Task-Focused Behavior Mediates the Associations Between Supportive Interpersonal Environments and Students’ Academic Performance

Abstract

In the longitudinal study presented here, we tested the theoretical assumption that children’s task-focused behavior in learning situations mediates the associations between supportive interpersonal environments and academic performance. The sample consisted of 2,137 Finnish-speaking children. Data on supportive interpersonal environments (characterized by authoritative parenting, positive teacher affect toward the child, and peer acceptance) were gathered in Grade 1. The children’s task-focused behavior was measured in Grades 2 and 3, and academic performance was measured in Grades 1 and 4. The results supported our assumption by showing that all three supportive environments were positively associated with children’s subsequent academic performance via increased task-focused behavior in learning situations. These findings suggest that students’ academic performance can be promoted by increasing the support they receive from peers, parents, and teachers because such increased support leads to better task focus in learning tasks.

Keywords

supportive interpersonal environments authoritative parenting positive teacher affect peer acceptance task-focused behavior academic performance relationship quality motivation academic achievement

The most important interpersonal environments during middle childhood are those between the child and his or her parents, peers, and teachers (Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Rubin, Bukowski, & Laursen, 2009). Many theories of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009) have suggested that supportive interpersonal environments are an important resource for the promotion of children’s academic performance. One possible explanation for the role of interpersonal support is that it reduces stress in demanding situations and increases children’s focus on and interest in learning tasks, thereby also promoting academic performance (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Previous research has shown that students who lack supportive relationships are at risk for academic problems (Kiuru et al., 2012; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999), whereas those with positive interpersonal relationships are more likely to perform better in school (e.g., Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011).

Children’s academic motivation can be viewed in terms of antecedents and consequences. Past learning experiences evoke expectations in new learning situations. These expectations then lay the foundation for a child’s motivational and behavioral approaches toward new learning tasks, as evidenced, for example, in his or her degree of task-focused effort and behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Wang & Eccles, 2012). For example, poor learning outcomes typically lead to task avoidance, whereas good academic performance activates mastery orientation and task-focused behavior (Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, 2000). Children who are task focused and willing to make an effort are thus likely to succeed in their learning tasks (Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008); in contrast, task-avoidant behavior increases the likelihood of academic failure, which, in the long run, endangers the development of academic skills.

In this study, children’s motivational and behavioral approaches toward new learning tasks were operationalized as child-reported task-focused behavior, which involves both the mastery beliefs that the child brings to the task and his or her task-focused effort. This construct resembles some previously used concepts, such as mastery orientation (e.g., preferring challenging tasks; Aunola, Viljaranta, Lehtinen, & Nurmi, 2013), and some aspects of emotional engagement (e.g., liking difficult tasks; Wang & Eccles, 2012) and behavioral engagement (e.g., showing effort and persistence in learning activities; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). Our construct, however, emphasizes the motivational incentives for investment and energy in a task. Operationalizations of behavioral engagement, in turn, are typically based on more general on-task behavior or measures of school attendance and compliance.

Although many theories of motivation assume that supportive interpersonal environments contribute to children’s academic performance by affecting a child’s academic involvement and learning motivation (Eccles et al., 1998; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012), only a few studies have directly investigated this topic. In one such study, Furrer and Skinner (2003) showed that children’s classroom engagement (vs. disaffection) was an important mediator between children’s feelings of relatedness to peers, parents, and teachers and their academic achievement. Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, and McGregor (2006), in turn, showed that the effects of adolescent perceptions of supportive relationships with peers and teachers and sense of school belonging predicted later academic achievement via academic engagement. In a third study, Wang and Holcombe (2010) found that seventh graders’ perceptions of different aspects of the school environment (support for autonomy, promotion of discussion, and support from teachers) predicted their academic achievement directly and indirectly through school engagement. Finally, Wentzel, Baker, and Russell (2012) revealed that associations between socially derived goals and students’ academic and social goal pursuits were partly mediated by perceived caring from teachers and peers.

