Upper secondary school students’ perceptions of teacher socialization practices and reports of school adjustment

Abstract

Lack of adjustment or school failure is of concern to educators, child welfare workers, educational, and school psychologists as well as parents, but there are few studies on this aspect of education, especially among late adolescents. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on teachers as socialization agents as an independent variable in adolescents’ school adjustment. The present study was conducted to explore how upper secondary school students’ perceptions of teacher socialization practices were related to motivation for continued education, school alienation, intention to quit school, truancy, and class absence. The sample consisted of Norwegian adolescents aged 15- to 18-years-old (n = 564) in vocational and general educational courses from one upper secondary school. Perceptions of teacher socialization practices accounted for unique variances in school adjustment. Of the teacher socialization variables, academic support best explained variances in school adjustment. The findings suggest that the associations between teachers as socializing agents and motivation for continued education were relatively strong, but the other associations were relatively modest. The limitations and implications of this study are discussed.

Keywords

late adolescents school adjustment student perceptions teacher socialization teacher-student relationship upper secondary school

School is a powerful institution in the everyday and future lives of adolescents in most industrialized countries, and lack of adjustment or school failure is of concern to educators, child welfare workers, educational and school psychologists, as well as parents (Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Gilligan, 1998). Internationally, lack of adjustment or school failure is a concern to school psychology, because the field is devoted to providing services that help students to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally (Cook, Jimerson, & Begeny, 2010). Internationally, lack of adjustment in the late adolescent period includes dropout, reduced motivation, increased class absence, truancy, and alienation (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Shoho & Petrisky, 1996). Moreover, although it is important to identify factors that promote school adjustment (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004), there are few studies on this aspect of education, especially among late adolescents (Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, & McGregor, 2006). For this reason, the present study explored school adjustment in late adolescence.

The aim of the study was to explore late adolescent students’ reports of school adjustment in relation to their perceptions of teacher support (emotional andacademic), behavioural monitoring, and psychological control. Theory and research in the field of family socialization have argued that healthy development is maximized in contexts in which individuals are positively supported, exposed to regulating behavioural forces, and have their psychological autonomy strengthened (Barber, 1997a; Barber & Olsen, 1997; Thuen, 2007). Teacher-student relationships certainly exist within different cultures, although the way in which these relationships function across cultures and ages may differ (Chen, 2008; Chong, Huan, Quek, You, & Ang, 2010; Davidson, Demaray, Malecki, Ellonen, & Koriamäki, 2008). Theoretical models developed to explain how teachers promote student behaviour and attitudes (e.g. self-determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 2000) are quite similar to family socialization models, and empirical findings are beginning to provide support for these models (Bru, Stephens, & Torsheim, 2002; Thuen, 2007). However, despite the fact that researchers have demonstrated that teachers can provide key socialization experiences, the importance of each of these various experiences as indicators of different kinds of development in different cultures, is not known and more research is needed (Barber & Olsen, 2004; Davidson et al., 2008).

The present study addresses important behavioural and emotional aspects of students’ involvement in schooling, and school adjustment is defined as a concept including: (a) students’ intentions of dropping out, (b) class absence, (c) truancy, (d) changes in motivational orientation towards further schooling, and (e) alienation from school.

Teachers as socialisers of school adjustment

This study focuses on critical dimensions of teacher socialization: support (emotional and academic), monitoring and autonomy granting.

Emotional support refers to approval and an explicitly caring manner. Close and supportive relationships with teachers are presumed to help students to feel connected to and have positive feelings about teachers and school in general (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Eccles, Early, Fraser, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997). The level of support provided by a teacher is likely to affect the level to which he/she is able to influence student behaviour and attitudes. Children tend to internalize positive school-related values and goals in a developmental context characterized by warmth and care, such as that provided by a positive teacher (Wentzel, 2002). Previous research has indicated that students who feel emotionally supported by their teachers are more likely to experience social and emotional adjustment or adaption (Chong et al., 2010; Murray & Greenberg, 2000), positive motivational orientation (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Wentzel, 1997), a sense of control, autonomy, and engagement in school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006) as well as meaningfulness of schoolwork (Thuen & Bru, 2000). Research on middle and secondary schools indicates that high emotional support scores are associated with less misbehaviour and fewer discipline problems (Bru et al., 2002; Murdock, 1999; Thuen & Bru, 2000; Thuen, Bru, & Ogden, 2007). However, as children grow older they may rely less on teachers for support (Chen, 2008). Such needs may then be better met by others, for example by romantic partners or friends. As children mature into late adolescence, they may also have acquired definite beliefs, attitudes, and motivational sets regarding schooling, which can somewhat ‘neutralize’ the influence of teachers.

