The relationship between school and classroom climate,and academic achievement: A meta-analysis

Abstract

This study reports two independent meta-analyses on the relationship between (a) classroom climate and academic achievement; and (b) school climate and academic achievement. The analyses were based on extant correlational research studies at the K-12 level that were published between 2000 and 2020. The relationships were analyzed in terms of various moderator variables. The first dataset included 53 research studies focusing on classroom climate and academic achievement, and the second dataset included 37 research studies on school climate and academic achievement. The meta-analyses were carried out with a random effects model. Fisher's effect size was calculated for each study. Publication bias was tested with Egger's linear regression method and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method. We used the Q-test for moderation analyses and I² test for heterogeneity analyses. The results revealed that the mean effect size for the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement was small, while it was medium for the relationship between school climate and academic achievement. The effect sizes regarding classroom climate differed significantly only in terms of the academic area moderator variable, and the effect sizes regarding school climate differed in terms of school area, report type, and unit of analysis. This meta-analysis study confirmed that school climate and classroom climate are significant correlates of academic achievement, and the dataset in this study revealed a greater magnitude of relationship in favor of school climate (although a comparison is not meant in this study). This study suggests that policymakers and practitioners should invest their efforts in promoting sound school climates while maintaining an emphasis on classroom climate components, as the two types of climates are intertwined.

Keywords

school climate classroom climate academic achievement school culture meta-analysis

Introduction

Learning occurs in classroom, school, family, and social environments. Classroom and school environments are where students spend most of their time. In these environments, planned instructional activities are offered. Research has revealed that school and classroom environments, often referred to as school climate and classroom climate, respectively, influence student learning and are associated with better academic performance (Schweig et al., 2019). Since a positive climate is needed for effective schools, improving school and classroom climates has become an aim of initiatives across the world (Koth et al., 2008). Recently, there is a growing interest in promoting positive K-12 school climates, since this is vital for fostering safer, more supportive and more successful schools (Thapa et al., 2013). In the past two decades, classroom climate has been identified as a significant factor contributing to students’ experiences and outcomes, and efforts have been undertaken to improve classroom climate as a means for improving students’ academic performance, well-being, and school quality (Wang et al., 2020).

Providing effective teaching and learning requires an understanding of complex psychological processes, and researchers are working to identify means of improving students’ academic performance (Maxwell et al., 2017). In particular, classroom climate and school climate are two factors thought to be related to academic achievement because they can influence students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral development. There is empirical evidence that school climate affects students’ academic achievement (Brand et al., 2008). Schools with positive climates help students perform better academically (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Students’ perceptions of school climate influence their academic performance both directly and indirectly (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Similarly, classroom climate is related to both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Charalampous & Kokkinos, 2017), including students’ academic, socio-emotional and behavioral skills (Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a great amount of research on the association between school climate and academic achievement as well as classroom climate and academic achievement. However, the link between these climate types and achievement needs further research (Maxwell et al., 2017).

The literature offers conflicting findings and explanations regarding how school climate is related to academic achievement (Berkowitz et al., 2017). While this literature generally indicates a positive relationship (with more favorable perceptions of school climate being associated with higher academic achievement, Greenway, 2017; Priddy, 2018), there are also studies reporting even negative relationships (Berkowitz et al., 2015; Trinidad, 2020). In the same vein, studies on the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement have yielded inconsistent results (Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, some studies report relatively weak relationships (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Bustamante & Hindman, 2019), with others reporting much stronger ones (Malik & Rizvi, 2018; Yang, 2012). The reasons for these inconsistent findings may stem from the characteristics of individual research studies. Thus, this study offers two separate meta-analyses based on correlational studies in the literature. The first meta-analysis examines the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement, and the second examines the relationship between school climate and academic achievement at the K-12 level.

In addition to reporting effect sizes for these relationships, we explore moderator variables that may have contributed to mixed results in the literature. Wang et al. (2020) reported that research design, instrument and other methodological differences impact the nature of findings in regard to classroom climate and students’ outcomes. Accordingly, scale type in classroom climate research was used as a moderator, since certain instruments were widely used in the studies. Additionally, research has revealed different relationships between academic achievement and classroom/school climate depending on the area of achievement (Barksdale et al., 2019; Berkowitz et al., 2015; Dulay & Karadag, 2017; Larocque, 2008; Trinidad, 2020). Thus, achievement area (e.g., reading, math) and scale type for measuring achievement were used as moderators. School level (i.e., primary, middle, or high school) and area (i.e., urban or suburban) were selected as moderator variables because research suggests variability in relations between school/classroom climate and academic achievement in accordance with these variables (Daily et al., 2019; Sulak, 2016). Research has also demonstrated that the magnitude of the relationship between school/classroom climate and academic achievement varies greatly across countries with different Human Development Index (HDI) values (Geleta, 2017; Karadağ et al., 2016), suggesting that HDI may be a moderator of interest. Other moderators included in this study were publication year and report type, as several meta-analyses have revealed that results may be impacted by time and the tendency of studies with major significant findings to be published more readily.

Though one study examined the relationship between classroom climate and student outcomes more broadly (Wang et al., 2020), no meta-analyses have analyzed the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement specifically. The first meta-analysis in this study focuses specifically on this relationship and offers a comprehensive analysis. With regard to school climate and academic achievement, two meta-analysis studies have been published (i.e., Berkowitz et al., 2017; Karadağ et al., 2016); however, these two studies included both school and classroom climate simultaneously. In contrast, the current study analyzed school and classroom climate separately. Specifically, this study aimed to analyze the relationship between academic achievement and classroom climate and the relationship between academic achievement and school climate.

Theoretical framework

Classroom climate and its relationship with academic achievement

Classroom climate refers to perceptions of a classroom's characteristics, or the “personality” of the classroom experienced (López et al., 2018). Despite the significance of classroom climate for shaping teaching and learning, there is not yet consensus on its definition; however, it is widely accepted that classroom climate is a multidimensional concept (Wang et al., 2020). Classroom climate, in broad terms, refers to “the dynamics of classroom interaction, the relationships in the classroom and the nature of the learning environment” (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016, p. 96). The multidimensionality of classroom climate is reflected in the literature in that different elements or components are highlighted by scholars to define or explain the concept.

Positive classroom climates involve clear rules, high academic expectations, and elements such as respect, emotional safety, cooperation, and caring (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016). According to Adelman and Taylor (2005), classroom climate includes concepts such as social attitudes, staff and student morale, power, control, guidance, support and evaluation structures, communicated expectations, competition, safety, orderliness, accountability of demands, curricular and instructional practices, and social system organization, all of which can be grouped into the dimensions of relationship, personal development, and system maintenance and change (Adelman & Taylor, 2005). As the components of classroom climate, Creemers and Reezigt (2005) listed the physical environment of the classroom, an orderly classroom environment, the social system, and teacher expectations for student outcomes. Finally, Wang et al. (2020) highlighted three basic components of classroom climate: instructional support, socio-emotional support, and classroom organization and management. They argued that these components involve classroom interactions, which impact the students’ outcomes.

