Transactional associations between classroom engagement and relations with teachers from first through fourth grade

Abstract

Using structural equation modeling with a population-based cohort of French-speaking children from Quebec (Canada), prospective associations were made between two previously established factors underlying student performance — classroom engagement and the teacher–student relations. Our results show developmental continuity in classroom engagement and teacher–student relations from grades 1 through 4, beyond the influence of confounding child factors (sex, kindergarten cognitive skills, and second grade achievement) and family factors (such as maternal education). Although they were both relatively stable over time, closer relations with teachers showed comparatively less stability than classroom engagement. That is, classroom engagement showed the most developmental continuity from one grade to the next. Because intervention programs targeting very young children are among the most cost-effective (Heckman, 2006), our findings suggest the benefits of investing in evidence-based programs, in concert with practitioners, to promote positive teacher relations with students and encourage their active classroom participation and involvement.

Introduction

From school entry, students are confronted with important cognitive and behavioral challenges. While having to adapt to a group-based social environment, they are asked to make an effort during classroom activities, listen carefully, follow rules, participate, work autonomously, and invest considerable persistence. Children vary in their ability to respond to such expectations (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). In turn, the behavioral responses children produce are important as they chart the developmental course toward academic success (Johnson, McGue, & Iacono, 2006; Ladd & Dinella, 2009; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009). For youngsters, engagement is a malleable process that evolves over time and is responsive to the interpersonal transactions in the classroom environment (Simons-Morton & Chen, 2009; Sirin & Rogers-Sirin, 2004). Beyond individual characteristics (Ladd et al., 2000; Pagani, Fitzpatrick, Archambault, & Janosz, 2010), the bond between teacher and student remains a fundamental aspect of the childhood schooling experience. Past research has shown that close and supportive responses from teachers have important implications for learning-related behaviors and achievement in students (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995).

Until recently, there have been few studies that examine the developmental links between student engagement and teacher–student relations in primary school children. A recent study by Hughes et al. (2008) found reciprocal links between teacher–student relations, engagement, and achievement over three consecutive years. Students showing early signs of behavioral disengagement in class were at higher risk of future academic difficulties. Considering that engagement and the quality of relations with teachers are important for the academic dimension of schooling (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Dinella, 2009), research examining the developmental continuity of these factors is now warranted.

The concept of student engagement has inspired a number of approaches (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Finn, 1989; Ladd et al., 2000). Upon conducting an extensive review of the extant literature, Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) offer three dimensions which help operationalize student engagement. These are behavioral, affective, and cognitive. The affective and cognitive dimensions respectively refer to student feelings, interests, and attitudes toward school (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Finn, 1989; Goodenow, 1993) and psychological investment in learning and use of self-regulation strategies (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). The behavioral dimension of engagement refers to behavioral dispositions and conduct when approaching and undertaking school-related tasks (McDermott, Mordell, & Stoltzfus, 2001). Such behaviors include compliance to classroom rules and instructions, attention, efforts, and participation in classroom-related activities (Finn, 1989; Fredricks et al., 2004). Although the cognitive and affective dimensions of engagement remain important influences on the academic life-course (Archambault, Janosz, Fallu, & Pagani, 2009), student behavioral engagement is often seen as a reflection of affective and cognitive involvement (Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, & Pagani, 2009; Eccles, 2004; Ladd & Dinella, 2009). Moreover, classroom participation is associated with positive changes in attitudes about school (Ladd & Dinella, 2009). Early signs of classroom effort and participation chart the course toward future academic difficulties (Hughes et al., 2008). Finally, learning-related behaviors are more concrete targets for intervention (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). Accordingly, many studies have draw upon behavioral engagement as a key element predicting later academic adjustment.

