Ania-t.

.a'AIJC-Mq .

w . . .,.).,

-'.‘-‘.-. ._

IRS-tn

1‘,“

-.~.<-

It?“ '.

v0.3

 

:E'yr
A:

"' ! 21‘“? h. H

{"1“}. ”‘5‘ W'I if“
;:Vz‘(‘i‘ )‘V-

’\

u

I"

.w‘fi.’ 5f” 42:33):
(”#5: r’:r:.

:3" ‘ .
.M'. r ' ‘ MI 9
Mgr Wm. "5:; .

[44.“

‘,'* Va‘auf
11v}. "$03? _ 1’6.“-

3‘3"" ”53:; “:fr‘Kf ‘

by? i'F. .h' V

AZ; TI"

2‘4. .
't‘~'?,.\
7;)";1 I. 11,-!

‘4

MN

\I'H
w“
1’ 4
'JI

iv".

. ' .. '
— ,zvu‘ 2W4. ‘ U.\{ I

v ‘ M~.A I “K‘i‘tq‘qf‘fi
.'I' [2" -," t

. ,mn‘ \. . n
{M "
{53/}. t. g’.;&_.~‘.\
:'av¢'."‘)‘“
,u 6' r
In.“ {‘4 . 16;”? VW
:fi ."MM « nu y,“ .‘kwtfi'
.n. ,

“' .I:::
- éa --.,:;5‘;3- Mg
(:35, I"

A
'(I‘ ‘37. I‘
~ A.
;y::‘\l\1‘ln,l‘4 ‘ ‘
' ‘
O I"!

unfit
{'1‘}. ‘ .'

”‘1 )‘(LA > 0‘)? "r
, m - ~.-

I‘M " ‘ v L
‘ ‘ - ‘ H
%r‘ ‘1)“.14? ‘, $1,- . “bifui:

\A‘

1'054‘fil‘

M

‘ ‘ .
4' CV . 4;.
‘l-ull sin/'53) ‘

,.

‘ :3.“ , ~
34de
1‘ ‘4‘: ‘-v ‘6
$5332! .834

2:... 3,,

,1
yf kI ‘
1K4?”

69'
Wa’

Ll I

332.: a! . ~
flaw M
V ‘VI, ‘1"
45V...- .‘ a: V. “1.,"
s i he," 1

o‘l

I V’I'f’ ‘

., A
r '\‘u<€ .' $311.3:

 

 

 

:1) mum 3mg mm s." L 18.95"
132 s 76 5 lllll mmmm“:l
31293 00575 6923

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

STUDENT SELF-CONCEPT AND THREE CRITICAL
DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER BEHAVIOR

presented by

Sheldon D. Nix
has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Health Education,
Counseling Psychology,
and Human Performance

(my /%¢/fi

Majo rofe//sso

 

 

Ba“: October 14, 1988

 

MS U :5 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0 - 12771

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
If
—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______l
l l—Wl—l

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

STUDENT SELF-CONCEPT AND THREE CRITICAL
DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER BEHAVIOR

By

Sheldon D. Nix

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology,
and Human Performance

1988

ABSTRACT

STUDENT SELF-CONCEPT AND THREE CRITICAL
DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER BEHAVIOR

By
Sheldon D. Nix

The vital importance of self-concept in determining child and
adult behavior in many settings has been well-documented. This
study examined the development of elementary school children’s
academic self-concept. It examined the possible role of the teacher
in shaping the academic self-perceived' competence of third- and
fourth-grade students in a mid-sized urban school system in the
Midwest.

Three critical dimensions of teacher behavior were examined in
an observational study. Teachers were observed in the fall and
spring for the ways in which they socialized students in the
classroom. This study' was part of the Socialization Outcomes
Project of the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State
University.

The study examined teacher demandingness, responsiveness, and
supportiveness. Teacher demandingness was defined as the degree to
which teachers make demands on students and the nature of those

demands, whether requiring mere compliance to teacher authority or

Sheldon D. Nix

individual maturity. Teacher responsiveness was defined as the ways
in which teachers provide information to students and contingently
structure the classroom so that students are enabled to meet
maturity demands. Supportiveness was defined as the degree to which
teachers noncontingently provided a sense of belonging and intrinsic
worth.

It was hypothesized that teachers who were high in maturity
demands, responsiveness, and supportiveness would have students
whose scores on Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale for Children
would be higher at the end of the year than the scores of students
whose teachers did not fit that pattern.

The narrative data of eight classrooms were examined by one
researcher, and according to Ipreset criteria, six of ‘the eight
teachers had results as predicted. Recommendations for further
research included at least two raters, clinical interviews of

students, and a larger sample.

Copyright by
SHELDON D. NIX
l988

DEDICATION

To my parents, who first instilled in me a love for learning
and a drive to succeed.

And to Jesus Christ, who gives me the reason for doing it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank Dr. Gloria Smith. She was
more than my advisor. She was a guide, mentor, and friend. I am
eternally grateful for her commitment to me for six years.

Second, I want to thank Dr. Linda Anderson. More than anyone
else she helped me shape and structure this study and consistently
gave detailed feedback and ideas. She was demanding, responsive,
and supportive, and I am a much stronger researcher for it.

I also want to thank Dr. Richard Prawat, who helped to pose the
critical ideas for shaping and reshaping this study and who inspired
me to do my dissertation out of the Socialization Outcomes Project.

My appreciation also goes to Dr. Thomas Gunnings, who helped me
gain a systems view of human development and functioning, and to Dr.
John Powell, who more than anyone helped me become a beginning
clinician.

My special thanks to Sue Cooley, who did a wonderful job of

typing the final manuscript in a short amount of time.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ....................... ix
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM ..................... 1
Need for the Study ................ 1
Purpose of the Study ............... 3
Hypotheses .................... 4
Definition of Terms ................ 5
Importance of the Study .............. 6
Limitations of the Study ............. 8
11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. lZ
Self-Concept Development: Theoretical Approaches . l3
Visual-Recognition Approaches .......... l3
Ethological Approach .............. l4
Psychoanalytic Object-Relations Approaches . . . l5
Social-Interactional Approaches ......... 16
Information-Processing Approaches ........ l7
Cognitive-Developmental Approaches ....... 19
Classroom Factors Affecting Self-Evaluation . . . . 23
Teacher Expectations .............. 25
Classroom Reward System ............. 28
Classroom Size, Organization, and Grouping
Structure ................... 34
Instructional Methods and Content ........ 35

Cognitive and Personality Mediating Factors . . . 37
Effective Parenting, Organizational Leadership,

and Self-Concept: Critical Dimensions ..... 40
Teacher Demandingness, Responsiveness, and

Supportiveness: A Model for Self-Concept

Research .................... 48
A Model for Teacher Effects on Student
Self-Concept ................. 54
The Central Process in Teacher—Student Inter-
actions and Self-Concept Effects: A Hypothesis . 69
Conclusion .................... 70

vii

III. RESEARCH METHODS ..................

Background of the Socialization Outcomes Project

Procedure .....................
Operational Definitions ..............
Demandingness ..................
Responsiveness .................
Supportiveness .................
Summary ......................

IV. THE RESULTS .....................

Summary of Teacher Predictions ..........
Case Studies ...................
Teacher K ....................
Teacher 8 ....................
Teacher H ....................
Teacher Q ....................
Teacher R ....................
Teacher M ....................
Teacher D ....................
Teacher 0 ....................
Summary of Results ................
Chapter Summary ..................

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............

Summary ......................
Discussion of Results ...............
Implications and Recommendations .........
Implications for Teaching ............
Implications for Counseling/Social Services . . .
Recommendations for Further Study ........

REFERENCES .........................

viii

Page

140
I44

Table
2.1
4.l

4.2

LIST OF TABLES

Styles of Parenting .................

Raw Scores and z-Scores on the Perceived Competence
Scale .......................

Results of Teacher Predictions ............

ix

Page
44

125
126

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Need for the Study

Hundreds of“ studies have been conducted,- searching for the
links between the self-concept of children and various supposedly
antecedent and consequent variables, including teacher behavior and
academic performance (Harter, 1983; Hylie, 1979). A majority of
these studies have produced null <n~ weak findings (Harter, 1983;
Hylie, 1979), but, as shall be seen, there does seem to be
reasonably strong research support for' the» conclusion that both
parents and teachers have positive and negative effects on the self-
concepts of children and that these self-concepts are positively
correlated with academic performance (Anderson & Prawat, 1986;
Harter, 1983; Marshall & Heinstein, 1984).

Anderson (1985) pointed out many related. research areas in
which teachers have been shown to have effects on students.
Classroom-management research has described how effective teachers
change student behavior to ensure a smoothly functioning classroom.
Research on effective instruction has clearly shown the teacher as
the central player* in whether students learn. Process-product,
studies, in particular, with their emphasis on direct instruction by

the teacher, have shown this, as Brophy and Good (L986) summarized.

Intervention studies training teachers to teach more effectively,
such as Slavin’s (1980) work with cooperative learning groups, have
demonstrated both cognitive and affective changes in students.

Teachers are clearly the most important factor in student
growth in the classroom. Hhat is only beginning to emerge from the
research, however, is some clarity on the processes by which parents
and teachers affect self-concept and how self-concept and academic
performance relate to each other. Inadequate definitions and
measures of "self-concept,” conceptual bases with limited
explanatory power, and purely correlational research designs are
some of the reasons why so little is known about these two critical
sets of issues (Hylie, 1979).

Psychologists and others for a very long time, perhaps dating
from Freud and Adler (Blanck 8: Blanck, 1979; Harter, 1983) have
given great primacy to the role of an individual’s sense of self in
his/her life. The sense of self, including the self-concept, has
been implicated in a wide range of psychopathology, including
clinical exogenous depression, borderline personality disorders,
schizophrenia and other psychoses, and neuroses of various sorts
(American Psychiatric Association, 1980; Blanck & Blanck, 1979;
Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975). For example, in depression, a
person often has a relatively clear but overly negative view of the
self (Arieti & Bemporad, 1978), while the borderline disorders are
characterized by diffuse, unsolidified, fragmented images of the
self (Blanck & Blanck, 1979, 1986; Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1975).

Besides its role in psychopathology, on the more sanguine side a

healthy’ self-concept. has been shown to enable an individual to
achieve higher performance levels in various situations than those
whose self-concepts are deemed to be lower, more negative, or less
firm (Maccoby, 1980; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Self-concepts are
often dealt with in the psychotherapeutic situation (Pine, 1985),
and many teachers place a high priority on such affective outcomes
as improving students’ self-concepts (Anderson & Prawat, 1986;
Brophy, 1979).

Therefore, there is a great need for a study of the antecedents
of self-concept, particularly one that uses adequate definitions and
measurements of self-concept, has a conceptual base that can account
for at least some of the variance in self-concept research, and that
has an appropriate research design. Such a study should focus on
the critical years in which self-concept is first formed because
these early years are considered by psychologists to have a lasting
effect on adult behavior and therefore an understanding of which is

essential to the therapeutic process (Harter, 1983; Pine, 1985).

Purpose of the Study

This study will make a limited but important contribution to
the task of understanding the nature and development of self-concept
and self-esteem in people’s lives. It is part of a large-scale
study conducted by the Institute for Research on Teaching at
Michigan State University into teacher effects on the socialization
of elementary school children. The Socialization Outcomes Project,

begun in 1980, has been investigating the relationships among

teachers’ socialization priorities, their classroom practices, and
student outcomes in two socialization areas: task-demand skills and
attitudes and social skills and attitudes. Task-demand skills and
attitudes underlie performance of individual academic tasks (e.g.,
managing time, checking completed work, recognizing the value of
school tasks, and belief in personal control over academic
outcomes). Social skills and attitudes make possible pleasant and
mutually beneficial interactions among peers (e.g., tolerance of
individual differences, willingness to share limited resources, and
cooperating on group assignments).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between classroom processes and the academic self-perceived
competence of third- and fourth-grade students. Specifically, what
is the relationship between teacher behavior and practices and
student self-perceived academic competence? In particular, what is
the relationship between three key hypothesized dimensions of
teacher behavior--demandingness, responsiveness, and supportiveness

--and student self-perceived academic ability?

t es
Four hypotheses were investigated:

fl : Teachers differ on the degree to which they demand matur-
in and compliance from students.

fl : Teachers differ on the degree to which they make their
classrooms sensitively contingent on student responses.

H3: Teachers differ on the degree to which they noncontin-
gently' meet certain critical emotional needs that children
have.

H4: Teachers who are high in maturity demands, insist moder-

a ely on compliance, construct highly contingent-sensitive
classrooms, and are highly supportive have a more positive
effect on student self-perceived academic competence than do
teachers who are low in maturity demands and/or high in
compliance demands, have relatively noncontingent-sensitive
classrooms, and/or' are inadequately supportive of students’
essential emotional needs.

Definition of Terms

Self-eoncept was defined as the set of relatively stable mental
representations a person has of the self, consisting of four main
dimensions that have been repeatedly posited: (a) competence to
meet achievement demands, (b) moral self-approval (the meeting of
moral/ethical standards), (c) power (the ability to control and
influence others), and (d) interpersonal significance (the
acceptance, attention, and affection of others) (Harter, 1983).

Self-perceived competence. ebilitv. or sefficesy, the first
dimension of self-concept mentioned above, was defined as the set of
mental representations a person has of the self’s competence in one
of four domains: (a) physical domain, (b) academic domain, (c)
social domain, and (d) general competence (Harter, 1981, 1982,
1983).

Qemepgipgpess, was defined as the degree and nature of a
parent’s or teacher’s goal-setting for a child, characterized by
varying types of demands.

Responsiveness was defined as the degree to which a parent or

teacher acts contingently in the home or classroom, based on

children’s behaviors and intentions.

Supportiveness was defined as the degree to which a parent or
teacher noncontingently provides for children’s needs for warmth and
affection, safety and trust, and acceptance.

Esepdo-sgpportiveness was defined as outwardly displaying
supportive behavior but simultaneously undermining the supportive
nature of the behavior.

An authoriterian parent or teacher is characterized by a wide
scope of demands, generally focused on compliance and system
maintenance and rarely focused on nonconformity or maturity. Such a
person is also relatively noncontingent and may be nonsupportive or
pseudo-supportive.

An authoritative parent or teacher is characterized by a wide
scope of demands, clearly communicated, focused on maturity
primarily but moderately focused also on system maintenance, and
rarely focused on compliance. Such a person is also highly
contingent-sensitive and consistently supportive.

A permissivelneglestjng parent or teacher is characterize by
having a relatively narrow scope of demands and focused mainly on
nonconformity or system maintenance. They are relatively
noncontingent. The permissive subtype may or may not be supportive;

the neglecting subtype is usually nonsupportive.

Importance of the Study

This study built on previous research into the developmental
antecedents of self-concept. It drew on some of the best findings

from classroom research and used research methods and instruments

that avoided some of the problems in earlier research. For example,
it used Harter’s (1982) Perceived Competence Scale for Children, a
specific and well-constructed measure of at least one dimension of
the self-concept (academic self-perceived competence). More
broadly, the three dimensions examined encompass a broad range of
individual factors discovered in other studies that have focused on
more discrete teacher factors such as the amount of praise and
criticism given or classroom grouping practices (Blumenfeld,
Pintrich, Meece, & Hessels, 1982; Marshall & Heinstein, 1984).

The study also built on the previous analysis of the data from
the Socialization Outcomes Project. Analyses of the data completed
so far have included examination of the quantitative data using
path-analytic procedures and examination of the narrative data using
an inductive approach to categorizing teacher behavior. The
dimensions that emerged from the analyses of the narrative data--the
giving of information and the provision of opportunities to practice
self-regulation--are related to those used in this study but are not
synonymous (Anderson & Prawat, 1986). Moreover, that analysis
included other important outcome measures than self-concept, whereas
this analysis focused solely on self-concept because of the
possibility that important effects might be lost by a broader focus.

Most important, because self-concept develops across the
life span in both discontinuous and continuous ways (Harter, 1981,
1983), this analysis went beyond the previous analysis by more
closely seeking out the continuities in adult behavior that affect

self-concept. By examining the usefulness for the classroom of

dimensions of parenting behavior found to be associated with self-
concept effects, an important contribution has been made in looking
for adult behaviors that affect self-concept in a wide variety of
settings. The observation that these same dimensions can be used to
classify effective organizational leadership, which also affects
self-concept (Peters & Haterman, 1982; Wagner, 1984), gives further
support to the premise that these dimensions are core processes for
affecting the self—concept. Thus, this research may suggest
generalizability and provide guidance to a wide variety of persons
trying to affect the self-concepts of other people. The dimensions
have been defined specifically enough that they should be readily
translatable into experimental intervention efforts in the home, the

classroom, the organization, and the therapist’s office.

Limitetions of the Study

This study had several important limitations. One is that
only one measure of self-concept was used--Harter’s Perceived
Competence Scale. The dimensions being examined in this study were
drawn from research looking at more global aspects of self-concept.
By limiting the study to perceived academic competence, many teacher
effects on self-concept may have been overlooked. In particular,
given the interpersonal nature of at least some aspects of the three
dimensions, social self-concept may have been equally affected by
the teachers in the hypothesized direction. Nonetheless, examining
other aspects of self-concept would have introduced too great a

complexity to this study. Moreover, academic perceived competence

is a vital ingredient of success in both academic and later career
contexts.

A second limitation is that there was no way to account for
what aspects of the variance in self-concept effects these three
dimensions accounted for. In this study, grade level and
socioeconomic status (SES) were controlled for, but no other
possible confounding factors. This was a major limitation, but as a
preliminary study' it was acceptable, particularly if the self-
concept effects were strongly in the hypothesized direction.
Further research may then tease out the degree of variance these
dimensions accounted for.

A third limitation is that there are no true pretests for self-
concept effects. The Harter scale was administered in the sixth
week of school (due to district policies), and research has
suggested that teachers can have important effects within the first
7 weeks on the same measures (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan,
1981). The Z-scores used, as explained in Chapter III, are a good
approximation of the changes in students across the year, but the
effects of the first few weeks may have affected the students.

Finally, another major limitation of the study, indeed the most
critical, is how teachers were rated on the three dimensions. This
research used a primarily qualitative case study research design.
Teachers were observed and their behavior noted in some detail. The
narratives were reviewed by the researcher, and based on

predetermined but to a significant degree subjective criteria,

10

teachers were assigned a rating on each dimension and subdimension.
No other researchers rated the teachers, so the validity of the
ratings could not be established by statistical means.

The question of' the validity of the ratings must also be
raised. Because no direct research has been conducted on the three
dimensions examined in this study, this must be considered a
preliminary investigation into the relationships between these three
dimensions and student self-concept. It was not known before the
study whether teacher behavior could even be described in terms of
the three dimensions. The first three hypotheses, therefore, had to
do with the existence of the three dimensions in the classroom,
whereas the final hypothesis had to do with the predictive
usefulness of the dimensions. Hhile Harter has done such extensive
work in developing a quantitative measure of self-concept in
children (she began with qualitative child self—reports), no similar
work has been done in quantifying measures of teacher demandingness,
responsiveness, or supportiveness. Such concepts would have been
very difficult to quantify reliably and validly at this stage of
research--even drawing on Baumrind’s (1975) behavioral observation
scales of parent behavior.

It was therefore considered important at this stage of research
to develop rich descriptions of what teachers do and say when they
are being demanding, responsive, or supportive. Those descriptions
were then used to make predictions, but those predictions and the

results could not be said to generalize to all teachers. Rather,

11

they point the direction for further, more comprehensive (and
perhaps more quantified) research designs.

Nonetheless, some validity of the ratings can be judged
because, as is the case with ethnographic, qualitative research,
great care was taken to fully describe each teacher and the reasons
for the various ratings. In qualitative studies, the reader is left
to judge the validity of the ratings. The reader must ask, “Does
this teacher as described seem to fit the criteria established for
that rating, particularly with regard to the other teachers in the
study?" It should be noted that there is a kind of implied rank
ordering of the teachers on each dimension, although no overall
ranking was attempted given the complex interactions possible among
the dimensions. The reader is thus given seven other case studies
with which to compare each teacher’s description.

A final defense of the validity of the researcher’s ratings is
the results achieved. If, in fact, the teachers had the effects on
self-concept that they were hypothesized to have, some measure of
confidence can be added to the assessment of the validity of the
ratings. This, however, is after the fact and cannot be the heart

of the judgment of validity.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The distinction has been made in the literature, first by James
in 1890 and now by others (Dickstein, 1977; Lewis & Brooks-Dunn,
1977), between self-as-subject or the active knower and self-as-
object or the self that is reflectively known. Harter (1983)
suggested that ”the majority of scholars who have devoted thoughtful
attention to the topic of the self have come to a similar
conclusion" (p. 276), namely, that there are these two aspects of
the self. In this study, it was the self-as-object, the concept of
the self, that was investigated. It was the self as perceived by
the self that was of interest here, but, as will be seen, clinically
oriented, psychoanalytic observers are probably even more concerned
about the self-as-subject.

The review is organized as follows. First the major approaches
to researching the self-concept are summarized and examples given.
Then research on the cflassroom factors affecting self-concept are
given, stemming primarily from one of the major approaches, as will
be noted. Next, research on parenting factors affecting self-
concept is briefly touched on, along with analogs drawn from
organizational- and church-growth research, to highlight the three

central dimensions that formed the basis of this study:

12

13

demandingness, responsiveness, and supportiveness. The cflassroom
literature is then revisited to highlight the research bearing on
the three dimensions. Finally, a model is proffered on how the

three dimensions actually create self-concept effects.

Self-Concept Development: Theoretisel Apprpaches

All of the various approaches noted below have to do with such
issues as "how the self becomes differentiated from ’other,’ how the
infant develops a sense of self as an active, independent agent, and
how characteristics unique to the self come to be appreciated"
(Harter, 1983, p. 286). Some of them also deal with the role of the

mothering person in the formation of these various issues.

Visual—Respgnition Approaches

Visual self-recognition studies represent a behavioral approach
to the study of self-concept development. Such researchers as
Bertenthal and Fischer (1978) and Lewis and Brooks-Gunn (1979) have
observed closely how infants respond to such visual cues as seeing
themselves in a mirror to postulate the nature of the infant’s
cognitive self-recognition. These studies are similar to those that
have tried to infer the nature of an infant’s emotional development
through observing the infant’s reactions to others’ facial
expressions, as well as the infant’s own facial expressions (Campos

et a1., 1983).

14

01 i a A roa h

Bowlby’s (1969, 1973) and later Ainsworth’s (1979) studies of
the development of attachment--defined as any behavior that is
seeking and maintaining proximity to another--have relevance to
self-concept development. Bowlby started with the theory of an
instinctive, biologically adaptive (survival of the species),
primitive response system 'that led 'the infant to attach to the
mother. These attachment behavioral systems, activated by
physiological stimuli such as hormonal levels and environmental
situations, are instinctively reciprocated by the mothering person’s
"caregiver behaviors." Bowlby and Ainsworth distinguished between
avoidantly' attached infants, securely' attached infants, and
resistantly or ambivalently attached infants.

Such differences in attachment were due, at least in part, to
differences in caregiver styles. Ainsworth studied four dimensions
of caregiver style--sensitivity-insensitivity, acceptance-rejection,
cooperation-interference, and accessibility-ignoring--and found gen-
erally that the mothers of securely attached infants scored high on
all four dimensions, whereas avoidant infants’ mothers tended to be
insensitive and rejecting and resistant infants’ mothers tended to
be either interfering or ignoring (Harter, 1983). Campos et a1.
(1983) raised some doubts, however, about the cross-cultural
validity of these findings. Relevant for self-concept, however, is
that securely attached infants behaviorally manifested more self-
confidence, longer attention spans, and greater enjoyment of play as

infants; they also, as toddlers, showed greater ability to take

15

directions, tackle problems confidently, and ask comfortably for
help (Maccoby, 1980). These characteristics are similar to those of
school-aged children deemed to have high self-esteem (Baumrind,

1975; Coopersmith, 1967; Harter, 1982; Maccoby, 1980).

Psyshpanalytic Object-Relations Approaches

Psychoanalytic theorists and researchers on the development of
self-concept have focused on two critical areas: the self-as-
knower, or the "ego structure," and the internalized, mental images
the child forms of his/her important early "Objects" (especially the
mother). The ego, first identified by Freud as one aspect of the
personality structure, has come to be seen by a broad spectrum of
the analytic community as central in the formation of the sense of
self. The ego is the executive or "agentic" (Maccoby, 1980) part of
the person, which acts upon and adapts to the realities of the world
in which he/she finds him/herself. Typical ”functions" of the ego
include testing one’s view of reality; regulating one’s impulses,
affects, and behavioral tendencies (self-regulation); making
judgments such as the social appropriateness of behavior;
apprehending and differentiating the qualities of the self from
those of others; forming and relating to internalized images of
external objects; thinking conceptually and finding ways to
communicate thoughts and feelings; defending against and coping with
anxiety; and synthesizing disparate elements of the self (Bellack,
1984). Hhen these functions are poorly developed, the sense of self

and the self-concept suffer greatly (Blanck & Blanck, 1979;

16

Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971, 1977; Pine, 1985). One reason often
noted is that adults seem to react to the adult world as they react
to their internal world of early object images (Jacobson, 1964;
Kernberg, 1975), a form of reality distortion.

These theorists also have had much to say about the kinds of
parental processes that lead to the kind of stable, cohesive sense
of self and others deemed so important, most notably Mahler and her

colleagues (1975, 1982), about whom more is said later.

Social-Interactional Approaches

Social-interactional approaches locate the self within an
interpersonal field. These ‘theorists and ‘researchers have
concentrated on the interactional patterns between the child and
his/her human world to ascertain which patterns lead to which
behaviors. Hhile almost all approaches include this observation of
patterns, other approaches emphasize the particular cognitive or
affective processes that supposedly mediate the social effects
(e.g., internalized object world). Social interactionists, however,
have concentrated more exclusively on the mere interaction. Adler
(1956) and, even more radically, Sullivan (1953) were early
proponents of this approach. Behavior theorists such as Bandura
(1977), whose work on self-efficacy is highly related to self-
concept (Harter, 1983), are perhaps the most radically interactional
of all. Sander (cited in Harter, 1983) studied the epigenetic
sequence of adaptive issues negotiated in the mother-infant

interaction in the first 3 years. Almost all the research on

l7

classroom processes that affect self-esteem has used this approach,
with few references to mediational processes.

