looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style - walker (2008)

218

Looking at Teacher Practices Through the Lens of Parenting Style

JOAN M. T. WALKERLong Island University

ABSTRACT. In this article, the author used a parenting style framework to explain mixed evidence about the influence of teacher practices on stu-dent outcomes. Participants included 3 fifth-grade math teachers and 45 of their students. The author assessed teacher practices, teaching style (i.e., demandingness and responsiveness), student engagement, self-efficacy, and standardized achievement test scores. The most academically and socially competent students were those who experienced an authoritative teaching style (i.e., consistent classroom management, support of student autonomy, and personal interest in students). The author found disengagement and limited ability beliefs in the authoritarian context (i.e., consistent classroom management but limited autonomy support and limited personal interest in students). She found smaller academic gains in the permissive context (i.e., inconsistent management, autonomy support, and interest in students).

Keywords: adolescence, autonomy, classroom management, cognitive processes and development, goal theory

TEACHERS CREATE DISTINCT psychological and behavioral structures within classrooms, which have consequences for student engagement and learn-ing; yet, we know relatively little about how such structures are created and maintained over time. What dimensions of teaching create optimal contexts for student engagement and learning?

Address correspondence to: Joan M. T. Walker, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, Long Island University, 720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY 11548. E-mail: [email protected]

The Journal of Experimental Education, 2008, 76(2), 218–240Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Walker 219

A predominant approach to answering this question is goal theory. This perspective identifies two important sets of teacher practices. One set, mastery-focused practices, includes emphasis on personal improvement, task understand-ing, and acquisition of effective problem-solving skills. In contrast, the second set, performance-focused practices, involves emphasis on meeting external ex-pectations and standards. Mastery-focused practices are consistently associated with adaptive student outcomes such as confidence, learning strategy use, and achievement (Ames, 1992; Midgley & Urdan, 1995). Results for performance-focused practices are mixed. Research links these practices to limited-ability beliefs and maladaptive forms of engagement, such as high rates of avoidance behavior (Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003; Urdan, Midgley, & Ander-man, 1998); however, they are also linked to positive student affect (Ryan & Patrick, 2001) and greater student engagement and academic progress (Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004).

What might explain the mixed evidence surrounding performance-focused practices? Many argue that the influence of teachers’ mastery- and performance-focused practices on student outcomes is dependent in part on the larger social and emotional classroom climate. For example, teachers who use mastery-focused practices tend to provide students with affective and social support, whereas teachers who use largely performance-focused practices do not (Patrick, Ander-man, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Turner et al., 2002). This evidence sug-gests that affective support enhances the positive influence of mastery-focused practices, whereas its absence explains the negative impact of performance- focused ones. Performance-focused practices promote positive student outcomes, but only when used in concert with mastery-focused ones, further suggesting that the affective correlates of mastery-focused practices offset the potentially dam-aging influence of performance-focused practices (Bohn et al., 2004; Ryan & Patrick, 2001).

Drawing from investigations of teacher-student relationships and student outcomes (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Wentzel, 1997, 1999) and from research examining parent–child relationships as developmental contexts (Baumrind, 1991; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991), in the present study, I tested the utility of aligning goal theory with an alternate, robust theoretical framework that accounts for the use of specific practices in a larger emotional and social context. That framework is parenting style. According to Baumrind (1978, 1991), parenting style is a two-dimensional model of child socialization with multiple processes on each dimension. One dimension, demandingness, involves firm behavioral control, autonomy support, and expectations. The other dimension, respon-siveness, involves warmth and care, provision of resources, and adaptation to individual needs. Variations along these dimensions create different styles (i.e., authoritative [high on both dimensions], authoritarian [high demandingness and low responsiveness], and permissive [low demandingness and high-moderate

220 The Journal of Experimental Education

responsiveness]). Each style has important consequences for children’s social and intellectual development. In general, authoritative parenting style is regarded as most successful because of its balanced recognition of children’s needs for autonomy and their ability to conform to expectations.

In the present study, I applied the concept of parenting style to the classroom context by examining the influence of teachers’ use of mastery- and performance-focused practices on student engagement, self-efficacy, and learning when they were expressed in authoritative and nonauthoritative styles. Translating parenting-style research into classroom contexts is a promising avenue for understanding how teacher practices operate in the larger classroom social context. Moreover, it has the potential to build consensus among research findings focused on children’s socialization experiences in and across two primary developmental contexts: home and school (Walker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2006). In the following sections, I sum-marize parenting style and how it is thought to influence student outcomes; then I draw parallels to research on teacher practices and student outcomes.

What Is Parenting Style and What Student Outcomes Does It Influence?

In the 1960s, Baumrind (1971) noticed important social and cognitive differ-ences in preschoolers’ classroom behavior. To learn more about this, she worked backward to observe children’s interactions with their parents. She found that children who appeared most competent or highly socialized for school (e.g., autonomous, self-controlled, and successful in social relationships) had parents who made developmentally appropriate demands (e.g., expected children to at-tempt tasks independently) and controlled child behavior as needed yet were responsive and affectionate and communicated frequently and effectively. She characterized this combination of high demandingness and high responsiveness as an authoritative parenting style. In contrast, children who were less competent at school (e.g., dependent on teachers and noncompliant) tended to have parents who were nonauthoritative. Some of these parents were highly demanding and exercised strong control but showed little affection and did not communicate often. Baumrind characterized this combination of high demandingness and lim-ited responsiveness as an authoritarian style. Other parents made few demands and exercised little control but offered copious communication and affection, a combination characterized as a permissive style. Baumrind tracked these chil-dren into adolescence and found that children whose parents maintained an au-thoritative style continued to possess attributes central to school success includ-ing self-control, the ability to take others’ perspectives, and intrinsic motivation, whereas children of authoritarian and permissive parents had less optimal social and academic outcomes (Baumrind, 1991).

