Page 208 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 208
ear ly school leaving: contempor ary european perspectives
higher education. They reported the results of two studies in which uni-
versity students described an actual professor for the current semester us-
ing a modified version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991),
which measures the extent to which a person displays the characteristics of
the permissive, authoritarian and authoritative styles. In both studies, stu-
dents expected to receive better grades in a class with the teacher described
as being higher on the authoritative style and lower on the authoritarian
style. Further, teachers described by students as higher on the authorita-
tive style were perceived as setting higher achievement standards, foster-
ing more interest in learning, being clearer, being more helpful, and being
a better quality teacher overall.
Further studies of relationships between teaching styles and different
areas of students’ development point to the importance of consistent con-
trol, autonomy support and suitable responsiveness to students’ needs (all
characteristics of the authoritative teaching style). In one study, researchers
(Patrick, Turner, Meyer, & Midgley, 2005) identified three different types of
classroom environment, all of which were established by the teachers’ be-
haviour. The first type of classroom environment was named a “support-
ive environment”. It was characterised by teachers’ high expectations for
student learning, teachers’ use of humour and a high level of respect (au-
thoritative teaching style). The second type of classroom environment was
a “non-supportive environment”. Teachers who created this type of en-
vironment emphasised extrinsic 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 one hand,
the teachers expressed a desire for student learning and high learning out-
comes but, on the other, they had low expectations. Inconsistency was also
perceived in teachers’ assertion of control in the classroom. Researchers
also examined students’ views on learning and knowledge. Students whose
classroom environment was supportive (with authoritative characteris-
tics) expressed a less negative view on learning and knowledge than stu-
dents who were in classes with a predominantly non-supportive or am-
biguous classroom environment. In another study, Turner, Meyer, Midgley
and Patrick (2003) researched relationships between teachers’ responsive-
ness to children’s needs and learning outcomes, and students experiencing
unpleasant emotions with regard to school. The study results showed the
authoritarian teaching style (especially a teacher’s lack of warmth in their
208
higher education. They reported the results of two studies in which uni-
versity students described an actual professor for the current semester us-
ing a modified version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991),
which measures the extent to which a person displays the characteristics of
the permissive, authoritarian and authoritative styles. In both studies, stu-
dents expected to receive better grades in a class with the teacher described
as being higher on the authoritative style and lower on the authoritarian
style. Further, teachers described by students as higher on the authorita-
tive style were perceived as setting higher achievement standards, foster-
ing more interest in learning, being clearer, being more helpful, and being
a better quality teacher overall.
Further studies of relationships between teaching styles and different
areas of students’ development point to the importance of consistent con-
trol, autonomy support and suitable responsiveness to students’ needs (all
characteristics of the authoritative teaching style). In one study, researchers
(Patrick, Turner, Meyer, & Midgley, 2005) identified three different types of
classroom environment, all of which were established by the teachers’ be-
haviour. The first type of classroom environment was named a “support-
ive environment”. It was characterised by teachers’ high expectations for
student learning, teachers’ use of humour and a high level of respect (au-
thoritative teaching style). The second type of classroom environment was
a “non-supportive environment”. Teachers who created this type of en-
vironment emphasised extrinsic 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 one hand,
the teachers expressed a desire for student learning and high learning out-
comes but, on the other, they had low expectations. Inconsistency was also
perceived in teachers’ assertion of control in the classroom. Researchers
also examined students’ views on learning and knowledge. Students whose
classroom environment was supportive (with authoritative characteris-
tics) expressed a less negative view on learning and knowledge than stu-
dents who were in classes with a predominantly non-supportive or am-
biguous classroom environment. In another study, Turner, Meyer, Midgley
and Patrick (2003) researched relationships between teachers’ responsive-
ness to children’s needs and learning outcomes, and students experiencing
unpleasant emotions with regard to school. The study results showed the
authoritarian teaching style (especially a teacher’s lack of warmth in their
208
