research title about teacher and student

Teacher-Student Relationships Matter

• Posted March 17, 2021
• By Gianna Cacciatore
• Counseling and Mental Health
• Disruption and Crises
• Teachers and Teaching

Effective teachers form authentic, caring relationships with their students. In the best of times, forming these relationships can be a challenge; in a post-pandemic world, where many teachers are engaging with students remotely, building relationships can feel impossible. Fortunately, says trained counselor and educator Megan Marcus , educators can learn the skills necessary to build strong relationships, both in person and online.

Marcus is the founder of FuelEd , a Houston-based nonprofit committed to teaching these skills to educators around the country. By providing teachers with access to one-on-one counseling, group workshops, and educator training, FuelEd hopes to close what it perceives to be a gap in educator preparation: the space between what an educator is expected to do — build strong, secure relationships with students, families, and coworkers — and the level of social and emotional support educators actually receive. Inspired by Marcus’ background in human psychology, Fuel Ed leads with the belief that teachers cannot effectively care for their students unless they care for themselves first.   

“Just one relationship with a caregiver throughout a lifespan can actually change the brain’s development, heal trauma, and promote learning. Educators have the potential to utilize this power. Many do organically, through naturally forming secure relationships. But we could do so much more if educators were equipped with the skills and self-awareness to systematically do this work,” explains Marcus.

Here, Marcus offers four steps educators can take to promote emotional intelligence and build relationship-driven schools, both in-person and online.

1. Learn the science behind strong relationships.

Research shows that the way a person relates to caregivers early in life can impact that person’s relationships later on. For example, explains Marcus, “if you had insecure relationships in your childhood, you’re more likely to build relationships with others that aren’t secure.” The good news? Once identified, a person’s relationship patterns can change. That means educators can learn the skills behind secure relationship-building — and they can teach them. This gives educators the opportunity to, within their daily interactions, strengthen the ways their students relate to others throughout life.

2. Embrace the power of empathic listening.

Empathic listening means listening to what a student has to say — a student’s “strong emotions and painful experiences,” says Marcus — and not responding. No reassuring, no offering advice. Just listening. While deceptively simple, this type of listening can help a student build self-regulation skills. That’s because it kicks off a powerful interpersonal cycle. “Someone comes to you, they share their feelings, and instead of jumping in to problem solve, you listen. That’s very trust-building. Now, not only is this person calmer and better able to solve their own problems, but they want to come back to you again, share more. And the more you can learn about them and their needs, the more you, as the administrator and the teacher, can be respond to their needs,” explains Marcus.

“Just one relationship with a caregiver throughout a lifespan can actually change the brain’s development, heal trauma, and promote learning. ... We could do so much more if educators were equipped with the skills and self-awareness to systematically do this work.”

Empathic listening, she adds, can also help school leaders build stronger, more positive relationships with staff.

To make space for empathic listening, educators can prioritize opportunities for one-on-one connections in scheduled check-ins or drop-in office hours. Since this type of listening can take place in person, on Zoom, or over the phone, this is a skill that all educators, no matter their learning modality, can use to form more secure relationships.

3. Practice genuine vulnerability.

Often, educators feel restrained by the need to exert authority in a space, so they refrain from sharing their genuine frustrations or emotions. This hinders the development of secure attachments, says Marcus, and limits the social-emotional culture of a school. Instead, she suggests, educators should share their experiences directly. Once one person shows vulnerability, another person will open up. Only then can secure relationships blossom.

This practice fuels student-teacher relationships, but it is also key to creating an over-arching culture of safety in a school. “The more that principals can model empathy and self-awareness, the more they can share their journey with teachers and be vulnerable, the more it’s going to encourage educators to engage in the work,” says Marcus.

If you are educating in person, you can practice sharing personal details in informal exchanges with both students and colleagues. If you are educating online, Marcus says, you can use virtual opportunities, like introductory videos, pet cameos, or Zoom dance parties, to introduce your personality to your school community.   

4. Provide educators with opportunities to do their own healing.

Teaching is, at its core, interpersonal work. It requires high levels of emotional intelligence. When educators approach the work unprepared for its social-emotional load, says Marcus, relationships suffer. Her advice? Give educators access to spaces and resources where they can do their own introspection and healing. When teachers are invited to engage in the therapeutic process of unpacking their personal stories and triggers, it can lead to social-emotional growth. The more that educators are able to improve their own social-emotional intelligence, the more students will be able to learn and feel safe.

Additional Resources:

• FuelEd's professional development workshops for educators.
• From Making Caring Common: How to Build Empathy and Strengthen your School Community
• Teaching Social and Emotional Skills All Day
• Safeguarding the Mental Health of Teachers
• Trauma Informed video series

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Why Rest is Best

And why it’s an act of justice

Rebuilding for a New Normal

A new report provides guidance for promoting trauma-responsive schools during the pandemic

A Space for Joy

Educators talk about the impact COVID has had on school happiness

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Teacher-Student Relationships

Introduction, research about teacher-student relationships.

• Positive Relationships as a Basis for Equality and Freedom
• Links between Teacher-Student Relationships and Students’ Sense of Belonging
• Links between Teacher-Student Relationships and Pedagogy
• Teacher-Student Relationships from Listening to Students
• Teacher-Student Relationships as the Basis for “Critical” and Liberatory Actions
• Culture and Color Influencing Teacher-Student relationships
• Teacher-Student Relationships from a Māori Worldview Perspective
• Relationships across Schools, Families, and Communities Supporting Learners
• Teacher-Student Relationships for Students Most at Risk

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Academic Achievement
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and Classrooms

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• English as an International Language for Academic Publishing
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Teacher-Student Relationships by Mere Berryman LAST REVIEWED: 15 January 2020 LAST MODIFIED: 15 January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0232

This review responds to a number of questions, including: What is known about teacher-student relationships? What about teacher-student relationships makes them effective and successful? How do effective relationships ensure that teachers and students can face the daily challenges in todays’ education systems and also in wider society? How might these relationships contribute to future proofing our societies against the global crises that have become our collective reality? Discourses related to relationships are often used as though there are collective understandings. However, much of the praxis—the policies, pedagogies, and testing regimes—found in learning institutions still protect and privilege some students over others, and the gaps in education and society continue to widen. This bibliography will show that teacher-student relationships continue to be widely researched; that early philosophical understandings grounded in relationships of equality and freedom have intergenerational interest and traction; and that relationships can take many forms, with some forms of teacher-student relationships resulting in more productive outcomes than others, and some forms actually doing harm. The scholars included in this entry are engaging in the types of relationships where “critical” questions increasingly sit at the forefront of learning and schooling. They are interested in contexts for learning where all learners are respected and able to bring their own experiences, their solutions, and their potential to the table, and from which collective growth and benefit can ensue. Among this common thread there is a diversity of worldviews, with knowledge that may yet be untried or untested. These citations provide insights into the kinds of teacher-student relationships that can help us learn more deeply about the profession by beginning with the self.

Although teacher-student relationships are considered to be central to the experiences of teaching and learning, there are still a lot of questions about these relationships that are unanswered or poorly understood. Much of the research being undertaken about the influence of the teacher-student relationships are along the lines of Hattie 2009 ; Hattie 2012 ; and Roorda, et al. 2011 —all of which utilize meta-analyses to compare large numbers of research studies and synthesize their significance across a range of factors. Other research has explored aspects of student-teacher relationships, such as Pogue and Ahyun 2006 , which looks at teacher and student behaviors in order to understand the impact of positive immediacy behaviors by teachers on students’ perceptions of their teachers’ credibility. Gehlbach, et al. 2012 examines how teacher-student relationships changed over the course of a year, and what the implications of these changes were on students’ engagement and learning. Building on her earlier work, Christine Rubie-Davies became interested in teachers’ perceptions of students and the links such perceptions had on students’ learning outcomes. Rubie-Davies and Peterson 2016 found that teacher perceptions were influential to differential learner outcomes between children from majority and minority cultural groups. Similarly, Li 2018 studies student-teacher relationships in relation to Latino and non-Latino students. Sointu, et al. 2017 explores the association between students’ behavioral and emotional strengths, their relationships with teachers, and their academic achievement. Bainbridge and Houser 2000 , meanwhile, demonstrates how interpersonal teacher-student relationships remain important at a tertiary level. Finally, to understand the ways in which teacher-student relationships influence teachers’ feelings of professional and personal self-esteem and well-being, Spilt, et al. 2011 provides a review of related literature.

Bainbridge F. A., and M. Houser. 2000. The teacher‐student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education 49.3: 207–219.

This research article explores the importance of interpersonal teacher-student relationships at a tertiary level. While content expertise and delivery methods have traditionally been viewed as of primary importance at a tertiary level, this study shows that to facilitate successful learning, teachers need to balance both the content and relational dimensions in their teaching.

Gehlbach, H., M. E. Brinkworth, and A. D. Harris. 2012. Changes in teacher-student relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82:690–704.

This study investigated how the relationships between teachers and students changed from the beginning to the end of the year, and whether any such changes influenced students’ motivation or academic outcomes. Findings revealed that relationships could and did change, and that changes were important for both motivation and academic outcomes. Further research was advocated to improve relationships.

Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . London and New York: Routledge.

Hattie investigated the influences on students’ achievement and concluded that teachers who were able to make the learning visible for their learners, who saw learning through the eyes of the learners and promoted situations where students could see themselves as their own teachers, were essential. Signposts for teaching excellence included teachers who were directive, caring, and actively and passionately engaged in teaching and learning as the most powerful influence.

Hattie, J. 2012. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning . London and New York: Routledge.

Hattie introduces additional meta-analyses to reinforce his previous work about what makes the most effective and successful teacher-student relationships and interactions, and he provides concise guidelines for teacher and student implementation. Guidance and practical supports are also provided for school leaders wanting to facilitate “visible learning” in their schools.

Li, Y. 2018. Teacher-student relationships, student engagement, and academic achievement for non-Latino and Latino youth. Adolescent Research Review 3.4: 375–424.

This meta-analysis compares the results of twenty-six studies on the association of teacher-student relationships with the engagement and achievement of non-Latino and Latino youth. The findings show strong associations between positive teacher-student relationships with student engagement and academic achievement for both groups.

Pogue, L., and K. Ahyun. 2006. The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education 55.3: 331–344.

This study, involving 586 students, explores the impact of the interaction between positive immediacy behaviors, such as teacher smiles, head nods, and eye contact, with students’ perceptions of teacher credibility. The findings demonstrated that personal communication between teachers and students, as well as teacher expertise, helped to define what students understood as effective to teaching and their subsequent learning.

Roorda, D. L., H. M. Y. Koomen, J. L. Spilt, and F. J. Oort. 2011. The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research 81.4: 493–529.

This meta-analysis draws from 99 studies and a total of 129,423 students, across primary to secondary levels. It explores the influence of teacher-student’ relationships on engagement and achievement. Results show the importance of positive teacher-student relationships, especially for students who are academically at risk, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with learning difficulties.

Rubie-Davies, C., and E. R. Peterson. 2016. Relations between teachers’ achievement, over- and underestimation, and students’ beliefs for Māori and Pākehā students. Contemporary Educational Psychology 47:72–83.

This New Zealand study explored indigenous Māori students’ beliefs about their teachers and their teachers’ expectations of them, looking to understand any influences on the achievement gap between these students and their non-Māori peers. It concluded there were connections, and that the inclusion of culturally based interventions to improve student-teacher relationships by using culturally appropriate teaching methods may help to increase achievement.

Sointu, E. T., H. Savolainen, K. Lappalainen, and M. C. Lambert. 2017. Longitudinal associations of student-teacher relationships and behavioural and emotional strengths on academic achievement. Educational Psychology 37.4: 457–467.

This longitudinal study, across forty-six schools in Finland, explored the association between students’ behavioral and emotional strengths, their relationships with teachers, and their academic achievement. The study showed that academic achievement was predicted by students’ behavioral and emotional strength and the student-teacher relationship.

Spilt, J. L., M. Y. Helma, and J. T. Thijs. 2011. Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review 23:457–477.

This review of the literature sought to study the importance of teacher-student relationships in relation to their influence on teachers’ feelings of professional and personal self-esteem and well-being. It argues that teacher stress from student misbehavior may be better understood from a relational perspective. While it found few studies testing these considerations, it offers suggestions for future research in this area.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Research
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Mixed Methods Research
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Politics of Education
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Influence of teacher-student relationships and special educational needs on student engagement and disengagement: a correlational study.

• 1 Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile
• 2 Departamento de Infancia y Educación Básica, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco, Chile
• 3 Centro de Investigación en Educación y Desarrollo, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Contemporary educational research has found that student engagement and disengagement have a relevant influence on learning outcomes. However, research on the influence of teacher–student relationships in the engagement of students with special educational needs (SEN) is scarce. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, family support for learning, opportunities to participate at school, and SEN on engagement and disengagement of students using a sample of secondary students with SEN and typical development (TD). Through a non-experimental, correlational, and cross-sectional design, we evaluated 1,020 high school students (340 with SEN and 680 with TD) in the 9th grade (13–19 years old, M = 14.8; SD = 0.89). Teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, and family support for learning were assessed via subscales from the Student Engagement Inventory (SEI), opportunities to participate at school were measured with a subscale of the School Participation Questionnaire (SP), whereas engagement and disengagement were measured using the Multidimensional Scale of School Engagement (MSSE). Results show significant statistical differences between SEN and TD students in both student engagement and disengagement indicators. Engagement of SEN students is higher in the cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions than that of TD students. However, they also have higher disengagement in the cognitive and behavioral dimensions. Furthermore, SEN students rate their relationships with teachers more highly and perceive more opportunities for school participation than their peers. Further analyses show that teacher–student relationships are positively associated with all dimensions of student engagement and inversely with behavioral and cognitive disengagement. Although correlational, the findings suggest teacher–student relationships and school participation opportunities could be important variables for diminishing disengagement and its negative consequences for both SEN and TD students, while improving student engagement. We discuss these results considering possible implications for educational policies, practices, and research.

