Content uploaded by Andrew J Martin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew J Martin on Jan 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 0
Martin, A.J., & Collie, R.J. (2016). The role of teacher-student relationships in unlocking students’ academic
potential: Exploring motivation, engagement, resilience, adaptability, goals, and instruction. In K.R.
Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds). Handbook of social influences on social-emotional, motivation, and
cognitive outcomes in school contexts. New York: Routledge.
This chapter may not exactly replicate the authoritative document in the published book/volume. It is not the copy of
record. The exact copy of record can be accessed via the published book/volume, Handbook of social influences on
social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes in school contexts (2016).
© 2014 Martin & Collie 1
The Role of Teacher-Student Relationships in Unlocking Students’ Academic Potential:
Exploring Motivation, Engagement, Resilience, Adaptability, Goals, and Instruction
Andrew J. Martin and Rebecca J. Collie
School of Education
University of New South Wales
Requests for further information about this investigation can be made to Professor Andrew J. Martin,
School of Education, UNSW, Sydney NSW 2052, AUSTRALIA. E-Mail: andrew.martin@unsw.edu.au.
Phone: +61 2 9385 1952. Fax: +61 2 9385 1946.
Thanks are extended to the Australian Research Council for funding this research.
Introduction
This chapter explores the academic importance of teacher-student relationships, the means by which
teacher-student relationships play a part in unlocking students’ academic potential and development, the
role of teacher-student relationships in assisting our understanding of important educational phenomena, the
place of teacher-student relationships in major theories of achievement motivation and other achievement-
related constructs, and practical approaches to promoting better teacher-student relationships in the
everyday course of pedagogy. As a guiding framework for the discussion, we draw on a recently developed
framework aimed at integrating instructional and self-system factors relevant to optimizing students’
academic potential: the Personal Proficiency Network (PPN). The PPN comprises a constellation of factors
and processes relevant to students’ academic development, including: motivation, engagement, academic
buoyancy, academic resilience, adaptability, growth goals, and guided assessment and instruction. Given
© 2014 Martin & Collie 2
the breadth of constructs under the PPN, it represents a useful lens through which to consider the place of
teacher-student relationships in students’ academic striving.
The Personal Proficiency Network
The Personal Proficiency Network (PPN) was recently proposed as a synthesis of factors and processes
relevant to the self-system, instruction, and students’ academic development (Martin, 2013). The PPN
comprises (1) interpersonal relationships and social support, (2) motivation and engagement, (3) academic
buoyancy, resilience, and adaptability, (4) growth (‘personal best’) orientation, and (5) guided assessment
and instruction. Figure 1 demonstrates the elements of the model. The PPN represents an organizing
framework for cutting-edge and classic concepts in educational psychology and the related factors and
processes relevant to students striving to achieve their academic potential. The reader is referred to Martin
(2013) for a full articulation and rationale for the PPN, its factors, and its development. The present
discussion uses the key components of the PPN to explore the importance, role, and impact of teacher-
student relationships on students’ academic development.
<<Insert Figure 1 about here>>
Interpersonal Relationships and Social Support
The PPN explicitly emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships and social support in students’
academic development (see Figure 1). Teachers, parents/caregivers, and peers are three major relationship
sources that are influential in students’ academic lives. This chapter is focused on the role of the teacher –
however, much other work has investigated the role of parents/caregivers and peers (e.g., Bempechat &
Shernoff, 2012; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Juvonen, 2006; Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012; Liem &
Martin, 2011; Mansour & Martin, 2009; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Pomerantz & Moorman, 2010; Wentzel,
2010). Positive interpersonal relationships (including with teachers) are seen as a buffer against stress and
risk, important for help on (academic) tasks, a source of emotional support in daily life, and a basis for
social-emotional development (Battistich & Hom, 1997; De Leon, 2000; Gutman, Sameroff, & Eccles,
2002; Martin, 2013; Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012). In a meta-analysis of factors most highly correlated
© 2014 Martin & Collie 3
with academic outcomes, Hattie (2009) found teacher-student relationships to be ranked 11th of 138 factors
analyzed.
Teacher-Student Relationships: Means and Mechanisms
Alongside research demonstrating the positive effects of teacher-student relationships, there has also been
research seeking to understand how teacher-student relationships impact academic outcomes. Martin (2013,
in press) and Martin and Dowson (2009) explore numerous contentions seeking to explain how teacher-
student relationships assist student outcomes. It is possible that interactions with the teacher provide
students with greater self-knowledge and knowledge about what is needed to fit in with the classroom and
activities within it (Wentzel, 2009). It may be that students develop beliefs, values, and orientations that
align with those held by their teachers and which help them function more effectively in the academic
domain (Deci & R.M. Ryan, 2012). For example, good teacher-student relationships are likely to lead
students to internalize some of their teacher’s beliefs and values (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Then, these
beliefs, values, and orientations may function to direct behavior and cognition by way of enhanced
persistence, goal striving, and self-regulation (Wentzel, 2009).
Good teacher-student relationships may also have an energizing function that activates positive mood and
affect (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Furrer, Skinner, & Pitzer, 2014). This energy may provide a further
pathway to enhanced motivation and engagement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Furrer et al., 2014; Martin &
Dowson, 2009). Indeed, the ‘need to belong’ hypothesis proposes that “human beings have a pervasive
drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal
relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497) and that its fulfillment leads to positive emotional
responses. Consistent with other ‘energizing’ perspectives on interpersonal relationships, these positive
emotional responses can ‘drive’ achievement behavior in the form of motivation and engagement (Meyer &
Turner, 2002).
