Content uploaded by Andrew J Martin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew J Martin on Dec 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: March 23, 2009
http://www.tcrecord.org/Home.asp ID Number: 15593, Date Accessed: 5/5/2009
8:13:29 PM
Young People’s Interpersonal
Relationships and Academic and
Nonacademic Outcomes: Scoping the
Relative Salience of Teachers, Parents,
Same-Sex Peers, and Opposite-Sex Peers
by Andrew J. Martin, Herbert W. Marsh, Dennis M. McInerney & Jasmine Green —
March 23, 2009
Background/Context: Although informative work has been conducted on the role of
interpersonal relationships and their mechanisms, most such work focuses on one or
two key relationships or on a relatively small set of outcomes that are either academic
or nonacademic in nature or solely based on self-report. Inevitably, such approaches
limit understanding of the relative salience of all key relationships and their links to
the breadth of cognition, affect, and behavior in young people’s lives.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: To understand the relative
reach and range of young people’s key interpersonal relationships, the present study
conducts a scoping of teacher–student, parent–child, same-sex peer, and opposite-sex
peer relationships among a set of self-report and objective academic (motivation,
engagement, behavior, affect, and performance) and nonacademic (physical ability,
physical appearance, honesty, and emotional instability self-concepts) constructs.
Population/Participants/Subjects: The sample comprised 3,450 high school students
in Years 7 and 8 (51%; age approx. 12–14 years), Years 9 and 10 (36%; age approx.
14–16 years), and Years 11 and 12 (13%; age approx. 16–18 years) from six
Australian urban high schools.
Research Design: The study is a large-scale quantitative one in which high school
students were administered an instrument comprising self-report academic and
nonacademic measures and a brief literacy and numeracy quiz.
Data Collection and Analysis: Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and
structural equation modelling (SEM), analyses were aimed at assessing the empirical
links between students’ interpersonal relationships and a variety of academic and
nonacademic outcomes.
Findings/Results: Interpersonal relationships tended to be positively and significantly
associated with academic and nonacademic measures. However, there were
differences in patterns of findings such that teacher–student relationships and, to a
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
lesser extent, parent–child relationships, were most highly correlated with academic
outcomes, whereas peer relationships tended to be most strongly correlated with
nonacademic outcomes.
Conclusions/Recommendations: Findings inform a greater understanding of the
differential roles of teachers, parents, same-sex peers, and opposite-sex peers in
relation to academic and nonacademic outcomes. Findings also provide a basis for an
integrative framework for understanding, measuring, and enhancing interpersonal
relationships during the high school years.
There is no doubting the importance of positive interpersonal relationships for healthy
communities (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Fyson, 1999; Glover, Burns, Butler, & Patten,
1998; Hill, 1996; Moos, 2002; Royal & Rossi, 1996). Interpersonal relationships are
also important at the individual level, leading to enhanced social and emotional
development (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kelly & Hansen, 1987; Martin & Dowson,
in press; McCarthy, Pretty, & Catano, 1990) and, for young people, improved
academic processes and outcomes (Battistich, & Hom, 1997; Furrer & Skinner, 2003;
Martin & Dowson; Martin & Marsh, 2008a, 2008b; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wentzel,
1999).
Interpersonal relationships yield positive effects in a number of ways. Ongoing social
interactions teach individuals about themselves and how to function effectively in
particular environments. Through high-quality relationships, individuals not only learn
that particular beliefs are useful for functioning in particular relational environments
but also internalize the beliefs valued by significant others (Martin & Dowson, in
press; Wentzel, 1999). Relatedness also affects individuals by way of positive
influences on other self-processes related to motivation and behavior (e.g., see
McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and as such has an
energizing function on the self (Furrer & Skinner, 2003).
Taken together, then, there are some key processes by which relatedness affects
specific dimensions of young people’s lives, including, inter alia, messages from
significant others such as peers, parents, and teachers; modeling by these significant
others; provision of warmth and support; feedback of significant others; and the
influence of group norms. We further argue that adolescence is a key stage of life
dominated by these multiple processes and influences. It is at this stage in a young
person’s life that parents, teachers, and peers operate on multiple dimensions,
seemingly competing for optimal influence. Hence, it is this stage in a young person’s
life on which the present study focuses.
