THESlS

100‘]

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Classroom community and children’s positive school
functioning: The moderating role of behavioral adjustment

presented by

Stephanie M. Davis

LIBRARY
ichigan State
University

 

LM

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Counseling, Educational
Psychology. and Special
Educaﬂon

 

 

> villa/7462 [CW

 

’f’Major F‘rofessor’ 3 Signature

71/24» [/4 7
Date

MSU is an afﬁnnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p1/CIRC/DateDueindd-p‘1

CLASSROOM COMMUNITY AND CHILDREN’S POSITIVE SCHOOL
FUNCTIONING: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BEHAVIORAL ADJUSTMENT

By

Stephanie M. Davis

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2007

ABSTRACT

CLASSROOM COMMUNITY AND CHILDREN’S POSITIVE SCHOOL
FUNCTIONING: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BEHAVIORAL ADJUSTMENT

By

Stephanie M. Davis
There has been relatively little research on the contributions of school context to
developmental outcomes for students. The purpose of this study was to examine level of
behavioral adjustment as a moderator of the relationship between children’s perceived
sense of classroom community and their satisfaction with school. Classroom community
was considered a social context variable that suggests a role for both affective and
academic outcomes and school satisfaction was utilized as an attitudinal indicator of the
positive adjustment of students. Data was collected from students, grades three through
five, in at-risk, Title I schools in the southeast. Multiple regression analysis procedures
specified for the testing of moderation were used. Results suggest that students’
perceptions of a caring classroom community contributed positively to the school
satisfaction ratings of students. No moderating effect of level of adjustment on the
relationship between classroom community and school satisfaction was found for this
sample of students. Findings were interpreted by the theoretical orientations that guided
the study, namely, the importance of wellness based approaches that emphasize the

signiﬁcance of examining and building strength in students.

To Brad, Will, and my parents!

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the
constant support of many people. First, I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr.
Jean Baker. Jean, there are no words to thank you for facilitating my way as a Michigan
State student. Your guidance, support, ﬂexibility, and care made me feel secure and
conﬁdent that I could succeed in completing this paper and my doctoral degree. You are
one of the kindest and most thoughtful people I know and I feel so fortunate to have
studied under your wing. I would also like to thank my other committee members: Dr.
John Carlson, Dr. Troy Mariage, and Dr. Linda Anderson. Your helpful contributions
and support were very important to me and I appreciate the time and effort you gave to
me this year. Special thanks go to my classmates, particularly Cheryl, for their friendship
and collaboration.

1 would like to express my deep love and gratitude to my husband, Brad whose
support and encouragement not only helped me through my graduate studies, but has also
allowed me to grow as an individual as well. A heartfelt thank you also goes to my
parents who have been beside me at every step in my life. A special thank you to my
mom: You granted me the gift of time to work on my research as you cared so lovingly
for Will. I would not have earned this degree without you. And to Will, I love you very

much and cannot wait for the day to share this research with you!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 3

METHODS .......................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 49
APPENDIX A

Study Measures ...................................................................................... 60
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Percentage of students in behavioral clusters in the current sample ............... 40

Table 2. Correlations for study variables ......................................................... 43

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for classroom community and school satisfaction
variables .............................................................................................. 43

Table 4. Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community
and level of risk (as moderator variable) ......................................................... 45

Table 5. Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community
and behavioral cluster (as moderator variable) .................................................. 47

Table 6. Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community
and behavioral cluster .............................................................................. 48

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Level of educational risk ............................................................... 41

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

If asked what the primary purpose of schooling is, many individuals would
indicate the importance of academic learning. Attention to school issues has been
primarily devoted to children’s intellectual and academic development (Tyack & Cuban,
1995). This focus is evident in many contemporary reform movements (e.g., standards-
based reform initiatives, No Child Left Behind) by their central emphasis on academic
achievement. There is a growing interest, however, in the social and emotional purposes
of schooling and the importance of the nonintellectual and nonacademic factors that
contribute to children’s school success. These approaches to schooling (e.g., growth of
character education initiatives, the development of social emotional learning standards)
have highlighted students’ social and emotional development.

In addition to a focus on academic achievement, approaches to better student
outcomes have traditionally and primarily concentrated on aspects of the individual rather
than on environmental strategies that may promote academic and social-emotional
growth for students (Fagan & Wise, 2000). It is important, however, that school-based
practices be guided by theory that explicitly account for both environmental and
individual contributors to positive development (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). As a result
of this consideration, researchers have begun to pay more attention to the developmental
contexts of schooling in recent years (Baker, Dilly, Aupperlee, & Patil, 2003). This
growing interest in the examination of context variables, particularly those variables

concerned with the social purposes of schooling, relates to the belief that the social

aspects of schools affect children’s satisfaction as well as their academic and social
success in the school setting (Baker, 1998).

One of these social context variables that suggest a role for both affective and
academic outcomes is also an important component of the relational approach to school
reform. It is the concept of classrooms as caring communities. The social context of
classrooms and schools is critically important for children’s development (Zins, Elias,
Greenberg, & Weissberg, 2000). Those students who ﬁnd their school experiences to be
supportive and caring are more likely to become attached and committed to school and,
therefore, will develop the attitudes, motives, and competencies, both academic and
social-emotional, valued by the school.

The challenge to think critically about context variables and the positive aspects
of students’ well being are embraced by the positive psychology movement. Positive
psychology represents a shift in thinking from the medical deﬁcits model that has
dominated the ﬁeld (Albee, 2000; Cowen, 2000; Lorin, 2000). It encourages a focus on
prevention of negative outcomes through building students’ strengths and providing
students with environments that support positive adjustment. Since children spend nearly
a third of their day in school and because the contexts in which individuals develop play
inﬂuential roles in promoting their adaptation and adjustment (Masten & Coatsworth,
1998), the degree to which schools function as psychologically healthy environments is a
key issue within positive psychology as applied to children.

Educational resilience draws attention to the cumulative effect of protective
factors rather than the effect of an isolated factor (Rutter, 1979). According to an

ecological systems perspective, a child lives and develops within multiple, interacting

contexts. Therefore, protective factors may be internal child characteristics or
environmental contexts that increase a child’s positive adaptation (Doll & Lyon, 1998;
Kumpfer, 1999). Outcomes of educational resilience are frequently measured as social,
intellectual, and planning competencies (Benard, 1991; Milstein & Henry, 2000),
however, attitudinal indicators of well being can and should also be considered.
Grounded in the theoretical and empirical literature on subjective well being (Diener,
1984), school satisfaction is one such marker. School satisfaction has been deﬁned as a
cognitve-affective evaluation of overall satisfaction with one’s school experiences
(Huebner, 1994) and encompasses students’ cognitive beliefs about school (Baker, 1998;
Epstein & McPartland, 1976; Huebner & McCullough, 2000).

Although both the classroom as caring community and school satisfaction
literatures are relatively scanty, such research is crucial in that school dissatisfaction
appears to be linked with a variety of negative outcomes, including lower school
achievement, increased behavior problems, and dropping out of school (Ainley, Foreman,
& Sheret, 1991; Fine, 1986). In this budding literature, only a handful of studies have
attempted to identify correlates that may serve as determinants of school satisfaction and
past research efforts have largely ignored intrapersonal variables. Additional research is
needed to uncover generalizable relationships among school experiences, student
variables, and school satisfaction. The overarching aim of this study is to further
investigate the relationship among these personal and contextual variables.

An important area of inquiry might involve evaluating individual differences with
regard to one’s level of adjustment and how these differences may moderate the

relationship between a student’s perception of their classroom’s community and their

satisfaction with school (Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, 1997). Consideration of this
relationship may be especially pertinent for children considered to be “at-risk” due to
behavioral, emotional, and learning difﬁculties. An awareness of the caring community’s
effectiveness as a contextual variable contributing to students’ academic and emotional
growth is particularly important to school psychologists as we are often responsible for
adapting components of students’ educational programming. There is a need for us to
address contextual variables, over which schools and school personnel can have some
direct control in order to construct school environments to which students can afﬁliate
and achieve success.

As an orientation toward positive psychology and the developmental contexts of
schooling becomes increasingly common in the effective school literature, it will be
important for school psychologists to become more aware of and involved with this area
of research and practice. This perspective challenges us to consider markers of positive
adjustment and encourages us to engage in preventative rather than reactive models of
investigation and intervention. School psychologists have the opportunity to play an
important role in reframing educational practice in order for schools and classrooms to
provide the most advantageous developmental supports for students. Professional roles
for school psychologists are continuing to expand (Ysseldyke, Dawson, Lehr, Reschly,
Reynolds, Telzrow, 1997). Because of our consultation skills and our knowledge of child
development and educational practice, we will be uniquely positioned to lead reform
efforts that are sensitive to children’s developmental needs and can help cultivate a broad

conceptualization of schooling (Baker, et al., 1997).

The proposed study will explore the contribution of students’ perceptions of their
classroom community to their satisfaction with school and the degree to which this

relationship is moderated by their level of adjustment.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the following pages, the evolution of the contextual variable of the classroom
as the caring community will be described and evidence will be provided to support its
use as an important variable to study as an effective strategy that beneﬁts students’
academic and social-emotional growth. The empirical literature examining school
satisfaction as a marker of well being will also be shared. A study will be proposed that
investigates the relationship between students’ perceptions of their classroom community
and their satisfaction with school. The potential moderating effects of students’ level of

adjustment on school outcomes will also be examined.

Guiding theoretical bases: The evolution of psychological sense of community

The idea that we belong to communities and that these communities provide
beneﬁts and responsibilities is one that has gained growing appreciation in the last decade
(Bess, Fisher, Sonn, & Bishop, 2002). As a reaction to the urbanization faced by many
people, globalization, cross-national forms of media and their impact on cultures,
physical and social isolation from family and friends, and a growing fear of change and
the unknown, images of community, belonging, and support have become paramount.
However, what is actually meant by community, how a community ﬁrnctions, and what
are the beneﬁts and costs of community membership has not necessarily been well

explored.

For many, the idea of community evokes images of the small town or close
neighborhood. It is an idealization in place and time of feeling part of a place, with those
around knowing us and caring about us. In the past, if the ideal was the village with
kinship links or the small town in which people may have lived for generations, the ways
in which a community may now form and operate are quite different. Rather than
consider communities as solely location-related, relational communities are those that
have been formed because of some common interest, issue, or characteristic that the
members share, showing a newer idea of community (Bess, et al., 2002). The concept of
“community” or sense of community has been used by many to describe the aspects of
social settings that satisfy people’s needs for connection and belonging (Gardener, 1992;
Goodenow & Grady, 1992; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Dewey (1916/1970) also
believed that students would be helped to acquire the skills, habits, and inclinations
necessary for effective participation in a democratic society through the experience of
collaborative activities and decision making in schools that themselves were structured as
democratic communities.

There is a long tradition of theorizing the nature and meaning of community in the
social sciences, particularly in sociology. Many theorists have been interested in deﬁning
community and understanding the impact of industrialization, urbanization, and other
forces on society and community. For example, Hillery (1955) was able to catalogue 94
different deﬁnitions of community. Durkheim (cited by Worsley, 1987) argues that solid
social ties are essential to one’s well being; the absence of ties with family, community,

and other networks increases the risk of negative psychological outcomes.