Others researchers replicated and extended these findings. Variations in parenting style predicted adolescent ability attributions and engagement with

Walker 221

learning and teachers (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). Authoritative parenting emerged as an optimal model; however, cultural variations exist. Authorita-tive parenting is more strongly associated with school performance among European and Hispanic American adolescents than among Asian and African American adolescents (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg et al., 1991). This evidence demonstrates how the larger cultural overlay influences the appropriateness and efficacy of various parenting styles.

How Does Parenting Style Work?

Baumrind (1978) attributed the positive effects of authoritative parenting to three specific components: firm behavioral control, high maturity demands (i.e., support for child autonomy), and the responsive quality of parent–child communication. For example, both authoritative and authoritarian parents are high in behavioral control, but only authoritative parents provide rationales for their demands and support child autonomy. Thus, authoritative parents instill academic and social competence by helping their children balance the need for autonomous, active thinking with other-oriented, rule-following tendencies.

These components of style influence the effectiveness of specific parenting practices in two ways: (a) Style makes the same practice better and (b) style influences student openness to parental influence (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Appropriate parental structuring or behavioral control during home-based learn-ing activities such as homework promotes on-task behavior, makes the environ-ment predictable and consistent, and protects students from distraction (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). Likewise, appropriate autonomy support (i.e., maturity demands) offers children opportunities for independent practice with concepts and procedures (Grolnick et al., 1991). These examples show how the quality of authoritative parents’ demandingness can directly enhance the effectiveness of a specific parenting practice, making it a better practice than it would be in a different stylistic context (e.g., one with low behavioral control or limited au-tonomy support). The responsiveness dimension of style might work indirectly by sustaining the child’s openness to the activity and to the parent’s advice and suggestions (Grolnick; Walker, Green, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2006).

The consequences of parenting style for children’s engagement, self-efficacy, and learning are documented in several studies. For example, researchers found parents’ similar efforts to scaffold children’s understanding of mathematical tasks to be more effective in authoritative than nonauthoritative contexts (e.g., Pratt, Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992). Furthermore, children whose parents offered encouragement and support (i.e., were authoritative) during problem-solving activities demonstrated more interest and confidence, persisted


longer, and had higher rates of task completion than did children whose parents used a controlling, authoritarian teaching stance (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995).

Looking at Teacher Practices Through the Lens of Parenting Style

The concept of warm demanders as an optimal teaching model is not new (Kleinfeld, 1975), and recent research continues to relate the processes of de-mandingness and responsiveness to student outcomes, explicitly (e.g., Wentzel, 2002) and implicitly (Cornelius-White, 2007; Pianta, Belsky, Houts, Morrison, & The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2007).

In the 1980s, educational researchers worked backward to understand dif-ferences in students’ classroom behavior, hypothesizing that those differences stemmed from teachers’ behavior during the opening days of school (e.g., Evert-son & Emmer, 1982). Consistent with research in parenting, students with higher levels of engagement and achievement had teachers who used firm control (i.e., used rewards and punishments consistently, made efficient transitions, gave clear directions) and were responsive to student needs (i.e., gave rationales for tasks, set reasonable task standards; see also Emmer, Evertson, & Anderson, 1980).

Recent examinations of teacher influence on student outcomes affirm the im-portance of firm control, autonomy support, and responsiveness in establishing effective learning environments. For example, Patrick, Turner, Meyer, and Midg-ley (2005) observed 8 6th-grade classrooms during the opening days of school and identified three types of classroom environments. One type was supportive and involved high expectations for student learning and teacher humor and respect. A second type was nonsupportive; teachers in this context emphasized extrinsic reasons for learning, used authoritarian control, and expressed expec-tations that children might cheat or misbehave. The third type was ambiguous. These teachers offered inconsistent attention to students’ personal and academic needs (e.g., expressed a desire for student learning but also had low expectations) and used contradictory forms of management. These environmental characteris-tics align with authoritative and nonauthoritative parenting styles, as does their influence on students: A supportive environment fostered a less-defensive learning orientation than did nonsupportive and ambiguous contexts.

Other work underscores Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) argument that style alters the effectiveness of practice through its influence on children’s openness to adults’ socialization efforts. For instance, Turner et al. (2003) identified two teachers who made similar use of mastery- and performance-focused instruction (both high) and examined relations among these practices, teachers’ motivational discourse, and student affect and achievement. Only students in the classroom characterized by limited teacher warmth and support for student autonomy (i.e., an authoritarian style) adopted avoidance behaviors and negative feelings about

Walker 223

learning. These findings echo other work examining links among students’ perceptions of the classroom social context, student motivational beliefs, and engagement (e.g., Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007).

In sum, like parents, teachers create optimal contexts for the development of student social and academic competence when their practices support individual student progress and compliance with external demands (i.e., balance mastery- and performance-focused practices) in a consistently managed, appropriately demanding, and responsive context (i.e., authoritative style). To the extent that teachers do not create such contexts, student outcomes are less optimal.

Purpose, Hypotheses, and Design

In the present study, I sought proof of concept for parenting style as a frame-work for understanding relations among teacher practices, the social and emo-tional classroom environment, and student outcomes. If teacher style functions like parenting style, then teachers’ similar use of mastery- and performance-focused practices should foster different student outcomes in accordance with variations in teachers’ demandingness and responsiveness. In particular, I ex-pected the most academically and socially competent students to be those who experienced teacher use of mastery- and performance-focused practices in an authoritative style (i.e., high-firm control, autonomy support, and responsive-ness). I expected similar use of mastery- and performance-focused practices in nonauthoritative styles (i.e., authoritarian and permissive) to have negative ef-fects on student engagement, self-efficacy, and achievement.