Classroom climate may either help or hinder students’ learning and academic outcomes. Sometimes referred to as the classroom learning environment, classroom climate is the social environment wherein students learn (Johnson & McClure, 2004). Intervening on classroom climate may help improve students’ academic, socio-emotional and behavioral outcomes (Wang et al., 2020). Classroom climate is related to both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Charalampous & Kokkinos, 2017). For instance, it has been evidenced that classroom climate is negatively associated with cyber bullying in WhatsApp classmate groups, which is also related to sense of belonging (Kashy-Rosenbaum & Aizenkot, 2020).

Classroom climate and its relationship with constructs such as student engagement, academic achievement, motivation, teacher burnout or social and emotional development are discussed in the literature (Adelman & Taylor, 2005; Allen et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020). Among these matters, academic achievement holds significance because of its emphasis in schooling. There is a large body of research on the association between classroom climate and academic achievement directly or indirectly. However, the results of these studies vary. Larocque (2008) reported that students’ perceptions of their general classroom climate were significantly related to their achievement in reading and math. Likewise, López et al. (2018) found that students’ perceptions of classroom climate were related to academic achievement. On the other hand, there are studies reporting contrary findings. Barksdale et al. (2019) found no significant relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement, and there are also studies reporting negative relationships (Berkowitz et al., 2015; Trinidad, 2020).

School climate and its relationship with academic achievement

School climate refers to within-school characteristics that affect behaviors of members of the school community, and it distinguishes one school from another (Hoy & Miskel, 1998). It has been likened to an individual's personality (Hoy & Miskel, 1998) or the air we breathe (Freiberg, 1999). It is also defined as “the quality and frequency of interpersonal interactions,” and it has organizational, interpersonal and instructional dimensions (Loukas et al., 2006, p. 491). Though definitions vary, they mostly refer to school members’ beliefs, impressions and expectations about the school (Chen & Weikart, 2008).

The literature references a number of elements that school climate includes, such as ecology, milieu, social system, culture, safety, quality of teaching and learning, relationships, discipline, school connectedness, school facilities, and academic outcomes (Cohen et al., 2009; Stewart, 2003; Zullig et al., 2010). The components of school climate can be grouped into two key areas: school structure and culture (Chen & Weikart, 2008). Though there is not a consensus on which dimensions are essential for school climate, Thapa et al. (2013) addressed the dimensions of safety, relationships, teaching and learning, institutional environment, and the school improvement process. An important distinction regarding school climate is whether the school climate is understood and measured at the school level or the individual level (van Horn, 2003). At the school level, the unit of measurement is the school itself, and climate is viewed as a property of school. In this model, all students, though to varying degrees, experience school climate in similar ways. On the other hand, at individual level, it is thought that students experience the school climate differently, and what is measured is the student's perception (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016). This difference is also addressed as a moderator variable in the current study.

According to the National School Climate Council, a positive school climate encompasses values, norms, and expectations that support school members in social, physical and emotional aspects, which also lead to a productive and democratic society (Thapa et al., 2013). School climate, therefore, has a number of influences on students. School climate has been linked to connectedness to school (Loukas et al., 2006), self-esteem (Way et al., 2007), out-of-school suspensions (Huang & Cornell, 2018), and academic, behavioral and socioemotional adjustment (Brand et al., 2003). It has been highlighted in the literature that school climate is related to students’ academic achievement, and there is a great deal of research on this issue (Alhosani et al., 2017; Chen & Weikart, 2008; Konold et al., 2018; Shindler et al., 2016; Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

School climate may contribute to or hinder academic achievement in many ways. Feeling safe in school settings may increase students’ academic performance (Karadağ et al., 2016); moreover, school climate may affect teachers’ expectations of students (Haynes et al., 1997; Urick & Bowers, 2014). Teacher expectations and teacher beliefs predict students’ academic experiences and performance (Archambault et al., 2012; Gentrup et al., 2020; Papageorge et al., 2018). In another study, it was revealed that students’ perceptions of school climate affected their achievement through influencing their identification with school, school participation, and use of self-regulation strategies (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Despite these studies evidencing the relationship between school climate and academic achievement, there are also studies reporting no relationship between school climate and academic achievement (Allen et al., 2015).

Classroom climate and school climate: which should we focus on?

Research has highlighted that school climate and classroom climate are closely related (Barksdale et al., 2019). Classroom climate and school climate both reflect the school's culture (Adelman & Taylor, 2005) through beliefs, values, traditions, and ideologies (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016). School climate is also reflected in classroom climate because student learning, interactions among students and teachers take place in classrooms (Berkowitz et al., 2017). In their climate factors in educational effectiveness model, Creemers and Reezigt (2005) described classroom climate as a subsystem of school climate, both of which affect student motivation and contribute to shaping cognitive and affective educational outcomes. Thus, in their model, school climate and classroom climate are embedded into each other.

Although the two concepts are interrelated and are sometimes even used interchangeably in the literature, school climate and classroom climate refer to different dynamics. While school climate is related to overall school environment, classroom climate has to do with each student's experiences in individual classrooms, which explains differences in students’ perceptions of their classroom and school (Schweig et al., 2019). Each classroom has its own dynamics among students and teachers. Therefore, classroom climates may differ within the same school. Given that students spend most of their school time in classrooms, their perceptions of their school's climate may differ from their perceptions of their classroom's climate, though these climates are thought to be mutually influencing.

Present study

The overall aim of the present meta-analyses was to provide a better understanding of the relationship of academic achievement with school climate and classroom climate, respectively. Research hypotheses were as follows:

A more positive classroom climate is associated with higher levels of academic achievement.

1.1. Publication year, report type, classroom climate scale type, academic achievement area, academic achievement scale type, school level, school area, country level and analysis level are significant moderators of the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement.

A more positive school climate is associated with higher levels of academic achievement.

2.1. Publication year, report type, academic achievement area, academic achievement scale type, school level, school area, country level and analysis level are significant moderators of the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement.

Method

Research design

This study employed a meta-analysis method. This method was used because we aimed to analyze the relationships between academic achievement and classroom climate, and academic achievement and school climate, respectively, based on the studies in the literature. Meta-analysis involves synthesizing quantitative findings of research studies using statistical techniques (Card, 2015). It also allows for comparing mean effect sizes (Borenstein et al., 2011). Therefore, meta-analysis is well suited to the aims of this study.

