Exploring the Contexts Davis 2006

7/30/2019 Exploring the Contexts Davis 2006

1/32

Exploring the Contexts of Relationship Quality between Middle School Students and TeachersAuthor(s): Heather A. DavisReviewed work(s):Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 106, No. 3 (January 2006), pp. 193-223Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501483 .

Accessed: 26/04/2012 05:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

Elementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501483?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501483?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/32

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

Exploring the Contextsof RelationshipQuality betweenMiddle SchoolStudents and Teachers

Heather A. DavisOhio State University

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to introduce aframework for understanding relationship qual-ity between middle school students and theirteachers. The framework draws on findings from3 literatures (motivation, attachment, and socio-cultural) and from analyses of a year-long casestudy in a rural middle school. I begin with abrief overview of the framework and identifyconstructs from the literature incorporated intothe framework. I describe the design and meth-ods employed to explore student-teacher rela-tionship quality and its effect on student moti-vation and achievement. Synthesizing acrosssurvey data from 905 students and 25 teachers,interview data collected from 6 students and 6teachers, and journal data from 28 teachers, Ielaborate on 4 contexts I believe exert a press onteacher-student dyadic relationship quality.

These include the context of the student, theteacher, the peers, and the interpersonal cultureof the classroom and school. Finally, I explore theimplications of the framework for practice, pol-icy, and future research.

Research on Relationshipsbetween Middle School Studentsand Teachers

Over the past 20 years, there has been con-siderable research on how relationships be-tween students and teachers affect the qual-ity of students motivation and classroomlearning experiences (Davis, 2003). Operat-ing as socializing agents, teachers can influ-ence students social and intellectual expe-riences via their abilities to instill values inchildren such as the motivation to learn; byproviding classroom contexts that stimulatestudents motivation and learning; by ad-

dressing students need to belong; and byserving a regulatory function for the devel-


3/32

194 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

JANUARY 2006

opment of emotional, behavioral, and aca-demic skills. Moreover, supportive relation-ships with teachers may play an importantdevelopmental role during the transition toand through middle school. However, de-

veloping relationships with an early adoles-cent presents unique challenges to middlegrades teachers.

Researchers seeking to understand themiddle school experience have argued thatthe transition to and through middleschool is particularly difficult and resultsin changes in students academic motiva-tions and performance (Eccles et al., 1993;Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993). In fact,middle schools, compared to elementaryschools, have been criticized for their in-creasingly impersonal structure and at-mosphere combined with increased stu-dent-teacher ratios. During the transition,students begin to report feeling less com-petent and autonomous and less sup-ported by the classroom context, and theyare more likely to endorse less adaptivelearning goals. Moreover, changes acrossthe two school environments are also

reflected in students reports of feelinggreater anonymity with their middleschool teachers and the other students intheir classes. Students generally reportedfeeling that their middle school teacherswere less friendly, less supportive, and lesscaring than their elementary school teach-ers (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988;Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Midgley, Feldlau-fer, & Eccles, 1989).

Despite declines in teacher-student rela-tionship quality, findings have also sug-gested that adolescents benefit, both sociallyand academically, when they experiencesupportive relationships with their teachers(Resnick et al., 1997). For example, our1 re-search indicated that middle grades stu-dents who perceived their relationshipswith their teachers as supportive tended toreport enhanced motivation (Davis, Davis,Smith, & Capa, 2003; Davis, Schutz, Cham-

bliss, & Couch, 2001), perceive more facili-tative classroom climates (Davis et al.,

2003), and receive higher grades (Davis,2001b; Davis et al., 2001, 2003).

Moreover, we found that students gen-erally defined their academic work differ-ently depending on whether they perceived

they had a good relationship with theirteacher (Davis et al., 2001). Few students inour study were regularly experiencing con-flict in their relationships with teachers.Instead, the six students we interviewedcontrasted good relationships with merelygetting along with teachers whom theyperceived as mean or distant. When stu-dents felt they got along with a teacher, theyreported experiencing their academic tasksas coercive, repetitive, isolated, irrelevant,and often as obstacles to their social and ac-ademic goals. This feeling of coercion wasmost associated with students understand-ings of why students would resist or chooseto engage in academic tasks for mean teach-ers (see also DeVries & Zan, 1996; Manke,1997; West, 1994). They contrasted this kindof work with the fun they were havingin classes where they had a good relation-ship with a teacher. In the latter, they found

academic tasks as meaningful, personal,complementing their other goals, and as fo-cusing on promoting their understanding.

Likewise, the teachers in our study (Da-vis & Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001)believed that supportive relationships pro-moted classroom learning and motivationby creating a safe context for students toopen up and listen to the teacher andtake intellectual risks. They believed stu-dents worked harder for teachers theyliked and that they could push studentsto do more challenging work when theyhad a good relationship with them. In thisway, many of the teachers in our studyfound that investing the time to developsupportive relationships with studentspaid off throughout the year by becominga source of their own motivation to be cre-ative in their instruction, to persist withchallenging content, to re-teach units if nec-

essary, and to work through conflict withstudents.


4/32

RELATIONSHIPS 195

Purposes of the Article

My primary objective in this article is to in-troduce a new framework for understand-ing relationship quality between middleschool students and their teachers. This

framework draws from findings identifiedacross motivation, attachment, and socio-cultural literatures and from our analyses ofmixed-method data we collected during ayear-long study of relationship quality.2

Specifically, I describe four contexts I be-lieve exert a press on teacher-student rela-tionship dyads: the context of the teacher,the student, the peers in the classroom, andthe interpersonal culture of the classroom

and school.This concept of the press of a context isnot new to the field of child development(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Durkin, 1995, pp.1011). In this article I use press to referto factors (both internal and external) thatshape students and teachers behaviors, af-fect, motivation, and cognition surroundingclassroom interactions and relationships.Middleton and Blumenfeld (2000) dis-cussed the role of press in the classroom by

elaborating the ways in which teacher be-haviors create a culture or climate sup-porting motivation and learning. Theyidentified three types of academic press:press for understanding, for performance,and for competition. Middleton and Blu-menfeld (2000) conceptualized academicpress as the enactment of teachers beliefs,motives, and values regarding their subjectmatter, teaching, and learning.

In a parallel fashion, I view relationalpress as the enactment of students andteachers beliefs, motives, and values re-garding relationships in the classroom. Forexample, Birch and Ladd (1997) and Ladd,Birch, and Buhs (1999) described the pressstudents behaviors may exert on teacher re-lationship quality. They classified kinder-gartners behavioral orientations as mov-ing towards, moving away, or movingagainst developing relationships with

teachers. Drawing from this perspective,dyadic relationship quality between a stu-

dent and teacher reflects both the reciprocalpresses of the teacher and student contextsas well as each members attempts to ne-gotiate alternative relationship opportuni-ties (e.g., a peer context) and the interper-

sonal culture of the classroom and theschool. These presses constrain the dyadsopportunities to interact with each other.For example, classroom norms about inter-actions shape where, when, and how teach-ers and students perceive they can respondto each others press for developing a rela-tionship. Moreover, I argue that these inter-personal presses affect how teachers andstudents engage each other in academictasks.

A secondary objective of this article is todescribe how findings from our case studycontributed to the development of themodel and to our understanding of student-teacher relationship quality. I begin with anoverview of the three literatures and iden-tify findings we incorporated into theframework.3 Then I provide an overview ofthe design and methods we employed to ex-plore middle school student-teacher rela-

tionship quality and its effect on motivationand achievement. I outline the multiplepasses we made through the data and de-scribe how findings provided unique in-sights into relationship dynamics withinand across the four contexts. Finally, I ex-plore the implications of the framework forfuture research, policy, and teacher educa-tion.

Theoretical Perspectives on

Relationship QualityMotivation Perspectives

Learner-centered psychological princi-ples (LCPPs). Underlying studies of theclassroom context is the premise that teach-ers instructional decisions affect studentlearning and motivation. In an attempt toprovide a framework for designing effectivelearning environments, the Task Force onPsychology in Education of the American

Psychological Association (APA, 1997) out-lined 14 principles that define what it


5/32


JANUARY 2006

means to be learner centered from a re-search-validated perspective (see Appen-dix). McCombs and colleagues argued thatlearner-centeredness goes beyond the in-structional decisions teachers make to en-

compass learners perceptions of the class-room context and the interactions of theseperceptions with the beliefs, dispositions,and practices of their teachers (McCombs,2004; see also Lambert & McCombs, 1998).The research on effective educational prin-ciples and practices based on the LCPPs hascharacterized learning as a whole-personphenomenon (McCombs, 2003). These do-mains reflect the holistic nature of factorsinfluencing learners and learning (cognitiveand metacognitive, motivational and affec-tive, developmental and social, and otherindividual differences) (McCombs, 2004,p. 94).

