Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Developmental Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dr

Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychologicalwellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ming-Te Wanga,⁎, Jessica L. Degolb,1, Jamie Amemiyaa,1, Alyssa Parra,1, Jiesi Guoc

aUniversity of Pittsburgh, United Statesb Penn State Altoona, United StatescAustralian Catholic University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Classroom dynamicsClassroom climateClassroom qualityMeta-analysisChild and adolescent development

A B S T R A C T

Although research has documented the link between classroom climate and children’s learning,evidence about whether and how classroom characteristics are linked to academic and psycho-logical outcomes remains equivocal. This study used a meta-analytic approach to synthesizeexisting research with the goal of determining (a) the extent to which classroom climate as amultidimensional construct was associated with youth’s academic, behavioral, and socio-emotional outcomes from kindergarten to high school and (b) whether the relations betweenclassroom climate and youth’s outcomes differed by dimensions of classroom climate, studydesign, and child characteristics. Analysis included 61 studies (679 effect sizes and 73,824participants) published between 2000 and 2016. The results showed that overall classroom cli-mate had small-to-medium positive associations with social competence, motivation and en-gagement, and academic achievement and small negative associations with socioemotional dis-tress and externalizing behaviors. Moderator analyses revealed that the negative associationbetween classroom climate and socioemotional distress varied by classroom climate dimensions,with socioemotional support being the strongest. The strength of the associations betweenclassroom climate and youth’s outcomes also differed by measurement of classroom climate andstudy design, though the patterns of the associations were mostly consistent.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, classroom climate has emerged as a unifying construct that exemplifies how the combination andaccumulation of diverse learning experiences contributes to the development of academic, behavioral, and socioemotional outcomesfor children and adolescents (Chapman, Buckley, Sheehan, & Shochet, 2013; Hattie, 2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). A growing numberof countries (e.g., Canada, China, England, France, Germany, Israel, Singapore, United States) have even focused on improvingclassroom climate and classroom dynamics as a central goal of educational reform initiatives, demonstrating an international con-sensus on the importance of classroom climate in promoting school quality and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing(Cohen, 2012; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016; Wang, Hofkens, & Ye, 2020).

Despite the promise and importance of classroom climate, scholars have not arrived at a universal consensus on how to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912Received 13 June 2019; Received in revised form 24 December 2019

⁎ Corresponding author at: 230 South Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.E-mail address: mtwang@pitt.edu (M.-T. Wang).

1 Note: The second, third, and fourth authors (Degol, Amemiya, and Parr) have equal intellectual contribution to this manuscript so they share thesecond authorship.

Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

0273-2297/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

T

operationalize the classroom climate construct. There is substantial variation in how classroom climate has been defined and studied,though the majority of researchers have emphasized the importance of conceptualizing classroom climate as a multidimensionalconstruct (Klieme, Pauli, & Reusser, 2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). The diverse operationalization ofcomponents dynamically embedded in the classroom milieu (e.g., teaching quality, classroom organization, teacher-student re-lationship) has provided a rich characterization of how classroom climate functions; however, the burgeoning research on classroomclimate has not systematically synthesized whether and how classroom climate, when represented as a multidimensional construct, isrelated to children’s educational and developmental outcomes. Furthermore, the multifaceted nature of classroom climate may causeclassroom effects on child and adolescent development to vary, pending which classroom climate effects and what developmentaloutcomes (academic versus non-academic) are being assessed (Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017; Wang & Degol, 2016).

Classroom climate effects on youth outcomes may also be attributable to differences in child characteristics, study design, andmeasurement characteristics. For example, as children advance into middle childhood and adolescence, school structures begin todiffer substantially from the primary school setting of early childhood, and the transition to these settings impacts academic andpsychological functioning (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Vandenbroucke, Spilt, Verschueren, Piccinin, & Baeyens, 2018). Yet, extant studiesrarely consider that classroom climate effects may vary as a function of children’s developmental age/grade level, race/ethnicity, andsocioeconomic status (SES). Likewise, classroom climate research varies substantially in the measurement tools (e.g., external ob-servation versus self-report survey) and research designs (e.g., cross-sectional versus longitudinal) used to assess classroom char-acteristics (Marsh et al., 2012; Wang & Degol, 2016). It is, therefore, unclear if research design or measurement characteristicsinfluence the magnitude of the relations between classroom climate and youth outcomes.

To this end, we used a meta-analytic approach to synthesize the extant literature examining the interrelations between classroomclimate and youth’s academic and psychosocial outcomes. We also examined whether the associations between classroom climate andyouth outcomes varied by theorized contextual, individual, and study moderators. Specifically, we addressed two research questions:(a) When studies conceptualized classroom climate as a multidimensional construct, what was the overall strength of the relationbetween classroom climate and youth’s social competence, academic achievement, socioemotional distress, and externalizing be-haviors?; and (b) Did the direction and strength of the relations between classroom climate and youth outcomes differ by classroomclimate dimension, child’s grade level, study sample's racial composition, family socioeconomic status, study design, or study methodof measuring classroom climate?

Theoretical framework and conceptualization of classroom climate

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model posits that human development occurs within a set of interrelated contexts in whichproximal processes mediate individuals’ experiences, cognitions, emotions, and behaviors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Proximalprocesses within these contexts represent the most powerful developmental influences, as they encompass interactions that the childexperiences daily and over an extended period of time (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Understanding these proximal processes in theclassroom is informative, as the classroom environment represents a unique developmental context involving instructional, social,and organizational interactions (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Wang, Hofkens, et al. (2020)). It is through these processes occurring be-tween students and teachers that classroom climate provides the resources and opportunities for developing children's and youth'sacademic, socioemotional, and behavioral competencies.

From a bioecological perspective, classroom climate incorporates a multitude of dimensions, such as the organization andstructure of the classroom environment; pedagogical, disciplinary, and curriculum practices; and interpersonal relationships amongstudents, peers, and teachers (Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2008; Wang & Degol, 2016). These dimensions form a set of proximal processesthat may mediate or moderate the influence of other contexts (e.g., family, neighborhood) on children’s outcomes. Though theseprocesses are interrelated, they are distinct in how they capture important aspects of children’s learning environments and influencechildren’s academic and psychosocial outcomes. Although there is a general lack of consensus about what constitutes classroomclimate, the multifaceted nature of classroom climate has been addressed extensively throughout the literature.

Early classroom climate research placed emphasis on teaching practices, examining patterns of teacher verbalizations towardstudents, such as the amount of teacher-controlled activities versus student-driven activities (Anderson, 1939; Withall, 1949). Laterwork incorporated the management and organization of the classroom environment (Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg, 1982; Trickett &Moos, 1973; Walberg, 1968). For example, Trickett and Moos (1973) emphasized the psychosocial nature of the secondary schoolclassroom, conceptualizing the classroom setting as a dynamic system that includes teaching practices, task characteristics, ruleclarity, and order and organization.

More recent conceptualizations of classroom climate have focused on student–teacher interactions within the classroom andemphasized the multidimensionality of classroom climate (Danielson, 2011; Hamre, Pianta, Mashburn, & Downer, 2007; Kliemeet al., 2009; Leff et al., 2011). For example, Jones et al. (2008) proposed that both classroom teaching practices and teacher-studentrelationships contribute to the quality of the classroom’s instructional and emotional climates, which in turn impact children’soutcomes. In 2009, Klieme and colleagues outlined three basic dimensions of instructional or classroom quality, including cognitiveactivation, teacher support, and classroom management. That same year, Pianta and Hamre (2009) also presented a classroomquality framework that describes how the structure and nature of teacher-student interactions affect child development, emphasizingthe role of instructional support, emotional support, and classroom organization.

Indeed, classroom climate is a complex multidimensional construct, and this complexity is only heightened by the jingle-janglethat occurs when researchers propose a number of diverse operational conceptualizations. Nevertheless, these conceptualizationshave highlighted at least three basic classroom components associated with teacher-student interactions: instructional support,

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

2

socioemotional support, and classroom organization and management. These dimensions align with several prominent theoreticalmodels and empirical findings, though they may at times be labeled differently (Fauth, Decristan, Rieser, Klieme, & Buttner, 2014;Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012; Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). Each of these three major dimensions contains a set ofspecific indicators of classroom interactions that are predictive of youth outcomes (Miller & Wang, 2019; Pianta & Hamre, 2009;Klieme et al., 2009; Wang & Holcombe, 2010).

Instructional support focuses on features of instruction that provide quality feedback, use techniques to enhance critical thinking,and communicate high academic expectations for students (Danielson, 2011; Hamre et al., 2007). Instructionally supportive inter-actions facilitate cognitive learning and promote higher-level thinking through meaning-based class discussions, provision of chal-lenging tasks, connection of prior and current knowledge, and constructive feedback that expands learning (Fauth et al., 2014;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). For example, researchers have shown that effective instructional techniques encouragechildren to develop critical thinking skills, such as adapting learning strategies to solve novel problems and applying knowledge toreal-life scenarios (Fauth et al., 2014; Rieser, Fauth, Decristan, Klieme, & Buttner, 2013; Rolland, 2012). Furthermore, use of con-structive feedback loops between teachers and students can enhance learning by focusing on the process of continual improvement asopposed to the outcome (Romberg, Carpenter, & Dremock, 2005).

Socioemotional support refers to classroom characteristics that support the emotional wellbeing of students, including the warmth,safety, connectedness, and quality of interactions with teachers and peers (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Danielson, 2011). In providingemotional support, teachers appeal to youth’s need for relatedness through interactions that facilitate the sense of psychologicalsafety necessary for exploring novel experiences and developing connectedness to others (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Teachers cancreate a positive social classroom climate by being responsive to and respectful of students’ social and emotional needs, getting toknow students’ interests and backgrounds outside of school, and incorporating students’ points of view into learning (Quin, 2017;Ryan & Patrick, 2001).

Classroom organization and management denotes the practices teachers use to establish daily classroom routines, including re-inforcing classroom rules consistently, providing positive behavior supports (Arnold, McWilliams, & Arnold, 1998; Klieme et al.,2009), managing disruptive behavior effectively and fairly (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009), and usingpreventative strategies to reduce punitive events (Emmer & Stough, 2001). The role of classroom organization is to create productiveand smoothly functioning classrooms that support students’ needs for competence and autonomy so that they can remain engaged inlearning (Downer, Stuhlman, Schweig, Martínez, & Ruzek, 2015; Hochweber, Hosenfeld, & Klieme, 2013; Miller & Wang, 2019).

Taken together, these three dimensions of classroom climate (i.e., instructional support, socioemotional support, and classroomorganization and management) represent the interactive dynamics and developmental processes that vary across classrooms. Byrelying on a multidimensional definition of classroom climate, we can leverage imperative features of classroom climate to facilitatemeaningful developmental change for children (Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Wang, 2012). Although some researchers have emphasizedthe role of safety, physical arrangement, and classroom composition (e.g., class size, teacher experience, resources, space) in theirmeasurements of classroom quality (Danielson, 2011; Leff et al., 2011; Thapa et al., 2013), this study instead focused on interactivedynamics (e.g., instructional quality and quality of teacher-student interactions), as scholars have suggested that interventions toimprove classroom proximal processes are a more cost-beneficial, effective means of fostering positive youth outcomes (Kane &Staiger, 2012; Thapa et al., 2013).