The contribution of early behavioral engagement on student academic attainment outcomes is well established (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993; Ladd & Dinella, 2009; McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990; Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, & Reiser, 2008). For example, Ladd and Dinella (2009) followed a sample of 383 children from kindergarten to eighth grade and found that children who were cooperatively engaged in the classroom and responded to teacher demands were most likely to show academic gains over time beyond important cognitive, family, and demographic characteristics. Valiente et al. (2008) further showed that classroom participation partially mediated the link between student self-regulation and GPA even after controlling for important confounding variables such as sex, family income, parental education, and prior grades. According to Wentzel (1999), children who are actively engaged are more likely to achieve academically because they seek goals that are valued by members of their school and classroom environment. To the extent that some stability exists in engagement patterns across the primary grades (Ladd & Dinella, 2009), some children may find themselves on a continuous risk trajectory starting in the early grades. Such a trajectory may be influenced by both child characteristics and features of their learning environment. Teachers likely have an important influence on this learning environment given their level of responsibility and pedagogical objectives, in the face of heterogeneous group composition (Hijzen, Boekaerts, & Vedder, 2007).

For some authors, classroom engagement can specifically be operationalized by the quality of student involvement with classmates and teachers (Finn, 1989; Ladd et al., 2000; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Skinner et al., 2009, 1990). For others, the relations students build with teachers do not serve as an indicator but rather, as a foundation or consequence of classroom engagement (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Marks, 2000; Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). In line with attachment theory perspectives (Bowlby, 1980), building a supportive relationship with a significant caregiver is critical for child development. Parents and teachers are the most important vehicles for socialization and among the most frequently mentioned sources of support during the school age years (Resnick et al., 1997). In classrooms that allows teachers to engage in more individualized teaching (Blatchford, Bassett, & Brown, 2011), the supportive reciprocal relationship teachers develop with their students becomes an important predictor of day-to-day engagement, which enables children to consolidate the emotional security needed to explore their social environment and cope with academic challenges. An observational study by Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, and Curby (2009) using a sample of 171 kindergarteners found that classroom and teacher–student relationship quality is indirectly associated with children's reading ability through improvements in classroom engagement. According to their study, when classroom organization and teacher emotional and instructional support are high, children successfully adopt learning-related behaviors which contribute to their academic success. Other research shows that when teachers present themselves as warm, supportive, and responsive to individual needs, students respond with better behavioral engagement in the classroom and achievement (Brophy, 1983; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Hughes et al., 2008; McWilliam, Scarborough, & Kim, 2003; Wentzel, 1999). In some cases, a close and supportive relationship with teachers may even attenuate risks associated with prior underachievement and buffer children against the negative effects of family or sociodemographic adversity (Resnick et al., 1997); while conversely, negative and controlling teacher behaviors can have a negative influence (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth, 2005)

Most importantly, the associations between teacher–student relationship and student engagement could also be viewed as transactional (Sameroff & Fiese, 1990; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). This idea implies, on one hand, that students who perceive their teacher as being supportive might be more responsive to academic expectations and demands and tend to be better engaged in classroom-related activities. In support of this view, longitudinal findings indicate that negative changes in Teacher–child relations are associated with a decline in student achievement, even after controlling for important variables such as IQ (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). On the other hand, students who show classroom involvement follow directives and instructions, and work neatly and cooperatively could reinforce positive teacher attitudes and support. That is, student self-regulation in the classroom generates more positive and spontaneous reciprocal responses from teachers, which can ultimately promote their achievement-related outcomes (Koriat, 2012; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009).

Previous findings suggest that student engagement and relationships with teachers underscore transactional processes which set the stage for short and long-term educational progress. Consistent with this body of work, we used a population-based data set of French-speaking Canadian children from Quebec (Canada) to conduct a more in-depth examination of the links between classroom engagement and teacher–student relations and address their developmental course from first grade through fourth grade. Given the notion of developmental continuity, our initial hypothesis was that first grade classroom engagement would be positively associated with fourth grade engagement (hypothesis 1). Second, we expected that students who share a close relationship with their first grade teacher would also share a close relationship with their fourth grade teacher (hypothesis 2). Third, we anticipated that classroom engagement and close teacher–student relations would covary along the same school year, in first and fourth grade (hypothesis 3). Finally, we expect that these two dimensions would transact over time. That is, classroom engagement in first grade should predict teacher–student close relations in fourth grade (hypothesis 4a) and close teacher–student relations in first grade should be positively associated with classroom engagement in fourth grade (hypothesis 4b).