Contemporary Educational Psychology 26, 431–453 (2001)

doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1068, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

The Quality and Impact of Relationships between

Elementary School Students and Teachers
Heather A. Davis
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia

Published online July 13, 2001

The purpose of the present study was to begin to examine, from the expectancy-
value framework, several cognitive and motivational variables believed to affect
the development of the student/teacher relationship and, in turn, classroom success.
Guided by the expectancy-value framework, three student variables are viewed as
essential in guiding the success of the student/teacher relationship: (1) their social
self-concept beliefs, (2) the value they place on developing a positive relationship
with their primary teacher, and (3) their nonverbal communication skills. Eighty-two
fourth- and fifth-grade students participated in the study. Variation in the students’
perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their primary teacher and their
classroom achievement were examined. In general, results suggest students develop
schemas, their social self-concept beliefs, about their relationships with teachers
that are consistent with their nonverbal communication skills. Furthermore, results
suggest that for both positive perceptions of the relationship and academic achieve-
ment, valuing the relationship with the primary teacher may compensate for nonver-
bal difficulties.  2001 Academic Press

Education is fundamentally interpersonal in nature (Goodenow, 1992;

Wentzel, 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983).
School represents a unique system in which children are asked to accomplish
multiple intellectual and social tasks. Within this system, the relationship
that develops between a student and teacher can be a powerful motivator.
This is particularly true of elementary school students, whose physical con-
text is still the self-contained classroom and where they may spend up to 6
h a day interacting with a single teacher (Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983). For
the elementary school student, the teacher wears many hats such as friend,
protector, mentor, disciplinarian, and gatekeeper to academic success. A pos-

I thank Paul Schutz, Martha Carr, Steve Olejnik, and Steve Nowicki for their insight and
support throughout the project as well as Claire Hamilton, Michele Lease, and the reviewers
for their helpful comments during the preparation of this article.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Heather A. Davis, Department of Educa-
tional Psychology, 325 Aderhold Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7143. Fax:
(706) 542-4240. E-mail: hdavis@coe.uga.edu.
431
0361-476X/01 $35.00
Copyright  2001 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
432 HEATHER A. DAVIS

itive relationship with the teacher can act as an additional resource for a
student while a difficult relationship may act as obstacle to academic success.
For these reasons, it is important to not only examine factors guiding the
development of relationships among students and teachers, but also to exam-
ine how relationships with teachers may become sources of social motivation
to promote students’ learning and achievement. The purpose of the present
study was to begin to examine motivational and interpersonal variables be-
lieved to guide the development of the student/teacher relationship and, in
turn, classroom achievement.
Brophy (1998) conceptualizes the motivation to learn as a tendency to
find academic activities meaningful and worthwhile. Students who are moti-
vated to learn try to make sense out of classroom activities and to master
the skills and knowledge the tasks intend to develop. Relationships with
teachers may influence students’ learning and achievement in a variety of
ways. First, children who are socially oriented may have better interpersonal
skills that enable them to interact successfully with peers and teachers. Posi-
tive interactions, in turn, may be interpreted by the teacher as not only
reflecting social competence but intellectual competence (Ford, 1982).
Second, children who seek the approval of their teacher may participate in
achievement-related behaviors to gain approval (Urdan & Maehr, 1995).
Third, children who develop supportive relationships with teachers in subject
domains where they have little interest may become motivated by the rela-
tionship to actively participate when they may not have in the past. Increased
participation may lead to changes in attitude about the academic subject such
as increased efficacy and interest, perceived utility, and improved perfor-
mance. In this way, supportive relationships with teachers may promote stu-
dents motivation to learn (Brophy, 1998).
Research indicates that even as early as preschool, relationships with
teachers are related to academic and social outcomes such as children’s pro-
social behavior in the classroom and social competence (Copeland, Den-
ham, & DeMulder, 1997; Howes, Rodning, Galluzo, & Myers, 1988; Pianta,
1996). Furthermore, they continue to be important throughout adolescence
to achievement outcomes and adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1996; Goode-
now, 1993a, 1993b; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). The present study exam-
ined the developing student/teacher relationship within the framework of
expectancy-value theory (McClelland, 1985; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
According to expectancy-value theory, performance on a task will reflect
how much motivation and skill are involved (McClelland, 1985). Thus, suc-
cess on social tasks, such as developing a positive relationship with the
teacher, as well as academic tasks will reflect students’ skills at maintaining
positive interactions and students’ motivation to interact. Furthermore, suc-
cess at social tasks may have important implications for students’ success
at academic tasks as well.
Guided by the expectancy-value framework, this study examined transac-
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 433

tions among students’ beliefs about their ability to interact with teachers, the
value that they place on developing a positive relationship with their primary
teacher, and their interpersonal skills to predict the quality of their relation-
ships with their teachers and their classroom achievement. In keeping consis-
tent with the focus on student variables, students’ beliefs and perceptions
were considered the unit of analysis. In addition, classroom grades (test
scores), instead of a ‘‘standardized measure of achievement’’, were selected
as an outcome variable, reflecting Ford’s (1982) findings that teachers may
include information about social competence into their evaluation of intellec-
tual competence.
Expectancy Beliefs
Expectancy beliefs are beliefs about the likelihood of success or failure
on a task. They have been conceptualized many ways (see Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996). For this article, expectancy beliefs are conceptualized as self-
concept beliefs. Self-concept beliefs are cognitive schemes composed of
judgments we make about our ability within a domain. Research on the self-
system, specifically one’s self-concept, indicates that beliefs about the self
exert a powerful influence on interpersonal perception and behavior (Fong &
Markus, 1982; Hattie, 1992; Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985). For exam-
ple, people tend to seek information from others that is consistent or that
will confirm their self-concept (Fong & Markus, 1982).
Researchers discuss social self-concepts as being hierarchical and multidi-
mensional in structure (Song & Hattie, 1984; Byrne & Shavelson, 1996).
Thus, by measuring more specific facets of social self-concept, with an ex-
plicit context or a target, we are able to better predict social behavior. This
is because the more specific facets of self-concept are anchored by concrete
experiences. Social self-concepts are a type of expectancy belief because
they contain our beliefs about the ways relationships operate and our esti-
mates about the likelihood of positive social interaction. Indeed, research by
Harter (1990) found children and adolescents differentiate self-concept be-
liefs along five domains including a social domain. In addition, research by
Byrne and Shavelson (1996) found students’ further differentiate their social
self-concept beliefs into schemas for teachers and classmates. It is important
to examine the role of students’ social self-concept beliefs, particularly com-
petence in maintaining positive relationships with teachers, to the quality of
their relationships with teachers and their achievement. Students’ beliefs
about their ability to interact with teachers may not only shape students’
behavior toward teachers but also influence the frequency of interactions
with teachers.
Value
It is also important to examine whether the value students’ place on devel-
oping a relationship with their teacher contributes to the quality of the rela-
434 HEATHER A. DAVIS

