american educational research journal - sage - the natural

http://aerj.aera.net

American Educational Research Journal

DOI: 10.3102/00028312038002437 2001; 38; 437 Am Educ Res J

Allison M Ryan and Helen Patrick Middle School

The Classroom Social Environment and Changes in Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement During

http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/437 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published on behalf of

http://www.aera.net

By

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Educational Research Journal Additional services and information for

http://aerj.aera.net/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://aerj.aera.net/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on September 19, 2008 http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from

http://www.aera.net

http://aerj.aera.net/cgi/alerts

http://aerj.aera.net/subscriptions

http://www.aera.net/reprints

http://www.aera.net/permissions

http://aer.sagepub.com

American Educational Research JournalSummer 2001, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 437–460

The Classroom Social Environment andChanges in Adolescents’ Motivation and

Engagement During Middle School

Allison M. RyanUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Helen PatrickNorthern Illinois University

The authors investigated how students’ (N = 233) perceptions of the socialenvironment of their eighth-grade classroom related to changes in motiva-tion and engagement when they moved from seventh to eighth grade. Ingeneral, prior motivation and engagement were strong predictors of subse-quent motivation and engagement, whereas gender, race, and priorachievement were not related to changes in motivation or engagement. Ahigher-order classroom social environment factor accounted for significantchanges in all motivation and engagement outcomes. Four distinct dimen-sions of the social environment were differentially important in explainingchanges in various indices of motivation and engagement. In general, how-ever, students’ perceptions of teacher support, and the teacher as promotinginteraction and mutual respect were related to positive changes in theirmotivation and engagement. Students’ perceptions of the teacher as promot-ing performance goals were related to negative changes in student motiva-tion and engagement. Implications for recent educational reform initiativeswere also discussed.

ALLISON M. RYAN is an Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology,230 Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820-6990. Her areas of specialization are motivation,classroom contextual influences on achievement beliefs and behaviors, help seekingbeliefs and behaviors, and socialization within adolescent peer groups.

HELEN PATRICK is now an Assistant Professor at the Department of EducationalStudies, Purdue University, 1446 LAEB, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Her areas of spe-cialization are motivation, self-regulated learning, and effects of classroom contexts.



Research in a variety of areas has documented that characteristics of class-room environments have an impact on student motivation and engage-

ment. In particular, this research has focused on teachers’ practices aroundacademic activities, and students’ perceptions of these practices. However,classrooms are inherently social places; students do not learn alone butrather in the presence of many peers. Students pursue both social and aca-demic goals in the classroom (Juvonen & Murdock, 1995; Urdan & Maehr,1995; Wentzel, 1993). Furthermore, teachers are more than subject matterspecialists. In addition to delivering the curriculum, teachers help to con-struct the classroom social environment by creating norms and rules forstudent social behavior in the classroom and giving explicit messages re-garding students’ interactions with their classmates. The types of academictasks teachers assign can encourage or dissuade cooperation and sharing ofexpertise. Furthermore, the types of participation structures they establishand the way they publicly recognize students contribute to the social envi-ronment. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to explore how variousdimensions of the social environment of the classroom support or under-mine students’ motivation and engagement.

There is some research supporting the argument that the social en-vironment of the classroom will be important for students’ motivationand engagement. A sense of relatedness or belonging at school is associatedpositively with students’ expectancies for success and intrinsic valuefor school—both indicators of motivation (Goodenow, 1993; Skinner & Bel-mont, 1993). Research in cooperative learning has found that students re-ported increased efficacy, value, and mastery goal orientation regardingmath when their classes were organized cooperatively, compared to tradi-tional formats (Nichols & Miller, 1994). In classrooms where teachers reportthey attend to students’ social as well as academic needs, students reportedmore help seeking—an indicator of engagement (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley,1998). Social interaction among students has been found to be related posi-tively to reading engagement, including use of cognitive strategies (Guthrie,Schafer, Wang, & Afflerbach, 1995). Consistent with the previous studies,other researchers (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Brown, 1990; Parker & Asher,1987) have shown that successful peer relationships are important for schooladjustment and academic achievement. However, the extent to which class-room peer interactions (as distinct from relationships with individual friends,within a clique, or a crowd) relate to motivation and engagement has notreceived much attention. Furthermore, the role that the teacher plays increating the social environment within which classroom peer relationshipsdevelop has also received little attention. In short, there is a need for inves-tigation of the nature of the classroom social environment, including iden-tifying and distinguishing among dimensions that contribute to students’classroom perceptions.

In the present study we explore several dimensions of the classroomsocial environment, including perceptions about both classmates and theteacher. Because academic and social development are each inherently as-

Ryan and Patrick

438



sociated with learning and achievement (McCaslin & Good, 1996) we inves-tigate relations between the classroom social environment and bothacademic and social outcomes. Specifically, we consider the following out-comes: students’ academic and social efficacy, self-regulated learning, anddisruptive behavior. Academic efficacy refers to students’ judgments abouttheir capabilities to complete their schoolwork successfully (Schunk, 1991).Social efficacy refers to students’ judgments about their social skills regardinginteracting successfully with their peers and teacher (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan,1997). Self-regulated learning refers to students’ active cognitive engagementwith the task in hand, such as planning, monitoring comprehension, andchecking their work (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Disruptive behavior refersto disturbing others and negative conduct in class (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).Together, these various academic and social outcomes provide an overviewof students’ motivation and engagement in class.

Early Adolescence and the Classroom Social EnvironmentAlthough the social environment of the classroom is likely to be important tomotivation and engagement for students of all ages, it may be particularlyimportant for young adolescent students. Early adolescence has been iden-tified as a particularly precarious stage regarding changes in achievementbeliefs and behaviors (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989,1995; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). Certainly, for some youngadolescent students, the increases in self-reflection, autonomy, and identityexploration lead to new academic interests, increased self-regulated learn-ing, and a commitment to education (Goodenow, 1993). However, for manychildren early adolescence marks the beginning of a downward trend inacademics. More so than at other ages, young adolescents doubt their abili-ties to succeed at their schoolwork, question the value of doing their school-work, and decrease their effort toward academics (Anderman & Maehr, 1994;Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; 1995; Eccles & Midg-ley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). In the present study we examine changes inyoung adolescents’ motivation and engagement when they transition fromseventh to eighth grade within the same middle school.

