review of educational research - pbworks

http://rer.aera.netResearch

Review of Educational

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/61/1/1The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/00346543061001001

1991 61: 1REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHKathryn R. Wentzel

Academic AchievementSocial Competence at School: Relation Between Social Responsibility and

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Review of Educational ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://rer.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rer.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

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

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

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/61/1/1.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1991Version of Record >>

at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2013http://rer.aera.netDownloaded from

http://rer.aera.net

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/61/1/1

http://www.aera.net

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://rer.aera.net/alerts

http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions

http://www.aera.net/reprints

http://www.aera.net/permissions

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/61/1/1.refs.html

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/61/1/1.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://rer.aera.net

Review of Educational Research Spring 1991, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 1-24

Social Competence at School: Relation Between Social Responsibility

and Academic Achievement

Kathryn R. Wentzel University of Illinois

This article reviews the literature on social responsibility and academic achievement. Both theoretical and empirical work suggest that student social responsibility is not only a valued outcome in and of itself but that it can be instrumental in the acquisition of knowledge and the development of cognitive abilities. This review describes research on the value of social responsibility for parents and teachers and on how it is promoted within the classroom. It is proposed that social responsibility can facilitate learning and performance outcomes by promoting positive interactions with teachers and peers and, from a motivational perspective, by providing students with additional incentives to achieve.

The development of social responsibility is a matter of great concern to parents, teachers, and students themselves (Krumboltz, Ford, Nichols, & Wentzel, 1987; Mutimer & Rosemier, 1967). Indeed, following social rules and conforming to social role expectations are critical for positive forms of social adaptation, both within the peer group (Hartup, 1983) and within the family system (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). From a societal perspective, a lack of such skills can have a profound effect on the individual as well as others. For instance, antisocial children, as adults, tend to be overrepresented in groups characterized by alcoholism, unemployment, divorce, and dependence on public assistance (e.g., Caspi, Elder, & Bern, 1987).

Of particular importance for educators is the fact that social responsibility is also associated with various aspects of school performance (Lambert & Nicoll, 1977; Mischel, 1961; Parker & Asher, 1987; Wentzel, Weinberger, Ford, & Feldman, 1990; Wentzel, 1986). For instance, the development of social responsibility in the form of citizenship skills and moral character is often considered to be a primary function of schooling (e.g., Dreeben, 1968; Jackson, 1968). From this perspective, the instructional process directly promotes the development of social responsibility, with social and intellectual competence being concurrent but separate goals for students to achieve while at school.

A second literature suggests that learning and behaving responsibly in the classroom are causally related. Behaving responsibly can create a classroom environment for students that is conducive to learning and cognitive development. Irresponsible behavior can result in classroom disorder or poor interpersonal relationships and

Preparation of this review was supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation's Small Grant Program. Special thanks are due to Martin Ford for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathryn R. Wentzel, Department of Human Development, 3304 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

1


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

tends to place children at risk for academic failure. From a motivational perspective, goals to be cooperative and compliant can provide additional incentives for students to achieve. Conversely, goals to be socially responsible can have a negative influence on achievement if the pursuit of these goals takes precedence over the pursuit of task-intrinsic learning goals.

The purpose of this article is to review the literature on social responsibility and academic achievement. First, social responsibility is discussed as a separate goal for education. Research describing the unique role of social responsibility at school and how it is taught is presented. Second, literature on social responsibility and learning as interdependent factors is reviewed. It is suggested that socially responsible behavior can influence achievement in two ways. First, behaving responsibly can facilitate learning by promoting positive interactions with teachers and peers. Second, students' goals to be compliant and responsible can both constrain and enhance the learning process.

Definition of Social Responsibility

In this review, social responsibility is defined as adherence to social rules and role expectations (see Ford, 1985; Ford, Wentzel, Wood, Stevens, & Siesfeld, 1989). These rules exist by virtue of social roles that define rules for group participation, as a reflection of broad social and cultural norms, or as a result of personal commitments to other individuals. Most relevant to social responsibility in the classroom are systems of rules and norms that define the student role. Indeed, students are required to adhere to rules and norms for interpersonal conduct as well as those that directly promote academic learning and performance. For instance, a variety of rules reflecting cooperation, respect for others, and positive forms of group participation govern social interaction in the classroom. In addition, students are expected to work hard, pay attention, participate in classroom activities, do their assignments, and study their lessons. Although not all of these activities are social in nature, they reflect rules of social conduct designed to guide the learning process.

Social Responsibility as a Goal for Education

The promotion of socially responsible behavior in the form of moral character, conformity to social rules and norms, cooperation, and positive styles of social interaction has been a traditional and valued educational objective for American schools. Indeed, an implicit goal of educational institutions has always been to socialize children into adult society by teaching work- and responsibility-oriented values such as dependability, punctuality, and obedience in conjunction with the learning process (Dreeben, 1968; Jackson, 1968). More importantly, character development and social responsibility in general have been stated as explicit objectives for public schools in almost every educational policy statement since 1848, being promoted with the same frequency as the development of academic skills (see Table 1). For instance, the earliest public ordinances concerning education were motivated by religious, social, and economic rather than intellectual concerns (Wentzel, 1986). In 1848, the Twelfth Annual Report on Education (Mann, 1848) outlined five objectives of the government via the public schools: (a) to achieve obedience to social codes of health and hygiene; (b) to eliminate poverty and to provide an equal chance for economic advancement to all; (c) to develop an understanding of the nature and functions of American government; (d) to provide moral education; and (e) to teach Christian morality.

2


http://rer.aera.net

12th annual report: Horace Mann: 1848 Committee of ten: 1893

Committee of nine: 1910

Cardinal principles: 1918

Issues of secondary educ: 1936

Social-economic goals of America: 1937

Functions of secondary educ: 1937

High school and life: 1938

Purpose in educ. in American democracy: 1938

Educ. for all American youth: 1944

American high schools today: 1959

Goals for Americans: 1960

Central purpose of educ: 1961

Coleman report: 1972

Kettering foundation report: 1973

Educ of adolescents: 1976

Paideia proposal: 1982

High school: 1983

Making the grade: 1983

Action for excellence: 1983

Nation at risk: 1983


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

More recent examples of nonacademic objectives for schools are reflected in Mortimer Adler's (1982) Paideia Proposal and E. L. Boyer's (1983) High School Adler advocates three objectives for American schools: promoting personal growth or self-improvement, teaching the role of an enfranchised citizen, and teaching nonspecialized and nonvocational skills. Boyer asserts that four essential goals for students via education should be to learn to think critically, to learn about one's common culture and heritage, to be prepared for work and further education, and to fulfill social and civic obligations.

Empirical work also suggests that the development of social responsibility is a valued educational objective. In a recent study, several hundred parents, teachers, and students were asked about desired outcomes for students to achieve by age 18 (Krumboltz et al., 1987). Goal statements reflected five academic domains (verbal, math, science, social studies, and fine arts) and five nonacademic domains (attitudes, interpersonal competence, moral development, health, and career development). Respondents were asked two questions: How important is it that people achieve this outcome by age eighteen? and how large a role should the school play in contributing to this outcome? Social responsibility in the form of consideration and respect for others, interpersonal competence, and moral development was consistently nominated as a critical outcome for students to achieve, over and above academic achievement. In fact, goals concerning social responsibility were generally regarded as being of greater importance for students to achieve than goals representing any of the academic domains included in the study.