tionship and their achievement. Wigfield and Eccles (1992, 2000; Eccles &
Wigfield, 1995) have examined the role value plays in students’ motivation
for achievement tasks. They have developed and tested a revised expectancy-
value theory of achievement motivation that predicts task choice and perfor-
mance. Their findings indicate value plays a crucial role in guiding students’
choice of achievement activities.
According to Wigfield and Eccles (1992), value is a cognitive representa-
tion of what is desirable. Their findings indicate individuals are more likely
to strive at tasks they value. For example, individuals who perceive achieve-
ment tasks as personally worthwhile are more likely to invest the effort nec-
essary to master the tasks and are also more likely to persist in the face of
difficulty. Wigfield and Eccles (1995) conceptualize value as composed of
three components: perceived importance, perceived utility, and intrinsic in-
terest. Perceived importance refers to the extent to which performance on a
task confirms a central aspect of one’s self-schema. Perceived utility refers
to the usefulness of a task for attaining future goals. Intrinsic interest refers
to the amount of pleasure associated with a task.
Research by Wentzel (2000) indicates students do value social relation-
ships in their classroom, as evidenced by their goal setting. Students have
reported setting goals related to the establishment of relationships with teach-
ers as well as goals for seeking their approval. Value may be an important
variable influencing the development of the student/teacher relationship be-
cause of its potential to moderate the importance of expectancy beliefs. Re-
search by Harter (1990a) and Wigfield and Eccles (1992) has found a positive
correlation between expectancy of success and value for academic tasks.
Thus, children generally value academic tasks in the areas where they expect
high performance. Conversely, students may devalue tasks if they do not
expect to succeed in order to maintain self-esteem (Covington, 1984). How-
ever, using Eccles and Wigfield’s (1995) three components of value (i.e.,
perceived importance, perceived utility, and intrinsic interest), there may be
ways in which the nature of the social task may result in value interacting
with social expectancy beliefs. This is because the social task of developing
a positive relationship with the teacher does not happen in isolation from
other social and academic tasks (i.e., parent and peer relationships and the
evaluation of academic performance) (Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Dodge,
Asher, & Parkhurst, 1989).
Interpersonal Skills
While cognitive and motivational variables are important factors that
guide the development of the student/teacher relationship; it is also necessary
to account for differences in students’ abilities to establish and maintain rela-
tionships (Nowicki & Duke, 1992a, 1992b). This is because research by
Halberstat and Hall (1980) and Nowicki and Duke (1992a) has shown a
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 435

relationship between interpersonal skill and academic achievement. These

researchers suggest nonverbal communication skills influence academic
achievement and social competence via the individual relationships students
develop in the classroom. Thus, those who are good at sending and receiving
nonverbal messages are more likely to be adept at initiating, developing, and
maintaining positive relationships with teachers and peers.
There are many indicators of interpersonal skill; however, for this article
the focus is on the role of students’ abilities to receive nonverbal facial infor-
mation. The ability to send and receive nonverbal messages is a crucial inter-
personal skill associated with the development of relationships (Saarni, 1986;
Nowicki & Duck, 1992b). Indeed, findings suggest students who are good
at decoding nonverbal information tend to perform higher on measures of
achievement (Halberstadt & Hall, 1980; Nowicki & Duke, 1992a) and are
more likely to be perceived as socially competent (Mufson & Nowicki, 1991;
Nowicki & Duke, 1992a, 1992b).
Furthermore, research by Neill (1983, 1986, 1989) and Robertson (1989)
found teachers and students utilize nonverbal messages within the classroom
to regulate interpersonal interactions and classroom learning. They argue
students are expected to master a set of nonverbal cues that are uniquely
expressed in the classroom setting. Teachers use these cues to establish pat-
terns of authority and respect. Students use these cues to understand and
predict their teachers’ behaviors and to select appropriate responses (Robert-
son, 1989). In turn, students who exhibit appropriate social behavior are more
likely to have positive interactions with their teacher. Again, positive interac-
tions with the student are likely to be interpreted by the teacher as reflecting
both social competence and intellectual competence (Ford, 1982).
Nonverbal communication skills and social self-concept beliefs may be
related through impression management techniques. For example, being able
to respond to actual emotional experiences is only one part of impression
management. To be successful in our relationships, we must also be able to
predict and respond to the anticipated emotions of others. Graham (1996; p.
352) defines anticipated emotions as ‘‘The possible feeling states we expect
from others based on our understanding of the norms and rules of social
interaction.’’ It is from our representational models, our beliefs about the
nature of relationships and about our abilities to relate to others, that we
form expectations of how others will behave. Thus, our social self-concept
beliefs may influence our perceptions, our orientation, and our sensitivity to
others’ nonverbal expressions (Graham, 1996).
While there does appear to be a link between interpersonal skills and aca-
demic achievement, little is known about the impact of motivational factors,
expectations and value, on students’ abilities to establish these relationships.
By including motivational factors into our discussion of academic achieve-
ment we may gain further insight into the nature of the relationship between
436 HEATHER A. DAVIS

interpersonal skills and academic achievement. Therefore, the purpose of the

present study was to begin to examine the role of students’ expectations and
values in guiding the development of the student/teacher relationships and,
in turn, students’ academic achievement. Guided by the expectancy-value
framework, three student variables are viewed as essential in guiding the
success of the student/teacher relationship: (1) their social self-concept be-
liefs, (2) the value they place on developing a positive relationship with their
primary teacher, and (3) their nonverbal communication skills. Variation in
the students’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their pri-
mary teacher and their classroom achievement were examined.