Previous research has included some limitations. Prior studies have mostly been cross-sectional, and researchers have measured only student perceptions of social support or have not controlled for earlier levels of the constructs in their prediction of later academic motivation and achievement. Moreover, studies have typically focused on only one social context at a time, such as peers (e.g., Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006), parents (e.g., Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991), or teachers (e.g., Hughes, Wu, Kwok, Villarreal, & Johnson, 2012), instead of investigating the role of teachers, parents, and peers simultaneously (for exceptions, see Wang & Eccles, 2012; Wentzel et al., 2012). Furthermore, few studies have examined elementary school students (for exceptions, see Aunola et al., 2013). To our knowledge, no previous cross-lagged longitudinal studies have investigated, in the same study, the extent to which support from teachers, parents, and peers, mediated through academic motivation and engagement, predicts subsequent academic performance among elementary school students. Consequently, in this study, we used longitudinal data to test the proposition that a child’s task-focused behavior functions as a mediator of the effects of supportive environments on the child’s academic performance.

Method

Participants and procedure

This study was part of a follow-up study in which a community sample of 2,137 Finnish-speaking children (1,022 girls and 1,115 boys) was followed from kindergarten to Grade 4. At the beginning of the study, the children’s parents and teachers were asked for their written consent to participate. Table 1 shows the sample’s demographic characteristics. The sample was reasonably representative of the Finnish population (Statistics Finland, 2007).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants

Characteristic	Percentage of sample	M	SD	Actual range
Family structure (n = 1,953)
Both parents with biological children	75.2
Both parents with children from previous marriages	9.1
Single parent with children	13.9
Other	1.8
Children (n = 1,561)
Number of children in a family		2.25	1.04	1–8
Parental age (years)
Mother (n = 1,861)		38.41	5.27	25–56
Father (n = 1,858)		41.05	5.76	27–69
Parental education
Mother (n = 1,861)		4.19	1.50	1–7
Father (n = 1,858)		4.02	1.51	1–7

Note: Mother’s and father’s education were assessed using 7-point scales with the following anchors: 1 = no vocational education, 2 = short vocational courses, 3 = a vocational-school qualification, 4 = a college qualification, 5 = a bachelor’s degree from a university, 6 = a master’s degree, 7 = a licentiate or doctoral degree.

Data on supportive interpersonal environments were gathered in Grade 1 (April 2008, or Time 1, T1). Data on task-focused behavior were collected in Grade 2 (April 2009, or Time 2, T2) and Grade 3 (April 2010, or Time 3, T3), and data on academic performance were gathered in Grade 1 (T1) and Grade 4 (April 2011, or Time 4, T4).

Measures

Supportive interpersonal environments (T1)

Authoritative parenting was measured using a Finnish version of Block’s Child-Rearing Practices Report (see Aunola & Nurmi, 2005). On the basis of the Affection (mothers: α = .83; fathers: α = .84), Behavioral Control (mothers: α = .61; fathers: α = .67), and Psychological Control (mothers: α = .71; fathers: α = .75) subscales, we used latent profile analysis to classify mothers and fathers into parenting-style groups (for further details, see the Description of Latent Profile Analyses section in Additional Methods and Results in the Supplemental Material available online). Given that both mothers and fathers play an important role in creating the parenting climate, the present study focused on the parenting styles of both mothers and fathers. A variable that measured the extent of authoritative parenting (characterized by both high affection and high behavioral control) in the family was coded as follows: 1 = nonauthoritative family (both parents nonauthoritative; 26%), 2 = somewhat authoritative family (one parent authoritative and the other parent nonauthoritative; 46%), and 3 = authoritative family (both parents authoritative; 28%).

Positive teacher affect was measured by asking the teachers to rate their affect toward each child in teaching situations. Teachers responded to four items (example item: “When you teach this child, how often do you feel satisfaction?”; α = .84) using scales from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often). Teacher reports of positive affect toward a student have been shown to be closely related to sensitive teaching practices and the closeness of the teacher-student relationship (Spilt & Koomen, 2009).