Data collection

Data were obtained through online databases. Data from articles and proceedings were obtained from ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Education Source, Scopus ScienceDirect, PsycNet, and Google Scholar; data from doctoral dissertations were obtained from ProQuest. Two separate datasets were formed. The first dataset included studies on classroom climate and academic achievement, and the second dataset included studies on school climate and academic achievement. We used keywords which were searched in the titles of the studies. The references of the independent studies in the datasets are provided at the Open Science Framework website (osf.io/7ezmw).

Dataset of classroom climate and academic achievement (dataset 1)

The keywords “classroom climate OR climate OR classroom environment OR classroom quality AND achievement OR performance OR outcome OR success” in English were used. The last date of search for the studies published between 2000 and 2020 was January 11, 2020. The search was carried out by the first author. The titles of the studies were examined in line with the inclusion criteria (see below), and potential studies were selected. The pool included 83 studies. Then, the abstracts were examined, and qualitative studies and literature reviews were excluded from the study. Of these 79 studies, some were also excluded because they included intervention (n = 1), constructivist classroom settings (n = 4), teachers as participants (n = 1), a higher education sample (n = 8), or did not include appropriate statistical data (n = 11). Hence, the dataset was composed of 53 independent studies. If a study included more than one sample, these samples were coded independently. Therefore, this dataset comprised 55 independent samples. Appendix 1 presents data flow diagram in line with PRISMA (2020). The characteristics of the studies in the dataset are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the dataset of classroom climate and academic achievement.

Year	f	%	Classroom climate scale	f	%
2000–2004	2	3.64	WIHIC	16	29.09
2005–2009	10	18.18	CLASS	9	16.36
2010–2014	24	43.64	COS	4	7.27
2015–2019	16	29.09	MCI	4	7.27
2020	3	5.45	Other	22	40
Total	55	100	Total	55	100
Academic area			Academic achievement scale
Language	8	14.55	Standardized assessment tests	30	54.55
Math	15	27.27	Achievement test	9	16.36
Science	3	5.45	School report	11	20
Social	1	1.82	Questionnaire	5	9.09
General	28	50.91	Total	55	100
Total	55	100
Country level			School area
Very high	42	76.36	Urban	25	45.45
High	7	12.73	Suburban	14	25.45
Medium	2	3.64	Mixed	7	12.73
Low	4	7.27	N/A	9	16.36
Total	55	100	Total	55	100
School level			Report type
Preschool	8	14.55	Article	42	76.36
Elementary	29	52.73	Doctoral dissertation	11	20
Secondary	18	32.73	Proceeding	2	3.64
Total	55	100	Total	55	100
Quality
High	33	60
Medium	22	40
Total	55	100

WIHIC: ‘What Is Happening in this Class’ scale by Aldridge and Fraser (2000); CLASS: ‘Classroom Assessment Scoring System’ scale by Pianta et al., (2006); COS: ‘Classroom Observation System’ scale by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005); MCI: and ‘My Class Inventory’ scale by Sink and Spencer (2007).

Some of the noteworthy characteristics of Table 1 are as follows. Nearly 44% of dataset 1 consisted of studies published between 2010 and 2014. Nearly 30% of the studies employed the What is Happening in this Class? (WIHIC) scale. In terms of academic area, half of the studies measured students’ general academic achievement. Similarly, about half of the studies used standardized achievement tests. Nearly half of the studies collected data from urban schools. Samples of slightly more than half of the studies were at the elementary education level. The majority of the studies were journal articles and report data from countries with high HDIs.

Dataset of school climate and academic achievement (dataset 2)

The keywords of “school climate OR school culture OR school environment AND achievement OR performance OR outcome OR success” in English were searched in the same databases listed above. The last date of search for the studies published between 2000 and 2020 was January 11, 2020. The search was carried out by the second author. The titles of the studies were examined in line with the inclusion criteria (see below), and potential studies were selected. The researcher made sure the samples represented K-12 students. The data pool included 99 studies. Then the abstracts were examined, and qualitative studies and literature review studies were excluded from the study. Of the resulting 97 studies, some were excluded because they included teachers as the sample (n = 27), school administrators as the sample (n = 11), a higher education sample (n = 2), or did not include the appropriate statistical data (n = 20). Hence, the second dataset comprised 37 studies. If a study included more than a single sample, each sample was coded independently. Therefore, this dataset comprised 48 independent samples. Appendix 2 presents a flow diagram of this dataset in line with PRISMA (2020). The characteristics of the studies in the second dataset are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the dataset of school climate and academic achievement.

Year	f		School area	f
2000–2004	2	4.17	Urban	27	56.25
2005–2009	9	18.75	Suburban	1	2.08
2010–2014	11	22.92	Mixed	6	12.5
2015–2019	18	37.5	N/A	14	29.17
2020	8	16.67	Total	48	100
Total	48	100
Academic area			Academic achievement scale
Language	3	6.25	Standardized assessment tests	30	62.5
Math	5	10.42	School report	11	22.92
General	40	83.33	Self-report	7	14.58
Total	48	100	Total	48	100
Country level			Report type
Very high	42	87.5	Article	22	45.83
High	4	8.33	Doctoral dissertation	25	52.08
Medium	0	0	Proceeding	1	2.08
Low	2	4.17	Total	48	100
Total	48	100
School level			Analysis unit
Elementary	26	54.17	Student	33	68.75
Secondary	15	31.25	School	15	31.25
Mixed	7	14.58	Total	48	100
Total	48	100
Quality
High	25	52.08
Medium	23	47.92
Total	48	100

Some of the noteworthy characteristics of Table 2 are as follows. About one-third of the second dataset consisted of studies published between 2015 and 2019. The majority of the studies in this set were from very countries with high HDI values (83.3%). The majority of the studies measured students’ academic achievement in general (mixed). Half of the studies focused on participant samples at the elementary school level and from urban areas. In two-thirds of the studies, standardized tests were used for measuring academic achievement and student level statistical analyses were used.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows:

The study was published in English between 2000 and 2020.

The study addressed pre-school, elementary school, or secondary school sample(s).

The study focused on the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement for dataset 1. The study focused on the relationship between school climate and academic achievement for the dataset 2.

The study focused on classroom climate for dataset 1. Studies focusing on constructivist classroom climate were excluded from the study because they involve intervention. The study focused on school climate for dataset 2. Studies focusing on specific types, such as cooperative school climate, school discipline climate and peer culture, were excluded because these studies mostly did not focus on overall school climate.

The study should include adequate data to calculate effect size. Studies without these data were excluded.

The study was correlational design. Intervention studies were excluded.