METHODS
Participants
Eighty-two children (45 girls and 37 boys) between the ages of 8 and 10 years (X 5 9.80
years, SD 5 0.75), from five classrooms, participated in this study. Eighty-four percent of the
participants were Caucasian, 13.4% were African American, and 2.1% were Latino. Elemen-
tary school students were selected for study because according to the self-concept literature,
preadolescents are able to differentiate between their perceived social competence in different
social contexts (Harter, 1990b; Byrne & Shavelson, 1996). In addition, this age group was
expected to provide a range of nonverbal skill that could be attributed to skill differences
rather than to developmental differences (Nowicki & Duke, 1994).

Measures
Participants were given a measure of nonverbal facial decoding skill and asked to complete
a questionnaire containing three scales: social-self concept beliefs for teacher relationships,
value, and the quality of their relationship with their primary teacher. Prior to completing each
scale, participants received instructions orienting them to either think about teachers in general,
including teachers they have had in the past and the teachers in their school, or their current
teacher.

Social Self-Concept Beliefs for Teacher Relationships

The first scale assessed students’ social self-concept beliefs for teacher relationships. Items
were designed to assess students’ existing beliefs about teacher relationships; their beliefs
about their ability to have positive interactions with their teachers. For these items, students
were asked to think about their relationships with all of the teachers in their school and with
all of their past teachers. Seven questions were adapted from items on the social domain of
the Harter Perceived Competency Scale for Children (1982) and items on the general and
peer self-concept sections of Self-Description Questionnaire I (Marsh, 1990) using a similar
procedure outlined by Byrne and Shavelson (1996; Gable & Wolfe, 1993). Initially, items
were modified to include teachers as the explicit target. Then, after piloting items, further
revisions were made to make items specific to the context (skills, feelings) of ‘‘getting along’’
with teachers. High scores on these items indicate students perceive themselves as able to
have positive interactions with their teachers (‘‘I find it easy to get along with the teachers
in my school’’).
Reliability analyses and exploratory factor analyses, using principal axis factoring method,
were run to examine the internal consistency and structure of these items. Items were forced
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 437

TABLE 1
Factor Matrix for the Social Self-Concept for Teacher Relationships

Item Factor 1

3. Teachers in my school are usually unhappy with what I do. 0.68

5. I often get in trouble with the teachers in my school. 0.63
4. I find it easy to get along with the teachers in my school. 0.49
6. I find it hard to get the teachers in my school to trust me. 0.42
1. I find it easy to get the teachers in my school to like me. 0.41
2. I find it easy to upset the teachers in my school. 0.31
7. I find it easy to get the teacher in my school to listen to me. 0.05

to a single factor accounting for 21.9% of the variance (see Table 1). Findings from these
analyses suggested one item (item 7) should dropped because of its low association with the
other items. An α coefficient of .65 was calculated for the remaining six social self-concept
items accounting for 25.7% of the variance.

Value of the Student/Teacher Relationship

Items on the second scale attempted to assess of how much and in what ways students’
value their relationship with their primary teacher. Prior to completing this scale, participants
were reminded that, ‘‘Students often find some things about their relationship with their teacher
more important than others.’’ They were asked to think about ‘‘the difference between the
way things are and the way we want them to be.’’ Participants were then asked to assess the
importance of their relationship with their primary teacher along three dimensions: the intrinsic
interest, perceived utility, and perceived importance of the relationship.
Items on the value scale were adapted from the scale used in the Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch
(1994) study and were designed to paralleled items on the quality of the relationship scale.
Participants were asked to rate the importance of each aspect of the student/teacher relation-
ship. Items were designed to parallel those used to assess the student’s perceptions of the
quality of the relationship. This was done in an attempt to capture any discrepancy between
students’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their primary teacher and the
degree and type of value placed on developing the relationship. In addition, these subscales
of affect, utility, and emulation corresponded to the three components of value outlined by
Wigfield and Eccles (1992): Value-affect (VA) corresponded to intrinsic interest, value-
utilization (VU) corresponded to perceived utility, and value-emulation (VE) corresponded to
perceived importance.
Reliability analyses and exploratory factor analyses, using principal axis factoring method
and oblique rotation, were run to examine the internal consistency and structure of these items.
Findings revealed evidence of a specific factor in the four-factor solution. Thus, a correlated
three-factor solution accounting for 59% of the variance in the items was deemed the most
appropriate (see Table 2). The factor measuring value-affect correlated r 5 .13 with perceived
importance (VE) and r 5 2.36 with perceived utility (VU). The factor measuring perceived
importance (VE) correlated r 5 2.13 with perceived utility (VU). Cronbach alpha coefficients
were calculated for these measures of personal value to examine their reliability. Items assess-
ing the affective dimension of the relationship (VA) yielded an α of .83. Items assessing
students’ perceived utility of the relationship with the primary teacher (VU) yielded and α
of .83. Items assessing students’ perceptions of the student/teacher relationship as important
(VE) yielded an α of .82.
438 HEATHER A. DAVIS

TABLE 2
Pattern Matrix for the Value of the Student/Teacher Relationship Scale

Value- Value- Value-

Item Affect Emulation Utility

6. It is important to me that I like my teacher. 0.89 0.10 0.02

11. It is important to me that I am happy with my 0.76 20.01 20.06
teacher.
9. It is important to me that my teacher understands 0.61 0.01 0.03
me.
4. It is important to me that I can trust my teacher. 0.58 0.04 20.25
7. It is important to me that I can count on my 0.51 0.07 0.44
teacher when I have problems at school.
1. It is important to me to try to be more like my 0.03 0.86 20.06
teacher.
5. It is important to me that I try to model myself 20.09 0.73 20.18
after my teacher.
10. It is important to me that when I grow up, I am 0.16 0.70 0.01
like my teacher.
3. It is important to me to do the same things as my 0.08 0.63 0.08
teacher.
2. It is important to me that I can tell my teacher 20.04 20.09 20.88
when I am scared or upset about something.
12. It is important to me that I can go to my teacher 0.15 0.01 20.73
when I am sad.
8. It is important to me that I can count on my 0.35 0.10 20.47
teacher when I have problems at school.

