DOES TEACHER AFFECTIVE SUPPORT MATTER?

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PERCEIVED TEACHER

AFFECTIVE SUPPORT, SENSE OF BELONGING, ACADEMIC EMOTIONS,
ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, AND ACADEMIC EFFORT
IN MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CLASSROOMS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University

By

Gonul Sakiz, M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

2007

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Adviser _____________________________

Dr. Stephen J. Pape, Co-adviser Adviser

Dr. Heather A. Davis _____________________________

Dr. Lucia M. Flevares Co-adviser

Graduate Program in Education

Copyright by

Gonul Sakiz

2007
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among perceived teacher

affective support, sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness,

academic self-efficacy, and academic effort in middle school mathematics classrooms.

The targeted relationships were examined through the test of an hypothesized structural

model. Person-environment fit and social-cognitive theories were adopted for this

particular investigation.

Previous research pointed out the need for the assessment of the role of affective

learning environments on students’ motivational, social, emotional, and academic

outcomes (Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003; Wentzel, 2003). Considering the

central role of teachers in classrooms (Fraser, 2003), for the current investigation, the

Teacher Affective Support Scale was developed. This scale gathered theoretically-

supported essential components of affective support determined as following: Caring,

respect, concern for and interest in students, valuing, recognition, fair treatment,

encouragement, high expectations, and listening.

The population selected for this investigation was early adolescents because of the

critical significance of this developmental stage in human life (Roeser, Eccless, &

Sameroff, 1998). The current inquiry was carried out in mathematics classrooms due to

the knowledge that mathematics is one of the primary school subjects related strongly to

ii
negative emotions and low self-efficacy beliefs reported by students at all ages.

To test the factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, and

operationalization quality of each measure presented in the instrument, two pilot studies

were conducted in three middle schools with the participation of 137 seventh- and eighth-

grade students taught by three mathematics teachers. After satisfactory outcomes were

obtained, the actual data were collected in five middle schools located in three public

school districts in a Midwestern city. Three hundred and seventeen seventh- and eighth-

grade students taught by 10 mathematics teachers responded to the 55-item Likert-type

self-report questionnaire. The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation

modeling. The goodness of fit of the model to the sample data was acceptable. Findings

were reported based on the reduced structural model. This model also provided a

satisfactory fit to the given data (χ2 [892 df, N = 317] = 1956.729, p= .00, CFI = .973,

TLI= .970, RMSEA = 0.061 (with 90% CI lower bound = .058 and upper bound = .065)).

The results showed that perceived teacher affective support was significantly

related to early adolescents’ sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic

hopelessness, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and academic effort outcomes directly

and/or indirectly. Other hypotheses were also supported in the predicted directions.

Overall, the model explained 48% of the variances in both sense of belonging and

academic enjoyment, 43%, 34%, and 17% of the variances in academic self-efficacy,

academic effort, and academic hopelessness, respectively. The implications for future

research along with the limitations of the present study were discussed.

iii
 Dedicated to my family:

my mother, Radife; my father, Ali;

and my brother Fatih Sakiz

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the

support, wisdom, guidance, encouragement, and friendship of many people around me. I

shall wish to start with Dr. Stephen J. Pape, my adviser of four years. I find no simple

words to express my gratitude to Dr. Pape. Being his apprentice was truly one of the most

enriching experiences I have ever had. He has provided not only a strong academic

support but also a genuine affective support throughout my graduate study. I am grateful

for his guidance at every single stage of my dissertation. I am grateful that he continued

his immense support even after moving to Florida. Everything he taught me over the

years will stay with me forever. I wish every student could have a mentor like him.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy for her

constant care, support, and guidance during my graduate study. It was a great honor for

me to be her student. I truly believe that she is an angel from heaven sent to this world to

share her knowledge, wisdom, and affection with others. She will always be my primary

role model throughout my teaching and research career.

I would like to thank Dr. Heather Davis for her valuable comments and

suggestions during the development of this project, the model, and the instrument; and

also for her encouragement for me to learn structural equation modeling. Many thanks to

Dr. Lucia Flevares for agreeing to serve in my committee at the late stage of my

v
dissertation, for providing help when I needed, and for always greeting me with a warm

and lovely smile. I also would like to express my appreciation to Drs. Pape, Hoy, and

Flevares for their editorial comments. I also wish to thank Dr. Barbara Seidl and Dr.

Xiaodong Liu for serving on my candidacy examination committee.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the researchers and their colleagues who

graciously let me use their instruments for my dissertation: Dr. Mark Aber, Dr. Victor

Battistich, Dr. Carol Goodenow, Dr. David Johnson, Dr. Bill McKeachie, Dr. Rudolf

Moos, Dr. Chandra Muller, Dr. Reinhard Pekrun, Dr. Robert Roeser, and Dr. Christopher

Wolters. I would like to thank the district administrators, the school principals, the

mathematics teachers, and the student parents who agreed to involve in this study. My

heartfelt thanks go to all participating students whose sincere and careful considerations

of survey statements contributed great deal to the success of this work.

I would like to thank the members of the Educational Psychologists Research

Team, Melissa Newberry, Evan Straub, Carey Andrzejewski, Mei-Lin Chang, Ryan

Poirier, and others for their suggestions at the initial phase of the instrument

development. Many thanks to Clare Bell for reviewing the draft instrument with me and

providing constructive insight from a middle school mathematics teacher perspective. I

would like to thank Katie Droll and Chris Holloman from the Statistics Department at

OSU for their help in the initial phase of the pilot data analysis. I wish to extend my

appreciation to Dr. Richard Lomax for his invaluable comments during the analysis of the

dissertation data. Many thanks to the members of the SEMNET (an electronic discussion

forum for Structural Equation Modeling) for their helpful suggestions and guidance.

vi
 I would like to express my appreciation to Michael Donovan, the behavioral

research administrator at the Institutional Review Board at OSU, for answering my each

and every even silly questions with patience and for providing guidance and support in

IRB matters. My heartfelt thanks go to my Turkish buddies, starting with Elif Yetkin, for

their continuous academic and emotional support, encouragement, and friendship

throughout my doctoral study: Yeşim, Nejla, Zeynep, Özge, Semra, Emine, Figen,

Nilüfer, Dinçer, Tolga, Taşkın, Erdal, and Sedat.

Words absolutely would be inadequate in expressing my gratitude to Turkish

Ministry of Education for the tremendous financial support I have been provided

throughout my graduate study in the United States. I am also indebted to the Graduate

School, Maribelle Seely Baker, The Office of International Education, and Dr. Lowry W.

Harding for the small grants and scholarships they provided during my education at OSU.

My deepest gratitude of all go to my family: my mother, my greatest love, Radife;

my father, my fortress, Ali; my brother, my biggest protector, Fatih; my sister-in-law,

Bahar; my grandmother, Kamuran; my grandfather, Sedat; and my uncles and cousins. I

can’t even imagine how miserable my life would have been without you all. Your

unconditional love, encouragement, and support in so many ways and your constant

prayers gave me strength and kept me going at all times. It is my promise to you that I

will always work hard to make you proud. And, my little sunshine, my niece, Zeynep

Deren: Thank you for brightening my days and giving me a sense of peace and hope at

the hardest moments. I love you all so dearly. And, thank you God for protecting and

helping me on this long journey and Mevlana for your spiritual guidance.

vii
 VITA

November 12, 1974..................................Born-Izmir, Turkey

1995..........................................................B.S. Biology Education,

Dokuz Eylül University,
Izmir, Turkey

1995-1999 ................................................Biology Teacher,

Tuna High School,
Istanbul, Turkey

2001-2002 ................................................M.A., Middle Childhood Education,

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Middle Childhood Education

Minor Fields: Educational Psychology

Quantitative Research Methods

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication.......................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. v
Vita.................................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures................................................................................................................. xiv

CHAPTERS

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 10
Research Questions.......................................................................................................... 12
Theoretical Background................................................................................................... 13
Person-Environment Fit Theory ............................................................................. 13
Social Cognitive Theory......................................................................................... 16
Importance of the Selected Theories for the Present Study.................................... 18
Significance of the Study................................................................................................. 19
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 23

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 24

Psychological Climate of Learning Environments and Teacher Support........................ 24
Teacher Affective Support............................................................................................... 26
The Components of Teacher Affective Support..................................................... 27
Caring......................................................................................................... 27
Respect, Concern for and Interest in students, Recognition, Valuing, and
Listening ................................................................................................. 28
Fair Treatment, Encouragement, and High Expectations .......................... 30
Research on Teacher Affective Support................................................................. 34
Summary................................................................................................................. 36
Sense of Belonging in Educational Environments .......................................................... 37
Research on Sense of Belonging ............................................................................ 43

ix
 Summary................................................................................................................. 44
Academic Self-Efficacy................................................................................................... 45
Sources of Self-Efficacy......................................................................................... 48
Enactive (Mastery) Experiences ................................................................ 49
Vicarious Experiences................................................................................ 49
Verbal Persuasion ...................................................................................... 50
Physiological States (Emotional Arousal) ................................................. 50
Research on Self-efficacy....................................................................................... 50
Summary................................................................................................................. 53
Academic Emotions......................................................................................................... 54
Academic Enjoyment ............................................................................................. 57
Academic Hopelessness ......................................................................................... 58
Summary................................................................................................................. 59

3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 60
Research Questions.......................................................................................................... 60
Research Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 61
Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................ 63
Determination of Minimum Sample Size ........................................................................ 64
Recruitment, Participants, and Procedure........................................................................ 66
Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 66
Participants ............................................................................................................. 67
Procedure ................................................................................................................ 68
Measures .......................................................................................................................... 69
Instrument Development ........................................................................................ 70
Item Selection and Development ............................................................... 70
Review by Panel of Experts and Ph.D. Students ....................................... 72
Interview with a Middle School Mathematics Teacher ............................. 73
Pilot Study.................................................................................................. 74
Instrument Description ........................................................................................... 80
Perceived Teacher Affective Support Subscale ......................................... 81
Perceived Sense of Belonging Subscale .................................................... 82
The Academic Enjoyment Subscale .......................................................... 82
The Academic Hopelessness Subscale ...................................................... 82
The Academic Self-efficacy Subscale ....................................................... 82
Perceived Academic Effort Subscale ......................................................... 82
Data Analysis................................................................................................................... 83
Advantages of SEM................................................................................................ 83
The Structure of Structural Equation Models......................................................... 84
Handling Missing Data........................................................................................... 85
Assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling ...................................................... 88
Independence Assumption ......................................................................... 88
Multivariate Normality Assumption .......................................................... 89
Goodness of Fit Indices .......................................................................................... 90

x
4. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 93
Preliminary Analysis........................................................................................................ 93
Overview of Model Testing............................................................................................. 95
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Teacher Affective Support Scale...... 95
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Measurement Model.................................... 98
The Structural Model of the Study ....................................................................... 103
Hypothesized Model ................................................................................ 103
Reduced Model ........................................................................................ 103

5. DISCUSSION............................................................................................................ 113
Summary of the Findings............................................................................................... 113
Contributions to the Field .............................................................................................. 118
Practical Implications .................................................................................................... 120
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 122
Future Direction of Research......................................................................................... 124

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Verbal Script and the Permission Forms.............................................. 135
APPENDIX B: The Instrument ...................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX C: Missing Value, Descriptive Analysis, and Item Correlations .............. 149

LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................... 156

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

Table 3.1: Summary of reliability estimates of each scale. .............................................. 78

Table 3.2: Summary of range of correlations among items within each scale. ................ 79

Table 3.3: Correlational analysis for teacher affective support, sense of belonging,
academic enjoyment, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort.......................... 80

Table 3.4: Demographic variables of the instrument........................................................ 81

Table 4.1: Summary of reliability estimates of each scale ............................................... 93

Table 4.2: Maximum likelihood parameter estimates for the full measurement model of
the hypothesized model............................................................................................. 99

Table 4.3: ML estimation of factor correlations in the measurement model.................. 102

Table 4.4: The fit indices for the original and the reduced models of the study. ........... 103

Table 4.5: Unstandardized and standardized estimates of the path coefficients in the
reduced model......................................................................................................... 108

Table 4.6: Unstandardized parameter estimates, standard errors, and test statistics for the
effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. ...................................... 110

Table 4.7: Standardized estimates of the direct, indirect, and total effects of the predictor
variables on the dependent variables in the reduced model of the study................ 112

Table C.1: Missing data analysis for the observed indicators of the full model............. 150

Table C.2: Missing data analysis for the constructs of the full model............................ 151

Table C.3: Descriptive analysis of the Teacher Affective Support Scale....................... 151

xii
Table C.4: Descriptive analysis of the Perceived Sense of Belonging Scale ................. 151

Table C.5: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Enjoyment Scale............................... 152

Table C.6: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Hopelessness Scale........................... 152

Table C.7: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Hopelessness Scale after log
transformation ......................................................................................................... 152

Table C.8: Descriptive analysis of the Perceived Academic Self-efficacy Scale........... 153

Table C.9: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Effort Scale....................................... 153

Table C.10: Intercorrelations between the observed indicators...................................... 154

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1.1 The hypothesized model of the study............................................................. 11

Figure 4.1: Confirmatory factor analysis of 9-item one-dimensional model of the

perceived teacher affective support construct........................................................... 97

Figure 4.2: Standardized path coefficients and and residual variances of the variables in
the hypothesized structural model. ......................................................................... 105

Figure 4.3: Standardized path coefficients and and residual variances in the reduced
model....................................................................................................................... 106

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In their widely reverberated report of Turning Points, which was published almost

two decades ago, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (CCAD, 1989)

criticized the conditions in middle schools and the current and likely effects on youth:

Under current conditions, far too many young people will not make the passage

through early adolescence successfully. Their basic human needs ─ caring

relationships with adults, guidance in facing sometimes overwhelming biological

and psychological changes, the security of belonging to constructive peer groups,

and the perception of future opportunity ─ go unmet at this critical stage of life.

Millions of these young adolescents will never reach their full potential.

Early adolescence for these youth is a turning point towards a diminished future.

…A substantial number will grow into adults who are alienated from other

people, who have low expectations for themselves and for whom society has low

expectations, and who are likely to produce in uncommon share the unhealthy, the

addicted, the criminal, the violent, and the chronically poor. These are the youth

1
 left behind. (p. 20, emphasis added)

Since this groundbreaking report was published, many middle schools have gone

through a significant reform movement. Some conditions mismatching early adolescents’

developmental needs and causing alienation and school failure (e.g. lack of caring and

supportive learning environments which affect students’ sense of belonging) were

examined and some progress was reported (see Midgley & Edelin, 1998). Recent

arguments, however, support that schools still give limited attention to students’ affective

and social-emotional needs (Osterman, 2000). A recent study shows that early

adolescents report the least satisfaction related to teacher emotional support, such as

teacher interest in and care for students (Bru, Boyesen, Munthe, & Roland, 1998).

Background of the Study

According to the American Community Survey (2004), 98.1% of early

adolescents aged between 10 and 14 in the United States are enrolled in middle schools,

the highest percentage in all school enrollment population. The reports, however, reveal

that one out of four early adolescents experience academic, behavioral, and emotional

troubles with potential long-lasting deteriorating influences on their emotional welfare,

and future academic and professional success (Roeser, Eccless, & Sameroff, 1998).

Supporting this finding, the American Community Survey (2004) shows that more than

15% of adolescents aged between 16 and 19 drops out of the school system before

completing their high school education.

Research reveals that middle school environments play a powerful and critical

role in adolescents’ behavioral, psychological, and educational functioning (Kuperminc,

2
Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2001; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). A growing number of

studies indicate that adolescents’ perceptions of school and classroom influence their

academic and social motivation, self-beliefs, academic learning strategies, engagement in

learning activities, help-seeking behaviors, achievement outcomes, and emotional

functioning (Eccles et al., 1993; Kuperminc, Leadbeater, Emmons, & Blatt, 1997; Roeser

et al., 1998; Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Turner et al., 2002; Wentzel, 1997).

One of the major factors affecting adolescents’ perceptions of the academic

environment is the teacher (Ferreira & Bosworth, 2001). In recent studies, educational

researchers have given great emphasis to the influence of teacher practices, attitudes, and

support on students’ academic, behavioral, and psychological functioning (Baker, Dilly,

Aupperlee, & Patil, 2003; Griffith, 2002; Hall & Walsh, 2002; Meyer & Turner, 2002;

Patrick, Hisley, & Kempler, 2000; Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, & Nordby, 2002; Taylor,

Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000; Troia & Graham, 2002). In many of these studies,

teacher support was examined under several categories such as academic/instrumental

support, autonomy support, social support, and expressive support. Although social and

expressive support involved several affective support dimensions, the complete

investigation of teacher affective support has not yet been pursued. Teacher affective

support refers to teacher behaviors, attitudes, and practices involving caring, respect,

concern for and interest in students, valuing, recognition, fair treatment, encouragement,

high expectations, and listening. Although there is a recent growing interest in emotional

and affective dynamics in teacher-student relationships, the literature is still scant.

In his well-known hierarchical model of the fundamental human needs, grounded

3
on two-decades of research, Maslow (1954) placed the need for “love, affection, and

belongingness” before the need for knowledge, understanding, and learning, indicating

that the former condition should be satisfied first to be able to expect the latter condition

to be achieved. Every human being has a fundamental psychological need to be loved,

cared for, and respected. Given that, the quality and the frequency of the affective

interactions between teachers and students emerge as essential concerns in educational

environments. Stipek and her colleagues (1998) found that the affective learning climate

was the most powerful indicator of students’ academic motivation in fourth- through

sixth-grades and was positively related to students’ learning goal orientation, help-

seeking and risk-taking behaviors, and positive emotions. Tucker and her colleagues

(2002) found that teacher involvement, which includes affective components such as

expressing concern for and interest in students and caring, was the most significant and

unique predictor of students’ classroom engagement in all grade levels from first to 12th

grade. Malecki and Demaray (2003) found that the perceived teacher emotional support

was a unique and most significant predictor of students’ academic competence and social

skills in fifth- through eighth-grade classrooms compared to other teacher support

variables such as instrumental, informational, and appraisal support.

Perceived teacher affective practices, such as caring, respect, valuing, and

listening, are significantly associated with early adolescents’ sense of school belonging in

middle schools (Roeser et al., 1996). Belongingness is considered a highly critical human

need stimulating motivation for learning. Many educational researchers are in agreement

that the need for belonging is one of the foremost requirements to ensure individuals’

4
proper functioning within learning environments (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Connell &

Wellborn, 1991; Goodenow, 1993b; Finn, 1989; Osterman, 2000). Students’ sense of

belonging involves the “sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by

others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be

an important part of the life and activity of the class” (Goodenow, 1993b, p. 25). Finn

(1989) suggested that greater perceived sense of belonging may decrease at-risk students’

alienation from school and may negatively relate to students’ decision to drop out of high

school. In fact, studies consistently reveal that students who experience a sense of

belonging in the educational environment are more motivated, more engaged in activities,

and dedicated to school (Osterman, 2000). Adolescents who feel a greater sense of

belonging within their school environment report higher academic self-efficacy, lower

self-consciousness, and have higher academic success than students with a lower sense of

belonging (Roeser et al., 1996). Perceived sense of belonging decreases the experience of

negative emotions in learning environments (Goodenow, 1993b).

Emotions such as enjoyment, hope, pride, relief, anger, anxiety, shame,

hopelessness and boredom are significantly related to students’ motivation, the use of

cognitive resources, learning strategies, self-regulation, and academic achievement

(Pekrun et al., 2002). In general, the experience of positive emotions such as hope, joy or

pride leads to increased motivation and higher engagement in tasks while the experience

of negative emotions like hopelessness, disappointment, shame or anger leads to

deteriorated motivation causing lessened task engagement and increased avoidance

(Pekrun, 1992). Research provides evidence that emotional distress is negatively

5
associated with adolescents’ academic achievement over time (Roeser et al., 1998).

Learning environments significantly impact students’ emotional functioning. For

example, competitive learning environments provoke adolescents’ self-consciousness, the

feeling of nervousness, anxiety, and embarrassment (Roeser et al., 1996). Emotional

reactions to environmental forces affect students’ self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986).

Self-efficacy is a crucial academic motivator stimulating students’ academic

engagement and educational success (Linenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). Self-efficacy refers

to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to

produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Students who have similar knowledge,

skills, and strategies show considerable differences in their engagement, effort, academic

performance, and achievement in academic tasks. A key motive for those differences is

self-efficacy beliefs. With the acquisition of some efficacy information, individuals

construct theories about their abilities to learn. These theories become more coherent

with age and lead children to perceive themselves as able or less-able individuals (Paris

& Newman, 1990). Self-efficacy beliefs positively influence students’ use of self-

regulated learning strategies, task choice and engagement, persistence on difficult task

conditions, academic motivation, and academic success.

Academic success is an important educational outcome because achievement is

considered as an affirmation of self-progress. Finn (1989) emphasized that academic

failure may trigger alienation from school among adolescents. Drawing on frustration-

self-esteem model, Finn indicated that adolescents’ experience of consistent academic

failure gives rise to the feeling of frustration and embarrassment which causes the

6
emergence of impaired self-esteem leading to negative coping behaviors such as

disruptive behaviors in school, absenteeism, and association with troubled groups. These

outcomes, in turn, lead to withdrawal and gradual alienation from school. One of the

strongest predictors of academic success is academic effort (Wolters, 2004). Therefore,

improving students’ academic effort in middle schools is important to increase academic

success and school adjustment.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the associations among early

adolescents’ perceptions of teacher affective support, sense of belonging, academic

enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and academic effort in

middle school mathematics classrooms through a hypothesized structural model.

Statement of the Problem

Traditional middle school classroom environments do not effectively respond to

the developmental needs of adolescents resulting in a decline in students’ academic

motivation (Eccles et al., 1993). In their acclaimed educational review, Eccles and

Midgley (1989) pointed out the need for educational research to examine the influence of

different environmental characteristics on early adolescents’ behaviors, self-beliefs, and

motivation. In more recent work, Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) stressed the necessity for

more research in the examination of the influence of different classroom characteristics

and various interpersonal interactions on students motivation and academic performance.

This need still continues today.

The teacher is “the central figure of the classroom environment” (Fraser, 2001, p.

4). Teacher support emerges as powerful and significant element affecting classroom

7
dynamics, learning climate, students’ school and classroom perceptions, academic and

social motivation, emotions, learning, and achievement. During the middle and high

school years, one of the major sources of support reported by adolescents at-risk for

school failure is teachers (Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998). Students’ motivational

and academic beliefs tend to be more affected by classroom and teacher characteristics

than other related aspects (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). For decades, researchers have

examined the different forms of teacher support to understand the association between

teacher support and student motivation and learning. Nevertheless, until recently,

affective aspects of teacher support and its motivational, emotional, and behavioral

effects on students’ school functioning did not receive enough atttention in educational

studies. Research supports the positive relationship between affective components of

teacher support and students’ sense of classroom and school belonging (Goodenow,

1993b; Osterman, 2000; Roeser et al., 1996).

The need for belonging is a fundamental psychological need for all human beings;

and its deficiency relates to decreased academic and social motivation, deteriorated self-

efficacy, academic performance, school alienation, and emotional distress for adolescents

(Finn, 1989; Roeser et al., 1996). An investigation of the partial national school survey

involving 12,118 adolescents in grades 7 through 12 revealed that perceived school

connectedness both in younger and older students, was related to lower levels of

emotional distress and suicidal action and, therefore, is considered as a protective factor

for adolescents (Resnick et al., 1997). Although, the importance of students’ perceived

sense of belonging is well-recognized, the factors leading to the generation of belonging

8
have not been studied in a broader and deeper level. Therefore, studies are necessary

exploring classroom aspects linking to students’ sense of belonging.

Contemporary research suggests the need for combined examination of

adolescents’ academic, motivational, and emotional functioning (Roeser et al., 1998).

Pekrun (1992) stressed that research is needed to examine the influence of academic

emotions on students’ learning and achievement as well as the determinants of those

emotions.

Self-efficacy is one of the most powerful personal belief systems affecting

students’ functioning in learning environments. Self-efficacy beliefs are strongly related

to students’ cognitive engagement, performance, persistence, commitment to classroom

related tasks, and use of multiple learning strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). On the

other hand, studies examining the associations among self-efficacy, psychological

climate of learning environment, and student emotions are rare (e.g. Roeser et al., 1996).

Dorman (2001) criticized academic efficacy theory for failing to recognize the potential

influence of classroom psychosocial factors on students’ academic efficacy. He further

argued that besides the examination of four efficacy sources, the academic efficacy

theory should also recognize the importance of the classroom context in understanding

students’ efficacy behaviors. The present study aims to provide evidence for the

associations among perceived classroom psychological factors, academic emotions, self-

efficacy, and academic outcomes.

9
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the associations among teacher

affective support, sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness,

academic self-efficacy, and academic effort from the perceptions of seventh- and eighth-

grade students in mathematics classrooms. This inquiry was carried out using a

hypothesized structural model presented in Figure 1.1. This investigation involved the

simultaneous assessment of each construct’s direct and indirect influences on others. The

analyses started with the examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived

teacher affective support on students’ perceived sense of belonging, academic enjoyment,

academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort. It continued with the

examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived sense of belonging on

academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic

effort.