This is a serious weakness in the typical research design in
these studies because mediational processes would help to explain
both positive findings and null findings. Self-concept is itself an
"intrapsychic" concept hypothesized to mediate a variety of
behavioral effects. Merely to examine correlations between teacher
behavior and some measure of self-concept makes it very difficult to
explain whatever findings emerge and to tie those findings in with
other research--particularly cognitive developmental research--and
theories of the development of self-concept.

In this study, a number of mediational processes have been
postulated, linking the three dimensions of teacher behavior and
student self-concept. Indeed, a model has been postulated to
account for the possible influence of the three dimensions on
students. Unfortunately, however, the research design did not test
these processes. Nevertheless, further research will be able to
build on this preliminary investigation by specifically testing for
the effect of ‘the various postulated mediators. The next two
approaches to self-concept research have built into them mediational

factors or concepts.

Information-Presessing Apprpaches

Markus (1977) employed an information-processing approach to

understanding self-concept development. He investigated the role of

18

"self-schemata" in a person’s processing of information about the

self.
Self-schemata are cognitive generalizations about the self,
derived from past experience, that organize and guide the
processing of self-related information contained in the
individual’s social experiences. . . . Self-schemata include
cognitive representations derived from specific events and
situations involving the individual (e.g., "I hesitated before
speaking in yesterday’s discussion because I wasn’t sure I was
right, only to hear someone else make the same point") as well
as more general representations derived from the repeated
categorization and subsequent evaluation of the person’s

behavior by himself and by others around him (e.g., ”I am very
talkative in groups of 3 or 4, but shy in large gatherings").

(p. 64)

Markus argued that people have articulated self-schemata on
different dimensions of behavior, and only when they have such
schemata will they operate consistently on those dimensions. They
provide a basis for confident self-prediction of behavior on
decisions involving those dimensions. They also make individuals
resistant to "counterschematic" information about themselves.
Markus’s conclusions were echoed in the observations of Bern
(1967, 1978) on self-labeling along particular dimensions, the
findings of Harter (1982) in the development of her Perceived
Competence Scale identifying dimensions of self-competence children
differentiate, and in Mischel’s (1977) suggestion that consistency
of personality depends in part on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of situational variables and personal variables such as
encoding strategies. Markus’s findings are also reminiscent of the
emphasis of ego psychologists on the cohesiveness and strength of
the ego or self, and lend support to the thesis posed above that a

strong ego may make children less open in terms of changing their

19

self-esteem to interactional and classroom processes. A similar
approach was taken by Lynch (1981). His focus, however, was on the
rules by which information is processed. He considered the self-
concept as a set of rules that filter incoming information about the
self and govern how that information is interpreted and responded
to. These rules also change over time according to certain meta-
rules, as it were, of development--developmental phases and

conceptual crises.

ngnitive-Developmental Approaches

A fifth approach to the empirical investigation of self-concept

 

uses a cognitive-developmental perspective. It is a synthetic
approach attempting to integrate the findings of many researchers
into a unified cognitive framework (although Lynch, 1981, attempted
a similar synthesis from his information-processing framework). The
cognitive developmentalists, supremely championed by Piaget, begin
from the premise that the human mind filters reality not through
some orderly but somewhat ad hoc set of rules, but rather through a
cohesive organizing framework or set of structures. These cognitive
structures get increasingly complex and comprehensive as development
proceeds, and to some (Rest, 1983) their proper description is
contentless. How a person thinks, not what he/she thinks, is what
constitutes a cognitive structure. This approach to self-concept
development has been attempted by a few writers with intriguing

results.

20

Damon and Hart (1982) reviewed the literature on self-concept
and concluded that one reason for the lack of many strong findings
was the failure of researchers to ground their work in cognitive-
developmental findings. Identifying four domains in which the self
may be conceived, Damon and Hart traced the developmental history of
each domain. During infancy and early childhood, the child at first
simply recognizes him/herself, but then conceives of the self in
physical terms alone, especially in terms of activities. The child
also fails to distinguish between internal and external, as well as
private and public. During middle and late childhood, children are
beginning to distinguish between inner and outer experiences and to
define the self in terms of what they do (the active self) or can do
in relation to others. The distinction between physical and
psychological is made, but even the psychological is primarily
conceived of in action terms. For example, the psychological self
is conceived of in terms of what one feels when one does a
particular thing. In early adolescence, the social self comes to
the fore, as each self is conceived of primarily as it relates to
the social world of peers. Finally, in late adolescence, the truly
psychological self, with ongoing belief systems and emotional and
intellectual characteristics, emerges.

Also with development, the sense of self-continuity (similar to
the concept of cohesion in ego psychological perspectives) shifts
from having an unchanging physical body (object permanence) to being
someone with on-going mental, physical, and cognitive processes in

the changing circumstances of life. Similarly, the sense of

21

volition shifts from one body part telling another what to do, to a
sense of being the active initiator of personal action, something
Baumrind (cited in Maccoby & Martin, 1983) called "personal agency."

Selman (1980) also had a framework for the development of self-
awareness. His primary work has been with children’s conceptions of
friendship, but since his basic organizing rubric is social
perspective taking, it necessarily takes into consideration the
child’s views of the self. Selman’s sequence is in basic agreement
with Damon and Hart (who drew heavily on his work), and overall
posits a shift from the physical to the psychological, and from
self-centeredness (cognitively) to a theoretical infinite regress of
reciprocal role taking (1 know that you know that I know that you
know, and so on).

Harter (1983) also developed a cognitive-developmental frame-
work integrating a great deal of the research on self-concept
development. Distinguishing between the content of children’s self-
concepts (physical versus psychological) and the structure of the
thinking underlying the content (e.g., simple description versus
single abstractions), she proposed four stages, each with two
substages of structural change, that help define the changes in the
content. During Stage I, self-descriptions are articulated in terms
of specific attributes, behaviors, emotions, motives, and
cognitions. At Stage II, these are integrated into traits. At
Stage III, traits become integrated into single abstractions such as

”smart" or ”creative." At Stage IV, these abstractions are combined

22

into higher-order abstractions. Harter suggested that, at any given
point in development, a child or adolescent may be at a particular
structural stage and level for one content domain, but at a
different structural stage and level for another content domain.

Given the type of decalage predicted by this model, it is not

possible to construct a single developmental sequence

incorporating both content and structural dimensions. One can
postulate that within any given contents domain . . . the
structural sequence will be manifest. . . . One might also
predict. developmental shifts within a particular structural
level, for example Stage II traits, across the sequence of
content dimensions. For example, . . . "smart” might later
incorporate motivational dimensions, for example, hard-working.

At some subsequent point in development, the trait label may be

extended further to one’s thought processes, for example, "I’m

smart because I can logically think through problems and deduce

answers."
Harter did hypothesize, however, that the level of structural usage
and content category usage are correlated to some degree.

The last five of these six approaches were drawn on to
formulate the model presented in this study of parental and
classroom processes that affect self-concept development. Each
represents a mode of analysis and gives an important perspective of
what these processes are or how they operate to affect self-concept.

It is unfortunate that there are no good measures of
psychoanalytic conceptions of the unconscious perception of the
self, given the limitations of self-reports and the hypothesized
importance (in psychoanalytic clinical thinking; Blanck & Blanck,
1979) of the unconscious in determining behavior. The only broadly
agreed on method of determining unconscious perceptions is through a
clinical assessment, such as that of Bellak and Goldsmith (1984).

Research has been conducted with their instrument, but it was

23

developed for adults. Therefore, only the final three approaches
were really drawn on in this study and all studies of classroom
practices.

Ideally, some measures of students’ conscious and unconscious
sense of self would be developed, linked with the students’
developmental stage (as noted by cognitive developmentalists) and
then examined in the light of social interactional dynamics in the
classroom. This would be a more comprehensive, satisfying approach.
Also important would be to link students’ pastself-concepts (from
earlier classrooms and especially from the home) with the changes
that occur in the current classroom. Such research, however, is
many years away. The discussion turns now to a review of classroom

research on self-concept.

Classroom Factors Affecting Self-Evaluation

Research on the factors in the classroom that affect the self-
concepts of children has emerged from the interpersonal,
interactional paradigm. Classroom processes are interpersonal in
nature, although they are influenced by cognitive and emotional
internal processes in both teachers and students. As noted
previously, with few exceptions the research is correlational and
uses a phenomenological approach to understanding "self-concept."
No studies were uncovered taking a more psychoanalytic focus in
understanding the student’s self-evaluation. And few studies gave
attention to the cognitive-developmental factors in students that

mediate the interpersonal factors. Therefore, no comprehensive

24

model taking into account the implications of all the paradigms and
approaches can be drafted as yet from the research, but it may be
worth noting the comments of Harter (1981). After years of work in
this area of self-concept and achievement motivation, having started
with a large, comprehensive model of effectance motivation, she
evolved to a new position:

Initially, I had wanted this chapter to present a bigger and

better model. At best, we have captured a respectable portion

of the variance for a few interesting constructs. We have
become much less grandiose 'hi one sense, forsaking the
diagrammatic effort to depict the big picture. In abandoning
that goal, we feel we have allowed a much richer understanding
of the phenomena to emerge. . . . It has become clear that our
energies should be directed towards the construction of various
minimodels rather than an attempt to articulate an all-

encompassing theory, as such. (p. 249)

A similar conclusion was reached by Brophy (1983) after
surveying more than 10 years of research on the effect of teacher
expectations in the classroom: "Clearly, the topic of self-
fulfilling prophecies in the classroom is much more complex than it
seemed to be 10 {years ago." Hhat emerged from the following
research, therefore, were some real indications as to processes that
affect children’s self-concepts. Only Marshall and Heinstein (1984)
have attempted to formulate a 'minimodel" of these processes, based
solidly on the research. It is hoped that the current study helps
both to fill in the details of factors already discovered and to
expand the knowledge base into some other dimensions of classroom

processes.

25

T h r c a i

Parents’, teachers’, and other adults’ expectations have long
been seen as a critical factor in the formation of children’s own
self-concepts. Rosenthal and Fode (1963) first demonstrated the
effect of interpersonal expectations in a social setting, using
undergraduate and graduate students. Further studies by Rosenthal
and colleagues consistently demonstrated effects on people of
others’ expectations. But it was Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968)
study of teacher expectations, nicknamed the "Pygmalion study," that
first brought national attention to the effect of teachers’
expectations on students. In their controversial study, they told
the teachers of 18 classrooms that a certain 20% of the students had
remarkable potential for academic growth .based on written
examination (the 20% were actually randomly chosen). Eight months
later, those students had significantly greater gains in both total
10 and reasoning IQ than did the rest of their respective classes.

Some years later, Rosenthal (1976) did a meta-analysis of more
than 300 studies of expectation effects and found that 37% of the
studies reported significant (p < .05) expectation effects. In
studies dealing specifically with classrooms and teaching situations
in a nonlaboratory context, 38% had significant effects. Rampaul,
Singh, and Didyk (1984) demonstrated significant correlations
between teacher expectations and both academic achievement (where
the bulk of the research has been done) and self-concept of third-
and fourth-grade students. Karper and Martinek (1982) also

discovered a strong effect on student self-concept by teachers’

26

expectations of students’ ability to reason. Further support for
the now-confirmed view that teacher expectations do have effects on
achievement and self-concept has come from developmental studies of
children’s self-concept formation. Citing the excellent research of
Rosenberg (1979), Harter (1983) noted that younger children’s
conclusions of what they were like were very dependent on adult
authority, a conclusion that coincides with research in moral
development in which morality is first defined by what adult
authority say it is (Rest, 1983).

Cooper (1979) concluded, however, that since such expectation
effects do not always happen, it must depend on teacher style of
communicating or acting on expectations. Some teachers may, for
example, have certain expectations of students but treat all of the
students the same.

As for the question of just how teacher expectations affect
students--the actual mechanisms and sequences--Cooper (1979),
summarizing the research, contended that the weight of the evidence
favored the view 'that teacher' expectations. do not substantially
alter student performance, but when formed from teacher observations
of students’ past performances (which makes them relatively
accurate), they do maintain the pre-existing achievement variations.

Brophy (1983), in his major review of the literature on teacher
expectations, came to several similar conclusions.

(a) Contrary to the impression given by brief expectation

manipulation experiments, the expectations of in-service

teachers concerning students in their own classrooms are gen-
erally accurate and based on valid information, and much of the

27

differential treatment of different students observable in
their' classrooms represents appropriate individualization of
instruction or response to differential student behavior rather
than biased or otherwise inappropriate treatment. (b) Conse-
quently, even the potential for teacher expectation effects on
student achievement is limited in most classrooms, because such
effects must be mediated by the consistent comunication of
relatively jnegsuratev expectations. (c) Actgel expectation
effects are probably minimal in most classrooms, although they
do exist and are probably substantial in classrooms taught by

teachers with certain personal characteristics. (p. 631)

Brophy also noted that although much is now known about how
teachers treat students from whom they expect little, it is
difficult to predict the effects of such expectations because the
expectations interact with a teacher’s beliefs about teaching.

In the academic-performance domain, Cooper (1979) noted four
repeatedly demonstrated correlations between teachers’ expectations
of student success and teacher differential treatment. For one,
teachers create a warmer socioemotional atmosphere for brighter
students, a conclusion confirmed by Chiakin, Sigler, and Derlega
(1974). Second, teachers’ verbal inputs to students, as Cooper
called them, are different. "Slow" students receive fewer
opportunities to learn new material than students labeled "bright"
and have less difficult material taught to them.

A third correlation noted by Cooper is that teachers’ verbal
outputs vary by student. Both the number of times students and
teachers are engaged in academic interactions and the length of time
they spend on a given contact are relatively higher and longer,
respectively, with brighter students than with slower students.
Finally, the feedback teachers give students, notably praise and

criticism, are correlated with student brightness as well. Brophy

28

(1983) suggested a longer but similar list of findings but
emphasized the teacher’ and student. variables that interact with
these behaviors. I

Given this research context of demonstrated correlations
between teacher expectations and teacher behavior toward students in
the domain of student performance, it is reasonable to assume that
such correlations can be ‘found between teacher expectations and
teacher behavior when looking at student self-concept--the domain of
this study. The research being reported here should not be
construed as illustrating only the effect of teacher expectations,
but, as noted above, teacher expectations can be assumed to be one

major cause of the behavioral variations noted.

Classroom Reward System

Certainly the frequencies, manner, and patterns in the way
teachers reward students for their efforts and performance in the
classroom can be expected to have an important influence on
students’ self-concepts, at least in the academic domain. Harter
(1981) posited two general functional domains for reward, a
motivational domain and an informational domain, each of which has
two functions. Hithin the motivational domain, reward serves an
incentive function that impels the child to engage in activities in
the anticipation of rewards and an affective function that gives the
child feelings of satisfaction. Hithin the informational domain,

reward provides the information necessary to set and define mastery

29

goals, and information about evaluative criteria with which to
determine success or failure.

Parsons, Kaczala, and Meece (1982) echoed the importance Harter
ascribed to defining the functions of reward, noting that the effect
of teacher praise is dependent on what attributions the student
makes with reference to it. Praise or criticism will affect
students differently, depending on whether or not a student
considers it as providing information about teacher expectations.

Blumenfeld et a1. (1982) raised serious questions about the
informational and incentive value of teacher feedback, as did Brophy
(1981). Brophy, for example, noted that classroom evaluation is
often not contingent on actual performance, but is a function of the
teacher’s perceptions of the child, such as the student’s need for
encouragement or simply an acknowledgment of participation. And
Blumenfeld et al. suggested that teacher feedback is often not very
systematic. For example, a student’s worksheet may have two answers
marked wrong, but is that good or bad? The student may not know.
Or a teacher’s comment may not pertain to the central purpose of a
task. It may, for example, focus on form rather than on accuracy.
And given young children’s difficulty-~to be explored under
mediational factors below--with forming accurate assessments of
ability, this results in a significant degree of confusion in the
classroom as to what the feedback actually is.

Marshall and Heinstein (1984) suggested various other factors
to be considered in exploring the effect of reward systems in a

classroom. The visibility of evaluation is one variable, with

30

public evaluations of one area of competence likely to raise the
self-evaluations of high achievers and lower the self-evaluations of
low achievers. Another dimension includes evaluations of or
attributions to general competence versus multiple competencies, an
issue to be taken up under mediational factors. ‘They also noted
that research into extrinsic reward systems has focused on type of
reward, frequency, magnitude and sensitivity of reward, single
versus multiple competencies rewarded, and consequences for an
individual of classmates’ performance.

Given this context of ’student confusion and multiple,
interacting, oft-times vague feedback factors, the few studies that
have actually attempted to examine the relationship between
classroom reward systems and self-concept have just begun to tease
out the important factors.

Probably the most salient aspects of classroom reward systems
are teacher praise and criticism. As noted above, teachers have
been found to differentially praise students of various abilities,
which has various effects on achievement.

In their large observational study, Parsons et a1. (1982)
discovered that. a student’s actual past achievement and teacher
expectations were the major factors influencing student academic
self-concept.

. . [T]he interactional variables are not as predictive of

students’ self— and task-concepts as are other variables we

measured [i.e., past performance and teacher expectations]. As
has been argued by Brophy and Good (1974) and others, the

interactional patterns do not have big effects on student
outcome measures. Much of what is going on is noise. But

31

teachers’ expectations do have an effect independent of the

students’ past grades. These effects must be mediated by

processes more subtle than the interactional variables we

observed. (p. 338)

The interactional variables they observed in the classroom were
praise, criticism, frequency of interaction between a teacher and a
student, encouragement to continue responding to a question, who
initiated the interaction, type of interaction, type of response,
public or private nature of the interaction, and attributional
statements coded as ability, effort, or task ease. Nevertheless,
they did discover certain patterns for the effect of praise on
student self-concepts.

Corresponding to ‘research in the student-performance domain
(Brophy & Good, in press), Parsons et al. also found that praise and
criticism are best used sparingly in the classroom. Within that
overall context of low incidences, higher self-concept of ability is
promoted best by relatively high proportions of interactions
yielding praise, relatively high incidence of work criticism, low
incidence of public feedback following a public error, and low
incidence of criticism following a student-initiated question.
These relationships seem to be more true of boys than of girls, in
part because to boys teacher praise and criticism is an indicator of
teacher expectations, whereas to girls, the researchers concluded,
it is not.

Pintrich and Blumenfeld (1985) also did an observational study

of various classroom factors, including teacher praise and

criticism. They found that teacher feedback about work was a better

32

predictor of children’s ability and effort self-perceptions than
were other types of interactions with the teacher or with peers.
Students who were praised more for their work thought they were
smarter and worked harder than did those who had lower levels of
work praise. Also, work criticism did not correlate with or predict
ability self-perceptions, a finding somewhat at odds with that of
Parsons et al. (1982) discussed above. Rather, they found that work
criticism signified to students low effort rather than low ability.
Nhen the teacher praised or criticized students’ conduct in the
classroom, students’ ability self-perceptions were not affected, but
their effort self-perceptions were negatively related to effort
self-ratings. One limitation to their study that the authors cited
was the lack of attention given to classroom structural variables,
which is discussed in the next section.

Other possible factors involving praise and criticism have
emerged in experimental research. Experimental studies may or may
not be found in the natural setting of the classroom, but their
results have suggested some possible areas for observational
researchers to examine. Brady, Figuerres, Felker, and Garrison
(1978) taught teacher to enhance student self-concept through
praising themselves (modeling self-praise), teaching students to
praise themselves, teaching students to praise others, teaching
students to set realistic goals, and helping students to
realistically evaluate themselves. They found at the end of the
year that teachers’ modeling of self-praise and teacher

encouragement of students to praise other students were the best

33

predictors of improved self-concept. Although this was an
experimental study, teacher modeling is an important factor in the
kinds of internalization and identification processes that occur in
self-concept development and might very well be seen in classrooms
where the teachers have not been so trained. Likewise, students
praising other students should also be seen in the natural setting.
Papenfuss, Curtis, Beier, and Menze (1983) also found that teachers
could effectively be taught methods of self-concept improvement.
Student self-praise (followed by social reinforcement) was also
tested by Hauserman, Miller, and Bond (1976) on grades K-4 and was
found to be effective in raising self-concept.

Another aspect of classroom reward systems is the cooperative
versus competitive nature of the means whereby students obtain
rewards. Marshall and Heinstein (1984) cited Pepitone’s (1982)
findings that in cooperative classroom situations, social comparison
is almost wholly absent. Slavin (1980) has been a long-time
researcher into and proponent of cooperative learning, mainly citing
its benefits for learning but also noting its positive effects on
both self- and other-concepts. Ames (1977) studied fifth-grade boys
in a competitive-achievement setting and found that competitive
conditions caused the boys to be self-punitive when they failed and
ego-enhancing when they succeeded. In further research, Ames (1981)
continued to find greater negative effect on self-concept of ability};

in competitive as compared with cooperative reward contexts.

34

Another factor of reward structures to be considered here is
the timing of the reward or feedback. Joseph and Maguire (1982)
discovered, for example, that delayed feedback (24 hours) in terms
of telling students the results of their efforts was helpful to

students of low perceived ability.

Clessroom Size, Orgenitatjpn,
end Grpuping Structure

In an experimental study of the effects of four class sizes
(16, 23, 30, and 37) on fourth- and fifth-grade students’ self-
concepts, findings from 62 classes across 2 years found no effects
(Shapson, Wright, Eason, & Fitzgerald, 1980). Classroom grouping
structure, however, may have some effect on self-concept. Marshall
and Heinstein (1984) delineated a number of components of the
grouping structure in the classroom: (a) size and number of groups,
(b) basis for grouping, (c) consistency of groups across content
areas, (d) stability of groups over time, (e) labeling of groups,
(f) mobility of individuals between groups, (9) number of groups
functioning as groups at one time (group operation), and (h) amount
of time spent in individual, group, or whole-class structure.

Little research has been done on these various components.
Filby and Barnett (1982) did find that students made judgments about
their abilities based on which groups they were in. Marshall and
Heinstein (1984) also noted that teachers instructed groups
differently, depending on the ability level of the group, which one
might assume helps students to discern teacher expectations. Eder

(1983) found that students made comparisons both between groups and

35

within groups, such that students in low groups had lower academic
self-concepts relative to the high groups, but lower students who
were moved into higher groups experienced some drop in ability self-
perception due to within-group comparisons. But as noted
previously, cooperative learning groups seem to mitigate some of
these effects (Sharan, 1980). Although its theoretical import is
not clear, Eckard (1979) suggested that there is a "group self-
concept" that also should be explored, something she did in a

preliminary study.

Instructionel Methods end Content

How teachers go about the task of teaching has some direct and
indirect. influence ("1 students’ self-concepts. Researchers have
begun to discover various factors, although the research has trailed
that which has been done on teaching methods that affect
achievement.

Probably the most important factor has to do with the relative
multidimensionality of classroom work and evaluation. Simpson
(1981) used the concept of unidimensional organization of
instruction versus multidimensional organization. He defined
unidimensional classrooms as ones in which the curriculum is
undifferentiated and all student work is graded. Multidimensional
classrooms have highly differentiated curricula and the work is not
graded. Simpson found that in unidimensional classrooms, a high

peer consensus emerged as to students’ relative performance ability,

36

along with a tendency by students to generalize their ability in one
area (e.g., reading) to "ability" in general.

Rosenholtz and Rosenholtz (1981) criticized Simpson’s rather
unidimensional conception of dimensionality. Instead, they posited
several factors that go into determining the dimensionality of the
classroom and the resulting ease with which ability comparisons can
be made by students. They argued that the pattern of findings on
heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping practices within
classrooms is inconsistent because there is no convincing
theoretical basis for the research. They themselves began with the
perspective that students and teachers are active constructors of
the knowledge they share about each other. The salience of a
student’s performance--how clear and unambiguous a picture of
student abilities is presented--provides the basis for comparative
evaluations within the classroom. The factors that determine this
salience are several. Task differentiation is one; the narrower the
range of tasks students are working on at any one time, the easier
it is to compare performance. A second factor is students’ autonomy
in choosing what they will work on and when they will work on it;
the more autonomy, the more differentiation there will be. A third
factor is teacher grouping practices; ability grouping or whole
class working on the same task leads to comparative assessment.
Finally, a teacher’s comparative-assessment practices are important
contributors to students’ capacity to determine their relative

ability; the more dimensional the evaluation (the more areas of

37

performance a teacher evaluates student performance on), the less
influence teachers and peers will have on self-evaluation.

These findings were echoed and elaborated by Marshall and
Heinstein (1984), who expanded on the concept of task
differentiation by noting that tasks can vary as to (a) the variety
of tasks occurring simultaneously, (b) the divergence in the ways in
which tasks can be carried out or in the final products to be
produced (one correct product versus many acceptable products), and
(c) differences in the sequence and pace of tasks for different
individuals. They suggested that the greater the task divergence,
the more variety in subjects, and the less tasks are sequenced, the
more difficult it is for students to compare.

Another factor of instructional methods that seems to affect
self-concept is teacher decision-making style. Schempp, Cheffers,
and Zaichkowsky (1983) found that in grades one through five,
childrenallowed to make decisions about their learning had
significantly higher self-concepts than did children whose teachers
dominated the decision-making process. Similar findings were
discovered by Jacka (1983) in his research of "high- versus low-
guidance methods of instruction.” Rosenholtz and Rosenholtz (1981)

found this as well in their concept of student autonomy.

tpgnitive end Personality
Mediatjmflstecs

The foregoing interactions between teacher behavior and student
self-concept seem to be mediated by a number of factors within both

the student and the teacher. These factors no doubt account for

38

much of the variance in student self-concepts unaccounted for by
teacher behavior. The research on student and teacher cognitions
and their classroom implications is quite large, so just a few
germane factors and studies are mentioned in this section.

