This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 30 September 2013, At: 17:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational PsychologistPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student-Teacher Relationships on Children's Social andCognitive DevelopmentHeather A. DavisPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Heather A. Davis (2003) Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student-Teacher Relationships onChildren's Social and Cognitive Development, Educational Psychologist, 38:4, 207-234, DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DAVISSTUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS

Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student–TeacherRelationships on Children’s Social and Cognitive Development

Heather A. DavisSchool of Educational Policy and Leadership

The Ohio State University

The purpose of this article is to add to our current understanding of the social contexts of educa-tion by synthesizing research on the nature and influence of relationships between students andtheir teachers. I was guided by 3 questions. First, how have we conceptualized students’ rela-tionships with teachers? Second, how have our approaches to studying relationships shaped ourunderstanding of the phenomenon? Third, looking across these different approaches to studyingstudent–teacher relationships, what do we know about the nature and influence of stu-dent–teacher relationships developmentally? Specifically, I review in 3 broad themes the multi-ple conceptions, or approaches, to the study of student–teacher relationships. These include stu-dent–teacher relationships from attachment perspectives, from motivation perspectives, andfrom sociocultural perspectives. I view each approach a posing a critical question needing to beaddressed conceptually, methodologically, and developmentally. Looking across approaches,findings reveal 1 limitation of our current understanding of student–teacher relationships is thatis most of our knowledge about relationships for a particular population of students (e.g., pre-school, elementary school, middle school, or high school) is embedded within knowledge abouta particular approach (e.g., attachment, motivation, or sociocultural) as well as within specificmethods of studying relationships. Implications for future research and theory development arediscussed.

Twenty years ago, Minuchin and Shapiro (1983) andWeinstein (1983) conducted reviews of the literature on so-cial contexts of education, including an examination of thenature and impact of relationships between students andteachers. They argued much of the early research conceptual-ized teachers as the leaders, driving the frequency and typesof interactions, in shaping the quality of relationships. For ex-ample, teachers were portrayed as determining the quality oftheir relationships with students through their use of physicalspace (e.g., open vs. traditional classrooms), their expecta-tions about students’ academic success (e.g., gender, race, so-cioeconomic standing), their allocation of attention, and theirattempts to create a supportive socioemotional climate in theclassroom (Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983). Despite the wealth ofinformation on teacher beliefs and behaviors, Minuchin andShapiro (1983, p. 226) conceded, “The mass of research onteaching has produced inconclusive and inconsistent find-

ings.” They called for additional examinations into the socialcontexts of learning as well as the impact of student beliefsand behaviors on the learning and motivation (see alsoWeinstein, 1983).

Central to these and recent studies of the social contexts ofeducation and student–teacher relationships is the recogni-tion of the significant role social interaction plays in chil-dren’s cognitive and social development (Brophy, 1998;Davis, 2001; Goodenow, 1992; McCallum & Bracken, 1993;Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Pianta, 1998; Ryan, Connell, &Deci, 1985; Wentzel, 1999). Indeed, we’ve long known thedevelopmental significance of adult–child relationships (seeCassidy & Shaver, 1999; Hartup, 1989; Pianta, 1997, 1999)to fostering children’s growth. Pianta (1997) argued relation-ships with adults are important for child development be-cause of their “affordance value,” that is, the extent to whichadults bring to the relationship resources to support a child’sintellectual, social, and emotional development that wouldhave otherwise been unavailable.

Over the past 20 years, there has been considerable re-search on the importance of relationships between studentsand teachers in shaping the quality of students’ motivation and

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 38(4), 207–234Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Heather A. Davis, School of Edu-cational Policy and Leadership, The Ohio State University, 165ARamseyer Hall, 29 West Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43085. E-mail:davis_oxford@yahoo.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

classroom learning experiences. Several recent reviews of theliterature have examined the importance of teachers’ instruc-tional practices (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998) as wellas the affective and intellectual contexts of classroom learning(Goodenow, 1992; Turner & Meyer, 2000; Perry &Weinstein, 1998; Osterman, 2000). Additionally, several re-views have examined the role students may play in shaping thesocial context of learning through their beliefs, judgments,goals, and attempts to regulate social behavior (Urdan &Maehr,1995;Patrick,1997;Wentzel1999;Pianta,1999).Thegrowing body of literature examining the nature ofteacher–child interaction suggests teacher relationships makea unique contribution to children’s social and cognitive devel-opment through adolescence (Resnick et al., 1997). Operatingas socializing agents, teachers can influence the quality of stu-dents’ social and intellectual experiences via their abilities toinstill values in children such as the motivation to learn(Brophy, 1998; Brophy & Kherr, 1985; Oldfather & Dahl,1994); by providing classroom contexts that stimulate chil-dren’s motivation and learning (Ames & Archer, 1988; Ames,1992; Perry, 1998; Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Turner etal., 1998); by addressing children’s need to belong (Connell &Wellborn, 1991; Goodenow, 1993a, 1993b; Noddings, 1988;Wentzel, 1997, 1998); by developing a social identity (Alder-man, 1999; Wentzel, 1993a, 1993b); and by serving a regula-tory function for the development of emotional, behavioral,and academic skills (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Pianta, 1997, 1999;Thompson, 1994; Yowell & Smylie, 1999).

The purpose of this article is to add to our current under-standing of the social context of motivation, learning, and de-velopment by synthesizing research on the nature andinfluence of relationships between students and their teachersthroughout childhood and adolescence. I was guided by threequestions that shaped my thinking and synthesis. First, howhave we conceptualized relationships with teachers? Second,how have our approaches to studying relationships withteachers shaped our understanding of the phenomenon?Third, looking across different approaches to studying stu-dent–teacher relationships, what do we know about the natureand influence of student–teacher relationships developmen-tally? This article seeks to examine the ways researchers haveconceptualized relationships between students and teachers.This is important because underlying beliefs about the natureof adult–child relationships have the potential to constrainour construction of what constitutes a “good” relationshipand our examinations of factors that can influence or be theconsequences of relationships.

PROCEDURE

Review procedures included a directed search for articleswritten over the past 20 years specifically dealing with thetopic of student–teacher relationships, student–teacher inter-actions, and the role of student–teacher relationships in social

motivation in the ERIC and PsychLIT databases. I also con-ducted more focused searches for articles published injournals relevant to the fields of education, psychology, andchild development. I examined citations from published liter-ature reviews and individual studies. This process broadenedthe scope of this review to include studies in the fields of an-thropology and sociology of education. The majority of arti-cles included are drawn from peer-reviewed journals; how-ever, recent findings from several relevant studies presentedat national conferences are also included.

My central thesis is that across studies of student–teacherinteraction we find three dominant approaches to studying re-lationships between students and teachers. Each approachholds a unique conception of what constitutes a positive rela-tionship between students and teachers as well as who drivesthe quality of the relationship. These conceptions have impli-cations for the focus of our studies and research designs aswell as the analyses and interpretations of our findings (Crot-ty, 1998; Kuhn, 1990; LeCompte, & Priessle, 1993; Schutz,Chambliss, & DeCuir, in press). Moreover, each perspectiveposes a critical question regarding our definitions of “quality”relationships, the nature of adult approval, and our construc-tions of children’s social worlds. As with most reviews of lit-erature, this one does more to raise questions than to answerthem, to call for more study than to close the book.

In the following sections I attempt to review, in three broadthemes, the multiple conceptions, or approaches to the studyof student–teacher relationships. Specifically, these ap-proaches include student–teacher relationships from attach-ment perspectives, motivation perspectives, and socioculturalperspectives. It is important to note that these ways of thinkingabout the nature and impact of student–teacher relationshipsshare a great deal of conceptual overlap and should not be con-sidered mutually exclusive (Pianta, 1999; Schutz et al., inpress). Rather, in delineating each perspective I hope to dem-onstrate how our understanding of student–teacher relation-ships is tied to our theories of adult–child interaction andinstruction.Specifically, eachperspectiveurgesus toconsidercritical questions needing to be addressed theoretically, con-ceptually, and developmentally in our future examinations ofteacher–student relationships. Furthermore, I hope to reveallimitations to our understanding of the phenomenon as a de-velopmental construct. This is because much of our currentknowledge within a developmental period is tied to a particu-lar theory or approach.

Looking across these approaches, several themes emerge.First, we find strong evidence to suggest teacher–child rela-tionships influence social and cognitive outcomes as early aspreschool and continue to influence students’ social and intel-lectual development throughout childhood and adolescence.Second, findings from attachment perspectives suggest stu-dent–teacher relationships may be influenced by students’ be-liefs about adults, about teachers, about themselves, and aboutthe nature of adult–child interaction. These beliefs may shapestudents’ social motivational beliefs and, in turn, their beliefs

208 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

about their academic and social competence, their values, andtheir pursuit of academic and social goals in the classroom.Third, studies from motivation perspectives suggest the qual-ity of relationships between students and teachers are influ-enced by teachers’ motivations, interpersonal skills,instructional practices, and attempts to socialize the motiva-tion to learn. Fourth, findings from social–cultural perspec-tives indicate the quality of students’ relationships withteachers may reflect the interpersonal culture of classroomsand schools, as well as their opportunities to invest in alterna-tive relationships and the abilities of students and teachers toconnect with each other as well as with the material.

I begin this review by examining student–teacher relation-ships from attachment perspectives, including a brief review ofattachment theory and the nature and influence ofteacher–child relationships throughout preschool and elemen-tary school. Studies drawn from attachment theory haveshaped our understanding of student–teacher relationships bychallenging us to consider how we are to define the “quality” ofrelationships. Next, I examine student–teacher relationshipsfrom the perspectives of motivation theory. I distinguish be-tween theories of instructional and affective context, the role ofstudents’ social–motivational beliefs, and the socialization ofmotivation. The discussion of motivation approaches endswith an examination of the nature and influence ofteacher–child relationships in the transition to and throughmiddle school. Studies drawn from motivation perspectiveshave shaped our understanding of student–teacher relation-ships by examining the role teachers and teacher–child rela-tionships play in promoting cognitive development,motivation, and learning. Additionally, motivation perspec-tives challenge us to consider the affect of seeking adult ap-proval on students’ motivation and learning. I end with an exam-ination of student–teacher relationships from socioculturalperspectives, specifically ecological and constructivist theories,and examinations of student–teacher relationships throughouthigh school. Sociocultural studies of relationships have not onlybroadened our conceptions of the “quality” and the “influence”of relationships, but challenge us to consider how our construc-tions of children’s social worlds shape the way we view teacherstudent interaction. The piece ends with suggestions for futureresearch and theory development.

HOW DO WE DEFINE THE “QUALITY”OF STUDENT–TEACHER

RELATIONSHIPS?

Attachment Perspectives onStudent–Teacher Relationships

Researchers working from an attachment perspective con-ceptualize teacher–child relationships as extensions of theparent–child relationship. Through their nurturing and re-sponsiveness to students’ needs teachers serve to provide a

foundation from which children can learn about their aca-demic and social surroundings. “Good” relationships withteachers are viewed as supporting children’s motivation toexplore as well as their regulation of social, emotional, andcognitive skills. Because teacher–child relationships areviewed as extensions of the parent–child relationship, re-searchers working within the attachment paradigm are con-cerned with evaluating dimensions relevant to the par-ent–child relationship (e.g., emotional closeness, conflict,and dependency) as well as more global indicators of adjust-ment (e.g., social competence with peers and adults, and cog-nitive development). Pianta (1999) argued that teachers be-come increasingly important in the process of emotionregulation, through their ability to help children to accuratelylabel, manage, and express the emotions experienced in theclassroom (see also Thompson, 1994).

Central to attachment perspectives on student–teacher re-lationships is the belief that students bring to the classroomrelational schemas, or models, about the nature of social rela-tionships and their social world (Bowlby, 1988; Bretherton,1992; Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990; Cassidy &Shaver, 1999). These models are believed to influence thequality of future relationships (e.g., with teachers) by shapingstudents’ interpretations of teacher initiations and responsesin interactions. Bowlby hypothesized that early attachmentrelationships result in the generation of an internal workingmodel of the self, of others, and of self–other relationships.These internal working models are small-scale models of thechild’s external social reality (Bretherton et al., 1990).Children then use these models as lenses to guide their under-standing of future relationships. By providing a frameworkfor interpreting the behaviors of alternative caregivers thesemodels can work to potentially constrain the quality of futurerelationships.

There is a vast database of literature on the developmentand influence of early attachment relationships throughoutthe lifespan (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Using the dimensionsof emotional closeness, conflict, and dependency to evaluatethe quality of relationships, findings generally conclude thereare significant consequences of having experiencedinsecurity1 with primary attachment figures. For example,children who exhibit insecure attachments with their primary

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 209

1Researchers working in the field of infant–toddler attachment tend to dis-

cuss the quality of relationships as reflecting combinations of emotionalcloseness, conflict, and dependency. Using observational methods includingthe “strange situation” paradigm and Q-sort ratings, infants and toddlers canbe classified into several categories based on the valence and salience of eachdimension. The broadest classification discussed is “secure” (high closeness,low conflict, and moderate dependency) or “insecure” (low closeness, withvarying levels of conflict and dependency). Interestingly, Howes, Hamilton,and Matheson (1994; see also Birch & Ladd, 1997) found the three dimen-sions of emotional closeness, conflict, and dependency, as well as teachers’socialization of peer relationships, operated independent of each other to pre-dict different outcomes. Therefore researchers working with older popula-tions tend to examine these dimensions along a continuum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

caregivers during infancy tend to be ambivalent toward ex-ploration and intimacy experiences and wary of new situa-tions. In contrast, children who exhibit secure attachmentswith their primary caregivers tend to have better relationshipswith their peers, to be more adept at negotiating their physicaland social environments and of finding support, and to exhibitmore frequent and complex exploration of new situations(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Consequences of establishing andmaintaining secure parent–child relationships continue to in-fluence social and cognitive development throughout adoles-cence and adulthood (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Hale &Murdock, 2001; Jacobsen, Edelstein, & Hoffman, 1994;Kerns & Stevens, 1996; Kobak & Seery, 1988). This is be-cause internal models of self and others (e.g., mom orteacher), formed during preverbal development, are difficultto access and consequently resistant to change (Cassidy &Shaver, 1999; Hamilton, 2000; Howes, Hamilton, &Philipsen, 1998; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, &Albersheim, 2000). This is why problems evident in earlyparent–child relationships tend to predict later conflicts.

Likewise, researchers extending the attachment frame-work to examine the nature of caregiver–child relationships inpreschool and elementary school have found that “early affec-tive and social processes play a role in preparing children forschool competence. As children develop, their relationshipswith others continue to affect their ability to be actively en-gaged in school” (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997, p. 83). There is agreat deal of controversy, however, concerning the extent towhich models for parent relationships generalize to influencechildren’s interactions with other significant individuals (e.g.,teachers). Much of this debate derives from disagreementsabout whether attachment is a stable person characteristic orthe product of bidirectional interactions in a relationship. Forexample, if attachment style reflects a stable person character-istic, then we would expect consequences associated with at-tachment style, particularly the experience of insecurity(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997;Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver,1996; Van ljzendoorn et al. 1992). Furthermore, attachmentrelationships with teachers would mirror early relationshipswithprimarycaregivers (Cotterell, 1992a;Pianta,1996,1999;Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997). In this case, the quality ofrelationships with alternative caregivers (e.g., teachers)would also remain somewhat stable throughout the lifespan.

In contrast, if attachment style results from thebidirectional interactions within a relationship, we wouldexpect to find distinct models or relational schemas for dif-ferent attachment figures (Davis & Lease, 2000; Levy,Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). Furthermore, increasing differentia-tion of the internal working models with age could result inthe co-existence of multiple, and potentially divergent, rep-resentations of attachment (Baldwin et al., 1997). If chil-dren do differentiate teachers as a group of adults, distinctfrom primary caregivers, then children who experienced in-security in prior relationships may have a new opportunity,

through teachers, to experience security. Findings fromseveral studies seem to indicate children can differentiatebetween parents and teachers (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1992;Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997; Davis & Lease,2000; Hamilton & Howes, 1992; Howes, 1988; Howes,Rodning, Galluzo, & Myers, 1988; Lynch & Cicchetti,1997; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Smith, Ballard, & Barham,1989). Thus, whereas some children may develop relation-ships with teachers that complement the parent–child rela-tionship, other children may develop relationships withteachers that differ in their content and affective tenor. Forexample, Howes et al. (1988) and Howes and Matheson(1992; see also Copeland et al., 1997) found rates of con-cordance in their overall samples of preschool children (se-cure–secure and insecure–insecure) varied ranging from40% to as high as 64% concordance. Rates were found tovary depending on the type of childcare (e.g., in home or ata center) and the quality of care received (Howes & Mathe-son, 1992). For example, lower rates of concordance werefound in child-care centers than with in-home care.