Teachers may also support their students academically, by helping them to perform well and by recognizing good performances (Bru et al., 2002). One can argue that academic support highlights the quality of the teaching. However, a teacher’s ability to teach well is an important factor in establishing a positive relationship with students (Thuen et al., 2007). Moreover, such support is assumed to motivate students to succeed instead of becoming frustrated and withdrawn, too involved in off-task activities, distressed, or alienated (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998; Thuen et al., 2007). Research has indicated that upper secondary school teachers mainly exert their influence by academic support (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pellitier, 2006). Task demands tend to increase with age. At this period of life students probably form relationships with teachers that are functionally related to the task of schooling.

Teachers’ monitoring is here understood as adequate rules and behavioural regulation at school and during breaks. Previous research indicates that successful teachers carefully monitor schoolwork and behaviour (Thuen, 2007). The degree of teacher monitoring is assumed to influence self-regulation, impulsivity, risk-taking, and openness to influence from other sources (Barber, 1997b). Furthermore, according to self-determination theory, a developmentally appropriate amount of structure, including clear rules and consistent expectations, will foster adolescent strategies and capacities to perform well (Connell, 1990), thereby boosting competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Empirical findings suggest that the more confident adolescents are about their general level of competence, the more likely they are to engage in various aspects of school (Caraway & Tucker, 2003). Findings among younger adolescents have also revealed associations between teacher monitoring and student engagement, academic achievement, less academic alienation, and lower levels of problem behaviour (although to varying degrees; see Bru et al., 2002; Eccles et al., 1997; Thuen & Bru, 2000).

Teachers’ autonomy granting refers to the amount of freedom a student is given to determine his/her behaviour at school, exemplified by teachers who empower students to participate in rule-setting and school activities. Individuals are likely to function better in institutional settings that facilitate self-direction (Barber, 2002). This view is supported by self-determination theory that holds that if teachers allow opportunities for decision making and participation, students are more likely to successfully adjust to school and vice versa (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Mid- and late-adolescents in particular may value teachers who promote democratic and respectful interaction (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007). Lack of choice in the classroom seems to undermine motivation and desirable behaviour, leading to disengagement and withdrawal, while autonomy granting appears to be beneficial for motivation and engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Eccles et al., 1997; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). Literature on autonomy granting has, however, been somewhat eclipsed by that on teacher control (Bru et al., 2002); thus, the associations with autonomy granting are less clear.

The purpose of the study is to fill the research gap by exploring late adolescent students’ reports of school adjustment in relation to their perceptions of teachers’ support, behavioural monitoring, and psychological control. Overall, there have been few studies of older adolescents, so it is unclear whether there are associations between teachers as socialization agents and school adjustment in upper secondary school (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006).

Method

Sample

The total sample comprised 272 boys and 288 girls (n = 564, four students did not indicate their gender) from one upper-secondary school in western Norway. The questionnaire was distributed to the 15- to 18-year-old students three months after the start of the 2004–2005 school year. The response rate was 75.4%. Twelve respondents were excluded due to missing data. With the exception of attendance (absence) data, which was provided by the school at the end of the school year, all data are based on adolescent reports.

Ethical considerations

Approval for the studies was obtained from the Data Inspectorate of Norway (2004) and the principal at the school prior to collecting the data. Each home was informed about the study to allow parents to stop their child from participating, if under theage of 16; students themselves could also refuse to participate. Informed consentwas obtained from all participating students and they were assured anonymity.

School adjustment measures

The Improved Motivation for Continued Education scale (α = 0.90) measured students’ perceptions of whether their school experiences in the previous year had had a positive influence on their motivation to continue their schooling. The scale had five items; responses were coded so that high scores indicate a high level of positive motivation. The School Alienation scale (α = 0.89) consisted of three items and measured students’ perception of whether their school experiences in the previous year had had a negative impact of their desire to continue their schooling. Responses were coded so that the more alienation reported by the student, the higher the score. The Intention to Quit School scale included three items (α = 0.73) revealing that the stronger the intention to quit school, the higher the score. All three scales had a four-step scoring format with the following response alternatives: ‘disagree strongly’, ‘disagree a little’, ‘agree a little’ and ‘agree strongly’. The factor solution for items assessing school adjustment, established by confirmatory factor analyses, is documented in previous research (Studsrød & Bru, 2009). See Appendix A for wording and items. Truancy was assessed by one question regarding how often the student played truant. The response alternatives were: ‘never’, ‘seldom’, ‘sometimes’, and ‘often. ‘ Information about single class absences during the previous school year was provided by the school administration and revealed the number of lessons that students had missed in addition to whole school days.