One cognitive variable that seems to mediate between teacher
behavior and student self-concept is the theory of intelligence or
ability that the student or the teacher holds. Nicholls (1978,
1983), a major researcher and theoretician in this area, suggested
both a developmental pattern in the understanding of ability and a
typology of theories of intelligence. Developmentally, children
progress through four stages of their conceptions of ability. In
the first stage (age 6 and under), children view ability, effort,
and outcomes as indistinguishable and believe that individuals who
try harder are smarter than those who do not exert as much effort.
They assume that individuals who earn higher scores automatically
try harder and are smarter. In the second stage (ages 7 and 8),
effort and outcome are separate, but equal effort should lead to
equal outcome, regardless of ability. If a student fails, he/she
did not try hard or had poor work habits. In the third stage (ages
9 to 11), ability is an occasional mediator of effort and outcome,
but basically those who work hard are smart. In the final stage
(age 11 and older), effort and ability co-determine outcome.

In terms of typology, Nicholls differentiated between "ego-
involvement" in classroom tasks and "task-involvement.” Although he

was talking strictly about achievement motivation, there is an

39

underlying conception of’ ability 'that results in the respective
achievement motivation. For ego-involved children, ability is seen
as a fixed entity, something one has more or less of than peers.
There is a preoccupation with him/herself--with avoiding looking
stupid--rather than with learning or understanding. Also, learning
is not valued in and of itself but is seen as a means to an end--
bolstering the ego (ego in the sense of self-esteem rather than in
the psychoanalytic sense of psychological functions). Consequently,
if one perceives oneself as having high ability and is ego-involved
in classroom assignments, one will select only those tasks that will
make him/her appear competent. If one has low ability, either far
too difficult tasks or much too easy tasks will be chosen. The
task-involved child considers ability as something modifiable by
effort and learning. The harder one works, and the more one learns,
the more ability one has. It is incremental rather than fixed.
Consequently, the task-involved child focuses on learning itself and
chooses tasks that offer the best opportunities for learning with a
realistic level of challenge. Marshall and Heinstein (1984),
Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984), and Rosenholtz and Rosenholtz (1981)
all implicated the unidimensionality versus multidimensionality of
the classroom factor as arising out of the teacher’s conception of
ability and contributing to the students’ conception. The more
dimensions of performance a teacher evaluates, the more dimensions
of ability the students come to consider in forming a self-
perception of ability. And the narrower the definition of academic

ability, the more stratification there is in the classroom.

40

Some personality factors also seem to mediate between teacher
behavior and student self-concept. Alban-Metcalfe and Alban-
Metcalfe (1981) found that students’ social adjustment affected
their self-concept. Cheong and Hadden (1978) found that teachers’
degree of dogmatism versus willingness to experiment affected
student self-concept. The higher the experimentalism, the higher
the self-concepts. Teachers’ own self-concepts have also been found
to affect students’ self-concepts (Edeburn & Landry, 1976).

Effective Perenting. Organizational Leadership, and
Self-Concept: Criticel Dimensions

 

Research on the parenting variables that affect self-concept
formation, while still 'hi an early, unacceptably incomplete state
(Harter, 1983; Wylie, 1979), is nonetheless more advanced than
classroom research and so provides some intriguing suggestions for
classroom research. As Brophy and Putnam (1979) put it, “Research
on parenting provides an especially rich set of guidelines for . . .
teachers" (p. 276) and therefore, it might be added, for those who
research teaching practices.

The most effective, helpful research has been significantly
observational in nature. Coopersmith’s (1967) ground-breaking
study, Baumrind’s (1975) seminal longitudinal studies, and
Patterson’s (1982) recent observational studies are examples in
which direct observations were made of parents in the home, the
information then being correlated with observational and

questionnaire data about the children. Baumrind, for example,

41

constructed a set of 50 parent rating scales to measure parenting
behavior, based on 15 hypothetical constructs. Clusters of items
that emerged from the data included “firm enforcement” of demands,
”passivity-acceptance" or the avoidance of open confrontation with
children, and "encouraged independence and individuality." The
resulting analyses of these studies, which have also included
structured interviews, have begun to overcome many of the
deficiencies cited by Hylie (1979) in her review of more exclusively
quantitative studies of parental antecedents of self-esteem. These
advances in parental research methodologies have been coupled with
advances in both an understanding of the components of self-concept
and the ability to measure them (Harter, 1983).

Three major dimensions stand out in the research on the
parenting styles that produce positive or negative self-evaluations.
They are demandingness, responsiveness, and supportiveness.

All parents make demands on their children, from the very
beginning of life. A demand is herein defined as a behavioral,
cognitive, or emotional standard or goal an authority sets for a
child. Demandingness in part has to do with maturity level. There
seem to be at least two distinct types of demands identified in the
literature (Baumrind, 1975; Clark, 1983; Maccoby, 1980; Maccoby &
Martin, 1983; Patterson, 1982; Spady 5 Mitchell, 1979). Compliance
demands are those demands that focus a child on obeying a parent
because of the parent’s authority-~obedience to the parental role
itself. Maturity demands are pressures put on the child to perform

up to his/her intellectual, social, and emotional ability (doing

42

one’s individual best), to act as a person responsible for the
outcomes of his/her behavior (a sense of personal agency), as well
as to act autonomously through internalization of parental
standards.

Responsiveness is manifested by parents in their attempts to
socialize their children into meeting their demands. The dimension
includes two factors. One is the degree of contingency in the
child’s parental environment (Baumrind, 1975; Maccoby & Martin,
1983; Skinner & Connell, 1985). Relatively responsive parents in
this sense shape the child’s growth by responding differentially to
desired and undesired behavior. That differential response may be
direct or indirect through family routines, rules, reward systems,
and so on. Relatively unresponsive parents respond similarly to
both kinds of child behavior. The second factor in the dimension of
responsiveness has been identified as sensitive (Ainsworth, 1979;
Mahler, 1975; Skinner' &. Connell, 1985). Sensitive parents are
child-centered, understanding and adapting to the child’s signals,
states, needs, and desires, while relatively insensitive parents act
according to their own needs, wishes, and state, unmoved by the
child. Thus, Skinner and Connell (1985) distinguished between
merely "contingent" environments and "contingent-sensitive"
environments. One parent who consistently "rewards” a child who
works hard, trying to please, with punishment, and another who
rewards the child with something positive, are both being

contingent, but clearly the second parent is being sensitive to the

43

child’s intentions. In this study, therefore, responsive refers to
contingent-sensitive.

Before discussing parenting styles and the effects on children
who emerge from them, the dimension of supportiveness must be
defined. Supportiveness is herein defined as a parent’s attempts to
develop and maintain noncontingent affectional ties with the child.
Hhile responsiveness is primarily informational in nature (the child
learns what contingencies exist in his/her environment and discovers
that those contingencies take into account his/her own goals, needs,
and so on), supportiveness is primarily affectional, although within
every emotion are cognitive data (Arieti & Bemporad, 1978). Parents
and children are emotionally attached to each other, a biologically
driven process that begins at birth (Bowlby, 1969) and develops over
time (Ainsworth, 1979; Blanck & Blanck, 1979, 1986; Mahler et al.,
1975). Components of this relationship relevant to the dimension of
supportiveness include showing warmth and affection (Ainsworth,
1979; Maccoby, 1980), providing a sense of safety and trust (Blanck
& Blanck, 1979; Erikson, 1980), and communicating acceptance and
belonging (Baumrind, 1975; Blanck & Blanck, 1979; Erikson, 1980). A
relatively supportive parent noncontingently, consistently meets the
child’s needs in these three component areas, whereas relatively
unsupportive parents either contingently supply these needs or
consistently withhold provision (Ainsworth, 1979; Blanck & Blanck,
1979; Mahler et al., 1975).

44

The relationship between demandingness and responsiveness, with
their associated parenting styles (Baumrind, 1975; Maccoby & Martin,

1983) may be pictured as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1.—-Styles of parenting.

 

 

 

Demanding Undemanding
Responsive
(contingent) Authoritative Permissive
Unresponsive Authoritarian Neglecting

 

 

 

 

 

Baumrind (1975) conducted observational and interview
longitudinal research with parents and their children that bore
directly on these three dimensions.

Authoritarian parents value obedience, favor punitive
discipline, restrict autonomy, attempt to preserve order, and do not
encourage verbal give and take. They typically demand compliance
with authority, the stated comands of the parent. Authoritative
parents attempt to direct children through rational, issue-oriented,
reciprocal verbal interchanges; solicit objections and explain
reasoning in conflict situations; value both disciplined conformity
and autonomous self-regulation (a demand for maturity); exert firm
control; and set standards but also give substantial autonomy based
on the child’s desires. Permissive parents behave in an

affirmative, acceptant, benign nmhner, seeing themselves as

45

resources for the child to use when needed but not as active agents
responsible for shaping the child’s behavior; give substantial
freedom consistent with the child’s physical survival; and use
reasoning but not power to achieve objectives with the child.
Neglecting parents, among other aspects, are uninvolved (uncommitted
to their role as parents and to the fostering of the child’s
development); indifferent; responsive far more to their own needs,
feelings, and desires than to the child’s (parent-centered rather
than child-centered); and have a primary orientation toward avoiding
inconvenience, typically demanding that children not interrupt or
bother them.

Maccoby (1980) and Maccoby and Martin (1983), summarizing
Baumrind’s and others’ research on these patterns, indicated the
following effects on children’s behavior. Children of authoritarian
parents (unresponsive or insensitively contingent, a predominance of
compliance and system-maintenance demands that are wide in scope,
and variously supportive or unsupportive) are lacking in empathy;
low in self-esteem; poor in internalization of moral standards;
oriented toward external rewards and punishments; either subdued and
obedient (when parents are supportive, popularly called "smother
love”) or aggressive and resistant (when parents are unsupportive);
lacking in spontaneity, affection, curiosity, and originality; low
in effective peer interaction; weak in establishing positive
relationships with peers; frequently sad in mood; somewhat
withdrawn; lacking independence; and mid-level in social

responsibility.

46

Children of authoritative parents (responsive, supportive,
predominance of maturity demands that are wide in scope and clear)
are independent, have a sense of both cognitive and social agency
(initiative, can be agents of change affecting their world the way
they need to), socially responsible, able to control aggression,
self-confident (efficacy), and high in self-esteem.

Children of permissive parents (responsive, supportive, with a
predominance of nonconformity demands that are wide in scope) are
impulsive, aggressive, lacking in independence, socially
irresponsible and immature, and low in social and cognitive agency.

Children of neglecting parents (unresponsive, unsupportive, few
demands of' any kind) are impulsive, moody, low in self-esteem,
lacking concentration, uninterested in school, truant, hedonistic,
lacking in frustration tolerance, lacking long-term goals, substance
abusers, and have arrest records.

These dimensions can also be seen in Coopersmith’s (1967) early
but influential study of the parental antecedents of self-esteem.
Maccoby (1980) summarized Coopersmith’s findings about the parents
of boys with high self-esteem. Supportiveness can be seen in their
being accepting, affectionate, and involved in the child’s interests
and problems. They are responsive in their use of noncoercive kinds
of' discipline such as reasoning, and democratic decision-making
style. Demandingness can be seen in their high standards of
behavior and careful and consistent enforcing of rules. Similar

findings were reported by Clark (1983) in his interview study of

47

black low-income families in a major urban environment. Parents who
produced children who achieved in school and consequently had high
self-perceived competence were characterized by frequent parent-
child dialogue, warm and nurturant interactions, and strong parental
encouragement of academic pursuits, clear and consistent limits, and
consistent monitoring of how they used their time.

These same dimensions can be found in the research on
successful organizations and even successful churches. Peters and
Haterman’s (1982) study of "excellent" companies--those that
achieved above-average performance over a long period of time--found
that these companies were both very demanding (set high standards
and monitored performance closely) and very responsive (gave
substantial autonomy within the key guidelines; gave consistent,
extravagant support; and dispensed rewards and punishments
contingent on performance). Peters and Austin (1985) found similar
characteristics in smaller companies and in schools, as did Clifford
and Cavanagh (1985) in mid-sized companies. Similarly, research of
successful churches--those that achieve long-term, above-average
growth in numbers and ministries-~has revealed both demandingness
(strong, lengthy pastoral leadership; high standards; and demands
for active involvement and "spiritual maturity”) and responsiveness
(attention to the concerns of people, focus on members’ individual
gifts and abilities, and encouraging autonomous behavior in
individuals and church groups (Arn, 1979; Wagner, 1984).

These three dimensions, then, seem to be found consistently in

the» parenting literature and have been shown to have important

48

self-concept-related effects. Given that self-concept is a
multivariate construct that is both continuous and discontinuous
across the age span (Damon & Hart, 1982; Dweck & Elliot, 1983;
Harter, 1981, 1983), it is reasonable to hypothesize that dimensions
that have been found to affect self-concept in research on parenting
behavior, organizational leadership, and church leadership may very
well be found to affect self-concept in the classroom. That
hypothesis was tested in the current study. First, however, the
classroom research is now revisited to determine if these dimensions

have been examined before.

Teacher Demandingness, Responsiveness, end Supportiveness:
A Model for Self-geneept Research

The same three dimensions of demandingness, responsiveness, and

 

supportiveness may be used to describe teacher-student interactions
within the classroom. Teachers certainly make demands on students.
Spady and Mitchell (1979) looked at authority in the management of
classroom activities and noted that teachers not only make demands,
but they make various kinds of demands. They grouped demands under
two broad categories of goals. Productive goals are demands for the
performance of tasks leading to student achievements, school
effects, or educational outcomes, depending on whether the frame of
reference is the student, the school organization, or the larger
society. Students are asked to comply with standards of academic
performance, and they are asked to become personally committed to

their own academic development. Thus productivity demands involve

49

striving for technical competence and committing to personal
development (this latter might be thought of as a mastery or
learning orientation; Dweck & Elliot, 1983). Maintenance goals are
demands that create and maintain a functioning social system within
which the pursuit of achievement can take place. Students are asked
to comply with classroom norms and rules and give deference to the
rights and interests of other students, and they are asked to become
personally involved and engaged with each other as persons. Thus
maintenance demands involve both the norms and rules for social
responsibility as well as for social integration.

To achieve these goals, Spady and Mitchell (1979) noted the
need for the exercise of authority. They differentiated between
resource-based authority (giving extrinsic rewards and sanctions)
and legitimacy-based authority (drawing on the students’ sense of
the intrinsic value and significance of the behaviors expected from
them). They suggested that temporary compliance is achieved with
the former, and enduring reorientation of students (maturity) is
achieved with the latter. This attempt to shape behavior through
appealing in various ways to students’ intrinsic motivations they
called ”authoritative management." It is characterized by
supportive and collaborative rather than competitive interactions, a
”doing with" rather than a I'doing to” (p. 102). This was mirrored
in Brophy and Putnam’s (1979) coment that authoritative teacher
behavior (in Baumrind’s sense)

. should help students see and internalize the rationales

that underlie classroom rules, and learn to operate within the
rules on their own initiative. In contrast, authoritarian

50

approaches depend upon external pressure and do not encourage

the development of internal control mechanisms, so that they

generate conflict and tension even when they do succeed in

controlling behavior. (p. 195)

Johnson and Brooks (1979), in their analysis of classroom
management, also noted the presence of differing demands or values,
including goal attainment, efficiency, respect for others, personal
integrity, self-direction, and group cohesion. Doyle (1986)
delineated two major task structures in the classroom, those
involving the demands of learning and those involving the demands of
order, although he noted that they are closely intertwined. He
suggested that "the thoughts and actions of teachers are understood
as attempts to assemble and use resources to accomplish the task of
achieving educational ends in a complex social setting” (p. 394).
Students as well as teachers must focus on the dual demands for
learning and for* order (system maintenance). Bossert’s (1979)
observational study of third- and fourth-grade classrooms found that
half of the four teachers demanded strict adherence to rules and
regulations (compliance and system maintenance demands) and tended
to dominate their classes (their demands were comprehensive). The
multidimensionality of the demand structure of the classroom was
noted earlier in Marshall and Heinstein’s (1984) complex
interactional model of classroom factors contributing to students’
self-evaluations. And in the many studies of. effective teaching

focusing on academic achievement, at least implicit attention has

been given to teacher demands on students (Brophy & Good, 1987).

51

It may therefore reasonably be hypothesized that some of the
same factors involved in parental demandingness characterize teacher
demandingness in the classroom. With reference to level of demands
within the classroom, the same two kinds of parental demands would
seem to adhere within the task domain in the classroom. Teachers at
times emphasize compliance with authority or the role of teacher
(Bossert, 1979; Johnson & Brooks, 1979), what Spady and Mitchell
(1979) called ”legal authority.” Teachers at times demand academic
maturity, which includes Spady and Mitchell’s striving for technical
competence or excellence, commitment to a mastery orientation (Dweck
& Elliot, 1983), and self-regulation (Harter, 1981; Marshall &
Heinstein, 1984; Schempp et al., 1983). Self-regulation involves
several maturity-related factors, including independence and
internal criteria for selection of learning tasks, pacing, task
completion, monitoring, and evaluating performance (Anderson &
Prawat, 1986; Cohen, Intili, & Robbins, 1979; Harter, 1981; Marshall
& Heinstein, 1984).

Responsiveness in the classroom has been looked at extensively
in terms of the effects of differential teacher behavior on academic
achievement (Brophy & Good, 1986). Research on and suggestions for
various kinds of instructional practices to enable students to
achieve teacher learning demands may be viewed as attending to
learning contingencies within the classroom. The effects of
differential teacher behavior on nonachievement-related outcomes
have been less copious. Responsiveness--variations in teacher

behavior and teacher-initiated classroom practices--and its

52

relationship with self-concept were summarized above in the section
entitled Classroom Factors Affecting Self-Evaluation. It need not,
therefore, be repeated here. Salient features, however, included
differential teacher expectations and their communication to
students of varying teacher-perceived abilities, the classroom
reward system, classroom size, organization and grouping structure,
and the multidimensionality and relative competitiveness of
instructional methods and task structures in the classroom. The on-
going, extensive provision and structuring ofinformation by the
teacher for students, and the provision of opportunities to practice
self-regulation have also been shown to have effects on a composite
measurement of task maturity, including self-concept (Anderson &
Prawat, 1986) and are related to, although not encompassed by, the
concept of responsiveness, to the degree that those dimensions
involve differential or contingent teacher behavior and practices.
Cohen et a1. (1979) provided further avenues of inquiry in
considering teacher contingency-sensitivity in their three-fold
model of instructional design, type of supervision, and the
management strategies employed by the teacher. Cohen and her
colleagues did not, however, link these to affective outcomes.
Supportiveness may also be hypothesized to exist in the
classroom, based on previous research. The positiveness of teacher-
student interactions has been looked at (Brophy, 1983; Cooper, 1979;
Marshall & Heinstein, 1984). Marshall and Heinstein (1984)
suggested several other indicators of what they called the ”quality

53

of relationships" between teacher and students: degree of teacher’s
acceptance of variability among students, teacher statements about
students, a teacher’s patience with and acceptance of students’
working at varying paces, and a teacher’s conveying an attitude that
students can learn and increase their skills. Hhile praise and
criticism has been looked at more as a tool fer contingency
application (Brophy, 1981; Brophy & Good, 1986; Harter, 1981;
Parsons et al., 1982; Pintrich & Blumenfeld, 1985), it may also give
some indication of the affective ties between students and teacher.
It may reasonably be hypothesized, therefore, that the factors of
warmth and affection, provision of a sense of safety and trust, and
communication of acceptance and belonging--needs that children have
in the school years as well as earlier (Blanck & Blanck, 1979;
Erikson, 1980)—-may be important factors in a teacher’s effect on
students’ self-concepts.

Given that these three dimensions drawn from studies of
parenting practices that affect self-concept development may be used
to describe teacher-student interactions within the classroom, three
tasks remain to be done. One is to operationalize more clearly the
dimensions for the classroom setting so that it becomes clear what
constitutes an example of demandingness, responsiveness, or
supportiveness. A second task is to show how or why these three
dimensions of teacher behavior and practices affect a student’s
self-concept. Hhat is the hypothesized process that links teacher
behavior with this student outcome? A third task is to determine

through research whether these three dimensions do, in fact, exist

54

in the classroom and how their presence relates to student self-
concept. The remainder of this chapter presents a model of how

these dimensions affect a student’s self-concept.

A Model for Teacher Effects
on Student Self-Copeept

As noted previously, self-concept as a construct has various
components. The definition used in this study was limited to the
construct of perceived ability or competence for meeting academic
tasks (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Harter, 1982; Nicholls, 1983). This
seems to involve for a student at least two processes (Harter, 1982;
Heisz & Cameron, 1985). One is formulating some understanding of
the contingencies in the classroom--what factors lead to success or
failure. This understanding, however accurate or specific, leads to
a judgment by the student of whether he/she can manifest those
factors that involve variations 'hi students’ attributes and
behaviors--that is, are within his/her personal control.

Heisz and Cameron (1985) labeled these two steps as first
making a "contingency judgment” and then a "competence judgment."
They differentiated this sense of competence from a sense of control
because there may be many other factors in any given classroom
situation that will control the ultimate outcomes than student
attributes and behavior (i.e., teacher bias). It was also necessary
to limit the definition of self-concept for this study to the
academic domain because Harter (1981) discovered that children make

distinctions between their sense of competence in the academic

55

domain, the social domain, the physical domain, and a general sense
of self-worth.

This necessarily narrow definition of self-concept for this
study avoided many of the problems incurred by studies that have
used too broad a definition of self-concept since it is increasingly
apparent that there are different antecedents and correlates for
different components of self-concept (Harter, 1982, 1983; Hylie,
1979). Using too broad a definition can lead to weak results
(Hylie, 1979).

The discussion now turns to ways in which the three dimensions
may be hypothesized to cause effects on self-perceived competence in
children. The search is for mediating variables, factors drawn from
the research that may mediate between teacher actions and student
effects.

Demandingness. Hhat mediates teacher demandingness and student
self-concept? Effort, standards, and actual achievement are three
major factors.

Effort. It is likely that teacher demands provide motivation
to students to work. Teachers set the tasks for students to do,
decide the format, adjust the pacing, maintain order, and monitor
on-task and off-task behavior (Anderson, 1985; Brophy, 1986; Doyle,
1986). Teachers thus produce effort on the part of students, since
students would not be able cognitively, nor likely motivationally,
to be totally self-regulating in their learning, at least during the
elementary school years. At the third- and fourth-grade levels, as

noted previously, students are learning that effort and ability are

56

not synonymous, but they are still somewhat confused by the issue
(Nicholls, 1978, 1983). Indeed, elementary school children have
cited effort, or a sense of doing hard work, as one source for
judging their competence (Hinton, 1979). Therefore, it; is likely
that if teacher demands produce effort, students are still likely to
conclude somewhat that they are competent.

Standards. Besides the production of‘ effort, teacher
demandingness gives standards by which students can judge their
ability. What constitutes success in the classroom is different for
different students, as well as teachers (Dweck 81 Elliot, 1983).
Therefore, teacher demands give students some indication of what the
teacher considers success or failure. Even mastery-oriented
children, to the degree they focus on success or failure rather than
learning, need the teacher’s standards to some degree, and teacher-
standard information has been cited by elementary students as one
source of information for judging their competence (Hinton, 1979).
Students use goal information (proactively communicated standards)
and performance-evaluation information (reactively communicated
standards) both directly and comparatively.

As noted previously, teacher expectations of students in the
classroom are generally accurate and do lead to differential teacher
behavior, including differential demands on (or standards for)
students (Brophy, 1983). Thus, across the school year, students
will probably develop a personalized sense of what success or

failure is for them in the eyes of the teacher. The more

57

differentiated the goal structure in the classroom, the more likely
this will be the case (Marshall & Heinstein, 1984; Rosenholtz &
Rosenholtz, 1981; Simpson, 1981). Ambiguous standards or feedback
makes ability judgments more difficult for students, throwing them
back on their own tendencies, and is detrimental to the self-concept
if they are anxious or have low self-perceived ability (Dweck 81
Elliot, 1983). It should be noted that differentiated, multidimen-
sional classrooms have clear but differentiated standards; ambiguous
classrooms have unclear standards.

A second use of teacher standards is as a standard for
comparison with other students. It is not merely that a student
seeks the teacher’s approval for work done, but that it compare
favorably with that of fellow students (Marshall & Heinstein, 1984;
Hinton, 1979). The greater the visibility and comparability of
teacher evaluation, the more likely this effect (Marshall &
Heinstein, 1984).

Achievement. Teacher demands are part of a complex process
that results in student achievement. Of most relevance here are the
production of effort and the level of demands. Effort is not only
seen by students as somewhat synonymous with ability, but without
effort students cannot learn and succeed in the classroom, although
the presence of effort may not result in success, and too much of
the wrong kind of effort can actually hurt (Dweck & Elliot, 1983).
Nonetheless, greater effort should be positively correlated with
greater success (Skinner & Connell, 1985). If successful in

achieving, then the self-concept may be positively affected,

58

depending on the student’s understanding that the outcome was
clearly successful and was contingent on his/her efforts (Anderson &
Prawat, 1986; Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Harter, 1981).

The demand level also affects achievement. Low-level demands
require little in the way of cognitive growth for students, and this
they will at least unconsciously intuit as an indication of their
actual ability (the teacher does not expect much of them). It will
also fail to produce the great achievement strides that are at least
one basis for self-concept growth (Anderson 8 Prawat, 1986). It
also does not require much effort, another basis for competence
judgments as noted (Minton, 1979). High-level demands, however,
cause students to stretch cognitively and thus have the opposite
effects as those of low-level demands (produces effort, real
achievement, and communicates high expectations and thus ability).

From the above discussion, therefore, it may be hypothesized
that relatively comprehensive, clear, high-level teacher
demandingness will produce significant effort, high perceived
teacher expectations, greater actual achievement, clear (although
more or less personalized, more or less comparative) standards for
the meaning of success and failure, and definite goals for cognitive
growth. And all of these factors are likely to positively affect
self-perceived ability for the stated reasons.

Responsiveness. Nhat mediates teacher responsiveness and
student self-concept? Three general factors seem to be involved:

contingency judgment, proximal achievement, and achievement.