The subsequent analyses involved the investigation of the direct and/or indirect

influences of academic enjoyment on academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and

academic effort followed by the analyses of the direct and indirect influences of academic

hopelessness on academic self-efficacy and effort. The final analysis involved the

investigation of the direct influence of perceived academic self-efficacy beliefs on

academic effort.

10
 Academic
Enjoyment

Teacher Academic
11

Affective Self-efficacy
Support

Sense of Belonging
Academic Effort

Academic
Hopelessness

Figure 1.1: The hypothesized structural model of the study

 Research Questions

In the present study, the interplay among perceived teacher affective support,

sense of belonging, academic emotions, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and academic

effort is examined through the test of a hypothesized structural model presented in

Figure 1.1. The particular research questions of this investigation were the following:

(1) Does the hypothesized model provide a satisfactory fit to the sample data?

(2) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived teacher affective

support on middle school students’ sense of belonging, academic enjoyment,

academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort outcomes in

mathematics?

(3) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived sense of belonging on

middle school students’ academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic

self-efficacy, and academic effort in mathematics?

(4) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of academic enjoyment on middle

school students’ academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic

effort outcomes in mathematics?

(5) What are the direct and indirect influences of academic hopelessness on middle

school students’ perceived academic self-efficacy and academic effort outcomes

in mathematics?

(6) What is the direct influence of perceived academic self-efficacy on middle school

students’ academic effort outcomes in mathematics?

12
 Person-environment fit and social cognitive theories are adopted for the inqury of

the given questions. In the next section, person-environment and social-cognitive

perspectives are discussed in detail.

Theoretical Background

Person-Environment Fit Theory

Person-environment fit theory assumes that human behavior, mental, physical,

and emotional responses are affected by the characteristics of the persons (self-identity,

personality, and demographic characteristics) and of the environment (organizations,

groups, and interpersonal relations) (Caplan & Van Harrison, 1993). Person-environment

fit-theory has been studied in many fields from psychology and education to business

since 1930s. According to this theory:

When the needs or goals of the individual are congruent with the opportunities

afforded by the environment, then favorable motivational, affective, and

behavioral outcomes should result. When they are not congruent, then unfavorable

outcomes should result. (Midgley & Edelin, 1998, p. 196)

The goodness of fit between person and environment determines the level of

adjustment. For example, the fit between individuals’ subjective perceptions of their

abilities and of task demands or the fit between the values of individuals and of

institutions affect the level of adjustment. For instance, one’s perception of the legitimacy

of his/her participation within an organization influences his/her participation in decision

making process in that organization (Caplan & Van Harrison, 1993). Murray (1951)

pointed out that when the needs of individuals and the goals/values/opportunities

13
provided by their environment fit, individuals will be much more willing to obey the

rules, be a part of the whole organization, and execute and demonstrate the necessary

actions and behaviors expected from them. In a similar way, Hunt (1975) indicated that a

“match” is necessary between person and environment in the course of the emergence of

a specific behavior (such as learning). Addressing the importance of person-environment

fit in educational environments, Hunt (1975) stressed that the differing needs of students

should be recognized in learning contexts. Hunt and Sullivan (1974) developed a

formula, B= f (P, E), using Lewin’s (1936) statement, “behavior (B) is a function of the

Person (P) and the Environment (E)” (cited in Hunt & Sullivan, 1974, p. 7). This formula

requires the acknowledgment of the relationship between behavior, person, and

environment. Therefore, to be able to generate desired learning behaviors, individual and

developmental needs must be recognized in the course of constructing educational

environments.

A recent review of educational research provides evidence that the goodness of fit

between students’ individual/developmental needs and the opportunities provided by

educational environments increases the positive influence of schools on students. For

example, through increased school satisfaction resulting from perceived support from

others in school, students show positive attitude toward school, report higher positive

beliefs, lower stress, and demonstrate greater classroom engagement and achievement

(Baker et al., 2003). Applying person-environment fit theory to human developmental

stages, Eccles and Midgley (1989) proposed the stage-environment fit theory, suggesting

that individuals in different developmental stages need different learning environments to

14
satisfy certain developmental needs. Drawing on this theory, they hypothesized that the

possible mismatch between person and environment may cause a decline in young

adolescents’ motivation, interest, educational value, attitudes, academic performance, and

effort when they transitioned to junior high school. The reasons for this misfit are

identified as less warm, caring, and supportive teacher-student relationships, decreased

teacher interest in getting to know students, low challenge, less opportunities for student

autonomy and decision making, increased teacher control, formal instruction, ability

grouping, social comparison, and performance evaluation (Eccles et al., 1993).

An example to person-environment fit emerges in the case of belongingness and

relatedness. Especially during adolescence, students’ need for belonging shows a

significant increasing trend. Traditional middle school environments, on the other hand,

do not respond to this need with proper tools such as through providing emotionally

supportive interactions in classrooms (Kuperminc et al., 2001). Research supports that the

accomplishment of the desired fit between the developmental needs of adolescents and

the opportunities afforded by environment leads to higher psychological adjustment, such

as greater self-esteem, higher personal stability, and continuity over time for adolescents

(Roberts & Robins, 2004). Several other educational studies also provide evidence for the

influence of person and environment fit on adolescents’ behaviors, academic motivations,

and emotions (Roeser & Eccles, 1996; Roeser et al., 1998). These studies are discussed in

later sections. In the following section, social cognitive theory, the second major theory

creating the basis of the current study is discussed.

15
 Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory, developed by Bandura (1986), explains the generation of

meaning and behavior in relation to environment and person. Social cognitive theory

assumes that self-thoughts individuals hold regulate their behaviors (Pajares, 1996).

Pajares explains the operation of human behavior, from the perspective of social

cognitive theory, as the following:

Self-referent thought mediates between knowledge and action, and through self-

reflection individuals evaluate their own experiences and thought processes.

Knowledge, skill, and prior attainments are often poor predictors of subsequent

attainments because the beliefs that individuals hold about their abilities and about

the outcome of their efforts powerfully influence the ways in which they will

behave. (p. 543)

Human agency is a fundamental element in social cognitive theory. The individual

is considered as “an agent of the thoughts, the effort, and the actions” (Bandura, 1997, p.

7) regardless of different conditions and self-beliefs. Personal agency is perceived as

“socially rooted” operation occurring under the influence of sociocultural factors. In this

sense, individuals are perceived “both as products and as producers of their own

environments and of their social systems” (Pajares, 1996, p. 544). Social cognitive theory

assumes that self-beliefs, especially self-efficacy, play a significant regulatory role within

the social, psychological, and contextual network where personal agency operates

(Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Perception of oneself as an active

agent improves one’s self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and positive causal attributions. In

16
educational settings, self-efficacious students perceive themselves at the center of action

and feel responsible for the outcomes of their performance (Bandura, 1997).

From the social cognitive perspective, individuals’ self-evaluations of the

outcomes of their actions affect and change their self-beliefs and their environments,

which in turn affect and change their subsequent actions (Pajares, 1996). This view is

called as “triadic reciprocal determinism.” This principle assumes that personal,

environmental, and behavioral factors “operate interactively as determinants of each

other” (Bandura, 1986, p. 23). Neither of these factors, however, affects the other in a

sequential manner, simultaneously, or equally. Besides, these factors do not necessarily

have the same mixture; that is “the same factor can be a part of different blends of

conditions that have different effects” (Bandura, 1986, p. 24). The nature of influence

generated through the interactions among factors depends on people, activities, and

conditions. Triadic reciprocal relationship between person, environment, and behavior

can be observed in the case of self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy influences students’ behaviors (person → behavior) and in turn

students’ behaviors influence self-efficacy beliefs (behavior → person) (Schunk, 1996).

For example, if students have low-self efficacy, they tend to choose easy tasks or do not

persist or expend effort under difficult task conditions. In a reciprocal manner, the

specific behaviors students choose to act on impact their self-efficacy beliefs and

academic achievement depending upon the selected behavior. In a similar vein,

environmental factors influence students’ personal beliefs (environment → person) and,

in turn, personal beliefs influence the environment (person → environment). For

17
example, teacher feedback influences students’ self-efficacy beliefs and self-efficacy

beliefs influence teachers’ expectations from the students (Schunk, 1996). Finally, the

environment influences the behavior (environment → behavior) and, in turn, behavior

influences the environment (behavior → environment). For example, teacher’s caring

behaviors influence students’ prosocial behaviors (e.g. helping others) (Wentzel, 1997),

which, in turn, influence the climate of the classroom and lead to the generation of more

productive learning environments.

In this section, the fundamental structure of social cognitive theory has been

explained. In the subsequent section, the significance of the person-environment fit and

social cognitive theories for the present study are discussed briefly.

Importance of the Selected Theories for the Present Study

As discussed, person-environment fit theory assumes that the opportunities

provided by the environment should meet the needs of individuals residing in that

environment to assure the optimum functioning of those individuals –mentally,

emotionally, physically, and socially. Educational research suggests that current middle

school environments are not congruent with students’ needs (Eccles et al., 1993; Finn,

1989; Muller et al., 1999; Osterman, 2000). Specifically, although middle school

students, who are in the stage of early adolescence, are in tremendous need of a sense of

belonging, affective and warm learning environments, and caring, supportive, and

respectful exchanges with teachers (Goodenow, 1993a), current middle schools provide

them increased teacher authority, performance-oriented learning environments,

inadequate caring and supportive teacher-student relationships, and limited tools to

18
develop a sense of belonging (Eccles et al., 1993; Kuperminc et al., 2001). Drawing on

person-environment fit theory, the present study aimed to provide evidence that the

affective learning environment and sense of belonging, two significant developmental

needs of early adolescences, influence students’ motivational, emotional, and academic

functioning in academic environments.

Similar to the assumptions in person-environment fit theory, social-cognitive

theory assumes that there is an interaction between person, environment, and behavior.

For example, social-cognitive theory suggests that environmental factors influence

personal self-beliefs, and self-beliefs affect behaviors and, in turn, behaviors impact and

further change the immediate environment as well as the self-referent thoughts

individuals hold for themselves. Drawing on social-cognitive theory, the present research

aimed to illuminate the relationship between environment (teacher affective support and

sense of belonging), person (academic emotions and self-efficacy beliefs), and behavior

(academic effort) within middle school classrooms. In the following section, the basis

making the current study valuable in the field of education are discussed.

Significance of the Study

The present study is grounded on students’ perceptions of classroom

psychological environment and students’ emotional, motivational, and behavioral

responses resulted from those perceptions. The assessment of perceptions is important for

several reasons, two of which are discussed below:

1- Perceptions influence personal functioning: Since early 1970s research

literature on classroom environment has shown that students’ perceptions of classroom

19
environment affect the quality of learning (Dorman & Ferguson, 2004). Early

adolescents’ perceptions of teachers significantly affect their adjustments to learning

environments in middle schools (Ferreira & Bosworth, 2001). Students’ subjective

experiences in middle school environments hold developmental importance with regard

to academic and social-emotional adjustment. For example, early adolescents’ perceived

school experiences play a contributory role in the prediction of shifts in academic

motivation, emotional functioning, school absenteeism, and negative peer affiliations

over time (Roeser, 1996). There is a significant interaction among perception, emotion,

cognition, and action in human behavior. Specifically, perceptions of the external events

lead to the production of certain emotions and the presence of certain emotions leads to

different conceptualizations of the perceptual field and related action (Izard, 1991).

Having said that, the consideration of students’ motivation, emotion, and academic

behavior in relation to their classroom perceptions gains significance.

2- The assessment of perceptions is a reliable way to test the relations: Weinstein

(1985) pointed out that “students can make sophisticated interpretations of teacher

behavior” (p. 333). Teachers verbal and non-verbal behaviors in the classroom

environment are carefully observed by students and, in turn, relate to students self-beliefs

and academic outcomes (Weinstein & McKown, 1998). Therefore, investigating

students’ perceptions of teachers can help educators and researchers better understand the

factors and processes influencing students’ motivation, emotional functioning, and

academic outcomes in middle schools.

As discussed earlier, affective behaviors of teachers significantly influence

20
students’ academic motivation, emotions, and learning behaviors. On the other hand, the

research on teacher affective support needs expansion and deeper consideration. The

present study built upon and extended the research focusing on the relationship between

the affective dimensions of learning environment and student outcomes. Wentzel (1997)

pointed out that research investigating adolescents’ perception of caring behaviors of

“specific” teachers is needed. The present study focuses on adolescents’ perceptions of

their mathematics teachers’ affective support and its relation to students’ sense of

belonging, emotional functioning, academic motivation, and academic outcomes. In their

educational review, Ginsburg and Golberg (2004) pointed out that “mathematical and

scientific learning develop in a social and emotional context” (p. 192). Given that

mathematics is one of the primary school subjects related strongly to emotional distress,

anxiety, and fear reported by students at all ages, it is important to carry out this study in

relation to mathematics classrooms.

In the present study, teacher affective support is examined with the consideration

of caring, concern for and interest in students, respect, recognition, valuing,

encouragement, listening, high expectations, and fair treatment. To my knowledge, no

studies have attempted to bring these constructs together under one category in relation to

teacher support. Additionally, although studies support the relation of teacher support to

early adolescents’ sense of belonging (Goodenow 1993a, 1993b; Roeser et al., 1996),

research has often been focused on school-level belonging and support instead of

classroom level belonging and support. Therefore, more research investigating the impact

of this construct within classroom contexts is necessary, especially in secondary schools,

21
to reduce the generation of destructive tendencies among youth, such as suicide, drug use,

depression, and teen pregnancy (Osterman, 2000). The present study investigates early

adolescents’ sense of classroom belonging and its relationship with other personal and

classroom-level factors.

Additionally, in association with teacher affective support and perceived sense of

belonging, in the present investigation, students’ academic emotions, academic self-

efficacy beliefs, and academic behaviors are examined. Self-efficacy and academic

emotions are two powerful and significant determinants of students’ academic behavior.

Countless studies have been conducted on the influence of students’ self-efficacy beliefs

on their academic engagement, learning, success, and even social behaviors. On the other

hand, studies examining the interaction between self-efficacy and classroom

psychological factors are rare. Dorman (2001) suggested structural model examination of

the relationship among classroom environmental factors, students’ academic self-

efficacy, and academic outcomes. The present study fulfills that need in the field. One of

the goals of the present study is to investigate the potential effect of one of the rarely

explored classroom environmental factors, teacher affective support, on middle school

students’ academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic effort. In his work, Dorman (2001)

indicated the potential mediational role of academic self-efficacy between perceived

classroom environment and students’ academic outcomes. In this sense, the current

investigation may provide further suggestions for the potential mediational role of self-

efficacy between perceived teacher affective support and academic outcomes.

Similarly, although the influence of emotions on students’ motivation and

22
learning is well-known, theoretical knowledge and empirical research on most of the

student emotions are rare and inadequate (Pekrun, 1992). The present study investigates

the interaction among students’ academic emotions and their classroom perceptions,

beliefs, and academic outcomes.

Definition of Terms

The definitions of the terms investigated in the study are the followings:

Teacher affective support − Teacher behaviors, attitudes, and practices involving

caring, respect, concern for and interest in students, valuing, recognition, fair treatment,

high expectations, encouragement, and listening.

Sense of belonging − “sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged

by others in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part

of the life and activity of the class” (Goodenow, 1993b, p.25).

Academic enjoyment − a positive activating emotion experienced when the

engagement in a task is joyful, pleasant, and satisfying (Pekrun, 1992).

Academic hopelessness − a prospective negative academic emotion (Pekrun,

1992). Hopelessness is experienced when individuals attribute negative outcomes to

stable causes and believe that future outcomes will not be better than the past ones

(Weiner, 1985).

Academic self-efficacy − “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the

courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Academic effort − an academic behavior requiring the demonstration of extra

energy and hard work to accomplish personal goals pursued in a particular discipline.

23
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Psychological Climate of Learning Environments and Teacher Support

Contextual and social characteristics and the psychological climate of the learning

environments significantly affect students’ learning behaviors, goal orientations, self

beliefs, causal attributions, strategy use, academic and social motivation, emotional

functioning, task engagement, educational values, and academic achievement in diverse

learning environments (Ames, 1992; Boekaerts, 2002; Davis, 2003; Linenbrink &

Pintrich, 2002; Meyer & Turner, 2002; Murray & Malmgren, 2005; Pajares & Valiante,

2001; Paris & Paris, 2001; Patrick & Middleton, 2002; Perry & VandeKamp, 2000;

Roeser et al., 1998).

Teachers significantly influence the psychological climate of the classroom

environment (Miller & Pedro, 2006). Supportive and caring classroom environments

affect young students’ subjective perceptions of school as early as third grade (Baker,

1999), stimulate early adolescents’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes

(Roeser et al., 1996) and lead to higher student participation and academic engagement

24
resulting in greater academic achievement in middle schools (Voelkl, 1995). Emotionally

supportive learning environments increase the feeling of safety, which stimulates the

desire for learning and mastery (Maslow, 1968), decreases the experience of negative

emotions (Sylwester, 1994), and increases students’ academic motivation and challenge

(Turner & Meyer, 2004). Support available to students in learning environments strongly

impact their selection of task engagement strategies (avoidance vs. approach) under

stressful and challenging conditions (Boekaerts, 1993).

Students perceive teachers as the major source of support, guidance, and

reinforcement (Raffini, 1993). Perceived teacher support is one of the most influential

factors affecting young adolescents’ academic motivation in middle school environments

(Goodenow, 1993b) and is positively related to students’ liking for school and happiness

for being in schools on a daily basis (Blankemeyer, Flannery, & Vazsonyi, 2002). For

instance, teachers’ perceived emotional closeness, caring, supportive, and welcoming

classroom climate make students feel more comfortable about asking for academic

assistance because students worry less about the possible judgments of their teachers

regarding their ability (Ryan, Pintrich, & Midgley, 2001; Ryan et al., 1998).

Teacher practices, attitudes, and support types in learning environments show

great variations and affect students’ perceptions of the classroom climate

(Adalsteinsdόttir, 2004; Beattie & Olley, 1997; Kuperminc et al., 1997; Patrick, Turner,

Meyer, & Midgley 2003). For decades, teacher support has been examined under many

categories but affective dimensions of teacher support were not given enough emphasis.

In the following section, the characteristics, importance, and the components of teacher

25
affective support are examined in detail.

Teacher Affective Support

The research literature suggests that teachers who provide affective support for

their students demonstrate caring behaviors and positive emotion, encourage effort,

express concern for students’ well-being, demonstrate fair and equal attitudes, express

concern for and interest in students, value students’ ideas and presence, set high

expectations, demonstrate active listening, show respect; and are responsive and

enthusiastic (Adalsteinsdόttir, 2004; Dorman & Ferguson, 2004; Miller & Pedro, 2006;

Muller et al., 1999; Stipek et al., 1998; Turner et al., 2002; Wentzel, 1997). Affective

components of teacher support in learning environments promote the establishment of

positive teacher-student relationships which contributes to students’ school satisfaction

(Baker, 1999), and engagement in classroom activities (Connell & Wellborn, 1991;

Morganett, 1991).

Affective support leads to positive emotional outcomes, a high mastery

orientation, increasing engagement in activities, greater effort for understanding, higher

self-efficacy, adaptive help-seeking behavior, and a greater risk-taking behavior for

adolescents; and may likely moderate the positive correlation between low self-efficacy

and help avoidance strategies (Patrick et al., 2003; Ryan et al., 1998; Stipek et al., 1998;

Turner & Meyer, 2004). Teacher affective practices link to an increase in adolescents’

educational values and a decrease in emotional distress over time (Roeser et al., 1998).

Affective attitudes relate negatively to adolescents’ academic self-handicapping

behaviors (Dorman & Ferguson, 2004). Perceived affective behaviors of teachers impact

26
adolescents’ decision to continue their education at times when they consider to dropout

(Boser & Poppen, 1978).

As the research literature supports, affective dimensions of teacher support

significantly affect students’ academic, emotional, behavioral, and motivational outcomes

in educational environments. Teacher affective support components, specified as caring,

respect, concern for and interest in students, valuing, listening, fair treatment,

encouragement, and high expectations are investigated below in detail.

The Components of Teacher Affective Support

Caring

In her widely acknowledged book, The Challenge to Care in Schools, Noddings

(1992) drew attention to the importance of care in human lives indicating that human

beings at any stage of their lives strive for “to care and be cared for” (p. xi). Caring

involves “the establishment of meaningful relationships, the ability to sustain

connections, and the commitment to respond to others with sensitivity and flexibility”

(Goldstein & Lake, 2000, p. 862).

Caring emerges as a crucial element affecting early adolescents’ successful

transition into adulthood (CCAD, 1989). Creating caring and supportive educational

environments for adolescents is one of the most necessary reforms needed in today’s

schools (Osterman, 2000). Students’ sense of being cared for in schools is predominantly

established by teachers and their practices, attitudes, and behaviors (Osterman, 2000).

Students are more responsive to the academic challenges introduced by teachers

perceived as caring (Noddings, 1996). A caring teacher is a powerful stimulator affecting

27
student engagement and motivation in academic work.

Students in middle schools often tell how important it is for them to have caring

teachers (Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999). Caring and supportive relationships between

teachers and students lead to the formation and pursuit of shared academic and social

goals, social responsibility, and sense of belonging in classroom environments

(Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Osterman, 2000; Wentzel, 1998, 2003).

The importance of a caring relationship between teachers and students and the

impact of caring interactions on students’ academic, behavioral, and motivational

behaviors in learning settings is examined closely in a recent educational review by

Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein (2006). Citing the ethnographic work of Valenzuale (1999)

at a high school in California with Latino high school students, Woolfolk Hoy and

Weinstein asserted the strong connection between cared for and caring about. The study

of Valenzuale showed that when students, especially those who are economically and

culturally disadvantaged and at-risk of school failure, feel that they are being cared for by

their teachers, they show more concern and care about their school and school work.

Respect, Concern for and Interest in students, Recognition, Valuing, and Listening

Wessler (2003) pointed out that in respectful classrooms all students “feel

physically and emotionally safe and valued for who they are” (p.40). Creating respectful

classroom environments helps students engage more in learning activities because in such

classrooms the level of anxiety and fear students experience decreases while the feeling

of safety elevates (Miller & Pedro, 2006). Especially in diverse learning environments,

teacher respect for all students increases tolerance and appreciation among students.

28
Positive teacher regard predicts early adolescents’ perceived competence and educational

values (Roeser et al., 1998). When teacher respect is accompanied by caring,

encouragement, and high expectations, the positive psychological climate of the

classroom environment intensifies. Perceived teacher respect and care positively affects

students’ respect for themselves and for others (Wessler, 2003).

Research finding suggest that being aware of students’ concerns and interests and

respond to those needs in a caring manner and recognizing students’ valuable

participation in discussions help the establishment of strong rapport (Mendes, 2003).

Based on the analysis of interviews with seventh-grade students, Newman and Schwager

(1993) suggested that the expression of personal affection and concern for students could

increase students’ help seeking behaviors in mathematics classrooms.

Research provides evidence that teacher understanding and helping friendly

behaviors, which involve caring and concern for students, recognition, and listening

significantly and positively relate to fifth-grade students’ academic enjoyment, liking for

mathematics, positive attitudes towards learning mathematics and achievement outcomes

(Goh & Fraser, 1998). Perceived teacher support characteristics such as valuing,

listening, and respect relate to increased self-esteem and lower depression among high

school students regardless of gender (Colarossi & Eccles, 2003). Sincere listening to what

students want to say is an integral part of teacher affective support. Listening to students’

ideas on diverse topics, sharing their enthusiasm in what they value, and talking about

things that are bothering them all serve to increase academic engagement and

performance of at-risk students in urban middle school environments (Pierce, 1994).

29
 Recognizing students as “valuable and unique individuals” (Hoffman & Levak,

2003, p. 33) is a very important part of affective support. Wessler (2003) noted that “at

all levels of the education system, students want to be treated as individuals─to have their

personal experiences with traumatic events valued and to have their own opinions

validated” (p. 42). Especially in early adolescence stage, students are in desperate need of

being heard, which is interpreted as the validation of “being valued”. A-year analysis of

at-risk students’ academic performance outcome in a seventh-grade geography classroom

provided evidence that teacher active and sincere listening accompanied by caring,

concern for and interest in students, encouragement, and respect increased students’

academic performance in geography class (Pierce, 1994). These factors also reduced

behavioral problems encountered in the classroom environment, stimulated the feeling of

safety and security, increased students’ positive school attitude, led to higher classroom

attendance, work-completion, and greater academic enjoyment.

