TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

1

Developmental Relationships and School Success: How Teachers, Parents, andFriends Affect Educational Outcomes and What Actions Students Say Matter Most

Jenna Sethi & Peter C. Scales*

Sethi is Research Scientist, and Scales is Senior Fellow, at Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN*Corresponding Author: scalespc@search-institute.org, 940 Chestnut Ridge Road, Manchester,MO 63021

Conflict of Interest: None

ACCEPTED 2020 FOR PUBLICATION IN CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGYTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

2

Abstract
The current paper explores how students’ relationships with their teachers, parents, andfriends might differentially impact their academic experience and success, by presenting andintegrating the results of two related studies. In the first study, survey methods and structural
equation modeling are used to describe the similar and different effects that developmental
relationships with teachers, parents, and friends seem to have on middle- and high-school
students’ academic motivation, GPA, and perceptions of school climate. Relationships withteachers directly predicted all three outcomes at the middle school level, and motivation andschool climate at the high school level. Relationships indirectly predicted high school GPA,
through motivation. Student-teacher relationships, and parent-teacher relationships, also
indirectly predicted middle school GPA, through motivation. Relationships with parents directlypredicted only motivation in middle school. Relationships with friends directly predicted school
climate at both levels. The results from Study 1 showed the central importance of teacherstudent relationships on student motivation and led the research team to qualitatively look instudy #2 at how teachers build relationships that motivate students and how students
experience those relationships. Study 2 used student focus groups and a grounded theory,
open coding approach to analysis to identify commonly occurring themes describing whatpractices teachers used successfully, in students’ eyes, to build strong relationships withstudents and boost their academic motivation. These practices focused on how teachers
expressed care, provided support, challenged students to grow, shared power with them, andexpanded their sense of possibilities. The mixed methods produce an overall study that uniquely
captures both a global and more granular, practice-oriented view of the ways in which differing

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS
developmental relationships in young people’s lives affect their connection to and success inschool.

Keywords: student-teacher relationships, parent relationships, peer relationships, academic
motivation, school climate, mixed methods

3

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

4Developmental Relationships and School Success: How Teachers, Parents, and Friends AffectEducational Outcomes and What Actions Students Say Matter Most

There is a rich history of research demonstrating the supportive role relationships play inpositive youth development (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012). In general,
as the number of strong relationships in young people’s lives increases, youth well-being(Benson et al., 2011) and resilience increase (Benson et al., 2006), and reports of high-risk
behaviors decrease (Leffert et al., 1998). In academic settings, when the quality of a young
person’s relationship with their teacher increases over the academic year, these changes arealso directly associated with increases in their academic motivation and perceptions of
belongingness, and indirectly associated with GPA (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Pekel et al., 2018;
Scales et al., 2019).
In their extensive review of how interpersonal relationships affect students’ motivation,
engagement, and achievement, Martin and Dowson (2009) noted that a number of influential
motivational theories, including attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, goal theory, selfefficacy theory, self-worth theory, and especially, self-determination theory, conceptualize
motivation in relational terms. Using self-determination theory, for example, Martin and Dowson
described how high-quality relationships with teachers can help students meet basic humanneeds for autonomy, belonging, and competence. Together, these can promote students’ effort,
participation, cooperation, and self-regulation skills and strengthen academic performance.
Interventions to increase student motivation have often focused on changing theindividual student’s internal attitudes, values, and self-perceptions (e.g., efficacy beliefs,
mindsets). For example, in their extensive review on achievement motivation, Wigfield, Eccles,
Fredricks, Simpkins, Roeser, & Schiefele (2015) described several group, classroom, andschool-based motivation interventions, with the focuses including malleable intelligence,developing self-efficacy and deeper appreciation for the relevance of the subject matter, andTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

5

promoting a school culture that emphasizes a mastery orientation over a performanceorientation. They reported on studies showing, for example, that African American studentstaught a malleable view of intelligence had greater school engagement as a result, and thatreading motivation and comprehension increased among students through developing theirsense of self-efficacy and understanding of the importance of reading. In two other reviews of
the motivation literature, both Lazowski and Hulleman (2016) and Marsh, Pekrun, Parker,
Murayama, Guo, Dicke, & Arens (2019) summarized the literature’s emphasis on autonomy andcompetence beliefs as levers of student motivation, within a context of students’ interactions
with parents, peers, and teachers. It is that framework of motivation, most closely aligned with
self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), that informs the current study.
Given the importance of positive relationships in young people’s lives to support a rangeof positive outcomes, and given the amount of time they spend in school, it is imperative that we
better understand how students’ relationships with their teachers, parents, and friends might
differentially impact their academic experience and success. The literature, however, contains
only a small number of studies that examine all three of those relationships’ effects on academic
motivation. In addition, as we expand on below, most studies examine elementary, middle, orhigh school students, but rarely more than one level. Given the developmental differences ofstudents in those differing levels, examining two levels together can provide a more thoroughand nuanced understanding of potentially differing effects and mechanisms of how thoserelationships may differentially affect school outcomes by grade levels. For example, Nelson
and DeBacker (2010) included both middle and high school levels and were able to thereby findthat the degree of belongingness and positive classroom climate was significantly greater in
middle school, helping to explain grade level differences in academic motivation. The measuresof relationships used in previous research, moreover, tend to be conceptually limited, largely to
aspects of teacher caring or support. Finally, beyond quantitative measures of how often
students experience high-quality relationships with teachers, there is limited work on how

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

6

students actually experience those relationships, and their own insights about why thoserelationships may influence motivation and effort. The current research uses mixed quantitativeand qualitative methods to describe two related studies that together address many of thosegaps in the literature. It includes middle and high school students, uses a multi-dimensional
quantitative measure of relationships, examines the effect of all three of student-teacher, parentchild, and friend relationships on motivation, school climate, and GPA, and explores moredeeply the contextual aspects of those relationships through insights from focus groups withstudents who also participated in the quantitative study.
Despite the gaps noted, studies examining the influence of student-teacher relationships
on academic success are plentiful. Many have focused on the association between studentteacher relationships and students’ academic motivation, observing that stronger relationships
are often associated with higher academic motivation (Maulana, Opdenakker, & Bosker, 2013).
Strong student-teacher relationships have also been linked to reduced aggression, andimproved attitudes towards school (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015).
Research has found that positive relationships with teachers and peers also contribute tostudent perceptions of school climate that reflect a student’s feeling of “fit” within a school. As
Cohen et al. (2009) noted, school climate is both an individual’s perception of the safety,
fairness, and welcomingness of the total school environment and a group perception about
those aspects of pervasive school culture that can be “reality” for sizable numbers and perhaps
the majority of students, faculty, and other school staff. Thus, relationships within the school
context can have an influence on both broad adjustment to school, such as school climate
perceptions, and intra-individual strengths, such as how engaged and effortful students are.
Thus, we examine the effects of differing relationship types on both students’ perceptions of
their fit with the broader school environment (school climate) and their reports of being
academically motivated.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

7

Quantitative studies have shown that academic motivation declines across development,
as students move through elementary to middle and high school (Wang & Eccles, 2012), even
within a school year (Kosovich et al., 2017, Author, 2019). This is problematic, because there isa large body of literature that links academic motivation to student success, be it grades,
attendance, or sense of school belongingness, (e.g., Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Gottfried et al.,2007).
Negative student-teacher relationships can lead to antisocial behavior, peer rejection,negative attitudes towards school, adjustment difficulties, lower school attendance, poorer
academic engagement, and lower achievement (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). Yet, when
students and teachers have strong relationships, these relationships can ameliorate the oftobserved decline in motivation and have a positive impact on academic achievement (Maulana,
Opdenakker, & Bosker, 2013; Wentzel, 2009; 2012). Students who experience teachers andclassrooms that are emotionally supportive often have more opportunities to develop autonomy,
which is critical in building self-determination, and those students report academic year
increases in their behavioral engagement and mastery motivation (Ruzek, Hafen, Allen,
Gregory, Mikami & Pianta, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
For years, qualitative studies in education also have explored caring student-teacher
relationships as a critical need for student development (Jeffrey, Auger, Pepperell, 2013;
Noddings, 1984). Cothran and Ennis (2000) noted that students who felt a sense of care fromtheir teachers were more likely to work harder in school, and conversely, students who did not
feel a sense of care from their teachers tended to pay less attention (Cothran, Kulinna, &Garragy, 2003). Although caring is often cited as a key reason teachers go in to the profession
and is foundational to building positive relationships, surprisingly little consideration has been
given to understanding the factors that contribute to and sustain positive student-teacher
relationships (Adler, 2002; Yu, Johnson, Deutsch, & Varga, 2018). Thus, although many of thecited studies are correlational and do not establish causation, the quantitative and qualitative

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

8literatures together do highlight a strong potential link among the quality of students’relationships with their teachers, their sense of feeling positive about their school in general,
their more focused level of academic motivation, and their performance.
But students’ relationships with their teachers are not the only relationship that matterswhen it comes to academic success. Parents and peers also play crucial roles. For example,
Shukla, Tombari, Toland, and Danner (2015) observed that when ninth graders feel that theirparents are supportive of their learning, they tend to have higher mastery and performanceapproach goals, than their peers who do not perceive parental support. Wentzel (2002) also
found that effective teachers are very much like good parents in how the specificparenting/teaching dimensions of modeling motivation, exercising control, demands for student
maturity, democratic communication, and nurturing behavior consistently predict positive or
negative motivation, achievement, and social behavior. Moreover, these relationships are alsosystemically intertwined. For example, positive, adaptive relationships with parents have beenfound to predict positive relationships with teachers, albeit the link attenuates somewhat asstudents move through middle and high school (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Studies also have linked
positive peer relationships to academic motivation, achievement, and broad well-being (e.g.,
Wentzel, Muenks, McNeish, & Russell, 2017). Ladd, Herald-Brown, and Kochel (2009) noted
that, despite a great deal of research on peers and academic achievement, considerably lessresearch has been done on peer influence on academic motivation, and that peers may
arguably be a stronger influence on school engagement even than teachers or parents.
The great majority of studies examining relationships’ effects on academic outcomes arefocused on one or two of student-teacher, parent-child, and peer relationships. A smaller
number of these studies examine the differential effects of all three relationships in students’
lives. Furrer and Skinner (2003) examined 3rd to 6th grade students’ relationships with theirparents, friends, and teachers, finding that each of these relationships uniquely predicted their
engagement in school. For example, relatedness to parents and teachers more strongly