In the Krumboltz et al. study, opinions concerning the role of the school in contributing to nonacademic outcomes were not as strong. As a group, respondents thought that it was less important for the schools to teach social responsibility than academic subjects. However, across groups of parents, teachers, and students, the consensus was that schools should play at least some role in promoting interpersonal competence and moral development.

Rules and norms in the classroom. The suggestion that schools do play a role in the development of social responsibility is supported by literature indicating that teachers are sensitive to individual differences in classroom conduct, value socially competent behavior, and spend an enormous amount of time teaching their students how to behave and act responsibly (see Doyle, 1986). With respect to preferences for behavior, much research suggests that teachers discriminate between various types of student conduct and form opinions of children based on their classroom behavior. Specifically, teachers appear to make distinctions between types of student motivation (e.g., efforts to socialize, to learn, and to perform; Sivan, 1986), types of classroom disturbances (e.g., inattentive, aggressive, and uncooperative behavior; Safran & Safran, 1985), and various social orientations toward learning (e.g., cooperative, autonomous, self-motivated, and participatory; Solomon & Kendall, 1977). Moreover, teachers consistently report preferences for students who are cooperative, conforming, cautious, and responsible rather than independent and assertive or argumentative and disruptive (Brophy & Good, 1974; Cartledge & Milburn, 1978; Feshbach, 1969; Helton & Oakland, 1977; Kedar-Voivodas, 1983; Spencer-Hall, 1981). Teachers tend to find negative aggressive behavior as most detrimental to classroom order (Safran & Safran, 1985).

Beyond preferences for behavior, teachers also appear to have common social rules and norms that they expect students to follow. Based on interviews of elementary school teachers, Trenholm and Rose (1981) identified six categories of appropriate

4


http://rer.aera.net

Social Responsibility and Achievement

student behavior: appropriate responses to academic requests and tasks, impulse control, mature problem solving, cooperative and courteous interaction with peers, involvement in class activities, and recognition of appropriate contexts for different types of behavior.

LeCompte (1978a, 1978b) reports similar findings from observations of elementary classrooms. For instance, these teachers expected children to conform to authority, follow schedules and not waste time, equate academic achievement with personal worth, keep busy, and maintain order. All of the teachers observed by LeCompte, regardless of instructional goals, teaching styles, and ethnicity, engaged in activities designed to communicate these expectations. Moreover, the majority of students understood that doing as they were told, keeping busy, and maintaining order were important rules to obey. An observational study of high school classrooms found similar rules to be in effect (Hargreaves, Hester, & Mellor, 1975). These authors also observed rules concerning obedience, manners, permission seeking, honesty, violence, and cooperation.

For the most part, classroom rules are designed to establish classroom order and the hierarchical nature of teacher-student relationships. However, teachers also appear to have rules for interactions among students themselves. Hargreaves et al. (1975) report that high school teachers promote adherence to interpersonal rules concerning aggression (both physical and psychological), manners, stealing, and loyalty. Sieber (1979) observed that norms for peer relationships in elementary classrooms focus on sharing resources, being nice to others, acting properly, working well with others, and harmonious problem solving.

Finally, several studies have attempted to describe children's understanding of academic and social norms within classroom settings. Blumenfeld, Pintrich, and Hamilton (1986) report that elementary-aged students make fairly clear distinctions between ability, hard work, and conduct. Students equate ability most often with task performance and grades, effort with always working or finishing work, and conduct with being quiet and staying out of trouble. However, other research suggests that students often perceive expending effort as having ability (Nicholls & Miller, 1984) as well as reflecting moral intent (Nicholls, 1976). In a recent study of junior high and high school students, being socially responsible was mentioned by 25% of the students as a means to achieve classroom success (Wentzel, 1987a). Thus, although students may have varying conceptions of what it means to have academic ability, they clearly associate socially responsible forms of behavior with competent performance at school.

Teaching social responsibility in the classroom. The development of socially responsible classroom behavior can be accomplished in several ways. First, interventions that teach specific self-monitoring and self-control strategies can be targeted at individual students who display impulsive or inappropriate behavior. This literature has been reviewed elsewhere (O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Pressley, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979). Second, various classroom management practices can be used to establish group order and control (see Doyle, 1986, for a review of these studies). Of particular relevance for the present review are findings indicating that teachers actively teach social norms and expectations for classroom behavior to their students. For instance, teachers specify the appropriateness of various contexts for different types of behavior. Shultz and Florio (1979) describe how teachers communicate to students when they need to pay attention as a function of which contexts they are in.

5


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Similarly, Sieber (1979) describes how teachers create instructional contexts that either permit or forbid interactions with peers.

Blumenfeld and her colleagues (Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Wessels, and Falkner, 1979; Blumenfeld, Pintrich, & Hamilton, 1987; Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Bossert, & Wessels, 1983; Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Alcoh, & Muira, 1989a) have documented specific ways in which responsibility is taught at school. In particular, they have studied teacher communications to students that relay why students ought to behave, ascribe causal attributions for behavior, and provide sanctions for classroom conduct. Results of this work suggest that teacher communications about student responsibility reflect specific issues concerning academic performance, academic procedures (i.e., proper ways to do work), social procedures (e.g., talking, obedience), and social-moral norms (e.g., cheating, fighting). Within the procedural and social-moral domains, 46% of the academic procedure statements concerned staying on task, 51% of the social procedure statements concerned talking, and 57% of the social-moral statements concerned respect for others. These communications were also related significantly to students' ratings of the importance of these classroom procedures and norms.

Students themselves also appear to value responsible forms of behavior (Krum-boltz et al., 1987; Mutimer & Rosemier, 1967) and have been observed to contribute to social order in the classroom. This is especially the case when students as a group are held accountable for the behavior of the group's members or when teachers use peer group leaders to monitor the class when they must leave their classroom (Sieber, 1979). Students have been observed to monitor each other by ignoring noninstruc-tional behavior and responses during group instruction and by private sanctioning of inappropriate conduct (Eder & Felmlee, 1984; Sieber, 1979).

Summary and implications. There is evidence to suggest that academic achievement is not the sole criterion for defining success and competence in the classroom. First, the suggestion that formal schooling plays a major socialization function is well grounded in the history of American education. In the classroom, teachers clearly value nonintellectual student characteristics, and they actively teach rules requiring socially responsible forms of behavior. Moreover, students themselves not only value such behavior but often equate behaving responsibly with academic competence.

This literature raises several noteworthy issues. First, it is clear that both teachers and students actively promote socially responsible forms of conduct at school. However, the degree to which teachers and peers actually teach social responsibility as opposed to reinforcing existing social behavior is not well understood. For instance, Blumenfeld et al. (1983) have suggested that even though teacher communications can influence students' understanding of classroom norms, children's affective responses to violations of these norms (important psychological regulators of behavior) are not related to teacher communications. Moreover, these authors note that, even though children cite social-moral norms as the most important rules in school, teachers spend little or no time teaching them.

In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that children also learn how to behave responsibly at home. Two areas of research may be particularly promising for understanding relations between family functioning and children's classroom behavior. First, Doyle (1986) has suggested that, although most children learn classroom rules and norms, low achieving and minority students often have the most difficulty understanding these rules and learning context-appropriate behavior. These chil-

6


http://rer.aera.net


dren's inability to learn and respond to rule systems at school may be directly related to how their parents teach them to respond to authority, reinforce patterns of communication and styles of discourse, or respond to their interpersonal problems (see Au, 1980; Heath, 1989, for discussions of these issues).

