M Co Am Engagement Psych Reports 2011

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/51767098
Relationship between Learning Environment

Characteristics and Academic Engagement
Article in Psychological Reports · August 2011

DOI: 10.2466/09.10.11.PR0.109.4.259-284 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
52 12,983
2 authors:
Marie-Christine Opdenakker Alexander Minnaert

University of Humanistic Studies University of Groningen
66 PUBLICATIONS 2,594 CITATIONS 160 PUBLICATIONS 3,387 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Promotion of motor activation in the support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities View project
Zie je ze GROEIen!?: hoe observatie van authentiek gedrag, evaluatie en planning met GOLD-NL het pedagogisch
handelen van voorschoolse professionals kan versterken View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Minnaert on 21 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Reports, 2011, 109, 1, 259-284. © Psychological Reports 2011
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

CHARACTERISTICS AND ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT1
MARIE-CHRISTINE OPDENAKKER AND ALEXANDER MINNAERT
University of Groningen
Summary.—The relationship between learning environment characteristics and

academic engagement of 777 Grade 6 children located in 41 learning environments
was explored. Questionnaires were used to tap learning environment perceptions
of children, their academic engagement, and their ethnic-cultural background. The
basis of the learning environment questionnaire was the International System for
Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF). Factor analysis indicated three factors:
the teacher as a helpful and good instructor (having good instructional skills, clear
instruction), the teacher as promoter of active learning and differentiation, and the
teacher as manager and organizer of classroom activities. Multilevel analysis indi-
cated that about 12% of the differences in engagement between children was related
to the learning environment. All the mentioned learning environment characteris-
tics mattered, but the teacher as a helpful, good instructor was most important fol-
lowed by the teacher as promoter of active learning and differentiation.
Low student engagement in academic school activities can lead to

school failure and nonpassing in the short term, and adverse life outcomes
in the long term (e.g., early school leaving, unemployment). Therefore,
student academic engagement should be a major concern of teachers, par-
ents, and educational and school psychologists. The lack of engagement in
tasks has been commonly conceptualized and described as a lack or defi-
cit in motivation for school. Student’s engagement in school, often called
“academic engagement,” is nowadays often conceptualized in a manner
that captures the quality of the student’s participation with learning ac-
tivities or their involvement in academic activities (in the classroom) and
their engagement with learning opportunities in the learning environ-
ment. To many motivation researchers, engagement conceptualized this
way is seen as the outward manifestation of a student’s motivation (Skin-
ner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009). Engagement can range from apathetic
withdrawal to enthusiastic, focused, energized, and emotionally positive
interactions with academic school activities and reflects the kind of inter-
actions with aspects from the learning environment (activities and materi-
als) that should produce (or interfere with) actual learning (Skinner, et al.,
2009). Most conceptualizations of engagement include engaged behaviors
like effort exertion and persistence. Many of them also include indicators
1
Address correspondence to Marie-Christine Opdenakker, Faculty of Behavioural and So-
cial Sciences, GION, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 3, 9712 TG Groningen, The
Netherlands or e-mail (m.c.j.l.opdenakker@rug.nl).
DOI 10.2466/09.10.11.PR0.109.4.259-284 ISSN 0033-2941

260 M-C. Opdenakker & A. Minnaert
of mental effort such as concentration and attention. On-task behavior,

class participation, and academic behavior refer to this aspect of engage-
ment. Some conceptualizations, for example that of Skinner, et al. (2009),
also include engaged emotions reflecting energized emotional states such
as interest, enjoyment, and enthusiasm. Their conceptualization of en-
gagement, which refers to the behavioral intensity and emotional quality
of the active involvement of students during learning tasks in class (Reeve,
Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004), includes the state of being caught and
held by aspects of the learning environment. Although there is some evi-
dence for a two-dimensional structure of engagement in the work of Skin-
ner, et al. (2009), they reported a moderately high correlation between be-
havioral engagement and emotional engagement (r = .53 between student
reports), indicating the possibility to combine them.2
In the past, student motivation was often conceived as a purely per-
sonal student attribute. It is recognized now that motivation is influenced
by external influences as well (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Therefore, mo-
tivation and motivated behavior are nowadays more often studied within
an ecological perspective, considering the student in interaction with the
(learning) environment (Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004). According
to Fraser, the learning environment refers to “the social, psychological and
pedagogical contexts in which learning occurs and which affect student
achievement and attitudes” (Fraser, 1998a, p. 3). The teacher is widely rec-
ognized as an important determinant of the learning environment in the
classroom; research on teacher effectiveness and classroom environment
research from developmental psychology and ecological perspectives has
shown the importance of teachers and their teaching to students’ academic
outcomes (Brophy & Good, 1986; Fraser, Walberg, Welch, & Hattie, 1987;
Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Hamre & Pianta, 2005). In partic-
ular, teachers’ support of students (academic/content-related, emotional/
motivational), teacher involvement, and classroom management and or-
ganization are often mentioned in teacher effectiveness and classroom en-
vironment research as important indicators of the quality of the learning
environment (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993; Alton-Lee, 2003; Opdenak
ker & Van Damme, 2009). Alton-Lee (2003), in a review article, pointed to
the importance of teachers’ caring, support (“scaffolding”), and respon-
siveness for student-learning processes, and Wang, et al. (1993) noted in
their review the importance of constructive, academic and social teacher-
student interactions in addition to classroom management and structured
teaching. Furthermore, research and theories on motivation and self-de-
termination recognize the importance of a supportive and involved teach-
2
Skinner, et al. (2009) agree with this in their conclusion saying that “the components can be
distinguished statistically, but practically it may make more sense to combine them.” (p. 519).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 261
er with respect to student motivation, academic engagement and attitudes

toward learning and school, and self-determination (Skinner & Belmont,
1993; Yamauchi, Kumagal, & Kawasaki, 1999; Opdenakker & Van Damme,
2000; Minnaert, Boekaerts, & de Brabander, 2007; Opdenakker & Maula-
na, 2010; Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, 2011). In the same
vein, Nichols (2006) stated in his review based upon theories and liter-
ature on goal orientations, self-efficacy, and attributions of success and
failure, that “motivation will flourish when the classroom environment
is sensitive to and effectively promotes positive student-teacher relation-
ships” (Nichols, 2006, p. 152).
Student perceptions represent the primary source of information on
the quality of learning environments in learning environment research
(Fraser, 1998b; Levy, den Brok, Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2003). The major-
ity of studies investigating learning environments are based on student
questionnaires and, therefore, on the students’ perceptions of their learn-
ing environment.
Classroom environment research as well as research and theories on
motivation and self-determination stress the importance of students’ per-
ception of their learning environment (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner
& Belmont, 1993; Fraser, 1998c; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Deci & Ryan,
2002; den Brok, Bergen, Stahl, & Brekelmans, 2004; Fraser, 2007; Kowalski,
2007). In particular, based on interpretive studies, Fraser, McRobbie, and
Fisher (1996) suggested there could be discrete and differently perceived
learning environments within the same classroom. Research of Anderson
(1989) stressed the quality of student perceptions of the learning environ-
ment in terms of their reality value. Furthermore, there is some evidence
that the way students perceive their learning environment and their in-
teraction with their teachers has an influence on their motivation and en-
gagement in school (Ryan & Patrick, 2001).
The above indicates that in order to study and interpret effects of
teachers and, in particular, effects of the learning environments they cre-
ate in their classes in relation to motivational aspects of students, different
strands of educational (classroom environment, teacher effectiveness) and
psychological (motivation/self-determination, education) research should
be consulted because they all offer useful (complementary) insights and
frameworks. In this article, research findings of classroom environment
research, teacher-student interpersonal relationships research, classroom
management research, teacher effectiveness research, and motivation re-
search are discussed to identify the learning environment characteris-
tics that play a role in the academic engagement of students. The frame-
work of educational effectiveness research is used as the major theoretical
grounding of this research. Self-determination theory is used as a general
encompassing background to interpret the findings related to the learning