Sarason (1974) argued persuasively for the need to focus on developing a
discipline with the concept of psychological sense of community at its core. Sarason
believed that sense of community held the key to understanding one of society’s most
pressing problems, the dark side of individualism, which he say manifested as alienation,
selﬁshness, and despair (Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2001). According to Sarason
(1986), one of the goals of his 1974 book was to communicate three interrelated opinions
that he had formed as a result of his work in community mental health: (1) the lack of
community was extraordinarily frequent; (2) it was a destructive force in living; and (3)
dealing with its consequences and its prevention should be the overarching concern of
community psychology. Sarason’s work on sense of community provided a unifying
metaphor or theme and reﬂected one of the core values of the ﬁeld - the belief that
healthy communities exhibited an extra-individual quality of emotional
interconnectedness of individuals played out in their collective lives (Dalton, et al.,
2001).

Perhaps the biggest impact in converting Sarason’s theoretical call into some form
of reality has been from McMillan & Chavis (1986). In order to understand the ways in
which sense of community could actually operate, they proposed a model in which four
components of sense of community could be seen and understood. The ﬁrst level
provides the component of membership — a series of interacting factors of boundaries
(who is in and who is out), shared history, common symbols, emotional safety, and
personal investment. Membership confers upon people a set of rights and responsibilities

that are always characterized by the belonging to a community. One draws identity by

being a member of the community, has emotional support, and is reinforced for the
behaviors that are beneﬁcial to the functioning of the community itself.

The second level is that of inﬂuence. In the McMillan & Chavis (1986) model,
inﬂuence is seen as an internal process that reﬂects the perceived inﬂuence that a person
has over the decisions and actions of the community. It also has the counterpoint of the
amount of inﬂuence the group has over the individual memberships. In a positive sense,
the inﬂuence component provides a balance that allows the individual to make their
contribution to the community, but also has a reasonable level of freedom for their own
self-expression. At the negative end of the continuum, there are two possible outcomes.
One is that the inﬂuence of the group is so strong that it demands high conformity,
suppressing self-expression. The other potential negative is that the individual or a small
sub-group can dominate the mores and behaviors of the community.

Integration and fulﬁllment of needs reﬂects the beneﬁts that people derive from
their membership of a community. McMillan and Chavis (1986) refer to the motivation
of reinforcement that members receive by having their needs met through their
membership. The authors indicate that some of the needs that can be fulﬁlled through
community membership are the status achieved through group membership,
demonstration of competence by members, and the shared values that are exhibited by the
group. For them, strong communities can provide these opportunities for their members,
thus reinforcing the value of membership in the community.

The ﬁnal component of the model is shared emotional connection. This part of
the model of sense of community refers to the sharing of Signiﬁcant events and the

amount of contact that members have with each other. Because the community has had

signiﬁcant events, whether the members have actually taken part in them, there is a bond
that can be developed between the members. The number of events, the salience of these
events, and the importance of them in granting merit or status to the community and its
members all inﬂuence the development of a shared emotional connection between
community members. Whether the events are positive or negative, they still have

signiﬁcant impacts on the development of emotional connections between members.

Community oriented approaches to schooling

Involvement in a community is a fundamental human experience that meets
emotional needs and helps individuals ﬁnd a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives.
Some contemporary social theorists (e.g., Etzioni, 1993) have applied this idea to the
nature of American schools. Though there is noted variation across studies and
disciplines in the conceptual and operational deﬁnitions of the sense of community, the
construct of classroom as a caring community provides a compelling framework for
examining educational practice. First, there has been demonstrated consistency in its
basic elements and reported associations. For example, classroom community has been
related to teacher satisfaction and feelings of efﬁcacy, as well as student achievement,
academic motivation, attachment to school and interpersonal concern and behavior
(Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1992).

Community-oriented classrooms work differently from traditional American
classrooms. In the nineteenth century, American schools became increasingly structured,
formalized, and standardized (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). From that time, schools have

evolved into institutions with hierarchical administrative structures with formal role

10

expectations (e.g., principal, vice principal, teacher, teacher assistant) and bureaucratic
notions regarding the “business” of education (e.g., report cards a designated number of
times a year, bells to mark the beginning and end of each day; Baker, Dilly, & Lacey,
2003). An individual’s value is based on his or her ability to “produce” or contribute to
the success of the school (Sergiovanni, 1994). Traditional education reﬂects this formal
organizational model as seen through the enduring interest in the “science” of education
as evidence through the formal study of the discipline and its tenets by scholars (Johnson,
Dupuis, Musial, & Hall, 1994), the emphasis on individual achievement and competition
among students (Good & Brophy, 2003), the bureaucratic and rule—governed nature of
schooling (Cunningham & Corderio, 2000), and the categorical approach to classifying
students and their abilities (Kavale & Fomess, 1999). Policy initiatives with an emphasis
on teacher accountability, standardized testing with high stakes, school choice, and
competition illustrate the model of schools as businesses (Baker et al., 2003).
Community-oriented classrooms use a different model to organize the purpose,
functions, and tasks of schooling. By valuing personal relationships and shared goals and
values, community-oriented classrooms attempt to be more like families or
neighborhoods than businesses. They teach students by placing them in a supportive,
intentionally constructed web of relationships (Schaps & Solomon, 1990). In a learning
community, each individual is valued as an important part of the community and is
committed to a shared purpose with others in that environment (Dewey 1916/1970).
Children develop a sense of collectiveness that can provide cohesion and motivate them

to participate in community activities.

11

The community-oriented approach addresses the fact that the traditional model of
schooling does not work well for all children or for all teachers (Baker, 1998). The
formal structures of school ignore the fact that children enter schools with different
developmental capacities and move through the curriculum at different rates of progress.
The emphasis on academic study as the primary purpose of schooling ignores the
historical mission of schools to socialize children for participation in society (Sizer,
1997). Children need their social, ethical, and civic development nurtured in addition to
their academic development. Teachers may value similar ideas found in community-
oriented classrooms (e.g., the importance of group cohesion, classroom climate, and
prosocial norms), but may not believe these ideas are as important to teach as academic
learning or are required to move children through the curriculum at a deﬁned rate that
may not allow them to utilize their expertise to adapt their classroom to best support their
students’ development. Community-oriented classrooms are distinguished by their
intentional focus on the development of community in order to accomplish these goals
and their reliance on authentic, meaningﬁrl social relationships among members of the
classroom community as an important vehicle through which learning occurs (Solomon,
Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996).

A community-oriented classroom environment may be especially important for
children at risk for poor school outcomes (Howes, 2000). Children who come to school
without the social and psychological preparation for learning perform worse on indicators
of early school adjustment (i.e., grades, retention, social competence) than peers without
such disadvantages (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Some children may not know certain cultural

assumptions regarding schooling (e. g., raising one’s hand) and may require additional

12

support from teachers and the social organization of the classroom to learn the school
behavior and how to best participate in school. Because of the intentional focus on
social-emotional development in these classrooms, community-oriented teachers can also
help children understand and afﬁliate with the school environment by providing more
instruction or practice with school routines they might not be familiar with (Wang,
Haertel, & Walberg, 1994). Thus, community-oriented experiences at school may
provide a compensatory function for children at risk for school failure, helping them feel
comfortable with the school’s culture and to develop competencies to support school
success.

What do educational practices, particularly teaching practices, look like in
classrooms described as caring communities? A community-oriented classroom
approach employs these theories of community and emphasizes personal relationships as
a vehicle for teaching and learning. Students and teachers have a shared sense of why
they are in the classroom and how the classroom should function. There is a clear sense
that that school is important or that kindness is valued as a core commitment in the
classroom. In addition, a community activity is meaningful; members are committed to
and actively engaged in pursuit of a goal. Stories about common experiences, such as
ﬁeld trips, might be retold or the class might decide on a class name or mascot.
Community is essentially a shared social contract that allows individuals to derive a sense
of purpose and meaning within a behavior setting. In community-oriented schools,

children feel a sense of belonging, commitment, and shared venture in learning.

13

What does the research say about caring community-oriented classrooms?

Research suggests that many classrooms still exist as highly structured places
dominated by authoritarian teachers where students have few choices and limited
opportunities to develop relationships with their peers and teachers (Ames, 1987; Good &
Brophy, 1994). As a result, opportunities for students to feel like valued and accepted
members of their classroom are not always prevalent in schools (Solomon, Schaps,
Watson, & Battistich, 1990). Yet, the need to belong and be accepted can be understood
as a basic goal of human behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Maslow, 1970), and as such,
must be considered important in any classroom environment.

Applying this premise to the classroom, one can hypothesize that students will
then choose different behaviors in order to attain a sense of belonging. While many
students will choose “appropriate” or acceptable patterns of behavior, there are some
students, however, who may not feel that they belong, or even that they can belong,
through expected or constructive behavior. These students often resort to misbehaving
(J ubala, Bishop, & Falvey, 1995). “Improvement” in student behavior and achievement
may occur as a result of the provision of opportunities for success and acceptance so that
each student can feel signiﬁcant and achieve a sense of belonging in the classroom
community. In doing so, students will be more inclined to uphold the values and norms
exempliﬁed in the classroom setting, to feel better about themselves, and to have
opportunities for greater school success (Battitstich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997).

Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi (1992) found that caring
community-oriented teachers express greater warmth and supportiveness toward students

and spend more time speaking with students about traditionally nonacademic issues (e. g.,

14

personal and social issues) compared to peers in other elementary schools. While these
teachers provide structure, direction, and feedback to children, teachers who value a
sense of community in their classrooms tend to facilitate rather than direct learning. For
example, this practice might include the use of cooperative strategies and student-directed
learning activities (Solomon et al., 1992).

Developmental models of school reform and educational practice that attempt to
establish the school as a caring community of learners have evolved. One example is the
Child Development Project (CDP; Battistich, Watson, Solomon, Schaps, 1991). CDP
participation has shown positive effects on children’s academic and interpersonal
behaviors, attitudes, and motivation (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997).
CDP regards teachers’ classroom behavior, including their warmth and supportiveness,
the degree to which they promote cooperation among students, their elicitation of
students’ critical thinking and problem-solving, the emphasis on prosocial values, and a
low use of extrinsic behavior control as vitally important to overall student development
and growth. This teacher behavior, in turn, inﬂuences students’ classroom behavior, as
potentially measured by academic engagement and positive interpersonal behavior. A
student’s engaged and positive behavior will likely lead to perceptions of a sense of
school community which in turn results in positive school-related outcomes, including
enjoyment of class, increased learning motivation, concern for others, and conﬂict
resolution skills (Solomon, et al., 1992).

To illustrate their local ﬁndings, CDP researchers conducted an extensive
examination was conducted in schools from six districts across the United States — three

on the West Coast, one in the South, one in the Southeast, and one in the Northeast —

15

(Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000). They tested the effect of
program participation by estimating a path from a dichotomous indicator of program
status to teacher practices (with baseline scores controlled), and tested the effect on
student outcome variables by estimating a path from sense of community to the thirteen
measured outcomes (with outcome scores at baseline controlled as well). Their ﬁndings
clearly indicate that participation in CDP has positive effects on teachers’ classroom
practices, that these practices in turn inﬂuenced students’ sense of community, and that
these changes in sense of community brought about desirable changes in a range of
student outcomes including academic attitudes (e.g., liking for school (p < .01),
enjoyment of class (p < .001), enjoyment of reading (p < .01)), academic motivation (e.g.,
task orientation (p < .01), engagement in school (p < .01)), and academic behaviors (e.g.,
reading in school (p < .01), reading outside of school (p < .01)).

More recently, CDP researchers examined the effects of their elementary school
program by following up with CDP students in middle school and assessing their social
adjustment and connectedness to school (Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004). Six
program and six matched comparison elementary schools were studied and 1,246
students participated in this follow-up study. Three of the program elementary schools
were in the “high implementation” group and three were in the “low implementation”
group during the study. Findings indicated that, study wide, 40% of the outcome
variables examined during middle school showed differences favoring program students
and no statistical reliable differences favoring comparison students. Among the “high

implementation” group, 65% of the outcome variables showed differences favoring

16

program students, including higher academic performance and more prosocial abilities
than their matched comparison students.

