This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 05:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Students' Perceptions of TeacherSupport Across the Transition fromPrimary to Secondary SchoolEdvin Bru a , Tor Stornes a , Elaine Munthe a & Elin Thuen aa University of StavangerPublished online: 17 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Edvin Bru , Tor Stornes , Elaine Munthe & Elin Thuen (2010) Students'Perceptions of Teacher Support Across the Transition from Primary to Secondary School,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54:6, 519-533

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.522842

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Scandinavian Journal of Educational ResearchVol. 54, No. 6, December 2010, 519–533

ISSN 0031-3831 print/ISSN 1470-1170 online© 2010 Scandinavian Journal of Educational ResearchDOI: 10.1080/00313831.2010.522842http://www.informaworld.com

Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Support Across the Transition from Primary to Secondary School

Edvin Bru, Tor Stornes, Elaine Munthe, and Elin ThuenUniversity of Stavanger

Taylor and FrancisCSJE_A_522842.sgm10.1080/00313831.2010.522842Scandinavian Journal of Education Research0031-3831 (print)/1470-1170 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Dr EdvinBruedvin.bru@uis.no

This study examines the degree to which students’ perceptions of teacher support arerelated to school type (primary versus secondary). The sample included 7,205 studentsfrom years 5 to 7 in primary school and years 8 to 10 in secondary school. Previousresearch has concluded that perceptions of school change negatively when studentsmove from primary to secondary school. However, this research has been criticized fornot accounting for age-related changes in students’ perception of school. Results fromthis study show a linear downwards tendency for perceived teacher support, with noobvious abrupt change between primary and secondary school. Our findings do not,therefore, support the idea that the transition from primary to secondary school affectsstudents’ perception of teacher support in a negative way.

Keywords: perceived teacher support, year of school, school transition

International research on student transitions suggests that higher up in the schoolsystem, especially around the transition to secondary school, the characteristics of schoolenvironments become less facilitative of continuing achievement and positive personaldevelopment (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Galton, Morrison, & Pell, 2000). Previous researchhas found indications of poorer functioning for students after transitioning to secondaryschool (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Galton, Gray, & Ruddock, 1999; Galton et al., 2000).Maerhr and Midgley (1996) claim that increasing emphasis on evaluation and performancecould make students feel uncomfortable. This is especially relevant for low achievingstudents. A decrease in student functioning may affect a number of outcome variables suchas academic results, self-perception, mental health, social competence, concentration, andmotivation (e.g., Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; Eccles et al., 1993;Little & Garber, 2004; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Seidman, Aber, Allen, & French, 1996;Seidman, Allen, Aber, & Mitchell, 1994). Studies from the UK suggest that about 40% ofstudents experience a hiatus in progress following school transfer (Galton et al., 2000).These drops in achievement, in positive behavior and in well-being, are of great concern forcare givers, teachers, and society at large.

Teachers’ ability to support students is a crucial element for quality learning environ-ments. Students who feel supported by their teachers are found to have a positive

Edvin Bru, Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger; Tor Stornes, Centre forBehavioural Research, University of Stavanger; Elain Munthe, Faculty of Arts and Education,University of Stavanger; Elin Thuen, Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger.

This research was supported by the Norwegian Research Council.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edvin Bru, Centre for Behavioural

Research, University of Stavanger, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway. E-mail: edvin.bru@uis.no

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

520 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

motivational orientation to school work (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Legault, Green-Demers, &Pelletier, 2006; Wentzel, 1997) and they experience positive social and emotional wellbeing(Murray & Greenberg, 2000). A decrease in students’ functioning after transitioning tosecondary school could be related to reduction in teacher support. Obvious changes thatoccur are changes in school size, increased numbers of teachers and departmentalized teach-ing. Such changes have been found to make it more difficult for teachers to form closeconnections with their students (Eccles et al., 1993). Greater emphasis may be placed onteacher control and discipline at the expense of student psychological autonomy. Lack ofopportunities for decision-making, choice, and self-management may result in a type ofclassroom management that students find neither supportive nor adaptive to the fulfillmentof basic needs (Eccles & Roeser, 1999). Moreover, in Norwegian schools, marks or gradesare introduced at secondary school level, and the increased emphasis on formal evaluationmay make it more difficult for teachers to be perceived as supportive by those students whoreceive poor grades. Furthermore, it has been claimed that much of the curriculum contentin Norwegian secondary schools is based on past traditions that have little or no bearing onthe concerns and priorities of many young people, and that a preoccupation with theoryturns many students off schoolwork (Birkemo, 2000). It is possible that the students whofind school subjects of little relevance will perceive school as a worthless institution, whosenorms should be opposed. As the teacher is seen as representing this system, he or she maywell be the target of such anti-school sentiment. Finally, a previous study (Munthe, 2003)suggests that Norwegian primary and secondary school teachers may have different atti-tudes towards supporting individual students. In this study primary school teachers werefound to prioritize relationship building with and among students more than secondaryschool teachers. Primary school teachers also reported higher values on individualization ofinstruction for each student. In accordance with these differences in teacher priorities,elementary school children in Norway have reported more positive perceptions of theirlearning environment than secondary school students (Byberg & Tybring, 2004; Sørlie &Nordahl, 1998; Thuen & Bru, 2000), and secondary school students reported less satisfac-tion with the emotional and academic support from their teachers (Byberg & Tybring, 2004;Thuen & Bru, 2000).

