes and their internalization of extrinsic motivation. The social environments of authoritative schools that satisfy a student's psychological needs encourage the desired action of student engagement and produce the desired outcome of improved academic performance. Authoritative schools with high academic expectations allow students to develop the self-regulation and skills necessary to function adequately in society. Authoritative schools supporting positive interpersonal relationships may promote a student's sense of relatedness. Further, supportive relationships lead students to internalize extrinsic motivation to learn, because learning is valued by teachers with whom they feel connected.

Even in the same classroom and the same school, students have different relationships with teachers and they perceive academic press differently depending on their motivation to learn. Thus, this study focused on students’ perceptions of the school social environment. According to the two-dimensional approach of parenting style, it is expected that students who experience high levels of both responsiveness (i.e., the teacher–student relationship) and demandingness (i.e., academic press) present higher levels of engagement and academic performance. Therefore, the current study tested three following hypotheses:

  • (1)

    The teacher–student relationship is positively associated with student engagement and academic performance.

  • (2)

    Academic press is positively associated with student engagement and academic performance.

  • (3)

    The associations between the teacher–student relationship and student outcomes differ by the level of academic press.

Section snippets

Study design

Analyses were conducted on the U.S. data taken from an international cross-sectional data set, the Program for International Student Assessment 2000 (PISA 2000) (OECD, 2000). Literacy, mathematics, and science skills were assessed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at three different time points, placing emphasis on a different outcome domain each year. The present study uses PISA results from 2000, when reading literacy was the outcome domain of interest.

Sample description

Behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, the teacher–student relationship, and academic press were index scale scores with means around zero and standard deviations close to 1. The mean reading score was 508.82 (SD = 100.00). Slightly more than half of the students were female and about 60% were in 10th grade. A majority of the students were European American (62.66%) and spoke English at home (90.16%). Individual SES scores varied widely ranging from 1.6 to 9.0 with a mean of 5.27 (SD = 1.65).

Discussion

Using the two-dimensional approach of parenting style, the current study examined relationships between the perceived social environment of the school (the teacher–student relationship and academic press) and student outcomes (behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and academic performance). The current study partially supported the advantage of authoritative schools with both demandingness and responsiveness. Interaction effects between the teacher–student relationship and academic press

Limitations

Despite the rigorous methods used, the present study had limitations related to measures, data, and analysis. PISA 2000 (OECD, 2000) included measures covering various aspects of students’ lives and school conditions as well as academic performance. Most of these measures have good reliability and validity. However, the measure of academic press had low reliability although it was not unacceptable. This could be the source of a non-significant association with reading performance. More

Conclusion

There has been a debate over the importance of academic press and supportive school environments to achieve best student outcomes. The findings of the current study partially supported the advantage of authoritative schools with both demandingness (i.e., academic press) and responsiveness (i.e., the teacher–student relationship). It was also found that the effects of the teacher–student relationship on student outcomes were not contingent on academic press of the school. The findings of the

Acknowledgments

This paper is largely based on my doctoral dissertation. I would like to express my gratitude to Associate Professor Natasha K. Bowen for her guidance throughout the doctoral program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I extend thanks to committee members for their advice. I gratefully acknowledge anonymous reviewers, Emeritus Professor Ralph Hall, Ms. Karen Heycox, and Dr. Wendy Foote for their helpful suggestions.

References (69)

  • A. Brewster et al.

    Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure

    Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

    (2004)
  • A.S. Bryk et al.

    The school as community: Theoretical foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers

    (1988)
  • W. Carbonaro

    Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement

    Sociology of Education

    (2005)
  • J.P. Connell

    Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span

  • J.P. Connell et al.

    Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school

    Child Development

    (1994)
  • J. Craig et al.

    A case study of six high-performing schools in Tennessee

    (2005)
  • N. Darling et al.

    Parenting style as context: An integrative model

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1993)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective

    Educational Psychologist

    (1991)
  • R.B. Ekstrom et al.

    Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study

    Teachers College Record

    (1986)
  • M. Fichman et al.

    Multiple imputation for missing data: Making the most of what you know

    Organizational Research Methods

    (2003)
  • M. Fine

    Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school

    (1991)
  • J.D. Finn

    Withdrawing from school

    Review of Educational Research

    (1989)
  • J.D. Finn

    School engagement and students at risk

    (1993)
  • J.D. Finn et al.

    Academic success among students at risk for school failure

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1997)
  • J.A. Fredricks et al.

    School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence

    Review of Educational Research

    (2004)
  • D. George et al.

    SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 12.0 update

    (2005)
  • R. Goddard et al.

    Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis

    Educational Administration Quarterly

    (2000)
  • R. Gonzalez et al.

    The academic resilience of Mexican American high school students

    Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

    (1997)
  • B. Hamre et al.

    Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade

    Child Development

    (2001)
  • G. Handel et al.

    Children and society: The sociology of children and childhood socialization

    (2007)
  • A.T. Henderson et al.

    A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement

    (1994)
  • A.T. Henderson et al.

    A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement

    (2002)
  • J. Hughes et al.

    Teacher–student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2008)
  • Cited by (135)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text