While the CDP’s investigators did not explicitly illustrate the concept of
“community” as an organizing principle for the project at its inception, they assert it was
implicitly present as the program’s initial, general aim. By their later deﬁnition, a
classroom or school is experienced as a community when its members (a) know, care
about, and support one another, and (b) have the opportunity to participate actively in
classroom decision making, planning, and goal setting. This deﬁnition shares with others
(e.g., Noddings, 1988; Sergiovanni, 1994) an emphasis on interpersonal concern and
shared norms, however, it is fairly distinctive among researchers focusing on schools as
communities in its emphasis on the role of students and their participation in setting the
group’s norms and directions and participating actively in school life (Solomon et al.,
1996). This view of community advocated by the CDP for students is that of a
democratic community, similar to that deﬁnition espoused by Dewey (1970/1916).
Additionally, because of this broadened sense of community and its civic responsibilities,
students will come to understand through direct experience the importance of the values
of fairness, caring, and responsibility to life in a democratic society. As a result, Schaps
and Solomon (1990) indicate that building community increases schools’ effectiveness in
fostering students’ intellectual, social, and moral development.

In other reports (Battistich, Schaps, Watson, & Solomon, 1996; Battistich & Hom,
1997) CDP has described cross-sectional ﬁndings showing elementary school students’

sense of community to be related to a broad range of positive student outcomes including

17

liking for school, academic attitudes and motivation, sense of self-efﬁcacy, conﬂict

resolution skills, prosocial motivation, and reduced drug use and delinquent behavior.

Psychological theories related to classroom as community

Theoretical and empirical support for community approaches to schooling can be
provided by many psychological theories of human development and learning. Theories
and evidence that inform the connection between learning environments and students’
psychological and academic experience will be elaborated on brieﬂy. Although
conceptualized differently by various research traditions, there is a growing convergence
in the literature about the importance of social and relational constructs such as a child’s
sense of relatedness (Connell, 1990), belongingness (Goodenow, 1993), perceived
pedagogical caring (Wentzel, 1998), or positive teacher-child relationships (Pianta, 1999)
as contributors to school success (Baker, 2006).

Behavior and learning result from the child’s integration of skills across various
domains of ﬁmctioning (i.e., social, emotional, cognitive) within the context of and in
response to the social environment (Rogoff, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, development
cannot be viewed in isolation but rather exists as a result of the child’s interaction with
the social world. Understanding of the importance of school and classroom contexts is
shaped by ecological systems theory. Systems theory has a long history in the
understanding of biological, ecological, and other complex living systems (Pianta, 1999).
The principles of ecological systems theory emphasize that developmental outcomes are
inﬂuenced by progressively complex, reciprocal, and dynamic interactions between

individuals and their environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In other words,

18

understanding the social and academic behavior of a child is improved by knowing how
that child relates to his or her teacher and his or her peers in the context of what the
teacher is trying to accomplish in the classroom and the norms established within the
setting. High levels of support and nurturance from contextual variables (e.g., classroom
community) in the social environment will foster academic and social-emotional
development and may protect students from potential difﬁculty (Masten, 1994).

Many studies of relational constructs have their roots in attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1982). From an attachment theory perspective, children require caring
relationships to develop the complex behavioral, emotional, and social cognitive
competencies that foster adaptation to schooling and academic and emotional growth
(Bowlby, 1982). Studies have clearly delineated that at all stages of development, the
presence of key attachments to inﬂuential individuals underlie the development of
competence and personal adjustment (Carslon & Stroufe, 1995; Masten, 1994). Children
without secure relationship experiences also face a number of potential mental health and
school adjustment problems (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). The importance of personal
connections with others and having safety needs met is evident not only in attachment
theory, but also other theories of child development as well (i.e., Erickson, 1963;
Maslow, 1970).

The importance of personal connections has been illusrtared in current school
research as well. For example, Hamre & Pianta (2001) found that the teacher child-
relationship was able to predict student school performance, as measured by grades and
standardized test scores. This relationship also appeared to predict behavioral adjustment

(e.g., work habits, disciplinary actions) through middle school. Additionally, feelings of

19

relatedness to teachers are associated with a variety of positive school attitudes among
adolescents, (Baker, 2006; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996; Wentzel, 1998), including
motivation, expectations for success, school satisfaction and interest, as well as students’
sense of academic self-efﬁcacy. Therefore, the acknowledged and supported importance
of these connections to one’s teacher and peers supports the examination of the classroom
as a community.

Vygotskian perspectives on learning also note the critical importance of the
responsiveness of the student’s environment toward the acquisition of complex thinking
and problem solving skills (Vygotsky, 1978). That is, learning and cognitive
development are promoted through interaction with the environment and the individuals
in that environment. Teachers that organize their instructional practices to include and
highlight interaction with others promote the development of relationships. These
relationships likely permit a meaningful commitment to academic work and should allow
students a greater chance to reach their academic and affective potential. Although
different in their emphases, social and contextual theories maintain that children acquire
increasingly complex cognitive and social competencies through shared or mediated
experiences with signiﬁcant others. An environment supports individual development
when it provides interesting and challenging experiences in the presence of a competent
guide who can nurture the child’s involvement and help sustain the acquisition and
consolidation of skills. Community-oriented classrooms enhance development by
constructing the social context of the classroom so that it adequately builds on children’s
emerging personal and social abilities. For example, teachers might teach speciﬁc skills

each day or include a class meeting in which social concerns are addressed. An

20

important goal of community-oriented classrooms is to provide optimal support for the
consolidation of key cognitive, social, and civic skills early in schooling to enhance
adaptation to school and successful school learning.

Lastly, self-determination theory guides understandings of children’s
developmental needs as well. This theory hypothesizes that individuals have three
fundamental psychological needs: to be meaningfully connected to and engaged with
others, to have developmentally appropriate choice and self-direction, and to perceive
themselves as competent in their endeavors (Connell & Wellbom, 1991; Deci & Ryan,
1985). Students are intrinsically motivated to engage in activities that optimally
challenge and fulﬁll these fundamental needs according to self-determination theory
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). Schools and classrooms then, that afford opportunities for students
to satisfy these needs are likely to be perceived as positive psychological environments
(Baker, Davis, Dilly, Aupperlee, & Patil, 2002) and, as a result, more caring
communities. The development of caring communities should facilitate student
engagement, persistence, and eventual academic outcomes.

Using the existing theoretical and research literature, it would seem that school
practices that try to enhance children’s meaningful connections to others within the
school environment, those methods that enhance children’s sense of competence as
learners, and the promotion of a sense of autonomy and self-direction are associated with
positive school attitudes. Classrooms in which authentic communities are developed
promote children’s interest in school and their academic attainment. They also provide a
place for students to practice decision-making and self-autonomous behavior and the

potential to increase their intrinsic motivation. Classrooms that have established a caring

21

community foster academic and personal development by attending to this broader social
context of learning. The degree to which schools structure the classroom environment to
both meet and enhance psychological and social needs has a critical effect on children’s

development and adaptation to schooling.

School satisfaction research

Positive school adjustment has been predominantly measured by successful
achievement outcomes. However, students’ attitudes and beliefs are more proximal
outcomes of their interactions with school structures and may be better able to predict
eventual school-related behaviors such as achievement. One such measure of positive
school attitudes is school satisfaction. School satisfaction is deﬁned as the subjective
cognitive appraisal of the quality of school life (Huebner, 1994). It is grounded in the
theoretical work on children’s life satisfaction (i.e., Huebner, 1991a), as one aspect of
subjective well being.

Individual’s positive experience of their lives constitutes their subjective well
being. Consistent with positive psychology, subjective well being does not only refer to
the absence of psychopathological symptoms, but also to positive indicators, such as
happiness and life satisfaction (Huebner, 1997). The subjective well being construct
contains both affective and cognitive components (Diener, 1984). Life satisfaction is a
cognitive assessment of quality of life according to an individual’s own standards (Shin
& Johnson, 1978). While life satisfaction is correlated with affect, it is not a direct
measure of emotion and focuses on the cognitive aspect of subjective well being.

Huebner (1994) presents a ﬁve domain-based components of life satisfaction for

22

children: school, family, friends, living environment, and self. Children are able to
distinguish between the multiple domains that contribute to their global life satisfaction,
including a dimension that considers a child’s school satisfaction. While
multidimensional assessment measures may prove most useful in applied contexts, the
majority of life satisfaction research to date has focused on global life satisfaction
measures. In this study, school satisfaction will be used as it may allow for greater
sensitivity to differences in the speciﬁc domain of school that may be masked by global
reports.

Research has shown that this subjective appraisal of satisfaction has an inﬂuence
on the students’ acceptance of educational values, motivation, and commitment to school
(Goodenow & Grady, 1992). On the other hand, dissatisfaction with school is associated
with many poor outcomes for students. Negative school experiences for students may
result in their unhappiness, alienation, and disengagement from their education (Fine,
1986). Most students who drop out of school vehemently dislike school and have the
belief that their school has actively rejected them (Baker, Derrer, Davis, Dinklage-Travis,
Linder, & Nicholson, 2001). Most of this research has been conducted with high school
students, and as a result, relatively little is know about school satisfaction among groups
of younger, elementary school aged students. Overall, the evidence suggests that several
child and adolescent self-report measures of life satisfaction display substantial validity
for research purposes with children over the age of eight (Bender, 1997; Gilman &
Huebner, 2000).

Additionally, there is little research that considers students’ level of school

satisfaction as a positive attitudinal indicator of adjustment. Existing studies tend to

23

focus on students who are not satisﬁed with school. Low school satisfaction is associated
with multiple negative outcomes and behaviors in students. Low school satisfaction is
positively correlated with disruptive behavior and absenteeism (Epstein & McPartland,
1976; Wright & Jesness, 1981). Students’ school satisfaction also inﬂuences students
educational plans to continue in school or dropout before graduating from high school
(Ainley, et al., 1991). Further, students’ satisfaction with school appears to decline as a
student progresses through school (Epstein & McPartland, 1976; Okun, Braver, & Weir,
1990). Okun et al., (1990) noted that school satisfaction declines between kindergarten
and eighth grade before leveling off in grades nine through twelve. Understanding the
individual inﬂuences of these factors in contributing to school satisfaction could prove

informative in promoting and encouraging children’s well being.

Life events and experiences. Positive and negative experiences, including those
both chronic and acute in nature, inﬂuence life satisfaction reports. McCullough,
Huebner, & Laughlin (2000) found that positive daily experiences were the most crucial
among these contributors (r = .40) to adolescent positive global life satisfaction. Further,
the cumulative effects of daily experiences were more inﬂuential than major life events,
positive or negative. Support for the inﬂuence of multiple life contexts was provided by
Ash & Huebner (2001), who reported that adolescent life satisfaction was uniquely
related to a variety of ongoing life experiences in the family, peer, and school
environments. The relationship between life satisfaction and positive environmental
experiences has also been demonstrated. For example, Gilman (2001) reported that

school satisfaction was associated positively with participation in structured

24

extracurricular activities (SEAS). SEAS were deﬁned as discretionary activities that are
physically and/or mentally stimulating that contain structural parameters (e.g., peer
tutoring, athletic teams, volunteering). These activities were differentiated from those
containing little structure, in which the individual is passive or a nonparticipant (i.e.,
television viewing). Adolescents who participated in greater numbers of SEAS also
reported higher school satisfaction than students who participated in very few or no
activities. Also, Maton (1990) reported a positive relationship between SEA participation

and global life satisfaction among a group of adolescents at risk for school dropout.

