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

1. Why Teachers Do What They Do In Their Classrooms: An Investigation of Authoritative Teaching Katherine R. Raser Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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

8. 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 Authoritative Teaching Style: Highly responsive and highly demanding

9. Teaching Styles

10. 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 Climate Teaching Style Perceptions of Contextual Support for Teaching

11. 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.

12. Procedure • Principal or contact person distributed consent forms and questionnaires and collected them when completed. • Participating teachers received $5 gift cards

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

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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)

22. Correlations Among Study Variables

23. Mean Trends: Personal Teaching Efficacy

24. Mean Trends: School Climate

25. Mean Trends: Contextual Support for Teaching

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. Acknowledgements • All participating schools and teachers • Family-School Partnership Lab • Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey • Howard Sandler • Christa Green • Kristen Closson • Kelly Sheehan