Weiss and Bearman (2007) critique transition studies for not including samples ofstudents who do not experience transition. Their comparative study demonstrates that it maynot be the transition per se that is difficult, but that difficulties could be due to developmen-tal aspects of adolescence. Adolescence (usually defined as the period between ages 11 and18) is a time of metamorphosis involving hormonal and physical changes, as well as changesin identity, self-reflection and cognition (Rutter, 1993; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Since the1960s and 1970s, we have also become aware of further brain development that takes placethroughout adolescence, particularly in the prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex (Blakemore& Choudhury, 2006). This cognitive development increases students’ abilities to reflect onthe content of learning tasks and to evaluate the personal relevance of school work. Thisimplies that secondary school students may perceive school work to be less meaningful thanprimary school children, because their cognitive development has made them more able tobe critical, rather than because the curriculum is less relevant. Moreover, previous researchindicates that students in the first years of school (ages 5 to 6 years) are not able to distin-guish between ability and effort as causes of achievement (Folmer et al., 2008; Nicholls,1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984).When they are 7–9 years old (second to fourth year of schoolin Norway) they tend to attribute outcome purely to effort. From the age of 10, students are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 521

able to distinguish between school performance and school effort, and, from the age of 12the difference between effort and ability is clearly understood and children recognize abilityas a factor that limits the effect of effort. The recognition of ability as a factor that influencesacademic outcomes may make students more sensitive to teacher feedback, because feed-back could be perceived as an evaluation of their potential for learning rather than as supportfor their learning. Corrective comments could be perceived as lack of teacher support.Finally, adolescence is characterized by an increasing need for self-determination and auton-omy (Allen & Land, 1999; Fuligni, Barber, Eccles, & Clements, 2001; Steinberg, Darling,Fletcher, Brown, & Dornbusch, 1995). This increased need for self-determination could leadto a more negative perception of figures of authority, such as parents and teachers. In thisway, the need for self-determination could have a negative impact on students’ perceptionsof teacher support.

An age-related decrease in students’ perception of support from their teachers could alsobe a result of a gradual reduction in fit between the needs of students and the learning envi-ronment. Klette (2003), in an observational study of Norwegian classrooms, providesevidence that the main pattern of teaching does not change much across school years. Teach-ing primarily consists of ‘whole class’ presentation using question and answer sequences.Studies of classroom practices in Norway also indicate that instruction is characterized lessby learning for understanding than learning to remember. Norwegian classrooms also appearto provide little opportunity for student involvement in the development of lessons andchoice of methods for learning (Klette, 2003). It is likely that such classroom practicesbecome gradually less appealing to students as they grow older and that this results, amongother things, in poorer perceptions of teacher support.

Research on teacher support has primarily focused on instruction or academic support(Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003). The teacher’s ability to teach well is an importantcontributor to students’ on-task-orientation (Bru, Stephens, & Torsheim, 2002) and learning(Shulman, 1987) and to academic engagement and achievement (Chen, 2008; Wentzel,1997, 1998). However, research also indicates that social surroundings characterized byteacher involvement, autonomy support, and structure are vital for student motivation (Skin-ner & Belmont, 1993). Ryan and Deci (2002) emphasize similar aspects of a learning envi-ronment that promotes motivation and learning, namely relatedness, autonomy, and positiveregulation. A learning environment that promotes success is found to be characterized bypositive relationships (Eccles et al., 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Other research has identi-fied associations between teacher regulation and student engagement and academic achieve-ment (Eccles et al., 1997; Reeve & Hyungshim, 2006). Teachers regulate activities in theclassroom in the form of monitoring their students’ behavior, work, and progress, and bycreating rules and a structure in the classroom that provides clarity and predictability forstudents (Kohn, 1996; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Finally, student autonomy has beenfound to be related to increased student engagement in learning in general, more mastery-orientation, and more time spent on task (Reeve & Hyungshim, 2006; Reeve, Jang, Carrell,Jeon, & Barch, 2004).