Peer acceptance was measured using a sociometric procedure. The level of peer acceptance was represented by the number of positive nominations each child received, standardized by class size. Sociometric nominations have been shown to provide valid, stable, and reliable assessments of peer acceptance during childhood (Bukowski, Cillessen, & Velasquez, 2012).

Task-focused behavior (T2 and T3)

Children’s task-focused behavior was assessed using the Achievement Beliefs Scale for Children (see Aunola et al., 2013). Children were presented with nine statements regarding their typical thoughts (e.g., “I enjoy working with challenging school tasks”; “I actually like difficult school assignments”) and behaviors (e.g., “Difficult exercises make me try hard”; “I sometimes delay starting on my exercises,” reverse-scored; “If the exercise is difficult, I prefer doing something else,” reverse-scored) in academic situations and were asked to evaluate whether these statements were true or not true in their case. A mean score multiplied by the number of items measuring the extent of task-focused behavior was calculated on the basis of the item scores (four negatively worded items were reverse-coded; T2: α = .68; T3: α = .71).

Academic performance (T1 and T4)

Reading skills were assessed using tests of reading fluency drawn from the nationally standardized reading-test battery (Lindeman, 1998). Spelling ability was assessed by asking the children to write eight dictated nonwords (see Kiuru et al., 2012). Math skills were assessed using a speeded (3-min time limit) group-administered arithmetic test composed of addition and subtraction problems (see Räsänen, Salminen, Wilson, Aunio, & Dehaene, 2009). The composite score for academic performance was formed as follows: First, the scales of the children’s test scores on the different achievement tasks were standardized; second, the mean was calculated on the basis of the standardized test scores (T1: α = .71; T4: α = .63).

Statistical analyses

The analyses were performed using structural equation modeling with Version 7 of the Mplus statistical package and applying the complex approach, using classroom membership at Grade 4 (T4) as a clustering variable (Muthén & Muthén, 2013). This method estimates the models at the level of the whole sample but corrects possible distortions of standard errors caused by the clustering of observations (classroom differences). One-tailed significance tests were used for the hypothesized associations. The standard missing-at-random approach was applied, and full-information maximum likelihood estimation was used with nonnormality-robust standard errors (Muthén & Muthén, 2013). The goodness of fit of the models was evaluated according to the following four indicators: (a) chi-square test, (b) comparative fit index (CFI), (c) root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and (d) standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations among observed variables are provided in Table S1 in the Supplemental Material. Structural equation modeling was used to test the extent to which children’s task-focused behavior mediated the associations between supportive interpersonal environments and subsequent academic performance. We first tested the direct effects of interpersonal environments on academic performance without the mediator. All the direct effects were significant. Next, a factor for task-focused behavior consisting of related variables in Grades 2 and 3 was added into the model. The final model, which included only significant paths, fit the data well, χ²(7, N = 2,137) = 21.49, p = .003, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .02. The results showed moderate stability for academic performance (see the mediation model in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Mediation model depicting the associations among supportive interpersonal environments and academic performance in Grade 1, task-focused behavior in Grades 2 and 3, and academic performance in Grade 4. Asterisks indicate significant paths (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).

Moreover, when we controlled for children’s academic performance in Grade 1, each type of supportive interpersonal environment in Grade 1 showed a unique effect on the children’s subsequent task-focused behavior in Grades 2 and 3: The more authoritative a child’s parents were, the more positive affect teachers reported toward a child, and the more accepted a child was in his or her peer group, the more task-focused behavior in academic tasks he or she showed later on. Task-focused behavior, in turn, predicted a higher level of subsequent academic performance.