Research using a stage-environment fit framework indicates that optimaldevelopment for adolescents will occur in an educational context that isappropriately matched to their developmental needs (see Eccles et al., 1993for a review). For young adolescents, meeting these developmental needsinvolves addressing their increased desire for autonomy, increased reflectionon more abstract constructs (e.g., fairness), increased need for positive andsupportive relationships with both peers and nonparental adults, and in-creased self-consciousness and sensitivity regarding social comparison (Ni-cholls, 1990). Environments that are sensitive to such changes have beenassociated with more positive student outcomes, whereas environments thatare at odds with the needs of young adolescent students have been associ-ated with more negative outcomes (Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987; Midgley,Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). We outline below aspects of the classroom social

Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement

439



environment that may be especially relevant to young adolescents’ motiva-tion and engagement.

Dimensions of the Classroom Social EnvironmentTeacher SupportPrevious research has investigated one dimension of the classroom socialenvironment: teacher support. Teacher support has been defined slightlydifferently by various researchers (e.g., Goodenow, 1993; Fraser & Fisher,1982; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Skinner & Belmont, 1993), but itgenerally involves characteristics such as caring, friendliness, understanding,dedication, and dependability. Thus, teacher support refers to the extent towhich students believe teachers value and establish personal relationshipswith them. Perceived teacher support has been linked to students’ achieve-ment motivation. When students perceive their teacher as supportive theyreport higher levels of interest and enjoyment in their schoolwork (Good-enow, 1993; Fraser & Fisher, 1982; Midgley et al., 1989; Skinner & Belmont,1993), a more positive academic self-concept (Felner, Aber, Primavera, &Cauce, 1985), and greater expectancies for success in the classroom (Good-enow, 1993). Nonparental adults are especially important as role models andsources of support during adolescence (Midgley et al., 1989). Longitudinalresearch has shown that perceived teacher support has a stronger effect onstudents’ motivational beliefs during junior high school compared to el-ementary school (Midgley et al., 1989). In line with this research we expectthat teacher support will be related positively to students’ academic efficacy.Perceptions of teacher supportiveness, and confidence that help will beavailable if needed, would be expected to decrease students’ anxiety abouttask engagement. Such anxiety undermines self-regulated learning (Pintrich& De Groot, 1990). Thus, we expect teacher support to be also relatedpositively to students’ self-regulated learning. In addition, we hypothesizethat perceptions of teacher support will facilitate students’ social efficacyrelating to the teacher and reduce disruptive behavior in the classroom. Wedo not expect a relation between teacher support and students’ social effi-cacy with their peers.

In addition to perceptions of teacher-student relationships as beingsupportive, we suggest that teacher messages about student-student rela-tionships may also contribute to the classroom social environment. We ex-plore three different dimensions that teachers may communicate to studentsabout their relationships with peers around academic tasks: (a) other stu-dents are valuable resources with whom you work to increase learning(promoting interaction); (b) other students are to be shown respect andsupport (promoting mutual respect); and (c) other students are markers ofyour relative ability, with whom you are compared to and compete with(promoting performance goals).

Promoting InteractionTeachers vary in the extent to which they encourage, or even allow, studentsto interact with one another during academic activities. This interaction may

Ryan and Patrick

440



encompass students sharing ideas during whole-class lessons, working to-gether in small-group activities, or informal help-seeking and help-givingduring individual seatwork. Whatever the form, however, interaction amongstudents is a critical component of student-centered instructional ap-proaches. When students are encouraged to interact and exchange ideaswith each other during academic tasks they have opportunities to justify theirown position and gain exposure to other possibilities (Good, Mulryan, &McCaslin, 1992; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). Adolescents’ increased capacity forconsidering others’ perspectives, generating options, being reflective, andevaluating alternatives (Keating, 1990) suggests that interaction in the class-room may be especially beneficial at this stage. Students should feel moreefficacious about their ability to learn and complete activities successfullywhen interaction among students is promoted, because they have a greaterarray of resources on which to draw than if they were only working indi-vidually. With regard to self-regulated learning, McCaslin and Good (1996)found that positive interactions among classmates support students’ self-regulated, or “coregulated”, learning. In line with this, we expect that anenvironment in which students are encouraged to discuss their schoolworkand explain aspects of the task to one another will support students’ strategicand planful task engagement. Thus, we expect that promoting interactionamong students will be related positively to students’ academic efficacy andself-regulated learning.

A focus on encouraging student interaction in the classroom should alsopromote social development, especially during early adolescence when peerrelationships are valued highly (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990) but middleschool structures often make it more difficult for students to establish mean-ingful relationships with peers compared to elementary school (Eccles et al.,1993; Hicks, 1997). Accordingly, we expect that promoting interaction willbe related positively to students’ efficacy relating to peers and their teacher.It is unclear, however, how encouraging interaction would be related tostudents’ disruptive behavior. Promoting interaction may make it easier forstudents to become off-task and disruptive. Conversely, legitimizing oppor-tunities for students to talk with one another and meet social needs may beassociated with decreased disruptive behavior in the classroom.

Promoting Mutual Respect

Teachers may vary in the values that they communicate to students aboutrelating to and respecting peers. An observational study of 19 classroomsfound considerable variability in interactions among students and betweenthe teacher and students (Anderson, Stevens, Prawat, & Nickerson, 1988).Whereas some classrooms were characterized by positive and comfortablerelationships and frequent prosocial and cooperative interactions, otherclassrooms had an unpleasant affective tone and frequent negative studentinteractions such as bickering, criticism and insults. Perceptions that theteacher promotes mutual respect in the classroom would be expected tocontribute to students’ feelings of psychological safety and comfort, includ-


441



ing low anxiety and low threat regarding making mistakes. When studentsare anxious or worried about making mistakes they are less likely to engagein their academic work in an effortful and strategic manner (Turner, Thorpe,& Meyer, 1998). Resource allocation theory suggests that this may be due tonegative affect increasing task-irrelevant thoughts, which overloads workingmemory, thereby reducing the available cognitive capacity (Ellis & Ash-brook, 1987). Thus, a classroom environment in which the teacher promotesmutual respect is expected to support students’ self-regulated learning andacademic efficacy.

Furthermore, a focus on respect should help create an environmentwhere students communicate positively with one another, and feel effica-cious about their social relationships. Because adolescence is typically a timeof increased self-consciousness and sensitivity (Elkind, 1967; Harter, 1990),the promotion of mutual respect may be especially beneficial to adolescents’adaptive social functioning in the classroom. Accordingly, we also expectthat promotion of mutual respect in the classroom will be related positivelyto social efficacy with peers and the teacher, and related negatively to dis-ruptive behavior.