Regarding teacher talk as a window into classroom social processes, I used discourse analysis (Meyer & Turner, 2002) to assess teacher style, or the balance of demandingness and responsiveness across classrooms. I gathered informa-tion about teacher style and use of mastery- and performance-focused practices through interviews. Consistent with the idea that children’s perceptions of par-enting style are a more salient predictor of student outcomes than is parents’ self-reported style (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992), I also assessed teacher style through student surveys. I expected triangulation of these methods to reveal similarities and differences in teacher, student, and objective perceptions of teacher style and teacher practices. I also assessed student engagement and self-efficacy beliefs in the surveys; I assessed student academic progress with standardized achievement test scores.

Method

I conducted the study in two phases in the public school system of a rural com-munity in the mid-South of the United States. I drew participants from one of three middle schools in the system. This school served approximately 700 students in


Grades 5–8 (97% Caucasian, 2% African American, 1% Hispanic American; 34% of the school population qualified for free or reduced lunch). Achievement test scores showed school performance in the national average range; gains were low compared with the national average (Cheatham County School System, 2002). Predominant occupations in the community are farming and light industry. Many parents also commute to jobs in the nearby metropolitan area.

Phase One: Identification and Recruitment of Participants

Teacher participants. I used purposive sampling to identify teachers who were similar in their use of mastery- and performance-focused practices but who pro-vided maximum variation along the dimensions of demandingness and respon-siveness. I obtained information about this from two sources: student surveys and the school principal. At the end of the prior academic year, 5th graders (n = 84) at the school completed pilot versions of the measures used in Phase Two. These measures asked students to rate their math teachers’ (n = 4) demandingness (i.e., autonomy support), responsiveness (i.e., warmth), and use of mastery- and performance-focused practices. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on these data indicated that students perceived 2 teachers as similar in their use of mastery- and performance-focused practices but different in their demandingness and responsiveness (i.e., had authoritative and authoritarian styles). Patterns for the 2 remaining teachers did not differ significantly on these dimensions, so I no longer considered these teachers for participation. I spoke with the school princi-pal, who affirmed that student reports were consistent with her own observations and evaluations of these teachers. Both teachers were highly demanding, but one was less personally engaged with students. During this conversation, I asked the principal to nominate a third teacher who used mastery- and performance-focused practices in a context consistent with a permissive parenting style. This teacher was not identified during the pilot phase because she was teaching 6th grade at the time.

I then invited the 3 identified teachers, and they agreed to participate in the study. I told teachers the study focused on student adjustment to middle school and assured them that all data would remain confidential. At the time of the study, the authoritative teacher was pursuing a master’s degree in counseling and had been teaching 5 years, all at this middle school. The authoritarian teacher had a bachelor’s degree and 3 years of teaching experience, all at this middle school. The permissive teacher had a bachelor’s degree plus a few graduate hours and 5 years of experience (the past 3 at this middle school). All of the teachers were Caucasian women certified in math; no teacher used ability grouping or team teaching. I chose math classes because students often believe they have a fixed ability for this subject, adopt feelings of anxiety around the subject matter, and, because of the procedural nature of most tasks, believe there is only one correct

Walker 225

way to solve problems, usually prescribed by the teacher (Ma, 1999). These feelings and beliefs are likely to intensify the influence of teacher practices and teaching style on student engagement and learning.

Student participants. The selected teachers solicited participation from 5th-grade students in two math classes. On the first day of school, I described the study to students and gave them a letter of informed consent to take home to a parent. After I obtained parental consent, I obtained student consent. The total number of student participants across the three classrooms was 45 (20 boys, 25 girls; all students were Caucasian). Participation rates by classroom were authoritative, 43% (n = 17); authoritarian, 33% (n = 13); and permissive, 33% (n = 15). Low participation rates might have stemmed from the need to secure parental and student consent in relatively short order (i.e., the fourth day of school). A one-way ANOVA performed on achievement scores in mathematics for the prior year showed no classroom-based differences (authoritative, M = 643.64, SD = 30.94; authoritarian, M = 633.31, SD = 38.29; permissive, M = 640.71, SD = 36.73; F[2, 46] = .33, p = .72). Grade level scores for the prior year ranged from the 28th to 99th percentiles (raw score M = 637.88, SD = 33.75), suggesting participating students were representative of their nonparticipating peers. Students completed the first survey during the first full week of school. I administered the surveys at three subsequent times approximately 4 weeks apart. In later surveys I assessed student perceptions of teacher practices. I did not include these scales at Time 1 because I did not yet expect students to have a well-developed appreciation of classroom processes. I administered surveys in each classroom during the school day over periods of approximately 25 min; I phrased items to apply to the current year’s math class and read them aloud to students. I assured students that teach-ers would not see their individual answers and that there were no right or wrong answers. One-way ANOVAs conducted on Time 1 student data showed no initial classroom-based differences on any study variables.

Phase Two: Implemention

Phase Two began the first day of school in fall 2003. Procedures for this phase followed three strategies Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified: prolonged engagement, triangulation, and peer debriefing. Prolonged engagement re-quires that the researcher spend sufficient time in the setting to understand the daily events of the culture. I conducted the study from the opening day of school until the end of the first semester. Relevance is determined through tri-angulation, or the comparison of data from multiple sources (i.e., teacher inter-views, observations, and student surveys). Peer debriefing involves reviewing the researcher’s perceptions and analyses with professionals who have an un-derstanding of the study but who are outside its specific context. I periodically


reviewed my perceptions and analyses with two faculty members at a highly ranked college of education and human development. One of these educators is an expert in classroom-based research; the other is well recognized in the field of parental involvement in children’s education. Measures are organized according to data source.

