See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250184842

The Classroom Social Environment and Changes in Adolescents’ Motivation and

Engagement During Middle School

Article  in  American Educational Research Journal · June 2001

DOI: 10.3102/00028312038002437

CITATIONS READS

616 13,696

2 authors:

Allison M. Ryan Helen Patrick

University of Michigan Purdue University
57 PUBLICATIONS   5,636 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   4,196 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interactive Whiteboards and the Teacher-Student Relationship: Help or Harm? View project

Motivation Theory in Educational Contexts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helen Patrick on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 American Educational Research Journal
Summer 2001, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 437–460

The Classroom Social Environment and

Changes in Adolescents’ Motivation and
Engagement During Middle School
Allison M. Ryan
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Helen Patrick
Northern Illinois University

The authors investigated how students’ (N = 233) perceptions of the social

environment of their eighth-grade classroom related to changes in motiva-
tion and engagement when they moved from seventh to eighth grade. In
general, prior motivation and engagement were strong predictors of subse-
quent motivation and engagement, whereas gender, race, and prior
achievement were not related to changes in motivation or engagement. A
higher-order classroom social environment factor accounted for significant
changes in all motivation and engagement outcomes. Four distinct dimen-
sions of the social environment were differentially important in explaining
changes in various indices of motivation and engagement. In general, how-
ever, students’ perceptions of teacher support, and the teacher as promoting
interaction and mutual respect were related to positive changes in their
motivation and engagement. Students’ perceptions of the teacher as promot-
ing performance goals were related to negative changes in student motiva-
tion and engagement. Implications for recent educational reform initiatives
were also discussed.

ALLISON M. RYAN is an Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology,

230 Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820-6990. Her areas of specialization are motivation,
classroom contextual influences on achievement beliefs and behaviors, help seeking
beliefs and behaviors, and socialization within adolescent peer groups.
HELEN PATRICK is now an Assistant Professor at the Department of Educational
Studies, Purdue University, 1446 LAEB, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Her areas of spe-
cialization are motivation, self-regulated learning, and effects of classroom contexts.
Ryan and Patrick

R esearch in a variety of areas has documented that characteristics of class-

room environments have an impact on student motivation and engage-
ment. In particular, this research has focused on teachers’ practices around
academic activities, and students’ perceptions of these practices. However,
classrooms are inherently social places; students do not learn alone but
rather in the presence of many peers. Students pursue both social and aca-
demic goals in the classroom (Juvonen & Murdock, 1995; Urdan & Maehr,
1995; Wentzel, 1993). Furthermore, teachers are more than subject matter
specialists. In addition to delivering the curriculum, teachers help to con-
struct the classroom social environment by creating norms and rules for
student social behavior in the classroom and giving explicit messages re-
garding students’ interactions with their classmates. The types of academic
tasks teachers assign can encourage or dissuade cooperation and sharing of
expertise. Furthermore, the types of participation structures they establish
and the way they publicly recognize students contribute to the social envi-
ronment. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to explore how various
dimensions of the social environment of the classroom support or under-
mine students’ motivation and engagement.
There is some research supporting the argument that the social en-
vironment of the classroom will be important for students’ motivation
and engagement. A sense of relatedness or belonging at school is associated
positively with students’ expectancies for success and intrinsic value
for school—both indicators of motivation (Goodenow, 1993; Skinner & Bel-
mont, 1993). Research in cooperative learning has found that students re-
ported increased efficacy, value, and mastery goal orientation regarding
math when their classes were organized cooperatively, compared to tradi-
tional formats (Nichols & Miller, 1994). In classrooms where teachers report
they attend to students’ social as well as academic needs, students reported
more help seeking—an indicator of engagement (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley,
1998). Social interaction among students has been found to be related posi-
tively to reading engagement, including use of cognitive strategies (Guthrie,
Schafer, Wang, & Afflerbach, 1995). Consistent with the previous studies,
other researchers (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Brown, 1990; Parker & Asher,
1987) have shown that successful peer relationships are important for school
adjustment and academic achievement. However, the extent to which class-
room peer interactions (as distinct from relationships with individual friends,
within a clique, or a crowd) relate to motivation and engagement has not
received much attention. Furthermore, the role that the teacher plays in
creating the social environment within which classroom peer relationships
develop has also received little attention. In short, there is a need for inves-
tigation of the nature of the classroom social environment, including iden-
tifying and distinguishing among dimensions that contribute to students’
classroom perceptions.
In the present study we explore several dimensions of the classroom
social environment, including perceptions about both classmates and the
teacher. Because academic and social development are each inherently as-

438
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
sociated with learning and achievement (McCaslin & Good, 1996) we inves-
tigate relations between the classroom social environment and both
academic and social outcomes. Specifically, we consider the following out-
comes: students’ academic and social efficacy, self-regulated learning, and
disruptive behavior. Academic efficacy refers to students’ judgments about
their capabilities to complete their schoolwork successfully (Schunk, 1991).
Social efficacy refers to students’ judgments about their social skills regarding
interacting successfully with their peers and teacher (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan,
1997). Self-regulated learning refers to students’ active cognitive engagement
with the task in hand, such as planning, monitoring comprehension, and
checking their work (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Disruptive behavior refers
to disturbing others and negative conduct in class (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).
Together, these various academic and social outcomes provide an overview
of students’ motivation and engagement in class.
Early Adolescence and the Classroom Social Environment
Although the social environment of the classroom is likely to be important to
motivation and engagement for students of all ages, it may be particularly
important for young adolescent students. Early adolescence has been iden-
tified as a particularly precarious stage regarding changes in achievement
beliefs and behaviors (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989,
1995; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). Certainly, for some young
adolescent students, the increases in self-reflection, autonomy, and identity
exploration lead to new academic interests, increased self-regulated learn-
ing, and a commitment to education (Goodenow, 1993). However, for many
children early adolescence marks the beginning of a downward trend in
academics. More so than at other ages, young adolescents doubt their abili-
ties to succeed at their schoolwork, question the value of doing their school-
work, and decrease their effort toward academics (Anderman & Maehr, 1994;
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; 1995; Eccles & Midg-
ley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). In the present study we examine changes in
young adolescents’ motivation and engagement when they transition from
seventh to eighth grade within the same middle school.
Research using a stage-environment fit framework indicates that optimal
development for adolescents will occur in an educational context that is
appropriately matched to their developmental needs (see Eccles et al., 1993
for a review). For young adolescents, meeting these developmental needs
involves addressing their increased desire for autonomy, increased reflection
on more abstract constructs (e.g., fairness), increased need for positive and
supportive relationships with both peers and nonparental adults, and in-
creased self-consciousness and sensitivity regarding social comparison (Ni-
cholls, 1990). Environments that are sensitive to such changes have been
associated with more positive student outcomes, whereas environments that
are at odds with the needs of young adolescent students have been associ-
ated with more negative outcomes (Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987; Midgley,
Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). We outline below aspects of the classroom social