The quality of relationships throughout preschooland elementary school. Research studies conceptualiz-ing student–teacher relationships from an attachment per-spective indicate, as early as preschool, that the quality ofteacher–child relationships influence children’s social andcognitive development. Most studies, using observationalmethods and teacher or parent ratings, have examinedwhether children’s relationships predict social–developmen-tal outcomes such as concurrent or later sociability withteachers and peers. For example, in a series of studies, Howesand colleagues examined the impact of children’s feelings ofsecurity, conflict, and dependence on social and cognitive de-velopment. Howes, Hamilton, and Matheson (1994) foundthe levels of emotional closeness, conflict, dependency andteachers’ socialization of peer relationships, predicted chil-dren’s prosocial behavior, aggression, complex play, andwithdrawal. Across two studies, Howes et al. (1988) foundchildren who experienced insecurity with teachers exhibitedlowest levels of play with peers and adults. Furthermore, lon-gitudinal investigations by Howes et al. (1998) found attach-ment to first teachers, as a toddler, was the best predictor ofchildren’s perceptions of the quality of their relationship withtheir teachers and friends at age 9.

This trend, for the quality of relationships with teachersto influence developmental outcomes, continues as childrenmove into elementary school (Pianta, 1992). For example,Pianta and Sternberg (1992) found teachers’ ratings of con-flict predicted child behavior problems, learning problems,and retention. In contrast, positive relationships were asso-ciated with competence with peers, tolerance of frustration,academic and social skills (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), con-cept development (Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997), fewerbehavior problems (Marachi, Friedel, & Midgley, 2001),

210 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and classroom achievement (Davis, 2001; Fraser &O’Brien, 1985). Likewise, Birch and Ladd (1996, 1997; seealso Connell & Wellborn, 1991) found kindergarten chil-dren’s visual and language skills, attitude and involvementin school, and adjustment to school were associated withteachers’ reports of the quality of their relationship.

Recently, Birch and Ladd (1998) and Ladd, Birch, andBuhs (1999) examined the relationship between children’srelational styles, or “behavioral orientations,” in kindergartenand the quality of their first-grade teacher relationships. Con-sistent with attachment theory, they found early relationaldifficulties acted in a viscous cycle to predict later difficul-ties. For example, children whose kindergarten relationalstyle was characterized by high rates of problem behaviors(labeled “moving against” relationships) exhibited high ratesof conflict and low rates of closeness with their first-gradeteachers. Children whose kindergarten relational style wascharacterized by high rates of asocial behaviors, specificallysocial anxiety (labeled “moving away” from relationships),exhibited high rates of dependency on first-grade teachers.Surprisingly, kindergarten relational styles characterized byhigh rates of prosocial behaviors (labeled “moving toward”relationships) did not predict any relational outcomes in firstgrade. Likewise, Ladd et al. (1999) found stronger effects fornegative behaviors on relationship outcomes. These findingssuggest prosocial dimensions may not be as salient to teach-ers when making judgments of relational quality (Birch &Ladd, 1998; Ladd et al., 1999; Ladd & Burgess, 1999).

From an attachment perspective, the ways teachers re-spond to children’s demands in the classroom are as impor-tant to relationship quality as children’s relational schemasand styles. Researchers working from an attachment perspec-tive have also identified a number of environmental charac-teristics that contribute to the development of securerelationships. For example, Howes and Hamilton (1992b)found supportive relationships with teachers were correlatedwith predictability in child care. Changes in the preschool set-ting, as well as in the child’s primary teacher, influence socialdevelopment and relationships with peers, such that numberof changes in teachers predicts teachers’ ratings of lower so-ciability, increases in observed difficult behavior, and in-creases in observed aggression and withdrawal. Thesefindings are disturbing in light of national rates of teacherturnover estimated to be in excess of 40% a year (Howes &Hamilton, 1992b; see also Bates et al., 1994).

Defining “good” relationships. Researchers workingfrom attachment perspectives have established the impor-tance of understanding children’s models of adult–child rela-tionships and their relational schemas, including conceptionsof emotional closeness, conflict, and dependency. They stressthe importance of the emotional quality of adults’ interactionswith children as well as their responsiveness (e.g., frequencyand consistency) to children’s needs. Furthermore, attach-

ment perspectives have contributed to our understanding ofhow relationships develop and of what dimensions can be usedas indicators of relationship quality. The traditional dimen-sions of parent–child attachment relationships also appear topredict the quality of early teacher–child relationships. Thismay be because parent–child and early teacher–child relation-ships share similar objectives: to encourage intellectual explo-ration young children and to develop social competence withadults and peers. Regarding preschool and elementary schoolchildren, we find a number of research programs firmlygrounded in the attachment perspective. “Good” relationshipsare defined by low levels of conflict with accompanying highlevels of closeness and support.

As we shift to examine motivation perspectives on stu-dent–teacher relationships we will find these dimensions par-allel constructs in the motivation literature—specificallyrelatedness and involvement (e.g., closeness), competence(e.g., dependency), and autonomy (e.g., conflict) —and theyremain important to predicting cognitive and social–emo-tional outcomes. For example, Skinner and Belmont (1993)found that teachers’ levels of involvement with their students(both actual and perceived by the students) influenced theirquality of students’ behavioral and emotional engagement inschool. In general, increased teacher involvement predictedstudents’ perceptions of structure and autonomy within theclassroom and their feelings of involvement with the teacher.Furthermore, teachers’ reports of involvement with their stu-dents had both direct and indirect influences on students’emotional engagement in the class as well as indirect effectson students’ behavioral engagement. Skinner and Belmont’s(1993) findings indicate teachers’ behaviors in the classroomcontinue to impact students’ perceptions of their interactionsas well as level of engagement with the class material.

However, motivation perspectives of student–teacher re-lationships tend to characterize the student–teacher relation-ship as becoming increasingly embedded with theeducational context. For example, motivation researchers aregenerally less concerned with teachers as nurturers and moreconcerned with teachers as effective instructors. Thus, goodrelationships with teachers reflect relationships that supportmotivation and learning in the classroom. Do these changes inour definitions of good relationships reflect changes in the na-ture of student–teacher relationship or changes in our theoret-ical lenses? This is a particularly pertinent question becauseof the changing nature of schooling and “academic” motiva-tion. Middle schools and high schools, because of their con-straints of time and space, are less focused on encouragingexploration and more focused on motivating students to en-gage in joint activities (C. E. Hamilton, personal communica-tion, June 27, 2001). Although the dimensions of closeness,conflict, and dependency appear adequate to predict someoutcomes, future research is need to examine whether thesedimensions are sufficient to describe the nature ofteacher–child relationships throughout development. Spe-cifically, do global indicators of relationship quality, drawn

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

from attachment theory and used to evaluate parent–child re-lationships, remain equally important to defining relationshipquality with older children?

WHAT IS THE ROLE OFSTUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS

IN MOTIVATION AND LEARNING?

Motivation Perspectives onStudent–Teacher Relationships

The belief that the quality of student–teacher relationshipsserves an important role in promoting students’ motivation tolearn is not new to the motivation literature (Ames 1992;Brophy, 1998; Brophy & Kher, 1985). Motivation perspec-tives, however, are distinct in their view of student–teacherrelationships as being more defined by the educational con-text of schooling than by parent–child relationships or rela-tional schemas. Because of this difference in perspective, mo-tivation researchers broaden our understanding of howclassroom contexts and students’ social motivational beliefscan shape relationship quality and the motivation to learn, aswell as our perspective on the potential effects of stu-dent–teacher relationships. Viewing adult–child relation-ships as embedded within the context of effective teachingand learning dispels the notion that teachers can simply moti-vate students by being “nice” to them. In contrast, findingsfrom motivation theory suggest students not only appreciatethe structure and support that teacher relationships can pro-vide, but also the ability of teachers to help them feel success-ful in educational pursuits.

Although both attachment perspectives and the motivationperspectives consider the mutual effects of teachers and stu-dents on relationship quality, motivation theories historicallytended to be more focused how teachers drive the quality of re-lationships (e.g., through students’ perceptions of the instruc-tional and affective context and teacher support). From thisperspective, relationships with teachers could either facilitateor impede motivation and learning. Early motivation re-searchers tended to focus more on how to support students’motivation for specific academic domains or academic tasks.This may reflect changes in the public educational context,whereby “what” is to be studied becomes less dictated by stu-dents and more dictated by teachers and administrators. It isbecause of this focus on the teacher that much of the researchon student–teacher relationships within the motivation litera-ture has focused on dimensions that fall within teachers’ “con-trol” (e.g., class context, climate, expectations, behaviors,tasks, and strategies). Furthermore, motivation researchers,using primarily teacher and student self-report methods, tendto examine more specific cognitive outcomes of “good” rela-tionships including beliefs, values, goals, effort, persistence,and achievement. Though there is a growing body of literatureto examine the role of social motivational beliefs in the class-

room, motivational researchers tend to be less concerned withhow social motivational beliefs contribute to relationshipquality and more concerned with how they influence motiva-tion, learning, and cognitive development.

Teacher’s role in creating supportive affective andinstructional contexts. Historically, our investigations ofthe impact of relationships with teachers on learning and mo-tivation have been dominated by a linear perspective that as-sumed the direct cause and effect of teacher expectations, atti-tudes, and behaviors on student motivation and learning(Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983; see also Turner & Meyer, 2000,for review). Findings from this perspective have contributedgreatly to our understanding of how teachers’ behaviors andbeliefs and the instructional contexts they create can promotesupportive relationships and the motivation to learn. In this use,context refers to more than the physical setting to include thetypes of interactions students and teachers have about the aca-demic material (Mehan, 1984). For example, we know teach-ers bring to the classroom beliefs about the nature of schooling,knowledge, and learning (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, &Tarule, 1986; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) that may influence theirlevel and quality of involvement with the class, with the in-structional material, and with their students (Hofer & Pintrich,1998). Additionally, teachers may bring with them beliefsabout themselves as teachers (Tschannen-Moran,Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) and beliefs about their students’abilities and motivations and the likelihood of their students’success (Cooper & Tom, 1984; Feldman & Theiss, 1982; Har-ris & Rosenthal, 1986; Pelletier & Vallerand, 1989; Perry &Weinstein, 1998; Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998). Findings sug-gest teachers’ beliefs can shape both the quality of their interac-tions with students as well as the quality of their instruction.Furthermore, these findings imply there may be relational con-sequences for different instructional pedagogies (e.g., tradi-tional vs. constructivist; see also Devries & Zan, 1996). For ex-ample, Thomas and Oldfather (1997) argued,

If [teachers] have a genuine sense of respect for the integrityof students’ minds and engage in connected knowing(Belenky et al., 1986), such teachers can ’share ownership ofknowing’ with students, honor their voices, and create class-room cultures that embody genuine respect for studentsense-making. (p. 112)

Likewise, research indicates teachers can influence thequality of their interactions with students and their students’motivation and learning via the instructional contexts theyembrace (Perry, 1998; Turner & Meyer, 2000). Researchersworking within achievement goal theory discuss six dimen-sions of the instructional context that can influence the qual-ity of students’ engagement in class and with the material.These include tasks, autonomy, recognition, grouping, evalu-ation, and time (T.A.R.G.E.T.; Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer,

212 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

1988; Blumenfeld, 1992; Epstein, 1989; Urdan, Midgley, &Wood, 1995). Regarding the development and impact of stu-dent–teacher relationships, perhaps the most striking findingspoint to the importance of supporting students’ autonomy(Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981; Feldlaufer et al.,1988; Reeve, 1998; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Ryan & Stiller,1991) and teachers’ use of evaluation strategies (Thomas &Oldfather, 1997).

Autonomy refers to the extent to which teachers provideopportunities for students to pursue and determine their owneducational outcomes in the classroom. Research indicatesthat teachers who successfully manage balancing the need forstructure with the need for autonomy increase students’ locusof responsibility for their own learning, their intrinsic motiva-tion for academic tasks, their feelings of competence, andtheir use of strategies leading to conceptual understanding(Reeve, 1998; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999; Ryan, Connell, &Deci, 1985; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Thomas and Oldfather(1997, p. 117) argued that “teachers who are willing to sharetheir power support the development of student autonomy.They do this by providing structures that help students take onincreasing responsibility for their own learning.”

In contrast, Manke (1997) and Finders (1997) observed re-lationships in which teachers and students were engaged inpower struggles to gain the “upper hand” as a result of teach-ers’ excessive use of controlling behaviors. DeVries & Zan(1996) warned of the consequences of the excessive use ofcontrol in the classroom. They contrast the need for disciplineand structure in the classroom with relationships based onwhat Piaget called “heteronomy,” or coercion and constraint.

In adult–child relations, heteronomy is often appropriate andsometimes unavoidable. … However, when children are gov-erned continually by the values, beliefs, and ideas of others,they practice submission (if not rebellion) that can lead tomindless conformity in both moral and intellectual life.(DeVries & Zan, 1996, p. 107)

Thus, teachers who develop relationships with their stu-dents characterized by excessive control may trade off be-havioral control at the expense of promoting students’ senseof intellectual control. In a series of studies designed to ex-amine autonomy-supportive teachers, Reeve (1998; Reeveet al., 1999) found autonomy support was associated withincreased listening to and questioning of students’ wants.Furthermore, autonomy supportive teachers were less likelyto give directives and provide their own solutions to chil-dren’s problems.

Research also indicates that teachers’ use of evaluationand time may have important implications for relationshipquality and motivation. This includes the emphasis studentsperceive their teachers placing on the process or products oflearning (e.g., “getting it done” vs. “getting it done well”) aswell as the use of normative or criterion referenced evalua-tions (e.g., “getting it right” vs. “understanding”). Thomas

and Oldfather (1997) argued that teachers who view them-selves as the keepers and providers of knowledge may treatstudents as novices needing simplified systems to understandtheir growing abilities. They may select strategies that main-tain the most control over student outcomes. These strategiescan have a negative impact on relationships by emphasizingthe power differential between students and teachers, particu-larly when students do not understand the process of evalua-tion and do not know to what they should attribute a good orbad grade (Thomas & Oldfather, 1997). Impersonal strategiescan leave students feeling vulnerable and may cause them toquestion a teacher’s fairness. In contrast, teachers who viewstudents as capable of co-constructing knowledge select strat-egies that are empowering to students, such as asking them toengage in self-evaluation. Engaging students as co-evalua-tors may serve an invaluable role in helping students to under-stand their strengths and weaknesses and to discover theirown potentials as learners.

There has also been increasing interest in examining the so-cial–emotional dimensions of the instructional context and itsimpact on students’ motivation. From this perspective, re-searchers look beyond the structure of instructional contexts tothe types of interactions among students and teachers that pro-mote motivation and learning. For example, researchers haveexamined the general affective climate of the classroom (Moos& Moos, 1978; Turner et al., 1998; Turner, Meyer, Midgley, &Patrick, 2001), including the tenor of teacher verbal (Turner etal., 2001) and nonverbal messages (Neil, 1986, 1989; Brooks& Woolfolk, 1987). In this vein, several studies have been con-ducted to examine the role of students’ feelings of belonging totheir school and class (Osterman, 2000; Whelage, Rutter,Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989), their perceptions of theirteachers as caring (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps,1997; Cabello & Terrell, 1994, 1988; Hayes et al., 1994; Mul-ler, Katz, & Dance, 1999; Wentzel, 1997; Veaco & Brandon,1986) and supportive (Dubow & Ullman, 1989; Harter, 1996),and the extent to which teachers foster a climate of social re-sponsibility and prosocial behavior in their classroom (Toro etal., 1985; Wentzel, 1998). Findings indicate that the affectiveclimate of the classroom (including feelings of belonging andsupport) predict a number of positive social outcomes includ-ing social competence, empathy (Battistch et al., 1997), andhelp seeking (Ryan & Pintrich, 2001), as well as academic out-comes including intrinsic motivation for school and readingcomprehension (Battistich et al., 1997). The perception ofteacher support and school belonging in turn predicted in-creased academic self-efficacy, positive school affect, and aca-demic achievement (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996); thepursuit of task goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999); and thepursuit of prosocial academic and peer goals, academic socialresponsibility goals, and effort (Wentzel, 1998).

These findings prompt us to consider how teachers candemonstrate caring and foster a sense of belonging in theirclassrooms. Moje (1996) argued that teachers can demon-strate caring through their overall organization and prepara-

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

tion for class as well as through modeling and promotingstudents’ use of strategies that will help them learn effec-tively. She found that the teacher’s level of preparation andfocus on student understanding and learning enabled her toconcentrate on helping students to make connections betweenthe material and their own lives. In addition, recent researchsuggests that teachers may also demonstrate “caring” throughtheir use of humor (Moje, 1996; Turner et al., 2001), project-ing high expectations for student effort and success (Muller,Katz, & Dance, 1999), and providing opportunities for bothstudents and teachers to express an “authentic voice” in theclassroom (Harter, Waters, Whitesell, & Kastelic, 1998; Harteret al., 1997; Oldfather, 1993; Oldfather & Thomas, 1998).

