Why Teachers Do What They Do In Their Classrooms: An Investigation of Authoritative

Teaching

Katherine R. Raser

Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey

Background Reserach• Strong emphasis on effective school reform

since 1970s (Bell, 1983; Carpenter,2000)

• Factors that contribute to effective school reform:– School support for teachers (i.e. mentoring) (Berkley, 2002;

Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1997)

– Stable classrooms (Carpenter, 2000)

– Effective classroom and teaching practices (Deci, et.al, 1982; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Reeve, Bolt & Cai, 1999; Skinner & Belmont, 1993)

Background Research• Research on teaching has focused on effective

teaching practices, including• Autonomy support (e.g. student

independent work, and use of complex open-ended tasks) (Cai, Reeve, & Robinson, 2002; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Vallerand, Fortier, Michelle & Guay, 1997)

• Emotional support (e.g. warmth, caring, and use of “unconventional assistance”) (Perry, 1998; Skinner & Belmont, 1993)

Background Research

• Research on psychological constructs that support effective teaching practices:

• Teaching efficacy – Positive student interactions – Task-focused lessons(Ashton, 1985; Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlback, 2002; Roeser & Midgley,

1997)

• Perceptions of school climate – student expectations – student and faculty relationships(Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Newman, Rutter & Smith, 1989; Sutherland,1994)

• Perceptions of contextual support for teaching – types of interactive decisions – complexity of lessons

(Clark & Peterson, 1986; Kiesling, 1984; Lopus, 1990)

Purpose of Research

• Teaching style - sets of teaching practices used to conduct a classroom (Walker 2003; Wentzel, 2002)

• This study examines links between teaching style and selected personal and contextual factors theoretically related to teaching style.

Teaching Style

• Grows from parenting style research (e.g. Baumrind 1983,1989); defined by:

• demandingness (e.g. control, maturity demands) • responsiveness (e.g. warmth, nurturance, and

communication)

• Teaching style may incorporate the components of demandingness and responsiveness (Walker, 2003; Wentzel, 2002).

Responsive and Demanding Teaching Practices

• Responsive teaching practices:– Emotional support– Affective warmth– Communication– Acceptance– Reciprocity

• Demanding teaching practices:– Control– Maturity demands– Direct interactions and

requests– Monitoring

Responsive and Demanding Teaching Practices

• Responsive teaching practices:– Emotional support– Affective warmth– Communication– Acceptance– Reciprocity

• Demanding teaching practices:– Control– Maturity demands– Direct interactions and

requests– Monitoring

Authoritative Teaching Style: Highly responsive and highly demanding

Teaching Styles

Low Responsiveness

High Responsiveness

Low Demandingness

Rejecting-Neglecting Teaching Style

Permissive-Indulgent Teaching Style

High Demandingness

Authoritarian Teaching Style

Authoritative Teaching Style

Main Hypothesis

• Teachers who report an authoritative teaching style will record – higher levels of personal teaching efficacy,– more positive perceptions of school climate, – more positive perceptions of contextual support for teaching

Personal Teaching Efficacy

Perceptions of

School ClimatePerceptions

ofContextualSupport forTeaching

TeachingStyle

Participants

• 53 teachers; Grades K – 7

• 1 private school & 5 public schools

• 50% response rate

• 41% taught less than 5 years

• 86% female

• 53% BA/BS as highest degree held.

Procedure

• Principal or contact person distributed consent forms and questionnaires and collected them when completed.

• Participating teachers received $5 gift cards

Pilot Work

• Pilot work summer 2004– Adapted and developed study measures– Assessed all measure reliabilities.– Made necessary changes

Measures

• Teaching Style: 2 scales developed for this study during pilot work.– Assesses: teacher-reported levels of responsiveness

and demandingness:• Responsiveness - 8 items; α = .73

– e.g. “I adjust my teaching strategies to the levels of the individual students”;)

• Demandingess -5 items; α = .71 – e.g. “I expect my students to maintain self-control”;)

– 6-point frequency scale (1 = always 6 = never)

Measures

• Personal Teaching Efficacy: Personal Teaching Efficacy Scale (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler,& Brissie, (1992). – Assesses: how effective a teacher thinks he/she is in

teaching.– 11 items; α = .81

• E.g. “I am successful with the students in my class”

– 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 = strongly disagree)

Measures

• Perceptions of School Climate: adapted from Perceptions of School Climate scale (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). – Assesses: the extent to which teachers think their school is

a well organized and positive workplace. – 3 Subscales: Academic excellence, principal

consideration, school morale– Total scale includes 15 items; α = .85

• E.g., “Teachers at my school are friendly and approachable with each other.”