Table 1.

Percentage distribution, scoring range, mean scores and standard deviations for responses to scales measuring a) the dependent variables and b) teacher-socialization

	Disagree strongly	Disagree a little	Agree a little	Strongly agree	M	SD	Scoring range
a)
Improved motivation for continued education	10. 5%	28. 4%	43. 6%	17. 5%	2. 66	0. 73	1–4
School alienation	56. 2%	28. 3%	10. 3%	5. 2%	1. 72	0. 76	1–4
Intention to quit school	63%	19. 2%	13. 2%	4. 6%	1. 70	0. 77	1–4
	Never	Seldom	Sometimes	Weekly
Truancy	41. 8%	33. 6%	21%	3. 6%	0. 86	0. 868	0–3
	None	0%–5%	5%–10%	> 10%
Class absence	4. 9%	80. 2%	12. 6%	2. 2%	29. 66	31. 29	0–1140
b)
Teacher emotional support	6. 1%	24. 6%	49. 2%	20. 1%	2. 76	0. 62	1–4
Teacher academic support	3. 8%	19. 3%	54. 1%	22. 9%	2. 87	0. 55	1–4
Teacher monitoring	3. 9%	18. 6%	43. 8%	33. 6%	2. 99	0. 69	1–4
Teacher autonomy-granting	10. 2%	40. 0%	41. 4%	8. 4%	2. 49	0. 62	1. 4

Disagree strongly: Index score in low ¼ of scoring range.

Disagree a little: Index score in middle low ¼ of scoring range.

Agree a little: Index score in middle high ¼ of scoring range.

Strongly agree: Index score in high ¼ of scoring range.

Teacher socialization measures

Students’ perceptions of teacher-socialization practices were assessed by slightly modified versions of scales that were previously tested and developed (Bru et al., 2002; Thuen & Bru, 2000). Bru et al. (2002) documented acceptable construct validity for the scales by using a combination of explorative and confirmative factor analyses. All questions regarding perceived socialization had the following four-step scoring format: ‘disagree strongly’, ‘disagree a little’, ‘agree a little’, and ‘agree strongly’. The Teachers’ Emotional Support scale (α = 0.83) consisted of five items and measured the affection and trust shown by teachers. The Teachers’ Academic Support scale (α = 0.85) consisted of seven items that measured pedagogical support from teachers. The Teachers’ Autonomy Granting scale (α = 0.81) comprised five items. The scale assessed the amount of student influence. The Teachers’ Monitoring scale (α = 0.81) consisted of three items on the number of clear rules and adequate feedback on rule-breaking. Responses were coded so that high scores indicate a high level of teacher support, monitoring, and autonomy-granting. See Appendix A for further item descriptions and factor loadings.

Control and grouping variables

Gender, course of study, self-selected course of study, grade in Norwegian and family financial situation were included as control variables. As demonstrated previously, some gender and age differences have been reported in the literature. In many countries, research indicates that female students are more successful at school than their male counterparts, e.g. score higher on achievement, intrinsic motivation, and have a lower likelihood of dropout (Freudenthaler, Spinath, & Neubauer, 2008; Markussen & Sandberg, 2005; Markussen, Sandberg, Lødding, & Frøseth, 2008). Gender differences have also been reported in the socialization literature around the world (Baker, 2006; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

Course of study was included because previous research indicates that the quality of school experience as well as dropout rates vary according to the type of course (i.e. academic, non-academic, or vocational; Markussen et al., 2008; Schneider, Csikszentmihalyi, & Knauth, 1995). A general educational course was assigned the value 1 and a vocational course 2. It has been suggested that if students want to study something else, this moderates the influence of contextual factors and leads to maladaptive behaviour at school (Koerhuis, 2007). We therefore included one question about whether the course of study was self elected: ‘I myself wanted to attend this particular course of study’. Achievement scores are associated with school adjustment (Luyten, Bosker, Dekkers, & Derks, 2003; Marks, 2007; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000) as well as perceptions of teachers, thus the analyses included prior academic achievement, measured as the grade in the Norwegian language. Research shows that the socio-economic backgrounds of students is associated with a range of school related outcomes (e.g. Hægeland, Kirkebøen, Raaum, & Salvanse, 2004) and it may also influence the perceptions of teachers. Therefore the family financial situation was included and based on one item measuring the student’s perception of his/her family economic situation in relation to that of other Norwegian families. The adolescents indicated the degree of agreement with the item using a four-point scale, scored in such a way that higher scores indicated a better family economic situation.

