Journal uf Community Volume 12. July, 1984

Psychologj

The Relationship Between Dimensions of Classroom and Family Environments and the Self-concept, Satisfaction, and

Achievement of Grade 7 and 8 Students Geoffrey Nelson

Wilfrid Laurier University

This study examined the relationships between dimensions of classroom and family environments and various aspects of the adaptation of grade 7 and 8 students. Classroom climates providing support and structure were con- sistently associated with high levels of student scholastic self-concept and satisfaction with teacher. Families with high degrees of parent-child interac- tion and climates providing support and structure were generally associated with high levels of self-concept (peer, scholastic, and general), satisfaction with family, and, to a lesser extent, achievement. There was some evidence that gains in self-concept and achievement over the course of the school year were related to classroom or family environment variables. Students with the highest levels of scholastic self-concept had both classroom and family environments high in support and structure. The results provided partial support for invitational learning theory, which postulates that environments which provide structure, along with support and nurturance, invite affective and intellectual growth in students.

The relationships between various dimensions of environmental settings, on the one hand, and various aspects of competence and well-being of individuals, on the other hand, is an important area of research for community psychology (Insel, 1980; Levine & Perkins, 1980). Understanding such person-environment relationships is a necessary first step for the planning or modification of environments to promote individual growth and prevent problems (Cowen, 1977). For middle-school students (those in grades 7 and 8), two particularly important environmental settings are the classroom and the family, while two important domains for their adaptation are affect (feelings of satisfaction and confidence with family, peers, and school work) and school achievement.

Trickett and Moos (1973) and Walberg (1969) developed self-report questionnaires that tap students’ perceptions of various dimensions of classroom climate or atmosphere, such as classroom structure and organization and interpersonal relationships. Research has examined the relationship between these dimensions of classroom climate and students’ affect and achievement. Several studies have reported a positive association between classrooms perceived as providing supportive interpersonal relationships and student affect (e.g., satisfaction with the teacher and classmates, self-concept, mood, and interest in classroom activities) (Persad, 1980; Trickett & Moos, 1974; Walberg, 1969). However, as Boocock (1978) noted in a recent review, there have been conflicting results in research examining the relationship between classroom climate and student achieve- ment. Walberg (1969) found that interpersonal relationship aspects of the classroom en-

The author would like to acknowledge the support of Roy Steckley, Harley Forden, Tom Connolly, and the staff of William G. Davis School for making this study possible. He would also like to thank Diane Conway, D’Arcy Helmer, and Bruce Petelka for their assistance with data collection and analysis and Bruce Tefft for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This study was funded by a Short-Term Research Grant and a Research Fellowship to the author from the Faculty of Graduate Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University. Requests for reprints should be sent to Geoffrey Nelson, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3CS.

276

CLASSROOM A N D FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 277

vironment were related to interests in class content for above average high school physics students, but only the perceived difficulty of the course material was positively related to their achievement in the course. In contrast, subsequent studies found that supportive in- terpersonal relationships are the most important aspect of classroom climate for students’ achievement (Moos & Moos, 1978; Walberg, Singh, & Rasher, 1977a, 1977b). However, two recent longitudinal studies found the relationship between classroom climate and achievement and understanding of the subject matter was weak to nonexist- ent (Fraser, 1979; Power & Tisher, 1979).

Research on the relationship between dimensions of family environments and students’ affect and achievement has yielded consistent results. In a recent review of the literature, Marjoribanks (1979b) showed that studies using a variety of measures of different dimensions of family climate (e.g., intellectual orientation, press for achieve- ment, parental approval, etc.) have consistently found that these measures of family climate are positively related to intelligence, school achievement, and affective characteristics (e.g., scholastic self-concept, liking of and commitment to school, achievement motivation, etc.). While this research suggests that the quality of parent- child interaction is important for students’ school success, other research has demonstrated that the amount of parent-child interaction is also important. Blanchard and Biller (1971) found that boys who frequently spend time with their fathers achieve significantly better at school than boys with a low level of involvement with their fathers. In a review of literature on father absence and cognitive development, Shinn (1978) con- cluded that the amount of time children spend with their parents is an important factor for children’s intellectual growth.