Research by McCombs (2003; see alsoMcCombs, Perry, & Daniels, 2004) has in-dicated that, among the domains of thelearner-centered principles, positive inter-personal relationships and classroom cli-mates are among the most consistent, sig-

nificant predictors of student motivationand achievement. These findings convergewith research documenting the importantrole of students feelings of belonging totheir school and class (Osterman, 2000) andtheir perceptions of their teachers as caringand supportive (Battistich, Solomon, Wat-son, & Schaps, 1997; Harter, 1996; Wentzel,1997) for predicting academic outcomes in-cluding academic efficacy, positive schoolaffect, the pursuit of adaptive goals, help-seeking, and achievement (Anderman &Anderman, 1999; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan,1996; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Wentzel, 1998).

It is beyond my scope in this article toreview research documenting how teacherspedagogical decisions with regard to thecognitive and motivational LCPP domainscan shape students classroom learning ex-periences. However, it is important to high-light the role teachers beliefs play in their

instructional and classroom-managementdecisions (Weinstein, 1998). Findings from

the research on motivation have shown thatteachers beliefs about the nature of school-ing, knowledge, and learning; about them-selves as teachers; about their subject mat-ter; and about their students abilities,

motivations, and behavior (Hoy, Davis, &Pape, in press) shape the instructional de-cisions they make and, in turn, affect theirrelationships with students. For example,teachers may differ in their understandingsof how to manage adolescent behavior(Martin, 2004; Martin, Yin, & Baldwin,1998). Research on classroom managementhas indicated that teachers may approachadolescent behavior from either a custodialor caregiver orientation (Willower, Eidell, &Hoy, 1967). Although both of these perspec-tives see discipline as an important com-ponent of classroom management, teachersholding custodial and caregiver orienta-tions have different views of appropriateand inappropriate classroom behavior(Wolfgang, 2001). Many studies of motiva-tion have documented the importance ofstudent perceptions and teacher beliefsabout the social contexts of learning; how-

ever, few studies elaborated on the types ofsocial interactions and communications (seeAppendix, Principle 11: Social influences onlearning) that contribute to relationshipquality (see Neill, 1986, 1989; Turner et al.,1998, 2002).

The press of teacher beliefs, motiva-tions, and behaviors. There is a rich historyin the field of motivation of exploring howinstructional contexts support studentsmotivation and learning (APA, 1997; Lam-bert & McCombs, 1998; see also Summers,2006, this issue). Moreover, work by Mid-dleton and Midgley (2002) on the motiva-tional consequences of teachers press forunderstanding suggested that teachers mayexperience relational benefits from incor-porating instructional strategies and engag-ing in interactions that exert a press for un-derstanding. When conceptualizing theinternal presses teachers may experience to-

ward or away from relationships, I drewfrom research on the role of teachers be-


6/32

RELATIONSHIPS 197

liefs, motivations, and behaviors (see Ap-pendix, Principles 6, 7, and 11). I began byclassifying factors implicated by the litera-ture into two categories: the resourcesteachers draw on for providing instruc-

tional support and for providing affectivesupport (see Fig. 1). Next I differentiated be-tween the beliefs and perceptions teachershold about themselves and their students asinstructors and as interaction partners (e.g.,self-other perceptions) and the knowledgebase they develop with regard to classroomteaching (e.g., instructional design andclassroom climate). Beliefs exerting a presstoward relationship development and theestablishment of supportive relationshipsmight include teachers efficacy beliefs(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy,1998). Teachers who feel confident in theirability to meet students instructional needsgenerally focused more on the task of teach-ing and less on their sense of self. From thisperspective, a greater sense of efficacy forteaching may free emotional resourcesteachers need for coping with students in-terpersonal and intellectual needs. More-

over, a greater sense of efficacy may lead tomore confidence when interacting with stu-dents.

Attachment Perspectives

Attachment theory suggests that student-teacher relationships may be influenced bystudents beliefs about adults, teachers,themselves, and the nature of adult-childinteraction (Pianta, 1999). These beliefs canshape students social motivational beliefsand their sense of academic and socialcompetence, their values, and their pursuitof academic and social goals in the class-room. Perhaps the most significant contri-bution of attachment theory to the study ofstudent-teacher relationships has been toprovide a framework for how to evaluatethe quality of an adult-child relationship.From the attachment perspective, good (orsecure) relationships with nonparental

adults (i.e., teachers) are defined by lowlevels of conflict with accompanying high

levels of closeness and support. Addition-ally, attachment research has contributedto an understanding of how teachers re-sponses to childrens demands in the class-room contribute to relationship quality.

Specifically, findings have shown thatadults affective tenor, responsivity to chil-drens demands, and consistency in re-sponding have important consequences forrelationship quality. Finally, attachmentperspectives have contributed to our un-derstanding of the factors that may shaperelationship quality. These include stu-dents relationship history, their internalmodels of teacher relationships, and therepertoire of interpersonal skills they bringto the relationship.

Importance of relationship history. At-tachment theory posits that the quality ofrelationships between students and teach-ers will, in part, reflect the parent-child re-lationship (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Pianta,1996, 1999). For example, children who ex-perience conflict in the primary caregiverrelationship generally experience conflictwith nonparental adults and peers and are

generally wary of new situations. Further-more, relationship status with primary care-givers continues to predict childrens socialand cognitive development throughout ad-olescence and adulthood (Kobak & Seery,1988).

Internal models of relationships. Cen-tral to an attachment perspective on stu-dent-teacher relationships is the belief thatstudents bring to the classroom schemas, ormodels, about the nature of their socialworld and of social relationships. A grow-ing body of research has examined the na-ture of students relational schemas forteachers and their influence on students re-lationships with current teachers and theiracademic motivation and learning (Davis,2001a; Davis & Lease, 2000; Gurland, 1999;Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Research hasindicated that elementary students sche-mas for teachers predicted their expected

liking of and a supportive relationship withtheir current teacher (Davis, 2001b; Gur-


7/32


JANUARY 2006

Fig. 1. The context of the teacher

land, 1999) as well as their self-efficacy foracademic work (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan,1997). From an attachment perspective, stu-dents internal models of their relationshipswith teachers guide their behavior duringinteractions with teachers by providing aframework for interpreting their teachersbehaviors and intentions.

Development of interpersonal skills. Re-searchers drawing from attachment theoryposit that, through learning how to interactwith their primary caregiver, children de-

velop the skills necessary to negotiate boththeir social and physical worlds. Specifi-

cally, children learn how to regulate theirbehavior and affect and the conditions forseeking help from adults. Findings frompsychology have indicated that studentssocial competence, such as their socialskills (Merrell & Gimpel, 1998) and non-verbal communication skills (Halberstadt& Hall, 1980; Nowicki & Duke, 1992), is as-sociated with the quality of their peer andteacher relationships as well as their aca-demic achievement, even when controllingfor performance on standardized measures

of intellectual ability. Moreover, Pianta(1999) argued that, because of teachers


8/32

RELATIONSHIPS 199

ability to help children accurately label,manage, and express emotion experiencesin the classroom, teacher relationships be-come increasingly important in the processof emotion and behavior regulation. For

example, students interactions with teach-ers help them learn how to interpret andmanage unpleasant classroom emotionssuch as frustration and anxiety (see alsoThompson, 1994).

The press of student beliefs, motiva-tions, and behaviors. When conceptualizingthe internal presses students may experiencetoward or away from relationships, I drewfrom attachment theorys articulation of thesalience of relationship history and relationalschemas as well as the development of in-terpersonal skills (see Fig. 2). For example,supportive parent relationships paired witha history of supportive relationships withteachers would be reflected in students ex-pectations for future relationships withteachers (e.g., their relational schemas).Thus, students who expect to develop agood relationship with their teachers aremore likely to experience a press toward de-

veloping relationships with teachers. More-over, students who, in their prior relation-ships with teachers and with their parents,developed relevant interpersonal skills(e.g., interpret teachers verbal and nonver-bal emotion cues, accurately express emo-tion, and regulate emotions and behaviorsin the classroom) are also likely to experi-ence a press toward relationships becausethey are likely to feel competent and confi-dent in their relationships with teachers.

