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 and Demanding Teaching Practices Responsive teaching practices: –Emotional support –Affective warmth –Communication –Acceptance –Reciprocity Demanding teaching practices: –Control –Maturity demands –Direct interactions and requests –Monitoring

8. Responsive and Demanding Teaching Practices Responsive teaching practices: –Emotional support –Affective warmth –Communication –Acceptance –Reciprocity Demanding teaching practices: –Control –Maturity demands –Direct interactions and requests –Monitoring Authoritative Teaching Style: Highly responsive and highly demanding

9. Teaching Styles Low Responsiveness High Responsiveness Low Demandingness Rejecting- Neglecting Teaching Style Permissive- Indulgent Teaching Style High Demandingness Authoritarian Teaching Style Authoritative Teaching Style

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 Perceptions of Contextual Support for Teaching Style

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 Authoritative Teaching Style ResponsivenessDemanding- ness EfficacySchool ClimateContextual Support for Teaching Authoritative Teaching Style -- Responsiveness.50*-- Demanding- ness.85**.65**-- Efficacy ns.38** ns-- School Climate.42* ns.44**.34*-- Contextual Support ns.30*-- Mean 10.75 4.80 5.08 4.54 5.22 4.71 SD.51.43.58.47.42.81 Actual Range 9.67-11.673.25-5.53.60-6.003.18-5.554.00-6.002.33-6.00

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