Personal Characteristics. Personal characteristics appear to relate to students’
ratings of life satisfaction. One of the most signiﬁcant correlates of global life
satisfaction is an individual’s global self-esteem, with correlations in the .40-.60 range
among US. students (Adelman, Taylor, & Nelson, 1989; Dew & Huebner, 1994; Gilman,
Huebner, & Laughlin, 2000; Huebner, 1991a, Huebner & Alderman, 1993; Terry &
Huebner, 1995). The relationship is lower among children from some other countries
(Leung & Zhang, 2000; Neto, 1993), suggesting that cultural inﬂuences may moderate
this relationship. Similar constructs, such as self-reliance and self-efﬁcacy, have also
consistently been associated with life satisfaction (Gilman et al., 2000; Greenspoon &
Saklofske, 2001; McCullough et al., 2000; Neto, 1993). Another strong correlate of
global life satisfaction is internal locus of control (Adelman et al., 1989; Ash & Huebner,
2001; Dew & Huebner, 1994; Gilman et al., 2000; Huebner & Alderman, 1993;
Greespoon & Saklofske, 1997; Smith, Adelman, Nelson, Taylor, & Phares, 1987). With

respect to temperament, life satisfaction relates positively to extraversion and negatively

25

to neuroticism (Fogle, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2002; Heaven, 1989; Huebner, 1991b).
Although the correlational data preclude causal inferences, one study suggested that
extraverted students develop greater social self-efﬁcacy, thus mediating their life
satisfaction. Further, low neuroticism may afford students protection against adverse
situations (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001). Levels of social interest (i.e. prosocial
disposition) have also been related to global satisfaction. Although motivational factors
have been neglected in youth life satisfaction research, Gilman (2001) reported that
students with higher social interest also reported signiﬁcantly higher life satisfaction than
students with little or no social interest. Additionally, grades were not correlated with

school satisfaction for adolescents (Dew & Huebner, 1994).

Health and risk behaviors. Life satisfaction can be related to various health and
risk behaviors as well. Studies have shown that nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol
use were signiﬁcantly associated with reduced life satisfaction among adolescents
(Newcomb, Bentler, & Collins, 1986; Raphael, Rukholm, Brown, Hill-Bailey, & Donato,
1996; Zullig, Valios, Huebner, & Drane, 2001). In addition, average age of initial use of
these substances (i.e., thirteen years or younger) was signiﬁcantly related to lower life
satisfaction (Zullig et al., 2001). Lower life satisfaction has also been associated with
higher rates of weapon carrying, drinking and driving, being injured or threatened with a
weapon and physical ﬁghting (Valios, Zullig, Huebner, & Drane, 2001). Global life
satisfaction has also been Shown to be associated negatively with a number of mood
related disorders. Depression shares a robust relationship with life satisfaction, with

correlations ranging between the 50-60 range across various age ranges (Adelman et al.,

26

1989; Gilman, et al., 2000; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1997; Neto, 1993). Relatedly,
negative relationships between global life satisfaction and measures of anxiety (Gilman et
al., 2000; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1997; Huebner, 1991a, 1991b; Neto, 1993) and
social stress have been reported (Gilman et al., 2000; Huebner, Drane, & Valios, 2000;

Neto, 1993).

Demographic variables. Consistent with research on adults’ life satisfaction,
demographic variables do not account for much variance in school satisfaction in child
samples. Variables such as age, gender, parent occupational status, and parent marital
status are not Signiﬁcantly correlated with children’s life satisfaction in children (Diener,
1984; Huebner, 1991a; Okun et al., 1990). However, children’s socioeconomic status
and race Show moderate correlations with children’s life satisfaction (Dew & Huebner,
1994; Terry & Huebner, 1995). African-American children tend to report lower levels of
life satisfaction than Caucasian children (Dew & Huebner, 1994; Terry & Huebner,
1995). Children with higher socioeconomic status also tend to Show higher global life
satisfaction (Dew & Huebner, 1994), however, the researchers note that there may have
been interactions between race and socioeconomic status within the sample that

contributed to these ﬁndings.

Support variables. Although there is little research on the relationship between
school satisfaction and students’ assessment of personal support in school, students’

perceptions of support is related to other outcome indicators of positive adjustment. For

27

example, Baker (1998) considered teacher-student relationships as related to school
satisfaction and found children’s school satisfaction was positively correlated with
caring, supportive relationships with their teachers. Children who have more friends and
higher quality friendships score higher on measures of life satisfaction, possibly because
an increase in friendship provides more opportunities for social support (Huebner &
Alderman, 1993). However, children’s friends are weak contributors to life satisfaction
in general (Ash & Huebner, 1998; Huebner, 1991). Huebner (1994) also found a small
negative correlation between a child’s school satisfaction and their satisfaction with
friends. In addition, students whose peers have positive attitudes toward school have
more positive attitudes toward themselves (Epstein, 1981). Isherwood & Hammah
(1981) found that the effect of peers’ attitudes on a student’s school satisfaction may

change if they are peers of the student inside and outside of school.

Individual diﬂerences: Diversity in the classroom

In addition to the changing landscape of American schools and their purposes and
practices, classroom and school diversity is increasing (Baker, Kamphaus, Home, &
Winsor, 2006). While racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences are more often
noted, students are also distinguished by their degree of behavioral variability within the
classroom setting. The wide spectrum of students served in the general education setting
and their varying degrees of behavioral performance creates great challenges for schools
and teachers as they attempt to meet the needs of their students.

Children whose emotional and social development is not progressing typically or

favorably may manifest internalizing (e. g., depressive-like or anxious behavior, crying,

28

clinginess) and externalizing (e.g., aggression, temper outbursts, hyperactivity) disorders
which exhibit Speciﬁc patterns and set these children apart from their peers. It is well
documented that children with behavior and/or learning problems are at considerable risk
for poor school adjustment (Mash & Dozois, 1996). These students tend to have more
than their share of negative experiences in school, and are often deprived of the self-
esteem that accrues from the successful mastery of learning and relationships. As a
result, they can become embroiled in negative Spirals of school failure and dissatisfaction.

In contrast to the medical model inherent in the categorical approaches used to
currently identify and service children in schools, Baker et a1. (2006) note that
population-based models developed within the public health arena provide alternatives
for service provision in schools (Albee & Gullotta, 1997; Steinberg & Silverman, 1987).
Kamphaus and his colleagues (Kamphaus, Huberty, Distefano, & Petosky, 1997)
demonstrated that seven distinctive patterns of behavioral adjustment, characterized by
unique conﬁgurations of behavioral assets and deﬁcits are typically demonstrated in
American classrooms (the development of these behavioral clusters will be described in
more detail in the Methods section). More recently, this typology of normal behavioral
variability was tested against markers of school success (Baker et al., 2006). These data
suggest that students’ behavioral proﬁles are associated with predictable patterns of
educational attainment and adjustment in the school community. These ﬁndings provide
some validation that a population-based, person-oriented approach can be used within
schools to represent children’s adjustment. Additionally, the academic performance of
the seven behavioral clusters can be categorized by three levels of educational risk —

those showing very low levels of educational risk due to typical or above average

29

performance on school achievement and adjustment variables, those at moderate risk due
to mild learning or behavior related problems, and children at high risk of school failure
due to signiﬁcant academic deﬁcits, poor school performance, and pervasive and severe
behavior problems.

Approaches that facilitate the restructuring of classrooms in order to help schools
identify the broad range of variability in classrooms and that array services in appropriate
and timely ways will assist teachers to adequately address heterogeneous student needs
(Baker et al., 2006). Studies that acknowledge this diversity and attempt to consider the
continuum of student functioning in classrooms will provide useful and meaningful
information, for research and practice purposes, on student well being and development.
Conceptualizing problems along this type of continuum may provide more efﬁcient ways
for schools and researchers to improve the social, emotional, and academic competence
of all children.

This type of "restructured” classroom would seem to be of particular importance
for children at-risk for school difﬁculty. By the time children get to third grade, we
assume they have acquired an acceptable set of social competencies that foster adaptation
to and success in school. These skills include valuing social exchange, trusting adults,
willingness to take risks, and age-appropriate self-regulatory skills. Children with
behavioral difﬁculties, particularly externalizing behavioral difﬁculties, often perceive
environmental events as more threatening and lack social-cognitive and behavioral skills
to mediate conﬂict (Lochman, White, & Wayland, 1991).

The establishment of a caring community in one’S classroom may be

differentially important for children with varying behavioral proﬁles, as suggested by the

30

extant literature. For example, Baker (2006) notes the Hughes, Cavell, & Jackson (1999)
study that states that a positive relationship with one’s teacher is related to decreases in
externalizing problems among highly aggressive children. Additionally, caring
relationships with teachers strongly predict school satisfaction among low-income,
Aﬁ'ican-American children who express alienation from school (Baker, 1998).
Considering this research, it is likely that the nature of children’s developmental
problems affects their ability to negotiate and beneﬁt from supportive and warm
classroom environments. Behavioral difﬁculties, whether they be internalizing or
externalizing, often reﬂect difﬁculties with self-regulation and organization and can
deeply affect children’s abilities to negotiate social relationships (Lezak, 1995). Children
with learning disabilities also show poorer academic and social emotional outcomes than

their peers (Lyon, 1996).

Proposed study

While the ﬁndings of the research examining classrooms as caring communities
as a predictor variable have yielded interesting ﬁndings and have been associated with
positive outcomes for students, there are a number of reasons for continued research in
this area. First, this is still a relatively new area of investigation — the existing literature
referring to classrooms as caring communities dates back to the 19905. Or, as is the case
of the Child Development Project studies, it is the program’s developers and
implementers who are examining the concept of classroom as caring community. Further

research is needed to systematically identify aspects of educational practice and other

31

attitudinal indicators of school adjustment that contribute to students’ sense of classroom
community.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which classroom
community predicts the level of satisfaction a student has with school. Further, the
potentially moderating effects of student level of adjustment on this relationship between
caring community and school satisfaction were examined. This investigation focused on
third, fourth, and ﬁfth grade students. Clarifying the role of adjustment in this
relationship has practical and theoretical importance because the role that one’s level of
adjustment plays has implications for the design of individual and classroom level
interventions.

The sense of belonging to or alienation from school as measured by the student’s
sense of classroom community may be the psychological manifestation of a goodness of
ﬁt between the school’s social environment and individual differences in social-
emotional development. Adherence to norms at school likely depends on a child’s ability
to derive shared meaning from and to value the social context of school. It was
hypothesized that children with signiﬁcant behavior and/or learning problems would
Show poorer school adjustment that typically developing peers, and that those individuals
experiencing their classroom as caring would show improved school functioning. That
is, it is expected that the contribution of a supportive classroom community to students’
appraisal of the quality of their school life would be more advantageous for student with

behavioral and/or academic problems.

32

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Participants

The sample was drawn from a longitudinal study of elementary aged students and
their teachers from three schools in a southern city in the United States (Project Act
Early; Baker, Horne, & Kamphaus, 1999). The current sample included 689 students in
the third through ﬁfth grades. Within this sample, there were 322 boys and 367 girls.
The ethnic composition of the study sample was representative of the participating
schools (57% African American, 31% Caucasian, 4% Other, and 8% Hispanic).