439
Ryan and Patrick
environment that may be especially relevant to young adolescents’ motiva-
tion and engagement.
Dimensions of the Classroom Social Environment
Teacher Support
Previous research has investigated one dimension of the classroom social
environment: teacher support. Teacher support has been defined slightly
differently by various researchers (e.g., Goodenow, 1993; Fraser & Fisher,
1982; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Skinner & Belmont, 1993), but it
generally involves characteristics such as caring, friendliness, understanding,
dedication, and dependability. Thus, teacher support refers to the extent to
which students believe teachers value and establish personal relationships
with them. Perceived teacher support has been linked to students’ achieve-
ment motivation. When students perceive their teacher as supportive they
report higher levels of interest and enjoyment in their schoolwork (Good-
enow, 1993; Fraser & Fisher, 1982; Midgley et al., 1989; Skinner & Belmont,
1993), a more positive academic self-concept (Felner, Aber, Primavera, &
Cauce, 1985), and greater expectancies for success in the classroom (Good-
enow, 1993). Nonparental adults are especially important as role models and
sources of support during adolescence (Midgley et al., 1989). Longitudinal
research has shown that perceived teacher support has a stronger effect on
students’ motivational beliefs during junior high school compared to el-
ementary school (Midgley et al., 1989). In line with this research we expect
that teacher support will be related positively to students’ academic efficacy.
Perceptions of teacher supportiveness, and confidence that help will be
available if needed, would be expected to decrease students’ anxiety about
task engagement. Such anxiety undermines self-regulated learning (Pintrich
& De Groot, 1990). Thus, we expect teacher support to be also related
positively to students’ self-regulated learning. In addition, we hypothesize
that perceptions of teacher support will facilitate students’ social efficacy
relating to the teacher and reduce disruptive behavior in the classroom. We
do not expect a relation between teacher support and students’ social effi-
cacy with their peers.
In addition to perceptions of teacher-student relationships as being
supportive, we suggest that teacher messages about student-student rela-
tionships may also contribute to the classroom social environment. We ex-
plore three different dimensions that teachers may communicate to students
about their relationships with peers around academic tasks: (a) other stu-
dents are valuable resources with whom you work to increase learning
(promoting interaction); (b) other students are to be shown respect and
support (promoting mutual respect); and (c) other students are markers of
your relative ability, with whom you are compared to and compete with
(promoting performance goals).
Promoting Interaction
Teachers vary in the extent to which they encourage, or even allow, students
to interact with one another during academic activities. This interaction may

440
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
encompass students sharing ideas during whole-class lessons, working to-
gether in small-group activities, or informal help-seeking and help-giving
during individual seatwork. Whatever the form, however, interaction among
students is a critical component of student-centered instructional ap-
proaches. When students are encouraged to interact and exchange ideas
with each other during academic tasks they have opportunities to justify their
own position and gain exposure to other possibilities (Good, Mulryan, &
McCaslin, 1992; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). Adolescents’ increased capacity for
considering others’ perspectives, generating options, being reflective, and
evaluating alternatives (Keating, 1990) suggests that interaction in the class-
room may be especially beneficial at this stage. Students should feel more
efficacious about their ability to learn and complete activities successfully
when interaction among students is promoted, because they have a greater
array of resources on which to draw than if they were only working indi-
vidually. With regard to self-regulated learning, McCaslin and Good (1996)
found that positive interactions among classmates support students’ self-
regulated, or “coregulated”, learning. In line with this, we expect that an
environment in which students are encouraged to discuss their schoolwork
and explain aspects of the task to one another will support students’ strategic
and planful task engagement. Thus, we expect that promoting interaction
among students will be related positively to students’ academic efficacy and
self-regulated learning.
A focus on encouraging student interaction in the classroom should also
promote social development, especially during early adolescence when peer
relationships are valued highly (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990) but middle
school structures often make it more difficult for students to establish mean-
ingful relationships with peers compared to elementary school (Eccles et al.,
1993; Hicks, 1997). Accordingly, we expect that promoting interaction will
be related positively to students’ efficacy relating to peers and their teacher.
It is unclear, however, how encouraging interaction would be related to
students’ disruptive behavior. Promoting interaction may make it easier for
students to become off-task and disruptive. Conversely, legitimizing oppor-
tunities for students to talk with one another and meet social needs may be
associated with decreased disruptive behavior in the classroom.
Promoting Mutual Respect
Teachers may vary in the values that they communicate to students about
relating to and respecting peers. An observational study of 19 classrooms
found considerable variability in interactions among students and between
the teacher and students (Anderson, Stevens, Prawat, & Nickerson, 1988).
Whereas some classrooms were characterized by positive and comfortable
relationships and frequent prosocial and cooperative interactions, other
classrooms had an unpleasant affective tone and frequent negative student
interactions such as bickering, criticism and insults. Perceptions that the
teacher promotes mutual respect in the classroom would be expected to
contribute to students’ feelings of psychological safety and comfort, includ-

441
Ryan and Patrick
ing low anxiety and low threat regarding making mistakes. When students
are anxious or worried about making mistakes they are less likely to engage
in their academic work in an effortful and strategic manner (Turner, Thorpe,
& Meyer, 1998). Resource allocation theory suggests that this may be due to
negative affect increasing task-irrelevant thoughts, which overloads working
memory, thereby reducing the available cognitive capacity (Ellis & Ash-
brook, 1987). Thus, a classroom environment in which the teacher promotes
mutual respect is expected to support students’ self-regulated learning and
academic efficacy.
Furthermore, a focus on respect should help create an environment
where students communicate positively with one another, and feel effica-
cious about their social relationships. Because adolescence is typically a time
of increased self-consciousness and sensitivity (Elkind, 1967; Harter, 1990),
the promotion of mutual respect may be especially beneficial to adolescents’
adaptive social functioning in the classroom. Accordingly, we also expect
that promotion of mutual respect in the classroom will be related positively
to social efficacy with peers and the teacher, and related negatively to dis-
ruptive behavior.