Although informative work (some of which is cited previously) has been conducted on
the role of interpersonal relationships and their mechanisms, most such work focuses
on one or two key relationships or on a relatively small set of outcomes that are either
academic or nonacademic in nature or solely based on self-report (e.g., see Martin,
Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson, 2007). Inevitably, such approaches limit
understanding of the relative salience of all key relationships and their links to the
breadth of cognition, affect, and behavior in young people’s lives. The present study,
on the other hand, encompasses four key interpersonal relationships and a very diverse
set of outcome measures in order to understand the relative salience of these
relationships and their association with vital dimensions in young people’s lives.
Specifically, it conducts a scoping of teacher–student, parent–child, same-sex peer, and
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
opposite-sex peer relationships among a set of self-report and objective academic
(motivation, engagement, behavior, affect, and performance) and nonacademic
(physical ability, physical appearance, honesty, and emotional instability self-concepts)
constructs. Our use of the term scoping is deliberate in that we seek to provide data on
the relative reach and range of four key interpersonal relationships and their links to
students’ academic and nonacademic lives. By implication, then, in adopting this
scoping perspective, our data set spans multiple relationship types and multiple
academic and nonacademic measures.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The sample comprises 3,450 high school students in Years 7 and 8 (51%; age approx.
12–14 years), Years 9 and 10 (36%; age approx. 14–16 years), and Years 11 and 12
(13%; age approx. 16–18 years) from six Australian urban high schools. Just over one
third (38%) of the respondents were female, and 62% were male. The mean age of
respondents was 14.03 (SD = 1.58) years. Five of the six schools were comprehensive,
comprising students of mixed ability (i.e., do not screen or select students on entry by
ability), and one school was academically selective. Three were fee-paying schools,
and the other three were systemic comprehensive schools. Two of the largest schools
were single-sex boys’ schools (hence the higher male representation), one was a
single-sex girls’ school, and three were coeducational schools. In the context of the
present study, all schools were located in the same educational jurisdiction and
subscribe to the same mandatory curriculum and external examinations. Although
some groups are more highly represented in the sample than others (e.g., males and
younger students), the relatively large data set ensures there is ample representation of
subgroups (e.g., N = 1,311 females—a relatively large number by most standards).
Taken together, in view of sample characteristics and size, findings can be considered
broadly generalizable. Less than 5% of the data were missing, and so the EM algorithm
was considered an appropriate procedure (see Brown, 1994; Graham & Hoffer, 2000)
for imputing missing data.
MATERIALS
Interpersonal relationship scales
Four interpersonal relationship scales were administered to students: teacher–student
relationships (four items; e.g., “In general, I get along well with my teachers”); parent–
child relationships (four items; e.g., “I get along well with my parents”); same-sex peer
relationships (five items; e.g., “I make friends easily with members of my own sex”);
and opposite-sex relationships (four items; e.g., “I have lots of friends of the opposite
sex”). The latter three scales, rated 1 (false) to 6 (true), were from the Self-Description
Questionnaire II-Short (SDQ II-S; Marsh, 1990), and the teacher scale, rated from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), was drawn from Martin and Marsh (2008a,
2008b). Descriptive, intercorrelation, and psychometric statistics for these scales are
presented in Table 1.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Table 1. Descriptive, CFA, SEM, and Correlational Findings for Interpersonal Relationships
RELATIONSHIP WITH ….