environment, teacher effectiveness, and motivation research.
Important Learning Environment Characteristics
Classroom teaching is a complex task in a complex environment
(Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, & Tartwijk, 2006), and teachers have to
fulfill many simultaneous functions like instructing, motivating, and or-
ganizing to reach their goals. Kyriakides (2007) mentioned in this respect
the multidimensional role of teachers. Teaching, teachers’ work in gen-
eral, and the learning environments, as well as the effectiveness of inter-
ventions, have been studied for many years from different perspectives.
To grasp the complexity of classroom teaching and what occurs in the
classroom, some researchers have distinguished between different types
of teaching acts such as instructional behaviors and procedures and class-
room management (Brophy & Good, 1986; Creemers, 1994; Lee 1995),
while others have examined teaching from different perspectives, e.g., in-
terpersonal, class management, and learning activities, recognizing that
there is some overlap between these perspectives (Wubbels, et. al., 2006).
In addition, studies inspired by learning environment research have fo-
cused on effectiveness, linking teaching behavior and learning environ-
ment characteristics or conditions with student outcomes. Until recent-
ly, however, the student outcomes considered in educational effectiveness
studies were mainly cognitive outcomes such as mathematics or language
achievement, while learning environment research has focused on the
connection between learning environment and achievement as well as at-
titudes.
In addition to the above-mentioned topics, there is a growing trend in
studies on teaching and teacher effectiveness to focus on the availability
of supportive conditions for learning. For example, Prenzel, Kramer, and
Drechsel (2002) mentioned six supportive conditions in students’ learn-
ing environments, namely the relevance of content, quality of instruction,
teacher’s interest, social relatedness, support of competence, and support
of autonomy. Research of Krapp and Lewalter (2001) and Prenzel, et al.
(2002) has supported the importance of these conditions with regard to
the intrinsic motivation of students. Scheerens (2007) also saw teaching
as a set of conditions that should facilitate and “boost” student learning.
An important question is what a teacher should do to create an effective
learning environment and to boost learning. Teachers can play an impor-
tant role in students’ control strategies (e.g., cognitive and motivational
self-regulation strategies) by compensating the lack of student control in
learning by actively ordering and controlling the learning situation (Ar-
telt, Baumert, Julius-McElvany, & Peschar, 2003; Boekaerts & Corno, 2005).
In this case, teachers act as a substitute for students’ control strategies.
However, teachers can also act as an additional support or as a model and

example to enhance student control (Scheerens, 2007). Moreover, teaching
can suppress student control when students are not given sufficient lee-
way to develop and manifest control behavior. The question can be raised
how far this teacher control should go. This question is interesting, in par-
ticular from a theoretical point of view based on self-determination, be-
cause in this theory (teacher) control is seen as the opposite of autonomy
support, which is important for the self-determination and motivation of
students.
To some extent, the role of the teacher described above has some cor-
respondence with the distinction between structured and more open,
discovery-oriented teaching approaches. One of the differences between
these approaches is the amount of structure and control established by the
teacher. There are some indications in the literature that weaker students
in primary and secondary education are more likely to benefit from teach-
ers taking over or providing additional support for student control strate-
gies, whereas better students in secondary education benefit from teach-
ers acting as a model and an example and giving them sufficient leeway to
develop their control strategies (Scheerens, 2007). In addition, D’Agostino
(2000) found that a more teacher-centered approach worked better for
younger children in primary education, whereas a more student-centered
approach was better fitted to older children. This means that the discus-
sion about what learning environment is most effective (a structured one
or a more open and discovery oriented) is more complex than is often rec-
ognized because the effectiveness of learning environments seems to be
conditional on student aptitudes, the advancement in school career (age),
and perhaps also on educational objectives. The above also suggests some
leeway for the importance of adaptive teaching and seeing the approaches
as complementary. According to Scheerens (2007), however, this does not
mean that contrasting the traditions of structured teaching, mastery learn-
ing, and direct instruction approaches with “constructivist ideas” about
teaching and learning is not valuable.
Teaching Approaches and Teacher Functioning Conducive to Student Outcomes
In the first approach, the learning environment is highly structured by
the teacher, and the teacher’s goals are clear, content and course material
is offered in a structured way, students are regularly asked questions, and
are assessed to ensure progress; students practice what has been taught
and receive prompts and feedback (Doyle, 1985). Constructivist approach-
es, on the other hand, emphasize the active role of the learner and the im-
portance of confronting students with contextual, rich real-world environ-
ments. Learning to learn, the development and use of learning strategies,
and reflecting on these learning strategies (meta-cognition) are equal-
ly important as mastering content. Terms like “active learning” (Cohen,

1988a), “cognitive apprenticeship” (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989),
and “situated cognition” (Resnick, 1987) are used to describe the learn-
ing of students. The role of the teacher is that of a coach who assists stu-
dents in their learning and development and who creates learning situ-
ations in which students are invited to engage in sustained exploration.
Active learning is seen as a means to get students (more) involved in their
learning. When students are more involved, learning is more intrinsically
motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition to the described approaches,
more eclectic approaches are feasible when teacher-controlled and learn-
er-controlled instructional situations are used alternately (cf. Boekaerts &
Simons, 1993).
Research evidence in which structured and open teaching/construc-
tivist approaches were compared and related to student outcomes is rela-
tively scarce. Early meta-analyses by Fraser and Walberg (Walberg, 1986;
Fraser, et al., 1987; Wang, et al., 1993) indicated superiority of the more
traditional approach. A recent meta-analysis of Scheerens (2007) com-
prising studies between 1985 and 2005 and investigating links between
learning environment characteristics and cognitive outcomes, however,
revealed the importance of both teaching approaches with a slightly high-
er effect size for the constructivist approach (ES = 0.143) compared to the
structured, direct teaching approach (ES = 0.09). A more fine-grained anal-
ysis revealed that with regard to the structured approach, in particular,
clear and structured teaching (including structured teaching and a clear
goal-directed teaching approach) had the highest effect size (ES = 0.13),
whereas with regard to the more open teaching/constructivist approach,
learning to use learning strategies appeared to have the highest effect
size (ES = 0.21), followed by a teaching approach characterized as chal-
lenging, stimulating motivation through cognitive challenge rather than
through activating teaching and learning in a more organizational sense
(ES = 0.13), and a teaching approach considered “activating” (ES = 0.12).
Scheerens (2007, p. 130) stipulated, “The overriding conclusion of the me-
ta-analysis of teaching factors is that effective teaching is a matter of clear
structuring and challenging presentation and a supportive climate and me-
ta-cognitive training. The results indicated that these main orientations to
teaching are all important, and that effective teaching is not dependent on
3
ES (effect size). Effect sizes in the study of Scheerens (2007) refer to log-transformed cor-
relations (Fisher’s Z). All statistics in the original research articles were transformed into this
index and should be interpreted according to Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988b). Cohen’s d is related
to the correlation coefficients (and, hence, Fisher’s Z) in the following way: d = 2r/√(1 − r2). A
close estimate is d = 2r. To interpret the size of effects, Cohen (1988) considered a value of .20
as a small effect, a value of .50 as a moderate/medium effect, and a value of .80 as a large
effect.
a singular strategy or approach.” However, it remains rather unclear how