Teacher Data

Classroom observations. I observed each teacher for approximately 11 hr on multiple occasions (authoritative = 11.5 hr, eight observations; authoritarian = 11 hr, eight observations; permissive = 10.25 hr, seven observations). During each observation I kept a continuous written record that included times related to classroom events, actions, and, as much as possible, verbatim teacher–student speech. After each observation, I reviewed these transcripts, adding details that were not fully recorded because of lack of time; I filled gaps in speech with bracketed paraphrases. To capture the general classroom tone experienced by all students, I focused analyses on teacher discourse during whole-class instruc-tion. A second rater, who was blinded to time and teacher identity, and I coded transcripts of teacher statements. I identified and held in reserve transcripts from three comparable observations (i.e., a total of nine lessons involving similar events and content). I used the remaining transcripts as training material to estab-lish coder agreement. During training sessions coders reread transcripts jointly and resolved disagreements through discussion.

We assigned codes along two conceptual categories, demandingness and re-sponsiveness. Following Meyer and Turner (2002), we subdivided each of these categories into supportive and nonsupportive statements. This was necessary to distinguish the quality of teacher discourse within categories. Teacher demand-ingness included comments about classroom management (i.e., firm control), student autonomy, and tasks. Supportive classroom management statements pro-vided clear and consistent structures and directives, maintained an on-task focus, or ensured smooth transitions (e.g., “When you’re done, sit down. We’re going to look at these problems and then move on to the next thing”). A nonsupportive management statement provided ambiguous or inconsistent directives, unclear transitions, and teacher interruptions of learning (e.g., “Because the students who forgot their math books have gone to get them from their locker, the girls can go the bathroom and the boys can get a snack”). A statement supportive of student autonomy encouraged work with peers or created opportunities for student man-agement of classroom activities (e.g., “If you are the checker of this problem, you need to explain to the other person what he or she did wrong”). A nonsup-portive statement limited student independence, discouraged peer interaction, or deflected student questions (e.g., “That’s irrelevant”; “You know you aren’t supposed to be up without permission”).

Walker 227

The task demand category assumed that both mastery- and performance- focused practices supported learning and that establishing teacher effectiveness required attention to teachers’ nonsupportive statements about tasks. Examples of supportive statements about classroom tasks include “Think about what goes to the left and right of the decimal point. Do you see anything wrong with what’s written here?” (mastery focused) and “Good, that’s the right answer” (perfor-mance focused). A nonsupportive task statement limited student accountability or provided answers (e.g., “Just like every day. If you’re not done that’s fine. It’s just to get your mind going”). Regarding responsiveness, a supportive statement demonstrated care for and interest in students as individuals, setting reasonable standards (e.g., “Raise your hand if you need more time”), or humor. A nonsup-portive statement included negative feedback, criticism, sarcasm, or threats (e.g., “I’m going to zap you”; “That’s just great” [sarcastic tone of voice]).

Codes reflect single statements to entire speaking turns; a code continued until the turn ended or we used a different code. One code was equal to one occurrence; we counted and summed codes in each category. Although dura-tion and intensity of teacher speech also establish the classroom social context, we did not code discourse along these dimensions. Because the coding scheme was nonexhaustive, kappa was not calculated. Instead, we used agreement plus, which is the rate of agreement on occurrence of the behavior divided by the best estimate of the rate of the behavior. We scored transcripts for the three reserved sessions once satisfactory agreement had been achieved (criterion threshold for satisfactory agreement plus = .80; Hartmann, 1977). These les-sons included (a) the opening day of school in mid-August, (b) a lesson on decimals in September, and (c) a lesson on divisibility rules in late October. Agreement plus across teachers for these lessons was as follows: supportive demands = .92, nonsupportive demands = .93, supportive responses = .93, nonsupportive responses = .97.

Teacher interviews. Following Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) assertion that re-searchers must disentangle goals, practices, and style, I interviewed each teacher in her classroom during the opening weeks of school. I asked teachers to identify their goals for students and the strategies they intended to use to achieve their aims. I also asked them to identify elements of an ideal classroom environment and student at-tributes necessary for school success. I taped interviews, which lasted 30–45 min.

Student Measures

The format for all survey items was a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true).

Perceptions of teacher mastery- and performance-focused practices. I used seven items to assess student perceptions of mastery-focused practices, such as


“My math teacher thinks making mistakes is okay, as long as we are learning” (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). I used five items to assess student perceptions of performance-focused practices, such as “My math teacher points out students who made the highest scores on a test as an example to all of us” (Ryan & Pat-rick, 2001; α for 12-item scale across three times = .85).

Student perceptions of teaching style. With five items, I tapped student percep-tions of one important facet of demandingness, autonomy support, that included “My math teacher allows us to discuss our work with other students” (Roeser et al., 1996; α across four time points = .91). I also assessed student perceptions of teacher responsiveness with five items, including “My math teacher really cares about students as individuals” (Roeser et al., 1996; α across four times = .75).

Engagement. I assessed two stances toward teacher socialization efforts: an adap-tive stance, or students’ social responsibility, and a maladaptive stance, or use of self-handicapping. I assessed social responsibility with four items including, “I want to do what the teacher asks me to do” (adapted from Wentzel, 1997; α across four times = .89). The four-item self-handicapping scale included defen-sive statements, such as “I usually waste time the night before a math test, so if I don’t do as well as I had hoped, I can say that wasting time was the reason” (Midgley & Urdan, 1995; α across four times = .75).