The sample should comprise students. Studies measuring school administrators, teachers and parents’ perceptions were excluded.

Coding: We created a coding form to identify the general characteristics of the studies. It consisted of three parts. The first part included identity tags of the studies, including the author names, study titles and publication year. The second part included the moderator variables of publication year, report type, classroom climate scale used, academic achievement scale type, school level, countries’ HDI, academic area measured, and the sample's region. The third part included statistical data for calculating effect sizes. The moderator variables are described below.

Publication year: The year of publication was recorded.

Report type: The studies were coded as article, doctoral dissertation, or proceeding.

Classroom climate scale type: The classroom climate scale types were identified by the researchers based on frequently used scales in the studies (used by at least three studies). The scales used in the study are listed in Table 3. Scales used fewer than three times were coded as “other.”

Table 3.

Classroom climate scale types.

Developed by	Scale name	Abbreviation
Aldridge & Fraser (2000)	What Is Happening in this Class	WIHIC
Pianta et al. (2006)	Classroom Assessment Scoring System	CLASS
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005)	Classroom Observation System	COS
Sink and Spencer (2007)	My Class Inventory	MCI
Other	Other	Other

The WIHIC was developed by Aldridge and Fraser (2000). This Likert-type scale includes 55 items and consists of the dimensions of student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, investigation, task orientation, cooperation, and equity. The CLASS was developed by Pianta et al. (2006). This Likert-type scale is based on teachers’ observations and consists of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support dimensions. The COS was developed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005). It has ten items gathered under the dimensions of student behavioral engagement and classroom climate. The My Class Inventory (MCI) was developed by Sink and Spencer (2007). The scale has 20 items and consists of the dimensions of satisfaction, friction, competition, and cohesiveness. The primary studies in the dataset used various versions of the scales explained here or other scales. The characteristics of the independent studies, including reliability values of the scale used in the studies, are provided at Open Science Framework website (osf.io/xvutr).

School climate scale: We did not group the school climate scales in this study because almost all studies used different scales. Therefore, school climate scale type was not used as a moderator variable in dataset 2.

Academic achievement area: The academic areas in which students’ achievement was measured were referenced. For instance, if mathematics achievement test was used, we coded it as the area “mathematics.” If an average score of different content areas was used, we coded it as general.

Academic achievement scale type: The tests used in the measurement of academic achievement were coded in line with their validity and reliability properties. If scores in school records were used, we coded them as school record; we coded standardized test if the study used a standardized measure.

School level: In coding school levels, we used the levels identified by the International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO, 2011). These levels include early childhood education, primary education, lower and upper secondary education, post-secondary education, short-cycle tertiary education, bachelor's level, master's level, and doctoral level. This study addresses only early childhood, primary and secondary education levels.

School area: If the sample was from a city, it was coded as urban, and if the sample was from a district or village, it was coded as suburban.

Country level: The countries of the samples in the studies were coded as low, medium, high, or very high in line with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) HDI.

Analysis level: The studies that used students as the analysis unit in the statistical procedures were coded as “student level,” and the studies using schools as the analysis units were coded as “school level.” In the dataset of classroom climate, all the studies were student level research. Therefore, analysis level was not used as a moderator variable in dataset 1.

Quality level: The quality of the independent studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies by Cicolini et al. (2013). This scale measures the quality of correlational research studies. Scores for obtained from the scale for reach study were coded as low (0–4), medium (5–9), or high (10–14).

Data analysis

Analyses were carried out separately for the datasets. The analysis unit was the study level. Each study was represented with an effect size. The effect size calculations and statistical tests were performed with CMA 2 package program.

Two different statistical models are employed in meta-analysis research, namely the random effects model and fixed effect model (Borenstein et al., 2011). It is advised to use the random effects model when characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis differ or the studies have different sample groups (Field & Gillett, 2010). This study employed the random effects model since the independent studies in this analysis used different sample groups.

In the calculation of effect sizes, the Pearson correlation coefficients were transformed to Fisher Z (F_z) coefficients (r = F_z= ES). The mean effect sizes were calculated in line with the random effects model. In mean effect size interpretations, we used the value intervals recommended by Funder and Ozer (2019). The effect sizes of the independent studies were examined, and there were no statistical outliers.

Regarding publication bias, the funnel plot method was used to determine whether the distribution of the dataset was symmetrical. We also employed Egger's linear regression method and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method (Jin et al., 2015). Findings regarding the publication bias are reported.

To identify the total heterogeneity value of the studies in the dataset, we used the Q-statistic and calculated I² values. The heterogeneity level was interpreted by I² value intervals recommended by Higgins et al. (2003). The moderator variables in this study included report type, analysis unit, classroom climate scale type, academic achievement scale type, school level, academic area, school area, and country level. We used a Q within-groups test for determining whether mean effect sizes differed significantly in terms of categorical moderator variables. For continuous moderator variables, we used meta-regression.

Findings

Dataset 1 (classroom climate and academic achievement)

This section includes descriptive statistics, publication bias analysis, mean effect size and moderator analyses regarding dataset 1. The total sample size of the studies in dataset was 40,710. While the smallest sample size was 77, the biggest sample size was 4,199. Dataset 1 produced 55 effect sizes. The smallest effect size was .03, and the highest was .42. The funnel plot is presented in Figure 1 and the forest plot is provided in Appendix 3.

According to Egger's linear regression coefficient calculation method, there was no publication bias in the dataset (B = −.020; p = .40). Figure 1 presents the publication bias graph regarding the distribution of effect sizes. As seen in Figure 1, the distribution of effect sizes by their standard errors is almost symmetrical. Additionally, no publication bias was found with Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method. The results of this test are provided in Table 4. This method revealed that the distribution of the effect sizes would be totally symmetrical if four studies were excluded from the set. As these studies comprised only 7.2% of the dataset, we decided that this percentage was insignificant. In other words, the difference between the mean effect size value and adjusted mean affect size value was .01. This was an insignificant difference.

Table 4.

Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill test for dataset 1.

Dataset	Excluded studies	ES and 95% confidence interval			Q(t)
Dataset	Excluded studies	ES	LL	UL	Q(t)
Observed		0.20	0.17	0.23	410.12
Adjusted	4	0.21	0.18	0.24	547.78

We revealed that the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement was small (ES = .20; LL = .17 UL = .23). The total heterogeneity amount of the dataset was Q(t) = 410.12. This meant that the level of heterogeneity was high (I^2 =86.83). Table 5 presents the moderator analysis of the effect size distribution regarding classroom climate and academic achievement.

Table 5.

Moderator analysis regarding dataset 1.