Promoting Performance Goals

The promotion of performance goals concerns an emphasis on competition
and relative ability comparisons among students in the classroom. Research
from a goal theory framework has examined this dimension of the classroom
and found that when students perceive an emphasis on performance goals
they are more likely to exhibit beliefs and behaviors that are less conducive
to, and often detrimental to, learning and achievement (see Ames, 1992 for
a review). We included this dimension of a classroom because it is social in
nature; that is, an emphasis on competition and relative ability inevitably
involves other students. The perception that the teacher promotes perfor-
mance goals may be particularly harmful to adolescents’ motivation, again
because of adolescents’ heightened self-consciousness and sensitivity (Har-
ter, 1990). Support for this comes from studies that examined classroom
performance focus and student motivation. Both Ames and Archer (1988)
and Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman (1998) found that a classroom focus on
performance goals was correlated negatively with students’ perceived aca-
demic competence. Furthermore, Midgley, Anderman, and Hicks (1995)
found middle school students’ perceptions of a school performance orien-
tation to be related negatively to their academic efficacy, although Roeser,
Midgley, and Urdan (1996) found no significant relation. In line with the
majority of these studies’ findings, we expect that the promotion of perfor-
mance goals by teachers will be related to students’ decreased feelings of
academic efficacy. Furthermore, we expect an emphasis on performance
goals to be related negatively to social efficacy and related positively to
disruptive behavior. As discussed by Butler (1995), when students are vying
with their classmates to establish their place in a hierarchy of ability they are

442
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
less likely to cooperate with each other, which may lead to less harmonious
social relations and increased disruptive behavior.
Previous research has examined the relation between performance
goals and students’ self-regulated learning. Some work has found that when
students focus on performance goals they are less likely to self-regulate their
learning, indicating that a focus on task performance relative to others, rather
than on the task itself, decreases the use of deep cognitive processing strat-
egies that lead to better understanding (Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece,
Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nolen, 1988). However, other research has
found no relation between classroom performance goals and self-regulated
learning (Ames & Archer, 1988). Ryan and Pintrich (1997) also found no relation
between performance goals and adaptive help seeking, one form of self-
regulated learning. Thus, although it seems reasonable to conclude that perfor-
mance goals do not promote self-regulated learning, it is not clear that they
necessarily undermine it. We expect a weak negative or null relation between
the promotion of performance goals and students’ self-regulated learning.
The Social Environment of Math Classrooms
It was important that we situate our investigation of the classroom social
environment within a specific domain so as not to confound aspects of the
classroom context with subject area. There are differences in the way teach-
ers and students perceive different disciplines which affects how lessons are
structured and perceived (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995; Stodolsky & Gross-
man, 1995). We focus on math classes in the present study. There are several
characteristics of math classrooms that are important to consider with regard
to students’ motivation and engagement. Unlike other subjects, students
(and often teachers) typically believe that there is only one correct way to
solve a math problem, and that involves following specific procedures pre-
scribed by the teacher (Lampert, 1990; Schoenfeld, 1992). Students typically
believe that math performance is affected more by innate ability than by
effort (Schoenfeld, 1992; Stodolsky, Salk, & Glaessner, 1991). When students
believe that difficulties reflect a lack of ability, they are likely to experience
anxiety or nervousness that may undermine motivation and engagement.
Accordingly, a social environment in math class that is perceived as sup-
portive, where students are not allowed to tease or ridicule others, where
sharing of ideas and opinions is fostered and valued, and where teachers do
not emphasize students’ relative performance is expected to be facilitative of
adaptive patterns of motivation and engagement.
Research Questions
In summary, we investigate how students’ perceptions of various facets of
the social environment of their eighth-grade math classroom (teacher sup-
port, promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, promoting perfor-
mance goals) relate to changes in motivation and engagement (academic
and social efficacy, self-regulated learning, and disruptive behavior) when
students move from seventh to eighth grade. We control for students’ prior
(seventh grade) motivation and engagement; therefore, the results indicate

443
Ryan and Patrick
the effects of the perceived classroom social environment on change in
motivation and engagement. Autocorrelations for these outcome beliefs and
behaviors tend to be significant from one year to the next. Therefore ac-
counting for intra-individual stability when examining how classroom per-
ceptions explain change in motivation and engagement provides convincing
evidence that the classroom environment does influence students’ motiva-
tion and engagement. We also control for students’ gender, race, and prior
achievement (seventh grade), because such characteristics are often associ-
ated with academic outcomes and we want to explain variation in motivation
and engagement above and beyond that associated with demographic char-
acteristics and achievement.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The students in this study are participating in a large-scale longitudinal study
examining the relation between the learning environment and adolescent
development. Students were recruited in fifth grade and 83% were given
permission by their parents to participate. Data for the current study were
collected from a subsample of the total sample (all schools did not partici-
pate at all waves) when students were in seventh and eighth grades. The
participants in this study were 233 students from three ethnically diverse
middle schools within two midwestern school districts. The sample was 45%
European American and 55% African American. The principals of these
schools described the students as coming predominantly from working class
backgrounds with about 40% of the students being eligible for free or re-
duced fee lunch. Fifty-seven percent of the sample was female.
Surveys were administered to students by trained research assistants in
the spring of seventh grade (wave 1) and in the fall of eighth grade (wave 2).
Surveys were administered to students in groups of 25–45 in the library or
cafeteria in the school. Three to four trained research assistants administered
the surveys. Students were told the purpose of the survey was to find out
what students thought about school. Students were informed that participat-
ing in the study was voluntary and that the information would be kept
confidential. Students were guided through an example of how to answer a
Likert-type survey question. Students were encouraged to ask questions.
One administrator read the items out loud and the others would monitor the
students and answer questions. Students circled their responses in pen or
pencil on the survey.
Students came from 30 different math classes taught by 15 different
teachers. The number of participating students from each of these 30 math
classes ranged from 1 to 28 (10 classes had 1–4 students; 8 classes had 5–8
students; 5 classes had 9–12 students; 6 classes had 13–19 students; and 1
class had 28 students). The uneven distribution of students surveyed per
math class reflects the fact that this study is part of a longitudinal study that
has been following individual students since the fifth grade (i.e., when stu-
dents moved into middle school, they were placed in classes with students
from different elementary schools who were not part of our study).