Sociocultural Perspectives

When conceptualizing the presses stu-dents experience toward or away from re-lationships with teachers, I also drew fromresearch on the role of students academicbeliefs, motivations, and behaviors (see Ap-pendix, Principles 7, 8, 10, and 12). Researchbased on social-cultural theory has indi-cated that relationships between students

and teachers reflect the interpersonal cul-ture of classrooms and schools, the oppor-

tunities students and teachers have to de-velop alternative relationships, and theirabilities to connect with each other throughthe material (Davis, 2003). Socioculturalperspectives on student-teacher relation-

ships, specifically, social-constructivist the-ories, recognize that individual units (e.g.,student-teacher dyads) cannot be separatedfrom their classroom and school contexts(Brown & Campione, 1998; Yowell &Smylie, 1999). Furthermore, social-construc-tivist theories posit that teachers and stu-dents negotiate meaning about cognitive ac-tivities (e.g., learning mathematics) andsocial-cognitive activities (e.g., use of hu-mor). This includes negotiating language(Bremme & Erickson, 1977; Mehan, 1984),activities (Finders, 1997; Tharp, Estrada,Dalton, & Yamachi, 2000), and power(Manke, 1997; Thomas & Oldfather, 1997) inthe classroom.

Motivation and learning as constructedwithin relationships. Using an inductiveapproach, social-constructivist researchershave documented the ways in which rela-tionship quality is embedded in the social

context of the classroom (Cobb & Yackel,1996; Goldstein, 1999; Oldfather & Dahl,1994; Sivan, 1986). Findings have suggestedthat students conceptions of school, includ-ing their motivation for academic tasks, af-fect their relationships with their teachers.Cobb and Yackel (1996) argued that stu-dents and teachers organize and reorganizebeliefs about a domain (e.g., mathematics)in their attempts to solve problems that areessentially social in nature (e.g., how tocomplete tasks in the classroom, how to getalong with or understand teachers). Fromthis perspective, to help students master in-tellectual as well as social knowledge,teachers need to find ways to connect withstudents understandings of the academicdomain as well as the domain of adult-childrelationships (Moje, 1995; West, 1994). Be-cause of their emphasis on connecting withstudents conceptions of academics and re-

lationships, social constructivists push us toconsider students unique understandings


9/32


JANUARY 2006

Fig. 2. The context of the student

of relationships that result from their on-going process of meaning-making (Muller,Katz, & Dance, 1999; Oldfather & Mc-Laughlin, 1993).

Relationships as constructed within ac-ademic content. Findings from sociocul-tural studies of student-teacher relation-ships also prompted us to consider twolimitations of current research on student-teacher relationships from motivation andattachment perspectives. First, although awealth of data exists on the effects of stu-dents academic beliefs and social percep-tions on achievement, motivation, andlearning, few studies have considered theeffect of students achievement beliefs ontheir relationships with teachers. From a so-ciocultural perspective, students prior ac-ademic experience, including their expec-tations of success and valuing of eachsubject (Davis, 2001b), may shape their

classroom relationships because, within thestructure of middle schools, relationships

with teachers are embedded within the sub-ject matter taught (Stodolsky & Grossman,1995, 2001). Thus, in our case study wewere interested in exploring the extent towhich students prior academic motiva-tions shaped their relationships with theirteachers. In other words, how much did stu-dents liking or disliking math generalize toliking or disliking their math teachers?

Second, we wondered about middleschool students and teachers conceptionsof caring, support, and good relationships.For example, Goldstein (1999) challengedour understanding of what caring mightmean in the context of a student-teacher re-lationship. She argued that teachers candemonstrate caring through their use ofscaffolding techniques in the classroom, forexample, by matching the demands of eachtask to students needs and interests and byproviding instrumental support to maxi-

mize students likelihood of success. Teach-ers can also demonstrate caring in their abil-


10/32

RELATIONSHIPS 201

ity to attain intersubjectivity, to create ashared intellectual space with their stu-dents. In the process of reaching intersub-jectivity, teachers attempt to share with stu-dents their own constructions of concepts

while at the same time trying to understandstudents existing constructions. This pro-cess involves reciprocity, a commitment tosupporting students autonomy in makingmeaning and solving problems, and beingcognitively engaged. In our case study, weexplored how teachers and students be-haviors, as well as the types of interactionsafforded by the classroom interpersonaland intellectual norms, created opportuni-ties to achieve intersubjectivity.

Constructing a Framework toUnderstand Relationship Quality

Research based on sociocultural perspec-tives on relationship quality has elaboratedon how students and teachers negotiate theinternal presses of their own beliefs, moti-vations, and behaviors with those of theirrelationship partner and the classroom con-text. For example, Goldstein (1999) and

Tharp et al. (2000) argued that, through theprocesses of joint activity and intersubjec-tivity, teachers demonstrate care for indi-vidual students as well as for the subjectmatter they teach. Tharp et al. (2000) addedto our conceptual framework by discussingthe role of propinquity, joint activity, affin-ity, and intersubjectivity in establishing andmaintaining relationships and promotinglearning. Propinquity refers to the role ofphysical closeness, of spending time to-gether in promoting relational develop-ment. Joint activity refers to the activitiesteachers and students engage in, in whichthey share common motives and work to-ward common goals. Joint productive ac-tivity is the most reliable and potent forceinfluencing the development of affinities(Tharp et al., 2000, p. 57). And affinity refersto an inclination toward relationship, to thevoluntary pairing or the autonomy to

choose relational partners. Tharp et al.(2000) argued that, when affinity is present

in a student-teacher dyad, it works in a cy-clical manner to promote propinquity andjoint activity. Their elaboration of conceptshelped us to think about how the structureof classrooms (particularly how teachers

negotiate their instructional and affectiveresources as well as their own identity) mayaffect the quality of relationships that canemerge.

Results from our case study not onlyclarified our understanding of how the con-structs we identified in our framework (seeFig. 3) shape relationship quality but madeseveral novel contributions to the frame-work. In the following sections I describefindings from our case study and the con-tributions of our findings to the frameworkI developed. I begin with an overview of themethod, including the mixed-method de-sign and analysis plan. Over an academicyear, we assembled a large database that in-cluded both quantitative (self-report sur-vey) and qualitative (interview and journal)data. All quantitative data were analyzed ina deductive, theoretically driven manner.Specifically, for all analyses we drew from

prior research to construct theoretically de-fensible models. We then submitted eachmodel to analysis and compared the fit ofour models with the pattern of relationshipsin the data. We analyzed all qualitative datain an inductive manner. In doing so, we at-tempted to set aside our biases and ourknowledge of each theory in order to iden-tify themes emerging from participants ex-periences. Finally, when constructing theframework presented here, I comparedacross both sets of data, looking for conver-gences and divergences, and attempting tosynthesize what we learned from the datawith findings from the field.

Overview of Case Study

Method

Participants and procedures. All datawere collected from one large middle

school in a predominantly rural, agricul-tural county. The district served predomi-


11/32

Fig.3.

Fourcon

textsofrelationshipquality.(Constructsinboldrepresentnewcontributionsfrommixed-methoddata.)


12/32

nantly lower- and middle-income families,with approximately 22% of the 4,000 chil-dren reported to live in poverty. We col-lected multimethod data simultaneouslythroughout the 19992000 school year (see

Table 1). When using deductive methods,we focused on the role of students andteachers perceptions of the quality of theirrelationships. We began by developingtheoretical models about the nature of re-lationships between middle school studentsand their teachers. We drew constructs fromacross attachment, motivation, and socio-cultural perspectives on relationship qual-ity previously discussed. From attachmentperspectives, we selected measures to cap-ture relationship quality between a studentand a teacher (e.g., closeness, conflict, anddependency; Pianta 1996, 1999), relation-ship history (e.g., parent-child relation-ships; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), stu-dents schemas for teacher relationships(Davis, Schutz, & Chambliss, 2000), and stu-dents interpersonal skills (Merrell, 1993).From motivation perspectives we selectedmeasures to capture students and teachers

motivations. For students, this includedmeasures of domain-specific expectationsand values of success (Pintrich & DeGroot,1990) and, for teachers, perceptions of per-sonal, general, and team-teaching efficacy(Dembo & Gibson, 1985) and expectationsfor students academic success (modifiedfrom Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). From so-ciocultural theory, we selected measures tocapture students perceptions of classroomclimate (e.g., organization and rule clarity;Moos & Trickett, 1974), students and teach-ers perceptions of the interpersonal climateof the school (Vessels, 1998), and structuralconstraints such as amount of time spentwith teacher, class period, absences, andperceived teacher liking (Davis, Williams,Bouistead, Axelberd, & Lease, 2005).