Motivation and Engagement
Multidimensional Motivation and Engagement
© 2014 Martin & Collie 4
Motivation and engagement represent a second foundation of the PPN (Figure 1). Motivation and
engagement are defined here as students’ inclination, interest, energy, and drive to learn, work effectively,
and achieve to potential – and the behaviors that accompany these inclinations (Liem & Martin, 2011;
Martin 2007, 2009; Pintrich 2000, 2003; Reschly & Christenson, 2012; Schunk & Miller 2002; Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). There have been concerns that the diversity of motivation and engagement
theories and factors has left the field overly fragmented. There have thus been calls for integrative
approaches to motivation and engagement theorizing and research (Bong, 1996; Murphy & Alexander
2000; Pintrich 2003; Reschly & Christenson, 2012).
One recent integrative effort led to the development of a multidimensional model of motivation and
engagement, the Motivation and Engagement Wheel – as shown in Figure 2 (Martin, 2007, 2009; for
examples of other multidimensional motivation and engagement instrumentation see also Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Survey by Midgley et al., 1997 and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). As Figure 2 demonstrates, the Wheel is organized into
higher-order and lower-order factors. These are adaptive cognition/motivation (lower-order factors: self-
efficacy, valuing school, mastery orientation), adaptive behavior/engagement (planning, task management,
persistence), maladaptive cognition/motivation (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control), and
maladaptive behavior/engagement (self-handicapping, disengagement).
<<Insert Figure 2 about here>>
Alongside the (conceptual) Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) is accompanying
measurement instrumentation – the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES; Martin, 2010b) – that is used
to assess each of the eleven factors. The MES (and subscales within it) has demonstrated sound factor
structure, high factor loadings, reliable factors, invariance as a function of age and gender, and external
validity with other educational factors and processes (see Liem & Martin, 2011 for a review).
Teacher-Student Relationships and Motivation and Engagement Theorizing
© 2014 Martin & Collie 5
In adopting an integrative approach to motivation and engagement, the Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) not only
represents many motivation and engagement factors, it also draws on numerous motivation and engagement
theories. For example (and as more fully detailed in Liem & Martin, 2011; Martin, 2007, 2009), the (a) self-
efficacy dimension of the Wheel draws on self-efficacy theory (e.g., Bandura, 2006) and expectancy-value
theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), (b) the valuing dimension also draws on expectancy-value theory, (c)
mastery orientation draws on self-determination (in terms of intrinsic motivation—see R.M. Ryan & Deci,
2000) and goal theories (see Kaplan & Maehr, 2007), (d) planning, task management, and persistence draw
on theories of self-regulation (e.g., Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), (e) the uncertain control dimension draws
on control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006) and attribution theorizing (tapping the
controllability element of attributions—see Connell, 1985; Weiner, 2010), and (f) failure avoidance,
anxiety, self-handicapping, and disengagement factors draw on need achievement and self-worth theories
(e.g., Covington, 1992, 2000; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009).
Importantly, each of these theories articulates a role for teacher-student relationships in the dynamics and
processes proposed to impact student outcomes. By implication, teacher-student relationships are embedded
within the Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) by virtue of the theories underpinning key factors in it. Martin and
Dowson (2009) reviewed each of these theories in terms of the teacher-student relationship factors and
processes relevant to them. A summary of their review is now presented.
The control-value theory of achievement emotions is based on the premise that appraisals of control and
values are pivotal to the arousal of achievement emotions (e.g., joy, hope, fear, boredom; Pekrun, 2006). The
theory proposes that the affective impact of the social environment on students’ achievement emotions is
mediated by students’ control and value perceptions. Significant others such as teachers represent an
important part of a student’s social environment and they (relationally) impact the student via autonomy
support, feedback to the student, and facilitation of cooperation in the classroom (Pekrun, 2006). Attribution
theory focuses on the causes attributed to academic outcomes and the impact of these causal attributions on
© 2014 Martin & Collie 6
academic behavior, cognition, and emotion (Weiner, 2010). Notably, attributions may be learnt from the
attributional styles of others (including teachers) – and can develop through feedback from and observation
of significant others such as teachers (Hareli & Weiner, 2000, 2002).
Goal theory focuses on the reasons and motivations for developing and pursuing academic goals (Elliot,
2005; Maehr & Zusho, 2009). These goals can be fostered and communicated to students through the values
and expectations of significant others such as teachers (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Self-efficacy refers to a
belief in one’s capacity and agency to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 2006; Schunk & Miller, 2002).
This perceived capacity and agency can be instilled in the student through direct and/or indirect influences
and modeling from and by others, including the teacher (Bandura, 1997). How closely the student is aligned
and connected with the teacher will have a bearing on the extent to which efficacy and agency are modeled.
Students’ expectancies and values are also substantively linked to socializers’ (e.g., teachers) beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002). Socializing via
teacher-student connections thus impacts the extent to which academic beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are
internalized and adopted.
Self-determination theory (SDT) is based on three psychological needs, one of which centers on the need for
relatedness (the others are autonomy and competence). These needs are satisfied through the warmth,
support, and nurturance provided by significant others, including teachers (Deci & R.M. Ryan, 2012; Jang,
Kim, & Reeve, 2012; Reeve, Deci, & R.M. Ryan, 2004). Indeed, Pianta, Hamre, and Allen (2012) suggest
that teacher-student relationships are the “media” through which psychological needs are met. Finally, self-
worth motivation theory conceptualizes the link between self-worth and achievement (Covington, 1992,
1998). This link is partly a function of the interpersonal relationships in a child’s life and the extent to
which affirmation and approval are communicated in conditional or unconditional ways. High academic
achievement is one condition that can be implicated in relationships. In such cases, greater interpersonal
affirmation is provided to a child when he/she performs well academically, whereas a child performing
© 2014 Martin & Collie 7
relatively poorly receives no such affirmation with potentially negative effects on their self-worth. Quality
teacher-student relationships do not rely on academic achievement as a basis for affirmation and thus tend
not to be a factor that threatens students’ self-worth (Martin & Marsh, 2003). In sum, major theories of
motivation and engagement directly or indirectly recognize the importance of interpersonal relationships –
including teacher-student relationships – as part of their conceptual and explanatory processes.