Promoting Performance Goals

The promotion of performance goals concerns an emphasis on competitionand relative ability comparisons among students in the classroom. Researchfrom a goal theory framework has examined this dimension of the classroomand found that when students perceive an emphasis on performance goalsthey are more likely to exhibit beliefs and behaviors that are less conduciveto, and often detrimental to, learning and achievement (see Ames, 1992 fora review). We included this dimension of a classroom because it is social innature; that is, an emphasis on competition and relative ability inevitablyinvolves other students. The perception that the teacher promotes perfor-mance goals may be particularly harmful to adolescents’ motivation, againbecause of adolescents’ heightened self-consciousness and sensitivity (Har-ter, 1990). Support for this comes from studies that examined classroomperformance focus and student motivation. Both Ames and Archer (1988)and Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman (1998) found that a classroom focus onperformance goals was correlated negatively with students’ perceived aca-demic competence. Furthermore, Midgley, Anderman, and Hicks (1995)found middle school students’ perceptions of a school performance orien-tation to be related negatively to their academic efficacy, although Roeser,Midgley, and Urdan (1996) found no significant relation. In line with themajority of these studies’ findings, we expect that the promotion of perfor-mance goals by teachers will be related to students’ decreased feelings ofacademic efficacy. Furthermore, we expect an emphasis on performancegoals to be related negatively to social efficacy and related positively todisruptive behavior. As discussed by Butler (1995), when students are vyingwith their classmates to establish their place in a hierarchy of ability they are

Ryan and Patrick

442



less likely to cooperate with each other, which may lead to less harmonioussocial relations and increased disruptive behavior.

Previous research has examined the relation between performancegoals and students’ self-regulated learning. Some work has found that whenstudents focus on performance goals they are less likely to self-regulate theirlearning, indicating that a focus on task performance relative to others, ratherthan on the task itself, decreases the use of deep cognitive processing strat-egies that lead to better understanding (Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece,Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nolen, 1988). However, other research hasfound no relation between classroom performance goals and self-regulatedlearning (Ames & Archer, 1988). Ryan and Pintrich (1997) also found no relationbetween performance goals and adaptive help seeking, one form of self-regulated learning. Thus, although it seems reasonable to conclude that perfor-mance goals do not promote self-regulated learning, it is not clear that theynecessarily undermine it. We expect a weak negative or null relation betweenthe promotion of performance goals and students’ self-regulated learning.

The Social Environment of Math ClassroomsIt was important that we situate our investigation of the classroom socialenvironment within a specific domain so as not to confound aspects of theclassroom context with subject area. There are differences in the way teach-ers and students perceive different disciplines which affects how lessons arestructured and perceived (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Stodolsky & Gross-man, 1995). We focus on math classes in the present study. There are severalcharacteristics of math classrooms that are important to consider with regardto students’ motivation and engagement. Unlike other subjects, students(and often teachers) typically believe that there is only one correct way tosolve a math problem, and that involves following specific procedures pre-scribed by the teacher (Lampert, 1990; Schoenfeld, 1992). Students typicallybelieve that math performance is affected more by innate ability than byeffort (Schoenfeld, 1992; Stodolsky, Salk, & Glaessner, 1991). When studentsbelieve that difficulties reflect a lack of ability, they are likely to experienceanxiety or nervousness that may undermine motivation and engagement.Accordingly, a social environment in math class that is perceived as sup-portive, where students are not allowed to tease or ridicule others, wheresharing of ideas and opinions is fostered and valued, and where teachers donot emphasize students’ relative performance is expected to be facilitative ofadaptive patterns of motivation and engagement.

Research QuestionsIn summary, we investigate how students’ perceptions of various facets ofthe social environment of their eighth-grade math classroom (teacher sup-port, promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, promoting perfor-mance goals) relate to changes in motivation and engagement (academicand social efficacy, self-regulated learning, and disruptive behavior) whenstudents move from seventh to eighth grade. We control for students’ prior(seventh grade) motivation and engagement; therefore, the results indicate


443



the effects of the perceived classroom social environment on change inmotivation and engagement. Autocorrelations for these outcome beliefs andbehaviors tend to be significant from one year to the next. Therefore ac-counting for intra-individual stability when examining how classroom per-ceptions explain change in motivation and engagement provides convincingevidence that the classroom environment does influence students’ motiva-tion and engagement. We also control for students’ gender, race, and priorachievement (seventh grade), because such characteristics are often associ-ated with academic outcomes and we want to explain variation in motivationand engagement above and beyond that associated with demographic char-acteristics and achievement.

MethodParticipants and ProcedureThe students in this study are participating in a large-scale longitudinal studyexamining the relation between the learning environment and adolescentdevelopment. Students were recruited in fifth grade and 83% were givenpermission by their parents to participate. Data for the current study werecollected from a subsample of the total sample (all schools did not partici-pate at all waves) when students were in seventh and eighth grades. Theparticipants in this study were 233 students from three ethnically diversemiddle schools within two midwestern school districts. The sample was 45%European American and 55% African American. The principals of theseschools described the students as coming predominantly from working classbackgrounds with about 40% of the students being eligible for free or re-duced fee lunch. Fifty-seven percent of the sample was female.

Surveys were administered to students by trained research assistants inthe spring of seventh grade (wave 1) and in the fall of eighth grade (wave 2).Surveys were administered to students in groups of 25–45 in the library orcafeteria in the school. Three to four trained research assistants administeredthe surveys. Students were told the purpose of the survey was to find outwhat students thought about school. Students were informed that participat-ing in the study was voluntary and that the information would be keptconfidential. Students were guided through an example of how to answer aLikert-type survey question. Students were encouraged to ask questions.One administrator read the items out loud and the others would monitor thestudents and answer questions. Students circled their responses in pen orpencil on the survey.

Students came from 30 different math classes taught by 15 differentteachers. The number of participating students from each of these 30 mathclasses ranged from 1 to 28 (10 classes had 1–4 students; 8 classes had 5–8students; 5 classes had 9–12 students; 6 classes had 13–19 students; and 1class had 28 students). The uneven distribution of students surveyed permath class reflects the fact that this study is part of a longitudinal study thathas been following individual students since the fifth grade (i.e., when stu-dents moved into middle school, they were placed in classes with studentsfrom different elementary schools who were not part of our study).

Ryan and Patrick

444



MeasuresThe format for all items was a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = not at all truethrough 5 = very true. All items (perceptions of the classroom social envi-ronment items and personal motivation and engagement) were specific tomath class. Principal Axis Factor analyses guided the construction of allscales (analysis regarding the social environment scales is presented in theresults section).

Students’ perceptions of their classroom social environment. Studentsreported their perceptions of the extent to which their teacher promotedteacher-student relationships (teacher support), social interaction amongpeers around academic tasks (promoting interaction), mutual respect amongclassmates (promoting mutual respect), and competition and comparisonamong students around academic tasks (promoting performance goals).Items about the promotion of performance goals were taken from the Pat-terns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al., 1996). Items aboutteacher support were adapted from the Teacher Support subscale of theClassroom Environment Scale (Moos & Trickett, 1974). The remaining twomeasures of the classroom social environment were new, and written toinvestigate these aspects of the social environment. Scales, items, and reli-abilities are shown in Table 1.