Self-efficacy beliefs. With this measure, I assessed academic self-efficacy, so-cial self-efficacy for relating to the teacher, and social self-efficacy for relating to peers (α for full 17-item scale across four times = .88). I used the five-item academic self-efficacy scale from Roeser et al. (1996; e.g., “I can do even the hardest math work if I try”; α across four times = .89). I assessed social self-efficacy for relating to the teacher with five items (α across four times = .84). I used four items from Patrick, Hicks, and Ryan (1997; e.g., “I find it easy to just go and talk with my math teacher”). The fifth item, “I can get my math teacher to help me when I have problems with other students,” was from Bandura (1986). I assessed social self-efficacy for relating to peers with seven items, such as “I often don’t know what to say when other students in my math class talk to me” (reverse scored; Patrick et al., 1997; α across four times = .70).

Achievement. I obtained standardized achievement test scores in mathematics for the prior and current academic school years.

Analyses and Results

Teacher Data: Classroom Observations

Table 1 summarizes the frequency and percentage of teachers’ supportive and nonsupportive demands and supportive and nonsupportive responses. Across the

Walker 229

three classrooms, the quality of teacher talk was largely demanding (83%) and supportive (85%). Responsive statements composed a smaller percentage of teacher talk (17% total; 14% supportive, 3% nonsupportive). Teachers spoke more about their behavioral and task demands (54% and 22%, respectively) than about student autonomy (7%).

In classrooms, balance between teachers’ (a) demanding and responsive and (b) supportive and nonsupportive statements differed. The authoritative teacher’s dis-course was highly demanding (77%) and supportive (97%). Twenty-three percent of this teacher’s speech was responsive, and none of her responsive statements were nonsupportive. Demand statements focused on management (41% support-ive, 3% nonsupportive), tasks (20% supportive, 0% nonsupportive), and autonomy support (13% supportive, 0% nonsupportive). The authoritarian teacher’s discourse was similarly demanding (78%) and supportive (85%); however, her responsive statements were mixed (13% supportive, 9% nonsupportive). Her demand state-ments focused on management (46% supportive, 3% nonsupportive) and tasks (25% supportive, 0% nonsupportive). This teacher offered little support for stu-dent autonomy (4% total, 3% nonsupportive). The permissive teacher made more

TABLE 1. Frequency and Percentage of Teacher Demandingness and Responsiveness According to Discourse Categories and Subcategories

Authoritative Authoritarian Permissivea

Variable % n % n % n

Demandingness

Task Supportive 20 15 24 14 19 13 Nonsupportive 0 0 0 0 4 3Firm control Supportive 41 31 45 26 47 33 Nonsupportive 3 2 3 2 21 15Autonomy support Supportive 13 10 2 1 1 1 Nonsupportive 0 0 3 2 0 0Total 77 58 77 45 92 65

Responsiveness

Supportive 23 17 14 8 6 4Nonsupportive 0 0 9 5 1 1Total 23 17 23 13 7 5

aTotals for the permissive teacher do not sum to 100% because of rounding.


demand statements than did her peers (92%); however, her speech was less sup-portive (74%). Her responsive statements were rare but supportive (7% supportive, 1% nonsupportive). Moreover, her management demands were inconsistent (46% supportive, 21% nonsupportive). Her task demands were similar in proportion to her peers but were less supportive (19% supportive, 4% nonsupportive); she made few statements about student autonomy (2% supportive, 0% nonsupportive).

Teacher Interviews

I used interview data to understand the goals and values underlying teacher speech. To do so, I used axial coding (Strauss, 1987) to identify points of con-vergence and divergence in teachers’ goals for students and strategies. Analyses also focused on determining teachers’ relative attention to identified components of style: management, autonomy support, and responsiveness.

Demandingness. All teachers cited two primary goals for students: (a) develop-ment of personal responsibility and (b) proficiency in mathematics. All teachers expressed awareness that they were laying a foundation for advancing school demands, including increasingly difficult coursework and expectations for self-management. All 3 teachers recognized the need to model the behaviors they demanded from students, and all regarded the opening days of school as an important period of adjustment.

Although teachers shared similar goals, they differed in the practices they used to achieve their aims. To foster personal responsibility, the authoritative and au-thoritarian teachers stressed high expectations and consistency. The authoritative teacher used reason to gain compliance (e.g., “I try to explain the reasons why they should learn these things so they’ll be internally motivated. I do externally motivate them also with rewards and with punishment if they don’t do their work and don’t behave as they should. I have high expectations”). In contrast, the authoritarian teacher used punishment (e.g., “They know exactly what they’re supposed to do when they walk in that door. . . . They know that if they mess up . . . there are going to be some consequences . . . and you need to be consistent about that”). The permissive teacher’s comments revealed low expectations (e.g., “Obviously, I think academics is important or I wouldn’t be here. I mean, I didn’t come here to be a so-cial director, but you can do that too because some kids are only going to go so far with their education”). Her comments also revealed limited valuing of consistency (e.g., “It’s no secret that students have more freedom in my classroom. . . . I’m not a particularly structured person. Sometimes, it’s like . . . I break my own rule”). However, she also complained, “There’s just no accountability anymore. My grade book last year was lined with zeros. And I met with the guidance counselor and the principal and we just cut homework out altogether with that bunch. I am trying to make a real effort to tighten up a little bit.”