Teacher-Student Relationships and the Motivation and Engagement Wheel
The Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) provides a useful basis with which to
investigate the role of teacher-student relationships in the context of multiple dimensions of motivation and
engagement. In a study of 3,450 high school students, Martin, Marsh, McInerney, and Green (2009; see also
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson, 2007) found that compared with parent-child and peer
relationships, teacher-student relationships explained the bulk of variance in motivation and engagement.
Specifically, quality teacher-student relationships were significantly positively correlated with self-efficacy,
mastery orientation, valuing school, planning, task management, and persistence. Quality teacher-student
relationships were negatively correlated with failure avoidance, uncertain control, self-handicapping, and
disengagement.
Another study examined the extent to which a teacher’s interest in a student impacts the student’s academic
motivation and engagement compared to the extent to which a teacher’s interest in the class impacts the
student’s motivation and engagement (Martin, 2012a). Academic motivation and engagement were
represented by the 11 factors in the Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009). A total of 4,383 middle school students
were asked to rate their teacher’s interest in them and to rate the teacher’s interest in other students in the
class. Findings indicated that the teacher’s interest in the individual student significantly predicted that
student’s level of motivation and engagement; however, the teacher’s interest in the class had little to no
impact on the individual student’s level of motivation and engagement. It was concluded that a student’s
motivation and engagement relies more on the teacher’s interest in that individual student than on the
© 2014 Martin & Collie 8
teacher’s interest in the whole class. Clearly, a high quality one-on-one interaction and connection between
teacher and student is important for multiple dimensions of students’ academic motivation and engagement.
Teacher-Student Relationships and Other Motivation and Engagement Findings
There is a substantial body of other motivation and engagement research demonstrating that positive
connections with the teacher are highly influential in students’ academic development (Martin, 2013;
Martin & Dowson, 2009; Pianta et al., 2012; Wentzel, 2010). Teachers who are warm, caring, and sensitive
to their students’ needs foster engagement and achievement among their students (Pianta et al., 2012;
Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012; Van Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). Students who
believe their teacher accepts them and has confidence in them report more self-efficacy in their academic
ability and feel that they belong at school (Hughes, 2011). Positive relationships with teachers are linked to
enhanced cognitive, social, and language development (Pianta et al., 2012; Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog,
1997). Students’ feelings of acceptance by the teacher are associated with positive cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Rimm-Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, & Curby, 2014;
Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). Teachers who encourage student autonomy promote greater
motivation and engagement in their students (Jang et al., 2012; Reeve & Lee, 2014). Also, teachers making
even a modest effort to develop personal connections with students (to the extent that students feel known
by the teacher) significantly increase those students’ academic motivation (Reyes et al., 2012; Roeser,
Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998). Mashburn and colleagues (2008) found that one-on-one time with students
increased learning-oriented interactions. There is thus a clear evidence base linking positive teacher-student
relationships to positive motivation and engagement outcomes.
The Role of Student-Teacher Relationships and Developmental Shifts in Motivation
It is well-established that student motivation tends to decrease as students progress through school with
large drop-offs often occurring after the transition from elementary to middle school (Mahatma et al., 2012;
Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Motivation can also decrease from the beginning to the end of the
school year (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, & Harris, 2012; Opdenakker, Maulana, den Brok, 2012). Importantly
though, high quality teacher-student relationships can help to offset and even reverse declines in motivation
© 2014 Martin & Collie 9
over the course of a school year (Gehlbach et al., 2012) and beyond. Research has shown that positive
teacher-student relationships predict greater motivation and engagement in subsequent grades among
students in the first few years of schooling (Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008; Hughes, Wu, Kwok,
Villarreal, & Johnson, 2012; O’Connor et al., 2007) and during the transition to middle school (A.M. Ryan
& Patrick, 2001; Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
Thus, it is important that students are engaged in positive relationships with their teachers throughout their
time at school. One way to achieve this is by providing teachers with training to foster positive relationships
among their students. One example of this is a program that Spilt, Koomen, Thijs, and van der Leij (2012)
examined. The program asked teachers to reflect on their interactions with a particular disruptive student in
their class, their own relational strengths and weaknesses, and possible of areas for improvement in their
relationship with the student. The results showed positive changes in teacher-student closeness and conflict,
and greater teacher sensitivity for a substantial proportion of the teachers.
Academic Buoyancy, Resilience, and Adaptability
Academic Buoyancy and Academic Resilience
The third part of the PPN relates to how students navigate academic adversity. As Martin (2013) has noted,
it is not overly difficult for most students to be motivated and engaged when academic life is proceeding
reasonably smoothly – such as when they are receiving reasonable grades, the work is not overly difficult,
there is no too much of it, and there are not too many competing deadlines. However, at some point in all
students’ academic lives, it is likely that things do not proceed so smoothly. It is at this point that they must
effectively navigate academic adversity. Thus, it might be said that the well-rounded student is one who is
motivated and engaged in the ordinary course of academic life but when academic adversity emerges,
he/she can bounce back so as to adaptively (re)engage with academic life.
Martin and Marsh (2009) have suggested that academic adversity can be minor (or, ‘everyday’) and major
(or chronic and/or acute). Minor or ‘everyday’ academic adversity includes an isolated poor grade,
© 2014 Martin & Collie 10
conflicting assignment deadlines, and difficult or complex schoolwork. Major or chronic and/or acute
academic adversity includes learning difficulties, ongoing underachievement, school suspension or
expulsion, and grade repetition. Academic buoyancy has been suggested as an attribute relevant to students’
capacity to navigate low-level or ‘everyday’ academic risk and adversity (Martin & Marsh, 2009; see also
Malmberg, Hall, & Martin, 2013; Putwain, Connors, Symes, & Douglas-Osborn, 2012; Putwain & Daly,
2013). Academic resilience has been suggested as an ability to successfully deal with chronic and/or acute
academic adversity (Martin, 2013; Martin & Marsh, 2009).