Students’ motivation. Students answered questions about their aca-demic efficacy, social efficacy with the teacher, and social efficacy with theirpeers in math class. The measure of academic efficacy (5 items, � = .86 wave1 and � = .90 wave 2) was taken from PALS (Midgley et al., 1996). Academicefficacy refers to students’ judgments of their capability to complete theirwork successfully. Examples of this scale include I’m certain I can figure outhow to do even the most difficult math work and I can do even the hardestwork in math class if I try. Students’ academic efficacy for mathematics ineighth grade was correlated significantly with their actual math achievementin eighth grade (r = .26, p < .001).

The measures of students’ social efficacy with the teacher (4 items, � =.79 wave 1 and � = .69 wave 2) and social efficacy with peers (5 items, � =.73 wave 1 and � = .76 wave 2) were constructed by Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan(1997). These measures refer to students’ judgments of being able to relateeffectively and satisfactorily with their teacher and with their classmates,respectively. Sample items of social efficacy with the teacher are If my mathteacher gets annoyed with me, I can usually work it out and I find it hardto get along with my math teacher (reversed item). Sample items of socialefficacy with peers are I find it easy to start a conversation with most stu-dents in my math class and I often don’t know what to say when otherstudents in my math class talk to me (reversed item).

Students’ engagement. Students answered questions about their self-regulated learning and disruptive behavior in math class. The measure ofself-regulated learning (6 items, � = .75 wave 1 and � = .76 wave 2) wasadapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich,Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) and measures developed by Zimmerman


445



Tab

le1

Fac

tor

Lo

adin

gs

for

Item

sR

egar

din

gS

tud

ents

’P

erce

pti

on

so

fth

eC

lass

roo

mS

oci

alE

nvi

ron

men

t

Pro

mo

tin

gin

tera

ctio

n

Pro

mo

tin

gm

utu

alre

spec

t

Pro

mo

tin

gp

erfo

rman

cego

als

Tea

cher

sup

po

rt

My

mat

hte

acher

...

allo

ws

us

todis

cuss

our

work

with

clas

smat

es.8

8le

tsus

ask

oth

erst

uden

tsw

hen

we

nee

dhel

pin

mat

h.8

6en

coura

ges

us

tosh

are

idea

sw

ithone

anoth

erin

clas

s.8

1en

coura

ges

us

toge

tto

know

allth

eoth

erst

uden

tsin

clas

s.5

9en

coura

ges

us

toge

tto

know

our

clas

smat

es’nam

es.5

5en

coura

ges

us

tobe

hel

pfu

lto

oth

erst

uden

tsw

ithth

eir

mat

hw

ork

.46

Ifyo

uhav

ea

pro

ble

min

mat

hcl

ass

you

can

just

talk

toso

meo

ne

aboutit

.80

Peo

ple

inm

ym

ath

clas

soften

work

outpro

ble

ms

toge

ther

.53

My

mat

hte

acher

...

wan

tsst

uden

tsin

this

clas

sto

resp

ectea

choth

ers’

idea

s.8

2does

notal

low

studen

tsto

mak

efu

nofoth

erst

uden

ts’id

eas

incl

ass

.68

does

notle

tus

mak

efu

nofso

meo

ne

who

give

sth

ew

rong

answ

er.6

7w

illnotal

low

studen

tsto

say

anyt

hin

gneg

ativ

eab

outea

choth

erin

clas

s.6

6w

ants

allst

uden

tsto

feel

resp

ecte

d.5

5poin

tsoutth

ose

studen

tsw

ho

getgo

od

grad

esas

anex

ample

toal

lofus

.77

tells

us

us

how

we

com

par

eto

oth

erst

uden

ts.7

6le

tsus

know

whic

hst

uden

tsge

tth

ehig

hes

tsc

ore

son

ate

st.7

4le

tsus

know

whic

hst

uden

tsge

tth

elo

wes

tsc

ore

son

ate

st.6

8poin

tsoutth

ose

studen

tsw

ho

getpoor

grad

esas

anex

ample

toal

lofus

.62

mak

esit

obvi

ous

when

certai

nst

uden

tsar

enotdoin

gw

ellon

thei

rm

ath

work

.58

calls

on

smar

tst

uden

tsm

ore

than

on

oth

erst

uden

ts.4

6D

oes

your

mat

hte

acher

resp

ectyo

ur

opin

ion?

.85

Does

your

mat

hte

acher

real

lyunder

stan

dhow

you

feel

aboutth

ings

?.6

8D

oes

your

mat

hte

acher

try

tohel

pyo

uw

hen

you

are

sad

or

upse

t?.5

2Can

you

counton

your

mat

hte

acher

for

hel

pw

hen

you

nee

dit?

.44

Cro

nbac

h’s

alpha

.90

.82

.86

.82

Not

e.Fa

ctor

load

ings

<.4

0notre

ported

.



and Martinez-Pons (1988). Items concern the extent to which students plan,monitor, and regulate their cognition. Examples of items include When I’mworking on a math problem, I think about whether I understand what I’mdoing and When I finish my math work, I check to make sure it’s donecorrectly.

The measure of students’ disruptive behavior (5 items, � = .89 wave 1and � = .82 wave 2) was constructed by Kaplan (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).Items refer to student reports of their own disruptive behavior and negativeconduct in math class. Sample items include I disturb the lesson in mathclass, I behave in a way that annoys my math teacher, and I do not followmy math teacher’s directions.

Prior achievement. Students’ math grades from the final semester ofseventh grade were collected from their school records. The grades werecoded F = 1 through A+ = 13.

Results

Preliminary Analyses of the Classroom Social Environment Measures

Exploratory Factor Analyses. We explored the hypothesized four-factorstructure of students’ perceptions of the classroom social environment. Prin-cipal Axis Factor analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted for the entiresample (n = 233). The analysis yielded four factors with eigenvalues greaterthan 1.0, which accounted for 56% of the variance. Items and factor loadingsare presented in Table 1. Loadings above .40 are shown. The four factorscorresponded to the four hypothesized classroom social environment vari-ables: teacher support, teacher promotes interaction, teacher promotes mu-tual respect, and teacher promotes performance goals. All factor loadingswere above .44 on their primary factor. No items cross-loaded (>.40) on twofactors. Reliability analyses indicated that the four classroom social environ-ment scales had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from.82 to .90, see Table 1). Reliability analyses also indicated that dropping anyitems would not result in a higher Cronbach’s alpha for any of the scales.