Procedures

The selected statistical tools were product moment correlations, exploratory factor analysis, variance component analysis and multivariate General Linear Model (GLM) analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (Norusis, 2002). GLM analysis was chosen because this approach allows analyses of several dependent variables simultaneously and thus also estimation of multivariate associations between them and the independent variables. The GLM assigns partial Eta as a measure of effect size.

Results

Students’ ratings of school-adjustment measures are presented in detail in Table 1. Overall, the results revealed that most students tended to agree (a little and strongly) with the questions measuring perceptions of improved motivation for continued education, although a number of them opted for the second lowest scoring alternative. A majority of the students tended to report strong disagreement with the questions assessing school alienation, although almost two out of ten agreed (a little and strongly) with most items on school alienation. Around 5% strongly agreed with most items assessing intention to quit school. Approximately six out of ten reported playing truant. Absence reported by the school followed asimilar pattern. Most students had absence from single lessons (~95%).

Table 1 also provides descriptive information about perceived teacher-socialization practices. A majority of the students tended to opt for the two most positive response alternatives on the teacher-socialization scales, except for teachers’ autonomy-granting, where there were approximately as many negative (the two most negative response alternatives) as positive scores. The scale assessing teachers’ monitoring had the highest mean score, while that evaluating teacher autonomy-granting had the lowest.

The present study aimed to explore associations between students’ perceptions of teacher socialization practices and their reports of school adjustment. As can be seen in Table 2, teacher socialization variables explained unique and significant levels of variance in all of the school adjustment measures. Socialization variables explained most variances in improved motivation for continued education (15.2%), followed by school alienation (8.1%). Socialization variables explained relatively modest amounts of variance in class absence (1.7%), intention to quit (3%) and truancy (4%).

Table 2.

Results from multivariate GLM (Partial Eta) for associations between school adjustment factors, teacher-socialization variables and control variables

	Multivariate	Improved motivation for continued education	School alienation	Intention to quit school	Truancy	Class absence
Control variables
Gender	0. 11	0. 03	-0. 03	-0. 03	0. 04	0. 03
Course of study	0. 22**	0. 10*	-0. 07	0. 13**	-0. 06	-0. 03
Year of schooling	0. 28**	-0. 23**	0. 13**	0. 09*	0. 17**	0. 02
Self-selected course of study	0. 24**	0. 18**	-0. 13**	-0. 13**	-0. 15**	-0. 15**
Grade in Norwegian	0. 30**	0. 08	-0. 16**	-0. 10*	-0. 21**	-0. 26**
Family financial situation	0. 10	0. 04	0. 02	0. 06	0. 09	0. 05
Teacher socialization variables
Teachers’ academic support	0. 25**	0. 19**	-0. 20**	-0. 09*	-0. 11*	-0. 10*
Teachers’ autonomy granting	0. 13	0. 12*	-0. 01	-0. 04	-0. 00	-0. 00
Teachers’ monitoring	0. 11	0. 09*	-0. 03	-0. 00	-0. 06	-0. 03
Teachers’ emotional support	0. 12	0. 09*	-0. 02	-0. 04	-0. 08	-0. 00
R ²		0. 347	0. 173	0. 950	0. 182	0. 127
Unique R² for teacher socialization variables		0. 152	0. 081	0. 030	0. 040	0. 017

Note: ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01.

When investigating the bivariate associations among the study variables, Pearson Product-moment correlations were computed. Improved motivation for continued education showed statistically significant associations with teacher’s academic support (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), teacher’s autonomy granting (r = 0.39, p < 0.01), teachers’ monitoring (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), and teachers’ emotional support (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). School alienation showed significant associations with teacher’s academic support (r = -0. 33, p < 0.01), teacher’s autonomy granting (r = -0.16, p < 0.01), teachers’ monitoring (r = -0.16, p < 0.01), and teachers’ emotional support (r = -0. 20, p < 0.01). Intention to quit school showed statistical significant associations with teacher’s academic support (r = -0.20, p < 0.01), teacher’s autonomy granting (r = -0.14, p < 0.01), as well as teachers’ emotional support (r = -0.15, p < 0.01). Truancy revealed significant associations with teacher’s academic support (r = -0.27, p < 0.01), teacher’s autonomy granting (r = -0.16, p < 0.01), and teachers’ emotional support (r = -0.22, p < 0.01). Class absence was only statistical significantly associated with teacher’s academic support (r = -0.16, p < 0.01), and teachers’ emotional support (r = -0.11, p < 0.01).