Aim of the Study

It is the aim of this study to investigate changes in Norwegian students’ perceptions ofteacher support and to assess the degree to which such changes can be attributed to thetransition from primary to secondary school. As indicated above, several aspects of teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

522 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

support can be important for students’ adjustment, motivation, and academic outcomes. Inthis study, to capture different salient facets of teacher support, we will examine students’perceptions of both instructional and social aspects of this support. In line with previousstudies of the dimensionality of perceived teacher support (Bru, Boyesen, Munthe, & Roland,1998; Bru et al., 2002) perceptions of academic, emotional, autonomy, and managerialsupport will be included.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

The sample was recruited from 98 schools in 30 municipalities in Norway. In each ofthe 30 municipalities, 3 schools were randomly selected. Consent was obtained from the localschool authorities and the schools. According to the standards prescribed by the NorwegianData Inspectorate, written informed consent is needed from the parents of students youngerthan 15 years of age. Therefore, the parents were asked to give their consent in writing afterreceiving a written description of the project.

The students were in their 5th–10th year of school and were 10–16 years old. A total of9,270 students were asked to participate and 7,205 students answered the questionnaire,giving a response rate of 78%. Size, response rate, percentages of males and female, andscores for an indicator of socio-economic status for the year-of-school-sub-samples aregiven in Table 1.

Respondents completed the questionnaire with a teacher present. The questionnaire wasdesigned to take a maximum of 45 minutes to complete and therefore contained feweritems for the lower grades. To ensure optimal completion of the questionnaire (includingreturns from students with dyslexia), teachers read out each question aloud. To avoidstudents influencing each other’s responses, the questionnaires were administered, as far aspossible, at the same time for each class. After the students had completed the question-naire, it was immediately placed in an envelope that was sealed while the students watched.This was done to avoid teachers gaining any knowledge about the students’ responses tothe questionnaire.

Table 1 Numbers of Respondents, Response Rates, Percentages of Males and Females and Scores for Socio-Economic Status for the Year-of-School-Sub-Samples

Year of school n

Response rate(%)

Males(%)

Females(%)

Socio-economic status

M SD

5 1365 0.77 49.9 50.1 3.90 0.496 1316 0.78 50.0 50.0 3.94 0.487 1203 0.75 45.6 54.4 3.92 0.528 1195 0.81 48.7 51.3 3.86 0.509 1152 0.76 51.8 48.2 3.80 0.5410 974 0.81 45.7 54.3 3.72 0.57

Note: Scoring range for the indicator of socio-economic status: 1–5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 523

Instruments

The instruments used in this study were part of a larger questionnaire. Items on perceivedteacher support were located on pages two and three in the questionnaire. The measurementof students’ perceptions of teacher support comprised four sub-scales. The sub-scales onacademic, emotional, and managerial support are based on scales presented by Bru et al.(2002), whereas the scale on autonomy support was assessed by three items from a scaleestablished by Thuen and Bru (2000). A factor analysis implementing principal axis factoringextraction, a minimum eigenvalue of 1 and oblique rotation yielded a factor structure in accor-dance with the original scales (see Table 2). As argued in the introduction section, academic,emotional, managerial, and autonomy support are believed to be central dimensions of teach-ers support. Results from the factor analyses are in line with this suggested dimensionalityof perceived teacher support, and substantiate the validity of the assessment of perceivedteacher support. The scales were constructed to assess dimensions of an overarching concept,namely perceived teacher support. The moderate to strong correlations found between thefour factors indicate the scales do this, and, thus, further substantiate the validity of the scaleson perceived teacher support. The subscale on academic support assesses students’ percep-tions of how well teachers explained and taught subjects. This scale consisted of four items.The internal consistency was good. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole sample was 0.86, andranged from 0.82 among 9th year students to 0.85 among 10th year students. The sub-scalefor emotional support included five items on perceived care from teacher. Internal consis-tency was good. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole sample was 0.83 and ranged from 0.80 among5th year students to 0.84 among 10th year students. The subscale for students’ perceptionsof teachers’ managerial support comprised four items on teachers’ regulation of studentbehavior. Test of internal consistency yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .69 among the wholesample, ranging from 0.67 among 6th year students to 0.74 among 7th year students. Theautonomy support scale included three items. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.73 among the wholesample, and ranged from 0.70 among 6th year students to 0.78 among 9th year students. Toallow for the readers’ evaluation of the face validity of scales assessing perceived supportfrom teachers the wording of items included in the scales is presented in Table 2.