The role of students’ social–motivationalbeliefs. The argument that teachers need to create sup-portive emotional as well as instructional contexts to fostermotivation and learning derives from the perspective that in-tellectual development is not the only goal operating withinthe classroom environment (Connell & Wellborn, 1991;Dodge, Asher, & Parkhurst, 1989; Ford, 1996; Goodenow,1992; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998). Specifically, researchersargue that teachers’ attempts to meet students’ intellectualneeds (e.g., made good grades) operate simultaneously as stu-dents attempt to fulfill their own interpersonal needs (e.g.,gaining approval from adults and peers). Similar to attach-ment perspectives, studies of students’ social–motivationalbeliefs recognize that students do not enter their classroomsas “tabula rasa.” Instead they bring expectations, attitudes,and behaviors (Markus et al., 1985; Weinstein, 1983) that willimpact the quality of relationships they develop with teach-ers. Furthermore, these studies recognize that the sameteacher may not have an equal effect on all students in theclass. Within the motivation literature on middle school stu-dents, there is a small but growing number of studies examin-ing the role of social–motivational beliefs, values, and goalson students’ motivation and learning. For example,Wentzel’s program of research, examining the nature of mid-dle school students’ social motivations have contributedgreatly to our understanding of the role of social relationshipsin the classroom in promoting middle school students’ moti-vation and academic performance. Her initial attempts to ex-amine the impact of multiple goal pursuit found that bothmiddle school and high school students freely reported pursu-ing social goals that could be characterized as oriented towardeither prosocial behavior or responsible behavior in the class-room (Wentzel, 1989, 1991a). Prosocial goals reflect stu-dents’ attempts to make and keep friends, to be helpful to stu-dents and teachers, and to get others in the classroom toengage in helpful behaviors. Social responsibility goals re-flect students’ “adherence to social rules and expectations”(Wentzel, 1991a, p. 1066), such as the efforts to be depend-able, responsible, and successful academically. Her findingsreveal that the pursuit of social responsibility goals in the

classroom was associated with the following: the quality ofstudents’ social behavior in the classroom (Wentzel, 1991c,1993b), social acceptance and the perception of social sup-port by teachers and peers (Wentzel, 1991a, 1991b, 1993b),the perception of a “caring” teacher (Wentzel, 1997), stu-dents’ self-presentation strategies and seeking of social ap-proval (Juvonen & Weiner, 1993), students’ achievementmotivation (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Patrick, Hicks, &Ryan, 1997; Wentzel, 1996, 1998), and students’ academicperformance (Wentzel, 1991a, 1991b, 1993a, 1993b, 1998).

Wentzel’s program of research examines the content ofgoals as opposed to the “social reasons” for pursuing academicachievement. Her findings overwhelmingly suggested that stu-dents who choose to simultaneously pursue both social and ac-ademic goals that complement achievement experienceincreased academic motivation and enhanced performance and“tend to be more socially competent than adolescents inter-ested primarily in nonsocial goals” (Wentzel, 1991a, p. 1067).Indeed, there is a great deal of literature to suggest that stu-dents’ social competence (Ford, 1982; see Patrick, 1997, for athorough review)—such as their social skills (Gresham &Elliott, 1984; Merrell & Gimpel, 1998) and nonverbal commu-nication skills (Halberstadt & Hall, 1980; Nowicki & Duke,1992)—are associated with their academic abilities even whenaccounting for standardized measures of intellectual ability.

Motivation researchers, however, are not only concernedwith the content of goals students set but also the reasons thatunderlie engaging in achievement activities (Ames, 1992;Ames & Archer, 1988). For example, Dowson andMcInerney (1997a, 1997b; see also Urdan & Maehr, 1995)discussed the impact of pursuing academic achievement forsocial reasons. They found students might pursue academicgoals to gain the approval of peers, teachers, and parents; toconform to classroom norms of social responsibility; to im-prove their social status in the classroom; or to achieve a senseof belonging within the classroom. Furthermore, these differ-ing patterns of goal pursuit may produce different types ofmotivation in the classroom (Anderman & Anderman, 1999;Hinkley, McInerney, & Marsh, 2001; Jarvinen & Nicholls,1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley,1997; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1993a). For example,students who pursue goals to establish peer relationships andto achieve status among their peers tend to be oriented moretoward performance and evaluation than learning and mas-tery (Anderman & Anderman, 1999). Likewise, Wentzel(1993a) found that students’ orientations (i.e., mastery, eval-uation, or social responsibility oriented) influenced the typesof goals they selected as well as their academic achievement.Thus, though the pursuit of social responsibility goals may beassociated with higher achievement, students who held socialresponsibility orientations about the nature of academicachievement (i.e., “When you try to get good grades in schoolit’s mostly because that’s what you are supposed to do inschool” [Wentzel, 1993a, p. 10]) tended to have lower gradepoint averages. She argued that this may be because students

214 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

perceive engagement in learning activities as a social obliga-tion, or form of compliance, rather than a means of self pro-motion.

Socializing the motivation to learn. Theories ad-dressing the socializing function of education attempt to de-scribe the processes by which teachers, in simultaneouslymeeting the intellectual and social needs of students (Brophy,1998; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Galbo, 1994; Wentzel, 1999), canencourage students to adopt a lifelong learning perspective.For example, Deci and Ryan (1985; Deci, Vallerand,Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Ryan& Stiller, 1991) described the process of “internalization,”whereby behaviors and values that are initially external andother-determined (i.e., by a teacher or parent) transformedinto internal beliefs and values, and self-determined behav-iors. Being self-determined is not the same as being intrinsi-cally interested in an activity. Rather, when students chooseto engage in activities because they perceive them as person-ally relevant or important, it is a more sustaining form of mo-tivation. A self-determination theory of motivation holds thatstudents will feel motivated to learn when their three essentialneeds are being met: the need for competence, the need for au-tonomy, and the need for relatedness. “A central hypothesisof self-determination theory is that social contexts that sup-port people’s being competent, related, and autonomous willpromote intentional (i.e., motivated) action” (Deci et al.,1991). From this perspective, deficits in students’ motivationto learn can occur when teachers fail to support students’ es-sential personal and interpersonal needs.

Though most of the research on the impact of teacher beliefsand instructional contexts focuses on providing support for stu-dents’ competence and autonomy needs, recent research on thesocial–emotional contexts of classrooms is beginning to addressthe ways in which teachers attend to the students’ relatednessneeds (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Leary & Downs, 1995;McClelland, 1985; Patrick, Skinner, & Connell, 1993). Connelland Wellborn (1991) argued that the dimensions of emotionalcloseness and security comprise feelings of relatedness. Stu-dents’ needs to feel related are fulfilled when teachers and peersin the classroom support and express knowledge of and an inter-est in the student. Furthermore, they argued that feelings of relat-edness play an important role in promoting the development ofstudents’ autonomy (Ryan & Lynch, 1989) and self-determina-tion in the classroom. Findings from a recent study by Roeser,Eccles, and Sameroff (2000) corroborated the connection be-tween support of students’ relatedness needs and the motivationto learn. They found that students who felt emotionally sup-ported by their teachers tended to value academics more. Fur-thermore, students who had internalized the values of school(i.e., “bonded to school”) were the ones who experienced theleast distress throughout the transition.

Self-determination theory argued that the process of inter-nalization happens in four stages (Connell & Wellborn, 1991;

Deci et al., 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985). Initially, theexternal regulation of behavior occurs when outcomes (orgoals) that are not valued by a student are pursued, perhapsthrough the use of extrinsic rewards or punishments, becauseof an external force (e.g., the teacher). For example, teacherswho value participation in class may compel nonparticipatorystudents through the use of praise or participation grades.This type of regulation may feel coercive to students becauseparticipation is not seen as a choice, but rather as a form ofcompliance. At the next level, students who have internalizedthese behavior contingencies may choose to participate inclass as a function of introjected regulation. In this case, stu-dents participate in class out of perceived fear, or guilt, for theconsequences of not participating even when there is no lon-ger an explicit “grade” obliging them to participate. In con-trast, students who participate as a function of identifiedregulation feel a sense of choice, or volition, in their decisionto participate in class. This is because they have come toself-identify with being a “student” and to maintain that iden-tity they engage in associated activities (e.g., “Good studentsparticipate in class”). Lastly, when students are able to recon-cile potentially competing identities (e.g., being popular withpeers and being a good student) to pursue goals within eachdomain, they are said to engage in integrated regulation. Forexample, these students may incorporate strategies of humorand leadership to simultaneously ingratiate with teachers andpeers when participating in class.

Through their ability to establish classroom routines andan academic culture, teachers may play an important role inhelping students with the transition from extrinsic forms ofachievement motivation to developing an integrated “iden-tity” of a learner and the self-regulation of behavior. Wentzelargued that “An implicit goal of educational institutions hasalways been to socialize children into adult society by teach-ing work- and responsibility-oriented values such as depend-ability, punctuality, and obedience in conjunction with thelearning process” (Wentzel, 1991b, p. 190). From this per-pective, teachers share the responsibility of parents to en -courage children to value not only academic achievement butalso the self-regulation of academic and social behavior. Thisself-regulation would include the planning and setting ofgoals complementary to academic achievement, the monitor-ing and evaluating of behavior and emotion, and the judg-ments made about what occurs in the classroom (i.e.,self-environment appraisals; DeMarrais, Crowder,Liljestrom, & Rouleston, 2001; Thompson, 1994; Wentzel,1991a). Brophy and Kher (1985; Brophy, 1998) argued thatthe socialization of motivation via teacher interaction in-volves both clear communication of expectations about inter-personal relationships among students and with teachers, andcalling students’ attention to the purposes of learning activi-ties. Though many studies have been done to examine the out-comes of competence and autonomy support in theclassroom, few studies have examined the role of competenceor autonomy support in the process of socializing motivation.

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Likewise, more studies need to examine both the outcomes ofteachers’ support of relatedness needs and how feelings of re-latedness can contribute to the internalization of values suchas the self-determination of behavior, social responsibility,and prosocial behavior (Rohrkemper, 1984; Wentzel, 1999),as well as the motivation to learn (Brophy, 1998; Oldfather &Dahl, 1994).

Social motivation to and through middleschool. Researchers within the field of motivation havecontributed greatly to our understanding of the nature and im-pact of student–teacher relationships throughout early adoles-cence. For example, a number of motivation researchers arguethe transition from elementary to middle school is a difficulttime for students resulting in changes their academic motiva-tions and performance (Blyth, Simmons, & Bush, 1978; Blyth,Simmons, & Carlton-Ford, 1983; Eccles et al., 1993; Feldlaufer,Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000;Simmons, Blyth, Van Cleave, & Bush, 1979).2 Specifically, re-searchers have documented declines in children’s perceivedcompetence, perceived autonomy, perceptions of the classroomlearning context, and their endorsement of adaptive learninggoals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Anderman & Midgley,1997; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Midgley,Anderman, & Hicks, 1995; Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987) as wellas the increased influence of emotional distress on students’ mo-tivation to learn (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000; Roesser etal., 1995). Researchers suggest that this difficulty may derivefrom the mismatch between the early adolescents’ needs and thestructure of middle schools. For example, Eccles et al. (1993;Eccles & Midgely, 1989) argued that the discontinuity of thetransition and the sharp changes in status that occur as a result ofthe transition combine to make adjustment to middle schoolproblematic for some students. Middle schools, compared to el-ementary schools, have been criticized for their increasingly im-personal structure and atmosphere combined with increased stu-dent–teacher ratios. This change in the environment is reflectedin middle school students’ reports of feeling greater anonymityto their teachers and the other students in the school during the1st year of their transition to middle school from elementaryschool (Blyth et al., 1983; Eccles et al., 1993; Feldlaufer et al.,1988; Simmons et al., 1979).

Furthermore, though young adolescents become increas-ingly aware of their own volition (Durkin, 1995) or sense ofcontrol, middle schools tend to become more restrictive of stu-dents’ autonomy. For example, Feldlaufer et al. (1988) foundthat teachers, students, and observers rated middle schoolclassrooms as providing fewer opportunities for student inputand autonomous decision making. This change may make itmore difficult for students to develop a sense of self-reliance

and emotional autonomy from adults (Durkin, 1995; Ryan &Lynch, 1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). On the otherhand, Harter et al. (1992) found that structural changes associ-ated with the transition to middle school were not as importantas changes in students’ perceptions of the educational prac-tices of the school (i.e., increased use of controlling teacherpractices). Students who experienced decreases in their per-ceived autonomy, as opposed to actual opportunities to be au-tonomous, reported increased anxiety about school anddecreases in their intrinsic motivation and perceived compe-tence (Harter et al., 1992). Decreases in the quality of stu-dent–teacher relationships across the transition have also beendocument by Lynch and Cicchetti (1997). They found that60% of middle school students in their study felt disengagedwith their teachers; that is, they did not want to be close to theirteachers. Likewise, Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989)found changes in students’ perceptions of support from theirmathematics teachers influenced their beliefs about the valueofmathand their interest towardmath.Studentswhohada lesssupportive teacher their 1st year in middle school exhibiteddecrements in value and interest, whereas students whomoved to a more supportive teacher their 1st year in middleschool exhibited increments in their beliefs about the value ofmath and their interest in mathematics.

In light of these overall decreases in relationship quality,findings reveal that supportive relationships with teacherscontinue to predict social and academic outcomes throughoutmiddle school and in the transition to high school. In general,across each of these domains, supportive relationships withteachers can contribute to reducing risk for adolescent dis-tress, deviance, and academic failure. For example, Roeser,Midgley, and Urdan (1996; see also Roeser, Eccles, &Sameroff, 2000) found that middle school students who per-ceived a supportive relationship with their teacher felt moreconnected and had a positive affect for school, tended to feelmore competent and be more task focused in their pursuit ofacademic goals, and at the end of the year tended to have ahigher GPA. Indeed, findings from the national study on ado-lescent health found that students’ feelings of connectednessto school accounted for between 13% and 18% of the variancein ratings of emotional distress, between 6% and 7% of thevariance in experiences of school violence, and between 4%and 6% of students’ reports of substance abuse (Resnick et al.,1997). Furthermore, Murdock (1999) found that students’perceptions of their teachers’ academic support and expecta-tions were the most consistent and strongest predictors ofboth engagement in school and compliance. In fact, thesefindings partially mediated the effect of social status (e.g., mi-nority or economic status) on school alienation. RecentlyRyan, Gheen, and Midgley (1998) found thatsocioemotionally supportive relationships with teachersmoderated help-seeking behavior particularly for studentswho tended to avoid seeking help in the classroom. Thus“nurturing” relationships with the teacher tended to increasehelp-seeking behavior in the classroom.

216 DAVIS

2Much of the early research on changes in middle school motivation was

conducted within the domain of mathematics motivation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Seeking adult approval: Complementing,compensating, or competing? That supportive rela-tionships may compensate for “risk” by affording students al-ternative support and resources (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992;Pianta, 1999), is not a new concept within the motivation lit-erature. However, motivation researchers are generally moreconcerned with cognitive developmental outcomes such ashow teachers “catch” and “sustain” engagement in learningactivities. A closer examination of attachment theory mayhelp us to understand “role” or student–teacher relationshipsthroughout development—specifically the origin of socialmotivational beliefs (e.g., relational schemas for teachers, so-cial efficacy, social goals) and the role these beliefs may playin supporting or undermining academic motivation. Spe-cifically, attachment theory posits without “intervention” thatstudents will tend to develop beliefs that are consistent withtheir internal models of their social world. Thus, unless pro-vided opportunities to develop alternative models of relation-ships, children who come to view their social world as pre-dictable and adults as trustworthy and supportive are likely tocontinue using nonparental adults as bases for exploration tocontinue to learn about the world around them. This is be-cause, within the context of parent relationships, children de-velop social and emotional regulation skills that shape theirunderstanding of themselves as competent in mastering thephysical and social world as well. In contrast, children whocome to view their social world and adults as unpredictableare less likely to focus on exploration and more likely to focuson attempting to reconcile their social relationships and ful-filling interpersonal needs.