Also as shown in Table 2, when testing the associations between perceived teacher socialization variables and school adjustment variables, as well as controlling for the effect of all independent variables, only teachers’ academic support revealed a statistically significant multivariate association. High academic support scores were significantly associated with high scores for improved motivation to continue education and low scores for school alienation, intention to quit school, truancy, and class absence. Moreover, despite the fact that the other socialization variables had no significant multivariate associations, the analyses revealed a tendency among students who reported that their teachers granted autonomy, were emotionally supportive, and provided a high level of monitoring to also have higher scores for improved motivation to continue their education.

Most control variables showed significant multivariate associations with school adjustment. Roughly speaking, the findings indicated better school adjustment among younger students, students with higher grades in Norwegian, and studentsattending a self-selected course. Students in vocational courses showed a significant, albeit relatively modest, tendency to have higher scores on improved motivation and intention to quit school.

The measurement of truancy was at ordinal level, and in parametric analyses the inclusion of such a variable can lead to erroneous results. Parametric analyses for this variable were therefore followed by non-parametric correlations (Spearman correlations) and the results corresponded well. Thus there were no indications that the measurement level of truancy significantly affected the results.

Discussion

This study explored how late adolescents students reports of school adjustment was related to how they perceived their teachers as socialization agents. The results revealed that perceived teacher socialization variables accounted for unique amounts of variances in all five aspects of school adjustment, but that the effect sizes were relatively small for class absence, intention to quit school and truancy (1.7%, 3%, and 4%, respectively). Teacher socialization practices explained more of the variances in improved motivation and school alienation (15.2% and 8.1%, respectively). The associations may suggest that the role of teachers is relatively significant in relation to enhancing motivation for continued education and preventing school alienation, which is in accordance with previous research (Legault et al., 2006; Wentzel, 2002). Furthermore, the computed effect sizes may imply that teacher seems to have relatively little impact when it comes to class absence, intention to quit school and truancy.

The descriptive results revealed that a majority of students had high scores on perceived teacher socialization, with the exception of teachers’ autonomy granting, where there were approximately as many negative as positive scores. On the whole, this indicates that the majority of students’ experiences of their teachers are positive, although a number of them opted for the lowest, and second lowest scoring alternative. While the majority of the students had positive adjustment scores, most students had played truant and between 5% and 10% reported being alienated or had considered dropping out, which is a reason for some concern. In this way the findings are in accordance with previous results in many countries indicating school adjustment problems among adolescents (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Otis et al., 2005; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Statistics Norway, 2008).

When exploring the importance of students’ perceptions of different aspects ofteacher socialization for school adjustment, perceived academic support from teachers was most closely related with school adjustment. The findings may suggest that, compared to middle school teachers, upper secondary school teachers mainly exert influence through academic support (Legault et al., 2006). In line with research among younger students (Bru et al., 2002; Roeser et al., 1998; Thuen & Bru, 2000; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006), results from this study indicate that a high level of perceived academic support from teachers is associated with improved motivation for continued education. Moreover, high academic support scores were also associated with low scores for school alienation, truancy, intention to quit school, and class absence (although the latter three were associations relatively moderate). Thus students who perceive their teachers as academic supportive may be more likely make sustained efforts, instead of becoming frustrated and withdrawing or engaging in off-task activities and thus less likely to experience alienation from school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Roeser et al., 1998; Thuen et al., 2007). On the other hand, the positive correlation may also work the other way around, for instance that motivated and enthusiastic students affect the behaviour of teachers, in that they more frequently approach their teachers, asking for help and feedback, etc.

The findings revealed no significant multivariate associations of teachers’ autonomy granting, monitoring, and emotional support with the dependent variables when analysed simultaneously. Although, several significant (but relatively modest) bivariate correlations were found for associations with improved motivation for continued education, findings give limited support to theoretical notions and previous research among younger students indicating that autonomy granting, behavioural monitoring, and emotional support is important for school adjustment among late adolescents (Barber, 1997a; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Eccles et al., 1997; Reeve et al., 2004; Roeser et al., 1998; Thuen & Bru, 2000).