Items included are formulated as statements, and the students are asked to indicate thedegree to which the statements are true for her or him using four response alternatives:“disagree strongly,” “disagree a little,” “agree a little,” or “agree very much.” A forcedchoice response format was chosen to stimulate students to seriously consider the state-ments and give an opinion, as well as to avoid students who were reluctant to reveal theiropinion choosing the “easy way out” by checking a “no opinion” or neutral alternative. Aforced choice response scoring format could in this way increase the validity of responses.Results from a recent study supports that forced scoring formats yield higher validity thanLikert rating scale formats (Bartram, 2007). On the other hand, a scoring format without a“no opinion” alternative could increase the percentage of missing responses, since somestudents may not find an acceptable response alternative. The percentages of missing itemswere, however, low (1.3–2.3%), and do not indicate that this has been a threat to validity ofthe measurement of perceived teacher support. Respondents with responses to more thanhalf of the items in each scale were included in the study and missing responses werereplaced by the mean score of items in the respective scale. Finally, to enable comparisonof scores for scales with different numbers of items, scores for sub-scales on teacher supportwere calculated as unweighted mean scores across items.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

524 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

Parental support was assessed using the care dimension of the Parental BondingInstrument (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). Examples of the five items included in thescale are: “My parents understand my problems and worries,” and “My parents do not helpme as much as I need.” Items had response alternatives: “very like,” “moderately like,”“moderately unlike,” and “very unlike.” Negatively stated items were reversed beforestatistical procedures were conducted. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.87. The valid-ity of the Parental Bonding Instrument is supported by the empirical studies of Arrindell,Gerlsma, Vandereycken, Hageman, and Daeseleire (1998) and Manassis, Owens, Adam,West, and Sheldon-Kelle (1999), comparing results from this instrument with informationfrom interviews.

Students’ socio-economic status (SES) can affect perceptions of teachers’ support(Veland, Midthassel, & Idsøe, 2009). An indicator of SES was therefore included as acontrol variable in this study, and was assessed by student self-report. Ensminger et al.(2000) investigated the validity of self-reported SES among students aged 10–19 bycomparing the student’s report with their mother’s report of income, and found relatively

Table 2 Factor Loadings, Eigenvalues and Variance Explained for the Four Factors Derived From FactorAnalyses of Items Assessing Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Support.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Teachers’ emotional supportI feel the teachers care about me 0.92The teachers often praise me 0.81The teachers will help me if I have problems 0.64The teachers are like my good friends 0.56The teachers know what interests I have 0.47

Teachers’ autonomy supportI participate in decisions regarding choice of my learning tasks 0.86I participate in decisions regarding working methods I shall use 0.72I feel I can influence my working situation at school 0.40

Teachers’ managerial supportThe teachers make sure we do our best in class 0.82The teachers make sure we behave well in class 0.69The teachers check to see that we do our homework properly 0.63When students are disruptive, the teachers are able to handle this 0.43

Teachers’ academic supportWhen we do group work, teachers explain well −0.83When we do project work, teachers explain well −0.80When we work on our own, teachers explain well −0.69The teachers are good at instructing the whole class −0.64

Eigenvalues 6.58 1.55 1.21 1.03Variance explained Total: 54.4% (%) 38.8 6.9 4.9 3.8Correlations with factor 1 0.51 0.54 −0.68Correlations with factor 2 0.32 −0.43Correlations with factor 3 −0.64

Note: Factor Analyses implemented Principal Axis Factoring Extraction, a Minimum Eigenvalue of 1, and ObliqueRotation (n = 7,205)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 525

close correlations. The indicator was the same as that used by Veland et al. (2009), andincluded items for mothers’ and fathers’ educational level, perception of family wealth andhousing standards. Wording of item and response alternatives for family wealth were: “Ithink our family, compared to others in Norway is ‘very badly off,’ ‘badly off,’ ‘average,’‘well off,’ and ‘very well off’.” The item for housing standard was: “How is the standardof the house or the flat where you live?” with response alternatives: “very bad,” “quite bad,”“average,” “quite well,” and “very well.” The items for level of education were: “How mucheducation has your father got?” and “How much education has your mother got?” Responsealternatives for the two last items were: “very little education,” and “a little education,”“average education,” “high education,” and “very high education.” Teachers could helpstudents with examples of levels of education. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60.This somewhat low coefficient of reliability was due to relatively weak correlationsbetween the items of parental educational level and items assessing family wealth and hous-ing standard. This finding is in line with previous research in Norway suggesting that thecorrelation between education and income are not very high (Barth, 2005). As the indicatorSES has status as a control variable the internal consistency was considered acceptable.

In addition, gender was entered both as a control variable and as an interaction term, toinvestigate whether changes in perceived teacher support differed between females andmales.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, reliabil-ity testing (Cronbach’s alpha), multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) andmultiple regression analyses. In addition to testing for significance of differences inperceived teacher support between years of school and type of school, the MANCOVAwas used to produce adjusted mean scores for the different types of perceived supportamong students in the different school years. Scores were adjusted for gender, SES andperceived parental support. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988).Finally, it is possible that variations in response rate may affect results. We thereforeconducted follow-up multiple regression analyses with response rates of the year-of-school-sub-samples at each school entered as covariate. All analyses were conducted usingSPSS 15 (Norusis, 2007).