A few studies have examined both classroom and family environmental characteristics in relation to students’ school success. However, as Marjoribanks (1979a) noted, these studies either lacked a conceptualization of both environments or used different methods to assess the two environments. To overcome this, Marjoribanks used self-report questionnaires to assess both environments. He found that two family en- vironment factors, Press for Achievement and Parent-Child Involvement, were positively correlated with boys’ scores on the Otis Intelligence Test and school self-confidence. Two school environment factors, nonpunitive school environment and intellectual orientation of school, were unrelated to intelligence, but were positively correlated with commitment to school. In another study, Isherwood and Hammah (1981) found that the quality of students’ relationships with their father, mother, siblings, and teacher were the strongest predictors of their satisfaction with the quality of school life. Finally, the study by Rutter, Maughan, Mortirnore, and Ouston (1979) suggested that a positive school climate can offset the negative effects of a poor family situation on students’ school success. In summary, research has suggested that both school and family environment factors are related to measures of students’ affect.

The research on classroom and family environments is generally consistent with Purkey’s (1970, 1978) theory of invitational learning. Purkey’s theory stresses an affec- tive, student-centered approach to education. He believes that students learn best in sup- portive nurturing classrooms that are aimed at enhancing students’ scholastic self- concept. Teachers provide structure (e.g., an orderly and organized classroom), as well as support, that invites students to take an active role in the learning process. This approach stands in contrast to a teacher-centered or curriculum-centered approach, in which students passively learn “the facts” from the teacher. While Purkey has focused his attention on the social climate of the classroom, it stands to reason that the social climate

278 GEOFFREY NELSON

of the family can influence childrens’ self-concepts and academic achievement in a similar way.

The purpose of this research was to consider both classroom and family environ- ment factors in relation to affective characteristics and achievement of grade seven and eight students. The first research question was to determine those dimensions of classroom and family environments most strongly related to different aspects of students’ adaptation: self-concept (peer, scholastic, and general), satisfaction (with family, teacher, and classmates), and achievement (reading comprehension and grades). Also, while the amount of time students spend in the classroom is a constant, the amount of time they spend with their parents is variable. Thus, the amount of time students spent with their parents was also assessed.

Since there are few longitudinal studies in this area, the second question was con- cerned with whether changes in students’ adaptation over time were a function of classroom or family environment factors. The final question was to examine the potential additive effects of classroom and family environments on students’ adaptation. In par- ticular, the possibility that a positive environment might serve as a buffer and offset the effects of a negative environment was examined.

Method Sample

The sample consisted of 196 grade 7 and 8 students (44.4% of the population) from 14 classes in a middle school whose parents consented to have them participate in the research. All of the classes were heterogeneous with respect to achievement level and socioeconomic status of the students. Measures

Classroom environment. The 36-item short form of Trickett and Moos’s (1973) Classroom Environment Scale (CES) was used to measure classroom climate. There are nine CES subscales which tap various aspects of the relationship (Involvement, Affilia- tion, and Teacher Support), personal growth (Task Orientation and Competition), and systems maintenance and change dimensions (Order and Organization, Rule Clarity, Teacher Control, and Innovation) of classroom climate. Items (e.g., Students don’t feel pressured to compete here) are answered on a true-false basis. Reliability estimates for the CES subscales have ranged from .67 to .86 (Trickett & Moos, 1973). The CES has been validated against observational ratings of classroom interaction (Kaye, Trickett, & Quinlan, 1976). See Trickett and Moos (1973) for a complete description of the nine CES subscales.

Family environment. The 40-item short form of Moos, Insel, and Humphrey’s ( 1 974) Family Environment Scale (FES) was used to measure family climate. There are 10 FES subscales which parallel those of the CES in tapping relationship (Cohesion, Ex- pressiveness, and Conflict), personal growth (Independence, Achievement Orientation, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, and Moral- Religious Emphasis), and systems maintenance and change (Organization and Control) dimensions. Items (e.g., Family members hardly ever lose their tempers) are answered on a true-false basis. Reliability estimates of the FES subscales have ranged from .68 to .86 (Moos, Insel, & Humphrey, 1974). Furthermore, the FES has accurately differentiated various types of families (Moos & Moos, 1976; Scoresby & Christensen, 1976). To measure the amount of parent-child involvement, students were also asked to rate how

CLASSROOM AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 279

many hours per week they spent with their father and their mother on a five-point scale (e.g., 0-10 hours, 11-20 hours, etc.). See Moos, Insel, and Humphrey (1974) for a com- plete description of the 10 FES subscales.