these main orientations relate to motivation and motivated behavior like
academic engagement because of the lack of research linking these teach-
ing approaches to motivation. Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2000) suggests that an approach in which the autonomy of students is
supported, and students’ experience, at the mean time, structure is benefi-
cial to motivation (e.g., Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010).
In line with the distinction between structured and more open teach-
ing/constructivist approaches, some researchers refer to a teacher-cen-
tered approach as opposed to a learner-centered approach (Alfassi, 2004;
Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006). Proponents of learner-centered ap-
proaches stress the importance of providing the most supportive learning
context for diverse students (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Nieto, 1996; Oster-
man, 2001). The teacher is seen as the principal shaper of the learning con-
text, and the creation of a learner-centered classroom by the teacher will
depend on teachers valuing and understanding the individual differences
and needs of students (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). In addition, learner-
centered environments are characterized by positive student-teacher rela-
tionships. Findings of student-parent relationships (e.g., Baumrind, 1991)
indicating the importance of an authoritative style (characterized by high
expectations and responsiveness) for the development of children, as well
as educational programs and ideas of persons like Montessori and Reggio
Emilia and constructivist approaches suggest that empowered, support-
ive classroom environments where student-teacher relations are encour-
aged and nourished positively affect students’ motivation, engagement
for school, learning, and development (Nichols, 2006). Research on stu-
dent-teacher interpersonal relationships and school climate confirmed the
importance of good student-teacher relations and the effectiveness of an
authoritative style (compared to an authoritarian style) to motivated be-
havior (effort) and attitudes toward academic subjects (Gregoire & Algi-
na, 2000; Anderson, et al., 2004; den Brok, van Tartwijk, Wubbels, & Veld-
man, 2010). In addition, research of Opdenakker and Van Damme (2006)
has shown that the more teachers adopt a learner-centered teaching style,
the more they give their classes instructional support and opportunities to
learn (irrespective of the general ability level of the class) and the better are
their relationships with their classes and the achievement and academic
engagement of students (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2009). Furthermore,
Alfassi (2004) suggested students at risk or whose needs are less conven-
tional will most benefit from a learner-centered environment in terms of
motivation and achievement because such an environment is based on an
enrichment model of teaching and learning (addressing students’ interests
and strengths) compared to traditional learning environments (address-
ing students’ deficits). Alfassi (2004) reported that a structured program in

a learner-centered context yielded significantly better results than tradi-
tional teacher-centered instruction with regard to academically engaging
students who had experienced academic failure in the past. Hamre and
Pianta (2005) found evidence for positive effects of instructional and emo-
tional support on children at risk of school failure.
Although in the past teacher-centered and structured teaching ap-
proaches were often pitted against more learner-centered and constructiv-
ist approaches, several scholars nowadays make a plea for placing them
on one continuum and for linking the option for a position on that con-
tinuum to learning objectives and the ability of students (Creemers, 2005;
Scheerens, 2007). Others (e.g., Kyriakides, Creemers, & Antoniou, 2009)
also refer to such a continuum, but imply a hierarchy in the characteris-
tics of these approaches, indicating that characteristics of teacher-centered
and, in particular, structured teaching approaches require basic teaching
skills, while the creation of a more learner-centered and constructivist
learning environment in which attention is paid to individual differences
of students (differentiation/adaptive teaching) requires higher skills.
Next to the mentioned teaching approaches, classroom management
is often mentioned in learning environments and educational effective-
ness research as an important interactive strategy aiming at optimizing
active learning of students and opportunity to learn by creating an or-
derly climate in the learning environment (see review of Stallings, 1985;
Baumert, Blum, & Neubrand, 2001; Scheerens, 2007). Evertson and Wein-
stein (2006) defined classroom management as “the actions teachers take
to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and
social-emotional learning” (p. 4). According to Evertson and Weinstein
(2006), classroom management has two distinct purposes: the establish-
ment and sustainment of an orderly environment in which students can
engage in meaningful academic learning and the enhancement of social
and moral growth. From this perspective, it is not only important to know
whether a teacher achieves order. Teachers carry out a number of specific
tasks to serve these two purposes: developing supportive, caring relation-
ships with and among students; organizing and implementing instruction
to optimize students’ opportunities to learn; using group management
methods to encourage students’ engagement in learning tasks; promot-
ing the development of students’ self-regulation and social skills; and us-
ing appropriate interventions to assist students with behavior problems
(Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). According to Baumert, et al. (2001), impor-
tant properties of good classroom management include clearly defined rules
and procedures, prevention of disturbances, effective responses to critical
events, and routinization of basic social acts in the classroom (Baumert, et
al., 2001). Emmer, Evertson, and Worsham (2003) suggested that orderly
classroom environments with well-established routines are essential for
student achievement because they allow students to have a sense of own-
ership in their learning experiences. Management emphasizing the clari-
fication of what students are expected to do and helping them to learn is
likely more effective than management that focuses on misbehavior (Bro-
phy, 2006), because the time a teacher spends on correcting misbehavior
results in lower academic engagement in the classroom (Brophy & Good,
1986; Berliner, 1988; Gettinger & Kohler, 2006). Evidence is found for as-
sociations between effective instruction and effective classroom manage-
ment; Gettinger and Kohler (2006) and Brophy (2006) concluded that man-
agement systems need to support instructional systems. Evertson and
Randolph (1999) stressed that classroom management is not a precondi-
tion for content instruction. It should be interwoven with instruction to at-
tain learning goals. A review by Scheerens (2007) revealed that an order-
ly and functional environment was an important effectiveness enhancing
condition for achievement (ES = 0.13). A more fine-grained meta-analysis
of Scheerens (2007) indicated an emotionally supportive climate was im-
portant and had a larger effect size (ES = 0.13) than that of a disciplinary
climate (ES = 0.07) and orderly classroom management (ES = 0.09).
In addition to the already mentioned learning environment character-
istics and perspectives on teacher functioning, the learning environment
can also be viewed from the perspective of the interpersonal functioning
of teachers. Within learning environment research and teacher educa-
tion research, this perspective, which focuses on the relationship between
teachers and students in terms of proximity and influence, has become
very important. A lot of research (for an overview, see Wubbels & Brekel-
mans, 2005) has been done linking the dimensions of proximity and influ-
ence on cognitive and noncognitive outcomes and creating a typology of
interpersonal functioning of teachers. In general, both dimensions are im-
portant with regard to affective student outcomes, usually measured in
terms of motivation, but effects of proximity are usually somewhat stron-
ger (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). With regard to cognitive outcomes, the
influence dimension seems to be most important.
In conclusion, the literature of different strands suggests that learn-
ing environments important to student learning, cognitive outcomes, and
motivation combine “traditional” aspects of structured teaching (like clear
and structured instruction and clear goals), a supportive, warm, and re-
sponsive teacher, aspects of constructivist approaches (e.g., emphasis on
the active role of students, cognitive challenge), and good classroom man-
agement. Gettinger and Kohler (2006) came to the same conclusion in
their review of process-outcome approaches to classroom management
and effective teaching. This is in agreement with ideas of self-determi-