444
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
Measures
The format for all items was a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = not at all true
through 5 = very true. All items (perceptions of the classroom social envi-
ronment items and personal motivation and engagement) were specific to
math class. Principal Axis Factor analyses guided the construction of all
scales (analysis regarding the social environment scales is presented in the
results section).
Students’ perceptions of their classroom social environment. Students
reported their perceptions of the extent to which their teacher promoted
teacher-student relationships (teacher support), social interaction among
peers around academic tasks (promoting interaction), mutual respect among
classmates (promoting mutual respect), and competition and comparison
among students around academic tasks (promoting performance goals).
Items about the promotion of performance goals were taken from the Pat-
terns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al., 1996). Items about
teacher support were adapted from the Teacher Support subscale of the
Classroom Environment Scale (Moos & Trickett, 1974). The remaining two
measures of the classroom social environment were new, and written to
investigate these aspects of the social environment. Scales, items, and reli-
abilities are shown in Table 1.
Students’ motivation. Students answered questions about their aca-
demic efficacy, social efficacy with the teacher, and social efficacy with their
peers in math class. The measure of academic efficacy (5 items, ␣ = .86 wave
1 and ␣ = .90 wave 2) was taken from PALS (Midgley et al., 1996). Academic
efficacy refers to students’ judgments of their capability to complete their
work successfully. Examples of this scale include I’m certain I can figure out
how to do even the most difficult math work and I can do even the hardest
work in math class if I try. Students’ academic efficacy for mathematics in
eighth grade was correlated significantly with their actual math achievement
in eighth grade (r = .26, p < .001).
The measures of students’ social efficacy with the teacher (4 items, ␣ =
.79 wave 1 and ␣ = .69 wave 2) and social efficacy with peers (5 items, ␣ =
.73 wave 1 and ␣ = .76 wave 2) were constructed by Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan
(1997). These measures refer to students’ judgments of being able to relate
effectively and satisfactorily with their teacher and with their classmates,
respectively. Sample items of social efficacy with the teacher are If my math
teacher gets annoyed with me, I can usually work it out and I find it hard
to get along with my math teacher (reversed item). Sample items of social
efficacy with peers are I find it easy to start a conversation with most stu-
dents in my math class and I often don’t know what to say when other
students in my math class talk to me (reversed item).
Students’ engagement. Students answered questions about their self-
regulated learning and disruptive behavior in math class. The measure of
self-regulated learning (6 items, ␣ = .75 wave 1 and ␣ = .76 wave 2) was
adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) and measures developed by Zimmerman

445
 Table 1
Factor Loadings for Items Regarding Students’ Perceptions of the Classroom Social Environment

Promoting Promoting
Promoting mutual performance Teacher
interaction respect goals support

My math teacher . . .
allows us to discuss our work with classmates .88
lets us ask other students when we need help in math .86
encourages us to share ideas with one another in class .81
encourages us to get to know all the other students in class .59
encourages us to get to know our classmates’ names .55
encourages us to be helpful to other students with their math work .46
If you have a problem in math class you can just talk to someone about it .80
People in my math class often work out problems together .53
My math teacher . . .
wants students in this class to respect each others’ ideas .82
does not allow students to make fun of other students’ ideas in class .68
does not let us make fun of someone who gives the wrong answer .67
will not allow students to say anything negative about each other in class .66
wants all students to feel respected .55
points out those students who get good grades as an example to all of us .77
tells us us how we compare to other students .76
lets us know which students get the highest scores on a test .74
lets us know which students get the lowest scores on a test .68
points out those students who get poor grades as an example to all of us .62
makes it obvious when certain students are not doing well on their math work .58
calls on smart students more than on other students .46
Does your math teacher respect your opinion? .85
Does your math teacher really understand how you feel about things? .68
Does your math teacher try to help you when you are sad or upset? .52
Can you count on your math teacher for help when you need it? .44

Cronbach’s alpha .90 .82 .86 .82

Note. Factor loadings < .40 not reported.

 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
and Martinez-Pons (1988). Items concern the extent to which students plan,
monitor, and regulate their cognition. Examples of items include When I’m
working on a math problem, I think about whether I understand what I’m
doing and When I finish my math work, I check to make sure it’s done
correctly.
The measure of students’ disruptive behavior (5 items, ␣ = .89 wave 1
and ␣ = .82 wave 2) was constructed by Kaplan (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).
Items refer to student reports of their own disruptive behavior and negative
conduct in math class. Sample items include I disturb the lesson in math
class, I behave in a way that annoys my math teacher, and I do not follow
my math teacher’s directions.
Prior achievement. Students’ math grades from the final semester of
seventh grade were collected from their school records. The grades were
coded F = 1 through A+ = 13.
Results
Preliminary Analyses of the Classroom Social Environment Measures
Exploratory Factor Analyses. We explored the hypothesized four-factor
structure of students’ perceptions of the classroom social environment. Prin-
cipal Axis Factor analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted for the entire
sample (n = 233). The analysis yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0, which accounted for 56% of the variance. Items and factor loadings
are presented in Table 1. Loadings above .40 are shown. The four factors
corresponded to the four hypothesized classroom social environment vari-
ables: teacher support, teacher promotes interaction, teacher promotes mu-
tual respect, and teacher promotes performance goals. All factor loadings
were above .44 on their primary factor. No items cross-loaded (>.40) on two
factors. Reliability analyses indicated that the four classroom social environ-
ment scales had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from
.82 to .90, see Table 1). Reliability analyses also indicated that dropping any
items would not result in a higher Cronbach’s alpha for any of the scales.
Factor analyses were conducted again for boys and girls separately and
for African American and European American students separately. The same
four-factor structure was found regardless of gender or race. The factor
loadings were very similar across groups. These results indicated that student
perceptions of the classroom environment were very similar for all groups.
Reliability analyses were also conducted separately by gender and race. The
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all four scales were high across groups
(.82–.91). Thus, the perceived social environment items formed internally
consistent scales for all groups in our study. Therefore, the items in each of
the four scales were averaged to create four perceived social environment
scales with a range of 1–5.
Analyses of variance to investigate between-class differences in the di-
mensions of the classroom social environment measures. Student percep-
tions of their environment are a critical link in understanding how the
environment influences motivation and engagement. It is expected that there