Research investigating predictors of academic buoyancy and academic resilience has identified an array of
contributing factors. This work has largely focused on distal (e.g., ethnicity, SES, single parent) or proximal
factors (e.g., school factors, psychological factors). Because the proximal factors are considered to be more
manipulable (Cappella & Weinstein, 2001), there tends to be a focus on these from an intervention
perspective (Martin & Marsh, 2008). Broadly, proximal factors may be grouped into (a) psychological
factors, (b) family and peer factors, and (c) school factors. The school factors are of interest in this chapter.
School factors include, inter alia, interpersonal relationship with teachers, effective teacher feedback, and
teacher responsiveness (e.g., Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993; Catterall, 1998; Finn & Rock, 1997;
Murray & Zvoch, 2011; Rudasill, Reio, Stipanovic, & Taylor, 2010).
Borman and Rachuba (2001) conducted an investigation of academic resilience that analyzed the relative
salience of five competing models: individual/personal characteristics model, effective schools model,
school resources model, peer group model, and supportive school community model. Two models
accounted for most variance in students’ capacity to deal with academic setback and adversity: the
individual/personal characteristics model and the supportive school community model. These involved key
factors of academic engagement, locus of control, and self-efficacy (individual characteristics) and positive
teacher-student relationships (supportive school community model). Thus, alongside well-established
© 2014 Martin & Collie 11
factors such as self-efficacy and engagement, teacher-student relationships were a major factor in students’
capacity to deal with academic adversity (Martin & Marsh, 2008).
This is consistent with research identifying the role of interpersonal relationships as a buffer against stress
and risk, a source of emotional support, and a basis for social-emotional well-being (Ahnert, Harwardt-
Heinecke, Kappler, Eckstein-Madry, & Milatz, 2012; Battistich & Hom, 1997; De Leon, 2000; Gutman et
al., 2002; Martin, 2013; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997; Pianta et al., 2012; Reyes et al., 2012). It is also
in line with research showing that the role of teacher-student relationships is particularly important for at-
risk students; results show that a supportive and close relationship with the teacher can make the difference
between at-risk students who succeed academically and those who do not (Liew, Chen, & Hughes, 2010;
Murray & Zvoch, 2011; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995; Wit, Karioja, Rye, & Shain, 2011).
In a study of predictors of academic buoyancy, Martin and Marsh (2008) tested factors in the two salient
models (individual/personal characteristics and supportive school community models) from the Borman and
Rachuba (2001) study. Data were from 598 students in five high schools. Half-way through the school year
and then again at the end of the year, students were asked to rate their academic buoyancy as well as a set of
individual/personal and school support predictors. Structural equation modeling showed that teacher-student
relationships explained variance in Time 2 academic buoyancy beyond the effects of academic buoyancy at
Time 1 – supporting the role of teacher-student relationships in students’ adaptive responses to academic
setback and adversity.
Adaptability
The third part of the PPN also relates to how students navigate change, uncertainty, variability, transition,
and novelty in their academic lives. It is a fact that through a young person’s life span, the world will see
major change and transition on economic, socio-cultural, technological, medical, geo-political, and other
fronts (Hofäcker, Buchholz, & Blossfeld, 2010; Tomasik, Silbereisen, & Heckhausen, 2010). A young
person’s own life will see frequent change, uncertainty, variability, transition, and novelty. For example,
© 2014 Martin & Collie 12
most or all of the following will occur: he or she will begin school, adjust to new year groups and subjects
at school, move out of home, start and change jobs, marry or partner, have or care for children, and retire
from work. Indeed, even within a school day, a student will move from one lesson to another, change tasks,
interact with different students and teachers, and adapt to new or changing situations and circumstances
(Martin, Nejad, Colmer, & Liem, 2012, 2013).
These changes interrupt students’ routines and give rise to shifting circumstances and demands to which
young people must adjust (Tomasik & Silbereisen 2009; Tomasik et al., 2010). Adaptability is an attribute
that has recently been the focus of investigation among adolescent school students. Alongside academic
buoyancy and academic resilience, the PPN identifies adaptability as a factor important for students as they
navigate their ever-changing world (Figure 1).
Adaptability is defined by the American Psychological Association as “the capacity to make appropriate
responses to changed or changing situations; the ability to modify or adjust one’s behavior in meeting
different circumstances or different people” (VandenBos, 2007, p. 17). Martin and colleagues (2012, 2013)
extended the definition beyond behavioral and cognitive regulation to also include emotional regulation.
Behavioral regulation refers to the capacity to adjust action or behavior to successfully navigate changing,
novel, and uncertain circumstances and conditions. Cognitive regulation refers to the capacity to adjust
thinking to effectively handle changing, new, and uncertain circumstances and conditions. Emotional
regulation refers to the capacity to adjust emotional responses to effectively negotiate an uncertain, new, or
changing environment or task. As behavioral, cognitive and emotional regulatory functions are involved,
this approach to adaptability is referred to as a “tripartite perspective” on adaptability (Martin et al., 2012,
2013). Each of the three is important for developing and maintaining a positive relationship between the
student and his/her changing academic environment (Wessel, A.M. Ryan, & Oswald, 2008).
© 2014 Martin & Collie 13
Adaptability is a relatively recent construct on the empirical psycho-educational landscape and so no work
(to our knowledge) has directly investigated the role of teacher-student relationships in its development.
However, adaptability is suggested to be a special case of negotiating situational uncertainty and novelty
that is compatible with broad theories of developmental regulation. Hence, adaptability complements self-
regulation research as an aligned construct (Martin et al., 2013). Given this, it is useful to note that the role
of teachers has early roots in the development of self-regulation frameworks. For example, in 1986
Zimmerman reported “self-regulation is not an idiosyncratic product of a child’s own discovery
experiences, but rather, it is a culturally transmitted method for optimizing and controlling learning events.
Implicit in this account are assumptions about the importance of the relationship between children and their
socializing agent (and analogously between students and their teachers)” (p. 311).
