Page 164 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 164
enced by teachers’ behaviour. The first type of classroom environment was
named a ‘supportive environment’. It was characterised by teachers’ high ex-
pectations for student learning, teachers’ use of humour and a high level of
respect. The second type of classroom environment was a ‘nonsupportive
environment’. Teachers who created this type of environment emphasised ex-
trinsic reasons for learning, used authoritarian control and expected children
to misbehave or cheat in exams. The third type of classroom environment was
named an ‘ambiguous environment’, as some inconsistencies were perceived
in the teaching style. On the one hand the teachers expressed a desire for stu-
dent learning and high learning outcomes, but on the other hand they had
low expectations. Inconsistency was also perceived in teachers’ assertion of
control in the classroom. Researchers also examined students’ views on learn-
ing and knowledge. Students whose classroom environment was supportive
expressed a less negative view on learning and knowledge than students who
were in classes with a predominantly nonsupportive or ambiguous classroom
environment.
J. Turner, D. Meyer, C. Midgley and H. Patrick (2003) researched relation-
164 ships between teachers’ responsiveness to children’s needs and learning out-
comes, and students experiencing unpleasant emotions with regard to school.
Study results have shown the authoritarian teaching style (especially a teach-
er’s lack of warmth in his/her attitude to students and students’ low autonomy
regarding schoolwork) is related to students’ negative emotions about learn-
ing and avoidance behaviour in their attitude to schoolwork.
J. Walker (2008) studied perceived self-efficacy of pupils, their readiness
for schoolwork and their learning performance in mathematics in three class-
es. At the start of the school year (this coincided with children beginning at a
new school; children’s age: 12), the classes were perfectly balanced in terms
of pupils’ performance in mathematics; also, in all three classes, the majori-
ty of pupils expressed a positive conviction about their efficacy in mathemat-
ics and relatively high readiness for schoolwork. In each of the classes, mathe-
matics was taught by a different teacher and there were differences between
teachers in their teaching styles. The researcher first analysed the teaching
style of all mathematics teachers at the school in terms of their responsive-
ness and expectations in their attitude to pupils, and selected three teachers
who represented the three teaching styles in the most representative man-
ner: the authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. There were no significant
differences between the selected teachers in terms of didactic characteristics
of their teaching practices. After six months, the researcher looked again into
pupils’ convictions about their efficacy in mathematics, as well as their readi-
ness for schoolwork and their performance in mathematics. The biggest dif-
ferences, compared to students’ results at the start of the school year, were
noticeable in the class with the authoritarian teacher. In comparison with pu-
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
named a ‘supportive environment’. It was characterised by teachers’ high ex-
pectations for student learning, teachers’ use of humour and a high level of
respect. The second type of classroom environment was a ‘nonsupportive
environment’. Teachers who created this type of environment emphasised ex-
trinsic reasons for learning, used authoritarian control and expected children
to misbehave or cheat in exams. The third type of classroom environment was
named an ‘ambiguous environment’, as some inconsistencies were perceived
in the teaching style. On the one hand the teachers expressed a desire for stu-
dent learning and high learning outcomes, but on the other hand they had
low expectations. Inconsistency was also perceived in teachers’ assertion of
control in the classroom. Researchers also examined students’ views on learn-
ing and knowledge. Students whose classroom environment was supportive
expressed a less negative view on learning and knowledge than students who
were in classes with a predominantly nonsupportive or ambiguous classroom
environment.
J. Turner, D. Meyer, C. Midgley and H. Patrick (2003) researched relation-
164 ships between teachers’ responsiveness to children’s needs and learning out-
comes, and students experiencing unpleasant emotions with regard to school.
Study results have shown the authoritarian teaching style (especially a teach-
er’s lack of warmth in his/her attitude to students and students’ low autonomy
regarding schoolwork) is related to students’ negative emotions about learn-
ing and avoidance behaviour in their attitude to schoolwork.
J. Walker (2008) studied perceived self-efficacy of pupils, their readiness
for schoolwork and their learning performance in mathematics in three class-
es. At the start of the school year (this coincided with children beginning at a
new school; children’s age: 12), the classes were perfectly balanced in terms
of pupils’ performance in mathematics; also, in all three classes, the majori-
ty of pupils expressed a positive conviction about their efficacy in mathemat-
ics and relatively high readiness for schoolwork. In each of the classes, mathe-
matics was taught by a different teacher and there were differences between
teachers in their teaching styles. The researcher first analysed the teaching
style of all mathematics teachers at the school in terms of their responsive-
ness and expectations in their attitude to pupils, and selected three teachers
who represented the three teaching styles in the most representative man-
ner: the authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. There were no significant
differences between the selected teachers in terms of didactic characteristics
of their teaching practices. After six months, the researcher looked again into
pupils’ convictions about their efficacy in mathematics, as well as their readi-
ness for schoolwork and their performance in mathematics. The biggest dif-
ferences, compared to students’ results at the start of the school year, were
noticeable in the class with the authoritarian teacher. In comparison with pu-
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