Results

Mean scores for the different aspects of perceived teacher support are given in Table 3.Results show a tendency for students to report more positively about academic and mana-gerial support than about emotional and autonomy support (see Figure 1 and Table 3).Moreover, there was a significant tendency for older students to report less teacher supportthan younger students (see Table 4). This tendency was marked for perceived managerialsupport (F = 466.63, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d for differences in mean scores between theendpoints 5th and 10th = 1.44), perceived academic support (F = 388.37, p < 0.001; Cohen’sd for differences in mean scores between the endpoints 5th and 10th = 1.23), and perceivedemotional support (F = 208.20, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d for differences in mean scores betweenthe endpoints 5th and 10th = 0.93).Figure 1. Adjusted mean scores for the different types of perceived teacher support among students in the different school years. Scores were adjusted for gender, socio-economic status. and perceived parental support (scoring range: 0–3; n = 7205).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

526 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

Table 3 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Perceived Teacher Support Among Students in the DifferentYears of School (n = 7,205)

Year of school

5 6 7 8 9 10

Academic support M 2.57 2.39 2.16 2.05 1.86 1.82Adj. M 2.53 2.36 2.14 2.06 1.90 1.86SD 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.63 0.65 0.69

Emotional support M 2.13 1.94 1.72 1.67 1.55 1.52Adj. M 2.09 1.91 1.70 1.69 1.60 1.58SD 0.62 0.66 0.69 0.66 0.67 0.69

Managerial support M 2.52 2.37 2.17 1.94 1.81 1.76Adj. M 2.50 2.36 2.16 1.95 1.84 1.79SD 0.47 0.50 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.58

Autonomy support M 1.79 1.63 1.62 1.63 1.57 1.56Adj. M 1.76 1.61 1.60 1.64 1.61 1.61SD 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.66N 1365 1316 1203 1195 1152 974

Note: Scoring range: 0 – 3; adjusted means are adjusted for perceived support from parents, socio-economicstatus, and gender.

Figure 1. Adjusted mean scores for the different types of perceived teacher support among studentsin the different school years. Scores were adjusted for gender, socio-economic status, and perceivedparental support (scoring range: 0–3; n = 7,205).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 527

Among 5th year students, about 70% had scores in the high quartile of the scoring rangefor academic support (see Table 5), indicating that the majority of 5th year students weresatisfied or very satisfied with the teachers’ ability to explain subjects. Among 10th yearstudents the corresponding percentage was only 22%. For emotional support, the percentageof students indicating they were clearly satisfied dropped from about 44 to 14%. For mana-gerial support it dropped from 67 to 14%, and, finally, for autonomy support it droppedfrom 29 to 14%.

The inclusion of interaction terms for gender x year of school in the MANCOVA anal-ysis design indicated no significant differences between females and males in changes inperceived teacher support over years of school (Multivariate test: F = 1.62, p = 0.164).

Inspection of adjusted mean scores (see Figure 1) show a linear downwards tendencyfor perceived teacher support, with no obvious abrupt changes in this tendency betweenstudents in the last year of primary school (year 7) and the first year of lower secondaryschool (year 8). The significance of school year and the transition-related differences inperceived teacher support were tested by analyses of linear regression as well asMANCOVA (see Tables 4 and 6). In the regression analyses, year of school and a dichoto-mous variable indicating type of school (primary versus secondary) were entered as inde-pendent variables, whereas gender, the indicator SES, and perceived parental support wereincluded as covariates. Regression analyses yielded, compared to results for type of school,

Table 4 Results from Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA).

Year of school Type of school

df F p Partial eta squared df F p Partial eta squared

Multivariate 4/7196 499.63 0.000 0.217 4/7196 13.22 0.000 0.007Academic support 1/7199 388.37 0.000 0.127 1/7199 2.83 0.093 0.000Emotional support 1/7199 208.20 0.000 0.065 1/7199 12.36 0.000 0.002Managerial support 1/7199 466.44 0.000 0.181 1/7199 13.66 0.000 0.002Autonomy support 1/7199 9.46 0.000 0.003 1/7199 10.92 0.001 0.002

Note: Perceived Parental Support, Socio-Economic Status and Gender were entered as Covariates (n = 7,205)

Table 5 Percentages of Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Quartile of the Scoring Range for Scales onPerceived Teacher Support (n = 7,205)

Academic support(%)

Emotional support(%)

Managerial support(%)

Autonomy support(%)

Low High Low High Low High Low High

Year of school5 1.0 70.7 3.0 43.8 0.4 66.9 9.0 29.26 2.1 57.4 4.5 31.8 0.7 54.1 12.5 21.27 4.3 41.6 8.6 22.3 2.1 40.0 12.6 20.98 4.9 32.6 8.2 17.4 3.5 24.2 9.9 17.99 7.0 21.9 10.4 12.5 5.9 16.6 11.7 16.610 8.5 22.0 13.2 13.5 6.0 14.4 12.1 13.5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

528 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

relatively strong negative coefficients of associations between year of school and perceivedacademic, emotional, and managerial support. For autonomy support, the association wasstatistically significant, but weaker. Results for autonomy support reflected the fact thatscores for this variable were relatively low among the youngest students included in ourstudy and were only moderately lower among the older students.