59

Contingency judgment. As was noted above (Heisz & Cameron,
1985), for a child to make an accurate competence judgment, he/she
must understand what behaviors lead to success in the classroom
(contingency judgment). The student can then determine how
competent he/she is in producing those behaviors. Bandura (cited in
Bower & Hilgard, 1981) called these ”outcome expectancies" and
"efficacy expectancies," respectively. This capacity to formulate
accurate competence judgments based on accurate contingency
judgments grows with age (Dweck 8 Elliot, 1983; Heisz & Cameron,
1985), depending in part on certain higher-order cognitive skills
such as seriation (Neisz & Cameron, 1985). Highly contingent
environments make the formation of appropriate contingency judgments
easier (Rimm & Masters, 1979). Dweck and Elliot (1983) noted,
however, that learning-oriented students seek accurate information
about their competencies, whereas performance-oriented students seek
flattering information and may avoid seeing their deficits. It may
be that for the latter students, if self-concepts are raised in a
contingent environment it is because of accurately perceived
capacities, whereas in a noncontingent environment higher self-
concepts may represent the teacher’s colluding with the student to
prop up a self-image based on distortions.

Proximal achievement. Contingent environments allow students
opportunities to constantly achieve subgoals that, when mastered,
lead them step by step to the larger instructional or socialization
goals in the classroom (Bower & Hilgard, 1981; Dweck & Elliot,

1983). These proximal achievements, experimentally manipulated in

6O

contingency-management programs (Rimm & Masters, 1979), have several
self-concept-related effects.

One effect is motivational. Bandura and Schunk (1981) called
the attainment of such goals "proximal self-motivation" since the
person is motivated to keep achieving through the recognition of and
pleasure in continual achievement. When the environment is both
contingent and sensitive, motivation increases even more since the
feeling that one’s own intentions and desires have some effect on
the environment is an important component of the sense of agency and
mastery orientation, while the lack of such a sense of influence has
detrimental effects (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Maccoby, 1980). Dweck
and Elliot (1983) noted that performance-oriented students perform
an attribution analysis after successes or failures, particularly
failures (e.g., "What does this mean about ne?”), whereas masteny-
oriented students perform the strategy or skill analysis just
described. They suggested a balance is needed, but focusing on
attributions is associated with achievement-inhibiting patterns of
behavior and impaired performance.

Another important effect of proximal achievement is cognitive
in nature. It promotes on-going self-monitoring and task and skill
analysis (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Dweck & Elliot, 1983). By getting
immediate feedback on progress or the lack of it, a student is more
able to monitor his/her own performance than if the task was so
large that component steps could not be broken down. Similarly,

subgoals allow a student to focus in on the skills and strategies

61

that will be necessary at this time to succeed at the proximal
tasks. Dweck and Elliot (1983) cited these tendencies as critical
to the formation of a mastery orientation, another important
influence on self-concept as noted earlier. I

Achievement. Contingent environments seem also to be
associated with academic success. Cohen et a1. (1979) argued that
complex, contingent instructional design and supervision approaches
lead to a "deeper commitment" (mastery orientation?) on the part of
students to the learning task. Slavin (1980) also demonstrated the
effectiveness for achievement- and nonachievement-related outcomes
of complex, contingent-sensitive teaching approaches such as
cooperative learning groups. Rimm and Masters (1979) stated, "There
is a growing body of evidence that [contingently] reinforcing
academic achievement produces concomitant improvements in the

attentional behaviors necessary for such achievement” (p. 231).

,f Brophy (1986) noted that proper pacing and sequencing of instruction 3;

intol manageable steps, along with steady progress and constant
successes, is important in the achievement situation.

Cohen (Cohen et al., 1979) also argued for more complex,
delegated, necessarily contingent-sensitive instructional designs
and supervision techniques in classroom teaching and suggested
(1983) that when basic skills are being taught, direct teaching is
appropriate (e.g., drills, recitations), but when higher-order
skills are being taught (e.g., critical analysis), what she
advocated may be more effective. (She was considering academic

effectiveness, but there may also be greater effectiveness for

62

self-concept development as suggested in this study and by Slavin’s
research on cooperative learning groups.)

Supportiveness. Nhen examining the mediators between
supportiveness and self-concept, the discussion must unfortunately
become a bit more speculative because little research has been done
examining in any detail teacher affective practices and achievement-
or nonachievement-related outcomes (beyond praise, criticism, and
classroom climate). The discussion of supportiveness, and hence the
label supportiveness, centers on the concept of risk.

Some years ago, Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman (1951) suggested
that for the self to grow in its capacities and sense of self, it
had to "risk" growth. The risks of growth had to do, on the one
hand, with the fear of letting go of those fixed gestalts or
conceptions of the self and the ways to succeed in life that the
person had come to depend on, and on the other hand the fear of an
unknown untested self. They further suggested that a person at
moments of growth needed faith that he/she would be able to handle
the new. Faith was needed because one could not know with certainty
that this sense of competence was justified. One could only believe
and take the risk.

Since those earlier times, researchers and theoreticians have
attempted not, perhaps, to eliminate altogether the necessity for
faith, but at least to give more reasons for it. Doyle (1986)
examined the tasks in the classroom as a program of action. Subject

matter is work that requires a product to be generated using

63

available instructions and resources. Tasks involving higher
cognitive processes of understanding, reasoning, and problem
formulation are high in inherent ambiguity and risk for students, he
argued, because the precise nature of correct answers cannot be
predicted and rehearsed in advance, thus making the possibility of
failure high. Dweck and Elliot (1983) considered several risk-
related variables. They noted that the determination to continue
trying to learn in the face of' obstacles is fragile for some
students, given their sense of competence. Moreover, ego-involved
students risk their self-esteem when they fail at academic tasks,
whereas mastery-oriented students risk only not learning. In
addition, they noted that anxious students have low conceptions of
their ability, while "helpless” students overestimate how others did
compared to themselves. Finally, they also discussed the
implications for risk and behavior of students’ different
conceptions of success and failure.

Skinner and Connell (1985) postulated a developmental sequence
from external regulation to self-regulation. At the first stage, a
person is regulated solely by external agents, mainly through
rewards and punishments. At the second stage, the person interjects
the external agent via a mental representation, and that mental
representation then functions as the rewarding and punishing
regulator, putting pressure on the person to perform at the cost of
self-esteem. At the next stage, the person has identified with
goals that are valued and pursued by choice without undue external

or intrapsychic pressure. The final stage of internalization they

64

called ”integrated." At this stage, the person forms a hierarchical
organization of separate and potentially conflicting identifications
(e.g., the goal of playing with friends and the goal of doing well
in school). This analysis, the general sequence of which is echoed
by others in their reflections on the process of internalization
(Blanck & Blanck, 1979; Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1975; Mahler et
al., 1975) suggests that the risks in the classroom will be
different for students, depending on what stage they are in. A
stage-one student may risk punishment, whereas a stage-four student
might risk having to make an unwanted choice between two goals, thus
risking dis-integration.

Given, then, these and other individual differences in
students, the concept of risk in the classroom is not generic but
highly personal, dependent on factors within the student and within
the classroom environment. At the risk of making a tautology, it is
hypothesized that supportive teachers recognize that for human
growth to occur, certain risks should never be faced by children at
the cost of significant damage to the motivation, capacity, and
sense of competence to succeed (Ainsworth, 1979; Blanck & Blanck,
1979, 1986; Erikson, 1980; Mahler et al., 1975). These risks are
the loss of parental and teacher affection, valuing, and acceptance.
It may be that the needs associated with these risks are so
fundamental that they serve as higher-order motivational and
cognitive systems which can invalidate the more discrete, lower-

order systems described in the sections on demandingness and

65

responsiveness above. Certainly, studies of such basic-needs-
oriented pathologies as reactive depression have shown how
incapacitating these higher-order systems can be and how they can
override a sense of competence (Arieti & Bemporad, 1978; Blanck &
Blanck, 1979).

Interactive effects. It is important to discuss the potential
effects on students when the three dimensions are looked at together
because interactional effects in the classroom are often not
analyzed sufficiently (Marshall & Heinstein, 1984). Based on
Baumrind’s (1975) parental research, the interactional effects are
hypothesized to fall into three main patterns.

Authoritarian teacher style. Authoritarian teachers have the
following hypothesized characteristics. The key attributes of these
teachers are that they attempt to exercise control over a wide scope
of student behavior and emphasize compliance and system-maintenance
demands. Their demands may or may not be clear to students, but
they are usually not routinized and made rational as this lessens
their control (they would have to submit themselves to their own
rules and agreements). They tend not to set up contingent
environments as their preferred mode of control is personal and
direct, not routinized and impersonal (facilitating ”coercion”;
Patterson, 1982). If they do employ contingencies, they are usually
not contingent-sensitive. Authoritarian teachers, as with
authoritarian parents (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), can be either
nonsupportive or what might be termed "pseudo-supportive.” The

former tend to be cold and affectionless, whereas the latter tend to

66

be outwardly warm and affectionate, but undermining of the child’s
sense of being valued and having importance. Authoritarian pseudo-
supportiveness is related to the popular concept of "smother love."

Students of authoritarian teachers are hypothesized to make
sufficient effort to uninimally' meet. compliance and system-
maintenance demands, but not to make a personally deep commitment to
the academic demands of the classroom (Spady & Mitchell, 1979).
Their effort will thus be the minimal necessary. They will be very
unclear about what constitutes success beyond pleasing the teacher
since they will not have internalized their own standards
(authoritarianism violates the factors needed for internalization of
standards; Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), nor will
they be clear on how to achieve success, particularly if the teacher
is relatively noncontingent. Achievement may be moderately high as
such teachers may also effectively employ direct teaching methods.
Students of nonsupportive authoritarian teachers will have low cw;
lowered self-efficacy, while students of pseudo-supportive teachers
will have low or unrealistically high self-efficacy (pseudo-
supportive teachers are apt to use verbal persuasion as a method of
raising self-esteem, a relatively less effective method of doing so;
Bower & Hilgard, 1981).

Authoritative teacher style. Authoritative teachers attempt to
exercise influence over a wide scope of student response potentials.
They make clear and often routinized demands on students. They also

tend to emphasize maturity demands, although system-maintenance

67

demands in the sense of order in the classroom receive moderate
emphasis as well (there is probably more seeming disorder in their
classrooms than in those of authoritarian teachers; Cohen et al.,
1979). Their classroom practices are highly contingent-sensitive,
geared toward enabling students to meet maturity demands. In
addition, they tend to be supportive.

Students of these teachers put forth great effort willingly,
tending to have or at least develop as the years progress a mastery
orientation. They effectively internalize the teacher’s standards
for success, which includes an emphasis on personalized standards
(”what’s right for me”). Brophy and Putnam (1979) suggested that
this pattern makes for more effective achievement, but it is not
clear whether this is so, particularly given Brophy’s (1986) review
of teacher behaviors that maximize achievement. Given the emphasis
on personalized standards of effective achievement, what can be
hypothesized is that these students actually learn more, and learn
higher-order cognitive skills (Cohen, 1983; Dweck & Elliot, 1983),
than students of other kinds of teachers. Whether this shows up on
achievement scores depends on the basis of those scores. These
students’ relatively high self-perceived ability is based on real
achievement in an environment in which they have become clear what
attributes lead to achievement and that they have manifested those
attributes, and on the deeper, higher-order feelings of being valued
and accepted, which give them the necessary internal support to take

moderately challenging academic risks.

68

Permissive/neglecting teacher style. Permissive teachers
attempt to exert control on a narrow scope of student response
potential. Better teachers, more appropriately called permissive,
do make demands of students for nonconformity within the basic
parameters of moderately high system maintenance. They leave or
encourage students to find their own way in the classroom learning
situation, perhaps embracing certain ideologies and using certain
teaching practices encouraging inductive learning (Brophy & Putnam,
1979). They are somewhat contrasted with the neglecting subtype in
that the latter have an even narrower scope of demands, chiefly
limited to system maintenance. As long as things in the classroom
are going along smoothly and quietly (and not much is going on),
these teachers are satisfied. Neither subtype employs many
contingencies in the classroom, but the permissive subtype attempts
to be higher on sensitivity than any of the others. The permissive
type of teacher may attempt to be supportive, perhaps overly so
("smother love” without the attempts to control). Neglecting
teachers, like their parental counterparts (Maccoby & Martin, 1983)
tend to be nonsupportive, although not necessarily hostile.

Students of these teachers are overwhelmed by the freedom given
them. Lacking internal structure characterized by internalized
teacher standards, and lacking enough cognitive capacity to be fully
self-regulating in their own learning, they flounder in the
classroom, especially students of neglecting teachers (permissive

teachers do give some meaningful academic work, but it lacks

69

sufficient teacher input to maximize achievement). Their self-
perceived ability also flounders because standards for success are
too individualized, demands are too few, contingencies are too
unclear, and achievement is essentially completing busy work, and
thus fails to provide a sense of stretching the self, or effort
(Minton, 1979). Perhaps gifted students can make real progress in

these classrooms, but this would have to be researched.

The Central Process in Teaeher-Student Interactipns
and Self-Concept Effects: A Hypothesis

 

One of the central processes that seems to run through all
areas of human-development research and theory--cognitive, moral,
emotional, faith, social, and so on--is the concept of
internalization (Blanck & Blanck, 1979; Harter, 1983; Kohut, 1977;
Maccoby, 1980). The concept is that children observe adult behavior
and are exposed to adult perspectives, and they gradually
internalize or come to adopt and adapt to those adult realities.
Gradually, the need for direct adult input diminishes, and children
are able, in effect, to carry those adults around with them to guide
their behavior (i.e., they form mental representations of those
particular adults, and those "inner adults," as it were, continue to
behave and communicate perspectives to the children as the outer or
real adults were doing). Gradually, the adult behaviors and
perspectives lose their attachment to particular adults and become
part of the ”psychological structure” (Blanck & Blanck, 1979),
”schemata” (Markus, 1977), learned response system (Bandura, 1977),

or simply basic mode of functioning of the child. The child then

70

functions autonomously and has a basic “paradigm" (Kuhn, 1962) for
functioning in the world. Those paradigms (sometimes called
developmental stages) will then gradually shift to the next, more
inclusive, more reality-based paradigm on the developmental journey.

It is therefore hypothesized that teachers are catalysts or
coaches of internalization. They provide those functions students
need to regulate their behavior until students can provide those
functions for themselves. With respect to self-concept
specifically, for students to achieve a higher level of self-
perceived competence, they need to be stretching toward maturity--
their optimal level of functioning. They also need the necessary
tools--primari1y informational--to operate at their best. And they
need a secure emotional platform-—a "place to stand"--upon which to
use those informational tools. Until students can provide those for
themselves (no one ever completes this internalization and
adaptation process; Erikson, 1980), teachers provide these for
students by making maturity demands, responsively giving tools, and
creating a secure environment in which a basic sense of worth and

belonging are communicated.

Cpnelusipn
This chapter has examined the overall, theoretical approaches
that have been used to examine self-concept. The specific research
on self-concept examined in this study was then placed within those
theoretical approaches. The specific research on classroom factors

affecting self-concept was next examined, and then parental and

71

organizational research was briefly examined to develop a more
satisfying model for classroom research than those that have emerged
from the extant classroom research. The classroom literature was
then revisited to determine if the three dimensions that emerged
have in some form been examined, and it was seen that, in fact, the
three dimensions did have analogs in the classroom research.
Finally, a model was presented that hypothesized factors that may

mediate teacher behavior and student self-concept effects.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

Backgrognd of the Socializatipn Qnteomes Pnpiect

As has been indicated, the Socialization Outcomes Project of
which the writer has been a part has sought to identify
relationships among teachers’ socialization priorities, their
classroom practices, and student outcomes in the socialization
areas” 'The project, which began in 1980, first administered a
questionnaire to all third- and fourth—grade teachers in a
midwestern urban school district in order to assess teacher thinking
about socialization of students. The questionnaire, called the
Teacher Priorities Questionnaire, was developed by project staff to
measure teachers’ comitment to four possible kinds of goals for
students: promotion of task-demand skills, interpersonal skills,
content knowledge, cu“ a mixed emphasis on 'task-demand and
interpersonal skills (Prawat et al., 1983).

On the basis of this questionnaire, 32 teachers were selected
for further intensive study because they differed in their expressed
priorities. Twenty-four of these teachers were observed frequently
by at least two different persons over a year, six times during the
first 3 weeks of school and four times during the spring. These

observations yielded detailed narrative data on teachers’

72

73

socialization practices, including any references to norms,
standards, rationales and consequences, strategies, and affect, as
well as general descriptions of teacher and student activities.
During the 1982-83 school year, teachers in the task-demand and
interpersonal-skills priority groups were observed and interviewed.
During the 1983-84 school year, teachers in the content and nfixed
socialization groups were observed and interviewed. During both
years, students in the respective teachers’ classrooms (eight
"target" students in each classroom) were also observed about six
times during the middle of the year, focusing on what the student
did and how the teacher interacted with that one student under
observations. for lO-minute rotating segments. All observations
lasted about 4 hours.

Student outcomes were measured in all 32 classrooms with a
series of self-perception questionnaires in the fall and spring, in
order’ to assess beliefs that underlie development in the task
demands and social domains and the changes that occurred across the
year. The measures included Connell’s th Things Happen measure of
perceptions of control over outcomes in academic and social domains.
Students indicated the degree of agreement with items that described
the cause of school successes and failures, and the results were
grouped into three categories: internal control (the belief that
one is personally responsible), external control (the belief that
others, especially the teacher, are most responsible), and unknown
control (the belief that one does not know what causes success or

failure). This latter possibility is Connell’s important extension

74

of the much-researched locus-of—control issue (Harter, 1981, 1983)
and formed one of the three outcome measures used in the analysis of
the narrative data (Anderson & Prawat, 1986).

A second measure used was Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale
for Children (Harter, 1981, 1982), a measure of perceived ability in
academic, social, physical (sports and outdoor games), and general
domains. For this project only the academic and social subscales
were used. Harter designed the instrument using the distinctions
between self-concept-related domains children in grades three
through nine made, and thus did not assume as the Coopersmith and
other previous self-concept inventories did that distinctions or
components of general self-concept that make sense logically to
adults make sense also to children (Harter, 1982, 1983). These
domain distinctions were derived from factor-analytic studies of
more than 4,000 children in four states. Harter (1981) said that
"the factor pattern for all samples is consistently clean, with high
item loadings on the designated factor, and no replicable cross-
1oadings of interpretable magnitude” (p. 227). Later research
revealed two factors, one dealing with cognitive and physical
competence and the other dealing with peer-social and mother-
acceptance domains (Harter, 1981).

A new scale using pictures was designed for this younger age
group. The Socialization Outcomes Project, however, even though it
had a few second-grade classes in the sample, nonetheless used only

the original scales. Both scales do use a forced-choice,

75

structured-alternative format to offset social desirability. The
child is first asked to decide "Hhich kind of kid are you most like,
the kids described on the right or on the left?" The child then
decides whether the description on the chosen side is "sort of true"
or "really true" for him/her. Harter suggested that the
effectiveness of this format derives from the implication that half
of all children or a child’s reference group view themselves in one
way, and half view themselves in the other. Each subscale,
containing seven items, had internal-consistency reliabilities in
the high .70’s and .80’s (Harter, 1981). This instrument served as
the outcome measure for this study and determined a teacher’s effect
on students’ self-concepts.

A third instrument was Harter’s (1981) measure of achievement
motivation. Using similar procedures as with the Perceived
Competence Scale for Children, Harter determined that children make
clear distinctions between five different aspects of classroom
learning, namely, (a) a preference for challenge versus a preference
for easy work assigned, (b) incentive to work to satisfy one’s own
interest and curiosity versus working to please the teacher and
to obtain good grades, (c) independent mastery attempts versus
dependence on the teacher, (d) independent judgment versus reliance
on the teacher’s judgment about what to do in the classroom, and (e)
internal criteria for success/failure versus external criteria for
success/failure. The project used the subscales measuring

independent mastery and independent criteria.

76

A fourth instrument was a sociometric rating instrument on
which children privately rated their peers as desirable workmates
and playmates. Students’ pretest and posttest scores were used to
compute classroom-level residual scores that indicated whether the
typical student in a class showed gains that were about the expected
level, greater than expected, or less than expected.

Analyses of various kinds have been conducted on both the

quantitative and the narrative data by project members.

Proeedure

The current study used the narrative data of the project in the
following manner. Eight third- or fourth-grade classrooms were
selected by the project leaders for the writer, based on the
teachers’ relative effectiveness in raising self-concept scores as
measured by the Perceived Competence Scale for Children described
above. Originally, the project plans called for administering that
and the other measures of task-related beliefs early in the fall to
use them as indicators of entering student beliefs. The school
district, however, did not allow this until after statewide
achievement tests had been completed. Thus, "pretests" were not
given until 6 weeks after the school year began.

The method, therefore, used in this study to determine student
gains or losses during the year was to consider each classroom’s
relative placement in the fall and spring and assessing the
desirability of the pattern of change across the year. This was

accomplished by, first, converting classroom means into t-score

77

units, representing the distance from the mean of all classrooms.
Then the classrooms were selected by project leaders to represent a
range of results ("1 the academic perceived-competence scale, with
most being considered as either high scoring on the measure or low
scoring. Classes where student scores stayed high or moved to a
high or middle range (from a middle or low range, respectively) were
considered high by the project leaders. Those that stayed low or
moved down to the low range were considered low.

For the final analysis in this study, a refined definition of
what constituted "high" results or ”low" results is as follows. A
teacher was considered to have made "moderate to high" improvements
in students’ perceived competence when (a) spring z-scores were at
least .5 SD above the mean, or (b) there was a change of at least .5
Q in the positive direction. These criteria were derived by
plotting the scores of all 19 third- and feurth-grade teachers in
the project and selecting the cutoff points that best represented
dividing the group into thirds: one-third low, one-third "fiddle,
and one-third high.

The eight classrooms in this study were also matched by grade
and for socioeconomic status (SES) because the project had
discovered some effects from SES (Anderson & Prawat, 1986). The
writer was blind to the z-scores when analyzing the narrative data
and making predictions based on their ratings on the three
dimensions.

Several steps were used to analyze the data and make

predictions:

78

Step one: The narratives of the three teachers not in the
study were read, with the findings of research and theory kept in
mind, to identify the operational definitions of the three
dimensions.

Step two: Then the narratives of three teachers in the study
preselected by the project leaders (Teachers K, S, and H) were read
carefully, with the writer noting examples of teacher demandingness,
responsiveness, and supportiveness. This resulted in a refinement
of the operational definitions of the dimensions, presented below.
These three teachers were rated using the definitions thus derived,
and predictions were made on whether the students’ perceived
competence _z_-scores would be the same or lower at the end of the
year, or whether there would be moderate to high improvement (as
defined above).

Step three: The writer then reviewed the narratives of the
remaining five teachers in the study, rated them on the three
dimensions, and made predictions.

Step four: On the basis of the ratings, each teacher was then
classified as authoritarian, authoritative, permissive/neglecting,
or mixed.

Step five: Each teacher was then presented as a case study,
complete with descriptions and ratings of the three dimensions, and
a description of why the teacher was categorized as authoritarian,
authoritative, permissive/neglecting, or mixed. These case studies

are included in Chapter IV.

79

Step six: The project leaders then revealed to the writer the
z-scores of each classroom, and a check was made to determine
whether the hypotheses were confirmed by the study according to the
criteria. The results with respect to the hypotheses are discussed

in Chapter V.

Qperetipnal Definitipns
Demandingness

Demandingness was defined as the degree to which teachers set
goals and standards for students and the nature of those goals and
standards. Demandingness can be characterized by a varying maturity
level of demands.

Maturity level was herein described as the degree to which a
student was called on in any particular demand or set of demands to
exercise autonomy, personal agency, and to perform up to his/her
highest capacity in meeting goals and standards. Autonomy was
defined as making one’s own decisions with reference to meeting
overall classroom goals. Agency was defined as taking
responsibility for what happens to one, including taking initiative,
managing interpersonal boundaries according to preset standards
(internally or externally imposed), setting one’s own goals and
standards for learning, and accepting responsibility for correcting
one’s own behavior, and not acting passively or helplessly.
Performing to highest capacity was self-defined, with the additional
caveat that the emphasis was on one’s individual best (both

individuality and excellence were necessary). These three factors

80

are not independent; nevertheless, they have been distinctly
examined in the literature.

Maturity demends. A teacher has made a maturity demand if a
student has been called on to exercise autonomy, agency, and/or
doing his/her best. All three components need not be present, but
at least one must be, and the more the others are, the greater the
maturity demanded. Examples include demanding or training students
to:

--manage their own interpersonal boundaries (e.g., give each
other the "magic sign" if someone wants to talk inappropri-
ately)

--try to do the work before asking for help

--take responsibility for returning play equipment, bring in
pencils, keep track of their unfinished work

--remember and act on routines, rules, and procedures without
having to be reminded

--chose learning tasks

--evaluate their own performance

Compliance demands. Compliance demands focus the student on
mere obedience to teacher authority. The central focus is to obey
in the short term, without the implied expectation that they are
thereby learning to become self-regulating. The communication from
the teacher is ”I’m in charge here. You do what I tell you." There
is a disregard for the students’ desires.

Semple stetements nith the seme cpntent enee; help-getting.

Maturity--"Before you come for help, I want you to try it on

your own" (demands some autonomy).

81

Compliance--"Did I tell you you could walk up to the desk?

Then do what 1 said” (primary focus is on obedience/disobedience).

Resppnsiveness

Responsiveness is the degree to which the teacher contingently
shapes the development of students through differential responses to
desired and undesired behavior, and the degree to which the teacher
is sensitive to the students’ needs and desires. Thus, a highly
responsive teacher creates a highly contingent classroom in which
student needs and desires have some reciprocal effect on classroom
life. This sensitivity component sometimes overlaps with maturity
demands, especially with the autonomy component of maturity demands,
in that students who are called on to make their own decisions are
also being (given the opportunity to express their own desires.
Nevertheless, not all children at all times will desire autonomy. A
teacher who makes a lot of maturity demands but who is also highly
sensitive» will respond to the variations in student moods and
desires. Maturity demands are proactive on the part of the teacher,
whereas sensitivity is more reactive.

tnntingent. Areas in which teacher set up contingencies or act
contingently include:

1. The degree to which they cognitively prestructure activi—
ties in the classroom and give rationales for demands and procedures
(i.e., they give information about the contingencies in the

c1assroom--what will be done and why).