The results further showed that the indirect effects from supportive environments to academic performance via task-focused behavior were in accordance with the hypothesized model. The effects of authoritative parenting (standardized estimate of indirect effect = .012, p = .0495), positive teacher affect (standardized estimate of indirect effect = .028, p = .006), and peer acceptance (standardized estimate of indirect effect = .014, p = .008) in Grade 1 on academic performance in Grade 4 were all mediated via task-focused behavior in Grades 2 and 3.

In addition, we tested whether the effect of low support in one interpersonal domain on task-focused behavior would be compensated for by high support in another domain (compensatory effects) and whether the higher overall number of supportive environments would predict increased task-focused behavior (cumulative effects; for further details, see the Additional Analyses section in Additional Methods and Results in the Supplemental Material). The results for the interaction terms showed no compensatory effects. Moreover, when we controlled for the effects of single supportive environments, a higher overall number of supportive environments predicted increased task-focused behavior (β = 0.25, p = .03), which, in turn, predicted increased academic performance (standardized estimate for indirect effect = .04, p = .049).

Discussion

This longitudinal study was designed to test the assumption, posited by theories of academic motivation, that interpersonal support by parents, peers, and teachers benefits students’ academic performance through their academic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Eccles et al., 1998; Skinner et al., 2009). The present results supported these theories by showing that all supportive interpersonal environments promoted children’s academic performance by increasing their task-focused behavior in learning situations. These findings indicate that children are more willing to approach challenging learning tasks, and show persistence and sustained effort in such tasks, when they receive support from their peers, parents, and teachers. Such a task focus was found to be positively associated with subsequent academic performance.

These results are consistent with Deci and Ryan’s (2000) postulation that fulfillment of the basic need for interpersonal relatedness facilitates individuals’ efforts to transform their external goals into internal objectives through internalization. On the other side of the coin, the results indicated that the less supportive students’ interpersonal environments were, the more task-avoidant behavior they showed and the poorer their later academic performance. Furrer and Skinner (2003) noted that children who feel unimportant or rejected by significant others are more likely to become frustrated, bored, and alienated from learning activities, which interferes with their academic progress.

Our results contribute to the literature in several ways. Specifically, this study is among the first to show longitudinal evidence that the major supportive interpersonal environments (i.e., between children and their teachers, parents, and peers) all uniquely promote academic performance by increasing students’ task-focused behavior. Moreover, unique associations aside, these interpersonal environments had a cumulative effect: A higher overall number of supportive environments predicted increased task-focused behavior, which, in turn, benefited students’ academic performance. Because we controlled for students’ previous academic performance when predicting later academic performance, our data allow stronger conclusions to be drawn on the direction of the associations than do the data used in some previous studies. A further strength of our study is that information was obtained from different sources (i.e., self-report, sociometric ratings, test scores).

In addition, the present study focused on elementary school students. Prior attempts to consider several interpersonal environments simultaneously while investigating task-focused behavior or academic engagement as a mediator have focused on the later school years (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). Investigation of the antecedents of academic performance in elementary school is particularly important, given that early academic performance has been shown to forecast academic and mental-health outcomes across the school years and beyond (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Roeser, Eccles, & Freedman-Doan, 1999). Our results revealed that, even when the joint variance of different social interpersonal environments was controlled for, authoritative parenting, peer acceptance, and teachers’ positive affect each had a unique positive association with students’ task-focused behavior, which, in turn, promoted subsequent academic performance.

Finally, this study has practical implications. Knowledge of the mechanisms that govern how interpersonal environments increase or decrease academic achievement is crucial for any applied research targeted at the development of preventions and interventions for improving students’ academic achievement. Our results suggest that it is possible to decrease task avoidance and increase academic engagement by promoting the quality of interpersonal environments in both the home and school contexts.

The study also had its limitations. First, although our study was longitudinal, the analyses were correlational; therefore, causal inferences cannot be drawn. Second, although the results supported the tested theory, the effect sizes were small. Given that the environmental variables were measured via questionnaires, the associations might be even stronger in real life. Finally, this study focused on only one plausible mediating mechanism in the association between supportive interpersonal environments and academic performance. A challenge for future researchers would be to investigate multiple mediators and longer mediator chains.