TEACHER PARENT SAME-SEX
PEER OPPOSITE-SEX
PEER
Descriptive Statistics and CFA Loadings
Mean 0 0 0 0
SD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Skewness -.69 -1.32 -1.08 -.75
Kurtosis .49 1.54 1.43 .33
Cronbach’s alpha .85 .87 .83 .80
CFA loading range (mean) .70-.83 (.77) .72-.83 (.80) .57-.76 (.66) .62-.87 (.74)
MIMIC Modeling: Gender and Age Effects (
β
)
Gender (0=FM; 1=M) -.02 .15* .01 .24*
Age .03 -.17* -.09* .09*
Gender x Age -.02 -.02 .06* -.03
CFA Correlations
Relationships
Teacher -
Parent .40* -
Same-sex .28* .35* -
Opposite-sex .13* .12* .58* -
Motivation and Engagement
Self-efficacy .58* .35* .33* .14*
Valuing school .59* .39* .23* .01
Mastery orientation .50* .33* .24* .06
Planning .48* .30* .18* .06
Task management .50* .33* .22* .08*
Persistence .55* .32* .22* .04
Anxiety -.03 -.07* -.13* -.20*
Failure avoidance -.16* -.19* -.23* -.11*
Uncertain control -.32* -.22* -.29* -.18*
Self-handicapping -.33* -.28* -.28* -.09*
Disengagement -.55* -.47* -.31* -.05
Behavior and Affect
Homework completion .34* .28* .21* .01
Weeks absent from school -.16* -.10* -.07* .08*
Class participation .58* .26* .40* .28*
Enjoy school .71* .35* .31* .11*
Positive intentions .66* .30* .28* .04
Personal bests .65* .40* .28* .10*
Academic buoyancy .42* .29* .32* .28*
Achievement
Literacy .16* .07* .18* -.08*
Numeracy .15* .06* .12* -.13*
Non-academic self-concept
Physical ability .18* .24* .36* .43*
Appearance .19* .22* .36* .51*
Honesty .39* .37* .31* .09*
Emotional instability -.09* -.22* -.36* -.37*
* p<0.001
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Academic correlates
Three sets of academic correlates were administered to students: motivation and
engagement measures, behavior and affect measures, and performance measures. The
first set comprises the Motivation and Engagement Scale-High School (MES-HS;
Martin, 2001, 2003b, 2007a, 2007b), an instrument that measures high school students’
motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation and engagement, rated from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), through three adaptive cognitive dimensions
(self-efficacy, valuing, mastery orientation), three adaptive behavioral dimensions
(planning, task management, persistence), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive
dimensions (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control), and two maladaptive
behavioral dimensions (self-handicapping, disengagement). Martin (2007a) has
demonstrated the psychometric properties of the MES-HS and provides sample items
for each subscale.
Comprising the second set of academic correlates were a number of measures
addressing additional behavioral and affective dimensions. Specifically, students were
administered items that explored their class participation (four items), positive
intentions (four items), enjoyment of school (four items), academic buoyancy (four
items), personal best focus (four items), homework completion (single item), and days
absent from work/school (single item). All items except the latter two were rated from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These measures were adapted directly from
Martin (2007a, 2008; see also Martin & Marsh, 2006, 2008a, 2008b), who has shown
them to be reliable and a good fit to the data in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Martin (2006a, 2007a) provides sample items for each subscale.
Given that all these measures are based on self-report, it was considered important to
include more “objective” measures of performance. Hence, the third set of academic
measures comprised an objective performance task administered to students. The task
comprised a subset (because of class time restrictions) of literacy and numeracy items
adapted from the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (used and validated in the
Australian context; e.g., Lucas, Carstairs, & Shores, 2003).
Nonacademic correlates
Nonacademic correlates comprised key scales from the SDQ II-S (Marsh, 1990). The
SDQ is regarded as the strongest and most validated multidimensional self-concept
instrument available (Byrne, 1996). Nonacademic scales administered were honesty
(six items), emotional instability (five items), physical appearance (four items), and
physical ability (four items). All SDQ items were rated from 1 (false) to 6 (true).
Sample items are presented in Marsh (1990).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PRELIMINARY STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF RELATIONSHIP SCALES
Interpersonal relationship scale means (z scores to standardize across the 1–6 and 1–7
rating scales), standard deviations, distributional properties, and reliability coefficients
for each relationship scale are presented in Table 1. The four-factor relationship model
(teacher–student, parent–child, same-sex peer, opposite-sex peer), tested by CFA
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
(using LISREL 8.80; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006), fit the data well, c2 = 3,069.29, df =
113, CFI = .93, SRMR = .05 (see Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996).
Table 1 shows factor loadings and factor correlations. To justify pooling data across
gender and age, multigroup CFAs were conducted to test invariance across males and
females and across younger and older respondents. The first model allowed all factor
loadings, uniquenesses, and correlations/variances to be freely estimated (gender: CFI
= .94; SRMR=.05; age: CFI = .93; SRMR = .06). The second model, a fully restrictive
one, held all factor loadings, uniquenesses, and correlations/variances invariant
(gender: CFI = .93; SRMR=.07; age: CFI = .93; SRMR = .07). The relative lack of
change in fit (see Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicates broad invariance across groups,
and so pooling data is appropriate. Preliminary analyses also explored mean-level
gender and age effects on interpersonal relationships. Consistent with Kaplan (2000), a
MIMIC (multiple indicator multiple cause) structural equation modeling (SEM)
approach was used such that in the one analytic model, gender, age, and their
interaction (put in deviation form to reduce collinearity; see Aiken & West, 1991)
predicted the four latent relationship factors. This model yielded a good fit to the data,
c2=3,274.22, df = 152, CFI = .93, SRMR = .04. Standardized beta coefficients are
presented in Table 1.