– 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 = strongly disagree)

Measures

• Contextual Support for Teaching: scale developed during pilot work– assesses: extent to which teachers feel that the

school provides necessary resources for teaching.– 3 items; α = .59

• E.g. “My school provides me with sufficient computers and technology.”

– 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 = strongly disagree)

Measures

• Teaching Style: teacher-reported levels of responsiveness and demandingness (scales developed during pilot work)

• Personal Teaching Efficacy: how effective a teacher thinks he/she is in teaching.

• School Climate: the extent to which teachers think their school is a well organized and positive workplace. – 3 Subscales: Academic excellence, principal consideration,

school morale• Contextual Support for Teaching: extent to which teachers feel

that the school provides necessary resources for teaching (scale developed during pilot work)

• Good reliabilities for each measure• 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)

Identification of Teaching Styles

• To distinguish between levels of responsiveness and demandingness, data were separated at 4.5 – Data separated at 3.0 on responsiveness and

demandingness yielded all authoritative teachers.

• Yields:– 41 authoritative teachers– 12 teachers of other styles

Results

• Teachers with authoritative teaching style– reported a more positive perception of school

climate (t = 2.40; p<.05).• Post-hoc analysis - more positive perception of

academic excellence subscale (t = 3.60; p<.01)

– Correlated with school climate (r =.42)• Specifically, academic excellence (r = .41) and

principal consideration (r = .37)

Results

• Grade level post-hoc analyses:– Teachers grades K-2 : higher personal self

efficacy than teachers grades 5-7 (F [2, 48] = 3.84, p<.05)

– Teachers grade 3-4 : higher perceptions of contextual support for teaching than teachers grades K-2 (F [2, 49] = 4.24, p<.05)

Correlations Among Study Correlations Among Study VariablesVariables

Authoritative Teaching Style

Responsiveness Demanding-ness

Efficacy School Climate Contextual Support for Teaching

Authoritative Teaching Style

--

Responsiveness .50* --

Demanding-ness

.85** .65** --

Efficacy ns .38** ns --

School Climate .42* ns .44** .34* --

Contextual Support

ns ns ns ns .30* --

Mean 10.75 4.80 5.08 4.54 5.22 4.71

SD .51 .43 .58 .47 .42 .81

Actual Range 9.67-11.67 3.25-5.5 3.60-6.00 3.18-5.55 4.00-6.00 2.33-6.00

Mean Trends: Personal Teaching Efficacy

Mean Trends: School Climate

Mean Trends: Contextual Support for Teaching

Results Summary

• Authoritative teaching style differs from other teaching styles in teachers’ perception of school climate, especially academic excellence.

• The means for all variables are in expected directions.

• Grade level differences: personal teaching efficacy and contextual support for teaching.

Implications

• Promote academic excellence and an overall positive school climate.– Recognize student achievement on a school

level– Have explicit expectations for individual

students– Have academic excellence an ongoing

emphasis

Future Directions

• Additional research addressing limitations of this study:– School Demographics: more varied sample of

schools – Number of years teaching: more varied sample of

teachers– Reliance on self-report: include observation or

interview data– Principal collection: participants completed

questionnaires. – Sample Size: more participants

Future Directions

• Future Steps– Examine development of teaching style in one

school. Follow teachers in one school over short period of time.

– Examine teaching style on pre-service teachers following them into first few teachers of teaching. Possibly in conjunction with formal mentoring program.

– Examine teaching style links to teachers’ parental involvement practices.

Acknowledgements

• All participating schools and teachers

• Family-School Partnership Lab– Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey– Howard Sandler– Christa Green– Kristen Closson– Kelly Sheehan