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

9predicted behavioral engagement than did relatedness with peers; however, relatedness withpeers and teachers more strongly predicted emotional engagement than did relatedness withparents. Ricard and Pelletier (2016) corroborated these findings with a high school population,observing that relationships with parents, friends, and teachers uniquely predict academic
motivation. In a different study, also with a high school population, student-teacher relationships
were the only type of relationship that predicted academic motivation, conceptualized as
identified regulation (Guay, Denault, & Renauld, 2017). Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green(2009) studied a large high school sample, finding that student-teacher relationships were thestrongest predictors of academic outcomes, followed by parent-child relationships, whereas
peer relationships predicted nonacademic outcomes such as honesty and emotional instability
self-concepts. Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994) also found in an earlier study of middle school
students that relationships with teachers and parents had stronger associations with schoolfunctioning, while relationships with friends were more connected to self-esteem outcomes thanschool outcomes. However, Nelson and DeBacker (2010) studied a smaller sample of both
middle and high school students and did report that students reported higher achievement
motivation if they felt valued and respected by their classmates. Wentzel (1998) also found thatthe three relational sources of support had differing effects on motivation and goal orientations,with peer support predicting prosocial goal pursuit, teacher support predicting motivation andsocial responsibility goals, and parent support predicting motivation and academic goals.
Studies investigating the differential impacts of various relational targets on students’
academic success might diverge somewhat for two reasons. First, the age of the populations
being studied varied across those studies, which could produce variation in results. Previous
research has shown that the nature of a young person’s relationships changes as they growolder, such as the influence of non-parental adults like teachers becoming more salient (e.g.,
Brown & Bakken, 2011; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Second, the way relationships are measured inmany studies varies widely, including student surveys, teacher observations, and independent

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

10observer ratings. Finally, most studies examine what seems to occur in student-teacher
relationships, but not how it happens, i.e., what are the specific teacher practices that define adevelopmentally meaningful relationship in contrast to one that is less developmentally
influential?
Conceptualizing Developmental Relationships
Building on the work of Li and Julian (2012), Search Institute created the developmental
relationships framework (Pekel et al., 2018), which names five interconnected elements thatdefine a developmental relationship (see Table 1). In this framework, expressing care in a
student-teacher relationship requires actions that show the students that they matter.
Challenging growth involves the teachers’ actions that push their students to keep improving.
When a teacher helps their students complete tasks and achieve goals, they are providing
support. When a teacher treats their students with respect and gives them a say in theclassroom, they are sharing power. And finally, to expand possibilities, teachers connect theirstudents with people, places, and ideas that broaden their worlds. Although rhetoricallydistinguishable for the sake of clearly identifying key features of developmentally-influential
relationships, these features are understood as conceptually connected and overlapping tovarying degrees with each other. Thus, for example, we have found in qualitative work that it is
the overall relationship that youth experience, with these features of the relationship namableand describable, but not perceived as separate from each other (Scales et al., 2019).
Two recent studies have used this developmental relationship framework to track
student-teacher relationships across one academic year. One study measured the quality of
middle school students’ relationships with their teachers at the beginning and end of one
academic year, and the other followed both middle- and high-school students across the year.
In the latter study, students’ academic motivation had a downward trajectory (Scales et al.,2019), which is consistent with previous studies (Gillet et al., 2012; Wang & Eccles, 2012).
However, when students reported an increase in the quality of their relationships with their

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

11

teachers, they also reported higher academic motivation, perceptions of school climate,
instructional quality, and had higher GPAs at year end. It was rare for student-teacher
relationship quality to improve across the academic year, and so most students could notbenefit from this meaningful potential influence on motivation.
In the second study, student-teacher relationships were strongly related to academic
motivation at both the beginning and end of the year, and directly predicted students’ perceptionof school climate and belonging (Scales et al., 2020). Relationships indirectly predicted
students’ GPA. Student-teacher relationships declined more for students with financial strain
that it did for students not facing financial strain. Interestingly, the negative association between
financial strain and student-teacher relationships only emerged as the year progressed. In
contrast, the same association of financial strain with academic motivation was present at the
beginning of the academic year, but disappeared as the year went on, highlighting theimportance of developmental relationships for these students.
The current study expands on this research. The previous studies that investigated therole of developmental relationships in a young person’s academic experience have focused
exclusively on student-teacher relationships. In contrast, the present study addresses thislimitation by investigating how three influential relational targets in young people’s lives(teachers, parents, and friends) impact students’ educational experience. In addition, both Study
1 and 2 follow Wentzel’s (2009) call, and employ a more comprehensive measure of studentteacher relationships than has been common in the literature. Indeed, Wentzel, Battle, Russell,and Looney (2010) subsequently reported that more comprehensive measures of teacher
support than simply emotional support explained more variance in a variety of classroom
outcomes.
These issues illustrate the complex natures of the various relationships in a young
person’s life, and highlight the need for more sophisticated quantitative and deeper qualitative
study of these relationships. The current study was conceptualized in order to address these

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

12concerns. The mixed methods approach was most appropriate because we had both specifichypotheses to test, suitable through quantitative methods, and broader research questions to
explore for which previous research had provided limited answers, suggesting that a qualitative
approach would have value to better understand the phenomena in question (Patton, 2002).
The design is distinguished from multiple methods, which can include solely quantitative or
qualitative approaches, because it meets the criteria described by the Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, specifically, that mixed methods research is characterized by collecting andanalyzing data, integrating the findings, and drawing inferences using both qualitative andquantitative approaches or methods.
Based on the literature reviewed here, it was hypothesized in Study 1, the quantitative
study, that stronger ratings of overall student-teacher developmental relationships would belinked to both broad perceptions of feeling cared about and respected in the school context(school climate), and greater student confidence in the value of working hard and willingness towork hard on schoolwork (motivation), both of which would be associated with better grades(GPA). It also was hypothesized that developmental relationships with parents and peers would
positively predict motivation and grades, but that only teacher and peer relationships, and not
relationships with parents, would predict school climate. In Study 2, those data were explored
more deeply through insights obtained from student focus groups, helping to increase
understanding of what students want from their relationships with their teachers, and how theseexperiences motivate them. Study 2 provided more rich material than did Study 1 to answer
these research questions:1.

How do students experience developmental relationships with teachers?

2.

What do students say works to build both positive relationships and motivate themacademically?

3.

How do students talk about the connection between relationships and academic
motivation?

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

13

MethodThe overall study was conceived as a mixed methods longitudinal explanatory design,albeit not strictly a sequential design. Study 1 (quantitative) and Study 2 (qualitative) both began
in Fall 2017. Then, when the results of Study 1 were analyzed, the data led to formulation of
new protocol prompts to be used in the subsequent waves of focus groups in Study 2. Similarly,
some of the themes yielded through analysis of wave 1 focus group data from the qualitative
Study 2 prompted the insertion of new questions into subsequent waves of the survey used inStudy 1.
Participants and Procedures
Students from one middle school (N=623), and one high school (N=672) from a large
suburban community in the Midwest participated in this study. All students completed the initialwave 1 survey in October 2017. Students took the surveys on school-provided Chromebooks
during the same class period over a several day span. The same process was used for wave 2
survey administration in May 2018. The schools purposefully selected core classes that all
students took (English/Science) to administer the survey. The study received IRB approval from
Advarra, an AAHRPP accredited, for profit IRB firm.
All students in the two participating schools were included in the sample (minus those
who did not provide assent, or their parents did not consent). Participants provided informed
consent to participate, with less than 1% of students or their parents declining participation.
Demographic breakdown of the survey sample can be found in Table 2.
The qualitative study employed a parallel longitudinal design. Focus group data werecollected from the same groups of students three times and were conducted at approximately at
the same times the survey was administered over the 2017-2018 school years. One of the focus
groups transitioned from middle school (8th grade) to high school (9th grade) and continued their
participation. A foundational set of questions about student teacher relationships was asked at

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

14

each time point. The longitudinal nature of the study also allowed for the iterative building of
themes and the creation of additional questions based on those themes during each wave ofdata collection. For example, the wave 2 and 3 protocol questions expanded upon themes fromwhat participants shared in wave 1. The results of this study explicate the overall themes
regarding teacher practice to build relationships and motivate students that surfaced across thethree waves of data. However, a key longitudinal finding was that students did not change what
they said was needed to build relationships and motivate them to do their best across the threewaves of data collection (For more on longitudinal themes see Scales et al., 2019).
Three focus groups of students were recruited to participate in this study: one 6th/7th
grade group (6 students), one 8th grade group (5 students) and one 9th-11th grade group (6students) from the same schools that participated in the Study 1 surveys. In the interest ofprotecting confidentiality in such a small sample, these focus group participants were not asked
for specific demographic information. However, a trusted school staff member recruited students
for their representativeness of the overall school population, and also to reflect a range ofacademic performance. The intent was to ensure that not only students who were the mostacademically successful and “plugged in” to school participated, nor only students on the vergeof dropping out. This trusted school staff member personally invited students to participate andemailed their parents/guardians about the opportunity. Parents/guardians gave their permission
for students to participate, and students themselves also gave assent prior to participating.
Focus groups lasted approximately one hour.
Measures
Descriptive statistics, including all items and measures, are found in Table 3. All
appropriate CFAs were conducted for each of the scales listed below, with adequate findings,
as shown in Appendix Table A. Two RMSEAs noted below were above the .10 level that is
generally used to describe the cutoff for acceptable model fit. Those were assessed as outliers,
for two reasons. Most important, the other indexes were within or quite close to conventional

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

15

cutoffs. Second, most methodologists caution that fit cutoff values are fairly arbitrary guidelines,
not rigid boundaries to be strictly relied on (Kenny, 2015), and that “a model may fit the data
even though one or more fit measures may suggest bad fit” (Schermelleh-Engle, Moosbruger, &Muller, 2003, p. 53).
Developmental relationships. Two different measures were used to assess students’relationships, a longer form of 32 items for relationships with teachers (the primary focus of thelarger study), and a 5-item form for relationships with parents and friends. Each item is scoredon a 5-point scale from Never to Very Often, or for some items, from Not at All Like My
Teachers to Very Much Like My Teachers. The items were newly created by the authors, andtested across several studies of families, schools, and peer relationships prior to use in thecurrent study (all described in Pekel et al., 2018). The sample size was inadequate to run a CFA
on the full measure. Thus, we created a latent developmental relationships factor made up of
the five elements, using the average scores from each of the five elements to create aunidimensional factor, developmental relationships. All four CFA goodness of fit indexes were
acceptable.
The literature suggests that the aspects of relationships we measured are bothconnected (correlated with each other) and yet conceptually reflect distinguishable aspects orfeatures of interactions (reviewed above and see also reviews in Martin & Dawson, 2009;
Roorda et al., 2011; Wentzel, 2012). In another study of these same data, the five features ofdevelopmental relationships were found to be correlated from the .50s to .80s with each otheracross two waves of data (Scales et al., 2019). This suggests that although conceptually
distinguishable, they share levels of variance ranging from meaningful to substantial. Qualitative
work with focus groups of students and interviews with teachers also strongly suggested thatstudents do not always experience the five features as separate entities, but in various
combinations, with, for example, a teacher setting high expectations also being considered todemonstrate their caring for the student in so challenging them (Scales et al., 2019). Therefore,