Fair Treatment, Encouragement, and High Expectations

Fairness/equal treatment is one of the essential components of teacher affective

support. Although studies show the importance of equal treatment for students’

behavioral, psychological, social well-being and success, unfortunately research findings

constantly show that students are being treated differently by their teachers based on their

individual characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, social class, academic and social

ability, and physical appearance (Osterman, 2000). Unequally distributed treatments and

privileges among students cause jealousy (Astleitner, 2000) and negatively influence

students’ educational values, emotional functioning, and academic performance (Roeser

30
et al., 1998). Students remember their teachers’ differential treatments for a long time

(Wessler, 2003).

Research provides evidence that teachers especially favor academically competent

and engaging students. Teacher differential treatment also affects peer relations in a way

that young students show more tendency towards their classroom peers who are favored

by teachers with the purpose of gaining respect and increasing self-worth (Osterman,

2000). Encouragement of equal student participation in class activities and avoiding

emphasizing student differences improve positive peer relations (Goodenow, 1992).

Research reviewed by Weinstein and McKown (1998) provided evidence that

perceived high teacher differential treatment powerfully related to students’ self-

expectations controlling for prior achievement, and, in turn, affected students’ academic

outcomes. Differential treatment is especially destructive during adolescence because at

this particular developmental stage students’ self-esteem appraisals are sensitive to social

comparisons, which are elevated by differential treatment (Osterman, 2000). Research

suggests that perceived negative differential treatment of teachers by gender and race

(e.g. unfairness and disrespect) deteriorates adolescents’ academic motivation (perceived

academic values), increases emotional distress (anger and sadness), and is related to

decreased academic achievement in early adolescence (Roeser et al., 1998). Perceived

unequal treatment also predicts academic self-handicapping behaviors in mathematics in

high school (Dorman & Ferguson, 2004).

Several follow-up studies in Israel showed that students in upper elementary and

middle schools consistently reported getting differential treatment from their teachers

31
based on their academic achievement levels (Babad, 1990, 1995, 1996). From students’

perspectives, teachers provided more affection for high achiever students for whom they

held high expectations. This perception was negatively related to students’ academic

enjoyment and satisfaction from their classes. Although teachers reported exactly the

opposite, stating that they showed more affection for low achievers, the findings of a

related study provided different results. In a related study, 151 judges, ranging from

fourth-graders to senior teachers, watched the audios and videos showing four teachers’

speeches, bodily and facial expressions, and movements toward high and low achiever

students. The overall judge ratings revealed that teachers showed more affectionate non-

verbal and verbal behaviors towards students from whom they held high expectations

compared to those students for whom they held low expectations (Babad, Bernieri, &

Rosenthal, 1991).

Another common feature of teacher affective support is encouragement.

Encouragement positively and significantly affects economically disadvantaged minority

middle school students’ engagement in learning activities and achievement outcomes

(Becker & Luthar, 2002; Murdock, 1999). In addition to its influence in improving

students’ academic outcomes, teacher encouragement (believing in students’ ability and

expression of liking for student even under failure circumstances) also plays a powerful

and significant role in establishing positive teacher-student relationships in high school

(Boser & Poppen, 1978). For students coming from non-encouraging families, the effect

of teacher encouragement is even greater because not getting enough encouragement

leads to disengagement from class activities, withdrawal, and alienation (Finn, 1989).

32
 Besides encouragement, having high expectations from all students is a significant

affective dimension of teacher support (Muller et al., 1999). Students often state the

desire to have teachers who “believe that they can do good work and [to] demand it”

(Muller et al., 1999, p. 328). Teacher expectations especially affect minority low-income

middle school students’ engagement in learning activities and achievement outcomes

(Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Murdock, 1999). There is evidence to suggest that perceived

teacher expectations uniquely and significantly predict adolescents’ task engagement

behaviors and disciplinary problems, two behavioral indicators of students’ alienation, in

middle schools (Murdock, 1999). Teacher expectations affect not only students’

academic engagement, achievement, and social behavior but also their self-beliefs.

Recent research shows that teacher expectations of student achievement contributes

significantly to students’ self-expectations for their own achievement in upper elementary

grades (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001). Although teacher expectations are generally

affected by students’ achievement level, the study of Hughes, Gleason, and Zhang (2005)

provided support that the presence of affective teacher-student relationships explain a

significant proportion of variance in teachers’ expectations of students’ ability and

achievement above and beyond students’ actual achievement. Muller and her colleagues

(1999) reported that minority students who often do not get enough academic attention

from teachers

are highly attuned to teachers’ behavior toward them. They are constantly

watching teachers for evidence of encouragement and recognition. If students

sense the presence of high expectations and caring, they glimpse hints of an

33
 opening into the path of academic success. They are inspired. Conversely, if

absent, the students feel that the opening is blocked and they assess the obstacles

as insurmountable. They then disengage from the learning process at school. (p.

319)

This statement provides significant support for the necessity of including high

expectations in the examination of teacher affective support. So far, the components

constructing teacher affective support has been examined. In the following section,

research supporting teacher affective support is investigated in detail.

Research on Teacher Affective Support

Stipek and her colleagues (1998) examined the relationship between teachers’

instructional practices and students’ achievement motivation in the classrooms of 24

mathematic teachers teaching fourth- through sixth-grade classes. The data were

collected based on students’ self-reports measuring their perceived beliefs, values, and

goals (perceived ability, mastery/performance orientation, negative/positive emotion,

enjoyment) in math, teacher ratings measuring their evaluation/feedback style, and

classroom observations -focusing primarily on teachers’ behaviors, attitudes and practices

and students’ enthusiasm, task engagement, and emotions in their classrooms.

Based on the data, Stipek and her colleagues developed three teacher-practice

subscales: Learning Orientation (encouragement of mastery, autonomy and effort, the

use of learning strategies, providing constructive feedback and having positive attitude

towards mistakes), Positive Affect, and Differential Student Treatment (emphasis on

performance orientation and normative feedback, lack of fairness/ equality). A negative

34
correlation was found between Positive Affect and Differential Student Treatment and a

positive correlation between Learning Orientation and Positive Affect. Affective learning

climate was found to be the most powerful indicator of students’ motivation in the

classrooms. Positive affective environment was positively related to students’ learning

orientation, help-seeking and risk-taking behavior, and positive emotions such as

enjoyment and pride in achievement.

Basically, teachers who were rated high on Positive Affect dimensions were

different from other teachers with their sincere interest in students’ ideas, demonstration

of sensitivity and kindness, expression of respect and liking for students, and

encouragement of effort. These teachers also enjoyed mathematics, worked to make

problems interesting for students, valued students’ contribution to the tasks, and avoided

the situations causing students’ embarrassment. Stipek et al. (1998) suggested that the

quality of teacher-student relationships in the classrooms of teachers high on Positive

Affect influenced students’ learning orientation in a positive way because students did

not worry about what their teachers would think of them if they performed poorly or had

difficulty in understanding.

Targeting a similar age group, Wentzel (1997) investigated the association

between adolescents’ perceptions of teacher pedagogical caring and their motivation to

obtain positive social and academic outcomes in school. This three-year-longitudinal

study involved 248 sixth- through eighth-grade predominantly white students located in a

suburban middle school. Students responded to a self-report questionnaire measuring

perceived social and academic caring behaviors of teachers in several domains,

35
psychological distress, perceived control beliefs, prosocial and irresponsible behavior,

pursuit of social goals, and perceived academic effort. Hierarchical regression analysis

showed that students’ perception of teacher caring accounted for a significant proportion

of the variance in students’ motivation to achieve positive social and academic outcomes

throughout middle school even after controlling for past behaviors, psychological

distress, control beliefs, and gender dimensions. Perceived teacher caring was also

significantly associated with adolescents’ academic effort and pursuit of prosocial and

social responsibility goals.

Similar findings were supported in a follow-up study in the examination of the

association between teaching dimensions and sixth-grade students’ motivation in two

middle schools (Wentzel, 2002). Students responded to a self-report questionnaire

assessing teacher characteristics, classroom practices, classroom environment and student

motivation and classroom behavior. Multiple regression analysis showed that student

motivation (social goals, mastery orientation, and interest in class) was positively

associated with teacher motivation, rule setting, fairness, and high expectations. In

particular, fairness was a positive predictor of mastery goal orientation.

Summary

This section demonstrated the significance of teacher affective support on

students’ academic motivation, academic performance, social behavior, and emotions.

Based on the studies discussed throughout the section, teacher variables such as caring,

concern for and interest in students, listening, valuing, respect, encouragement,

recognition, high expectations, and fairness have emerged as fundamental characteristics

36
of teachers providing affective support.

Although theories consistently emphasize its significance, the affective dimension

of teacher support has not received enough attention as a research interest in learning

environments. Therefore, in order to increase educational and public attention on this

topic, more studies are necessary showing how teacher affective support links to

students’ academic, motivational, emotional, and behavioral functioning and

development.

Teachers can build environments stimulating students’ sense of belonging and

sense of acceptance (Erwin, 2003). Studies in this section provided evidence that teacher

affective support increases students’ sense of belonging in educational environments.

Sense of belonging is a necessary component for enabling optimum student functioning

in educational environments. In the following section, the importance of sense of

belonging and its influence on students’ academic self-beliefs, emotions, and academic

performance are discussed.

Sense of Belonging in Educational Environments

One of the basic human needs researchers have studied for decades is the need for

belonging. In his famous motivational hierarchy model, Maslow (1968) placed the need

for belonging right after the need for food and safety. Baumeister and Leary (1995),

however, suggested that the need for belonging is as important as the need for food.

Baumeister and Leary conceptualized belongingness as the following:

The belongingness hypothesis is that human beings have a pervasive drive to form

and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant

37
 interpersonal relationships. Satisfying this drive involves two criteria: First, there

is a need for frequent, actively pleasant interactions with a few other people, and,

second, these interactions must take place in the context of temporarily stable and

enduring framework of affective concern for each other’s welfare. (p. 497)

In their extensive literature review, Baumeister and Leary (1995) pointed out that

the need for belonging explains a great variety of human behavior, cognitive,

motivational processes, and emotions. For example, individuals explain the reasons of

their behaviors in association with the need for belonging. The satisfaction of this need

leads to the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and joy whereas its

deficiency cause the experience of negative emotions such as anxiety, jealousy,

depression, high level of stress, and loneliness. Many negative behavioral, psychological,

and social outcomes, including mental illness, criminal tendency, and social isolation are

explained by lack of sense of belonging. Maslow (1968) indicated that beneath most

emotional breakdowns, there lies a need for belongingness, being loved, and respected.

Proper, adequate, and timely satisfaction of the need for belongingness leads to

physical, emotional, behavioral, and mental well-being (Maslow, 1968). In a set of three

consecutive studies, Sheldon, Elliot, Kim and Kasser (2001) asked college students to

remember the most satisfying events in their lives and to rate the needs that had been

satisfied through experiencing those events. The ratings in all three studies revealed that

relatedness was one of the four major psychological needs that students felt most satisfied

when they experienced it. It is important to indicate here that although in some contexts

the need for relatedness and the need for belongingness have been conceptualized

38
differently, given that “the need for relatedness is the need for experiencing

belongingness” (Osterman, 2000, p. 325) relatedness and belongingness were used

interchangeably throughout this section. Goodenow (1993b) described sense of belonging

in educational environments as the following:

Students’ sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by others

(teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be

an important part of the life and activity of the class. More than simple perceived

liking or warmth, it also involves support and respect for personal autonomy and

for the student as an individual. (p. 25)

Many educational researchers agree that the need for belonging is one of the

uppermost needs of all students to function well in all types of learning environments

(Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Finn, 1989; Osterman, 2000). The

feeling of belonging may have a direct and powerful influence on students’ motivation

(Goodenow, 1993a). For example, perceived support and the sense of belonging are

expected to increase students’ beliefs in their success and accordingly to increase their

academic motivation. Goodenow (1993b) stated that one of the reasons that there is a

poor fit between the opportunities provided by middle school environments and the

developmental needs of adolescents is that middle school environments do not respond

adequately to students’ need for belonging and support, which leads to a decrease in

student academic motivation.

Goodenow (1992) suggested that belonging and support may be especially

important for academic motivation, engagement, and performance of adolescents coming

39
from racially and economically less advantaged families. The educational review of

Becker and Luthar (2002) supported Goodenow’s assertion revealing that one of the most

important factors affecting economically disadvantaged minority students’ academic

motivation and classroom engagement in middle schools is the sense of belonging.

In fact, studies consistently reveal that students who experience a sense of

belonging in educational environments are more motivated, more engaged in school and

classroom activities, and more dedicated to school (Osterman, 2000). Moreover, existing

research suggests that students who feel that they belong to learning environments report

higher enjoyment, enthusiasm, happiness, interest, and more confidence in engaging in

learning actvities, whereas those who feel isolated report greater anxiety, boredom,

frustration, and sadness during the academic engagement that directly affects academic

performance (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). The satisfaction of the need for belongingness in

educational environments takes on a greater importance during early adolescence because

students within that developmental period start searching for nonparental adults for

guidance (Roeser et al., 1998) and their “sense of personal ‘place’ is still largely

malleable and susceptible to influence in both positive and negative directions”

(Goodenow, 1993a, p. 81). If this need is not adequately satisfied in educational

environments, students will look for other ways and people to get that satisfaction. For

example, if the need for belonging is not satisfied, the desire to fulfill this need may lead

young people to establish bonds with illegitimate groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Perceived sense of belonging decreases the experience of stress and school-related

anxiety as well as the experience of self-consciousness, especially in early adolescent

40
years (Boekaerts, 1993; Goodenow, 1993b; Roeser et al., 1996). Increased self-

consciousness in adolescence may negatively affect students’ classroom engagement due

to a heightened feeling of public exposure, which stimulates the experience of negative

emotions, such as embarrassment and shame. On the other hand, the feeling of belonging

in the learning environment may balance students’ increased sense of public exposure

(Goodenow, 1993b). Additionally, research supports that the feeling of belonging

mediates the relationship between contextual variables of the learning environment (e.g.

teacher-student relationships and classroom goal structures) and self-efficacy beliefs of

adolescents (Roeser et al., 1996; Roeser et al., 1998). Studies also report positive

associations between adolescents’ feelings of belonging and academic achievement

(Roeser et al., 1996), academic help-seeking behavior (Newman, 1991), and avoidance of

self-handicapping behaviors (Dorman & Ferguson, 2004). The sense of classroom

belonging leads to the formation of sense of school community, which increases students’

positive behavioral, psychological, and social outcomes such as achievement motivation,

self-esteem, self-efficacy, academic and social intrinsic motivation and competence and

decreases negative outcomes such as delinquency and drug use (Battistich et al., 1997).

Based on an extensive review of the literature, Osterman (2000) indicated that

satisfaction of the need for belonging in educational environments is significantly

associated with students’ academic engagement and involvement in school and classroom

activities, academic and social behaviors, motives and attitudes, expectancies, values and

goals, emotional functioning, and the development of fundamental psychological

processes (e.g. intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, internalization, and autonomy), and

41
psychological outcomes like self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.

Supporting this argument, in a three-year longitudinal study involving 248

students, Flook, Repetti, and Ullman (2005) found that lack of peer acceptance reported

in the fourth grade predicted lower self-concept and internalizing symptoms (e.g.

shyness, loneliness, negative emotions such as sadness and anxiety) in the fifth grade and,

in a longer period, predicted lower academic performance in the sixth grade, when fourth

grade academic performance was controlled. Path analysis on the same data revealed that

almost 25% of the variance in students’ academic performance in sixth grade was

explained by lack of peer acceptance in the fourth grade.

Finn (1989) suggested that perceived feelings of belonging may decrease at-risk

students’ alienation from school and their decision to drop out of high school. The

participation-identification paradigm, explained by Finn, emphasizes that the lack of

sense of belonging leads to adolescents’ physical withdrawal from school-based activities

and results in academic failure, which provokes nonidentification with the school

(emotional withdrawal) and alienation.

As the literature supports, perceived sense of belonging in academic environments

has a powerful effect on students’ emotional, motivational, and academic functioning

from anxiety, distress, engagement, competence to self-referent thoughts and even to

dropping out. In the following section, research on sense of belonging is presented to

provide evidence for how sense of belonging promotes optimum student functioning in

educational environments.

42
 Research on Sense of Belonging

In several related studies Goodenow examined the association between

adolescents’ sense of belonging and their expectancies, values, motivation, effort, and

achievement. In the first study, involving the development of The Psychological Sense of

School Membership (PSSM) Scale, Goodenow (1993a) investigated the relationship

between sense of school membership, expectancy of success, value, and effort for 1,366

fifth through eighth grade students from one suburban middle school and two urban

junior high schools. Findings revealed that the sense of school membership was

significantly associated with expectancies for school success and educational value but

not statistically significantly related to academic effort or behavior. Goodenow suggested

that motivation might be mediating the relationship between the sense of school

membership and academic effort and achievement.

In a follow-up study, Goodenow (1993b) investigated the relation between

adolescents’ sense of belonging/support, academic motivation, academic effort and

achievement. Three hundred fifty-three sixth- through eighth-grade students in a

suburban middle school responded to a questionnaire measuring their domain specific

motivation (expectancy of success and educational value), feelings of belonging, and

personal support in four domains: math, social studies, English, and science. To assess

students’ academic effort and performance, English teachers were asked to rate students’

potential final grade and academic effort. Classroom belonging and support emerged as

the most powerful and significant predictor of adolescents’ educational values and

expectations of success. The most powerful single factor associated with students’ effort

43
and achievement was students’ perceptions of teachers in terms of teacher interest,

support, and respect to students.

A similar age group was also the focus of Roeser and his colleagues (1996) in an

investigation of the relationship between the contextual factors of school environment

and students’ motivational, emotional, and academic outcomes. Two hundred and ninety-

six eighth-grade students participated in this study. Students’ responses to self-report

questionnaire revealed that students’ perceived sense of school belonging was one of the

most powerful predictors of their perceived academic self-efficacy. The sense of school

belonging showed a small but significant positive relation to the academic outcomes.

Students who reported a high sense of belonging in the school environment reported less

self-consciousness (e.g. nervousness and embarrassment) in their task-related

engagements in the class and school than those who reported less belonging to the school.

The feelings of school belonging was also significantly associated with the positive

school affect (e.g. good mood and happiness).

Summary

In this section, the significance of perceived sense of belonging in educational

environments has been discussed. Research reviewed throughout the section provided

evidence that satisfaction of the need for belonging positively relates to students’

motivational, emotional, and behavioral functioning in learning environments. Sense of

belonging increases students’ engagements in learning activities, educational value, self-

efficacy, positive emotions, academic effort, and achievement.

Although studies consistently reveal the importance of sense of belonging,

44
associations explored in those studies are limited. For example, there has been very

limited research so far examining the associations between perceived sense of belonging

and affective components of teacher support. In addition, studies are scant in the

investigation of the relation of perceived sense of belonging to academic emotions and to

self-efficacy. Therefore, more research is necessary to illuminate associations between

these constructs in broader and deeper levels. In the next section, an important

motivational construct, self-efficacy, is examined and its associations with academic

behavior, motivation, and emotions is discussed.

Academic Self-Efficacy

Students’ motivational beliefs affect their approach to learning activities, strategy

use, and academic outcomes (Pintrich, Roeser, & De Groot, 1994). Academic motivation

creates a bond between emotional and academic functioning (Roeser et al., 1998). Self-

efficacy is considered one of the major motivational constructs affecting students’

engagement in activities and learning (Linenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). Self-efficacy refers

to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to

produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Inadequate beliefs in one’s abilities to

perform a required task cause lack of motivation inhibiting possible action (Bandura et al.

1996).

Although most personal belief systems have highly internalized roots that are

difficult to access from external sources, self-efficacy is a belief system that can be

accessible from, observable in, and affected by learning contexts (Lorsbach & Jinks,

1999). Self-efficacy is related to students’ cognitive engagement, performance, goal

45
commitment, the use of multiple learning strategies, causal attributions, persistence in the

face of difficulty, analytic thinking, and susceptibility to stress and depression (Bandura

et al., 1996; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). According to Bandura (1997), “different people

with similar skills, or the same person under different circumstances, may perform

poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily, depending on the fluctuations in their beliefs of

personal efficacy” (p. 37).

The theoretical foundation of self-efficacy was developed by Bandura (1977).

Since then, researchers have studied the role of perceived self-efficacy beliefs on

individuals’ performance and achievement in different contextual settings in many fields.

In the examination of self-efficacy, one point is very important: Self-efficacy does not

measure an individual’s skills but beliefs about what s/he can do under different

circumstances with whatever skills s/he possesses (Bandura, 1997). There is a clear

difference between having skills and being able to employ them appropriately in diverse

situations. Before an individual engages in a particular task, s/he first visualizes the

characteristics of the task and appraises her/his competence. In that particular moment,

perceived self-efficacy beliefs determine whether the individual will be willing to engage

in the task or not. After engaging with the task, future effort, performance, and academic

outcomes are affected by perceived self-efficacy beliefs. Students with high self-efficacy

beliefs demonstrate higher engagement, greater effort and persistence, and more varied

use of self-regulated learning strategies. Self-efficacy beliefs differ in generality, level,

and strength (Bandura, 1997). However, once a strong sense of efficacy is developed in a

context, occasional failures do not have much effect on it (Schunk, 1989).

46
 To attain a deeper understanding of self-efficacy, it is necessary to differentiate it

from several similar constructs, such as self-esteem, self-concept, and outcome

expectancy. Perceived self-efficacy is the judgment of personal capabilities while self-

esteem is the judgment of self-worth (Bandura, 2001). Self-esteem entails “individuals’

emotional reactions to their actual accomplishments, such as feeling good or bad about

themselves because they can or cannot read a book or ride a bicycle” (Linenbrink &

Pintrich, 2003, p. 121). On the other hand, self-esteem and self-efficacy are related in a

way that high self-efficacy boosters one’s self-esteem which heightens positive coping

strategies at the time of need in early adolescent years (Eccles, Lord, & Buchanan, 1996).

Therefore, person-environment fit theorists perceive high self-efficacy as a psychological

protective factor against stress.

Likewise, self-concept and self-efficacy are two distinct constructs involving

different characteristics. Self-concept is defined as a “composite view of oneself that is

presumed to be formed through direct experience and evaluations adopted from

significant others” (Bandura, 1997, p. 10). Self-efficacy is also different from outcome

expectancy. Outcome expectancy is one’s anticipation of the consequences of the

performance of a task. Outcome expectancy is largely influenced by perceived self-

efficacy beliefs because people’s beliefs about their own capacities determine the level of

their expectations of the consequences of that particular performance (Bandura, 1997;

2001).

Beliefs about abilities and learning, prior experiences, attitudes, attributions,

instruction style, and the social context influence students’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs

47
(Schunk, 1990). Self-efficacy beliefs influence students’ behavioral (persistence, effort,

and adaptive help seeking), cognitive (strategy use and metacognition), and motivational

(interest, value, and affect) engagement in academic tasks (Linenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).

Once engagement is achieved, it is followed by learning and success that heightens self-

efficacy beliefs and engagement in turn. Research results indicate that individuals’ beliefs

in their learning abilities affect their approach to new challenges. Students with high self-

efficacy set challenging goals for themselves and firmly commit to them (Bandura,

1997).

Perceived self-efficacy influences students’ goal-setting behavior, effort, and

persistence (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992), stimulate the use of learning

strategies (Zimmerman, 2000b), determine the probability of benefiting from mastery

opportunities, and affect the selection of learning environments (Zimmerman, 1989).

Self-efficacy beliefs regulate learning behavior and influence future expectations and

academic achievement (Zimmerman, 2000a). There is no unique way to improve self-

efficacy because there are numerous sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Personal

experiences and reflective thoughts influence the development of self-efficacy beliefs. In

the next section, four main sources of self-efficacy are examined.

Sources of Self-Efficacy

People gather information from internal and external sources to assess their ability

levels. Based on different social and instructional information, they construct beliefs

about their personal capabilities. This information is gathered through enactive (mastery)

and vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1997).

48
Enactive (Mastery) Experiences

Enactive experiences are the individuals’ direct experiences. These experiences

have the most influential effect on students’ self-efficacy beliefs. The experience of

success heightens students’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs, whereas the experience of

failure deteriorates it. Therefore, small success experiences increase perceived self-

efficacy beliefs and motivate students to engage in more challenging academic tasks.

Task difficulty, various contextual factors, and students’ preexisting knowledge may

affect the outcomes of mastery experiences (Bandura, 1997).

Vicarious Experiences

Vicarious experiences such as modeling and social comparison of one’s

competence with others’ accomplishments also provide information about self-efficacy

beliefs. The influence of vicarious experiences on students’ self-efficacy beliefs depends

on the characteristics and the competence level of the model, and social-comparisons

carried out by the individual. Watching a successful model executing a task reduces one’s

anxiety level and increases personal efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977). Observing peer

models learning a cognitive skill improves elementary school students’ self-efficacy

beliefs and achievement performances regardless of whether the model is a coping or a

mastery model (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). Vicarious experiences are especially important

for self-appraisal of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Personal characteristics of the

modeled individual, such as age, gender, physical appearance, race, educational, and

socioeconomic level influence self-appraisal of self-efficacy even though similar

characteristics cannot promise or cause similar performance and outcome.