Our results suggest that teachers’ autonomy granting, behavioural monitoring, and emotional support are of relatively low importance for school adjustment among upper secondary school students. However, it is likely that adequate emotional support, autonomy granting, and behavioural monitoring are necessary for good academic support. Previous research has, for example, shown that liking one’s teachers appears to be related to the quality of teaching (Lightbody & Siann, 1996). The results also indicate that the associations between perceived emotional support and school adjustment are likely to be reciprocal and difficult to study in a cross-sectional design.

It is reasonable to assume that the variations are relatively modest because students enter upper secondary school with certain predispositions about school which stem from prior experiences in school and prior experiences of relationships with teachers. School adjustment and disengagement typically occur during upper secondary school, but the process may begin much earlier. As the report of the US Department of Education states when publishing dropout prevention the trajectory of a young person progressing in school begins in elementary grades (Dynarski et al., 2008). The findings may also reflect the fact that individual and context related factors interact (Bugental & Goodenow, 1998); for example, older adolescents may act in a more self-regulatory or self-disciplined manner (Fuligni, Barber, Eccles, & Clements, 2001), suggesting internal motivation for their behaviour. The results may also reflect that older students rely more on peers than teachers. For instance, arguments have been made that truancy is a group phenomenon, especially in adolescence (Reid, 2003). Thus, in addition to being influenced by an array of individual and context related factors, this may make teacher socialization practice less important with relation to school adjustment among older adolescents.

It appears appropriate to highlight the significant and relatively strong multivariate associations between school adjustment and course of study, year of schooling, self-selected course of study and grade in Norwegian language. The associations between these control variables and school adjustment variables were stronger than those between socialization variables, implying that factors other than teacher socialization practices are salient in school adjustment among this age group. Roughly speaking, the results indicated better adjustment among younger students, students attending a self-selected course of study and students earning better grades. These factors are somewhat beyond the influence of teachers but seem to be relatively important.

Finally, some methodological limitations of the present study must be acknowledged. All data were collected at a single point in time—we cannot infer that perceived teacher socialization preceded and are causally related to differences in school adjustment. The results may also reflect the fact that well adjusted students have more positive perceptions of teacher’s socialization variables.

The present study mainly relied on students’ perceptions of their learning context. This design was based on the assumption that individual student constructions of meanings are important mediators between the actual school context and these students’ school related feelings and actions (Roeser & Eccles, 1998; Schunk, 1992). Ryan and Grolnick (1986) hold that it is rather the functional meaning of the environment rather than the environment per se that is of concern when investigating motivation and behaviour. That said, research with other data collection methods is needed to validate the findings.

In addition, measures of socialization practices refer to teachers in general. Since upper secondary-school students typically have multiple teachers in different subjects throughout the day and students’ perceptions of different teachers may differ, this approach has some limitations. However, it is advantageous for our purpose, since the overall perception of teachers is probably more relevant than the relationship with individual teachers when exploring general school attitudes and attendance behaviours as in the present study. The study used a sample from only one school; however, between-school differences in student performance tend to be low in Scandinavian countries (Marks, 2006). Recent studies suggest that students’ perceptions of their learning environment and behaviour vary more within-than between-schools (Anderman, 2002; Bru et al., 2002). Generalizations should be made with caution.

Conclusion and practical implications

The aim of this research was to explore reports of school adjustment among late adolescents in relation to how teachers as socialization agents satisfy students’ needs for support as well as behavioural and psychological control. Although the majority of the students indicated good relationships with teachers, the number of students reporting truancy, alienation as well as dropout intentions gives grounds for some concern. In order to reduce school adjustment problems, preventive interventions identifying at risk students is important, in which both teachers and school psychologists play important roles. Teachers may help by identifying at-risk students and make close relationships with students, including providing good academic support and emphasizing the importance of schooling. The findings imply that there are some room for improvements in teacher socialization practices. The findings also implied that teachers seem to have little impact when it comes to class absence, intention to quit school, and truancy. These findings indicate the needs for further interventions exploring and testing out how schools and school psychologists can meet these challenges. School psychologists are in a unique position to consult with teachers, parents as well as other service providers in order to strengthen the connection between key stakeholders, thereby adding to the expertise of teachers (Cook et al., 2010). School psychologists could make teachers aware of students with motivational problems and the significance of continuing academic support for these students. Moreover, within the educational context, school psychologists may also add to teacher expertise with particular emphasis on at-risk students, by offering supplementary perspectives on student learning and social development and by providing useful skills (e.g. assessment protocols and remedial interventions) that may be used to prevent, reverse, or lessen the severity of school adjustment problems (Cook et al., 2010).