Note. Values in bold indicate hypothesized dimensions.

Nonverbal Communication Skills—Facial Expression

The Adult Faces subtest of the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA2)
was used to measure each participants’ ability to decode adult nonverbal facial expressions
(Nowicki & Duke, 1994). The DANVA2 is appropriate for use with children between first
and fifth grade (6–10 years old). The DANVA2 Facial Expression subtest was designed to
measure nonverbal facial recognition ability at high, medium, and low intensities. The Adult
Faces subtest is composed of 24 posed male and female adults expressing four core emotions:
happiness, sadness, anger, and fear at high and low affective intensities. These emotions were
chosen because they are the most frequently encountered and are usually learned by the time
a child is 10 years of age (Nowicki & Duke, 1994; Neill, 1986). Participants were scored
according to the number of correct identifications they made. According to Nowicki and Duke
(1994), reliability for the Adult DANVA2 is estimated at .71 for fifth-grade students and .62
for third-grade students. Test–retest reliability over a 2-month period was .74 for third-grade
students.

Quality of the Student/Teacher Relationship

The last scale on the survey included items to assess students’ perceptions of the quality
of their relationship with their primary teacher. For these items, participants were oriented to
think specifically about their primary classroom teacher. These items were the same items
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 439

TABLE 3
Pattern Matrix for the Quality of the Student/Teacher Relationship Scale

Item Affect Emulation Utility

4. My teacher understands me. 0.66 20.09 0.09

11. I trust my teacher. 0.63 20.08 0.18
13. I often feel angry with my teacher. 20.60 20.07 0.05
15. I like my teacher. 0.55 0.17 0.03
6. I often wish I had a different teacher. 20.54 20.08 0.05
3. My teacher has too much control over me. 20.36 0.16 20.14
7. If I have trouble understanding a subject at school, I 0.36 0.11 0.14
tell my teacher.
9. I try not to do the same things as my teacher. 20.17 20.15 0.12
1. I want to be more like my teacher. 0.04 0.84 0.17
5. I try to model myself after my teacher. 20.08 0.71 0.25
8. When I grow up, I’ll probably be a lot like my teacher. 0.10 0.62 20.08
16. I would feel good if someone said that I am a lot like 0.20 0.52 0.13
my teacher.
2. When I am alone or sad, I go to my teacher. 0.14 0.14 0.73
12. When I feel bad about myself and need a boost, I go 20.01 0.14 0.68
to my teacher.
10. When I am upset or scared about something, I go to 0.07 0.12 0.67
my teacher.
14. When I feel happy, or have good news, I go to my 0.20 0.08 0.45
teacher.
17. I can count on my teacher when I have problems at 0.40 20.05 0.43
school.

used in the Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994) study of relatedness 1 and measure students’ percep-
tions of trust, support, and identification with the teacher on three dimensions of affect (QA),
utilization (QU), and emulation (QE). The affective dimension assessed the degree of security,
trust, and positive emotions felt toward the primary teacher (‘‘I trust my teacher’’). The utiliza-
tion dimension assessed the students’ willingness to rely on the teacher (‘‘When I am alone
or sad, I go to my teacher’’). The emulation dimension assessed how much the student identi-
fied with the primary teacher’s values (‘‘I want to be more like my teacher’’).
Ryan et al. (1994) calculated coefficient αs of .80 for the affective dimension, .55 for teacher
utilization, and .84 for teacher emulation. For the present study, some of the items were altered
to eliminate negative wording, thus making them easier to understand. This was done in an
attempt to improve scale reliability with fourth- and fifth-grade children. One item was ex-
cluded from the teacher utilization scale because of its complex wording and difficult content.
Reliability analyses and exploratory factor analyses using principal axis factoring and oblique
rotation were run to examine the internal consistency and structure of these items. As with
the value sale, evidence of a specific factor was found in the four-factor solution. Therefore,
a correlated three-factor solution was deemed appropriate. Findings are presented in Table 3.
Findings from reliability and factor analyses indicated two items (7 and 9) should be eliminated
from the utilization and emulation subscales because of their low associations to the other

1
These items were originally adapted from the Greenberg, Siegel, and Leitch (1983) Inven-
tory of Adolescent Attachment.
440 HEATHER A. DAVIS

items. The factor measuring security and trust (QA) was correlated r 5 .30 with teacher
utilization (QU) and r 5 .20 with teacher emulation. The factor measuring teacher utilization
(QU) was also correlated r 5 .27 with teacher emulation (QE). Cronbach alpha coefficients
were calculated on the remaining items in the scales. The affective quality of the relationship
scale yielded an α of .74, utilization yielded an α of .80, and the emulation scale yielded an
α of .81. Higher scores on each of these subscales indicated more positive perceptions of the
quality of the student/teacher relationship.2

Academic Achievement
Teachers were also asked to provide grades for each of the participants. Teachers selected
four or five of the students’ most recent classroom test grades. These grades were averaged
to provide an estimate of each student’s average classroom achievement. The decision to use
classroom grades (test scores) instead of a ‘‘standardized measure of achievement’’ reflected
findings from the Ford (1982) article suggesting that teachers include information about social
competence into their evaluation of intellectual competence.