Responsible behavior at school also appears to be an important social competency that links the overall quality of family functioning to children's classroom achievement. For instance, parents' marital satisfaction and the use of child-centered and consistent childrearing practices are positively related to social responsibility in preadolescence (as measured by consideration for others, following rules, suppression of aggression, and impulse control; Feldman, Wentzel, Weinberger, & Munson, 1990). In addition, appropriate forms of parental control are related positively and parental hostility and maladaptive forms of parent-child interaction related negatively to classroom-specific measures of social responsibility (Feldman & Wentzel, 1990; Wentzel, Feldman, & Weinberger, in press). Work by Patterson and his colleagues on the longterm academic and social consequences of antisocial and coercive processes in families also represents an important advance in this regard (Patterson, 1983; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).

A second issue worthy of consideration concerns the finding that teachers' focus on classroom management changes as a function of student age. Specifically, Brophy and Evertson (1978) have suggested that teachers of early elementary and junior high students spend more of their time on classroom management than those who teach at other grade levels. In the case of young children, teachers spend time teaching children the student role and socializing them into classroom life. At the junior high level, when student identification with peer groups increases, teachers tend to increase the amount of time they spend trying to maintain order (see also, Eccles & Midgley, 1989).

Clearly, developmental factors—both social and cognitive—need to be accounted for in explanations of these grade-related differences. For instance, are cognitive changes in children's understanding of rules and norms (e.g., Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Nucci, 1982; Turiel, 1983) the result of or the reason for changes in classroom management practices across the school years? In addition, the contribution of various socialization agents to the development of social responsibility may also change with age. Whereas authority figures (parents and teachers) may facilitate developmental changes in the early years, peers may play an increasingly important role as children reach adolescence. Changes in the relative influence of these various agents on a student's behavior may also require changes in ways teachers manage the social environments of their classrooms.

A final issue raised by this literature concerns children's understanding of what it means to be a competent student. Research has demonstrated that there are individual differences in how children conceive of intelligence. These conceptions appear to be related to various approaches to learning and problem solving, some more adaptive than others (Cain & Dweck, 1989; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983). In light of these findings, it seems that children may also differ in their conceptions of what it means to be a competent student. Although little research has been done in this area, the degree to which children perceive social as well as intellectual competence as desirable goals to achieve at school may also be reflected in their approaches to learning and performance at academic tasks. Differences in perceptions concerning the appropriateness of means used to achieve—for instance, copying the work of others versus independent study—may be especially salient in this regard.

7


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Of related concern is that nonintellectual factors as well as ability predict educational attainment and adult achievements (McClelland, 1973). In fact, in adulthood, practical intelligence appears to be more predictive of everyday competence than intelligence as assessed by traditional psychometric measures of aptitude or IQ (Willis & Schaie, 1986). Indeed, social skills that promote adaptation and integration into social settings are critical throughout the lifespan (see Sternberg & Wagner, 1986). The extent to which teachers' assessments of students reflect social competencies is unknown. However, educators may do well to acknowledge the development of social responsibility as an explicit goal for children and to include responsibility-related skills as formal targets for intervention and the development of competency standards (e.g., Zigler & Trickett, 1978).

Social Responsibility and Learning as Interdependent Factors

In addition to being a valued outcome of the schooling process in its own right, behaving in responsible ways may also be a critical student characteristic that directly contributes to learning and performance. Evidence of a positive relationship between social responsibility and academic performance comes from several types of research. Correlational studies have linked positive intellectual outcomes in the elementary years with tendencies to be prosocial and empathic (Feshbach & Feshbach, 1987), to prosocial interactions with peers (Cobb, 1972; Green, Forehand, Beck, & Vosk, 1980), to appropriate classroom conduct (Entwisle, Alexander, Cadigan, & Pallas, 1986; Lambert & Nicoll, 1977), and to compliance (Cobb, 1972; Kohn & Rosman, 1973). In a meta-analysis of factors related to early learning problems, social-emotional factors predicted achievement as well as or better than intellectual ability, sensory deficits, or neurological factors (Horn & Packard, 1985). Similarly, social competence as assessed by teachers and peers and self-reports of social responsibility in decision-making situations has been positively associated with academic outcomes in high school (Ford, 1982; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Wentzel, Wood, Siesfeld, Stevens, & Ford, 1987).

Longitudinal studies linking social responsibility to academic achievement have been less frequent but have yielded the same general findings. For instance, Safer (1986) found that correlates of elementary grade retention reflect both academic and conduct problems, but recurring nonpromotion at the junior high level reflects primarily classroom misconduct and other behavior problems. Lambert (1972) reports that adaptive classroom behavior in elementary school predicts both grades and test scores in high school, over and above early achievement or IQ. Similarly, Feldhusen, Thurston, and Benning (1970) found that aggressive and disruptive behavior in 3rd and 6th grade is a strong negative predictor of grades in 8th and 11th grade when controlling for IQ, sex, grade level, and urban-rural factors.

Findings from longitudinal studies also link social responsibility with educational attainment. Based on a comprehensive review of both follow-up and follow-back studies, Parker and Asher (1987) conclude that antisocial and aggressive behavior in the early grades is a strong predictor of dropping out in high school. Finally, intervention studies suggest that teaching children appropriate social responses to instruction such as attending, following instructions, and volunteering answers can lead to significant and stable gains in academic achievement (Cobb & Hopps, 1973; Hopps & Cobb, 1974).

Despite these numerous studies, the precise role of socially responsible behavior in promoting academic competence is not well understood. Nevertheless, there are

8


http://rer.aera.net


several ways that social responsibility might directly contribute to achievement at school. For instance, being socially responsible may contribute to learning by way of adherence to student role requirements for academic behavior. Clearly, paying attention and time-on-task are academically-relevant components of classroom social responsibility that are consistent and positive predictors of academic performance. As Thomas (1980) suggests, such behavior has value as an instructional means as well as an instructional end. Conversely, inappropriate and disruptive behavior is inversely related to student engagement in learning activities.

In the following sections, two additional ways in which social responsibility may be related to academic success will be discussed. First, socially responsible behavior can play a role in facilitating positive social interactions with teachers and peers. In turn, these interactions can directly enhance the learning process. Second, motivational components of social responsibility can influence the degree to which students become engaged in academic activities.

Interactions with teachers and peers. Acceptance by teachers and peers has been consistently related to academic achievement at all ages, with socially rejected and aggressive children being especially at risk for academic failure (Feldhusen et al., 1970; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Green et al., 1980; Lambert, 1972). Of relevance for this review is that teachers' preference for students is based in large part on students' socially responsible behavior. Likewise, acceptance by peers is related to prosocial and responsible forms of behavior, whereas peer rejection is related to a lack of such skills and antisocial behavior.