Factor analyses were conducted again for boys and girls separately andfor African American and European American students separately. The samefour-factor structure was found regardless of gender or race. The factorloadings were very similar across groups. These results indicated that studentperceptions of the classroom environment were very similar for all groups.Reliability analyses were also conducted separately by gender and race. TheCronbach’s alpha coefficients for all four scales were high across groups(.82–.91). Thus, the perceived social environment items formed internallyconsistent scales for all groups in our study. Therefore, the items in each ofthe four scales were averaged to create four perceived social environmentscales with a range of 1–5.

Analyses of variance to investigate between-class differences in the di-mensions of the classroom social environment measures. Student percep-tions of their environment are a critical link in understanding how theenvironment influences motivation and engagement. It is expected that there


447



will be individual differences in student perceptions of their environment,and indeed in the present study it is this variation at the individual level thatwe are exploring. However, it is expected that these perceptions wouldconverge somewhat among students in the same classroom because there isa common experience. To examine the degree of consensus among studentsregarding the social environment of the classroom, we calculated the intra-class correlation (the ratio of the between class variance and the totalvariance). These were estimated by running four unbalanced one-way ran-dom-effects analyses of variance, in which class is a random factor withvarying numbers of students per class, and each of the four facets of thesocial environment were the outcome variables. The one-way ANOVAS in-dicated that the intraclass correlations for the student reports about theirclassroom environment were 26%, 39%, 35%, and 27% for teacher support,promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, and promoting perfor-mance goals, respectively. Thus, whereas there are individual differencesregarding student perceptions, it is informative to know that there is somedegree of concordance among students in a given classroom regarding thesemeasures of the classroom’s four dimensions of social environment.

Higher-order factor analysis of the dimensions of the classroom socialenvironment measures. Although the classroom social environment com-prises four different dimensions, we expected the various dimensions to berelated. Thus, we subjected the four factors to a second-order or higher-order factor analysis to see if the four factors reflected an overarching con-struct. Principal Axis Factor analysis of the four dimensions yielded onefactor, indicating that there was an overall “classroom social environment”construct. Teacher support, teacher promotes interaction, and teacher pro-motes mutual respect all loaded positively (.85, .50, and .69, respectively),whereas teacher promotes performance goals loaded negatively (−.43) onthe higher-order factor.

Descriptive Statistics

Eighth grade. The overall classroom social environment construct wascorrelated positively with social efficacy with teachers (r = .44, p < .001),social efficacy with peers (r = .18, p < .01), academic efficacy (r = .30, p <.001), and self-regulated learning (r = .20, p < .01), and related negatively todisruptive behavior (r = −.43, p < .001). Means, standard deviations, andcorrelations among the four dimensions of the classroom social environmentand the motivation and engagement indices measured in eighth grade arepresented in Table 2. An expected pattern of correlations was found.Teacher support, promoting interaction, and promoting mutual respect wererelated positively to social efficacy with teachers and peers, academic effi-cacy, and self-regulated learning, and related negatively to disruptive behav-ior. Promoting performance goals was related negatively to social efficacywith teachers and peers, academic efficacy, and self-regulated learning, andrelated positively to disruptive behavior.

Ryan and Patrick

448



Tab

le2

Mea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

s,an

dC

orr

elat

ion

sA

mo

ng

Per

ceiv

edC

lass

roo

mS

oci

alE

nvi

ron

men

tV

aria

ble

san

dS

tud

ent

Mo

tiva

tio

nan

dE

ng

agem

ent

inE

igh

thG

rad

e,G

end

er,

Rac

e,an

dP

rio

rA

chie

vem

ent

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1.Tea

cher

support

—2.

Pro

mote

inte

ract

ion

.49

—3.

Pro

mote

mutu

alre

spec

t.6

0.4

0—

4.Pro

mote

per

form

ance

goal

s−.4

1−.1

4−.3

9—

5.So

cial

effica

cy:te

acher

.71

.47

.49

−.4

5—

6.So

cial

effica

cy:pee

rs.1

7.1

5.2

0−.1

7.3

0—

7.A

cadem

icef

fica

cy.3

5.1

4.4

6−.2

9.4

7.4

2—

8.D

isru

ptiv

ebeh

avio

r−.4

1−.1

6−.3

5.4

5−.3

5.0

4−.1

8—

9.Se

lf-r

egula

ted

lear

nin

g.4

4.2

5.5

0−.2

2.4

1.2

0.5

0−.3

8—

10.

Gen

der

a.0

7.1

5.1

0−.1

8.1

1.1

3−.0

2−.2

1−.0

1—

11.

Rac

eb.0

1−.1

6.1

6−.0

5−.0

5.0

9.3

1−.0

2.1

0.0

6—

12.

Prior

achie

vem

entc

.21

.05

.06

−.3

1.2

0.1

1.1

1−.2

1.0

0.0

9−.1

7—

Mea

n3.

223.

223.

522.

153.

604.

163.

862.

543.

270.

570.

446.

72St

andar

ddev

iatio

n1.

051.

071.

110.

971.

010.

770.

921.

140.

823.

56

Not

e.Corr

elat

ions

about.1

3ar

esi

gnific

antat

the

p<

.05

leve

l.aG

ender

isco

ded

0=

ma

lean

d1

=fe

ma

le.

bRac

eis

coded

0=

Eu

rope

an

Am

eric

an

and

1=

Afr

ica

nA

mer

ica

n.

cPrior

achie

vem

entis

seve

nth

grad

em

ath

grad

es(1

=F

thro

ugh

13=

A+).



Changes from seventh to eighth grade. We conducted paired samplet-tests to examine mean level differences from wave 1 to wave 2 for our fivemotivation and engagement outcome variables. There was only one signifi-cant mean level change: social efficacy with peers increased from the end ofseventh grade (M = 3.93) to the beginning of eighth grade (M = 4.16), t (232)= −4.61, p < .001. This indicates that when students become the oldeststudents in the school, they feel more confident about their ability to getalong well with their peers. There was moderate stability in student reportsof their classroom motivation and engagement from seventh to eighth grade(r values ranged from .43 to .51, p values < .01), with the exception of socialefficacy with the teacher, which had lower stability (r = .28, p < .01). Thus,for the most part, there were no normative trends regarding increases ordecreases in motivation and engagement when students moved from sev-enth to eighth grade. The moderate stability coefficients indicate that therewas some variability in whether students reported increased or decreasedmotivation and engagement.