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

16

there is substantial support for the validity of the unidimensional approach taken in the analysis,
in both the literature and the intercorrelation results, for conceptualizing these features as
distinguishable yet moderately to strongly related aspects of relationships, which makes it lesslikely that each feature would contribute unique variance to predicting dependent variables. In
addition, because the theoretical framework of student-teacher developmental relationships
involving these relationship features is extensively supported in the literature (reviewed above
and see also reviews in Martin & Dawson, 2009; Roorda et al., 2011; Wentzel, 2012), specifichypotheses were posed to test in the quantitative study. Therefore, conducting an EFA was
unnecessary, per the guidelines elaborated by Costello and Osbourne (2005).
Students’ relationships with parents and friends were assessed using a shortened
version of the student-teacher scale. Again, the overall relationship was assessed on a 5-point
scale. However, in this version, only one item was used to assess each aspect of relationships.
The friends measure showed acceptable CFA across all four goodness-of-fit indexes, and theparent measure across three (RMSEA was above .10; Appendix Table A).
School climate. The school climate (4 items, 5-point scale) measure was informed by
the extensive literature in this area (e.g., Thapa et al., 2013) but consists of items newly createdby the authors for previous research. The construct is related to a student’s sense of “fit” withina school. All four CFA goodness-of-fit indexes were acceptable (Appendix Table A).
Academic motivation. The measure of academic motivation consisted of 16 items(each with a 5-point scale). Each item reflected one of five dominant theories of motivation in
the literature: mastery/performance-approach orientation (how much is the student motivated by
the intrinsic desire to learn the material, versus the desire to earn a good grade or outperform
peers; Elliot & Church, 1997), growth mindsets (how much does the student have a belief inmalleable intelligence; Dweck, 2015), academic self-efficacy (how confident is the student thatthey can do the required academic work at a competent level; Midgley et al., 2000), goal
orientation (how much do academic and social goals motivate the student; Wentzel & Wigfield,

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

172009), and internal locus of control (how much does the student believe they can influence
events in their lives; Shepherd et al., 2006).
As noted earlier, the literature consistently shows that motivation most often isconceptualized as reflecting a combination of the autonomy and competence needs describedin self-determination theory, and either explicitly or implicitly also incorporating the need forbelonging or relatedness (see Martin & Dowson, 2009). Because the independent variable isstudent-teacher developmental relationships, the dependent variable of motivation would havebeen confounded had we included relationship items in the motivation construct thatdevelopmental relationships were hypothesized to predict. Thus, in accordance with the
motivation literature, the motivation construct for this study was limited to items reflecting only
the autonomy (e.g., internal locus of control, mastery v. performance orientation, growthmindset) and competence needs (e.g., academic self-efficacy, goal orientation) of selfdetermination theory.
The full motivation CFA of 16 items did not produce acceptable results. Thus, anabbreviated measure of motivation was created from each individual’s mean of the items foreach of the five motivation theories represented. This abbreviated form had been employed inprevious research when the sample size was inadequate or the degrees of freedom insufficient
to use the full motivation construct (Scales et al., 2019). CFA results for the abbreviated form
were largely adequate (CFI, TLI, and SRMR were adequate, but RMSEA was slightly above .10;
Appendix Table A).
Socioeconomic status. Eligibility for free and reduced price meals (FRL) was used as
the indicator of students’ socioeconomic status, because that is the only SES variable on which
the partner school district collects data. 58% of the students in the study were FRL eligible.
There have been critiques of using free and reduced price lunch as a proxy for socioeconomic
standing (see Harwell & LeBeau, 2010), and so analyses also were conducted controlling forstudents’ perceived financial strain, and with differences in the results noted, where relevant,

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

18

depending on which measure of SES was employed. This was a single 4-point item that asks
participants to reflect on their perception of their families’ financial strain, from (1) “We haveenough money to buy almost anything we want” to (4) “We can’t buy the things we needsometimes.” In previous research, very similar results were found whether using this as ameasure of SES, or using a student’s eligibility for free and reduced price meals. On average,
participants’ mean financial strain was 2.40 (SD = 0.79).
School records data. GPA was provided by the school district at the end of the firsttrimester. Participants’ mean GPA was 2.91 (SD = 0.92) on a 4.0 scale.
Analytic Plan
A multi-group (middle and high school) structural equation model was conducted using
MPlus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015). HLM was not used to account for clustering because
the interest was in examining the school-wide, whole-sample effect of student-teacher
developmental relationships on school success outcomes, not to examine how those
associations may vary from classroom to classroom or teacher to teacher. No questions wereasked about specific teachers, but rather questions were asked about all their teachers ingeneral, nor did the students need to be surveyed in the same classes from wave to wave; forthese reasons, HLM was unnecessary (Anderson, 2012). The three relationship types (teacher,parent, friend) were used to predict GPA, academic motivation, and school climate, while
controlling for students’ socioeconomic status. Full information maximum likelihood estimation
was used to estimate the data. A value of p <.01 was used to mark statistical significance toreduce the chances of obtaining false positives. To test the significance of the indirect effects in
the SEM, a bootstrapping procedure was employed, as recommended by Preacher and Hayes(2004), running 5,000 iterations. If the resulting CIs do not contain zero, the test is significant
and mediation exists. Normality testing (Appendix Tables C1-B5) showed that the distributionsof the study variables did not meet normality assumptions. However, Finch, West, & MacKinnon(1997) have shown through Monte Carlo simulations that parameter estimates are generally

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

19

unaffected by violations of normality or even small sample size, with small sample size being
more worrying. The sample size of nearly 1300 students was many factors larger than the level
which introduces concern for extra bias in parameter estimates. More recently, Finch (2005) has
also shown that even when assumptions of normality are violated, parametric tests still
outperform nonparametric tests in terms of Type I error and power, and others as well (see Hau
and Marsh, 2010, and Blanca et al., 2013) have shown that normality is “not the rule with realdata.” Finally, Norman’s (2010) review of the normality literature back to the 1930s also
concluded that parametric data are “robust with respect to violations” of normality.
Prior to specifying the structural model, the factor structures of the latent constructs wasdetermined (see Appendix Table A). Since it was believed that relationships impact theoutcomes differently for middle and high schoolers, tests for measurement invariance also wereconducted. Multi-group models were run where all parameters were freely estimated, and a final
model was tested with loadings constrained to be equal across groups. These analyses are notreported here (available from authors), but the constrained and free models were significantly
different (Δχ2 = 2301.666 - 2257.689 = 43.977; Δdf = 676 - 657 = 19; p=.01), suggesting that the
response patterns for middle and high school were sufficiently different, such that the focus
should be on the unconstrained model.
Analysis of the qualitative data used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Clarke &Braun, 2013) informed by a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2008). Grounded theory wasappropriate to guide analysis in a longitudinal qualitative design because it invites researchers
to stay open to new ideas as they develop, “go back” to participants to ask additional questions,and supports iterative learning over time (Lingard & Levinson, 2008; Charmaz, 2008). Thematic
analysis is a “theoretically flexible” analytic method, meaning, it can be paired with or informedby other qualitative methodology or theories such as grounded theory in this case. It guides theresearcher through a process of familiarization, coding, and theme development (Clarke &Braun, 2013). This process was facilitated by NVivo software (version 11). The analysis

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

20

employed line-by-line coding of focus group and interview transcripts, identifying statements that
illuminated our research questions. This process is often referred to as open coding, because
the aim is to stay open to participants’ interpretation of their experience, thereby allowing thedata to take the researchers in any theoretical direction. Patterns in the open codes wereidentified, gathering similar ideas together in themes. The three wave 1 student focus grouptranscripts were coded independently by three researchers, who then came together to discuss
similarities and differences in their coding, and developed a consensus theme structure. That
structure guided coding of the wave 2 and 3 transcripts, with new ideas being added as they
emerged. The researchers then came together to discuss, come to consensus, and finalize thethemes presented here. This analytic process was augmented by member checks or “member
reflections” (Tracy, 2010, p. 844) and “iterative questioning” (Shenton, 2004, p. 67) where
researchers shared emerging themes from previous focus groups, thereby giving participants
space to voice reflections and elaborations in order to enhance credibility and trustworthiness.
Researchers analyzing the data also kept ongoing reflective memos to monitor emerging
patterns in the data (Charmaz, 2008; Shenton, 2004.)

Results
The quantitative results are presented first, followed by the insights from the qualitative
study.
The proposed, unconstrained model displayed adequate fit: X2 (548) = 2257.689, p <.001, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .061 (.059 to .064), SRMR = .057. For both middle- and high-school
students, the final models are presented in Figures 1 and 2. The manifest variables and theirfactor loadings on their respective latent variable were not included in the figures in order toreduce the overall complexity of the path diagrams. Across both groups, all manifest variableloadings were significant.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

21

Invariance testing (Appendix Table B) showed that the measures of developmental
relationships with parents and with peers, and the school climate measure, all had configural,
metric, and scalar invariance across middle and high school students. The abbreviated form of
the student-teacher developmental relationships measure, as well as the academic motivation
variable had configural and metric invariance, but not scalar invariance (the longer 32-item formof this measure did have all three kinds of invariance, but was not used because the SEM could
not run using the full measure). Because the focus of this research was on the patterns ofconnection among relationships and school outcomes in middle and high school, and not oncomparing means between middle and high school, the lack of scalar invariance was notconcerning (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).
Middle School Students
Table 4 and Figure 1, for the middle school, show that each of the types ofdevelopmental relationships predicts one or more of the outcomes. Developmental relationships
with both teachers and parents, but especially teachers, predict motivation. Developmental
relationships with teachers and peers predict school climate. Finally, developmental
relationships with teachers positively predict middle school students’ GPA. Developmental
relationships with parents, in contrast, have a negative relationship with GPA for middle school
students. The indirect path results from bootstrapping show that developmental relationships
with both teachers and parents positively predict GPA (teachers more strongly) through theirstrong association with students’ academic motivation (albeit relationships with parents only at p
≤ .05, not at the more stringent level of p ≤ .01). Developmental relationships with peers do nothave this significant indirect effect on GPA.
High School Students
For high school students (Table 4, and Figure 2), the associations between the three
relational targets and the outcomes, although significant, are less strong than those for the
middle school students, with some similarities and some differences in the overall patterns. At

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

22

the high school level, only developmental relationships with teachers predict motivation (notrelationships with parents, which were significant for middle school students). Like the middle
school students, however, both developmental relationships with teachers and with peers
predicted high school students’ perceptions of school climate. None of the types of relationships
directly predicted high school students’ GPA. The bootstrapped indirect path results for highschool students, however, showed that developmental relationships with teachers did have aneffect on GPA, through relationships’ strong association with students’ academic motivation, thesame path found for middle school students. Unlike the middle school students, developmental
relationships with parents did not have an indirect effect on GPA through motivation. As for
middle school students, high school students’ relationships with peers did not have a direct orindirect effect on GPA.
The Effect of SES
Table 4 shows that students’ FRL eligibility is not related to motivation at either middle orhigh school, but is negatively related to GPA at both the high school and middle school levels.
Lower-income students have worse GPAs (students’ perceived financial strain also is negatively
related to GPA at the high school level, but not at the middle school level; available from
authors).
FRL eligibility is not related to developmental relationships with teachers or parents, or tostudents’ perceptions of school climate (students’ perceived financial strain does predict lower
developmental relationships with parents, but only at the middle school level). Lower-income
students report less developmental relationships with peers at both middle and high schoollevels, regardless of whether FRL or financial strain is the indictor of SES.
Student Experience of Developmental Relationships in a Classroom Setting
The qualitative findings illuminate what students want from their relationships with theirteachers, demonstrating what developmental relationships that are motivating look like in thecontext of middle and high school classrooms. The overarching connection between motivation