49
Verbal Persuasion

The influence of verbal persuasion, such as feedback and praise, depends on the

credibility and knowledge of the persuader as perceived by the individual and the

characteristics of the feedback, such as specificity and immediacy (Bandura, 1997).

People who are socially persuaded demonstrate greater effort on tasks than those who are

not persuaded that they are capable of mastering difficult tasks (Bandura, 1977).

Providing mastery oriented feedback instead of normative evaluation increases students’

optimism about their competence and their self-efficacy beliefs (Stipek & Daniels, 1988).

Physiological States (Emotional Arousal)

Physiological states or emotions also affect individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs

(Bandura, 1997). Positive emotions increase self-efficacy while negative emotions

decrease it (Pekrun et al., 2002).

Research on Self-efficacy

Researchers report a positive association between academic self-efficacy beliefs

and academic achievement (e.g. Pajares & Miller, 1994; Pajares & Valiante, 2001; Shell,

Murphy, & Bruning, 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Most importantly,

educational studies consistently provide evidence that self-efficacy is a significant and

unique predictor of academic achievement. The meta-analysis of 36 studies conducted

between 1977 to 1988 showed that there was a constant positive significant correlation

between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance and persistence

outcomes across a large variety of samples, designs, and methodologies (Multon, Brown,

& Lent, 1991).

50
 In a study involving 173 seventh-grade students, Pintrich and De Groot (1990)

examined the correlation between students’ motivational orientations (self-efficacy

beliefs, intrinsic value, and test anxiety), self-regulated learning strategy use (cognitive,

metacognitive and effort management strategies), and academic performance in science

and English classrooms. Students responded to a self-report questionnaire called The

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The findings of the study

showed that higher academic self-efficacy was significantly associated with higher

academic performance in seat work, in academic essays, and exams. Based on the

outcome, researchers concluded that high self-efficacy beliefs lead to more diverse use of

cognitive and self-regulative metacognitive strategies, and much persistence under

difficult and uninteresting learning circumstances (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).

Perceived self-efficacy is a significant variable in understanding success behavior

(Schunk, 1984). Two hundred and eighteen fifth-grade students in writing classes in three

public elementary schools were tested on their self-efficacy beliefs, perceived usefulness

of a specific writing task, and their apprehension (Pajares & Valiante, 2001). After

students individually answered the questions in each instrument, they were asked to write

a 30 minute-essay. Later, students responded to a self-report questionnaire. Students’

perceived self-efficacy beliefs about their own writing ability directly influenced the

perceived usefulness of writing and writing apprehension. The results indicated that

students’ self-efficacy beliefs were the major predictor of academic performance.

Similar findings were supported by another study involving 364 students from 4th,

7th, and 10th grades from reading and writing classes (Shell et al., 1989). In that study,

51
students responded to a questionnaire measuring self-efficacy beliefs, outcome

expectancy, and causal attributions. Higher achievement was found to be strongly

correlated with higher self-efficacy regardless of grade levels. Students with high self-

efficacy displayed high achievement in all grades supporting the importance of self-

efficacy beliefs for maintenance of achievement and motivation.

The path model investigation of the influence of mathematics self-efficacy, self-

concept, gender, prior experiences, and math anxiety on mathematics performance of

undergraduate students provided evidence for a high correlation between self-efficacy

and math performance (Pajares & Miller, 1994). Perceived self-efficacy had the strongest

direct effect on the mathematics performance compared to other variables. Supporting

these findings, Greene and her colleagues (2004) found a significant relationship between

perceived self-efficacy and academic achievement. In this study, 220 high school

students responded to a self-report questionnaire measuring their self beliefs and

achievement outcomes in English classess. The findings of the path analysis indicated

that self-efficacy had the strongest direct effect on students’ academic achievement

compared to other variables. Moreover, self-efficacy and strategy use were the only

constructs that had direct effects on students’ academic performance.

Although, there are countless studies examining the association of academic self-

efficacy with academic performance and strategy use, the studies examining the

relationship between self-efficacy and psychological contextual factors are rare. One of

these studies by Dorman (2001) explored the relationship between classroom

psychosocial environment and students’ academic efficacy beliefs in Australian middle

52
and high schools. One thousand and fifty-five students from grades 8, 10, and 12

responded to a questionnaire assessing students’ perceptions of the mathematics

classroom environment and their academic-efficacy beliefs in mathematics. Students’

perceptions of classroom environments were assessed through 10 scales. Four of those

scales were teacher support (interest in students), student involvement (engagement in

tasks and enjoyment), student cohesiveness (peer interactions and support) and equity

(teacher fair treatment) scales. Correlational analysis revealed that all classroom

environmental factors were significantly related to students’ academic self-efficacy in

mathematics. Dorman (2001) suggested that in addition to the four sources of academic

efficacy, efficacy theory should also consider the influence of learning environments on

the development of students’ academic efficacy beliefs.

Summary

In this section, the distinctive characteristics of self-efficacy in relation to other

self-referent thoughts and beliefs as well as its sources were examined. Research

presented in this section provided evidence for the powerful influence of academic self-

efficacy beliefs on students’ academic engagement, persistence, effort, and academic

performance. Although academic self-efficacy has been widely studied in educational

fields, little is known about how classroom psychological factors influence students’

academic self-efficacy. Introducing the influences of rarely explored classroom factors on

students’ academic efficacy may contribute significantly to the theory of academic

efficacy. Recent research shows the significant interaction between classroom

psychosocial environment and students’ perceived academic efficacy beliefs (Dorman,

53
2001). In line with learning environment research, exploring the relationship between

teacher affective support and self-efficacy is warranted.

Moreover, the investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy and

academic emotions is also necessary. The investigation of the relationship between self-

efficacy beliefs and several least examined emotions, such as academic hopelessness and

academic enjoyment, may contribute to the field significantly. Emotions experienced in

educational environments impact students’ approach to learning, academic motivation,

performance, effort, and achievement outcomes. In the following section, the role of

academic emotions on students’ academic, motivational, and behavioral functioning is

discussed.

Academic Emotions

Neuroscientists describe emotion as “the integration of a particular set of

neurochemical, motor and mental processes” (Izard, 1977 as cited in Izard, 1984, p. 25).

Emotions are generated through the chemical changes in the nervous system in response

to the environmental or internal incidents (Izard, 1991). Studies report that emotions have

powerful influences on human learning, memory, attention, attributions, performance,

and self-beliefs (Lewis, Sullivan, & Michalson, 1984; Moore, Underwood, & Rosenhan,

1984). Although the relationship between cognition and emotion is unquestionable, the

direction of effect is somewhat controversial. Some researchers emphasize that cognition

triggers and regulates emotions (Izard, 1984) while others argue that the relationship

between cognition and emotion is much more complex than a simple case of one causing

the other but rather the case of constant and gradual sequence of one another (Lewis et

54
al., 1984). Izard (1991), in her more recent work, stated that “emotions energize and

organize thought and action” (p. 23).

Students experience a great variety of emotions in learning environments. Pekrun

(1992) identified specific emotions experienced by students in academic settings that are

directly related to academic learning, instruction, and educational success. Pekrun

referred to those emotions as academic emotions. Emotions such as enjoyment, hope,

pride, relief, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom are significantly related

to students’ motivation, cognitive resources, learning strategies, self-regulation, and

academic achievement (Pekrun et al., 2002). Weiner (2000) stated that thoughts

accompanied by emotions determine the direction of human behavior.

Pekrun (1992) reported that students’ emotions powerfully impact cognitive

strategy use. For example, information-processing strategies students employ are

expected to be different in situations where students experience joy or sadness compared

to the situations where they experience hopelessness, boredom, or anger. The task-

irrelevant thinking that is triggered by negative emotions like boredom or hopelessness

forces students to use only surface-type information processing strategies, which reduces

complex and higher- order learning (Pekrun, 1992). Compared to negative emotions

leading to rigid strategy use and avoidance from task engagement, positive emotions lead

to organization, elaboration, critical evaluation, metacognitive monitoring, cognitive

flexibility, creativity, greater persistence (Pekrun et al., 2002; Stipek et al., 1998). The

experience of negative emotions such as frustration, shame, and failure may be

detrimental for intrinsic motivation and also damage self-esteem and self-capacity for

55
exploring things further (Maslow, 1968).

There is a significant relationship between emotions and achievement outcomes.

Negative emotions occupy a space in working memory and limit cognitive resources

resulting in deteriorated academic outcomes (Pekrun, 1992). On the other hand, positive

emotions lead to positive achievement outcomes. For example, Bryan and Bryan (1991)

found that the feeling of happiness increases the mathematics performance of

academically at-risk minority students as well as the mathematics performance and

academic self-efficacy beliefs of learning-disabled students in elementary grades. Similar

findings were obtained in studies conducted in different cultural settings. For example, in

a study conducted in Australia, Bryne and his colleagues (1986) found that the

achievement scores of adolescents in seventh-, ninth-, and eleventh-grades are greater

when they perceive their schools as “happy places.”

Emotions relate to learning and achievement in a reciprocal manner (Pekrun,

1992). The experience of positive emotions leads to increased motivation and higher

engagement in tasks resulting in higher learning, which, in turn, produces increased

experience of positive emotions. In a longitudinal study involving 1,041 middle school

students, Roeser and his colleagues (1998) found that low emotional distress (e.g.

depressive symptoms, anger, and sadness) is associated with high perceived competence

and academic achievement in the seventh grade and over time in the eighth grade. In the

following section, one of the positive academic emotions experienced by students in

learning environments is examined.

56
 Academic Enjoyment

Academic enjoyment is a positive activating emotion experienced when the

engagement in a task is joyful, pleasant, and satisfying (Pekrun, 1992). Positive academic

emotions may have positive influences on students’ academic achievement through the

mediation of increased motivation and flexible learning practices (Pekrun et al., 2002).

For example, the experience of hope, enjoyment or pride may lead to increased

motivation and higher engagement in tasks while the experience of anxiety, hopelessness,

sadness, disappointment, shame or anger may lead to deteriorated motivation causing

lower task engagement and increased avoidance (Pekrun, 1992). In learning

environments, lack of enjoyment and interest in tasks lead to the feeling of boredom

accompanied by the feeling of disappointment and disengagement from activities

(Hamilton, 1983).

Perceived teacher interpersonal behaviors significantly influence students’

academic enjoyment. In Brunei, 1,305 elementary students responded to a self-report

questionnaire investigating the relationship between students’ academic enjoyment and

teacher characteristics (den Brok, Fisher, & Scott, 2005). Students’ responses provided

evidence for a positive and powerful association between teacher proximity (e.g.

closeness) and students’ enjoyment from science classes. A follow-up study conducted by

Fisher, Waldrip, and den Brok (2005) in Australia with the participation of 2,178 fifth-,

sixth-, and seventh-grade science students showed that teacher interpersonal proximity

powerfully predicted students’ collaboration, engagement in activities, the perceptions of

equity, the establishment of congruence between school and home, and enjoyment from

57
science lessons.

Similarly, in a study involving 497 tenth-grade gifted students in Singapore, Lang

and his colleagues (2005) found that teacher friendly and understanding behaviors such

as listening with interest, being considerate, and empathetic increase students’ academic

enjoyment in chemistry. These studies show that regardless of cultural, developmental,

academic, or gender differences, there is a positive association between teacher affective

attitudes and student academic enjoyment. In the next section, academic hopelessness, a

negative emotion experienced by students in classroom environments was discussed.

Academic Hopelessness

Hopelessness is another significant emotion that negatively relates to behavioral

and psychological functioning of adolescents. Hopelessness can be described as “a

negative expectation of oneself and the future” (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 1998, p. 130). The

feeling of hopelessness is generally experienced when individuals attribute negative

outcomes to stable causes and believe that future outcomes will not be better than the past

ones (Weiner, 1985). When the belief in stable causes (e.g. ability) become stronger,

especially around early adolescence, students holding low academic self-efficacy beliefs

avoid expending extra effort on tasks in order to protect self-worth (Tollefson, 2000). On

the other hand, the feeling of hope increases academic motivation leading to greater

academic success, which, in turn, leads to increased feelings of hope (Pekrun, 1992). A

self-report study involving 230 university students in Germany provided evidence for the

positive association between the feeling of hope and study interest, effort, self-regulation,

and elaboration strategies (Titz, 2001 as cited in Pekrun et al., 2002). Although theory

58
recognizes the negative impact of academic hopelessness on students’ motivational and

achievement outcomes, educational studies examining this construct in educational

environments are exceptionally limited. Therefore, research investigating this construct in

learning environments in various developmental levels is necessary.

Summary

Research reviewed in this section provided evidence that academic emotions

experienced by students in educational environments significantly and powerfully link to

cognitive engagement, self-efficacy, strategy selection, academic performance, and

achievement. Although there is a growing interest in academic emotions experienced in

educational environments, research is still scant. Studies should focus on the

investigation of the influence and the determinants of less examined academic emotions

such as academic hopelessness and academic enjoyment. Also, investigating the potential

mediational effects of academic emotions between contextual/environmental factors and

motivational/academic variables may contribute great deal to the field.

In a broader sense, research examining the association among perceived teacher

affective support, perceived sense of belonging, academic self-efficacy, academic

emotions, and academic outcomes may provide significant knowledge for researchers in

understanding the determinants and mediators of students’ emotional, motivational, and

academic functioning in educational environments. In the next chapter, a methodology

offering an integrated examination of these constructs is presented.

59
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Questions

The present study involves a large-scale, self-report survey administration. The

research questions investigated based on the hypothesized model presented in Figure 1.1

are the followings:

(1) Does the hypothesized model provide a satisfactory fit to the sample data?

(2) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived teacher affective

support on middle school students’ sense of belonging, academic enjoyment,

academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort outcomes in

mathematics?

(3) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of perceived sense of belonging on

middle school students’ academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic

self-efficacy, and academic effort in mathematics?

(4) What are the direct and/or indirect influences of academic enjoyment on middle

school students’ academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and academic

effort outcomes in mathematics?

60
(5) What are the direct and indirect influences of academic hopelessness on middle

school students’ perceived academic self-efficacy and academic effort outcomes

in mathematics?

(6) What is the direct influence of perceived academic self-efficacy on middle school

students’ academic effort outcomes in mathematics?

Research Hypotheses

In previous research, it was reported that perceived teacher support -involving

several components of affective support, directly influences early adolescents’ sense of

belonging and indirectly influences self-efficacy beliefs and emotional functioning

through the mediation of perceived sense of belonging (Roeser et al., 1996). It was

suggested that perception of environment and support relates to students’ emotional

functioning (i.e. the experience of positive emotions), which, in turn, predicts academic

outcomes (e.g. academic effort, academic achievement) through the mediation of

motivational factors, such as personal beliefs (Colarossi & Eccles, 2003; Pekrun 1992);

and, in turn, personal beliefs such as self-efficacy influence the level of effort students

put on learning (Lorsbach & Jinks, 1999). Supporting these arguments, it was recently

reported that teacher understanding and friendly behaviors, involving several dimensions

of teacher affective support, significantly relate to the experience of positive academic

emotions like academic enjoyment (den Brok et al., 2005; Lang et al., 2005). It was also

suggested that positive emotions like academic enjoyment may increase academic

motivation while negative emotions like academic hopelessness may damage it (Pekrun

61
et al., 2002).

In light of these reports, a hypothetical model, presented earlier in Figure 1.1, was

developed. It was hypothesized that this structural model would provide a satisfactory fit

to the sample data. Given this model, it was hypothesized that higher perceived teacher

affective support would be related to greater perceived sense of belonging, academic

enjoyment, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort as well as lower academic

hopelessness in mathematics. It was predicted that teacher affective support would have a

positive direct influence on sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic self-

efficacy beliefs of seventh- and eighth-grade students in mathematics classrooms as well

as a negative indirect influence on their academic hopelessness. It was hypothesized that

perceived teacher affective support would have a positive indirect influence on students’

academic enjoyment, academic self-efficacy as well as academic effort through its

positive influence on perceived sense of belonging. It was also expected that affective

support would have a positive indirect influence on academic self-efficacy through its

positive effect on students’ academic enjoyment, and a positive indirect influence on

academic effort through its positive impact on academic enjoyment and academic self-

efficacy. It was predicted that higher perceived teacher affective support would also be

indirectly associated with lower academic hopelessness through affective support’s

positive influence on sense of belonging as well as academic enjoyment.

It was hypothesized that perceived sense of belonging would have a direct positive

influence on middle school students’ academic enjoyment, academic self-efficacy,

academic effort, and direct negative influence on academic hopelessness. It was also

62
predicted that students’ perceived sense of belonging would indirectly positively

influence academic effort through its positive effect on academic enjoyment and self-

efficacy beliefs. It was expected that sense of belonging would indirectly negatively

influence academic hopelessness and indirectly positively affect academic self-efficacy

through its positive influence on academic enjoyment. It was also predicted that sense of

belonging would positively influence academic self-efficacy through its negative impact

on students’ academic hopelessness.

It was hypothesized that academic enjoyment would have a direct positive

influence on academic self-efficacy and academic effort as well as a direct negative

influence on academic hopelessness. It was expected that academic enjoyment would

have an indirect positive influence on academic self-efficacy and academic effort through

its lowering effect on academic hopelessness and elevating effect on academic self-

efficacy. Similarly, it was predicted that academic hopelessness would directly negatively

influence academic self-efficacy and academic effort. It was also expected that academic

hopelessness would also indirectly negatively relate to academic effort through its

detrimental effect on academic self-efficacy. Finally, it was hypothesized that academic

self-efficacy would have a direct positive influence on students’ academic effort.

Assumptions of the Study

There were several assumptions of the study. These assumptions were: (a)

participants would comprehend and interpret each statement in the questionnaire the way

it was intended; (b) participating students would make accurate judgments about others

and themselves in the inquiry of perceived teacher affective support, sense of belonging,

63
self-efficacy, academic emotions, and academic effort; and (c) students would reflect

their true feelings and provide honest responses to each statement without any social

pressure.

Determination of Minimum Sample Size

Having sufficient sample size is a precondition in statistical testing for obtaining

accurate and precise estimates leading to reliable and valid findings. Meeting the criteria

for minimum sample size increases the power of the study, which decreases the

likelihood of making Type II error (failing to accept a true population model). However,

recommended minimum sample sizes for performing structural equation model testing

and confirmatory factor analysis vary significantly. Experts, as reported by Mundfrom,

Shaw, and Ke (2005), use different ways of determining sample sizes, such as using the

ratio of number of subjects to the number variables (e.g. 5:1, 10:1, and 20:1, etc.), the

ratio of number of variables to the number of factors, or the communalities among the

measured indicators.

For the current study, several criteria were used to determine the minimum

necessary sample size. These were variable to factor ratio, number of factors, and the

level of communalities. Mundfrom and his colleagues (2005) indicated that determination

of necessary minimum sample size requires the consideration of the variable-to-factors

ratio (p/f), the number of factors involved in the construction of the latent variables, and

the level of communality among measured indicators. The communality of a variable

refers to “the portion of the variance of that variable that is accounted for by the common

factors” (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999, p. 85). Mundfrom and his

64
colleagues (2005) indicated that (a) when the value of p/f increases, the number of

required subjects decreases, (b) when the number of factors generating the latent

construct increases, the necessary sample size increases accordingly, and (c) when the

communality becomes greater, the required sample size decreases. Three types of

communality patterns explained by Mundfrom et al. (2005) are “high ─all communalities

ranged between .6 and .8; wide─all communalities ranged between .2 and .8; and low─all

communalities ranged between .2 and .4” (p. 161).

All the latent constructs in the hypothesized structural model involves one-factor

solutions. Considering the communality outcomes in the pilot study (wide to high

communality) and p/f ratios (ranging from 5:1 to 9:1) for all one-factor latent variables,

the minimum sample size required for the measurement models did not exceed 50 cases

for excellent-level criterion (.98). On the other hand, large sample sizes are desired for

more reliable and consistent results, as suggested by experts. Gagné and Hancock (2006)

provided three critical advantages of having large sample sizes in structural equation

modeling and confirmatory factor analysis studies:

(a) likelihood of proper model convergence increases; (b) accuracy of parameter

estimates and estimated standard errors can be enhanced; and (c) statistical power

to reject/retain null hypotheses regarding entire models, or regarding parameters

within those models, increases with sample size. (p. 65)

According to the recommendation of Comrey and Lee (1992) regarding the

necessary minimum sample size, as cited by Mundfrom et al. (2005), 100 is poor, 200 is

moderate, 300 is good, 500 is very satisfactory, and 1,000 and above is perfect. Kline

65
(2005) noted that sample sizes greater than 200 could be regarded large enough to test a

model. Given all these different suggestions for minimum necessary sample size, 300

participants was aimed for in the current study. Considering the overall 45% response

rate in two pilot studies and the likelihood of potential missing data points, approximately

1,000 students were invited to participate in the study.

Recruitment, Participants, and Procedure

Recruitment

A research proposal was prepared and sent to seven public school districts around

Columbus via the Office of Outreach and Engagement in the College of Education and

Human Ecology at The Ohio State University. One district was contacted directly by the

researcher. Four districts approved the study. One district rejected participation in the

study and three districts did not respond to the application.

The middle schools in participating districts were identified. The school principals

within those districts were contacted to request their participation in the study. The

principals were provided information about the nature of the study and the procedure for

data collection. After discussing the study with their mathematics teachers, the principals

of six middle schools agreed to participate in the study. One of the schools had to

withdraw their participation later due to a standardized testing in their school. Three of

the participating schools were located in an urban district while the other two were

located in suburban districts. Although defining particular schools as urban or suburban is

neither simple nor precise, the following criteria were used to make the decision that the

participating schools actually fall under the category of urban or suburban: (a) the

66
percentages of economically disadvantaged students in the schools in comparison to state

average, (b) the percentages of students on free or reduced lunch program. Compared to

the state average of 35% economically disadvantaged students, the schools designated

urban had 86%, 80%, and 61% economically disadvantaged students, whereas the

schools designated suburban had 16% and 12% economically disadvantaged students.

Also, compared to the state average of 29.7% students on free/reduced lunch, the

percentage of students on free/reduced lunch for the schools designated urban in this

study were 73.9%, 49.3%, and 45%, whereas the percentage for one school designated

suburban was 8.8% (these data for the second suburban school were not available, but

the figure is likely low based on the percent of students who are economically

disadvantaged—12%).

After receiving permission from the school principals, time was arranged for the

introduction of the study, the distribution of the permission forms, and the administration

of the survey.

Participants

One thousand and eleven seventh- and eighth-grade students in 39 classrooms of

10 mathematics teachers (seven females and three males) within five middle schools were

invited to participate in this study. The schools were located in three public school

districts in a Midwestern city. The percentages of students who were invited to participate

in the study in urban and suburban schools were equal , n = 507 (50%) and n = 504

(50%), respectively. Three hundred and twenty-eight out of 1,011 students returned the

signed parental permission forms (32.4% return rate). Eleven students were absent on the

67
dates of the survey administration.

A total of 317 seventh- (n = 177, 56%) and eighth- (n = 140, 44%) grade students

responded to the survey (31.36% participation rate). The participation of students in

urban schools (n = 207, 65%) was higher than those in suburban schools (n = 110, 35%).

The participation of female students (n = 189, 60%) was higher than male students (n =

128, 40%). The average age of the participants was 12.82 with a standard deviation of

0.73. Students reported their ethnicity as White (n = 197, 62%), African-American (n =

45, 14%), Hispanic (n = 12, 4%), Asian-American (n = 10, 3%), and Native American (n

= 4, 1%). The remaining students reflected their ethnicity as either the combination of

these categories (n = 15, 5%) or as another ethnicity indicated in Other category (n = 34,

11%).

Procedure

The study was introduced to the students starting in October 2006 and ending in

the middle of January 2007. During the introduction, students were given information

about the purpose of the study, the confidentiality of their responses, the voluntary nature

of their participation, and their personal right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Information about a gift card drawing was also provided (Appendix A). After the

introduction, parental permission and student assent forms were distributed. Student

assent was only sought from students who were 14 years old and/or older. The consent

and assent forms included the following information: (a) the nature of the study, (b)

incentives to be provided, (c) voluntary participation and, if desired, withdrawal with no

consequences at any time, and (d) confidentiality of responses (see Appendix A).

68
 The survey was administered in participating schools between December 2006

and January 2007. Before the survey administration, students in each classroom were

provided brief instructions on how to respond to the statements and reminded about the

confidentiality and voluntary nature of their participation. Students were reminded to

respond to the items with respect to their mathematics teacher and mathematics class. All

recruitment materials, consent and assent forms, and the survey instrument were

reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University.

The survey administration took approximately 15 to 25 minutes. The classroom

teachers were also present during the survey administration. In classrooms where

participation rates were low, students were invited to their school library to complete the

survey. For the purpose of confidentiality, students were assigned participant numbers on

the survey cover page. No names were mentioned on the survey packages. Following the

completion of the data collection, 40 students, who were determined through a drawing in

February 2007 using the random sample selection program of SPSS, were distributed $10

gift cards.