82

2. The degree to which classroom life is routinized so that
students can make contingency judgments of what leads to success or
failure in the class. (This is contrasted with a capricious,
idiosyncratic style of teacher behavior in which the sequence of
activities and demands is unpredictable for students.)

3. The degree to which the teacher responds differentially to
desirable and undesirable student behavior. This includes teacher
ability to monitor and intervene in student compliance with demands,
the classroom reward structure, and a variety of behaviors teachers
can use differentially to influence student behaviors.

Sensitive. Hays in which teachers can be sensitive to student
needs and desires include:

1. Allowing students to choose what activities they would like
to focus on.

2. Allowing students to suggest rules, norms, and procedures.

3. Noticing and responding to student moods, personal prob-
lems, family situations, and so on.

4. Answering student questions, stated and unstated (e.g.,
unstated questions about what being a fourth grader was going to be
like).

5. Drawing out and building on intrinsic student motivations.
Sumnfixeaess
Supportiveness is the degree to which a teacher develops and

maintains noncontingent affectional ties with students, consisting

of showing warmth and affection, providing a sense of safety and

83

trust, and communicating acceptance and belonging (affection,
safety, acceptance or ASA). Supportiveness is indicated by the
presence of such behaviors as:

1. Speaking in warm, reasonable tones and encouraging students
to do the same. Teacher hostility and anger are muted, controlled,
and occasional; teacher controls student anger toward one another
and intervenes in student altercations.

2. Facilitating interpersonal regard and belonging among stu-
dents (e.g., helping them get to know each other; pointing out
individuals’ needs, strengths, and other characteristics to other
students to facilitate proper relationships). Showing personal
interest in students beyond the student role.

3. Criticism focusing on behavior, and avoiding the shaming or
labeling of students.

4. Use of friendly touches and gestures to communicate posi-
tive feelings toward students.

5. Judicious use of praise; communication of positive teacher

expectations.

51m
This study emerged out of a broad-scale, observational research
project examining the relationships between teacher practices and a
variety of task-related student beliefs. This study examined the
narrative data on eight selected third- and fourth-grade teachers,
noting teacher statements and interactions with students, resulting

in a rating of each teacher on the three dimensions and a prediction

84

about the probable effect on student self-concept scores. A
sequential process of analysis was carefully developed to insure as
much objectivity and reliability of the ratings as is possible with
only one rater. The operational definitions were greatly expanded
on, with examples given.

The discussion turns now to the results of the study. In
Chapter IV, a summary of the teachers is first presented. ‘Then a
detailed case study is presented on each teacher, beginning with
those whose students showed moderate to high improvements in self-
concept and ending with those whose scores were the same or lower.
In Chapter V, the results are examined in light of the criteria
established, and a discussion follows on the results. Finally,
several suggestions are made about the implications of the research

study and ideas for future research.

CHAPTER IV

THE RESULTS

This chapter gives a brief overview of the results of the
analysis of the teachers and then presents detailed case studies of
each teacher. It will be seen that with five of the eight teachers,
the predicted effects on self-concept were fully confirmed. With a
sixth teacher, the actual effect was in the direction of the
prediction but fell just short of the cutoff point. In the
remaining two cases, the predictions were disconfirmed by the

results.

Summary of Teacher Predictions

The reading of the narrative data on the teachers showed the
following:

Teacher K. This teacher was moderately and supportively
authoritarian in the main. She had a low degree of maturity demands
coupled with a high degree of compliance demands. She was low to
moderately responsive, not involving students in the decision-making
process, focusing mainly on the whole group but rendering the
environment predictable and reasonable. And she was moderately

supportive, with students feeling safe from attack by other students

85

86

or teacher and feeling encouraged to have positive relations with
one another.

Students’ self-concepts in this class were predicted to fare
fairly well overall. Students with low self-concepts were predicted
to experience a moderate rise, while moderate and high scorers were
predicted to maintain. Thus, overall, students in this class were
predicted to move higher or remain high. Although the teacher was
authoritarian, she was supportively so and had instituted a system
carefully designed for student success. This moderate success,
along with the ability of students to constantly compare themselves
with each other, the immediate and consistent feedback students
received from the teacher, the occasional attention to their
personal needs, and the general supportiveness of the classroom all
were predicted to contribute to a positive influence on self-
perceived ability. The lack of agency, autonomy, and individuality
were predicted to have a balancing, moderating effect.

Teacher B. This teacher was found to be prototypically
authoritative. She gave very high maturity demands much of the time
and an appropriate degree of compliance demands. Her classroom was
contingent and routinized. She had systematized the negative and
positive rewards in the classroom, the process of doing homework,
and many other aspects of classroom life. She gave lots of
prestructuring information to students and referred constantly to
rules and rationales. She was also fairly sensitive and highly
supportive, promoting safety in the classroom and attending to

students’ feelings and regard for one another.

87

Students in this class were predicted to manifest a moderate to
high improvement in self-concept.

leacher Ll. 0n the whole, this teacher was an authoritative
instructor. She gave a moderately high degree of maturity demands,
in particular emphasizing a sense of agency and a sense of doing
one’s best. Her compliance demands were low to moderate, demanding
and usually securing obedience, but she gave so many rationales and
her tone was such that she communicated a real reasonableness, an
openness to discussion. She was also quite responsive. She created
a fairly predictable classroom without the need to give constant
directions. She did lots of prestructuring and gave a great deal of
information. She was also fairly sensitive in noticing students’
needs and moods, answering their questions without allowing herself
to be drawn off task. Finally, she created a very safe, supportive
classroom--a tone of steady firmness mixed with warmth and
reasonableness.

Students in this classroom were predicted to do fairly well in
self-concept improvement, rising moderately higher.

[gagher 9. This teacher was considered to be moderately to
highly authoritative. She made frequent, although unsystematized,
maturity demands and few if any compliance demands. She had a
moderately to highly contingent classroom, with clear and
consistently followed rules and procedures and with consistent
prestructuring and many rationales. She did not, however, have a

particularly routinized class, resulting in frequent direct giving

88

of instructions (which, it was hypothesized, undermines students’
sense of autonomy). She was also very sensitive to the needs and
behaviors of the students, frequently asking them to think through
rules and rationales and showing them how their own perspectives and
needs were being accounted for. The teacher also created a very
supportive classroom.

Students in this class were predicted to experience moderately
to significantly improved self-concepts. Some question was raised
about the way in which the academic learning in the classroom would
affect these self-concept scores.

Teacher R. 'This teacher was a mildly warm authoritarian
teacher. She had a low degree of maturity demandingness and a
moderate to high degree of compliance demandingness. Very little
stress was placed on autonomy, keeping careful direct control over
the whole class. Her instructions rarely made reference to any
larger issues or principles of learning or behavior. She focused
instead on what to do right now, rather than on why or even how.
Her responsiveness was low, as well. While classroom life was very
predictable, with clear and enforced standards, she failed to
systematize and create rational contingencies in the classroom,
which could have enabled students to feel that they had the ability
to regulate themselves and affect events. The teacher was, however,
moderately supportive, mainly because the classroom was a safe
environment (little happened outside of the teacher’s direct

control).

89

Self-concepts in this class were predicted to fare poorly,
changing little or even declining in relation to students of other
teachers.

Teacher M. This teacher was basically authoritarian, with a
strong tendency toward being on the coldly authoritarian end of the
spectrum. While she did have a moderate degree of maturity demands,
mainly the insistence that the students think through the answers to
their work on their own and the frequent use of induction, she also
was quite high in her compliance demandingness. Her poor classroom-
management skills resulted in much off-task behavior, thus resulting
in the need to demand compliance frequently. ‘This demand for
compliance was only occasionally linked to any rationales or long-
term objectives. The teacher was moderately responsive, a somewhat
confusing rating because she was highly contingent but very
insensitive. She had a predictable classroom with clear demands and
a very visible system for applying negative contingencies. She also
gave a fairly high amount of information. However, without question
she was very teacher centered, doing little to create any sense of
ownership in the classroom. She was also low in her supportiveness.
Most strikingly, she was frequently speaking to students in stern,
critical tones, criticizing them rather than merely refocusing them.

Self-concepts in this classroom were predicted to remain low or
to drop lower.

(eachgr D. This teacher did not seem to fit any of the three
interactional patterns. She was seen as being low in maturing

demandingness, most strikingly because of the constant stream of

90

instructions and focusing she had to do. Almost no instances were
noted in which the teacher tried to foster a sense of agency,
granted autonomy, or required students to do their individual best.
She even yelled at the students on several occasions and would talk
over the noise of the classroom sometimes rather than quiet them.
She was also rated low in responsiveness, both the contingency and
sensitivity components. While the teacher did not appear
particularly disorganized, she was usually harried and barely in
control of the classroom. She rarely called students’ attention
explicitly to prespecified routines (if any existed), but instead
simply issued the next set of instructions. She responded
consistently to needs for help but was inconsistent in her other
contingency-related behavior (e.g., rewards, criticisms, focusing,
and so on). It was rare to nonexistent that students had any real
choices in the classroom, were asked their thoughts about classroom
life, or were engaged in activities based on their own desires. The
teacher' was, however, always responsive to students’ questions,
although she gave very little generalizable information or
principles that could have led to student autonomy and
internalization. Finally, the teacher was rated low in
supportiveness. While the teacher did not shame the students, she
was openly and frequently irritated with them and rarely showed any
personal interest in the students beyond their student role.
Self-concepts in this classroom were predicted to remain the

same or to drop lower.

91

Teacher 0. This teacher also did not fit into any of the three
patterns. She was rated low to moderate in maturity demandingness
and moderate in compliance demandingness. The teacher constantly
gave directions to students, constantly focused. She did use
induction with moderate frequency, often insisting that they think
through academic problems. There were few regular maturity demands,
however, occasionally such demands as making their own decisions,
taking personal responsibility, and deciding when to go to the
bathroom or water fountain. The teacher rarely explicitly referred
to rules and routines. She was low to moderate in responsiveness,
in both aspects. The predictability of the classroom was hard to
assess. The teacher flowed smoothly from one activity to the next
(the students often resisted), suggesting that in fact the classroom
had strong routines even if the teacher did not refer to them. She
attended well to various behaviors of students and responded to
needs for help, off-task behavior, and the like. She gave a fairly
high amount of individual attention to students within a general
whole-class instructional framework. This classroom, however,
seemed to be an informationally impoverished one. She only
occasionally prestructured activities, sometimes gave strategies for
approaching problems, and only occasionally' gave rationales for
demands. It was rare that students had any real choices about
activities or were asked their thoughts about classroom life. The
classroom was moderately supportive.

This classroom on the whole was considered rather tepid, and

thus students’ self-concepts were expected to manifest little or no

92

change and perhaps even to show some negative gains, depending on

the instructional effectiveness of the teacher.

933m;

Following are the detailed studies on the teachers described
above, presented in the same order. The procedure for composing the
case studies was as follows. First, all ten sets of narratives were
read in detail. Then a general impression was written up on the
three dimensions and their interaction. Then a rating guide was
used to describe the teacher. Next an interactional pattern was

identified. Finally, a prediction of self-concept effects was made.

Teacher K

DEMANDINGNESS

Rating:
Maturity demands: Low to moderate
Compliance demands: High

Discussion: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

The teacher required that students complete the work given them
in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed time or at other
indicated times. She also insisted that they act appropriately
toward other students and adults. In her teaching, she did give
adequate wait time after asking questions so that all students could
have a chance to think about the answers, and she insisted on the
raising of hands so that all students could have a chance-~and would
try--to answer. These communicated unmistakably to students that
the teacher expected them to perform well. However, the teacher
used her own standards rather than suggesting to students that they
somehow observe their own individual limitations and possibilities
or make their own judgments of success and failure. Thus, there was
only a small degree of emphasis on doing one’s individual best.

93

There was a degree of autonomy and personal agency in that the
teacher provided ready help for students in an easily accessible
manner, but also frequently required them to try the problems on
their own first. Moreover, she gave them on at least one observed
occasion a criterion by which they could judge their own
performance. They were allowed to decide when to go to the bathroom
(although some rules were given for deciding) and were encouraged to
manage their own interpersonal boundaries on at least one occasion.

0n the whole, however, students seemed to be given little
autonomy in the classroom. Most decisions were already made for
them, and the teacher rarely offered students choices or changed her
program of action because of student needs and desires. A student
in this classroom wouLd do well if he/she followed the rules, did
what the system called for, and did it as quickly and quietly as
possible. There was little talk of or focus on the long-term goal
of student self-regulation. To the degree this compliance system
was internalized (and it seemed to be well internalized since it
worked so smoothly with very few deviations), it laid a strong
foundation of work habits for future years, made competence
judgments based on comparisons with peers very easy, and could lead
to a judgment of competence if students did well as would be
expected. With the rules so well laid out, students could feel
agentic in the sense of being able to "work the system," but their
personal needs and desires were given very little opportunity to
make a difference to the teacher.

Examples of teacher maturity demands:

9/13/82 10:28 Teacher, 'When you come to reading class, bring
your pencil, your folder, your reading book, your workbook. If you
don’t you won’t have it and I won’t let you get it. You’ll get
behind and have to work on the kit reading all day.“

4/25/83 2:10 Recess time. 'Whatever you take outside bring in.
If anyone asks you to use your piece of playground equipment say,
’No, I brought it out and I’ll bring it in."

She has class helpers with various assignments to do,
and they seem to do them, only occasionally at her cueing.

9:30 "There is no such thing in my room as unfinished
work....So the best thing that you can do is decide that when there
is work to do you will sit down at your desk and work in the best,
neatest, and fastest way you know how.‘

4/25/83 12:47 A student asks for help, saying, 'I don’t know
how to do this.‘I Teacher responds, 'Yes you do, you just want me to
do it for you.“ Teacher then reviews with the student how it is
done.

9/13/82 9:44 Teacher gives them a criterion by which they can
evaluate their own progress, 'It should never take you more than 1
week to finish a story. If...longer...you're falling behind.‘I

94

Examples of compliance demands:

9/17/82 10:38 During recess, kids are playing a game that
teacher seems to moderate. At one point she says, 'If we’re going
to have trouble about who's running the show here, you are out."

9/14/82 3:19 A boy asks teacher, 'How many would you say I have
wrong?‘ (his seatwork). Teacher responds, 'I'm not going to say.
Now you have spent more time asking questions and walking back and
forth than you have getting your work done.‘. She continues in this
vein. The boy stalks back to his disk visibly displeased.

9/9/82 9:25 I'When another adult walks in, I expect you to be
courteous and polite and not act like the circus clown came to town.
If you were busy, stay busy. If I was working with you, wait--I’1l
be back.”

9/17/82 10:15 Teacher enforces the return of homework rule with
several students, criticizing them for not finishing or, in the case
of one student, putting it into his desk rather than giving it to
the teacher.

RESPONSIVENESS

Rating:

Overall: Moderate
Contingency: Moderate
Sensitivity: Low to moderate

Discussion:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in
contingency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior based on student behavior; and information about
the contingencies in the classroom--what will be done, what will
result, and why it is happening.

This classroom was very contingent in the sense that there was
a clear system for success and failure in the classroom. Rules,
routines, occasional rewards (although no standard incentive system
of stars, privileges, and so on), and some disincentives clearly
indicated to students how to succeed in the class, thus rendering
the classroom very highly predictable.

The teacher did respond to student behaviors, but given the
high routinization and the constricted nature of student behavior,
there was not a great deal of intimate, individualized contact
between student and teacher-~she worked the vast majority of the
time in a whole-class format--beyond whatever occurred privately
when a student went for help. In terms of the information
component, this teacher clearly provided a moderate amount of
information in terms of rules/routines and in terms of rationales--
the reasons why things were being demanded.

95

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to choose activities, suggest rules and norms, noticing and
responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

The classroom was sensitive in the sense that the teacher did
pick up on and respond appropriately to student personal concerns
(e.g., family problems) and feelings (e.g., being new fourth
graders). A major area in which the teacher was responsive was in
the giving of rationales for what she was saying or doing. While
students were not invited to participate in the decision-making
process, their questions and concerns nonetheless were nor summarily
dismissed but responded to by the teacher. Moreover, the teacher
was completely accessible to the students for help on their work.

However, this teacher rarely if ever asked for, experienced, or
responded to student perceptions and wishes regarding what would
happen in the classroom. She gave no attention to drawing out or
building on intrinsic student motivations and did not solicit their
suggestions for rules and routines.

This teacher, therefore, was not arbitrary or irrational in her
demands, but was rather very contingent in the sense of having a
rational, clearly specified system for success and failure in the
classroom. She was moderately sensitive to moods and personal
needs, but not to wishes and desires.

9/9/82 Teacher encourages students to ask for help and tells
them specifically how to secure it.

Teacher gives a lot of wait time to students when asking
them questions, and she works at making them feel at ease answering
questions.

9/17/82 10:38 Teacher preps recess, giving rules and a
rationale: “...so that everyone can participate.“

11:02 Students are coming back in from recess, and they
crowd the doors, banging them. Teacher tells them to move back, but
two students rush to the front. Teacher tells them, “Robert and
Josco, go to the end of the line. The reason we don’t go up to the
doors is that they bang and then the other classes can hear us, and
that’s not fair to them.“

9/13/82 9:46 Teacher utilizes a monitoring system for reading,
telling them, “This paper is so I know if you read the story. If
you write down facts that aren’t true, I know that you have not read
the story. I’ve read them each 50 times.“

9/22/82 10:41 Teacher calls for work to be turned in, saying,
“Your gym time starts real soon; the sooner you're ready to start
the sooner you’ll go,“ which instantly quiets the students and
causes them to shush each other.

96

SUPPORTIVENESS
Rating: Moderate to high

Qissgssion: This was a pretty supportive classroom. One
observer at least noted an overall tone of "businesslike warmth."
The teacher never attacked the students, rarely even raised her
voice, and rarely criticized. In part this was because things went
along so smoothly, but in part it seemed to have something to do
with her positive attitudes. She evidenced real concern for the
students on occasion and ensured that students would feel safe. She
encouraged students to try. She also protected students from the
attacks of other students, and in her rationales she taught them to
be concerned for each other’s feelings.

9/13/82 11:00 It’s recess time. While lining up, one white boy
calls a girl “honky.“ Teacher inlnediately pulls him out of the
line, prevents him from playing the game, he gets angry and turns
his back on her. She reaches out to put her arm around him and
says, “This isn’t allowed. Calling names hurts feelings, and
staying out of the game might help you remember this.“ Then when
they return to the room, teacher tells him to apologize. This
conlnunicates safety to all concerned--the teacher will protect us
from unwarranted attacks.

9/9/82 Teacher uses a spelling lesson containing the work “mock“
to teach about relationships, stressing that it doesn’t feel good to
be mocked.

Teacher says, “Now you’re fourth graders. Feel like it?“
and acknowledges that there’s a lot to remember. This kind of
verbal connecting with students“ feelings is rare.

4/28/83 Class is reading aloud. One student has a bad sore
throat and sounds “squeaky.“ He stops reading but teacher says, “Go
for it froggy. We’ll listen“ and laughs. Students laugh too, but
teacher insists he read and tells kids not to laugh.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

This teacher was moderately and supportively authoritarian in
the main. She had a low degree of maturity demands coupled with a
high degree of compliance demands. She was low to moderately
responsive, not involving students in the decision-making process,
focusing mainly on the whole group but rendering the environment
predictable and reasonable. And she was moderately supportive, with
kids feeling safe from attack by students or teacher and feeling
encouraged to have positive relations with one another.

97

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Students’ self-concepts in this class will fare fairly well
overall. Students with low self-concepts will probably experience a
moderate rise, while moderate and high scorers will maintain.
Although she was authoritarian, she was supportively so, and had
instituted a system carefu11y designed for student success. 'This
moderate success, along with the ability of students to constantly
compare themselves with each other, the immediate and constant
feedback students received from the teacher, the occasional
attention to their personal needs, and the general supportiveness of
the classroom, all will contribute to a positive influence on self-
perceived ability. The lack of agency, autonomy, and individuality
will have a balancing, debilitating effect.

Teacher 8

DEMANDINGNESS

mm:
Maturity demands: High
Compliance demands: Low to moderate

Qissussion: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

This teacher made a high degree of maturity demands. She
several times told the students that she was "strict but fair.” She
demanded the very best output and behavior from students on a very
consistent basis. Academically, they were to complete their work,
in the prescribed manner and at specified times. If they were
absent one day, the teacher would tell them what they missed and it
was their responsibility to make it up or sustain a failure for
those assignments. She gave them homework every night but Friday
and required them to secure their parents’ signature on the homework
each night. She encouraged a mastery learning orientation,
insisting that mistakes were okay, providing the students learned
from them. She told them (9/13/83, 1:13), “You’ll all learn more
from your mistakes. I never scold you for your mistakes. If you
make a mistake that is all you need to do is correct it.“

She continually insisted that they act their age, e.g., “Boys
and girls, when you’re in the fourth grade you do not talk to
yourselves out loud“ (9/13/83, 1:18). She also insisted that they
follow classroom procedures and rules. For example, she insisted
that they take their books out quietly from their desks. On another

98

occasion, a girl decided to skip her duty ushering smaller children
across the street during lunch. The teacher made her go apologize
to the kindergarten teacher. (“What would you do if there was a
little kindergarten child trying to cross the street and there was
no one there to help her?“). The girl did so and came back into the
classroom, announcing that she had done it. The teacher praised her
but then insisted that the student enter the room quietly. The
message was thus that you don’t sacrifice one aspect of maturity to
accomplish another (5/15/84, 12:22). The teacher also insisted that
the students greet other adults entering the room by name, and she
even insisted that they thank her at appropriate times, e.g., after
receiving help from her.

Besides insisting on individual excellence, the teacher also
insisted on a fair degree of autonomy and personal agency. They
could go to the bathroom whenever they wanted, if there was no-one
else in it. She encouraged them to monitor their own adherence to
classroom demands. For example, a student named Mo opened his desk
at an inappropriate time. The teacher said, “Right now, Mo has his
desk open. Mo, Mo shouldn’t have his desk open, but I’m going to
ignore it. Everyone needs to take care of themselves here,
including Mo.“ This statement came right after a lecturette on how
she expected them to become perhaps the best students in the world
(9/16/83, 9:56, 10:00). On several occasions the teacher had the
students evaluate their own behavior and tell her how she should
grade them behaviorally (the teacher had a system for grading
behavior on a daily basis, described below). She even called on
students who were talking whom she didn’t see to "be honest” and
come forward. One student did. In the beginning of the year, the
teacher had the students come up with their own classroom rules
because "this is your class,” and afterwards said to them, “These
are your rules. Remember that they're not my rules, they’re your
rules. Remember it. If you break the rules, you suffer the
consequences“ (9/8/83, 9:50). Moreover, the rules were summarized
in a way that they became general principles to apply rather than
specific behaviors to comply with, i.e., (a) having good manners,
(b) being a good listener, and (c) keeping a neat desk (9/8/83,
10:04).

In terms of compliance demands, this teacher clearly demanded
compliance in the sense of meeting her requirements. However, she
did not seem to demand that they fulfill her expectations merely
because she was in authority, but rather for their own personal
develOpment. As she told them, “Rules are so you become a good
student and a happy student. It’s important that you are both a
good student and a happy student“ (9/8/83, 9:39). As noted below,
she gave many reasons for what she was requiring, often linked to
maturity. In her own words, she was “strict,” but took pains to be
'fair”--reasonable, focused on student needs and classroom goals.

99

However, it should also be said that this teacher did very
forthrightly assert her own authority as teacher. She said on
several occasions that things "in my class“ have to be done a
certain way, or in her class there would be certain expectations.
She told them how she would deal with their behaviors and what she
would be looking for. Such frank expression of teacher authority
would normally be a sign of a compliance-oriented teacher, but in
the context of one so oriented toward maturity,.it was more a sign
of a high level of maturity demandingness.

RESPONSIVENESS

mm:

Overall: High
Contingency: High
Sensitivity: High

Discussion:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in contin-
gency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior based ("1 student behavior; and information about
the contingencies in the classroom--what will be done, what will
result, and why it is happening.

This was a very routinized and predictable classroom. The
teacher was clear in her demands, repeating them or having students
think about them. She had systematized the negative and positive
rewards in the classroom to a great degree. _ Probably the most
salient system in this regard was her "courtesy cards." These were
cards the students were given each day with a grade on them ("A,"
"8," etc.) They started with an "A," and if they misbehaved they
dropped to a ”B," and so on. She also had a less comprehensive
system of rewards for good work, mainly prizes for doing homework
consistently.

The teacher had other systems as well. There was a system for
doing homework, a way of getting four days’ worth (no homework on
Fridays) on one page, and ensuring that parents sign each day’s
homework. There was a system for greeting visitors and for
responding to the teacher on certain occasions (e.g., ”Good morning,
Mrs...."; "Thank you, Mrs...."). Finally, there was consistent
enforcing of rules by the teacher.

In terms of differential teacher response, this teacher was
very student centered. She closely monitored students and responded
actively to student actions and attitudes with a variety of shaping
behaviors. Moreover, her' courtesy card system allowed her to
respond in a very individualized fashion. There was no peer

100

monitoring system, however, nor were children encouraged to (k) so
(an area of maturity missing in this classroom).

In terms of teacher information, there was a very high degree
of it in this classroom. The teacher gave lots of prestructuring of
activities (9/13/83, 1:05: “From 12:15 to 12:30 you know what you
are supposed to do. I'm sure most of you can read.“ [The schedule
is on the board]). She very frequently referred to classroom rules
and procedures, reminding students of how they should be performing.
’ She gave rationales for things going on in the classroom and for
rules a fair amount of the time. She even gave explanations to the
students of their own behavior (5/15/84, 12:22: “I am tired of all
of you tattling on one another....We didn’t have all of this
tattling at the beginning of the year, why are we having it now? I
can tell you why, it is because you people are just noticing each
other. The girls are noticing the boys, and the boys are noticing
the girls, and you are competing with one another.“).

She also gave strategies to them about how to fulfill teacher
demands. For example, she talked to them about how to time when
they asked their mother to sign their homework, such as not during
dinner (4/13/84, 9:31). She told them the meaning of mistakes, as
opportunities to learn. And a couple of times she pointed out the
intrinsic consequences of something (9/13/83, 12:23: “The longer
you do this [asking her questions], the shorter time I have to
stamp the homework pad. It is up to you.“).