We collected survey data at four timesfrom students and three times from teachers(see Table 1). Students completed surveys

in class at their own pace. We organizedmakeup sessions for the few students who

did not have enough time to finish in classand to attempt to catch as many studentswho missed the administration sessions aswe could. At each grade level, studentswere divided into two teams (approxi-

mately 150 students per team) with fiveteachers for their core academic classes ofEnglish, reading, math, social studies, andscience. Throughout the year, we collecteddata from 903 students (446 boys, 457 girls)from one sixth-, two seventh-, and twoeighth-grade teams and from 45 teachers(including 28 homeroom teachers). Thisrepresented approximately 75% of the en-tire student and faculty population of theschool. Student samples sizes, however,varied for each data collection (based on ab-sences, transience, etc.). Of the possible 750students on the five participating teams, wecollected data from an average of 700 ofthese students at times 1, 3, and 4 (about90%) and approximately 600 students attime 2 (about 80% participation). Participa-tion rates were lower at time 2 largely dueto an outbreak of influenza. Teachers com-pleted surveys on their own time. Most

teachers returned survey packets within 1week of receiving them.

When using inductive methods, we ex-plored from interview and journal data stu-dents and teachers conceptions of relation-ships with each other. We interviewed asubset of six students and six teachers threetimes during an academic year. Teacherswere sampled using criterion-samplingmethods. They were identified by theirprincipal as exemplary in developing rela-tionships with students. Participants in-cluded two male teachers (a special educa-tor and a music teacher) and four femaleteachers (two general educatorsone fromreading and one from Englisha gifted ed-ucator, and the teacher of interventionclasses for underachieving seventh- andeighth-grade students). Students were se-lected using convenience sampling meth-ods. Participants included a boy and a girl

from each grade level. The purpose of theseinterviews was to explore the students and

RELATIONSHIPS 203


13/32


JANUARY 2006

Table 1. Quantitative Data-Collection Schedule and Measures Administered

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Student measures:Relationship with parents (Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) X X

Beliefs about teachers (Relational Schema ScaleTeachers; Daviset al., 2000) X

Domain-specific expectations of academic success (MotivatedStrategies for Learning Questionnaire, MSLO; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) X X X

Domain-specific value of academic success (MSLO; Pintrich &De Groot, 1990) X X X

Domain-specific classroom climate (Classroom EnvironmentScale; Moos & Trickett, 1974, 1994) X

Domain-specific quality of relationship with teacher (modifiedStudent-Teacher Relationship Scale, STRS; Pianta, 1996) X X X

Amount of time and class period spent with each academicteacher X

Interpersonal climate of school (Vessels School Climate

Questionnaire; Vessels, 1998) XAbsences and grades for each academic subject X X

Teacher measures:a

Personal and general teaching efficacy (Teachers Sense ofEfficacy; Dembo & Gibson, 1985) X

Interpersonal climate of school (Vessels School ClimateQuestionnaire; Vessels, 1998) X

Expectations of success for homeroom students (modifiedMSLO; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) X

Rating of academic social skills for homeroom students (SchoolSocial Behavior Scales; Merrell, 1993) X

Quality of relationship with homeroom students (STRS; Pianta,1996) X X

a

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

teachers understandings of the relationshipsthey developed and observed in their class-rooms throughout an academic year. Inter-view questions were based on pilot data(Davis, 2001b), with subsequent questionsdeveloped from themes that emerged fromthe data. The first interview with studentsand teachers took place prior to the first dayof school, the second after the winter break,and the third during the month before thelast day of school. Regarding journal data,28 teachers, including homeroom/academicand auxiliary (e.g., music, gym, special edu-cation) teachers, were asked to completejournals at the beginning of the year abouttheir beliefs about relationship quality andagain at the end of the year reflecting on therole of relationship quality in promoting

their students motivation and learning (Da-vis & Ashley, 2003; Davis & Couch, 2001).

Data analysis4

Deductive analyses.At the outset of thisproject, we hypothesized specific, time-or-dered, complex relations among the con-structs we attempted to assess. Because ourapproach was to evaluate the utility of thetheoretical models we developed, we em-ployed path analysis (LISREL; Joreskog,1993; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) to examinethe structure of interrelations within thedata. Path analysis is essentially a direc-tional regression analysis. There are severalbenefits to using path analysis in lieu ofmultiple regression analysis. For example,path analysis is based on conceptual ortheoretical reasoning and enables research-ers to test ideas. Furthermore, because pathanalysis outlines the direction of relation-

ships, decomposes correlations, and thenexamines the variance uniquely associated


14/32

RELATIONSHIPS 205

with each factor, it can alleviate some of theproblems associated with multicollinearity(Bollen, 1989).

Due to the size of our dataset (in termsof the number of data collection times, the

number of factors assessed, and that do-main-specific data were obtained for fiveacademic subjects), data were analyzed instages. When working with student data,we completed separate analyses for each ac-ademic subject (math, reading, English, so-cial studies, and science) using a methodcomparable to seemingly unrelated regres-sion (SUR; Bollen, 1989) analyses. The pur-pose of these analyses was to examinewhether patterns of relationships that re-mained were similar within each subject. Be-low are summaries of each pass we madethrough the data and the models we sub-mitted for analysis. In all cases, to evaluatethe fit of all path models we used indicescomparing our fit with optimal fit (chisquare) and with the null model (CFI). Wealso examined how well the model was re-producing observed data (SRMR), an indexof stability (RMSEA), and estimates of resid-

ual error (Psi and Theta Epsilon Matrices).Pass 1: Modeling students perceptions of re-

lationship quality: We began by revising anattachment model of student-teacher rela-tionships (Davis et al., 2001). A traditionalattachment model would argue that stu-dents relationship history (e.g., parent re-lationships), internal models of teacher re-lationships (e.g., relational schemas), andinterpersonal skills predict relationshipquality with individual teachers. In addi-tion, we believed subject-specific, baselinemotivation would predict students rela-tionships with their teachers. Regarding at-tachment perspectives, we were interestedin the relative contribution of relationshiphistory to students internal models of re-lationships with teachers. Second, regard-ing motivation and sociocultural perspec-tives, we wondered whether relationshipquality was embedded in the subject matter

taught (i.e., Does disliking a subject gener-alize to disliking a teacher?).

Pass 2: Modeling teachers perceptions of re-lationship quality: Next, we developed andtested a model designed to predict middleschool teachers perceptions of the qualityof their relationships with their homeroom

students (Davis, Davis, & Murphy, 2002).Drawing from motivation and socioculturaltheories, we asked teachers to evaluate theirown efficacy for teaching and to report theirperceptions of students academic and so-cial competencies. Using sociocultural the-ory, we asked teachers to report their viewson the interpersonal climate of the school(administrator-teacher, teacher-teacher, andstudent-teacher relationships throughoutthe school; Vessells, 1998). We believed that,with limited resources, teachers would usethis information to select relationship part-ners in the classroom.

Passes 3 and 4: Models to predict studentmotivation and learning: In our third model,we drew from the homeroom teacher data-base (N 28) to explore the relations be-tween teachers perceptions of relationshipquality at the beginning of the year and stu-dent motivation and achievement at the end

of the year (Davis et al., 2002). In our fourthmodel, we examined the role of social con-textual factors in predicting students mo-tivation and achievement (Davis et al.,2003). In this model, we emphasized thecomplex interplay of relationship quality,classroom organizational climate, and gen-der. We believed the pattern of relationsamong students perceptions of relationshipquality, classroom climate, motivation, andachievement would depend on the subjectmatter as well as gender and grade level.This is because we predicted that studentsunderstanding of relationship quality, class-room climate, and motivation would de-pend on the academic context in which theirrelationship with the teacher was develop-ing (see also Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995).

Inductive analyses.The interviews weresemistructured and topical. Analysis beganafter the first interview and was ongoing.

Two broad research questions guided thecollection and coding of interview data:


15/32


JANUARY 2006

How do these middle school students(teachers) understand their relationshipswith teachers (students)? and What factorsdo they identify as shaping relationshipquality? Following each interview we iden-

tified critical events, actions, and interac-tions from the tapes and notes. Notes werethen coded into meaningful units of data,and themes were inductively generated fol-lowing the constant comparative method ofdata analysis (Bogdan & Bilken, 2002; Dey,1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Constantcomparative analyses were also used to an-alyze teacher journal data (Davis & Ashley,2003; Davis, & Couch, 2001). Constant com-parative analysis is an iterative process ofdata reduction. This method provided afeedback loop (Oldfather, 1994) thatshaped both the collection and analysis ofthe data. Through iterations of thinkingabout, coding, and organizing data, weidentified emerging themes that we used toconstruct subsequent interview questionsthat asked respondents to reflect or elabo-rate on ideas they labeled as significant. Inan attempt to assess participants concep-

tions of their relationships, we first exam-ined themes within each participant. To dothis we constructed profiles of each studentand teacher. Then we determined the extentto which themes emerged across partici-pants (e.g., cross-case analysis).