Our finding that supportive interpersonal environments benefit students’ later academic performance through task-focused behavior underscores the view that the promotion of students’ interpersonal relationships is an important tool in any interventions aimed at helping a child to deal with various learning situations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding

This study was funded by grants from the Academy of Finland to N. Kiuru (7133146), M.-K. Lerkkanen (268586), A.-M. Poikkeus (263891), and J.-E. Nurmi (252304).

Supplemental Material

Additional supporting information may be found at

References

Alexander

K. L.

Entwisle

D. R.

Horsey

C. S.

(1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87–107.

Aunola

Nurmi

J.-E.

(2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76, 1144–1159.

Aunola

Viljaranta

Lehtinen

Nurmi

J.-E.

(2013). The role of maternal support of competence, autonomy and relatedness in children’s interests and mastery orientation. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 171–177.

Buhs

E. S.

Ladd

G. W.

Herald

S. L.

(2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13.

Bukowski

W. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Velasquez

A. M.

(2012). The use of peer ratings in developmental research. In Laursen

Little

Card

(Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 211–228). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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, 227–268.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

Schiefele

(1998). Motivation to succeed. In Damon

(Series Ed.) & Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York, NY: Wiley.

Furrer

Skinner

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

10.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(1991). The inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508–517.

11.

Hughes

J. N.

Luo

Kwok

Loyd

L. K.

(2008). Teacher–student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 1–14.

12.

Hughes

J. N.

Kwok

Villarreal

Johnson

A. Y.

(2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher-student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 350–365.

13.

Kiuru

Aunola

Torppa

Lerkkanen

M.-K.

Poikkeus

A.-M.

Viljaranta

. . . Nurmi

J.-E.

(2012). The role of parenting styles and teacher interactional styles in children’s reading and spelling development. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 799–823.

14.

Ladd

G. W.

Birch

S. H.

Buhs

E. S.

(1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.

15.

Lindeman

(1998). ALLU — Ala-asteen lukutesti [ALLU — Reading test for primary school]. Turku, Finland: Center for Learning Research.

16.

Muthén

B. O.

(2013). Mplus Version 7 user’s guide. Available from http://www.statmodel.com

17.

Onatsu-Arvilommi

Nurmi

J.-E.

(2000). The role of task-avoidant and task-focused behaviors in the development of reading and mathematical skills during the first school year: A cross-lagged longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 478–491.

18.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

(2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.

19.

Räsänen

Salminen

Wilson

Aunio

Dehaene

(2009). Computer-assisted intervention for children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development, 24, 450–472.

20.

Roeser

Eccles

J. S.

Freedman-Doan

(1999). Academic functioning and mental health in adolescence: Patterns, progressions, and routes from childhood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 135–174.

21.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

M. Y.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529.

22.

Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

(2009). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Skinner

Furrer

Marchand

Kindermann

(2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765–781.

24.

Skinner

E. A.

Kindermann

T. A.

Connell

J. P.

Wellborn

J. G.

(2009). Engagement as an organizational construct in the dynamics of motivational development. In Wentzel

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 223–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

25.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

(2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Spilt

J. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2009). Widening the view on teacher–child relationships: Teachers’ narratives concerning disruptive versus nondisruptive children. School Psychology Review, 38, 86–101.

27.

Statistics Finland. (2007). Statistical databases. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/tup/tilastotietokannat/index_en.html

28.

Wang

M.-T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895.

29.

Wang

M.-T.

Holcombe

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–662.

30.

Wentzel

K. R.

Baker

S. A.

Russell

S. L.

(2012). Young adolescents’ perceptions of teachers’ and peers’ goals as predictors of social and academic goal pursuit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 605–633.

31.

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, 911–933.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.57 MB

0.63 MB