Group	k	ES	LL	UL	Q	Q(b)	df	p
Classroom climate scale						5.46	4	.24
WIHIC	16	0.25	0.19	0.30	85.31
CLASS	9	0.21	0.14	0.28	97.75
COS	4	0.11	0.01	0.22	2.70
MCI	4	0.20	0.09	0.31	18.29
Other	22	0.19	0.14	0.23	167.95
Achievement scale type						4.13	3	.25
Standardized tests	30	0.18	0.14	0.21	210.69
Achievement test	9	0.25	0.17	0.32	29.64
School record	11	0.23	0.17	0.30	26.65
Likert	5	0.22	0.13	0.30	64.12
Report type						1.60	2	.45
Article	42	0.20	0.16	0.23	344.75
Doctoral dis.	11	0.21	0.14	0.28	61.76
Proceeding	2	0.31	0.13	0.50	0.01
Achievement area						14.77	4	.01
Math	15	0.27	0.22	0.31	81.97
Language	8	0.22	0.15	0.28	27.42
Science	3	0.23	0.12	0.35	14.62
Social	1	0.15	−0.02	0.31	0.00
Mixed	28	0.16	0.12	0.19	137.88
School level						1.33	2	.51
Kindergarten	8	0.20	0.12	0.28	123.35
Elementary	29	0.19	0.15	0.23	131.03
Secondary	18	0.22	0.17	0.27	121.12
School area						0.98	3	.81
Urban	25	0.20	0.16	0.25	83.26
Suburban	14	0.21	0.15	0.27	75.08
Mixed	7	0.17	0.09	0.24	138.59
N/A	9	0.21	0.14	0.28	73.59
Country level						6.65	3	.08
Very high	42	0.18	0.15	0.22	279.43
High	7	0.27	0.20	0.35	39.64
Medium	2	0.31	0.17	0.45	10.04
Low	4	0.20	0.09	0.30	5.14
Quality						0.54	1	.46
High	33	0.19	0.15	0.23	10.13
Medium	22	0.21	0.17	0.26	8.86

WIHIC: ‘What Is Happening in this Class’ scale by Aldridge and Fraser (2000); CLASS: ‘Classroom Assessment Scoring System’ scale by Pianta et al., (2006); COS: ‘Classroom Observation System’ scale by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005); and MCI: ‘My Class Inventory’ scale by Sink and Spencer (2007).

As is evident in Table 5, the effect sizes did not differ significantly in terms of the moderator variables of classroom climate scale type, academic achievement scale type, report type, school level, school area, and country level. The mean effect sizes differed significantly in terms of academic area (Q(4) = 14.77; p = . 01). The effect size for the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement in mathematics was medium (ES = 27; LL = .22 UP = .31). This relationship was greater than other academic areas. The effect size was lowest for the relationship between classroom climate and social studies (ES = .15; LL = −.02 UP = .31). In addition, the effect size for classroom climate's relationship with general academic achievement was small (ES = .16; LL = .12 UP = .19). Meta-regression was used for the years of the reports. The distribution of the effect sizes did not differ significantly in terms of publication year (B = −.001 p = .88).

Dataset 2 (school climate and academic achievement)

This section includes descriptive statistics, publication bias analysis, the mean effect size, and moderator analyses regarding dataset 2. Dataset 2 included studies whose units of analysis were students and schools. The total number of students in the studies with student-level analysis was 208,043. While the smallest sample size was 33, the biggest sample size was 29,415. The total number of schools in the studies with school level analysis was 1,403. Dataset 2 produced 48 effect sizes. The effect sizes ranged from ES = −.08 to ES = .887. The funnel plot is presented in Figure 2, and the forest plot is provided in Appendix 4.

Egger's linear regression coefficient calculation method revealed that there was no publication bias in the dataset (B = 1.46; p = .60). Figure 2 presents the publication bias graph. It was observed that the distribution of effect sizes by their standard errors was almost symmetrical. Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method also did not reveal a publication bias. The results of this test are presented in Table 6. This method revealed that the distribution of the effect sizes would be totally symmetrical if four studies were excluded from the set. As the percentage of these studies was 8.3% in the dataset, we decided that this percentage was insignificant. In other words, the difference between mean effect size value and adjusted mean effect size value was .03. This was an insignificant difference.

Table 6.

Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill test for dataset 2.

Dataset	Excluded studies	ES and 95% confidence interval			Q (top)
Dataset	Excluded studies	ES	LL	UP	Q (top)
Observed		0.28	0.20	0.35	9924.98
Adjusted	4	0.31	0.22	0.39	17,410.7

There effect size for the relationship between school climate and academic achievement was medium (ES = .28; LL = .20; UP = .35). The total heterogeneity amount of the dataset was Q(t) = 9924.98. This meant that the level of heterogeneity was high (I^2 =99.52). Table 7 presents the moderator analysis of the effect size distribution regarding school climate and academic achievement.

Table 7.

Moderator analysis regarding dataset 2.

Group	k	ES	LL	UL	Q	Q(b)	df	p
Academic achievement scale						4.92	2	.09
Standard test	30	0.35	0.25	0.46	9656.67
School record	11	0.18	0.02	0.35	121.79
Self-report	7	0.13	−0.07	0.34	23.13
Report type						11.16	2	.01
Article	22	0.18	0.08	0.27	2816.02
Doctoral dis.	25	0.39	0.30	0.49	3047.94
Proceeding	1	0.07	−0.35	0.49	0.00
Academic area						1.87	2	.39
Math	5	0.16	−0.04	0.35	1653.46
Language	3	0.23	−0.07	0.52	7.49
General	40	0.29	0.22	0.37	4590.36
School level						1.77	2	.41
Elementary	26	0.32	0.21	0.43	8230.01
Secondary	15	0.26	0.12	0.40	586.13
Mixed	7	0.16	−0.05	0.37	44.80
School area						8.96	3	.03
Urban	27	0.29	0.20	0.37	267.49
Suburban	1	0.79	0.38	1.19	0.00
Mixed	6	0.34	0.15	0.54	23.63
N/A	14	0.19	0.08	0.30	4667.51
Country level						0.64	2	.73
Very high	42	0.29	0.20	0.37	8984.01
High	4	0.18	−0.09	0.44	274.34
Low	2	0.31	−0.06	0.68	13.11
Analysis unit						11.87	1	.01
Student	33	0.20	0.10	0.29	9741.52
School	15	0.50	0.35	0.65	50.12
Quality						5.37	1	.02
High	25	0.19	0.11	0.26
Medium	23	0.36	0.23	0.48

The effect sizes did not differ significantly in terms of the moderator variables of academic achievement scale type, academic achievement area, and school level or country level. Yet, the relationship between school climate and academic achievement differed significantly in terms of the school area, report type, quality level, and the unit of analysis (respectively, Q(b) = 8.96, p = .03; Q(b) = 11.16, p = .01; Q(b) = 5.37 p = .02; Q(b) = 11.87,and p = .01).