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

23

and relationships was encapsulated well by one student’s comment: “I work harder with a nicer
teacher.” More extensively, another student commented that:
There’s a teacher I had and we built a relationship over time. He would always start the
day with, ‘What did you do over the weekend?’ so that built our relationship up. He also
motivated me to do my best because he always pulled me aside and let me know,‘You’re missing this and I want you to turn it in so you have a nice grade, I know you’re
not this kind of student,’ cause’ he knows what kind of student I am. It really motivatedme to become a very good student.
Students experienced all five elements of a developmental relationship with certain
teachers. They noted that these relationships kept them more motivated to do their best in theclassroom. In the following section, students’ experience of their developmental relationships
with teachers is described, and presented thematically in order of the five developmental
relationships elements in the framework. The section concludes with students’ perceptions of
the connections between motivation and building relationships.
Due to the confidentiality agreement with students, quotes are not attributed to aparticular grade or school. However, the themes generated from the focus groups were tested
with the wider student body in the survey described in Study 1 in the current paper, and the
responses from middle school and high school students were separated, as depicted in Table 6.
For a brief overview of the focus group themes, see Table 5.
Express Care
When students experienced care from their teachers, they felt connected, appreciated,
and understood. Students noted several ways teachers expressed care, including:
Having a positive attitude, being willing to take (and make) a joke, and not taking
things too seriously unless it was necessary. Students talked about how much more
comfortable the classroom environment felt when the teacher wasn’t “too serious” and could
keep things light and positive. One student said, “...the more serious you are, the more boring

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

24

your class probably will be. Like, put in a few jokes and stories and connections in there...itdefinitely makes people pay attention more.” Another noted how the “easygoing” atmosphere
the teacher had created made them “not feel nervous” about presenting in front of theirclassmates. Some noted that although they enjoyed being able to joke with their teachers, it
was not as crucial as the teacher keeping a “positive attitude.”Interestingly, students also noted that they were more inclined to respect teachers who
had a positive light-hearted attitude, because when they became serious, students knew it was
important and their change in demeanor had more impact. One participant said,“...the teachers who joke a lot, they’re not all jokes. If they see or hear something that’sout of line, they will call you out on it, which is what I like about them...I think we take it more
seriously when it’s a teacher that we’re more connected to, like one that’s more positive andstuff like that.” On the other hand, when a teacher was consistently strict and serious, students
felt uncomfortable and unmotivated. One student noted that “…when a teacher gets angry that’s
always strict, you’re like, “…they’re angry again, when aren’t they?” Another participant notedthat because one of their teachers “takes everything seriously and can’t joke around” that they
“really can’t get close to them.”
Getting to know students. Students experienced care from teachers who got to know
them and learned about their interests. They noted that teachers who demonstrated care
noticed when they were having a bad day, “checked up on them” and cared about their “homelife.” Teachers who expressed care listened, asked follow up questions and consistently used
“words of encouragement” reminding students how much they believed in them. As one student
noted, “When I look sad, they’ll come right away and ask what happened, like really
understanding.”
Teachers telling their own stories. Students were motivated by teachers who sharedbrief and engaging personal stories. “[My teacher’s] stories are fun, fun to listen to. They just tella quick story but only if we work hard, because we like their stories so much.” Others noted they

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

25

appreciated hearing about what teachers “did in their life.” Yet, there was a “fine line” as somenoted that when teachers “talked about themselves too much” without giving students a chance
to share their own interests, it did not motivate them or engage them in the class.
Wiping the slate clean each day. Students experienced care and continued motivation
when their teachers did not “hold a grudge” or let things that might not have gone well one day
negatively impact the next day. One participant said, “...s/he never holds grudges. Every day is
a new day and it’s really great.” Participants also noted numerous examples of when teachers
did not “let things go” and how it negatively affected their experiences in the classroom. They
acknowledged that starting fresh each day might not necessarily be easy, because sometimes
students had rough days. Yet students still emphasized how important it was for teachers to
employ this practice to keep them motivated in class.
Challenge Growth
When students felt challenged by their teachers, they worked harder and stayedengaged in class. Students experienced this growth in several ways, including:
Demonstrating clear and high expectations. Students greatly appreciated teachers
who were consistent and clear about the expectations of their class and also let individual
students know that they had “high expectations” for them. Teachers who challenged growth also
nudged students by reminding them of their goals and what it would take to achieve them. One
student participant noted, “There’s a teacher that said to me, ‘Would you want your doctor tohave a C in language arts or math?’ and I’m like, ‘No, not when I think about it like that! [laughs].
So, I found that really motivational.”
Pushing students to do their best and created opportunities to learn frommistakes. Teachers who challenged growth created opportunities for students to try again andlearn from mistakes. One student noted that they appreciated when a teacher pushed them bytelling them they “expected more” from them and asked them to retake a test. Another said,“They motivate me to do my best and keep telling me to try my best on things, that it’s okay toTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

26

make mistakes.” Students also said it helped them feel more comfortable in the classroom whenteachers were willing to admit their own mistakes. One student gave an example. Wheneveryone failed a particular test problem in their class, the teacher recognized it was written
poorly and threw it out. The student noted “...it’s a relief when teachers recognize and admit
their mistakes.”
Provide Support
Students who experienced support from their teachers felt more confident in theirlearning. They talked about not wanting to “let down” a teacher who was working hard to help
them. Some also felt their grades were better as a result of a teacher’s intentional support.
Students talked about several ways they experienced support from their teachers including:
Responding to student learning needs. Teachers provided support by meeting
student learning needs in creative ways such as engaging conversations, encouraging group
work and scaffolded learning. One student talked about how a conversational classroom
environment motivated them and said, “I learned so much history in that class. I rememberedalmost all of it, and it’s because [the teacher] just gave you freedom to talk about whatever you
want and to actually ask questions and learn.” They also noted that the “less structured”
conversational atmosphere helped everyone “have fun” and “actually learn things” and when
they went to stricter teachers’ classrooms they felt “suffocated.” Another student talked about
how their teacher motivated them through engaging work and said, “I’m motivated to do my best
through creative projects and well-made activities.” Another mentioned, “I didn’t know where tofind something besides the textbook and the teacher helped me, not by giving me an answer,
but helping me find the information.”
Not giving up on students. Students experienced the greatest support when they felt
their teacher demonstrated that they would work with them to ensure success and “not give up.”Teachers employed myriad approaches to helping students succeed, especially if they had
fallen behind or were receiving a failing grade. They would find time for students to come in over

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

27

lunch or after school, have flexibility with deadlines when a student had difficult issues going on
outside of school. One student gave an example where they had gone out of town at the
beginning of the school year with their family and worried about getting behind. They noted that
their teacher sat down with them and “gave some options” to catch up including whichassignments the student could complete and one they could be exempt from.
Another participant mentioned that a teacher recognized they were having difficult issues
at home and said to them, “I realize that you have a bad grade. I just want you to know I’m here
to help you. You can come in after school and retake the test when you’re ready.”
That student expressed great relief that the teacher saw what they were “going throughas a person” and not just as a student. This relationship and willingness on the teacher’s part towork with the student to succeed kept them motivated to finish the course.
Share Power
Students were not able to give as many examples of teachers sharing power with themas they were with the other elements of developmental relationships. However, there weresome salient examples that emerged and when teachers did share power, students felt
respected and heard.
Giving opportunities to be part of decision-making and taking on leadership roles.
Students appreciated being given choices and making decisions, even if in small ways, such as
choosing which partner they could work with, what book they would read from that day, or
deciding to stay inside or go outside to play a game. They also felt motivated when teachers
asked them to take on leadership roles. As one student said, “…my junior year, there was apoetry/diversity club and [the teacher] made me one of the leaders. That was pretty cool.”
Another student said their teacher asked them to be a student ambassador and that made themfeel “trusted to help out the school.”
Acting on student suggestions. Teachers who shared power listened to students andacted on their suggestions. One participant noted, “I was describing this thing that I wanted toTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

28

do, and [my teacher] was like, super supportive of it, and they said, ‘I think that’s such a good
idea!’” Other teachers that students appreciated gave surveys about the classroom environment
and made changes to seating arrangements and assignments based on student feedback.
Showing respect by “putting students on the same level”. Students felt motivated byteachers who related to them “more like an adult” and “don’t talk down to you.” They
appreciated it when teachers treated them like “…someone you can have a conversation with.”
One student said, “I feel like we tend to like the ones that don’t lower us to be less than them[agreement noises].” One participant mentioned that for them, “Trust comes from when[teachers] put you on the same level, instead of ‘I’m the teacher and you’re the student.’”
When teachers didn’t engage students or ask for their ideas, students often felt
unmotivated and disengaged. As one participant said, “They always teach class the same way,by just giving you a lecture, like they don’t actually ask for your input or do any really fun
activities. It’s really boring.” Students felt like teachers also put them “on the same level” when
they showed respect by keeping certain conversations confidential. As one student explained,“most teachers talk to each other” and “share secrets” but one of their teachers “…[kept]
everything in the low and actually between us…and it makes me feel more respected.”
Expand Possibilities
When teachers expanded possibilities for students, they were able to take their goals to
the next level and sometimes learn new things they did not expect. Students experienced
expanded possibilities when their teachers in several ways:
Connecting students with opportunities in school beyond the classroom. Students
appreciated it when their teachers broadened their horizons by connecting them with
opportunities based on their interests in the school. Students talked about teachers who usedtheir relationships in the school to connect them with sports teams, clubs and other leadership
opportunities. When they saw leadership skills developing in a student, they recommended they