Procedure
Data were collected within the first 2 months of school. Each participant was interviewed
individually, outside of the classroom. Participants were told the researcher was doing a project
to learn about how students and teachers get along. Participants were first administered the
Adult DANVA2. They were shown one photo at a time for about 3 s and were asked say
whether the adult had a happy, angry, sad, or fearful expression on their face. For the first
couple of photographs participants were prompted with ‘‘Does this person look happy, angry,
sad or fearful?’’ before and after viewing each photo. Participants were scored according to
the total number of correct responses.
After completing the DANVA2, participants were asked to complete the survey of their
beliefs about their relationship with the teachers in their school and their primary teacher. The
survey was divided into three sections: students’ social self-concept beliefs for teacher relation-
ships, their perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their primary teacher, and how
much and in what ways they valued the relationship with their primary teacher. Students
received general instructions about the survey and how to use the 5-point Likert scale to
respond. Each section of the survey was preceded with specific instructions geared at orienting
the student to either think about teachers in general or their primary teacher. All items were
read aloud to students. Responses to questions were scored on a 5 point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (Never True for Me) to 5 (Always True for Me).

RESULTS
Data were first screened for missing values, outliers, and normality (Pe-
dazhur, 1997; Stephens, 1996). Observations that were flagged across all
three measures were individually dropped from the regression analysis. For
the final analyses, one observation had to be dropped because classroom

2
A post hoc factor analysis, utilizing principal axis factoring and varimax rotation, was
conducted on all of the value and quality items. A five-factor solution, accounting for 53.4%
of the variance, was selected. Analyses revealed quality-affect (QA) and value-affect (VA)
items as well as quality-emulation (QE) and value-emulation (VE) items loaded on distinct
factors. Quality-utilization (QU) and value-utilization (VU) items, however, cross loaded onto
a single factor, suggesting participants did not view these as conceptually distinct.
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 441

grades were unavailable. Multiple one-way analyses of variance were con-

ducted to examine whether the data contained group differences associated
with having five different teachers participate in the study (Keppel, 1991).
Results suggested no differences in the mean values of each class on any of
the variables. Multiple t tests were also conducted comparing girls and boys
on each of the variables. In order to adjust for the cumulative increase in
Type-I error rates associated with the use of multiple t tests, the familywise
error rate was held constant at the .05 level using the Bonferroni method
(Keppel, 1991). Again, results indicated no differences in the mean values
of girls and boys across all the variables. These results indicated that it was
safe to aggregate the data across gender and teacher.
A correlation matrix, including variable means and standard deviations,
is included in Table 4. Contrary to the hypothesis, there was no evidence of
a significant relationship found between students’ perceptions of the quality
of the student/teacher relationship and classroom achievement for any of the
dimensions. Scatter plots of the data points were examined to see if the nature
of the relationship was nonlinear; however, there was no evidence of a non-
linear relationship either.
Findings suggest elementary school students do hold beliefs about their
abilities to interact with teachers. Students who believe they are good at
interacting with their teachers are more likely to report having a warm rela-
tionship with their current teacher (r 5 .33), turning to their teacher when
they need emotional or academic support (r 5 .28), and modeling themselves
after their current teacher (r 5 .23). Furthermore, these beliefs about relation-
ships with teachers also appear to be related to students’ interpersonal skills
(r 5 .24). Students who feel competent in their relationships with teacher
tend to be better at reading adults’ facial expressions.
In order to examine the relationships between social self-concept beliefs,
value, and nonverbal communication skills to explain variation in students’
perceptions of the quality of the relationship and classroom achievement,
two sets of regression analyses were run. The first set examined whether
children’s nonverbal skills, social self-concept beliefs for teacher relation-
ships, and value placed on developing a relationship with the teacher could
explain a significant proportion of variation in students’ perceptions of the
quality of the relationship with the primary teacher. This was done separately
for each dimension of the student/teacher relationship: affective, utilization,
and emulation. The second set of analyses examined whether students’ non-
verbal skills, social self-concept beliefs for teacher relationships, and value
placed on developing a relationship with the teacher could explain a signifi-
cant proportion of variation in their classroom achievement.
For each analysis, two multiple-regression models were examined. The
first model included the interactions of personal value by nonverbal skill and
personal value by students’ social self-concept beliefs for teacher relation-
 442
TABLE 4
Correlations between Classroom Achievement, Quality of the Relationship, Nonverbal Skill, Social Self-Concept, and Value

Quality of the relationship Value of the relationship

Class
Ach. Affective Utilization Emulation DANVA2 SSC-T Affective Utility Importance

Classroom achievement
Quality of the relationship

HEATHER A. DAVIS
Affective .02
Utilization 2.11 .44**
Emulation 2.01 .39** .44**
Nonverbal skill
DANVA2 .29** .14 2.05 2.03
Social self-concept
SSC-T .18 .33** .28* .23* .24*
Value of the relationship
Affective (VA) 2.03 .50** .37** .24* 2.08 .14
Perceived Utility (VU) 2.13 .38** .77** .33** .11 .20 .57**
Perceived Importance (VE) .01 .24* .28* .62** 2.05 .03 .20 .23*
Variable Means 88.42 4.30 3.96 3.17 15.79 3.96 4.60 4.38 2.75
Variable Standard Deviations 6.82 0.78 0.95 1.07 2.02 0.79 0.69 0.89 1.06
* Values significant at the p , .05 level.
** Values significant at the p , .01 level.
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 443

ships. If these interactions were found to be nonsignificant they were dropped

from the regression equation. Analyses were then conducted to examine the
linear relationship between the three explanatory variables to each of the
response variables. In order to reduce the effects of multicollinearity between
the explanatory variables, observations on each variable were centered about
the mean (Pedazhur, 1997; Stephens, 1996). For each analysis, an omnibus
test of the proportion of explained variation in each of the response variables
by the explanatory variable in combination was calculated. The unique con-
tribution of each variable was considered. Results of the final regression
analyses are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
Regarding the quality of their relationship with their teacher, across all
dimensions of the relationship, students’ social self-concept beliefs for
teacher relationships were associated with their perception of the quality of
their relationship. The more competent students perceived themselves in
their interactions with their teachers, the more likely they were to report
utilizing their teachers as a source of support, identifying with their teachers’
values, and having a supportive and trustworthy relationship with their teach-
ers. Students’ social self-concept beliefs for teacher relationships uniquely
accounted for between 4 and 11% of the total variation in students’ percep-
tions of their relationship with their primary teacher (see Table 5).
Regarding the affective dimension of the student/teacher relationship,
there was a statistically significant interaction of affective value with
DANVA2 scores. This interaction is portrayed in Fig. 1. Among students