All participants were students at Title I schools. Therefore, this population of
students is considered to be “at-risk.” Over 90% of the potential participants in the three
schools were involved in the Act Early project. All participating students had active
parental consent and were informed they could withdraw support at any time. It is
notable that within this sample, race and SES were crossed with an overrepresentation of
low-income and African American students. Because of the longitudinal nature of this
study, some children possessed multiple years of data. When this occurred, one year of

data was selected at random for each child after blocking by grade.

Procedure

All student participants had active parental consent. Students completed self-

report measures in the fall and spring of the school year. Students were administered

33

conﬁdential questionnaires by trained research assistants in their classrooms. The
voluntary nature of their participation was discussed with students prior to the
questionnaire administration; all participating students elected to complete the measures.
Non-participating students were provided with an activity Sheet to complete during the
questionnaire administration. The questionnaires were projected via an overhead
projector and read aloud to control for reading differences among the students. The
measures were administered in a counter-balanced order between classes to control for
possible testing effects.

Teachers completed a standardized behavior rating scale for each participating
child in their classroom during the mid to late fall. Teacher participants provided
informed consent and received a small stipend for their participation. Student subgroups

were determined from this data.

Measures

Classroom community. Children’s perceptions of their classroom as a supportive,
caring community were measured using the Vessels Classroom Climate Survey (Vessels,
1998). The survey consists of thirty-two items that were answered according to a four
point Likert scale.

School satisfaction. This measure was a modiﬁed version of the school subscale
of the Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; Huebner, 1994), a
scale that assesses one aspect of positive subject well being in children. The MSLSS

measures ﬁve discrete domains of life satisfaction in children in grades three through

34

eight using a four-point Likert type scale. The eight-item school subscale measures
children’s cognitive appraisal of satisfaction with school.

Standardized behavior rating scales. The Behavior Assessment System for
Children Teacher Rating Scales for Children (BASC TRS-C, Reynolds & Kamphaus,
1992), a standardized measure on which teachers rated the frequency of both problem and
adaptive behaviors on a four-point scale, was used to measure the students’ problem and
adaptive behaviors. The BASC is a nationally standardized, reliable, and valid measure
that yields nine problem behavior scales (Aggression, Conduct problems, Hyperactivity,
Anxiety, Depression, Somatization, Attention problems, Learning problems, and
Atypicality) and four adaptive behavior scales (Adaptability, Leadership, Social skills,
and Study skills) as well as composite scores. Standard scores with a mean of 50 and a
standard deviation of 10 are generated and describe children’s level of adjustment.

Empirically derived student proﬁles of behavioral adjustment can be obtained
from the BASC-TRS (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Kamphaus et al., (1997) conducted
cluster analyses of BASC data and their work resulted in the creation of seven typologies
of child behavior characterized by intensity and type of behavior problems and
competencies. In these previous analyses, a two-step clustering method consisting of a
Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative method followed by an iterative K means procedure
was used to derive possible cluster solutions. The seven cluster solution was selected
based on an examination of the discreteness and parsimony of the solution and internal
validation analyses. The seven clusters were interpreted based on research and theory
from developmental psychopathology and normal behavioral development. Initial

external validity was assessed using a subsample for which BASC parent ratings of

35

behavior were available (i.e., the “yoked” sample from the norming sample, please see
Huberty, DiStefano, & Kamphaus, 1997 and Kamphaus et al., 1997 for a detailed
description of cluster analytic procedures, internal validation, and assignment to clusters).

In order to describe patterns of normal variability within this general education
sample, each child was assigned to one of the seven empirically derived types using the
algorithms from previous cluster analyses of the normative BASC-TRS data. The seven
clusters of child behavior are characterized by differences in the level and type of
behavior problems and behavioral competencies. These clusters are: Well Adapted,
Average, Disruptive Behavior Problem, Learning Problems, Physical Complaints/Worry,
General Problems Severe, and Mildly Disruptive. Percentages of students categorized
into each of the seven clusters for this sample and for the nationally normed BASC-TRS
sample from the Kamphaus et al. (1997) study is included (Figure One).

Students in the Well Adapted cluster Show strong behavioral competencies that
promote school adjustment (i.e., high T scores on the adaptive scales of the BASC-TRS).
This proﬁle of strong behavioral assets is coupled with low to average levels of problem
behaviors (i.e., low to expected T scores on the problem behavior scales). Average
cluster students possess “typical” proﬁles; they exhibit few behavioral problems, but lack
the behavioral strengths seen in the Well Adapted cluster. Students within the Disruptive
Behavior Problem cluster demonstrate signiﬁcant and pervasive externalizing behavior
problems such as aggression and conduct problems, learning related problems, and
Signiﬁcant deﬁcits in adaptive skills such as social skills and adaptability. The Learning
Problems cluster contains students who possess Signiﬁcant deﬁcits in the areas of

achievement, inattention, and study skills; they also exhibit behavioral competency

36

deﬁcits. Students with mild internalizing problems, such as slightly elevated anxiety T-
scores, and complaints about bodily aches and pains are categorized in the Physical
Complaints/Worry cluster. Students described as Mildly Disruptive demonstrate slight
elevations on the Hyperactivity and Aggression subscales of the BASC. Lastly, students
within the General Problems Severe cluster were rated as having the most Signiﬁcant
problems by their teacher. Their behavioral deﬁcits are pervasive across all areas of

adjustment.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to further describe the sample and measures.
Correlations were used to describe the bivariate relationships between classroom
community and the other variables. Regression analyses were used to estimate the
amount of variance that each of the independent variables (Classroom Community, Level
of adjustment) contributed to student perception of classroom community. Visual
inspection of the data and regression diagnostics were evaluated to assure that there were
no violations of assumptions or problems with multicollinearity among the independent
variables in the model. Additionally, the ample sample size of this study (689 students)
provided an adequate number of subjects and sufﬁcient power to conduct multiple
regression analyses (Green, 1991).

The research questions regarding the moderation of the relationship between
classroom community and student school outcomes (school satisfaction) were tested via
regression analyses using generalized linear modeling (GLM). In the current study,

teachers rated multiple children within their classrooms. GLM allows for the control of

37

the possible correlations among the residuals in the analyses caused by the nested nature
of the data (i.e., child nested within the classroom). Moderation effects were tested and
examined using the procedures recommended by Baron & Kenny (1986). The classroom
community scale was mean centered and interactions between it and each level of

behavioral risk were created.

38

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

For these analyses, regressions were computed for the outcome variable (school
satisfaction) with level of risk utilized as a moderator variable. As described in the
Methods section, because teachers rated multiple children within their classrooms with
the BASC-TRS, general linear modeling (GLM) was used to correct for possible
correlations among the residuals attributable to the nested nature of the data (Cohen,
Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). For that reason, the child’s teacher was entered as a
random factor in the model. Additionally, all of the main and interaction effects in the
regression equations were entered simultaneously. The continuous independent variable
(classroom community) was mean centered (Aiken & West, 1991). Centering requires
one to subtract the mean from a variable, leaving deviation scores for the statistical
analyses. Centered variables allow for slopes to be calculated when evaluating
interactions. For the regression equation involving the three levels of risk, students at the
low level of risk (i.e., students in the well-adapted and average clusters) served as the
reference group. The regression analyses were then examined to evaluate the relative
contribution of each predictor and to interpret the simple slopes if moderator effects were
found. Visual inspection of the data and tests of univariate normality suggested no
signiﬁcant violations of assumptions. Skewness and kurtosis ranges were acceptable. No
problems with multicollinearity were detected.

The assignment of students to both behavioral cluster and level of risk are
available in Table One and Figure One. In the table, the national sampling provided by

Kamphaus et al. (1997) is also included. As described earlier, Kamphaus and colleagues

39

Table 1

Percentage of students in behavioral clusters in the current sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cluster Name and Number Current Sample National Sample*
1. Well—adapted 23 34

2. Average 20 19

3. Disruptive behavior problems 16 8

4. Learning problems 1 l 12

5. Physical complaints/Worry 8 l l

6. General problems-severe 3 4

7. Mildly disruptive 17 12

 

 

 

*From Kamphaus, et a1. (1997)

40

 

Figure 1

Level of Educational Risk

HIGH

 

MODERATE

Learning Problems
Mildly Disruptive
Physical Complaints/Worry

 

LOW

Well-Adapted
Average

 

Low Level — Students with good school adjustment (296 students)
Moderate Level — Students with some adjustment problems (251 students)

High Level — Students with many and severe adjustment problems (133 students)

41

derived these behavioral clusters that were recently validated (i.e., Baker et al., 2006) as
able to appropriately capture the range of behavioral variability with the population of
schools serving children considered at risk. Visual inspection of this table shows that this
study’s current sample differed in a couple of important ways from the Kamphaus et al.
(1997) national sample in terms of cluster assignment. First, there was an
overrepresentation in this current investigation of mild and severe externalizing problems
relative to the national study (Clusters Three and Seven). Additionally, there was an
under-representation of students with strong behavioral assets (Cluster One).

The ﬁrst hypothesis was that classroom community would affect the attitudinal
indicator of school satisfaction for third through ﬁfth grade students. A correlation
matrix for these two study variables is presented in Table Two. A statistically signiﬁcant
correlation was found between classroom community and school satisfaction and was in
the expected direction. Table Three displays the means and standard deviations for the
classroom community and school satisfaction variables.

To test for moderation, a series of regression analysis procedures Speciﬁed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) were performed. School satisfaction, the dependent variable,
was regressed on classroom community, the independent variable, which determined the
effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. School satisfaction was also
regressed on level of adjustment, the moderator variable, which determined the effect of
the moderator variable on the dependent variable. School satisfaction was regressed on
the product of classroom community and level of adjustment as well. This analysis
determined the interaction effect of the independent and moderator variables on the

dependent variable. Moderator effects are indicated by a statistically Signiﬁcant

42

Table 2

Correlations for study variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classroom School
Community Satisfaction
Vessels 1 .517M
(Classroom Community)
MSLSS .51 7* * 1
(School Satisfaction)

 

“Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

Table 3

Means and standard deviations for classroom community and school satisfaction
variables

 

 

 

 

 

Classroom School
Community Satisfaction
N 526 568
Mean 49.84 1 1.97
Standard 14631 4.629
Deviation

 

 

 

 

43

interaction effect of the independent and moderator variables on the dependent variable,
whereas their independent effects are controlled.

Results of the regression procedures and the testing for moderation are presented
in Table Four. Regression analyses indicated that there was a statistically signiﬁcant
main effect of classroom community on school satisfaction, that level of adjustment did
not have statistically signiﬁcant effect on level of school satisfaction, and that there was
no statistically signiﬁcant interaction effect of perceived classroom community and level
of adjustment on the school satisfaction ratings of third through ﬁfth grade students. That
is, there was no moderating effect of level of adjustment on the relationship between
classroom community and school satisfaction for this sample of students. Thus, the
ﬁndings did not support the hypothesis that level of behavioral adjustment would serve as
a moderator of the relationship between classroom community and a student’s
satisfaction with school.

Regarding the ﬁrst hypothesis, student ratings of classroom community accounted
for a signiﬁcant, but small amount of variance in the regression predicting students’
school satisfaction with a n2 of .111 [e.g., effect sizes of .15 are considered medium,
whereas effect Sizes of at least .35 are deemed large (Cohen, 1988, p. 413)]. One’s level
of behavioral adjustment or risk, however, did not contribute to positive school
adjustment, as measured by school satisfaction. As noted, interaction effects or a
moderating effect on the relationship were not found.