Optimal classroom climate requires combinations of effective instruction, positive interactions, and organized behavior man-agement to ensure fulfillment of children’s psychological needs (Connell, 1990; Downer, Sabol, & Hamre, 2010). When children’spsychological needs are fulfilled through daily interaction and socialization in the classroom setting, they are more likely to beengaged in learning, develop academic and socioemotional skills, and experience adaptive psychological wellbeing. In fact, self-determination theory posits that (a) contextual factors are linked to patterns of development through an individual’s appraisals ofhow competent, autonomous, and related they feel within a particular context (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and (b) learning and developmentare optimized when students perceive that their learning environment fulfills needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Students’ need for competence is fostered when they feel their classroom setting is adequately structuredand are aware of what they need to do to be successful in that classroom. Autonomy is promoted when students experience freedomin determining their own behavior and choices, and the need for relatedness is met when teachers and peers contribute to anemotionally supportive environment (Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009).

Accordingly, research has demonstrated that diverse classroom environments are associated with variations in educational andpsychosocial outcomes for youth (Connell, 1990; Hattie, 2009). Instructional practices, interactions with others, and classroomorganization create opportunities for students to engage in a variety of academic and social activities that help build relationshipswith others in the classroom (Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Through these classroom experiences, students co-construct theiridentities by developing a sense of their competencies and skills, social standing among teachers and peers, and ability to self-regulatetheir own learning. This information cumulates to influence youth development across academic, behavioral, and socioemotionaldomains (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Classroom climate and youth outcomes

Classroom climate has been examined in relation to several youth outcomes, and much of this literature found relations betweenoverall classroom climate and youth outcomes to be inconsistent or small, even if statistically significant (Berkowitz et al., 2017;Hattie, 2009; Wang & Degol, 2016). These inconsistencies and small effect sizes may be attributable to variations in classroomclimate dimensions or youth outcomes within any given study. While student outcomes cover a variety of indicators of youth

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

3

adjustment, these indicators tend to fall into one of three broad categories: academic outcomes, behavioral problems, and socio-emotional development. Academic outcomes refer to academic performance on coursework and standardized tests, motivation tolearn, and classroom engagement; behavioral problems encompass externalizing behaviors, aggression, and disruptive behaviorswithin the classroom; and socioemotional development includes psychological and emotional functioning (e.g., internalizing behaviors,depression, anxiety, stress, and social competence). We review research on each type of outcome in the following sections.

Academic outcomesExtensive research has examined the associations between classroom climate and academic outcomes across academic perfor-

mance, motivation, and engagement indicators (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Wagner, Gollner, Helmke, Trautwein, & Ludtke, 2013; Wang& Degol, 2014). All three dimensions of classroom climate appear to matter for academic achievement, though the direction andstrength of these relationships differ by outcomes of interest and child’s age (Allen et al., 2013; Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, &Morrison, 2008; Rolland, 2012).

Instructional support. The positive association between instructional support and children’s academic outcomes in secondary schoolshas been well-established. For secondary school students, higher math achievement is more likely when math teachers hold highexpectations and make instruction relevant and meaningful to students’ interests and daily lives (Dever & Karabenick, 2011; Wang,2012). Similarly, when teachers provide academic scaffolding, students are more engaged in learning (Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012).Finally, middle school students who perceived classroom endorsement of personal improvement and effort reported greaterenjoyment in learning compared to students who perceived classroom endorsement of high performance and competition for grades(Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015; Shim, Kiefer, & Wang, 2013).

The connection between instructional support and academic outcomes appears to be less consistent for younger students.Although some research has shown that students have higher math performance when elementary school teachers offer morechallenging and mastery-oriented instruction (Curby, Rudasill, Edwards, & Pérez-Edgar, 2011; Fast et al., 2010), other research hasfound a lack of support for associations between instructional support and learning outcomes. In kindergarten samples, for example,classrooms characterized by frequent literacy instruction, evaluative feedback, and instructional conversations were not linked tohigher academic achievement or more on-task behavior (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). In another study, moreinstructional support in kindergarten classrooms was associated with less positive work habits but was not associated with learningengagement (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). Likewise, in an elementary school sample, the quality of instructional activities was notassociated with reading achievement (Dupere, Leventhal, Crosnoe, & Dion, 2010).

Socioemotional support. Research has supported the positive association between classroom emotional climate and children’sacademic outcomes, particularly for elementary school children (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Fast et al., 2010; Fauth et al., 2014). Inkindergarten, children demonstrated more on-task behavior when teacher-child interactions were characterized as positive (Piantaet al., 2002). Similarly, elementary school teachers who were more emotionally supportive had students who reported higherengagement with school (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Hughes, Wu, Kwok, Villarreal, & Johnson, 2011; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan,2007; Rimm-Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, Curby, & Abry, 2015). For disadvantaged elementary school students, improvements inteacher-child relationships were associated with increased math and reading grades (Elias & Haynes, 2008). Other studies usingmiddle- and high-school samples have found that the extent to which teachers respected and provided social support for theirstudents was positively related to course grades (Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; Wang, 2012) and student intrinsicmotivation (Jang et al., 2012). Therefore, despite most research leaning toward younger samples, socioemotional support hasemerged as an important dimension in the promotion of academic outcomes.

Classroom organization and management. Studies focusing on organizational climate and academic outcomes have suggested that ateacher’s ability to manage student behavior is important for learning motivation and engagement. For example, researchers foundthat elementary school teachers with better classroom organization skills had students who were more engaged in their learning(Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2015). In addition, when researchers observed kindergarten teachersusing effective classroom management strategies, children were more likely to remain on-task and persist through challengingactivities (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). In secondary school, classroom management strategies (e.g., clarity and consistency of classrules) were also associated with greater student interest and emotional engagement in math (Hochweber et al., 2013; Kunter,Baumert, & Köller, 2007).

While these aforementioned findings have mostly centered on academic motivation and engagement, some studies have shownthat classroom organization may predict academic achievement. For example, students in elementary school classrooms with greaterorder and organization were more likely to have higher math and reading scores and experienced greater growth in math and readingability over time (Gaskins, Herres, & Kobak, 2012). Another study found that first grade classrooms with greater classroom orga-nization and less chaos experienced greater gains in reading achievement, although these same factors were not linked to gains inmath achievement (Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Brock, & Nathanson, 2009).

Behavioral outcomesThere is a growing body of research examining the role of classroom climate in behavioral outcomes, particularly with the

dimension of classroom management and organization (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002; Rimm-Kaufman, La Paro, Downer, &Pianta, 2005). However, these findings are largely inconsistent.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

4

Instructional support. A few studies suggest that teaching quality may influence positive behavioral adjustment among students. Forexample, researchers found that adolescents who perceived greater emphasis on individual improvement and effort within theirsecondary school classrooms were less disruptive in the classroom compared to students in the classrooms that focused on grades andacademic performance (Kaplan et al., 2002; Stornes & Bru, 2011). Other researchers have found that middle-school classrooms with astrong emphasis on academics experienced lower levels of property offenses committed by students, although not lower levels ofother violent offenses (Sprott, 2004).

Socioemotional support. The research on classroom socioemotional environment reveals a few links to lower behavioral problems andaggression. For example, first grade classrooms with greater peer conflict tended to have higher individual student aggression(Thomas, Bierman, & Powers, 2011). Furthermore, greater reports of conflict and violence in the interactions between elementaryschool students and teachers predicted greater student aggression within the classroom (Lucas-Molina, Williamson, Pulido, & Pérez-Albéniz, 2015), whereas more positive teacher-student relationships were associated with reduced misconduct across middle andhigh school (Wang, Brinkworth, & Eccles, 2013).

Classroom organization and management. Organizational climate has been found to relate to positive behavioral adjustment, althoughfew studies have examined this link among older samples of children. Studies have indicated that kindergarten teachers who usedeffective classroom management strategies more frequently had children with fewer problem behaviors (Rimm-Kaufman et al.,2009). Similarly, rates of physical and relational aggression were lower in classrooms in which elementary school teachers praisedtheir students disproportionately more than reprimanding them (Leff et al., 2011). Contrarily, another study found that elementaryschool teachers’ behavior management strategies were not associated with students’ behavioral problems (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, &Furlong, 2014). This discord among existing studies suggests a need for a more systematic examination of the role of classroomorganization and management on student behavioral outcomes.

Socioemotional outcomesWhile most classroom climate studies have focused on academic outcomes for students, another less researched, but equally

important outcome is the quality of their socioemotional functioning. In particular, the quality and nature of interactions with peersand teachers has important implications for student psychological wellbeing, anxiety, depression, and social competence.

Instructional support. Research on the quality of instructional support and children’s psychological wellbeing is mixed. For example,one study found that when students had low levels of hope, their perceptions of the academic competitiveness in their classroom wereassociated with lower satisfaction with their friends and school (Lagacé-Séguin & d'Entremont, 2010). Likewise, teacher emphasis onpersonal growth and mastery in middle-school classrooms was associated with students’ greater satisfaction of peer friendships andless worrying about how others perceive them, while classrooms with an emphasis on grades and comparisons were related to lowersocial satisfaction (Shim et al., 2013). Conversely, another study found that a more positive instructional climate in kindergarten wasnot associated with higher social competence when controlling for socioemotional climate (Pianta et al., 2002). Synthesized researchon the link between instructional support and students’ socioemotional development is needed to better understand how thisassociation differs between elementary and secondary school students.

Socioemotional support. Socioemotional climate appears to be the most researched dimension among socioemotional outcomes. Muchof this research has indicated that a positive socioemotional climate can support healthy socioemotional development amongstudents, though the effect sizes tend to be small (Scanlon, Del Toro, & Wang, 2020). For example, research found increases instudents’ social competence in first grade classrooms characterized by positive peer interactions (Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004), and apositive correlation has been demonstrated between the relationship quality and social competence among elementary schoolstudents (Shechtman, 2006). Furthermore, secondary school students with teachers and peers who were more emotionally supportivewere more likely to show empathy (López, Pérez, Ochoa, & Ruiz, 2008). Yet, other research has detected nonsignificant correlationsbetween teacher-student relationships and peer likeability for 7th through 9th grade students (Engels et al., 2016). Lastly, positiveteacher-student relationships were linked to decreased depression from middle through high school (Wang et al., 2013), while similarresearch has indicated that secondary school students were less likely to develop depressive symptoms when their teachers were moreemotionally supportive (Pössel, Rudasill, Sawyer, & Spence, 2013).

Classroom organization and management. Relatively less research has examined classroom organization and its relation tosocioemotional outcomes. Studies among elementary school students detected low to moderate positive correlations betweenorganization and rule clarity within the classroom and multiple indicators of student social competence (Barbarin, Downer, Odom, &Head, 2010; Shechtman, 2006). Likewise, a sample of elementary and middle-school students demonstrated higher self-regulationwhen their classrooms were characterized by greater organization and rule clarity (Brody, Dorsey, Forehand, & Armistead, 2002). Onthe other hand, a study with a sample of kindergarteners found that neither classroom organization nor chaos predicted socialcompetence (Ponitz et al., 2009). More research is needed to examine the association between classroom organization and studentemotional wellbeing, particularly for older student samples, which have been largely neglected in the literature.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

5

Prior meta-analyses

Existing classroom quality meta-analyses provide evidence on the impact of specific aspects of classroom climate on youthoutcomes, though effect sizes tend to vary significantly by classroom climate dimension, child characteristics, and study design.Several meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that a high-quality teacher-student relationship is associated with a range of youthacademic and behavioral outcomes (Quin, 2017; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011; Vandenbroucke et al., 2018). For example,two relevant meta-analyses suggested that teacher-student relationships were moderately associated with youth’s school engagementand course grades (Quin, 2017; Roorda et al., 2011). A recent meta-analysis by Vandenbroucke et al. (2018) indicated a small butsignificant association between teacher-child interactions and general executive functioning, working memory, and inhibition.