Examining Relations Among the Classroom Social Environment and Changein Student Motivation and Engagement From Seventh to Eighth Grade

We first conducted multiple regression analyses with the higher order factorand the dependent variables to see if the overall classroom social environ-ment related to change in motivation and engagement variables. Controllingfor prior motivation and engagement, gender, race and prior achievement,the classroom social environment did relate to changes in students’ socialefficacy with their teacher (� = .38, p < .001), academic efficacy (� = .21, <.01), self-regulated learning (� = .15, p < .05), and disruptive behavior (� =−.34, p < .001), but did not relate to changes in students’ social efficacy withtheir peers.

Examining Relations Among Dimensions of the Classroom SocialEnvironment and Change in Student Motivation and Engagement FromSeventh to Eighth Grade

We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the in-dependent contributions of the four dimensions of the eighth grade class-room social environment in explaining change in students’ motivation andengagement from seventh to eighth grade. We entered students’ prior mo-tivation and engagement (seventh grade) into the regression models at thefirst step. Next we entered students’ gender, race,1 and prior achievement(seventh grade). At the third step we entered the four social environmentmeasures (teacher support, promoting interaction, promoting mutual re-spect, and promoting performance goals).

Social efficacy with the teacher. The results for the student motivationoutcomes are shown in Table 3. Prior achievement, gender, and race werenot associated with changes in perceived efficacy relating to the teacher.Note that once the dimensions of the social environment were in the model,students’ beliefs about relating to their teacher the previous year were no

Ryan and Patrick

450



Tab

le3

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Reg

ress

ion

Co

effi

cien

tsfo

rP

red

icti

ng

Stu

den

tM

oti

vati

on

Ou

tco

mes

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s:St

ud

ent

mo

tiva

tio

nin

the

eigh

thgr

ade

Soci

alef

fica

cy:

teac

her

Soci

alef

fica

cy:

pee

rsA

cad

emic

effi

cacy

Step

1St

ep2

Step

3St

ep1

Step

2St

ep3

Step

1St

ep2

Step

3

Controls

Prior

motiv

atio

n(s

even

thgr

ade)

.29*

**.2

6***

.09

.47*

**.4

5***

.43*

**.4

2***

.35*

**.3

2***

Prior

achie

vem

ent(s

even

thgr

ade)

a.1

1−.0

2.0

7.0

5.0

8.0

1G

ender

b.0

5.0

0.0

3.0

1−.0

6−.1

0Rac

ec−.0

8−.0

7.0

8.0

9.2

6***

.20*

*Cla

ssro

om

soci

alen

viro

nm

ent(e

ighth

grad

e)Tea

cher

support

.52*

**.0

4.1

2Pro

motin

gin

tera

ctio

n.1

5*.0

9−.0

2Pro

motin

gm

utu

alre

spec

t.0

5.0

2.3

1***

Per

form

ance

goal

s−.1

9***

−.0

3−.0

6Chan

gein

R2

—.0

1.4

6***

——

——

.07*

*.1

7***

Tota

lad

just

edR

2.0

8***

.09*

**.5

5***

.22*

**.2

2***

.22*

**.1

7***

.24*

**.4

1***

aPrior

achie

vem

entis

seve

nth

grad

em

ath

grad

es(c

oded

1=

Fth

rough

13=

A+).

bG

ender

isco

ded

0=

ma

lean

d1

=fe

ma

le.

cRac

eis

coded

0=

Eu

rope

an

Am

eric

an

and

1=

Afr

ica

nA

mer

ica

n.

*p<

.05,

**p

<.0

1,**

*p<

.001

.



longer significant. Perception of the teacher as supportive was the strongestpredictor of increased efficacy relating to the teacher (� = .52, p < .001),indicating that social efficacy is in part situational and not just a within-person characteristic. The perception that the teacher promoted interactionin the classroom was related positively (� = .15, p < .05), whereas theperception that the teacher promoted performance goals was related nega-tively (� = −.19, p < .001), to changes in efficacy relating to the teacher.

Social efficacy with peers. Only prior efficacy relating to peers was asignificant predictor of changes in students’ efficacy regarding their capa-bilities of communicating and getting along with their peers (� = .43, p <.001). Interestingly, neither students demographics, prior achievement, norany of the dimensions of the classroom social environment contributed tochanges in students’ confidence relating to peers.

Academic efficacy. Increased academic efficacy was related to bothprior efficacy (� = .32, p < .001) and race (� = .20, p < .01). African Americanstudents had a greater increase in academic efficacy from seventh to eighthgrade than European American students. Neither gender nor prior achieve-ment predicted changes in efficacy. Although students’ perceptions of thesocial environment of the classroom together accounted for an additional17% of the variance in changes in academic efficacy, the only dimension thatcontributed uniquely was the teacher promoting mutual respect. Perceptionsof the teacher promoting mutual respect were related to increased academicefficacy (� = .31, p < .001). Perceptions of teacher support, promoting in-teraction, and promoting performance goals did not contribute indepen-dently to changes in academic efficacy.

Disruptive behavior. The regression results for the student engagementmeasures are shown in Table 4. Demographic characteristics and priorachievement were not related to changes in disruptive classroom behavior.Previous disruptive behavior predicted increased disruptive behavior (� =.46, p < .001). Perceptions of the teacher as supportive predicted decreaseddisruptive behavior (� = −.21, p < .001). Increased disruptive behavior waspredicted by the perception that the teacher promoted performance goals (�= .24, p < .001). Neither promoting interaction in the classroom nor promot-ing mutual respect was related uniquely to changes in disruptive behavior.

Self-regulated learning. Demographic characteristics and prior achieve-ment were not related to changes in students’ self-regulated learning. Priorself-regulated learning predicted increased levels (� = .39, p < .001). In-creased self-regulated learning was associated uniquely with perceptions ofthe teacher as promoting mutual respect (� = .35, p < .001) and with teachersupport (� = .21, p < .01). Contrary to our hypothesis, perceptions of pro-moting interaction did not uniquely predict changes in self-regulated learn-ing. Promoting performance goals did not predict changes in self-regulatedlearning.