Introduction

Student engagement is the quality of involvement of students with school activities ( Skinner and Pitzer, 2012 ) including their participation in learning activities and interactions with teachers and peers. As a theoretical construct, student engagement is a multidimensional concept that involves distinctive and interrelated dimensions, such as student behaviors, emotions, and cognitive beliefs about school and learning ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ). Behavioral engagement involves attendance and participation in academic and extracurricular activities. Emotional engagement involves positive and negative reactions to school, teachers, and peers ( Finn, 1989 ; Voelkl, 1997 ), and cognitive engagement refers to the effort invested in learning ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ). Recently, social engagement has been added as a dimension and refers to the quality of social interactions of students in the context of classroom tasks and the broader school context ( Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011 ; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2015 ; Wang et al., 2016 ).

There is a vast literature on student engagement and its relationship with academic achievement ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Chang et al., 2016 ): higher attendance rates, lower dropout rates, and fewer antisocial behaviors among pre-school, primary, and secondary students ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Wigfield et al., 2006 ; Wang and Holcombe, 2010 ; Shin and Ryan, 2012 ).

Student engagement is understood as part of a broader motivational process with the learning context feeding back the conceptualization of individuals of themselves ( Fredricks et al., 2019 ). As the self-system model states ( Connell and Wellborn, 1991 ), individual and contextual factors influence student engagement based on how the school context helps to satisfy three relevant needs for the individual: relatedness, autonomy, and competence. The need for relatedness refers to the way in which the individual feels safe, connected, and valued by others. Autonomy is related to the need to experience agency over own behavior of an individual, both in its initiation and regulation and in the maintenance of the activity. Competence is related to the degree to which the individual knows how to obtain certain positive results and avoid negative ones. When psychological needs are met, engagement occurs, which manifests in emotion, cognition, and behavior. However, when these psychological needs are not satisfied, disaffection with the school will arise ( Connell and Wellborn, 1991 ).

School disengagement relates to maladaptive behaviors and attitudes toward schools and learning, and it reflects the ways in which students begin to withdraw and become disaffected with school ( Skinner et al., 2008 ). It has been associated with negative outcomes, including low achievement, disruptive and risky behaviors, and psychological problems ( Morrison et al., 2002 ; Wang and Fredricks, 2014 ). Disengagement is a multidimensional construct that involves the behavioral, emotional, cognitive ( Skinner et al., 2008 ; Wang et al., 2017 ), and social dimensions ( Wang et al., 2017 ). Wang et al. (2017) specify that behavioral disengagement includes getting in trouble at school, not paying attention in class or goofing off, and finding ways to be late for school or getting out of classes. Cognitive disengagement involves giving up quickly and speeding through homework rather than trying to understand or benefit from it. Emotional disengagement is feeling worried, overwhelmed, and frustrated in school. Finally, social disengagement implies a student feels invisible at school and does not consider interaction with others an important aspect of his school life.

Initially, researchers treated engagement and disengagement as opposite poles of the same continuum. However, this approach disregards the fact that disengagement is more than the absence of engagement, but the presence of maladaptive processes ( Skinner et al., 2009 ). Engagement and disengagement are not fixed states, and student levels of both constructs vary over time ( Jang et al., 2016 ; Burns et al., 2019 ). In the secondary school years, engagement tends to decrease ( Burns et al., 2018 ; Engels et al., 2021 ) and disengagement increases ( Burns et al., 2019 ; Engels et al., 2021 ). Hence, although engagement and disengagement are related constructs, measuring them separately can potentially provide more nuanced information regarding the phenomena, as disengagement captures aspects that engagement cannot ( Jang et al., 2016 ; Bergdahl et al., 2020 ).

Unfortunately, most studies on the engagement and disengagement of students have focused on students with typical development (TD) ( O'Donnell and Reschly, 2020 ). Consequently, little is known about the engagement or disengagement of students with special educational needs (SEN), especially those enrolled at mainstream schools ( Schindler, 2018 ). This is, however, starting to change because of the importance of engagement and disengagement in academic achievement ( Moreira et al., 2015 ). Studying the student engagement of SEN students is important since these students face significant challenges in school, and there is building evidence on the academic, social, and psychological consequences of their school struggles ( Douglas et al., 2012 ; Cortiella and Horowitz, 2014 ; Moreira et al., 2015 ). However, as Moreira et al. (2015) reported, studies providing this evidence are not conclusive and present mixed results. Some found lower levels of engagement for SEN students compared with their TD peers, whereas others showed no differences in engagement between the two groups.

Comparisons of engagement between SEN and TD students in the context of inclusive settings have also yielded inconclusive results. Employing an eco-behavioral observation tool with adolescents in inclusive classrooms, Wallace et al. (2002) found no differences in academic and behavioral engagement. Both groups showed high levels of academic engagement and low levels of inappropriate behaviors. Furthermore, using large-scale survey data ( N = 10,000) of 5–9th-grade pupils, Schindler (2018) obtained lower scores in all dimensions of engagement for SEN students (motivation and effort, belonging/well-being at school, participation in learning activities, and participation in social activities). The raw difference was larger for motivation and effort: SEN students scored a.7 SD lower than TD students. According to Schindler (2018) , the differences in engagement between SEN and TD students in her research cannot be explained by differences in backgrounds of students or at the school level. Yang et al. (2020) , in a research project with 118 secondary school students with special needs integrated into mainstream schools, reported intermediate levels of student engagement ( M = 3.10; SD = 0.85) on the five-point Likert School Engagement Scale of Fredricks et al. (2005) .

The inconclusive results on the student engagement of SEN students can be attributed to conceptual and methodological reasons. First, different studies conceptualize student engagement in different ways (unidimensional/multidimensional), the definition of engagement dimensions differ (e.g., including social or academic dimensions besides cognitive/behavioral/emotional-affective or measuring only one of them) ( Moreira et al., 2015 ; O'Donnell and Reschly, 2020 ), and variation in terms of whether engagement is measured on a single continuum (low or high) or there is a separate measurement of engagement and disengagement ( O'Donnell and Reschly, 2020 ). Douglas et al. (2012) state that most studies on the engagement of SEN students use either behavioral (e.g., attendance, dropouts, and participation in school activities) or cognitive indicators of engagement (e.g., achievement in specific subjects, such as math or literacy), and disregard the emotional and social aspects thereof. These elements highlight the need for more research in this field considering all dimensions involved in student engagement.

Age could also be an important variable when studying these concepts. For example, Janosz et al. (2008) found different types of engagement trajectories for 12–16-year-old students. One of these pathways (2% of the overall sample) contained around one-third of the SEN students (the most common for those students). It characterized a decreasing pattern of engagement. That is, these adolescents reported very high levels of school engagement at age 12, which rapidly decreased to the lowest levels in the study by age 16. Although not all students in the “decreasing pattern of engagement” trajectory had SEN, researchers should keep this finding in mind when comparing engagement of SEN and TD students because the results could be age dependent.

Regarding the variables involved in student engagement, Fredricks et al. (2004) describe three main groups: school-level factors (e.g., school size and opportunities for participating), classroom context (e.g., teacher–student relationships, peer acceptance, and classroom structure), and individual needs (e.g., relatedness, autonomy, and competence). Among these factors, the quality of teacher–student relationships has been identified as a key element in engagement and disengagement, including cognitive, behavioral, and emotional components for TD students (e.g., Roorda et al., 2011 , 2017 ; Quin, 2017 ). Research showed that positive teacher–student relationships in high school contribute to adaptive behaviors and improve intentions to graduate ( Burns et al., 2019 ; Burns, 2020 ). Furthermore, the perception of students of high levels of emotional and instructional support from teachers has been positively associated with emotional and behavioral engagement ( Skinner et al., 2008 ; Havik and Westergård, 2020 ). Martin and Collie (2019) found that positive relationships of high school students with their teachers predict greater school engagement, and importantly, engagement is higher as the number of positive relationships outnumbered negative ones.

The association between engagement and teacher–student relationships has been studied through several paradigms: From the self-system model perspective , the quality of interacting with teachers provides information to adolescents that they are competent to succeed at school, related to others in these settings, and are autonomous learners (e.g., Roorda et al., 2011 ; Wang and Eccles, 2013 ; Krane et al., 2016 ). Attachment theory states that teachers who create warm, safe, and supportive relationships with their students can serve as important non-parental attachment figures and role models ( Bergin and Bergin, 2009 ). Thus, students could use teachers as a safe base from which to explore the environment and engage in learning activities knowing they have support even in stressful situations ( Verschueren and Koomen, 2012 ). Affective teacher–student relationships have been found to contribute to the engagement and academic outcomes of students ( Engels et al., 2021 ). Relational/rhetorical goal theory explains that each student and teacher brings to the classroom their own expectations and experiences, and to have a successful learning process, instructors must meet the goals of students for being in the class: rhetorical or relational. Rhetorical goals focus on learning or task outcomes, and relational goals include perceived supportiveness, caring, and connectedness with others ( Mottet et al., 2006 ). This theory explains that although rhetorical and relational goals could be considered independent, they are interrelated phenomena, as failing to achieve one goal could lead to failing to achieve the other goal. Recent studies provide evidence for this theory ( Kaufmann and Frisby, 2017 ; Frisby et al., 2020 ). Finally, the working alliance theory conceptualizes teacher–student relationships as a collaborative working alliance. In this frame, the concept of working alliance in psychotherapy is applied to the classroom setting, emphasizing that the emotional bond between teacher and student and their collaboration in achieving the goals and tasks of their work together influence achievement ( Toste et al., 2015 ). Noble et al. (2020) found that the ratings of the working alliance of students predicted their reports of risk of dropout mediated by school engagement.

Despite differences regarding the mechanisms for the effect of teacher–student relationships on engagement and achievement in the above-mentioned theories, important and consistent research findings stress the importance of teacher–student relationships in the experiences of high school students ( Roorda et al., 2011 , 2017 ; Quin, 2017 ).

However, again, the focus of most research about teacher–student relationships has been on students with TD, with less and inconclusive evidence about the effect of these relationships in SEN students (see Roorda et al., 2011 ). Thus, specific research in this regard is needed ( Sabol and Pianta, 2012 ; Ewe, 2019 ), especially in inclusive settings ( Pennington and Courtade, 2015 ) and considering their emotional, social, and/or learning difficulties ( Murray and Greenberg, 2001 ; Murray and Pianta, 2007 ).

The research conducted on this topic indicates that SEN students have poorer teacher–student relationships than their typical developed peers ( Murray and Greenberg, 2001 ; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer, 2004 ; Freire et al., 2020 ), and according to Henricsson and Rydell (2004) , these relationships tend to be stable over time in elementary school for SEN students. In addition, most research on the teacher–student relationships of students with SEN is limited to the upper years of primary schools (for an exception, see Freire et al., 2020 ); thus, studying these relationships as the high school level is even more important.

This study analyzes the impact of teacher–student relationships and SEN on engagement and disengagement of students in a sample of SEN and TD secondary students in mainstream schools. Trying to fill the gaps in the literature on the engagement of SEN students, we used three widely agreed dimensions of engagement in this study: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ), with the addition of social engagement ( Wang et al., 2017 ). Finally, we measure engagement and disengagement as separate continua.

Design and Participants

This study used a non-experimental, correlational, and cross-sectional design to evaluate student engagement among adolescents with SEN and their TD peers. The inclusion criteria for the SEN group were (a) being enrolled in the 9th grade, (b) being in the inclusion program at a mainstream school, and (c) having a SEN diagnosis. For the TD group, the criteria were (a) being enrolled in the 9th grade, and (b) not having being diagnosed with SEN. The exclusion participation criterion for both groups was having autism ( n = 16). Schools provided information regarding diagnoses to verify compliance with the inclusion criteria.

Participants were 9th-grade students recruited from 38 public mainstream schools from the Biobio Region in Chile. All schools were in urban areas and all enrolled SEN students as mandated by Chilean legislation. There were 340 students with SEN (306 with learning disabilities, 90% of the SEN group; 21 with attention deficit disorder, 6%; six with motor disability, 2%; four with a mild hearing impairment, 1%; and three with a mild visual impairment, 1%). Furthermore, 640 TD students participated in the study. The overall group included 575 female students (56%) and 445 male students (44%), with the gender breakdown being similar between groups [ χ ( 1 ) 2 = 2.040; p = 0.153]. Note there was a slight age difference [ t (946) = 3.146; p = 0.002]. The mean age in the SEN group was 15.01 years ( SD = 0.94) and 14.82 ( SD = 0.86) for the TD group, that is, SEN students were on average 3 months older than TD students. Regarding economic status, 82.5% of the TD and 87.7% of the SEN sample had a family income below 690 USD, which corresponds to a low socioeconomic status.

Instruments and Variables

(a) Special educational needs: The inclusion program for students with SEN to attend mainstream schools in Chile—called the school integration program—requires that students have a medical and psychological evaluation to identify their special need(s) prior to enrolment. The relevant Decree 170 (2009) states that SEN students enrolled in public mainstream schools to receive academic support from a special needs teacher along with attending regular classes. This is done in both the classroom and in a special resource room, allowing for more individualized assistance.

(b) The engagement measures of teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, and family support for learning were assessed with the subscales teacher – student relationship (nine items: “My teachers are there for me when I need them”), peer support at school (six items: “Other students at school care about me”), and family support for learning (four items: “My family/guardian(s) want me to keep trying when things are tough at school”) of the Student Engagement Inventory (SEI; Appleton et al., 2006 ). Although this instrument is called “student engagement,” the nature of its items better captures factors that influence engagement than indicators of student engagement per se ( Veiga et al., 2014 ). Each item was answered on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree) as in the original instrument ( Appleton et al., 2006 ). The omission of the midpoint in a Likert scale to measure attitude is debated. However, we decided not to change the number of options because that could alter the psychometric properties of the instrument. Furthermore, omitting a neutral option could in some circumstances be beneficial in terms of forcing the respondent to choose an answer in areas with high social desirability pressures ( Chyung et al., 2017 ), which could be the case in this study.