In support of this, it has been shown that beliefs, values, and orientations held by the teacher are internalized
by the student’s (via relatedness) and direct behavior and cognition to enhance self-regulation (Wentzel,
1999, 2009). Eisenhower, Baker, and Blacher (2007) also found significant links between teacher-student
relationships and self-regulation, particularly for academically at-risk students. It is also worth recalling that
teacher-student relationships were significantly associated with self-regulatory factors (planning and task
management) in the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin et al., 2007, 2009). There is thus a
relational basis to self-regulation, and by implication, it is tentatively suggested to also be the case for
adaptability. However, this remains an empirical question for future research.
We might also consider adaptability in terms of students’ academic and non-academic adjustment to and
through school. On this count there is also evidence of a significant role for teacher-student relationships.
For example, Hamre and Pianta (2001; see also Rudasill, 2011) found that students with positive
relationships with kindergarten teachers were better adjusted in subsequent grades (with effects extending to
eighth grade). They concluded that teacher-student relationships are an important part of children’s
adaptation in school. Baker (2006) similarly found that particularly for at-risk students, teacher-student
© 2014 Martin & Collie 14
relationships were helpful in positive adjustments to elementary school. Further into school, Wentzel (2002)
found that various dimensions of teacher-student interactions significantly predict middle school students’
academic and social adjustment indicators. Then, in college, Larose, Tarabulsy, and Cyrenne (2005) found
that a teacher-student mentoring relationship intervention program had significant emotional, institutional,
and social adjustment yields for the students in the high teacher-student relatedness condition. Taken
together, as with self-regulation, there is a relational basis to students’ academic and institutional
adjustment. By implication, we may speculate the same for the effects of adaptability; but this is yet to be
formally and directly determined and is thus an area for future research.
Growth Orientation – Personal Best Goals
In recent years there has been some dissatisfaction with static or relativistic approaches to student
development (Anderman, Anderman, Yough, & Gimbert, 2010; Betebenner, 2009; Martin, 2011). In many
ways, these approaches are not particularly meaningful as comparing students of widely varying abilities
does not give much insight into an individual student’s educational development. Such approaches also tend
to position students in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ (Covington, 1992, 2000). Martin (2011) argues that
this positioning of students can have adverse effects on their motivation and engagement, which has led
researchers to emphasize students’ academic progress over time (Anderman et al., 2010). This involves
shifting the emphasis from comparisons between students to an interest in the growth of each individual
student across time (Betebenner, 2009). Thus, alternative approaches to student development have been
advised in the form of a greater focus on students’ academic growth. Approaching academic development
from a growth perspective brings into consideration growth (or ‘personal best’) goals (Martin, 2013,
2014a). As will be demonstrated, personal best goals benefit from a relational approach to their
operationalization.
Growth, or ‘personal best’ (PB), goals are specific, challenging, and competitively self-referenced targets to
which students strive (Liem, Ginns, Martin, Stone, & Herrett, 2012; Martin, 2014a; Martin & Liem, 2010).
Thus, a PB goals entails the student stating exactly what he/she is aiming for, setting a goal that modestly
© 2014 Martin & Collie 15
exceeds his/her current position or state, and competing with him/herself rather than with others. PB goals
take two forms: ‘process goals’ (e.g., preparing for a test at the weekend when usually no study is done at
weekends, spending an extra 30-minutes doing homework than usual) and ‘outcome goals’ (e.g., scoring a
higher mark in end of year exams than in the termly exams, getting more questions correct in one’s
mathematics test; Martin, 2011; see also www.lifelongachievement.com for downloadable growth goal
resources for students and teachers).
There is an emerging evidence base demonstrating a connection between PB goals and academic outcomes.
In cross-sectional work, PB goals are associated with students’ educational aspirations, class participation,
enjoyment of school, and perseverance (Martin, 2006) and Yu and Martin (2014) found a positive role for
PB goals in predicting engagement. In longitudinal work, PB goals predict later literacy and numeracy
achievement, effort on tests, perseverance, school enjoyment, class participation, homework completion,
educational aspirations, engagement (Martin & Liem, 2010), deep learning and academic flow (Liem et al.,
2012). Moreover, PB goals yield more positive effects on academic outcomes for at-risk students (with
ADHD) than students not at academic risk (Martin, 2012b). Alongside PB goals, other researchers are also
now exploring growth-oriented goals and goal-setting (e.g., see Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011; Elliot,
Murayama, Kobeisy, & Lichtenfeld, in press).
Through goal-setting and achievement goal research, there has been some attention given to the role of
teacher-student relationships. Interpersonal relationships have been associated with the goals that students
pursue (Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Wentzel, 2009). Students’ positive relationships
with teachers (Martin et al., 2007, 2009; Régner, Loose, & Dumas, 2009) have been positively associated
with mastery goals in learning. Indeed, Collie, Martin, Papworth, and Ginns (2014) suggest that teacher-
student relationships may also be important for PB goals. According to them, positive interpersonal
relationships provide a supportive environment that promotes healthy emotional, social, and academic
functioning among students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Martin & Dowson, 2009). They suggest that this
© 2014 Martin & Collie 16
may also promote the confidence in students to aim higher than in previous efforts, to expend greater effort
in their learning, and to persist with their goals (Wentzel, 2009). On these bases, they suggested that
positive teacher-student relationships would promote PB goals through the motivational and social supports
required in learning. Confirming their contentions, in a study of USA, Canadian and UK high school
students, Collie and colleagues (2014) found that PB goals partially mediated the connection between
students’ interpersonal relationships (including with teachers) and academic engagement. This supported
prior research by Martin et al. (2009) and Liem et al. (2012) finding that the adoption of PB goals was
significantly correlated with students’ relationships with their teachers.