Self-concept. The Self-Appraisal Inventory (SAI) was used to measure students’ self-concept in the areas of peer, scholastic, and general well-being. The 58 items (e.g., I am not doing as well in school as I would like to) are answered on a yes-no basis. Test- retest reliability has been estimated at .88 (Popham, 1972), and the scale has been found to be inversely related to mothers’ and teachers’ ratings of children’s behavior problems (Nelson, 1981).

Satisfaction. Students rated how satisfied they were with their family, their teacher, and their fellow classmates on a one-to-five scale from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.

Achievement. There were two measures of students’ achievement. The first was the students’ year end grade point average for all academic subjects. The second was the Reading Comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (Gates & MacGinitie, 1965). Procedure

All the measures were administered to students in large groups (approximately 80- 100 students) at two time periods: in October and again in June for the 1980-1981 school year. Confidentiality of the results was stressed in the instructions to students. Students were instructed to rate their core classroom on the CES. Students have one teacher for their core class who teaches reading and math for half of each school day (i.e., the core class is the students’ major class).

Results Cross-Sectional A nalyses

The CES subscale scores were highly stable from October to June. The average CES subscale scores across the 14 classrooms were virtually identical in October and June, with the exception of the Competition subscale which was significantly lower in June.

To examine the first question, correlations were computed between the nine CES subscales and the self-concept, satisfaction, and achievement variables for each student. Only the cross-sectional data obtained in June are reported here, since the October data showed a far weaker relationship between the dimensions of classroom climate and stu- dent adaptation. The difference in the strength of relationship between the CES subscales and student adaptation at the two different time periods probably reflects the fact that students had been in their classrooms for less than two months in October but for more than nine months in June, so that the impact of the classroom would have had far more time to take hold in June.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. Beginning with the self-concept data, the only CES dimension that was significantly related to peer self-concept was Affiliation. Involvement, Teacher Support, Order and Organization, and Innovation were significantly positively related to scholastic self-concept, while Teacher Control was inversely related to this variable. Only Affiliation was significantly positively related to genera1 self-concept.

Turning to the satisfaction data, Affiliation, Rule Clarity, and Teacher Control were significantly positively related to satisfaction with family. Several CES dimensions were significantly positively related to satisfaction with teacher: Involvement, Affiliation, Teacher Support, Order and Organization, Rule Clarity, and Innovation. Also, Teacher

280 GEOFFREY NELSON

Control was significantly inversely related to satisfaction with teacher. Involvement, Affiliation, and Order and Organization were significantly positively related to satisfac- tion with classmates. With regard to the achievement data, Rule Clarity was significantly positively related to both reading comprehension and grades, while Involvement was significantly positively related to reading comprehension.

For the FES data, only the cross-sectional results obtained in June are presented. In contrast to the CES results, the correlations between the FES subscales and student adaptation in June were similar to those obtained in October. This makes intuitive sense, since students had lived with their families for a considerable length of time in October.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2. Beginning with the self-concept data, the following FES dimensions were significantly positively related to peer self- concept: Cohesion, Expressiveness, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active- Recreational Orientation, and Organization. Conflict was significantly inversely related to peer self-concept. Several FES dimensions were significantly positively related to both scholastic and general self-concept: Cohesion, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active- Recreational Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis, and Organization. Conflict and Control were both significantly inversely related to these two variables. Expressiveness was also positively related to general self-concept.

Turning to the satisfaction data, Cohesion, Expressiveness, Active-Recreational Orientation, and Organization were significantly positively related to satisfaction with family, while Conflict was inversely related to this variable. Cohesion and Moral- Religious Emphasis were significantly positively related to satisfaction with teacher, but none of the FES dimensions were significantly related to satisfaction with classmates.