More research is needed, however, to understand the na-ture of seeking adult approval (e.g., dependency) in motiva-tion and learning. This includes understanding what it meansto seek approval from teachers and to what extent seeking ap-proval from teachers compensates, complements, or com-petes with students’ academic motivations. For example,several studies within the motivation literature suggest thatseeking adult approval (e.g., as a “social goal”) operates in asimilar fashion to approaching tasks with a performance ori-entation. Thus, compared with students who approach taskswith a mastery motivation, students who seek adult approvaltend to report being less intrinsically motivated for tasks andengage in more self-handicapping strategies (Ford et al.,1989; Lehtinen, Vauras, Salonen, Olkinoura, & Kinnunen,1995; Midgley & Urdan, 1995). These findings suggest thatseeking approval from adults is simply another form of ex-trinsic motivation. This view is consistent with attachmenttheorists, who argue that children who are focused on gainingadult approval (e.g., dependent on adult regard) cannot be fo-cused on meeting their intellectual needs of exploration(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999).

On the other hand, Midgley and Urdan (1995) also foundthere was no relationship between seeking adult approval andendorsing task goals nor between seeking adult approval andfeeling academically efficacious. Thus, seeking adult ap-

proval operated independently of academic efficacy and taskorientation. These findings combined with the wealth of find-ings implicating the positive impact of teacher support on mo-tivation and learning beg us to consider what the motivation(e.g., effort, interest, and persistence) of a student who wasconcurrently endorsing task goals and adult approval goalsmight look like. Perhaps seeking adult approval serves an im-portant role in the socialization of motivation. For example,students’ attempts to seek the approval of their teachers mayreflect a shift in academic regulation from extrinsic tointrojected (Deci et al., 1991), thereby facilitating the processof internalizing academic values. In this sense, a student whodid not value math, but who had a “good” relationship with histeacher, may participate in class activities and attempt to mas-ter tasks to maintain the approval of his teacher. This mightrepresent a positive shift in motivation from being extrinsi-cally reinforced through grades, because the consequenceshave either been internalized or are perceived. Furthermore, ifstudents are engaged in tasks and attempting to make meaningout of their experiences and relationships with their teacher,they may attempt to understand why their teacher values or en-joys math. Likewise, the development of social responsibilitygoals may reflect a similar process of socialization wherebystudents have become identified with their role of being stu-dents. Cross-sectional studies, sampling students’ social–mo-tivational beliefs and their outcomes at a single time point,present a “static” view of this socialization process, and mayconfound influence of seeking adult approval on motivationand learning.Futurestudiesexaminingchanges insocialmoti-vational beliefs, both within and across multiple years, maywant to examine their impact on the socialization of motiva-tion and the self-determination of behavior.

HOW DO WE CONSTRUCT CHILDREN’SSOCIAL WORLDS?

Sociocultural Perspectives onStudent–Teacher Relationships

Sociocultural approaches to student–teacher relationships,including ecological and social constructivist, challenge us toexamine our constructions of the nature of children’s inter-personal relationships at each stage of their development andthe impact of these beliefs on our ability to connect with ourstudents. For example, how do our beliefs about the nature ofchildren’s social needs guide our style of interacting withchildren as well as our curricular decisions? It is important tonote that studies taking a sociocultural approach can also en-dorse an attachment or motivation perspective of stu-dent–teacher relationships. Sociocultural perspectives on stu-dent–teacher relationships simply recognize individual units(e.g., student–teacher dyads) cannot be separated from theirclassroom and school contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983; Cobb, 1986; Cobb &

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Yackel, 1996; Goldstein, 1999; Hamilton, 1983; Oldfather &Dahl, 1994; Page, 1987; Rogoff, 1984, 1996; Tharp, Estrada,Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Turner& Meyer, 2000). Thus, sociocultural theories move beyond theexamination of reciprocal effects of student on teacher andteacher on student to consider relationships as embeddedwithin classrooms, classrooms as embedded within schools,and schools as embedded within an academic culture dictatedby local and societal norms (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Goldstein,1999; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Tharp et al., 2000). Instead ofexamining changes within isolated individuals, socioculturalresearchers attempt to examine dynamic processes and look forrecurring patterns within systems (e.g., student–teacher dyads,classrooms, and schools). Thus, sociocultural approaches tostudent–teacher relationships might examine the role of stan-dards and norms, including the types of activities students andteachers participate in, as well as what it means to “be en-gaged” in learning or to have “appropriate” interactions.Sociocultural researchers argue that it is not simply the struc-tural characteristics of the school, but the overall interpersonalculture of the classroom that contributes to the development ofpositive child–caregiver interactions (DeVries & Zan, 1996;Goldstein, 1999; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Wells, 1996).

Ecological perspectives on student–teacherrelationships. Ecological studies of class and school3 sim-ply attempt to take into account the role of the physical setup ofclassrooms, class size, and the internal and external social pres-sures each participant feels. Thus, Howes and Matheson(1992) discussed the extent to which attachment relationshipswith mothers and teachers are embedded within activity set-tings. They argued that different qualities of relationshipsmight result from sharing different activities with a child. Thus,greater similarity should be found across mother and teacherrelationships when mothers and teachers not only engage insimilar activities (e.g., in-home care), but also respond with thesame quality of care (Howes & Matheson, 1992). Likewise,motivational researchers who examine the influence of class-room and school context are endorsing an ecological perspec-tive of motivation (Turner & Meyer, 2000).

The concerns of researchers and public policymakers of theimpact of classroom and school size on academic achievement(Cooper, 1989; Cotterell, 1992b; Lee & Loeb, 2000; Slavin,1987, 1989; Solomon, Watson, & Battistich, 2001; Wehlage &Rutter, 1986) emerge from an ecological perspective. For ex-ample, a recent national study by the National Institute forChild and Human Development (Bates et al., 1994; Phillips,McCartney, & Scarr, 1987) found that the “Quality of childcare was a reasonable consistent predictor of children’s cogni-tive and language performance” (p. 975). Specifically the qual-

ity of child care, as measured by ratio of adults to children, thelevel of staff education, and the quality of interactions amongstudents and teachers, significantly predicted children’s cogni-tive as well as language development. They argued that smallerclass and school sizes have a positive influence on the qualityof relationships that children develop with their teachers.

Smaller school organization would facilitate personalized so-cial interactions among school members. Teachers who inter-act more often with fewer students know their students better.By knowing students better, teachers are likely to worry moreabout their failures, provide more help directed toward im-provement, take responsibility for disciplining everyone, andinvest more fully in improving the whole school. (Lee &Loeb, 2000, p. 23)

However, more common in popular culture are the scenar-ios portrayed by Wells (1996) of the conflicts teachers face be-tween the growing demands associated with burgeoning classsizes and curricular constraints. “Too often, personal time wassacrificed for the school, and there were ongoing jokes aboutsleeping overnight in the school or annexing houses to theschool buildings” (Wells, 1996, p. 33). To keep from beingswept away by a structure that appeared to pull students andteachers apart, teachers in Wells’ (1996) study had to continu-ally revisit and renew their commitment to the quality of stu-dents’ social and academic lives at school. “Jealousies andmisunderstandings arose, but talk, even among teachers whowere frazzled, continued and they looked for new connectionsbecause they cared about the children” (Wells, 1996, p. 33).

Within the classroom system, relationships that emergebetween student–teacher dyads may also reflect students’ at-tempts to develop alternative relationships with additionaladults in the classroom (e.g., aides) or school or with peers.Berndt and Keefe (1996) argued that students pursue peergoals in the classroom to satisfy their desires to gain approval,to “fit in” with peer norms, or to enhance their view of them-selves through social comparison. From this perspective, stu-dents’ abilities to coordinate or to find ways to concurrentlypursue, intellectual and peer goals in the class may influencethe overall quality of their relationships with teachers. Thus,the extent to which peer norms match or mismatch withteacher and academic norms and the extent to which studentspursue peer goals will influence the quality of stu-dent–teacher dyads. For example, Cabello and Terrell (1994,p. 21) found that the quality of student–teacher relationshipswas influenced by the incorporation of interpersonal values,such as mini-lessons on justice and respect for others, into thedaily classroom routine. Management strategies that simulta-neously promoted positive peer interactions in the classroomalso helped to create a classroom culture that promoted sup-portive relationships with the teacher. In addition, Andermanand Anderman (1999; see also Graham & Barker, 1990;Juvonen, 2000, 1996; Juvonen & Murdock, 1993; Wentzel,1994) found that students’ social motivations, such as the pur-

218 DAVIS

3Ecological studies can use a variety of methods such as teacher or student

self-report and may include structural indicators and contextual measures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

suit of social responsibility goals, were influenced by theirpursuit of peer goals.

In a similar fashion, the quality of specific student–teacherdyads may reflect students’ perceptions of the quality of otherstudent–teacher dyads in the classroom. For example, in a se-ries of studies designed to examine differential behaviors ofteachers and the “teachers’ pet” phenomenon, Babad (1990,1993, 1995; Babad & Ezer, 1993; Tal & Babad, 1989, 1990)found evidence to suggest that “positive” relationships, whenbroadly defined as low levels of conflict and high levels oftrust, may not necessarily promote motivation and achieve-ment in the classroom. This appears to be particularly true forchildren who perceive their teachers to be engaged in the dif-ferential treatment of high-achieving students. Specifically,differential treatment of high-achieving students was associ-ated with an increased occurrence of the teacher’s pet phe-nomenon as well as a more negative perception of classroomclimate, negative reactions to the teacher, and lower morale(Babad, 1995; Baker, 1999). From this perspective, “liking” ateacher may be relative to students’ perceptions of how muchthe teacher “likes” the other students in the class (see alsoWhite, Jones, & Sherman, 1998; White & Kistner, 1992).Thus, positive relationships between certain dyads may pre-clude positive relationships among other dyads.

Social constructivist perspectives onstudent–teacher relationships. Social constructivistapproaches4 to student–teacher relationships posit that knowl-edge in classrooms is jointly constructed within the context ofrelationships (Cobb, 1986, 1996; Cobb & Yackel, 1996;Goldstein, 1999; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Pontecorvo, 1993;Tharp et al., 2000; Yowell & Smylie, 1999). From this perspec-tive, teachers and students engage in the process of negotiatingmeaning about both cognitive activities (e.g., learning mathe-matics) as well as social cognitive activities (e.g., use of humor).This includes negotiating language (Bremme & Erickson, 1977;Mehan, 1984), activities (Bremme & Erickson, 1977; Finders,1997), and power (Manke, 1997; Thomas & Oldfather, 1997) inthe classroom. For example, Cobb and Yackel (1996) arguedthat students and teachers organize and reorganize beliefs abouta domain (e.g., mathematics) in their attempts to solve problemsthat are essentially social in nature (e.g., how to complete tasksin the classroom, how to get along with or understand teachers).To be an effective guide in helping students to master intellec-tual and social knowledge, teachers need to find ways to connectwith students’ own understandings of both the academic domainand adult–child relationships. For example, DeVries and Zan(1996) argued that developing an interest and investment in life-long learning could only occur through establishing supportiverelationships among all participants in the classroom. “Respect

for children’s reasoning includes reasoning both about the worldof people and the world of objects” (DeVries & Zan, 1996, p.115). They argued that teachers can encourage children to de-velop membership to the class and a sense of autonomy throughcooperative group work, encouraging children to participate inrule and decision making and conflict resolution, and providingopportunities for sociomoral discussions.

Because of the emphasis placed on connecting with stu-dents’ understandings of learning, motivation, and relation-ships, social constructivists push us to consider students’unique understandings of relationships that result from theongoing process of meaning making (Arowsafe & Irvin,1992; McCallum, 2001; Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999). In-deed, a few studies using surveys to examine the similarity ofstudents’ and teachers’ perceptions of the class context indi-cate that they may hold unique understandings of both the di-mensions of relationships (Cole et al., 1997; Juvonen, 1993b;Juvonen & Murdock, 1993; Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999; Tal& Babad, 1986; Toro et al., 1987; Wentzel, 1994) and the dif-ferential impact of classroom and school practices on motiva-tion (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Anderman & Midgley,1997; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Midgley,Anderman, & Hicks, 1995; Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987).Through probing these discrepancies, researchers workingfrom a constructivist paradigm have broadened our under-standings of what can constitute a “good” relationship, haveprovided richer descriptions and understandings of the con-cepts we currently study, and have described relational pro-cesses that may underlie motivation and learning (Finders,1997; Goldstein, 1999; Manke, 1997; McCallum, 2001;Mergendoller & Packer, 1985; Muller, Katz, & Dancer, 1999;Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Page, 1987). For example, Muller,Katz, and Dance (1999) found that teachers weigh a numberof factors, including expectations about students’ abilitylevel, behavior in class, and peer group, when choosingwhether or not to become invested in a relationship with a stu-dent. Page (1987) found that teachers’ constructions of whatit means to be a student not only depended on the educationalculture of a school, but also on their perceptions of students’social characteristics (e.g., race, SES) and their relative aca-demic status in the school (e.g., high- or low-ability track).Thus, although teachers and schools had relative autonomy intheir ability to construct what it means to be a student, theirconstructions, once defined, constrained the quality and typeof relationships that could develop between students andteachers (Page, 1987).

In an attempt to understand elementary students’ andteachers’ conceptions of autonomy and control, Manke(1997) observed the nature of power structures that developwithin elementary classrooms. She examined the joint con-struction and exercise of control, autonomy, and responsibil-ity in the classroom. Her findings described how the natureand quality of relationships between students and teachersacted as frameworks that guided action and though. She ar-gued that both students and teachers bring agendas to the

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 219

4Social constructivist approaches tend to endorse qualitative methodolo-

gies such as case study and enthography and they use methods such asin-depth interviews and holistic observations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

classroom. Teachers can exert their agendas via their explicitand implicit expectations of students’ social and academicbehavior. However, students can also exert their own agendasthrough their attempts to direct their own learning. In otherwords, when denied an appropriate outlet for autonomywithin the classroom, students in her study attempted to takecontrol of the class by engaging in behaviors that intimidatedteachers, by introducing inappropriate topics, or by findingand pulling apart the “seams” in the classroom routines(Manke, 1997). Manke (1997) suggested that what consti-tutes “power” in a classroom (e.g., initiations, behaviors) de-pends not only on whether you are asking a student or ateacher, but also on the dynamics of the student–teacher dyad.

Expanding on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social and cog-nitive development and the nature of the zone of proximal de-velopment, Goldstein (1999) and Tharp et al. (2000) providedprovocative perspectives on the role of student–teacher rela-tionships. As with other social constructivists, Goldstein(1999) and Tharp et al. (2000) viewed all learning as a “socialaccomplishment” (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). Tharp et al.(2000), however, added to our conceptual framework by dis-cussing the roles of propinquity, joint activity, affinity, andintersubjectivity in establishing and maintaining relation-ships and promoting learning. Propinquity refers to the role of“physical closeness,” of spending time together in promotingrelational development. Joint activity refers to the activitiesteachers and students engage in, in which they are sharingcommon motives and working toward common goals. “Jointproductive activity is the most reliable and potent force influ-encing the development of affinities” (Tharp et al., 2000, p.57). Affinity refers to an “inclination toward relationship,” tothe voluntary pairing or the autonomy to choose relationalpartners. They argued that, when affinity is present in a stu-dent–teacher dyad, it works in a cyclical nature to promotepropinquity and joint activity. Their elaboration of conceptscan help us to think about how the structure of schools (spe-cifically middle and high schools)—in that they offer alterna-tive partners, constrain amount of time teachers and studentscan spend together, and undermine affinity through the pro-cess of assigning partners—may serve to threaten the qualityof relationships that can emerge.

In blending Nodding’s (1986, 1988) views on the ethic ofcare with Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning, Goldstein(1999) added to our understanding of “caring” teaching, thatis, calling for caring to be viewed as an action and not a person-ality attribute. Goldstein argued that teachers can demonstratecaring through their use of scaffolding techniques in the class-room, matching the demands of each task and the instrumentalsupport to students’ abilities soas tomaximize their likelihoodof success. Teachers can also demonstrate caring in their abil-ity to attain intersubjectivity, to “create a shared intellectualspace” with their students. In the process of reachingintersubjectivity, teachers attempt to share with students theirown constructions of concept while at the same time attempt-ing to understand students’ existing constructions. Goldstein

(1999) and Tharp et al. (2000) argued that—through the pro-cesses of joint activity and attempting to find or negotiate themeaning of activity, values, and discourse, or through seekingintersubjectivity—teachers demonstrate care for individualstudents as well as for the subject matter they teach. For teach-ers, this process involves reciprocity, cognitive involvement,and a commitment to supporting students’ autonomy in mak-ing meaning and solving problems.

In her ethnography of urban high school dropouts, Fine(1986) documented many failed attempts of students andteachers to reach intersubjectivity. These failed attempts leftstudents feeling disconnected not only from the teacher butalso from the content. Fine (1986, p. 400) attributed these fail-ures to reach intersubjectivity to the “discrepancies in the livesand experiences of teachers and students.” But mismatches inexperiences are not the only difficulties students and teacherface when negotiating meaning of interpersonal information.Additional obstacles include the implicit, and often assumed,nature of interpersonal expectations. For example, Yowelland Smylie (1999, p. 481) suggested that obstacles tointersubjectivity occur when teachers accept a “top-down,decontextualized approach” to interacting with students.From this perspective, teachers who fail to acknowledge theknowledge, beliefs, and skills students bring to activities andinteractions and the ways in which students resist conceptualchange limit their ability to connect with their students.

