Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Research on Social Aspects of School Adjustment

243

Adolescent peer groups seem to play several important

roles in the social and emotional development of young peo-

ple. Peer crowds are believed to serve two primary functions:

to facilitate the formation of identity and self-concept and to

structure ongoing social interactions with each other (Brown,

Mory, & Kinney, 1994). With respect to identity formation,

crowds are believed to provide adolescents with values,

norms, and interaction styles that are sanctioned and com-

monly displayed. Behaviors and interaction styles that are

characteristic of a crowd are modeled frequently so that they

can be easily learned and adopted by individuals. In this man-

ner, crowds provide prototypical examples of various identi-

ties for those who wish to try out different lifestyles, and

crowds can easily affirm an adolescents’ sense of self. As ado-

lescents enter high school and the number of crowds increases

(Brown et al., 1994), identities associated with crowds are

more easily recognized and afford the opportunity to try on

various social identities with relatively little risk.

The power of crowd influence is reflected in relations be-

tween crowd membership and adolescents’ attitudes toward

academic achievement. Clasen and Brown (1985) found that

adolescent peer groups differ in the degree to which they pres-

sure members to become involved in academic activities; so-

called jocks and popular groups provided significantly more

pressure for academic involvement than did other groups.

Although peer group membership has rarely been linked to

objective indexes of achievement, group membership has

been related to motivational orientations toward learning

and achievement as well as academic effort (Brown, 1989;

Kindermann, 1993; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Kindermann

(1993; Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson, 1996) reports that

elementary-aged students tend to self-select into groups of

peers that have motivational orientations to school similar to

their own. Over the course of the school year, these orienta-

tions appear to become stronger and more similar within

groups (see also Berndt et al., 1990; Hall & Cairns, 1984).

Relationships With Teachers 

Teacher-student relationships have not been studied exten-

sively in relation to children’s achievement; however, chil-

dren who are well-liked by teachers tend to get better grades

than do those who are not as well liked (e.g., Hadley, 1954;

Kelley, 1958; Wentzel & Asher, 1995; see also the chapter by

Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman in this volume). The reasons for

these significant relations are not clear, although there is

some indication that student characteristics can influence the

nature of teacher-student interactions and therefore can in-

fluence the quality of instruction received. For instance, the

teachers observed in Brophy’s research (Brophy & Good,

1974; Brophy & Evertson, 1978) reported that they were

more appreciative and positive toward students who were co-

operative and persistent (i.e., behaviorally competent) than

they were toward students who were less cooperative but dis-

played high levels of creativity and achievement. Teachers

responded to students about whom they were concerned with

help and encouragement when these students sought them

out for help. In contrast, students toward whom they felt

rejection were treated most often with criticism and typically

were refused help. In short, these latter students were most

likely to receive less one-on-one instruction than were other

students.

Teachers’ preference for students also appears to be related

to the goals that students pursue (Wentzel, 1991b). Teacher

preference (i.e., how much they would like to have each of

their students in their class again next year) was related sig-

nificantly and positively to students’ reports of efforts to be

socially responsible as well as to achieve positive evaluations

of performance. Of particular interest is that teacher prefer-

ence was not related to student pursuit of prosocial goals or

goals to learn. Moreover, in a study of children without

friends at school, Wentzel and Asher (1995) concluded that

being liked by teachers might offset whatever the negative ef-

fects of peer rejection might be on children’s adjustment to

school. In particular, being liked by teachers was more im-

portant for the adoption of school-related goals than was a

high level of acceptance among peers. Indeed, the most

highly motivated group of students was comprised of young

adolescents who had very few friends. However, these stu-

dents were also those most preferred by teachers.

Implications for Future Research

Although establishing positive interpersonal relationships at

school is an important aspect of school adjustment in and of it-

self, children’s relationships with teachers and peers take on

added significance when considered in relation to other as-

pects of school adjustment. On the one hand, it is likely that

interpersonal relationships and other aspects of adjustment

are interrelated. For instance, behavioral competence appears

to mediate positive relationships between multiple aspects

of peer relationships and academic achievement (Wentzel,

1991a, 1997). In addition, however, the extant literature indi-

cates that these relations are likely reciprocal and complex.