It was originally determined not to run regression analyses by behavioral cluster.
It was thought that the use of level of educational risk as a moderator variable would

provide a simple and efﬁcient way to consider and conceptualize the social and emotional

44

Table 4

Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community and level
of risk (as moderator variable)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F p value T12
Classroom Community 57.41 .000 .111
Level Two 1.538 .215 .003
Level Three .334 .563 .001
Classroom Community x Level Two .028 .866 .000
Classroom Community x Level Three .078 .780 .000

 

 

 

 

Level One (Reference Group) = Well-adapted, Average clusters

Adjusted R squared = .279

45

 

competence of all children and would eliminate concerns about the speciﬁcity of
behavioral cluster [i.e., the probability that girls are more likely to experience
internalizing behavioral difﬁculties and that boys tend to be over-represented in the
conduct problem groups (Mash & Barkley, 1996)]. Moreover, because of the number of
teachers involved, analyses by behavioral cluster would mean the loss of valuable
degrees of freedom. When no moderating effect was found at risk level, however,
regression analyses were subsequently run at the behavioral proﬁle level in addition to
level of risk. For the regression using behavioral clusters, the average group (Cluster
Two) served as the reference group for the analysis.

Results of the regression procedures and the testing for moderation utilizing
behavioral cluster are presented in Table Five. Regression analyses indicated that there
was still a fairly strong, statistically signiﬁcant main effect of classroom community on
school satisfaction. None of the behavioral clusters, however, had a statistically
signiﬁcant effect on a student’s level of school satisfaction. Additionally, there were no
statistically signiﬁcant interaction effects of perceived classroom community and
behavioral cluster on the students’ judgment of their satisfaction with school. Again, no
moderating effect of behavioral typology on the relationship between classroom
community and school satisfaction exists for this sample of students.

Lastly, Table Six presents the regression analysis predicting school satisfaction
from classroom community and behavioral cluster with no interaction effect entered into
the model. Classroom community accounted for a Signiﬁcant amount of variance in the
regression predicting students’ school satisfaction with a n2 of .231, a moderate effect

size. None of the behavioral clusters, however, contributed to the variance in this model.

46

Table 5

Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community and
behavioral cluster (as moderator variable)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F p value 112
Classroom Community 35.224 .000 .072
Cluster One .103 .748 .000
Cluster Three .097 .756 .000
Cluster Four 2.659 .104 .006
Cluster Five .006 .937 .000
Cluster Six .070 .792 .000
Cluster Seven .987 .321 .002
Classroom Community x Cluster One .160 .689 .000
Classroom Community x Cluster Three .359 .550 .001
Classroom Community x Cluster Four .640 .424 .001
Classroom Community x Cluster Five .228 .633 .001
Classroom Community x Cluster Six .051 .822 .000
Classroom Community x Cluster Seven .668 .414 .001

 

 

 

 

Cluster Two (Reference Group) = Average cluster

Adjusted R squared = .275

47

 

Table 6

Regression analyses predicting school satisfaction from classroom community and
behavioral cluster

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F p value 112
Classroom Community 137.844 .000 .231
Cluster One .084 .772 .000
Cluster Three .041 .839 .000
Cluster Four 2.735 .099 .006
Cluster Five .001 .975 .000
Cluster Six .180 .671 .000
Cluster Seven .970 .325 .002

 

 

 

 

Cluster Two (Reference Group) = Average cluster

Adjusted R squared = .279

48

 

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which classroom
community predicted the level of satisfaction a student has with school. Further, it was to
test potentially moderating effects of level of behavioral adjustment on the association
between classroom community and school satisfaction. AS expected, classroom
community contributed positively to the school satisfaction ratings of students in the
present study. The more likely students were to express feeling their classroom was
community-oriented, the more likely they were to report being satisﬁed with school.

This ﬁnding echoes the modest to moderate relationships that were found in previous
studies examining the relationship between environmental variables and school
satisfaction outcomes in children and adolescents (e.g., Baker, 1998). In the present
study, the positive relationship was quite robust. It would seem then, that the classroom
community variable holds promise as a developmental context that may affect positive
school adaptation for urban, elementary aged school children. Of course, the relatively
modest effect sizes generated for each model suggest that classroom community is only
one of many factors that contribute to students’ school satisfaction and that other
variables should be included in the utilization and measurement of school satisfaction as
an attitudinal indicator.

But, why does community appear to be an important factor in promoting students’
educational resiliency? Students’ experiences of fulﬁllment or frustration of their needs

for belonging, autonomy, and competence in school and classroom settings may result in

49

patterns of engagement or disengagement in those settings. This view is consistent with
the motivational theory of self-system processes (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The classroom as
a caring community not only provides students with a sense of belonging or support, but
also can provide a focus for identiﬁcation and commitment. Autonomy in a community
means not just that one has choices about personal goals, but also that one has inﬂuence
on choices about the group’s directions and goals. Similarly, competence means that one
can make effective and meaningful contributions to the group as well as to the attainment
of their own personal goals. When a school or classroom functions as a community, a
social context is created in which the processes that fulﬁll children’s needs for autonomy,
competence, and belonging are linked by their common focus on the group and on the
individual’s place within the group.

With this theoretical support for community-oriented classrooms in mind, it
would seem that when a sense of classroom community is established, students are likely
to become affectively bonded with and committed to school. Therefore, they would not
only be more inclined to identify with and behave in accordance with expressed
classroom goals and values, but feel more satisﬁed with their classroom and school
experiences.

The classroom community-school satisfaction rating relationship served as the
basis for clarifying the role of level of behavioral adjustment as a moderator in the
relationship. In testing for moderation, the regression analyses conducted indicated that
level of behavioral adjustment, whether examined by level of risk or more Speciﬁc
behavioral cluster, does not interact with students’ ratings of classroom community to

determine the level of school satisfaction experienced by third through ﬁfth graders. The

50

method of testing for moderation was inﬂuenced by Baron and Kenny (1986), who
provide a useful framework for examining the conceptual issues underlying the
moderation of a one-to-one relationship by a third variable.

They have argued that moderation implies that the causal relation between the
independent and dependent variables changes as a function of the moderator variable,
which is a third variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the causal relation. A
moderator variable always functions as an independent variable that interacts with the
focal independent variable to inﬂuence the dependent variable, specifying when and
under what conditions certain effects will hold.

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderation is best detected when the
association between the independent and dependent variables is weak or inconsistent and
when the independent and moderator variables are uncorrelated. In the present study,
classroom community (independent variable) and school satisfaction (dependent variable)
were strongly correlated with one another. Classroom community (independent variable)
and level of adjustment (moderator variable), however, were not related to one another
(see Tables Two, Four, and Five). While this research investigation provided further
support for the importance of environmental experiences and their contribution to
students’ evaluations of their school life, the role of behavioral adjustment variable in
school satisfaction judgments appears to be nonexistent.

Researchers have argued cogently that demonstrations of relationships between
environmental events and quality of life evaluations provide only a ﬁrst step in theory
development (Gilman & Huebner, 2003). A next step requires the illumination of the

processes that are responsible for the relationships. This study attempted to extend

51

beyond previous research by examining one potential model of students’ school
satisfaction by incorporating an intrapersonal variable that might moderate the
association between experiences of classroom community and students’ subjective school
satisfaction. Though support for this model was not provided, in that level of adjustment
was not seen as a crucial mechanism through which classroom community experiences
inﬂuence school satisfaction, research that examines intrapersonal variables along with
acute and chronic environmental, contextual variables Should continue to be pursued.

So why in this case, did student’s level of behavioral adjustment not interact with
the contextual variable of classroom community as hypothesized? First, it is important to
note that there is no reason to expect or suspect a “teacher effect” in these analyses. That
is, there was no systematically biased way of assigning students to classrooms.
Additionally, in looking closely at the analyses conducted at both the level of risk and
cluster level, there were no differences between teachers in the outcome variable (as
measured by the signiﬁcance values produced by each analysis). Perhaps classroom
community is not a powerful enough construct to affect changes within the classroom by
behavioral level. Because of the infancy of this area of research, while this hypothesis is
a deﬁnite possibility, this claim cannot be made with any sort of certainty. It is possible
that further study with students at different grade levels and schools of varying economic
means (as opposed to the Title I schools utilized in this investigation) would provide a
more clear, substantial picture of the potential impact of the classroom community
variable on all students’ school success.

Another explanation for the lack of a Signiﬁcant moderating effect of behavioral

adjustment could lie in the nature of the classroom community variable itself. A school-

52

based approach to effecting internal change within a child likely has two major
components: teacher expectations and student capacities, attitudes, and ideals. The ﬁrst
component would be the teacher’s consistent expectations, support, and encouragement.
A student at increased behavioral risk is often seen as potentially disruptive and the
classroom is usually highly structured to minimize stimulation and emotional situations.
Success may be enhanced when the child can learn from the experience of rewards, effect
internal change within her or himself, and no longer be merely dependent on a supply of
rewards to maintain desired classroom behavior. Thus, classroom routines and
orientations that function through structuring and a caring, scaffolded response have the
potential beneﬁt of effecting change within the student.

The second component of an approach that optimally effects change within the
student involves direct attention to the internal world of the child, including his or her
abilities, attitudes, and ideals. The attention to internal capacities is grounded in the
assumption that as children develop and awareness of emotion, they will begin to
understand and describe their own emotions, but also be able to recognize, describe, and
understand the emotions of others. These principles apply equally to children who follow
more favorable developmental trajectories, but for students at behavioral risk, this
internalization illustrates and embodies the values of classroom community. So perhaps
the reason for a lack of interaction or relationship with teacher-rated behavior proﬁles for
students is the strength of the classroom community construct. That is, part of the nature
of what creates a “classroom community” is the acceptance and support of all students

and their diversity; their strengths and deﬁcits, whether they are academic or behavioral.

53

The relationship between sense of community and academic success or
satisfaction with school is quite complex and surely involves other factors. For instance,
Schaps et a1. (1997) uncover in their survey study that schools serving low-income
students typically show lower levels of classroom community than schools serving more
afﬂuent ones. They then suggest that creating a high sense of community may help level
the playing ﬁeld for poor children. Presumably, sense of community is highly associated
with motivation to learning. As stated, once the children feel they are part of the learning
community, they are motivated and able to learn more effectively. Caldwell & Ginther
(1996) posit in their empirical study that “for low SES elementary students, motivational
(internal) rather than environmental (external) factors predict achievement” (p.141).
Perhaps this is not only true for children from low SES families, but also may be true for
all children; students with high sense of community should do better academically
because they are motivated and perhaps their level of anxiety is minimized.

The development of classrooms and schools that are caring should be pursued in
ways that promote academic development (Solomon et al., 2000), but social and
emotional learning efforts may also be practiced in ways that undermine academic
growth. For example, some teachers may try to create a supportive environment for
students by lowering their academic standards or not embracing empirically supported
instruction or intervention in their classrooms. This type of “accommodation” is
certainly not beneﬁcial for students, nor does it represent what it means to have a
community-oriented classroom. A Singular focus on community building will not be
sufﬁcient for promoting academic achievement and it must be combined and integrated

with high expectations and challenging engaging opportunities to learn. In fact, others

54

have taken a critical view of the relative importance of a sense of community, arguing
that high expectations play a greater role in boosting academic achievement (e.g., Bryk,
Lee, & Holland, 1993; Shouse, 1996). Most recently, Lee & Smith (1999) found that
without an emphasis on academic press, fostering community in school is inadequate for
producing achievement gains among low—income, urban students. They concluded,
“Only in schools with an organizational thrust toward serious academics does social
support (i.e., sense of community) actually inﬂuence learning” (p. 937).