Regression analyses showed that type of school (primary versus secondary) accountedonly for small amounts of unique variance in perceived teacher support. For emotional andautonomy support, analyses yielded low but statistically significant positive betas, reflectingthat the negative development for these kinds of support leveled off at secondary school.Only results for managerial support indicated an additional, small, negative effect of thetransition from primary to secondary school. Results from the MANCOVA were in accor-dance with results from the multiple regressions (see Table 4). In addition the MANCOVAwas used to test for gender x type of school interactions in differences in scores forperceived teacher support. Results showed no multivariate gender x type of school interac-tion (F = 1.01, p = 0.412).

Finally, it is possible that variations in response rate may affect results. Students withnegative attitudes towards school may, for example, be more likely not to participate in ques-tionnaires about school, and this could result in higher mean scores for perceived teachersupport in sub-samples with low response rates. We therefore conducted follow-up multipleregression analyses with response rates of the year-of-school-sub-samples at each schoolentered as covariate. These analyses gave results nearly identical to those presented in Table 6.

Discussion

The intention of this study was to investigate how students’ perceptions of teachersupport changes across the transition from primary to secondary school. Previous studieshave suggested that student perceptions of the school environment change negatively duringthe transition from primary to secondary school. These studies have, however, had method-ological limitations, such as not including samples that were unexposed to transitions orlacking control for age-related changes in students’ school perceptions. By includingstudents from 5th to 10th grades we could investigate if changes in students’ perceptions of

Table 6 Results from Multiple Regression Analyses of the Association of School Year and Type of School(Primary Versus Secondary) with Perceived Teacher Support.

Academic support Emotional support Managerial support Autonomy support

β r β r β r β r

Gender −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02Socio-economic status 0.04 0.13* 0.06* 0.14* 0.03 0.11* 0.09* 0.13*Parental support 0.19* 0.27* 0.22* 0.28* 0.14* 0.24* 0.14* 0.17*Year of school −0.38* −0.39* −0.32* −0.30* −0.35* −0.45* −0.12* −0.09*Type of school 0.04 −0.34* 0.08* −0.25* −0.08* −0.42* 0.08* −0.07*Multiple R 0.44* 0.38* 0.48* 0.21*

Note: * p < 0.01.Perceived Parental Support, Socio-Economic Status, and Gender were entered as Control Variables (n = 7,205)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 529

teacher support are related to the transition from primary to secondary school or whetherthese changes could be accounted for by a more continuous change in such support acrossthe school years. In accordance with previous research, our results showed that students insecondary schools perceive their teachers as less supportive than students in primaryschools. However, analyses revealed no obvious abrupt negative change between primaryand secondary school, but, rather, a linear downwards tendency for perceived teachersupport (see Figure 1). When we controlled for the linear age related tendency, the type ofschool (primary versus secondary) added little to the variance explained in perceivedteacher support (see Table 6). In fact, results suggested that the negative tendency forperceived emotional and autonomy support levels off when students move from primary tosecondary school. Only for managerial support was there a slight negative change that couldbe attributed to the transition from primary to secondary school.

These results from the Norwegian context provide little support for the idea that transi-tions from primary to secondary school induce a decline in perceived teacher support amongstudents. It is possible that the discrepancy between our results and those of previous studiesmay be because of differences between the Norwegian context and the contexts of schoolsin countries where most studies have been conducted (primarily the USA). Students in theUSA may experience more marked environmental change following transitions thanNorwegian students. One reason for more moderate changes in Norway could be the nationalcurriculum, which emphasizes a continuous education system from grade 1 to grade 13, valu-ing “the whole person.” Another reason could be that teachers in primary and secondaryschools often have the same educational background, i.e., a teacher education program thatprepares all-round teachers rather than specialized teachers. Students transitioning to lowersecondary schools in Norway will normally have teachers who teach more than one subject,and they will therefore have more hours per week with the same small group of teachers.