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to choose activities, suggest rules and norms, noticing and
responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

This teacher was quite sensitive to student needs and moods.
After a test, she gave them a few minutes to talk with each other
about their test scores (rather than fighting it as many teachers
would do). A certain student in the very beginning of the year was
beginning to make himself socially isolated. The teacher criticized
his behavior and demanded conformity to the rules, but she also
zeroed in on his own need for self-respect. She told him that if he
followed the rules, he would respect himself, and then others in
turn would respect him. She then hugged him and kissed him and let
him get a drink of water (9/8/83, 10:45). On another occasion,
students were shouting, and the teacher replied in a way manifesting
awareness of the students’ mood (4/13/83, 9:31: “I realize that you
are excited. Some of you have never looked up a word in the
dictionary before, but we don't shout out answers.“).

The teacher also allowed the students to suggest the classroom
rules, as noted. In addition, she did draw on student intrinsic
motivation several times. They found a caterpillar and were all
gathered around it. Rather than fight them to sit down (which she

101

was calling on them to do), she put it in a container and told them
they could investigate what kind of caterpillar it was later
(9/13/83, 1:52). A few moments later (2:33), a student looked very
tired and therefore was not fully engaged in the work, presumably.
“Andy, you look so tired. Would you please get a lot of sleep
tonight. We may have an art lesson tomorrow. We usually don't have
art lessons but once a week, and you're going to be too tired to do
t.“

SUPPORTIVENESS
a in : High

Discussion: This teacher was fairly supportive. In terms of
affective communication, she promoted positive feelings about
returning to school (9/8/83, 8:40), asked about summer experiences
(9/8/83, 10:58), and just generally attended to and occasionally
responded to students’ feelings. She used touch as a way of
promoting positive relations between herself’ and students. She
facilitated interpersonal regard between students occasionally, such
as when she asked students to welcome the new students to the class
and to help them walk home (9/8/83, 9:29). Most striking, perhaps,
was the safety she promoted in the classroom. Failure was okay if
learned from (9/13/83, 12:21: “I don’t want any of you getting an
ulcer over not getting the right answer. We all make mistakes, even
‘Mrs. makes mistakes.“). Her criticisms and negative sanctions
really' were "fair" as she claimed, and easily understood, not
arbitrary or vicious.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

This teacher was the prototypical authoritative teacher. She
gave very high maturity demands, an appropriate degree of compliance
demands, was very contingent and sensitive, and was fairly
supportive.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Students in this class will manifest a moderate to high
improvement in self-concept. Assuming that her actual instruction
matched her competence in classroom management and handling these
more affective dimensions of classroom life, her students should do
quite well, on average, in self-perceived-competence gains.

102

leecher H
DEMANDIMCNESS

Rm:
Maturity demands: Moderately high
Compliance demands: Low to moderate

Djseessjon: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

This teacher in particular emphasized a sense of agency and a
sense of doing one’s best. She constantly reminded the students
that it was their responsibility to make sure they understood
directions and put forth the effort needed tosucceed. She also
insisted that they take responsibility for equipment and supplies
(9/8, 10:42: “If you take some of the equipment out, you are
responsible for bringing it back in. You are responsible to hold on
to it in the hall and not drop it, If you are not responsible,
someone else will get to carry the equipment instead of you.“). She
even had them take responsibility for properly handling their
emotions on "bad days" (9/18, 11:24: “If you’re having a bad day or
having difficulty following directions, getting along, keeping your
hands off of others, or showing respect to (the teacher's aide] or
myself, or if you’re calling names or teasing, I would like to talk
about it, and we will try to work it out. However, understand if
the problem keeps us and you can’t turn things around as we should,
we’ll get mom or dad or whoever takes care of you to help you to
work this problem out....You are here to learn, and I am here to
teach.“).

The teacher also repeatedly emphasized doing one’s best (5/21,
1:48: “Doing these tests takes a long time. It takes effort and
patience. Reviewing them to show you where you did really good and
showing you where you made mistakes so you can do even better also
takes effort, patience and concentration. When everybody does their
best, we can do it faster.“). To one student who was being a
repeated behavior problem, she held him after class and told him
that he was bright but didn’t always show it (9/21, 3:32: “You are
in the top group but you can’t be messing up or you won’t make it.
Can you handle it? That is the question because you will have to do
a lot of work by yourself. You like to be number one but your mouth
and behavior could interfere with you being number one. Tomorrow
will be a better day.“).

Autonomy was the weakest aspect of this teacher’s maturity
demands, for she was very direct and active in her control of the

103

class from moment to moment. Nonetheless, she did build in some
opportunities to be self-regulating, such as deciding when to go to
the bathroom (which she sometimes seemed to curtail for not-so—
apparent reasons). Perhaps the most striking aspect of autonomy in
this classroom was the room jobs she assigned. There were such jobs
as room ”librarian,” someone who checked out books to students, and
a row caller, who had the power to let people line up or go home (a
power somewhat abused at least once, on 9/12, 3:33, when the student
took his time letting people go, to their consternation). She also
gave them autonomy in the managing of their own desks (9/8. 10:03:
“My desk and [the teacher aide’s] desk are private property. You
may not touch it unless you have permission. I will not get into
your desks....If you want help to find something, then I will help
you. But that is your private stuff. I won't go in there.“).

In terms of compliance, this teacher did insist on obedience to
her instructions and said so, telling them they were to ”listen to
directions." Even when a student went ahead of her and did a good
job, she told him, “It looks like you did a good'job here. But next
time, wait until I give all of the instructions before you start.“
(9/15, 10:51). It is notable that she did not tell him why he
should wait, just wait-~a prototypical compliance demand. This was
no laissez-fair teacher. She demanded and usually secured
obedience, but her giving so many rationales and the tone in which
she worked with students (reasonable, open to discussion) moderated
any feelings students might have had that she was asserting her
formal authority.

RESPONSIVENESS

Rating:

Overall: Moderately high
Contingency: Moderately high
Sensitivity: Moderate

c i n:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in
contingency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior based on student behavior; and information about
the contingencies in the classroom--what will be done, what will
result, and why it is happening.

This was a fairly predictable classroom. While the teacher did
have to give constant directions about what to do next, the students
seemed to understand the routine from day to day. She continually
prestructured the day’s events, usually by a schedule on the board,
as well as prestructuring to some degree what they could expect
during the year (9/8, 9:10: “Everybody should have a math book on

104

their desk. That’s going to be one of the most important books. We
are going to use it a lot this year.“).

The strongest responsiveness factor was the teacher’s provision
of information. Besides her on-going prestructuring of activities,
she gave» a great many rationales for' why things were done or
demanded as they were (5/15, 10:54: “I like the way some are in
their desks and quiet so others can finish and they’ll be ready for
the next direction.“ 11:07: “[Before a test] You are in your seat
during the test. There are no drinks or bathroom. Remember to look
at your own papers and no one else’s. We want to know what you
know, not how well you can read what your neighbor knows.“). The
teacher also was very wiling to answer students’ questions.

In terms of differential responses, the teacher almost always
used a whole-group format. Given that, however, she was quite
active in getting to students individually and seemed to treat
different students differently. She did havea reward system of
stars (it was unclear how well it was applied) and a system of
escalating consequences for Inisbehavior, from focusing and
reprimands to notes sent home to parents and parent-teacher
conferences (again it was unclear how well this was applied; it was
not as systematic as a teacher who regularly writes names on the
board, for example). She also used a lot of genuine praise, genuine
criticism, and "I like the way so and so is doing something" (a
technique for focusing students who were not doing something more
than it was a praise of "so and so").

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to chose activities, suggest rules and norms, noticing and
responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

This teacher regularly noticed students’ needs and moods and
usually answered their questions without allowing herself to be
drawn off task. She did not, however, allow them opportunities to
chose activities or suggest rules or other procedures for governing
the classroom.

SUPPORTIVEMESS
Reting: Moderately high

Diseessjon: This was a very safe, somewhat warm classroom.
The teacher’s tone seemed usually to be one of steady firmness mixed
with *warmth and reasonableness. She used humor and affective
communication a number of times (9/8. 10:00: A student asks about
the measurement chart. “What do you get if you grow the most?“ The
teacher replied, “A big hug!“ There were many moans, groans,
laughing, and giggles from the class. The teacher with mock

105

surprise said, “I like hugs, don’t you?“ The students laughed.
Someone called out a bit louder, “From certain people!“ The teacher
said, “Oh, you’re choosy,“ and laughed. Deand're called out, “Who
will give the bugs?“ The teacher replied, “Me!“ At this, the whole
class and the teacher laughed together.). She also promoted safety
in the classroom (9/8, 10:15: The teacher insisted on their
knocking at the bathroom door, and the person inside calling out,
telling the giggling students that if they did not call out, another
student might walk in on them and they might be embarrassed. “No
one likes to be embarrassed.“). The teacher never publicly scolded
students, nor did she shame them, despite some real difficulties
with them during transitions.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

On the whole, this teacher was an authoritative instructor.
She was somewhat lacking in giving students sufficient opportunity
to operate autonomously from her.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Students in this classroom should do fairly well in self-
concept scores.

Teacher D

Bel—ting:
Maturity demands: Moderate to high

Compliance demands: Low

Discessien: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

This teacher made a lot of maturity demands. Her maturity
demands encompassed a number of areas and were stated frequently,
including managing their own interpersonal boundaries, trying to do
the work before coming for help, making choices about activities,
self-monitoring of performance, and doing one’s best (even
occasionally their individual best).

9/17/82 9:37 “Your self is very important, so you are going to
respect yourself. Do what you can do best. You are going to
respect others and let them do what they do best. Maybe someone is

106

good in art. Maybe someone is good in reading, spelling, or maybe
somebody is good in math. We respect people for those
differences.“). '

9/17/82 9:12 Teacher says, “Let’s remember the magic sign. If
anyone turns to us to talk, give them the magic sign.“

9:23 A boy comes up for help on a ditto. Teacher says,
“Kevin, I can’t help you right now. Try to do it yourself.“

11:40 'There is some free time between activities.
Teacher calls for a vote on one of two activities the class can
choose to do. The large majority vote on one activity. Then, each
child is given a choice of either sitting in his/her chair or
sitting down by the teacher. Half the class sits in chairs, half by
the teacher.

9/22/82 9:16 A lunch aide is telling the students where they
will play when it is raining (the library), as it is on this day.
The teacher then adds, “This is the first time that you’re going in
there to play. And you can’t play with the stuffed toys today. You
will play with them when we find out how well you can control
yourself when playing in the library.“

10:36 It’s time for phys. ed. The class is kind of
noisy, so the teacher points to a poster with rules about quietness
on it and says, “Look up. You did better than yesterday, but you’re
not where you could be.“ This quiets the students, and the teacher
says, “That’s better.“

5/4/83 2:35 Teacher is reviewing the health unit that has taken
some time to complete. She then says, “How many of you, after going
through this again, think you could do better on the test? I’m sure
you can.“ This seems to be a “You can always do better“ type of
message.

3:08 Teacher insists on work being completed and handed
in, even if it means doing it over. “Troy, you’re missing your
yellow sheet. Well, you’ll have to find it or do another one.“

The heavy reliance the teacher made on involving students in
thinking through classroom rules was also a maturity demand. They
were asked to come up with their own rules, integrate their rules
with the teacher’s major rules, look at events in the classroom and
tell the teacher what rule was being violated, and give a rationale
for the rule.

9/9/82 1:40 Teacher says, “We are going to talk about room
rules and school rules. I want you to think about what are good
room rules and school rules....Mow, let’s hear what you think about
rules.“ Students give many rules. Teacher praises them and says,
“Do you think it is possible to memorize all those rules?....Let’s
see if we can make just a few rules so that we can all remember.“
She goes to a poster with four rules written on-it. “Let’s see if
my four rules fit with your rules.“ (Rules are: (1) Be kind, fair,
and polite; (2) Be ‘responsible for ,your actions and your
environment; (3) Do you best at all times; (4) Respect yourself,
peers, and others.) She explains them and finally asks the students

107

to fit their rules into her four rules. For example, the students’
rule of “no fighting“ was suggested by the students as part of Rule
1.

9/10/82 11:25 Teacher asks students to get out the math books.
She then says, “Give me your attention please and listen....There
was something that happened that I didn’t like. Who knows?“ A boy
responds, “Everyone was talking.“ Teacher says, “Right, and the
books were noisy. Remember...“ and then goes on to review a couple
of rules. Teacher constantly involves the students in this way in
remembering and applying rules.

However, maturity was not very routinized in classroom life.
That is, there were few standard procedures or practices that called
for students to exercise maturity, such as a system for self-
monitoring or peer monitoring.

Many' of‘ the teacher’s rules themselves were procedural or
systematically oriented, e.g., quietness, when to go to the
bathroom, and so on. She did a lot of focusing and reminding
students of the rules, but she never seemed to focus on obeying the
rules for the rules’ sake or because of the teacher’s authority. In
an elementary school classroom there must of necessity be
significant focus on maintaining order. Nevertheless, this teacher
seemed to do it without focusing students on her authority per se.
She did not require immediate obedience to orders. She did not
disapprove of student challenges, although there were few in the
class. She, in fact, gave many reasons for her demands, stressing
not authority but various rationales.

RESPONSIVENESS

Latino:

Overall: High

Contingency: Moderate to high
Sensitivity: High

Discussion:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in contin-
gency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior reacting to and shaping student behavior; and
information about the contingencies in the classroom--what will be
done, how it is to be done, what will result, and why it is
happening.

This teacher had a moderately to highly contingent classroom.
Classroom rules and procedures were clearly understood by students
and followed fairly consistently by the teacher, and a student in
her classroom would usually know (but would sometimes not know) what
the contingencies were. Certainly, daily routines of work, how to

108

do assignments, where to put them when done, the degree of
accurateness and neatness expected by the teacher, what kind of
interpersonal behavior is expected by the teacher from day to day,
and other aspects of normal classroom life were fairly well
regulated and made predictable by the teacher. Students certainly
would know how to succeed or fail in the class.

The teacher also proactively structured for students what they
would be doing and how to do it, and gave many rationales for why
they were doing what she was asking of them. She occasionally
applied negative contingencies and praised quite frequently; She
reacted fairly soon to failures to meet standards, although she did
miss some misbehavior, particularly quiet off-task behavior.

The teacher did not, however, highly routinize her class. Her
control was fairly direct (although largely predictable), frequently
giving direct instructions on what to do. Ihi the same vein, her
reward system was not a system at all, but ad hoc.

5/3/83 10:55 The students are lined up in the hall ready to go
to gym. Teacher says to one, “Did you follow all rules?“ Pupil
replies, “No.“ Several students begin touching some of the hall
decorations, part of a cultural display. Teacher tells them not to
touch, explains why, then tells them to walk quietly.

5/5/83 2:00 It’s noisy in the room. Teacher says, “I’m going
to ask everyone to put their heads down with no eyes [negative
contingency application]. The room wasn’t that quiet and should
have been. Reading is important [rationale]. When I ask you to get
to your seats and read, read quietly, okay? Heads up.“ Teacher
then gives directions for where to put their work.

9/10/82 11:25 Teacher corrects students re: noise, then says,
“And the books were noisy. Remember, there are two ways to get out
books. One is quiet and the other way is slaming. Remember the
rule from yesterday....Remember the rule about respecting others“
(rationale).

9/9/82 12:35 Teacher says, “I like to begin each afternoon with
a math sheet. There are 100 facts that you will learn this year,
and each day we will work on math“ (proactive structuring).

10/82 The class’s schedule for the day was on the board listing
each activity from 9:10-3:00. Also was written, “Good morning.
Write your first and last name and date on the first line. Print
all the capital ABC’s. Print all the small abc’s. Put it in the
small yellow tray. Take a ditto and color it neatly. Be
cooperative and work quietly. Thank you“ (proactive structuring).

9/22/82 9:32 Teacher begins talking about another teacher who
will be coming into the room and says (proactively structuring their
behavior when they go next door), “A substitute is in the other room
today because the teacher had illness in her family. And when we
have a substitute we are supposed to be cooperative, polite and
respectful....We expect you to try to be helpful and set a good

109

habit pattern.“ At this point, the substitute teacher did appear at
the door and pupils got ready to go out with their reading books.

9/17/82 11:05, 11:11, 11:14 Teacher reacts to a fairly high
level of noise by threatening students with missing the first
afternoon movie of the year. A few minutes later, she says, “Kevin,
I see you talking. First one.“ A few minutes later, she says to
another child, “I’ll have to put your name down now“ (negative
contingency applications).

5/3/83 9:54 Teacher praises students for being quiet while she
was out of the room (positive contingency application). The noise
level soon rises, so teacher flicks the lights out and says, “Lights
out, mouths closed, everybody freeze.“

Sensitivity component: This teacher was very sensitive to the
behaviors, needs, and desires of the students. She frequently asked
them to think through rules and rationales and showed them how their
own perspectives and needs were being accounted for ("How would you
like it if..."); she asked them to make choices about activities;
she refused to coerce unwilling students but found ways to motivate
them to do something based on their own wishes.

9/10/82 9:07 A child comes to teacher with incomplete work.
Teacher says, “Your work is good. You have done a very nice job,
yet you need to finish it. When do you wish to do that, during free
time or over lunch?“ Child says, “Lunch.“ This could have been
unpleasant but teacher turns it into a praise, choice, and maturity-
demand opportunity.

9/9/82 1:15 “This is the time when you are working by yourself.
I am not teaching directly but you may get a drink or move around if
you w sh.“

9/10/82 10:18 A boy tells teacher, “I don’t want to do these
books.“ Teacher says to him privately, “You know what I’d like to
know. I’d like to know why you are on crutches and why you have a
cast on your foot. That would be good. Many kids would be
interested in how your accident happened. Maybe you could draw a
picture and tell everyone in words how you broke your foot.“ The
boy returns to his desk and begins working. This is a masterfully
sensitive interaction.

SUPPORTIVENESS
Retjng: High

. This teacher had a very supportive classroom. A
student would feel very accepted and secure in this class. The
teacher made affective communications (noticed and attended to
students’ feelings). She touched students occasionally in a gentle,
affectionate way. Her tone was usually warm, calm, and accepting.
She never criticized students harshly, mockingly. She was always
reasonable, never capricious or inflexible. She gave lots of

110

praise, which, while not particularly effective as a contingency
application, nevertheless did probably conlnunicate acceptance and
positive feelings on the part of the teacher toward the students.
And the teacher did seem to have positive expectations of the
students.

9/9/82 2:19 Teacher says, “I think you’re going to like the

questions I am going to ask you“ (affective communication).
2:40 A sign above teacher’s desk reads, “I’ve got to be
me.“
9/14/82 12:58 Teacher says, acknowledging students’ probable
feelings, “I’ll bet you’re anxious to know what reading group you’re
n.“

9/10/82 11:40 “If you are not sure what to do, listen and
follow along with me.“ Teacher begins to demonstrate “very
patiently“ (observer’s words) the same problem over again for those
who did not understand--the mechanics of setting up a page of math.

9/17/82 9:05 At this time students bring up work they’ve
completed as homework the night before. Teacher acknowledges the
work has been done yet insists that they go to their seats and
she’ll call for those items as a group later on. She could have
criticized them or merely corrected them, but she took time to
acknowledge them, thus protecting their feelings.

5/6/83 11:53 Teacher goes to help a student and passes by a
girl. “Were you passing notes?“ (asked privately). Girl says,
“No.“ Teacher smiles and says, “Well, don’t.“

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

This teacher was moderately to highly authoritative. She made
frequent, although unsystematized, maturity demands, and few if any
compliance demands. She had a moderately to highly contingent
classroom, and a highly sensitive one. Her classroom was also very
supportive.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Students in this class will experience moderately to
significantly improved self-concepts. To the degree the variables
examined in this study account for the variance in self-concept
scores, this classroom manifested the kind of treatment of students
that, will maximize self-concept scores. A critical additional
factor is the academic system. Should the teacher have contingently
structured the work system to enable students to achieve significant
learning, self-concept score gains will be quite high. Should the
work system have been poorly designed and executed, the
demandingness, responsiveness, and supportiveness dimensions would
have acted to nonetheless produce some moderate improvement.

111

Teaeher R

Beting:
Maturity demands: Low
Compliance demands: Moderate to high

Discussion: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

This teacher made few maturity demands. Very little stress was
placed on autonomy, although there was some stress at moments on
doing individual work by themselves (e.g., a test). She also had
them think up classroom rules (although she then did nothing in
particular with their list to help them structure it in their minds
as a guide for future behavior without the need for teacher
reminders (9/9 9:47). The teacher, in fact, kept careful direct
control over the class, largely through whole-group activities
(mainly seatwork) in which everyone did the same lesson. There was
a little stress on agency, especially with reference to getting work
done (9/13, 9:10: “It’s going to be up to you...how well you do.
If you really show a spurt ahead we’re not going to hold you back.
We’ll let you move ahead to the next level. But if you get lazy and
kind of slow down, we’ll also put you back a level. We should be
able to get through this book fairly quickly, but again, it is going
to be up to you.“) or taking care of materials (9/9, 8:58: “Did
everyone get a box of crayons? These are the only ones you will get
for the whole year.“ She then indicates they can buy more
themselves when they need more.). To this teacher, doing one’s best
meant getting the assigned task done, and done neatly. There was no
stress on maximizing individual strengths or any particular emphasis
on mastery learning.

This teacher was, however, fairly high on compliance demands in
that her instructions rarely made reference to any larger issues or
principles of learning or behavior that students should learn to
adapt and apply to concrete situations. She focused instead on whet
to do right now, rather than on why or even how. She secured a
generally cooperative classroom, but rarely if ever emphasized her
authority explicitly. She was willing to confront misbehavior and
did enforce standards fairly consistently (9/16, 10:26: “John, you
are going to stay in for a few minutes [from recess for talking] and
I am going to come back and talk to you.“).

112
RESPONSIVENESS

Overall: Low
Contingency: Moderate
Sensitivity: Low

mm:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in
contingency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior based on student behavior; and information about
the contingencies in the classroom--what will be done, what will
result, and why it is happening.

This was a very predictable classroom, mainly because the
teacher established routines and procedures that were consistently
followed. Her standards were clear and enforced, and on the whole
she maintained very close control over events. In terms of
differential teacher behavior, the teacher monitored student
behavior closely, mainly to make sure they were on task although
sometimes to check for accuracy and understanding. She did this by
circulating a lot. She also had a reward system for accurate, neat
papers (stars). She corrected students both publicly and privately,
gave a fair amount of praise and some criticism. Overall, however,
the ways in which this teacher attempted to shape student behavior
were severely limited by her whole—class, seatwork-heavy, closely
controlled approach.

This teacher gave very little information about the strategies
for succeeding in the classroom or the rationales for why things
were the way they were. Her main message seemed to be trying,
although there were a very few exceptions (5/4/83, 1:23: “That is
one of your mistakes. Go through and multiply the two things
together to find the other mistake.“ Observer notes that she was
giving the girl a way of checking her work to try to figure out what
she had done wrong.).

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to choose activities, suggest rules and norms, noticing and
responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

This dimension was almost completely absent in this classroom.
The only exception was that the teacher occasionally acknowledged
students’ feelings and moods (9/16, 8:44: “Hi there, Tanya. Are
you feeling better? We’re glad to have you back. Jonathan, are you
feeling better also?“ This may in fact be supportiveness, not
sensitivity.). Also, in the beginning of the year, she did have
them write out what they hoped to learn that year, although she was
never again observed to do anything with such intrinsic motivations.

113

SUPPORTIVENESS
Rating: Moderate

Djsegssjen: In terms of affective interaction with students,
this teacher did do some in the beginning of the year, such as
welcoming back sick students, joking with them, admiring a student’s
picture of her family (9/9, 8:20 “I am looking forward to having
you in my class.“). She also did intervene a few times to make the
classroom safe (9/9, 10:15 The teacher introduces students to a
fleece ball, a “terrific ball,“ which she then throws to a student
who drops it. A few kids laugh, to which the teacher says, “That’s
all right“ (i.e., don’t laugh). She then throws it back and forth
to some students and emphasizes that it is a soft ball so “You don’t
need to be afraid of it.“). On the whole, however, the classroom
was safe because little outside of the teacher’s direct control
happened, and it was in general an affectless classroom.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

This teacher was a mildly warm, authoritarian teacher.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

This teacher will have a poor effect on students’ self-
concepts. They will probably change little or even decline in
relation to other teachers.

Teacher M

Rating:
Maturity demands: Moderate
Compliance demands: High

Diseessiee: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

The most consistent maturity demand in this classroom was the
insistence on the part of ‘the teacher that the students think
through the answers to their work on their own. The teacher went to
some length to get the students to try to answer questions for
themselves before she would tell them. The usual pattern was for
students to raise their hands or come to her during seatwork, and

 

 

114

the teacher would point them to some clue in the material that would
help them answer it. But even if there was a backlog of students
waiting for help, the teacher would rarely simply answer the
questions. Thus, the teacher demanded some degree of autonomy.

The teacher also frequently used induction (another attempt to
demand autonomy) to reinforce demands, in terms of answering
questions as described above, in terms of asking them what the rules
in the classroom were in a given situation, and in terms of figuring
out what to do during down time. The teacher also had the students
check their own work while she went over the answers up front.
Another major aspect of maturity demands in this classroom was the
teacher’s fairly frequent emphasis on the responsibility of students
for their own individual or group’s performance (e.g., "Are you
helping your row get ready?"). The teacher thus promoted some
degree of personal agency, particularly in such areas as neatness,
completing work, and classroom order.

This classroom, however, did also have a fairly high degree of
compliance demandingness. The teacher’s poor classroom-management
skills resulted in a fairly high degree of off-task behavior. While
the teacher managed to monitor things very closely, nonetheless she
ended up demanding compliance with the program of action in effect
at that moment very, very frequently. This demand for compliance
only occasionally was linked to any retionales or long-term
objectives (e.g., learning to be respectful of others, or earning
the teacher’s trust), which would have made it more a demand for
maturity. Usually, the teacher was constantly interrupting her own
teaching to focus heavily on procedural issues such as getting back
to work, quietness, lining up. Transition times were particularly
terrible, often taking five or more minutes to get students shifted
from one program of action to the next. Once shifted, of course, it
then took constant monitoring and reinforcing by the teacher to get
the students to stay on task.