TABLE 5
Regression of Social Self-Concept for Teacher Relationships (SSC-T), Value, and
Nonverbal Skill (DANVA2) on the Quality of the Student/Teacher Relationship

Model B t value p value r R F p

Affective dimension 0.47 17.03 ,.001

DANVA2 0.09 1.05 0.299
SSC-T 0.35 3.84 ,.001 0.11
VA 0.68 7.10 ,.001 0.36
VA 3 DANVA2 20.45 24.46 ,.001 0.14
Utilization dimension 0.64 33.76 ,.001
DANVA2 0.02 0.24 0.814
SSC-T 0.15 2.06 0.043 0.04
VU 0.78 10.71 ,.001 0.54
VU 3 DANVA2 20.16 22.28 0.025 0.03
Emulation dimension 0.43 19.54 ,.001
DANVA2 20.06 20.68 0.499
SSC-T 0.23 2.54 0.013 0.37
VE 0.61 7.08 ,.001 0.05

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported; semipartial r 2 values are listed in
the fourth column; full-model R 2 values are listed in the fifth column.
444 HEATHER A. DAVIS

TABLE 6
Regression of Social Self-Concept for Teacher Relationships (SSC-T), Value,
and Nonverbal Skill (DANVA2) on Classroom Achievement

Model B t value p value R F p

Intrinsic Value (VA) 0.09 2.69 0.053

DANVA2 0.26 2.25 0.028
SSC-T 0.11 0.94 0.353
VA 20.02 20.19 0.847
Perceived Utility (VU) 0.11 3.13 0.031
DANVA2 0.24 2.08 0.041
SSC-T 0.13 1.14 0.256
VU 20.13 1.11 0.27
Perceived Importance (VE) 0.15 3.31 0.015
DANVA2 0.17 1.42 0.161
SSC-T 0.12 1.10 0.276
VE 20.01 20.10 0.919
VE 3 DANVA2 20.25 22.18 0.032

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported; full-model R 2 values are listed in
the fourth column.

FIG. 1 Interaction of nonverbal skill with intrinsic value (VA).

 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 445

with high nonverbal skill, there were no differences in the students’ percep-
tions of the teachers as supportive and trustworthy. However, among students
with low nonverbal skills, students who valued the relationship with the
teacher (High VA) tended to perceive the teacher as more trustworthy and
supportive than students who did not value the relationship with the teacher
(Low VA). This interaction accounted for approximately 14% of the varia-
tion in students’ perceptions of the quality of the student/teacher relationship.
Regarding students’ reports of teacher utilization (QU), there was also a
statistically significant interaction between perceived utility of the student/
teacher relationship (VU) and nonverbal skills (see Fig. 2). Students who
reported they valued the relationship with the teacher (High VU) tended to
report relying on the teacher less as their nonverbal skills increased. The
opposite pattern was observed for students who did not value the teacher as
an important source of support (Low VU). These students tended to report
increased reliance on the teacher as their nonverbal skills increased. This
interaction accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in students’ use
of the teacher as an emotional and academic support.
Regarding students’ reports of teacher emulation (QE), only students’ so-
cial self-concept beliefs and the importance they place on emulating or iden-
tifying with teacher values (VE) was associated with how much students’
reported actually identifying with their teacher’s values (see Table 5). Stu-
dents who viewed identifying with the teacher as important were more likely
to report emulating their teacher’s behaviors. Changes in students’ perceived

FIG. 2 Interaction of nonverbal skill with perceived utility (VU).

446 HEATHER A. DAVIS

importance of emulating teacher behaviors was uniquely associated with

37% of the variation in students’ perceptions of the quality of the student/
teacher relationship.
The second set of regression equations examined variation in students’
average classroom achievement. These results are presented in Table 6. In
each of these analyses, there was no evidence of an interaction of the
DANVA2 with social self-concept beliefs for teacher relationships. Addi-
tionally, there was no evidence of interactions among the DANVA2 with
affective value and utility value. In these two models, scores on the
DANVA2 were associated with between 9 and 11% of the variation in stu-
dents’ grades. However, there was a statistically significant interaction be-
tween students’ skills at decoding adult facial expressions and students’ be-
liefs about the importance of identifying with teacher values (VE) that
resulted in an increased percentage of explained variation in classroom
achievement (R 2 5 .15). This interaction is portrayed in Fig. 3.
Students who scored low on perceived importance (Low VE) and low on
nonverbal skill not only received the lowest grades, but received lower
grades than students who scored low on nonverbal skill but high on perceived
importance (High VE). This pattern was reversed for students in the high
nonverbal skill group. Among students with high nonverbal skill, highest
grades were associated with lower scores on perceived importance. Students
who exhibited the most mastery of nonverbal facial expression and received
the best grades in the class tended to report they did not identify or emulate

FIG. 3 Interaction of nonverbal skill with perceived importance (VE).