Reliability indices in the Chilean validation process were between ω = 0.76 and ω = 0.88 for all scales. The reliability indices in the present sample were ω = 0.875, ω = 0.785, and ω = 0.700 for teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, and family support for learning subscales, respectively. In the validation sample, the SEI showed a good fit for the proposed six-factor model ( Appleton et al., 2006 ), and its factorial invariance has been demonstrated in various countries ( Virtanen et al., 2017 ) including Chile ( Espinoza et al., 2018 ).

(c) The perception of school participation was measured with the subscale positive perception of school participation (six items: “At my school, all students have the chance to participate”) from the School Participation Scale developed by John-Akinola and Nic-Gabhainn (2014) . This subscale measures if students perceive that school participation is real or symbolic in their educational institution. Each item is answered on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). This study used the Spanish version, which has been validated in a sample of 1,428 students in secondary schools in central-southern Chile ( M = 15.59; SD = 1.52) ( Pérez-Salas et al., 2019 ). Reliability in the Chilean validation process was ω = 0.877 for this subscale ( Pérez-Salas et al., 2019 ), and in the present sample, it was α = 0.857 (ω = 0.868).

(d) Engagement and disengagement were measured with the Multidimensional Scale of School Engagement (MSSE; Wang et al., 2017 ). It consists of 37 items that assess engagement and disengagement on a five-point Likert scale. The engagement factor contains 19 items: (a) behavioral engagement (four items: “I ask questions when I don't understand”), (b) cognitive engagement (five items: “I look over my schoolwork and make sure it is done well”), (c) emotional engagement (five items: “I am happy at school”), and (d) social engagement (five items: “I enjoy working with peers at school”). The disengagement factor contains 18 items: (a) behavioral disengagement (eight items: “I don't follow school rules”), (b) cognitive disengagement (two items: “Finishing my homework fast is more important to me than doing it well”), (c) emotional disengagement (four items: “I feel overwhelmed by my schoolwork”), and (d) social disengagement (four items: “I don't care about the people at my school”). This instrument was validated by the Pérez-Salas (2021) among Chilean students. The reliability indices in the present sample for the engagement factor were α = 0.902 (ω = 0.902) and α = 0.869 (ω = 0.869) for the disengagement factor. These indices were similar to those found in the validation process in Chile ( Pérez-Salas, 2021 ).

This study is part of ongoing longitudinal research on engagement trajectories of high school students. The data for this particular study is from the first wave of data collection, and the experiment was conducted during the second semester of the school year (August/December 2018). The ethical committee of the Universidad de Concepción of the First Author approved this research, and both the school boards of each city and the school gave their authorization. After this, eligible participants were determined according to the study inclusion criteria for both samples (students with SEN or students who were TD).

An invitation to participate in the study was sent to the parents of eligible participants. After explaining the rights and the purpose of the study of students and obtaining active informed consent from the parents and student informed assent, trained psychologists gave the instruments to TD students for self-administration, and individually assessed SEN students using a reading aloud application format. We decided to use different methods because difficulties in applying self-administration questionnaires in SEN students have been identified ( Finlay and Lyons, 2001 ; Goegan et al., 2018 ), suggesting that accommodations should be made ( Goegan et al., 2018 ). However, to ensure there was not a skew from the application format, we conducted a quasi-experimental study with another sample that showed that the application format (self-administered vs. read aloud) had no effect, confirming similar reliability indexes for both samples 1 .

The evaluations were conducted in schools of participants and lasted approximately 45 min. Participants received a movie ticket for their collaboration.

Data Analysis

The percentage of missing data was evaluated by item and participants, and then missing values were replaced with the Expectation-Maximization imputation method to enable analysis with all cases.

As the SEN participants had different conditions (learning, sensorial, and motor disabilities), we analyzed if there were differences in their engagement and disengagement before conducting the main analysis. Furthermore, before the analysis, we tested compliance with the assumptions of the parametric technique: normal distribution with asymmetry and kurtosis, and the homogeneity of variances with a Box's M test and Levene's test. Heteroscedasticity corrections were made when needed. Finally, to evaluate possible differences between groups (SEN vs. TD), we performed a multivariate analysis of variance with engagement and disengagement dimensions. We employed SPSS, version 25 ( IBM, 2017 ) for all the analyses.

The total missing values per item in the sample were <1% across cases. We had full data for 80.8% of the participants (81 items) and only four individuals (0.4% of the sample) had omitted 6–18 items (7–22%) in their protocols. As mentioned, missing data were replaced with the Expectation-Maximization imputation method to enable the analysis with all available data ( N = 1,020). A multivariate ANOVA did not indicate differences between participants with different SEN conditions when it came to student engagement [ F (16, 1340) = 0.909; p = 0.558; η p 2 = 0.011] or disengagement [ F (16, 1340) = 0.645; p = 0.849; η p 2 = 0.008]. Thus, we decided to treat all SEN participants as one group. Asymmetry and kurtosis values were lower than I2I in all dependent variables in both samples, supporting compliance of the assumption of the normal distribution of the variables.

Table 1 shows the mean, SD, t- tests, and effect sizes for teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, family support for learning, and perception of school participation for students with SEN and TD. Results indicate good levels of teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, and family support for learning, and very positive perceptions of school participation in both TD and SEN students. Mean comparisons revealed that SEN students report having better teacher–student relationships and an even more positive perception of school participation than do TD students. No group differences were found in peer support at school or in family support for learning.

Table 1 . Mean, SD, t -tests, and effect sizes for teacher–student relationship, peer support at school, family support for learning and perception of school participation in students with SEN and TD.

The multivariate ANOVA showed a significant statistical difference between SEN and TD students for the student engagement indicators (behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social) [ F (4, 1015) = 12.484; p < 0.001; η p 2 = 0.047], although both had good levels ( Table 1 ). The intersubjects effect test showed that cognitive, emotional, and social engagement were higher in SEN students than TD students ( p < 0.01) ( Table 1 ). This means that students with SEN reported working harder at school, having more fun at school, and enjoying spending time with their peers at school more than those with TD.

Regarding the student disengagement dimension, a significant statistical difference was found between SEN and TD students in the indicators (behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social) [ F (4, 1015) = 10.173; p < 0.001; η p 2 = 0.039]. In general, SEN and TD students had low levels of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional disengagement, but both groups reported some degree of social disengagement. The intersubjects effect test showed that cognitive and behavioral disengagement were higher in SEN students than TD students ( p < 0.01) ( Table 1 ). This means that students with SEN reported more maladaptive behaviors at school and more disaffection with learning than their peers with TD ( p < 0.01). No differences were found between samples in emotional disengagement or social disengagement.

Next, using the stepwise method, linear regressions were analyzed to predict the scores in each engagement and disengagement dimension for teacher–student relationships, peer support at school, family support for learning, and perception of school participation.

For behavioral engagement, the regression model included perceptions of school participation, peer support at school, teacher–student relationships, and group (SEN vs. TD) was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 0.232, F (4, 1015) = 77.991, p < 0.001]. Of the predictive variables, the most important was the positive perception of school participation, followed by peer support at school, teacher–student relationships, and group (TD). That is, the better the perceptions of (a) school participation opportunities, (b) peer support, and (c) teacher–student relationships, along with (d) being TD, the higher the scores for behavioral engagement, in that order ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 . Linear regression models for behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social engagement dimensions.

For cognitive engagement, the regression model included teacher–student relationships, family support for learning, and perception of school participation [ R adj 2 = 0.190, F (3, 1016) = 80.656; p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was again positive perception of school participation, followed by teacher–student relationships and family support for learning ( Table 2 ). This model implies that the better is (a) perception of school participation opportunities, (b) teacher–student relationships, and (c) family support for learning, the higher are the scores for cognitive engagement.

For emotional engagement, the regression model was statistically significant and included perception of school participation, teacher–student relationships, and peer support at school [ R adj 2 = 0.477, F (3, 1016) = 311.276, p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was positive perception of school participation, followed by teacher–student relationships and peer support at school ( Table 2 ). This model implies that the better is (a) perception of school participation opportunities, (b) teacher–student relationships, and (c) peer support at school, the higher are the scores for emotional engagement.

For social engagement, the regression model that included perception of school participation, peer support at school, and teacher–student relationships was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 0.415, F (3, 1016) = 242.155; p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was again positive perception of school participation, followed by peer support at school and teacher–student relationships ( Table 2 ). This model implies that the better is (a) perception of school participation opportunities, (b) peer support at school, and (c) teacher–student relationships, the higher are the scores for social engagement.

For behavioral disengagement, the regression model that included all predictive variables was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 076, F (5, 1014) = 17.728; p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was group (SEN = 1), followed by teacher–student relationships (–), peer support at school (+), perception of school participation (–), and family support for learning (–) ( Table 3 ). This model means that (a) having SEN, (b) having poorer teacher–student relationships, (c) higher peer support at school, (d) perception of scarce opportunities to participate at school, and (e) lower support from families for learning leads to higher scores for behavioral disengagement.

Table 3 . Linear regression models for behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social disengagement dimensions.

For cognitive disengagement, the regression model including the positive perception of school participation, having SEN, and family support for learning was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 0.065, F (3, 1016) = 26.67, p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was the perception of school participation (–), followed by group (SEN = 1) and family support for learning (–) ( Table 3 ). This model implies that (a) having SEN and (b) a poorer perception of both school participation opportunities, and (c) family support for learning will lead to lower scores for cognitive disengagement.

For emotional disengagement, the regression model including the positive perception of school participation, teacher–student relationships, and the group was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 0.103, F (3, 1016) = 39.943, p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was the perception of school participation (–), followed by teacher–student relationships (–) and group (SEN = 1) ( Table 3 ). This model suggests that (a) having SEN and (b) a poorer perception of school participation opportunities, and (c) a negative perception of teacher–student relationships will lead to lower scores for emotional disengagement.

Finally, for social disengagement, the regression model including peer support at school and perception of school participation was statistically significant [ R adj 2 = 0.159, F (2, 1017) = 97.48, p < 0.001]. Among the predictive variables, the most important was peer support at school (–), followed by the perception of school participation (–) ( Table 3 ). This model means that (a) the poorer the perception of peer support at school and (b) a negative perception of school participation opportunities leads to lower scores for social disengagement.

Few studies have measured the engagement and disengagement of students with SEN, and even fewer have examined the impact of factors such as teacher–student relationships on their engagement and disengagement in school. This cross-sectional study extended prior research investigating student engagement in a sample of SEN and TD students measuring this construct in a multidimensional manner (cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and social), while considering engagement and disengagement as separate but related phenomena.

Inconsistent with previous research, we found engagement of SEN students was higher than that of TD students for the cognitive, emotional, and social indicators. We also found no differences between both groups for the behavioral indicator. Much of the literature in this field suggests that SEN students could be conceptualized as at risk for low engagement due to their struggles at school ( Douglas et al., 2012 ; Cortiella and Horowitz, 2014 ; Moreira et al., 2015 ). In addition, previous research reported lower levels of engagement in this population than in TD students ( Lovelace et al., 2014 ; Schindler, 2018 ).

Scant research has directly examined the construct of cognitive engagement for students with SEN ( O'Donnell and Reschly, 2020 ). However, O'Donnell and Reschly (2020) highlight that academic difficulties experienced by students with SEN may reflect a lack of self-regulation strategies and thus could impact engagement. Our results contradict this, showing that SEN students present higher scores in cognitive engagement. According to the conceptualization of cognitive engagement in the MSSE used in this study, this finding means that the SEN students in our sample reported “higher metacognitive strategies (…) to productively coordinate their energy and behavior in school” ( Wang et al., 2017 , p. 12). This contradictory finding is explainable because multiple studies have shown that students with SEN can successfully learn metacognitive skills [for more detail, see the meta-analysis of de Boer et al. (2018) and Donker et al. (2014) ]; thus, the work of special needs teachers with SEN students at schools could be reflecting the positive results thereof in their higher scores for cognitive engagement in our study.

Our findings also contradict previous research reporting that emotional engagement in students with SEN is lower than that in TD students. This could be attributed to the different conceptualization of emotional engagement in various studies. In the MSSE, Wang et al. (2017 , p. 3) state that emotional engagement represents “the external manifestations of students' feelings regarding school” (having fun at school, being happy at school, being proud of their school, and being interested in what they are learning at school) and do not include facilitators of engagement (contextual predictors). Our results also show higher social engagement scores for SEN students than for the TD group, reflecting the very good quality of this involvement of adolescents in social interactions (enjoy working with peers at school, enjoy spending time with peers at school, and openness to working with peers and making friends at school). These results are encouraging for SEN education, since the importance of positive emotions for development and well-being has been emphasized by positive psychology ( Norrish and Vella-Brodrick, 2009 ; McKeering et al., 2021 ).

Aligned with the self-system model theory ( Connell and Wellborn, 1991 ) and our hypothesis, our findings show that close relationships with teachers positively contribute to all dimensions of student engagement in our sample, an effect consistently reported in research in this field with TD students ( Roorda et al., 2011 , 2017 ; Quin, 2017 ). We also found that the higher was the perception of opportunities to participate at school, the higher were all indicators of engagement (cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social), reflecting the relevance of school-level and classroom-level variables in student engagement ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ).

However, the better teacher–student relationships and more opportunities to participate at school reported by SEN students compared to their TD peers were unexpected findings of our study. Previous research mostly reported poorer relationships between SEN students and their teachers ( Murray and Greenberg, 2001 ; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer, 2004 ; Murray et al., 2006 ; Freire et al., 2020 ) and fewer opportunities to participate at school than TD students ( Coster et al., 2013 ). Our results show the opposite, as Schwab and Rossmann (2020) similarly showed in a recent study that found SEN students rated their teacher–student relationships more positively than TD students.