For teachers, students' adherence to classroom rules allows them to focus their efforts on teaching rather than classroom management. Presumably, all students will learn more when this occurs. However, the nature of individual student behavior can also have an impact on achievement depending on teachers' impressions of and attitudes toward these students. For example, children who are well liked by teachers tend to get better grades than those who are not as well liked (e.g., Hadley, 1954; Kelley, 1958). Although the reasons for this relationship are not clear, there is some indication that student characteristics can influence the nature of teacher-student interactions and, thus, the quality of individual instruction received. For instance, teachers have been asked to identify students toward whom they feel attachment, concern, indifference, or rejection (see Brophy & Good, 1974, for an in-depth review of this literature). When observed in the classroom, these students displayed markedly different types of behavior: "Attachment" students were typically bright, hardworking, and model students; "concern" students made excessive but appropriate demands for teachers' attention; "indifference" students had few contacts with teachers; and "rejection" students typically displayed problem behavior and made illegitimate demands for attention.

The teachers observed in these studies rarely showed favoritism toward model students, although Brophy and Evertson (1981) report that teachers were more appreciative and positive toward students who were cooperative and persistent (i.e., socially responsible) than students who were less responsible but displayed high levels of creativity and achievement. In contrast, teachers interacted with the "concern" and "rejection" students in noticeably different ways. Whereas the "concern" students were allowed to approach teachers freely and given subsequent help and encouragement, "rejection" students were typically criticized and refused help. Thus, this work suggests that students who are socially irresponsible are treated

9


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

negatively and most likely receive less one-on-one instruction than other students. The effects of behaving appropriately on individual instruction are less clear.

The relation between peer influences and achievement is also somewhat ambiguous. Traditionally, interactions with peers have been viewed as having a potentially negative impact on the achievement of educational goals. Group work is often seen as antithetical to individual achievement, and peer norms are generally believed to be antagonistic to those of the school. On the other hand, peer acceptance among school-aged children is based in large part on social responsibility as indexed by cooperative, prosocial, and nonaggressive types of behavior (Coie, Dodge, & Cop-potelli, 1982; Dodge, 1983). Moreover, positive relationships with peers have been consistently related to positive academic outcomes (e.g., Bonney, 1943; Cobb, 1972; Cohen, 1984; Green et al., 1980; Weatherford & Horrocks, 1967).

Of particular relevance for this review is evidence that peer relationships have the potential to influence classroom performance and learning outcomes in positive ways. Within the classroom, students tend to interact with each other more than with their teachers (Nelson-Le Gall & DeCooke, 1987). However, because these interactions are typically under constant teacher supervision (Sieber, 1979), they can complement teacher behavior in ways that directly support the instructional process. First, students provide each other with valuable resources necessary to accomplish academic tasks (Sieber, 1979). For instance, students frequently clarify and interpret their teacher's instructions concerning what they should be doing and how to do it, provide mutual assistance in the form of volunteering substantive information and answering questions (see also Cooper, Ayers-Lopez, & Marquis, 1982), and share various supplies such as pencils and paper. Second, classmates provide each other with information by modeling both academic and social competencies (Schunk, 1987). With respect to academic achievement, peers provide each other with normative standards for performance by comparing work and grades (see Ruble, 1983, for a review of this literature).

Relationships with peers can also have a strong influence on a student's emotional and motivational response to school. For instance, positive relationships with peers can provide emotional security and incentives to achieve. Studies of preschoolers demonstrate how the presence of familiar peers can promote exploration in new settings and general adjustment to school (Ipsa, 1981; Ladd & Price, 1987; Schwarz, 1972). Similarly, research on the effects of desegregation and school transitions suggests that the loss of a familiar peer group can have negative effects on self-esteem and general interest in school (Miller, 1983). During adolescence, students can have a strong influence on the degree to which their friends like school and plan to go to college (Epstein, 1983). Finally, perceived isolation from peers as well as perceived lack of control in obtaining social support at school have also been related to low levels of achievement (Epperson, 1963).

Research on peer instructional contexts such as cooperative and collaborative learning and peer tutoring has also documented the positive motivational and cognitive outcomes of learning with peers (see, e.g., Furman & Gavin, 1989; Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983; Schunk, 1987; Slavin, 1987, for reviews of this literature). In general, cooperative learning structures have been associated with increases in internalized locus of control and more positive attitudes toward school. It has also been suggested that cognitive conflict and social interactional processes associated with peer learning contexts can directly contribute to cognitive and intellectual development (see Caz-

10


http://rer.aera.net


den, 1986; Slavin, 1987, for reviews). Webb (1982) reports that cooperative learning results in greatest academic gains when interactive questioning and explanation are an explicit part of the learning task. Damon and Phelps (1989) have also shown that peer collaboration resulting in interactive logical problem solving facilitates learning. In a review of studies on the acquisition of conservation skills, Doise (1985) concludes that social-cognitive conflict is instrumental in promoting this stage of cognitive development. Thus, positive interactions with peers can provide students with valuable information and resources, can provide emotional support and encouragement, and can directly contribute within peer instructional contexts to intellectual development.

Social responsibility and motivation to achieve. A second way in which social responsibility can influence school performance is by way of motivational orientations to achieve academically. Based on the literature reviewed thus far, it would follow that students who try to achieve socially responsible outcomes at school would also display academic competencies. However, there also exists a substantial body of research on achievement motivation suggesting that attempts to achieve extrinsic and socially-defined outcomes can be detrimental to learning and academic performance. Thus, from a motivational perspective, social responsibility may detract from as well as enhance the learning process. One approach to explaining this contradictory evidence is to consider various ways in which motivational components of social responsibility can be related to goals to achieve.

Goals associated with academic performance are most often described with respect to intrinsic-extrinsic (Lepper, 1988) or learning-performance goal orientations (Ames & Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1989). Task-intrinsic or learning goals are defined as those derived from the actual process of learning, such as increased knowledge or task mastery. Task-extrinsic or performance goals are those derived from social expectations or values associated with the consequences of task performance, such as praise or rewards.

These goal orientations have been consistently related to distinct types of learning behavior when initial attempts to learn result in failure. For instance, the pursuit of task-intrinsic goals is associated with high levels of effort, persistence at finding solutions to problems, and the development of new or alternative learning strategies. Conversely, extrinsic goal orientations have been associated with helplessness, withdrawal from tasks, and negative emotional states that appear to place children at risk for academic failure (see, Dweck, 1989; Lepper, 1988). Nolen (1988) has demonstrated that intrinsic goal orientations are associated with deep, holistic learning characterized by critical thinking and the integration of concepts, whereas extrinsic goal orientations are associated with strategic learning characterized by doing only what is necessary to get the highest grade.

Although rarely conceptualized in this manner, task-extrinsic goals can include goals to be socially responsible. Indeed, Kozeki and Entwistle (1984; Entwistle & Kozeki, 1985; Kozeki, 1985) have suggested that conformity to external expectations for behavior is an important motivational factor contributing to school achievement. However, these authors also suggest that the pursuit of social responsibility goals is associated with maladaptive learning behavior typical of extrinsic goal orientations. In this research, three dimensions of motivation—affective, cognitive, and moral— were studied in conjunction with three approaches to learning—deep, surface, and strategic. Motivation to be compliant and responsible (moral dimension) was related

11


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

significantly and positively to strategic learning, whereas cognitive motivation, based on interest and independent mastery, was related positively to a deep, holistic approach. In short, students with goal orientations reflecting concern with moral outcomes such as compliance and responsibility reported learning styles that were less conducive to learning than those of students with more intrinsic and task-related orientations.