nation theory, which emphasize the role of structure, autonomy support,
and teacher involvement in relation to the fulfillment of the three basic
psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Students
should remain motivated for school and engage in school tasks when the
learning environment supports the fulfillment of their needs to feel au-
tonomous, competent, and related. Feeling competent refers to the expe-
rience of one’s own behavior as effectively enacted. When students feel
competent, they feel able to meet the challenges of their schoolwork (Ni-
emiec & Ryan, 2009). Feeling related refers to a sense of belonging and
connection with others. Students feeling related experience emotional se-
curity, which is required to actively explore and deal effectively with the
world. Students with a strong sense of relatedness respond more posi-
tively to challenges and set positive goals, and are more willing to inter-
nalize social regulations and to adapt to interpersonal circumstances (La
Guardia & Ryan, 2002). A warm, supportive and nurturing relationship
between teacher and students is important to satisfy students’ need for re-
latedness. Feeling autonomous refers to the experience of one’s own be-
havior as reflectively self-endorsed and volitional. Students are autono-
mous when they willingly devote energy and time to their schoolwork
and study (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). In sum, the fulfillment of these needs
are crucial in order to give students the opportunity to be or become self-
determined and to nurture students’ intrinsic motivation for school and
learning (Minnaert, Boekaerts, & Opdenakker, 2008; Jang, Reeve, Ryan, &
Kim, 2009, Minnaert, Boekaerts, de Brabander, & Opdenakker, 2011).
Student Background Characteristics Important to Academic Engagement and
Learning Environments
With regard to relationships between students’ background charac-
teristics and perceptions of learning environments and academic engage-
ment, and the potential of differential effectiveness of characteristics of
the learning environment and teachers’ behavior, the literature is rather
scarce and inconclusive. Prior achievement, prior interest, and self-con-
cept of ability have a positive effect on learning motivation and the use
of learning strategies (Seidel, Prenzel, Duit, Euler, Geiser, Hoffman, et al.,
2002), and girls are often found to be more motivated for schools than
boys. However, research of Ryan and Patrick (2001) revealed no evidence
for a relation between sex, race, and prior achievement and changes in
motivation or engagement.
With regard to a relationship between students’ background char-
acteristics and perceptions of learning environments, Seidel, et al. (2002)
found some evidence for a relationship: struggling and self-underesti-
mating students were more likely to experience their learning environ-
ment as less supportive than smart and self-overestimating students in the

same classroom. Furthermore, girls tended to have more favorable views
of their classroom learning environment than boys (see Fraser, 2007). It is
possible that teachers react differently to students, depending upon stu-
dents’ characteristics and teachers’ expectations. Brophy and Good (1970),
for example, showed that expectations based on assumptions of students’
characteristics can lead to the creation of different micro-learning environ-
ments for students within the same classroom. Teachers were more likely
to praise students and were less likely to blame students from whom they
expected high achievement compared to students from whom they ex-
pected low achievement.
With regard to the potential of differential effectiveness of learning
environment characteristics, Gregoire and Algina (2000) found that an au-
thoritarian school climate is associated with a greater gap between sexes
in academic achievement at Grade 8 and an increased differentiation of
students’ socioeconomic status on mathematics achievement compared to
an authoritative school climate. Furthermore, some evidence was found
that low SES and less able learners need more structure and more positive
teacher reinforcement, while more able learners excel in environments in
which independent learner activity is required (Snow & Lohman, 1984;
Brophy, 1986). This indicates that teachers who are effective with students
of varied backgrounds are able to differentiate their teaching practices
(Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006). According to Kyriakides (2007), no clear
data on racial and ethnic influences on relationships between teachers’ be-
havior and students’ achievement are available. He concluded from his
review that, in general, more evidence was available on powerful effects
of teachers’ behavior than on interactions between teacher behavior and
student background. Interactions that did appear indicated that certain
groups of students needed more but not different instruction (Kyriakides,
2007). In addition, research of den Brok, et al. (2010) revealed that teach-
er-student relations were more important to students with a non-Dutch
ethnic background, but no evidence was found for differential effects of
teacher-student relations on student achievement.
Hypotheses
In this study, it was investigated whether learning environment char-
acteristics (structured teaching, aspects of constructivist approaches, psy-
chosocial aspects of the learning environment, classroom management)
were related to academic engagement of students and could explain dif-
ferences in academic engagement of students at the end of primary edu-
cation. As such, the study combined the investigation of learning environ-
ment aspects within one study and related them to a noncognitive student
outcome, namely the academic engagement of students, with attention to
the unique and joint effects of these learning environment characteristics.

By relating learning environment characteristics often mentioned in edu-
cational effectiveness research to noncognitive outcomes, the study adds
to the knowledge base of educational effectiveness research because non-
cognitive outcomes are still not typically considered in educational effec-
tiveness research despite their obvious importance. By combining learning
environment characteristics from different strands of educational research
into one study to assess joint and unique effects, knowledge about effec-
tive teaching will be enhanced (Aldridge, Fraser, & Huang, 1999; Sinclair
& Fraser, 2002). In addition, differential effects of learning environment
characteristics on academic engagement are of interest. The study focused
on students in the final years of primary education, an important transi-
tion time; this adds to the literature because learning environment stud-
ies are typically conducted with secondary students. Moreover, instead
of multiple-regression analysis, multilevel analysis techniques were used
to account accurately for the hierarchical structure of classroom settings
(Fraser, 1998c, 2007).
Learning environment characteristics related to structured teach-
ing, to aspects of constructivist approaches, and to psychosocial aspects
of the learning environment and classroom management were hypoth-
esized to be related to academic engagement of students and to explain
differences in engagement between classes and students. In particular,
it was hypothesized that students’ perceptions of their learning environ-
ment concerning teacher support, involvement, and classroom manage-
ment could explain differences in students’ academic engagement. More-
over, it was hypothesized that there would be common effects of the these
learning environment characteristics because the literature and self-de-
termination theory suggest that learning environments fulfilling all three
basic needs will nurture students’ motivation and academic engagement
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). In addition, it was hypothesized that character-
istics based on structured teaching would have more effect on academic
engagement compared to characteristics of constructivist approaches be-
cause the study was conducted with primary students. This hypothesis
is based on findings of D’Agostino (2000), indicating that a more teacher-
centered structured approach worked better for younger children in pri-
mary education, whereas a more student-centered approach was better
fitted to older children.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 777 Grade 6 children (M age = 11.8 yr.,
SD = 0.58; 388 boys) located in 41 learning environments (classes) in 36 pri-
mary schools in The Netherlands. The schools were scattered over five
provinces, primarily in the north. Approximately 53% (19) of the schools