O'Donnell and Reschly (2020) state that the inconsistence in school connectedness or teacher–student relationships in the literature on SEN students could be attributable to the availability of resource rooms and close relationships with special education teachers in each context. Similarly, Schwab and Rossmann (2020) explain their results by arguing that in the Austrian school system, SEN students are often supported by two teachers in regular classrooms, one of whom is a special needs teacher who spends much time with the students, providing opportunities to develop a closer relationship with them. We think the same hypothesis could explain our positive results for teacher–student relationships and the better perception of participation of the SEN students in our sample, as such students attending public mainstream schools in Chile receive academic support by special needs teachers in regular classrooms and additional support in small groups in a special resource room. This reflects the increased time special needs teachers spend with these students and that these teachers may be more sensitive to their needs.

The positive effect of special needs teachers for Chilean students is also supported by a qualitative study that we conducted with a sample of adolescents with learning disabilities 2 . Based on the perceptions of students, that study concluded that special needs teachers are crucial for their engagement, as their pedagogical practices are oriented to satisfy the needs of students for competence and relatedness, aspects that have been shown as key in adjusting to school ( Connell and Wellborn, 1991 ).

Exposure to more positive relationships with special needs teachers could also explain the better teacher–student relationships reported by SEN students and their higher emotional and social engagement scores. This is aligned with the study of Martin and Collie (2019) that predicted greater engagement of high school students as to when the number of positive relationships outnumbered negative relationships with their teachers.

Finally, we found significant statistical differences between SEN and TD students for some disengagement indicators. On the one hand, engagement of SEN students was higher in the cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions; however, on the other hand, they also had higher scores for cognitive and behavioral disengagement. These results emphasize that engagement and disengagement are two distinctive phenomena ( Skinner et al., 2009 ). Thus, although students with SEN report working harder at school, enjoying being at school and studying, and have positive interactions with others at school, they also perceive higher “disaffection” with learning ( Skinner et al., 2008 ) than their TD peers. This should alert educators, as it could lead SEN students to gradually withdraw from the social environment in response to negative experiences ( Finn, 1989 ).

A possible explanation for this apparent contra-intuitive result for SEN students (high cognitive and behavioral disengagement alongside high cognitive and emotional engagement) might be because according to a meta-analysis, the relationship between academic achievement and engagement is not always conclusive ( Lei et al., 2018 ). Therefore, although extensive empirical research on the relationship between academic achievement and engagement exists, some scholars have found non-significant associations between these variables ( Lei et al., 2018 ). Possibly, this is because students who achieve good grades better master the abilities needed for easier learning than low achievement students, and so apply less effort and strategies when studying ( Lei et al., 2018 ). We think this hypothesis could be applicable to our results, meaning the better cognitive engagement of SEN students may reflect their extra educational effort compared to their classmates. Furthermore, despite that they seem to enjoy being at school, being with peers, and learning, they may be starting to experience a higher level of cognitive and behavioral disengagement, perhaps because they feel some frustration when learning.

Implications for Policies and Educational Practice

The current study provides evidence of the need for continuing research on students with SEN to unpack the conditions that provide support or hinder their participation and achievement in schools. Overall, this research suggests that teachers have a relevant influence in all dimensions of engagement of students and on emotional and behavioral disengagement for TD and SEN students. At the same time, the positive relationship between teachers and students was inversely associated with the disengagement of students. These findings are particularly relevant for students with SEN who often experience more struggles in school and higher dropout rates.

These results have implications for policy and practice. We hope this study will inform policymakers and authorities when drafting policies regarding students with SEN, especially when it comes to the relevance of teacher–student relationships in the achievement and well-being of students. In addition, this study highlights the relevance of including students with SEN in research. Authorities must consider this when evaluating topics impacting the trajectories of students.

Regarding implications for practice, it would benefit school systems to structure student interactions in ways to strengthen opportunities to provide academic and emotional support. School districts and administrators have an important role in providing professional development to improve the abilities of teachers to create strong teacher–student relationships. In the case of inclusive education, students with SEN have the additional support of special education teachers, which could impact their perceptions of teacher–student relationships, as the additional support could provide further opportunities to enhance these relationships. Schools should also make efforts to ensure that both TD and SEN students feel like there are plenty of opportunities to engage in school participation, since that was also a key factor.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the strengths of this study, some limitations must be considered when interpreting its results. First, this is a correlational and cross-sectional study; thus, no cause–effect conclusions should be derived from our results. Second, all our measures rely on self-reporting of students. It would have been informative to have impressions of teachers on teacher–student relationships and more direct measures of school participation opportunities to disentangle in terms of whether the level of opportunities, belief that there are many opportunities or a combination of both have an impact.

Future quantitative work should examine practices of teachers to help determine what creates good teacher–student relationships, and what other impacts teachers may have on engagement and disengagement dimensions of students (cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and social). Furthermore, qualitative work (e.g., interviews with teachers, and TD and SEN students) should be considered to provide detailed insight into how such relationships are created and if specific factors have a greater influence on the performance and well-being of students. In this regard, mixed research methods could be a productive approach to collect comprehensive data to better understand the experiences of students, particularly those who face barriers to participating in schools.

Despite our limitations, this study adds to a fairly limited field of research. It includes a relatively large sample of students with SEN studying in mainstream settings, whom it compared with their TD peers. Simply focusing on the engagement and disengagement of students with SEN is a contribution to this field considering the lack of information on both constructs for this more vulnerable population. It also suggests clear future paths for additional research and potential school-level improvements.

Finally, we hope this article draws attention to the challenges faced by SEN students and the relevance of teacher–student relationships in contributing to both engagement and disengagement depending on the quality of these relationships. These findings suggest clear future paths for additional research and potential school-level interventions to strengthen student engagement and avoid the negative consequences of disengagement.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Comité de Ética, Bioética y Bioseguridad de la Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to this manuscript by doing secondary research, conceptualizing the methodology, and drafting and revising the manuscript.

This work received funding from the National Research and Development Agency of the Chilean Government [ANID/CONICYT, Proyecto FONDECYT Regular 1181265].

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our thanks to DAEM Talcahuano, DAEM Los Ángeles, DEM LotaDAEM Antuco, DAEM Curanilahue, and SLEM Andalién Sur, and all the schools that participated in this project. Special thanks are extended to the integration program coordinators of each school.

1. ^ Pérez-Salas, C. P., Parra, V., Sáez, F., Ramírez, P., and Zañartu, I. (2021). Self-administered versus read aloud questionnaires: Quasi-experimental study in students with and without learning disabilities.

2. ^ Lara, G., González, N., Lara, F., Lagos, L., Parra, V., and Pérez-Salas, C. P. (2021). Relación docente-estudiante y compromiso escolar: percepción de jóvenes con necesidades educativas especiales (Manuscript submitted for publication). Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Concepciín.

Al-Yagon, M., and Mikulincer, M. (2004). Socioemotional and academic adjustment among children with learning disorders: The mediational role of attachment-based factors. J. Spec. Educ. 38, 111–123. doi: 10.1177/00224669040380020501

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., and Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. J. Sch. Psychol. 44, 427–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., and Fors, U. (2020). Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Educ. Inf. Technol . 25, 957–983. doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-09998-w

Bergin, C., and Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21, 141–170. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0

Burns, E. (2020). Factors that support high school completion: A longitudinal examination of quality teacher-student relationships and intentions to graduate. J. Adolesc. 84, 180–189. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.09.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Burns, E., Bostwick, K., Collie, R., and Martin, A. (2019). Understanding girls' disengagement: Identifying patterns and the role of teacher and peer support using latent growth modeling. J. Youth Adolesc. 48, 979–995. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-00986-4

Burns, E., Martin, A., and Collie, R. (2018). Adaptability, personal best (PB) goals setting, and gains in students' academic outcomes: A longitudinal examination from a social cognitive perspective. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 53, 57–72. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.02.001

Chang, D., Chien, W., and Chou, W. (2016). Meta-analysis approach to detect the effect of student engagement on academic achievement. ICIC Express Lett . 10, 2241–2246. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2020.1864772

Chyung, S., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., and Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Perform. Improve . 56, 15–23. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21727

Connell, J. P., and Wellborn, J. G. (1991). “Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes”, in Self-Processes in Development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development , eds M. R. Gunnar and L. A. Sroufe (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 43–77.

Google Scholar

Cortiella, C., and Horowitz, S. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. Nat. Cent. Learn. Dis . 25, 2–45. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2004.0012

Coster, W., Law, M., Bedell, G., Liljenquist, K., Kao, Y., Khetani, M., et al. (2013). School participation, supports and barriers of students with and without disabilities. Child Care Health Dev. 39, 535–543. doi: 10.1111/cch.12046

de Boer, H., Donker, A., Kostons, D., and van der Werf, G. (2018). Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev . 24, 98–115. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002

Decree 170 (2009). Decreto con toma de razón N° 170. Fija normas para determinar los alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales que serán beneficiarios de las subvenciones para educación especial . Santiago.

Donker, A., De Boer, H., Kostons, D., Van Ewijk, C., and van der Werf, M. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev . 11, 1–26. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002

Douglas, G., Travers, J., McLinden, M., Robertson, C., Smith, E., Macnab, N., et al. (2012). Measuring Educational Engagement, Progress and Outcomes for Children With Special Educational Needs: A Review. Meath: (NCSE) . Available online at: http://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Outcomes26_11_12Acc.pdf (accessed June 27, 2021).

Engels, M., Spilt, J., Denies, K., and Verschueren, K. (2021). The role of affective teacher-student relationships in adolescents' school engagement and achievement trajectories. Learn. Instruct. 75:101485. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101485

Espinoza, L., González, L., Lema, C., Longos, M., and Oñate, V. (2018). Validación del instrumento de compromiso escolar (SEI) en estudiantes secundarios en Chile . [Tesis para optar al grado de Licenciado en Psicología]. Concepción: Universidad de Concepción.

Ewe, L. (2019). ADHD symptoms and the teacher–student relationship: A systematic literature review. Emot. Behav. Diffic . 24, 136–155. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2019.1597562

Finlay, W., and Lyons, E. (2001). Methodological issues in interviewing and using a self-report questionnaire with people with mental retardation. Psychol. Assess. 13, 319–335. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.13.3.319

Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Rev. Educ. Res. 59, 117–142. doi: 10.3102/00346543059002117

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., and Paris, A. (2005). “School engagement”, in Conceptualizing and Measuring Indicators of Positive Development: What do Children Need to Flourish , eds. K. A. Moore and L. Lippman (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press), 305–321.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., and Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74, 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059

Fredricks, J., Parr, A., Amemiya, J., Wang, M., and Brauer, S. (2019). What matters for urban adolescents' engagement and disengagement in school: a mixed-methods study. J. Adolesc. Res. 34, 491–527. doi: 10.1177/0743558419830638

Freire, S., Pipa, J., Aguiar, C., Vaz da Silva, F., and Moreira, S. (2020). Student–teacher closeness and conflict in students with and without special educational needs. Br. Educ. Res. J. 46, 480–499. doi: 10.1002/berj.3588

Frisby, B., Hosek, A., and Beck, A. (2020). The role of classroom relationships as sources of academic resilience and hope. Commun. Q. 68, 289–305. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2020.1779099

Goegan, L., Radil, A., and Daniels, L. (2018). Accessibility in questionnaire research: integrating universal design to increase the participation of individuals with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil. Contemp. J . 16, 177–190. doi: 10.7939/r3-cmkq-1c82

Havik, T., and Westergård, E. (2020). Do teachers matter? Students' perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement, Scand. J. Educ. Res . 64,488–507. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754

Henricsson, L., and Rydell, A. (2004). Elementary school children with behaviour problems: Teacher–child relationship and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill Palmer Q . 50, 111–132.

IBM (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 . Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Jang, H., Kim, E., and Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learn. Instr . 43, 27–38. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., and Pagani, L. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relation to dropout. J. Soc. Issues . 64, 21–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x

John-Akinola, Y., and Nic-Gabhainn, S. (2014). Children's participation in school: A cross-sectional study of the relationship between school environments, participation and health and well-being outcomes. BMC Public Health . 14, 964–974. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-964

Kaufmann, R., and Frisby, B. (2017). Dimensions of instructor disclosure: Implications for rhetorical and relational goals of instruction. Commun. Res. Rep . 34, 221–229. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1286469

Krane, V., Karlsson, B., Ness, O., and Kim, H. (2016). Teacher–student relationship, student mental health, and dropout from upper secondary school: A literature review. Scand. J. Psychol . 3:6. doi: 10.15714/scandpsychol.3.e11

Lei, H., Cui, Y., and Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J . 46, 517–528. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7054

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T., and Koskey, K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 36, 13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001

Lovelace, M., Reschly, A., Appleton, J., and Lutz, M. (2014). Concurrent and predictive validity of the student engagement instrument. J. Psychoeduc. Asses . 32, 509–520. doi: 10.1177/0734282914527548

Martin, A., and Collie, R. (2019). Teacher–student relationships and students' engagement in high school: does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter? J. Educ. Psychol . 111, 861–876. doi: 10.1037/edu0000317

McKeering, P., Hwang, Y., and Ng, C. (2021). A study into wellbeing, student engagement and resilience in early-adolescent international school students. J. Res. Int. Educ . 20, 69–92. doi: 10.1177/14752409211006650

Moreira, P., Bilimória, H., Pedrosa, C., Pires, M., Cepa, M., Mestre, M., et al. (2015). Engagement with school students with special educational needs. Rev. Int. Psicol. Ter. Psicol . 15, 361–375.

Morrison, G., Robertson, L., Laurie, B., and Kelly, J. (2002). Protective factors related to antisocial behavior trajectories. J. Clin. Psychol . 58, 277–290. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10022

Mottet, T., Frymier, A., and Beebe, S. (2006). “Theorizing about instructional communication,” in Handbook of Instructional Communication: Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives , eds T. Mottet, V. Richmond, and J. McCroskey (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon), 255–282.