Findings from our study suggest that students’ perceptions of teacher support do,however, decline gradually with increasing student age. This age-related change in students’perception of teacher support could be caused by developmental changes. One possibility isthat when young people strive for independence, this can create more negativity towardsfigures of authority, such as parents and teachers. To control for this possibility, we includeda measure of parental support as a control variable. The negative age-related tendency forperceived teacher support was still evident when we controlled for students’ perceptions ofparental support, and thus the negative shift in perceived teacher support does not seem toreflect a general increment in negativity towards figures of authority.

Another developmental change that could account for the decline in perceived supportfrom teachers is that students from about the age of 11 are able to distinguish between abil-ity and effort as causes of academic performance (Folmer et al., 2008; Nicholls, 1978;Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Before this age, students are more inclined to believe that poorperformance is largely caused by too little effort. This type of attribution of failure may helpstudents preserve a good academic self-concept even when they have poor academic perfor-mance. After the age of 11, students increasingly attribute poor performance to low ability.Such attribution of academic failure is likely to be a threat to students’ self-concept or self-worth, and it is possible that students with increasing age have a growing tendency to defendthemselves against such threats by blaming the teachers for academic failure. The growinguse of such a defense mechanism could explain the pattern of results in this study.

An increase in experience of school failure among students may, however, also be relatedto changes in the learning environment. As students grow older, schoolwork is increasingly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

530 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

evaluated in ways that enable social comparison between students. In Norwegian schools,although grades are not given in report cards or on tests until year eight, students are oftenprovided with percentages of correct answers on tests, allowing for comparisons. It is possiblethat the increase in formal evaluations given by teachers may lead to deterioration in therelationship between teachers and students who get poorer test scores than they expected orhoped for.

In the first years of school, Norwegian students are taught by a very limited number ofteachers. Gradually, the number of teachers increases. This may make it more difficult forteachers and students to build strong and positive relationships. Moreover, in the first yearsof school, students primarily learn basic skills like reading and writing, which they arelikely to perceive as useful. As children get older, school topics may not be so closelyconnected to the daily life of students or their expectations of school, and may be perceivedas less relevant or meaningful. The relationship between teachers and students is builtaround work on school topics, and it is likely that it is easier to build good relations withstudents who perceive school work to be interesting and meaningful than with students whosee little purpose in school work.

Teachers teaching young students are found to have a more caring approach, puttingstronger emphasis on building personal relationships with students (Munthe, 2003). Teach-ers teaching older students are, on the other hand, more likely to have a formal approach toteaching, with a primary focus on communicating subject content. This could result in agrowing mismatch between students’ needs and the support teachers provide (Eccles et al.,1993; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998), and a decline in students’ perceptions of teachersupport. Findings from this study are in accordance with these notions, but also suggest thatteachers teaching older students do not supervise students’ school work and behavior asthoroughly as teachers of younger students.

Conclusion

To sum up, the results from this study indicate that the transition from primary tosecondary school is not accompanied with an abrupt decline in perceived teacher support.However, a gradual decline in perceived teacher support from 5th to 10th year of school wasidentified, and the decline in perceived teacher support from 5th to 10th grade was quitemarked. The percentage of students reporting high academic support, for example, wasreduced from about 70 to just above 20% and the percentage reporting low emotionalsupport increased from 3 to 13%. It is thus important to identify explanations for the gradualdecline in perceived teacher support. More research is needed in this respect, as well as toevaluate measures to improve perceptions of teacher support among students in the lateryears of schooling.

References

Allen, J.P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.),Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319–336). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Arrindell, W.A., Gerlsma, C., Vandereycken, W., Hageman, W.J.J.M., & Daeseleire, T. (1998).Convergent validity of the dimensions underlying the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) andthe EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 341–350.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 531

Barber, B.K., & Olsen, J.A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomyin the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research,12(2), 287–315.

Barth, E. (2005). Den samfunnsmessige avkastning av utdanning. [The communal profit of educa-tion; in Norweigan] Utdanning 2005. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.ssb.no/emner/04/sa_utdanning/arkiv/sa74/kap-8.pdf

Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(3), 263–272.

Birkemo, A. (2000). Tre års kjedsomhet. [Three years of boredom; in Norwegian]. In G. Grepperud(Ed.), Kan ungdomsskolen forbedres? [Could the secondary school be improved?; in Norwegian](pp. 91–109). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

Blakemore, S.-J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications forexecutive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(3),296–312.

Bru, E., Boyesen, M., Munthe, E., & Roland, E. (1998). Perceived social support at school andemotional and musculoskeletal complaints among Norwegian 8th grade students. Scandina-vian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 339–356.

Bru, E., Stephens, P., & Torsheim, T. (2002). Students’ perceptions of class management andreports of their own misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 40(4), 287–307.

Byberg, T.K.A., & Tybring, S.M. (2004). Læringsmiljø og konsentrasjon blant elever på barnetrin-net (5.,6. og 7. trinn) og ungdomstrinnet. (Learning environment and concentration amongstudents in primary and secondary school; in Norwegian]. Stavanger, Norway: University ofStavanger.