Another aspect of compliance in the classroom was the teacher’s
relatively frequent explicit references to her own authority as
teacher and the students’ responsibility to obey (e.g., "I don’t
like having to repeat the directions all the time. When I give you
directions and ask you to do something...then you are to do it.”).
The teacher, in fact, had to give a lot of directions to the
students, for they were not very self-regulating, nor did she try to
routinize autonomous behavior. For example, where most teachers
seemed to have room jobs assigned to the students for the week,
which then necessitated only cues from the teacher as to when to get
started, this teacher didn’t seem to have such a system. She was
thus having to pick students to do certain tasks, which then
resulted in arguments and protestations on the part of other
students that the person picked had done it before or that they
themselves hadn’t been picked.

115

RESPONSIVENESS

Ballast

Overall: Moderate
Contingency: High
Sensitivity: Low

Mm:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in contin-
gency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior reacting to and shaping student behavior; and
information about the contingencies in the classroom--what will be
done, how it is to be done, what. will result, and why it is
happening.

This classroom was highly contingent. Classroom life seemed to
be fairly routinized and thus predictable. The teacher was very
clear in her demands. This teacher had a system for applying
negative contingencies that was very visible and powerful in its
effect. If a student transgressed, the teacher would first write
the student’s name on the board, then place a series of checks by
the name. Each check represented a progressively worse punishment,
from staying after school in 15-minute increments to suspension for
three days. While this was a system ostensibly used in the
district, this teacher was one of the most consistent users of it.
On one occasion the teacher had students staying after school
writing two pages of ”I will learn not to talk in school." Her
reward systems, to the degree they existed, were much less visible,
and seemingly limited to certain academic tasks such as stars on
spelling papers.

This teacher monitored student behavior very closely. Very
little escaped her notice, an achievement made remarkable by the
fairly frequent occurrences of off-task behavior. She constantly
attempted to shape student behavior both proactively and reactively
(especially the latter) through verbal and nonverbal means.

In terms of information, this teacher gave a fairly high amount
of it. She would alert students to what tasks lay ahead of them and
the time they would have to do it in. She somewhat frequently gave
(or inductively elicited) rationales for demands, and even taught
them cognitive strategies for approaching tasks a few times (notably
the standardized achievement tests when they were being taken).
Nonetheless, this was the weakest component of the contingency
dimension in the classroom.

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to chose activities, suggest rules and norms, as well as noticing

116

and responding to the needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

Without question this teacher was very teacher centered in the
classroom. She did little to create any sense of ownership of the
classroom process. During down times, students could sometimes
choose their own activities (this was verbalized by the teacher but
was never noted to have occurred by the observers). Students never
suggested nor were they asked to suggest rules and norms. The
teacher responded to student needs and moods only to the degree of
getting them back on task. And the teacher was never observed to
have drawn out intrinsic motivations of the students, with the
possible exception of one day’s exercises dealing with affective
issues, noted below.

SUPPORTIVENESS
Rating: Low

Discgssion: This was not a greatly supportive classroom.
Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the classroom in this
area was the frequency with which the teacher spoke to the students
in negative, “stern" (as labeled by the observer), critical tones.
She was constantly criticizing students (e.g., ”You weren’t paying
attention, were you?"), not merely focusing them back on task. It
is also striking that the teacher started off the year with a very
visible punishment system, but no equally visible reward system.
This would connote very low expectations and/or a focus on negative
behavior rather than a search for positive behavior. There may even
have been some shaming of students, particularly during public,
negative reprimands delivered sometimes in a shout. The teacher did
occasionally praise students, although very often they were of the
"I like the way that so and so is sitting quietly" variety, more
often a focus to other students than a praise of the student
mentioned. Nonetheless, the teacher did express genuine thanks to
students for doing something, and such comments were probably the
most consistent affectively positive interactions the teacher had
with students.

By the end of the .year the negative tones had diminished
somewhat, and criticism had diminished slightly, but there was no
corresponding increase in positive affective communication or
praise. Very rarely did the teacher make contact with the students
as human beings with feelings, moods, and a life outside of class.
No conversations were observed to have occurred on things going on
in the students’ lives, or inside of them. On one occasion she had
them engage in an exercise describing their family and things they
liked to do, and on another occasion through an exercise she taught
them that it was okay to be angry as long as one didn’t hurt anyone.
But these were the full extent of such exercises observed (other

117

exercises probably did occur as classroom material at that level
sometimes dealt with affective concerns indirectly, e.g., through
stories).

It should also be noted that students in the classroom were
quite safe from each other, due to the teacher’s careful monitoring
and generally powerful presence. It should also be noted that the
teacher gave sufficient help to the students, often through her
constant circulating through the classroom during seatwork.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

This teacher was basically authoritarian, with a strong
tendency toward being on the coldly authoritarian end of the
spectrum. Her authoritarianness was muted to some degree by the
presence of real maturity demands, but on the whole those maturity
demands were counterbalanced by strong compliance demands and little
opportunity given to actually be truly autonomous.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Self-concepts in this classroom are not likely to fare very
well. On the whole, they will remain low or drop lower. As usual,
the effectiveness of the academic instruction on the part of the
teacher may help some self-concepts to rise or remain higher.

Teaeher O

Maturity demands: Low
Compliance demands: High

i i n: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill, teacher expectations for
their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

The central characteristic of the demandingness in this
classroom seems to be that it revolved around the continual direct
control of the teacher. The teacher was constantly giving
directions to the students, eonstently focusing them and quieting
them, constantly managing transitions. Almost no instances were
noted in which the teacher tried to foster a sense of agency,
granted autonomy, or required students to do their individual best.
Such emphases were most completely absent.

118

As noted below under Responsiveness, the lack of routinization
and an informational map of the classroom resulted in a low degree
of maturity demandingness and a very high degree of compliance
demandingness. The successful student in this classroom is somewhat
hard to describe because the teacher would make certain demands but
not necessarily follow through on them. For example, on several
occasions, when the teacher was reading a story to the class, she
would half-heartedly try to focus and quiet the students. When that
failed, she would simply raise her voice and try to read over the
noise, ignoring the inattention. Rather than insist on attention
and quiet, she would in effect compete for the airwaves. The
teacher would often make compliance demands but fairly regularly
ignore off-task or inappropriate behavior such as talking, walking
around the room, and so on. Given this inconsistency, therefore, it
can be said that the successful student in this classroom would
follow the program of the action of the teacher whee she was
enforcing it without asking for or getting much information about
the environment, which can allow for true autonomy and personal
agency.

Given the high level of inconsistent teacher demandingness, the
teacher was constantly making compliance demands, even to the point
of yelling at students. Students could not, of course, develop
self-control in the classroom because the teacher was neither in
control herself nor did she give them the tools they needed to
become autonomous and agentic.

Probably significant is the additional observation that her
formal class rules did not reference general principles that
students must learn for themselves how to apply (e.g., respecting
one another), but rather specific do’s and don’ts: (1) Be quiet
during work time; (2) Leave .your seat only for a good reason
(whatever that is); (3) Don’t interrupt; (4) Keep your hands to
yourself; and (5) Keep our room neat (a somewhat general principle).
This level of specificity would not seem to build toward autonomy if
the rules are not linked with more general principles and
expectations.

RESPONSIVENESS
BEAM:

Overall: Low
Contingency: Low
Sensitivity: Low

Discussion:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in
contingency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior reacting to and shaping student behavior; and

119

information about the contingencies in the classroom--what will be
done, how it is to be done, what will result, and why it is
happening.

The predictability of this classroom was somewhat low. On the
one hand, the teacher did not necessarily appear disorganized, nor
did she appear to have to figure out what to do next with the
students. On the other hand, she usually seemed harried and barely
in control of the classroom, and she rarely called students’
attention explicitly to routines (if any existed) in the classroom.
She would simply issue instructions about what to do next. The
teacher’s own inconsistency in enforcing compliance demands
contributed significantly to the relative unpredictability of the
c assroom.

In terms of differential behavior, this teacher attended
inconsistently to the various behaviors of students. She did
respond fairly consistently to needs for help expressed by the
students (during seatwork she would circulate through the class much
of the ‘time, checking work in progress). She often but
inconsistently responded to off-task behavior; gave occasional
praise (specially in the beginning of the year); and gave a fair
amount of negative sanctions (primarily' criticisms and frequent
harsh or irritated comments). She did not appear to have, however,
a system of rewards and sanctions (e.g., stars, names on the board).

In terms of information, this teacher fell sadly short of the
ideal. This appeared to be an informationally impoverished
classroom. The teacher only occasionally cognitively prestructured
classroom activities, rarely gave strategies for approaching
problems (mainly during the prep time for the standardized tests),
and only occasionally gave rationales for compliance demands.

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to choose activities, suggest rules and norms, as well as noticing
and responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

This teacher’ did very 'little of this.‘ It was rare to
nonexistent that students had any real choices about activities,
were asked their thoughts about classroom life, or were engaged by
the teacher in activities based on their own desires. The teacher
did seem to take into account students’ unasked questions sometimes
and was always responsive to explicitly asked questions, although in
her answers she did not give much information or refer to general
principles that students could learn to apply to questions in the

uture.

120

SUPPORTIVENESS
Rating: Low

Discussion: The most supportive aspects of this classroom were
the teacher’s procedure of having students make each other birthday
cards and her giving students very occasional praise. In addition,
there were no major instances of shaming by the teacher or attacks
by students on one another. Unfortunately, the teacher was
frequently and openly irritated with students, even to the point of
yelling. She rarely facilitated interpersonal regard and belonging
between students and rarely showed a personal interest in the
students beyond their student role. There were very few noted
instances in which the teacher touched students, noticed their
feelings, intuited that they were having problems outside of the
classroom, or even inquired into their personal lives.

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

Given the low ratings this teacher received on all dimensions,
it would be quite difficult to identify her with one of the classic
interactional styles under study, although it might be possible to
consider her authoritarian in an inept way.

PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Given the high degree of but inconsistently enforced compliance
demands, the virtual absence of maturity demands, the low
responsiveness and low supportiveness, students’ self-concepts are
expected to manifest little or no change. There may even be some
negative gains. The instructional effectiveness of the teacher is
likely to be the key determinant of self-concept results, rather
than the dimensions under study, but it is difficult to believe that
the teacher’s instructional procedures could counteract the rather
disorganized and ineffective nature of classroom life as noted in
this analysis.

Teaeher D

Beting:
Maturity demands: Low to moderate
Compliance demands: Moderate

Diseussien: Maturity demands encompass the granting of
autonomy, making demands that ensure a sense of personal agency, and
requiring students to do their individual best. Compliance demands
are requirements that students fulfill teacher expectations for

121

their own sake, without reference to the long-term goal of student
autonomy and individual excellence.

The central characteristic of the demandingness in this
classroom seemed to be that it revolved around the continual direct
control of the teacher. The teacher was constantly giving
directions to the students, constantly focusing them and quieting
them, constantly managing transitions. .As noted below under
Responsiveness, the lack of routinization and an informational map
of the classroom resulted in a weak degree of maturity demandingness
and a fairly high degree of compliance demandingness. The
successful student in this classroom would follow the program of
action of the teacher without asking for or getting much information
about the environment, which can allow for true autonomy and
personal agency.

In terms of maturity demands, she used induction with moderate
frequency, often insisting that they think through academic
problems. She also sometimes had them correct their own mistakes
and generally insisted on doing good work. There were few other
regular maturity demands, however. Her other maturity demands were
infrequent and irregular, although in total they amounted to a
moderate degree of maturity demandingness in the classroom. She
occasionally had them think about what they could be doing during
down time, had them make their own decisions, emphasized personal
responsibility, gave rationales for demands, and (inconsistently)
allowed them to decide when to go to the bathroom or get a drink.

This teacher also had a moderate degree of compliance demands.
As noted, she gave a constant stream of directions to the students.
If her various shifts from one activity to another were routine (and
they might have been), the teacher rarely explicitly referred to the
rules and routines in the classroom in a way that would suggest to
students that they were supposed to know what was to happen and were
merely being reminded by the teacher. Rather, the reader gets the
impression that the students had to wait until the teacher told them
what came next. For example, she didn’t say things like, ”You all
know what to do now. Let’s get ready. Books out." Rather, she
would say, "All right, let’s quietly take our math books out and
we’ll finish up our lesson from yesterday. Page 27.“

She also occasionally explicitly focused students on obeying
her instructions. It is significant that students may gain some
degree of personal agency in the classroom by a fairly high degree
of off-task, inappropriate behavior-such as frequent call outs,
frequently having to be focused, frequently talking to one another,
even arguing with one another. Probably significant is the
additional observation that her formal class rules did not reference
general principles that students had to learn for themselves how to
apply (e.g., respecting one another), but rather specific do’s and
don’ts: entering and leaving the room quietly, following directions

122

the first time, beginning work promptly, raising one’s hand and
waiting to be called on, and no talking during teacher instruction.
This level of specificity would not seem to build toward self-
regulation if the rules are not linked with more general principles
and expectations.

RESPONSIVENESS

Renee:

Overall: Low to moderate
Contingency: Low to moderate
Sensitivity: Low to moderate

Discussion:

Contingency component: The three factors involved in
contingency are a routinized, predictable environment; differential
teacher behavior reacting to and shaping student behavior; and
information about the contingencies in the classroom--what will be
done, how it is to be done, what will result, and why it is
happening. '

The predictability of this classroom was hard to assess. The
teacher did not appear disorganized, nor did she appear to have to
figure out what to do next with the students. She flowed smoothly
from one activity to the next. This would seem to suggest that the
classroom had a fairly predictable series of programs of action that
a student would soon pick up ("L As noted, however, the teacher
rarely called students’ attention explicitly to the routines in the
classroom. She would simply issue instructions about what to do
next.

In terms of differential behavior, this teacher clearly
attended quickly to the various behaviors of students. She
responded to needs for help (expressed and unexpressed by the
student), responded to off-task behavior, gave lots of praise and a
fair amount of negative sanctions (primarily criticisms, but also
removal of privileges), and gave a fairly high amount of individual
attention to students within a general whole-class instructional
framework. She did not appear to have, however, a system of rewards
and sanctions (e.g., stars, names on the board).

In terms of information, this teacher fell sadly short of the
ideal. This appeared to be an informationally impoverished
classroom. The teacher only occasionally cognitively prestructured
classroom activities, sometimes gave strategies for approaching
problems, and only occasionally gave rationales for rules. It
seemed to this observer that the teacher gave more information in
the first few days of school, but by the end of the school year such
information was more infrequent. Student behavior did not seem more

123

self-regulated, however, so ‘the teacher did not appear to have
worked long enough at giving students the tools by which they could
internalize necessary behavior and problem-solving approaches. One
particularly disappointing but fairly typical example of a missed
opportunity for information giving involved a vociferous argument
between two students over money. The teacher took the money
herself, and with significant irritation criticized the boys for
arguing without telling them why it was wrong or what they should do
instead. She called for compliance without attention to the need
for information that could enable them to be self-regulating in the
uture.

Sensitivity component: Sensitivity includes allowing students
to choose activities, suggest rules and norms, as well as noticing
and responding to their needs and moods, answering their stated and
unstated questions, and drawing out their intrinsic motivations.

This teacher' did very little of this. It was rare that
students had any real choices about activities, were asked their
thoughts about rules, or were engaged by the teacher in activities
based on their own desires. The teacher did seem to take into
account students’ unasked questions sometimes, and was always
responsive to explicitly asked questions.

SUPPORTIVENESS
Rating: Moderate

Djseussien: The most supportive aspect of this classroom was
the teacher’s usual neutral tone. Particularly in the beginning of
the year, she was rarely irritated with students, but by the end of
the year, there were more numerous instances of frustration and
irritation. Students in the class, however, were never attacked by
the teacher, or even by each other. Thus, the teacher was
successful in establishing a safe classroom. The teacher also gave
lots of help to students and gave very frequent praise. Criticism
focused on behavior and avoided the shaming of students.

There was, however, very little emphasis on affective
communication in the class. In the first few days of school, the
teacher took time to facilitate interpersonal regard and belonging
between students and showed a personal interest in the students
beyond their student role. However, very quickly this affective
dimension dropped out of sight, and there were very few noted
instances in which the teacher touched students, noticed their
feelings, intuited that they were having problems outside of the
classroom, or even inquired into their personal lives.

124

INTERACTIONAL PATTERN

Given the low to moderate ratings this teacher received, it
would be quite difficult to identify her with one of the classic
interactional styles under study.
PREDICTED SELF-CONCEPT EFFECT

Given the rather tepid nature of this teacher’s behavior on the
key dimensions, students’ self-concepts are expected to manifest
little or no change. There may even be some negative gains. The
instructional effectiveness of the teacher is likely to be the key

determinant of self-concept results, rather than the dimensions
under study. .

Summary of Results

The 21 third- and fourth-grade teachers in the Socializations
Outcomes Project had student scores on Harter’s Perceived Competence
Scale as shown in Table 4.1.

Using the procedures described in Chapter III, the cutoff
points were derived from the above z-scores. Teachers K, B, H, and
0 were all predicted to have a moderately to highly positive effect
on self-concept, and those predictions were almost fully carried
out. Teachers R, M, D, and 0 were all predicted to have self-
concept scores that remained the same or went lower. In the first
two cases the predictions were accurate, but in the final two cases
the predictions were disconfirmed. Table 4.2 shows the teacher, the
prediction, the beginning ,z-score, the ending z:score, and the
amount and direction of change. It should be remembered that those
whose prescores were above .5 or below -.5 were considered to have
started as high or low, respectively. Since the z-score is a

relative one, teachers who succeeded in keeping their students high

125

relative to other teachers, even if they did not move them higher,
were considered to have fulfilled the conditions of moderate to high
improvement (see Chapter III). The obverse was true of teachers who

began low (and stayed low).

Table 4.1.--Raw scores and e-scores on the Perceived Competence
Scale.

 

 

Pretest Posttest e-Score
Teacher

Mean SD Mean SD Pre Post
A 3.18 .57 3.04 .71 1.19 .58
B 3.10 .42 3.07 .73 .69 .75
C 2.71 .51 2.84 .49 -l.87 -.58
D 2.87 .67 2.93 .69 -.69 .00
E 2.94 .60 3.11 .46 -.13 .68
F 3.26 .54 2.90 .54 1.59 -.18
G 3.08 .47 3.15 .73 .98 .89
H 2.57 .48 2.73 .67 -2.50 -1.09
I 2.80 .67 .290 .72 -l.12 -.18
J 3.02 .51 2.93 .60 .51 -.15
K 3.09 .78 3.20 .58 1.11 1.10
M 2.94 .63 2.73 .52 -.10 -l.08
N 2.88 .51 2.80 .74 -.63 -.73
O 3.05 .47 3.16 .52 .36 1.20
P 3.19 .69 3.22 .72 1.86 1.21
O 2.90 .53 2.96 .69 -.40 .02
R 2.92 67 2.78 .60 -.3O «.82
S 2.78 51 3.26 .45 -l.37 1.38
T 2.86 48 2.93 .50 -.77 -.03
U 3.04 54 2.97 .53 .70 .03
V 3.20 53 2.98 .41 1.30 25

 

126

Table 4.2.--Results of teacher predictions.

 

 

Teacher Prediction Prescore Postscore Change
K Moderate-High 1.1 1.1 0
B Moderate-High .7 .8 .l
H Moderate-High -2.5 -1.1 1.4
O Moderate-High -.4 0 .4
R Same-Lower -.3 -.8 -.5
M Same—Lower -.1 -l.l -l.O
D Same-Lower -.7 0 .7
O Same-Lower .4 .2 .8

 

As can be seen, predictions about the first six teachers were
confirmed (Teacher 0 fell .1 SD short of the cutoff point and can be
considered to have essentially confirmed the prediction about her,
although she did remain in the middle group). The final two
teachers moved very strongly in the direction opposite that

predicted for them.

Chapter Summery

This chapter has given an overview of the way in which the
teachers were rated on the three dimensions, along with brief
discussions of some of the factors involved in those ratings and the
predicted effects on academic self-perceived competence. Detailed
case studies were then presented, describing the teachers and their
ratings. Finally, results on the Perceived Competence Scale were
presented and compared with the predictions. The discussion now

turns toward the meaning of these results and various implications

127

for further research and for intervention with children in academic

and counseling settings.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if certain key
dimensions of teacher behavior in the classroom-dimensions drawn
from parenting research but posited as useful in describing teacher—
student interactions--have predictable effects on student self-
concepts. The primary objective was to examine whether teachers who
were high in maturity demands, low to moderate in compliance
demands, high in responsiveness, and high in supportiveness had a
sanguine effect on the academic self-concepts of elementary school
students.

The study was part of a large-scale research program at the
Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University.
The Socialization Outcomes Project examined the relationships among
teachers’ socialization priorities, their classroom practices, and
student outcomes in two socialization areas: task-demand skills and
attitudes and social skills and attitudes. This particular study
examined teachers’ effects on one particular attitude: academic
self-perceived competence, as measured by the Harter Perceived

Competence Scale for Children.

128

129

Teachers were drawn from the public school system in the
capital city of Michigan. Twenty-four teachers were observed
(several during the first year and several during the second year)
in the classroom by trained observers, six times during the first
3 weeks of school and four times during the spring. Various
questionnaires, including the Harter scale, were administered in the
fall and spring. Project leaders then selected eight third- and
fourth-grade teachers for this study who represented a range of
self-concept effects, from those whose students’ scores either
started the school year high and remained high or started lower and
moved higher to those whose scores remained low or dropped lower.
The scores used were z-scores, a measurement of teachers’ relative
standings with respect to one another.

A rating guide was developed by the researcher for each
dimension and was then used in reading the narratives on each
teacher and noting occurrences of interactions, rules, or procedures
that manifested one or more of the three dimensions. The researcher
then rated the teachers on each dimension and subdimension and made
predictions about self-concept postscores. Four hypotheses were
investigated:

fl : Teachers differ on the degree to which they demand matur-
ily and compliance from students.

D : Teachers differ on the degree to which they make their
classrooms sensitively contingent on student responses.

[13: Teachers differ on the degree to which they noncontin-
gently' meet certain critical emotional needs that children
have.

130

H : Teachers who are high in maturity demands, insist moder-
alely on compliance, construct highly contingent-sensitive
classrooms, and are highly supportive have a more positive
effect on student self-perceived academic competence than do
teachers who are low in maturity demands and/or high in
compliance demands, have relatively noncontingent-sensitive
classrooms, and/or’ are inadequately supportive of students’
essential emotional needs.

Although no statistical tests of these hypotheses could be
executed given the qualitative nature of the data and analysis,
cutoff points were established for determining whether a teacher
prediction was confirmed or disconfirmed. The analysis indicated
the following:

1. Teachers did, in fact, differ on the degree to which they
made maturity and compliance demands. Ratings ranged from low to
high on both demands. Thus, H] was confirmed. It is to be noted
that the expected orthogonal nature of maturity and compliance
demands was somewhat confirmed in that no teacher was high in both.
It was acceptable, however, that teachers have mid-range ratings in
these demands.

2. Teachers did, in fact, differ on the degree to which they
constructed sensitive-contingent classrooms. Ratings ranged from
low to high on both subdimensions. Thus, Hz was confirmed.

3. Teachers did, in fact, differ on the degree to which they
noncontingently met the emotional needs of students for safety,
belonging, and warmth. Ratings ranged from low to high on this
dimension. Thus, H3 was confirmed.

4. Teachers whose ratings on maturity demandingness, respon-

siveness, and supportiveness were moderate to high and whose rating

131

on compliance demandingness was low to moderate did for the most
part have higher postscores on perceived competence than did
teachers who were rated low on demandingness, high on compliance,
and low on both responsiveness and supportiveness. The exceptions

to this finding are discussed below.

Discussion of Results

Three out of the four teachers predicted to have final
perceived competence scores that either started high (above .5 Q
from the mean) and remained high or moved up at least .5 SD did, in
fact, fulfill the predictions. These were Teachers K, B, and H.
Teacher 0, who started out moderate (within .5 DD from the mean),
rose in the predicted direction, falling .1 DD from the .5 cutoff
point. Given the somewhat imprecise nature of the cutoff points, it
may be concluded that Teacher 0 also fulfilled the predictions.

Two out of the four teachers predicted to have a detrimental
effect on perceived competence did, in fact, end the year with
scores that had remained low or went lower: Teachers R and M. The
other two teachers predicted to have this negative effect in fact
had positive effects that met the criterion of rising at least .5 SD
from the prescore. Essentially, then, six out of the eight teachers
had the predicted effect on self-concept, and two had the opposite
effect. The discussion must now turn, therefore, to an explanation
of why Teachers 0 and 0 moved so strongly in the direction opposite

that predicted.

132

leecher D. A review of the narrative data of this classroom
confirmed the perspective that this teacher was low on maturity
demands, high on compliance demands, and low on responsiveness and
supportiveness. The overall picture of the teacher is one who was
reacting to classroom dynamics rather than being proactive. She had
to constantly focus and quiet the students and attempt to manage
transitions because she was not, in fact, in charge. The fact that
when she attempted to read them a story she had to "compete for the
airwaves” by talking over their voices is a graphic picture of this
teacher in action (or reaction)--that is, she was just another class
member trying to get the floor. As was stated in the narrative
analysis, she was usually harried and barely in control of the
classroom. The scores her students received on the Perceived
Competence Scale and other scales in the study suggest that perhaps
this teacher was, in fact, get in control of the classroom. It may
be that the teacher was seen by the students as inept and somewhat
irrelevant. The narrative data did not allow an in-depth analysis
of the student culture because the focus of the Socialization
Outcomes Project was on teacher effect, but it may be that the
student culture was the most influential factor (”1 the children’s
views of themselves, rather than the teacher’s behavior.