447
Ryan and Patrick
will be individual differences in student perceptions of their environment,
and indeed in the present study it is this variation at the individual level that
we are exploring. However, it is expected that these perceptions would
converge somewhat among students in the same classroom because there is
a common experience. To examine the degree of consensus among students
regarding the social environment of the classroom, we calculated the intra-
class correlation (the ratio of the between class variance and the total
variance). These were estimated by running four unbalanced one-way ran-
dom-effects analyses of variance, in which class is a random factor with
varying numbers of students per class, and each of the four facets of the
social environment were the outcome variables. The one-way ANOVAS in-
dicated that the intraclass correlations for the student reports about their
classroom environment were 26%, 39%, 35%, and 27% for teacher support,
promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect, and promoting perfor-
mance goals, respectively. Thus, whereas there are individual differences
regarding student perceptions, it is informative to know that there is some
degree of concordance among students in a given classroom regarding these
measures of the classroom’s four dimensions of social environment.
Higher-order factor analysis of the dimensions of the classroom social
environment measures. Although the classroom social environment com-
prises four different dimensions, we expected the various dimensions to be
related. Thus, we subjected the four factors to a second-order or higher-
order factor analysis to see if the four factors reflected an overarching con-
struct. Principal Axis Factor analysis of the four dimensions yielded one
factor, indicating that there was an overall “classroom social environment”
construct. Teacher support, teacher promotes interaction, and teacher pro-
motes mutual respect all loaded positively (.85, .50, and .69, respectively),
whereas teacher promotes performance goals loaded negatively (−.43) on
the higher-order factor.

Descriptive Statistics
Eighth grade. The overall classroom social environment construct was
correlated positively with social efficacy with teachers (r = .44, p < .001),
social efficacy with peers (r = .18, p < .01), academic efficacy (r = .30, p <
.001), and self-regulated learning (r = .20, p < .01), and related negatively to
disruptive behavior (r = −.43, p < .001). Means, standard deviations, and
correlations among the four dimensions of the classroom social environment
and the motivation and engagement indices measured in eighth grade are
presented in Table 2. An expected pattern of correlations was found.
Teacher support, promoting interaction, and promoting mutual respect were
related positively to social efficacy with teachers and peers, academic effi-
cacy, and self-regulated learning, and related negatively to disruptive behav-
ior. Promoting performance goals was related negatively to social efficacy
with teachers and peers, academic efficacy, and self-regulated learning, and
related positively to disruptive behavior.

448
 Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Perceived Classroom Social Environment Variables and
Student Motivation and Engagement in Eighth Grade, Gender, Race, and Prior Achievement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Teacher support —
2. Promote interaction .49 —
3. Promote mutual respect .60 .40 —
4. Promote performance goals −.41 −.14 −.39 —
5. Social efficacy: teacher .71 .47 .49 −.45 —
6. Social efficacy: peers .17 .15 .20 −.17 .30 —
7. Academic efficacy .35 .14 .46 −.29 .47 .42 —
8. Disruptive behavior −.41 −.16 −.35 .45 −.35 .04 −.18 —
9. Self-regulated learning .44 .25 .50 −.22 .41 .20 .50 −.38 —
10. Gendera .07 .15 .10 −.18 .11 .13 −.02 −.21 −.01 —
11. Raceb .01 −.16 .16 −.05 −.05 .09 .31 −.02 .10 .06 —
12. Prior achievementc .21 .05 .06 −.31 .20 .11 .11 −.21 .00 .09 −.17 —
Mean 3.22 3.22 3.52 2.15 3.60 4.16 3.86 2.54 3.27 0.57 0.44 6.72
Standard deviation 1.05 1.07 1.11 0.97 1.01 0.77 0.92 1.14 0.82 3.56