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

29

try student council. One student said that their teacher “...told me to go to the leadershipprogram and it was fun.”Connecting students with opportunities outside the school. Teachers expanded
possibilities for older students by connecting them with colleges and careers. One participantsaid, “They helped me grow into what I wanted to do.” They motivated students by making themthink about their future. “They talk about college and what you want to do when you grow up.”
Another student explained that their teacher pleasantly surprised them by following up when
they expressed an interest in nursing. The student noted “I told her that I wanted to become anurse, right, and she did all this research and stuff, and she came back and said, ‘Hey, I found
all this stuff for you.’ You can’t just look at that and be like, “Oh, I can let this person down,” youwant to work harder because this person’s thinking about you and wants you to succeed in life.”
Inspiring students to think about their futures. Students also noted that the teachers
who were good at building relationships and motivating them inspired them to think about their
futures. As one student noted, “When teachers say that college is gonna come harder andfaster than you expect, that gives everyone a reality check, like “’Wow, I’ve really gotta start
thinking about it.’”Differences Between Middle and High School Students
Due to the confidentiality agreement with students, quotes were not attributed to aparticular age group. However, there was an interest in seeing if focus group themes resonatedwith the broader student body in both middle school and high school and if there were marked
differences between these age groups in their responses. Thus, in a subsequent survey
students were asked about the themes generated from the first two waves of student focus
group data about what students say they need from their teachers to build positive relationships
and motivate them. A total of 1,746 students answered the items shown in Table 6. Themes
were separated into three groups in the Fall 2018 survey; students were randomly assigned to
one of the groups using the survey platform’s built-in question randomizer. So, roughly 600

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

30

students saw and responded to each different set of questions. Students were able to check a
box for every statement that resonated with them within the set of questions they were given(percentages are the total who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement).
The responses of middle school and high school students were often similar, but twoitems showed bigger differences: Larger percentages of high school students appreciatedteachers who treated them more like adults, and who connected them to opportunities beyond
the classroom.
Some of the things students appreciate may be teacher actions or qualities that can help
start developmental relationships, such as not giving up on students and giving students
choices. Other actions may be appreciated only once students feel they already have a good
relationship with that teacher. For example, only slight majorities said they appreciate teachers
who expect a lot from them (51% middle school, 60% high school). But in the focus groups,
students said they really appreciated these actions from teachers with whom they already felt
connected.
Connecting Relationships and Motivation.
“…once you get that connection with them, you start paying attention to the class more,
you ask more questions, and you start doing the assignments harder and better and faster.”Students strongly agreed there was a connection between the ability of a teacher tocreate a positive relationship with them and how motivated they were in that teacher’s class.
Participants noted that they worked harder for “nice, respectful” teachers. One
participant noted “You don’t wanna let them down, they’re giving you all these resources, so
why let them down?” Participants also noted that when teachers were “mean” it made them “notwant to try.” However, a few noted that sometimes “mean teachers” made them want to “prove
the teacher wrong” which fueled their motivation to do well in the class; yet, when pressed, allparticipants said they preferred a “kind” teacher who could build relationships with students.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

31

When students had built positive relationships with teachers, they were generally more
comfortable in the classroom which often led them to being more engaged. As one student
noted, “[When you have a relationship] it’s definitely easier to ask [the teacher] questions,instead of sitting there, not knowing what to do. I think that’s one of the biggest things: it’s easier
to talk to them.” Students also said it made big difference in their interest in a particular subject ifthey had a positive relationship with the teacher. One student said, “I loved biology cause’ I justloved the teacher that taught the class, and then, I had physics and I felt like the teacher didn’t
really care about my success or my education, so I didn’t really do well in that class. So, yeah, I
don’t really like science like that anymore.”
The “Art” of Balancing the Elements
Through the qualitative analysis it also became clear that different elements of thedevelopmental relationships framework were often put into practice in various combinations.
Sometimes teachers who built positive relationships and motivated students employed abalance of developmental relationship elements such as expressing care while challenging
growth and providing support. This approach helped students succeed in spite of challenges
they may have been facing in and out of school. One student shared:
It really helps when a teacher just straight-out tells me they understand what is going on
in your life, like my teacher knows I have a job and I have all these extracurriculars. You
get to the point where you start sharing your life goals with them, and if your grade is not
the way you want it to be, I find it motivational when they’re like, ‘So, you wanna go into
the medical field, but your grade is over here. It’s not as best as you could be doing.’
This student was able to take in healthy criticism from their teacher because they had alreadyestablished care in the relationship. On the other hand, participants also gave examples
showing that when care wasn’t expressed, an element such as challenging growth could be
ineffective on its own. For example, when students in this study talked about things that didn’t
work to build motivation and build relationships, they’ would give an example such as, “[theTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

32

teacher] always ‘called me out’ in front of the class.” That teacher may have been trying tochallenge growth, but if that student did not experience the teacher “calling out” the student
because they cared about their success and well-being, then it was read negatively and became
demotivating. So, although the five elements of a developmental relationship can be distinctly
defined to show how each is integral to growth, development, and positive long-term outcomesfor youth, they are quite often combined in various ways in practice to greater effect.

Discussion
Study 1 examined how developmental relationships with teachers, parents, and friends
might differentially contribute to students’ academic motivation, perceptions of school climate,and GPA. Developmental relationships with teachers were found to directly and strongly predict
motivation and school climate at both middle and high school levels, and, more weakly, GPA atthe middle school level. Developmental relationships with teachers indirectly predicted GPA
through a strong association with motivation at both middle and high school levels. For middle
school students, developmental relationships with parents had a positive direct contribution to
motivation, but, oddly, a negative (but relatively weak) direct association with GPA. However,
the indirect effect of those relationships with parents on GPA was (weakly) positive, through thestrong effect of relationships on motivation. Developmental relationships with friends did notpredict motivation or GPA, but did predict perceptions of school climate (at a relatively weaker
level than developmental relationships with teachers did), for both middle and high school
students.
The finding of strong indirect paths on GPA through motivation is consistent withprevious studies of student-teacher developmental relationships. In addition, developmental
relationships with parents were important for middle school students’ motivation, and indirectly,
GPA. But relationships with parents were not significant predictors of the outcomes for highschool students. This finding aligns with the developmental literature that has documented how

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

33

the salience of parental influence changes in some respects while that of non-parental adults
often increases, as young people move through adolescence (Bowers et al., 2014; Sabol &Pianta, 2012; Varga & Zaff, 2017).
Study 2 illuminated specific teacher practices that build the kinds of relationships that
motivate students to do their best in the classroom. It also provided a deeper examination of theways in which teachers’ behaviors and practices can either nurture those impactful relationships
to flourish, or inhibit them from growing. Examples of all five of the elements of developmental
relationships were evident in the comments students made in focus groups, although stories
about teachers sharing power with students were less common. This is consistent with earlier
survey methodology work that has shown that students report share power and expand
possibilities as the least-experienced of the five elements (Pekel et al., 2018; Scales et al.,2019).
The overall sense communicated by the strategies teachers use is that these
relationally-skilled teachers are telling students, “I will not give up on you, and I will give you therespect of being real with you.” There are powerful meta-messages students perceived fromteachers in those fundamental teacher practices:

You can trust me to be here through your good and bad days, and for the long haul;I will share some of my self with you as a person so we get to know each other, evenmaybe make each other laugh once in a while;I will be and fair honest with you;

I will be flexible with you when I can be while still expecting a lot from you;

I will give you the support you need to succeed.
At a time when students are navigating increasing developmental demands,

opportunities, and challenges as a result, those kinds of meta-messages may help to bolster
students’ mindsets and self-perceptions of self-efficacy, their ability to grow through self-

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

34

regulated effort (Yeager et al., 2014), and the sense that they have resources in their corners
who care about them and will help them when they need it. It is no wonder then, that students
who said they experienced such teacher practices also reported feeling more confident
academically and wanting to work harder for those teachers.
These quantitative and qualitative results together suggest several broad conclusions.
First, several types of developmental relationships, those with teachers, parents, and peers,
have important contributions to different educational engagement, connectedness, andperformance outcomes, but based on the standardized betas, relationships with teachers are
consistently the strongest influence among the three types of relationships. Friends contribute topositive perceptions of school climate at both grade levels, but considerably more weakly thanteachers do. Parents contribute to student motivation, strongly predict school climate for middle
school students, and indirectly, GPA at the middle school level, albeit far more weakly than doteachers (it is not clear why the direct association of parent relationships with GPA was negativeat the middle level; this requires further research but may simply be a spurious finding).
Teachers are important at both grade levels for all three outcomes—motivation, school
climate, and GPA (albeit at the high school level, for GPA only indirectly, through motivation).
Based on the standardized betas, the effects are strong for academic motivation andperceptions of school climate, and weaker for GPA. Thus, although developmental relationships
with teachers are the strongest influence, nurturing each type of relationship matters forcontributing to differing school-relevant outcomes, and this may be a phenomenon not limited to
U.S. samples. These results showing differing effects of the different developmental
relationships are similar to those reported in a study of Hong Kong high school students, whereperceived academic support from teachers, parents, and friends (a more limited relationshipmeasure than in the current study) was used (Chen, 2010), and where teacher relationships had
the strongest impacts on engagement and performance, followed by parent support, and peer
support having limited effects on achievement.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

35

Second, lower-income students in this study were just as motivated to learn as weremore affluent students. Moreover, they reported the same basic quality of relationships with
their teachers and parents as did more affluent students. This suggests that low-income
students care about their schooling as much as more affluent students do, that they see theirparents attempting to be as attentive to them as affluent students see their parents, and thatthey perceive their teachers as trying to provide inclusive opportunity for them to benefit fromstrong relationships. Earlier studies had suggested that lower-income parents themselvesreported being less able than more affluent parents to provide developmental relationships fortheir children (Pekel et al., 2015), so it is heartening that the students in Study 1 reported
comparable levels of developmental relationships with parents, regardless of SES. It is also
positive that FRL-eligible students reported the same level of relationships with teachers as did
their more affluent peers. However, tempering that result is that a longitudinal analysis of thesestudents found FRL students’ relationships with teachers got significantly worse over the school
year (Scales et al., 2019). Lower-income students did not have lower motivation than more
affluent students, nor worse developmental relationships with teachers and parents. However,they did have worse relationships with friends, both at the middle and high school levels. Given
that peer relationships at the middle school level indirectly affected GPA through motivation,
poor relationships with peers may add a small negative influence on lower-income students’
engagement and performance.
Third, despite the significant contribution of parents and friends to multiple outcomes, thepath coefficients for parents and friends generally were relatively weak. Those significant resultsfor parents and friends should not be ignored, but neither should they be over-emphasized,
given the relatively small effect sizes. These results lead to the conclusion that developmental
relationships with teachers clearly are the most important type of relationship, for both middle
and high school students in this study, for all of these outcomes representing educational
engagement, connectedness, and performance. Study 1 thus adds support to the research