Measures

The Perceived Classroom Environment Scale is a 55-item instrument structured

on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 “not at all true” to 5 “completely true.”

It includes seven subscales, specified as perceived teacher affective support, perceived

sense of belonging, perceived self-efficacy, academic anxiety, academic hopelessness,

academic enjoyment, and academic effort (Appendix B).

69
 Instrument Development

Instrument development involved four steps. First, items were either developed

based on the literature or adapted from existing instruments. Second, several experts in

the field and the Ph.D. students reviewed the draft and provided feedback. Third, one

middle school mathematics teacher reviewed the draft instrument for item clarity and

comprehensibility for middle school students. Fourth, two pilot studies were conducted in

three schools to examine the practical effectiveness and reliability of the initial

instrument. The procedures followed to develop the instrument are given below in detail.

Item Selection and Development

To assess students’ perception of their mathematics teachers’ affective support,

the Teacher Affective Support Scale was developed, including 12 items, initially. Four

items were modified from the School Climate Survey: Middle School Version (Aber,

Meinrath, Johnston, Rasmussen, & Gonzales, 2000). Two items were modified from the

Teacher Caring Scale (Muller et al., 1999). Three items were adapted from the Teacher

Personal Support Scale of the Classroom Life Instrument (Johnson, Johnson &

Anderson, 1983), the Sense of Classroom as a Community Scale (Battistich et al., 1997),

and the Classroom Environment Scale (Tricket & Moos, 1987). Three items were

developed based on the related theory and research. Three items in this scale were

dropped after the pilot studies.

The Perceived Sense of Belonging Scale assesses students’ perceptions of their

classroom belongingness. This scale initially consisted of 11 items. Ten out of 11 items

70
came from the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (PSSM, Goodenow,

1993a). One item was modified from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS,

Midgley et al., 1995). PSSM has been administered to a total of 454 sixth- through

eighth-grade students in one study, 301 junior high school students in a second study, and

611 fifth- through eighth-grade students in a third study and resulted in internal reliability

scores of .88, .77, and .88, respectively (Goodenow, 1993a). Six items of PSSM were

excluded from the current scale due to the close relation of those items to the teacher

affective support items in the present instrument. Also, one other item was omitted due to

its likely inapplicability to specific disciplines. PSSM items and PALS item in this scale

were modified and reworded to ensure that students understand and associate items with

only mathematics classrooms. Three items in this scale were dropped after the pilot

studies.

The Academic Self-efficacy Scale assessing students’ beliefs in their academic

ability in mathematics, consisted of eight items. This scale was adapted and modified

from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ, Pintrich, Smith,

Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991, 1993). The MSLQ Scale has been used in numerous studies.

The internal reliability score in the original study was determined to be .93 for a sample

of 380 college students. For the present study, MSLQ items have been modified to focus

specifically on mathematics. Also, one MSLQ item, “I am confident I can do an excellent

job on the assignments and tests in this class” has been divided into two statements: “I am

confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments in this math class” and “I am

confident I can do an excellent job on the tests in this math class.”

71
 The Academic Enjoyment and Academic Hopelessness Scales measuring students’

feelings in mathematics classrooms were taken from the Academic Emotions

Questionnaire (AEQ), developed by Pekrun and his colleagues (2002, revised in 2005),

and adapted to the context of mathematics. The English version of the AEQ, originally

developed in German, was validated with a sample of 389 college students in Canada,

resulting in reliability estimates of .85 and .90 for academic enjoyment and academic

hopelessness, respectively. In the present instrument, some AEQ items have been

excluded due to their inapplicability to middle school students and math discipline. Also,

most statements were reworded to increase middle school students’ comprehension.

The Academic Effort Scale measuring students’ perception of their academic

effort in mathematics initially included four items taken from the Academic Effort Scale

(Wolters, 2004). After the first pilot study, one item was dropped and two items were

included from the Effort Regulation Scale (MSLQ, Pintrich et al., 1993), following some

modifications. Also one additional item was developed based on the literature. After the

second pilot study, one more item was excluded from this scale.

Review by Panel of Experts and Ph.D. Students

Feedback from experts and doctoral students in the field was sought to examine

the face validity of each construct. Seeking face validity might be a useful to increase the

communality (variance in each variable explained by a common factor) among measured

items for each variable (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Therefore, six

expert researchers and a group of doctoral students reviewed the instrument and provided

feedback based on the following questions:

72
(1) On their surface, do the items measure the constructs they were developed to

measure?

(2) Are there any replications, overlapping items, or need for exclusion, inclusion, or

clarification for any item?

(3) Are all items clear and comprehensible for middle school students to grasp the

meaning of each item?

Although all items in the instrument, except for the developed ones, were parallel

to their original versions, some of them were modified, based on the experts’ suggestions,

to increase middle students’ comprehension. Because the targeted discipline of the

present study was mathematics, all items were reworded adding math statements to make

them more appropriate to the current investigation. For example, the academic

hopelessness item “I feel so hopeless all my energy is depleted” was replaced with “I feel

so hopeless in math all my energy is zapped.” Also, some emotion items, which were

unsuitable for middle school students, were eliminated such as “I feel hopeless

continuing in this program of studies.”

Several researchers indicated their concerns about the wording of the response

choices. Specifically, it was indicated that students may not be able to differentiate

between (4) Largely True and (5) Completely True. Therefore, in order to make the

distinction more visible to students, Largely True has been altered by Mostly True.

Interview with a Middle School Mathematics Teacher

One middle school mathematics teacher was invited to review the instrument with

the researcher with the intention of examining the appropriateness, comprehensibility,

73
and clarity of each item. Based on the interview, further modifications were carried out.

Pilot Study

Two pilot studies were conducted in three middle schools during April and May

2006. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. The initial pilot study

was conducted during April 2006 in a suburban middle school. Thirty-eight out of 88

seventh- and eighth-grade students (20 females, 18 males) between the ages of 12 and 14

(M=13.24 years, SD= .59), taught by the same mathematics teacher, within five

classrooms participated (44.32% participation rate). Because several items caused

incomprehension problems, a few modifications and/or exclusions were implemented.

Specifically, two teacher affective support items were omitted. Also, in comparison to the

reliability outcomes of other measured constructs ranging from .74 to .93, because

academic effort scale showed low reliability (.58), its one item with low item-total

correlation was omitted. The exclusion of this item did not cause any threat to the

construct validity of the Academic Effort Scale. Two new items were added to this scale

from the MSLQ Effort Regulation Scale (Pintrich et al., 1993) after some modifications,

and one additional item was developed based on the literature.

The second pilot study was conducted in May 2006. Ninety-nine out of 225

eighth-grade students (65 females and 34 males) between the ages of 13 and 15 (M =

13.82 years, SD = .48) participated in the study (44.00% participation rate). Students

were situated in eight classrooms within two urban schools and taught by two

mathematics teachers. The participants’ self-identified ethnicity included 51% White,

18% African-American, 3% Latino, 5% Asian-American, and 18% others.

74
 Based on the pilot data, item-total correlation analyses were performed to examine

the internal consistency reliability and convergent validity of the instrument. The purpose

of performing item analysis is to generate a set of homogenous items (reliable and

univariate), which serves to the same underlying construct (Kline, 2000). Item-total

correlation of .30 is considered acceptable for the inclusion of an item. Item-total

correlations for the Teacher Affective Support, the Sense of Belonging, the Academic

Enjoyment, the Academic Hopelessness, the Academic Self-efficacy, and the Academic

Effort Subscales were in the ranges of (.15 - .75), (.29 - .75), (.75 - .87), (.51 - .69), (.66 -

.90), and (.48 - .82), respectively. Findings indicated that one negatively worded item in

teacher affective support scale and, similarly, one negatively worded item in sense of

belonging scale had item-total correlations under .30, suggesting that these items were

not adequately measuring their common factors.

Kline (2000), however, pointed out that simply using item analysis may yield a

probability of including items that are correlated but not necessarily measuring the same

underlying construct, which can be preventable through factor analysis. Therefore, in

addition to item analysis, factor analysis through the application of principal axis

factoring was performed. Similar to item-total correlation criterion, a factor loading of

.30 or more is considered significant in explaining a factor. The information acquired

through factor analysis supported the results of the item analysis, providing further

evidence for the univariation of the set of items in each scale.

In the Teacher Affective Support Scale, the reversed item, “My math teacher

treats different students differently for breaking the same rules,” was the only item that

75
was of concern due to its low correlation with other items. This item’s item-total

correlation was .15 and was the only item indicated to increase the reliability of the scale

upon its removal. Because this item also caused the loading of a second factor within the

scale, it was removed from the instrument. Because the instrument already had another

fair treatment item, elimination of this item did not cause any construct validity problem.

The other fair treatment item, which was “My math teacher treats me well regardless of

my gender, race, or achievement level in math,” was subsequently replaced with “My

math teacher treats me equal compared to other students regardless of my gender, race, or

grade in math.” The reason for this alteration was that the researcher and the experts

discussed and decided that a portion in the initial item, which was “…treats me well..,”

does not necessarily assure that the treatment of teacher is fair. Therefore, this change

was considered appropriate and implemented for the actual study.

In the Perceived Sense of Belonging Scale, three reversed items, “it is hard for

people like me to be accepted in this math class,” “sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong

to this math class,” and “I feel very different from most other students in this math class,”

showed lower correlations with other items within the scale, with item-total correlations

of .36, .40, and .29, respectively. These items also caused the formation of a second

factor within the scale. Therefore, these items were excluded from the scale.

Also, although it did not cause any factor loading problems other than providing a

slightly lower item-total correlation value (.48), the academic effort item, “I put more

effort into math than I do in my other classes” was excluded from the scale due to its

threat to the construct validity of academic effort. The shared opinion between the

76
researcher and the panel of experts was that this item did not measure academic effort

properly given that it requires students to evaluate and compare their efforts across

disciplines, which is not the purpose of the measurement of this construct. Therefore, to

ensure the accurate operationalization of the effort construct, this item was removed from

the scale. The ranges of item-total correlations for Teacher Affective Support, Sense of

Belonging, and Academic Effort Subscales after the exclusions were (.50 - .74), (.56 -

.74), and (.67 - .83), respectively. The other subscales, the Academic Self-efficacy, the

Academic Enjoyment, and the Academic Hopelessness, remained unchanged following an

examination of the factor loadings and item-total correlations.

Following these analyses, measures’ internal consistencies were tested.

Psychometric measurement of internal consistency is necessary to confirm that each item

measures the same construct intended to be measured (Kline, 2000). The criterion value

for internal consistency reliability is .70 and estimated using the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient. Kline (2000) cautioned test constructors against using tests having internal

consistency value less than .70 unless there is a certain confidence in its validity. As

presented in Table 3.1, the internal consistency reliability based on the second pilot data

was satisfied for each scale of the instrument.

77
 Scales Cronbach’s alpha
Teacher affective support .88
Perceived sense of belonging .88
Academic enjoyment .84
Academic hopelessness .93
Academic self-efficacy .94
Academic effort .91

Table 3.1: Summary of reliability estimates of each scale.

The validity of the instrument was assessed as well. Validity refers to measuring

what is intended to measure (Kline, 2000). There are several ways to assess instrument

validity. In the present study face validity and construct validity were used to assess

instrument validity. Face validity refers to whether a set of items appear to measure what

it is intended to measure (Kline, 2000). As mentioned earlier, face validity of the

instrument was assessed using the information gathered from a panel of experts. Because

face validity does not provide a strong assessment of instrument validity, construct

validity was also measured. The assessment of construct validity basically involves

“clarifying the nature of the concept to be measured” (Kline, 2000, p. 37). Construct

validity can be assessed through measuring convergent and predictive validity.

Observed similar patterns of the correlations among items –converging toward the

same direction, provided evidence for the convergent validity of each scale. The

summary of the range of correlations of the instrument is provided below in Table 3.2.

78
 Scale Range of correlations
Teacher affective support .26 – .68
Perceived sense of belonging .31 – .66
Academic enjoyment .35 – .63
Academic hopelessness .45 – .83
Academic self-efficacy .53 – .82
Academic effort .49 – .78

Table 3.2: Summary of range of correlations among items within each scale.

Predictive validity was tested through the comparison of theoretically- and

empirically-based relationships. The findings provided strong support for the

operationalization quality of the theoretical constructs under examination. All measures

demonstrated predictive ability similar to what was given in theory. As presented in

Table 3.3, perceived teacher affective support was significantly positively related to

perceived sense of belonging (r = .65, p < .001), academic enjoyment (r = .67, p < .001),

academic self-efficacy (r = .52, p < .001), and academic effort (r = .41, p < .001). Also,

perceived teacher affective support was significantly negatively correlated with academic

hopelessness (r = -.36, p < .001).

In a similar way, perceived sense of belonging was significantly positively related

to academic enjoyment (r = .56, p < .001), academic self-efficacy (r = .61, p < .001), and

academic effort (r = .48, p < .001); and significantly negatively related to academic

hopelessness (r = -.37, p < .001).

79
 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.Teacher Affective Support ─
2. Sense of Belonging .65 ─
3. Enjoyment .67 .56 ─
4. Hopelessness -.36 -.37 -42 ─
5. Self-efficacy .52 .61 .61 -57 ─
6. Academic Effort .41 .48 .55 -40 .61 ─
M 3.58 3.49 2.90 1.55 3.61 3.59
SD .88 .95 .96 .87 1.02 .96
N 98 99 99 99 98 98
Skewness -.24 -.35 .13 1.98 -.74 -.34
Kurtosis -.79 -.79 -.76 3.15 -.42 -.89
Note. All correlations are significant at .001 level.

Table 3.3: Correlational analysis for teacher affective support, sense of belonging,

academic enjoyment, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort.

Academic enjoyment was significantly positively related to academic self-efficacy

(r = .61, p < .001) and academic effort (r = .55, p < .001); and negatively related to

academic hopelessness (r = -.42, p < .001). Academic hopelessness was significantly

negatively related to all other variables within the model, including self-efficacy (r = -.57,

p < .001) and academic effort (r = -.40, p < .001). In addition to its strong positive

correlations with teacher affective support, sense of belonging, and academic enjoyment,

academic self-efficacy had also powerful significant positive relationship with academic

effort (r = .61, p < .001).

Instrument Description

The final version of The Perceived Classroom Environment Scale includes 55

items (Appendix B). The instrument consists of two sections: The first section includes

80
items measuring students’ perceptions examined in this study. The second section

includes demographic information as presented in Table 3.4.

Variable Categories Level of

Measurement
Gender (1) Female Nominal
(2) Male
Age Reported in years Ratio

Racial Identity (1) White Nominal

(2) African-American/ Black
(3) Latina(o) / Hispanic
(4) Asian-American
(5) Native American/ American Indian
(6) Other
Prior Grade in Math Alphabetical or numerical value Nominal

Three Favorite Disciplines Determined by participants Nominal

Table 3.4: Demographic variables of the instrument.

Perceived Teacher Affective Support Subscale

This scale includes nine items measuring students’ perception of their teachers’

affective behaviors—caring, fair treatment, encouragement, high expectations, valuing,

concern for and interest in students, respect, and listening. Sample items on this scale are

“My math teacher really cares about me,” “my math teacher encourages me at times

when I don’t do well in class,” and “my math teacher respects me.”

81
Perceived Sense of Belonging Subscale

This subscale consists of eight items measuring middle school students’

perception of classroom belonging. Several sample items in the subscale are “I really feel

like a part of this math class” and “I feel like my presence matters in this math class.”

The Academic Enjoyment Subscale

This subscale consists of six items measuring students’ enjoyment in mathematics

classrooms. The sample items for this scale are “I enjoy being in this math class” and “it

feels like time flies when I am in this math class.”

The Academic Hopelessness Subscale

This subscale consists of eight items measuring students’ negative expectations

for their academic future and demonstration of the resignation of personal incapability

originated from lost hope. The sample items on this scale are “even thinking about this

math class makes me feel hopeless” and “it’s pointless to prepare for this math class since

I don’t understand anything anyway.”

The Academic Self-efficacy Subscale

This subscale includes eight items measuring students’ beliefs in their academic

ability to perform well in academic situations. Other sample items in the current scale are

“I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this math class” and “I’m

confident I can understand the most difficult math stuff presented by my teacher in this

class.”

Perceived Academic Effort Subscale

This scale includes five items measuring students’ perceived performance of

82
extra energy and hard work in mathematics. Sample items are “I always work as hard as

I can to finish my math assignments” and “in math, I always put a lot of effort into

doing my work.”

Data Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for data analysis. All statistical

calculations including estimating fit indices, errors, and model parameters were

performed using the program Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) (Arbuckle &

Wothke, 1999). Descriptive, bivariate correlation, reliability, and missing data analysis

were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). A priori alpha level

was set as .05 for all estimations.

Advantages of SEM

There are several advantages of SEM compared to other multivariate assessment

procedures. First, causal patterns among the variables of concern can be examined by

using a theoretically derived model. Pictorial representation of the model elucidates the

comprehension of the problem and theory under scrutiny (Byrne, 2001). It is, however,

important to note here that causal pattern does not imply that “changes in one variable

cause changes in another variable”; it is rather the condition of “whether two or more

variables are associated” (Cramer, 2003, p. 91). The path diagram should not be

interpreted as assessing directionality. The second advantage of SEM is that with the

theoretical model provided beforehand, SEM techniques introduce a confirmatory

approach that can be utilized for inferential intentions. Third, SEM provides opportunity

to measure both direct and indirect effects of exogenous (predictor) and endogenous

83
(outcome) variables simultaneously. Fourth, unlike other multivariate procedures, SEM

takes measurement error into account by providing estimated error variances for each

variable within the model. Accounting for measurement error variance in the model

decreases the potential erroneousness resulted from the data analysis (Byrne, 2001).

There are several advantages of SEM in comparison to path analysis as well.

Unlike path analysis which uses single indicators for the measurement of each construct,

SEM techniques use multiple indicators defining latent (unobserved) constructs. Another

advantage of SEM compared to path analysis is that SEM allows the correlation among

residual variances, if supported by the theory and the model. This potential relationship is

overlooked and not allowed in path analysis. Unlike path analysis, SEM also permits the

investigation of bidirectional associations among given constructs in a specific model

(Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006).

The Structure of Structural Equation Models

SEM basically concerns how well a set of data obtained from a population

explains, in other words “fits,” the hypothesized model (Byrne, 2001). There are two

components of a structural equation model: the measurement model and the structural

model (Hoyle, 1995). The measurement model is the component in which the latent

variables of the hypothesized model are defined through observed indicator variables.

Latent variables refer to “unobserved variables implied by the covariances among two or

more indicators” (Hoyle, 1995, p. 3). The structural model is the component in which the

associations among latent variables and observed variables not part of the measurement

model are delineated.

84
 The model-fitting procedure in an SEM study can be described as:

Data = Model + Residual

where Data symbolizes the measured scores of the observed variables obtained from a

sample of the population. Model symbolizes the hypothesized restricted structure

postulated based on a given theory, which provides a bridge between the observed and

latent variables, and if specified, between the latent variables themselves as well.

Residual symbolizes the difference between the hypothesized model and the sample data,

representing the proportion in the sample data which is not explained by the restricted

model (Byrne, 2001).

Handling Missing Data

There are several widespread approaches to deal with missing data in educational

research. These are listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, mean imputation, and Maximum

Likelihood (ML) estimation (also called as full information maximum Likelihood (FIML)

(Enders, 2001)). Listwise deletion is one of the most common approaches, which

involves the deletion of a complete case containing missing information. This approach

has several disadvantages: (a) decreased power, (b) loss of valuable information that

would be gained from the deleted cases, (c) biased estimations in the case of missing at

random (MAR), and (d) the financial and effort-wise costs (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999;

Byrne, 2001).

The second approach for handling missing data involves pairwise deletion. In

pairwise deletion method, the cases containing missing information are only excluded

from the analysis at the times when variables with those missing cases are included in the

85
computations of particular analysis. This approach has several disadvantages as well:

(a) appearance of unequally distributed sample sizes for each analysis with unobserved

scores, (b) generation of non-positive sample covariance matrix leading to biased

solution, (c) biased estimation in the presence of Missing at Random (MAR), and (d)

biased χ2 statistics caused by the interaction between the total number of cases and the

percentage of missing cases (Byrne, 2001). Pairwise deletion method also fuels excessive

model rejection rates as shown by Enders (2001) in a simulation design. Listwise and

pairwise deletion techniques provide unbiased estimation of parameters only under the

condition of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR).

Another common approach for dealing with missing data is mean imputation in

which missing cases are replaced by the average score calculated for an observed

variable. The disadvantages of mean-imputation are: (a) deceptive multivariate normality

distribution, especially when the percentage of missing cases is considerably large, (b)

weakened correlation among variables as a result of reduced variance, and (c) biased

estimation of standard error (Byrne, 2001). Excessive model rejection rates are seen in

studies using imputation technique as well (Enders, 2001).

In comparison to each of the missing data handling approaches presented above,

ML estimation provides the best results. In the ML approach, the estimation of missing

values is accomplished using the parameters estimated through the observed data (Roth,

1994). That is, the estimated parameters are used to estimate the missing scores. The

advantages of ML estimates for handling missing data are: (a) it is a theoretically-based

approach unlike all other approaches, (b) it is reliable and efficient, (c) it provides

86
unbiased solutions in the presence of MAR cases and less biased solutions in the presence

of missing not at random cases compared to listwise and pairwise deletion approaches

(Byrne, 2001). Accuracy of the measurement of a model fit is more likely when ML

estimation is used. Especially with nonnormal data, model rejection rates remain more

stable across different missing data conditions with the use of ML estimation (Enders,

2001).

There are several conditions that must be satisfied to be able to use ML method.

These conditions are (1) the existence of a valid model, (2) large sample size, (3)

multivariate normal distribution of observed variables, and (4) use of continuous scales

for observed variables (Byrne, 2001). The most controversial assumption of all, concerns

the last one, which is the use of continuous scales for observed variables. The problem

evolves around treating ordinally scaled, such as Likert-type, variables as if they were

continuous ones, which is also the case in the current study. This situation may also result

in the underestimation of the relationships among variables due to obtaining poorer

Pearson correlation coefficients (Byrne, 2001). As discussed by Byrne in detail, however,

this treatment does not cause a major dilemma as long as the observed variables have

multivariate normal distribution and include four or more categories. Multivariate normal

distribution is especially crucial given the fact that non-normal distribution, especially

high level of skewness observed in opposite directions for given observed variables, may

result in highly inflated χ2 values. On the other hand, unless extreme values of skewness

and kurtosis were detected, the ML procedure still provides reliable estimations

(McDonald & Ho, 2002), as discussed in the following section. In light of the strong

87
literature support, missing data in the current study were handled using ML estimation.

Assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling

Independence and multivariate normality assumptions are two fundamental

assumptions of structural equation modeling.

Independence Assumption

Independence implies that “error in predicting Y from X for one case is unrelated

to that of another case” (Kline, 2005, p. 23). Independence assumption requires

independent observations obtained through random sampling. In many social and

behavioral science studies, however, the complete satisfaction of this assumption is very

difficult due to having subjects in nested contexts and convenience sampling.

In the current study, because participants were nested in five school environments,

the independence assumption was violated. Also, nonrandom sampling caused the

violation of random sampling assumption, and, therefore, led to the violation of the

independence assumption. Using nonrandom sampling results in changes in variances

and covariances for given latent constructs (McDonald & Ho, 2002). McDonald and Ho

indicated that random sampling violation may not be serious in causal model testing.

Fabrigar et al. (1999) suggested that in the case of convenience sampling,

researchers should be careful about not selecting “overly homogeneous samples and

samples whose selection is related to measured variables in the analysis” (p. 274). In the

present study, although the sample selection was not random, participants were from

three different school districts with varying socio-economic, racial, and cultural

characteristics. This condition was expected to attenuate the destructive consequences of

88
the violation of this assumption.

Multivariate Normality Assumption

Multivariate normality assumption can be tested univariately through examining

the skewness and kurtosis of each univariate variable (McDonald & Ho, 2002).

McDonald and Ho pointed out that the satisfaction of normality assumption is especially

troublesome in social and behavioral science research and the use of categorical data, as

is the case in the present study, may result in nonnormality. Several studies, as reported

by McDonald and Ho, indicated that unless extreme values of skewness and kurtosis are

detected, the use of ML estimation generates robustness in the case of multivariate

nonnormality and, hence, the parameter estimates maintain their validity.

Enders (2001) identified several distributional conditions based on the skewness

(S) and kurtosis (K) values. In his design, (a) when S = 0 and K = 0, the data were

considered normally distributed; (b) when S = 1.25 and K = 3.5, the data were considered

mild nonnormally distributed; (c) when S = 2.25 and K = 7.0, the data were considered

moderate nonnormally distributed; and (d) when S = 3.25 and K = 20.0, the data were

considered extreme nonnormally distributed. Similarly, Kline (2005) reported that

skewness greater than 3.0 generally suggests a serious problem. He pointed out that

experts’ opinions vary when it comes to the assessment of kurtosis index, but as a

conservative approach, kurtosis values greater than 10.0 might be interpreted as a sign of

a problem while the values greater than 20.0 may point to a serious problem. These

reports were used as a point of reference for the examination of the multivariate

normality of the current data.