Finally, research on individualistic and competitive reward structures suggests that the goals teachers set for their students can also influence learning behavior in very distinct ways (Ames, 1984; Ames & Ames, 1984). Individualistic reward structures are those in which evaluations are based on individual student progress and self-improvement, and they tend to promote task-intrinsic or learning goals, a focus on effort as a reason for success and failure, and comparisons of current progress with past performance. In contrast, competitive reward structures are those in which evaluation criteria are normative. These structures are most likely to promote task-extrinsic or performance goal orientations in students, with a concomitant focus on ability attributions for success and comparisons of one's own performance with that of others. Thus, links between unique patterns of learning behavior and qualitatively different goals can be found when teachers set goals for their students as well as when students set them for themselves.

The results of these studies suggest that the pursuit of task-intrinsic learning goals is desirable in that it reflects self-initiated challenge and attempts at mastery. In contrast, the pursuit of various types of socially defined goals (i.e., performance, extrinsic, and moral goals) has the potential to produce maladaptive learning behavior. Yet, the literature reviewed in the preceding sections clearly suggests that the pursuit of socially defined goals is related in positive ways to evaluations of classroom performance. Moreover, students who report being extrinsically motivated are identified by teachers as good students, whereas those reporting intrinsic motivation are often characterized as being alienated and poor performers (Kowalski, Stipek, & Daniels, 1987).

One solution to this apparent contradiction is to consider various ways in which intrinsic (learning) and extrinsic (social responsibility) goals can be related to each other. For example, some students may coordinate these goals by pursuing them simultaneously, whereas others may organize them into hierarchically related networks of desired outcomes. Indeed, goals can be hierarchically as well as simultaneously pursued, with physiological, action-related, and concrete goals being subsumed under more complex, global, and abstract outcomes (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Powers, 1978). These different methods of organizing goals have quite different implications for learning and subsequent performance.

Simultaneous goal pursuit. Within classroom settings, students have the opportunity to pursue a wide variety of goals and to achieve both academic and non-academic outcomes (Wentzel, 1989, in press-a). For instance, students can try to achieve academic goals by learning and developing competencies in particular subject areas, they can pursue interpersonal goals by making friends and maintaining peer status, and they can pursue social responsibility goals by conforming to classroom rules and being cooperative. The degree to which these various goals are compatible with each other and with the evaluation criteria of the classroom can either enhance or detract from both motivational and performance outcomes.

On the one hand, the pursuit of qualitatively different goals that are compatible with each other can increase incentives to achieve. For instance, Nakamura and Finck

12


http://rer.aera.net


(1980) found that having both social and task-related goal orientations is associated with better performance outcomes in evaluative situations than having only task-related goals. Similarly, Atkinson and his colleagues suggest that attempts to master tasks and to gain social approval can combine additively to increase the likelihood of achievement behavior (Atkinson, 1974; Reuman, Atkinson, & Gallop, 1986). With respect to classroom learning, extrinsic motivation is often necessary to initiate and maintain more intrinsic mastery-oriented goals (Connell & Ryan, 1987; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).

Research on cooperative goal structures also illustrates ways in which social responsibility goals can be coordinated with task-related goals to enhance motivation to learn. For instance, it has been suggested that responsible behavior in the form of helping, either by doing one's share or assisting others, is an integral part of the cooperative learning process (Ames & Ames, 1984; Slavin, 1984). In such cases, students are required to combine social responsibility and academic goals by focusing their efforts on the attainment of group goals.

A recent study also suggests that the pursuit of goals compatible with the social requirements of the classroom is related to academic achievement in adolescence (Wentzel, 1989). In this research, the pursuit of highly distinct sets of goals differentiated high, medium, and low achieving students as indexed by classroom grades. For example, most high achieving students reported always trying to achieve several goals, including being dependable and responsible, learning, and understanding things. Few of these students reported always trying to have fun. In contrast, the goals frequently pursued by most of the average or low achievers were to make friends and have fun.

Of particular interest is that, although the high achievers in this study reported frequent pursuit of academic mastery goals such as to learn new things and to understand things, less frequent pursuit of these goals did not distinguish low achieving students from the average students. However, the low achieving students were unlike other students in that they reported rarely trying to earn approval from others or to be dependable and responsible. These results suggest that, whereas an increase in efforts to learn may improve the academic performance of both average and low achievers, failure to try to conform to the social and normative standards of the classroom uniquely characterizes the least competent students. Moreover, these results support a conclusion that performance evaluations favor students who actively pursue complementary multiple goals, especially when these goals are congruent with the social as well as learning expectations of the classroom.

In contrast, attempts to achieve competing goals or to achieve too many goals can make the pursuit of multiple goals detrimental to classroom learning. For instance, students who are unable to coordinate the pursuit of their goals into an organized system of behavior may become distracted when facing particularly demanding aspects of academic tasks that require focused concentration and attention (Atkinson, 1974). To illustrate, work by Crandall (1966) suggests that elementary-aged children who express a high need for social desirability (i.e., social evaluation goals) do less well academically than those with a low need for social desirability. However, older children who have high levels of social desirability perform better than their peers who are less concerned with social evaluation. Presumably, the ability of older children to coordinate social and learning goals enhances school performance, whereas younger children who are less able to focus on multiple goals simultaneously display performance decrements.

13


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

The issue of competing goals is especially relevant for children from minority cultures who are expected to adapt to normative expectations for behavior that are inconsistent with those espoused by their families and community. McDermott (1974) describes how not learning to read can be interpreted by some minority children as an achievement rather than a failure. In such cases, noncompliance with institutional norms and standards for achievement can lead to acceptance within the minority community. Similarly, Sindell (1974) describes how children with traditional attitudes toward compliance and obedience have difficulty adapting to learning situations that require self-reliant and competitive behavior.

In sum, the simultaneous pursuit of social responsibility and learning goals appears to enhance performance in academic settings. Presumably, this is because the achievement of both types of goals is compatible with the performance requirements of the classroom. Students who pursue goals that are incompatible with the competence objectives of the classroom or who are unable to coordinate the pursuit of multiple social and academic goals may be at risk for academic failure.

Hierarchical goal pursuit. The concept of goal hierarchies has been of central theoretical importance in explaining motivational patterns of behavior (Ford & Nichols, 1987; Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Maslow, 1970; Powers, 1978). Although links between goal hierarchies and learning have not been studied extensively, there appears to be potential value in studying goal hierarchies as one characteristic of goal coordination. For instance, Bandura and Schunk (1981) suggest that setting explicit proximal subgoals in the service of larger but future goals (linking goals hierarchically) results in greater persistence, enhanced perceptions of self-efficacy, and increased intrinsic interest for children in learning situations. Studies of future time perspective also suggest that students who perceive their present behavior as facilitating the achievement of long-term objectives show more positive motivational and achievement outcomes than students with more negative attitudes about the future (Raynor, 1974; Wentzel, 1987b; Wolf & Savikas, 1985).

Although these studies did not assess subjective beliefs concerning how goals are related to each other, this research does indicate that tendencies to organize goals hierarchically can contribute in positive ways to learning and academic performance. Presumably, these positive outcomes occur because the setting of proximal subgoals cultivates a greater sense of self-efficacy—positive performance on smaller and easily managed tasks provides immediate feedback and information concerning the likelihood of future success. In turn, the development of self-efficacy generates increased interest in task engagement and performance that eventually leads to the accomplishment of more distal or future goals (see Bandura, 1986).