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

36

showing the significant impact that high-quality student-teacher relationships can have on
students’ academic well-being, and sheds new light on the different pathways through whichthose relationships affect students at differing stages of development.
In different ways the qualitative and quantitative findings reveal that understandings ofcare in student teacher relationships may obscure other dimensions that are more difficult toname. Students may simplify relationships into a dichotomy of “Do they care about me or dothey not?” and care becomes a “meta-construct” of sorts. Yet, Pekel et al. (2018) and Scales etal. (2019) have taken this meta-construct of care and deconstructed it into five distinct, yetinterrelated elements that contribute to a relationship that promotes growth and positive
outcomes for young people, a developmental relationship. When asked to specifically describe
dimensions beyond care such as challenging growth, sharing power and expanding possibilities,
students could share numerous illustrative examples and could connect those experiences totheir positive growth. Thus, although the other elements may seem on the surface to be a part ofcaring practice, they are in fact, distinct practices that along with caring, support building
developmental student-teacher relationships. In this respect, the qualitative research suggeststhat the experience of having a developmental relationship may be analogous to light having theproperties of both particle and wave, or as alluded to in the discussion of the quantitative
developmental relationships measure, as having properties of both uni- and multidimensionality.
Limitations
Although the study had a number of compelling features, there is a limitation to note, thatthe participants came from only two schools in one school district. The schools were reasonably
large and diverse, as is their school district, but strictly speaking, the results cannot be
generalized to other middle and high schools. It is possible that different results would havebeen obtained with differing schools. Nevertheless, the findings align well with and extend theliterature on how important relationships influence school success.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

37

Conclusion
The two studies presented in this paper provide differing but complementaryperspectives on how developmental relationships in young people’s lives operate to produce
positive school outcomes. Although neither study establishes cause and effect, they bothconfirm what previous research has found regarding the importance of supportive relationships
to school success, and extend the literature in multiple ways. Structural equation modelingshowed that, of the three kinds of relationships studied (with teachers, parents, and peers),
student-teacher relationships had the strongest effects on students’ academic motivation,
perception of school climate, and GPA.
This study extends previous work in three ways. First, it represents the first capturing ofauthentic student voices describing in their own words how they experience the elements of anew, theoretically and empirically-promising framework of developmental relationships. As such,it adds person-centered evidence of the framework’s validity to the variable-centered survey
data previously collected.
Second, the researchers are not aware of any other study that has both focused on allthese elements of relationships and followed students over time. Here, the focus was on what
students’ experience in their relationships and how teachers’ practices create high-quality or
poor-quality relationships (Scales et al., 2019 focuses on how these relationships change overtime).
Finally, the great majority of previous work on student-teacher relationships, whether
quantitative or qualitative, has addressed a more limited range of relational constructs. In
addition to the common emphasis on how teachers create a caring or supportive classroom,and the less common but still not unusual inclusion of promoting challenge or high expectations,and providing emotional support, the current study also reports students’ perceptions of teacher
efforts to expand student possibilities and share power with them, two developmentally crucial

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

38

experiences that are rarely addressed in studies of student-teacher relationships, and thatstudents report less frequently experiencing.
The SEM results show the 30,000-foot patterns that developmental relationships,
especially relationships with teachers, have significant, sometimes direct and sometimes
indirect, paths of influence on these outcomes of academic motivation, perception of school
climate, and GPA. But the focus group stories show the heart and soul of how teachers
construct in daily practice this link between the relationships they build with their students andthose students’ school adjustment and academic outcomes.
The current paper thus provides two different kinds of useful evidence. First, it provides
large-sample, empirical, quantitative evidence that policymakers, administrators, and parents
may expect in order to strengthen the case for giving more explicit attention in professional
development, curriculum and instruction, student services, and even staff hiring, to relationshipbuilding in schools (i.e., such relationships matter for student connection to school, motivation,and performance).
Second, in students’ own words, it provides granular and concrete evidence of specificpractices teachers do to strengthen their students’ feelings of fitting in at their school, their
desire to work hard, and the grades they earn. Studies often provide global evidence that may
point to clear policy implications, but not as often combine that with clear examples of specificimplications for practice. The current study contributes to the literature by providing both policyrelevant and practice-inspiring evidence for helping students succeed more at school throughstrengthening student-teacher developmental relationships.

_________________________

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

39

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to our colleagues Martin Van Boekel, University of Minnesota, for analysis andwriting on an earlier version of this paper, Chen-Yu Wu, Research Associate, Search Institute,for assistance in the quantitative analysis, and to our Search Institute colleagues, Rachel
Chamberlain, Research Associate, and Terri Sullivan, Director of Qualitative Research, for theirassistance in the qualitative analysis.

This study was supported by a grant (R305H170078) from the U.S. Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, to Search Institute, with the second author serving as
Principal Investigator. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect those of IES or DoE.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

40

References

Alder, N. (2002). Interpretations of the meaning of care: Creating caring relationships in urban middle
school classrooms. Urban Education, 37(2), 241-266. doi:10.1177/0042085902372005
Anderson, D. (2012). Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM): An introduction to key concepts within crosssectional and growth modeling frameworks, BRT Technical Report #1308. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching. Retrieved fromhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545279.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory,
research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology(6th ed., pp. 894–941). New York, NY: Wiley.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The contribution of the developmental assets
framework to positive youth development theory and practice. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, & J.
B. Benson (Eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior: Positive youth Development
Research and Applications for Promoting Thriving in Adolescence (pp. 198-232). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7
Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., Lopez-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendavan, R. (2013). Skewness and kurtosis inreal data samples. Methodology, 9, 78-84. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000057
Bowers, E.P., Johnson, S.K., Buckingham, M.H., Gasca, S., Warren, D.J.A., Lerner, J.V., & Lerner,
R.M. (2014). Important non-parental adults and positive youth development across mid-lateadolescence: The moderating effect of parenting profiles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43(6), 897-918. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0095-x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
Brown, B.B., & Bakken, J.P. (2011). Parenting and peer relationships: Reinvigorating researchon family-peer linkages in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 153-165.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00720.x

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

41

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. Handbook of constructionist
research, 1, 397-412.
Chen, J. J-L. (2010). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to Hong Kongadolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77-127. doi:10.3200/MONO.131.2.77-127
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing
strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victoria_Clarke2/publication/269928387_Teaching_themati
c_analysis_Overcoming_challenges_and_developing_strategies_for_effective_learning/links/54
9962170cf22a831396056c
Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: Communicating respect andcare for students in urban high schools. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 33(2),106-117. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ604260

Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). “This is kind of giving a secret away...”:
students’ perspectives on effective class management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4),435-444. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00027-1
Dweck, C. S. (2015, Sept. 23). Growth mindset, revisited. Education Week, 35(5), 20-24.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood throughadolescence: Growth trajectories in two “Male-Typed” domains. Developmental Psychology,
38(4), 519-533. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232. doi:10.1037/00223514.72.1.218

Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of the performance of nonparametric and parametric MONAVA test
statistics when assumptions are violated. Methodology, 1, 27-38. doi:10.1027/1614-1881.1.1.27

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

42

Finch, J. F., West, S. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1997). Effects of sample size and nonnormality on theestimation of mediated effects in latent variable models. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 87-107. doi:10.1080/10705519709540063
Furrer, C., & Skinner E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement
and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162. doi:10.1037/00220663.95.1.148
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R.J., & Lafreniere, M-A. K. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as afunction of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education, 15(1),77-95. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9170-2
Gottfried, A., Marcoulides, G., Gottfried, A., Oliver, P., & Guerin, D. (2007). Multivariate latent change
modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement:Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 317327. doi:10.1177/0165025407077752
Guay, F., Denault, A. S., & Renauld, S. (2017). School attachment and relatedness withparents, friends, and teachers as predictors of students’ intrinsic and identified regulation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 416-428. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.001
Harwell, M., & LeBeau, B. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education
research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120-131. doi:10.3102/0013189x10362578
Hau, K.-T., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). The use of item parcels in structural equation modelling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
57(2), 327-351. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
Jeffrey, A. J., Auger, R. W., & Pepperell, J. L. (2013). “If we're ever in trouble they're always there” A
qualitative study of teacher-student Caring. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 100-117.
doi:10.1086/671062
Kenny, D. A. (2015, 24 Nov.). Measuring model fit.www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

43

Kosovich, J., Flake, J., & Hulleman, C. (2017). Short-term motivation trajectories: A parallel processmodel of expectancy-value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 130-139.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.004
Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S., & Kochel, K. P. (2009). Peers and motivation. In K. R. Wentzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 323-348). New York: Routledge.
Lazowski, R., & Hulleman, C. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640. doi:10.3102/0034654315617832
Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998).
Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents.
Applied Developmental Science, 2, 209-230.
Li, J., & Julian, M, M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unifying working
hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,82(2), 157-166. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01151.x
Lingard, L., Albert, M., & Levinson, W. (2008). Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action
research. BMJ: The British Medical Journal, 337, 459-461. doi:10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, L., Guo, J., Dicke, T., & Arens, A. K. (2019). The
murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: Beware of lurking jingle-jangle
fallacies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 331-353. doi:10.1037/edu0000281
Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, andachievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational
Research, 79(1), 327-365. doi:10.3102/0034654308325583
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., & Green, J. (2009). Young people’s interpersonal
relationships and academic and nonacademic outcomes: Scoping the relative salience ofteachers, parents, same-sex peers, and opposite-sex peers. Teachers College Record, 111
http://www.tcrecord.org/Home.asp ID Number: 15593.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

44

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., & Bosker, R. (2013). Teacher-student interpersonal relationships dochange and affect academic motivation: A multilevel growth curve modelling. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 459-482. doi:10.1111/bjep.12031
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk ofnegative student-teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14,
1-17. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen,
M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, K., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R. & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual
for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Retrieved
from http://www.umich.edu/~pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.p
Nelson, R.M., & DeBacker, T.K. (2010). Achievement motivation in adolescence: The role of peer
climate and best friends. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 170-189.
doi:10.3200/jexe.76.2.170-190

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University ofCalifornia Press.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement, and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in
Health Science Education, 15(5), 625-632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
Opdenakker, M., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal relationships andacademic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes and linkage. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95-119. doi:10.1080/09243453.2011.619198
Pekel, K., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Syvertsen, A. K., & Scales, P. C. (2015). Don’t forget the families: The
missing piece in America’s effort to help all children succeed. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Pekel, K., Roehlkepartain, E.C., Syvertsen, A. K., Scales, P. C., Sullivan, T. K., & Sethi, J.
(2018). Finding the fluoride: Examining how and why developmental relationships are the active
ingredient in interventions that work. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(5), 493-502.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ort0000333

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

45

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage
Publications.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement:
Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement(pp. 365-386). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The stateof the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Ricard, N.C., & Pelletier, L.G. (2016). Dropping out of high school: the role of parent and teacher selfdetermination support, reciprocal friendships and academic motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 44, 32-42. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.003
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher
emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness,
autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95-103.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), p.68. doi:10.1037/0003066x.55.1.68

Ryan, R.M., Stiller, J.D., & Lynch, J.H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents,and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249. doi:10.1177/027243169401400207

