Teacher Involvement Moderates Peer Group Influences on Students’ Engagement

• In Event: Peers and Academics: The Influence of Peers and Peer Groups on Academic and Social Outcomes

Abstract

There is growing consensus that students’ academic motivation is shaped by relationships they have with their teachers (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Skinner & Belmont, 1993) and peers (Kindermann, 2007; Ryan, 2001; Wentzel, 2009). However, few studies have investigated how both relationships work together. This study examined whether peer influences on students’ developing school motivation play out differently depending on their experiences of teacher involvement.
Of the entire cohort of 366 sixth graders located in a town, 87% participated at the beginning and end of sixth grade. In fall, Socio-Cognitive Mapping (Cairns, Perrin & Cairns, 1985) was used to capture networks of students who were publicly known to frequently interact (kappa = .88); binomial z-tests were used to identify networks. Students also reported on the level of overall teacher involvement (i.e., affective closeness/warmth, availability) that they experienced (e.g., “My teachers care about me”, Skinner et al., 1993). In fall and spring, school motivation was assessed via homeroom teachers’ reports of student’s classroom engagement (Wellborn, 1991). Students’ emotional (e.g., "In my class, this student appears happy") and behavioral engagement (e.g., "This student works as hard as he/she can") were assessed.
On average, students were highly engaged (M = 3.09, SD=.57) and perceived their teachers as involved (M = 2.90, SD=.55; both were 4-point scales). A typical student had roughly five group members. Peer group engagement scores were created for each student by averaging the engagement scores of their peer affiliates. Highly engaged students perceived teachers as more involved (r = .34**) and selected more engaged peers (r = .44***). Students who had more engaged networks also experienced high teacher involvement (r = .21**). Over the school year, group member turnover was 50%; however, networks reorganized in a way that the motivational composition of the group remained intact (r = .40**).
SEM Analyses used fall group engagement scores as predictors of children’s engagement changes, controlling for person-to-group similarity (selection), children’s sex, and network stability (to balance differentially stable groups). In separate analyses, fall peer scores predicted changes in engagement (beta = .12, p < .05; X2 = 8.254, p = .509; CMIN/DF = .917, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000), as did teacher involvement (beta = .12). In a simultaneous analysis, effects of peer group engagement, teacher involvement, and their interaction all showed similar contributions (β = .11, .11, and
-.11; all p < .05; Figure 1).
Thus, peer group influences on engagement depend on students’ experiences of teacher involvement. Results suggest that peers may be most influential when students perceive their teachers as uninvolved. Although mean level comparisons showed that engagement did not change much for most students, the steepest engagement declines were found among students who experienced uninvolved teachers and also affiliated with disaffected peers (3%; Figure 2). If students experience them as warm and available, teachers may compensate for the negative impact disaffected peers have on students’ engagement. However, students who affiliate with disaffected peers are at an elevated risk for developing maladaptive school motivation, when teachers are uninvolved.

Authors

• Justin William Vollet, Portland State Univeristy

• Thomas Kindermann, Portland State Univeristy