A differentiation between proximal and distal goals may also partly explain the maladaptive motivational patterns often associated with task-extrinsic and performance goals mentioned earlier. For instance, the pursuit of social and learning goals may enhance motivation and learning if students try to interact socially in the classroom (proximal social goals) with a more long-term distal goal of learning new things. In this case, achieving social subgoals would eventually lead to the acquisition of knowledge. On the other hand, if students try to pursue learning subgoals in order to achieve more distal social goals, engagement in learning activities may be limited to those activities that lead to social interaction or social approval. In such cases, if social goals are not achieved as a result of achieving learning goals, students may adopt a different, nonacademic strategy, with a concurrent decrease in motivation to learn.

14


http://rer.aera.net


Thus, as with simultaneous goal pursuit, hierarchical relations among goals can facilitate as well as detract from student competence. On the one hand, pursuing goals in a hierarchical fashion can make task completion more manageable and efficient by compartmentalizing various phases of the task. On the other hand, hierarchical goal pursuit can be detrimental to learning if an inordinate focus is placed on ulterior task-extrinsic motives at the expense of intermediate, task-intrinsic goals.

Summary and implications. Research suggests that socially responsible behavior in the classroom can facilitate academic achievement in at least two ways. First, behaving irresponsibly can detract from learning; irresponsible students appear to receive less one-on-one instruction from teachers. In contrast, behaving responsibly can promote the development of positive social relationships with peers that, in turn, can provide students with valuable cognitive and motivational resources important for learning. As such, behaving in socially responsible ways can create a social context for students that is conducive to cognitive development and that allows classroom instruction and learning to take place.

Second, it appears that motivational components of social responsibility can both constrain and enhance the learning process. On the one hand, the pursuit of social responsibility goals can be positively related to academic performance if they are pursued simultaneously with learning goals. In this case, socially responsible behavior can be a valued outcome in and of itself. Moreover, goals to be socially responsible can provide an added incentive to achieve. This may be especially important when learning tasks are not necessarily intrinsically interesting but nevertheless essential for learning to take place. In contrast, social responsibility can detract from learning if it represents the ultimate goal that a student is trying to achieve.

One remaining issue arising from this literature concerns the direction of effects— does social responsibility affect learning and achievement or does successful academic performance promote socially responsible behavior? Clearly, bidirectional and reciprocal relationships exist. With respect to teachers and peers, social rejection and negative academic feedback can lead to acting out, noncompliance, and other forms of socially irresponsible behavior. With peers especially, aggressive and antisocial forms of behavior appear to be part of a maladaptive cycle of peer rejection, inappropriate behavior, and peer rejection (Dodge, 1986). In addition, the particular instructional strategies that teachers employ can influence levels of responsible behavior. For instance, opportunities for irresponsible behavior are much greater during seatwork and independent study than in more formal lecture and recitation settings (Rosenshine, 1983). Finally, there is some indication that nonsocial cognitive abilities can influence levels of social-cognitive functioning (Berndt, 1981; Keating, 1978).

Despite these influences, there is reason to believe that the direction of effects is primarily from social competence to academic outcomes. From a developmental perspective, antisocial behavior and a lack of prosocial skills appear to begin with poor parenting (Patterson et al., 1989). Thus, how children are taught to behave before they enter school should have at least an initial impact on how they behave and consequently learn at school. Similarly, studies indicate that antisocial behavior precedes peer rejection (Dodge, 1983; Patterson, 1983,1986). Finally, interventions designed to increase academic skills do not necessarily lead to decreases in antisocial behavior (McCord, in press; Patterson et al., 1989), nor do they enhance social skills typically associated with academic achievement (Hopps & Cobb, 1974).

15


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

One way to address this issue is to conduct longitudinal research that specifically addresses cause-effect relations. An alternative approach is to identify component processes that contribute to both social and academic competence. For instance, Hartup (1985) has proposed that the socialization of children involves shifts from external regulation to self-regulation. This process involves the development of planning, monitoring, perspective-taking, and feedback-interpretation skills similar to those used in academic problem solving (see Flavell, 1981). Little is known about the role of self-regulatory skills learned in the context of parent-child or peer-peer interactions in the accomplishment of academic tasks. Establishing links between social and cognitive domains of functioning would tell us much about the transfer and generalization of self-regulatory processes from one context to another (see Harter, in press-a, in press-b; Wentzel, in press-b).

The role of specifc emotional components or predictors of socially responsible behavior such as guilt, shame, or trust could be particularly important in this regard. For instance, recent work suggests that high achieving high school students anticipate feelings of guilt when they do not try to achieve at school, whereas low achievers typically report feelings of boredom rather than guilt (Wentzel, 1987b). In this case, social responsibility may promote achievement behavior by way of negative emotions such as guilt that might deter nonacademic, socially irresponsible behavior. Interpersonal trust also appears to be an important emotional factor related to socially responsible behavior (Ford et al., 1989; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Wentzel, in press-b). Although speculative, the ability to trust others may also contribute to a student's perceptions of personal control and willingness to cooperate with teachers and peers at school and, as such, contribute to positive academic outcomes.

Conclusion

Both theoretical and empirical work suggest that student social responsibility is not only a valued outcome for education in and of itself but that it can be instrumental in the acquisition of knowledge and the development of cognitive abilities. Throughout this review, it also has been suggested that future research in this area might profit from a more critical examination of family socialization practices as they are related to both socially responsible behavior and specific cognitive components of learning. In addition, it has been noted that work on motivation and achievement has paid little attention to the fact that classroom learning is inextricably linked to other aspects of children's development.

The suggestion that social responsibility is directly related to learning and instruction also has implications for classroom practice. For instance, social responsibility in the form of compliance is often viewed as a rather undesirable characteristic in that it can undermine feelings of self-determination, creativity, and independent thinking. Moreover, negative sanctions for noncompliance in the classroom can often lead to conforming, obedient, and submissive behavior on the one hand or to even more deviant and defiant behavior on the other. However, in the eyes of the beholder, adherence to rules and norms connotes trustworthiness, loyalty, and respect, characteristics that are not only valued but necessary for maintaining stable and harmonious social groups. Thus, it seems important that students develop a respect for and actually comply to social rules and expectations for behavior.

As with childrearing, inductive reasoning and positive sanctions for socially responsible behavior may be one way to promote classroom compliance without

16


http://rer.aera.net


jeopardizing feelings of autonomy and personal control (see Maccoby, 1980). This notion is supported by findings of Hamilton and colleagues in their comparative work on Japanese and American school children. In particular, these authors report that Japanese children's reasons for learning are more internalized and empathic than those of American children and reflect an identification with adult authority (Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Alcoh, and Muira, 1989b). Of special interest is that Japanese teachers appear to stress the positive consequences of conformity and compliance whereas American teachers tend to stress the negative consequences of noncompliance (Hamilton et al., 1989a). These findings suggest that classroom behavior management strategies can be developed that do not have the potentially negative consequences typically associated with extrinsic reward structures. Clearly, however, more research is needed in this regard.

At a more general level, evidence of positive links between social responsibility and achievement suggests that researchers may do well to acknowledge the positive influence that extrinsic rewards can sometimes have on learning and performance. Given that maladaptive learning behavior is often associated with task-extrinsic and performance goals, it has often been suggested that educators should actively promote the development of learning and intrinsic goal orientations and discourage goals or reward structures that focus on outcomes extrinsic to task mastery. However, the tradition of comparing and contrasting the differential effects of learning and performance goals on achievement behavior has led us to ignore the fact that in most cases, students must pursue both learning and performance goals if they are to succeed at school. In fact, extrinsic rewards may be necessary at times to initiate and maintain more intrinsic mastery-oriented goals (see Connell & Ryan, 1987; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).