To examine the accuracy of our repre-sentations of students, their teachers, andthe themes we identified, we wrote a manu-script describing the interview findings andgave it to the teachers at the participatingschool. Both positive and negative cases andstudent and teacher examples of each themewere elaborated in full (Davis, 2001a). To fur-ther establish the extent to which interviewfindings represented the experience of par-ticipating students and teachers, we sharedour findings from survey and interview datawith the faculty and staff for a membercheck. During a workshop, teachers and re-searchers discussed the findings. These dis-

cussions clarified our understanding of theuse of humor, teachers attempts to manage

the peer context, and their understanding oftheir resources for relationship quality. Inthe event of a discrepancy between the find-ings from students interviews and surveysand the teachers experience, the group

worked together to reconcile why studentsmight view the context differently fromtheir teachers.

Findings: Four Presses on RelationshipQuality

The context of the student. When con-ceptualizing the internal presses studentsmay experience toward or away from rela-tionships, I drew from attachment theoristsarticulation of the salience of relationshiphistory and relational schemas as well as thedevelopment of interpersonal skills (seeFigs. 2 and 3) and from motivation theo-rists focus on students academic motiva-tions. Our data not only corroborated find-ings regarding the importance of studentsrelationship history with teachers but alsounderscored the dominance of prior teacherexperiences over the quality of the parentrelationship. Findings from our interviews

also added to our understanding of the roleof students interpersonal skills, includingtheir use of humor and their identificationwith being a student.

Beliefs about teachers.Our quantitativedata suggested that students relationshiphistory (experiences with teachers and thequality of their parent relationship) pre-dicted their perceptions of relationshipquality with their current teachers. In otherwords, students who held positive schemasfor teacher relationships generally reportedincreased baseline motivation, receivedhigher ratings by their teacher of academicsocial skills, and, in turn, reported morepositive perceptions of their relationshipswith their teachers. Interestingly, we foundthat, although parent relationships contrib-uted to predicting the quality of studentsrelationships with teachers, the effect wasindirect and mediated through the beliefs

students developed about teachers and stu-dents motivation for school. These findings


16/32

RELATIONSHIPS 207

were consistent across all five academicsubjects and are consonant with attachmenttheories of teacher-child relationships.

Moreover, both our inductive and de-ductive data converged and spoke to the

ways in which relationship history and in-ternal models of teacher relationships oper-ate in the classroom. Again, when modelingthe factors that predict relationship quality,we identified direct effects of students sche-mas for teacher relationships on their class-room behavior, motivation, and perceptionsof relationship quality with individual teach-ers. In contrast, their relationship with theirparents only evidenced indirect effects onthese factors. Analysis of interview data re-vealed that, although students mentionedthe role their parents played in shaping theirrelationships with teachers, parental supportwas not a consistent theme across their in-terviews (Davis et al., 2001).

These findings are relevant for attach-ment theorists seeking to understand thestructure and coordination of multiple re-lational schemas (Davis & Lease, 2000;Howes, Hamilton, & Philipsen, 1998) as

well as for classroom practice. They suggestthat students relational schemas for teach-ers may exert a more powerful influence,both in scope and magnitude, than parentschemas on predicting social and academicoutcomes in the classroom. Our data alsoindicated that parent and teacher schemas,though not independent of each other, maynot be structured in a hierarchical fashionwith parent relationships shaping all futurerelationships. Instead, these schemas mayoperate more integratively, with studentsdifferentiating new schemas to understandnew types of relationships (e.g., teacher,peer). Although schemas of teacher rela-tionships may reflect the integration ofsimilar data, these schemas may operate astheir own lens and organizing frameworkwhen students are confronted with a newrelationship (e.g., a new teacher) of a similartype. When, then, or under what conditions,

do students draw on their understanding ofparent relationships? In the interviews, stu-

dents reported they drew on their parentalrelationship only when experiencing conflictin the teacher relationship.

These results may also have implica-tions for the ways in which teachers interact

with students. When making attributions,or judgments, about the source of problemsin a relationship with a student, it can beeasy to blame the students relationshipswith his or her parents. This attribution isconsistent with a more traditional view ofattachment theory, suggesting that theschema developed in the primary caregiverrelationship will act as a lens for interpret-ing all other relationships. Instead, bymiddle school, parent relationships mayhave a less deterministic effect on studentsabilities to interact with their teachers.Thus, teachers may need to consider middleschool students history with their elemen-tary and other middle school teachers (seealso Howes et al., 1998) and the extent towhich students responses confirm or dis-confirm students expectancies aboutteacher relationships.

Academic motivation.Our qualitative

and quantitative data showed that studentsand teachers motivations affected relation-ship quality. For example, students aca-demic motivation (from an expectancy-value framework) and their ability toregulate their behavior in the classroomwere significant predictors of relationshipquality. Thus, students who liked the sub-ject matter, expected to do well, and had thesocial skills necessary to self-regulatetended to report more supportive relation-ships with their teachers (Davis et al., 2001).These findings align with sociocultural re-search and suggest that relationships be-tween students and teachers are co-con-structed within the context of academiccontent (Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Moje, 1995;Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). Likewise, wefound that subject-specific motivation wasboth a consistent predictor and outcome ofrelationship quality, with relationship qual-

ity at mid-year directly and indirectly (viaperceptions of classroom climate) predict-


17/32


JANUARY 2006

ing students end-of-year motivation. Be-cause we hypothesized that students end-of-year motivation may become theirbaseline motivation for the following year,this finding somewhat concerned us, be-

cause we may have identified a cyclical pat-tern. In this cycle, good relationships en-hance motivation and thus increase thelikelihood of good relationships formingwith the next teacher. In contrast, studentswho are either relationally or motivation-ally at risk may suffer from a cycle of badrelationships that leads to diminished mo-tivation.

For middle school teachers, however,our survey data also indicated that moti-vating students may require more than de-veloping a supportive relationship withthem. It may require rethinking the natureof the classroom climate. We found that stu-dents baseline motivation in a course didnot consistently predict their perception ofthe organizational climate of the classroom(Davis et al., 2003). Students who reportedfeeling confident and valuing mathematics,English, and social studies at the beginning

of the year tended to see their classrooms asorganized and with clearer rules. However,this did not parallel findings in reading andscience, which showed no relation betweenmotivation and organizational climate.Moreover, organizational climate was not aconsistent predictor across domains of mo-tivation, relationship quality, and achieve-ment at the end of the year.

McCaslin and Good (1992) noted that,although some orderliness may be neces-sary to promote students abilities to focusand learn material, school and classroompolicies with too strong an emphasis onstudent obedience may undermine teach-ers attempts to develop self-motivated, ac-tive students willing to take intellectualrisks. Our findings converge with social-constructivist perspectives of motivation bysuggesting that students understandings ofclassroom activities and tasks are shaped

not only by the quality of their relationshipswith teachers but also by their understand-

ing of what it means to learn in a particularacademic domain. We believe students de-velop expectations about the kinds of activ-ities, type of work, norms for classroom be-havior, and types of interactions that are

typical within a domain. For students whofeel confident and appreciate the domain,these expectations may serve an organizingfunction enabling students to find meaningfor the work they are completing as well asfor classroom routines. In contrast, for stu-dents who do not feel confident or who donot appreciate the domain, these expecta-tions may interfere with their ability to findmeaning and manage teacher expectations,activities, routines, and interactions with anew teacher.

It is important to note that, in this pro-ject, we used a narrow conceptualization ofstudent motivation to include studentssubject-specific expectations and values ofsuccess (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Wigfield& Eccles, 1992 2000). This reflected, in part,pragmatic concerns about the large amountof data requested from students and in partmy orientation toward expectancy-value

theoretical frameworks. However, the sixstudents we interviewed described theirmotivations for school in more complexways that included a variety of types of en-gagement, self-regulatory behaviors, goals,interests, and attributions about the sourcesof success and failure (in relationships andacademic tasks; Davis, 2001a). Althoughour findings point to the critical role stu-dents motivation plays in shaping relation-ships with teachers, future studies shouldexpand our framework.