89
 Goodness of Fit Indices

Goodness-of-fit was assessed for both measurement and the structural models.

The literature suggests the use of more than one fit index to measure goodness-of-fit. For

the current study, (a) literature support was sought for the significance of the index in the

testing for model fit, and (b) the differing nature of the index in comparison to other

selected indices were sought in the assessment of the fit (Byrne, 2001). Bollen and Long

(1993) suggested the inclusion of fit indices that (a) use different assessment techniques,

(b) are not sensitive to sample size, and (c) take degrees of freedom (df) into

consideration. Reporting fit indices having similar assessment natures does not provide

adequate information in evaluating the goodness of fit for an hypothesized model. The fit

indices used in the present study were Chi-square (χ2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI),

Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error Approximation Index

(RMSEA).

Chi-square, or CMIN (minimum discrepancy) index, tests the difference between

the sample covariance matrix and the restricted covariance matrix, with the assumption

that the residual discrepancy between them is equal to zero. According to this index, p >

.05 indicates a good fit. The higher the probability, the better the chance of obtaining a

perfect fit. Chi-square, however, may lead to the rejection of true population models

because of its sensitivity to large sample sizes (Byrne, 2001). In a recent study, Miles and

Shevlin (2007) showed that the chi square index is influenced not only by the sample size

but also by the reliability of the constructs under investigation. They indicated that higher

correlations among observed indicators and accordingly lower unique variance held by

90
each indicator lead to greater model rejection rates in terms of chi-square index since

increasing reliability gives greater power to the tested model and causes an increase in

chi-square. Therefore, Miles and Shevlin recommended the use of incremental fit indices

such as Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) in the interpretation

of the chi-square and the model fit.

Comparative fit index (CFI) compares the hypothesized model with the

independence model. The independence model is a highly strict model in which all

variables are considered uncorrelated. The value of CFI ranges from 0 to 1.00. The

suggested value for CFI, representative of good fit, is between .95 and 1.00. In general,

the value of CFI shows consistency with the values of NFI (Normed Fit Index) and IFI

(Incremental Fit Index) (Byrne, 2001). Therefore, only CFI were reported in the present

study.

Another fit index reported in the current study was Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI).

Although TLI, also known as Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), is also an incremental fit

index similar to CFI, it considers and balances the effect of model complexity (Hu &

Bentler, 1999). Model complexity is especially a matter of concern in the assessment of

simpler models with total observed variables equal or fewer than 10 (Kline, 2005).

Because RMSEA is reported to be sensitive to model complexity (Kenny & McCoach,

2003), the report of TLI gains significance. A Tucker-Lewis fit index value close or

above .95 is considered acceptable with large sample sizes (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The last index of choice for testing model fit was Root Mean Square Error

Approximation (RMSEA), considered as one of the most efficient indexes available

91
(Byrne, 2001). RMSEA calculates the discrepancy between the population covariance

matrix, as if it were known, and restricted model covariance matrix and estimates the

potential error (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Reported by Byrne (2001), RMSEA values

less than .05 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler (1999) suggested < .06 as good fit), between

.05 and .08 represent reasonable fit, between .08 and .10 indicate mediocre fit, and values

greater than .10 represent poor fit. MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) suggested

that RMSE value should be reported with its 90% confidence intervals to make a better

assessment of its adequacy. Because RMSEA is affected by χ2, the limitations mentioned

regarding the χ2 statistics also affect the outcomes of RMSEA (i.e., increasing reliability

of measured indicators may lead to higher RMSEA resulting in the rejection of true

population model) (Miles & Shevlin, 2007). The goodness of fit resulted by the

interpretation of RMSEA may suggest different action in comparison to the fit resulted

by the interpretations of CFI and TLI because these fit indices may provide conflicting

explanations in the case of model complexity (Kenny & McCoach, 2003). Therefore,

extra caution was given during the interpretation of the fit indices.

92
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis

Following the completion of data collection, preliminary analyses were conducted

to examine the internal consistency of constructs, patterns of missingness, and the

distributional properties. The internal consistency reliability estimates for each scale was

satisfactory. The reliability estimates of each construct ranged from .88 to .96, as

provided in Table 4.1.

Scales Cronbach’s alpha

Perceived teacher affective support .92
Perceived sense of belonging .88
Academic enjoyment .93
Academic hopelessness .96
Perceived academic self-efficacy .92
Perceived academic effort .89

Table 4.1: Summary of reliability estimates of each scale

93
 Missing value analysis, presented in Appendix C, showed that missing

percentages did not exceed 2% for any single observed indicator (Table C.1) and

remained under 1% for each construct (Table C.2). Because the missingness in both

conditions was under 5%, no missing pattern analysis was conducted (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2001). Given the results, missingness was overall considered completely at

random. As discussed in the previous chapter, missing data was handled using ML

estimation procedure.

The multivariate normality assumption was assessed through univariate

examination of skewness and kurtosis values for each observed measure (McDonald &

Ho, 2002). The normality distributions for teacher affective support, sense of belonging,

academic enjoyment, academic self-efficacy, and academic effort measures ranged from

normal to mild nonnormal (item-by-item distributional outcomes of each scale is

provided in Appendix C, Table C.3 – Table C.9). For the academic hopelessness scale,

the distribution showed moderate to extreme nonnormality (Table C.6). Nonnormality for

data in missing completely at random condition does not influence the level of bias in

parameter estimates, but the presence of extreme nonnormality may increase the rate of

model rejection due to inflation of the chi-square statistics (Enders, 2001). An analysis of

the assessment of academic hopelessness measure showed that outlier cases were the

major cause of nonnormality. The participants’ frequent reports of low levels of academic

hopelessness led to positively skewed leptokurtic distribution and, hence, those who

reported high levels of academic hopelessness became outlier cases. Because the deletion

of the outlier cases would cause the loss of important information, outliers were not

94
omitted. Instead, log transformation (log10) was performed to ameliorate the

nonnormality in this particular distribution. After the transformation, the absolute values

of skewness and kurtosis dropped significantly (Table C.7). As expected, parameter

estimates of standardized path coefficients remained almost identical, although changes

were observed in unstandardized path coefficients and their standard errors.

Overview of Model Testing

Model testing of the current study was performed using two-step modeling (Kline,

2005). In two-step modeling, first confirmatory factor analysis of the full measurement

model is tested through freeing the parameters among all constructs and allowing them to

correlate; if the fit of CFA of the measurement model is acceptable, then, the structural

model of the study is tested in the second-step. Two-step modeling is useful in detecting

potential model-misspecification and in determining the measurement model invariance

(Kline, 2005).

Before starting two-step model testing, the confirmatory factor analysis of the

Perceived Teacher Affective Support Scale was performed to verify the adequacy of this

measure because, as discussed in Chapter 3, one of its items was replaced with another

item after the pilot study (item #5).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Perceived Teacher Affective Support Scale

The confirmatory factor analysis of the 9-item single-factor Perceived Teacher

Affective Support Scale, presented in Figure 4.1, provided a good fit to the given data in

terms of CFI and TLI but a mediocre fit in terms of RMSEA (χ2 [27 df, N = 317] =

100.813, p= .00, CFI = .992, TLI= .986, RMSEA = .093 (with 90% CI lower bound =

95
.074 and upper bound = .113)).

As discussed in Chapter 3, RMSEA is sensitive to sample size (N) and model

complexity (df), favoring models with large numbers of variables (Kenny & McCoach,

2003). Also, increased reliability of measured constructs leads to higher values of

RMSEA resulting in the rejection of true population models (Miles & Shevlin, 2007).

Because the perceived teacher affective support scale is a one-dimensional (single factor)

simple model with high reliability (.92), it was not unexpected to find out that the

RMSEA value was higher than the acceptable range. If these conditions present, Miles

and Shevlin (2007) recommend the use of CFI and TLI fit indices rather than chi square

and RMSEA indices because CFI and TLI provide more stable and reliable outcomes

with simple and internally consistent models. Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999) also suggest

the use of TLI because it balances the effect of model complexity and is less sensitive to

sample size and nonnormal distribution. Therefore, no modifications were carried out and

it was concluded that the confirmatory factor analysis of perceived teacher affective

support was satisfactory. The evaluation of the factor loadings, presented in Figure 4.1,

showed that the observed indicators had high factor loadings, indicating that they

adequately reflected the underlying factor.

96
 .48 TAS1

.48
TAS2

nt
.72
.36
TAS3 .72

.80
.30
TAS4
.84

.67 .57
Affective
TAS5 Support

.81

.34
TAS6 .78

.67

.39 .68
TAS7

.55
TAS8

.54
TAS9

Notes. The path estimations are based on the standardized values. All paths are significant at .001
level. nt means unstandardized estimate of this parameter is not tested because it is fixed to 1.0
for model identification.

Figure 4.1: Confirmatory factor analysis of 9-item one-dimensional model of the

perceived teacher affective support construct.

97
 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Measurement Model

At the first step of two-step modeling, the original structural model was

respecified as a measurement model and tested for its adequacy. The latent constructs in

the hypothesized model were represented by their items as measured indicators. This

approach was adopted because Marsh and his colleagues (1998) recommended

researchers to use all items as measured indicators for the measurement of latent

constructs to obtain more powerful and accurate estimates and proper solutions. For the

assessment of the measurement model, all latent constructs were allowed to

intercorrelate. The full measurement model provided an adequate fit to the data (χ2 [887

df, N = 317] = 1948.767, p= .00, CFI = .973, TLI= .970, RMSEA = .062 (with 90% CI

lower bound = .058 and upper bound = .065)). Factor loadings, measurement error

variances, and latent variable correlations are provided in Table 4.2.

98
Parameter Unstandardized SE Standardized
Factor Loadings
Affective Support → TS1 1.000 .714
Affective Support → TS2 .818 .067 .705
Affective Support → TS3 1.037 .077 .784
Affective Support → TS4 1.111 .078 .826
Affective Support → TS5 .726 .070 .606
Affective Support → TS6 .931 .066 .821
Affective Support → TS7 1.021 .074 .798
Affective Support → TS8 .751 .062 .707
Affective Support → TS9 1.039 .089 .676
Belonging → BL1 1.000 .687
Belonging → BL2 1.184 .102 .722
Belonging → BL3 1.026 .094 .676
Belonging → BL4 1.112 .098 .709
Belonging → BL5 .764 .084 .555
Belonging → BL6 1.112 .099 .697
Belonging → BL7 .972 .090 .671
Belonging → BL8 1.244 .105 .746
Enjoyment→ EJ1 1.000 .826
Enjoyment→ EJ2 .964 .053 .849
Enjoyment→ EJ3 .994 .056 .831
Enjoyment→ EJ4 1.021 .065 .769
Enjoyment→ EJ5 1.039 .053 .884
Enjoyment→ EJ6 .959 .056 .817
Hopelessness→ HP1 1.000 .753
Hopelessness→ HP2 1.108 .070 .834
Hopelessness→ HP3 1.011 .065 .827
Hopelessness→ HP4 1.044 .063 .874
Hopelessness→ HP5 1.033 .061 .883
Hopelessness→ HP6 1.000 .058 .895
Hopelessness→ HP7 1.104 .063 .904
Hopelessness→ HP8 1.029 .061 .881
Self-efficacy→ SE1 1.00 .734
Self-efficacy→ SE2 1.081 .081 .754
Self-efficacy→ SE3 1.086 .076 .800
Self-efficacy→ SE4 .804 .065 .706
Self-efficacy→ SE5 1.130 .080 .801
Self-efficacy→ SE6 .955 .067 .805
Self-efficacy→ SE7 .944 .067 .790
Self-efficacy→ SE8 .827 .065 .725
Effort→ EF1 1.000 .784
Effort→ EF2 1.081 .077 .755
Effort→ EF3 .977 .062 .827
Effort→ EF4 1.013 .066 .812
Effort→ EF5 1.017 .068 .796

Table 4.2: Maximum likelihood parameter estimates for the full measurement model of the
hypothesized model

(Continued)
99
Table 4.2 Continued
Parameter Unstandardized SE Standardized
Measurement Error Variances
ETS1 .774 .067 .490
ETS2 .544 .047 .503
ETS3 .542 .049 .385
ETS4 .463 .044 .318
ETS5 .729 .061 .633
ETS6 .337 .032 .326
ETS7 .478 .044 .363
ETS8 .454 .039 .500
ETS9 1.037 .088 .543
EBL1 .673 .060 .528
EBL2 .775 .071 .479
EBL3 .754 .067 .543
EBL4 .738 .067 .497
EBL5 .790 .067 .692
EBL6 .790 .071 .514
EBL7 .693 .062 .550
EBL8 .743 .070 .443
EEJ1 .572 .053 .318
EEJ2 .441 .043 .279
EEJ3 .542 .051 .309
EEJ4 .885 .078 .409
EEJ5 .370 .039 .219
EEJ6 .561 .052 .333
EHP1 .015 .001 .433
EHP2 .011 .001 .304
EHP3 .010 .001 .316
EHP4 .007 .001 .236
EHP5 .006 .001 .220
EHP6 .005 .000 .199
EHP7 .006 .001 .183
EHP8 .006 .001 .224
ESE1 .475 .042 .461
ESE2 .495 .044 .431
ESE3 .369 .034 .360
ESE4 .362 .031 .502
ESE5 .397 .037 .358
ESE6 .275 .026 .352
ESE7 .342 .030 .376
ESE8 .299 .027 .474
EEF1 .309 .030 .385
EEF2 .434 .041 .430
EEF3 .217 .023 .316
EEF4 .260 .026 .341
EEF5 .294 .029 .366
Note. Standardized estimates of the measurement error variances are proportions of unexplained variance.

100
 The evaluation of the factor loadings in Table 4.2 showed that the observed

indicators had high factor loadings to their common factors, indicating that they

adequately reflected their underlying latent variables. All indicators in the model had

statistically significant factor loadings (p < .001), confirming the existence of significant

associations among measured indicators and their latent constructs. Latent factor

correlations provided in Table 4.3 confirmed that, consistent with the pilot study, all

bivariate correlations were statistically significant and in the expected directions,

providing preliminary support for the hypothesized model.

Perceived teacher affective support was positively correlated with sense of

belonging (r = .69, p < .001), academic enjoyment (r = .68, p < .001), academic self-

efficacy (r = .56, p < .001), and academic effort (r = .34, p < .001), and negatively

correlated with academic hopelessness (r = -.39, p < .001). Similar relationships were

observed among other variables as well, as presented in Table 4.3. Sense of belonging

was positively related to academic enjoyment (r = .59, p < .001), academic self-efficacy

(r = .56, p < .001), and academic effort (r = .42, p < .001), and negatively associated with

academic hopelessness (r = -.36, p < .001). Similarly, academic enjoyment was positively

related to academic self-efficacy (r = .45, p < .001) and academic effort (r = .48, p <

.001), and negatively related to academic hopelessness (r = -.25, p < .001). Academic

hopelessness was negatively associated with academic self-efficacy (r = -.48, p < .001)

and academic effort (r = -.26, p < .001). Academic self-efficacy was positively related to

academic effort (r = .52, p < .001).

101
 Parameter r
Teacher affective support ↔ Sense of belonging .692
Teacher affective support ↔ Academic enjoyment .676
Teacher affective support ↔ Academic hopelessness -.391
Teacher affective support ↔ Academic self-efficacy .559
Teacher affective support ↔Academic effort .344
Sense of belonging ↔ Academic enjoyment .587
Sense of belonging ↔ Academic hopelessness -.359
Sense of belonging ↔ Academic self-efficacy .555
Sense of belonging ↔ Academic effort .418
Academic enjoyment ↔ Academic hopelesness -.252
Academic enjoyment ↔ Academic self-efficacy .447
Academic enjoyment ↔ Academic effort .476
Academic hopelessness ↔ Academic self-efficacy -.479
Academic hopelessness ↔ Academic effort -.260
Academic self-efficacy ↔ Academic effort .516
Note. All correlations are significant at .001 level.

Table 4.3: ML estimation of factor correlations in the measurement model.

Inter-item correlations provided in Appendix C, Table C.10, also showed that

correlations were in the predicted directions, supporting the construct validity of

underlying constructs. Inter-item and factor correlations were also used to detect any

potential multicollinearity. Maruyama (1998) indicated that correlations higher than .80

or .90 shows the presence of multicollinearity. Kline (2005) reported correlations higher

than .85 as a sign of potential multicollinearity. For the current data, no extreme values of

correlations were observed among the given constructs (Table 4.3). On the other hand, in

terms of observed indicators, academic hopelessness items showed high correlations

among each other, one of which was greater than .85 (between items 6 & 7 (.86),

Appendix C, Table C.10). The examination of these items in question did not provide

evidence that they measured exactly the same dimension of the underlying factor.

Therefore, no further actions was taken.

102
 The Structural Model of the Study

Hypothesized Model

The hypothesized model of the study provided an adequate fit to the given data (χ2

[888 df, N = 317] = 1954.574, p= .00, CFI = 0.973, TLI= 0.970, RMSEA = 0.062 (with

90% CI lower bound = .058 and upper bound = .065)). Four nonsignificant paths were

observed in this original model (Figure 4.2). These paths were removed from further

analysis leading to the generation of a reduced model (Figure 4.3). The fit indices for

both models are provided in Table 4.4.

Model df χ2 CFI TLI RMSEA ∆df ∆χ2

Hypothesized Model 888 1954.574 .973 .970 .062
(all paths)
Reduced Model 892 1956.729 .973 .970 .061 4 2.155ns
(ns paths removed)
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = root-mean-square-error of
approximation. ns =nonsignificant.

Table 4.4: The fit indices for the original and the reduced models of the study.

Reduced Model

Four nonsignificant pathways were removed from the structural model. Removed

paths were the path from sense of belonging to academic effort, both paths from

academic enjoyment to academic hopelessness and academic self-efficacy, and the path

from academic hopelessness to academic effort (Figure 4.2). The decision for eliminating

nonsignificant paths was made based on the parsimony principle, which demands the use

103
of simpler models whenever it is possible because complex models with increased

parameters have lower potentials to be rejected, which is not desirable in model testing

(Kline, 2005). The reduced model, presented in Figure 4.3, provided a reasonable fit as

well (χ2 [892 df, N = 317] = 1956.729, p= .00, CFI = .973, TLI= .970, RMSEA = 0.061

(with 90% CI lower bound = .058 and upper bound = .065)). The reduced model did not

differ significantly from the original hypothesized model, as fit indices provided in Table

4.4 showed no difference between two models [∆χ2 (4, N = 317) = 2.155, p > .05].

Therefore, the further analyses were carried out using the reduced model.

104
 .52

Academic
Enjoyment

..08ns .29***
.51***
.23**
.06ns
Teacher
.21*
Academic
Affective
Support
Self-efficacy .37***
.69*** .26**
Sense of Belonging .57
105

Academic Effort
.04ns
-.19*
.52
-.31** -.28***
.66
.002ns
Academic
Hopelessness

.83

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The dashed lines are not significant. The estimates for the residual variances indicate unexplained variance.

Figure 4.2: Standardized path coefficients and residual variances of the variables in the hypothesized structural model.
 .52

Academic
Enjoyment

.51*** .31***
.24**

Teacher
.26***
Academic
Affective
Support
Self-efficacy .38***
.69***
Sense of Belonging .28*** .57
106

Academic Effort

-.17*
.52
-.27** -.28***
.66

Academic
Hopelessness

.83

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The estimates for the residual variances indicate unexplained variance.

Figure 4.3: Standardized path coefficients and residual variances in the reduced model.
 As presented in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.5, perceived teacher affective support

showed significant positive direct effect on students’ perceived sense of belonging (β =

.69, p < .001), academic enjoyment (β = .51, p < .001), and academic self-efficacy (β =

.26, p < .001); and significant negative direct effect on their academic hopelessness (β = -

.27, p < .01). Specifically, students who perceived their mathematics teachers as

affectively supportive were likely to report higher sense of belonging, greater academic

enjoyment, greater academic self-efficacy, and lower academic hopelessness in

mathematics classrooms.

Similarly, sense of belonging showed significant positive direct effect on

academic enjoyment (β = .24, p < .01) and academic self-efficacy (β = .28, p < .001),

and significant negative direct impact on academic hopelessness (β = -.17, p < .05). That

is, students who reported greater sense of belonging tended to report greater academic

enjoyment, higher academic self-efficacy, and lower academic hopelessness.

As seen in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.5, academic enjoyment directly positively

predicted academic effort (β = .31, p < .001), which means students who reported greater

academic enjoyment were also more likely to report higher academic effort in

mathematics. Academic hopelessness showed significant direct negative influence on

students’ perceived academic self-efficacy (β = -.28, p < .001). That is, students who

reported lower academic hopelessness in mathematics also tended to report greater

perceptions of academic self-efficacy in mathematics classrooms. Perceived academic

self-efficacy directly positively predicted students’ academic effort in mathematics (β =

.38, p < .001). In other words, students who reported greater academic self-efficacy were

107
also more likely to report greater academic effort in mathematics.

Overall, the model explained 48% of the variances in both sense of belonging and

academic enjoyment, 43% of the variance in self-efficacy, 34% of the variance in

academic effort, and 17% of the variance in academic hopelessness reported by students.

Parameter Unstandardized SE Standardized

Paths
Teacher Affective Support → Belonging .599 .065 .692
Teacher Affective Support → Enjoyment .631 .096 .511
Teacher Affective Support → Hopelessness -.043 .014 -.270
Teacher Affective Support → Self-efficacy .212 .063 .255
Belonging → Enjoyment .337 .104 .236
Belonging → Hopelessness -.031 .016 -.170
Belonging → Self-efficacy .270 .075 .282
Enjoyment → Academic Effort .193 .038 .305
Hopelessness → Efficacy -1.459 .292 -.279
Efficacy → Academic Effort .357 .060 .380
Residual Variances
res1 .314 .050 0.521
res2 .634 .077 0.516
res3 .017 .002 0.834
res4 .314 .044 0.567
res5 .325 .042 0.665
Note. The estimates for the residual variances indicate unexplained variance.

Table 4.5: Unstandardized and standardized estimates of the path coefficients in the

reduced model.

108
 The next table, Table 4.6, shows the assessment of indirect effects of variables

involved in the structural model. For the computation of the standard errors of the

indirect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables (SEab), the Sobel test

(1982), as explained by Kline (2005), was performed. The Sobel test standard error

calculation for indirect effect basically involves the following computation:

SEab = √b2SEa2 + a2SEb2

where a is an unstandardized path coefficient between X and Y variables and SEa

is its standard error; b is unstandardized path coefficient between Y and Z variables and

SEb is its standard error. The ratio of ab / SEab provides a z value for the indirect effect of

X on Z through the potential mediation of Y (e.g. the significance of the indirect effect of

the perceived teacher affective support (X) on academic enjoyment (Z) through the

potential mediation of sense of belonging (Y), as examined on the first row of Table 4.6).

For the path models involving more than one mediator, the standard error approximation

is considered to be accurate when the minimum sample size exceeds 100-200 (Stone &

Sobel, 1990, as cited in MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz, 2007). The sample size

involved in the current study satisfied this condition.

109
 Paths a SEa b SEb z p

TAS → belonging → enjoyment 0.599 0.065 0.337 0.104 3.057 .002

TAS → belonging → hopelessness 0.599 0.065 -0.031 0.016 -1.896 .058

TAS → belonging → self-efficacy 0.599 0.065 0.270 0.075 3.353 < .001

TAS → enjoyment → effort 0.631 0.096 0.193 0.038 4.019 < .001

TAS → hopelessness → self-efficacy -0.043 0.014 -1.459 0.292 2.617 .008

TAS → self-efficacy → effort 0.212 0.063 0.357 0.060 2.929 .003

belonging → enjoyment → effort 0.337 0.104 0.193 0.038 2.732 .006

belonging → hopelessness → self-efficacy -0.031 0.016 -1.459 0.292 1.806 .071

belonging→ self-efficacy → effort 0.270 0.075 0.357 0.060 3.080 .002

hopelessness → self-efficacy → effort -1.459 0.292 0.357 0.060 -3.826 < .001

Note. TAS = Teacher Affective Support

Table 4.6: Unstandardized parameter estimates, standard errors, and test statistics for the

effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.

Indirect effect analysis, presented in Table 4.6, showed that perceived teacher

affective support indirectly positively affected academic enjoyment and academic self-

efficacy (z = 3.06, p < .01 and z = 3.35, p < .001, respectively) through its positive

association with perceived sense of belonging. On the other hand, there was no

statistically significant indirect effect of teacher affective support on academic

hopelessness through its positive relationship with sense of belonging (z = -1.90, p > .05).