With regard to the achievement data, none of the FES dimensions were significantly related to reading comprehension, while Conflict, Active-Recreational Orientation, and Control were significantly related to grades. Both the amount of time spent with father and mother, the quantitative indices of the family environment, were significantly

Table 1 Correlations Between CES Dimensions and Self-concept, Satisfaction, and Achievement

Self-concept Satisfaction Achievement

Reading Scho- Class- compre-

Peer lastic General Family Teacher mates hension Grades

CES dimension Involvement -.05 .26* .06 . I 1 .39* .26* .18* .I0 Affiliation .21* . I 1 .2 1 * .2 I * .25* .23* -.I I -.05

Teacher support - .08 .29' .06 .07 .66* .06 .I0 .I0 Task orientation .03 -.I 1 -.06 .15* -.06 -.05 -.09 -.I0 Competition .06 -.08 -.02 .12 .01 .oo -.05 -.01

Order and organization -.05 .25* .02 .05 .45* .18+ .09 .07

Rule clarity - .07 . I 1 -.01 . IS* .40* .07 .17* .14*

Teacher control .OO -.26* - . I 1 .15* -.19* -.01 -.I0 - . I 1 Innovation -.lo .21* .02 .07 .38* .04 - .05 .05

*p < .05

CLASSROOM AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 28 1

positively related to scholastic and general self-concept, satisfaction with family, and grades. They were also marginally (p < .lo) related to reading comprehension. Satisfac- tion with classmates was positively related to time spent with mother, but inversely related to time spent with father.

Longitudinal Analyses To examine the second question, the CES and FES subscales and the amount of

time spent with father and mother were correlated with the change scores (posttest minus pretest) in the criterion measures (self-concept, satisfaction, and reading comprehen- sion). Beginning with the CES variables, changes in scholastic self-concept were significantly positively related to Involvement, r = .23, and Teacher Support, r = .14. Changes in satisfaction with family were significantly positively related to Rule Clarity, r = .19, while changes in satisfaction with teacher were significantly positively related to Order and Organization, r = .18, and Rule Clarity, r = .16. There were no other signifi- cant correlations between the CES subscales and the measures of student adaptation.

In terms of the FES variables, changes in peer self-concept were significantly related to Conflict, r = -.16, Active-Recreational Orientation, r = .14, and Organization, r = .17. Changes in scholastic self-concept were significantly related to Conflict, r = -. 14,

Table 2 Correlations Between FES Dimensions and Time with Father and Mother and Self-concept, Satisfaction, and Achievement

Self-concept Satisfaction Achievement

Reading Scho- Class- compre-

Peer lastic General Family Teacher mates hension Grades

FES dimension Cohesion Expressiveness

Conflict Independence Achievement

orientation Intellectual-

cultural orientation

recreational orientation

Moral-Religious emphasis

Organization Control Time with

father Time with

mother

Active-

.20*

.25* -.23* -.I2

-.05

.20*

.42*

.03

.23* -.I3

.oo

.07

.3 I *

.09 -.38* -.I2

.03

,18*

.16*

. I9*

.20*

-.23*

.2 1 *

.2 1 *

.43*

.21* -.35*

-.I0

.03

.30*

.3 I *

.20*

.39* -.14*

.18*

.17*

.40* .14* -.03

.28* .03 .oo -.38* - . I 1 -.06

- .I3 -.06 -.03

-.06 -.05 .03

.04 .I0 -.I0

.17* .I2 .09

.02 .16* .04

.15* .06 .04 -.I2 .05 .01

.26* .03 -.20*

.20* .03 .40*

.05 .05 -.07 -.01

-.08 -.15*

.08 .08

.02 - . I I

.02 .07

- .06 .14*

- .02 .05

.05 .oo

.02 -.21*

12 .18*

, I I .14*

*p<.05

282 GEOFFREY NELSON

and Organization, r = .14, while changes in general self-concept were significantly related to Cohesion, r = .14, Active-Recreational Orientation, r = .20, and Organiza- tion, r = .20.

Changes in satisfaction with family were significantly related to Cohesion, r = .18, Expressiveness, r = .18, and Active-Recreational Orientation, r = .14. Three FES sub- scale factors were significantly related to changes in reading comprehension: Conflict, r = -.22, Active-Recreational Orientation, r = .14, and Control, r = -.16. The amount of time spent with father was significantly associated with gains in reading comprehen- sion, r = .17. There were no other significant correlations between the FES subscales or the amount of time spent with father or mother and the measures of student adaptation.