Walker 231

To meet their instructional goals, all teachers emphasized the need for drill and practice; however, they appeared to differ in their beliefs about how students de-veloped proficiency in math. The authoritarian teacher described student effort and compliance as the primary mechanism: “I want to see a student come in and work hard for me. If that student will work hard for me, I can guarantee you that student is going to learn.” In contrast, the authoritative and permissive teachers stressed the need to relate classroom tasks to real life. For example, the permissive teacher said, “I want them to know that . . . if they can’t do this, they’re not going to be able to fig-ure out a house payment or shop for a car. They have to have the basics down.” The authoritative teacher explicitly addressed the value of grounded examples: “I know that when I’m trying to understand something myself, it’s a lot easier to understand if I can relate it to something in my own life, rather than if somebody’s just telling me all this information that’s way over my head.” When asked how she responds to students struggling to keep up, the authoritative teacher described a coaching stance: “I show them what works for me [e.g., folders, a “to do” list] and make suggestions, and if they can’t afford it I will go and get them the supplies that they need.” The permissive teacher stressed creating a comfortable atmosphere in which students can ask for help “when they really are lost or needing something.” The authoritar-ian teacher continued to emphasize student effort and compliance: “If I have a child [that’s struggling] I usually try to go to that child and say, ‘Look, I know that you are capable of doing the work for me, so don’t disappoint me.’ When they do what I tell them, I say, ‘Good, that’s exactly what I want you to do.’ It keeps them going.”

Responsiveness. Differences also emerged in teacher responsiveness. The authorita-tive and permissive teachers said it was important for students to feel confident in their academic and social abilities (e.g., feel liked and respected by others). The authoritative teacher’s concern about meeting students’ emotional needs appeared to stem from the belief that not doing so would impede their academic progress: “I want them to be happy and motivated. . . . If you’re miserable at school you’re never going to want to be there, and that’s how you’re going to think about it.” The authoritar-ian teacher recognized student emotions but continued to emphasize compliance: “I know when the school year starts kids are scared; they don’t know what to expect and may feel like, ‘Well, this is a really mean teacher,’ but I hope they will realize that there is a certain way of doing things.” When asked to comment on student–teacher relationships, the authoritative teacher said, “I try to be easy to approach with a problem. If something’s wrong with them, I can tell because I’m a good observer.” The permissive teacher was more emphatic about the importance of interpersonal relationships: “If they can learn at this age that it’s good to need people, I really be-lieve that they’ll have . . . better quality lives.” The authoritarian teacher emphasized structure and student respect for authority: “I want to be approachable to them. But I do want them to respect me and respect my rules so we can have a good, structured classroom. That’s for their benefit, and they feel much more comfortable.”


Student Measures

To determine stability and change in all student reports over time (main effects for time), by classroom (main effects for teacher), and over time within class-rooms (time by teacher interactions), I conducted one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.

Perceptions of teacher use of mastery- and performance-focused practices. Table 2 summarizes means and standard deviations for each teacher practice by time and by teacher. There were no significant differences among classrooms; all were rated higher in use of mastery- than performance-focused practices.

Perceptions of teaching style. Table 3 summarizes means and standard deviations for perceptions of autonomy support and responsiveness by time and by teacher style. A main effect for teacher was found for demandingness and responsive-ness: Students in the authoritarian class perceived less support of student auton-omy (F[2, 42] = 8.34, p < .001; partial η2 = .28) and less responsiveness than did students in the other two classes (F[2, 42] = 7.98, p < .001; partial η2 = .28).

Engagement. Table 4 summarizes descriptive statistics by teacher for student en-gagement at each time. A main effect for teacher was found for self-handicapping. Authoritarian students’ reports were higher than their authoritative peers (F[2,

TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Mastery- and Performance-Focused Practices, by Time and Teaching Style (N = 45)

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Authoritative

Mastery 3.28 0.40 3.28 0.45 3.32 0.47Performance 2.22 0.56 2.24 0.51 2.17 0.60

Authoritarian


Permissive


Note. Time 1 data were not collected on these variables.

Walker 233

42] = 3.27, p < .05; partial η2 = .14). A similar main effect for social responsibil-ity approached significance (F[2, 42] = 3.06, p < .06; partial η2 = .13).

Self-efficacy beliefs. Table 5 summarizes descriptive statistics by teacher for academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy for relating to the teacher, and social self-efficacy for relating to peers at each time. Students in the authoritarian class reported lower academic self-efficacy than their authoritative peers (F[2, 42] = 3.39, p < .05; partial η2 = .14); however, post hoc tests were not significant. For social self-efficacy for relating to the teacher, I found a main effect for time and a main effect for teacher. All students’ belief in their ability to engage with teach-ers declined (linear, F[1, 42] = 24.17, p < .00; partial η2 = .37; cubic, F[1, 42] = 10.90, p < .01; partial η2 = .21). The decline was especially true for students in the authoritarian class relative to their permissive peers (F[2, 42] = 5.38, p < .01; partial η2 = .20). In a contrasting main effect for time, all students’ social self-efficacy for relating to peers increased; quadratic trends represent different rates of increase within classrooms (linear, F[1, 42] = 8.78, p < .01; partial η2 = .18; quadratic, F[1, 42] = 9.18, p < .01; partial η2 = .19).

Achievement. I found a main effect for time for mathematics achievement. All students’ scores increased (authoritative, M = 674.47, SD = 35.88; authoritarian, M = 657.77, SD = 33.60; permissive, M = 646.00, SD = 36.21; F[1, 42] = 27.33,

TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Student Perceptions of Teacher Demandingness and Responsiveness, by Time and Teaching Style (N = 45)

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Variable M SD M SD M SD

Authoritative

Demandingness 2.82 0.47 3.06 0.50 2.91 0.69Responsiveness 3.45 0.41 3.47 0.47 3.54 0.42

Authoritarian


Permissive


Note. Time 1 data were not collected on these variables.


TA

BL

E 4

. Mea

ns a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons

for

Stud

ent

Eng

agem

ent,

by

Tim

e an

d T

each

ing

Styl

e (N

= 4

5)

T

ime

1 T

ime

2 T

ime

3 T

ime

4

Var

iabl

e M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Aut

hori

tati

ve

Self

-han

dica

ppin

g 1.