Social competence.In line with attach-ment perspectives on relationship quality,we found that students who could regulatetheir academic behaviors and emotions inthe classroom generally reported more posi-tive relationships with their teachers. Like-wise, teachers reported having more sup-portive relationships with these students.As with indicators of relationship history,

these findings were consistent across aca-demic domains and with findings from the


18/32

RELATIONSHIPS 209

Learner-Centered Psychological Principles(see Appendix, Principles 10 and 11, APA,1997; Lambert & McCombs, 1998). For ex-ample, in their interviews and journals, theteachers agreed that students who were or-

ganized, conscientious, honest, and exhib-ited respect for themselves and their peerswere more attractive relationship partners.They also noted that students who were shyor disruptive were harder to get to knowand get along with. I should note that ouroperationalization of regulating academicbehaviors and emotions in the surveys wasbroad. Similarly, our interview and journaldata showed that students and teachers sawa broad spectrum of student behaviors asshaping relationship quality. In contrast, re-searchers examining self-regulation andemotional regulation in the classroom havetended to examine sets of beliefs and be-haviors (see Patrick & Middleton, 2002;Perry, 1998; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, &Nordby, 2002; Schutz & Davis, 2000). Futureresearch in this area may want to decon-struct our more global indicator of aca-demic and emotional regulation to examine

the extent to which relationship quality isaffected by students self- and emotion-regulation skills.

Findings from the interviews and jour-nals pointed to humor as a means by whichstudents and teachers developed connec-tions with each other. Students frequentlyreported that their teachers used humor todeal with mild misbehavior and to gain andmaintain students attention and interest inacademic material. Teachers, too, appreci-ated students who could be funny in ap-propriate ways. Both groups identifiedincidents where students use of humorhelped them develop rapport with teachersand/or facilitated the teachers learninggoals. These findings parallel others in thefield suggesting the complex role humormay play in relationship building (Moje,1995; Pianta, 1999). Yet, our data also indi-cated that the use of humor by a student or

a teacher could be risky. Students noted in-cidents where teachers sarcastic comments

were taken the wrong way or taken per-sonally as well as incidents where stu-dents attempts at humor, because theycompeted with the teachers learning goals,were met with reprisal.

Constructing a student identity. The in-terview and journal data showed that thequality of students interactions and rela-tionships with teachers reflected the way inwhich they understood what it meant to bea student and the extent to which they iden-tified with that role. The six students weinterviewed tended to report that being astudent involved doing work, participatingin class, paying attention, following rules,and refraining from distracting behaviors.To teachers, however, having a studentidentity was synonymous with having stu-dents express the desire to work toward thecommon goal of learning. In fact, the teach-ers viewed this student identity as some-thing that went beyond having interper-sonal and organizational skills to reflectstudents attitudes toward school, learning,and their class. For teachers, being a studentepitomized inquisitive, self-motivated, and

self-disciplined behavior. Teachers reportedthat it was easier to develop relationshipswith students who realized the importanceof school and who shared the same beliefsand values about schooling.

Both the teachers and students inter-viewed agreed that being a student meantthat teachers did not need to coerce (andshould not have to coerce) a student intoperforming academic behaviors. Rather,teachers (and students) appreciated wheneveryone in the classroom identified withthe common goal of learning (Deci, Valler-and, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). To students,the sense of being a student was so strongthat they viewed acting as a student (e.g.,exhibiting greater effort, improving perfor-mance in class) or defying the studentidentity (e.g., acting out in class) as waysof gaining power in their classes. In con-trast, teachers reported struggling with

how to interact with students who hadconstructed their student identity around


19/32


JANUARY 2006

being argumentative, defensive, or defiant.They tended to see these students as engag-ing in attention seeking and struggled withhow to respond. A number of researchershave examined how identification with ac-

ademics may affect student motivation andlearning. They noted that identification isone mechanism underlying alienation(Ladson-Billings, 2001; Osborne, 1995; Steele1997; Tatum, 1997) and the socialization ofacademic values (Deci et al., 1991). Our find-ings add to this literature by suggesting thatstudents clarity of and commitment to beinga student may have relational implicationsin the classroom and could serve as an ob-stacle to motivation and learning.

The Context of the Teacher

When conceptualizing the internal pressesteachers experience toward or away fromrelationships, I drew from research on therole of teacher beliefs, motivations, and be-haviors. Although our findings convergedwith those from the literature on teacher be-liefs, the most important contribution of ourresults is (1) to elaborate on the types of be-

liefs teachers have concerning developingrelationships with students and (2) to de-scribe teachers struggles to negotiate rela-tionships with their students given theirpersonal and teaching identities.

Providing instructional support. As Istated earlier, findings from research basedon motivation theory have indicated that acentral component of effective instructionand classroom management is the judg-ments teachers make about themselves asteachers and about their confidence formanaging classroom life (Hoy & Davis, inpress). This research has suggested thatteachers confidence in their ability to teachcontent, manage their classrooms, and en-gage students may have important conse-quences for student motivation, learning,and behavior. When looking at our modelto predict teachers perceptions of relation-ship quality, we found that teachers who

tended to see educators in general, as wellas themselves, as capable of managing stu-

dents academic and behavior problems inthe classroom tended to report more positiverelationships with their students (Davis etal., 2002). These findings are consistent withthe literature on teacher efficacy (Tschannen-

Mornan et al., 1998). Likewise, consistentwith the literature on teacher expectations,students who were perceived by their home-room teachers to be more academically andsocially competent tended to be rated bytheir teachers at mid-year as having betterrelationships with teachers (Davis et al.,2002). Our research has shown that teachersbeliefs about themselves and their expecta-tions for their students not only affect theirinstruction but also their interactions withstudents.

Providing affective support. High con-fidence in ones teaching ability and a flex-ible and dynamic understanding of instruc-tion may not be enough to support gooddecisions in the face of student conflict. AsI mentioned earlier, when faced with decid-ing how to respond to students who expressfrustration, anger, or apathy, teachers relyon their conceptions of what it means to be

a student (Davis & Ashley, 2003; Davis &Couch, 2001). This includes their implicitunderstanding of what constitutes typical,good, and problem adolescent behavior; oftheir responsibilities as adult caregivers ina classroom; as well as of what constituteseffective discipline. Teachers journals sug-gested that they may differ in whether theyview attending to the interpersonal climateand developing relationships as central orsuperficial to their tasks as teachers. Incontrast, the six teachers we interviewed,identified by their principal for their abili-ties to develop rapport with students, be-lieved that all of their students needed arelationship with them. These teachersheld generally optimistic views of stu-dents, focused on student potential, andsaw themselves as playing a central role incultivating potential. We believe these con-ceptions of whether relationships are im-

portant may affect the types of climatesand relationships teachers develop in their


20/32

RELATIONSHIPS 211

classrooms as well as the students learn-ing experience.

A growing literature has also examinedthe role of teachers perceptions of theschool academic climate (see Hoy & Sabo,

1998), as well as their perceptions of collec-tive efficacy, in their instruction (Goddard,Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). However, few studieshave examined the effect of teachers per-ceptions of the interpersonal school climateon their attempts to develop relationshipswith students. We found that homeroomteachers who perceived a more supportiveinterpersonal climate in the school gener-ally reported more supportive relationshipswith their homeroom students. In fact,teachers perceptions of the interpersonalculture of the school exerted both a directinfluence on relationships as well as indirecteffects via teachers perceptions of individ-ual students social and academic compe-tence and their own feelings of self-efficacy.

Classroom climate. Central to severaldefinitions of classroom climate are stu-dents perceptions of their relationship withtheir teachers (Goodenow, 1993; Moos,

1973). Our survey data showed that stu-dents who perceived supportive relation-ships with their teachers generally reportedfeeling more motivation in their classes andreceived higher grades (Davis et al., 2003).Moreover, in the interviews students de-scribed experiencing schoolwork differ-ently. When they perceived they had a goodrelationship with their teacher, they gener-ally experienced their schoolwork as engag-ing and as related to their lives (Davis et al.,2001). Likewise, many teachers wrote intheir journals about the benefits of buildingrelationships. They noted that studentswere more likely to present positive atti-tudes in class, take risks, and expend effort(Davis & Couch, 2001). In contrast, conflictin relationships was often accompanied bystudent misbehavior, expressions of disre-spect, and use of the poor relationshipquality as an excuse to quit when students

perceived their academic tasks as too chal-lenging (Davis & Couch, 2001). These find-

ings parallel those from the motivation lit-erature suggesting that the interpersonalclimate of the classroom in terms of the af-fective tenor of teacher verbal (Patrick, An-derman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001;

Turner et al., 1998, 2002; Turner, Meyer,Midgley, & Patrick, 2003) and nonverbalmessages (Brooks & Woolfolk, 1987; Neill,1986, 1989), the press toward belonging(Goodenow, 1993; Osterman, 2000), and thepress toward social responsibility and pro-social behavior (Wentzel, 1998) have impor-tant consequences for relational and aca-demic outcomes.