For instance, social rejection by peers can result in antisocial

as well as other maladaptive forms of behavior. However, ag-

gressive and antisocial forms of behavior also appear to be part

of a maladaptive cycle of peer rejection, inappropriate behav-

ior, and peer rejection, with behavioral incompetence often in-

stigating initial peer rejection (Dodge, 1986). In some cases

this is true of academic achievement as well, with peer rejec-

tion appearing after academic difficulties are experienced

244

School Adjustment

(Dishion, 1990). Although similar work has not been con-

ducted on teachers, children’s relationships with parents can

result in similar cycles of inappropriate behavior followed by

harsh parenting, escalated child aggression, and finally mal-

adaptive outcomes at school (Patterson & Bank, 1989). It is

reasonable to expect that similar patterns of interaction might

also develop with teachers.

Of central importance to a discussion of school adjust-

ment, however, is how these behavioral competencies de-

velop in the first place and how educators might intervene to

facilitate positive adjustment when it has not occurred. One

common explanation for how social influence takes place fo-

cuses on the motivational significance of children’s social

relationships. In general, it is hypothesized that children are

more likely to adopt and internalize goals that are valued by

others when their relationships are nurturing and supportive

than they are when their relationships are harsh and critical

(see Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). In turn, if goals for socially

desirable outcomes have been internalized, efforts to achieve

these goals and corresponding displays of appropriate behav-

ior are likely to follow (Wentzel, 1991a, 1994). Given the

centrality of goal pursuit for understanding multiple aspects

of school adjustment, the role of interpersonal relationships

with teachers and peers in explanations of why students pur-

sue social goals is the focus of the following section.

SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT

There are two general mechanisms whereby the aspects of

school adjustment discussed in this chapter might be influ-

enced by interpersonal interactions and relationships. First, in-

teractions with adults and peers can provide children directly

with resources that promote the development of specific com-

petencies. These resources can take the form of information

and advice, modeled behavior, or specific experiences that fa-

cilitate learning. In the classroom, students provide each other

with valuable resources necessary to accomplish academic

tasks (Sieber, 1979). Students frequently clarify and interpret

their teacher’s instructions concerning what they should be

doing and how they should do it, provide mutual assistance in

the form of volunteering substantive information and answer-

ing questions (Cooper, Ayers-Lopez, & Marquis, 1982), and

share various supplies such as pencils and paper. Classmates

provide each other with information by modeling both acade-

mic and social competencies (Schunk, 1987) and with norma-

tive standards for performance by comparing work and grades

(Butler, 1995; Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999).

Second, social interactions can facilitate the development

of intrapersonal outcomes related to the development of

social and academic skills. Theoretical models of these latter

indirect influences describe the socialization process as one of

communicating goals and expectations for specific behavioral

outcomes and then providing a context wherein these goals

are learned and subsequently internalized (see Darling &

Steinberg, 1993; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Therefore, the

challenge is to identify the socialization processes that lead

children to pursue certain goals and not others, and to develop

generalized social orientations that direct behavior across

multiple settings.

The present discussion focuses on children’s motivation to

achieve valued social goals as a central target of socialization

influences from adults and peers. A thorough review of work

on parental influence and children’s school adjustment is be-

yond the scope of this chapter. However, models of parental

socialization are relevant for understanding ways in which

teachers might influence their students’ adjustment. There-

fore, I discuss work on parents as socializers of children’s

motivation first, followed by a description of ways in which

effective teachers are similar to effective parents. Next,

literature on peers as socializers of student motivation is

discussed.

Adult Socialization of Children’s Goal Pursuit

Although children pursue goals for many reasons, the ques-

tion of what leads them to pursue goals for their own sake

without the need for external prompts or rewards lies at the

heart of research on socialization (e.g., Grusec & Goodnow,

1994; Maccoby, 1992). One way to understand this phenom-

enon with respect to schooling is to consider goals to be in-

ternalized when a student pursues them consistently across

many learning situations. These goals could represent out-

comes in which a student is intrinsically interested or those

for which he or she has acquired personal value (e.g., Ryan,

1993). If specific socialization experiences promote the de-

velopment of these internalized goals, how then does this

influence occur? For the most part, mechanisms that link par-

enting styles to children’s internalization of specific goals

have not been the target of empirical investigations. How-

ever, many researchers have identified general types of

parental behavior that relate to their children’s motivational

and behavioral adjustment to school. Their work is reviewed

in the following section.