Note. Correlations about .13 are significant at the p < .05 level.
a
Gender is coded 0 = male and 1 = female.
b
Race is coded 0 = European American and 1 = African American.
c
Prior achievement is seventh grade math grades (1 = F through 13 = A+).
Ryan and Patrick
Changes from seventh to eighth grade. We conducted paired sample
t-tests to examine mean level differences from wave 1 to wave 2 for our five
motivation and engagement outcome variables. There was only one signifi-
cant mean level change: social efficacy with peers increased from the end of
seventh grade (M = 3.93) to the beginning of eighth grade (M = 4.16), t (232)
= −4.61, p < .001. This indicates that when students become the oldest
students in the school, they feel more confident about their ability to get
along well with their peers. There was moderate stability in student reports
of their classroom motivation and engagement from seventh to eighth grade
(r values ranged from .43 to .51, p values < .01), with the exception of social
efficacy with the teacher, which had lower stability (r = .28, p < .01). Thus,
for the most part, there were no normative trends regarding increases or
decreases in motivation and engagement when students moved from sev-
enth to eighth grade. The moderate stability coefficients indicate that there
was some variability in whether students reported increased or decreased
motivation and engagement.
Examining Relations Among the Classroom Social Environment and Change
in Student Motivation and Engagement From Seventh to Eighth Grade
We first conducted multiple regression analyses with the higher order factor
and the dependent variables to see if the overall classroom social environ-
ment related to change in motivation and engagement variables. Controlling
for prior motivation and engagement, gender, race and prior achievement,
the classroom social environment did relate to changes in students’ social
efficacy with their teacher (␤ = .38, p < .001), academic efficacy (␤ = .21, <
.01), self-regulated learning (␤ = .15, p < .05), and disruptive behavior (␤ =
−.34, p < .001), but did not relate to changes in students’ social efficacy with
their peers.
Examining Relations Among Dimensions of the Classroom Social
Environment and Change in Student Motivation and Engagement From
Seventh to Eighth Grade
We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the in-
dependent contributions of the four dimensions of the eighth grade class-
room social environment in explaining change in students’ motivation and
engagement from seventh to eighth grade. We entered students’ prior mo-
tivation and engagement (seventh grade) into the regression models at the
first step. Next we entered students’ gender, race,1 and prior achievement
(seventh grade). At the third step we entered the four social environment
measures (teacher support, promoting interaction, promoting mutual re-
spect, and promoting performance goals).
Social efficacy with the teacher. The results for the student motivation
outcomes are shown in Table 3. Prior achievement, gender, and race were
not associated with changes in perceived efficacy relating to the teacher.
Note that once the dimensions of the social environment were in the model,
students’ beliefs about relating to their teacher the previous year were no

450
 Table 3
Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Student Motivation Outcomes

Dependent variables: Student motivation in the eighth grade

Social efficacy: teacher Social efficacy: peers Academic efficacy

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Controls
Prior motivation (seventh grade) .29*** .26*** .09 .47*** .45*** .43*** .42*** .35*** .32***
Prior achievement (seventh grade)a .11 −.02 .07 .05 .08 .01
Genderb .05 .00 .03 .01 −.06 −.10
Racec −.08 −.07 .08 .09 .26*** .20**
Classroom social environment (eighth grade)
Teacher support .52*** .04 .12
Promoting interaction .15* .09 −.02
Promoting mutual respect .05 .02 .31***
Performance goals −.19*** −.03 −.06
Change in R2 — .01 .46*** — — — — .07** .17***
Total adjusted R2 .08*** .09*** .55*** .22*** .22*** .22*** .17*** .24*** .41***

a
Prior achievement is seventh grade math grades (coded 1 = F through 13 = A+).
b
Gender is coded 0 = male and 1 = female.
c
Race is coded 0 = European American and 1 = African American.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Ryan and Patrick
longer significant. Perception of the teacher as supportive was the strongest
predictor of increased efficacy relating to the teacher (␤ = .52, p < .001),
indicating that social efficacy is in part situational and not just a within-
person characteristic. The perception that the teacher promoted interaction
in the classroom was related positively (␤ = .15, p < .05), whereas the
perception that the teacher promoted performance goals was related nega-
tively (␤ = −.19, p < .001), to changes in efficacy relating to the teacher.
Social efficacy with peers. Only prior efficacy relating to peers was a
significant predictor of changes in students’ efficacy regarding their capa-
bilities of communicating and getting along with their peers (␤ = .43, p <
.001). Interestingly, neither students demographics, prior achievement, nor
any of the dimensions of the classroom social environment contributed to
changes in students’ confidence relating to peers.
Academic efficacy. Increased academic efficacy was related to both
prior efficacy (␤ = .32, p < .001) and race (␤ = .20, p < .01). African American
students had a greater increase in academic efficacy from seventh to eighth
grade than European American students. Neither gender nor prior achieve-
ment predicted changes in efficacy. Although students’ perceptions of the
social environment of the classroom together accounted for an additional
17% of the variance in changes in academic efficacy, the only dimension that
contributed uniquely was the teacher promoting mutual respect. Perceptions
of the teacher promoting mutual respect were related to increased academic
efficacy (␤ = .31, p < .001). Perceptions of teacher support, promoting in-
teraction, and promoting performance goals did not contribute indepen-
dently to changes in academic efficacy.
Disruptive behavior. The regression results for the student engagement
measures are shown in Table 4. Demographic characteristics and prior
achievement were not related to changes in disruptive classroom behavior.
Previous disruptive behavior predicted increased disruptive behavior (␤ =
.46, p < .001). Perceptions of the teacher as supportive predicted decreased
disruptive behavior (␤ = −.21, p < .001). Increased disruptive behavior was
predicted by the perception that the teacher promoted performance goals (␤
= .24, p < .001). Neither promoting interaction in the classroom nor promot-
ing mutual respect was related uniquely to changes in disruptive behavior.
Self-regulated learning. Demographic characteristics and prior achieve-
ment were not related to changes in students’ self-regulated learning. Prior
self-regulated learning predicted increased levels (␤ = .39, p < .001). In-
creased self-regulated learning was associated uniquely with perceptions of
the teacher as promoting mutual respect (␤ = .35, p < .001) and with teacher
support (␤ = .21, p < .01). Contrary to our hypothesis, perceptions of pro-
moting interaction did not uniquely predict changes in self-regulated learn-
ing. Promoting performance goals did not predict changes in self-regulated
learning.
Discussion
The findings of the current study highlight the important role of the class-
room social environment in supporting or undermining changes in young
452
 Table 4
Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Student Engagement Outcomes