The concepts of joint activity, propinquity, affinity, andintersubjectivity come to life in Oldfather (1993) and col-leagues’ longitudinal study of literacy learning. Oldfather’sfindings provide an opportunity to peer into the complex na-ture of teacher–student relations, giving us a glimpse at stu-dents’ conceptions of learning and motivation as well as theways in which the students negotiated meaning from their in-teractions with their teacher. For example, she found that stu-dents experienced motivation to engage in literacy learningbecause they felt a “deep responsiveness” (Oldfather, 1993,p. 672) from their teacher. Students’ perceived their teacheras someone who respected their interpretations, provided op-portunities for personal expression, and in general “honoredtheir voices.” Oldfather (1993, p. 679) characterized theirteacher as “reflecting humanity” in her enthusiasm, humor,and fun-loving presence throughout the classroom. Observa-tion and interview data captured the ways that she modeledrespect for students’ opinions, emphasized the importance ofpersonal meaning making, and provided a flexible structurewithin the classroom that enabled students to share the powerand responsibility for their own learning. On reflection,co-researcher and classroom teacher Thomas attributed muchof her success in the classroom to the process of shared in-quiry (Thomas & Oldfather, 1995). During shared inquiry,both the teacher and students share the responsibility forteaching, learning, and interacting, including defining whatconstitutes a motivating curriculum. Yet, though the processof shared inquiry was necessary in promoting her students’motivation, it was not sufficient. In fact, in a candid moment

220 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

in the piece, Thomas wrote of the anxiety she felt over herability to serve the range of experiences, interest, and needsher students expressed (Thomas & Oldfather, 1995, p. 144).Rather, it was the impact of negotiation, of sharing the re-sponsibility for defining what was a valuable educational ex-perience and worthy of the time and effort spent to study, thatdefined the nature of the relationship that she developed withher students. Through her writing, readers can see the invalu-able role she played in encouraging and enabling students todefine themselves as learners, thinkers, and doers (Thomas &Oldfather, 1995).

Similar to findings in the motivation literature, Oldfatherfound that the students in her study experienced a shift in theirperceptions of the interpersonal climate as they moved fromelementary school to middle school. Learning, once a sharedexperience among students and teachers within a communityof learning, became a “solitary enterprise.” They experiencedtheir middle school as teacher driven, feeling their ideas andfeelings were no longer valued by the adults with which theyinteracted. Oldfather and McLaughlin (1993, p. 17) attributedthe problem to a “dilution of the student–teacher relation-ship.” A school structure that was departmentalized, in whichparticipants were now taught in isolation from each other, dis-couraged teachers from seeing students as “whole” people.Increased numbers of students and teachers made it difficultfor them to know each other. In fact, Oldfather andMcLaughlin (1993) questioned whether the structuralchanges in middle school enable students to experience thehonored voice that was such an integral component of theirmotivational experience in elementary school.

Oldfather and Dahl (1994) argued that social interactionswith teachers, including attempts and failures to reachintersubjectivity, influence students’ continuing impulse tolearn on three levels: through the development of classroomculture, through the quality of future interpersonal interac-tions, and through their encouragement of intrapersonal ex-ploration. In this way the concept of intersubjectivity, theability to connect the class content to students’ lives in mean-ingful ways, to negotiate the meanings of what it definition tobe socially responsible, and to encourage the sharing of teach-ing and learning roles makes our attempts to distinguish be-tween instructional interactions and personal interactionsabsurd. In pursuing students’ and teachers’ understandings ofrelationships, social–cultural approaches reveal the comple-mentary and at times overlapping nature of concepts from theattachment and motivation literatures. They challenge ourviews of what constitutes “academic” and “nonacademic” in-teractions and they broaden our framework by introducingand elaborating on concepts useful to the discussion ofstudent–teacher relationships.

Making connections between high school studentsand teachers. A search for research completed over thepast 20 years on the nature of student–teacher relationships

among high school students reveals only a handful of studies.In her study of students’ experiences moving from a progres-sive middle school to a traditional high school, Wells (1996)described the anxiety and apprehension students experiencedabout going to high school. These anxieties were oftenprompted by their middle school teachers’ warnings that highschool would be difficult and more demanding. Indeed, thestudents in her study perceived their new high school asrule-based with little empathy for individual cases. They ex-perienced fewer opportunities to assume responsibility oftheir work, little value for student effort, conflicts betweentheir academic and social goals, and increased distance intheir relationships with their teachers, coupled with an antag-onistic “us” versus “them” mentality from teachers. In thissense, students no longer perceived teachers as working to-ward the same goal, but rather as obstacles feeling motivatedin school. Furthermore, Wells (1996) found that many of theteachers did not model the types of behaviors they were tryingto encourage in their students. “The material wasn’t interest-ing, and there was nothing about [the teacher’s] approach thatwas personally motivating. ‘I mean, [the teacher] doesn’tlaugh or anything’ (Wells, 1996, p. 104).” These finding par-allel those of Oldfather and McLaughlin (1993) and of moti-vation researchers in which the development of motivatingrelationships was tied to the perception of effective teaching.

In contrast, Moje (1996, p. 180) found, “literacy was prac-ticed as a tool for organizing thinking and learning in the con-text of a relationship built between the teacher and herstudents” in the chemistry classroom she observed. She foundstudents were willing to participate in classroom activitiesand discussions because of their commitment to the relation-ship they had developed with their chemistry teacher. Like-wise, in a project in which high school students and theirteachers explored conceptions of motivation for literacylearning, Oldfather and Thomas (1998) found that teachersreported on the importance of “sharing,” not only about them-selves but also about their passion for teaching and learning,to promote students learning and motivation. This process of“authenticity,” of revealing who they are and encouragingtheir students to do the same, became a means not only for es-tablishing rapport with students but for developing connec-tions between students’ lives and the academic material (seealso Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1997; Harter, Waters,Whitesell, & Kastelic, 1998).

Studies addressing the importance of student–teacher rela-tionships in high school often emerge from interest in under-standing the process of alienation and dropping out. Muller,Katz, and Dance (1999; Fine 1986; Galbo, 1994) noted thatthe process of school alienation and dropping out does nothappen overnight. Rather, dropping out represented along-term response to students’ failed attempts to connectwith school. The contrast in these two experiences of relation-ships and motivation prompts us to consider whether highschool culture supports or discourages teachers in makingconnections with students (Newman, 1981; Yowell &

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Smylie, 1999). For example, the teachers in the Oldfather andThomas (1998; Manke, 1997) study reported that being opento students and being “authentic” to one’s self often wentagainst the implicit rules of the school culture that deemsteachers should place themselves at a distance from their stu-dents. One teacher, struggling to cope with the limited oppor-tunities to interact with students, lamented that“Overwhelming numbers force you, unless you are an excep-tional person, to do the practical, easy way, and that is not tobother listening to kids, but to figure out what you think is thebest thing for kids and then do it” (Oldfather & Thomas, 1998,p. 674). Obstacles to authenticity went beyond the structureof high school to encompass the “culture of politeness”(Manke, 1997; Wells, 1996) and control found in schools.

Students’ frustrations were largely hidden under a cover ofpoliteness and acquiescence. For instance, even though thestudents from Meadowbrook alternately despised, feared,and tolerated [one of their teachers] and didn’t believe theywere learning that much—they didn’t directly challenge him.They understood that it would make no difference, exceptperhaps to make things worse. (Wells, 1996, p. 133)

These findings provide insight into the role that relation-ships can play in mediating the learning of “academic” as wellas material potentially changing attitudes or behaviors. Fewstudies, however, have examined the influence of stu-dent–teacher relationships in high school from the attachmentor motivation perspectives to look at more specific social andcognitive outcomes. In a recent study by Murdock,Anderman, and Hodge (2000), middle school students’ per-ceptions of teacher support and expectation for success influ-enced students’ experiences of the transition to high school,including their displays of disruptive behavior and future ed-ucational aspirations. These limited findings with high schoolpopulations reveal a similar trend found in younger studentpopulations. This includes the continued importance ofschool belonging, including supportive teacher relationships,to adolescents’ adjustment, particularly regarding reducingthe risk of dropping out, social and emotional adjustment, anddeviance (Battin-Pearson et al., 2000; Cottrell, 1992a; Mul-ler, Katz, & Dancer, 1999; Murdock, 1999; Resnick et al.,1997; Whelage et al., 1989).

In addition, few studies have examined whether stu-dent–teacher relationships at the high school level can extendtheir influence beyond the classroom and “schooling” con-text. Hamilton and Darling (1989) argued that adolescents’changing conceptions of adults may prompt them to seekmentor relationships with teachers. Central to adopting amentor role would be the ability to help students envision a“future self” (Markus & Ruvolo, 1989; Wurf & Markus,1991; Yowell & Smylie, 1999) and guide them in its pursuit.Wurf and Markus (1991) discussed the role of future or possi-ble selves in personal growth. Possible selves are conceptual-ized as future-oriented components of students’ self-systems.

They are cognitive representations of what we would like tobe or what we fear becoming. In this regard they give direc-tion and form to changes. Wurf and Markus (1991) arguedthat “personalization of motivation” occurs when studentsexplore how to pursue a future or possible self. Future investi-gations of high school students’ relationships with teachersmay want to examine whether teachers’ attempts to connectmaterial to students lives (Moje, 1996). This is because teach-ers’ attempts may have implications for students’ abilities toconstruct and explore possible selves.

Challenging our construction of adolescence andschooling. Sociocultural theories of student–teacher rela-tionships emphasize the importance of viewing relationshipsbetween student–teacher dyads as reflective of larger class-room, school, and educational cultures. Furthermore, thequality of specific dyads will reflect the attempts of studentsand teachers to make meaning out of their interactions witheach other. Because sociocultural approaches view relation-ships as negotiated and context specific, researchers tend totake activity and process-oriented approaches examining themeaning students and teachers construct, the pressures or ob-stacles to intersubjectivity, as well as their ways of construct-ing them. Thus “good” relationships are a function of seekingunderstanding and of creating meaning together. From thisperspective, “good relationships,” because they mediatelearning, do more than simply support motivation and arenecessary for promoting conceptual change.

Sociocultural approaches to student–teacher relationshipsalso challenge us to examine our constructions of the nature ofchildren’s interpersonal relationships at each stage of their de-velopment and the impact of these beliefs on our ability to con-nect with our students. Finders (1997), Jarvis,Schonert-Reichl, and Krivel-Zacks (2000), and Midgley et al.(1995) discussed the implications of our assumptions aboutthe nature of adolescence as a stage that all children passthrough in which they are increasingly attempting to severtheir ties with adults. Adolescents are often viewed as pushingaway from parents and teachers and turning more toward peerrelations for social, emotional, and academic support. Indeed,within popular culture, this characterization of adolescentshas become a stereotype (Jarvis et al., 2000; Urdan, Midgley,& Wood, 1995). Central to this view is the assumption that ad-olescentsneedadults less thanyoungerchildren.Forexample,some research indicates that growing awareness of their voli-tion may increase the adolescent’s need for autonomy (Reeve1998; Ryan & Lynch, 1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986).Ryan and Lynch (1989), however, found that children who ex-perienced more detached relationships with their parents dur-ing adolescence were more likely to report holding negativebeliefs about themselves. From their perspective, autonomyfrom significant adults, such as parents and teachers, is not afunction of detachment from them but rather a function of at-tachment and closeness to them where attachment is concep-

222 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

tualized as a dynamic bond allowing the expression ofappropriate autonomy within the context of emotional support(Ryan & Lynch, 1989). Thus, increased detachment in stu-dents’ relationships with their teachers may represent an ob-stacle to achieving emotional autonomy from adults. Perhapsthen, it is not that adolescents need adult relationships less, butin different ways (Clark-Lempers, Lempers, & Ho, 1991).Thus, students who do not feel supported by their teacher maybe less hesitant to take risks in the classroom regarding aca-demic work and social development and may be more depend-ent on the teachers’ evaluations.

The classic stereotype of adolescence as a time of detach-ment, rebellion, and conflict both within the self and with oth-ers in the adolescents’ lives has permeated the educationalcommunity for decades, particularly among pre-service ornovice teachers, despite attempts by researchers to “debunk”these beliefs (Jarvis et al., 2000; see also Urdan et al., 1995).For example, Finders (1997, p. 29) found, “Junior high teach-ers often construct a role that is less personal and moreguarded.” It may be that, in response to holding this stereo-type, teachers engage in distancing behaviors, believingthemselves to be responding to adolescents’ needs. Indeed,Finders (1997) found examples of teachers who engaged indistancing behaviors based on their stereotypes of adoles-cence. “Kids this age don’t want teachers to know that muchabout them. Not even their parents. They want to be on theirown. Elementary teachers get too close” (Finders, 1997, p.29). Fear of feeling unwanted or detached from students mayhave influenced teachers to refrain from investing in relation-ships with students as a means of protecting themselves andmeeting their own interpersonal needs. Likewise, for studentsat this public middle school, “Caring and learning was con-sidered as a sign of weakness. A mark of being a little girl whostill needed to align herself with significant adults” (Finders,1997, p. 78). Thus, seeking adult approval may have beenviewed by other students as a means of compensating for alack of ability or inability to be autonomous. Here, needs ofautonomy, and competence, may have been viewed as com-peting rather than complementing each other.

Oldfather and Thomas (1998; see also Oldfather &McLaughlin, 1993) argued that this cultural stereotype of ad-olescence as a time of turmoil not only undermines the qualityof relationships at the middle school level but also betweenhigh school students and teachers. For example, one teacher,“Stephanie,” recognized that many of her students werestruggling to find a source of support to fill a need created bydifficulties in their home environments.

Everybody had been training me to stay away, to keep this re-ally big barrier and never cross that line … I just feel that stu-dents need a responsible adult to have a conversation withabout important issues. (Oldfather & Thomas, 1998, p. 660)

However, in going against the dominant culture, teachersnot only open themselves up for the students, but also encour-

age students to make connections within the school commu-nity and to seek out support from alternative adults or peers inthe school (Oldfather & Thomas, 1998). To stop the cycle ofalienation experienced in school, “Adolescent culture can notbe located in its opposition to adult culture. Rather than main-taining the false assumptions that adolescence is a period ofalienation from adults, we should acknowledge and nurturethe connectedness that adolescents feel to adults” (Finders,1997, p. 121).

Lastly, Allison (1995; see also Yowell & Smylie, 1999)urged researchers to consider the implication of our sharedsociohistorical constructions defining the context of school-ing in America. For example, what have been the construc-tions of relationships among students and teachers and whatare the consequences of these constructions on the quality ofrelationships thatwefind inschools today?Forexample, in theUnited States, prior to the 20th century, the American Educa-tional System was torn between whether the purpose of educa-tion was to maintain the status quo (“Civic”) or to pass onshared values and the best of our cultural heritage (“Moral”;Allison, 1995). Allison (1995) argued that the new trend of the20thcentury is tovieweducationasameansofcreatinghumancapital, including producing individuals with the intellectualand social capabilities needed to meet the demands of an in-creasing technological and interdependent work force. No-where can this been seen more clearly than in the currentemphasis placed on “accountability” by policymakers (Deciet al., 1991; Yowell & Smylie, 1999). These values shape in-teractions among students and teachers by alternatively ask-ing teachers to adopt a “social-benefactor” role (taking underwing those proteges needing to be nurtured into the commu-nity) or a “manufacturer” role (accountable to the larger cor-poration for turning out good products at the lowest cost).Previous research on students’ perceptions of academicschool culture—such as the extent to which schools endorselearning or performance goals, openness to diversity, or col-lective efficacy of teachers—can influence students’ motiva-tional orientations (Delgado-Gaitan, 1986; Midgley et al.,1995; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). However, few studies have ex-amined students’ perceptions of school interpersonal culture,including whether schools are perceived as creating space forstudents and teachers to interact with each other or constrain-ing the quality of relationships that can emerge through inter-personal norms about student–teacher relationships (Davis &Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001).