The quality of classroom instruction has also been associated with children’s academic outcomes (Cohen, 1981; Freeman et al.,2014). For instance, Cohen’s meta-analysis (1981) showed that instructional support was related to academic achievement, withteaching skill and classroom structure having the strongest effects. In addition, findings from a recent meta-analysis examining 54intervention studies of children from primary school suggested that classroom management strategies and programs had a small butsignificant effect on children’s academic, behavioral, and emotional outcomes (Korpershoek, Harms, de Boer, van Kuijk, & Doolaard,2016). The other two extant meta-analyses concurred that teachers’ classroom management practices had a small, positive effect ondecreasing classroom interruption and behavioral problems (Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003; Oliver, Wehby, & Reschly, 2011).

Although previous meta-analytic studies provided ample support for the role of classroom environment as a predictor of youthoutcomes, the bulk of this research often conceptualized classroom climate as a unidimensional, rather than a multidimensionalconstruct. Moreover, the classroom climate literature has not systematically examined the potential contextual and individualmoderators that may explain the substantial variation in classroom climate effects detected across existing studies. Framing classroomclimate as a multidimensional construct and examining the roles of different dimensions of classroom climate, sample characteristics,and study design as potential moderators may clarify the magnitude and significance of the associations between classroom climateand children’s outcomes. Thus, the present study will conduct a systematic review to synthesize the direction and strength of theassociations between classroom climate and children’s outcomes to better elucidate the complex pathways from classroom learningexperiences to academic success and psychological well-being.

Child and sample characteristics and study design as moderators

While classroom climate does appear to influence their academic achievement, social competence, and socioemotional wellbeing,students bring with them individualized sets of skills, resources, and challenges that may moderate these classrom climate effects.Because of these variations, certain groups of students may respond differently to supportive classroom environments.

Developmental differencesBioecological theories explain how changes in environmental contexts and the individual interact to shape human development

and learning over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). As children age, their developmental needs change; hence, to be effective, learningenvironments must adjust to support these developmental needs (Degol, Wang, Ye, & Zhang, 2017; Wang, Hill, & Hofkens, 2014).Unfortunately, classroom environments become more structured and controlling as students matriculate through them, potentiallyposing conflicts with a growing adolescent’s need for independence and autonomy throughout middle and high school (Eccles et al.,1993; Wang & Degol, 2016). The transition from elementary to secondary school is also punctuated by a change from spending mostof the day with one teacher to switching classes regularly and receiving instruction from specialized teachers throughout the day.This abrupt change in scheduling taxes adolescents’ ability to build and sustain close relationships with teachers and peers (Eccles &Roeser, 2011), and as such, adolescents may feel that their belongingness to the school, level of autonomy, and overall competenceare stifled upon transitioning to their new environment (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Given shifting elementary and secondary classroomstructures, the function of classroom climate on youth outcomes may fluctuate across school settings; thus, it is necessary to examinehow the strength of associations between classroom climate and youth outcomes varies by grade levels, especially between ele-mentary school versus secondary school settings.

Racial compositionAnother potential moderator of classroom climate effects on youth outcomes is the racial composition of the student body.

Researchers have shown that the student body’s racial composition and same-race peer affiliation are essential for students to developpositive perceptions of their school climate and a sense of school belonging (Benner & Graham, 2007). For racial or ethnic minoritystudents, matriculating in a classroom with greater diversity affords opportunities for developing close friendships with same-racepeers and witnessing those peers achieve academic success. Research on elementary school students has also indicated that studentsenrolled in classrooms with a greater number of same-race peers display fewer externalizing behaviors and more prosocial behaviors(Benner & Crosnoe, 2011).

However, schools with greater racial diversity are often concentrated in urban neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty andcrime (Farkas, 2017; Murray & Malmgren, 2005). These schools often struggle to educate children with fewer resources, less qualifiedteachers, and higher teacher turnover rates. Schools with high racial diversity are also more likely to have a high percentage ofstudents from disadvantaged backgrounds (Kelly, 2009). While diverse settings can have positive effects on youth’s psychologicalwellbeing and academic achievement (Byrd & Chavous, 2011), the confounding negative effects of poverty and racial discriminationin diverse classrooms may amplify the positive effects of a high-quality classroom climate (Wang, Henry, Smith, Huguley, & Guo,

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

6

2020).

Socioeconomic statusClassroom climate effects on youth development may also be partially moderated by students’ family socioeconomic status. In

other words, the benefits derived from a positive classroom environment may vary in strength depending on whether the student isfrom a higher or lower socioeconomic background. Given the greater amount of personal adversity faced by youth from low-incomefamilies, it is possible that they may reap more benefits from a positive classroom climate than their higher-income peers (Wang,Degol, & Henry, 2020). However, a large-scale, meta-analytic examination of these associations has not been tested to date.

Due to historical trends of systemic racism, a disproportionately greater percentage of youth of color are currently living inpoverty (Orfield, Ee, Frankenberg, & Siegel-Hawley, 2016). The race-SES confound affects school and classroom quality through thesegregation of families under current school zoning practices. Youth of color living in poverty are more likely to attend a schooldistrict that is vastly under-funded and under-resourced (Atlas, 2018). Under-resourced schools may have greater difficulty than theirbetter funded counterparts meeting the diverse needs of its student body. These schools, for example, may have fewer effectiveteachers (Ingersoll, 2004), lower quality curriculum (Johnson, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu, & Donaldson, 2004), and fewer school-basedmental and behavioral health programs/services (Cappella, Frazier, Atkins, Schoenwald, & Glisson, 2008). A low-income school,however, that exemplifies a positive classroom support system may buffer against the detrimental and stressful effects of poverty inmany students’ lives.

Research design and method differencesResearch on classroom and children’s outcomes is influenced by study design and the way in which classroom climate constructs

are measured. Relatively few classroom climate studies have used longitudinal study design, and the over-reliance on cross-sectionaldesigns can introduce bias to aggregated or meta-analytic results. In particular, cross-sectional studies tend to inflate the size of therelation between constructs partly due to simultaneity and endogeneity bias (Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996). Longitudinalresearch designs tend to better address bias while yielding smaller effects.

Moreover, the quality of classroom climate has been assessed by three predominant methods: student report, teacher report, andexternal observation (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Wang & Degol, 2016). Each of these measurement tools has its strengthsand limitations. Teacher reports are biased in that teachers may be motivated to report their classroom processes more favorably thanthey actually are. Student reports of teacher behaviors, on the other hand, may be biased by how well the student is performing in theclass or the nature of the student–teacher relationship. In addition, common-method variance may inflate correlations betweenclassroom climate and student outcomes such that student reports of academic climate may correlate more strongly with studentreports of academic engagement than teacher reports of academic climate (Kasen, Johnson, & Cohen, 1990).

On the contrary, observations may be less biased by perception, particularly when conducted by a third party; however, this datais limited to the time periods in which the observations took place (Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). Because they often rely on a singledata collection point, observations may miss many nuances of how student–teacher relationships, instructional practices, and be-havior management strategies have been reciprocally shaped over time. Collectively, different study designs and assessment methodsmay reveal distinctly unique processes regarding the nature of classroom climate and its relation to student outcomes.

The current study

Given the variations in findings among and across the dimensions of classroom climate and the diverse youth outcomes examined,a systematic synthesis of the extant literature is sorely needed. In the current study, we used a meta-analytic approach to investigatethe extent to which classroom climate was related to children’s academic, behavioral, and socioemotional outcomes. We also ex-amined whether the link between classroom climate and youth outcomes varied by classroom climate dimensions (i.e., instructionalsupport, socioemotional support, and classroom management and organization), grade level, study sample racial composition (i.e.,percentage of racial minority students), family socioeconomic status, research methods (i.e., observation, teacher report, and studentreport), and study design (i.e., cross-sectional and longitudinal study).

Grounded by the bioecological model of human development and the self-determination theory of motivation, we expectedoverall classroom climate to have positive associations with youth’s social competence, motivation and engagement, and academicachievement, but we predicted negative associations with socioemotional distress and externalizing behaviors. We also hypothesizedthat instructional support and classroom management would be the classroom climate elements with the strongest positive link withacademic and behavioral outcomes, and socioemotional support would have the strongest positive link with socioemotional out-comes. In addition, we expected that a supportive classroom environment would be more beneficial for youth’s academic andsocioemotional outcomes in secondary school than primary school because of how challenging the transition to secondary school canbe for many students. Moreover, we expected that effect sizes would be larger for student reports of classroom climate whencompared to teacher reports or observations. Finally, we hypothesized that effect sizes would be stronger for cross-sectional studiesthan for longitudinal research, although we expected that the associations for both designs would be significant.

Method

We did a systematic literature search using the online databases that catalog research abstracts, including Educational ResourcesInformation Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, JSTOR, and Social Sciences Citation Index. For

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

7

each database, we used a series of search terms, search parameters, and Boolean techniques to achieve an inclusive-yet-focusedsearch: (“classroom climate” OR “classroom environment” OR “classroom culture” OR “classroom quality”) NOT (“school climate”OR “school environment” OR “school culture” OR “school quality”). The search included studies published only in English between2000 and 2016. We focused on studies published after 2000 given that a greater number of studies started to conceptualize andmeasure classroom climate as a multidimensional construct after that date. Furthermore, a number of prominent reviews and meta-analyses of classroom quality research have focused on studies conducted in the 1990s and prior (e.g., Fraser & Walberg, 1991;Rolland, 2012). As such, we focused our work on more recent literature to avoid reviewing work that has been extensively covered inprior studies. In addition, we contacted prominent researchers in the field who conduct classroom climate research (including a massemail to Research Interest Group LISTSERV) and cross-referenced using previous, published narrative review and meta-analyticstudies. This search resulted in 21,505 articles in peer-reviewed journals and 1457 theses/dissertations.

To supplement searches of electronic databases, the reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed to identify eligible studies,resulting in 12 additional studies of potential relevance. The research team then reviewed each article’s title and abstract to de-termine the inclusion or exclusion of the study. If the abstract did not provide sufficient information, the study’s method section wasexamined. Due to the lack of clarity regarding the measurement and definition of classroom climate, we first examined each study’sdefinition, operationalization, and example or actual item questions of the classroom environment to determine how to code into thethree dimensions of classroom climate. If the research team judged the abstract and information in the method section to be eligiblefor inclusion based on two criteria (i.e., the studies had to employ conceptualization and measurement of classroom climate that fitwithin one or more of the three selected dimensions; the studies examined the relation between classroom climate and children’seducational and psychosocial outcomes), the full study was obtained for further examination, resulting in 156 articles in peer-reviewed journals and 29 theses/dissertations. The agreement on the abstract screening and initial decisions about which article toread between two coders was 95% across all studies before discrepancies were discussed and resolved.