Guided Assessment and Instruction
The final part of the PPN involves instruction – with particular emphasis on the appropriate balancing of
explicit instruction and guided discovery learning – referred to as ‘guided assessment and instruction’ in
Figure 1. Whereas other parts of the PPN are very student-centered, relying on the relational support of the
teacher, this component of the PPN is teacher-centered. The capacity of the teacher to conduct effective
assessment, deliver content knowledge, and develop academic skill through instruction is very much
optimized when positive teacher-student relationships underpin pedagogy (Martin & Dowson, 2009). This
chapter is not about assessment, explicit instruction and discovery learning per se; there are many accounts
of these instructional approaches (see Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum,
2011; Fisher & Frey, 2010; Martin, 2014b; Marzano, 2011; Pressley et al., 2003; Rosenshine, 2008, 2009).
Rather, the emphasis here is on how teachers can integrate relational processes into their instruction.
The concept of ‘connective instruction’ was developed to provide guidance on how to effectively integrate
interpersonal relationships into the everyday course of pedagogy (Martin, 2010a, 2013; Martin & Dowson,
2009; also see Munns, 1998). Connective instruction is that which connects the teacher to students on three
levels: interpersonal, substantive, and pedagogical. The ‘interpersonal relationship’ is the relationship
between the student and the teacher. The ‘substantive relationship’ is the relationship between the student
and the subject matter, content, and nature of tasks in the teaching and learning context. The ‘pedagogical
© 2014 Martin & Collie 17
relationship’ is the relationship between the student and the teaching or instruction itself (see also
www.lifelongachievement.com for a downloadable ‘connective instruction’ taxonomy for teachers to self-
rate their pedagogy).
Martin (2010a, 2013; see also Martin & Dowson, 2009) proposed that connective instruction refers to the
‘who’ (interpersonal), ‘what’ (substantive), and ‘how’ (pedagogical) of the teacher-student interaction.
Accordingly, students are more likely to be motivated and engaged when they connect to ‘who’ the teacher
is, ‘what’ tasks and activities are being administered and ‘what’ the teacher is saying, and ‘how’ the teacher
communicates these messages and tasks. Indeed, Martin (2013) likened a high quality lesson to a high
quality musical composition: a great singer (‘who’), a great song (‘what’), and great singing (‘how’). In
sum, connective instruction explicitly positions relatedness as an instructional need and that academic
development is promoted when this need is met (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
The first connection – the interpersonal relationship – is that between the student and the teacher him or
herself. Martin (2006) identified key characteristics of good interpersonal relationships in the teaching and
learning context. These include: actively listening to students’ views; allowing student input into decisions
that affect them; getting to know the students; showing no favoritism and affirming all students; accepting
students’ individuality; and having positive but attainable expectations for students (pp. 6-7). These are an
important means by which the student connects with the ‘who’ of instruction.
The second key connection – the substantive relationship – is that between the student and the subject
matter and the nature of tasks administered in the teaching and learning context. Martin (2006) identified
core elements of this substantive relationship: setting work that is challenging but not too difficult;
assigning work that is important and significant; building variety into content and assessment tasks;
assigning interesting work; drawing on material that is fun to learn, where possible and appropriate; and
© 2014 Martin & Collie 18
utilizing material and assigning tasks that arouse curiosity (p. 6). These are an important means by which
the student connects with the ‘what’ of instruction.
The third key connection – the pedagogical relationship – is that between the student and the teaching or
pedagogy itself. According to Martin (2006) these include: maximizing opportunities for students to
succeed and develop competence; providing clear feedback to students focusing on how they can improve;
explaining things clearly and carefully; injecting variety into teaching methods; encouraging students to
learn from their mistakes; clearly demonstrating to students how schoolwork is relevant and/or meaningful;
and ensuring all students keep up with the work and allowing for opportunities to catch up (p. 7). These are
an important means by which the student connects with the ‘how’ of instruction.
In sum, teachers make a difference in students’ academic lives (Hattie, 2009) and the extent of this impact
relies on their capacity to deliver pedagogy through approaches that enable the student to connect in
personally meaningful ways to three key elements of pedagogy: who is doing the teaching (the singer), the
substance of what is taught (the song), and how it is taught (the singing). These three elements are the
cornerstones of connective instruction. When students are more personally connected with the teacher and
the teaching and learning context, assessment and instruction are more likely to engage and motivate
students to work and achieve to potential.
Future Directions for Theory and Research
There is a substantial volume of theory and research conceptualizing and investigating the nature, role, and
impact of teacher-student relationships on students’ academic outcomes. However, given its clear
importance in student development, theory, research, and practice would benefit from knowing more. For
example, this chapter dealt with some relatively novel constructs that have shown promise in early studies
and which have not been formally or directly studied in relation to teacher-student connections.
Adaptability, for example, is one such construct and it would be useful to know to what extent and in what
© 2014 Martin & Collie 19
ways teacher-student relationships enhance students’ capacity to deal with change, uncertainty, variability,
transition, and novelty in their academic lives.
The question of causal ordering is deserving of further investigation. Skinner and Belmont (1993) found
evidence of reciprocal relationships between academic engagement and teacher-student relationships.
Whereas most research sees interpersonal relationships as predicting subsequent academic outcomes,
Skinner and Belmont found that positive engagement is also a basis for subsequent positive relationships.
To what extent might this be the case for buoyancy, resilience, adaptability, and growth goals and mindsets?
Investigating temporal ordering also brings into consideration developmental issues. Questions around this
involve exploring the role of interpersonal relationships in impacting development of motivation and
engagement over time, shifts in relationships with teachers, parents and peers and impacts on students’
academic resilience and goals, and the changing nature of teacher-student relationships as students move
through school and how this affects academic outcomes.
As always, there is a need to better understand the phenomena under focus for at-risk students. While the
chapter did touch on at-risk students in parts, more can be known about how, for example, teacher-student
relationships can be a platform for closing achievement gaps. There is also the question of the relative
impacts of good vs. poor teacher-student relationships. For example, does one poor relationship with a
teacher have a greater impact on academic outcomes than one or more positive relationships? To the extent
that this is the case, how do schools deal with this? We might also further consider the domain-specificity of
teacher-student effects. How far beyond the academic domain can teacher-student relationships impact? To
what extent can teachers offer a compensatory interpersonal relationship in non-academic life if there are
problematic or non-existent interpersonal relationships with parents/caregivers?