Dependent variables: Student engagement in the eighth grade

Disruptive behavior Self-regulated learning

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Controls
Prior engagement (seventh grade) .52*** .48*** .46*** .45*** .44*** .39***
Prior achievement (seventh grade)a −.07 .03 .03 −.04
Genderb −.13* −.10 −.05 −.07
Racec −.04 .01 .06 .01
Classroom social environment (eighth grade)
Teacher support −.21*** .21**
Promoting interaction −.02 .03
Promoting mutual respect −.08 .35***
Performance goals .24*** .05
Change in R2 — .04* .18*** — — .22***
Total adjusted R2 .24*** .28*** .46*** .20*** .20*** .42***

a
Prior achievement is seventh grade math grades (coded 1 = F through 13 = A+).
b
Gender is coded 0 = male and 1 = female.
c
Race is coded 0 = European American and 1 = African American.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Ryan and Patrick
adolescents’ motivation and engagement. This study indicated that the class-
room social environment is an overarching construct that is comprised of
different, but related, dimensions. The classroom social environment ex-
plained changes in students’ efficacy relating to their teacher, efficacy ac-
complishing their schoolwork, self-regulated learning, and disruptive
behavior, even after previous motivation, engagement, achievement, and
demographics were entered into the equations. These findings are in line
with a growing body of research documenting that young adolescent ad-
justment is related to the nature of the context that youth experience (e.g.,
Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles et al., 1993; Goodenow, 1992). The current
study also supported our conceptualization of several discrete dimensions of
the social environment of the classroom: teacher support, the promotion of
interaction with peers around academic tasks, the promotion of mutual re-
spect among classmates, and the promotion of performance goals among
classmates. Furthermore, the results indicated that students’ perceptions of
the distinct dimensions within that environment were differentially impor-
tant with respect to accounting for the changes in the various indicators of
motivation and engagement.
The first dimension of the social environment involved a belief that their
teacher cared about and supported them. Perceiving their teacher as sup-
portive was especially important for students’ confidence relating to the
teacher, self-regulated learning, and disruptive behavior. When students
moved into a middle school classroom with a teacher they perceived as
supportive, their efficacy for communicating and getting along with their
teacher increased and they engaged in more self-regulated learning. Further-
more, when students believed their teacher tried to understand them and
was available to help, they engaged in less off-task and disruptive behavior
in the classroom. Contrary to previous research, we did not find an inde-
pendent association between teacher support and students’ academic effi-
cacy. Although in the current study perceived teacher support and academic
efficacy were correlated significantly, when teacher support was considered
along with the other dimensions of the social environment, it was not asso-
ciated uniquely with academic efficacy. Therefore, the apparent differences
in results may be explained by the fact that the previous research on teacher
support has not simultaneously examined other dimensions of the classroom
social environment.
The second dimension concerned the extent to which it is acceptable
and encouraged for students to interact with their classmates regarding aca-
demic work. Is learning something you do independently or collaboratively?
If you do not understand something, is it appropriate to ask a peer? Students’
perception of being encouraged to interact with others in the classroom and
to share their ideas was correlated with all five indicators of motivation and
engagement. However, it was related uniquely only to confidence in inter-
acting with their teacher. It is unclear, however, why encouraging interaction
would facilitate confidence relating to the teacher, but not classmates. Per-
haps factors outside the classroom are much more important in influencing

454
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
relationships with peers than are classroom interactions. We found that stu-
dents did not typically become more disruptive when they were encouraged
to talk with one another during lessons. This is an important finding, given
that teachers may be reluctant to allow students to talk with each other
during academic work because of management concerns (e.g., it will en-
courage students to be off-task and disruptive).
The third dimension concerned an emphasis on teacher encouragement
of mutual respect and social harmony among classmates. What is acceptable
behavior in responding to classmates’ ideas and efforts? Is there awareness
and valuing of positive, respectful interactions between classmates that do
not exclude or generate negative feelings toward any students? Students’
perception of being in a classroom where the teacher encouraged classmates
to respect their ideas and not to laugh or make fun of them was the most
important dimension of the social environment in predicting changes in
academic efficacy and self-regulation of school work. This indicates that
being in an environment where students’ ideas and efforts are respected,
with minimal threat of being embarrassed or teased, boosts students’ confi-
dence in their ability to learn, and suggests they devote more cognitive
resources to engaging with the tasks in hand. Perhaps these associations are
because students experience less anxiety in environments that feel respect-
ful, and therefore are less likely to have their cognitive engagement under-
mined.
The fourth dimension concerned the extent to which students are en-
couraged to view fellow classmates as rivals and competitors in the class-
room. Are other students markers by whom you demonstrate your ability to
the teacher? Are students encouraged to compete with one another? Stu-
dents’ perception of an emphasis on comparison and competition was im-
portant to understanding changes in their social efficacy with their teacher
and disruptive behavior in the classroom. Specifically, when students felt
that their actions would be compared directly to others in the class, they
expressed less confidence in their ability to relate well to their teacher and
also reported engaging in more disruptive behavior. This indicates that stu-
dents may be less willing to engage in the task and may become more
disruptive when they believe their performance will be viewed as an indi-
cator of their relative ability. These results are consistent with Butler’s (1995)
suggestion that student relationships may be affected adversely by a class
performance focus and are evidence that an emphasis on competition has
drawbacks for students (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Of interest was the finding that students’ perceptions of the classroom
social environment were largely unrelated to their feelings of efficacy about
relating to their classmates. This finding suggests that teacher support and
teachers’ promotion of interaction and respect within middle school class-
rooms are not sufficient to help students feel more confident in engaging
with peers, such as explaining their point of view or working well with
classmates. Furthermore, it is consistent with researchers who note that stu-
dents working in small groups sometimes have considerable difficulty