17

0.33

1.

12

0.31

1.

08

0.19

1.

11

0.27

Soci

al r

espo

nsib

ility

3.

53

0.42

3.

56

0.49

3.

50

0.47

3.

61

0.45

Aut

hori

tari

an

Self

-han

dica

ppin

g 1.

33

0.60

1.

54

0.71

1.

31

0.69

1.

35

0.53

Soci

al r

espo

nsib

ility

3.

22

0.69

3.

10

0.61

3.

19

0.47

3.

09

0.61

Perm

issi

ve

Self

-han

dica

ppin

g 1.

32

0.62

1.

18

0.39

1.

11

0.28

1.

18

0.39

Soci

al r

espo

nsib

ility

3.

41

0.48

3.

52

0.48

3.

42

0.69

3.

47

0.61

Walker 235

TA

BL

E 5

. Mea

ns a

nd S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons

for

Stud

ent

Self

-Eff

icac

y, b

y T

ime

and

Tea

chin

g St

yle

(N =

45)

T

ime

1 T

ime

2 T

ime

3 T

ime

4

Var

iabl

e M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Aut

hori

tati

ve

Aca

dem

ic

3.63

0.

38

3.59

0.

43

3.57

0.

51

3.48

0.

49So

cial

, pee

rs

2.57

0.

65

2.74

0.

69

2.88

0.

57

2.64

0.

54So

cial

, tea

cher

3.

40

0.57

3.

13

0.70

3.

17

0.61

2.

61

0.65

Aut

hori

tari

an

Aca

dem

ic

3.40

0.

59

3.14

0.

62

3.18

0.

75

2.95

0.

58So

cial

, pee

rs

2.18

0.

70

2.71

0.

54

2.70

0.

65

2.82

0.

49So

cial

, tea

cher

3.

02

0.87

2.

63

0.58

2.

65

0.76

2.

23

0.67

Perm

issi

ve

Aca

dem

ic

3.25

0.

68

3.21

0.

61

3.40

0.

55

3.13

0.

79So

cial

, pee

rs

2.36

0.

72

3.05

0.

59

2.87

0.

60

2.82

0.

50So

cial

, tea

cher

3.

28

0.54

3.

16

0.80

3.

47

0.53

2.

99

0.43


p < .00; partial η2 = .39). A Time × Teacher interaction also reflected smaller gains in the permissive classroom (F[2, 42] = 3.77, p < .05; partial η2 = .16).

Discussion

In this study, I tested the utility of parenting style as a framework for under-standing the influence of teachers’ mastery- and performance-focused practices on student outcomes. An important feature of the parenting style perspective is its distinction between practice and style (i.e., balance of demandingness and responsiveness). This distinction has implications for classroom-based research because teachers can often use similar practices with different consequences for students. I began the study by identifying 3 teachers who made similar use of mastery- and performance-focused practices but differed in their teacher style, or balance of demandingness and responsiveness (i.e., created authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive contexts). I then examined student engagement in these classrooms from the opening days of school to the end of one semester at entry to middle school. I also examined student achievement.

Results provide convergent support for the value of looking at classroom structures through the lens of parenting style. At entry to middle school, students did not differ on any study variables; they reported strong belief in their ability to learn, enlist the support of teachers, and report limited use of self-handicapping. They were less confident in their abilities to engage with peers, which seems logical at entry to a relatively large middle school. By the end of the first semes-ter, differences centered on the authoritarian classroom. These students reported greater self-handicapping and lower academic self-efficacy relative to authorita-tive students and lower social self-efficacy for relating to the teacher relative to their permissive peers. In short, despite similarities in teachers’ use of mastery- and performance-focused practices, only students in the authoritarian classroom adopted a defensive stance toward learning. Permissive students made lower academic gains.

When viewed through the lens of parenting style, these results stem from two sources: (a) style alters the effectiveness of teachers’ mastery- and performance-focused practices and (b) style alters children’s openness to the influence of such teacher practices. For example, although all teachers used similar mastery- and performance-focused demands, students in the authoritarian context reported relatively lower academic self-efficacy; this finding may stem from this teacher’s limited support for student autonomy (i.e., few opportunities for independent practice may have led her students to doubt their abilities). Likewise, the authori-tarian teacher’s highly demanding but unresponsive style may explain her stu-dents’ relatively higher use of self-handicapping behaviors and lower social self-efficacy for relating to the teacher. These results are consistent with evidence that student perceptions of teacher support and promotion of task-related interaction

Walker 237

relate to engagement via students’ personal motivational beliefs (e.g., social ef-ficacy; Patrick et al., 2007). Results for the permissive classroom underscore that although teacher responsiveness can support student engagement and motiva-tional beliefs, demandingness is essential to learning. Last, links between teacher discourse and student outcomes suggest that what teachers actively say undercuts their instructional effectiveness (i.e., their nonsupportive statements). Moreover, low base rates of nonsupportive statements suggest that even rare statements are influential. The authoritarian teacher profile questions the co-occurrence of teacher support and emphasis on mastery (e.g., Turner et al., 2002).

Teacher discourse offers a window into day-to-day life in these three classrooms and teachers’ roles as socializing agents. All teachers made more demanding than responsive statements, and although they provided largely supportive task de-mands, they emphasized compliance more than autonomous engagement in learn-ing. This pattern of discourse may explain the decline in all students’ beliefs in their ability to engage teacher support. Because autonomy support predicts rural high school students’ decisions to stay in school (Hardre & Reeve, 2003), these find-ings have important implications for this sample. It is interesting that the quality of teacher–student interactions did not appear to be related to students’ social self- efficacy for relating to peers. This construct increased across all three classrooms, a finding different from studies demonstrating links between teacher social support and students’ relationships with peers (e.g., Ryan & Patrick, 2001).