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

46

Sabol, T.J., & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment& Human Development, 14(3), 213-231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Scales, P.C., Van Boekel, M., Pekel, K., Syvrtsen, A.K., & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (2020).Effects ofdevelopmental relationships with teachers on middle school students’ motivation andperformance. Psychology in the Schools. DOI: 10.1002/pits.22350
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). The role ofdevelopmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Adolescence 29, 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.09.001
Scales, P. C., Pekel, K., Sethi, J., Chamberlain, R., & Van Boekel, M. (2019). Academic year changes
in student-teacher developmental relationships and their links to change in middle and highschool students’ motivation, engagement, and performance. Journal of Early Adolescence.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0272431619858414
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and goodness-of-fit-measures. Methods of PsychologicalResearch Online, 8(2), 23-74. Retrieved fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.4258&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Shepherd, S., Owen, D., Fitch, T. J., & Marshall, J. L. (2006). Locus of control and academic
achievement in high school students. Psychological Reports, 98(2), 318-322.
doi:10.2466/pr0.98.2.318-322
Shukla, S.Y., Tombari, A.K., Toland, M.D., &Danner, F.W. (2015). Parental support for learning andhigh school students’ academic motivation and persistence in mathematics. Journal of
Educational and Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 44-56. doi:10.5539/jedp.v5n1p44
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate
research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385. doi:10.3102/0034654313483907

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

47

Varga, S.M., & Zaff, J.F. (2017). Defining webs of support: A new framework to advance understandingof relationships and youth development. Washington, DC: America’s Promise Alliance Research
Brief. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED584033.
Wang, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Researchon Adolescence, 22(1), 31-39. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
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(3), 877-895. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x
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. doi:10.1037/00220663.90.2.202
Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student
adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. doi:10.1111/14678624.00406
Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. In K. R. Wentzel& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 301-322). New York, NY: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203879498
Wentzel, K. R. (2012). Teacher–student relationships and adolescent competence at school. In T.
Wubbels, P. den Brok, J. van Tartwijk, & J. Levy (Eds.), Advances in learning environments
research (Vol 3): Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 19–35). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-939-8_2
Wentzel, K.R., Battle, A., Russell, S.L., & Looney, L.B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers
as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3),193-202. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

48

Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2017). Peer and teacher supports in relation to
motivation and effort: A multi-level study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 32-45.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.11.002
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Fredricks, J.A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015).
Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In R.M. Lerner, Ed.-in-Chief, & M.E.
Lamb, Vol. Ed., Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, vol. 3 (pp. 657-700).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316
Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., D’Mello, S., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Spitzer, B. J., et al. (2014).
Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 559-580. doi:10.1037/a0037637
Yu, M. V. B., Johnson, H. E., Deutsch, N. L., & Varga, S. M. (2018). “She Calls Me by My Last Name”:
Exploring Adolescent Perceptions of Positive Teacher-Student Relationships. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 33(3), 332-362. doi:10.1177/0743558416684958

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

49

Table 1
The Developmental Relationships Framework
Elements

Actions

Definitions

Express CareBe dependable

Be someone I can trust.

Show me that I matter

ListenReally pay attention when we are together.

to you.

Believe in me

Make me feel known and valued.

Be warm

Show me you enjoy being with me.

Encourage

Praise me for my efforts and achievements.

Challenge Growth

Expect my best

Expect me to live up to my potential.

Push me to keep

StretchPush me to go further.

getting better.

Hold me accountable

Insist I take responsibility for my actions.

Reflect on failures

Help me learn from mistakes and setbacks.

Provide Support

Navigate

Guide me through hard situations and systems.

Help me complete

Empower

Build my confidence to take charge of my life.

tasks and achieve

Advocate

Stand up for me when I need it.

goals.

Set boundaries

Put in place limits that keep me on track.

Share Power

Respect me

Take me seriously and treat me fairly.

Treat me with respect

Include me

Involve me in decisions that affect me.

and give me a say.

Collaborate

Work with me to solve problems and reach goals.

Let me lead

Create opportunities for me to take action and lead.

Expand Possibilities

InspireInspire me to see possibilities for my future.

Connect me with

Broaden horizons

Expose me to new ideas, experiences, and places.

people and places that

Connect

Introduce me to people who can help me grow.

broaden my world.
Note. Relationships are, by definition, bidirectional, with each person giving and receiving. So each person in a strong
relationship both engages in and experiences each of these actions. However, for the purpose of clarity, this framework is
expressed from the perspective of one young person.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

Table 2
Sample Demographics
Full Study Sample
Grade
220
6
(16.7%)
219
7(16.7%)
190
8(14.5%)
161
9(12.3%)
231
10(17.6%)
154
11(11.7%)
13912(10.6%)
Gender Identity
647
Cis Female(49.2%)
639
Cis Male(48.6%)
19
Other(1.4%)
10
Did not report(0.8%)
Race
212
Black
(16.5%)
Asian / Pacific119
Islander
(9.3%)
32
Native American(2.5%)
368
White(28.6%)
256
Mixed Race
(19.9%)
Other Race
299

Middle School

High School

220(35.0%)
219(34.8%)
190(30.2%)
161(23.5%)
231(33.7%)
154(22.5%)
139(20.3%)
300(51.1%)
322(47.6%)
3(0.5%)
5(0.8%)

325(47.5%)
339(49.6%)
16(2.3%)
4(0.6%)

117(18.7%)
43(6.9%)
15(2.4%)
139(22.2%)
146(23.3%)
167

95(14.4%)
76(11.5%)
17(2.6%)
229(34.8%)
110(16.7%)
132

50

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

Free/ReducedPrice Lunch
Eligibility
Not eligible for
FRL
Eligible for FRL(23.2%)(26.6%)(20.0%)

547(41.8%)
763(58.2%)

213(34.0%)
414(66.0%)

334(48.9%)
349(51.1%)

51

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

52

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables
MeasureItem
Developmental
Relationships
with Teachers
My teachers are there for me when I needthem.
My teachers really listen to me when I talk.
My teachers make me feel important.
When I spend time with my teachers, we have
fun together.
My teachers praise me for working hard, evenwhen I don't succeed.
My teachers have high expectations for me.
My teachers ask questions that help me findmy own answers, rather than just telling me
what to do.
My teachers require me to take responsibility
for my actions.
My teachers encourage me to see failure as achance to learn and get better.
When I say I’ll do something, my teachers
expect me to do it.
My teachers ask me to explain my thinking.
My teachers challenge me to try things thatare a little hard for me.
When I have a problem at school, my teachers
help me figure out who to talk to or what todo.
I believe my teachers “have my back.”
My teachers show me how to stand up formyself in appropriate ways.
My teachers do something when I am treatedunfairly.
My teachers help me work within the rules to
get things done that are important to me.
My teachers and I respect each other.
When my teachers make decisions that affectme, my ideas are considered.
My teachers and I solve problems together.
My teachers sometimes put me in charge ofimportant tasks.
I can share my ideas with my teachers, evenwhen we disagree.

α

ωh

.96

.89

M

SD

3.29

1.14

3.91
3.09

0.88
1.18

2.99

1.02

3.28

1.10

3.90

1.04

3.75

0.98

4.16

0.93

3.62

1.14

3.97

1.02

3.80

0.99

3.64

0.95

3.26

1.25

3.01

1.28

3.03

1.29

3.01

1.25

3.34

1.17

3.88

0.91

3.19

1.00

3.19

1.05

2.92

1.20

3.49

1.08

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

53

My teachers recognize my abilities as aleader.
My teachers create opportunities for me topractice my leadership skills.
My teachers help me discover new things thatinterest me.
I am motivated by the example my teachers
set for me.
My teachers connect me to other adults whooffer advice or ideas that I value.
My teachers connect me to other adults who
have a different cultural background than myown.
My teachers connect me to other adults who
help me explore different places in mycommunity.
My teachers connect me to other adults whoshow me how to find and use resources in myschool or community.a
Developmental
Relationships
with Parents

.89

.91
How often do these people show you that you
matter to them?
How often do these people push you to be
your best?
How often do these people help you get
things done?
How often do these people listen to your ideas
and take them seriously?
How often do these people connect you withnew people or places in your community?

1.25

3.01

1.23

3.06

1.09

3.27

1.11

2.57

1.13

2.47

1.18

2.41

1.11

2.77

1.15

4.13

1.00

4.21

0.96

3.70

1.17

3.67

1.20

3.18

1.29

3.47

1.09

3.30

1.14

3.34

1.12

3.38

1.12

2.96

1.24

.75

How often do these people show you that you
matter to them?
How often do these people push you to be
your best?
How often do these people help you get
things done?
How often do these people listen to your ideas
and take them seriously?
How often do these people connect you withnew people or places in your community?
Developmental
Relationships
with Peers

3.02

.89

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESSSchool Climate

54

.82

.80

School staff respect differences of opinion.
Students are disciplined fairly at this school.
Teachers at this school really care about me.
Most students at this school care about eachother, even people they do not know well.
Academic
Motivation

.89

1.00
1.04
1.06

3.06

1.04

3.64

0.94

3.59

0.95

3.58

1.02

3.71

1.03

3.68

1.05

3.51

1.14

3.97

0.93

3.75

0.97

2.95

1.27

2.89

1.33

2.78

1.33

3.13

1.28

3.85

1.02

3.72

1.11

3.66

1.13

3.39

1.16

.69

I am certain I can master the skills taught inschool this year.
If I make a plan, I can usually make it workout
I work hard on all assignments even if they
won’t affect my grade
My main reason for working hard in school is
to learn new knowledge and skills
I set goals that are actually possible for me toreach.
I can list specific goals I want to achieve in
the next year
I can get smarter by working hard.
How well I do in school depends more on
how hard I work than on how naturally smart
I am.
It is important to me to do better than theother students
My goal in my classes is to get a better grade
than most of the students
It motivates me to outperform other students
in my classes
It is important to me to do well compared toothers in my classes
It is important for me to understand thecontent of my classes as much as possible
I want to master the material presented in myclasses
I like classes that arouse my curiosity, even if
they are hard
I like classes that really challenge me so I canlearn new things
Free or
Reduced-Price
Lunch
Financial Strain
GPA

3.56
3.23
3.32

--

--

0.58

0.49

---

---

2.40
2.91

0.79
0.92

a Examples might include using the public library, banking, applying for financial aid, or seeing a counselor.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

55

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

56

Table 4
SEM Results (with Free/Reduced-Price Lunch)
Middle Schoolb[SE]
95% CI of(β)
indirect effectDirect Effects
DRteacher → Motivation
0.88***[0.08](0.58)
DRparent → Motivation
0.25**[0.08](0.17)
DRpeer → Motivation
0.38***[0.10](0.12)
DRteacher → School Climate
1.38***[0.12](0.71)
DRparent → School Climate
0.12[0.10](0.60)
DRpeer → School Climate
0.38***[0.10](0.20)
FRL → DRteacher-0.10[0.09](-0.05)
FRL → Motiv
0.03[0.10](0.01)
FRL → DRparent-0.04[0.08](-0.02)
FRL → DRpeer
0.18*[0.09](0.09)
FRL → School Climate-0.07[0.12](-0.02)
FRL → GPA
-0.30***[0.07](-0.16)
DRteacher → GPA
0.10[0.06](0.12)
DRparent → GPA-0.15**[0.05](-0.17)