Even though the findings may not totally disregard the other socialization dimensions, they call into question the justification for understanding school adjustment as a process of teacher socialization. Our results raise doubts about the extent to which it is possible for teachers to have a substantial influence on school adjustment through socialization practices alone. Given the associations between school adjustment and the control variables, the results suggest that in educational policy and planning, teacher interventions aimed at improving school adjustment among this age group should only form one part of a multi-faceted approach. Internationally, school psychologists represent vital members of a country’s school system, and as anapplied profession their engagement in systematic reform affords may improve the ways in which adolescents are educated (Cook et al., 2010).

Footnotes

Ingunn Studsrød, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Stavanger, Norway. Her research interest is in the area of school exclusion, and child welfare services. Address: University of Stavanger, Department of Social Studies, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway. Email: Ingunn.studsrod@uis.no

Edvin Bru is a Professor of Educational Psychology, Center for Behavioural Research, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Norway. His research interests are emotional and behavioural problems, social school climate and motivational psychology. Recent work has been published in British Journal of Educational Psychology, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, School Psychology International and Social Psychology of Education. Address: University of Stavanger, Centre for Behavioural Research, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway. Email: Edvin.bru@uis.no

References

Anderman

E. M.

(2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 795–808.

Anderson

Hamilton

R. J.

Hattie

(2004). Classroom climate and motivated behaviour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225.

Attwood

Croll

(2006). Truancy in secondary school: Pupils: Prevalence, trajectories and pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 467–484.

Baker

J. A.

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

Barber

B. K.

(1997a). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in context-connection, regulation, and autonomy in multiple contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 173–177.

Barber

B. K.

(1997b). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in context-the role of connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 5–11.

Barber

B. K.

. (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation and autonomy in the family, school and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 287–315.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(2004). Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1), 3–30.

10.

Bru

Stephens

Torsheim

(2002). Students’ perceptions of class management and reports of their own misbehaviour. Journal of School Psychology, 40(4), 287–307.

11.

Bugental

D. B.

Goodenow

J. J.

Damon

Eisenberg

(1998). Socialization processes. Handbook of child psychology: Social emotional and personality development, (Vol. 3, 5th ed, pp. 389–462). New York, NY: John Wiley.

12.

Caraway

Tucker

C. M.

(2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417–345.

13.

Chen

J. L-L.

(2008). Grade-level differences: Relations of parental, teacher and peer support to academic engagement and acheivement among Hong Kong students. School Psychology International, 29(2), 183–198.

14.

Chong

W. H.

Huan

V. S.

Quek

C. L.

You

L. S.

Ang

R. P.

(2010). Teacher-student relationship: The influence of teacher interpersonal behaviours and perceived belifs about teachers on the school adjustment of low achieving student in Asian Middle schools. School Psychology International, 31(3), 312–328.

15.

Connell

J. P.

Cicchetti

Beeghly

(1990). Context, self and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61–97). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Cook

C. R.

Jimerson

S. R.

Begeny

J. C.

(2010). A model for predicting the presence of school psychology: An international examination of sociocultural, sociopolitical and socioeconomic influences. School Psychology International, 31(4), 438–461.

17.

Croninger

R. G.

Lee

V. E.

(2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 548–581.

18.

Davidson

L. M.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

Ellonen

Koriamäki

(2008). United States and Finnish adolescents’ perceptions of social support: A cross-cultural analysis. School Psychology International, 29(3), 363–375.

19.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The ‘what’ and’ why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

20.

Deci

E. L.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 325–346.

21.

Dynarski

Clarke

Cobb

Finn

Rumberger

Smink

(2008). Dropout prevention: A practice guide (NCEE 208-4025). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

22.

Eccles

J. S.

Early

Fraser

Belansky

McCarthy

(1997). The relation of connection, regulation and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 263–286.

23.

Freudenthaler

H. H.

Spinath

Neubauer

A. C.

(2008). Predicting school achievement in boys and girls. European Journal of Personality, 22, 231–245.

24.

Fuligni

A. J.

Barber

B. L.

Eccles

J. S.

Clements

(2001). Early adolescent peer orientation and adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 28–36.

25.