POPULATIONS, PARADIGMS, ANDMETHODS

Thus far, there has been little discussion of individual differ-ences (as in student and teacher populations as well as class-room contexts) in shaping the nature and importance of stu-dent–teacher relationships. Again, central to a discussion ofindividual differences is the question of whether the pursuitof student–teacher relationships complement, compensate, or

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

compete with the pursuit of alternative relationships (e.g.,family and peers) or with students’ constructions of them-selves. Few studies have directly examined the role of cul-tural, racial, or background differences of students in shapingthe nature, quality, and influence of student–teacher relation-ships. Future studies need to explore whether and how sup-portive relationships can protect marginalized student popu-lations or contribute to resilience. For example, Ogbu (1993,1994) argued that feelings of alienation can result from theprocess of disidentifying from school. This can happen whenstudents, particularly minority students who may hold differ-ent cultural frames of reference, perceive their cultural identi-ties as existing in opposition to the culture represented in pub-lic schools. These differences in cultural frames of referencecan influence the quality of student–teacher interactionsthrough the difficulties posed in interpreting nonverbal cuesof members of another culture (Feldman & Saletsky, 1986)and the misunderstandings that result from having differentworld views about the nature of authority, help seeking, andone’s self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Delgado-Gaitan, 1986;Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Mehan, 1984; Suarez-Orozco &Suarez-Orozco, 1995; Wong, 1998). Ogbu (1994) argued thatteachers may play a critical role in helping students throughtheir sensitivity to primary cultural differences (e.g., assum-ing a tolerant or intolerant attitude [Delgado-Gaitain, 1986])and their ability to help students integrate their two identitiesto operate within two cultural frames of reference—what hecalls “playing the game.” Similarly, with increasing interestin recruiting teachers of color, future studies will want to con-sider whether differences exist in the way students respond toteachers of similar or differing cultural background.

Likewise, few studies have documented gender differencesin students’ perceptions and pursuit of teacher relationships(Hamilton & Darling, 1989; Harter, 1996; Reeve, 1998; Ryan,Gheen, & Midgley, 1998), the quality of their interactions(Aldermatt, Jovanovic, & Perry, 1998), and their constructionsof relationships (Gilligan, Lyons, & Hamner, 1990). A seriesof studies conducted at the Emma Williard School for Girls,Bernstein & Gilligan (1990), Lyms (1990), and Stern (1990)found that adolescent girls described unique constructions ofrelational terms and interactions including concepts of fair-ness, listening, separation, and connection. Future studies ofstudent–teacher relationships and social motivation need tocontinue to examine whether there exist gender differences inthe types of interactions, pursuit of relationships, and relation-ship outcomes. Gender, race, and cultural differences may beparticularly salient when considering the role of classroomcontext (e.g., pedagogy and subject matter) on relationshipquality and consequences.

Future Directions: Micro, Mid-Level, andGrand Theories

When we look at our body of knowledge about stu-dent–teacher relationships, we find that a major limitation of

our current understanding is that much of our knowledgeabout a particular population of students (e.g., preschool, ele-mentary school, middle school, or high school) is embeddedwithin a particular perspective (e.g., attachment, motivation,or sociocultural), or substantive microtheory, about the natureof adult–child4Social constructivist approaches tend to en-dorse qualitative methodologies such as case study andenthographyand theyusemethodssuchas in-depth interviewsandholisticobservations. interaction.Forexample, therehavebeen few examinations of young children’s relationships thatframe teacher–child interaction as constrained by classroomcontext and motivational beliefs (Davis, 2001; Manke, 1997;Oldfather 1993, 1994; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993;Weinstein,1983).Likewise, thereare fewstudies thathaveex-tended the attachment perspective to examine relationshipsbetween older children and their teachers (Cotterell 1992a;Howes et al., 1998; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Ryan, Stiller, &Lynch, 1994).

Furthermore, each micro-theory on relationships carrieswith it methodological traditions that are also largely embed-ded within grand theories of ontology and epistemology(Crotty, 1998; Kuhn, 1990; LeCompte & Priessle, 1993).These grand theories act to define the “intellectual culture”within a field, implicitly directing inquiry. For example, re-searchers working within attachment theory tend to use ob-servational methods, sorting checklists, and teacher andparent rating scales to evaluate relationship quality along the-oretically delineated dimensions. As a theoretically drivenapproach, relationships from an attachment perspective areevaluated deductively along dimensions conceptualized asrelevant to social developmental outcomes. From this per-spective, there is a “single” truth to relationship quality andrelational outcomes. The salience and stability of attachmentdimensions throughout childhood and adolescence beg us toask if there are universal dimensions of relationship quality.In a somewhat similar fashion, researchers working from mo-tivation and ecological perspectives tend to evaluate theirown set of theoretically driven constructs believed to shapecognitive and academic outcomes. Generally, however, in-stead of relying on outside evaluations of relationship qualityand beliefs, they tend to use student and teacher self-report.Additionally, instead of a singular set of relational dimen-sions, factors, and outcomes, motivation researchers take asomewhat more interpretivist approach. This is because, inconstructing relationships as situated within complex class-room contexts, what constitutes a “good” relationship maylook different depending on the institutional constraints, in-structional and affective context, the social–motivational be-liefs of participants, and the level of identification withschool. And yet their construction of relationships and rela-tionship quality is still constrained to the extent that they sup-port or impede the field’s view of learning and motivation. Incontrast, researchers working from social constructivist per-spectives and using inductive, qualitative methodologies en-dorse a “multiple truth” perspective on relationship quality

224 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and outcomes. They emphasize the role of negotiation in con-structing meaning out of interpersonal culture, interaction,motivation, and relationship quality. Although many of thefindings from social constructivist studies overlap with find-ings from attachment and motivation perspectives, relation-ships are viewed as dynamic, changing, and culturally bound.

The purpose of this review has not been to endorse oneconception, or micro-theory, of relationships as more or lessappropriate; it has been to examine the ways in which our con-ceptions and approaches constrain our understanding ofteacher–child relationships. Because our substantive mi-cro-theories and methodologies are currently enmeshedwithin in larger grand theories (Crotty, 1998; Kuhn, 1990;LeCompte & Priessle, 1993), we can think of our construc-tions as acting like the lenses of a camera. Each micro theoryacts to determine not only what we view within each framebut also, through our settings of aperture and shutter speed, toshape the questions we pursue, the tools we select, and thedepth of the field. In using these constructions to bring intofocus various aspects of relationships, we may be blurring,concealing, or ignoring other significant views. In this pro-cess of “zooming in” and “panning out,” we may be left towonder where student–teacher relationships exist.

On one hand, findings from this review can be used to ad-vance research within each micro-theory. By using new meth-ods to study old questions, or the same methods to ask newquestions, we “include both the redesign of old apparatus andrevised ways of asking old questions” (Kuhn, 1990, p. 392). Inthis way, future examinations within each micro-theory mayalso want to consider using grand theories, virtually unex-plored in student–teacher relationship research (i.e., criticaltheory, poststructuralism) or blending paradigms through theuse of “double practice” (Koro-Ljungberg, 2002), to untangleour micro-theories from the constraints of grand theories.

Future studies of relationships from an attachmentperspective. Findings from this examination of our con-ceptions of relationships have implications for future studieswithin each perspective. For example, studies of stu-dent–teacher relationships from an attachment perspectiveleave us with several lingering questions concerning the natureof teacher–child relations and the influence of relationalschemas. First, do relationships with teachers compensate forrisk factors including problematic parent relationships (Lynch& Cicchetti, 1992; Pianta, 1999), peer relationships (White,Jones, & Sherman, 1998), feelings of alienation from school(Erickson, 1987; Mehan, 1984; Murdock, 1999; Murdock etal., 2000; Ogbu, 1993, 1994), or developmental risks (e.g., so-cioeconomic status; Pianta, 1999)? Second, how well does theattachment perspective (with dimensions of closeness, con-flict, and dependency) describe relationships between olderstudents and their teachers? Thus, as the instructional contextchanges to include more teachers, while reducing the amountof time children spend with a single teacher, do attachment di-

mensions continue to define older students’ relationships(Clarke-Lempers et al., 1991; Cotterell, 1992a; Lynch &Cicchetti, 1997; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994)? Third, how im-portant is the continuity of experience from parent–child rela-tionships to teacher–child relationships and amongteacher–child relationships throughout the schooling experi-ence (Paulson, Marchant, & Rothlisberg, 1998)? Are therenegative consequences associated with having a single “inse-cure” experience? For example, in one study, children whomanaged to maintain secure relationships with all their teach-ers tended to be the least withdrawn and tended to exhibit thehighest levels of complex play with peers (Howes & Hamilton,1992b). More studies are needed to examine the stability ofteacher–child relationships within a single year (Skinner &Belmont, 1993) as well as across multiple years (Hamilton,2000; Howes et al., 1998).

Fourth, how important are early or initial relationshipswith teachers (e.g., preschool) to later relationship quality(e.g., elementary school and beyond)? For example, recentlongitudinal studies (Birch & Ladd, 1997, 1998; Howes et al.,1998; Pianta, 1999; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995) foundevidence to suggest that attachment with preschool teacherswas the best predictor of subsequent quality of relationshipswith elementary school teachers. Crick and Dodge (1994; seealso Cassidy & Shaver, 1999) discussed the increasing rigid-ity in children’s social information processing such that earlypatterns in perception and interpretation of interactions maybecome more difficult to change over time. Because we seekconsistency in our perception and understanding of our selfand others, the patterns we develop of interacting with othersare likely to influence the processing of new social informa-tion at different levels, such as encoding, interpretation, re-sponse generation, evaluation, and enactment of behavioralresponses. Hence, prior successes and failures at teacher rela-tionships may make it more difficult rather than easier tochange existing patterns.

Finally, if children do indeed develop an attachment his-tory with their teachers (Hamilton, 2000; Howes et al., 1994,1998), what types of expectations about teachers and natureof teacher-interactions do they develop? To what extent areexpectations about a specific teacher’s behavior based on pastexperiences with teachers or on “reputation” and “rumors”(Wells, 1996)? There is a growing body of research examin-ing the nature and impact of students’ relational schemas forteacher relationships on their relationships, motivation, andlearning (Byrne & Shavelson, 1996; Chambliss, 2000; Davis,2001; Davis & Lease, 2000; Davis, Schutz, & Patrick et al.,1997; Gurlund, 1999; Harter, 1990; Harter, Waters, &Whitesell, 1998; Song & Hattie, 1984; Weinstein, 1983). Forexample, research indicates that relational schemas for teach-ers can be differentiated from parent (Davis & Lease, 2000)and classmates (Byrne & Shavelson, 1996). Additionally, re-lational schemas for teachers predicted students’ expectedliking of a teacher (Gurlund, 1999) and their perception of thequality of their relationship with their current elementary

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

school teacher (Davis, 2001). Furthermore, relationalschemas may influence academic outcomes by shaping stu-dents’ perceptions and interpretations of social and interper-sonal skills (Brooks & Woolfolk, 1987; Halberstadt & Hall,1980; Lehtinen et al., 1995; Nowicki & Duke, 1994), motiva-tions underlying academic achievement (Patrick et al., 1997;Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1996, 1998), pursuit of so-cial goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Dowson &McInerney, 1997a; Patrick et al., 1997; Wentzel, 1996,1998), and attempts at self-presentation behaviors (Finders,1997; Juvonen & Murdock, 1993; Midgley & Urdan, 1995).Future studies need to examine the influence of relationalschemas (Baldwin, 1992; Patrick, 1997; Pietromonaco &Barrett, 1997) on the quality of their interactions as well astheir motivation and learning.

Future studies of relationships from a motivationperspective. Findings from this examination of our con-ceptions of relationships also have implications for futurestudies within the field of motivation. Though we have a greatbody of knowledge about the role of instructional and affec-tive context of classroom, there are still many gaps in our un-derstanding of the interpersonal dimensions of the instruc-tional context. For example, Oldfather (1994) found that,even in this supportive culture, there were times when stu-dents did not feel motivated to learn. During these times, aclassroom culture that valued students’ experiences, and ateacher who was sensitive to their concerns was integral in re-aligning students’ motivation to engage with the curriculum(Oldfather, 1994). For example, to become re-engaged withthe material, students often needed their teacher to be explicitabout the purposes of the activity. They needed her to buildinto the classroom structure a “motivational safety net,” suchas valued incentives for completing tasks that were not foundto be intrinsically motivating and to engage in empathetic un-derstanding by soliciting students’ responses toward tasksand incorporating their suggestions for improving tasks.These strategies helped to create a classroom culture that waslearning centered and to push us as researchers to look beyondthe dichotomous debates on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards(Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Lepper, Kearney, & Drake, 1996).From this perspective, fostering the motivation to learn en-tails both sensitivity to students’ situated motivational needsas well as flexibility in the use of strategies to promote moti-vation and learning. Furthermore, what strategies teachers’choose may be less important than students’ perceptions ofwhy their teacher chose each strategy. Thus, strategies such ascompetition and extrinsic rewards may not be viewed as un-dermining motivation when used to match the instructionalcontext with student needs. Furthermore, future investiga-tions may want to explore how different recognition andgrouping strategies promote or discourage students’ pursuitof social goals and peer relationships.

Though we know tasks that are perceived by students asrelevant and appropriately challenging are associated with in-creased intrinsic interest (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer,1988), there are few studies that have examined how teacherscome to know what will be perceived by their students as in-trinsically interesting or relevant. Thus, do teachers and stu-dents perceive the same tasks as equally valuable andinteresting? Moreover, it may be that relational characteris-tics shape students’ conceptions of interesting tasks.Minuchin and Shapiro (1983) noted,

A distinction is often made between the negative aspects ofinterpersonal behavior such as fighting, that interfere withlearning or class decorum, and prosocial behaviors such asthe development of friendships or cooperative work patterns,which are not traditionally considered the province of school.(p. 252)

However, participants in studies by Wells (1996), Finders(1997), and West (1994) found that what is “fun” to learn wasdefined by both the personal (e.g., interest, value, and ability)as well as the interpersonal. In fact, students’ conceptions offun activities were tied to their perceptions of a sensitive audi-ence, ample support, and opportunities to work collabor-atively (West, 1994). These findings challenge the distinctionmade between academic and social tasks or interactions. In-stead, we may need to reconsider whether any interaction orclassroom task can be considered solely “academic” as wellas the implications of choosing to label something as “per-sonal” rather than “academic.”

Though there exists a wealth of data concerning the waysteachers can work to meet students’ interpersonal needs, therehave been few studies done to examine teachers’ attempts tomeet their own interpersonal needs within the classroom. Forexample, Muller, Katz, and Dance (1999) found that teachersengage in a process of weighing student factors, such as theirperception of students’ success, when making decisionsabout whether or not to become invested in a relationship.This may reflect attempts to protect their “social time” in theclassroom as well as to shield themselves from potential re-jection from students. Likewise, Pianta (1999) found thatteachers unsure of their own relational needs and patterns ofinteractions would engage in “over-empathizing” with chil-dren at-risk or “downplaying” the importance of children’semotions to their motivation and learning. In contrast, teach-ers who were the most comfortable in their relations with theirstudents were more sensitive to the quality of their interac-tions with their students. They tended to endorse values ofemotional support, mutuality, reciprocity, unconditional ac-ceptance, predictable routines, and support of their students’autonomy. Pianta argued that teachers need to recognize thattheir students are not the only ones seeking contact and emo-tional support in the classroom. He encourages teachers toevaluate their relationships with their students as well as theirown needs and boundaries. It is interesting to note that in

226 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

practice, some of these values, such as reciprocity and uncon-ditional acceptance, may come into conflict.

Future studies of middle school students and of the transi-tion to and through middle school also need to examine theimpact of team teaching on students’ relationships withteachers. For example, future studies may want to explore (a)how students juggle multiple interpersonal expectations oftheir teachers as students move from having a primary teacherin elementary school to multiple teachers and (b) the extent towhich students need to have good relationships with all of thetheir teachers, or to simply develop a good relationship withat least one of their middle school teachers. Likewise, what isthe impact of their academic beliefs on the development ofstudent–teacher relationships? Future studies may want to ex-plore whether “not liking” a subject can generalize to “not lik-ing” the teacher and also the role of “good” student–teacherrelationships in changing students’ views of a field.