From a societal perspective as well, a high level of intrinsic motivation in and of itself may not always be the most desirable motivational state for students to achieve. As noted earlier in this review, an implicit goal of educational institutions has always been to socialize children into adult society by teaching work- and responsibility-oriented values such as dependability, punctuality, and obedience in conjunction with the learning process. As such, learning usually takes place within the constraints of socially prescribed rules and norms that will ensure successful integration into adult society. Competence is evaluated most often in terms of culturally valued consequences that are attached to task performance. In short, whereas we may delight in the fact that our children have developed an intrinsic love of learning, we also expect them to express these interests in productive, responsible, and future-oriented (i.e., extrinsically motivated) ways. Helping children to achieve a balance between these multiple goals is an important and challenging task for parents and teachers alike.

References Adler, M. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-

motivational analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol 1 (pp. 177-208). New York: Academic Press.

Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535-556.

Atkinson, J. W. (1974). Strength of motivation and efficiency of performance. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 193-218). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

17


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11, 91-115.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Berndt, T. (1981). Relations between social cognitions, nonsocial cognition, and social behavior: The case of friendship. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 176-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blumenfeld, P. C , Hamilton, V. L., Bossert, S. T., Wessels, K., & Meece, J. (1983). Teacher talk and student thought: Socialization into the student role. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 143-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Hamilton, V. L., Wessels, K., Falkner, D. (1979). Teaching responsibility to first graders. Theory Into Practice, 18, 174-180.

Blumenfeld, P. C , Pintrich, P. R., & Hamilton, V. L. (1986). Children's concepts of ability, effort, and conduct. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 95-104.

Blumenfeld, P. C , Pintrich, P. R., & Hamilton, V. L. (1987). Teacher talk and students' reasoning about morals, conventions, and achievement. Child Development, 58, 1389-1401.

Bonney, M. E. (1943). The relative stability of social, intellectual, and academic status in Grades II to IV, and the inter-relationships between these various forms of growth. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 88-102.

Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: Harper & Row.

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1978). Context variables in teaching. Educational Psychologist, 12, 310-316.

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1989). The development of children's conceptions of intelligence: A theoretical framework. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence: Vol. 5 (pp. 47-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J. F. (1978). The case for teaching social skills in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research, 1, 133-156.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bern, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.

Cobb, J. A. (1972). Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 74-80.

Cobb, J. A., & Hopps, H. (1973). Effects of academic survival skills training on low achieving first graders. The Journal of Educational Research, 67, 108-113.

Cohen, E. G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction, and learning. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 171-187). New York: Academic Press.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.

Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). A developmental theory of motivation in the classroom. Teacher Education Quarterly, 11, 64-11.

Cooper, C. R., Ayers-Lopez, S., & Marquis, A. (1982). Children's discourse during peer learning in experimental and naturalistic situations. Discourse Processes, 5, 177-191.

18


http://rer.aera.net


Crandall, V. C. (1966). Personality characteristics and social and achievement behaviors associated with children's social desirability response tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 477-486.

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic uses of peer learning in children's education. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 133-157). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.

Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620-635.

Doise, W. (1985). Social regulations in cognitive development. In R. A. Hinde, A. Perret-Clermont, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social relationships and cognitive development (pp. 294-308). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

Dreeben, R. (1968). On what is learned in school. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a

psychology of education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for

learning. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Eccles, J., Midgley, C , & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment. In M. L. Maehr (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Eder, D. E., & Felmlee (1984). The development of attention norms in ability groups. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 189-225). New York: Academic Press.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., Cadigan, D., & Pallas, A. (1986). The schooling process in first grade: Two samples a decade apart. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 587-613.

Entwistle, N. J., & Kozeki, B. (1985). Relationships between school motivation, approaches to studying, and attainment, among British and Hungarian adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 124-137.

Epperson, D. C. (1963). Some interpersonal and performance correlates of classroom alienation. School Review, 71, 360-376.

Epstein, J. L. (1983). The influence of friends on achievement and affective outcomes. In J. L. Epstein & N. Harweit (Eds.), Friends in school (pp. 177-200). New York: Academic Press.

Feldhusen, J. F., Thurston, J. R., Benning, J. J. (1970). Longitudinal analyses of classroom behavior and school achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 4-10.

Feldman, S. S., & Wentzel, K. R. (1990). Relations among family interaction patterns, classroom self-restraint, and academic achievement in preadolescent boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 813-819.

Feldman, S. S., Wentzel, K. R., Weinberger, D. A., & Munson, J. A. (1990). Marital satisfaction of parents of preadolescent boys and its relationship to family and child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 213-234.

Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Student teacher preferences for elementary school pupils varying in personality characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 126-132.

19


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1987). Affective processes and academic achievement. Child Development, 58, 1335-1347.

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.

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

Ford, M. E. (1985). The concept of competence: Themes and variations. In H. A. Marlowe, Jr. & R. B. Weinberg (Eds.), Competence development (pp. 3-49). New York: Academic Press.

Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible applications. In M. E. Ford & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ford, M. E., & Tisak, M. S. (1983). A further search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 196-206.

Ford, M. E., Wentzel, K. R., Wood, D. N., Stevens, E., & Siesfeld, G. A. (1989). Processes associated with integrative social competence: Emotional and contextual influences on adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 405-425.

Furman, W., & Gavin, L. (1989). Peers' influence on adjustment and development. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 319-340). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Green, K. D., Forehand, R., Beck, S. J., & Vosk, B. (1980). An assessment of the relationships among measures of children's social competence and children's academic achievement. Child Development, 51, 1149-1156.

Hadley, S. (1954). A school mark—fact or fancy? Educational Administration and Supervision, 40, 305-312.

Hamilton, V. L., Blumenfeld, P. C , Alcoh, H., & Muira, K. (1989a). Citizenship and scholarship in Japanese and American Fifth Graders. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 44-72.

Hamilton, V. L., Blumenfeld, P. C , Alcoh, H., & Muira, K. (1989b). Japanese and American children's reasons for the things they do in school. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 545-571.

Hargreaves, D. H., Hester, S. K., & Mellor, F. J. (1975). Deviance in classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Harter, S. (in press-a). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A lifespan perspective. In J. Kolligian & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life-span. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harter, S. (in press-b). The relationships between perceived competence, affect, and motivation: Processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano & T. Heman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 4 (pp. 104-196). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hartup, W. W. (1985). Relationships and their significance in cognitive development. In R. A. Hinde, A. Perret-Clermont, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social relationships and cognitive development (pp. 66-82). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Heath, S. B. (1989). Oral and literate traditions among black Americans living in poverty. American Psychologist, 44, 367-373.

Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 134-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Helton, G. B., & Oakland, T. D. (1977). Teachers' attitudinal responses to differing characteristics of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 261-265.

Hopps, H., & Cobb, J. A. (1974). Initial investigations into academic survival-skill training, direct instruction, and first-grade achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 548-553.

20


http://rer.aera.net


Horn, W. F., & Packard, T. (1985). Early identification of learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 597-607.