Factor Analyses and Analyses of Variance There were significant intercorrelations of the CES subscales and the FES sub-

scales. Since there was redundancy in the CES subscales and the FES subscales, prin- cipal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed on both the CES and FES subscales. The purpose of this analysis was to obtain a major factor from each of the CES and FES measures that could be used to examine the third question of the potential buffering effects of the classroom and family environments.

Two factors were derived from the principal components factor analysis of the CES with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The first factor accounted for the majority of the variance in this measure, 52.3%, while the second factor accounted for an additional 15.4% of the variance. The loadings of the CES subscales on these two rotated factors are presented in Table 3. The first factor is labelled Support-Structure versus Competition- Task Orientation. This appears to be a general factor which combines both support and

Table 3 Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation of the CES Subscales and the FES Subscales

CES subscales I" IIb FES subscales I' I I d 111"

Involvement .75 .I0 Cohesion .60 .51 -.04 Affiliation - .02 .86 Expressiveness .32 .45 .03 Teacher support .90 .32 Conflict -.39 -.47 .31 Task orientation -.41 -.77 Independence - .29 .oo .56 Competition - -.60 -.34 Achievement

orientation .28 -.09 .49

Order & organization .91 -.08 Intellectual-Cultural orientation .63 .I2 .16

Rule clarity .65 .39 Active-Recreational orientation .4 1 16 - . I 1

Teacher control - .22 -.67 Moral-Religious

lnnovation .13 .44 Organization .64 .o 1 .05 Control .12 -.64 .04

emphasis .34 .01 - . 1 1

"Factor I =Support-Structure vs. Competition-Task Orientation bFactor I I = Afiiliation vs. Task Orientation-Control 'Factor I = Support-Structure vs. Conflict dFactor I I = Cohesion vs. Control "Factor 111 = Independence-Achievement Orientation

CLASSROOM AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 283

innovation from the teacher and a sense of involvement with clear rules and good organization, on the one hand, versus a controlling, task-oriented, competitive at- mosphere, on the other hand. The second factor is labelled Affiliation versus Task Orientation-Control.

Three factors were derived from the principal components factor analysis of the FES with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The first factor accounted for 29.0% of the variance in this measure, while the other two factors accounted for an additional 26.6% of the variance. The loadings of the FES subscales on these three rotated factors are also presented in Table 3. The first factor appears to be a general one that is labelled Support- Structure versus Conflict. This factor combines cohesion with good organization and in- tellectual, achievement, recreational, and religious endeavors versus conflict and in- dependence. The second and third factors are labelled Cohesion versus Control and Independence-Achievement Orientation, respectively.

Table 4 Mean Scholastic Self-concept Scores by CES Factor I and FES Factor I

FES Factor I (Support-Structure vs. Conflict)

High Low

CES Factor I High 15.62 13.49

(Support-Structure vs. Competition- Task orientation) Low 14.25 12.53

To examine the additive effects of the classroom and family factors, students were first dichotomized into those scoring above the mean and those scoring below the mean on FES Factor I. Next, the 14 classrooms were then dichotomized into those scoring above the mean and those scoring below the mean on CES Factor I . Using this 2 x 2 fac- torial arrangement, analyses of variance were performed on each of the criterion variables. There were main effects for FES Factor I on peer self-concept, F (1,142) = 8.64, p < .005, general self-concept, F ( 1 , 142) = 2 0 . 2 9 , ~ < .001, and satisfaction with family, F ( I , 142) = 7.55, p < .01. In each case, students scoring high on FES Factor I had higher mean scores than those scoring low on this factor. There were main effects for CES Factor I on satisfaction with teacher, F(1, 142) = 1 3 . 8 4 , ~ < .001, and satisfaction with classmates, F (1, 142) = 5.37, p < .05.