Studies that were carried out in suburban settings produced larger effect sizes; the relationship between school climate and academic achievement was very high (ES = 0.79, LL = 0.38 and UL = 1.19). Yet, it should also be noted that suburban level was represented with a single study. Moreover, studies that did not clearly report school area produced small effect sizes (ES = 0.19, LL = 0.08, and UL = 0.30).

Regarding report type, studies reported in doctoral dissertations produced larger effect sizes than studies reported in articles and proceedings. Considering the lower and upper limits of mean effect sizes produced by the doctoral dissertation, it was observed that the effect sizes were large (ES = 0.39; LL = 0.30; and UL = 0.49).

The effect sizes also varied significantly in regard to study quality. The studies with high quality produced lesser effect sizes (ES = 0.19; LL = 0.11; and UL = 0.26) while studies with medium-level quality produced higher effect sizes (ES = 0.36; LL = 0.23; and UL = 0.48).

For the unit of analysis, school-level studies produced larger effect sizes than student-level studies. The studies which used schools as the units of analysis produced large mean effect sizes (ES = 0.50; LL = 0.35; and UL = 0.65). Meta-regression was performed for the publication year variable. It was observed that the distribution of the effect sizes differed significantly in terms of publication year (B = −.002; p = .02).

Discussion

School and classroom climate have been associated with a variety of student outcomes; however, results are mixed. An examination of their relationships with academic achievement would provide valuable information for supporting youth in schools. To this end, we synthesized published and unpublished research to evaluate the strength of the relationships of academic achievement with classroom climate and school climate, respectively, through two independent meta-analyses. Moreover, we explored which factors moderated these relationships. The analysis focused on studies based on students’ perceptions of classroom and school climate. The same inclusion criteria were used for studies of both classroom and school climate. Two separate datasets (dataset 1 for classroom climate and academic achievement, and dataset 2 for school climate and academic achievement) were formed with the studies that met the criteria. The meta-analyses were then performed independently with the datasets.

Dataset 1, which included 55 effect sizes and a sample size of 40,710 participants, focused on classroom climate. The meta-analysis revealed a small mean effect size (ES = .20). This means that the level of the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement is small. The meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2020) also revealed a small effect size. Results of similar studies also lend their support to this finding. Braithwaite et al. (2011) examined experimental studies on the effects of motivational climate in the classroom on student outcomes and revealed a small level effect. The effect of classroom management strategies on students’ academic achievement was also reported as small (Korpershoek et al., 2016). The level of the relationship between teacher efficacy and students’ academic achievement was also reported as low (Kim & Seo, 2018). Both the results of the current study and these review studies on classroom climate suggest that the level of the relationship between students’ perceptions of classroom climate and their academic achievement is low.

This study also examined this relationship in terms of a number of moderator variables such as the types of classroom climate scales used in the research studies, achievement scale type (school record, standardized test, etc.), report type (article, dissertation, etc.), academic achievement area (math, language, etc.), school level (elementary, secondary, etc.), school area (urban, suburban, etc.), and HDI of the country where the study was conducted (medium, high, very, etc.). The only significant difference was in terms of academic achievement area; specifically, the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement was significantly higher for mathematics. One reason for this finding may be that mathematics anxiety is a real problem for students from elementary school through college (McLeod, 1992; Peker & Ertekin, 2011; Szczygieł & Pieronkiewicz, 2021), and positive classroom climates may be especially important for lowering this anxiety and promoting achievement.

Dataset 2, which included 48 effect sizes and a sample of 208,043 students and 1,403 schools, focused on school climate. The meta-analysis on this dataset resulted in a medium mean effect size for the relationship between school climate and academic achievement. This finding is supported in similar studies (Bektas et al., 2015; Berkowitz et al., 2017; Karadağ et al., 2016), though the strength of the relationship between school climate and student outputs was reported as weaker in one meta-analysis (Scheerens et al., 2013). Notably, this weaker relationship may have been due to including other student outputs as well as academic achievement. Overall, the relationship between academic achievement and school climate is at medium level based on the studies in the literature.

The moderator analysis for dataset 2 revealed significant differences in regard to the report type, school area, unit of analysis, and publication year. In this study, doctoral dissertations produced larger effect sizes than articles and proceedings, which contradicted Karadağ et al.'s (2016) findings. This contradiction may stem from the fact that their study included a higher percentage of doctoral dissertations than did the present study.

The relationship also differed in terms of unit of analysis. Studies with school-level analyses produced higher effect sizes than studies with student-level analyses. These findings indicate that the unit of analysis is a significant variable in school climate research. Notably, the sample sizes of the studies with student-level analyses were big, while the sample sizes of the studies with school-level analyses were very small (as they considered each school a unit of analysis). The Pearson correlation coefficient is sensitive to the sample size, which may account for this difference.

The relationship between school climate and academic achievement also differed in terms of school area. The strength of the relationship was quite high for suburban schools. However, a suburban sample was represented in only one study, which may explain this finding. Notably, the studies on school climate mostly focused on urban samples. Future studies should examine school climate in suburban areas. Finally, more recent studies produced smaller effect sizes. This may reflect the fact that new measurement tools have been developed over time and that newer studies tend to use multiple variables to explain academic achievement. Therefore, newer studies may have yielded less strong relationships. The relationship between school climate and academic achievement was not moderated significantly by the variables of academic achievement scale type, academic achievement area, school level, or country of the sample. This shows that studies from different countries reveal similar results regarding the nature of the relationship. Moreover, whether academic achievement is measured through school reports, standardized tests or self-report does not make a difference in this relationship. School level is also an important moderator. Our study demonstrated that the association between school climate and academic achievement is similar in elementary and secondary levels, indicating that it is significant for both levels at similar degrees.

Conclusion

One indicator of effective schools is students’ academic achievement. School and classroom climate are considered to be linked to academic achievement; however, the results of independent studies are mixed. Meta-analyses can offer a broader perspective on this issue. This study synthesized results regarding the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement as well as the relationship between school climate and academic achievement. We found that both classroom climate and school climate are significantly related to students’ academic achievement. We also found that the magnitude of the relationship is greater for school climate based on the studies in these datasets. While the relationship between classroom climate and academic achievement is small, it is larger for school climate. Surely, this does not mean that one is more important than the other, since the two are interrelated and affect one another. As noted previously, while school climate refers to the general school environment, classroom climate is related to specific experiences in individual classrooms (Schweig et al., 2019). The results certainly have implications for researchers, school leaders and teachers.