Deconstructing and reconstructing a theory ofstudent–teacher relationships. Residing in the space be-tween substantive micro-theories and grand theories aremid-level theories that somewhat transgress the boundaries ofepistemology and ontology (LeCompte & Priessle, 1993). Fordecades, there has been a call to bridge the gap between meth-odological paradigms (Chronbach, 1958; Crotty, 1998; Fiske,1982; Kuhn, 1990) both within individual studies and within asubstantive domain. For example, we have recently seen aswell in the use of multimethods within a single study to exam-ine the nature and context of motivation and learning (Baker,1999; Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999; Nolen, 1995; Patrick et al.,in press; Perry & Vandekamp, in press; Turner et al., 2001;Wentzel, 1997). Many educational researchers and philoso-phers, concerned with issues of ontology and epistemology, aswell as sometimes seemingly inconsistent findings found inmultimethod examinations, are apprehensive about researchthat seeks to straddle the boundaries of grand theories. How-ever, in looking across findings from different theoretical andmethodological perspectives, future studies (and programs ofresearch) on student–teacher relationships may seek to findwhether there exists a midlevel theory of student–teacher rela-tionships—one that attempts to triangulate on the construct(Mathison, 1988) of teacher–child relationships by using dif-ferent lenses to investigate its many facets. In this way, we maybegin to examine whether “inconsistent findings” or “compet-ing conceptions” reflect our own theoretical or methodologicallimitations and our attempts to constrain a dynamic phenome-non. From this perspective, future studies may need to take intoaccount both the complementarities of micro-theories as wellas the completeness (Schutz, Chambliss, & DeCuir, in press) ofeach perspective in capturing the phenomenon of stu-dent–teacher relationships. In this call, however, resides thechallenge to make sense of data in ways that would honor theintegrity of each construction and approach, as well as the truecomplexity of the phenomenon. Therefore, from this perspec-

tive it would be innapropriate to ignore the traditions of eachapproach or construction. Instead, in changing our lenses, weuse the convergences and uniquenesses of each perspective topush us beyond our conceptual and methodological constraintsto explore new relationships from a new view; a view that takesinto account the multiple pathways, dimensions, goals, andoutcomes of student–teacher interaction.

In her book, Literacies Lost, Cyrene Wells (1996) pro-vided an integrated view of what “good” relationships,viewed from a middle-level theory that incorporates elementsof all three micro-level theories, may look like:

Throughout the year, the eighth-grade students mentionedqualities of their school life they believed made it different:caring teachers, student voice, “all” the reading and writing,humanities, magnets, so few subjects (because of integra-tion), long classes, the way the teachers taught, working ingroups, the size of the school (perceived as small), the oppor-tunity to get close to teachers, the way all the kids in classwere so close to one another, no textbooks (on a regular ba-sis), and everyone talking to everyone else. (p. 40)

For students at Meadowbrook middle school, “good”teachers were those who expressed concern over both the so-cial and intellectual lives of the students in school. “Caringmeant not giving up on students when they couldn’t figurethings out or didn’t try very hard. Caring also meant beingkind and teaching others to be kind” (Wells, 1996, p. 53).Meadowbook was a place where teachers and administratorscreated space in their classrooms for personal interactions tooccur among students and teachers. But, above all, teacherscared about learning and modeled the behaviors they wishedto see in their students. “Students weren’t the only ones whowere busy reading, writing, and talking at the school. Theadults at [Meadowbrook] often delighted themselves withtheir own literate inventiveness” (Wells, 1996, p. 34). Theyexpected students to share the responsibilities not only fortheir own learning, but also for promoting others’ learning.

In a search for a midlevel theory, we need to remember thatfindings across attachment, motivation, and socioculturalperspectives reveal that “closeness” continues to be a salientindicator of “motivating” relationships even among older stu-dents. However, we also need to consider findings fromsociocultural studies of student–teacher relationships amongolder students that reveal students and teachers talking aboutrelationships in ways that appear more complex than the tra-ditional dimensions of attachment. Likewise, the search for amidlevel theory or for relationships may need to challengeour constructions of what can be a potential outcome of aclose, supportive, or motivating relationship with a teacher(Newman, 1990; Newman & Goldin, 1990; Perry et al., 2002;Ryan & Patrick, 2001). These may include catching anddeepening students intrinsic interest in and value for a sub-ject, encouraging a mastery orientation toward academicwork, promoting academic efficacy as well as social efficacy

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

for peer relationships, adopting a student identity, and en-couraging students to envision a “future” self. Last, in thesearch for a midlevel theory of student–teacher relationships,we need to continue to question what constitutes good rela-tionships and what role teacher–child relationships play in so-cial and cognitive development, our constructions ofchildren’s social worlds, and the limitations imposed by thegrand theories we espouse.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I acknowledge the invaluable contributions my mentor, PaulA. Schutz (as well as Claire Hamilton, Michele Lease,Penelope Oldfather, Martha Carr, and Dan Hickey at the Uni-versity of Georgia) and Mirka Koro-Ljunberg at the Univer-sity of Florida made through their support, critique, andthoughtful insights during the preparation of this manuscript.In addition, I acknowledge Robert Pianta at the University ofVirginia, whose guidance at the outset of this project encour-aged me to look beyond my own construction ofstudent–teacher relationships.

REFERENCES

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Promoting optimal motivation and engagement:Social context. In M. K. Alderman (Ed.), Motivation for achievement:Possibilities for teaching and learning (pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Aldermatt, E. R., Jovanovic, J., & Perry, M. (1998). Bias or responsivity?Sex and achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioningpractices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 516–527.

Allison, C. B. (1995). Present and past: Essays for teachers in the history ofeducation. New York: Peter Lang.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu-dents’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 80, 260–267.

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes instudents’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25, 21–37.

Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orienta-tions, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transitionto middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,269–298.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg., M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent andpeer attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.

Arowsafe, D. S., & Irvin, J. L. (1992). Transition to a middle level school:What kids say. Middle School Journal, 24, 15–19.

Babad, E. (1990). Measuring and changing teachers’ differential behavior asperceived by students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 683–690.

Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational PsychologyReview, 5, 347–376.

Babad, E. (1995). The “teacher’s pet phenomenon,” students’ perceptions ofteachers’ differential behavior and students’ morale. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 87, 361–374.

Babad, E., & Ezer, H. (1993). Seating locations of sociometrically identifiedstudent types: Methodological and substantive issues. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 63, 75–87.

Baker, J. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms:Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction withschool. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 57–70.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social in-formation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.

Bar-Tal, Y., & Bat-Tal, D. (1986). Social psychological analysis of class-room interaction. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of edu-cation (pp. 132–149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bates, J. E., Marvinney, D., Kelley, T., Dodge, K. A., Bennett, D. S., & Pettit,G. S. (1994). Child-care history and kindergarten adjustment. Develop-mental Psychology, 30, 690–700.

Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: Atest of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring schoolcommunities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, N. G., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind.New York: Basic Books.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1996). Friends’ influence on school adjustment: Amotivational analysis. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social moti-vation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 248–278).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Berndt, T. J., & Mekos, D. (1995). Adolescents’ perceptions of stressful anddesirable aspects of the transition to junior high school. Journal of Re-search on adolescence, 5, 123–142.

Bernstein, E., & Gilligan, C. (1990). Unfairness and not listening: Con-verging themes in Emma Williard girls’ development. In C. Gilligan, N.P. Lyons, & T. J. Hamner (Eds.), Making connections: The relationalworlds of adolescent girls at Emma Williard School (pp. 147–161).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the schoolenvironment and children’s early school adjustment. In K. Wentzel & J.Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s schooladjustment (pp. 199–225). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and chil-dren’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35,61–79.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors andthe teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34,934–946.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifyingand expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,272–281.

Blyth, D. A., Simmons, R. G., & Bush, D. (1978). The transition into earlyadolescence: A longitudinal comparison of youth in two educationalcontexts. Sociology of Education, 51, 149–162.

Blyth, D. A., Simmons, R. G., & Carlton-Ford, S. (1983). The adjustment ofearly adolescents to school transitions. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3,105–120.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy de-velopment. London: Basic Books.

Bremme, D. W., & Erickson, F. (1977). Relationships among verbal andnonverbal classroom behaviors. Theory into Practice, 16,153–161.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby andMary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775.

Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal work-ing models of the attachment relationship. In M. T. Greenberg, D.Ciccetti, & E. M. Cumings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years:Theory, research and intervention (pp. 273–308). Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

228 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Brewer, M., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is the “we”? Levels of collectiveidentity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 71, 83–93.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983). The evolution of environmen-tal models in developmental research. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), The Hand-book of Child Psychology: Fourth Edition (pp. 357–414). New York:Wiley.

Brooks, D. M., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). The effects of students’ nonverbalbehavior on teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 51–63.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.Brophy, J., & Kher, N. (1985). Teacher socialization as a mechanism for de-

veloping student motivation to learn. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The socialpsychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 257–288).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). On the structure of social self-con-cept for pre-, early-, and late adolescents: A test of Shavelson, Hubner,and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 70, 599–613.

Cabello, B., & Terrell, R. (1994). Making students feel like family: Howteachers create warm and caring classroom climates. Journal of Class-room Interaction, 29, 17–23.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, D. W. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsicmotivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64,363–425.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-search, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.

Clark-Lempers, D., Lempers, J., & Ho, C. (1991). Early, middle, and late ad-olescents’ perceptions of their relationships with significant others.Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 296–315.

Cobb, P. (1986). Contexts, goals, beliefs, and learning mathematics. Journalfor the Learning of Mathematics, 6, 2–9.

Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cog-nitive constructivist perspectives. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.),Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 34–53). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and socioculturalperspectives in the context of developmental research. EducationalPsychologist, 31, 175–190.

Cole, D., Maxwell, S. E., & Martin, J. M. (1997). Reflected self-appraisals;Strength and structure of the relation of teacher, peer, and parent ratingsto children’s self-perceived competencies. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 89, 55–70.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relat-edness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. The Minne-sota Symposia on Child Development: Self processes and development,23, 43–77.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Does reducing student-to-instructor ratios affectachievement? Educational Psychologist, 24, 79–98.

Cooper, H. M., & Tom, D. Y. H. (1984). Teacher expectation research: A re-view with implications for classroom instruction. The ElementarySchool Journal, 85, 77–89.

Copeland, J. M., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-Sort assess-ment of child-teacher attachment relationships and social competencein preschool. Early Education and Development, 8, 27–39.

Cotterell, J. L. (1992a). The relation of attachments and supports to adoles-cent well-being and school adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Re-search, 7, 28–42.

Cotterell, J. L. (1992b). School size as a factor in adolescents’ adjustment to thetransition to secondary school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 28–45.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social in-formation processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psy-chological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

Cronbach, L. J. (1958). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Ameri-can psychologist, 12, 671–684.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and per-spective in the research process. London: Sage.

Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment stylechange? Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgogy, 73, 826–838.

Davis, H. A. (2001). The quality and impact of relationships between ele-mentary school children and teachers. Journal of Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 26, 431–453.

Davis, H. A., & Ashley, S. M. (2003, August). Middle school teachers’ con-ceptions of their relationships. Paper presented at the annual conferenceof the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Davis, H. A., & Couch, K. N. (2001). Tensions to relate: Middle schoolteachers working to understand their relationships with students.Manuscript in preparation.

Davis, H. A., & Lease, A. M. (2000, April). Cognitive representations of self,mother, and teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Davis, H. A., Schutz, P. A., & Chambliss, C. B. (2000). Conceptualizing andmeasuring students’ relational schemas for teachers. UnpublishedManuscript.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination inhuman behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instru-ment to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy withchildren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motiva-tion and education: The self-determination perspective. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 325–346.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1986). Teacher attitudes on diversity affecting studentsocio-academic responses: An ethnographic approach. Journal of Ado-lescent Research, 1, 103–114.

DeMarrais, K., Crowder, K., Liljestrom, A., & Rouleston, K. (2001, April).Women teachers’ experiences of anger in school settings. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Seattle, WA.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1996). A constructivist perspective on the role of thesocio-moral atmosphere in promoting children’s development. In C. T.Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp.103–119). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dodge, K. A., Asher, S., & Parkhurst, J. T. (1989). Social life as a goal-coor-dination task. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation ineducation: Goals and cognitions (pp. 107–135). New York: Academic.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (1997a, March). The development of theGoal Orientation and Learning Strategies Survey (GOALS-S): a quan-titative instrument designed to measure students’ achievement goalsand learning strategies in Australian educational settings. Paper pre-sented at the annual conference of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (1997b, March). Psychological parame-ters of students’ social and academic goals: A qualitative investigation.Paper presented at the annual conference of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL.

Dubow, E. F., & Ullman, D. G. (1989). Assessing social support in elemen-tary school children: The survey of children’s social support. Journal ofClinical and Child Psychology, 18, 52–64.

Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to oldage. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentallyappropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Goals and cognitions (pp.139–186). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Bichanan, C. M., Rueman, D.,Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The im-pact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences inschools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A develop-mental perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motiva-tion in education, Goals and cognitions (pp. 259–298). San Diego, CA:Academic.

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics andculture of educational achievement. Anthropology and EducationQuarterly, 18, 335–356.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and ob-server perceptions of the classroom environment before and after thetransition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8,133–156.

Feldman, R. S., & Saletsky, R. D. (1986). Nonverbal communication in inter-racial teacher–student interaction. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The socialpsychology of education (pp. 115–131). Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Feldman, R. S., & Theiss, A. J. (1982). The teacher and student asPygmalions: Joint effects of teacher and student expectations. Journalof Educational Psychology, 74, 217–223.

Finders, M. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public highschool. Teachers College Record, 87, 393–409.

Fiske, D. W. (1982). Convergent-discriminant validation in measurement re-search strategies. In D. Brinberg & L. H. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of valid-ity in research: New directions for methodology in social and behav-ioral science (pp. 77–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ford, M. E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence.Developmental Psychology, 18, 323–340.

Ford, M. E. (1996). Motivational opportunities and obstacles associated withsocial responsibility and caring behavior in school contexts. In J.Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding chil-dren’s school adjustment (pp. 126–153). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ford, M. E., Wentzel, K. R., Wood, D., Stevens, E., & Siesfeld, G. A. (1989).Processes associated with integrative social competence: Emotionaland contextual influences on adolescent social responsibility. Journalof Adolescent Research, 4, 405–425.

Fraser. B. J., & O’Brien, P. (1985). Student and teacher perceptions of the en-vironment of elementary school classrooms. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 85, 567–580.

Galbo, J. J. (1994). Teachers of adolescents as significant adults and the socialconstruction of knowledge. The High School Journal, Oct/Nov, 40–44.

Gilligan, C., Lyons, N. P., & Hamner, T. J. (Eds.). (1990). Making connec-tions: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma WilliardSchool. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationshipsin the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 36, 647–673.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychol-ogy and the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27,177–196.

Goodenow, C. (1993a). The psychological sense of school membershipamong adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psy-chology in the Schools, 30, 79–90.

Goodenow, C. (1993b). Classroom belonging among early adolescent stu-dents: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 13, 21–43.

Graham, S., & Barker, G. P. (1990). The down side of help: Anattributional-developmental analysis of help-seeking behavior as alow-ability cue. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 7–14.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Assessment and classification ofchildren’s social skills: A review of methods and issues. School Psy-chology Review, 13, 292–301.

Gurlund, S. T. (1999, April). A developmental perspective on adult-childrapport: The role of expectations and autonomy support. Paper pre-sented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child De-velopment, Albuquerque, NM.

Halberstadt, A., & Hall, A. (1980). Who’s getting the message? Children’snonverbal skill and their evaluation by teachers. Developmental Psy-chology, 16, 564–575.

Hale, N. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2000, April). Parent-child attachment andcollege student adjustment: A mediation model. Paper presented at theannual conference of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.

Hamilton, S. F. (1983). The social side of schooling: Ecological studies ofclassrooms and schools. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 313–334.

Hamilton, S. F., & Darling, N. (1989). Mentors in adolescents lives. In K.Hurrelmann & U. Engle (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: Inter-national perspectives (pp. 121–139). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from in-fancy through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690–694.

Hamilton, C. E., & Howes, C. (1992). A comparison of young children’s re-lationships with mothers and teachers. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond theparent: New directions for child development (Vol. 57, pp. 41–59). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1986). Four factors in the mediation of teacherexpectancy effects. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of ed-ucation (pp. 91–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harter, S. (1990). Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of children andadolescents. In A. M. LaGreca (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Ob-taining self-reports from children and adolescents (pp. 292–325).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motiva-tion, self-esteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K.Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s schooladjustment (pp. 11–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Harter, S., Waters, P. L., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). Lack of voice as a mani-festation of false self-behavior among adolescents: The school settingas a stage upon which the drama of authenticity is enacted. EducationalPsychologist, 32, 153–173.

Harter, S., Waters, P. L., & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self-worth:Differences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contextsamong adolescents. Child Development, 69, 756–766.

Harter, S., Waters, P. L., Whitesell, N. R., & Kastelic, D. (1998). Level ofvoice among female and male high school students: Relational context,support, and gender orientation. Developmental Psychology, 34,892–901.

Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences inthe effects of educational transitions on young adolescent’s perceptionsof competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Re-search Journal, 29, 777–807.

Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationship and their developmental signifi-cance. American Psychologist, 44, 120–126.

Hayes, C. B., Ryan, A., & Zseller, E. B. (1994). The middle school child’sperceptions of caring teachers. American Journal of Education, 103,1–19.

Hinkley, J. W., McInerney, D. M., & Marsh, H. W. (2001, April). Themulti-faceted structure of school achievement motivation: A case forsocial goals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Hofer, B. J., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemologicaltheories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation tolearning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998, April). The interaction of per-sonal epistemology, learning strategies, and instructional prac-tice: An ethnographic study. Paper presented at the annual confer-ence of the American Educational Research Association,Montreal, Canada.