were public; the remaining (17) were private (Christian or Catholic) schools.
Schools and teachers were recruited on a voluntary basis. Schools were
randomly selected, and their students participated on a voluntary basis.
Measures
Questionnaires were used to tap children’s perceptions of their learn-
ing environment (end of Grade 6) as well as their academic engagement
at the end of Grades 5 and 6. Children’s ethnic-cultural backgrounds were
tapped as well.
Learning Environment Questionnaire.—The basis of the Learning Envi-
ronment Questionnaire is the Teacher Observation Instrument of the In-
ternational System for Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF; Ted-
dlie, Creemers, Kyriakides, Muijs, & Yu, 2006). A slightly adapted version
(see Opdenakker, 2009) of the Dutch student questionnaire constructed by
the Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation of the University
of Leuven (Belgium) was used. Exploratory factor analysis with varimax
rotation on the sample indicated the existence of three factors: the teacher
as a helpful and good instructor (having good instructional skills, clear in-
struction; “Instruct”), the teacher as promoter of active learning and dif-
ferentiation (“Actlearn”), and the teacher as manager and organizer of
classroom activities (“Manag”). Examples of items are for the teacher as a
helpful and good instructor, “When students encounter difficulties with
the subject matter, they get help and are told what they can do to over-
come these difficulties,” “The lessons are well structured and organized,”
and “The instruction is clear and understandable.” Examples of items for
the teacher as promoter of active learning and differentiation are, “Exam-
ples given by students are used during class,” “We are invited to give our
personal opinions on certain subjects,” and “Our class is divided into dif-
ferent groups according to the tasks given to the students.” Examples of
items referring to the qualities of the teacher as manager and organizer of
classroom activities are, “Our classroom is often out of control” (reverse
scored), and “Most of the students are disturbed when misbehavior oc-
curs in our classroom.” The first mentioned factor can be interpreted as
an indicator of (instructional) support and involvement of the teacher, the
second one as an additional indicator of support (instructional and auton-
omy), and the last factor as an indicator of classroom management. State-
ments were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors 1: Strong-
ly disagree and 5: Strongly agree. Scales were constructed based on the
factors, and scale scores were obtained by averaging the item scores be-
longing to the same scale.4 The psychometric properties of the scales were
4
The results of the factor analysis as well as the scale items for all scales can be obtained from
the first author on request.
good; the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) were, respectively, .88 (In-

struct, 19 items), .79 (Actlearn, 18 items), and .66 (Manag, 9 items). High/
moderate-to-low correlations were observed among scales: .68 (Instruct
and Actlearn), .40 (Instruct and Manag), and .25 (Actlearn and Manag).
Academic Engagement Scale.—The Academic Engagement Scale (based
on work by Roede, 1989) was administered near the end of the school year
of Grade 5 (3 items, α = .83) and Grade 6 (9 items, α = .80). Self-rated state-
ments were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors 1: Strongly
disagree and 5: Strongly agree. The scales consisted of items referring to
engaged behavior (effort exertion and persistence, mental effort indicators
attention and concentration) and engaged emotion (enjoyment and enthu-
siasm), with the strongest focus on engaged behavior. This operationaliza-
tion of academic engagement is in line with the (behavior) engagement
conceptualization of Skinner, et al. (2009). Examples of items are, “This
school year I do my best during the lessons,” and “This school year I enjoy
working for school.” The correlation between the engagement end Grade
5 and end Grade 6 was .77 after correction for attenuation.
Ethnic-cultural background.—Ethnic-cultural background was mea-
sured by the language spoken at home and by the nationality of the par-
ents. Approximately 89% of the students spoke only Dutch at home. For
approximately 12% of the students, one or both parents were of foreign
nationality.
Procedure
Permission to participate in the study was obtained from all partici-
pants or their representatives. All students of the schools were willing to
participate in the study and filled in the questionnaires anonymously.
The Learning Environment Questionnaire, Academic Engagement
Scale, and Ethnic-cultural Background Questionnaire were administered
to students by trained research assistants. The students were asked to com-
plete the questionnaires while being supervised by the research assistants.
After completion, the research assistants collected the questionnaires. The
teachers of the students were not present in the class when the students
had to fill in the questionnaires, and students were told that the purpose
of the study was to find out how they experienced the learning environ-
ment in their class. Students were guided through an example of how to
answer a Likert-type question and were encouraged to ask questions if
they did not understand a question well. Before students had to fill in the
questionnaires, they were told that their responses would be kept confi-
dential and that their teachers would not see their individual responses.
Analyses
Multilevel analyses (MLwiN, Goldstein, 2003; Rasbash, Charlton,
Browne, Healy, & Cameron, 2005) were used to study effects of students
and teachers on students’ academic engagement. Two-level hierarchical

linear models were constructed with students at the lowest level (Level 1)
and classes at the highest level (Level 2). Effects of teachers on students’
academic engagement were studied without and with a control for stu-
dent background, sex of participant and Grade 5 academic engagement.
The first analysis (without student control variables) was used to address
the total effects of the three mentioned learning environment character-
istics. The second analysis (with student control variables) addressed the
value added of these learning environment characteristics. Cross-level in-
teractions between student and learning environment characteristics were
also examined.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the learning environment and academic en-
gagement variables are presented in Table 1. Power analysis and tests on
the assumptions of normality and multicollinearity did not reveal any
problems with conducting the multilevel analyses.
Multilevel analysis indicated that about 12% of the differences in ac-
ademic engagement between children at Grade 6 were related to their
learning environment. All the mentioned learning environment charac-
teristics (the teacher as a helpful and good instructor, the teacher as pro-
moter of active learning and differentiation, and the teacher as manager
and organizer of classroom activities) played a significant role (explained
variance between students was 27.5% and between learning environments
was 54%), even when ethnic-cultural background, sex of child, and Grade
5 engagement was controlled (additional explained variance by the learn-
ing environment characteristics was respectively 10 and 22%; see Table 2,
learning environment model—value added). Furthermore, the teacher as
a helpful and good instructor was found to be the most important charac-
teristic, followed by the teacher as promoter of active learning and differ-
entiation. Comparing the learning environment models to the null model
revealed a significant decrease in deviance (p < .001), indicating a substan-
tial model fit improvement.
Additional analyses (not shown) revealed that the teacher as a help-
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics of Learning Environment and Academic Engagement Variables
M SD
Instruct 3.82 0.53
Actlearn 3.26 0.53
Manag 3.09 0.58
Grade 5 academic engagement 3.72 0.79
Current academic engagement 3.60 0.58
ful and good instructor uniquely explained approximately 26% of the to-
tal variance in academic engagement. The teacher as promoter of active
learning and differentiation uniquely explained approximately 15% of the
variance in academic engagement and the quality of the teacher as manag-
er and organizer of classroom activities about 7%. Combined with the pre-
vious finding, this implicates important joint effects between the learning
environment characteristics, although unique/net effects of each variable
were also observed (see Table 2). Multilevel analysis with cross-level in-
teractions (products of student and learning environment characteristics),
not shown in the table, revealed no significant interaction effects. This im-
plicates that the results presented in Table 2 apply to both boys and girls,
to children with high and low Grade 5 engagement, and to children with
different ethnic-cultural backgrounds.
TABLE 2
Results of Multilevel Models Explaining Academic Engagement of Grade 6 Children
Null Learning Learning
Model Environment Environment Model
Model (Value Added)
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Fixed effect
Intercept 3.60‡ 0.04 3.60‡ 0.03 3.56‡ 0.03
Instruct 0.44‡ 0.05 0.29‡ 0.04
Actlearn 0.11† 0.05 0.08* 0.04
Manag 0.09‡ 0.03 0.04 0.03
Nationality (0 = Dutch) −0.03 0.04
Sex (0 = boy) 0.09‡ 0.03
Language (0 = Dutch) 0.01 0.02
Grade 5 engagement 0.36‡ 0.02
Random effect
Level 2 variance 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
Level 1 variance 0.29 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.15 0.01
Deviance 1,271.45 1,050.04 758.97
Note.—“Value added” refers to the learning environment model including student back-
ground variables, sex, and Grade 5 academic engagement. *p = .06. †p < .05. ‡p < .01.
Discussion
In this study, empirical support was found for the importance of
students’ perceptions of their learning environment concerning teacher
support, involvement, and classroom management to the academic en-
gagement of students at the end of primary education. In particular, the
teacher as a helpful and good instructor, an indication of the quality of
teaching often mentioned in effectiveness research, was found to be the
most important learning environment factor. The promotion of active
learning and differentiation and—to a lesser extent—also the classroom
management qualities of the teacher, have some additional importance.