Although there is increasing research onthe role of the interpersonal or affective cli-mate of the classroom, fewer studies haveexamined how the organizational or sys-tem maintenance (Moos & Trickett, 1974,p. 3) climate of the classroom affects rela-tionships (S. Davis, 2004; Davis et al., 2003).Moos and Trickett (1974) described systemmaintenance (including the press towardorder and organization, toward rule clarity,and toward teacher control) as the extent towhich classroom activities, in their purpose

and frequency, are directed toward main-taining a functioning and orderly class-room. Perhaps the most widely studied di-mension of system maintenance is teachercontrol. Research has indicated that teach-ers who balance their need for structurewith students need for autonomy increasestudents sense of responsibility for theirown learning, intrinsic motivation for aca-demic tasks, feelings of competence, anduse of strategies leading to conceptual un-derstanding (see Reeve, 2006, this issue;Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999).

Findings from student surveys showedthat teachers decisions regarding class-room organization and rule clarity affectedtheir relationships with students and stu-dents motivation and performance (Daviset al., 2003). However, as I noted earlier,these effects were not consistent across thefive academic subjects. We believe this may

reflect differences in the value, or impor-tance, students place on the organizational


21/32


JANUARY 2006

dimensions of classroom climate dependingon the subject matter (Stodolosky & Gross-man, 1995). For subjects that have tradition-ally been defined more narrowly in termsof content, scope, stability, and status (e.g.,

mathematics and English), viewing theclassroom as orderly and having clear rulesmay be more important to predicting stu-dents motivation and achievement. We be-lieve this may be because students expec-tations about these subjects and about howto interact with those teachers may be morerigid and established. Differential findingsacross subjects have prompted us to won-der about the interplay among teachers in-structional design (e.g., epistemology, ped-agogy, method), management, and studentoutcomes (e.g., relationship quality, moti-vation). We believe teachers working innarrowly defined subjects who attempt toemploy more constructivist, discovery-oriented pedagogies may face a great dealof resistance from and/or conflict with stu-dents, because those methods and pedago-gies may challenge students expectations.Is this conflict a problem? Not necessarily.

In fact, there may be long-term develop-mental benefits for students who learn howto be successful, to self-regulate, and tostimulate their own motivation across a va-riety of pedagogical approaches and inclassrooms with diverse norms (Bjorklund,2005). Moreover, learning how to navigateconflict in a relationship with an adult, toexpress confusion and frustration appropri-ately and resolve conflict, as well as to iden-tify their own needs and limits and to seekhelp and persist in the face of difficulty mayhelp students develop interpersonal flexibil-ity and resilience that enable them to interactmore adeptly with a diverse population ofadults and peers. However, the decision toselect a pedagogical approach outside of thetradition of an academic field may haveshort-term relational consequences thatteachers may need to anticipate in order tofeel confident and be successful.

Constructing a teaching identity. Whenlooking across all of the beliefs we identi-

fied, we find they are united in their attemptto describe the way in which teachers viewtheir tasks as teachers. This may includetheir task as an instructor, as a representa-tive of their content area, and as a role

model for their students. As teachers con-struct their tasks, they in effect constructtheir identities as teachers (Danielewicz,1997; Ladson-Billings, 2001). However, ourdata indicated that teachers must considerhow their personal and teaching identitiesaffect their attempts to facilitate classroominteractions.

When comparing students interview re-sponses with the teachers journals, wefound that students and teachers generallyheld different conceptions of who is respon-sible for developing good relationships inthe classroom. The six students we inter-viewed were clear about the bidirectionalnature of the student-teacher relationship.They believed that students and teachersshared responsibility for developing andmaintaining relationships. In contrast, overa third of the teachers reported feeling un-certain about the extent to which develop-

ing relationships was their responsibility,with several teachers arguing that theywere not obligated to meet students rela-tional needs. For these teachers, the tensionover whether they should support studentsemotional and interpersonal needs ap-peared to stem from their uncertainty aboutthe possible effect of relationship quality onmotivation and learning. In fact, out of thesix groups of teachers we classified from thejournal data, two groups reported either be-ing uncertain about this effect or believedgood relationships had no effect or a poten-tially negative effect (Davis & Ashley, 2003).Additionally, a third group reported thatonly relationships that evidenced a greatdeal of conflict might hinder students mo-tivation and learning.

Our findings indicated that it may alsobe important for teachers to consider the di-lemma of negotiating dual relationships

with students (Richmond & Padgett, 2003).Dual relationships can occur when teachers


22/32

RELATIONSHIPS 213

use their relationships with students to si-multaneously meet their own needs. Re-search has shown that new teachers oftenwant to be seen by students as a friend(Spence, 1999). Likewise, our journal data

showed that teachers sought to establish re-lationships with students who reflected thedimensions of their personal or teachingselves or who validated their instruction. Inattempting to evaluate whether they are in-volved in a dual relationship with a stu-dent, teachers may need to ask themselves:Do I need this student to like me in orderto feel effective?

What happens when teachers viewstudent-teacher relationship quality (interms of roles and responsibility) as involv-ing dual-relationship dimensions (i.e., mo-tivator, mentor, coach, friend, caregiver)?Few studies have examined the ways inwhich teachers use their classrooms andtheir relationships with students to meettheir own psychological needsor the ef-fects of these decisions on students learn-ing and development (Morrison, 1985). Yetthese explorations could help educators un-

derstand the nature and implications ofteaching students who may not look thesame, hold the same values, or use the samecommunication and interaction patterns astheir teachers (Ladson-Billings, 2001; Saft &Pianta, 2001; Tatum, 1997).

The Peer Context

Until now, our model has describedpresses that are internal (students andteachers beliefs, values, skills, identity) toeach member of the dyad. However, severalfindings in our case study spoke to the po-tential role of presses that are external to thedyad. In both the interviews and journals,students and teachers framed their relation-ships as reflecting the peer relationshipstructures in the classroom. These findingsindicated that the culture of the school; thecomposition of a class, including class sizeand the individual and collective assets of

students; and the outside observations ofteacher preference (Davis et al., 2005) may

make some relationships more likely to de-velop than others. For example, the sixteachers we interviewed emphasized thepower of having a class that gelled. Theybelieved their classes came together to form

a collective identity and that classes thatgelled provided intellectual and social mo-mentum and pressed students to interactwith each other and with content. Classesthat did not gell led to intellectual and socialinertia.

In interviews and journals, teachers andstudents noted the ways in which peer re-lationships provided alternative sources ofsupport for students in the classroom. Forexample, during conflicts with teachers,two students frequently reported turning totheir friends for support and comfort in lieuof trying to resolve the conflict with theirteacher. In these cases, the aligning of peerrelationships against a teacher frequentlyled to erosion of the rapport in that teacher-student dyad. Moreover, this form of cop-ing with conflict could also taint peersperceptions of that teacher. Students alsodiscussed how peers views of the teacher

could represent a type of social inertia in theclassroom, either encouraging or blockingthe development of relationships. This wasparticularly true when teachers developeda reputation among students for beingmean. Such a reputation, regardless of cred-ibility, primed students to feel apprehensiveor nervous in class and when interactingwith a teacher.

Because peer relationships were not thefoci of our research questions, findings re-garding the press of peer relationships andclassroom group dynamics on student-teacher interaction emerged as unsoliciteddiscussions in the interviews and journals.As such, we view this component of ourmodel to be the most underdeveloped.However, a growing literature suggests thatstudents abilities to coordinate, or findways to concurrently pursue, intellectualand peer goals in the classroom may influ-

ence their relationships with teachers(Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Cabello &


23/32


JANUARY 2006

Terrell, 1994; Juvonen, 1996; Juvonen &Murdock, 1993).

Classroom Interpersonal Culture

Norms about relationships. Our find-

ings have also prompted us to consider howthe culture(s) students and teachers con-struct affect the development of relation-ships (Brown & Campione, 1998). As Inoted, we found that students and teach-ers beliefs about the nature of academicsubjects may shape their opportunities toconnect in class by establishing norms forhow, when, and where teachers and stu-dents (as well as students with students)may talk with each other about classroomwork. The students we interviewed re-ported that the most motivating relation-ships were with teachers who talked abouttheir experiences in middle school, theirown difficulties learning, and their families;spoke informally with students; and al-lowed students time for socializing withpeers. These norms and routines that pre-scribed the types and frequency of interac-tions also had important consequences for

the types of discourse among students andteachers as well as the opportunities forteachers and students to develop affinity foreach other and achieve intersubjectivity(Tharp et al., 2000).