Howes, C. (1988). Relations between early child care and schooling. Devel-opmental Psychology, 24, 53–57.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992a). Children’s relationships with caregivers:Mothers and child care teachers. Child Development, 63, 859–866.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992b). The changing experience ofchildcare: Changes in teachers and teacher-child relationships and chil-dren’s social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 8, 15–32.

230 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Children’s relation-ships with peers: Differential associations with aspects of theteacher-child relationship. Child Development, 65, 253–263.

Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Philipsen, L. C. (1998). Stability and continu-ity of child-caregiver and child-peer relationships. Child Development,69, 418–426.

Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Contextual constraints on the concor-dance of mother-child and teacher-child relationships. In R. C. Pianta(Ed.), Beyond the parent: New directions for child development (Vol.57, pp. 25–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D. C., & Myers, L. (1988). Attachmentand childcare: Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 3, 403–416.

Jacobsen, T., Edelstein, W., & Hofmann, V. (1994). A longitudinal study ofthe relation between representations of attachment in childhood andcognitive functioning in childhood and adolescence. DevelopmentalPsychology, 30, 112–124.

Jarvinen, D., & Nicholls, J. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs aboutthe causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Develop-mental Psychology, 32, 435–441.

Jarvis, S. A., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Krivel-Zacks, G. (2000, April).Teachers’ (mis)conceptions of early adolescence. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, Louisiana.

Juvonen, J. (1996). Self-presentation tactics promoting teacher and peer ap-proval: The function of excuses and other clever explanations. In J.Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding chil-dren’s school adjustment (pp. 43–65). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Juvonen, J. (2000). The social functions of attributional face-saving: Tacticsamong early adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 15–32.

Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social approval: Ef-fects of audience and achievement outcome on publicly communicatedattributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 365–376.

Juvonen, J., & Weiner, B. (1993). An attributional analysis of students’ inter-actions: The social consequences of perceived responsibility. Educa-tional Psychology Review, 5, 325–345.

Kerns, K. A., & Stevens, A. (1996). Parent-child attachment in late adoles-cence: Links to social relations and personality. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 25, 323–342.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Workingmodels, affect regulation and representations of self and others. ChildDevelopment, 59, 135–146.

Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2002, April). Negotiating paradigmatic validities withinresearch of double practices. Paper presented at the Annual Conferenceof the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Kuhn, T. (1990). The historical structure of scientific discovery. In D.Bartholomae & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Ways of reading: An anthology forwriters (pp. 385–394). Boston: St. Martin.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scho-lastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Devel-opment, 70, 1373–1400.

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationships trajectoriesof aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children duringearly grade school. Child Development, 70, 910–929.

Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of self-esteemmotive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.),Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). New York: Plenum.

LeCompte, M. D., & Priessle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative designin educational research, second edition. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools:Effects in teacher’s attitudes and students’ achievement. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 37, 3–31.

Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinoura, E., & Kinnunen, R. (1995).Long-term development of learning activity: Motivational, cognitive,and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 21–35.

Lepper, M. R., Kearney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation andextrinsic rewards: A commentary on Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analy-sis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 5–32.

Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and paren-tal representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,407–419.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Maltreated children’s reports of related-ness to their teachers. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The roleof other adults in children’s lives (Vol. 57, pp. 81–107). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults andpeers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students.Journal of School Psychology, 35, 81–99.

Lyons, N. P. (1990). Listening to voices we have not heard: Emma Williardgirls’ ideas about self, relationships and morality. In C. Gilligan, N. P.Lyons, & T. J. Hamner (Eds.), Making connections: The relationalworlds of adolescent girls at Emma Williard School (pp. 30–72). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Manke,M.P. (1997).Classroompowerrelations:Understandingstudent-teacherinteraction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Marachi, R., Friedel, J., & Midgley, C. (2001, April). “I sometimes annoy myteacher during math.”: Relations between student perceptions of theteacher and disruptive behavior in the classroom. Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, Seattle, WA.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural construction of self andemotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama & H. R.Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influ-ence (pp. 89–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-tion.

Markus, H., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representa-tions of goals. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality andsocial psychology (pp. 211–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates, Inc.

Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of self-concept in theperception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,1494–1512.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, March, 13–17.McCallum, J. (2001, April). The development of motivation in middle school-

ing years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-cational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. A. (1993). Interpersonal relations betweenschool children and their peers, parents, and teachers. Educational Psy-chology Review, 5, 155–176.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine whatpeople do. American Psychologist, 40, 812–825.

Mehan, H. (1984). Language and schooling. Sociology of Education, 57,174–183.

Mergendoller, J. R., & Packer, M. J. (1985). Seventh graders’ conceptions ofteachers: An interpretive analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 85,581–600.

Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. A. (1998). Social Skills of Children and Ado-lescents: Conceptualization, Assessment and Treatment. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between ele-mentary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory ap-proach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–113.

Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision-mak-ing fit before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 7, 225–241.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relationsand attitudes towards mathematics before and after the transition to ju-nior high. Child Development, 90, 981–992.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use ofself-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15,389–411.

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Minuchin, P. P., & Shapiro, E. K. (1983). The school as a context for socialdevelopment. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology(Vol. 6, pp. 197–274). New York: Wiley.

Moje, E. B. (1996). “I teach students, not subjects”: Teacher-student rela-tionships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quar-terly, 31, 172–195.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1978). Classroom social climate and student ab-sences and grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 263–269.

Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learn-ing: Dynamics of the teacher-student relationship from each perspec-tive. Urban Education, 34, 292–337.

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivationalpredictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 91, 62–75.

Murdock, T. B., Anderman, L. H., & Hodge, S. (2000). Middle-grade predic-tors of students’ motivation and behavior in high school. Journal of Ad-olescent Research, 15, 327–351.

National Institute for Child and Human Development. (2000). The relation ofchildcare to cognitive and language development. Child Development,71, 960–980.

Neill, S. R. St. J. (1986). Children’s reported responses to teachers’ non-ver-bal signals: a pilot study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 12, 53–63.

Neill, S, R. St. J. (1989). The effects of facial expression and posture on chil-dren’s reported responses to teacher nonverbal communication. BritishEducational Research Journal, 15, 195–204.

Newman, F. M. (1981). Reducing alienation in high schools: Implications oftheory. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 546–564.

Newman, R. S. (1990). Children’s help-seeking in the classroom: The role ofmotivational factors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 71–80.

Newman, R. S., & Goldin, J. L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek helpwith schoolwork. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92–100.

Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and researchfor teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 496–510.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implication for instructionalarrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215–230.

Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 57, 47–65.

Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1992). The association of children’s non-verbal decoding abilities with their popularity, locus of control, andacademic achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153,385–393.

Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonver-bal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of NonverbalAccuracy scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9–35.

Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frames of reference. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506.

Ogbu, J. U. (1994). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 17, 354–383.

Oldfather, P. (1993). What students say about motivating experiences in awhole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672–681.

Oldfather, P. (1994). When students do not feel motivated for literacy learn-ing: How a responsive classroom culture helps. Athens, GA: NationalReading Research Center, Universities of Georgia and Maryland (Per-spectives in Reading Research Report, No. 8).

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivistreconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Jour-nal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139–158.

Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, H. J. (1993). Gaining and losing voice: A longi-tudinal study of students’ continuing impulse to learn across elementarymiddle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17, 1–25.

Oldfather, P., & Thomas, S. (1998). What does it mean when high schoolteachers participate in collaborative research with students on literacymotivations? Teachers College Record, 99, 617–691.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school commu-nity. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.

Page, R. (1987). Teachers’ perceptions of students: A link between class-rooms, school cultures, and the social order. Anthropology and Educa-tion Quarterly, 18, 77–99.

Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates chil-dren’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and au-tonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 65, 781–791.

Patrick, H. (1997). Social self-regulation: Exploring the relations betweenchildren’s social relationships, academic self-regulation, and schoolperformance. Educational Psychologist, 32, 209–220.

Patrick, H., Hicks, L., & Ryan, A. (1997). Relations of social self-efficacyand social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 17, 109–128.

Paulson, S. E., Marchant, G., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (1998). Early adolescents’perceptions of patterns of parenting, teaching, and school atmosphere:Implications for achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 5–26.

Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Behavioral confirmations in socialinteraction: Effects of teacher expectancies on students’ intrinsic moti-vation, Canadian Psychology, 30, 404 (abstract).

Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (1998). The social context of early schooling andchildren’s school adjustment. Educational Psychologist, 33, 177–194.

Perry, N. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts thatsupport it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715–729.

Perry, N., VandeKamp, O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investi-gating teacher–student interactions that foster self-regulated learning.Educational Psychologist, 37, 5–15.

Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and chil-dren’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543.

Pianta, R. C. (1992). Patterns of relationships between children and kinder-garten teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 15–32.

Pianta, R. C. (1996). Manual and scoring guide for the student-teacher rela-tionship scale. University of Virginia.

Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult-child relationship processes and early schooling.Early Education and Development, 8, 11–26.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teach-ers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationship between teachers andchildren: Associations with behavior at home and in the classroom.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 263–280.

Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relation-ships, teacher-child relationships and adjustment in preschool and kin-dergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263–280.

Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and theprocess of adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent:The role of other adults in children’s lives (pp. 61–80). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years ofschool: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s class-room adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 297–312.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachmentand daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 73, 1409–1423.

Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Social interaction in the acquisition of knowledge.Educational Psychology Review, 5, 293–310.

Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is itteachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 312–330.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy supportive teachers: Howthey teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 537–548.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. E.,Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings fromthe national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 278, 823–832.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context ofearly adolescents’ academic social-emotional development: A summaryof research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.

232 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of schoolpsychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological andbehavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and be-longing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.

Roeser, R. W., van der Wolf, K., & Strobel, K. R. (2001). On the relation be-tween socio-emotional and school functioning during early adoles-cence. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 111–139.

Rogoff, B. (1984). Thinking and learning in social context. In B. Rogoff & J.Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition (pp. 1–8). Boston: Harvard UniversityPress.

Rogoff, B. (1996). Developmental transitions in children’s participation insociocultural activities. In A. J. Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The fiveto seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 273–294).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rohrkemper, M. M. (1984). The influence of teacher socialization style onstudents’ social cognition and reported interpersonal classroom behav-ior. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 245–275.

Ryan, A., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoidasking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ aca-demic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goalstructure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535.

Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals,and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 17, 152–171.

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment andchanges in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middleschool. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 460.

Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the class-room: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13, 93–114.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis ofself-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, 2 (pp. 13–51). NewYork: Academic.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom.Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in chil-dren’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,550–558.

Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detach-ment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood.Child Development, 60, 340–356.

Ryan, R. M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Par-ent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation and learning. In M.L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achieve-ment (Vol. 7, pp. 115–149). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relation-ships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motiva-tion and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.

Schutz, P. A., Chambliss, C. B., & DeCuir, J. T. (in press). Multimethods re-search. In K. B. deMarrais and S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations of re-search: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Simmons, R., Blyth, D. A., Van Cleave, E. F., & Bush, M. D. (1979). Entryinto early adolescence: The impact of school structure, puberty, andearly dating on self-esteem. American Sociological Review, 44,948–967.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Re-ciprocal effects of teacher behavior and students engagementacross the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,571–588.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). A theory of school and classroom organization. Educa-tional Psychologist, 22, 89–108.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Class size and achievement: Small effects of smallclasses. Educational Psychologist, 24, 99–110.

Smith, A. B., Ballard, K. D., & Barham, L. J. (1989). Preschool children’sperceptions of parent and teacher roles. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 4, 523–532.

Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., & Battistich, V. A. (2001) Teaching and school-ing effects on moral/prosocial development. In V. Richardson (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 566–603). Washington,DC: American Educational Research Association.

Song, I., & Hattie, J. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academicachievement: A causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 76, 1296–1281.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbush, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Im-pact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritativeparenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. ChildDevelopment, 63, 1266–1281.

Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy inearly adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851.

Stern, L. (1990). Conceptions of separation and connection in female adoles-cents. In C. Gilligan, N. P. Lyons, & T. J. Hamner (Eds.), Making con-nections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma WilliardSchool (pp. 73–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Trans-formation: Immi-gration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adoles-cents. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions andstudent reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,210–223.

Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1989). The “teacher’s pet” phenomenon as viewedby Israeli teachers and students. Elementary School Journal, 90,99–110.

Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). The teacher’s bet phenomenon: Rate of occur-rence, correlates, and psychological costs. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 82, 637–645.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teachingtransformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). The social organization of assisted perfor-mance. In R. Tharp & R. Gallimore (Eds.), Rousing minds to life. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (1995). Enhancing student and teacher engage-ment in literacy learning: A shared inquiry approach. The ReadingTeacher, 49, 192–202.

Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (1997). Intrinsic motivations, literacy, and as-sessment practices: “That’s my grade. That’s me.” Educational Psy-chologist, 32, 107–123.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of defini-tion. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Bio-logical and behavioral considerations (pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Toro, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Gesten, E. L., Weissberg, R. P., Rapkin, B. D., &Davidson, E. (1985). Social environmental predictors of children’s ad-justment in elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 13, 353–364.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Ef-ficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,202–248.

Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the in-structional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future.Educational Psychologist, 35, 69–85.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. C., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas,C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730–745.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2001, April). The rela-tionship between teachers’ affective discourses and students’ approachand avoidance beliefs and behaviors in mathematics: What happens inhigh mastery/high performance classrooms? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motiva-tion and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of EducationalResearch, 65, 213–243.

STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Wood, S. (1995). Special issues in reforming mid-dle level schools. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 9–37.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Sagi, A., & Lambermon, M. W. E. (1992). The multi-ple caretaker paradox: Some data from Holland and Israel. In R. C.Pianta (Ed.), New Directions in Child Development. Relationships be-tween children and non-parental adults (Vol. 57, pp. 5–24). San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Veaco, L., & Brandon, C. (1986). The preferred teacher: A content analysisof young adolescents’ writings. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6,221–229.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society (A. R. Luia, Trans.; M. Cole, V.John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Waters. E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000).Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year lon-gitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684–689.

Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schoolscontribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374–392.

Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. The ElementarySchool Journal, 83, 287–312.

Wells, M. C. (1996). Literacies lost: When students move from a progressivemiddle school to a traditional high school. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for perfor-mance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–142.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991a). Relations between social competence and aca-demic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62,1066–1078.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991b). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation andachievement. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in moti-vation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 185–212). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991c). Social competence at school: Relations between so-cial responsibility and academic achievement. Review of EducationalResearch, 61, 1–24.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993a). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence:Role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,4–20.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993b). Does being good make the grade? Social behaviorand academic achievement in middle school. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 357–364.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance,classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 86, 173–182.

Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school:Concurrent and long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 16, 390–406.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of per-ceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,411–419.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school:The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 90, 202–209.

Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal rela-tionships at school: Implications for understanding motivation atschool. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97.

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational in-fluences on students’ academic performance. Educational PsychologyReview, 10, 155–175.

Werner, E. & Smith, E. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

West, J. (1994). Children’s perceptions of fun and work in literacy learning.Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center, Universities of Geor-gia and Maryland (Perspectives in Reading Research Report, No. 7).

Whelage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R.(1989). The Child Development Project: Combining traditional and de-velopmental approaches to valued education. In L. Nucci, (Ed.), Moraldevelopment and character education: A dialogue (pp. 51–92). Berke-ley, CA: McCutchan.

White, K. J., Jones, K., & Sherman, M. D. (1998). Reputation informationand teacher feedback: Their influences on children’s perceptions of be-havior problem peers. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17,11–37.

White, K. J., & Kistner, J. (1992). The influence of teacher feedback onyoung children’s peer preferences and perceptions. DevelopmentalPsychology, 28, 933–940.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement taskvalues: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12,265–310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs,achievement values, and general self-esteem: Change across ele-mentary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14,107–138.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of chil-dren’s motivation in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad(Eds.), Review of research in education (pp.73–118). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Wong, C. A. (1998). The risks and protective factors of the content of racialstigma on African-American and White early adolescents’ develop-ment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 5675.

Woolfolk, A. E. (1978). Student learning and performance under varyingconditions of teacher verbal and nonverbal evaluative communcation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 87–94.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of effi-cacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,81–91.

Yowell, C. M., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). Self-regulation in democratic com-munities. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 469–490.

Zeichner, K. (1978). Group membership in the elementary school classroom.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 554–564.

Zeichner, K. (1980). The development of an instrument to measure groupmembership in elementary school classrooms. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 48, 237–244.

Zeidner, M. (1992). Key facets of classroom grading: A comparison ofteacher and student perspectives. Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 14, 224–243.

234 DAVIS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

21 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2013