Murray, C., and Greenberg, M. (2001). Relationships with teachers and bonds with school: Socialemotional adjustment correlates for children with and without disabilities. Psychol. Sch . 38, 25–41. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(200101)

Murray, C., Mark, T., and Greenberg, M. (2006). Examining the importance of social relationships and social contexts in the lives of children with high-incidence disabilities. J. Spec. Educ . 39, 220–233. doi: 10.1177/00224669060390040301

Murray, C., and Pianta, R. (2007). The importance of teacher–student relationships for adolescents with high incidence disabilities. Theory Pract . 46, 105–112. doi: 10.1080/00405840701232943

Noble, R., Heath, N., Krause, A., and Rogers, M. (2020). Teacher-student relationships and high school drop-out: Applying a working alliance framework. Can. J. Sch. Psychol . 1:14. doi: 10.1177/0829573520972558

Norrish, J., and Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). Positive psychology and adolescents: Where are we now? Where to from here? Aust. Psychol . 44, 270–278. doi: 10.1080/00050060902914103

O'Donnell, K., and Reschly, A. (2020). “Student engagement and learning: Attention, behavioral, and emotional difficulties in School,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology and Students with Special Needs , eds. A. J. Martin, R. A. Sperling, and K. J. Newton (New York, NY: Routledge), 557–583.

Pennington, R., and Courtade, G. (2015). An examination of teacher and student behaviors in classrooms for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Prev. Sch. Fail. Alt. Educ. Chil. Youth . 59, 40–47. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2014.919141

Pérez-Salas, C. P. (2021). Psychometric Properties of Multidimensional Scale of School Engagement . [Unpublished manuscript]. Concepción: Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Concepción.

Pérez-Salas, C. P., Sirlopú, D., Cobo, R., and Awad, A. (2019). Análisis bifactorial de la Escala de Participación Escolar en una muestra de estudiantes chilenos. Rev. Iberoam. Diagn. Ev . 52, 27–39. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP52.3.03

Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: a systematic review. Rev. Educ. Res . 87, 345–387. doi: 10.3102/0034654316669434

Rimm-Kaufman, S., Baroody, A., Larsen, R., Curby, T., and Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher-student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders' engagement in mathematics learning? J. Educ. Psychol . 107, 170–185. doi: 10.1037/a0037252

Roorda, D., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F., and Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students' engagement and achievement: a meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psych. Rev . 46, 239–261. doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3

Roorda, D., Koomen, H., Spilt, J., and Oort, F. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement. Rev. Educ. Res . 81, 493–529. doi: 10.3102/0034654311421793

Sabol, T., and Pianta, R. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attach. Hum. Dev . 14, 213–231. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2012.672262

Schindler, B. (2018). Student engagement in inclusive classrooms. Educ. Econ . 26, 266–284. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2018.1426733

Schwab, S., and Rossmann, P. (2020). Peer integration, teacher-student relationships and the associations with depressive symptoms in secondary school students with and without special needs. Educ. St . 46, 302–315. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2019.1584852

Shin, H., and Ryan, A. (2012). How do young adolescents cope with social problems? An examination of social goals, coping with friends, and social adjustment. J. Early Adolesc . 32, 851–875. doi: 10.1177/0272431611429944

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., and Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol . 100, 765–781. doi: 10.1037/a0012840

Skinner, E., Kindermann, T., and Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educ. Psychol. Meas . 69, 493–525. doi: 10.1177/0013164408323233

Skinner, E., and Pitzer, J. (2012). “Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (Switzerland: Springer), 21–44.

Toste, J., Heath, N., Connor, C., and Peng, P. (2015). Reconceptualizing teacher-student relationships: applicability of the working alliance within classroom contexts. Elem. Sch. J . 116, 30–48. doi: 10.1086/683110

Veiga, F., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., and Robu, V. (2014). “Assessing students' engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric qualities,” in The First International Congress of Engagement at School: Perspectives from Psychology and Education , ed F. H. Veiga (Lisbon: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa), 38–57.

Verschueren, K., and Koomen, H. (2012). Teacher-child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attach. Hum. Dev . 14, 205–211. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2012.672260

Virtanen, T., Moreira, H., Ulvseth, H., Andersson, S., Tetler, S., and Kuorelahti, M. (2017). Analyzing measurement invariance of the students' engagement instrument brief version: the cases of Denmark, Finland, and Portugal. Can. J. Sch. Psychol . 33, 297–313. doi: 10.1177/0829573517699333

Voelkl, K. (1997). Identification with school. Am. J. Educ . 105, 204–319. doi: 10.1086/444158

Wallace, T., Anderson, A., Bartholomay, T., and Hupp, S. (2002). An eco-behavioral examination of high school classrooms that include students with disabilities. Except Child 68, 345–359. doi: 10.1177/001440290206800304

Wang, M., and Eccles, J. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: a longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learn Instr . 28, 12–23. doi: 10.1016/j. learninstruc.2013.04.002

Wang, M., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., and Schall, J. (2016). The math and science engagement scale: development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learn Instr . 43,16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

Wang, M., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., and Schall, J. (2017). Conceptualization and assessment of adolescents' engagement and disengagement in school. J Psychol. Assess . 35, 592–606. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000431

Wang, M., and Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement and youth problem behavior during adolescence. Child Dev . 85, 722. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12138

Wang, M., and Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. Am. Educ. Res. J . 47, 633–662. doi: 10.3102/0002831209361209

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J., and Eccles, J. (2006). “Development during early and middle adolescence,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology , eds P. A. Alexander, and P. H. Winne (Ney Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 87–113.

Yang, L., Chiu, H.-M., Sin, K.-F., and Lui, M. (2020). The effects of school support on school engagement with self-determination as mediator in students with special needs. Intl. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ . doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1719046. [Epub ahead of print].

Keywords: student engagement, student disengagement, special educational needs, teacher-student relationships, school participation

Citation: Pérez-Salas CP, Parra V, Sáez-Delgado F and Olivares H (2021) Influence of Teacher-Student Relationships and Special Educational Needs on Student Engagement and Disengagement: A Correlational study. Front. Psychol. 12:708157. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708157

Received: 11 May 2021; Accepted: 11 June 2021; Published: 14 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Pérez-Salas, Parra, Sáez-Delgado and Olivares. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Claudia P. Pérez-Salas, cperezs@udec.cl

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The effect of teaching style and academic motivation on student evaluation of teaching: Insights from social cognition

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is ubiquitous in higher education as a metric for assessing teachers, gaining student feedback, and informing faculty personnel decisions. It is thus imperative to examine the dimensions along which a teacher is judged. This study tested the application of the universal dimensions of social judgment (i.e., warmth and competence) in SET. A total of 108 psychology undergraduates ( M age  = 23.63, SD age  = 3.14) in Singapore rated a fictitious teacher (i.e., either relationship-oriented or task-oriented) based on their interactions over a programmed online chat. Participants responded to the social judgment measures of warmth and competence and rated their academic motivation. Results indicated a higher SET rating for a relationship-oriented than a task-oriented teacher. Further, student academic motivation mediated the link between teaching style and judgment of competence. The findings extend the supremacy of warmth in the context of SET, thus supporting the application of social cognition literature to educational research. In addition, the findings suggest that fostering a match in task goals between a teacher and student improves ratings of teacher competence.

1. Introduction

To improve quality teaching, regular and objective examination of teachers is imperative ( Spooren et al., 2013 ). Since the 1920s, universities have relied on students to assess teachers. Students are considered relevant stakeholders in gathering insights into teaching quality. SET is primarily drawn on the perception of teaching style, and the experience one has with the teacher ( Coldren and Hively, 2009 ). SET is a tool for measuring teaching performance either in whole or part ( Spooren et al., 2013 ). However, the basis of these perceptions has yet to be thoroughly investigated ( Zhao et al., 2022 ). There is thus merit in extending the decades of research in social cognition to the domain of SET. Research has established warmth and competence as the two universal dimensions of social perception ( Fiske et al., 2007 ). In the present study, we address the possibility of applying the tenets of social judgment to the parameters of SET.

1.1. Teaching style

Teaching style refers to a pervasive quality of teaching behavior that persists even though the taught content changes ( Ghanizadeh and Jahedizadeh, 2016 ). Teaching style has been documented to affect student learning experience and student impressions of the teacher ( Coldren and Hively, 2009 ), potentially factoring into SET. Like leaders, teachers influence students’ attitudes and behavior ( Yukl, 1989 ). Teachers monitor, motivate, manage, and engage students. Their expertise grants them respect and authority in the classroom to control rewards and punishment for students. These functions draw parallels between a teacher and a leader. A teacher’s impact on the education system is synonymous with a leader’s role in organizational success. Hence, a teacher’s position mirrors a leader’s hierarchical power structures in a high power distance organization ( Ryan et al., 2017 ).

The task-relationship model in organizational psychology distinguishes leader behavior as either work oriented and achievement focused (task) or person oriented and relationship focused (relationship; Northouse, 2018 ). Therefore, task-oriented leaders prioritize goal attainment by efficiently allocating resources and delegating responsibilities to their followers. Relationship-oriented leaders help followers feel comfortable with the self, others, and the situation ( Cohen et al., 2004 ). In education, teachers who embody a task-oriented style demand high academic performance by providing rigorous instructions and challenges to students ( Sandilos et al., 2017 ). On the other hand, teachers who embody a relationship-oriented style render warmth to students through unconditional positive regard, attentiveness, care, and respect. Adopting an appropriate teaching style is integral to good teaching practices and evaluation. Thus, the present study investigated the applicability of two leadership styles in teaching and how they may affect SET.

1.2. Student evaluation of teaching

Adhering to Spooren et al. (2013) recommendations for designing SET, there is merit in applying the well-established concept of social judgment to SET. Research in social cognition suggests that warmth and competence are universal dimensions based on how we perceive and relate to others. According to the stereotype content model (SCM), the universality of the dimensions results from one’s need to survive and thrive in the social world ( Fiske et al., 2007 ). The judgment of warmth anticipates others’ intentions toward us and is accompanied by questions of their trustworthiness, sincerity, kindness, and friendliness ( Aaker et al., 2010 ). Next, in temporal sequence, the judgment of competence anticipates others’ capability to enact those intentions through their demonstrations of respect, self-efficacy, skills, confidence, and intelligence. The SCM’s generality across place, levels, and time ( Fiske, 2018 ) further supports the application of the social judgment dimensions to SET.

Purportedly, warmth corresponds with traits related to relationship-orientation, while competence coincides with task-orientation ( Brambilla et al., 2010 ). However, this begs the question of whether a task-oriented teaching style is perceived as higher on competence than a relationship-oriented teaching style; and whether a relationship-oriented teaching style is perceived as higher on warmth than a task-oriented teaching style. Thus, the main research question we investigate is whether the evaluation of task and relationship-oriented teaching styles differs on the dimensions of warmth and competence.

Hypothesis 1 : There would be a significant main effect of teaching style on the SET dimensions of warmth and competence.

Hypothesis 1a : A task-oriented teacher would be rated higher on competence than a relationship-oriented teacher.

Hypothesis 1b : A relationship-oriented teacher would be rated higher on warmth than a task-oriented teacher.

1.3. Student academic motivation

Student academic motivation is the vigor to engage, learn, and work effectively to achieve potential ( Martin, 2010 ). Komarraju (2013) revealed that students who lacked academic motivation valued the ‘caring’ trait in a teacher, while motivated students strongly endorsed the importance of a teacher being more professional than caring. Hence, the finding implies that students with high academic motivation prefer a task-oriented teacher, while those with low academic motivation prefer a relationship-oriented teacher. This speculation calls into question the role of student academic motivation when evaluating the two teaching styles in the present study. According to Dignath-van Ewijk (2016) , a match in task goals between two individuals forms the basis for assessing competence. Given that student academic motivation and teacher competence are grounded in the same need for task achievement ( Guay et al., 2010 ), this study hypothesizes that academic motivation would control how students perceive the respective teaching styles on the SET dimension of competence.

Hypothesis 2 : Student academic motivation will mediate the effect of teaching style on the SET dimension of competence.

2. Present study

In applying the social judgment dimensions to SET, participants of the present study will evaluate the task-oriented and relationship-oriented teaching styles based on the dimensions of warmth and competence. Additionally, the present study will test for the mediating effect of student academic motivation on the relationship between teaching style and the SET dimension of competence.

3. Methodology

3.1. participants and design.

One hundred and eight psychology undergraduates in Singapore ( M age  = 23.63, SD age  = 3.14) participated in the exchange of course credits. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two between-subjects experimental conditions (teaching style: task vs. relationship).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. teacher judgment (dv).

Participants rated the teacher using the 12-item teacher judgment scale ( Poorani and Singh, 2015 ; α  = 0.94). The scale was patterned after the established social judgment dimensions ( Fiske et al., 2007 ) of warmth (e.g., ‘I think this lecturer would be approachable’, ‘this lecturer would be friendly toward individual students’) and competence (e.g., ‘this lecturer is probably an intelligent individual’, ‘this lecturer would probably achieve all of their goals’). Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ).

3.2.2. Student academic motivation (MV)

The 12-item academic motivation sub-scale ( Martin, 2010 ; α  = 0.83) of the Motivation and Engagement Scale–University/College was used to assess participants’ academic motivation (e.g., If an assignment is difficult, I keep working at it trying to figure it out). Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ).

3.2.3. Manipulation check

To check the success of the experimental manipulation of teaching style, participants rated the teacher on the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale ( Fiedler, 1964 ). Participants described the teacher on a series of 18, 8-point bipolar semantic differential scales (e.g., rejecting—accepting). The favorable pole of each scale is scored as “8,” and the unfavorable pole as “1.” Scores for all scales are summed, with low-LPC scores (i.e., 18—64) indicating task-orientation; high-LPC scores (i.e., 73—144) indicating relationship-orientation; and mid-ranged LPC scores (i.e., 65—72) indicating a hybrid. The LPC scores were matched against the participant’s assigned experimental condition.