Parents as Socializers

Much research on parental influence on children’s school

functioning has focused on links between particular types

of parenting styles and child outcomes (Ryan, Adams,

Social Influences on School Adjustment

245

Gullotta, Weissberg, & Hampton, 1995). Based on extensive

observations of parents and children, Diana Baumrind con-

cluded that specific dimensions of parent-child interactions

could predict reliably children’s social, emotional, and cogni-

tive competence (Baumrind, 1971, 1991). In general, these

dimensions reflect consistent enforcement of rules, expecta-

tions for self-reliance and self-control, solicitation of chil-

dren’s opinions and feelings, and expressions of warmth and

approval. Of interest for the present discussion is that parent-

ing behavior reflecting these dimensions has been associated

with children’s academic motivation, including intrinsic in-

terest (Ginsberg & Bronstein, 1993; Rathunde, 1996) and

goal orientations toward learning (Hokoda & Fincham,

1995). Although studies provide little evidence that specific

parenting practices promote the consistent pursuit of specific

social goals, they do indicate that motivational processes

might be a critical outcome of socialization experiences that

can partly explain school adjustment outcomes.

A more specific model of influence proposed by Ryan

(1993) recognizes the importance of parenting styles similar to

those identified by Baumrind and speaks directly to the issue

of why children adopt and internalize socially valued goals

(for similar arguments, see Deci & Ryan, 1991; Connell &

Wellborn, 1991; Grolnick, Kurowski, & Gurland, 1999;

Lepper, 1983). Ryan argues that within the context of a secure

parent-child relationship in which caregivers provide contin-

gent feedback, nurturing, and developmentally appropriate

structure and guidance, young children develop a generalized

positive sense of social relatedness, personal competence,

and autonomy when presented with new experiences and

challenges. These positive aspects of self-development then

support the internalization of socially prescribed goals and

values—that is, “the transformation of external controls and

regulations into internal ones” (Ryan, 1993, p. 29). In contrast,

children who do not experience secure relationships tend to

enter situations with detachment or high levels of emotional

distress.

This perspective on parent socialization implies that stu-

dents’ orientations toward achieving socially valued out-

comes in the classroom, including academic success, might

be part of an overarching or more global motivational system

derived from early socialization experiences. Although it is

limited, research supports this notion. For instance, young

children’s initial orientations toward achievement of acade-

mic tasks appears to be grounded in children’s fundamental

view of themselves as morally and socially acceptable human

beings (Burhans & Dweck, 1995; Dweck, 1991; Heyman,

Dweck, & Cain, 1992). Further, Heyman et al. (1992) report

that these beliefs are related to children’s reports of how they

think their parents will react to their successes and failures;

children who express relatively maladaptive orientations

toward failure also report high levels of parental criticism,

and those who express positive orientations report caring

and supportive parental responses. At a more general level,

researchers have related aspects of parenting to young chil-

dren’s sense of relatedness, personal competence, and auton-

omy (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).

Although Ryan’s (1993) model of internalization poses

the intriguing hypothesis that the foundations for internaliza-

tion can only be laid within the context of early socialization

experiences, it is likely that teachers can influence which

classroom-specific goals children choose to pursue. First,

teachers define appropriate types of classroom behavior and

standards for social as well as academic competence. In

doing so, they provide students with information concerning

which goals they should and should not pursue. Second,

teachers appear to establish contexts that reflect those pro-

vided by effective parents (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1989;

Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Wentzel, 2002a). In doing so, they

likely promote directly the adoption and pursuit (if not inter-

nalization) of classroom-specific goals.

Teachers as Socializers of Classroom Rules and Norms 

Like parents, teachers communicate socially valued goals

and expectations to their students. Teachers are sensitive to

individual differences in classroom conduct, value socially

competent behavior, and spend an enormous amount of time

teaching their students how to behave and act responsibly

(see Doyle, 1986). In fact, teachers tend to have a core set

of behavioral expectations for their students reflecting appro-

priate responses to academic requests and tasks, impulse

control, mature problem solving, cooperative and courteous

interaction with peers, involvement in class activities, and

recognition of appropriate contexts for different types of be-

havior (LeCompte, 1978a, 1978b; Trenholm & Rose, 1981).

Moreover, teachers actively communicate these expectations

to their students—regardless of their instructional goals,

teaching styles, and ethnicity (Hargreaves, Hester, & Mellor,

1975). Teachers also communicate expectations for students’

interactions with each other. High school teachers promote

adherence to interpersonal rules concerning aggression, man-

ners, stealing, and loyalty (Hargreaves et al., 1975), and ele-

mentary school teachers tend to focus on peer norms for

sharing resources, being nice to each other, working well

with others, and harmonious problem solving (Sieber, 1979).

Teachers also communicate directly to students when stu-

dents need to pay attention as a function of which contexts

they are in (Shultz & Florio, 1979) and when and where it is

appropriate to interact with peers (Sieber, 1979).