Classroom discourse. From our inter-views with students, we identified threetypes of classroom discourse (Davis et al.,2001): talking to/talking with, talking at,and talking out. Students described talk-ing to teachers, or when teachers talkedwith them, as a kind of informal, personal,and meaningful form of talk. This form oftalk could occur during class discussions orlectures when teachers tried to make subjectmatter personal, during instructional con-versation, or before or after class. Studentsargued that this form of talk was essentialfor establishing and maintaining suppor-tive relationships, claiming that it helpedthem to feel involved in the class. Likewise,

teachers reported in their journals beingsensitive to the amount of talking with

each of their students in their classes. Theyfrequently commented that they used talk-ing with a student as an indicator that theyhad developed a relationship with the stu-dent.

We found that the six students we inter-viewed weighed the amount of talking totheir teachers against the amount of talk-ing at and talking out that occurred(Davis et al., 2001) in the classroom. Stu-dents defined talked at as a form of talkteachers engaged in when they spokearound students. In other words, teacherstalked at students when teachers used lan-guage that was inaccessible to explain con-tent, or they talked to a student as if he orshe was just another member of the class.Students viewed this discourse pattern asinappropriate and damaging to the student-teacher relationship because it made themfeel like the teacher did not know them orunderstand their needs.

Likewise, the students we intervieweddescribed a form of talk students could en-gage in that did not support developing re-lationships with teachers. They described

talking out as a form of talk that occurredwhen students could not control their talk(to their peers and the teacher) in the class-room. Talking out included the ways stu-dents in the class could interrupt learningby asking questions that were irrelevant ortangential, talking to their peers when theyshould be listening or participating, and in-terrupting teachers one-on-one instruc-tional conversations. Often, this type of talkfrustrated both the teacher and the otherstudents in the class because it frequentlyresulted in teachers having to re-teach ma-terial.

The notion that students and teachersdiscourse affects their relationships witheach other as well as students learning isnot new (Turner et al., 1998, 2002, 2003). Forexample, Delpit (1995) found that mis-matches in teachers and students intercul-tural communication patterns and interac-

tion styles often resulted in both relationaland cultural conflicts in the classroom. Fu-


24/32

RELATIONSHIPS 215

ture research on discourse could considerthe effects of teachers and students use ofdirect and indirect speech patterns, sym-metries and asymmetries in dyads, perspec-tive taking, and having a single listener or

multiple listeners (Krauss & Fussell, 1996)on relationship quality and classroom inter-personal culture.

Future Directions

The purpose of this article was to present anew framework for thinking about the fac-tors that affect relationships between mid-dle school students and teachers. In addi-tion to guiding future investigations ofrelationship quality, the model may be use-ful for practitioners interested in identifyingsources of conflict in relationships and re-flecting on strategies for improving rela-tionships. In the final section of this article,I pose three questions that will motivate ourresearch program and discuss the implica-tions of our findings for policy and practice.

Research

How are relationship partners selected?

Our findings contribute to an understand-ing of the processes of selecting relationshippartners in the classroom. Teachers and stu-dents talked about good relationships as de-veloping when they perceived similarity intheir relationship partner. Middle schoolteachers reported that they enjoyed inter-acting more with students who reflectedsome aspect of their selves. For teachers,this draw toward similarity translated intotension over how to choose relationshippartners. Should they choose an appealingpartner who evidenced the skills necessaryto develop and maintain a good relation-ship, a student who appeared at risk fora relationship, or a student who reflectedsomething intrinsic to their teaching or per-sonal identity?

These findings are not surprising giventhe literature on effects of perceived simi-larity on the development of friendships

and the selection of relationship partners.They are likely relevant for teachers who

are working with increasingly diverse stu-dent populations. However, considering theincreased research on the effects of race,gender, culture, socioeconomic status (SES),and ability/disability on students motiva-

tion and learning, it is important to ac-knowledge the limitations of our findingsand the resultant framework. Our samplewas fairly homogeneous with regard torace, SES, and ability/disability. In futurestudies of relationship quality, researcherswill need to look at more diverse popula-tions of students (including students in ur-ban settings), at students who may feelalienated from the classroom context orwho may be struggling to interact withteachers (Murdock, 1999; Nagle, 2001;Smyth & Hattam, 2004), and at students at-tending schools with different types of in-terpersonal cultures. We believe, however,that the patterns we identified in our dataare likely to be found among diverse pop-ulations of students. For example, Delpit(1995; see also Stodolsky & Grossman, 2000)found that teachers efforts to establish andmaintain relationships with minority stu-

dents could transform alienated studentsattitudes and achievement patterns. Thiswas particularly true when teachers sup-ported students in negotiating conflict andregulating unpleasant emotions in the class-room (e.g., frustration, apathy).

How do poor relationships become in-stitutionalized? In their reformulation ofthe social information-processing model,Crick and Dodge (1994) discussed the in-creasing rigidity of social information pro-cessing across time. In other words, once es-tablished, patterns of interpreting behavior,selecting responses, enacting strategies, andevaluating the efficacy of ones responsesbecome more predictable. Results from oursurveys also illustrated the constraints onrelationship quality and how poor qualitycan become institutionalized (Gottfried,2003). These findings prompt us to considerthe ways in which students and teachers

beliefs about relationships, classroomnorms and cultures, and interaction pat-


25/32


JANUARY 2006

terns interact to generate developmentaltrajectories in which students who have re-lational assets reap the benefits of being se-lected as relationship partners by theirteachers. Given this pattern, what are the

implications for working with populationsof students identified as at risk for alien-ation and school dropout (Nagle, 2001;Smyth & Hattam, 2004)?

Should the goal be good relationships?In light of the consequences of poor rela-tionships, we believe it is important forteachers to identify and attempt to inter-vene with students who have a history ofrelationship difficulty. However, at thispoint it is important to question whether weare looking for a quality or type of relation-ship to develop. On the one hand, it is im-portant to find ways to identify maladap-tive relationship patterns and to interveneso that poor relationships with teachers donot become a pattern. However, should weargue for interventions designed to maketeachers better at relating to students, and,if so, what might be the implications of suchinterventions? Moreover, relationship con-

flict may serve a developmental purpose(Bjorklund, 2005) in promoting students in-terpersonal and academic skills (i.e., goalclarity, commitment, self-regulation, help-seeking, persuasive communication). Rela-tionships are challenging. We believe thatattempts to remove conflict from the class-room may result in artificial and inauthenticinteractions among teachers and students(Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). There are benefitsto students learning to interact with teach-ers with whom they do or do not get along.Learning how to manage the expectationsof others as well as the emotions associatedwith conflict with peers and teachers maybe important interpersonal skills studentsdevelop through challenging relationships.Thus, good relationships may also be seenas those where, in lieu of closeness, studentsexperience a balance of conflict, academicpress, and support. Given alternative rep-

resentations of quality, are there ways to in-crease school and classroom connectivity

without removing opportunities for teach-ers to model how to regulate unpleasant af-fect, behave, and maintain a focus on learn-ing in the face of relational conflict?

Policy and PracticeThe federal No Child Left Behind Act

has had sweeping effects on U.S. federaland state policies, particularly with regardto its emphasis on increasing studentachievement and improving teacher qual-ity. State and national concerns aboutstudent performance have prompted ini-tiatives to improve the training and certi-fication of new teachers and the profes-sional development of practicing teachersand have increased attempts to implementaccountability measures for schools andteachers. To a great extent, policy imple-mentation has focused on improving teach-ers knowledge of content and of methodsfor teaching content. However, we arguethat, although teachers preparation pro-grams may provide them with the knowl-edge and skills to plan developmentally ap-propriate and engaging activities, anticipate

classroom difficulties, reflect on outcomes ofinstruction, and make needed modifications(e.g., see section on Providing InstructionalSupport), teaching remains largely an in-terpersonal activity. Moreover, we arguethat one means of improving social connec-tivity, academic engagement, and achieve-ment in schools is to improve the quality ofteacher-student relationships.

Consistent across teacher education pro-grams is the inclusion of courses in the sci-ence of learning (e.g., basic educational psy-chology, learning theory, or child andadolescent development). However, thesecourses are few and are often criticized bythose who are unsure of the role of foun-dational courses in teacher preparation pro-grams (for review of this argument see Tom,1997). Our findings and those from acrossmotivation, attachment, and socioculturalliteratures respond to these critiques by en-

dorsing the need for course

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	faridah-abdullah
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Exploring the Contexts Davis 2006

Documents