Only for the variable scholastic self-concept did there appear to be an additive effect. There was a significant main effect for FES Factor I, F (1, 142) = 7 . 4 7 , ~ < .01, and an effect approaching significance for CES Factor I, F (1, 142) = 2.99, p < .08. As can be seen in Table 4, students scored highest in scholastic self-concept when they had both family and classroom settings high in support and structure. There were no significant in- teractions between CES Factor I and FES Factor I on any of the variables.

Discussion This research provided answers to three questions. First, several classroom and

family environment dimensions were found to be related to different domains of students’

284 GEOFFREY NELSON

adaptation. Consistent with previous research, high levels of Involvement, Teacher Sup- port, and Order and Organization, and low levels of Teacher Control were associated with a high degree of scholastic self-concept and satisfaction with teacher (Isherwood & Hammah, 1981; Majoribanks, 1979a; Persad, 1980; Trickett & Moos, 1974; Walberg, 1969). Involvement and Order and Organization were also positively related to satisfac- tion with classmates, while Affiliation, the most social dimension of classroom climate, was related to the more social aspects of adaptation: peer and general self-concept and satisfaction with other people (family, teacher, and classmates).

Given the large number of correlations computed, it is probable that some of the significant correlations could have occurred by chance. Only two variables, scholastic self-concept and satisfaction with teacher, are consistently related to the dimensions of the social climate of the classroom. Thus, Purkey’s (1970, 1978) theory of invitational learning was partially supported by the data. Classroom climates providing both support and structure are associated with the affective characteristics of scholastic self-concept and satisfaction with teacher. However, while students’ scholastic self-concept was significantly positively related to their grades ( r = .51) and reading comprehension ( r = .35), these measures of achievement were not strongly related to the CES dimensions. Only Involvement and Rule Clarity were significantly related to students’ achievement, which is consistent with Trickett and Moos’s (1974) finding that these two CES dimen- sions were the most strongly correlated with students’ satisfaction with “actual material learned.” In this respect, Purkey’s theory was not strongly supported. Thus, students feel better when the climate of the classroom is high in support and structure, but they may not necessarily learn better (Boocock, 1978). On the other hand, there was no evidence in this study that a competitive, task-oriented classroom is associated with high levels of student achievement, as those espousing the “back to basics” philosophy believe. The climate of the classroom does not appear to be a major factor in students’ achievement, according to the results of this study.

Turning to family environments, all facets of students’ self-concept (peer, scholastic, and general) and satisfaction with family tended to be positively related to family climates characterized as high in Cohesion, Expressiveness, Active-Recreational Orien- tation, and Organization, and low in Conflict and Control. Also, an Active-Recreational Orientation and low levels of Conflict and Control were related to high grades. Finally, the dimensions of Independence, Achievement Orientation, and Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, which reflect the values of “rugged individualism,” were unrelated to the measures of self-concept, satisfaction, and achievement.

Again, because of the multiple correlations, some of the significant correlations may have been due to chance. However, the correlations between the family climate dimen- sions and all areas of self-concept and satisfaction with family are consistent. These find- ings parallel research on classrooms which has consistently found better peer relations, self-concept, positive attitudes toward the environment, achievement, etc., for students in classrooms emphasizing cooperation and student interdependence, rather than in- dividualism or competition (Johnson & Johnson, 1979; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981; Slavin & DeVries, 1979). Purkey’s theory of invitational learning can also be applied to the family to explain these results. Families can invite learning and personal growth by providing organization and activities (e.g., intellectual, cultural, recreational, religious, etc.) along with a secure base of supportive and open relationships from which one can explore such activities. As was the case for the relationships between the measures of the social climate of the classroom and achievement, the relationships

CLASSROOM AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 285

between the measures of the social climate of the family and achievement were also weak and inconsistent. Thus, Purkey’s theory is only partially supported by the findings on the social climate of the family. Again, the social climate of the setting is more consistently related to dimensions of children’s affect than to measures of achievement.