246

School Adjustment

Teachers tend to promote prosocial and socially responsi-

ble behavior in several ways. For instance, various classroom

management practices can be used to establish group order

and control (see Doyle, 1986). Blumenfeld and her col-

leagues (Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Bossert, Wessels, & Meece,

1983; Blumenfeld, Hamilton, Wessels, & Faulkner, 1979)

have documented specific ways in which social responsibility

is taught at school. In particular, they have studied teacher

communications to students that relay why students ought

to behave in certain ways—that ascribe causal attributions for

students’ behavior and suggest sanctions for classroom con-

duct. These researchers found that teachers’ communications

reflect specific issues concerning academic performance, aca-

demic procedures (i.e., proper ways to do work), social pro-

cedures (e.g., talking, adhering to social conventions), and

social-moral norms (e.g., cheating, fighting). Within the pro-

cedural and social-moral domain, 46% of the academic pro-

cedure statements concerned staying on task, 51% of the

social procedure statements concerned talking, and 57% of

the social-moral statements concerned respect for others. The

power of these communications was reflected in that they

were related to students’ ratings of how important classroom

procedures and norms were to them personally.

Developmental issues also are important with respect to the

influence of teachers’ communications on students’ beliefs

about behavior at school. For example, Smetana and Bitz

(1996) reported that almost all adolescents believe that teach-

ers have authority over issues such as stealing and fighting,

somewhat less authority over issues such as misbehaving in

class, breaking school rules, and smoking or substance abuse,

and least authority over issues involving peer interactions,

friendships, and personal appearance. Moreover, when com-

pared to beliefs about the authority of their parents and friends

to dictate their school behavior, adolescents reported that

teachers have more authority with respect to moral issues such

as stealing and fighting and conventional rules involving

school and classroom conduct. Adolescent students also be-

lieved that teachers have as much authority as do parents with

respect to smoking or substance abuse. These beliefs, how-

ever, tended to change as children got older; younger adoles-

cents in middle school reported that teachers have legitimate

authority in all areas of school conduct, and older adolescents

in high school believed that teachers have little authority over

most aspects of students’ lives at school.

Teachers as Providers of Appropriate Contexts 

In addition to communicating to students what they should be

trying to achieve, teachers also can provide students with con-

texts that have the potential to either support or discourage the

adoption of these goals. For instance, in studies of elementary

school-aged students, teacher provisions of structure, guid-

ance, and autonomy have been related to a range of positive,

motivational outcomes (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1989;

Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Birch and Ladd (1996) report that

young children’s healthy adjustment to school is related to

teacher-student relationships characterized by warmth and the

absence of conflict as well as open communication. In con-

trast, kindergartners’ relationships with teachers marked by

conflict and dependency predict less than adaptive academic

and behavioral outcomes through eighth grade—especially

for boys (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). When teachers are taught

to provide students with warmth and support, clear expecta-

tions for behavior, and developmentally appropriate auton-

omy, their students develop a stronger sense of community,

increase displays of socially competent behavior, and show

academic gains (Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 1997;

Watson, Solomon, Battistich, Schaps, & Solomon, 1989).

Teachers also structure learning environments in ways that

make certain goals more salient than other goals to students.

For example, cooperative learning structures can be designed

to promote the pursuit of social goals to be responsible to the

group and to achieve common objectives (Ames & Ames,

1984; Cohen, 1986; Solomon, Schaps, Watson, & Battistich,

1992). Teachers also provide students with evaluation criteria

and design tasks in ways that can focus attention on goals to

learn and develop skills (task-related and intellectual goals)

or to demonstrate ability to others (performance goals; see

Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992). Teachers who provide stu-

dents with a diverse set of tasks that are challenging, have

personal relevance, and promote skill development are likely

to foster pursuit of mastery goals; teachers who use norma-

tive and comparative evaluation criteria and who provide stu-

dents with controlling, noncontingent extrinsic rewards are

likely to promote pursuit of performance goals (see Ames,

1992; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).

It is interesting that theoretical models developed to ex-

plain how teachers promote positive student outcomes are

quite similar to family socialization models (Baumrind, 1971;

Ryan, 1993). For instance, Noddings (1992) suggested that

four aspects of teacher behavior are critical for understanding

the establishment of an ethic of caring in classrooms: model-

ing caring relationships with others, establishing dialogues

characterized by a search for common understanding, provid-

ing confirmation to students that their behavior is perceived

and interpreted in a positive light, and providing practice and

opportunities for students to care for others. Noddings’ no-

tions of dialogue and confirmation correspond closely with

Baumrind’s parenting dimensions of democratic communi-

cation styles and maturity demands. Moreover, empirical