3.3. Teaching style manipulation (IV) and procedure

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at James Cook University (Ref.H7563). Upon arrival at the lab, participants were assigned to one of two experimental conditions (i.e., task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented teacher) via permuted block randomization. Participants read a circular introducing a fictitious teacher who would mentor their research project. The circular contained information about the teacher’s research interest, field of expertise, and years of experience. The teaching style was manipulated using an online chat programmed to facilitate interaction between the teacher and participants. The chat was presented on Microsoft PowerPoint’s kiosk mode with images of the user session and loading and typing animations (see Figure 1 ).

Images of the user session (i.e., the login screen of the online chat, loading, typing animations) and sample block of interaction between the (task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented) teacher and participant in the online chat.

The teacher’s questions and instructions to participants were patterned after Northouse’s (2018) Style Questionnaire ( α  = 0.93). Two versions were developed to correspond to each teaching style. The relationship-oriented teacher was programmed to show flexibility in making decisions by allowing participants to choose the role they would like to be assigned for the research project. In contrast, the task-oriented teacher was programmed to pre-assign roles to the participants. Participants engaged in the online chat according to their assigned experimental condition. There was a total of six blocks of interaction. Participants took ~6 min to interact with their teacher. Participants chose one of two response choices for each block. The response options were kept the same throughout both conditions. A sample block of interaction from both versions are shown in Figure 1 . At the end of the chat, participants were invited to complete all the study’s questionnaires. The study took ~20 min to complete. Participants were debriefed after they finished responding. Data analyses were performed using IBM’s SPSS version 27.

4.1. Manipulation check

To test if the teaching style manipulation produced intended effect, an independent t -test was performed on the LPC scores. It revealed a significant difference between the scores in two identifiable levels of the teaching style condition (i.e., relationship-and task-orientation), t (106) = 20.86, p  < 0.001, Cohen’s d  = 4.01. Participants rated the relationship-oriented teacher ( M  = 108.31, SD = 22.04) higher than the task-oriented teacher ( M  = 33.74, SD  = 14.31) on the LPC scale. The result was consistent with the LPC score interpretation wherein higher scores on the LPC scale indicate relationship orientation while lower scores indicate task orientation. This verified the effectiveness of the teaching style manipulation.

4.2. Construct distinction and reliability

To test for construct distinction among the measures of competence, warmth, and student academic motivation, a principal components analysis was conducted on all 24 items using direct oblimin rotation. Factor patterns demonstrated clear loadings on the three factors and explained 80.06% of the total variance. Table 1 lists the factor patterns in the responses.

Factor patters in the responses to the competence, warmth, and student academic motivation measures.

In addition, the three distinct constructs showed excellent levels of internal consistency. The intercorrelations, reliability coefficients, and descriptives are presented in Table 2 .

Intercorrelations, reliability coefficients, and descriptive of the competence, warmth, and student academic motivation measures.

** p  < 0.01.

4.3. Hypotheses testing

4.3.1. hypotheses 1, 1a, 1b.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the effect of teaching style on warmth and competence ( N  = 108). All underlying assumptions were supported. Findings revealed a significant main effect of teaching style on the combined DVs of warmth and competence, F (2, 105) = 13.64, p  < 0.001; Wilk’s Λ = 0.79, partial η 2  = 0.21, indicating that Hypothesis 1 was supported. The individual DVs were analyzed at the Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level of 0.025. There was no significant effect of teaching style on competence ( p  = 0.248), indicating that Hypothesis 1a was not supported. However, the effect of teaching style on warmth was statistically significant, F (1, 106) = 20.52, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.16, indicating that Hypothesis 1b was supported. Participants rated the relationship-oriented teacher significantly higher on warmth ( M  = 5.82, SD  = 1.11) than the task-oriented teacher ( M  = 4.73, SD  = 1.37).

4.3.2. Hypothesis 2

Mediation analysis was performed using SPSS Process Model 4 ( Hayes, 2018 ). Model 4 estimated (1) the indirect effect (IE) of teaching style on competence via academic motivation, (2) the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) around that IE from 5,000 bootstrap resamples, and (3) the mediation effect size (ES). We accept the IE as greater than zero if its bias-corrected 95% CI excluded zero.

The IE of teaching style on competence via academic motivation was significant, IE = 0.21, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.068, 0.371]. However, the direct effect of teaching style on competence was nonsignificant, b  = −0.056, t  = −0.437, p  = 0.66. While a mediation in the absence of a total effect ( b  = 0.151, t  = 1.162, p  = 0.25) may seem contradictory, evidence has suggested that the lack of a total effect does not preclude the possibility of observing an IE ( Rucker et al., 2011 ; Kenny and Judd, 2014 ). This anomaly may be attributed to the inadequate sample size of the present study. Post-hoc power analysis revealed an obtained power of 0.73 (alpha = 0.05; Faul et al., 2009 ). Thus, it can be argued that student academic motivation mediated the relationship between teaching style and competence, indicating that Hypothesis 2 was supported. Results are presented in Figure 2 .

The mediating effect of student academic motivation on the relationship between teaching style and the SET dimension of competence. ** p < 0.001.

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of teaching style on SET. Results indicated a higher SET rating for a relationship-oriented than a task-oriented teacher. Further, student academic motivation mediated the link between teaching style and judgment of competence.

5.1. Findings and implications

Hypothesis 1, which predicted a significant main effect of teaching style on the dimensions of SET, was supported. A significant multivariate effect meant that the two teaching styles were discriminated against on the linear combination of warmth and competence. This finding supported the two fundamental and distinct categories of leadership style ( Northouse, 2018 ). The task-relationship model continued to differentiate beyond leadership literature. We can say that the online chat patterned after Northouse (2018) effectively discriminates between the two teaching styles, and teachers are perceived as leaders based on their behavior or style.

Hypothesis 1a, which predicted that a task-oriented teacher would be rated higher on competence than a relationship-oriented teacher, was rejected, implying that students perceived both teaching styles as relatively equal on the dimension of competence. Cuddy et al. (2008) argue that task-orientation is not fully representative of competence. Task-orientation focuses more on taking action, whereas competence entails possessing skills, talents, and capabilities. In the online chat, the task-oriented version of the teacher was programmed to mainly emphasize goal setting and delegation of workload (i.e., taking actions). According to Dignath-van Ewijk (2016) , an individual’s competence only matters when they have personal relevance to the perceiver. In our study, a lack of information about the teacher’s distinguishable competence traits and the low importance of the task may have diminished the sense of personal relevance for the participants.

Hypothesis 1b, which predicted a relationship-oriented teacher would be rated higher on warmth than a task-oriented teacher, was supported. This was consistent with Cohen et al. (2004) ‘s description of relationship orientation comprising warmth traits. Overall, findings show that the judgment of competence is constant while warmth varies across both teaching styles. This supports the supremacy of warmth over competence in that people are cognitively more sensitive to information regarding others’ warmth than competence cues (Cuddy et al., 2008). An important implication is that enacting warmth cues play a pivotal role in managing student impressions of the teacher and that warmth is specific to a relationship-oriented teaching style.

Hypothesis 2, which predicted student academic motivation would mediate the effect of teaching style on the SET dimension of competence, was supported. The mediation analysis revealed that relative to a relationship-oriented teacher, a task-oriented teacher was rated on average 0.21 ( ab ) units higher on competence due to student academic motivation. This was in line with Dignath-van Ewijk (2016) research, where a match in task goals forms the basis for student appraisal of teacher competence. This proposes that practicing a teaching style appropriate for the student’s academic motivation is pivotal for high SET scores on competence.

5.2. Contributions

The present study has extended the application of organizational and social cognition principles to research in education. It has not only tested but established the universality of social judgment dimensions in setting the parameters of SET. Further, findings supported the universality of the stereotype content model and have established high reliabilities for the two-factor model of warmth and competence. In addition, our study champions the adoption of the two-factor leadership models in the teaching domain. This encourages further theoretical and empirical explorations in generalizing ideas and theories developed within organizational psychology to the context of teaching.

5.3. Limitations and future directions

The present study was constrained to a smaller sample size with post-hoc power analysis (0.73; alpha = 0.5) falling below the recommended power of 0.8 (Faul et al., 2009), thus warranting a bigger sample size. Further, future studies could expand on the present findings by including the gender of the teacher and student as variables of interest. Understanding potential gender biases may contribute to the existing literature as extraneous factors biasing SET.

6. Conclusion

The present study extends the application of organizational and social psychology principles to research in the educational setting. By adopting universal dimensions of social judgment to the parameters of SET, the study has reinstated the supremacy of warmth in the SET context. Furthermore, fostering a match in task goals between a teacher and student improves ratings of teacher competence.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, James Cook University, Australia (Ref. H7563). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

CK contributed to the conception and design of the study, data collection, data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SS contributed to the manuscript preparation, provided advice on the design of the study and statistical methods. All authors contributed to the manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

This research publication was funded by the Internal Research Fund, James Cook University, Singapore.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the participants who have participated in this research. The authors express sincere gratitude to the two examiners for review and feedback on the thesis version of the manuscript.

• Aaker J., Vohs K. D., Mogilner C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: firm stereotypes matter . J. Consum. Res. 37 , 224–237. doi: 10.1086/651566 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brambilla M., Sacchi S., Castellini F., Riva P. (2010). The effects of status on perceived warmth and competence . Soc. Psychol. 41 , 82–87. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen F., Solomon S., Maxfield M., Pyszczynski T., Greenberg J. (2004). Fatal attraction: the effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders . Psychol. Sci. 15 , 846–851. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00765.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coldren J., Hively J. (2009). Interpersonal teaching style and student impression formation . Coll. Teach. 57 , 93–98. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.57.2.93-98 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuddy A. J., Fiske S. T., Glick P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40 , 61–149. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dignath-van Ewijk C. (2016). Which components of teacher competence determine whether teachers enhance self-regulated learning? Predicting teachers’ self-reported promotion of self-regulated learning by means of teacher beliefs, knowledge, and self-efficacy . Frontline Learn. Res. 4 , 83–105. doi: 10.14786/flr.v4i5.247 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses . Behaviour Research Methods , 41 , 1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1 , 149–190. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27 , 67–73. doi: 10.1177/0963721417738825, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence . Trends Cogn. Sci. 11 , 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh A., Jahedizadeh S. (2016). EFL teachers’ teaching style, creativity, and burnout: a path analysis approach . Cogent. Educ. 3 :1151997. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1151997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guay F., Ratelle C. F., Roy A., Litalien D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous academic motivation, and academic achievement: mediating and additive effects . Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 644–653. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach . 2nd Edn. New York: The Guildford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny D. A., Judd C. M. (2014). Power anomalies in testing mediation . Psychol. Sci. 25 , 334–339. doi: 10.1177/0956797613502676, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Komarraju M. (2013). Ideal teacher behaviours: student motivation and self-efficacy predict preferences . Teach. Psychol. 40 , 104–110. doi: 10.1177/0098628312475029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A. J. (2010). The Motivation and Engagement Scale . 10th Edn. Sydney, New South Wales: Lifelong Achievement Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Northouse P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poorani V., Singh S. (2015). “Role of warmth and competence in the evaluation of teachers,” in Paper presented at the Global Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology, Singapore . Available at: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/40293/1/40293%20Poorani%20and%20Singh%202015.pdf
• Rucker D. D., Preacher K. J., Tormala Z. L., Petty R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: current practices and new recommendations . Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 5 , 359–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan M., Taylor M., Barone A., Della Pesca L., Durgana S., Ostrowski K., et al.. (2017). Teacher as researcher, teacher as scholar, and teacher as leader . New Educ. 13 , 102–116. doi: 10.1080/1547688X.2016.1144120 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandilos L. E., Rimm-Kaufman S. E., Cohen J. J. (2017). Warmth and demand: the relation between students' perceptions of the classroom environment and achievement growth . Child Dev. 88 , 1321–1337. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12685, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spooren P., Brockx B., Mortelmans D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art . Rev. Educ. Res. 83 , 598–642. doi: 10.3102/0034654313496870 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G. (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research . J. Manag. 15 , 251–289. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500207 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao L., Xu P., Chen Y., Yan S. (2022). A literature review of the research on students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education . Front. Psychol. 13 :13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1004487, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Research Topics & Ideas: Education

170+ Research Ideas To Fast-Track Your Project

If you’re just starting out exploring education-related topics for your dissertation, thesis or research project, you’ve come to the right place. In this post, we’ll help kickstart your research topic ideation process by providing a hearty list of research topics and ideas , including examples from actual dissertations and theses..

PS – This is just the start…

We know it’s exciting to run through a list of research topics, but please keep in mind that this list is just a starting point . To develop a suitable education-related research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , and a viable plan of action to fill that gap.

If this sounds foreign to you, check out our free research topic webinar that explores how to find and refine a high-quality research topic, from scratch. Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help, consider our 1-on-1 coaching service .

Overview: Education Research Topics

• How to find a research topic (video)
• List of 50+ education-related research topics/ideas
• List of 120+ level-specific research topics 
• Examples of actual dissertation topics in education
• Tips to fast-track your topic ideation (video)
• Free Webinar : Topic Ideation 101
• Where to get extra help

Education-Related Research Topics & Ideas

Below you’ll find a list of education-related research topics and idea kickstarters. These are fairly broad and flexible to various contexts, so keep in mind that you will need to refine them a little. Nevertheless, they should inspire some ideas for your project.