DiscussionThe findings of the current study highlight the important role of the class-room social environment in supporting or undermining changes in young

Ryan and Patrick

452



Tab

le4

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Reg

ress

ion

Co

effi

cien

tsfo

rP

red

icti

ng

Stu

den

tE

ng

agem

ent

Ou

tco

mes

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s:St

ud

ent

enga

gem

ent

inth

eei

ghth

grad

e

Dis

rup

tive

beh

avio

rSe

lf-r

egu

late

dle

arn

ing

Step

1St

ep2

Step

3St

ep1

Step

2St

ep3

Controls

Prior

enga

gem

ent(s

even

thgr

ade)

.52*

**.4

8***

.46*

**.4

5***

.44*

**.3

9***

Prior

achie

vem

ent(s

even

thgr

ade)

a−.0

7.0

3.0

3−.0

4G

ender

b−.1

3*−.1

0−.0

5−.0

7Rac

ec−.0

4.0

1.0

6.0

1Cla

ssro

om

soci

alen

viro

nm

ent(e

ighth

grad

e)Tea

cher

support

−.2

1***

.21*

*Pro

motin

gin

tera

ctio

n−.0

2.0

3Pro

motin

gm

utu

alre

spec

t−.0

8.3

5***

Per

form

ance

goal

s.2

4***

.05

Chan

gein

R2

—.0

4*.1

8***

——

.22*

**Tota

lad

just

edR

2.2

4***

.28*

**.4

6***

.20*

**.2

0***

.42*

**

aPrior

achie

vem

entis

seve

nth

grad

em

ath

grad

es(c

oded

1=

Fth

rough

13=

A+).

bG

ender

isco

ded

0=

ma

lean

d1

=fe

ma

le.

cRac

eis

coded

0=

Eu

rope

an

Am

eric

an

and

1=

Afr

ica

nA

mer

ica

n.

*p<

.05,

**p

<.0

1,**

*p<

.001

.



adolescents’ motivation and engagement. This study indicated that the class-room social environment is an overarching construct that is comprised ofdifferent, but related, dimensions. The classroom social environment ex-plained changes in students’ efficacy relating to their teacher, efficacy ac-complishing their schoolwork, self-regulated learning, and disruptivebehavior, even after previous motivation, engagement, achievement, anddemographics were entered into the equations. These findings are in linewith a growing body of research documenting that young adolescent ad-justment is related to the nature of the context that youth experience (e.g.,Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles et al., 1993; Goodenow, 1992). The currentstudy also supported our conceptualization of several discrete dimensions ofthe social environment of the classroom: teacher support, the promotion ofinteraction with peers around academic tasks, the promotion of mutual re-spect among classmates, and the promotion of performance goals amongclassmates. Furthermore, the results indicated that students’ perceptions ofthe distinct dimensions within that environment were differentially impor-tant with respect to accounting for the changes in the various indicators ofmotivation and engagement.

The first dimension of the social environment involved a belief that theirteacher cared about and supported them. Perceiving their teacher as sup-portive was especially important for students’ confidence relating to theteacher, self-regulated learning, and disruptive behavior. When studentsmoved into a middle school classroom with a teacher they perceived assupportive, their efficacy for communicating and getting along with theirteacher increased and they engaged in more self-regulated learning. Further-more, when students believed their teacher tried to understand them andwas available to help, they engaged in less off-task and disruptive behaviorin the classroom. Contrary to previous research, we did not find an inde-pendent association between teacher support and students’ academic effi-cacy. Although in the current study perceived teacher support and academicefficacy were correlated significantly, when teacher support was consideredalong with the other dimensions of the social environment, it was not asso-ciated uniquely with academic efficacy. Therefore, the apparent differencesin results may be explained by the fact that the previous research on teachersupport has not simultaneously examined other dimensions of the classroomsocial environment.

The second dimension concerned the extent to which it is acceptableand encouraged for students to interact with their classmates regarding aca-demic work. Is learning something you do independently or collaboratively?If you do not understand something, is it appropriate to ask a peer? Students’perception of being encouraged to interact with others in the classroom andto share their ideas was correlated with all five indicators of motivation andengagement. However, it was related uniquely only to confidence in inter-acting with their teacher. It is unclear, however, why encouraging interactionwould facilitate confidence relating to the teacher, but not classmates. Per-haps factors outside the classroom are much more important in influencing

Ryan and Patrick

454



relationships with peers than are classroom interactions. We found that stu-dents did not typically become more disruptive when they were encouragedto talk with one another during lessons. This is an important finding, giventhat teachers may be reluctant to allow students to talk with each otherduring academic work because of management concerns (e.g., it will en-courage students to be off-task and disruptive).

The third dimension concerned an emphasis on teacher encouragementof mutual respect and social harmony among classmates. What is acceptablebehavior in responding to classmates’ ideas and efforts? Is there awarenessand valuing of positive, respectful interactions between classmates that donot exclude or generate negative feelings toward any students? Students’perception of being in a classroom where the teacher encouraged classmatesto respect their ideas and not to laugh or make fun of them was the mostimportant dimension of the social environment in predicting changes inacademic efficacy and self-regulation of school work. This indicates thatbeing in an environment where students’ ideas and efforts are respected,with minimal threat of being embarrassed or teased, boosts students’ confi-dence in their ability to learn, and suggests they devote more cognitiveresources to engaging with the tasks in hand. Perhaps these associations arebecause students experience less anxiety in environments that feel respect-ful, and therefore are less likely to have their cognitive engagement under-mined.

The fourth dimension concerned the extent to which students are en-couraged to view fellow classmates as rivals and competitors in the class-room. Are other students markers by whom you demonstrate your ability tothe teacher? Are students encouraged to compete with one another? Stu-dents’ perception of an emphasis on comparison and competition was im-portant to understanding changes in their social efficacy with their teacherand disruptive behavior in the classroom. Specifically, when students feltthat their actions would be compared directly to others in the class, theyexpressed less confidence in their ability to relate well to their teacher andalso reported engaging in more disruptive behavior. This indicates that stu-dents may be less willing to engage in the task and may become moredisruptive when they believe their performance will be viewed as an indi-cator of their relative ability. These results are consistent with Butler’s (1995)suggestion that student relationships may be affected adversely by a classperformance focus and are evidence that an emphasis on competition hasdrawbacks for students (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

Of interest was the finding that students’ perceptions of the classroomsocial environment were largely unrelated to their feelings of efficacy aboutrelating to their classmates. This finding suggests that teacher support andteachers’ promotion of interaction and respect within middle school class-rooms are not sufficient to help students feel more confident in engagingwith peers, such as explaining their point of view or working well withclassmates. Furthermore, it is consistent with researchers who note that stu-dents working in small groups sometimes have considerable difficulty


455



achieving harmonious and equitable participation, and benefit from beingtaught specific communication skills (Good, Mulryan, & McCaslin, 1992;Webb & Palincsar, 1996). It may be, too, that adolescents’ confidence ininteracting with other adolescents is related more to factors that are extrinsicto the classroom environment than to positive actions on the part of theteacher. However, because satisfactory peer relationships have importantconsequences for students’ adjustment at school (Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996;Parker & Asher, 1987), further research appears necessary to investigate ifother factors of the classroom environment are associated with students’efficacy to relate well to peers.