455
Ryan and Patrick
achieving harmonious and equitable participation, and benefit from being
taught specific communication skills (Good, Mulryan, & McCaslin, 1992;
Webb & Palincsar, 1996). It may be, too, that adolescents’ confidence in
interacting with other adolescents is related more to factors that are extrinsic
to the classroom environment than to positive actions on the part of the
teacher. However, because satisfactory peer relationships have important
consequences for students’ adjustment at school (Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996;
Parker & Asher, 1987), further research appears necessary to investigate if
other factors of the classroom environment are associated with students’
efficacy to relate well to peers.
The findings of this study have practical implications for teachers, and
for their students’ motivation, engagement, and ultimately achievement.
When students believe they are encouraged to know, interact with, and help
classmates during lessons; when they view their classroom as one where
students and their ideas are respected and not belittled; when students per-
ceive their teacher as understanding and supportive; and when they feel
their teacher does not publicly identify students’ relative performance, they
tend to engage in more adaptive patterns of learning than would have been
predicted from their reports the previous year. Survey data, as was used in
the current study, cannot tell us what teacher behaviors students attend to
when they form perceptions such as these of their teacher and classroom.
Such an understanding may be gained, though, from using qualitative meth-
ods in conjunction with self-report data, thus enabling researchers to make
connections between teacher practices and student perceptions (e.g., Pat-
rick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, in press; Turner et al., 1998).
Incorporating qualitative methods may shed greater understanding, for ex-
ample, on classroom processes associated with students’ efficacy relating
positively to classmates. It is important for research regarding classroom
environments to continue to consider other sources of information beyond
student self-reports. This will enable us to identify specific instructional prac-
tices that relate to student perceptions—an important objective if our re-
search is to have greatest relevance to educators.
Greater understanding about how teachers help to create the social
environment, and how different aspects of that environment impact student
motivation and engagement, are particularly important given recent trends in
education involving student-centered learning and teaching for understand-
ing (Blumenfeld, Marx, Patrick, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Cohen, McLaugh-
lin, & Talbert, 1993; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). Such instructional
initiatives, which are based on social constructivist principles, are increas-
ingly prevalent in schools. Social constructivist views of learning emphasize
that interaction with others is crucial to cognitive development (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989). For example, recent initiatives in science education
emphasize hands-on activity-based learning, which involves greater student
interaction than typically afforded in traditional science instruction (Blumen-
feld, Marx, Patrick, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997). Contemporary views on the
teaching of mathematics emphasize the importance of students developing

456
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
active and flexible approaches to problem solving (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 1989; 1991). Small group work, which exposes
students to alternative solution methods and encourages students to reflect
on their own strategies, are frequently promoted to achieve new curricular
goals in math classrooms (Good, Mulryan, & McCaslin, 1992; Schoenfeld,
1992). However, the social constructivist principles that are driving such
current educational initiatives have developed primarily from research on
cognition and cognitive development. Appreciation of students’ social de-
velopment, social motivation, and social relationships in the classroom could
inform such instructional initiatives. We need to know more about how the
social aspects of the classroom environment can support or undermine stu-
dents’ motivation, engagement, and learning. In particular, we need to ex-
pand our understanding of how the teacher can help to create a social
climate in which such instructional initiatives can flourish. The research
reported here takes a step in that direction.
Notes
This research was supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation
awarded to Carol Midgley and Marty Maehr. We would like to thank Carol Midgley for her
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
1
We also entered students’ free or reduced fee lunch status at this step to ensure we
were not confounding race with socioeconomic status. However because 50 cases had
missing data on this variable and we wanted to retain the full sample for our regression
analyses, we conducted the analyses again without lunch status. The strength and pattern
of results were identical. Therefore the final regression models reported in Tables 3 and
4 do not include free or reduced fee lunch status. There was one main effect: students who
received free or reduced fee lunch were more likely to report increased disruptive be-
havior than students who did not receive free or reduced fee lunch.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
260–267.
Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.
Anderson, L. M., Stevens, D. D., Prawat, R. S., Nickerson, J. (1988). Classroom task
environments and students’ task-related beliefs. The Elementary School Journal,
88, 281–295.
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to
school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997).
Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.),
International handbook of teachers and teaching. Volume II (pp. 819–878).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott
(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

457
Ryan and Patrick
Butler, R. (1995). Motivational and informational functions and consequences of
children’s attention to peers’ work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
347–360.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing
America’s youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1995). Great transitions: Preparing
adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Teaching for understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropri-
ate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., &
Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-
environment fit on young adolescents’ experience in schools and families.
American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1987). Resource allocation model of the effects of
depressed mood states. In K. Fielder & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
social behavior. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hogrefe.
Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025–34.
Felner, R. D., Aber, M. S., Primavera, J., & Cauce, A. M. (1985). Adaptation and
vulnerability in high-risk adolescents: An examination of environmental media-
tors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 365–379.
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting student outcomes from their percep-
tions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research
Journal, 19, 498–518.
Good, T., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathemat-
ics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
165–196). New York: Macmillan.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and
the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Rela-
tionships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,
21–43.
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involve-
ment, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 83, 187–194.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school
subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11, 23.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships of
instruction to amount of reading: An exploration of social, cognitive, and in-
structional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8–25.
Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.),
At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352–387). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hicks, L. (1997). How do academic motivation and peer relationships mix in an
adolescent’s world? Middle School Journal, 28, 18–22.
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1995). Grade-level differences in the social value of
effort: Implications for self-presentation tactics of early adolescents. Child De-
velopment, 66, 1694–1705.

458
 Social Environment and Young Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement
Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social motivation: Understanding children’s
school adjustment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.
Keating, D. P. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At
the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54–89). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the
answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research
Journal, 27, 29–63.
McCaslin, M. M., & Good, T. L. (1996). Listening in classrooms. Harper Collins: New York.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and
cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 80, 514–523.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and
middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 15, 90–113.
Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision-making fit
before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 7, 225–241.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and atti-
tudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school.
Child Development, 60, 981–992.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E. M., & Kaplan,
A. (1996). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) Manual. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto,
CA.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional Standards for
Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for
cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nicholls, J. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental
perspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp.
11–40). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167–178.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strat-
egies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Patrick, H., Hicks. L., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and
social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 17, 109–128.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A.M., & Edelin, K., Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers
communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary
School Journal, 102, 35–58.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 33–40.

459
 Ryan and Patrick
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and
predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psycho-
logical environment and early adolescents’ psychological environment and early
adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating
role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for
help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teach-
er’s social-emotional role and classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 528–535.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?”: The role of motivation
and attitudes in adolescents’ help-seeking in math class. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 329–341.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S. S.
Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.
277–307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacog-
nition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York:
MacMillan.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 26, 207–231.
Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects
of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular
activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 227–249.
Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning math
and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89–116.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, M. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998).
Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 90, 730–745.
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, M. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and
negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 758–771.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and
achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of the classroom goal
structure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 101–122.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of
multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–10.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy
model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
284–290.
Manuscript received February 4, 1999
Revision received March 20, 2000
Accepted June 16, 2000

460

View publication stats