110
 Perceived teacher affective support and sense of belonging indirectly positively

predicted academic effort (z = 4.02, p < .001 and z = 2.73, p < .01, respectively) through

their positive associations with academic enjoyment. Perceived teacher affective support

indirectly positively influenced academic self-efficacy (z = 2.62, p < .01) through its

negative relationship with academic hopelessness. There was no significant indirect

effect of sense of belonging on academic self-efficacy (z = 1.81, p > .05) through its

negative relationship with academic hopelessness.

Perceived teacher affective support and sense of belonging showed indirect

positive influences on academic effort (z = 2.93, p < .01 and z = 3.08, p < .01,

respectively) through their positive associations with academic self-efficacy. Academic

hopelessness indirectly negatively predicted academic effort through its negative

association with academic self-efficacy (z = -3.83, p < .001). Based on these findings, the

direct, indirect, and total effects of the predictor variables on the outcome variables in the

reduced model is presented in Table 4.7.

111
 Exogenous Variables Endogenous Direct Indirect Total
Variables Effect Effect Effect
Teacher Affective Support Sense of Belonging 0.692*** 0.692***

Teacher Affective Support Academic Enjoyment 0.511*** 0.163** 0.674***

Sense of Belonging 0.236** 0.236**

Teacher Affective Support Academic Hopelessness -0.270** -0.118a -0.388***

Sense of Belonging -0.170* -0.170*
Academic Enjoyment

Teacher Affective Support Academic Self-efficacy 0.255*** 0.303*** 0.558***

Sense of Belonging 0.282*** 0.047 0.329***
Academic Enjoyment
Academic Hopelessness -0.279*** -0.279***

Teacher Affective Support Academic Effort 0.418*** 0.418***

Sense of Belonging 0.197** 0.197**
Academic Enjoyment 0.305*** 0.305***
Academic Hopelessness -0.106*** -0.106***
Academic Self-efficacy 0.380*** 0.380***
Note. a p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 4.7: Standardized estimates of the direct, indirect, and total effects of the

exogenous (predictor) variables on the endogenous (outcome) variables in the reduced

model of the study

In the following section, the results of the study are summarized; and the

limitations along with the potential future implications are discussed.

112
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Summary of the Findings

The findings of the current study extend our knowledge in understanding the role

of affective learning environments on students’ motivational, emotional, and academic

outcomes, especially during early adolescence. In the present study, essential teacher

affective support dimensions were successfully gathered under one category. Also, the

associations among perceived teacher affective support and early adolescents’ sense of

belonging, academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic self-efficacy, and

academic effort outcomes in mathematics classrooms were examined through a

hypothesized model, which adequately fit to the sample data. The findings provided

illuminating evidence regarding the proposed hypotheses.

In the present study, without exception, teacher affective support significantly

influenced all the variables of the structural model. Specifically, consistent with

expectations, perceived teacher affective support was powerfully associated with

students’ sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic

113
self-efficacy, and academic effort directly and/or indirectly. Consistent with the findings

of Roeser et al. (1996), Stipek et al. (1998) and Wentzel (1997, 2002), the results of the

present study showed the powerful influence of teachers on classroom psychological

climate, sense of belonging, and the psychological adjustment of students. Consistent

with expectations, perceived teacher affective support significantly positively predicted

perceived sense of belonging of early adolescents. That is, students who reported higher

teacher affective support tended to report greater sense of belonging, as well.

Similarly, students who reported greater teacher affective support were likely to

report higher academic enjoyment. This finding is aligned with the findings of Lang et al.

(2005) in terms of the association between perceived teacher characteristics and students’

academic enjoyment. Although the populations in the current and Lang et al.’s studies

completely differed in terms of culture (Singapore vs. America), achievement level

(gifted vs. regular), developmental stage (tenth vs. seventh and eighth graders), and

subject area (chemistry vs. mathematics), the findings revealed proximity. Similar

relationships were also observed in relation to den Brok et al.’s (2005) study in Brunei

with elementary school students and Fisher et al.’s (2005) study in Australia with early

adolescent students. Given the parallel nature of the results, it is plausible to argue that

the relationship between academic enjoyment and perceived teacher affective

characteristics can be generalizable to widely differing contexts. Perhaps further research

will advance our confidence in this assertion. Perceived teacher affective support also

predicted academic hopelessness, but, as expected, in the opposite direction. The results

revealed that students who reported higher teacher affective support were likely to report

114
lower academic hopelessness in mathematics classrooms.

Perceived teacher affective support also indirectly predicted academic enjoyment

and academic self-efficacy as well as academic effort through the potential mediational

processes involved in the model. Those effects can be presented as follows: (a) the

significant indirect effect of teacher affective support on academic enjoyment and

academic self-efficacy through its effect on perceived sense of belonging: the positive

influence of perceived teacher affective support on students’ sense of classroom

belonging resulted in higher academic enjoyment and greater academic self-efficacy; (b)

the significant indirect effect of teacher affective support on academic effort through the

potential mediation of academic enjoyment: the positive association between perceived

teacher affective support and academic enjoyment resulted in greater academic effort; (c)

the significant indirect effect of teacher affective support on academic self-efficacy

through its influence on academic hopelessness: the negative influence of perceived

teacher affective support on students’ academic hopelessness resulted in higher academic

self-efficacy; (d) the significant indirect effect of teacher affective support on academic

effort through the potential mediation of academic self-efficacy: the positive relationship

between perceived teacher affective support and academic self-efficacy beliefs resulted in

greater academic effort for early adolescents in mathematics classrooms.

Consistent with expectations, perceived sense of belonging was directly

associated with students’ academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, and academic

self-efficacy beliefs. Students who reported greater sense of belonging within their

mathematics classroom were likely to report higher academic enjoyment, lower academic

115
hopelessness, and higher academic self-efficacy in mathematics classroom. This finding

was consistent with the assertions of Baumeister and Leary (1995) that increased sense of

belonging leads to the experience of positive emotions while its deficiency results in the

experience of negative emotions. Although the measurement preferences in terms of scale

selections were different, the results of the present study were consistent with the findings

of Roeser and his colleagues (1996) regarding the positive predictive influence of sense

of belonging on academic self-efficacy beliefs of early adolescents.

The direct effect of sense of belonging on academic effort was not significant.

That is, the structural model of the study did not provide enough evidence to support that

sense of belonging was directly associated with academic effort. This finding was

consistent with the findings of Goodenow (1993a), although the measurement of

academic effort was performed in different ways. Goodenow suggested that the

relationship between sense of belonging and academic effort might be mediated by

motivational factors. Supporting her argument, the current study provided evidence that

motivational factors (e.g. self-efficacy) may indeed mediate the effect of sense of

belonging on academic effort. In addition to this argument, the present study also showed

that not only motivational but also emotional constructs may mediate this relationship.

The absence of the direct influence of sense of belonging on academic effort shows the

presence of potential complete mediation. To be exact, the findings showed that

perceived sense of belonging indirectly predicted academic effort through the potential

mediation of academic enjoyment and academic self-efficacy. The positive impact of

sense of belonging on academic enjoyment and academic self-efficacy resulted in greater

116
academic effort for seventh- and eighth-grade students in mathematics classrooms.

In the present study, the direct effects of academic enjoyment on academic

hopelessness and academic self-efficacy were not statistically significant. Although the

bivariate correlations among these constructs were significant, one reason that might have

obscured academic enjoyment’s direct influence on academic hopelessness and academic

self-efficacy in the given model might be the presence of psychosocial factors, perceived

teacher affective support and perceived sense of belonging. Considering the powerful

bivariate correlations among perceived teacher affective support, sense of belonging, and

academic enjoyment as well as among teacher affective support, sense of belonging, self-

efficacy, and academic hopelessness, it is highly feasible to expect that teacher affective

support and sense of belonging absorbed a significant amount of variance in hopelessness

and self-efficacy, suppressing the potential direct effect of academic enjoyment on these

variables. On the other hand, academic enjoyment showed a powerful influence on

students’ academic effort. Academic enjoyment not only directly positively predicted

academic effort but also potentially mediated its relationship with perceived teacher

affective support and sense of belonging. Pekrun and his colleagues (2002) proposed that

the relationship between academic enjoyment and academic outcomes would be mediated

by academic motivation (e.g., personal beliefs) but the current study showed the presence

of a powerful direct effect of academic enjoyment on academic effort rather than an

indirect effect through motivational processes. That is, students who reported higher

academic enjoyment were likely to report greater academic effort.

The findings of the present study did not provide evidence for the direct effect of

117
academic hopelessness on academic effort nor for its potential mediational effect between

sense of belonging and academic self-efficacy. Consistent with the assumptions of

Pekrun et al. (2002), academic hopelessness negatively predicted academic effort through

its detrimental effect on academic self-efficacy. Specifically, students who reported high

academic hopelessness were likely to report low academic self-efficacy beliefs, which

was related to low academic effort. In the present study, consistent with Bandura’s (1997)

assertion and the findings of Zimmerman et al. (1992), academic self-efficacy beliefs

powerfully and significantly predicted academic effort. That is, students who reported

higher academic self-efficacy tended to report greater academic effort in mathematics.

Academic self-efficacy also potentially mediated the relationships of teacher affective

support, sense of belonging, and academic hopelessness with academic effort.

Overall, the structural model of the study explained significant proportions of the

variance in sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic hopelessness, academic

self-efficacy, and academic effort constructs, contributing to our understanding of the

processes related to their foundation.

Contributions to the Field

The major objective of this study was to examine the interaction among perceived

teacher affective support, perceived sense of belonging, academic self-efficacy beliefs,

academic emotions, and academic effort outcomes in middle school mathematics

classrooms using self-report data. This study contributed to the educational research in

several ways:

118
¾ The development of the Teacher Affective Support Scale fulfilled a need in the

educational psychology field. This scale gathered theoretically-supported

essential components of affective support. This construct significantly predicted

all the variables in the model.

¾ A significant contribution of the present research was the generation of the

structural model. This model responded to a need in educational research in

terms of the examination of the associations among perceived psychosocial

environment, emotional, motivational, and academic factors in middle schools.

¾ The present study was also helpful in supporting the powerful role sense of

belonging on early adolescents’ emotional outcomes, personal beliefs, and

academic behaviors.

¾ Although theory supports its effect, there has been limited research so far

investigating the influence of academic hopelessness on students’ functioning.

The current study provided evidence for the relationship between perceived

learning environments and academic hopelessness, and, further, the impact of

academic hopelessness on students’ academic efficacy and academic effort.

¾ The findings of the present study provided important suggestions for future

considerations in the matter of the examination of the relationship between

students’ perceptions and academic emotions.

¾ The current study showed several determinants of early adolescents’ academic

self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics classrooms. Considering that teacher

affective support has never been studied in relation to students’ self-efficacy

119
 beliefs, the powerful relationship that emerged between these constructs

contributes significantly to the academic self-efficacy literature.

¾ The present study was useful in the validation of several existing scales in the

field (e.g. self-efficacy and academic emotion scales).

¾ Conducting the current study in mathematics classrooms contributed to the

significance because improving students’ positive emotions and self-efficacy in

mathematics classrooms is especially essential given the fact that students often

report higher negative emotions and lower academic self-efficacy and, in turn,

demonstrate lower academic achievement in mathematics classrooms. The

current study provided potential means to improve students’ positive emotions,

academic self-efficacy, and academic effort in mathematics classrooms.

¾ The targeted population increased the importance of the study. Given that early

adolescence is a very critical stage of cognitive, social, and emotional

development and learning, the investigation of the given constructs within a

sample of young adolescents contributes to the study’s significance.

Practical Implications

The present study introduced the essential components of teacher affective

support. As findings provided evidence, teacher affective support is an important factor

impacting students’ emotions, motivation, and learning. Therefore, it is necessary to

provide several suggestions on how to convey affective support messages to students

successfully within classrooms.

Ferrari and Mahalingam (1998) emphasized that before all academic teaching and

120
labeling, teachers need to understand “who is in the class” (p. 41). Students are unique

individuals who have different life experiences, perspectives, likes, and dislikes. They do

not come to schools only to accumulate knowledge and learn what teachers already

know. They also have things to say and they are in need of being heard (Ferrari &

Mahalingam, 1998).

Developing affective learning environments first requires the elimination of

competitive learning environments. The presence of competitive learning environments

deteriorates the development of sense of belonging, academic enjoyment, academic

motivation, and cognitive advancement. There are several steps teachers may follow to

create warm, welcoming, and engaging classroom environments: These are (a)

encouraging students’ initiations and involvement in classroom discussions, (b) creating

non-threatening learning environments by avoiding negative evaluations of students’

responses to questions, (c) providing students opportunities to elaborate on their thoughts,

(d) putting effort on understanding students’ perceptions, and (e) treating students’

responses as valuable and legitimate contributions in discussions (Hall & Walsh, 2002).

Showing personal excitement and enjoyment in classroom activities as a teacher,

offering warm, positive, and improvement-based praise, emphasizing effort, avoiding

pressuring students for correct answers and adopting an autonomy-oriented approach

(Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001) may increase students’ academic

enjoyment and may stimulate their willingness to put more effort into completing their

tasks. Also through providing all students equal opportunities for classroom participation,

having high expectations, and treating them fairly under all circumstances, teachers may

121
increase students’ sense of belonging, positive emotions, and academic motivation.

Given all these suggestions, one final point to add is that to increase awareness

about the impact of affective learning environments on students’ functioning, educational

policies as well as pre-service teacher preparation programs should dedicate more time

emphasizing this concept in their agendas and curriculums.

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations recognized regarding the current study. First, this

study cannot be generalizable to all adolescents in public schools due to the age range of

participants in the present study, limited to seventh- and eighth-graders. Second, because

the participants were selected only from public schools, the results of the study cannot be

generalizable to students studying in different types of middle schools such as vocational

schools. Third, even though statements in the instrument were reworded several times to

increase students’ comprehension, the variations in students’ reading proficiencies in

different school and classroom environments still may have caused bias.

Fourth, the proposed study aimed to gather information on how students perceived

their teachers and classroom environments but did not guarantee that actual classroom

environments would be identical or comparable to students’ perceptions. The proposed

study enlightened only one side of the phenomenon, students’ perceptions. The

consideration of teachers’ perceptions would have brought different outcomes for the

hypothesized model. Also, individual differences among students such as achievement

level, gender, socio-economic status, and ethnic status may have affected students’

perceptions of teacher behaviors. Furthermore, because the survey was administered at

122
only one-time period, it is possible that students’ temporary and state-like feelings at the

moment of survey administration may have affected their responses. Therefore, caution is

necessary in the interpretation of the study findings.

In addition, the potential tendency to respond to the items in a socially acceptable

manner might have introduced bias into the results. On the other hand, compared to face-

to-face interviews, there is evidence to suggest that individuals provide more honest

responses in survey studies, especially when the survey is anonymous, because of the

decreased pressure of providing socially acceptable responses (Northrup, 1997).

Another limitation of the study might be related to the timing of the data

collection, the middle of the school year. It is plausible that this timing might have

affected students responses. For example, students’ reports of low academic hopelessness

might be associated with timing. The degree of hopelessness reported by students might

have showed an increasing trend toward the end of the academic year. Besides, students’

academic emotions might be more stable toward the end of the school year. However,

nonnormality issue regarding academic hopelessness might also be related to some other

causes, such as participating students’ achievement levels, gender, socioeconomic status,

and/or causal attributions, which should be examined in future studies.

Another important limitation is that due to correlational nature of structural

equation modeling, no causal conclusions can be drawn from the current study.

Predetermined hypothetical relationships and the absence of longitudinal data require the

recognition of this limitation. Finally, the structural model of the study poses a significant

limitation. It is important to recognize that achieved fit between the hypothesized model

123
and the observed data in the present study does not imply that the given model is the only

model explaining the sample structure. MacCallum (1995) pointed out that “there will

virtually always be other models that fit the data to exactly the same degree, or very

nearly so, thereby representing models with different substantive interpretation but

equivalent fit to the observed data” (pp. 17-18). Therefore, it is recognized that the fit

between the hypothesized model and the observed data in the present study only provides

one explanation to the observed phenomena. The satisfactory fit, which is achieved using

the current hypothesized model, could have also been obtained by changing the directions

of the given paths (i.e. changing the path directions between (a) self-efficacy and

academic emotions, (b) perceived teacher affective support and self-efficacy, (c) sense of

belonging and self-efficacy). Such alternative models, however, would have explained

the phenomena under question quite differently depending on what theoretical

approaches are adopted and how these models are constructed. Given these possibilities,

other alternative models, such as those discussed in future directions section, should be

tested as well.

Future Direction of Research

Replicating the findings of the present study in diverse learning environments

with a sample of students from different developmental, social, economic, and ethnic

backgrounds might be fruitful. Future work in this field should focus on investigating the

impact of teacher affective support on other motivational (e.g. educational value, task

utility, and interest), emotional (e.g. academic anxiety, hopelessness, pride, shame,

frustration, boredom), academic outcomes (classroom engagement and achievement), and

124
self-beliefs (e.g. self-esteem, outcome expectancy).

In line with the research conducted by Baker (2006), which provided evidence for

the positive influence of close, warm, and caring teacher-student relationships on the

school adaptation and functioning of elementary-aged students with externalizing and

internalizing behavior problems, the investigation of the influence of teacher affective

support on developmentally-impaired, learning-disabled, and behaviorally challenged

students’ school adaptation, and their academic, motivational, and emotional functioning

across K-12 classrooms would be highly beneficial. Furthermore, considering the high

plausibility of strong relationship, the investigation of the influence of teacher affective

support on motivational, emotional, and academic adjustments of students coming from

low-income, single-parent, and low-support families would be valuable.

A few existing studies already provided evidence that positive affective learning

environments have powerful effects on the school engagement, effort, and achievement

outcomes of students coming from minority, multicultural backgrounds, and poor

communities (Muller et al., 1999; Tucker et al., 2002). Although in the current study, the

participation rates in the schools designated as urban was noticeably higher than those

designated as suburban, no separate analysis were conducted to see whether the study

outcomes differ in terms of students’ ethnic backgrounds and/or socioeconomic status.

Therefore, through utilizing the current Teacher Affective Support Scale, future research

may further examine the relationship between affective support and the school success

and adjustment of economically challenged minority students. A recent report of National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2006) showed that there is a significant

125
achievement gap between the mathematics scores of white and black students as well as

white and Hispanic students, in favor of white students in both fourth- and eighth-grades.

That is, white students’ average mathematics grades were significantly higher than those

of black and Hispanic students between the years of 1990 and 2005. Moreover, it was

reported that this gap has not been narrowed over the years and even became slightly

larger. A similar achievement gap was also observed in relation to students’

socioeconomic status between the years of 1996 and 2005. The findings revealed that

students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price lunch scored higher in mathematics

than those who were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch in both fourth- and eighth-

grades. These reports increase the urgency of investigating the factors influencing

minority and economically-disadvantaged students’ achievement outcomes in middle

schools. In addition to this, the exploration of the potential mediational influence of

teacher affective support between organizational structure of the classroom environment

and students’ behavioral reactions may contribute a great deal to our understanding of the

mediating factors related to successful classroom organization.

Given the powerful relationship among teacher affective support, sense of

belonging, academic emotions, self-efficacy, and academic effort, future research may

investigate how these relationships arise in learning environments and what additional

factors influence these relationships. In this sense, exploring teacher affective support

from the lenses of different theoretical perspectives would contribute significantly to our

understanding of the influence of this powerful phenomenon on students’ school

functioning. For example, recent studies grounded in sociocultural theory provide a

126
deeper look into Vygotky’s (1978) notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD) from

the perspective of affective dimensions (Goldstein, 1999; Goldstein & Freedman, 2003),

and based on the detailed interpretation of Vygotsky’s work, they report the potential

positive influence of affective and caring teacher-student relationships on students’

successful developmental transition from one level to another, which opens new fields for

educational researchers to explore.

Perceived teacher affective support and its relationship with student outcomes

may also be examined from the perspective of the attachment paradigm. Davis (2003)

provided an extensive review on how three theoretical paradigms (attachment,

motivation, and sociocultural) approach and examine the role of teacher-student

relationships on students’ cognitive and social development. In her review, she indicated

that the attachment theorists consider teacher-student relationships “as extensions of

parent-child relationship” (p. 209). That is, students come to the classrooms with

relational schemas already constructed outside of schools. Given this perspective,

investigating the role of parental affective support on the development of students’

perspectives of teacher affective support is warranted.

Another imperative future implication might be exploring the combined effects of

teacher affective support and teacher mastery goal orientations on students’ educational,

motivational, and emotional outcomes. Although to some extent several researchers have

considered the joint effect of these constructs on student outcomes (e.g. Murdock et al.,

2004; Roeser et al., 1996), further research with the inclusion of all affective support

components provided in the current study and through the adoption of structural equation

127
modeling would be beneficial.

In contemporary work, Isenbarger and Zembylas (2006) discussed the emotional

labour of caring in teaching (regulation of one’s own true emotions in order to maintain

caring relationships with others, involving suppressing or controlling negative emotions

while purposefully inducing positive emotions) and argued that caring is “an approach

and emotion” rather than a relational construct and “it requires not only ‘love’ but also

‘labour’” (p.132). The present study somewhat supports this argument by situating

teacher affective support as an approach. Future investigations, however, should also

explore the relational face of affective support. In this sense, a potential future interest

might be to examine the probability of a longitudinal reciprocal interaction between

teacher and student affective support. It is plausible that teachers’ affective approaches

towards students may, in the long term, create mutual affective encounters between

teachers and students. This reciprocal interaction cannot be assured but certainly has

potential that needs to be recognized. For instance, Noddings (1992) pointed out that in

caring relationships the cared-for individual receives what has been communicated to

him/her as caring, recognizes its nature, and provides a similar response in turn.

Discussing this point further, Nodding asserted that, “[caring] does not entail that carer

and cared-for are permanent labels for individuals. Mature relationships are characterized

by mutuality. They are made up of strings of encounters in which the parties exchange

places; both members are carers and cared-fors as opportunities arise” (pp. 16-17). In line

with this reasoning, the point to be made is that teacher affective support may give rise to

a mutual affective interaction, which needs to be explored in learning environments with

128
longitudinal data.

Another relationship requiring longitudinal examination is between academic

emotions and academic self-efficacy. In the literature, the direction of effect between

self-efficacy and emotions is controversial. Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory

perceived emotional arousal as one of the sources of self-efficacy, which was the

perspective adopted for the current study. In accordance with social-cognitive theory,

Pekrun (2000) hypothesized that emotions would affect students’ personal beliefs, which,

in turn, would predict students’ subsequent emotions through their impact on

motivational strategy use (Schallert, Reed, & Turner, 2004). On the other hand,

Boekaerts (1993) suggested that when students are introduced to a new task, they

appraise their personal assets and the demands of the task, and if their self-judgment

signals the existence of any inconsistency, they experience negative emotions, change in

mood, and concern for maintaining well-being (Boekaerts, 1993). Following this

assertion, she suggested that emotions are affected by the perception of the social

situation and the perception of self-efficacy along with the characteristics of the given

tasks. Similar to Boekaerts’ approach, Roeser et al. (1998) proposed that motivational

processes such as academic beliefs (e.g. perceived competence) would predict students’

emotional functioning (e.g. psychological distress, anger, and sadness), which, in turn,

would predict subsequent academic beliefs and outcomes. This hypothesis was tested

with and supported by longitudinal data of seventh- and eighth-grade students.

Investigating these hypotheses in comparison to each other through the use of

longitudinal data will contribute significantly to the field of educational psychology.

129
 Future research should also investigate the potential existence of a reciprocal

relationship between perceptions of learning environments and student outcomes. As

discussed in Chapter 2, Izard (1991) indicated that perceptions of the external events lead

to the production of certain emotions and the presence of certain emotions leads to

different conceptualizations of the perceptual field and related action. Similarly, Pekrun

and his colleagues (2002) suggested that environment may affect student emotions, which

subsequently affect environment (e.g., enthusiastic teachers may arouse student

excitement which may, in turn, stimulate teacher enthusiasm). Lorsbach and Jinks (1999)

suggested a similar reciprocal relationship between learning environments and self-

efficacy. They suggested that environmental factors (i.e., teacher attitude) may affect

students’ academic self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, may alter students’ subsequent

perceptions of the learning environment. Supporting this assertion, Kuperminc et al.

(1997) reported that greater academic efficacy in early adolescence is associated with

more positive relationship with others and better behavioral adjustment. The examination

of these processes requires longitudinal data. In the present study, the potential

bidirectional relationship between variables were not examined due to the absence of

longitudinal data but the existence of such bidirectional relationship is likely and should

be considered for future research.

Future research also needs to explore possible mediating effects of teacher

affective support. It is plausible that teacher affective support will decrease the negative

influences of lack of family, neighborhood, and peer support on students’ school

engagement, school absentees, poor academic performance, and behavioral outcomes in

130
schools. It is also feasible that teacher affective support may increase the success of self-

regulated learning strategy instruction. Teacher affective support has a powerful potential

to mediate the relationship between strategy instruction and academic achievement.