 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 447

their teachers. In fact, these students tended to score higher grades than stu-
dents with nonverbal skills who also reported valuing the relationship.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the development and impact of
the student/teacher relationship from an expectancy-value framework (Wig-
field & Eccles, 1992). The development of the student/teacher relationship
is a dynamic process influenced by the beliefs, values, and skills of each
member in the dyad (Brophy & Good, 1974; Pianta, 1992; Birch & Ladd,
1996). From this perspective, students are viewed as active participants in the
development of the student/teacher relationship; bringing to the relationship
beliefs and skills that may influence the likelihood of developing a positive
relationship with their primary teacher. The emphasis of this study was on
examining the role of several student variables guiding the development of
the student/teacher relationship. It is important to note the limitations of this
study are the use of correlational data and the focus on one-half of the dyad.
Thus, findings are descriptive in nature and all results must be considered
in light of the influences that teacher behaviors and also the behaviors of
the class will have on the development of individual relationships.
One of the interesting findings of this study was the absence of a relation-
ship between any of the dimensions of the students’ perceptions of the quality
of the student/teacher relationship and classroom achievement. This is an
interesting finding in light of the research by Goodenow (1992), who found
middle school students’ perceptions of classroom belonging were related to
their half-year and end-of-year grades. It could be that elementary school
students are not as critical as older students or teachers when they evaluate
the relationship. Or, it may be that collecting data at the beginning of the
year does not allow students enough time to assimilate this information. For
example, results from a pilot study collected at the end of the previous aca-
demic year suggested there would be a relationship between the quality of
the relationship and classroom achievement. Future studies may consider
assessing the quality of the relationship multiple times across the year exam-
ining the stability and change in students’ perceptions as well as examining
the concordance of students’ and teachers’ perceptions.
These findings have important implications for both educational theory
and practice. For example, findings extend previous research on nonverbal
behavior and classroom achievement (Halberstat & Hall, 1980; Nowicki &
Duke, 1992a). By accounting for the role of students’ beliefs and motiva-
tions, we gain a more complete understanding of how motivational processes
influence the development of the student/teacher relationship as well as the
impact of interpersonal factors on academic achievement. For example, non-
verbal communication skill appears to be related to students’ perceptions of
the quality of the student/teacher relationship. However, this relationship is
448 HEATHER A. DAVIS

complex and depends on the level of nonverbal skill, how much the student
values the relationship with the primary teacher, and what dimensions of the
relationship are being examined. For example, nonverbal skills do not appear
to be related to the quality of the relationship when we examine the extent
to which students emulate or identify with their teachers’ values (VE). How-
ever, for students with poorer nonverbal skills, valuing the teacher relation-
ship is associated with the perception of a more secure and supportive rela-
tionships with the teacher. In these instances, value may motivate students
with poorer skills at reading adult facial expressions to be more sensitive to
verbal cues or other nonverbal outlets such as paralanguage and gestures.
Or, these students may be investing more effort and time in the development
of the relationship. Thus, value may act as a social motivator, compensating
for deficits along one social skill dimension.
In a recent article by Wigfield and Eccles (2000), experiences with social-
izing agents such as parents and teachers are hypothesized to influence stu-
dents’ perceptions of the classroom, causal attributions, and their achieve-
ment goal pursuit. This study begins to address the ways in which
relationships with socializing agents may impact achievement and learning.
By assessing the value students’ place on developing a relationship with
the teacher we were able to examine the social and dynamic nature of the
relationship between motivation, interpersonal skills, and achievement.
When we do not account for value (i.e., examine only the low value group)
we see the expected linear trend between nonverbal skill and classroom
achievement. However, when we do account for value, we see that students
who have difficulty reading adult facial expressions but who value emulating
their teacher’s behaviors received higher grades than students who did not
value the relationship. These results may reflect the different ways in which
students deal with nonverbal assets and difficulties. Those students who
value the student/teacher relationship but have difficulty with some of their
relationship skills may compensate by becoming sensitive to verbal cues or
another nonverbal outlet. Conversely, it may be that students who are very
successful in their social relationships do not perceive a relationship with
the teacher as important to their success at school. These students may not
have felt the repercussions of negative interactions with the teacher. From
this perspective, these students challenge the assumption that positive rela-
tionships with teachers are important for academic success since they may
not ‘‘need’’ the additional relational or instrumental support a teacher can
provide.
It is also possible to put these results in perspective with other research
exploring social motivation in the classroom and research on student/teacher
relationships. This study provides support for an expectancy-value theory of
social motivation in the classroom. By assessing students’ social self-concept
beliefs, the value they placed on developing a relationship with their primary
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 449

teacher, and their interpersonal skill we were better able to predict their per-
ceptions of the quality of their relationship with their primary teacher and
their classroom achievement. As with research by Wigfield and Eccles
(1992) this study highlights the importance of assessing value as a multidi-
mensional construct. For example, these findings suggest components of val-
uing a relationship with the teacher may be more important to accomplishing
specific social and academic tasks in the classroom.
It is also important to note the only dimension of value that aided in pre-
dicting classroom achievement was perceived importance (VE). Affective
value and perceived utility did not help predict students’ grades. This may
be because of the attenuated scores on affective value and utilization value.
In general, most students reported that it was important to them to develop
a supportive and secure relationship with their teacher. This may be a charac-
teristic of elementary school students who may tend to view their teachers
in a positive light. Or this may be the result of the sampling procedure capi-
talizing on teachers who volunteered to participate and who may have done
so because of their positive relationships with their students.
Conversely, students who scored high on the emulation value (VE) scale
may recognize developing a positive relationship with the teacher is impor-
tant for reasons beyond the affective bond that develops and the immediate
support a teacher can give. It may be these students perceive a link between
their relationships with their teacher and their classroom success or they may
simply view their teacher as possessing attributes that are important to have.
Variation in these scores may reflect an understanding of the importance of
identifying with significant others as a way to gain access, status, or desired
outcomes. Or these findings may parallel Harter’s (1992) finding that compe-
tent students tend to manifest an intrinsic motivational orientation, whereas
less competent students are more extrinsically motivated.
Regarding the relationship between expectancy and value, it is important
to note there was no linear relationship between social self-concept beliefs
and the value students’ place on developing a relationship with the teacher.
This finding differs from findings that examine the relationship between ex-
pectancy beliefs and value for academic tasks (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
Results of this study suggest that for social tasks the relationship between
expectancy beliefs and value is complex. These findings may reflect the dif-
ferent types of social motivation active in the classroom; perhaps the differ-
ence between a socially oriented student and a student who engages in spe-
cific social relationships, such as with the teacher, as a means to accomplish
other goals. For the later type of student, valuing a relationship in the class-
room may reflect the student’s developing understanding of the impact of
social relationships on academic achievement.
Future studies examining social self-concept beliefs need to explore what
dimensions of the relationship students and teachers find salient and how
450 HEATHER A. DAVIS