This research also demonstrated the importance of the quantitative as well as the qualitative aspects of family environments. Children may have families with very positive climates, but the impact of family climate may be mitigated if children spend little time in that environment. The amount of time students spend with both their father and mother was directly related to a positive family climate and to students’ general and scholastic self-concept, satisfaction with family, and achievement. Previous research has found low achievement and intellectual development for children whose fathers are in- frequently available to them (Blanchard & Biller, 1971; Shinn, 1978). While a con- siderable amount of recent research has documented the stress children undergo in cop- ing with the loss of a parent through parental separation or divorce (Felner, Farber, & Primavera, 1980; Kurdek, 198 l) , little research has considered the potential negative reactions of children who have limited time with one or both parents. In families in which both parents work or are actively involved in career or social activities, their children may experience similar social and emotional upset to children whose parents are separating. Considerable research has supported Bowlby’s (1977) assertions about the importance of human attachments for an individual’s psychological health. The family is an especially important source of attachment and support for children, since children may not have the extrafamilial support systems that many adults have.

In terms of the second question, some changes in the affective and achievement domains were found to be a function of classroom and family environment variables. While these longitudinal findings were less strong and consistent than the cross-sectional findings, they are encouraging since much of the previous research has been cross- sectional. Moreover,the longitudinal findings were generally consistent with the cross- sectional findings. For example, family environment variables (Conflict, Active Recreational-Orientation, Control, Time with Father) which were related to students’ grades in the cross-sectional analyses were related to changes in reading comprehension in the longitudinal analyses.

In interpreting these correlational findings, three points must be kept in mind. First of all, many of the significant correlations between the measures of the social climate of the classroom and family and students’ affect and achievement are low. This is probably the case because there are many variables besides dimensions of social climate which are related to students’ affect and achievement. For example, students’ scholastic self- concept at grade 7 or 8 is probably fairly stable because of the influence of their in- telligence and previous environmental factors. Second, as has been previously men- tioned, because of the many correlations computed, it is likely that some of the signifi- cant correlations are due to chance.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the findings are correlational and not ex- perimental. Thus, it is equally plausible to argue that student characteristics influence the climate of the classroom or family, as it is to argue that the climate of the classroom or family influences student characteristics, such as affect and achievement. Better un- derstanding of the causal impact of environmental settings on students awaits experimen- tation in which classroom or family environments are modified in a controlled fashion. Moos (1979; Moos & David, 198 1) has suggested assessing the real-ideal discrepancies in the perceived environmental climate and feeding back this data to the participants to

286 GEOFFREY NELSON

facilitate environmental change. Research on such planned efforts should provide infor- mation on the utility of this approach for primary prevention.

Regarding the third question, there was some evidence that the classroom environ- ment can act as a buffer for the family environment, and vice versa, with respect to students’ scholastic self-concept. This finding is consistent with that of Rutter et al. (1979) and suggests that if a student is living in a family which is characterized by conflict and control, both of which were related to low levels of affective adaptation and school achievement, those negative effects can be significantly magnified or offset by having a classroom environment that is low or high in support and structure.

Scholastic self-concept, however, was the only variable that was consistently related to both classroom and family environment dimensions. This suggests that, in general, different environments are related to distinct domains of students’ adaptation, pointing to the importance of using situation-specific as opposed to global measures of variables such as self-concept and satisfaction.

I n summary, the results of this study provide support for some notions popular among humanistic educators. Classroom and family environments which provide sup- port and structure are clearly related to students’ affective adaptation, but their relationship to students’ achievement is less certain. On the other hand, however, dimen- sions of classroom and family environments which reflect the values of those espousing a “back to basics” approach were unrelated to students’ affective adaptation and achieve- ment. Future research needs to focus on student variables which may interact with these environmental variables to produce a positive “fit” between the person and the environ- ment.

References BLANCHARD, R . W., & BILLER, H. B. (1971).

BOOCOCK, S. S. (1978). BOWLBY, J . (1977).

COWEN, E. L. (1977).

FELNER, R. D., FARBER, S. S., & PRIMAVERA, J. (1980).

Father availability and academic performance among third-

The social organization of the classroom. Annual Review of Sociology, 4 , 1-28. The making and breaking of affectional bonds, I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the

light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210. Baby-steps toward primary prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology,

5 , 1-22. Children of divorce, stressful life events, and tran-

sitions: A framework for preventive efforts. In R. H. Price, R. F. Ketterer, B. C. Bader, & J. Monahan (Eds.), Prevention in mental health: Research. policy and practice. Beverly Hills: Sage.