High School
b
[SE]
(β)
0.80***[0.10](0.58)
0.17*[0.07](0.13)
0.12[0.08](0.09)
1.30***[0.16](0.71)-0.02[0.08](-0.01)0.40***[0.11](0.22)
0.07[0.08](0.04)-0.13[0.10](-0.05)0.00[0.08](0.00)
0.20*[0.08](0.10)
0.03[0.11](0.01)-0.39***[0.07](-0.21)-0.06[0.06](-0.06)-0.02[0.04](-0.02)

95% CI of
indirect effectTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS
DRpeer → GPA
Motivation → GPA
DRteacher ↔ DRpeer
DRteacher ↔ DRparent
DRpeer ↔ DRparent
School Climate ↔ GPA

Indirect Effects
DRteacher → Motiv → GPA
DRparent → Motiv → GPA
DRpeer → Motivation → GPA-0.10*[0.05](-0.12)0.24***[0.04](0.41)
0.47***[0.04](0.47)
0.49***[0.04](0.49)
0.56***[0.04](0.56)-0.03[0.05](-0.03)0.21***[0.04](0.24)
0.06*[0.02](0.07)
0.04*[0.02](0.05)

57-0.05[0.05](-0.05)0.24***[0.04](0.36)
0.55***[0.04](0.55)
0.46***[0.04](0.46)
0.42***[0.04](0.42)-0.09[0.05](-0.10)0.14, 0.29
(0.16, 0.32)
0.02, 0.12
(0.02, 0.12)
0.01, 0.08
(0.01, 0.09)

0.19***[0.04](0.20)
0.04*[0.02](0.04)
0.03[0.02](0.03)

0.12, 0.29
(0.12, 0.29)
0.01, 0.08
(0.01, 0.08)-0.01, 0.08(-0.01, 0.08)

Note. Unstandardized coefficients are reported [S.E. in brackets] (Standardized coefficients in parentheses). Bootstrapped
confidence intervals estimated using Mplus 7.2’s bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (BCBOOTSTRAP) with 5,000 draws.
*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

58

Table 5
Brief Summary of Qualitative Themes Describing Effective Teacher Practice Organized by
Developmental Relationship Element
Express Care
 Having a positive attitude, being willing to take (and make) ajoke, and not taking things too seriously unless it was necessary Getting to know students
 Teachers telling their own stories
 Wiping the slate clean each day

Challenge GrowthDemonstrating clear and high expectations
Pushing students to do their best and created opportunities tolearn from mistakes

Provide SupportResponding to student learning needs
Not giving up on students

Giving opportunities to be part of decision-making and taking onleadership roles
Acting on student suggestions
Showing respect by “putting students on the same level”

Share Power
Expand Possibilities
Connecting students with opportunities in school beyond theclassroom.
Connecting students with opportunities outside the school
Inspiring students to think about their futures

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

59

Table 6
What Middle and High School Students Say They Appreciate in Teacher Practices
I appreciate teachers who . . .
MiddleSchoolHigh
SchoolHave a positive attitude.

85%

91%

Don’t give up on students.

83%

89%

Give students choices.

83%

87%

Can take (and make) a joke.

80%

89%

Help students learn from their mistakes.

82%

85%

Get to know students.

76%

82%

Find creative ways to help students succeed.

75%

83%

Don’t take things too seriously unless it’s necessary.

77%

77%

Don't hold grudges against students and start each day fresh.

70%

79%

Tell their own stories.

71%

77%

Treat students more like adults than kids.

63%

79%

Act on student suggestions.

66%

76%

Let students help make decisions in class.

69%

70%

Connect with opportunities beyond the classroom.

61%

74%

Expect a lot from me.

51%

60%

Appendix Tables
Table Appendix A1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Key Study Measures
CFA model for abbreviated relationships with teachers measure α=.92 ; ωh=.90

Express Care
Challenge Growth
Provide Support
Share Power

Variable
Name
EC
CG
PS
SP

Standardized
FactorLoading
.87
.75
.90
.90

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS
Expand Possibilities
Model Fit Indices

60

EP
.77
χ2=16.79, df=5, p=0.005 ; RMSEA=0.06 ; CFI=1.00 ; TLI=.99 ; SRMR=0.01

Unidimensional CFA model for academic motivation α=.81 ; ωh=.73
Standardized
Variable
FactorName
Loading
Belief in Malleable Intelligence
BMI.66
Goal Orientation
GO.67
Performance Action Goals
PAG.41
Mastery Goals
MG.75
Academic Self-Efficacy
ASE2.67
Intentional Locus of Control
ILC1.67
Model Fit Indicesχ2=85.42, df=9, p=0.000 ; RMSEA=0.11 ; CFI=.94 ; TLI=.89 ; SRMR=0.04
CFA model for DR360 with parents α=.89 ; ωh=.75
Variable
Name
1
2
3

Standardized
FactorLoading
0.76
0.71
0.86

Variable
Name
1
2
3

Standardized
FactorLoading
0.84
0.86
0.83

Variable
Name
1
2
3

Standardized
FactorLoading
0.71
0.76
0.77

How often do your parents show you that you matter to them?
How often do your parents push you to be your best?
How often do your parents help you get things done?
How often do your parents listen to your ideas and take them
4
0.87
seriously?
How often do your parents connect you with new people or places
50.69
in your community?
Model Fit Indicesχ2=207.91, df=5, p=0.000 ; RMSEA=0.18 ; CFI=.95 ; TLI=.89 ; SRMR=0.04
CFA model for DR360 with peers α=.91 ; ωh=.89

How often do your peers show you that you matter to them?
How often do your peers push you to be your best?
How often do your peers help you get things done?
How often do your peers listen to your ideas and take them
4
0.86
seriously?
How often do your peers connect you with new people or places in
5
0.71
your community?
Model Fit Indicesχ2=20.30, df=5, p=0.001 ; RMSEA=0.05 ; CFI=1.00 ; TLI=.99 ; SRMR=0.01
CFA model for School Climate α=.82 ; ωh=.80

School staff respect differences of opinion.
Students are disciplined fairly at this school.
Teachers at this school really care about me.

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

61

Most students at this school care about each other, even people
40.68
they do not know well.
Model Fit Indicesχ2=10.73, df=2, p=0.004 ; RMSEA=0.06 ; CFI=1.00 ; TLI=.99 ; SRMR=0.01

Table Appendix B1
Invariance Testing of Key Study Measures
Developmental
Relationships
with Teachers
RMSEA
LCL
Configural
.086
.065
Metric.082.065
Scalar
.111
.095

UCL
.108
.101
.126

CFI
.990
.988
.968

ΔCFI
--.002.020

Academic
Motivation
Configural
MetricScalar

RMSEA
.094
.088
.093

LCL
.079
.074
.080

UCL
.111
.102
.106

CFI
.961
.956
.941

ΔCFI
--.005
.015

RMSEA
.192
.163
.147

LCL
.171
.146
.132

UCL
.213
.181
.163

CFI
.936
.935
.931

ΔCFI
--.001
.004

RMSEA
.049
.045
.038

LCL
.026
.024
.018

UCL
.073
.065
.057

CFI
.996
.996
.996

ΔCFI
--.000
.000

RMSEA
.067
.057
.062

LCL
.034
.030
.040

UCL
.104
.085
.085

CFI
.993
.991
.985

ΔCFI
--.002.006

Developmental
Relationships
with Parents
Configural
MetricScalarDevelopmental
Relationships
with Peers
Configural
MetricScalarSchoolClimateConfigural
MetricScalarTYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

62

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

63

Table Appendix C1
Results of Tests for Assumptions of Normality for Developmental Relationships with Teachers
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Shapiro-Wilk
DRteachers: Express Care
.057***.988***(1298)(1298)
DRteachers: Challenge Growth.085***.965***(1298)(1298)
DRteachers: Provide Support.074***.980***(1298)(1298)
DRteachers: Share Power.046***.993***(1298)(1298)
DRteachers: Expand Possibilities.075***.991***(1298)(1298)
Note. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic employs Lilliefors Significance Correction.
*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001= (dfs in parentheses).

Table Appendix C2Results of Tests for Assumptions of Normality for Academic Motivation
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Belief in Malleable Intelligence.156***(1254)
Goal Orientation.151***(1254)
Performance Action Goal
.080***(1254)
Mastery Goal
.098***(1254)
Academic Self-Efficacy.218***(1254)
Intentional Locus of Control.222***(1254)

Shapiro-Wilk.932***(1254).940***(1254).961***(1254).961***(1254).881***(1254).880***(1254)

Note. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic employs Lilliefors Significance Correction.
*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001= (dfs in parentheses).

Table Appendix C3
Results of Tests for Assumptions of Normality for Developmental Relationships with Parents
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Shapiro-Wilk
DRparents: Express Care
.273***.796***(1275)(1275)

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS
DRparents: Challenge Growth
DRparents: Provide Support
DRparents: Share Power
DRparents: Expand Possibilities.291***(1275).192***(1275).188***(1275).150***(1275)

64.778***(1275).872***(1275).873***(1275).903***(1275)

Note. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic employs Lilliefors Significance Correction.
*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001= (dfs in parentheses).

Table Appendix C4Results of Tests for Assumptions of Normality for Developmental Relationships with Peers
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Shapiro-Wilk
DRpeers: Express Care
.202***.899***(1277)(1277)
DRpeers: Challenge Growth.182***.909***(1277)(1277)
DRpeers: Provide Support.189***.904***(1277)(1277)
DRpeers: Share Power.182***.903***(1277)(1277)
DRpeers: Expand Possibilities.164***.912***(1277)(1277)
Note. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic employs Lilliefors Significance Correction.
*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001= (dfs in parentheses).

Table Appendix C5Results of Tests for Assumptions of Normality for School Climate actions
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
School staff respect differences of opinion.213***(1251)
Students are disciplined fairly at this school.216***(1251)
Teachers at this school really care about me.203***(1251)
Most students at this school care about each
.220***
other, even people they do not know well
(1251)
Note. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic employs Lilliefors Significance Correction.

Shapiro-Wilk.885***(1251).899***(1251).900***(1251).907***(1251)

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS*p≤.05; ** p≤.01; *** p≤.001= (dfs in parentheses).

65

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

Figure 1. Path diagram illustrating the impact of Developmental Relationships on Academic
Motivation, GPA, and School Climate controlling for Free/Reduced-price lunch eligibility at a
Midwestern suburban middle school.
Note. All reported estimates are standardized. Dashed paths are n.s. *p≤.05, ** p≤.01, *** p≤.001.

66

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS’ EFFECT ON SCHOOL SUCCESS

Figure 2. Path diagram illustrating the impact of Developmental Relationships on Academic
Motivation, GPA, and School Climate controlling for Free/Reduced-price lunch eligibility at a
Midwestern suburban high school.
Note. All reported estimates are standardized. Dashed paths are n.s. *p≤.05, ** p≤.01, *** p≤.001.

67