Though classroom community practices are often compared to constructivist,
invention learning type of environments, perhaps a more appropriate way to think about
classroom practices that support the classroom as a caring community is to consider the
learning in these settings as problem-based. For example, it is well documented and
researched that students who struggle learning to read beneﬁt greatly from direct
instruction and scripted interventions (Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005).
Common “constructivist” notions often imply that direct instruction imposes limitations
on the acquisition of transferable thinking skills and student and teacher creativity. It is
important to note that caring community classrooms strive to support their diverse
students and individualize their instruction rather than adhere strictly to a particular
pedagogy (Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 1997). Any classroom setting that does not
embrace established best practices risk doing a genuine disservice to students who beneﬁt
from differing types of instruction.

It will be important to help classrooms and schools become a “caring community
of learners.” Along with other researchers (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988, Elias et al., 1997;

Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Osterrnan, 2000), I believe this priority on community

55

building in classrooms and schools provides a powerful focus for improving educational
practice, and especially for practice aimed at helping children to become a caring,
principled, and intrapersonally and interpersonally effective.

Caution should be exercised in deriving inferences from the study. Although the
current study incorporated a heterogeneous sample and provides some direction for future
research, it was cross-sectional and correlational in nature. The study of causal
determinants of school satisfaction and the process of classroom as a caring community
will require more rigorous research, such as the utilization of longitudinal and
experimental designs. Additionally, although all the measures employed in this study
appear reliable and valid, the use of multiple informants (e.g., teachers, parents, and
students) Should provide a more complete picture and assessment of a community-
oriented classroom. Student and parent perception of child behavior might also be
assessed in future studies. Perhaps third through ﬁfth grade children do not feel they are
as behaviorally or academically different as the adults in their lives may deem them to be.
Another avenue for further study might be analyzing student perceptions of community at
the school level, particularly measuring possible differences between schools that
embrace positive behavior support programs and those schools that do not. The positive
behavior support initiative affects change in the culture of the school and it would be

interesting to note the nested nature of classrooms within these types of schools.

Implications for practice
This study holds several implications for practice. Students’ sense of their

classroom as a caring community and their satisfaction with school are likely inﬂuenced

56

by a variety of variables that interact in complex ways across development. Thus,
perhaps the major implication for school personnel and policymakers is the need to
consider multiple sources of information in attempting to understand and promote
students’ social and emotional learning and growth. School personnel need to consider
positive as well as negative experiences, both acute and chronic, in the lives of their
students. The importance of non-school as well as school events must also be considered,
particularly the important inﬂuence of social (e.g., family) resources in promoting the
social and emotional purposes of schooling. This is consistent with recommendations of
many educators (e. g., see Christenson & Buerkle, 1999) regarding the importance of
positive home-school partnerships in enhancing cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in

students.

Conclusions

For the past two decades, numerous efforts have been made to reform America’s
schools. The efforts have focused largely on academic goals and concerns and have
largely neglected affective matters. For example, Epstein & McPartland (1976) argued
that the measurement of school outcomes Should extend beyond academic variables to
include quality of school life variables. Phillips (1993, p.10) lamented that “instead of
looking at students in breadth and depth, we have pursued a narrow vision of schooling,
one in which cognitive outcomes have become more important that adaptional
outcomes.”

Schools will be most successful in their educational mission when they integrate

efforts to promote children’s academic, social, and emotional learning. There is general

57

agreement that it is important for schools to foster children’s social-emotional
development, but all too often educators think about this focus in a fragmented manner.
Intrinsically, schools and classrooms are social places and learning is a social process.
Students do not learn alone but in collaboration with their teachers, in the company of
their peers, and with the support of their families. Additionally, separating the cognitive
and emotional development of students creates a false dualism (Roth & Lee, 2007).
Researchers should encourage the use of theoretical orientations, like cultural-historical
activity theory, to embrace all aspects of student progress.

I believe that various experiences associated with participating in a caring
classroom community help students not only to satisfy their basic psychological needs,
but also to deve10p their intellectual and moral capacities, including their knowledge of
academic subject matter, their reasoning and thinking skills, their conceptual
understanding, their empathy with others, their social skills and social understanding, and
their understanding of the values of the community. The development of these
intellectual and moral capabilities, also, in turn, contributes to the satisfaction of basic
psychological needs, particularly students’ sense of efﬁcacy.

Overall, the small body of research that has been conducted to date on classrooms
as communities indicates that a focus on this variable provides a powerful way of looking
at educational practice. This attention seems to have a great deal of practical utility in
that it provides a direction for classroom and school improvements aimed at effectively
meeting the needs of both students and society. With regard to this study, Speciﬁcally,
though the effect sizes are modest, the ﬁndings suggest that the classroom community is

one developmental context that contributes to students’ school success.

58

APPENDIX

59

APPENDIX A

STUDY MEASURES

MSLSS — School Subscale (Huebner, 1994)

QSAPP’N?‘

I look forward to going to school.

I like being in school.

School is interesting.

I wish I didn’t have to go to school.

There are many things about school that I like.
I enjoy school activities.

Classroom Climate Survey (Vessels, 1998)

l.
2.

."°.\‘F"."‘:‘>‘E’J

>0

11.

12.
13.

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

19.
20.

21

23.

. Students say “excuse me,

The students in my class help each other without being asked by our teacher. ‘
When two kids argue in my room, the teacher listens to both and tries to help
them work it out.

The kids in my class make fun of me when I make a mistake.

Many of the students in my class are selﬁsh and don’t seem to care about others.
I always get help from the teacher when I need it in my classroom.

There are a lot of mean kids in my class.

When I do well in class, my classmates are happy for me.

Early in the year, we went over and over class rules and routines until everyone
knew them.

I sometimes get to help the teacher or get to help other students with their work.
” “I’m sorry,” “thank you,” and “please” all the time in
my room.

The kids in my room care about each other and like to be together just like family
members.

My teacher talks so mean sometimes that it scares all of us.

I know my teacher really cares what I think and how I feel about things because
She asks.

Students in my class call each other names and try to make each other mad.

I feel important in my room because I sometimes get to choose what to do.

Our teacher wants us to work cooperatively in small groups and often lets us work
in groups.

We have worked together in my class to help others who really need help like the
homeless.

Our teacher is always joking with us and having fun with us.

I can talk to my classmates and teacher about my family and my feelings.

It is easy to make friends in my classroom, and everyone seems to have friends.

. It is easy to stay out of trouble in my classroom.
22.

Our teacher sometimes gets very loud when students break the rules or don’t do as
she asks.
When someone in my class makes fun of someone else, others join in.

60

24.

25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.

When I do something wrong, my teacher talks to my privately so my classmates
can’t hear us.

We sometimes sit in a circle in my room and talk about real important things.
Our classroom is clean and colorful and always has lots of student work on the
walls.

In my room students Share and take turns.

The students and adults come to our class to work with us sometimes.

Older students and adults come to our class to work with us sometimes.

When someone says or does something dumb or silly in my room, everyone
laughs.

My teacher would like it if parents visited the classroom every day.

The teacher always decides what we will do and never asks us what we would
like to do.

61

REFERENCES

Adelman, H.S., Taylor, L., & Nelson, P. (1989). Minors’ dissatisfaction with their life
circumstances. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20, 135-147.

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ainley, J ., Foreman, J ., & Sheret, M. (1991). High school factors that inﬂuence students
to remain in school. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 69-80.

Albee, G.W. (2000). The Boulder model’s fatal ﬂaw. American Psychologist, 55, 247
248.

Albee, G.W., & Gullotta, TR (1997). Primary prevention’s evolution. In G.W. Albee &
T.P. Gullotta (Eds), Primary prevention works (pp. 3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Ames, C. (1987). The enhancement of student motivation. In M. Maehr & D. Klieber
(Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement. Volume 5: Enhancing
motivation (pp. 123-148). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.

Ash, C., & Huebner, ES. (1998). Life satisfaction reports of gifted middle-school
children. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 310-321.

Ash, C., & Huebner, ES. (2001). Environmental events and life satisfaction reports of
adolescents. School Psychology International, 22, 20-36.

Baker, J .A. (1998). The social context of school satisfaction among urban, low-income,
African-American students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 25—44.

Baker, J .A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school
adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.

Baker, J .A., Davis, S.M., Dilly, L., Aupperlee, J ., & Patil, S. (August 2002). The
developmental context of school satisfaction: Schools as psychologically healthy
environments. Poster presented at the annual American Psychological Association
Conference, Chicago, IL.

Baker, J .A., Derrer, R., Davis, 8., Dinklage-Travis, H., Linder, D., & Nicholson, M.
(2001). The ﬂip side of the coin: Understanding the school’s contribution to
dropout. School Psychology Quarterly, 1 6, 406-427.

Baker, J .A., Dilly, L.J., Aupperlee, J .L. & Patil, SA (2003). The developmental context

62

of school satisfaction: Schools as psychologically healthy environments. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, 206-221.

Baker, J .A., Dilly, L.J., & Lacey, C. (2003). Creating community-oriented classrooms:
Nurturing development and learning. In C. Howes (Ed.), Teaching four to eight
year olds: Literacy, math, multiculturalism, and classroom community (pp. 1-24).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Baker, J .A., Home, A., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1999). Project A.C. T. Early: Addressing
the context of teaching for young students at-risk. Grant no. R305T990330,
Institute for At-Risk Children, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,
United States Department of Education.

Baker, J .A., Kamphaus, R.W., Home, A., & Winsor, A. (2006). Evidence for a
population-based service delivery model of behavioral prevention and
intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 31-46.

Baker, J .A., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (1997). Schools as caring communities:
A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review, 26, 586-602.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, DA. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1 173-1 182.

Battistich, V., & Horn, A. (1997). The relationships between students’ sense of their

school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American
Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the
Child Development Project: Early ﬁndings from an ongoing multisite
demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 12-35.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school
intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during
middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 243-262.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school
communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151 .

Battistich, V., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Schaps, E. (1991). The Child Development
Project: A comprehensive program for the development of prosocial character. In
W.M. Kurtines & J .L. Gewritz (Eds), Handbook of moral behavior and
development: Vol. 3 Application (pp. 1-34). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school,
and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

63

Bender, T.A. (1997). Assessment of subjective well-being during childhood and
adolescence. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning,
achievement, and adjustment (pp. 199-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bess, K.D., Fisher, A.T., Sonn, C.C., & Bishop, BJ. (2002). Psychological sense of
community: Theory, research, and application. In A.T. Fisher, C.C. Sonn, & B.J.
Bishop (Eds), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and
implications (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Birch, S., & Ladd, G.W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early
school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Volume 1, Attachment. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Bryk, A.S., & Driscoll, ME. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical foundations,
contextual inﬂuences, and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI:
National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., & Holland, PB. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Caldwell, G.P., & Ginther, D.W. (1996). Differences in learning styles of low
socioeconomic status for high and low achievers. Education, 117, 141-147.

Carslon, E.A., & Stroufe, LA. (1995). Contribution of attachment theory to
developmental psychology: In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds), Developmental
psychopathology: Theories and methods, Volume 1 (pp. 581-617). New York,
NY: Wiley.

Christenson, S.L., & Buerkle, K. (1999). Families as educational partners for children’s
school success: Suggestions for school psychologists. In C.R. Reynolds & T.
Gutkin (Eds) The handbook of school psychology (3rd edition, pp. 709-744). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J ., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, LS. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3r edition). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

64

Connell, J .P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system
processes across the lifespan. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds), The self in
transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Connell, J .P., & Wellbom, J .G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe
(Eds), Minnesota Symposium of Child Psychology, Volume 22 (pp 43-77).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cowen, EL. (2000). Now that we all know that primary prevention in mental health is
great, what is it? Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 5-16.