Implications

It was revealed in this study that both school and classroom climate are related to academic achievement, with achievement's relationship with school climate having a greater magnitude. School leaders and teachers should exert great effort to create positive classroom climates to achieve effective schools. It is well accepted that school leadership is critical for academic improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Özdemir et al., 2022) and shaping school climate (Cohen et al., 2009). Both school leaders’ and teachers’ behaviors and efforts have a significant influence on student achievement (Heck et al., 1990; Karadağ et al., 2016; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). At the classroom level, teachers should set clear rules with students and provide a respectful, safe, cooperative and caring classroom climate (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016). They should also maintain high academic expectations for students while also supporting them in meeting those expectations. Teacher expectations and teacher beliefs predict students’ academic experiences and performance (Archambault et al., 2012; Gentrup et al., 2020; Papageorge et al., 2018)

Teachers should pay attention to relationships, personal development, and system maintenance and change in the classroom (Adelman & Taylor, 2005). Students’ psychological needs should also be met. Social Determination Theory posits that meeting students’ psychological needs (i.e., feeling competent, autonomous, and related to others) improves students’ motivation, well-being and willingness, culminating in better academic performance (Amholt et al., 2020; Deci & Ryan, 2012). At the school level, teachers and school leaders should foster a positive school climate encompassing values, norms and expectations that support school members in social, physical and emotional domains by promoting relationships, safety, teaching and learning, institutional environment, and school improvement processes (Thapa et al., 2013).

Limitations and future research

This study examined the relations of students’ perceptions of school climate and classroom climate with academic achievement. Further meta-analysis studies on this issue based on the perceptions of teachers, school leaders or parents may be helpful for comparing results. This study focused on academic achievement in particular. Future studies may address other student outcomes, such as behavioral outcomes or well-being. Further studies should investigate differences in the strength of the relationships for school climate and academic achievement, and classroom climate and academic achievement, respectively. Multi-level studies may help us understand the nature of the phenomenon. In this study, the analyses were performed in the contexts of school and classroom climate. These concepts can be combined and analyzed within the concept of learning climate.

This meta-analysis involved studies with correlation and regression analyses. Notably, both school and classroom climate are context-specific; therefore, more qualitative or mixed-method studies are needed to better understand factors affecting climate in the school and classroom. In one mixed-method study, qualitative findings revealed significant results regarding classroom climate that quantitative findings missed (Barksdale et al., 2019). Meta-synthesis studies for qualitative results may also be fruitful.

Another limitation of this study is that it involved studies only in English. Further, meta-analyses should involve studies in other languages. More studies are also needed with suburban samples. Additionally, a great number of the studies in this meta-analysis came from very countries with high HDI values. More data are needed from suburban populations and countries with lower HDI values. Finally, this meta-analysis did not address issues of missing data in the independent studies it synthesized; however, bias due to missing data in independent studies generally is propagated in meta-analyses (Mavridis & White, 2020). Future meta-analysis studies should consider this issue.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Cahit Erdem

Metin Kaya

Author biographies

Cahit Erdem is an associate professor at Afyon Kocatepe University, Türkiye. His research interests include academic achievement, curriculum, teacher education, multicultural education, and media literacy.

Metin Kaya is an associate professor at Istanbul Medipol University, Türkiye. His research interests include educational administration, school culture, and classroom management.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Data flow diagram for classroom climate and academic achievement dataset

Appendix 2. Data flow diagram for school climate and academic achievement dataset

Appendix 3. The forest plot regarding the effect sizes of the studies in dataset 1 (classroom climate)

Appendix 4. The forest plot regarding the effect sizes of the studies in dataset 2 (school climate)

References

Adelman

H. S.

Taylor

(2005). Classroom climate. In Lee

S. W.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 88–90). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952491.

Aldridge

J. M.

Fraser

B. J.

(2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026599727439

Alhosani

A. A.

Sing

S. K.

Nahyan

(2017). Role of school leadership and climate in student achievement: The mediating role of parental involvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(6), 843–851. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2016-0113

Allen

Gregory

Mikami

Lun

Hamre

Pianta

(2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system-secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087492

Allen

Grigsby

Peters

M. L.

(2015). Does leadership matter? Examining the relationship among transformational leadership, school climate, and student achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2), 1–22.

Amholt

T. T.

Dammeyer

Carteri

Niclasen

(2020). Psychological well-being and academic achievement among school-aged children: A systematic review. Child Indicators Research, 13(5), 1523–1548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09725-9

Archambault

Janosz

Chouinard

(2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629694

Barksdale

Peters

M. L.

Corrales

(2019). Middle school students’ perceptions of classroom climate and its relationship to achievement. Educational Studies, 47(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1664411

Bektas

Cogaltay

Karadağ

(2015). School culture and academic achievement of students: A meta-analysis study. The Anthropologist, 21(3), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891837

10.

Berkowitz

Glickman

Benbenishty

Ben-Artzi

Raz

Lipshtat

Astor

R. A.

(2015). Compensating, mediating, and moderating effects of school climate on academic achievement gaps in Israel. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700703

11.

Berkowitz

Moore

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

(2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425–469. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821

12.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

13.

Braithwaite

Spray

C. M.

Warburton

V. E.

(2011). Motivational climate interventions in physical education: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(6), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.06.005

14.

Brand

Felner

Seitsinger

Burns

Bolton

(2008). A large scale study of the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: The validity and utility of teachers’ ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety problems for understanding school effects and school improvement. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.12.001

15.

Brand

Felner

Shim

Seitsinger

Dumas

(2003). Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570

16.

Bulotsky-Shearer

R. J.

Wen

Faria

A. M.

Hahs-Vaughn

D. L.

Korfmarcher

(2012). National profiles of classroom quality and family involvement: A multilevel examination of proximal influences on Head Start children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(4), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1540249

17.

Bustamante

A. S.

Hindman

A. H.

(2019). Classroom quality and academic school readiness outcomes in Head Start: The indirect effect of approaches to learning. Early Education and Development, 30(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1540249

18.

Card

N. A.

(2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Publications.

19.

Charalampous

Kokkinos

C. M.

(2017). The Greek elementary “What is happening in this class?” (G-EWIHIC): A three-phase multi-sample mixed-methods study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.12.005

20.

Chen

Weikart

L. A.

(2008). Student background, school climate, school disorder, and student achievement: An empirical study of New York City’s middle schools. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220801973813

21.

Cicolini

Comparcini

Simonetti

(2013). Workplace empowerment and nurses’ job satisfaction: A systematic literature review. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(7), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12028

22.

Cohen

McCabe

E. M.

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108

23.