Chen, J.J.-L. (2008). Grade-level differences: Relations of parental, teacher, and peer supportto academic engagement and achievement among Hong Kong students. School PsychologyInternational, 29(2), 183–198.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum.

Eccles, J.S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection,regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of AdolescentResearch, 12(2), 263–286.

Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993).Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101.

Eccles, J.S., & Roeser, R.W. (1999). School community influences on human development. InM.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology (pp. 503–554). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ensminger, M.E., Forrest, C.B., Riley, A.W., Kang, M., Green, B.F., Starfield, B., et al. (2000). Thevalidity of measures of socio-economic status of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research,15(3), 392–419.

Folmer, A.S., Cole, D.A., Sigal, A.B., Benbow, L.D., Satterwhite, L.F., Swygert, K.E., et al.(2008). Age-related changes in children’s understanding of effort and ability: Implicationsfor attribution theory and motivation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(2),114–134.

Fuligni, A.J., Barber, B.L., Eccles, J.S., & Clements, P. (2001). Early adolescent peer orientationand adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 28–36.

Galton, M., Gray, J., & Ruddock, J. (1999). The impact of school transitions and transfers onpupil progress and attainment. A DfEE Report. Norwich, UK: Her Majesty’s StationaryOffice.

Galton, M., Morrison, I., & Pell, T. (2000). Transfer and transition in English schools. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 33(4), 341–363.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

532 BRU, STORNES, MUNTHE, AND THUEN

Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of chil-dren’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.

Klette, K. (2003). Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. [Learning formats in the class-room after Reform 97; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt.

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivationin the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of socialsupport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582.

Little, S.A., & Garber, J. (2004). Interpersonal and achievement orientations and specific stressorspredict depressive and aggressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1), 63–84.

Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Oxford and Boulder, CO:Wiestview, Harper.

Manassis, K., Owens, M., Adam, K.S., West, M., & Sheldon-Keller, A.E. (1999). Assessing attach-ment: Convergent validity of the adult attachment interview and the parental bonding instrument.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33(4), 559–567.

Munthe, E. (2003). Teachers’ professional certainty (Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo).Murray, C., & Greenberg, M.T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with school:

An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology,38(5), 423–445.

Nicholls, J.G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academicattainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development,49(3), 800–814.

Nicholls, J.G., & Miller, A.T. (1984). Reasoning about the ability of self and others: A developmentalstudy. Child Development, 55(6), 1990–1999.

Norusis, M. (2007). SPSS 15.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L.B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of

Medical Psychology, 52(1), 1–10.Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. In

W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Vol. 7: Educa-tional psychology (pp. 199–234). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Reeve, J., & Hyungshim, J. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy duringa learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement byincreasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.

Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (1998). Academic and emotional functioning in earlyadolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school.Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 321–352.

Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14(8),626–631.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsicmotivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismicdialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determinationresearch (pp. 3–36). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

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(2), 437–460.

Seidman, E., Aber, J.L., Allen, L., & French, S.E. (1996). The impact of the transition to high schoolon the self-esteem and perceived social context of poor urban youth. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 24(4), 489–515.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER SUPPORT 533

Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J.L., & Mitchell, C. (1994). The impact of school transitions in earlyadolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. ChildDevelopment, 65(2), 507–522.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard EducationalReview, 57(1), 1–22.

Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacherbehavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,85(4), 571–581.

Steinberg, L., Darling, N.E., Fletcher, A.C., Brown, B.B., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1995). Authoritativeparenting and adolescent adjustment: An ecological journey. In P. Moen, K. Lüscher, & G. H.Elder (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development(pp. 423–466). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,83–110.

Sørlie, M.-A., & Nordahl, T. (1998). Problematferd i skolen: hovedfunn, forklaringer og pedago-giske implikasjoner: hovedrapport fra forskningsprosjektet “Skole og samspillsvansker”.[Problem behaviour in school: Main findings, explanations and educational implications: Mainreport from the project “Behavioural problems in schools”; in Norwegian]. Oslo: NOVA.

Thuen, E., & Bru, E. (2000). Learning environment, meaningfulness of schoolwork and on-task-orientation among Norwegian 9th grade students. School Psychology International, 21(4),393–413.

Veland, J., Midthassel, U.V., & Idsøe, T. (2009). Perceived socio-economic status and social inclusionin school: Interactions of disadvantages. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(6),515–531.

Weiss, C.C., & Bearman, P.S. (2007). Fresh starts: Reinvestigating the effects of the transition tohigh school on student outcomes. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 395–422.

Wentzel, K.R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogicalcaring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.

Wentzel, K.R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

01 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014