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

We used the following criteria to determine whether studies should be included or excluded in our analysis. First, studies had toprovide correlations or sufficient statistical information to calculate an effect size for classroom climate and children’s outcomes(Rosenthal, 1991). Second, studies had to include at least one dimension of classroom climate and include one educational orpsychosocial outcome. Studies that combined different outcomes (e.g., combining student achievement and behavior as a compositescore of school adjustment) or different dimensions of classroom climate in a single scale were not included in the analysis. Mea-surements of classroom climate and children’s outcomes based on all reporters (e.g., student and teacher reports) or methods (e.g.,classroom observation, school records) were eligible for analysis. Third, studies were limited to school-aged children and adolescents,enrolled in kindergarten-12th grade. Fourth, only peer-reviewed studies were included2. Furthermore, studies were excluded if thestudy focused on measurement validation; the participants were not enrolled in a mainstream school (i.e., a school primarily servesstudents without special needs); and the measure of classroom climate was confounded with other measures (e.g., a general schoolenvironment measure combining school climate and classroom climate, school engagement). These criteria for inclusion and ex-clusion resulted in 61 journal articles (see the PRISMA chart in Fig. 1).

These 61 articles were then coded in preparation for the research synthesis. We used a double-coded process that has demon-strated high reliability in prior studies (Rosenthal, 1991). Two coders independently coded all studies and key variables (e.g., gradelevel, study design, effect size) included within the meta-analysis. Any disagreement in the coding scheme was resolved by a thirdindependent coder. The interrater reliability for the data coding was r = 0.87–1.00 for continuous variables, and k = 0.84–1.00 forthe categorical or string variables. The coding scheme and definitions and example indicators of key constructs can be found in theonline supplemental document (see Table S1).

We summarized several characteristics of each study when available (see Table S2), including: (a) study characteristics (e.g.,study design, measurement), (b) sample characteristics, (c) measure of classroom climate, (d) measure of youth outcomes, and (e)statistical result of the relationship between classroom climate and youth outcomes. We used simple bivariate correlation coefficients,r, as measures of the direction and magnitude of the relationship.

Analytic strategies

Effect sizes of the link between classroom climate and youth outcomes were extracted from each study passing eligibilityscreening (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Rosenthal, 1991). In extant meta-analyses, most researchers have usedfixed-effects and random-effects models; however, these approaches are limited by the assumption of independence (Field, 2003).This limitation means that studies having multiple effect sizes cannot be appropriately included and analyzed because clusters ofeffect sizes in these studies are more likely to be correlated. To combat this limitation, we used a three-level SEM-based meta-analytic

2 This decision was based on the test of publication bias and risk of selection bias. When including non-peer-reviewed studies (i.e., dissertation andtheses), the funnel plot of the effect sizes suggested publication bias, in that effect sizes were not spread across the plot symmetrically. This findingaligned with a significant Egger’s test (z = −1.754, p < .01). The risk of selection bias was assessed by examining the measurement quality ofclassroom climate and youth outcomes (i.e., appropriate reliability and validity for the scales). Most non-peer-reviewed studies were determined ashaving a high risk of bias.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

8

approach to account for dependence among the effect sizes within and between individual studies (Cheung, 2009, 2014). Specifically,a three-level SEM-based mixed-effects model can account for variation attributed to clustering within a single study while capturingvariation attributable to effect size differences within studies (level 2) and across studies (level 3), as well as differences attributableto random sampling of effect sizes overall. This approach not only addresses the assumption of independence, but it also allows forexamination of heterogeneity in effect sizes by including moderators in the analysis (Van Den Noortgate & Onghena, 2003; Wang,Henry, et al., 2020). This integrated modeling approach provides additional methodological advantages, such as flexible parameterconstraints, a greater accuracy for confidence intervals, and the use of full information maximum likelihood for handling missingcovariates (Cheung, 2009, 2014).

In this study, all analyses were conducted utilizing the metaSEM package (Cheung, 2014) in R Version 3.3.1 (R Core Team, 2017).We used a three-level SEM-based mixed effects meta-analytic approach to account for clusters and calculate the overall pooled effectsize (pooled d). Following Borenstein and colleagues’ (2009) recommendations, we conducted analyses on correlations transformedinto Fisher’s z, and all analyses were performed using the transformed values. The summary effect and its confidence interval werethen converted back to correlation coefficients for interpretation. If a study did not report the information necessary to convert the

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of search results.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

9

summary measure to d, we contacted the corresponding author to request the required information. If a study reported multiplecorrelations between classroom climate and youth outcomes (e.g., study provided correlation coefficients between classroom climateand academic grades and between classroom climate and engagement), the effect size was calculated separately for each association.In the event that a study provided both bivariate correlations and multivariate analyses to examine the same association, onlybivariate analyses were included. This decision was due to the fact that studies that utilized multivariate analyses frequently reportedR2 values for multiple covariates. This made it impossible for effect sizes to be calculated from the multivariate analyses.

Furthermore, we used I2 and Q statistics to assess heterogeneity in pooled effect sizes (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman,2003). Cochran (1954) Q statistic reflects the total variance in the meta-analysis, while the I2 statistic represents heterogeneity(Higgins & Green, 2011). We used moderator analyses to explain heterogeneity in the relation between classroom climate and youthoutcomes (Shadish & Sweeney, 1991), but analyses were conducted only when there were at least four effect sizes per subgroup (Fuet al., 2011). The proportion of explained heterogeneity variance was calculated by including the moderator variable (R2) and theheterogeneity between effect sizes in each category (I2).

Moreover, we relied on the chi-square difference (Δχ2) to investigate how well the moderator variable explained the hetero-geneity in effect sizes. Therefore, we reported the chi-square difference for the omnibus ANOVA test between each mixed-effectsmodel with moderators along with the original mixed-effects model to indicate whether the moderation effect was significant. Wealso analyzed continuous moderators by conducting three-level meta-regression with the function “rma.mv” of the metafor package(Viechtbauer, 2010) in R (see Harrer, Cuijpers, Furukawa, & Ebert, 2019). In this meta-regression model, moderators were includedas predictors, which allowed us to control for the mutual associations between predictors. We examined the following moderators:classroom climate dimensions, grade, racial composition, socioeconomic status, measurement of classroom climate, and study design.

Finally, we examined the distribution of sample sizes and effect sizes to determine whether the studies contained any statisticaloutliers. Grubbs’ (1950) test was applied to identify outliers. We then assessed publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger’sregression asymmetry test. In a funnel plot, the standard error is plotted on the y-axis and the effect size on the x-axis, with asymmetrical funnel indicating no publication bias (Sterne, Egger, & Moher, 2008). We then used Egger’s regression asymmetry test toquantify the publication bias (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). The regression line would run through the origin if thefunnel plots were symmetrical and showed no bias.

Results and discussion

We identified 679 effect sizes from 61 studies that met our inclusion criteria and were included in our review and analysis. Acrossthe 61 studies, 34 studies (264 effect sizes) examined instructional support, 42 studies (320 effect sizes) examined socioemotionalsupport, and 18 studies (95 effect sizes) examined classroom management and organization. For targeted outcomes, 17 studies (117effect sizes) measured social competence, 30 studies (151 effect sizes) measured academic achievement, 40 studies (261 effect sizes)measured motivation and engagement, 12 studies (59 effect sizes) measured externalizing behaviors, and 10 studies (91 effect sizes)measured socioemotional distress. For measurement of classroom climate, 46 studies (524 effect sizes) used student reports, 9 studies(36 effect sizes) used teacher reports, and 12 studies (117 effect sizes) used classroom observations. For study design, 57 studies (529effect sizes) were cross-sectional studies and 20 studies (150 effect sizes) were longitudinal studies. Of the 61 studies, 73,824 par-ticipants were included, and the number of study participants ranged from 98 to 10,632. The majority of samples were from UnitedStates, but samples from Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, Greece, Israel, Korea, Turkey, Spain, Finland, United Kingdomwere also included.

The relation between classroom climate and youth outcomes

We first examined the link between classroom climate and each educational and psychosocial outcome (see Table 1). Overall,classroom climate had small to medium positive associations with social competence (r = 0.18, p < .001), motivation and en-gagement (r = 0.25, p < .001), and academic achievement (r = 0.12, p < .001) whereas classroom climate had small negativeassociations with externalizing behavior (r = −0.18, p < .001) and socioemotional distress (r = −0.14, p < .001). I2 statisticsshowed that there was moderate to high proportion of variance in effect sizes attributed to differences between and within studies.Thus, we conducted moderator analyses to explain some of the variance.

Our findings reveal that classroom climate composed of instructional, socioemotional, and organizational classroom processes isassociated with youth’s academic and socioemotional outcomes. From a motivational perspective (Deci & Dyan, 2000), effects ofclassroom climate on children’s development are driven by the interactions that children have on a daily basis with curriculum,teachers, peers, and classroom organizational structures (Eccles, 2004; Klieme et al., 2009; Wang & Degol, 2016). Through theseinteractions, children have the opportunities to engage in different learning activities, develop relationships with teachers and peers,and hone their academic and socioemotional skills (Connell, 1990; Deci & Ryan, 2000). When the quality of these interactions is high,children are more likely to fulfill their psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness that will lead to greateracademic performance and engagement, better social competence, and lower externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Thus, schoolenvironments represent a nexus to positive youth development through the interactional avenues within the classroom.

Child and study characteristics as moderators

We examined the extent to which correlations between classroom climate and youth outcomes varied by classroom climate

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

10

dimensions, grade level, racial composition, socioeconomic status, measurement of classroom climate, and study design.

Classroom climate dimensionOverall, the link between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not vary by classroom climate dimensions, except for the

socioemotional distress outcome (see Table 1). According to the ANOVA test (Δχ2 = 9.20, p < .05), the link between classroomclimate and socioemotional distress was stronger for the socioemotional support dimension (r = −0.19, p < .001) than both theinstructional support (r = −0.08, p < .05) and classroom management dimensions (r = −0.07, ns).

All three dimensions of classroom climate (i.e., instructional, socioemotional, and organizational) appeared to be associated withyouth’s socioemotional development, academic achievement, and behavioral problems. This finding suggests that multiple contextualfactors within classrooms are associated with youth outcomes, a key tenant of ecological theories of human development(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). These contextual factors focus on discrete aspects of classrooms that include effective teaching, positivestudent–teacher and peer relationships, and productive classroom management and organization.

Given that these aspects of classroom climate are associated with child and adolescent educational and psychosocial outcomesuniquely and collectively, it is probably not enough to measure or focus on only one dimension when studying or promotingclassroom climate. Students may still struggle academically in a classroom with high quality instruction if the socioemotional climateis poor in quality. In addition, instructional, socioemotional, and organizational dimensions of classroom climate do not developindependently of one another; the quality of one dimension may influence the quality of all others. Indeed, recent research shows thatclassroom climate dimensions are interdependent, such that the nature and quality of one dimension are likely to affect otherdimensions (Hamre, Hatfield, Pianta, & Jamil, 2014; Klieme et al., 2009; Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). As such, key components thatcomprise high classroom quality are usually dynamically interrelated and should be studied in conjunction with one another.

While all three dimensions of classroom climate were linked to youth outcomes, some dimensions demonstrated a stronger link tocertain outcomes than others. In particular, socioemotional support was more strongly linked to socioemotional distress (e.g., an-xiety, depression) compared to instructional support and organizational climate. This finding is not surprising, given the socio-emotional nature of both constructs (i.e., classroom climate dimension and youth outcome), thus suggesting classrooms with morepositive social relationships and interactions have students who are less likely to demonstrate socioemotional distress and more likelyto have adaptive psychological adjustment.