social self-concept beliefs are reflective of students’ understandings of social

success and successful social interactions. Furthermore, studies need to ex-
plore whether social self-concept beliefs related to students’ tendencies to
internalize or externalize their behavior and their maintenance of self worth.
Last, future studies of social motivation need to examine the role of the
student/teacher relationship for older students and for minority students
(Ogbu, 1993; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995). For example, interac-
tions and relationships with teachers may have different meanings for stu-
dents with different types of minority status and cultural frame of reference
(Ogbu, 1993), differing conceptions of authority and help seeking, or
worldviews oriented toward social interdependence (Suárez-Orozco &
Suárez-Orozco, 1995). Furthermore, changes in the social structure of middle
schools and high schools may result in greater differentiation in the quality
and amount of value placed on developing a relationship with a specific
teacher. Specifically, utility value, the amount and type of support a specific
teacher can provide, may become an important variable influencing the rela-
tionship high school students develop with their teachers. This is because
specific teachers may be viewed as gatekeepers, helping students to attain
other goals such as college admission or getting a job, while others are not.
Again, from this perspective, it is important to delineate when and how stu-
dents come to understand the connection between the social relationships
they develop in school and their classroom achievement.
REFERENCES
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environment
and children’s early school adjustment. The role of teachers and peers. In J. Juvonen &
K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp.
199–225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher–student relationships: Causes and Conse-
quences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brophy, J. E. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston, MA: McGraw–Hill.
Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). On the structure of social self-concept for pre-, early
and late adolescents: A test of the Shavelson, Hubner and Stanton (1976) model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 599–613.
Copeland, J. M., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-Sort assessment of child–
teacher attachment relationships and social competence in preschool. Early Education
and Development, 8, 27–39.
Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and impli-
cations. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.
Dodge, K. A., Asher, S. R., & Parkhurst, J. T. (1989). Social life as a goal coordination task.
In C. A. Ames (Ed.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (pp.
107–135). New York: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Social motivation: Goals and social-cognitive processes. A comment.
In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school
adjustment (pp. 181–195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 451

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 21, 215–225.
Fong, G. T., & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition,
1, 191–204.
Ford, M. E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 18, 323–340.
Gable, R. K., & Wolfe, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the effective domain. Boston,
MA: Kluwer.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study
of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 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.
Graham, S. (1996). What’s so ‘‘emotional’’ about social motivation? A comment. In J. Juvo-
nen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment
(pp. 346–360). Cambridge, UK Cambridge Univ. Press.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many participants does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivari-
ate Behavioral Research, 26, 499–510.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of attach-
ment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 12, 373–386.
Halberstadt, A. G., & Hall, J. A. (1980). Who’s getting the message? Children’s nonverbal
skill and their evaluation by teachers. Developmental Psychology, 16, 564–573.
Harter, S. (1984). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–
97.
Harter, S. (1990). Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of children and adolescents. In
A. M. La Greca (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from children
and adolescents (pp. 292–325). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational
orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano &
T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective,
(pp. 77–114). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation, self-esteem, and
level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation:
Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 11–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D. C., & Myers, L. (1988). Attachment and child care:
Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 403–
416.
Keppel, H. (1991). Design and analysis: A researchers handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of self-concept in the perception of
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1494–1512.
452 HEATHER A. DAVIS

Marsh, H. W., & Holmes, I. W. (1990). Multidimensional self-concepts: Construct validation

of responses by children. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 89–117.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40, 812–825.
Minuchin, P. P., & Shapiro, E. K. (1983). The school as context for social development. In
P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 6, pp. 197–274). New
York: Wiley.
Mufson, L., & Nowicki, S. Jr. (1991). Factors affecting the accuracy of facial affect recogni-
tion. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 815–822.
Neill, S. R. S. J., Fitzgerald, J. M., & James, B. (1983). The relation between reported aware-
ness of nonverbal communication and rated effectiveness in probationer and student
teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19, 16–29.
Neill, S. R. S. J. (1986). Children’s reported responses to teachers’ non-verbal signals: a pilot
study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 12, 53–63.
Neill, S, R. S. J. (1989). The effects of facial expression and posture on children’s reported
responses to teacher nonverbal communication. British Educational Research Journal,
15, 195–204.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Carton, J. (1993). The measurement of emotional intensity from facial
expressions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 749–750.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1992a). The association of children’s nonverbal decoding
abilities with their popularity, locus of control, and academic achievement. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 153, 385–393.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1992b). Helping the child who does not fit in. Atlanta, GA:
Peachtree.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication
of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 18, 9–35.
Ogbu, J. (1993). Differences in cultural frames of reference. International Journal of Behav-
ioral Development, 16, 483–506.
Pedazhur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction
(3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pianta, R. C. (1996). Manual and scoring guide for the student–teacher relationship scale.
Charlottsville, VA: University of Virginia.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting
to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s
lives (pp. 61–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and appli-
cations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robertson, J. (1989). Effective classroom control: Understanding teacher–pupil relationships.
Cambridge, UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
Ryan, R., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination
and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation
in education: The classroom milieu (Vol. 2, pp. 13–51). New York: Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life
 STUDENT/TEACHER RELATIONSHIP 453

and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press.
Saarni, C. (1986). Social and affective functions of nonverbal behavior: Developmental con-
cerns. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Development of nonverbal behavior in children (pp. 123–
147). New York: Springer—Verlag.
Song, I., & Hattie, J. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academic achievement:
A causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1296–1281.
Stephens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Urdan, T., & Meahr, M. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement:
A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in
context. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 7, pp. 185–212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals form a content
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105–115.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoreti-
cal analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 256–310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation
in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in educa-
tion (pp. 73–118). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.