This possibility is somewhat supported by the research on
social comparison noted in the literature review. There it was seen
that students do look at each other and compare themselves to assist
in the formation of their self-concepts. While that research

(Marshall 3 Weinstein, 1984) noted the importance of clear

133

indicators from the teacher about where they stood with each other
(e.g., ability grouping, grades, reward systems), it may be that in
the absence of clear, consistent signals from the teacher, students
overrate their own competence. This was also supported by Markus’s
(1977) work on self-schemata and Nicholls’s (1978) work on self-
concept development (showing young children overrate their ability)
reviewed earlier.

Teacher 0. Unlike the classroom of Teacher D, this teacher did
not have an uncontrolled classroom. Indeed, this teacher had
several qualities to commend her. She was rated "low to moderate"
or "moderate" on every dimension and subdimension. In terms of
maturity demands, she kept fairly close direct control over the
class and rarely referred to any rules or principles students should
guide themselves by--which did not help the development of autonomy
but did render the class safe and predictable. She did generally
insist on doing good work and often insisted that they think through
academic problems and correct their own mistakes--which did help the
development of autonomy. Similarly with responsiveness, there were
factors that suggested a contingent-sensitive teacher (e.g., lots of
praise and negative sanctions, close monitoring of students), but on
the whole this teacher did not construct a very contingent-sensitive,
classroom. Rather, she used a more traditional style of managing
and teaching students.

The question then becomes, given this somewhat mixed picture,

why did this teacher raise self-concept scores (as well as scores on

134

most of the other measures examined by the project) so high that she
ended the year as one of the five highest teachers? Unfortunately,
the data in this study do not allow for any clear interpretation.
It may be that in "moderate" classrooms where there were no clear
highs or lows (Hi the dimensions under investigation, those
dimensions lost their predictive power, and other factors must also
be taken into account. Indeed, this was the most moderately rated
classroom in the study. Every other class had clear lows and/or
relatively clear highs. Clearly, other factors going on in the
classroom helped these students develop so strongly.

To conclude this discussion of the results of this
investigation, the findings support very strongly that teachers who
demand stage-appropriate maturity, a reasonable degree of
compliance, and are very' responsive and supportive produce very
sanguine effects on the academic self-perceived competence of
elementary school children. The findings are not, however,
completely supportive of those conclusions, and attempts have been
made in the absence of definitive or very suggestive data to explain

why there were two divergent results.

Implications and Recommendetiegs

The results of this study and evidence from the literature
appear to have implications for the practices of teaching and

counseling, and for future study.

135

Implicatiens for Teaching
Next to the family, the school probably has the greatest effect

on the development of children. Administrators, counselors, and
teachers must appreciate the fact that in addition to cognitive
development, school experiences should also have considerable effect
on the personal and social maturing of students. As the urban
educational system continues to be confronted with overcrowding,
underpreparedness, alienation, isolation, and poor motivation, it is
urgent that teachers be able to teach not only academic concepts,
but also appropriate task-related beliefs. Indeed, it would appear
that students with a history of school failure will march inevitably
down the route of truancy and attrition unless teachers are able to
imbue them with strong beliefs in their academic competence.
Studies cited in the literature review have shown clearly the
correlation between academic competence and perceived academic
competence. This study suggests. the following implications for
fulfilling such a wholistic agenda with elementary school students:

1. Teachers’ expectations of what they can achieve in the
classroom must become or remain high. Their own perceived
competence at accomplishing academic and developmental goals must be
high, or it is doubtful that they will adopt the teaching strategies
that will, in fact, make that accomplishment possible.

2. Teachers must be able to assess students’ abilities and
motivational beliefs accurately, and communicate developmentally
appropriate standards of maturity in the classroom. They must

communicate their expectations that students will internalize

136

teacher goals and procedures to the point where they are functioning
fairly autonomously. They must also demand that students live up to
their own individual potential. And they must help students
understand their own agency in whether they succeed or fail in the
classroom. Such communication must entail the direct verbalization
of maturity demands (e.g., "I expect you to remember next time how
we do this in our classroom."), as well as the use of rules and
procedures that require students to be mature (e.g., self-
monitoring, induction).

3. Teachers must demand an appropriate degree of compliance to
their' demands. ‘They should have~ a low to moderate degree of
compliance demandingness, insisting on student cooperation but
allowing for the somewhat less controlled process of student
internalization and maturity development.

4. Teachers must create contingent-sensitive classrooms in
which they empower students to meet their demands for maturity. To
demand maturity without making it possible can lead only to
frustration and a greater sense of incompetence and powerlessness.
Teachers must use a wide range of methods to enable students to
function maturely. In particular, they must make classroom life
routinized enough so that students can make contingency judgments of
what leads to success or failure and adjust their behavior
accordingly. They must also cognitively prestructure activities in
the classroom and give rationales for demands and procedures so that

students can not only predict what will be done but also understand

137

the purposes and processes behind the activities. This aids the
internalization process. Additionally, teachers must respond
differentially to desirable and undesirable student behavior. They
must not be teacher centered but student centered in what they do in
the classroom. This includes teacher ability to monitor and
intervene in student compliance with demands; the classroom reward
structure; and although not used by teachers in this study, complex,
multidimensional instructional strategies such as cooperative
learning groups. Teachers must also be sensitive to student needs
and desires.

5. Teachers must be emotionally supportive to students at all
times. They should never attempt to use students’ needs for certain
critical emotional conditions--a sense of safety, of belonging, and
of affection--as contingencies to reinforce standards. Such
behavior only increases students’ anxiety and causes
dysfunctionality on deep levels. Such needs are the emotional
bedrock that, when provided, enable students to then take risks in
the classroom and respond to teacher demands and teacher-created
contingencies.

It is interesting that studies of nfinority-student attrition
and achievement on the college level have also contained in other
language the recommendations enumerated here (Richardson & Bender,
1987; Richardson & Skinner, 1988. These researchers examined the
differences between urban conlnunity colleges, urban comprehensive
universities, and urban research universities. They noted that in

the community college there is usually an emphasis on tailoring the

138

curriculum to student needs and interests and providing a supportive
environment, without having a corresponding emphasis on achievement,
particularly in courses that will prepare minority students for
baccalaureate degrees. In the research university, there is a
strong emphasis on achievement, but it is a "sink or swim" setting
in which underprepared minority students usually sink” Using the
dimensions of the present study, it may be said that community
colleges are high in supportiveness and sensitivity but low in
maturity demandingness and contingencyx Research universities are
high in maturity demandingness, compliance demandingness, and
contingency but low in sensitivity and supportiveness. The
researchers concluded that special support should be provided
minority students, but in an environment stressing achievement, not
excuses.
Implicetions for Counseling]
Seeiel Services

Counselors and other human-service personnel are partially in
the business of helping people with task-related beliefs,
particularly their sense of competence, as noted in Chapter 1.
Persons with a variety of disorders usually have some kind of
underlying disorder of the sense of self, as-well as the self-
concept--the self-as-knower and the self-as-known. Whether in a
weight-loss program, a family planning clinic, a school, or a
psychotherapy clinic, counselors must face the question of how to

raise their clients’ self-concepts. The problem is that many social

139

agencies, in their attempts to help clients, only deepen the
underlying sense of powerlessness. The charge is that professional
social workers and their agencies are the recipients of "good jobs
at good wages," while the clients are made to come to them for
services that ultimately simply maintain them in their helpless
situation. This has prompted calls by well-known teachers of urban
counseling such as Thomas Gunnings and of social work such as
Barbara Solomon for ”black empowerment” in service delivery. Their
emphasis is on enabling black clients to get in charge of their own
lives as mature adults in a system that allows them to exercise
their abilities. The current emphasis ("1 job training and
"workfare" for' welfare recipients is also an outgrowth of this
expanding perception that recipients of services must not be
infantilized but empowered. A part of this empowerment is the
raising of the sense of competence based on a realistic assessment
of the self’s abilities in a given environment and the opportunity
to be mature--autonomous, agentic, and doing one’s individual best.
The dimensions examined in this study, already drawn from
parenting research and organizational research, and now seen to be
beneficial in the school setting, may also be a useful paradigm for
understanding social service delivery in the urban setting. The
call by Richardson and Bender, cited above, that in the college
setting special support should be provided in an environment
stressing achievement, not excuses, may also be heeded by counselors
in a variety of settings. Strategies must be developed by these

personnel that emphasize a demand for stage-appropriate maturity

140

(the specific nature of which will depend on the setting), a system
of contingent-sensitive interventions that enable clients gradually
to internalize counselor interventions and assume control of their
own further growth, and an environment in which clients feel a sense

of belonging, safety, and affection.

Recommendetions for Further Study

 

This study has made an important contribution to an
understanding of the antecedents to self-concept development. It
has eschewed a narrow focus on a few interactional variables such as
the amount of praise and criticism a ‘teacher gives or teacher
expectations for a dimensional analysis of broad categories of
teacher behavior. These broad categories, or dimensions, led to a
deeper understanding of what makes a teacher effective in reising
the academic self-concept of children. The dimensions were seen to
be linked to a wide array of research and concerns in parenting
styles, organizational leadership, and social service delivery. All
this is particularly remarkable given the predominance of weak or
null findings in most self-concept research (Wylie, 1979). The
limitations of the study, however, were noted in Chapter I, and the
following are recommendations for improving future research in this
area:

1. Besides the academic self-concept scale of the Harter Per-
ceived Competence Scale, the social and general scales should also
be examined for how they are affected by the three dimensions. A.

preliminary check of the results of the social self-concept scale in

141

the Socialization Outcomes Project revealed that six teachers had
the effect on self-concept as predicted in the case study analyses
presented above. Quite interestingly, they were not, however,
exactly the same teachers who fulfilled the predictions on the
academic self-concept scale. Five were the same, but one was
different. Such results may shed light on the effect of the
dimensions--when they are most predictive and what they predict.

2. There should, of course, be true pretests given at the very
beginning of the school year, to rule out the possible effects of
the first 7 weeks of school, as noted earlier.

3. There should be clinical interviews of students ascertain-
ing their views of what (or who) is affecting their self-concepts in
their current classroom. A kind of "ecomap," drawn from family
counseling practice, could be developed in which a map of each
student’s environment is constructed detailing all the influences
(or influencers) and the effect of their influence. Such views
would be useful in determining what additional factors there are in
the classroom that affect self-concept and must be accounted for.

4. The dimensions of information and opportunity examined in
Anderson and Prawat’s (1986) analysis of the Socializations Outcomes
Project data should be examined for their effect on just self-
concept. Anderson and Prawat used a composite outcome measure
including self-concept, but the effect on just self-concept of these
two known dimensions should be investigated. Of course, the two

dimensions are somewhat incorporated in this study’s dimension of

142

responsiveness, but they are not synonymous. Similarly, these
dimensions should be examined for their effect on some of the other
task-related beliefs in the Socialization Outcomes Project, perhaps
using the composite score developed by Anderson and Prawat.

5. Replication of the study should include at least a second
rater, and the two sets of independent ratings should, through a
verbal conference between both raters, result in an agreed-on joint
rating. Both raters should be blind to the results as this rater
was.

6. A larger sample of teachers should be examined, rated, pre-
dictions made, and evaluated to determine more adequately the true
nature of the effect of these dimensions. While six out of eight,
given a research environment of weak findings, is good, it is still
a small number upon which to base any confidence.

7. Replication of the study should be done with older class-
rooms in both junior high and high schools to determine if these
same three dimensions continue to be salient and important.

8. A follow-up study should be undertaken 1 year later to
determine how stable the self-concept scores are, despite (or
because of) having gone through another classroom with another
teacher. This would be an attempt to determine how c1assroom-
specific a student’s sense of competence is on the Harter scale.

These suggested areas for future research are attempts to
expand the present knowledge base in the area of effective teaching
for affective outcomes, specifically self-concept. The availability

of such information may help counselors and teachers revise their

143

intervention strategies to better meet the developmental needs of
students. Ultimately this line of research should help produce more

healthy, mature human beings.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American
Psychologist, 35, 932-937.

Alban-Metcalfe, R., & Alban-Metcalfe, B. (1981). Self-concept,
motivation and attitudes to school among middle school pupils.

Researeh in Edgeatipn, 2D, 64-76.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and

statistical manual of mental gisgreers (3rd Ed.). Washington,
DC: APA. .

Ames, C. (1977). Effects of competitive reward structure and
valence of outcome on children’s achievement attributions.
Journel of Educatignal Psychology, DD, 1-8.

Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures:
The influence of individual and group performance factors on
achievement attributions and affect. Americen Educational
Research Journal, is, 273-287.

Anderson, L. (1985). Effective socializers: Adding toeeerlier

conceptions of effective teaching. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-

tion, Chicago, IL.

Anderson, L., 8 Prawat, R. (1986, September 30). Spcializetion
outcomes. (Institute for Research on Teaching Final Report
[Section G]). East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Institute for Research on Teaching.

Arieti, S., & Bemporad, J. (1978). v r nd '1d 5 n.
New York: Basic Books. .

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psyehplpgiee] Review, 81, 191-215.

Baumrind, D. (1975). Early spcielizetign end the diseiplipe
epptrpyersy. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Bellak, L.

, & Goldsmith, L. (Eds.). (1984). [he broad seope pf ego
n ti n a . New York: John Wiley 8 Sons.

144

145

Bem, D. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of
cognitive-dissonance phenomena. Esyehological Review, 15, 183-

200.

Bem, D. (1978). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Degnitive theories in sociel_psyege1egy. New York: Academic
Press.

 

Bertenthal, B., & Fischer, K. (1978). Development of self-

recognition in the infant. Develppmentel Dsyeholpgy, 15, 44-
50.

Blanck, R., & Blanck, G. (1979). E99 psyeholpgy II: Psycho-

enalytic develppmental psychplogy. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.

Blanck, R., & Blanck, G. (1986). Beyond ego psychology: Develop-
mental object reletions theory. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P., Meece, J., & Wesels, K. (1982). The
formation and role of self-perceptions of ability in elementary
classrooms. Elementary School Journal, D2, 401-420.

Bossert, S. (1979). [asks and social reletipnships in elassrooms.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attechment and loss: Atteehment (Vol. 1). New
York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and less: §eparation (Vol. 2). New
York: Basic Books.

Brady, P., Figuerres, C., Felker, D., & Garrison, W. (1978).
Predicting student self-concept, anxiety, and responsibility
from self-evaluation and self-praise. Esyehology in the
S hools, 1;, 434-438.

Brim, O. (1976). Life span development of the theory of oneself:
Implications for child development. In H. Reese (Ed.),

WWW (V01. 11). New

'York: Academic Press.

Brophy, J. (1981). A functional analysis of praise. Review pf
Edgcatione! Reseereh, 51, 5-32.

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and

teacher expectations. Degree! pf Edgeetipnel Psycholpgy, ZD,
631-661.

146

Brophy, J., & Good, 1. (1986). Teacher behavior and student
achievement. In The third handbook of research on teeehing.

Br0phy, J., & Putnam, J. (1979). Classroom management in the

elementary grades. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Elessroom management
(78th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa-

tion, Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bower, G., & Hilgard, E. (1981). Theories of leerning (5th Ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chaikin, A., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V. (1974). Nonverbal mediators

of teacher expectancy effects. Dogrpel pf Eersonality and
Social Psyehology, DD, 144-149.

Cheong, G., & Wadden, E. (1978). The relationship between
teachers’ experimental and dogmatic attitudes and their pupils’

self-concept. Alberta Journal pf Educetionel Research, 25,
121-125.

Clark, R. (1983). family life and sehool achievement. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, E., Intili, J., & Robbins, S. (1979). Task and authority:
A sociological view of classroom management. In D. L. Duke
(Ed.), Classroom management (78th yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part 2). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Combs, A., Richards, A., & Richards, F. (1976). Perceptual psy-
eholpgy. New York: Harper & Row.

Cooper, H. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expec-
tation communication and performance influence. Review of Edu-

catipnal Reseereh, 32, 389-410.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Damon, W., 8 Hart, 0. (1982). The development of self understand-

ing from infancy through adolescence. Dhjld Developmept, 53,
841-864.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., 8 Ryan, R. M. (1981).
An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control
versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic
motivation and perceived competence. Dogrnel pf Educetipnal
mam. 13(5) . 642-650.

147

Dickstein, E. (1977). Self and self-esteem: Theoretical founda-
tions and their implications for research. flumah Develppment,
2D, 129-140.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.
Hetherington (Ed.), Th hir ndbo of r rc on teachin .

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In

E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), §oeialieatipn, personality, and
speial develppmept (Vol. IV). New York: Wiley.

Eckard, P. (1979). Measurement of group self-concept of inter-
mediate students through systematic observation and parallel

self-reports. nghnal pf Sehpgl Esyehplpgy, 11, 181-190.

Edeburn, C., & Landry, R. (1976). Teacher self-concept and student
self-concept in grades three, four, and five. Dournal of Edu-
cational Research, DD, 372-375.

Eder, D. (1983). Ability grouping and students’ academic self-

concepts: A case study. Th 1em n S h 01 o rnal, De,
149-161.

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited or a theory of a
theory. American Psychplpgist, 2D, 405-416.

Erikson, E. (1980). d ntit an h lif 1e. New York: W. W.
Norton. .

Filby, N., 8 Barnett, B. (1982). Student perceptions of better
readers in elementary classrooms. l m a 01
Journel, DZ, 435-450.

Greenberg, J., & Mitchell, S. (1983). b' t r 'ons '

psychpenelytic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Grolnick, S. (1982). The current psychoanalytic dialogue: Its

counterpart in renaissance philosophy. Journal pf the American
Esychoanelytic Asspeietiph, 3D, 679-699.

Harter, S. (1981). A model of mastery motivation in children:
Individual differences and developmental change. In W. A.
Collins (Ed.). WW (V01.
14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children.
53mm. 53. 87-97.

148

Harter, S. (1983). The self-system. In M. Hetherington (Ed.),

flangbook pf ehild psyeholpgy: §peial and personality develop-
ment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hartman, H. (1964). n o h lo . New York:
International Universities Press.

Hauserman, N., Miller, J., & Bond, F. (1976). A behavioral
approach to changing self-concept in elementary school

children. Esyehelogieal Becprg, 26, 111-116.

Jacka, B. (1983). The effect on achievement of interaction between
self-concept and instructional method. Dourhel of Experimental
Edueation, 51, 172-176.

Jacobson, E. (1964). The self and the pbject wprld. New York:

International Universities Press.

Johnson, G., & Brooks, L. (1979). Conceptualizing classroom man-

agement. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Dlessroom management (78th year-
book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part

2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Joseph, C., & Maguire, T. (1982). The interaction between time of
feedback and academic self-concept on level of performance in

arithmetic skill. qurhel of Edgeational Researeh, 15, 360-
365.

Karper, W., & Martinek, T. (1982). Differential influence of
various instructional factors on self-concepts of handicapped
and non-handicapped children in mainstreamed physical education

classes. Perceptual ene Mptor Skills, De, 831-835.

Kelly, G. (1955). [he psychology pf perspnal construets. New
York: Norton, 1955.

Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline congitipns ang pethologieel
hereissish. New York: Jason Aronson.

Kohut, H. (1971). The na i f f. New York: Interna—
tional Universities Press, 1971.

Kohut, H. (1977). e r t o f f. New York: Inter-
national Universities Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). [he strgetgre pf seiehtific [eyplgtipns (2nd

Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, M., 8 Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social epgnition and the
eeggisitipn pf self. New York: Plenum Press.

149

Lynch, M. D. (1981). Self-concept development in childhood. In M.
D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisen, 8 K. Gergen (Eds.), Self-

coneept: Advenees in theory and heseerch. Cambridge, MA:
Balinger.

Lynch, M. D., Norem-Hebeisen, A. A., 8 Gergen, K. (1981). Self-
eoncept: Agvances in theory ang reseereh. Cambridge, MA:

Balinger.
Maccoby, E. (1980). Spciel development. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E., 8 Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of
the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington

(Ed.), Socialization, perspnality, end speiel Development (Vol.
4). New York: Wiley.

Mahler, M. (1982). Thoughts on the emergence of the sense of self,
with particular emphasis on the body self. Dpurnel of the

American Psychoanalytic Association, SD, 827-848.

Mahler, M., Pine, F., 8 Pergman, A. (1975). The ho o 1 a1
birth of the infent: Symbiosis and individuation. New York:
Basic Books.

Main, M. (1973). Play, exploration end eompetenee es releted to
ehild-adult attachment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Johns Hopkins University. Cited in E. Maccoby. (1980).
Social development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Manis, M. (1955). Social interaction and the self-concept.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, S1, 362-370.

 

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about

the self. Journal of Personelity and Soeial Psychology, SS,
63-78.

Marshall, H., 8 Weinstein, R. (1984). Classroom factors affecting
students’ self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of

Educational Reseerch, S5, 301-325.

Matas, L., Arend, R., 8 Sroufe, L. (1978). Continuity of adapta-
tion in the second year: The relationship between quality of
attachment and later competence. Dhild Develppment, 52, 547-
556.

Mead, H. (1968). The genesis of the self. In C. Gordon 8 K.

Gergen (Eds.), [he self in seciel jnteraetipn (Vol. 1). New
York: John Wiley 8 Sons.

150

Minton, B. (1979). imension of i rmation und rl in hildren’s
'ud ments h ir m ten . Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Denver.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In

D. Magnusson 8 N. S. Endler (Eds.), Eersonelity et the gross-
reads: Current issees in intereetienal psychelogy. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Nicholls, J. (1978). The development of the concept of effort and
ability, perception of academic attainment and the understand-
ing that difficult tasks require more ability. (1978). Child
Development, 5D, 800-814.

Nicholls, J. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motiva-
tion: A theory and its implications for education. In S.
Paris, G. Olson, 8 H. Stevenson. Leerning and motivation in
the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Papenfuss, R., Curtis, J., Beier, F., 8 Menze, J. (1983). Teaching

positive self-concepts in the classroom. Journal of Sehool
Health, SS, 618-620.

 

Parsons, J., Kaczala, C., 8 Meece, J. (1982). Socialization of
achievement attitudes and beliefs: Classroom influences.

Child Development, SS, 322-339.

Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR:
Castalia Publications.

Pepitone, E. (1984). So i o ' on nd i1 'n er on:
Effeet of hemegeneeus vs. heterogeneous classrooms. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY. Cited in H. Marshall 8 R.
Weinstein. (1984). Classroom factors affecting students’
self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of Eduea-
MW. 4. 301-325-

Peters, 1., 8 Waterman, R. (1982). In search ef eyeellenee. New

York: Warner Books.

Pine, F. (1985). v m n lini l r . New
Haven: Yale University.

Pintrich, P., 8 Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experience and
children’s self-perceptions of ability, effort, and conduct.

Jeerhel ef Eeeeetiehel Psyehelegy, 11, 646-657.

Prawat, R. (1984). Personal conversation.

151

Rampaul, W., Singh, M., 8 Didyk, J. (1984). The relationship
between academic achievement, self-concept, creativity, and
teacher expectations among Native children in a northern

Manitoba school. Alberta Journe! of Edueational Research, SD,
213-225.

Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Hendbook of
hi 5 cholo : Social and er nalit velo men . New
York: John Wiley 8 Sons.

Richardson, R. C., 8 Bender, L. W. (1987). festering mieerity
eccess and echieveeent in higher eeeeetieh.

Richardson, R. C., 8 Skinner, E. F. (1988). Making it in majority
universities: A minority graduate perspective. Unpublished
draft of journal article in May/June edition of Dhange.

Rimm, D., 8 Masters, J. (1979). Dehevie: therapy. New York:
Academic Press.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Rosenholtz, S., 8 Rosenholtz, S. (1981). Classroom organization

and the perception of ability. So iolo f Educat'on, Se,
132-140.

Rosenholtz, S., 8 Simpson, C. (1984). Classroom organization and

student stratification. Elementary School Jourhal, SS, 21-37.

Rosenthal, R. (1976). x erimenter ffe s in ehavior sea h
(2nd Ed.). New York: Irvington.

Rosenthal, R., 8 Fode, K. (1963). Three experiments in experi-
menter bias. Psychological Reports, 11, 491-511.

Rosenthal, R., 8 Jacobson, S. (1968). P ma r m:
Teach r x ectations nd il ’ i e11 c a1 ev m t. New
York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.

Sarbin, T. (1962). A preface to a psychological analysis of the
self. Esyehelegical Review, SS, 11-22.

Schafer, R. (1976). A ew n a f r na . New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Schafer, R. (1979). Character, ego-syntonicity, and character
change. Jo rnal of t Amer can P hoanal ti 5 ci t on,
21, 867-891.

152

Schempp, P., Cheffers, J., 8 Zaichkowsky, L. (1983). Influence of
decision-making on attitudes, creativity, motor skills and
self-concept in elementary children. Research Quarterly for

Exereise ehd Spept, S1, 183-189.
Selman, R. (1980). [he growth of interpeesehei uheehsteheihg. New

York: Academic Press.

Shapson, S., Wright, E., Eason, G., 8 Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An
experimental study of the effects of class size. Ameriean

Educationel Research Journal, 11, 141-152.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent
methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic rela-

tions. Review ef Educational Research, S1, 241-271.

Simpson, C. (1981). Classroom structure and the organization of

ability. Sociolegy ef Edueation, Se, 120-132.

Skinner, E., 8 Connell, J. (1985). Control understanding:
Suggestions fer a Developmental framewerk. .

Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Edeeatienal
Researeh, SD, 315-342.

Smith, A. (1982). The relational self. Nashville: Abingdon
Press.

Spady, M., 8 Mitchell, 5. (1979). Teacher authority and student

development. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Elessroom management (78th
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,

Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sullivan, H. (1953). The ipterpersonal theory ef psychiatry. New
York: Norton.

Sullivan, H. (1964). h s on of h r n socia ° ce.
New York: Norton.

Wagner, C. P. (1984). i ur r r wth: T ret
of to rt r m h r wt .

Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

Weisz, J., 8 Cameron, A. (1985). Individual differences in the
student’s sense of control. In C. Ames 8 R. Ames (Eds.),
ar n o v in n: . . he 1
miliee. New York: Academic Press.

153
Winnicott, D. (1965). Th m ra i th ilitat-
ing environmeht. New York: International Universities Press.

Wylie, R. (1979). he elf— once t: h n r r
selected tepies. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ziller, R. (1973). The i l f. New York:, Pergamon.

I.

.-_—.
rim. ;- m.” »: 1-

 

 

 

"Illlllllllllllll