Creemers

B. P. M.

Reezigt

G. J.

(2005). The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school learning environments. In Jerome Freiberg

(Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 30–48). Taylor and Francis Inc.

24.

Daily

S. M.

Mann

M. J.

Kristjansson

A. L.

Smith

M. L.

Zullig

K. J.

(2019). School climate and academic achievement in middle and high school students. Journal of School Health, 89(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.1272

25.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford.

26.

Dulay

Karadag

(2017). The effect of school climate on academic achievement. In Karadag

(Ed.), The factors affecting student achievement: Meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 199–213). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56083-0

27.

Field

A. P.

Gillett

(2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733

28.

Freiberg

H. J.

(1999). Introduction. In Freiberg

(Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 1–10). Falmer Press.

29.

Funder

D. C.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Valuating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

30.

Geleta

(2017). Schools climate and student achievement in secondary schools of Ethiopia. European Scientific Journal, 13(17), 239. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n17p239

31.

Gentrup

Lorenz

Kristen

Kogan

(2020). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 66(101296), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296

32.

Greenway

G. H.

(2017). Relationship between school climate and student achievement. Georgia Southern University.

33.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214

34.

Haynes

N. M.

Emmons

C. L.

Ben-Avie

(1997). School climate as a factor in student adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(3), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0803_4

35.

Heck

R. H.

Larsen

T. J.

Marcoulides

G. A.

(1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X90026002002

36.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

37.

Hoy

W. K.

Miskel

C. G.

(1998). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice. McGraw-Hill.

38.

Huang

F. L.

Cornell

(2018). The relationship of school climate with out-of-school suspensions. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.013

39.

Jin

Z. C.

Zhou

X. H.

(2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(2), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6342

40.

Johnson

McClure

(2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LERI.0000022279.89075.9f

41.

Karadağ

İşçi

Öztekin

Anar

(2016). The relationship between school climate and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.17679/iuefd.17294446

42.

Kashy-Rosenbaum

Aizenkot

(2020). Exposure to cyberbullying in WhatsApp classmates’ groups and classroom climate as predictors of students’ sense of belonging: A multi-level analysis of elementary, middle and high schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 108(104614). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104614

43.

Kim

K. R.

Seo

E. H.

(2018). The relationship between teacher efficacy and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(4), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6554

44.

Konold

Cornell

Jia

Malone

(2018). School climate, student engagement, and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi-informant examination. Aera Open, 4(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418815661

45.

Korpershoek

Harms

de Boer

van Kuijk

Doolaard

(2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799

46.

Koth

C. W.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Leaf

P. J.

(2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96

47.

Larocque

(2008). Assessing perceptions of the environment in elementary classrooms: The link with achievement. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360802488732

48.

López

Torres-Vallejos

Ascorra

Villalobos-Parada

Bilbao

Valdés

(2018). Construction and validation of a classroom climate scale: A mixed methods approach. Learning Environ Res, 21(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9258-0

49.

Loukas

Suzuki

Horton

K. D.

(2006). Examining school connectedness as a mediator of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00504.x

50.

Malik

R. H.

Rizvi

A. A.

(2018). Effect of classroom learning environment on students’ academic achievement in mathematics at secondary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(2), 207–218.

51.

Mavridis

White

I. R.

(2020). Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1349

52.

Maxwell

Reynolds

K. J.

Subasic

Bromhead

(2017). The impact of school climate and school identification on academic achievement: Multilevel modeling with student and teacher data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(2069), 2069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02069

53.

McLeod

D. B.

(1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In Grouws

D. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). Macmillan.

54.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/428746

55.

Özdemir

Gümüş

Kılınç

AÇ

Bellibaş

MŞ

(2022). A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: An updated framework and future direction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221118662

56.

Papageorge

N. W.

Gershenson

Kang

K. M.

(2018). Teacher expectations matter (Nicholas W. Papageorge, Seth Gershenson, & Kyung Min Kang, Teacher Expectations Matter (November 2018). NBER Working Paper No. W25255). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3282955

57.

Peker

Ertekin

(2011). The relationship between mathematics teaching anxiety and mathematics anxiety. The New Educational Review, 23(1), 213–226.

58.

Pianta

R. C.

La Paro

K. M.

Hamre

B. K.

(2006). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Brookes.

59.

Priddy

E. A.

(2018). Students’ perceptions of school climate and the impact on students’ academic outcomes: A quantitative analysis. Tarleton State University, Texas.

60.

PRISMA. (2020). Flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only . https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram

61.

Scheerens

Witziers

Steen

(2013). A meta-analysis of school effectiveness studies. Revista de Educación, 361, 619–645. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2013-361-235

62.

Schweig

Hamilton

L. S.

Baker

(2019). School and classroom climate measures: Considerations for use by state and local education leaders. RAND Coproration.

63.

Shindler

Jones

Williams

A. D.

Taylor

Cardenas

(2016). The school climate- student achievement connection: If we want achievement gains, we need to begin by improving the climate. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v1i1.1905

64.

Sink

C. A.

Spencer

L. R.

(2007). Teacher version of the My Class Inventory-Short form: An accountability tool for elementary school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2010-11.129

65.

Slee

P. T.

Skrzypiec

(2016). Well-being, positive peer relations and bullying in school settings. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43039-3

66.

Stewart

E. A.

(2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 575–604.

67.

Sulak

T. N.

(2016). School climate and academic achievement in suburban schools. Education and Urban Society, 48(7), 672–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124514541465

68.

Szczygieł

Pieronkiewicz

(2021). Exploring the nature of math anxiety in young children: Intensity, prevalence, reasons. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 24(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1882363

69.

Thapa

Cohen

Guffey

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907

70.

Trinidad

J. E.

(2020). Material resources, school climate, and achievement variations in the Philippines: Insights from PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Development, 75(102174). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102174

71.

UNESCO (2011). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011 . https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

72.

Urick

Bowers

A. J.

(2014). The impact of principal perception on student academic climate and achievement in high school: How does it measure up? Joumal of School Leadership, 24(2), 386–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461402400207

73.

van Horn

M. L.

(2003). Assessing the unit of measurement for school climate through psychometric and outcome analyses of the school climate survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 1002–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403251317

74.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

J. L.

Amemiya

Parr

Guo

(2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57(100912). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912

75.

Wang

M.-T.

Holcombe

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209

76.

Way

Reddy

Rhodes

(2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y

77.

Yang

(2012). The relationship between gifted and general secondary school students’ perceptions of the classroom quality and their mathematics achievement in China. Purdue University.

78.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255

79.

Zullig

K. J.

Koopman

T. M.

Patton

J. M.

Ubbes

V. A.

(2010). School climate review, instrument development and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205