Teacher affective support may also affect students’ views of their ability. There

are two basic views of ability; entity view and incremental view (Dweck & Elliot, 1983 as

cited in Paris & Newman, 1990). Students who hold an entity view perceive ability as a

stable, unchangeable, and uncontrollable state, and consider intelligence as a fixed

condition. Students who hold an incremental view perceive ability as a changeable and

flexible state that can be improved by effort. Young children usually hold an incremental

view. However, by the age of 12, children start believing that intelligence and ability are

fixed and cannot be improved by extra effort (Paris & Newman, 1990; Gaskill &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2002). Considering that students with an incremental view are more self-

efficacious compared to those with an entity view and relying on the findings of the

current study that teacher affective support has a powerful positive effect on students’

self-efficacy beliefs, it is likely to find out that teacher affective support may also affect

students’ incremental view mainly through caring, encouragement, and high expectations.

The investigation of this relationship is warranted.

It is also necessary to examine the possible gender effects in terms of the

relationship between perceived teacher affective support and adolescents’ academic,

emotional, and motivational functioning in classrooms. Colarossi and Eccles (2003)

indicated the potential differential effect of support providers (mother, father, peers, and

teachers) on adolescents’ psychological and academic outcomes based on gender. They

131
pointed out that the gender of adolescents and of the social support providers may play an

influential role in understanding the influence of different social support providers on

adolescents’ mental, motivational, and academic functioning and, hence, require the

disaggregated measurement of these factors. They further suggested that “a same-sex

provider-recipient pair, especially between adolescents and adult role models, may

increase the effects of support” (p. 27). Therefore, considering the gender of teachers and

students in the examination of teacher affective support would be valuable. Overall,

examining the gender effect in terms of students’ perceptions of support, sense of

belonging, and emotional reactions to the environmental and academic situations is

necessary as studies already provide evidence for this type of effect (Goodenow, 1993b;

Malecki & Demaray, 2003; Wigfield & Meece, 1988).

It will also be fruitful to examine teacher affective support and its influence on

student outcomes through hierarchical analysis of within-school, between-teacher effects.

Using the data from three national longitudinal studies from the 70s, 80s, and 90s across

the U.S.A, Konstantopoulos (2006) examined the school effect on high school students’

mathematics, science, and reading achievement. The results showed that within-school

between-teacher variations were consistently greater than between-school variations in

students’ mathematics and science achievement. Konstantopoulos concluded that “it

appears that the teachers whom students are assigned to may be more important than the

schools they attend” (p. 2577). Also, McCoy’s (2005) study showed that different

teachers have differing influences on eighth-grade students’ mathematics achievement.

Given these research, the potential influence of teacher affective support on students’

132
achievement differences should be investigated.

Affective support significantly impacts students’ social, emotional, and

motivational well-being as well as their academic functioning. The present study provides

evidence for the significant influence of perceived teacher affective support on student

outcomes but the investigation was limited to the classroom environment. Further

research should investigate how perceived affective support factors adapted by schools

apart from those adapted by certain teachers affect student outcomes. Another

investigation might be on how school policies regarding affective support impact teacher

affective support in classrooms. For example, Wessler (2003) pointed out that “respectful

classrooms depend on respectful schools” (p. 40) and “no teacher can create a completely

respectful classroom in a school suffering from pervasive bias, harassment, and

disrespect” (p. 43). In light of the current findings, further research inquiring into the

means to improve affective learning environments in school contexts is warranted. A

comprehensive qualitative analysis of affective exchanges within schools may help us

take important steps in learning how to generate and maintain affective environments.

In the structural model of the present study, one of the constructs, which has

gotten insufficient attention in previous research, was academic hopelessness. The

academic hopelessness literature is quite scant and, therefore, requires that researchers

delve more into its constitution and its relationship with other constructs in learning

environments. For example, one potential research focus might be investigating the

relationship among attributions (e.g. views of intelligence and ability), protective factors

(e.g. self-worth), and academic hopelessness. The assessment of two educational research

133
reviews makes possible to acknowledge these relational links. In his description of

hopelessness, Weiner (1985) indicated that hopeless individuals attribute negative

outcomes to stable causes and believe that the future products will not be better than past

ones. Making the connection through the function of stable causes, Weiner’s description

can be followed through Tollefson’s (2000) assertion that when the belief in the power of

stable causes becomes stronger (which will yield to hopelessness, according to Weiner),

especially around early adolescence, students with low academic self-efficacy beliefs

avoid expending extra effort on tasks in order to protect their self-worth. In this sense, the

inspection of the role of perceived attributions and views of ability as predictors of

academic hopelessness might explain further variance in academic hopelessness

construct.

In conclusion, the present study plays a contributory role in illuminating the

impact of affective learning environments on students’ school functioning. The findings

of this study might be useful for educational researchers in determining what factors they

would consider including into their investigations.

134
 APPENDIX A

VERBAL SCRIPT AND THE PERMISSION FORMS

135
 VERBAL INTRODUCTORY SCRIPT

Hi. My name is Gonul Sakiz. I am a doctoral student at the Ohio State University.

We are doing a survey to examine how middle school students feel about their classroom

lives, especially in mathematics classroom. We also would like to know middle school

students’ motivational and emotional feelings towards mathematics. Knowing your

opinions is very important to us because you are the individuals who can help us find

better ways to improve adolescents’ middle school experiences. As a part of the study, we

will record your mathematics achievement test scores and grades. We highly appreciate

your participation in this study.

Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. You may stop

participation at any time with no consequence. Your grades will not be affected in any

way as a result of your decision. Every effort will be made to keep your responses

confidential. No names will be mentioned on surveys. We will assign a participation

number for each participant.

Each participating student will have a chance to win one of the forty $10 gift

cards determined through a drawing following the completion of the study in February

2007. If you have any questions or don’t understand something, please do not hesitate to

ask. I will post a reminder on the back door so that you can remember returning the

parental consent and assent forms. Thank you very much for listening.

136
137
138
139
140
141
142
 APPENDIX B

THE INSTRUMENT

143
144
145
146
147
148
 APPENDIX C

MISSING VALUE ANALYSIS, DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, AND

ITEM CORRELATIONS

149
 N M SD Missing No. of Extremes(a,b)
Count Percent Low High

tas1 317 3.46 1.26 0 .00 29 0

tas2 317 4.22 1.04 0 .00 27 0
tas3 314 3.74 1.19 3 .95 0 0
tas4 315 3.72 1.21 2 .63 0 0
tas5 317 4.39 1.08 0 .00 28 0
tas6 316 4.28 1.02 1 .32 23 0
tas7 316 3.97 1.15 1 .32 0 0
tas8 314 4.39 .96 3 .95 24 0
tas9 317 3.19 1.38 0 .00 0 0
seff1 317 4.06 1.02 0 .00 29 0
seff2 314 3.65 1.07 3 .95 9 0
seff3 316 3.93 1.01 1 .32 0 0
seff4 314 4.29 .85 3 .95 14 0
seff5 312 3.82 1.06 5 1.58 0 0
seff6 316 4.19 .89 1 .32 16 0
seff7 313 4.41 .85 4 1.26 13 0
seff8 317 4.23 .89 0 .00 18 0
bel1 316 3.95 1.13 1 .32 0 0
bel2 315 3.31 1.27 2 .63 0 0
bel3 315 3.14 1.18 2 .63 0 0
bel4 315 3.99 1.22 2 .63 0 0
bel5 315 4.16 1.07 2 .63 29 0
bel6 314 3.86 1.24 3 .95 0 0
bel7 311 3.86 1.12 6 1.89 0 0
bel8 315 3.37 1.30 2 .63 0 0
effort1 316 4.25 .90 1 .32 13 0
effort2 314 4.18 1.01 3 .95 25 0
effort3 315 4.30 .83 2 .63 9 0
effort4 315 4.32 .87 2 .63 13 0
effort5 316 4.25 .90 1 .32 12 0
enj1 315 3.00 1.34 2 .63 0 0
enj2 314 3.57 1.26 3 .95 0 0
enj3 314 3.62 1.33 3 .95 0 0
enj4 313 3.35 1.47 4 1.26 0 0
enj5 313 3.61 1.31 4 1.26 0 0
enj6 314 2.81 1.30 3 .95 0 0
hope1 315 1.40 .88 2 .63 . .
hope2 315 1.39 .92 2 .63 . .
hope3 312 1.31 .80 5 1.58 . .
hope4 312 1.29 .81 5 1.58 . .
hope5 313 1.28 .80 4 1.26 . .
hope6 314 1.26 .76 3 .95 . .
hope7 314 1.30 .85 3 .95 . .
hope8 314 1.28 .79 3 .95 . .
a Number of cases outside the range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR). b . indicates that the inter-quartile range (IQR) is zero.

Table C.1: Missing data analysis for the observed indicators of the full model

150
Table C.2: Missing data analysis for the constructs of the full model

Table C.3: Descriptive analysis of the Teacher Affective Support Scale

Table C.4: Descriptive analysis of the Perceived Sense of Belonging Scale

151
Table C.5: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Enjoyment Scale

Table C.6: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Hopelessness Scale

Table C.7: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Hopelessness Scale after log

transformation

152
Table C.8: Descriptive analysis of the Perceived Academic Self-efficacy Scale

Table C.9: Descriptive analysis of the Academic Effort Scale

153
154

Table C.10: Intercorrelations between the observed indicators

(Continued)
 Table C.10 Continued
155
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Aber, M.S., Meinrath, S.D., Johnston, J., Rasmussen, A. E., & Gonzales, A. (2000).
School Climate Survey: Middle School Version. Champaign, IL. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Adalsteinsdόttir, K. (2004). Teacher behaviour and practices in the classroom.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 95-114.

American Community Survey (2004). Subject Definitions. Retrived September 27, 2005,
from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/2004/usedata/subject_definitions.pdf.

Arbuckle, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters
Corporation.

Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The FEASP-approach.

Instructional Science, 28, 169–198.

Babad, E. (1990). Measuring and changing teachers’ differential behavior as perceived by

students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 683-690.

Babad, E. (1995). The “teacher’s pet” phenomenon, students’ perceptions of teachers’

differential behavior, and students’ morale. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(3), 361-374.

Babad, E. (1996). How high is “high inference”? Within classroom differences in

students’ perceptions of classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction,
31, 1-9.

Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as judges of teachers’ verbal
and nonverbal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 211-234.

Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school

adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.

156
Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential
behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The
Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57-70.

Baker, J. A., Dilly, L. J., Aupperlee, J. L., & Patil, S. A. (2003). The developmental
context of school satisfaction: Schools as psychologically healthy environments.
School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 206-221.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

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

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman &
Company.

Bandura, A. (2001, March). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67,
1206-1222.

Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school
communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.

Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement

outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap.
Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.

Beattie, I. D. & Olley, P. G. (1997). Non-instructional factors relating to classroom

climate: An exploratory study. Education, 98(2), 180-184.

Blankemeyer, M., Flannery, D. J., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2002). The role of aggression and
social competence in children’s perceptions of the child-teacher relationship.
Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 293-304.

Bryan, T. & Bryan, J. (1991). Positive mood and math performance. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24(8), 490-494.

157
Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Hong, E., & Thoma, C. (2003). Secondary
students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of
disability, gender, and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 227-238.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.

Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.445-455).
Newburyk Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bryne, D. B., Fraser, B. J., & Hattie, J. A. (1986). Student perceptions of preferred
classroom learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 10-18.

Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 149-167.

Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses
of the self-regulated learning approach- EARLI Presidential address 2001,
Learning and Instruction, 12, 589-604.

Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (1993). Introduction. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),

Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 1-9). Newburyk Park, California: Sage
Publications.

Boser, J. & Poppen, W. A. (1978). Identification of teacher verbal response roles for
improving student-teacher relationships. The Journal of Educational Research,
72(2), 90-93.

Bru, E. B., Boyesen, M., Munthe, E., & Roland, E. (1998). Perceived social support at
school and emotional and musculoskeletal complaints among Norwegian 8th grade
students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 339-356.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Caplan, R. D. & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history,
recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 253-
76.

Carnegie Council on Adolescence Development (1989). Turning Points: Preparing

American youth for the 21st century. The report of the Task Force on Education
of Young Adolescents. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Corporation.

Colarossi, L. G. & Eccless, J. S. (2003). Differential effects of support providers on

adolescents’ mental health. Social Work Research, 27(1), 19-30.

158
Connell, J. P. & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. The Minnesota Symposia on Child
Development: Self-processes and development, 23, 43-77.

Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced quantitative data analysis. New York, NY: Open
University Press.

Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher

relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational
Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Scott, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal
behaviour for student attitudes in Brunei primary science classes. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 765-779.

Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic

efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 4, 243-257.

Dorman, J. P. & Ferguson, J. M. (2004). Associations between students’ perceptions of

mathematics classroom environment and self-handicapping in Australian and
Canadian high schools. McGill Journal of Education, 39(1), 69-86.

Dweck, C. S. & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.).

Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (vol. 4, pp. 643-691). New York:
Wiley.

Eccles, J. S. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate

classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Academic Press.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Buchanan, C. M. (1996). School transitions in early
adolescence: what are we doing to our young people? In J. A. Graber, J. Brooks-
Gunn, and A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence (pp. 251-284).
Westwood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A. Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H.
(1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation.
The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 553-574.

159
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Bichanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flaganan, C., &
Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-
environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.
American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.

Enders, C. G. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-

likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data.
Psychological Methods, 6(4), 352-370.

Erwin, J. C. (2003). Giving students what they need. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 19-
23.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

Ferrari, M. & Mahalingam, R. (1998). Personal cognitive development and its

implications for teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 35-44.

Ferreira, M. & Bosworth, K. (2001). Defining caring teachers: Adolescents’ perspectives.

Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(1), 24–30.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-
142.

Fisher, D., Waldrip, B., & den Brok, P. (2005). Students’ perceptions of primary
teachers’ interpersonal behavior and of cultural dimensions in the classroom
environment. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 25-38.

Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as
predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 319-327.

Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours: Editor’s introduction. Learning

Environments Research, 4(1), 1-5.

Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-
162.

Gagné, P. & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and
solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 41(1), 65-83.

160
Gaskill, P. J. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2002). Self-efficacy and self-regulated learning: The
dynamic duo in school performance. In J. Aronson & D. Cordova (Eds.),
Improving education: Classic and contemporary lessons from psychology
(pp.183-206). New York: Academic Press.

Gill, S. & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of

urban African American Children. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 403-424.

Ginsburg, H. P. & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on

mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 190-200.

Goh, S. C. & Fraser, B. F. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom

environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore.
Learning Environments Research, 1, 199-229.

Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-
construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673.

Goldstein, L. S. & Lake, V. E. (2000). “Love, love, and more love for children”:
Exploring preservice teachers’ understanding of caring. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 16, 861-872.

Goldstein, L. S. & Freedman, D. (2003). Challenges enacting caring teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 441-454.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the
study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177-196.

Goodenow, C. (1993a). The psychological sense of school membership among

adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the
Schools, 30, 79-90.

Goodenow, C. (1993b). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:

Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,
21-43.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004).
Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement:
Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29, 462-482.

Griffith, J. (2002). A multilevel analysis of the relation of school learning and social
environments to minority achievement in public elementary schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 349-366.
161
Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.

Hamilton, J. A. (1983). Development of interest and enjoyment in adolescence. Part II.

Boredom and Psychopathology. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,12(5), 363-
372.

Hoffman, D. & Levak, B. A. (2003). Personalizing schools. Educational Leadership,

61(1), 30-34.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and
fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp.1-15). London, New Delhi: Sage
Publications.

Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:

Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3(4), 424-453.

Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’
perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and
majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 303-320.

Hunt, D. E. (1975). Person-environment interaction: A challenge found wanting before it

was tried. Review of Educational Research, 45, 209-230.

Hunt, D. E. & Sullivan, E. V. (1974). Between Psychology and Education. Hinsdale, IL:
The Dryden Press.

Isenbarger, L. & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 120-134.

Izard, C. E. (1984). Emotion-cognition relationships and human development. In C. E.

Izard, J. Kagan, and R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior
(pp.264-288). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Anderson, D. (1983). Social Interdependence and

Classroom Climate. Journal of Psychology, 114, 135-142.

162
Kenny, D. A. & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures
of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-
351.

Kline, P. (2000). A Psychometric Primer. New York, NY: Free Associations Book.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd

edition). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence

from NLS:72, HSB:82, and NELS:92. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2550-
2581.

Kuklinski, M. R. & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in

a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554-1578.

Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1997). Relatedness, Self-Definition,

and Early Adolescent Adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21 (3), 301-
320.

Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and
individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school
students. Journal of School Psychology, 39(2), 141-159.

Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., Emmons, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1997). Perceived school
climate and difficulties in the social adjustment of middle school students. Applied
Developmental Science, 1, 76-88.

Lan, W. & Lanthier, R. (2003). Changes in students’ academic performance and

perceptions of school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of
Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8(3), 309-332.

Lang, Q. C., Wong, A., F. L. , & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Teacher-student interaction and
gifted students’ attitudes toward chemistry in laboratory classrooms in Singapore.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 18-28.

Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., & Michalson, L. (1984). The cognitive-emotional fugue. In
C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, and R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior
(pp.17-37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Linenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An

asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69-78.

163
Linenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,
119-137.

Lorsbach, A. W. & Jinks, J. L. (1999). Self-efficacy theory and learning environment

research. Learning Environments Research, 2, 157-167.

Lowe, P. A., Papanastasiou, E. C., DeRuyck, K. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (2005). Test score
stability and construct validity of the adult manifest anxiety scale-College version
scores among college students: A brief report. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 37, 220-227.

MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model Specification: Procedures, Strategies, and Related

Issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp.16-36). London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130-149.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor
analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593-614.

Malecki, C. K. & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need?

Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal,
and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 231-252.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much?
The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 33, 181-220.

Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.

McCoy, L. P. (2005). Effect of demographic and personal variables on achievement in

eighth-grade algebra. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 131-135.

164
McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.

Mendes, E. (2003). What emphaty can do. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 56-59.

Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the
scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17-25.

Midgley, C. & Edelin, K. C. (1998). Middle school reform and early adolescent well-
being: The good news and the bad. Educational Psychologist, 33, 195–206.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Urdan, T. U., Roeser, R. W., Anderman, E., &
Kaplan, A. (1995). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) manual. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., &
Urdan, T. U. (2000). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) manual. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., Maehr. M. L., Hicks, L., Anderman,
E., & Roeser, R. W. (1998). Development and validation of scales assessing
students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
23, 113-131.

Miles, J. & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 869-874.

Miller, R. & Pedro, J. (2006). Creating respectful classroom environments. Early

Childhood Education, 33(5), 293-299.

Moore, B., Underwood, B., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1984). Emotion, self, and others. In C. E.
Izard, J. Kagan, and R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior
(pp.464-483). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Morganett, L. (1991). Good teacher-student relationships: A key element in classroom

motivation and management. Education, 112(2), 260-264.

Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in Teaching and Learning:
Dynamics of the teacher-student relationship from each actor’s perspective.
Urban Education, 34(3), 292-337.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38(1), 30-38.
165
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size
recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing,
5(2), 159-168.

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of
alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 62–75.

Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context
variables on high school students’ judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of
cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 765-777.

Murray, H. A. (1951). Toward a classification of interaction. In T. Parsons and E. A.

Shils (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action (pp. 434-464). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Murray, C. & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher-student relationship

program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and
academic adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 137-
152.

National Center for Education Statistics (2006). National Assessment of Educational

Progress. The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.

Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to

seek academic help? In M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (vol.7, pp. 151-
184). New York: Academic Press.

Newman, R. S. & Schwager, M. T. (1993). Students’ perceptions of the teacher and

classmates in relation to reported help seeking in math class. The Elementary
School Journal, 94(1), 3-17.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to

education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (1996). The cared for. In S. Gordon, P. Benner, & N. Noddings (Eds.),
Caregiving: Readings in knowledge, practice, ethics, and politics (pp. 21-39).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Northrup, D. A. (1997). The Problem of the Self-Report in Survey Research: Working

Paper. Ontario, Canada: York University, Institute for Social Research.

166
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323-367.

Palmer, S. B. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Students’ expectations of the future:

Hopelessness as a barrier to self-determination. Mental Retardation, 36(2), 128-
136.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational

Research, 66, 533-578.

Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in

mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86(2), 193-203.

Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (2001). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’

writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.

Palmer, S. B. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Students’ expectations of the future:

Hopelessness as a barrier to self-determination. Mental Retardation, 36(2), 128-
136.

Paris, S. G. & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning,

Educational Psychologists, 25(1), 87-102.

Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?”:
The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217-236.

Patrick, H. & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the Kaleidoscope: What we see when
self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational
Psychologist, 37(1), 27-39.

Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish
psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with
avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1521-1558.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001).
Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 35-58.

Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a

theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 41, 359-376.

167
Pekrun, R. (2000). A social cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In
J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational Psychology of Human Development (pp. 143-
163). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Academic Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ)
User’s Manual.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’
self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and
quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105.

Pierce, C. (1994). Importance of classroom climate for at-risk learners. Journal of

Educational Research, 88(1), 37-42.

Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & De Groot, E. A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual
differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139-161.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the
use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: The University of Michigan.

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

Raffini, J.P. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing
student motivation to learn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Resnick, M. D. , Bearmen, P. S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J.,
Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R. E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L. H., &
Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social Support for adolescents
at risk of school failure. Social Work, 43, 309-323.

Roberts, B. W. & Robins, R. W. (2004). Person-environment fit and its implications for
personality development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 89-
110.

168
Roeser, R. W. (1996). Unfolding and enfolding youth: Studies in middle school
experience, academic motivation, and psychological adjustment during early
adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.

Roeser, R.W. & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation
to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustments. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8, 123-158.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early
adolescents’ academic and social–emotional development: A summary of research
findings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and emotional
functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction
by experience in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321–352.

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

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for
help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy,
teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(3), 528-535.

Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the
classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 93-114.

Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied pscyhologists.

Personnel Psychology, 47, 537-560.

Sarason, I. G. (1981). Test anxiety, stress, and social support. Journal of Personality, 49
(1), 100-114.

Schallert, D. L., Reed, J. H., & Turner, J. E. (2004). The interplay of aspirations,
enjoyment, and work habits in academic endeavors: Why is it so hard to keep
long-term commitments? Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1715-1728.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting
structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review.
The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337.

169
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologists, 19(1), 48-58.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames
(3rd volume, ed.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and Cognitions
(pp. 13-44). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychologists, 25(1), 71-86.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill.

Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-
efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313-322.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What’s satisfying about
satisfying events? Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339.

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C.C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Stage, F. K., Carter, H. C, & Nora, A. (2004). Path analysis: An introduction and analysis
of a decade of research. Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 5-12.

Stipek, D. J. & Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A

consequence of changes in the child or in the educational environment? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(3), 352-356.

Stipek, D., Salmon, J. M., Givvin, K. B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V. L.
(1998). The value (and convergence) of practices suggested by motivation
research and promoted by mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 29, 465–488.

Sylwester, R. (1994). How emotions affect learning? Educational Leadership, 52(2), 60-
66.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation.

Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 63-83.

170
Trickett, E. J. & Moos, R. H. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale Manual (2nd edition).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-
directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35 (4), 290-
305.
Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., Trujillo, M., Carraway, K.,
Wallack, C., & Ivery, P. D. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictors of
academic engagement among low-income African American children. Psychology
in the Schools, 39(4), 477-488.

Turner, J. C. & Meyer, D. K. (2004). A classroom perspective on the principle of

moderate challenge in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6),
311-318.

Turner, J. E., Husman, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2002). The importance of students’ goals in
their emotional experience of academic failure: Investigating the precursors and
consequences of shame. Educational Psychologists, 37(2), 79-89.

Turner, J. E. , Meyer, D. K. , Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and
sixth graders’ reported affect and achievement behaviors in two high-
mastery/high performance mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School
Journal, 103(4), 357-382.

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y. &
Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance
strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(1), 88-106.

Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of

Experimental Education, 63(2), 127-139.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an

attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Weinstein, R. S. (1985). Student mediation of classroom expectancy effects. In J. B.

Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 329-350). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

171
Weinstein, R. S. & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in “context”: Listening to the
voices of students and teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on
teaching: Expectations in the classroom (vol.7, pp.215-242). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Jai Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived

pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of
parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and
student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Motivating students to behave in socially competent ways. Theory

Into Practice, 42(4), 319-326.

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on
students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 155-
175.

Wessler, S. L. (2003). It is hard to learn when you are scared. Educational Leadership, 61
(1), 40-43.

Wiest, D. J., Wong, E. H., Cervantes, J. M., Craik, L., & Kreil, D. A. (2001). Intrinsic
motivation among regular, special, and alterbative education high school students.
Adolescence, 36(141), 111-126.

Wigfield, A. & Meece, J. L. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 210-216.

Wolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236-250.

Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on

classroom management. In C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (Eds), Handbook
of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues
(pp.181-219). Manwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement:

In B.J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp.1-25). New York: Springer-
Verlag.

172
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000b). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In

M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation,
(pp. 13- 39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing

course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for

academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting,
American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.

173