FRASER, B. J. (1979). Evaluation of a science-based curriculum. In H. J . Walberg (Ed.), Educational en- vironments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

GATES, A. L., & MACGINITIE, W. H. (1965). Technical manual for the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. New York: Teachers College Press.

INSEL, P. M. (1980). Task force report: The social climate of mental health. Community Mental Health Journal, 16, 62-78.

ISHERWOOD, G. B., & HAMMAH, C. K. (1981). Home and school factors and the quality of school life in Canadian high schools. In J. L. Epstein (Ed.), The quality ofschool life. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 41-62.

JOHNSON, D. W., & JOHNSON, R. T. (1979). Cooperation, competition, and individualization. In H. J . Walberg (Ed.), Educational environmenrs and effects: Evaluation, policy and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

KAYE, S., TRICKETT, E., & QUINLAN, D. (1976). Alternative methods for environmental assessment: An ex- ample. American Journal of Community Psychology, 4 , 367-377.

grade boys. Developmental Psychology, 4 , 301-305.

JOHNSON, D. W., MARUYAMA, G., JOHNSON, R., NELSON, E., & SKON, L. (1981).

CLASSROOM AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS 287

KURDECK, L. A. (I98 I ) . An integrative perspective on children’s divorce adjustment. American Psychologist,

LEVINE, M., & PERKINS, D. V. (1980). Social setting interventions and primary prevention: Comments on the Report of the Task Panel on Prevention to the President’s Commission on Mental Health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 147-157.

MARJORIBANKS, K. (1979a). Family and school environmental correlates of intelligence, personality, and school related affective characteristics. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 99, 165-183.

MARJORIBANKS, K. (1979b). Family environments. In H. J . Walberg (Ed.), Educational environments and effects: Evaluation. policy. and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

MOOS, R. H. (1979). Educational climates. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Moos, R. H., & DAVID, T. G. (1981). Evaluating and changing classroom settings. In J. L. Epstein (Ed.), The quality of school lve . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books,

MOOS, R. H.,’INsEL, P. H., & HUMPHREY, B. (1974). Combinedpreliminary manual: Family, work, &group environment scales. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

MOOS, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 15,357-371. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1978). Classroom social climate and student absences and grades. Journal of

NELSON, G. (1981). Moderators of women’s and children’s adjustment following parental divorce. Journal of

PERSAD, S . (1980). Relationship of classroom environment, teacher and student satisfaction, and student self-

POPHAM, W. J. (1972, November). Empirical based revision of affective measuring instruments. Paper

POWER, C . N., & TISHER, R. P. (1979). A self-paced environment. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational en-

PURKEY, W. W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. PURKEY, W. W. (1978). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching and learning. Belmont,

California: Wadsworth. RUTTER, M., MAUGHAN, B., MORTIMORE, P., & OUSTON, T. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary

schools and their effecrs on children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. SCORESBY, A. L., & CHRISTENSEN, B. (1976). Differences in interaction and environmental conditions of

clinic and non-clinic families: Implications for counselors. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 2 , 63-7 1.

SHINN, M. (1978). Father absence and children’s cognitive development. Psychological Bulletin, 85,295-324. SLAVIN, R. E., & DEVRIES, D. L. (1979). Learning in teams. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational en-

TRICKETT, E., & Moos, R. H. (1973). The social environments of junior high and high school classrooms.

TRICKETT, E., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Personal correlates of contrasting environments: Student satisfaction

WALBERG, H. J. (1969). Social environment as a mediator of classroom learning. Journal of Educational

WALBERG, H. J., SINGH, R., & RASHER, S. P. (1977a). An operational test of a three-factor theory of

WALBERG, H. J., SINGH, R., & RASHER, S. P. (1977b). Predictive validity of student perception: A cross-

36, 856-866.

Educational Psychology, 70, 263-269.

Divorce, 4 , 71-83.

concept. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University.

presented at the meeting of the California Educational Research Association, San Jose, CA.

vironments and eflecis: Evaluation, policy. and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

vironments and effects: Evaluation, policy. and productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93-102.

in high school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2 , 1-12.

Psychology, 60, 443-448.

classroom social perception. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 508-51 3 .

cultural replication. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 45-49.