The implications of these findings are highly relevant for school counselors and mental health professionals battling the seriousproblem of adolescent anxiety and depression. From extant psychological research, we know that adolescence is a developmentalperiod characterized by a heightened risk for developing depression and anxiety (Avenevoli et al., 2015). Recent estimates indicatethat nearly 13% of adolescents between the ages of 12–17 and 32% of adolescents between the ages of 13–18 suffer from depression

Table 1Summary of Effect Sizes for Classroom Climate and Youth Educational and Psychosocial Outcomes.

k #ES r LCI UCI I2_2 I2_3 R2_2 R2_3 ANOVA Δχ2 Q Statistic

Overall Effects of Classroom Climate on DevelopmentalOutcomes

Social Competence 17 117 0.18*** 0.10 0.26 0.41 0.57 – – – 4838Externalizing Behavior 12 59 −0.18*** −0.12 −0.25 0.41 0.50 – – – 552Socioemotional Distress 10 91 −0.14*** −0.08 −0.20 0.56 0.30 – – – 572Academic achievement 30 151 0.12*** 0.09 0.15 0.66 0.25 – – – 1663Motivation and engagement 40 261 0.25*** 0.20 0.29 0.51 0.47 – – – 14,387

Moderation Effects by Classroom Climate DimensionSocial Competence 0.03 0.00 2.43Instructional support 8 28 0.20** 0.06 0.33 0.20 0.77 616Socioemotional support 13 74 0.21*** 0.10 0.32 0.39 0.60 3817Classroom organization 6 15 0.14*** 0.08 0.19 0.48 0.45 72

Externalizing Behavior 0.04 0.01 1.66Instructional support 4 9 −0.21** −0.51 −0.05 0.05 0.87 54Socioemotional support 8 42 −0.20*** −0.29 −0.11 0.39 0.55 449Classroom organization 4 8 −0.15** −0.26 −0.04 0.04 0.79 46

Socioemotional Distress 0.04 0.69 9.20*Instructional support 5 36 −0.08* −0.15 −0.01 0.73 0.11 185Socioemotional support 6 42 −0.19*** −0.26 −0.11 0.56 0.31 238Classroom organization 4 13 −0.07 −0.16 −0.03 0.65 0.36 40

Academic achievement 0.01 0.00 0.98Instructional support 17 56 0.12*** 0.10 0.15 0.89 0.00 595Socioemotional support 21 70 0.12*** 0.07 0.17 0.49 0.44 973Classroom organization 9 25 0.12*** 0.09 0.15 0.72 0.00 94

Motivation and engagement 0.01 0.00 0.86Instructional support 26 135 0.25*** 0.18 0.31 0.51 0.48 0.48 8827Socioemotional support 25 92 0.23*** 0.18 0.29 0.45 0.50 0.50 1807Classroom organization 11 34 0.23*** 0.15 0.30 0.75 0.24 0.24 3576

Note. LCI = Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval; I2_2 = heterogeneity at Level 2; I2_3 = heterogeneity at Level3; k = number of studies; R2_2 = explained variance at Level 2; R2_3 = explained variance at Level 3; *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

11

and anxiety respectively, but approximately 60% of these adolescents will suffer in silence, as their symptoms are highly likely to goundetected and untreated (National Institutes of Health, 2017a, 2017b). Given these alarming statistics, greater appreciation forschool and classroom environmental effects on anxiety and depression is warranted. Preventing or treating mood disorders inadolescents may be more difficult if their daily environmental contexts are not conducive to their overall mental health. For theschool context, this extends predominantly to the quality of teacher-student and peer relationships, as these are the classroomcomponents most strongly linked to psychosocial functioning.

Child’s grade levelThe link between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not differ by child’s grade level (see Table 2). The results suggest that

positive classroom climate is associated with educational and psychosocial development across both the primary and secondaryschool years. This finding is especially relevant given that students’ academic performance, motivation, and engagement typicallydeclines from primary to secondary school (Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Wang & Eccles, 2013). This decline inengagement can be attributed to a mismatch in stage-environment fit (Eccles et al., 1993), as adolescence overlaps with the transitionto secondary school. Adjusting to this new environment can be difficult for many students due to the change in setting and theincreased challenges of a high-stakes academic curriculum. A supportive classroom climate may help adolescents better manage theirtransition to secondary school, thus maintaining their engagement and potentially mitigating drop out for low performing anddisengaged students (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Wang & Eccles, 2013). Given the increased risk of developing internalizing and ex-ternalizing behaviors during adolescence (Wang & Kenny, 2014), promotion of a positive classroom climate may serve as a bufferagainst mental health issues.

Racial compositionThe link between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not differ by percentage of racial minority students, except for the

outcome of motivation and engagement (see Table 3). Classroom climate was more strongly associated with youth motivation andengagement when the sample included more racial minority students (β(SE) = 0.07(0.03), p < .05; F(1, 159) = 5.85, p < .05).

Socioeconomic statusThe link between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not vary by children’s socioeconomic status (see Table 4).

Table 2Moderation Effects of Youth’s Grade.

k #ES β(SE) Lower CI Upper CI F(df1,df2)a Q Statistic

Moderation Effects by GradeSocial CompetenceGrade 15 108 0.02(0.05) −0.07 0.10 F(1,106) = 0.14 4835

Externalizing BehaviorGrade 12 57 −0.05(0.05) −0.13 0.03 F(1,55) = 1.61 542

Socioemotional DistressGrade 10 87 −0.05(0.05) −0.14 0.04 F(1,85) = 1.28 445

Academic AchievementGrade 30 151 0.00(0.01) −0.02 0.02 F(1,149) = 0.00 1653

Motivation and engagementGrade 38 238 0.03(0.02) −0.02 0.07 F(1,236) = 1.42 14,165

Note. LCI = Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval; β = standardized regression coefficient; a Omnibus test of allregression coefficients in the model.; *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 3Moderation Effects of Racial Composition of the Samples.

k #ES β(SE) Lower CI Upper CI F(df1,df2)a Q Statistic

Moderation Effects by Percentage of racial minoritiesSocial CompetencePercentage of racial minorities 9 42 0.03(0.03) −0.03 0.10 F(1,40) = 0.80 298

Externalizing BehaviorPercentage of racial minorities 8 24 −0.01(0.05) −0.11 0.09 F(1,22) = 0.03 172

Socioemotional DistressPercentage of racial minorities 5 26 −0.04(0.05) −0.13 0.06 F(1,24) = 0.68 163

Academic AchievementPercentage of racial minorities 19 94 −0.03(0.02) −0.07 0.01 F(1,92) = 2.88 664

Motivation and engagementPercentage of racial minorities 23 161 0.07(0.03)* 0.01 0.12 F(1,159) = 5.85* 10,790

Note. LCI = Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval; β = standardized regression coefficient; a Omnibus test of allregression coefficients in the model.; *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

12

Associations between classroom climate and youth outcomes were mostly consistent across study sample racial composition andchildren’s socioeconomic status. These findings are encouraging in that positive classroom climate appears to be potentially beneficialfor all students from different racial/ethnic and SES backgrounds; however, differences in motivation and engagement emerged inwhich classroom climate was only associated with higher motivation and engagement for classrooms with more racial minoritystudents. These findings may reflect the fact that schools with greater racial diversity are often concentrated in high-poverty, urbanneighborhoods (Farkas, 2017). These schools are likely to be under-resourced, have lower quality teachers, and serve a largerpercentage of underprivileged children (Kelly, 2009). Schools with greater concentrations of low-income students usually have fewerresources to identify and treat students struggling with learning and mental health issues (National Institutes of Health, 2017a,2017b). Given the greater risk for many of these students of developing academic issues, supportive classroom climates may producemore pronounced positive outcomes for this academically vulnerable population.

Measurement of classroom climateThe link between classroom climate and student outcomes differed by measurement of classroom climate, except for the socio-

emotional distress outcome (see Table 5). Student report (r = 0.19, p < .001) and observation (r = 0.11, p < .01) of classroomclimate had positive associations with social competence, whereas teacher report of classroom climate had a non-significant effect onsocial competence (r = 0.41, ns). In addition, student report (r = −0.19, p < .001) and teacher report (r = −0.34, p < .05) ofclassroom climate had negative associations with externalizing behavior. However, observation of classroom climate did not have asignificant association with externalizing behavior (r = −0.10, ns). Student report (r = 0.26, p < .001), teacher report (r = 0.36,p < .001), and observation (r= 0.12, p < .001) of classroom climate all had positive associations with motivation and engagementthough with different magnitudes. Likewise, student report (r = 0.10, p < .001), teacher report (r = 0.24, p < .001), andobservation (r = 0.12, p < .001) of classroom climate all had positive associations with academic achievement but varied instrength.

The moderation analyses found that the measurement tools used to assess classroom climate influence the strength of the as-sociations between climate and youth outcomes. Student reports of classroom climate were significantly associated with all outcomesassessed in the study. Students experience daily interactions in their classrooms and provide a unique perspective to our under-standing of how classroom dynamics influence their adjustment (Wagner et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). If students view theirenvironment as supportive, then they are more likely to be engaged and mentally healthy; however, if students do not view theirenvironment as supportive, then outcomes will be less positive, regardless of how positively teachers or observers may view theenvironment. As only student reports of classroom climate were significantly associated with socioemotional distress, our findingsvalidate the importance of assessing student perceptions of classroom climate.

Although all student outcomes were linked to student reports of classroom climate, teacher reports of classroom climate were onlyassociated with externalizing behaviors and academic achievement, and observation measures were only associated with socialcompetence and academic achievement. Such findings suggest that each reporter may offer a unique perspective on the overalldynamics of the classroom environment that may deviate from the perspective of other reporters. Perception matters not just fordetermining the valence of the climate dimension under consideration, but also in determining the effect of the climate dimension onthe youth outcome under consideration. However, it is difficult to understand where these differences in measurement effects emerge

Table 4Moderation Effects of Youth’s Family Socioeconomic Status.

k #ES r Lower CI Upper CI I2_2 I2_3 R2_2 R2_3 ANOVA Δχ2 Q Statistic

Moderation Effects by Socioeconomic statusSocial Competence 0.00 0.63 10.19Low SES 4 28 0.19*** 0.08 0.30 0.75 0.25 1145Middle SES 1 12 0.57*** 0.47 0.65 0.97 0.00 436Mixed SES 9 60 0.13** 0.03 0.22 0.39 0.54 752

Externalizing Behavior 0.00 0.01 0.04Low SES 3 9 −0.20* −0.37 −0.02 0.70 0.25 254Middle SES – – – – – – – –Mixed SES 5 12 −0.22*** −0.31 −0.14 0.60 0.31 115

Socioemotional Distress 0.00 0.04 0.01Low SES 3 9 −0.13*** −0.18 −0.07 0.66 0.30 28Middle SES – – – – – – – –Mixed SES 2 14 −0.12* −0.23 −0.02 0.73 0.19 148

Academic Achievement 0.00 0.24 2.20Low SES 3 13 0.19*** 0.13 0.25 0.96 0.00 276Middle SES 3 15 0.17*** 0.13 0.21 0.85 0.04 113Mixed SES 7 47 0.10** 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.65 279

Motivation and engagement 0.01 0.32 5.99Low SES 3 13 0.19*** 0.13 0.24 0.87 0.00 102Middle SES 4 24 0.39*** 0.26 0.52 0.31 0.67 1149Mixed SES 12 99 0.21*** 0.14 0.28 0.57 0.37 1712

Note. LCI = Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval; I2_2 = heterogeneity at Level 2; I2_3 = heterogeneity at Level3; k = number of studies; R2_2 = explained variance at Level 2; R2_3 = explained variance at Level 3; *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

13

based on our meta-analyses. For example, an alternative explanation to these divergent findings could be that some of the mea-surement tools are not accurately or reliably assessing the variables of interest. Future studies should examine the convergence anddivergence of measurements of classroom climate using different reporters as well as how each source is related to youth outcomes(Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). Examination of student, teacher, and observer reports on classroom climate could inform the extent towhich each of these data sources might be useful for studying the implementation and impact of school reform initiatives.