Furrer

Skinner

E. A.

(2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.

26.

Gilligan

(1998). The importance of schools and teachers in child welfare. Child and Family Social Work, 3, 13–25.

27.

Gregory

Weinstein

R. S.

(2004). Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(4), 405–427.

28.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.

29.

Hægeland

Kirkebøen

L. J.

Raaum

Salvanse

K. G.

. Marks across lower secondary schools in Norway: What can be explained by the composition of pupil and school resources?. Oslo: Rapport 11 Statistisk sentralbyrå.

30.

Koerhuis

M. -J. C.

. (2007). Maladaptive social behaviour of students in secondary vocational education. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

31.

Legault

Green-Demers

Pellitier

(2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582.

32.

Lightbody

Siann

(1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school: The role of gender. Educational Studies, 22(1), 13–26.

33.

Luyten

Bosker

Dekkers

Derks

(2003). Dropout in the lower tracks of Dutch secondary education: Predictor variables and variation among schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(4), 373–411.

34.

Marks

G. N.

(2006). Are between-and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socio-economic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48(1), 21–40.

35.

Marks

G. N.

(2007). Do schools matter for early school leaving? Individual and school influences in Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 429–450.

36.

Markussen

Sandberg

. (2005). Stayere, sluttere og returnerte: Om 9756 ungdommer på Østlandet og deres karriere i videregående opplæring frem til midten av det tredje skoleåret. Oslo: NIFU STEP.

37.

Markussen

Sandberg

Lødding

F.røseth

M. W.

. (2008). Bortvalg og kompetanse : Gjennomføring, bortvalg og kompetanseoppnåelse i videregående opplæring blant 9749 ungdommer som gikk ut av grunnskolen på Østlandet våren 2002. Hovedfunn konklusjoner og implikasjoner fem år etter. Oslo: NIFU STEP.

38.

Murdock

T. B.

(1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 62–75.

39.

Murray

Greenberg

M. T.

(2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 423–445.

40.

Norusis

M. J.

. (2002). SPSS 11. 0 Guide to Data Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

41.

Otis

Grouzet

F. M. E.

Pelletier

L. G.

(2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 170–183.

42.

Pelletier

L. G.

Fortier

M. S.

Vallerand

R. J.

Brière

N. M.

(2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279–306.

43.

Reeve

Jang

(2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.

44.

Reeve

Jang

Carrell

Jeon

Barch

(2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.

45.

Reid

. (2003). Truancy and schools. London: Routledge.

46.

Roeser

R. W.

Eccles

J. S.

(1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(1), 123–158.

47.

Roeser

R. W.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

A. J.

(1998). Academic and emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns and prediction by experience in middle school. Developmental Psychopathology, 10(2), 321–352.

48.

Rumberger

R. W.

Thomas

S. L.

(2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 39–67.

49.

Ryan

R. M.

Grolnick

W. S.

(1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550–558.

50.

Schneider

Csikszentmihalyi

Knauth

Hallinan

M. T.

(1995). Academic challenge, motivation and self-esteem: The daily experiences of students in high schools. Restructuring schools: Promising practices and policies (pp. 175–195). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

51.

Schunk

D. H.

Schunk

D. H.

Meece

J. L.

(1992). Theory and research on student perceptions in the classroom. Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 3–23). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

52.

Shoho

A. R.

Petrisky

I. T.

(1996). The rural school environment and its effect on adolescent alienation. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Reseach Association: New York.

53.

Statistics Norway. (2008). Facts about education in Norway 2008-key figures 2006. Retrieved March 12, 2008 from http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/02/facts/.

54.

Studsrød

Bru

(2009). The role of perceived parental socialization practices in school adjustment among Norwegian upper secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 529–546.

55.

Thuen

. (2007). Learning environment students’ coping styles and emotional and behavioural problems. A study of Norwegian secondary school students. Bergen: University of Bergen.

56.

Thuen

Bru

(2000). Learning environment, meaningfulness of schoolwork and on-task-orientation among Norwegian 9th grade students. School Psychology International, 21(4), 393–413.

57.

Thuen

Bru

Ogden

(2007). Coping styles, learning environment and emotional and behavioural problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(4), 347–368.

58.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.

59.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301.

60.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Chipuer

H. M.

Hanisch

Creed

P. A.

McGregor

(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911–933.

61.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Locke

E. M.

(2007). The socialization of adolescent coping behaviours: Relationships with families and teachers. Journal of Adolescence, 30(1), 1–16.