There is also the ever-present need for more intervention research. Teacher professional development (or
‘in-servicing’) can be effective in enhancing the educational outcomes of students (Cherubini, Zambelli, &
© 2014 Martin & Collie 20
Boscolo, 2002; Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012; Stipek, Giwin, Salmon, & MacGyvers,
1998). Research has also pointed to the need for teacher professional development in assisting
disadvantaged and disengaged students. Notably, one of the key suggested areas for professional
development in this area is improving teacher-student relationships (Becker & Luthar, 2002).
Research design and data can also be areas for future development. Most research is based on retrospective
reports or reports somewhat removed from the actual teacher-student interaction. Real-time data on the
teacher-student relationship as it happens would be useful. Recently, Malmberg, Woolgar, and Martin (in
press) demonstrated the success of mobile technology as a means of collecting real-time data on learning
and instruction from students. Moving beyond self-reports, there is a need to complement students’
perceptions of teacher-student relationships with reports and observations by others. It would be interesting
to juxtapose self- and other-reports in predicting key constructs under consideration in this chapter. Finally,
whereas most research adopts variable-centered approaches to teacher-student relationships, future work
might consider person-centered approaches. This would involve identifying groups of students high and low
in relational quality with a view to understanding factors that determine their group membership – as well
as the effects of such membership. This has the advantage of studying patterns of teacher-student
relationships occurring ‘naturally’ and may then also provide an opportunity for in-depth case study and
qualitative research.
Conclusion
Positive interpersonal relationships are a source of happiness and a buffer against stress; they are important
for healthy human functioning; and, they are instrumental in help for challenges, tasks, and emotional
support in daily life. Teacher-student relationships are a critical part of students’ interpersonal landscape.
There is substantial research and theory emphasizing the important role that teacher-student relationships
play in students’ academic outcomes at school. Using the Personal Potential Network as a guiding
framework organizing the present discussion of teacher-student relationships, it is evident that a quality
teacher-student relationship is an important end in itself and also a means to unlock students’ academic
© 2014 Martin & Collie 21
potential by way of motivation, engagement, academic buoyancy, academic resilience, adaptability, growth,
and instruction. In sum, theory, research and practice in the area of teacher-student relationships attest to the
importance of high quality interpersonal connections for healthy academic functioning and effective ways to
optimize these influential connections.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 22
References
Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle,
WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Ahnert, L., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., Eckstein-Madry, T., & Milatz, A. (2012). Student–teacher
relationships and classroom climate in first grade: How do they relate to students’ stress regulation?
Attachment & Human Development, 14, 249-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.673277
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its short- and
long-term consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801–814.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction
enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.
Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Yough, M., & Gimbert, B. (2010). Value-added models of assessment:
Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45, 123-137
Argyle, M. (1999). The development of social coping skills. In E. Frydenberg (Ed). Learning to cope:
Developing as a person in complex societies (pp. 81-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during
elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. (pp. 1-43). USA: Information Age Press.
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.
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.
Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D.J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student
engagement. In. S.L., Christenson., A.L. Reschly., & C. Wylie (Eds). Handbook of research on
student engagement. New York. Springer.
Betebenner, D. (2009). Growth, standards and accountability. Dover, NH: Center for Assessment.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their
solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149-165.
Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis
of competing models of school effects (Report No. 52). Baltimore: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 23
Cappella, E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Turning around reading achievement: Predictors of high school
students’ academic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 758–771.
Catterall, J. S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal of
Education, 106, 302–333.
Cherubini, G., Zambelli, F., & Boscolo, P. (2002). Student motivation: An experience of inservice education
as a context for professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 273-288.
Collie, R., Martin, A.J., Papworth, B., & Ginns, P. (2014). Students’ interpersonal relationships, personal
best (PB) goals, and academic engagement. Submitted for publication.
Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child
Development, 56, 1018-1041.
Connell. J.P., & Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of
self-system processes. In M.R. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe (Eds). Self processes in development: Minnesota
Symposium on Child Psychology, (Vol 29. pp. 244-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M.V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Covington, M.V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model and method. New York, New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social
contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
human motivation (pp. 85-110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed). Achievement and
achievement motivation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Eisenhower, A. S., Baker, B. L., & Blacher, J. (2007). Early student–teacher relationships of children with
and without intellectual disability: Contributions of behavioral, social, and self-regulatory competence.
Journal of School Psychology, 45, 363-383.
Elliot, A. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds).
Handbook of competence and motivation, New York: Guildford.
Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A., & Lichtendfeld, S. (in press). Potential-based achievement goals.
British Journal of Educational Psychology.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 24
Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 103, 632-648.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Guided instruction: How to develop confident and successful learners.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
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.
Furrer, C.J., Skinner, E.A., & Pitzer, J.R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on
students’ classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. National Society for the Study
of Education, 113, 101-123.
Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2012). Changes in teacher-student relationships. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 690-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02058.x
Gutman, L.M., Sameroff, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2002). The academic achievement of African American
students during early adolescents: An examination of multiple risk, promotive, and protective factors.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 401-428.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children's
school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2000). Accounts for success as determinants of perceived arrogance and modesty.
Motivation and Emotion, 24, 215-236.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction
in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183-193.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.
Hofäcker, D., Buchholz, S., & Blossfeld, H.P. (2010). Globalization, institutional filters and changing life
course patterns in modern societies. A summary of the results from the GLOBALIFE-project. In R. K.
Silbereisen & X. Chen (Eds.), Social change and human development: Concept and results (pp. 101-
124). London: Sage Publications.
Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-student relationship
qualities on academic adjustment. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 38-60.