Study designThe link between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not vary by study design, except for the motivation and engagement

outcome (see Table 5). Studies examining the association between classroom climate and motivation and engagement reportedsmaller effects for longitudinal (r = 0.16, p < .001) than cross-sectional (r = 0.26, p < .001) studies.

The moderation analyses show that most associations between classroom climate and youth outcomes did not vary by studydesign (i.e., longitudinal and cross-sectional studies), indicating that classroom climate has both immediate and cascading effects onyouth outcomes. As children mature and their psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness grow more salient,classroom environments designed to support youth’s academic and psychosocial development may have long-lasting salutary con-sequences (Eccles et al., 1993; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Despite similarities in findings across study designs, it is imperative to notethat longitudinal designs can more effectively determine the trajectories and changes in classroom climate by controlling for pre-viously measured outcomes. Classroom climate is a dynamic process that is likely to change throughout the school year: Students maystruggle at the beginning of the year to adjust to teacher rules and expectations, but they may become more accustomed to theirclassroom environment over time ( Wang and Degol, 2016). Such changes in student or teacher perception throughout the schoolyear cannot be adequately captured by cross-sectional data; thus, researchers should consider longitudinal designs when examiningthe associations between classroom climate and youth outcome in their future studies.

Table 5Moderation Effects of Classroom Climate Measurement and Study Design.

k #ES r Lower CI Upper CI I2_2 I2_3 R2_2 R2_3 ANOVA Δχ2 Q Statistic

Moderation Effects by Classroom Climate MeasurementSocial Competence 0.00 0.23 10.39**Student report 11 91 0.19*** 0.08 0.29 0.34 0.65 4285Teacher report 3 5 0.41 −0.01 0.71 0.02 0.97 404Observation 5 21 0.11** 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.43 60

Externalizing Behavior 0.00 0.43 12.62**Student report 9 46 −0.19*** −0.24 −0.13 0.37 0.47 206Teacher report 3 6 −0.34* −0.61 0.00 0.08 0.91 291Observation 2 7 −0.10 −0.22 0.03 0.00 0.65 9

Socioemotional Distress 0.00 0.36 3.63Student report 8 80 −0.15*** −0.21 −0.09 0.59 0.24 445Teacher report 2 5 −0.18 – – 0.92 0.00 53Observation 1 6 −0.02 −0.03 0.06 0.14 0.00 7

Academic Achievement 0.00 0.32 33.63***Student report 20 102 0.10*** 0.07 0.14 0.50 0.41 1070Teacher report 6 13 0.24*** 0.12 0.35 0.25 0.69 241Observation 8 36 0.12*** 0.08 0.17 0.50 0.29 132

Motivation and engagement 0.00 0.20 8.98*Student report 31 205 0.26*** 0.21 0.32 0.53 0.46 13,569Teacher report 4 7 0.36*** 0.27 0.45 0.96 0.00 136Observation 7 47 0.12*** 0.07 0.17 0.70 0.14 305

Moderation Effects by Study DesignSocial Competence 0.00 0.06 1.25Cross-sectional 16 99 0.19*** 0.10 0.27 0.45 0.53 4085Longitudinal 2 18 0.02 −0.11 0.16 0.27 0.64 139

Externalizing Behavior 0.05 0.01 1.87Cross-sectional 11 52 −0.20*** −0.27 −0.13 0.39 0.53 511Longitudinal 2 7 −0.12*** −0.17 −0.07 0.66 0.00 22

Socioemotional Distress 0.09 0.00 0.3.14Cross-sectional 9 66 −0.15*** −0.22 −0.08 0.50 0.36 446Longitudinal 3 25 −0.11*** −0.16 −0.06 0.81 0.00 119

Academic Achievement 0.01 0.01 0.18Cross-sectional 25 111 0.12*** 0.09 0.15 0.74 0.18 1209Longitudinal 10 40 0.11*** 0.06 0.16 0.47 0.44 448

Motivation and engagement 0.07 0.03 14.43***Cross-sectional 35 199 0.26*** 0.21 0.31 0.50 0.49 11,675Longitudinal 12 60 0.16*** 0.09 0.22 0.55 0.42 1323

Note. LCI = Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval; I2_2 = heterogeneity at Level 2; I2_3 = heterogeneity at Level3; k = number of studies; R2_2 = explained variance at Level 2; R2_3 = explained variance at Level 3; *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

14

Publication biasThe Grubbs’ test revealed no significant sample size outliers, and there were no significant outliers among the effect sizes. The

examination of a funnel plot of the effect sizes (see Fig. 2) suggested no publication bias, in that effect sizes were symmetricallyspread across the plot. This was confirmed with non-significant Egger’s test results (z = −0.61, p = .54).

General discussion

Classroom environment is not only an important academic learning setting, but it also serves as a motivational and developmentalcontext for youth development (Eccles, 2004; Hattie, 2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Wang, Degol, et al., 2020). Understandably,fostering a positive classroom climate has been essential to many school reform efforts hoping to promote youth’s academic andpsychological wellbeing. In this meta-analytic study, we systematically reviewed and synthesized extant research to estimate theoverall strength of the link between classroom climate and youth outcomes, as well as the degree to which theorized factors moderatethese associations. Overall, classroom climate as a multidimensional construct had small-to-medium positive links with socialcompetence, motivation and engagement, and academic achievement and small negative links with socioemotional distress andexternalizing behaviors. We detected substantial variability in these effect sizes, which further justified our examination of potentialmoderators. Moderator analyses showed that some of the links between classroom climate and youth outcomes varied by classroomclimate dimensions, measurement of classroom climate, and study design, though the pattern of the associations was mostly con-sistent.

Findings suggest that classroom contexts are associated with a wide range of developmental outcomes. Bioecological systemstheory postulates that socialization processes in the classroom shape youth’s developmental competencies and motivational beliefs,critical mechanisms that set the stage for long-term development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Teachers and peers create op-portunities for youth to engage in a variety of academic and social activities through instructional methods, classroom organization,and the provision of socioemotional support. The interactional quality of a given classroom activity provides youth with informationabout themselves as being capable, independent learners who are connected to and supported by others (Wang, Degol, et al., 2020).Youth’s socialization experiences cumulate to support or undermine their motivational beliefs and developmental competencies,which in turn influence their academic and psychosocial wellbeing (Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). The quality of classroom socia-lization processes is represented by the instructional support, socioemotional support, and management or organization practiceswithin the classroom context.

The connection between the quality of instructional support and developmental outcomes is conveyed through multiple inter-actional avenues. Teachers that push for attainably high standards and emphasize mastering new skills over the attainment of a setperformance standard create environments conducive to learning where students experience an increased enjoyment of learning(Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015; Wang, 2012). Such an environment also inspires increases in students’ engagement and intrinsicmotivation to perform highly in school, potentially resulting in higher academic achievement (Wang & Eccles, 2012; Wang &Holcombe, 2010). Likewise, when students feel they can achieve, they are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior (Hoffmann,Erickson, & Spence, 2013) or drop out of school (Quiroga, Janosz, Bisset, & Morin, 2013; Wang & Fredricks, 2014).

The proximal processes involved in classroom management also include approaches teachers use to help students set goals andguidelines for behavior. The goal for all positive classroom management strategies is for students to regulate their behaviors inaccordance with class codes of conduct. Management or discipline practices that are harsh, reactive, or controlling may underminechildren’s self-motivation to regulate behavior (Amemiya, Mortenson, & Wang, 2019; Pas, Cash, O’Brennan, Debnam, & Bradshaw,2015). Developmentally appropriate disciplinary practices, on the other hand, are likely to create the necessary conditions for

Fig. 2. Funnel plots for child’s educational and psychosocial outcomes (Egger’s test results: z = −0.06, p = .54).

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

15

developing students’ classroom-based adaptive coping strategies (Korpershoek et al., 2016). The proximal processes prevalent insocioemotional support systems may aide students in a similar way: When students feel accepted and supported by adults and peers,they are more likely to thrive and experience positive adjustment (Lucas-Molina et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2015). Multiplesocialization processes, therefore, contribute to a child’s development. This finding fits the multi-contextual pathways through whichbioecological theory demonstrates youth grow and change across multiple contexts.

The role of the classroom environment in shaping youth developmental outcomes can also be viewed through the lens of self-determination theory. In K-12 classroom settings, students seek to fulfill psychological needs while participating in academics,exploring their identity, and striving to form relationships with others (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Self-determination theory posits thatoptimal youth development occurs in learning contexts that fulfill youth’s psychological needs for competence, autonomy, andrelatedness. These psychological needs refer to underlying motivational processes that contribute to youth’s sense of initiative toparticipate in learning tasks. Such processes then inform a student’s beliefs about how competent, autonomous, and socially con-nected they are within a given context (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Students’ motivational beliefs are cultivated within the context ofcomplex social and academic classroom networks, creating motivational orientations that either foster or undermine academic de-velopment. Youth who seek out challenges and persist despite setbacks have developed more adaptive approaches to learning, whileyouth who avoid challenges and give up easily have developed learned helplessness (Eccles, 2009; Wang, Degol, et al., 2020).

As evidenced in this meta-analytic study, classroom environments that meet students’ psychological needs are primed for positiveyouth development; conversely, a classroom environment that detracts from or subverts psychological needs undermines positivedevelopment. For instance, youth develop competence by engaging in challenging, authentic, and meaningful work (Eccles & Roeser,2011); autonomy by forming opinions and selecting academic activities and tasks (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009); and relatedness throughsupportive interactions with peers and adults (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008; Wentzel, 2002). When students are respected andsupported, they are also more likely to feel connected through developing better interpersonal relationships with others, and com-petent through pursuing their own interests (Green et al., 2012; Wang, 2012). On the contrary, classroom environments that are rigidor disorganized undermine autonomy and threaten competence, just as competence and relatedness are thwarted by performance-based or socially comparative instructional practices (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). In sum, positive academic and socioemotionaldevelopment thrives in classroom environments that support students’ psychological needs and personal goals.