• The impact of school funding on student achievement
• The effects of social and emotional learning on student well-being
• The effects of parental involvement on student behaviour
• The impact of teacher training on student learning
• The impact of classroom design on student learning
• The impact of poverty on education
• The use of student data to inform instruction
• The role of parental involvement in education
• The effects of mindfulness practices in the classroom
• The use of technology in the classroom
• The role of critical thinking in education
• The use of formative and summative assessments in the classroom
• The use of differentiated instruction in the classroom
• The use of gamification in education
• The effects of teacher burnout on student learning
• The impact of school leadership on student achievement
• The effects of teacher diversity on student outcomes
• The role of teacher collaboration in improving student outcomes
• The implementation of blended and online learning
• The effects of teacher accountability on student achievement
• The effects of standardized testing on student learning
• The effects of classroom management on student behaviour
• The effects of school culture on student achievement
• The use of student-centred learning in the classroom
• The impact of teacher-student relationships on student outcomes
• The achievement gap in minority and low-income students
• The use of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom
• The impact of teacher professional development on student learning
• The use of project-based learning in the classroom
• The effects of teacher expectations on student achievement
• The use of adaptive learning technology in the classroom
• The impact of teacher turnover on student learning
• The effects of teacher recruitment and retention on student learning
• The impact of early childhood education on later academic success
• The impact of parental involvement on student engagement
• The use of positive reinforcement in education
• The impact of school climate on student engagement
• The role of STEM education in preparing students for the workforce
• The effects of school choice on student achievement
• The use of technology in the form of online tutoring

Level-Specific Research Topics

Looking for research topics for a specific level of education? We’ve got you covered. Below you can find research topic ideas for primary, secondary and tertiary-level education contexts. Click the relevant level to view the respective list.

Research Topics: Pick An Education Level

Primary education.

• Investigating the effects of peer tutoring on academic achievement in primary school
• Exploring the benefits of mindfulness practices in primary school classrooms
• Examining the effects of different teaching strategies on primary school students’ problem-solving skills
• The use of storytelling as a teaching strategy in primary school literacy instruction
• The role of cultural diversity in promoting tolerance and understanding in primary schools
• The impact of character education programs on moral development in primary school students
• Investigating the use of technology in enhancing primary school mathematics education
• The impact of inclusive curriculum on promoting equity and diversity in primary schools
• The impact of outdoor education programs on environmental awareness in primary school students
• The influence of school climate on student motivation and engagement in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of early literacy interventions on reading comprehension in primary school students
• The impact of parental involvement in school decision-making processes on student achievement in primary schools
• Exploring the benefits of inclusive education for students with special needs in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of teacher-student feedback on academic motivation in primary schools
• The role of technology in developing digital literacy skills in primary school students
• Effective strategies for fostering a growth mindset in primary school students
• Investigating the role of parental support in reducing academic stress in primary school children
• The role of arts education in fostering creativity and self-expression in primary school students
• Examining the effects of early childhood education programs on primary school readiness
• Examining the effects of homework on primary school students’ academic performance
• The role of formative assessment in improving learning outcomes in primary school classrooms
• The impact of teacher-student relationships on academic outcomes in primary school
• Investigating the effects of classroom environment on student behavior and learning outcomes in primary schools
• Investigating the role of creativity and imagination in primary school curriculum
• The impact of nutrition and healthy eating programs on academic performance in primary schools
• The impact of social-emotional learning programs on primary school students’ well-being and academic performance
• The role of parental involvement in academic achievement of primary school children
• Examining the effects of classroom management strategies on student behavior in primary school
• The role of school leadership in creating a positive school climate Exploring the benefits of bilingual education in primary schools
• The effectiveness of project-based learning in developing critical thinking skills in primary school students
• The role of inquiry-based learning in fostering curiosity and critical thinking in primary school students
• The effects of class size on student engagement and achievement in primary schools
• Investigating the effects of recess and physical activity breaks on attention and learning in primary school
• Exploring the benefits of outdoor play in developing gross motor skills in primary school children
• The effects of educational field trips on knowledge retention in primary school students
• Examining the effects of inclusive classroom practices on students’ attitudes towards diversity in primary schools
• The impact of parental involvement in homework on primary school students’ academic achievement
• Investigating the effectiveness of different assessment methods in primary school classrooms
• The influence of physical activity and exercise on cognitive development in primary school children
• Exploring the benefits of cooperative learning in promoting social skills in primary school students

Secondary Education

• Investigating the effects of school discipline policies on student behavior and academic success in secondary education
• The role of social media in enhancing communication and collaboration among secondary school students
• The impact of school leadership on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes in secondary schools
• Investigating the effects of technology integration on teaching and learning in secondary education
• Exploring the benefits of interdisciplinary instruction in promoting critical thinking skills in secondary schools
• The impact of arts education on creativity and self-expression in secondary school students
• The effectiveness of flipped classrooms in promoting student learning in secondary education
• The role of career guidance programs in preparing secondary school students for future employment
• Investigating the effects of student-centered learning approaches on student autonomy and academic success in secondary schools
• The impact of socio-economic factors on educational attainment in secondary education
• Investigating the impact of project-based learning on student engagement and academic achievement in secondary schools
• Investigating the effects of multicultural education on cultural understanding and tolerance in secondary schools
• The influence of standardized testing on teaching practices and student learning in secondary education
• Investigating the effects of classroom management strategies on student behavior and academic engagement in secondary education
• The influence of teacher professional development on instructional practices and student outcomes in secondary schools
• The role of extracurricular activities in promoting holistic development and well-roundedness in secondary school students
• Investigating the effects of blended learning models on student engagement and achievement in secondary education
• The role of physical education in promoting physical health and well-being among secondary school students
• Investigating the effects of gender on academic achievement and career aspirations in secondary education
• Exploring the benefits of multicultural literature in promoting cultural awareness and empathy among secondary school students
• The impact of school counseling services on student mental health and well-being in secondary schools
• Exploring the benefits of vocational education and training in preparing secondary school students for the workforce
• The role of digital literacy in preparing secondary school students for the digital age
• The influence of parental involvement on academic success and well-being of secondary school students
• The impact of social-emotional learning programs on secondary school students’ well-being and academic success
• The role of character education in fostering ethical and responsible behavior in secondary school students
• Examining the effects of digital citizenship education on responsible and ethical technology use among secondary school students
• The impact of parental involvement in school decision-making processes on student outcomes in secondary schools
• The role of educational technology in promoting personalized learning experiences in secondary schools
• The impact of inclusive education on the social and academic outcomes of students with disabilities in secondary schools
• The influence of parental support on academic motivation and achievement in secondary education
• The role of school climate in promoting positive behavior and well-being among secondary school students
• Examining the effects of peer mentoring programs on academic achievement and social-emotional development in secondary schools
• Examining the effects of teacher-student relationships on student motivation and achievement in secondary schools
• Exploring the benefits of service-learning programs in promoting civic engagement among secondary school students
• The impact of educational policies on educational equity and access in secondary education
• Examining the effects of homework on academic achievement and student well-being in secondary education
• Investigating the effects of different assessment methods on student performance in secondary schools
• Examining the effects of single-sex education on academic performance and gender stereotypes in secondary schools
• The role of mentoring programs in supporting the transition from secondary to post-secondary education

Tertiary Education

• The role of student support services in promoting academic success and well-being in higher education
• The impact of internationalization initiatives on students’ intercultural competence and global perspectives in tertiary education
• Investigating the effects of active learning classrooms and learning spaces on student engagement and learning outcomes in tertiary education
• Exploring the benefits of service-learning experiences in fostering civic engagement and social responsibility in higher education
• The influence of learning communities and collaborative learning environments on student academic and social integration in higher education
• Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences in fostering critical thinking and scientific inquiry skills
• Investigating the effects of academic advising and mentoring on student retention and degree completion in higher education
• The role of student engagement and involvement in co-curricular activities on holistic student development in higher education
• The impact of multicultural education on fostering cultural competence and diversity appreciation in higher education
• The role of internships and work-integrated learning experiences in enhancing students’ employability and career outcomes
• Examining the effects of assessment and feedback practices on student learning and academic achievement in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty professional development on instructional practices and student outcomes in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty-student relationships on student success and well-being in tertiary education
• The impact of college transition programs on students’ academic and social adjustment to higher education
• The impact of online learning platforms on student learning outcomes in higher education
• The impact of financial aid and scholarships on access and persistence in higher education
• The influence of student leadership and involvement in extracurricular activities on personal development and campus engagement
• Exploring the benefits of competency-based education in developing job-specific skills in tertiary students
• Examining the effects of flipped classroom models on student learning and retention in higher education
• Exploring the benefits of online collaboration and virtual team projects in developing teamwork skills in tertiary students
• Investigating the effects of diversity and inclusion initiatives on campus climate and student experiences in tertiary education
• The influence of study abroad programs on intercultural competence and global perspectives of college students
• Investigating the effects of peer mentoring and tutoring programs on student retention and academic performance in tertiary education
• Investigating the effectiveness of active learning strategies in promoting student engagement and achievement in tertiary education
• Investigating the effects of blended learning models and hybrid courses on student learning and satisfaction in higher education
• The role of digital literacy and information literacy skills in supporting student success in the digital age
• Investigating the effects of experiential learning opportunities on career readiness and employability of college students
• The impact of e-portfolios on student reflection, self-assessment, and showcasing of learning in higher education
• The role of technology in enhancing collaborative learning experiences in tertiary classrooms
• The impact of research opportunities on undergraduate student engagement and pursuit of advanced degrees
• Examining the effects of competency-based assessment on measuring student learning and achievement in tertiary education
• Examining the effects of interdisciplinary programs and courses on critical thinking and problem-solving skills in college students
• The role of inclusive education and accessibility in promoting equitable learning experiences for diverse student populations
• The role of career counseling and guidance in supporting students’ career decision-making in tertiary education
• The influence of faculty diversity and representation on student success and inclusive learning environments in higher education

Education-Related Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic in education, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses in the education space to see how this all comes together in practice.

Below, we’ve included a selection of education-related research projects to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

• From Rural to Urban: Education Conditions of Migrant Children in China (Wang, 2019)
• Energy Renovation While Learning English: A Guidebook for Elementary ESL Teachers (Yang, 2019)
• A Reanalyses of Intercorrelational Matrices of Visual and Verbal Learners’ Abilities, Cognitive Styles, and Learning Preferences (Fox, 2020)
• A study of the elementary math program utilized by a mid-Missouri school district (Barabas, 2020)
• Instructor formative assessment practices in virtual learning environments : a posthumanist sociomaterial perspective (Burcks, 2019)
• Higher education students services: a qualitative study of two mid-size universities’ direct exchange programs (Kinde, 2020)
• Exploring editorial leadership : a qualitative study of scholastic journalism advisers teaching leadership in Missouri secondary schools (Lewis, 2020)
• Selling the virtual university: a multimodal discourse analysis of marketing for online learning (Ludwig, 2020)
• Advocacy and accountability in school counselling: assessing the use of data as related to professional self-efficacy (Matthews, 2020)
• The use of an application screening assessment as a predictor of teaching retention at a midwestern, K-12, public school district (Scarbrough, 2020)
• Core values driving sustained elite performance cultures (Beiner, 2020)
• Educative features of upper elementary Eureka math curriculum (Dwiggins, 2020)
• How female principals nurture adult learning opportunities in successful high schools with challenging student demographics (Woodward, 2020)
• The disproportionality of Black Males in Special Education: A Case Study Analysis of Educator Perceptions in a Southeastern Urban High School (McCrae, 2021)

As you can see, these research topics are a lot more focused than the generic topic ideas we presented earlier. So, in order for you to develop a high-quality research topic, you’ll need to get specific and laser-focused on a specific context with specific variables of interest.  In the video below, we explore some other important things you’ll need to consider when crafting your research topic.

Get 1-On-1 Help

If you’re still unsure about how to find a quality research topic within education, check out our Research Topic Kickstarter service, which is the perfect starting point for developing a unique, well-justified research topic.

You Might Also Like:

59 Comments

This is an helpful tool 🙏

Special education

Really appreciated by this . It is the best platform for research related items

Research title related to school of students

Research title related to students

Good idea I’m going to teach my colleagues

You can find our list of nursing-related research topic ideas here: https://gradcoach.com/research-topics-nursing/

Write on action research topic, using guidance and counseling to address unwanted teenage pregnancy in school

Thanks a lot

I learned a lot from this site, thank you so much!

Thank you for the information.. I would like to request a topic based on school major in social studies

parental involvement and students academic performance

Science education topics?

plz tell me if you got some good topics, im here for finding research topic for masters degree

How about School management and supervision pls.?

Hi i am an Deputy Principal in a primary school. My wish is to srudy foe Master’s degree in Education.Please advice me on which topic can be relevant for me. Thanks.

Every topic proposed above on primary education is a starting point for me. I appreciate immensely the team that has sat down to make a detail of these selected topics just for beginners like us. Be blessed.

Kindly help me with the research questions on the topic” Effects of workplace conflict on the employees’ job performance”. The effects can be applicable in every institution,enterprise or organisation.

Greetings, I am a student majoring in Sociology and minoring in Public Administration. I’m considering any recommended research topic in the field of Sociology.

I’m a student pursuing Mphil in Basic education and I’m considering any recommended research proposal topic in my field of study

Kindly help me with a research topic in educational psychology. Ph.D level. Thank you.

Project-based learning is a teaching/learning type,if well applied in a classroom setting will yield serious positive impact. What can a teacher do to implement this in a disadvantaged zone like “North West Region of Cameroon ( hinterland) where war has brought about prolonged and untold sufferings on the indegins?

I wish to get help on topics of research on educational administration

I wish to get help on topics of research on educational administration PhD level

I am also looking for such type of title

I am a student of undergraduate, doing research on how to use guidance and counseling to address unwanted teenage pregnancy in school

the topics are very good regarding research & education .

Can i request your suggestion topic for my Thesis about Teachers as an OFW. thanx you

Would like to request for suggestions on a topic in Economics of education,PhD level

Would like to request for suggestions on a topic in Economics of education

Hi 👋 I request that you help me with a written research proposal about education the format

Am offering degree in education senior high School Accounting. I want a topic for my project work

l would like to request suggestions on a topic in managing teaching and learning, PhD level (educational leadership and management)

request suggestions on a topic in managing teaching and learning, PhD level (educational leadership and management)

I would to inquire on research topics on Educational psychology, Masters degree

I am PhD student, I am searching my Research topic, It should be innovative,my area of interest is online education,use of technology in education

request suggestion on topic in masters in medical education .

Look at British Library as they keep a copy of all PhDs in the UK Core.ac.uk to access Open University and 6 other university e-archives, pdf downloads mostly available, all free.