The findings of this study have practical implications for teachers, andfor their students’ motivation, engagement, and ultimately achievement.When students believe they are encouraged to know, interact with, and helpclassmates during lessons; when they view their classroom as one wherestudents and their ideas are respected and not belittled; when students per-ceive their teacher as understanding and supportive; and when they feeltheir teacher does not publicly identify students’ relative performance, theytend to engage in more adaptive patterns of learning than would have beenpredicted from their reports the previous year. Survey data, as was used inthe current study, cannot tell us what teacher behaviors students attend towhen they form perceptions such as these of their teacher and classroom.Such an understanding may be gained, though, from using qualitative meth-ods in conjunction with self-report data, thus enabling researchers to makeconnections between teacher practices and student perceptions (e.g., Pat-rick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, in press; Turner et al., 1998).Incorporating qualitative methods may shed greater understanding, for ex-ample, on classroom processes associated with students’ efficacy relatingpositively to classmates. It is important for research regarding classroomenvironments to continue to consider other sources of information beyondstudent self-reports. This will enable us to identify specific instructional prac-tices that relate to student perceptions—an important objective if our re-search is to have greatest relevance to educators.

Greater understanding about how teachers help to create the socialenvironment, and how different aspects of that environment impact studentmotivation and engagement, are particularly important given recent trends ineducation involving student-centered learning and teaching for understand-ing (Blumenfeld, Marx, Patrick, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Cohen, McLaugh-lin, & Talbert, 1993; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). Such instructionalinitiatives, which are based on social constructivist principles, are increas-ingly prevalent in schools. Social constructivist views of learning emphasizethat interaction with others is crucial to cognitive development (Brown,Collins, & Duguid, 1989). For example, recent initiatives in science educationemphasize hands-on activity-based learning, which involves greater studentinteraction than typically afforded in traditional science instruction (Blumen-feld, Marx, Patrick, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997). Contemporary views on theteaching of mathematics emphasize the importance of students developing

Ryan and Patrick

456



active and flexible approaches to problem solving (National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics, 1989; 1991). Small group work, which exposesstudents to alternative solution methods and encourages students to reflecton their own strategies, are frequently promoted to achieve new curriculargoals in math classrooms (Good, Mulryan, & McCaslin, 1992; Schoenfeld,1992). However, the social constructivist principles that are driving suchcurrent educational initiatives have developed primarily from research oncognition and cognitive development. Appreciation of students’ social de-velopment, social motivation, and social relationships in the classroom couldinform such instructional initiatives. We need to know more about how thesocial aspects of the classroom environment can support or undermine stu-dents’ motivation, engagement, and learning. In particular, we need to ex-pand our understanding of how the teacher can help to create a socialclimate in which such instructional initiatives can flourish. The researchreported here takes a step in that direction.

Notes

This research was supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundationawarded to Carol Midgley and Marty Maehr. We would like to thank Carol Midgley for herhelpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

1We also entered students’ free or reduced fee lunch status at this step to ensure wewere not confounding race with socioeconomic status. However because 50 cases hadmissing data on this variable and we wanted to retain the full sample for our regressionanalyses, we conducted the analyses again without lunch status. The strength and patternof results were identical. Therefore the final regression models reported in Tables 3 and4 do not include free or reduced fee lunch status. There was one main effect: students whoreceived free or reduced fee lunch were more likely to report increased disruptive be-havior than students who did not receive free or reduced fee lunch.

References

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

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learningstrategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,260–267.

Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.

Anderson, L. M., Stevens, D. D., Prawat, R. S., Nickerson, J. (1988). Classroom taskenvironments and students’ task-related beliefs. The Elementary School Journal,88, 281–295.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment toschool. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997).Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.),International handbook of teachers and teaching. Volume II (pp. 819–878).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.


457



Butler, R. (1995). Motivational and informational functions and consequences ofchildren’s attention to peers’ work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,347–360.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: PreparingAmerica’s youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1995). Great transitions: Preparingadolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding:Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation andpersonality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropri-ate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research onmotivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., &Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experience in schools and families.American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1987). Resource allocation model of the effects ofdepressed mood states. In K. Fielder & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, andsocial behavior. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hogrefe.

Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025–34.Felner, R. D., Aber, M. S., Primavera, J., & Cauce, A. M. (1985). Adaptation and

vulnerability in high-risk adolescents: An examination of environmental media-tors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 365–379.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting student outcomes from their percep-tions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational ResearchJournal, 19, 498–518.

Good, T., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathemat-ics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D. A. Grouws(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.165–196). New York: Macmillan.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology andthe study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Rela-tionships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,21–43.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involve-ment, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 83, 187–194.

Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of schoolsubjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11, 23.

Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships ofinstruction to amount of reading: An exploration of social, cognitive, and in-structional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8–25.

Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.),At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352–387). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hicks, L. (1997). How do academic motivation and peer relationships mix in anadolescent’s world? Middle School Journal, 28, 18–22.

Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1995). Grade-level differences in the social value ofeffort: Implications for self-presentation tactics of early adolescents. Child De-velopment, 66, 1694–1705.

Ryan and Patrick

458



Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social motivation: Understanding children’sschool adjustment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.

Keating, D. P. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), Atthe threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54–89). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not theanswer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational ResearchJournal, 27, 29–63.

McCaslin, M. M., & Good, T. L. (1996). Listening in classrooms. Harper Collins: New York.Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and

cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 80, 514–523.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary andmiddle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 15, 90–113.

Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision-making fitbefore and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 7, 225–241.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and atti-tudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school.Child Development, 60, 981–992.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E. M., & Kaplan,A. (1996). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) Manual. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan.

Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto,CA.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluationstandards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers ofMathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional Standards forTeaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working forcognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nicholls, J. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmentalperspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp.11–40). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167–178.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strat-egies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Arelow-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

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

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

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learningcomponents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 82, 33–40.


459



Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability andpredictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

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

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking forhelp? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teach-er’s social-emotional role and classroom goal structure. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90, 528–535.

Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?”: The role of motivationand attitudes in adolescents’ help-seeking in math class. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 329–341.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S. S.Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.277–307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacog-nition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York:MacMillan.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psycholo-gist, 26, 207–231.

Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effectsof teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 571–581.

Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricularactivity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32, 227–249.

Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning mathand social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89–116.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, M. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998).Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 90, 730–745.

Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, M. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation andnegative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90, 758–771.

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation andachievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.

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

Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C.Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role ofmultiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–10.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategymodel of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,284–290.

Manuscript received February 4, 1999Revision received March 20, 2000

Accepted June 16, 2000

Ryan and Patrick

460



american educational research journal - sage - the natural

Documents