Taking into account the positive association between the teacher as a help-
ful and good instructor as well as the other two characteristics and the re-
sults of the multilevel analyses, these characteristics seem to operate to
an important extent together. Furthermore, the results showed that these
environmental characteristics have additional power in explaining differ-
ences in academic engagement at the end of Grade 6 over and above the
effect of Grade 5 academic engagement. It must be said, however, that the
inclusion of Grade 5 engagement lowered the variance explained by the
learning environment characteristics in Grade 6. An explanation for this
might be that teachers belonging to the same school (teaching in different
grades) share a particular quality, which causes a positive relationship be-
tween Grade 5 academic engagement and Grade 6 learning environment.
In addition, Grade 5 academic engagement is also the result of learning
environment characteristics and student characteristics. Overall, the study
indicated that learning environment factors often mentioned as facilitat-
ing achievement in research on teaching effectiveness also play an impor-
tant role in students’ academic engagement. Furthermore, the study em-
phasized the importance of the teacher as promoter of active learning, an
approach often mentioned in relation to the enhancement of motivation,
students’ self-esteem and academic self-concept (Muijs, Campbell, Kyria-
kides, & Robinson, 2005). In combination with the finding that the men-
tioned characteristics applied to all students, irrespective of their prior
engagement, sex, or ethnic-cultural background, the study offered more
evidence for a generic model of teacher effectiveness than for a differenti-
ated one (Muijs, et al., 2005). Some caution, however, should be called for
with respect to ethnic-cultural background, as only 12% of the students in
the sample were from a nonmajority ethnic-cultural background, which
makes it rather difficult to find differential effects of the learning environ-
ment characteristics related to students’ ethnic-cultural background, due
to low statistical power.
The results underscore the importance of the teacher as a helpful, ac-
ademically and emotionally supportive, involved person with respect to
the academic engagement of students, which is often mentioned as an en-
ergizing learning environment characteristic in theories of motivation and
learning. In conclusion, all the theoretically grounded hypotheses were
confirmed in this study.
Furthermore, the findings are in line with the experimental study
of Alfassi (2004), which indicated the educational benefits of applying a
structured academic program in a learner-centered environment. Results
are in agreement with Alfassi (2004) and Stevens, Van Werkhoven, Stok-
king, Castelijns, and Jager (2001): learning contexts should be personal-
ized or at least modified for students’ needs, to give all children access
to knowledge and opportunities to learn. In such an environment, some-
times referred to as a “responsive” environment or an environment in
which continuous “attunement” takes place (Stevens, et al., 2001), stu-
dent’s basic needs to belong and feel supported, to have personal con-
trol and responsibility, and to demonstrate personal competence through
challenging learning experiences are met. Finding evidence for the im-
portance of the teacher as a helpful and good instructor (which is closely
related to aspects of structure) as well as the teacher as promoter of ac-
tive learning and differentiation (which is related to constructivistic and
learning-centered approaches) at the end of primary education is in agree-
ment with D’Agostino (2000). At the end of primary education, a struc-
tured teacher-centered approach is still important, but, because students
are older, learner-centered aspects of the learning environment become
(more) important too.
Moreover, this study adds to the growing body of literature docu-
menting ways in which classroom environment characteristics and class-
room processes facilitate students’ motivational development. Evidence
was found for a concept of effective teaching comprising several orienta-
tions to teaching. In other words, effective teaching is not dependent on a
single approach or strategy. This is in line with conclusions of Scheerens
(2007) based on his review of effectiveness enhancing school and teach-
er characteristics of (mainly) cognitive outcomes and is also in line with
ideas of Kyriakides (2007) on the multidimensional role of teachers.
In contrast to studies of Hamre and Pianta (2005) and Morrison and
Connor (2002), the data showed main effects of the mentioned learning
environment characteristics. In addition, these effects were apparently the
same for all types of students. Reasons for these differences between stud-
ies could be that the students in this study were older and perhaps there-
fore more sensitive to classroom environment characteristics. The learning
characteristics measured here comprised a richer operationalization of the
concepts and were based on perceptions of students instead of observa-
tions. Finding no differential effects of the learning environment charac-
teristics in this study could also be caused by differences in the student
population with regard to the ethnic-cultural background. In this study,
approximately 12% of the students had one or two parents of a foreign
nationality, while in the Hamre and Pianta study, approximately 21% of
the children were nonwhite. There are indications that the student popu-
lation of this study was somewhat more homogeneous than the study of
Hamre and Pianta, so statistical power may have been too low to observe
those effects.
Theories seeking to explain the potential mechanisms of the connec-
tion between the investigated learning environment characteristics and
engagement include social-motivational theories as well as work on stu-