Limitations

While this study exhibits many strengths, a few limitations and caveats should be noted. Our meta-analytic findings are mostlybased on correlational studies; hence, we cannot assume causality in the association between classroom climate and youth outcomes(Cooper, 2015). In spite of this, our findings are rather robust, as they held up regardless of whether the study design was cross-sectional or longitudinal. Approximately two-thirds of the studies reviewed for this meta-analysis were cross-sectional designs.Despite a strong theoretical basis for classroom climate as an antecedent for youth outcomes, there is a need for longitudinal studiesthat can disentangle any temporal sequencing of these relationships. This line of inquiry is imperative given that the associationbetween classroom climate and youth outcomes is likely to be bidirectional (Pianta, Belsky, Houts, & Morrison, 2007). In addition,some longitudinal studies have found that instructional, socio-emotional, and organizational classroom characteristics varythroughout the school year (Cameron, Connor, & Morrison, 2005; Pianta et al., 2007). More longitudinal research is needed to betterunderstand how classroom climate changes over time, as well as how much variability in youth outcomes may be attributed toclassroom factors after controlling for earlier measurements of youth outcomes.

An additional caveat involves the generalizability of our meta-analytic review. The sampling methods inhibited our ability togeneralize the findings (Owen et al., 2016). For example, it is plausible that studies that failed to find significant associations betweenclassroom climate and youth outcomes were not published, making them unavailable for our meta-analysis (Quin, 2017). We thusacknowledge that the publication bias against null findings may have inadvertently overestimated the effect sizes reported in thestudy. Furthermore, our review focused on peer-reviewed studies and did not include non-peer-reviewed literature, such as un-published dissertations or theses. The reason for the exclusion of non-peer-reviewed studies was to ensure we included studies thathave gone through a rigorous scientific review. Indeed, we found that unpublished dissertation studies tend to be of lower qualitythan published, peer-reviewed studies based on the assessment of publication bias and risk of bias. Consequently, future researchshould adjust for the quality of the study design in the moderator analyses. A final issue limiting the generalizability of our study isthat this meta-analytic study only focused on articles published between 2000 and 2016. Therefore, the results cannot be generalizedto studies conducted outside of this timeframe.

In addition, the lack of scholarly consensus regarding what constitutes classroom climate requires a caveat: this meta-analysisfocused on three major dimensions that involve interactive processes between students and teachers (i.e., instructional support,classroom organization, and socioemotional support). That is, our conceptualization of classroom climate did not exhaustively andholistically capture the multitude of classroom climate indicators as described across numerous research studies (e.g., physical space,institutional environment). Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to classroom climate studies using conceptualizations of climatethat differ from the ones covered in our meta-analysis.

The interpretation of our findings is also limited by the quality and depth of information provided about sample characteristics, asthis information was used to operationalize and examine the moderators included in our study. For example, we examined youth’sschool grade level rather than age as a moderator of classroom climate effects given that many studies did not report participants’ ageor statistics separately for different age groups. Likewise, our moderator examining the SES of the student body was constrained byhow much information was provided within the examined studies, which largely did not include any fine-grained categorization of

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

16

SES (e.g., family income, parent education). Future research may want to improve upon their methods of measuring and distin-guishing across socioeconomic backgrounds so that we can better determine how SES influences classroom climate effects on youthoutcomes (Wang, Smith, Miller-Cotto, & Huguley, 2020).

Relatedly, due to limited statistical power, we could not examine intersecting effects involving multiple factors on youth out-comes. For example, it is plausible that a three-way interaction may exist, in that the effect of a specific classroom climate dimensionvaries as both a function of age/grade level and socioeconomic status. Such in-depth intersectional effects were too expansive toexplore given the topical breadth of the current study. However, future inquiries should target specific intersecting moderations toadd further precision to what is known about classroom climate’s nuanced associations with youth outcomes. Finally, it was beyondthe scope of the current meta-analysis to empirically consider the potential mediators between classroom climate and youth outcomes(e.g., sense of belonging). Future research should explore these indirect effects in depth to better understand the complex pathwaysthrough which classroom climate may shape child and adolescent development.

Future directions

This meta-analytic review study on classroom climate has identified substantial gaps that should be addressed in future research.These gaps include thinking more critically about how the field conceptualizes and measures classroom climate, investigating in-dividual and contextual characteristics that might moderate the link between classroom climate and youth outcomes, and placing agreater focus on the development and implementation of prevention and intervention strategies that target classroom climate atindividual and setting levels.

First and foremost, the multidimensional measurement and characterization of classroom climate should be strengthened. Inchoosing a measurement method, researchers need to articulate their definitions of classroom climate, describe which features theychose to focus on and why they chose them, and explain how their conceptualization enhances or improves upon the existingliterature. Despite a growing recognition that classroom quality is best constructed and captured by multi-method approaches (De LosReyes, Thomas, Goodman, & Kundey, 2013; Wagner, Rau, & Lindemann, 2010), research onclassroom environment rarely examinesthe robustness of findings across different informants and assessment methods. Using multi-informants (i.e., student and teacher) andmulti-methods (i.e., survey and observation) to document different aspects of classroom climate in relation to youth outcomes mayenable us to examine to what extent student-report, teacher-report, and observational data converge and produce similar patterns ofresults (Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). Looking at multiple perspectives of classroom climate and multiple indicators of youth out-comes will also contribute to a more nuanced picture of which perspectives of classroom climate relate to which indicators of youthoutcomes.

Another consideration for future research is the need to investigate theorized moderators of the associations between classroomclimate and youth outcomes. Some evidence supports the variation of effects by individual, contextual, and study characteristics, butmuch more work is needed to illuminate which children benefit more from a supportive classroom climate and what contexts bufferor promote such effects (Wang, Guo, & Degol, 2019). In other words, we need to better understand why, for whom, and under whatconditions classroom climate promotes positive youth outcomes. For example, studies show that there are salient racial/ethnic andgender differences in perceptions of classroom climate (Benner & Graham, 2007; Gentry, Gable, & Rizza, 2002). Greater attention topotential race and gender variation in this regard is warranted.

Conclusion

This work represents one of the first systematic meta-analytic reviews quantifying the strength of the link between classroomclimate and youth’s educational and psychosocial outcomes. Our findings illustrate the benefits of supportive classroom climateacross multiple indicators of youth’s academic and psychological wellbeing. While extant literature is replete with findings de-monstrating the academic benefits associated with a positive classroom climate, our results suggest that the positive classroomclimate’s benefits extend into both social and psychological domains of youth wellbeing. Given the important foundation that youth’sacademic achievement, mental health, and social competence create for positive lifespan development, our synthesis of the inter-relations between classroom climate and youth functioning fills a critical gap in the field. Our meta-analytic study also tested themoderating effects of student characteristics, classroom features, study design, and measurement methods. The examination of keymoderators highlights who may benefit the most from positive classroom climate effects and which research approaches may offerthe best approximation of classroom climate’s association with youth outcomes.

With declines in academic achievement, scholastic engagement, and overall mental health that occur over the course of ado-lescence (Wang & Hofkens, 2019), it is imperative that researchers and practitioners identify critical predictors of positive psycho-logical and behavioral trends. This meta-analytic review poses positive classroom climate as one effective method for promotingyouth’s academic achievement, socioemotional development, and mental health, especially during adolescence. While it is no smallfeat putting research into practice, the evidence suggests that when classrooms are high in quality, children are more likely to strivefor and achieve success.

Acknowledgment

This project was funded by National Science Foundation (1315943) and Spencer Foundation to Ming-Te Wang.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

17

References

References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teacher–student interactions in secondary school classrooms:Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system—Secondary. School Psychology Review, 42, 76–98.

Amemiya, J. L., Mortenson, E. M., & Wang, M. T. (2020). Minor infractions are not minor: School infractions for minor misconduct may increase adolescents’ defiantbehavior and contribute to racial disparities in school discipline. American Psychologist, 75, 23–36.

Anderson, H. H. (1939). The measurement of domination and of socially integrative behavior in teachers’ contacts with children. Child Development, 10, 73–89.Arnold, D. H., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. H. (1998). Teacher discipline and child misbehavior in day care: Untangling causality with correlational data.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 276–287.Avenevoli, S., Swendsen, J., He, J. P., Burstein, M., & Merikangas, K. R. (2015). Major depression in the national comorbidity survey–adolescent supplement:

Prevalence, correlates, and treatment. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 37–44.*Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior

problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3–15.Barbarin, O. A., Downer, J., Odom, E., & Head, D. (2010). Home –school differences in beliefs, support, and control during public pre-kindergarten and their link to

children’s kindergarten readiness. Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.003.Benner, A. D., & Crosnoe, R. (2011). The racial/ethnic composition of elementary schools and young children’s academic and socioemotional functioning. American

Educational Research Journal, 48, 621–646.Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2007). Navigating the transition to multi-ethnic urban high schools: Changing ethnic congruence and adolescents' school-related affect.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 207–220.Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school

climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.*Brody, G. H., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Unique and protective contributions of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African

American children living in single-parent families. Child Development, 73, 274–286.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.) Oxford: Elsevier (Reprinted in:

Gauvain, M. & Cole, M. (Eds.), Readings on the development of children, 2nd Ed. (1993, pp. 37-43). NY: Freeman). ())Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, sixth edition –

Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Byrd, C. M., & Chavous, T. (2011). Racial identity, school racial climate, and school intrinsic motivation among African American youth: The importance of per-

son–context congruence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 849–860.Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Effects of variation in teacher organization on classroom functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 61–85.Chapman, R., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., & Shochet, L. (2013). School-based programs for increasing connectedness and reducing risk behaviour: A systematic review.

Educational Psychology Review, 25, 95–114.Cappella, E., Frazier, S. L., Atkins, M. S., Schoenwald, S. K., & Glisson, C. (2008). Enhancing schools’ capacity to support children in poverty: An ecological model of

school-based mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35, 395–409.Cheung, M. (2009). Constructing approximate confidence intervals for parameters with structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 267–294.Cheung, M. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta- analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 211–229.Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with

teacher stress and student behavior. Educational Psychology, 28, 693–710.Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101–129.Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51,

281–309.Cohen, J. (2012). School climate and culture improvement: A prosocial strategy that recognizes, educates, and supports the whole child and the whole school

community. In Brown, Corigan, & Higgins-D’Alessandro (Eds.). The Handbook of Prosocial Education. Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group.Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. The self in transition: Infancy to childhood, 8,

61-97.Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe (Vol.

Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 23, (pp. 43–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Cooper, H. (2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach, Vol. 2. Sage publications.*Curby, T. W., Rudasill, K. M., Edwards, T., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2011). The role of classroom quality in ameliorating the academic and social risks associated with

difficult temperament. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 175–188.Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry: An Integral Journal

for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 11, 227–268.De Los Reyes, A., Thomas, S. A., Goodman, K. L., & Kundey, S. M. (2013). Principles underlying the use of multiple informants' reports. Annual Review of Clinical

Psychology, 9, 123–149.Degol, J. L., Wang, M. T., Ye, F., & Zhang, C. (2017). Who makes the cut? Parental involvement and math trajectories predicting college enrollment. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 50, 60–70.*Dever, B. V., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Is authoritative teaching beneficial for all students? A multi-level model of the effects of teaching style on interest and

achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 131–144.*Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40,

1649–1660.Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martínez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2015). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level

analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 722–758.Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher–child interactions in the classroom: toward a theory of within-and crossdomain links to children’s developmental

outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21, 699–723.*Dupere, V., Leventhal, T., Crosnoe, R., & Dion, E. (2010). Understanding the positive role of neighborhood socioeconomic advantage in achievement: The con-

tribution of the home, child care, and school environments. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1227–1244.Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner, & L. D. Steinberg (Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 125–

153). (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44, 78–89.Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-

environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225–241.Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

18

Elias, M. J., & Haynes, N. M. (2008). Social competence, social support, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 23, 474–495.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. EducationalPsychologist, 36, 103–112.

*Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, S., ... Verschueren, K. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, andteacher–student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1192–1207.

Farkas, G. (2017). Human capital or cultural capital?: Ethnicity and poverty groups in an urban school district. New York: Routledge.*Fast, L. A., Lewis, J. L., Bryant, M. J., Bocian, K. A., Cardullo, R. A., Rettig, M., & Hammond, K. A. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived

classroom environment on standardized math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 729–740.Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Buttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student

outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior

high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156.Field, A. P. (2003). The problems in using fixed-effects models of meta- analysis on real-world data. Understanding statistics: Statistical issues in psychology, education, and

the social sciences, 2, 105–124.Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI)

(3rd version). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science,

engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 111, 8410–8415.Fu, R., Gartlehner, G., Grant, M., Shamliyan, T., Sedrakyan, A., Wilt, T. J., ... Trikalinos, T. A. (2011). Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical

interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 1187–1197.*Gaskins, C. S., Herres, J., & Kobak, R. (2012). Classroom order and student learning in late elementary school: A multilevel transactional model of achievement

trajectories. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 227–235.*Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Rizza, M. G. (2002). Students' perceptions of classroom activities: Are there grade-level and gender differences? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 94, 539–544.Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of

classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.Green, J., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. (2012). Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high

school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1111–1122.Grubbs, F. E. (1950). Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 21, 27–58.Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

Canadienne, 49, 233–240.Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., & Jamil, F. (2014). Evidence for general and domain-specific elements of teacher–child interactions: Associations with preschool

children's development. Child Development, 85, 1257–1274.Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child

Development, 76, 949–967.Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,

625–638.Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood

and elementary classrooms. New York: Foundation for Child Development.Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2019). Doing meta-analysis in R: A hands-on guide.Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 246–261.Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abington, England: Routledge.Higgins, J., Thompson, S., Deeks, J., & Altman, D. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2011). Analysing data and undertaking meta- analyses. The Cochrane Library (Version 5.1.0). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and

Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.*Hochweber, J., Hosenfeld, I., & Klieme, E. (2013). Classroom composition, classroom management, and the relationship between student attributes and grades.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 289–300.Hoffmann, J. P., Erickson, L. D., & Spence, K. R. (2013). Modeling the association between academic achievement and delinquency: An application of interactional

theory. Criminology, 51, 629–660.Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). The effects of family, school, and classroom ecologies on changes in children's social competence and emotional and

behavioral problems in first grade. Developmental Psychology, 40, 533–544.*Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., Kwok, O. M., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y. (2011). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher–student relationship on achievement. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 104, 350–365.Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?. Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future

- A National Task Force on Public Education; Joint Initiative of the Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's Future, Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/493.

*Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences acrossgrades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527.

*Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context.Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1175–1188.

Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson, M. L. (2004). The support gap: New teachers’ early experiences in high-income and low-incomeschools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(61), Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ853526.pdf.

*Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2008). Classroom settings as targets of intervention and research. In M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.). Toward positive youthdevelopment: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 58–79). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. ResearchPaper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191–211.Kasen, S., Johnson, J., & Cohen, P. (1990). The impact of school emotional climate on student psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 18, 165–177.Kelly, S. (2009). The black-white gap in mathematics course taking. Sociology of Education, 82, 47–69.Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects if teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T.

Janik, & T. Seidel (Eds.). The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Munster, Germany: Waxmann.Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom

management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86, 643–680.Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17, 494–509.*Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & d'Entremont, M. R. L. (2010). A scientific exploration of positive psychology in adolescence: The role of hope as a buffer against the influences

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

19

of psychosocial negativities. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 16, 69–95.Leff, S. S., Thomas, D. E., Shapiro, E. S., Paskewich, B., Wilson, K., Necowitz-Hoffman, B., & Jawad, A. F. (2011). Developing and validating a new classroom climate

observation assessment tool. Journal of School Violence, 10, 165–184.*López, E. E., Pérez, S. M., Ochoa, G. M., & Ruiz, D. M. (2008). Adolescent aggression: Effects of gender and family and school environments. Journal of Adolescence, 31,

433–450.Lucas-Molina, B., Williamson, A. A., Pulido, R., & Pérez-Albéniz, A. (2015). Effects of teacher–student relationships on peer harassment: A multilevel study. Psychology

in the Schools, 52, 298–315.*Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual

and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47, 106–124.Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.Miller, R. S., & Wang, M. T. (2019). Cultivating adolescents’ academic identity: Ascertaining the mediating effects of motivational beliefs between classroom practices

and mathematics identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 2038–2050.Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher–student relationship program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic

adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 137–152.National Equity Atlas (2018). School poverty: United States. Policy Link and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. https://nationalequityatlas.org/

indicators/School_poverty.National Institutes of Mental Health (2017). Any Anxiety Disorder. Retrieved on April 06, 2019 at https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-anxiety-disorder.

shtml#part_155096.National Institutes of Mental Health (2017). Major Depression. Retrieved on March 22, 2018 at https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml#

part_155721.Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and

Research in Education, 7, 133–144.O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Furlong, M. J. (2014). Influence of classroom and school climate on teacher perceptions of student problem behavior. School

Mental Health, 6, 125–136.Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Reschly, D. J. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic

Reviews, 2011, 4. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2011.4.Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). Brown at 62: School segregation by race, poverty and state. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles,

UCLA.Owen, K. B., Parker, P. D., Van Zanden, B., MacMillan, F., Astell-Burt, T., & Lonsdale, C. (2016). Physical activity and school engagement in youth: a systematic review

and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 51, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1151793.Pas, E. T., Cash, A. H., O'Brennan, L., Debnam, K. J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Profiles of classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior

management strategies and classroom composition. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 137–148.*Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American

Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity.

Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.*Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school

characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238.*Ponitz, C. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Brock, L. L., & Nathanson, L. (2009). Early adjustment, gender differences, and classroom organizational climate in first grade.

The Elementary School Journal, 110, 142–162.Pössel, P., Rudasill, K. M., Sawyer, M. G., Spence, S. H., & Bjerg, A. C. (2013). Associations between teacher emotional support and depressive symptoms in Australian

adolescents: a 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2135–2146.Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational

Research, 87, 345–387.Quiroga, C. V., Janosz, M., Bisset, S., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Early adolescent depression symptoms and school dropout: Mediating processes involving self-reported

academic competence and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 552–560.R Core Team (2017). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-

project.org/.Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712.*Rieser, S., Fauth, B. C., Decristan, J., Klieme, E., & Buttner, G. (2013). The connection between primary school students’ self-regulation in learning and perceived

teaching quality. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 138–156.*Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender

contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 170–185.*Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to

children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45, 958–972.Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., La Paro, K. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in

kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 377–394.Rolland, R. G. (2012). Synthesizing the evidence on classroom goal structures in middle and secondary schools: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Review of

Educational Research, 82, 396–435.Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Dremock, F. (2005). Understanding mathematics and science matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Roorda, D. L., Koomen, M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and

achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529.Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis procedures for social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.*Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 437–460.Scanlon, C. L., Del Toro, J., & Wang, M. T. (2020). The roles of peer social support and social engagement in the relation between adolescents’ social anxiety and

science achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 1005–1016.*Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 42, 159–171.Shadish, W. R., & Sweeney, R. B. (1991). Mediators and moderators in meta-analysis: There’s a reason we don’t let dodo birds tell us which psychotherapies should

have prizes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 883–893.*Shechtman, Z. (2006). The relationship of life skills and classroom climate to self-reported levels of victimization. International Journal for the Advancement of

Counselling, 28, 359–373.*Shim, S. S., Kiefer, S. M., & Wang, C. (2013). Help seeking among peers: The role of goal structure and peer climate. Journal of Educational Research, 106, 290–300.Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

20

development. In K. R. Wentzel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.). Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). Abingdon: Routledge.Sprott, J. (2004). The development of early delinquency: Can classroom and school climates make a difference? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

46, 553–572.Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Moher, D. (2008). Addressing reporting biases. In J. P. T. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of

interventions (pp. 298–333). Chichester, UK: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch10.*Stornes, T., & Bru, E. (2011). Perceived motivational climates and self-reported emotional and behavioral problems among Norwegian secondary school students.

School Psychology International, 32, 425–438.Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.Thomas, D. E., Bierman, K. L., Powers, C. J., & CPPRG (2011). The influence of classroom aggression and classroom climate on aggressive-disruptive behavior. Child

Development, 82, 751-757.Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93–102.Vandenbroucke, L., Spilt, J., Verschueren, K., Piccinin, C., & Baeyens, D. (2018). The classroom as a developmental context for cognitive development: A meta-analysis

on the importance of teacher-student interactions for children’s executive functions. Review of Educational Research, 88, 125–164.Van Den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2003). Multilevel meta-analysis: A comparison with traditional meta-analytical procedures. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 63, 765–790.Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.Walberg, H. J. (1968). Structural and affective aspects of classroom climate. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 247–253.*Wang, M. T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and

interests. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1643–1657.Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school.

Child Development, 83, 877–895.Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multi-

dimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23.Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28,

315–352.Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 137–143.Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement and youth problem behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 85,

722–737.Wang, M. T., & Hofkens, T. L. (2019). Beyond classroom academics: A school-wide and multi-contextual perspective on student engagement in school. Adolescent

Research Review, 1, 1–15.Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of classroom environment, school engagement, and academic achievement. American Educational

Research Journal, 47, 633–662.Wang, M. T., & Kenny, S. (2014). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive

symptoms. Child Development, 85, 908–923.*Wagner, W., Gollner, R., Helmke, A., Trautwein, U., & Ludtke, O. (2013). Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect:

Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learning and Instruction, 28, 1–11.Wagner, S. M., Rau, C., & Lindemann, E. (2010). Multiple informant methodology: A critical review and recommendations. Sociological Methods & Research, 38,

582–618.*Wang, M. T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral

adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49, 690–705.Wang, M. T., Hill, N. E., & Hofkens, T. (2014). Parental involvement and African American and European American adolescents' academic, behavioral, and emotional

development in secondary school. Child Development, 85, 2151–2168.Wang, M. T., Guo, J., & Degol, J. S. (2019). The role of sociocultural factors in student motivation in mathematics and language arts: A cross-cultural review. Adolescent

Research Review, 1, 1–16.Wang, M. T., Smith, L. V., Miller-Cotto, D., & Huguley, J. P. (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization and children of color’s academic success: A meta-analytic

review. Child Development, 91, 528–544.Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., & Henry, D. A. (2020). An integrative development-in-sociocultural-context model for children’s engagement in learning. American

Psychologist, 74, 1086–1102.Wang, M. T., Hofkens, T. L., & Ye, F. (2020). Classroom quality and adolescent learning in mathematics: A multi-method, multi-informant perspective. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 1, 1–16.Wang, M. T., Henry, D. A., Smith, L. V., Huguley, J. P., & Guo, J. (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization practices and children of color’s psychosocial and

behavioral adjustment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75, 1–22.Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287–301.Withall, J. (1949). The development of a technique for the measurement of social-emotional climate in classrooms. The Journal of Experimental Education, 17, 347–361.Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds), Handbook of educational

psychology. 2nd edn. (pp. 87–113). New York: Macmillan Pub-lishing.

M.-T. Wang, et al. Developmental Review 57 (2020) 100912

21