May I also ask for a topic based on mathematics education for college teaching, please?

Please I am a masters student of the department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education Please I am in need of proposed project topics to help with my final year thesis

Am a PhD student in Educational Foundations would like a sociological topic. Thank

please i need a proposed thesis project regardging computer science

Greetings and Regards I am a doctoral student in the field of philosophy of education. I am looking for a new topic for my thesis. Because of my work in the elementary school, I am looking for a topic that is from the field of elementary education and is related to the philosophy of education.

Masters student in the field of curriculum, any ideas of a research topic on low achiever students

In the field of curriculum any ideas of a research topic on deconalization in contextualization of digital teaching and learning through in higher education

Amazing guidelines

I am a graduate with two masters. 1) Master of arts in religious studies and 2) Master in education in foundations of education. I intend to do a Ph.D. on my second master’s, however, I need to bring both masters together through my Ph.D. research. can I do something like, ” The contribution of Philosophy of education for a quality religion education in Kenya”? kindly, assist and be free to suggest a similar topic that will bring together the two masters. thanks in advance

Hi, I am an Early childhood trainer as well as a researcher, I need more support on this topic: The impact of early childhood education on later academic success.

I’m a student in upper level secondary school and I need your support in this research topics: “Impact of incorporating project -based learning in teaching English language skills in secondary schools”.

Although research activities and topics should stem from reflection on one’s practice, I found this site valuable as it effectively addressed many issues we have been experiencing as practitioners.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Teacher education students awarded inaugural innovation research fellowship

Allison Beasley, Dr. Don Thompson, Moises Campos-Crespo and Carter Spring at the College of Education and Human Development's Award Ceremony.

Dr. Mauro Andre and Carter Spring.

Moises Campos-Crespo and Dr. Luchara Wallace.

Allison Beasley was surprised with the fellowship by Dr. Don Thompson during the College of Education and Human Development's Award Ceremony.

KALAMAZOO, Mich.—Western Michigan University's College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) has selected three students to participate in a new fellowship. The Dr. Donald E. Thompson Innovation Research Fellowship  identifies students from teacher education programs who show promise as creative thinkers and innovative practitioners. Allison Beasley , Moises Campos-Crespo and Carter Spring , will receive  a full year of tuition  as they work on developing innovative ideas capable of positively  impacting K-12 education through research that challenges the current practices of teaching and learning.

"In 2020, my wife and I decided that we wanted to begin to do some things with education colleges across the country and Western was first,"  says  Dr. Don Thompson , dean emeritus of the CEHD.  "We wanted to make sure that we gave a gift to Western t hat supported students, and we also did that with nine other institutions around the country. But this one is the most important to us. "

Through the fellowship, students will be creating original research focused on creative concepts and innovative approaches to using technology in teaching and learning. Student's research will be supervised by a faculty member during the fellowship and will also serve as their mentors.

"My wife and I are so thankful to be able to give this gift and look forward to great things from all of the  fellows," says Thompson.

To learn more about the fellowship, visit CEHD's scholarship webpage .

About the fellows

Moises Campos-Crespo, holding check, was surprised with the fellowship during a Future Teachers of Color meeting.

• Moises Campos-Crespo is a special education student and member of TRIO Future Educator Success Program and Western's College Assistant Migrant Program. He also serves as the vice president of Future Teachers of Color. This RSO brings together future educators of color at WMU with a focus on various topics related to career preparation, academic success, mentorship, community service outreach and networking skills. Campos-Crespo will be mentored by Dr. Luchara Wallace , associate dean of the CEHD. 
• Carter Spring is a physical and health education and teacher education student and volunteer with RINGS Ministry in Battle Creek, Michigan. RINGS is a faith-based non-profit that provides free transportation to low-income families, especially single mothers, in the community by restoring and gifting cars. Prior to WMU, he was a member of the Kellogg Community College's cross country team that competed at the National Junior College Athletic Association Division III National Championship. Spring will be mentored by Dr. Mauro Andre , an assistant professor in the Department of Human Performance and Health Education.  

For more WMU news, arts and events , visit  WMU News  online.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What federal education data shows about students with disabilities in the U.S.

Public K-12 schools in the United States educate about 7.3 million students with disabilities – a number that has grown over the last few decades. Disabled students ages 3 to 21 are served under the federal  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , which guarantees them the right to free public education and appropriate special education services.

For Disability Pride Month , here are some key facts about public school students with disabilities, based on the latest data from the  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) .

July is both Disability Pride Month and the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To mark these occasions, Pew Research Center used federal education data from  the National Center for Education Statistics  to learn more about students who receive special education services in U.S. public schools.

In this analysis, students with disabilities include those ages 3 to 21 who are served under the federal  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . Through IDEA, children with disabilities are guaranteed a “free appropriate public education,” including special education and related services.

The 7.3 million disabled students in the U.S. made up 15% of national public school enrollment during the 2021-22 school year. The population of students in prekindergarten through 12th grade who are served under IDEA has grown in both number and share over the last few decades. During the 2010-11 school year, for instance, there were 6.4 million students with disabilities in U.S. public schools, accounting for 13% of enrollment.

The number of students receiving special education services temporarily dropped during the coronavirus pandemic – the first decline in a decade. Between the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years, the number of students receiving special education services decreased by 1%, from 7.3 million to 7.2 million. This was the first year-over-year drop in special education enrollment since 2011-12.

The decline in students receiving special education services was part of a 3% decline in the overall number of students enrolled in public schools between 2019-20 and 2020-21. While special education enrollment bounced back to pre-pandemic levels in the 2021-22 school year, overall public school enrollment remained flat.

These enrollment trends may reflect some of the learning difficulties and health concerns students with disabilities and their families faced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic , which limited or paused special education services in many school districts.

Many school districts struggle to hire special education professionals. During the 2020-21 school year, 40% of public schools that had a special education teaching vacancy reported that they either found it very difficult to fill the position or were not able to do so.

Foreign languages (43%) and physical sciences (37%) were the only subjects with similarly large shares of hard-to-fill teaching vacancies at public schools that were looking to hire in those fields.

While the COVID-19 pandemic called attention to a nationwide teacher shortage , special education positions have long been among the most difficult for school districts to fill .

The most common type of disability for students in prekindergarten through 12th grade involves “specific learning disabilities,” such as dyslexia.  In 2021-22, about a third of students (32%) receiving services under IDEA had a specific learning disability. Some 19% had a speech or language impairment, while 15% had a chronic or acute health problem that adversely affected their educational performance. Chronic or acute health problems include ailments such as heart conditions, asthma, sickle cell anemia, epilepsy, leukemia and diabetes.

Students with autism made up 12% of the nation’s schoolchildren with disabilities in 2021-22, compared with 1.5% in 2000-01.  During those two decades, the share of disabled students with a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia, declined from 45% to 32%.

The percentage of students receiving special education services varies widely across states. New York serves the largest share of disabled students in the country at 20.5% of its overall public school enrollment. Pennsylvania (20.2%), Maine (20.1%) and Massachusetts (19.3%) serve the next-largest shares. The states serving the lowest shares of disabled students include Texas and Idaho (both 11.7%) and Hawaii (11.3%).

Between the 2000-01 and 2021-22 school years, all but 12 states experienced growth in their disabled student populations. The biggest increase occurred in Utah, where the disabled student population rose by 65%. Rhode Island saw the largest decline of 22%.

These differences by state are likely the result of inconsistencies in how states determine which students are eligible for special education services and challenges in identifying disabled children.

The racial and ethnic makeup of the nation’s special education students is similar to public school students overall, but there are differences by sex.  About two-thirds of disabled students (65%) are male, while 34% are female, according to data from the 2021-22 school year. Overall student enrollment is about evenly split between boys and girls.

Research has shown that decisions about whether to recommend a student for special education may be influenced by their school’s socioeconomic makeup, as well as by the school’s test scores and other academic markers.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 23, 2020.

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

Most Americans think U.S. K-12 STEM education isn’t above average, but test results paint a mixed picture

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year, about half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules

The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.

By Zach Montague and Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday cementing protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students under federal law and reversing a number of Trump-era policies that dictated how schools should respond to cases of alleged sexual misconduct in K-12 schools and college campuses.

The new rules, which take effect on Aug. 1, effectively broadened the scope of Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. They extend the law’s reach to prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and widen the range of sexual harassment complaints that schools will be responsible for investigating.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said in a call with reporters.

The rules deliver on a key campaign promise for Mr. Biden, who declared he would put a “quick end” to the Trump-era Title IX rules and faced mounting pressure from Democrats and civil rights leaders to do so.

The release of the updated rules, after two delays, came as Mr. Biden is in the thick of his re-election bid and is trying to galvanize key electoral constituencies.

Through the new regulations, the administration moved to include students in its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The Trump administration held that transgender students were not protected under federal laws, including after the Bostock ruling .

In a statement, Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary, criticized what she called a “radical rewrite” of the law, asserting that it was an “endeavor born entirely of progressive politics, not sound policy.”

Ms. DeVos said the inclusion of transgender students in the law gutted decades of protections and opportunities for women. She added that the Biden administration also “seeks to U-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts, not resolved in a way that actually sought justice.”

While the regulations released on Friday contained considerably stronger protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students, the administration steered clear of the lightning-rod issue of whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity.

The administration stressed that while, writ large, exclusion based on gender identity violated Title IX, the new regulations did not extend to single-sex living facilities or sports teams. The Education Department is pursuing a second rule dealing with sex-related eligibility for male and female sports teams. The rule-making process has drawn more than 150,000 comments.

Under the revisions announced on Friday, instances where transgender students are subjected to a “hostile environment” through bullying or harassment, or face unequal treatment and exclusion in programs or facilities based on their gender identity, could trigger an investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Instances where students are repeatedly referred to by a name or pronoun other than one they have chosen could also be considered harassment on a case-by-case basis.

“This is a bold and important statement that transgender and nonbinary students belong, in their schools and in their communities,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The regulations appeared certain to draw to legal challenges from conservative groups.

May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the group planned to sue the administration. She said it was clear that the statute barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” means “binary and biological.”

“The unlawful omnibus regulation reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” she said.

The existing rules, which took effect under Mr. Trump in 2020, were the first time that sexual assault provisions were codified under Title IX. They bolstered due process rights of accused students, relieved schools of some legal liabilities and laid out rigid parameters for how schools should conduct impartial investigations.

They were a sharp departure from the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, which came in the form of unenforceable guidance documents directing schools to ramp up investigations into sexual assault complaints under the threat of losing federal funding. Scores of students who had been accused of sexual assault went on to win court cases against their colleges for violating their due process rights under the guidelines.

The Biden administration’s rules struck a balance between the Obama and Trump administration’s goals. Taken together, the regulation largely provides more flexibility for how schools conduct investigations, which advocates and schools have long lobbied for.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the head of the department’s Office for Civil Rights who also held the job under President Barack Obama, called the new rules the “most comprehensive coverage under Title IX since the regulations were first promulgated in 1975.”

They replaced a narrower definition of sex-based harassment adopted under the Trump administration with one that would include a wider range of conduct. And they reversed a requirement that schools investigate only incidents alleged to have occurred on their campuses or in their programs.

Still, some key provisions in the Trump-era rules were preserved, including one allowing informal resolutions and another prohibiting penalties against students until after an investigation.

Among the most anticipated changes was the undoing of a provision that required in-person, or so-called live hearings, in which students accused of sexual misconduct, or their lawyers, could confront and question accusers in a courtroom-like setting.

The new rules allow in-person hearings, but do not mandate them. They also require a process through which a decision maker could assess a party or witness’s credibility, including posing questions from the opposing party.

“The new regulations put an end to unfair and traumatic grievance procedures that favor harassers,” Kel O’Hara, a senior attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. “No longer will student survivors be subjected to processes that prioritize the interests of their perpetrators over their own well being and safety.”

The new rules also allow room for schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard, a lower burden of proof than the DeVos-era rules encouraged, through which administrators need only to determine whether it was more likely than not that sexual misconduct had occurred.

The renewed push for that standard drew criticism from legal groups who said the rule stripped away hard-won protections against flawed findings.

“When you are dealing with accusations of really one of the most heinous crimes that a person can commit — sexual assault — it’s not enough to say, ‘50 percent and a feather,’ before you brand someone guilty of this repulsive crime,” said Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The changes concluded a three-year process in which the department received 240,000 public comments. The rules also strengthen protections for pregnant students, requiring accommodations such as a bigger desk or ensuring access to elevators and prohibiting exclusion from activities based on additional needs.

Title IX was designed to end discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities at all institutions receiving federal financial assistance, beginning with sports programs and other spaces previously dominated by male students.

The effects of the original law have been pronounced. Far beyond the impact on school programs like sports teams, many educators credit Title IX with setting the stage for academic parity today. Female college students routinely outnumber male students on campus and have become more likely than men of the same age to graduate with a four-year degree.

But since its inception, Title IX has also become a powerful vehicle through which past administrations have sought to steer schools to respond to the dynamic and diverse nature of schools and universities.

While civil rights groups were disappointed that some ambiguity remains for the L.G.B.T.Q. students and their families, the new rules were widely praised for taking a stand at a time when education debates are reminiscent to the backlash after the Supreme Court ordered schools to integrate.

More than 20 states have passed laws that broadly prohibit anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams or participating in scholastic athletic programs, while 10 states have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms based on their gender identity.

“Some adults are showing up and saying, ‘I’m going to make school harder for children,” said Liz King, senior program director of the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s an incredibly important rule, at an incredibly important moment.”

Schools will have to cram over the summer to implement the rules, which will require a retraining staff and overhauling procedures they implemented only four years ago.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities, said in a statement that while the group welcomed the changes in the new rule, the timeline “disregards the difficulties inherent in making these changes on our nation’s campuses in such a short period of time.”

“After years of constant churn in Title IX guidance and regulations,” Mr. Mitchell said, “we hope for the sake of students and institutions that there will be more stability and consistency in the requirements going forward.”

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green