Ipsa, J. (1981). Peer support among Soviet day care toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 255-269.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,

218-223. Kedar-Voivodas, G. (1983). The impact of elementary children's school roles and sex roles on

teacher attitudes: An interactional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 415-437. Kelly, E. A. (1958). A study of consistent discrepencies between instructors' grades and term-

end examination grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 328-334. Kohn, M., & Rosman, B. L. (1973). Cognitive functioning in five-year-old boys as related to

social-emotional and background-demographic variables. Developmental Psychology, 8, 277-294.

Kowalski, P., Stipek, D., & Daniels, D. (1987, April). The relationship between teachers' ratings and students' self-reported motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Kozeki, B. (1985). Motives and motivational style in education. In N. Entwistle (Ed.), New directions in educational psychology: 1. Learning and teaching (pp. 189-199). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Kozeki, B., & Entwistle, N. J. (1984). Identifying dimensions of school motivation in Britain and Hungary. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 306-319.

Krumboltz, J., Ford, M., Nichols, C , & Wentzel, K. (1987). The goals of education. In R. C. Calfee (Ed.), The study of Stanford and the schools: Views from the inside: Part II. Stanford, CA: School of Education.

Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children's social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189.

Lambert, N. M. (1972). Intellectual and non-intellectual predictors of high school status. Journal of Special Education, 6, 247-259.

Lambert, N. M., & Nicoll, R. C. (1977). Conceptual model for nonintellectual behavior and its relationship to early reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 481-490.

LeCompte, M. (1978a). Establishing a workplace: Teacher control in the classroom. Education and Urban Society, 11, 87-106.

LeCompte, M. (1978b). Learning to work: The hidden curriculum of the classroom. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 9, 22-37.

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 289-309.

Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3 (pp. 73-106). New York: Academic Press.

Maccoby, E. (1980). Social development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4 (pp. 1-101). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth Annual Report on Education. In J. W. Hillesheim & G. D. Merrill (Eds.) (1980). Theory and practice in the history of American education: A book of readings (pp. 150-165). Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for "intelligence." American

Psychologist, 28, 1-14. McCord, J. (in press). Problem behaviors. In S. S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the

threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

McDermott, R. P. (1974). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to illiteracy and social stratification. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education (pp. 82-118). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Miller, N. (1983). Peer relations in desegrated schools. In J. L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school (pp. 201-217). New York: Academic Press.

Minuchin, P. P., & Shapiro, E. K. (1983). The school as a context for social development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child development: Vol. 4 (pp. 197-274). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mischel, W. (1961). Delay of gratification, need for achievement, and acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 543-552.

Mutimer, D. D., & Rosemier, R. A. (1967). Behavior problems of children as viewed by teachers and the children themselves. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 538-547.

Nakamura, C. Y., & Finck, D. N. (1980). Relative effectiveness of socially oriented and task-oriented children and predictability of their behaviors. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 45, (3-4, Serial No. 185).

Nelson-LeGall, & DeCooke, P. A. (1987). Same-sex and cross-sex help exchanges in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 67-71.

Nicholls, J. G. (1976). Effort is virtuous, but it's better to have ability: Evaluative responses to perceptions of effort and ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 306-315.

Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Development and its discontents: The differentiation of the concept of ability. In M. L. Maehr (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 185-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 269-287.

Nucci, L. P. (1982). Conceptual development in the moral and conventional domains: Implications for values education. Review of Educational Research, 52, 93-122.

O'Leary, S. G., Dubey, D. R. (1979). Application of self-control procedures by children: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 449-465.

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

Patterson, G. R. (1983). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,

432-444. Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on

antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335. Powers, W. T. (1978). Qualitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the

foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417-435. Pressley, M. (1979). Increasing children's self-control through cognitive interventions. Review

of Educational Research, 49, 319-370. Raynor, J. O. (1974). Future orientation in the study of achievement motivation. In J. W.

Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 121-154). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Reuman, D., Atkinson, J. W., & Gallop, G. (1986). Computer simulation of behavioral expressions of four personality traits. In J. Kuhil & J. W. Atkinson (Eds.), Motivation, thought, and action (pp. 203-234). New York: Praeger.

Rosenbaum, M. S., & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control training in the classroom: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 467-485.

Rosenshine, B. V. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary School Journal, 83, 335-351.

Ruble, D. N. (1983). The development of social comparison processes and their role in achievement-related self-socialization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 134-157). New York: Cambridge University Press.

22


http://rer.aera.net


Safer, D. J. (1986). Nonpromotion correlates and outcomes at different grade levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 500-503.

Safran, S. P., & Safran, J. S. (1985). Classroom context and teachers' perceptions of problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 20-28.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.

Schwarz, J. C. (1972). Effects of peer familiarity on the behavior of preschoolers in a novel situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 276-284.

Shultz, J., & Florio, S. (1979). Stop and freeze: The negotiation of social and physical space in a kindergarten/first grade classroom. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 10, 166-181.

Sieber, R. T. (1979). Classmates as workmates: Informal peer activity in the elementary school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 10, 207-235.

Sindell, P. S. (1974). Some discontinuities in the enculturation of Misassini Cree children. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education (pp. 333-341). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21, 209-233.

Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentives, cooperative tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 53-63.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161-1167.

Solomon, D., & Kendall, A. J. (1977). Dimensions of children's classroom behavior as perceived by teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 411-421.

Spencer-Hall, D. A. (1981). Looking behind the teacher's back. The Elementary School Journal, 81, 281-289.

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, J. W. (1980). Agency and achievement: Self-management and self-regard. Review of Educational Research, 50, 213-240.

Trenholm, S., & Rose, T. (1981). The compliant communicator: Teacher perceptions of appropriate classroom behavior. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 13-26.

Turiel, E. (1983). Interaction and development in social cognition. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 333-355). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weatherford, R. R., & Horrocks, J. E. (1967). Peer acceptance and under- and over-achievement in school. Journal of Psychology, 66, 215-220.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655.

Wentzel, K. R. (1986, April). Educational goals: Past and present. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Wentzel, K. R. (1987a, August). Causality beliefs and classroom competence in adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

Wentzel, K. R. (1987b). Social, emotional, and cognitive factors associated with classroom-related goals and academic competence in adolescence: A developmental systems approach to the study of motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.

Wentzel, K. R. (in press-a). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (in press-b). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development.

23


http://rer.aera.net

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Wentzel, K. R., Feldman, S. S., & Weinberger, D. A. (in press). Parental childrearing and academic achievement in boys: The mediational role of socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence.

Wentzel, K. R., Weinberger, D. A., Ford, M. E., & Feldman, S. S. (1990). Academic achievement in preadolescence: The role of motivational, affective, and self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 179-193.

Wentzel, K. R., Wood, D. N., Siesfeld, G. A., Stevens, E., & Ford, M. E. (1987, April). Does being good make the grade? A study of adolescent social responsibility and academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.

Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (1986). Practical Intelligence in later adulthood. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 236-268). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wolf, F. M., & Savikas, M. L. (1985). Time perspective and causal attributions for achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 471-480.

Zigler, E., & Trickett, P. K. (1978). IQ, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs. American Psychologist, 33, 789-798.

Author

KATHRYN R. WENTZEL is Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, 3304 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742. She specializes in motivation and achievement and the development of social competence.

24


http://rer.aera.net

review of educational research - pbworks

Documents