Interpersonal Relationships and Key Academic and Nonacademic Correlates
The central analyses explored associations between interpersonal relationships and a
set of key academic and nonacademic correlates. A 28-factor CFA comprising
interpersonal relationships (4 factors), motivation and engagement (11 factors),
behavior and affect (7 factors), performance (2 factors), and nonacademic self-concept
(4 factors), yielded an excellent fit to the data, c2 = 27,497.96, df = 4,878, CFI = .98,
SRMR = .04. Correlations (along with a conservative p < 0.001 significance criterion
to reduce Type I error due to multiple testing) are presented in Table 1. As a general
rule, and supportive of the bulk of previous research examining the influence of
relatedness, interpersonal relationships tended to be positively and significantly
associated with academic and nonacademic measures.
Although this broad set of results confirms the yields of interpersonal relationships,
there were differences in patterns of findings. For example, teacher–student
relationships were most highly correlated with academic outcomes, as were, to a lesser
extent, parent–child relationships. In contrast, peer relationships tended to be most
strongly correlated with nonacademic outcomes. In terms of the specific nature of peer
influence, it seems that same-sex peer relations were more conducive to positive
academic outcomes, whereas opposite-sex relations tended not to have such a positive
effect, and in some cases (e.g., literacy, numeracy, weeks absent from school) actually
had a negative effect. Opposite-sex peer relations, to a far greater extent than any other
relationship factor, had a strong association with physical ability and appearance self-
concepts, whereas same-sex peers and parents had a greater link to young people’s
honesty.
This pattern of findings points to the differential impact of relationships across various
aspects of young people’s lives. It seems that each of the four key interpersonal
relationships is significantly associated with one or more academic or nonacademic
factors and in different ways. This finding attests to the need for young people to have
a range of positive interpersonal relationships in their academic, social, physical, and
intrapersonal lives. The findings also point to the shifting influence of key
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
relationships in young people’s lives and the different dimensions to which this is
relevant.
The salience of peers is consistent with previous work (Becker & Luthar, 2002; Lynch
& Cicchetti, 1997; Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998); however, particularly
encouraging was the salient role of teachers and parents in young people’s lives—a
relationship that did not wane as a function of age and gender. Indeed, at a stage in a
young person’s life when parents (Martin, 2003a) and teachers (Martin, 2006b) fear a
dominant and counterproductive role of peers, the present findings show that the
positive and substantial influence of the home and the classroom is still evident (see
also Goodenow, 1993; Martin, 2006b, Teven & McCroskey, 1997).
Findings also point to the importance of studies such as these that can scope a wide
array of relationship factors against a wide array of self-report and objective academic
and nonacademic outcomes. This scoping approach allows an opportunity to further
contribute to current understanding of the relative reach and range of various
interpersonal relationships in young people’s lives. Although the academic-related
importance of teachers and parents is clear and present, the separation of same-sex and
opposite-sex peer factors has also been illuminating. Rather than assessing aggregate
peer impact (as most previous research has done), it was shown that same-sex and
opposite-sex peer relations have distinct and unique influences on young people’s
lives. An interesting finding was that same-sex peer relations yielded a consistently
positive impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes, but this was not the case for
opposite-sex peer relations, which, although evincing positive nonacademic effects,
tended to be negative on some key academic dimensions. This is not to argue against
the importance of opposite-sex peer relations; rather, there needs to be a workable
balance of same-sex and opposite-sex peer relations in the context of academic and
nonacademic dimensions in young people’s lives.
CONCLUSION
The present investigation provides information about the measurement and analysis of
key interpersonal relationships in young people’s lives. Findings inform a greater
understanding of the differential roles of teachers, parents, same-sex peers, and
opposite-sex peers in relation to academic and nonacademic outcomes. Findings also
provide a basis for an integrative framework for understanding interpersonal
relationships across gender and age. Taken together, then, the data hold substantive,
methodological, and applied implications for researchers and practitioners who seek to
assess and enhance the interpersonal relationships that are salient and influential in
young people’s lives.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. London: Sage.
Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their
school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal
of Public Health, 87, 1997–2001.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–
529.
Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement
outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 197–214.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986, February). Alienation and the four worlds of childhood. Phi
Delta Kappan, 430–436.
Brown, R. L. (1994). Efficiency of the indirect approach for estimating structural
equation models with missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural
Equation Modeling, 1, 287–316.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: Issues and
instrumentation. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003. Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.
Fyson, S. J. (1999). Developing and applying concepts about community: Reflections
from the field. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 347–365.
Glover, S., Burns, J., Butler, H., & Patten, G. (1998). Social environments and the
emotional wellbeing of young people. Family Matters, 49, 11–16.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:
Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–
43.
Graham, J. W., & Hoffer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research.
In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnable, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and
multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201–
218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research.
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 431–438.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kelly, J. A., & Hansen, D.J. (1987). Social interactions and adjustment. In V. B. Can
Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 131–146). New
York: Pergamon Press.
Lucas, S. K., Carstairs, J. R., & Shores, E. A. (2003) A comparison of methods to
estimate pre-morbid intelligence in an Australian sample. Australian Psychologist, 38,
227–237.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An
examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 35, 81–99.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept:
Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit
indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides
& R. E. Schumacker (Ed.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp.
315–353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and
enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20.
Martin, A. J. (2003a). The relationship between parents’ enjoyment of parenting and
children’s school motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 13,
115–132.
Martin, A. J. (2003b). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument
that measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88–
106.
Martin, A. J. (2006a). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and
empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 803–825.
Martin, A. J. (2006b). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student
motivation and engagement and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 73–93.
Martin, A. J. (2007a). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 413–440.
Martin, A. J. (2007b). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney, Australia:
Lifelong Achievement Group. http://www.lifelongachievement.com
Martin, A. J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a
multidimensional framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality,
76, 135–170.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (in press). Interpersonal relationships, motivation,
engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review
of Educational Research.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and
educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43,
267–282.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008a). Academic buoyancy: Towards an
understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School
Psychology, 46, 53–83.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008b). Workplace and academic buoyancy:
Psychometric assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168–184.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007).
Getting along with teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students’
achievement motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 17, 109–125.
McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of
agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality,
64, 339–378.
McCarthy, M., Pretty, G., & Catano, V. (1990). Psychological sense of community and
burnout. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 211–216.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model:
Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.
Moos, R. H. (2002). The mystery of human context and coping: An unraveling of
clues. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 67–88.
Royal, M. A., & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual level correlates of sense of community:
Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395–416.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68–78.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring
with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:
Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 76–97.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s
motivation in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 73–118). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Andrew J. Martin
a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au
Ph. +612 9351 6273
Faculty of Education and Social Work
University of Sydney
NSW 2006, Australia
Andrew Martin is International Senior Research Fellow specializing in educational
psychology and quantitative research methods. Recent publications include:
Martin, A.J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 413-440.
Martin, A.J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a
multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-
269.
Herbert W. Marsh
Ph. +44 1865 274041
Department of Education
University of Oxford
15 Norham Gardens
Oxford OX2 6PY, UK
Herb Marsh is Professor of Education specialising in substantive-methodological
research applications in education and psychology. Recent publications include:
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice:
The role of self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, UK: British
Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W., & O’Mara, A. (2008). Reciprocal effects between academic self-
concept, self-esteem, achievement and attainment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 542-552.
Dennis M. McInerney
Ph. +852 2948 6034
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong
Dennis McInerney is Chair Professor of Educational Psychology specializing in
achievement motivation. Recent publications include:
McInerney, D.M., & McInerney, V. (2008). Educational Psychology: Constructing
Learning (5th Edition). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
McInerney, D.M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds). Research on Sociocultural Influences on
Motivation and Learning (Vols 1-7). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Jasmine Green
Ph. +612 9351 2222
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Teachers College Record, March, 2009
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, & Green
University of Sydney
NSW 2006, Australia
Jasmine Green is Research Associate specializing in motivation and self-concept
research. Recent publications include:
Green, J., Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English,
mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of
multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17,
269-279.
Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). The causal ordering of self-
concept and academic motivation and their effects on academic achievement.
International Education Journal, 7, 534-546.
Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: March 23, 2009
http://www.tcrecord.org/Home.asp ID Number: 15593, Date Accessed: 5/5/2009
8:13:29 PM