Interview data reflect that socializing agents can espouse similar goals but create different contexts around them and use different means of achieving them (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Moreover, interviews suggest that these teachers were aware of their style, and their relative emphasis on demandingness and re-sponsiveness stemmed from beliefs about what constituted an optimally effective learning environment. For example, the authoritarian teacher repeatedly stated that firm behavioral control was for students’ benefit, whereas the permissive teacher stated that responsiveness supported positive student outcomes. Last, student perceptions of teachers corroborated observation and interview data, sug-gesting that demandingness and responsiveness were salient teaching dimensions to these 5th-grade students.

As a whole, results supported the hypothesis that authoritative teaching provides an optimal context for student engagement and learning through its demands for student autonomy, effective classroom management, and responsiveness. A recent and rare longitudinal look into instruction in U.S. elementary schools reveals that few students consistently experience authoritative teaching (i.e., both high-quality instruction and a healthy emotional climate; Pianta et al., 2007).

The study’s findings must be interpreted in light of several limitations. Data on teacher style is based on three prototypical teachers and a relatively small sample of students in their classrooms. These small samples limit the study’s generalizability. Limitations of sample size apply especially to teacher discourse data, which were


sampled from three lessons focused on similar content. Student data should be inter-preted in light of the bias of self-report and social desirability, whereas observation data should be interpreted in light of selective attention and bias. Although it ap-pears that classroom structures are established quickly and remain stable over time (Patrick et al., 2001; Patrick et al., 2007), the study spanned only one semester and cannot answer questions about stability and change across the school year.

Viewing teaching style as a context that facilitates or undermines teachers’ instructional practices raises three questions about teacher influence on child development. First, does the influence of teaching style vary as a function of academic domain and cultural background? Second, what are the processes through which teaching style influences child development? Third, what are the determinants of teaching style? Future researchers might address the first ques-tion by examining teaching style across academic domains. For example, it is possible that teachers adopt an authoritarian style in areas traditionally viewed as highly procedural (i.e., mathematics) but adopt another style in an area typi-cally viewed as open to interpretation (e.g., social studies). Furthermore, because of observed interactions between parenting style and culture (e.g., Chao, 1994), teaching style should be examined across varied school contexts and student populations. Studies might also be conducted at other developmental levels to determine age-related trends.

Addressing the second question requires greater attention to student percep-tions. Differences among classrooms emerged relatively quickly in this study, suggesting that students adapt quickly to classroom structures. It would be in-teresting to know what teacher signals students look for and how they adapt to variations in teaching style across classes. Turner and Patrick (2004) have begun this process by examining students’ transition from elementary to middle school and different classroom contexts (e.g., from a mastery-focused math class to a performance-focused math class).

It would be useful to pursue in-depth teacher interviews and other avenues for determining the origins of teacher style. For instance, all teachers said they wanted to support personal responsibility but had different interpretations of that goal (e.g., ability to comply with teacher demands or ability to work autono-mously). Furthermore, it is unclear whether teacher style is trait-like or if it has a developmental trajectory. Grounded in adages, such as “You can lighten up but you can’t tighten up,” novice teachers may initially adopt an authoritarian stance but become more responsive as they gain experience. In recent work, researchers suggest that at least one important facet of teaching style, autonomy support, is teachable and that teachers’ disposition toward autonomy support can be validly and reliably assessed (e.g., Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). From a practical standpoint, the present study underscores the need to articulate the necessary compromise between demandingness and re-sponsiveness and help teachers work toward achieving this balance.

Walker 239

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author thanks the faculty, staff, and students at Cheatham Middle School who gave their time. She also thanks Tara Canterbury, Carolyn Everston, Kathy Hoover-Dempsey, John Rieser, Howard Sandler, Georgene Troseth, and the Family–School Partnership Lab at Vanderbilt University.

REFERENCES

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

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Mono-

graphs, 4(1, Part 2), 1–103. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and

Society, 9, 239–276.Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. M. Lerner, A. C. Petersen, &

J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence, Vol II (pp. 746–758). New York: Garland.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relation-

ship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934–946.Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms of

two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. Elementary School Journal, 104, 269–287.

Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.

Cheatham County School System. (2002). [Report of school services, description of student perfor-mance, and results of parent, teacher, student and community surveys]. Unpublished raw data.

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The rela-tion of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. Elementary School Journal, 80, 219–231.

Everston, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 485–498.

Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescents’ attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507–529.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508–517.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356.

Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103–116.

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children’s helpless and mastery achievement pat-terns in the family. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 375–385.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–210.

Kleinfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. School Review, 83, 301–344.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achieve-

ment in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 520–540.Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding

of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 17–25.


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

Patrick, H., Anderman, L., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.

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

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.

Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2005). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teach-ers College Record, 105, 1521–1558.

Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795.

Pratt, M. W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M. (1992). The mathematical parent: Pa-rental scaffolding, parent style, and learning outcomes in long-division mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 17–34.

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

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.

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

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motiva-tion and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437–460.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.

Strauss, A. S. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and sixth-graders’ reported affect and achievement in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357–430.

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multi-method study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 1759–1785.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101–122.

Walker, J. M. T., Green, C. L., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2006, April). The influence of parental involvement on student self-regulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Walker, J. M. T., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2006). Why research on parental involvement is impor-tant to classroom management. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), The handbook of classroom management (pp. 665–684). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding students’ academic success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjust-ment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287–301.

looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style - walker (2008)

Documents

performancefocused practices

masteryfocused practices

influence of teacher

support of student autonomy

greater student engagement

limited autonomy support

adaptive student outcomes

competent students