dent-teacher relationships. Positive and supportive interactions between
teacher and students can increase students’ motivation and the pursuit
of academic goals (Wentzel, 2002). Students who perceive their teachers
as instructionally and emotionally supportive, allowing them to actively
participate in their learning, and who are sensitive and responsive to their
needs, experience more satisfaction of their psychological basis needs of
relatedness, competence, and autonomy according to social-motivational
theories such as self-determination theory. Students would be more likely
to pursue academic goals valued by the teacher, such as engagement in
learning activities. In addition, research on student-teacher relationships
suggests that supportive relationships between teacher and students can
help students to engage in school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) and to have bet-
ter school adjustment (Hamre & Pianta, 2001), while when students expe-
rience stress in their relationship with the teacher, this can lead to lower
classroom participation and achievement (Ladd, 1989).
Although the study had some strong points, there were also some
limitations. Most notably was the fact that the study was conducted in
the northern part of The Netherlands. Because of this, the sample did not
consist of many students with a foreign nationality as is often the case
in schools in large cities in the centre of the country. This constrains the
ability to generalize findings and to find differential effects of learning
environment characteristics with regard to ethnic-cultural background
of students. In addition, the assessment of academic engagement did not
contain all components that could be included as indicators of academic
involvement and classroom participation. For example, the willingness to
do extra work or the preference for challenge was not included. Further-
more, the engagement scale mainly contained items referring to behavior-
al engagement, and indicators of disaffection were not included. So, the
results of this study need to be replicated in samples with more students
with foreign backgrounds and including measures of disaffection to see if
the studied learning environment characteristics are indeed equally effec-
tive for all types of students with regard to engagement and disengage-
ment.
Furthermore, in future research, the findings should be tested in prior
grades in primary education, in secondary education, and in the transition
from primary to secondary education in order to get information on the
generalizability of the findings. Longitudinal studies are needed in which
students/classes are followed up during several years in primary and sec-
ondary education (including the transition from primary to secondary ed-
ucation). This allows an investigation of changes in the academic engage-
ment of students in relation to changes in their learning environment and
will give more insight in the decline of academic engagement during the
first years of secondary education.
All together, the findings of this study provided evidence of the po-
tential of teachers to get their students engaged in academic tasks as well
as to prevent a downward trend in the engagement in academic tasks
of students. The findings are notable given the fact that the effects were
based on natural variation in students’ perceptions of everyday interac-
tions with their teacher rather than on a targeted intervention and that
effects remained significant after a control for student background char-
acteristics and prior engagement, which is known to have moderate sta-
bility. The findings suggest that to be academically engaged (or to main-
tain this academic engagement), students need teachers who are good and
helpful instructors, who promote active learning and take into account
differences between students, and who have good qualities as managers
and organizers of classroom activities. From this, one can conclude that
pitting teacher-centered and structured teaching approaches against more
learner-centered and constructivist approaches is not a fruitful way to
think about teacher effectiveness, at least with regard to the enhancement
of student academic engagement. Teachers should combine the benefits
of both approaches and should teach students with the development and
learning of students as guiding principle. In the context of teacher training
and professional development, this implies that it is important to provide
(student) teachers with broad repertoires of teaching strategies that con-
tain elements of structured teaching as well as aspects of a more construc-
tivist approach, in which promotion of active learning and attention to in-
dividual differences in learning and development of students is central.
In line with research such as Hamre and Pianta (2005), this study pro-
vided evidence from a theoretical perspective for the importance of un-
derstanding schools, classes, and learning environments not only as a
place to measure student outcomes, but as a crucial context for students’
development. The effectiveness of teachers and the construction of teach-
er effectiveness models should explicitly consider the development (of the
learning) of students. This implies, in particular, that teaching should also
be viewed from the perspective of attention to students’ needs and differ-
ences. A critical factor of good teaching is, among other things, the ability
of teachers to adequately respond to students’ different learning and basic
psychological needs. This study found evidence for this, in addition to ef-
fects of the teacher as a good and helpful instructor and a good manager
and organizer of classroom activities, by finding a significant unique ef-
fect of the teacher as a promoter of active learning and differentiation. In
conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that adaptive teaching is im-
portant to provide equal opportunities to all students regardless of their
background characteristics.
References
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, T. I. (1999) Investigating classroom environ-
ments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 93, 48-62.
Alfassi, M. (2004) Effects of a learner-centred environment on the academic compe-
tence and motivation of students at risk. Learning Environments Research, 7, 1-22.
Alton-Lee, A. (2003) Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: best evidence syn-
thesis. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, Medium Term Strategy
Policy Division.
Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004) Classroom climate and motivated
behaviour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211-225.
Anderson, L. M. (1989) Classroom instruction. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge
base for the beginning teacher. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Pp. 101-115.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003) Learners for life–stu-
dent approaches to learning: results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Baumert, J., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2001) Surveying the instructional conditions
and domain-specific individual prerequisites for the development of mathemati-
cal competencies. Paper presented at the special meeting on the co-ordination of
national teacher components for PISA 2003, 28 May, Munich, Germany.
Baumrind, D. (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance abuse. The Journal of Adolescence, 11, 56-95.
Berliner, D. C. (1988) Effective classroom management and instruction: a knowledge
base for consultation. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative
education delivery systems: enhancing instructional options for all students. Washing-
ton, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Pp. 309-325.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on
assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54, 199-231.
Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1993) Leren en instructie: psychologie van de leerling
en het leerproces [Learning and instruction: psychology of the student and the learning
process]. Assen, The Netherlands: Dekker & Van de Vegt.
Brophy, J. (1986) Teacher influence on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41,
1069-1077.
Brophy, J. (2006) History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson
& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: research practice and
contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 17-43.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970) Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for
children’s classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986) Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed.) New York: MacMillan.
Pp. 328-375.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001) Perceptions of classroom environ-
ments, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 93, 43-54.
Cohen, D. K. (1988a) Teaching practice: plus que ça change . . . In P. Jackson (Ed.),
Contributing to educational change: perspectives on research and practice. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan. Pp. 27-84.
Cohen, J. (1988b) Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hills
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching

the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 453-495.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991) Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: a
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe
(Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Vol.
23. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 43-77.
Creemers, B. P. M. (1994) The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
Creemers, B. P. M. (2005) Combining different ways of learning and teaching in a
dynamic model of educational effectiveness. Lecture for the Lee Hysan Lecture
Series, Hong Kong, September. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Gron-
ingen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. Retrieved on June 23, 2011,
from http://www.rug.nl/staff/b.p.m.creemers/papers.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006) Critical analysis of the current approaches
to modelling educational effectiveness: the importance of establishing a dynamic
model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 347-366.
D’Agostino, J. (2000) Instructional and school effects on students’ longitudinal read-
ing and mathematics achievements. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
11, 197-235.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996) The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: re-
search, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6),
5-17.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
Univer. of Rochester Press.
den Brok, P., Bergen, T., Stahl, R. J., & Brekelmans, M. (2004) Students’ perceptions
of control behaviours. Learning and Instruction, 11, 425-443.
den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J., Wubbels, T., & Veldman, I. (2010) The differential effect
of teacher-student interpersonal relationship on student outcomes for students
with different ethnic backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
199-221.
Doyle, W. (1985) Effective secondary classroom practices. In R. M. J. Kyle (Ed.), Reach-
ing for excellence: an effective schools sourcebook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Pp. 55-70.
Emmer, E., Evertson, C., & Worsham, M. (2003) Classroom management for secondary
teachers. (6th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Evertson, C. M., & Randolph, C. H. (1999) Perspectives on classroom management in
learning-centered classrooms. In H. Waxman & H. Walberg (Eds.), New directions
for teaching practice and research. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pp. 249-268.
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006) Classroom management as a field of inqui-
ry. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
research practice and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 3-15.
Fraser, B. J. (1998a) The birth of a new journal: editor’s introduction. Learning Envi-
ronments Research, 1, 1-5.
Fraser, B. J. (1998b) Science learning environments: assessment, effects, and determi-
nants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Pp. 527-564.
Fraser, B. J. (1998c) Classroom environment instruments: development, validity, and

applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33.
Fraser, B. J. (2007) Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Leder-
man (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp.
103-124.
Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1996) Development, validation, and use
of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York, April.
Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987) Syntheses of educa-
tional productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145-
252.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003) Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Gettinger, M., & Kohler, K. M. (2006) Process-outcome approaches to classroom
management and effective teaching. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.),
Handbook of classroom management: research practice and contemporary issues. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 73-95.
Goldstein, H. (2003) Multilevel statistical models. (3rd ed.) London: Arnold.
Gregoire, M., & Algina, J. (2000) Reconceptualizing the debate on school climate and
students’ academic motivation and achievement: a multilevel analysis. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA, April.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001) Early teacher-child relationships and the trajec-
tory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,
625-638.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005) Can instructional and emotional support in the
first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child
Development, 76, 949-967.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010) Engaging students in learning activities: it’s
not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009) Can self-determination theory ex-
plain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectiv-
istically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644-661.
Kowalski, P. (2007) Changes in students’ motivation to learn during the first year of
college. Psychological Reports, 101, 79-89.
Krapp, A., & Lewalter, D. (2001) Development of interests and interest-based motiva-
tional orientations: a longitudinal study in vocational school, work settings. In S.
Volet & S. Järvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: theoretical and methodologi-
cal implications. London: Elsevier. Pp. 209-232.
Kyriakides, L. (2007) Generic and differentiated models of educational effectiveness:
implications for the improvement of educational practice. In T. Townsend (Ed.),
International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, The Neth-
erlands: Springer. Pp. 41-56.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Antoniou, P. (2009) Teacher behaviour and stu-
dent outcomes: suggestions for research on teacher training and professional de-
velopment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 12-23.
La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2002) What adolescents need: a self-determination