Cunningham, W.G., & Corderio, P.A. (2000). Educational administration: A problem
based approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dalton, J .H., Elias, M.J., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Community psychology: Linking
individuals and communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, RM. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self—determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Dew, T., & Huebner, ES. (1994). Adolescents’ perceived quality of life: An exploratory
investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 185-199.

Dewey, J. (1970). Democracy and education. In S.M. Cahn (Ed.), The philosophical
foundations of education (pp. 203-221). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
(Originally published in 1916).

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

Doll, 8., & Lyon, MA. (1998). Risk and resilience: Implications for the delivery of
educational and mental health services in schools. School Psychology Review, 27,
348-363.

Elias, M., Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Frey, K.S., Greenberg, M.T., Haynes, N.M.,
Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M.E., & Shriver, T.P. (1997). Promoting social and
emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Epstein, J .L. (1981). Patterns of classroom participation, student attitudes, and
achievements. In J .L. Epstein & P.W. Jackson (Eds), The Quality of School Life
(pp. 21-43). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Epstein, J .L., & McPartland, J .M. (1976). The concept and measurement of the quality of
school life. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 15-30.

65

Erickson, EH. (1963). Childhood and society (2"d edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

Pagan, T.K., & Wise, PS. (2000). School psychology: Past, present, and future (2"“
edition). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Fine, M. (I 986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school.
Teachers College Record, 8 7, 393-409.

Fogle, L., Huebner, E.S., & Laughlin, J .E. (2002). The relationships between
temperament and life satisfaction in early adolescence: Cognitive and behavioral
mediation models. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 373-392.

Gardener, J. (1992). Building community. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and
frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 30, 749-767.

Gilman, R., & Huebner, ES. (2000). Review of life satisfaction measures for adolescents.
Behavior Change, 17, 178-195.

Gilman, R., & Huebner, ES. (2003). A review of life satisfaction research with children
and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 192-205.

Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S., & Laughlin, J .E. (2000). A ﬁrst study of the Multidimensional
Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale with adolescents. Social Indicators Research,
52, 135—160.

Good, T.L., & Brophy, J .E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6“ edition). New York, NY:
Harper Collins.

Good, T.L., & Brophy, J .E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (91;: edition). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the
study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177-196.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:
Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,
21-43.

Goodenow, C., & Grady, KB. (1992). The relationship of school belonging and friends’
values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of

66

Experimental Education, 62, 60-71.

Green, SB. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.

Greenspoon, P.J., & Saklofske, DH. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well
being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54, 81-108.

Greenspoon, P.J., & Saklofske, DH. (1997). Validity and reliability of the
Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale with Canadian children.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 15, 138-155.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J .F . (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, 94, 328-355.

Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, RC. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory

of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-
638.

Heaven, P. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and satisfaction with life among
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 489-492.

Hillery, GA. (1955). Deﬁnitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociological,
20, 194-204.

Howes, C. (2000). Socio-emotional climate in child care, teacher-child relationships, and
children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191-203.

Huberty, C.J., DiStefano, C., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1997). Behavioral clustering of school
children. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 105-134.

Huebner, ES. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life
satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158.

Huebner, E.S. (1991a). Correlates of life satisfaction in children. School Psychology
Quarterly, 6, 103-111.

Huebner, E.S. (1991b). Initial development of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale.
School Psychology International, 12, 231-240.

Huebner, ES. (1997). Life satisfaction and happiness. In G. Bear, K. Minke, & A.
Thomas (Eds), Children ’s Needs 11: Development, problems, and alternatives
(pp. 271-278). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Huebner, E.S., & Alderman, G.L. (1993). Convergent and discriminant validation of a
children’s life satisfaction scale: Its relationship to self- and teacher-reported

67

psychological problems and school functioning. Social Indicators Research, 30,
71-82.

Huebner, E.S., Ash, C., & Laughlin, J.E. (2001). Life experiences, locus of control, and
school satisfaction in adolescence. Social Indicators Research 55, 167-183.

Huebner, E.S., Drane, W., & Valois, RF. (2000). Levels and demographic correlates of
adolescent life satisfaction reports. School Psychology International, 21, 281-292.

Huebner, E.S., & McCullough, G. (2000). Correlates of school satisfaction among
adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 331-335.

Hughes, J .N., Cavell, T.A., & Jackson, T. (1999). Inﬂuence of teacher-student
relationship on childhood aggression: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 28, 173-184.

Isherwood, G.B., & Hammah, J.A. (1981). School life: A conceptual model, or where
you stand depends on where you Sit. In J .L. Epstein & P.W. Jackson (Eds), The
Quality of School Life (pp. 21-43). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Johnson, J .A., Dupuis, V.L., Musial, D., & Hall, GE. (1994). Introduction to the
foundations of American education (9m edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jubala, K.A., Bishop, K.D., & F alvey, MA. (1995). Creating a supportive classroom
environment. In M.A. Falvey (Ed.) Inclusive and Heterogeneous Schooling:
Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction (pp. 111-129). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.

Kamphaus, R.W., Huberty, C.J., DiStefano, C., & Petosky, MD. (1997). A typology of
teacher rated child behavior for a national U.S. sample. Journal of A bnormal
Child Psychology, 25, 253-263.

Kavale, K.A., & Fomess, SR. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C.R.
Reynolds & T.B. Gutkin (Eds), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 984
1024). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Kumpfer, KL. (1999). Factor and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience
framework. In M.D. Glantz, & J .L. Johnson (Eds), Stress, risk, and resilience in
children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 19-63).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, V.E., & Smith, J .B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young
adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American
Educational Research Journal, 3 7, 907-45.

Leung, J .P., & Zhang, L. (2000). Modeling life satisfaction of Chine adolescents in Hong

68

Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 99-104.
Lezak, MD. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Lochman, J .E., White, K.J., & Wayland, K.K. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral assessment
and treatment with aggressive children. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and
adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Lorin, RP. (2000). Theoretical and evaluation issues in the promotion of wellness and
the protection of “well enough”. In D. Cicchetti, I. Sandler, & R.P. Weissberg
(Eds), The Promotion of Wellness in Children and Adolescents (pp. 1-27).
Washington DC: CWLA Press.

Lyon, GR. (1996). Learning disabilities. In E.J. Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds), Child
psychopathology (pp. 390-435). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mash, E.J., & Dozois, D.J.A. (1996). In E.J. Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds), Child
psychopathology (pp. 3-62). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Masten, AS. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite
risk and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds) Risk and resilience in inner
city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Masten, A.S. & Coatsworth, J .D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successﬁil children.

American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.

Maton, KL (1990). Meaningful involvement in instrumental activity and well-being:
Studies of older adolescents and at-risk teenagers. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 18, 297-320.

McCullough, G., Huebner, E.S., & Laughlin, J .E. (2000). Life events, self-concept, and
adolescents’ positive subjective well-being. Psychology in the Schools, 3 7, 281-
290.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A deﬁnition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Milstein, M., & Henry, DA. (2000). Spreading resiliency: Making it happen for schools
and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

69

Neto, F. (1993). The satisfaction with life scale: Psychometric properties in an
adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 125-134.

Newcomb, M.P., Bentler, P.M., & Collins, C. (1986). Alcohol use and dissatisfaction
with self and life: A longitudinal analysis of young adults. Journal of Drug Issues,
14, 879-898.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional
arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215-230.

Okun, M.A., Braver, M.W., & Weir, RM. (1990). Grade level differences in school
satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 22, 419-427.

Osterrnan, KB. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323-367.

Phillips, D.L. (1993). Looking backward: A critical appraisal of communitarian thought.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pianta, RC. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R.C., & Walsh, DJ. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing
sustaining relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.

Raphael, D., Rukholm, E., Brown, 1., Hill-Bailey, P., & Donato, E. (1996). The quality
of life proﬁle-adolescent version: Background, description, and initial
validation. Journal of A dolescent Health, 19, 366-375.

Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children
(BASC). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Roeser, R.W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, TC. (1996). Perceptions of the school
psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral

functioning in schools: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Roth, W.M., & Lee, Y.J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacyz” Cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 186-232.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In
M.S. Kent & J .E. Rolf (Eds), Primary prevention of psychopathology (pp. 49-

70

74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, EL. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Sarason, SB. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community
psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, SB. (1986). The emergence of a conceptual center. Journal of Community
Psychology, 14, 405-407.

Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). School as a caring community: A key
to character education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), The construction of children ’s
character: Ninety-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education
(pp. 127-139). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Schaps, E., Lewis, G, Watson, M. (1997). Building classroom communities. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 27, 14-18.

Schaps, E., & Solomon, D. (1990). Schools and classrooms as caring communities.
Educational Leadership, 48, 38-42.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.

Sheridan, S.M., & Gutkin, TE. (2000). The ecology of school psychology: Examining
and changing our paradigm for the 21St century. School Psychology Review, 29,
485-502.

Shin, D.C., & Johnson, D.M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the
quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475-492.

Shippen, M.E., Houchins, D.E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A comparison of two
direct reading instruction programs for urban middle school students. Remedial
and Special Education, 26, 175-182.

Shouse, RC. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conﬂict, congruence, and
implications for student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, I , 47-68.

Sizer, T. (1997). The meanings of “public education.” In J .I. Goodlad & T.J. McManon
(Eds), The public purpose of education and schooling (pp. 33-40). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, D.C., Adelman, H.S., Nelson, P., Taylor, L., & Phares, V. (1987). Students’
perceptions of control at school and problem behavior and attitudes. Journal of

71

School Psychology, 25, 167-176.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district
study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development
project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3-51.

Solomon, D., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (1990). Creating caring school
and classroom communities for all students. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W.
Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds), Restructuring for caring effective education: An
administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 41-60). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1992). Creating a
caring community: Educational practices that promote children’s prosocial
development. In F.K. Oser, A. Dick, & J .L. Patry (Eds), Effective and responsible
teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 383-396). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating

classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 719-748.

Steinberg, J .A., & Silverman, M.M. (1987). Preventing mental disorders. Rockville, MD:
US. Department of Health and Human Services.

Terry, T., & Huebner, ES. (1995). The relationship between self-concept and life
satisfaction in children. Social Indicators Research, 35, 39-52.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Valios, R.F., Zullig, K.J., Huebner, E.S., & Drane, J .W. (2001). Relationship between life
satisfaction and violent behaviors among adolescents. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 25, 353-366.

Vessels, G.G. (1998). Character and community development: A school planning and
teacher training handbook. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1994). Educational resilience in inner
cities. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordon (Eds), Educational resilience in inner-city
America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 45-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wentzel, KR. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of
parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202-209.

72

Worsley, P. (1987). The new introducing sociology. Ringwood, Australia: Penguin.

Wright, W.E., & Jesness, CF. (1981). Quality of school life, school problem behavior,
and juvenile delinquency. In J.L. Epstein & P.W. Jackson (Eds), The quality of
school life (pp. 21-43). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Ysseldyke, J ., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., Telzrow, C. (1997).
School psychology: Blueprint for training and practice 11. Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.

Zins, J .E., Elias, M.J., Greenberg, M.T., & Weissberg, RP. (2000). Promoting social and
emotional competence in children. In K.M. Minke & G.C. Bear (Eds), Preventing
school problems — Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work
(pp. 71-99). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Zullig, K.J., Valios, R.F., Huebner, E.S., & Drane, J .W. (2001). Relationship between

perceived life satisfaction and adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 25, 353-366.

73

   

llililjjiijljijlfilly