theory perspective on development within families, school, and society. In F. Pa-
jares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age. Pp. 193-219.
Ladd, G. W. (1989) Children’s social competence and social supports: precursors of
early school adjustment? In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg
(Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective. (NATO Advanced Science In-
stitutes series, Series D: Behavioural and social sciences, Vol. 51) New York: Klu-
wer Academic/Plenum. Pp. 277-291.
Lee, O. (1995) Subject matter knowledge, classroom management, and instructional
practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science Teaching, 32, 423-
440.
Levy, J., den Brok, P. J., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2003) Students’ perceptions of
interpersonal aspects of the learning environment. Learning Environment Research,
6, 5-36.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M-C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2011) Teacher-student
interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: profiles and importance to student moti-
vation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31, 33-49.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, B. J. (1997) The learner-centered classroom and school: strate-
gies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., & de Brabander, C. (2007) Autonomy, competence,
and social relatedness in task interest within project-based education. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 101, 574-586.
Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., de Brabander, C., & Opdenakker, M-C. (2011) Student
experiences of autonomy, competence, social relatedness, and interest within a
CSCL environment in vocational education: the case of commerce and business
administration. Vocations and Learning: Studies in Vocational and Professional Educa-
tion. doi: 10.1007/s12186-011-9056-7.
Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., & Opdenakker, M-C. (2008) The relationship between
students’ interest development and their conceptions and perceptions of group
work. Unterrichtswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Lernforschung, 36, 216-236.
Morrison, F. J., & Connor, C. M. (2002) Understanding schooling effects on early
literacy: a working research strategy. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 493-500.
Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., & Robinson, W. (2005) Making the case for dif-
ferentiated teacher effectiveness: an overview of research in four key areas. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 51-70.
Nichols, J. D. (2006) Empowerment and relationships: a classroom model to enhance
student motivation. Learning Environments Research, 9, 149-161.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009) Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and
Research in Education, 7, 133-144.
Nieto, S. (1996) Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. In R. F. Elmore
(Ed.), Working together toward reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press. Pp.
77-111.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004) How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
Opdenakker, M-C. (2009) ISTOF Leerlingvragenlijst ‘Mijn klas’. Versie Basisonderwijs–
Nederland [ISTOF Student questionnaire “My class.” Primary education–The
Netherlands]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Univer. of Groningen, Faculty of Be-

havioural and Social Sciences.
Opdenakker, M-C., & Maulana, R. (2010) Teacher-student relationships and aca-
demic engagement: how do they develop and link? In T. Wubbels, P. den Brok,
J. van Tartwijk, J. Levy, & B. Fraser (Eds.), International Conference on Interpersonal
Relationships in Education (ICIRE) 25–29 April, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Eindhoven,
The Netherlands: TUe-UU-LU. Pp. 19.
Opdenakker, M-C., & Van Damme, J. (2000) Effects of schools, teaching staff, and
classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: similarities and
differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
11, 165-196.
Opdenakker, M-C., & Van Damme, J. (2006) Teacher characteristics and teaching
styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teach-
er Education, 22, 1-21.
Opdenakker, M-C., & Van Damme, J. (2009) L’efficacité des classes dans l’enseigne
ment secondaire. In V. Dupriez & X. Dumay (Eds.), L’efficacité dans l’enseigne
ment: promesses et zones d’ombre. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck. Pp. 55-72.
Osterman, K. F. (2001) Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review
of Educational Research, 70, 323-367.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 82, 33-40.
Prenzel, M., Kramer, K., & Drechsel, B. (2002) Self-determined and interested learn-
ing in vocational education. In K. Beck (Ed.), Teaching-learning processes in voca-
tional education. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Pp. 43-68.
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2005) MLwiN
Version 2.0. Bristol, UK: Univer. of Bristol, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004) Enhancing students’ en-
gagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28,
147-169.
Resnick, L. B. (1987) Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Aca-
demic Press.
Roede, E. (1989) Explaining student investment: an investigation of high school stu-
dents’ retrospective causal accounts of their investment in school. Academic dis-
sertation, Stichting Centrum voor Onderwijsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amster-
dam.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001) The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 38, 437-460.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Scheerens, J. (2007) Review and meta-analyses of school and teaching effectiveness. Twen-
te, The Netherlands: Univer. of Twente, Department of Educational Organization
and Management.
Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Duit, R., Euler, M., Geiser, H., Hoffmann, L., Lehrke, M., Mül-
ler, C., & Rimmele, R. (2002) ‘‘Can everybody look to the front of the classroom
please?’’ Patterns of instruction in elementary physics classrooms and its implica-
tions for students’ learning. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 30, 52-77.
Sinclair, B. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2002) Changing classroom environments in urban

middle schools. Learning Environments Research, 5, 301-328.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993) Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects
of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009) A motivational perspective
on engagement and disaffection: conceptualization and assessment of children’s
behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493-525.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. E. (1984) Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learn-
ing from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347-376.
Stallings, J. (1985) Effective elementary classroom practices. In R. M. J. Kyle (Ed.),
Reaching for excellence: an effective schools sourcebook. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office. Pp. 19-38.
Stevens, L., Van Werkhoven, W., Stokking, K., Castelijns, J., & Jager, A. (2001) In-
teractive instruction to prevent attention problems in class. Learning Environments
Research, 3, 265-286.
Teddlie, C., Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Yu, F. (2006) The International
System for Teacher Observation and Feedback: evolution of an international study
of teacher effectiveness constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 561-582.
Walberg, H. J. (1986) Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on teaching: a project of the American Educational Research Association.
Vol. 3. New York: MacMillan.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. T. (1993) Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294.
Wentzel, K. (2002) Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and stu-
dent adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287-301.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005) Two decades of research on teacher-student
relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & Tartwijk, J. (2006) An interpersonal per-
spective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in The Netherlands.
In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: re-
search, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 1161-1191.
Yamauchi, H., Kumagal, Y., & Kawasaki, Y. (1999) Perceived control, autonomy, and
self-regulated learning strategies among Japanese high school students. Psycho-
logical Reports, 85, 779-798.
Accepted August 2, 2011.
View publication stats

M Co Am Engagement Psych Reports 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M Co Am Engagement Psych Reports 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Relationship between Learning Environment

Article in Psychological Reports · August 2011

Marie-Christine Opdenakker Alexander Minnaert

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

MARIE-CHRISTINE OPDENAKKER AND ALEXANDER MINNAERT

Summary.—The relationship between learning environment characteristics and

Low student engagement in academic school activities can lead to

DOI 10.2466/09.10.11.PR0.109.4.259-284 ISSN 0033-2941

of mental effort such as concentration and attention. On-task behavior,

er with respect to student motivation, academic engagement and attitudes

encompassing background to interpret the findings related to the learning

However, teachers can also act as an additional support or as a model and

ly important as mastering content. Terms like “active learning” (Cohen,

a singular strategy or approach.” However, it remains rather unclear how

ing students’ deficits). Alfassi (2004) reported that a structured program in

and effective teaching. This is in agreement with ideas of self-determi-

ment as less supportive than smart and self-overestimating students in the

the unique and joint effects of these learning environment characteristics.

provinces, primarily in the north. Approximately 53% (19) of the schools

good; the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) were, respectively, .88 (In-

and teachers on students’ academic engagement. Two-level hierarchical

management qualities of the teacher, have some additional importance.

engagement include social-motivational theories as well as work on stu-

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching

Fraser, B. J. (1998c) Classroom environment instruments: development, validity, and

La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2002) What adolescents need: a self-determination

Netherlands]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Univer. of Groningen, Faculty of Be-

Sinclair, B. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2002) Changing classroom environments in urban

Accepted August 2, 2011.

View publication stats

You might also like