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement,
and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 1-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
Hughes, J. N., Wu, J., Kwok, O., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of
teacher–student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 350-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026339
© 2014 Martin & Collie 25
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's motivation
mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104,
1175-1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028089
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional
competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491-
525.
Juvonen, J. (2006). Sense of belonging, social relationships, and school functioning. In P. A. Alexander & P.
H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 655-674). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Juvenon, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The role of peer relationships in student academic and
extracurricular engagement. In. S.L., Christenson., A.L. Reschly., & C. Wylie (Eds). Handbook of
research on student engagement. New York. Springer.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M.L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.
Kontos, S. & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teachers' interactions with children: Why are they so important?
Research in review. Young Children, 52, 4-12.
La Guardia, J.G., & Ryan, R.M. (2002). What adolescents need: A self-determination theory perspective on
development within families, school, and society. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds). Academic
motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Larose, S., Tarabulsy, G., & Cyrenne, D. (2005). Perceived autonomy and relatedness as moderating the
impact of teacher-student mentoring relationships on student academic adjustment. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 26, 111-128.
Liem, G.A., Ginns, P., Martin, A.J. Stone, B., & Herrett, M. (2012). Personal best goals and academic and
social functioning: A longitudinal perspective. Learning and Instruction, 22, 222-230.
Liem, G.A., & Martin, A.J. (2011). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non-academic
outcomes: Same-sex and opposite-sex peer effects and the mediating role of school engagement.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 183-206.
Liew, J., Chen, Q., & Hughes, J. N. (2010). Child effortful control, teacher–student relationships, and
achievement in academically at-risk children: Additive and interactive effects. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25, 51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.005
Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: The
relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student
achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 153-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.551222
© 2014 Martin & Collie 26
Maehr, M., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In Handbook of
motivation at school, In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds). pp 77-104. New York: Routledge.
Mahatma, D., Lohman, B.J., Matjasko, J.L., & Farb, A. F. (2012). Engagement across developmental
periods. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.) Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 45-64). New York, NY: Springer.
Malmberg, L-E., Hall, J., & Martin, A.J. (2013). Academic buoyancy in secondary school: Exploring
patterns of convergence in mathematics, science, English and physical education. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 262-266.
Malmberg, L-E., Woolgar, C., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Quality of the Learning Experience Questionnaire
(LEQ) for Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). International Journal of Quantitative Research in
Education.
Mansour, M., & Martin, A.J. (2009). Home, parents, and achievement motivation: A study of key home and
parental factors that predict student motivation and engagement. Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 26, 111-126.
Martin, A.J. (2006). Pastoral pedagogy: A great composition comprising the song, the singer, and the
singing. Educational Resources Information Center Document (ED) 490483. U.S. Department of
Education.
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. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental construct
validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 69, 794-824.
Martin, A.J. (2010a). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure. London:
Continuum.
Martin, A.J. (2010b). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney: Lifelong Achievement Group
(www.lifelongachievement.com).
Martin, A.J. (2011). Personal best (PB) approaches to academic development: Implications for motivation
and assessment. Educational Practice and Theory, 33, 93-99.
Martin, A.J. (2012a). Interpersonal relationships and student development (motivation, engagement,
buoyancy, and achievement): What outcomes teachers, peers, and parents do and do not impact.
Keynote presented at International Conference on Interpersonal Relationships in Education (ICIRE),
Vancouver, Canada.
Martin, A.J. (2012b). The role of Personal Best (PB) goals in the achievement and behavioral engagement of
students with ADHD and students without ADHD. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 91-
105.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 27
Martin, A.J. (2013). The Personal Proficiency Network: Key self-system factors and processes to optimize
academic development. In D.M. McInerney, H.W. Marsh., R.G. Craven, & F. Guay (Eds). Theory
driving research: New wave perspectives on self-processes and human development. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Martin, A.J. (2014a). Implicit theories about intelligence and growth (personal best) goals: Exploring
reciprocal relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12038
Martin, A.J. (2014b). Teaching academically at-risk students in middle school: The roles of explicit
instruction and guided discovery learning. In S Groundwater-Smith & N. Mockler (Eds). Big fish, little
fish: Teaching and learning in the middle years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Interpersonal relationships and students’ academic and non-academic development:
What outcomes peers, parents, and teachers do and do not impact. In J. Tartwijk, D. Zandvliet., T.
Mainhard., & P. den Brok (Eds). Interpersonal relationships. London: Sense.
Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement:
Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365.
Martin, A.J., & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic personal bests (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A cross-
lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 265-270.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday
academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: Multidimensional and
hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate constructs. Oxford Review of
Education, 35, 353-370.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., & Green, J. (2009). Young people’s interpersonal
relationships and academic and non-academic outcomes: The relative salience of teachers, parents,
same-sex peers, and opposite-sex peers. Teachers College Record, March, http://www.tcrecord.org.
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.
Martin, A.J., Nejad, H.G., Colmer, S., & Liem, G.A.D. (2012). Adaptability: Conceptual and empirical
perspectives on responses to change, novelty, and uncertainty. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counseling, 22, 58-81.
Martin, A.J., Nejad, H.G., Colmer, S., & Liem, G.A.D. (2013). Adaptability: How students responses to
uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and nonacademic outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105, 728-746.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 28
Marzano, R.J. (2011). Art and science of teaching / The perils and promises of discovery learning.
Educational Leadership, 69, 86-87.
Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Barbarin, O.A., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early,
D.M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s
development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732-749.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
Meyer, D.K., & Turner, J.C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 107-114.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., Kaplan, A., Arunkumar, R., and
Middleton, M. (1997) Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALS), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Munns, G. (1998). ‘They just can’t hack that’: Aboriginal students, their teachers and responses to schools
and classrooms. In G. Partington (Ed). Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
education (pp. 171-187). Katoomba: Social Science Press.
Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
Murray, C., & Zvoch, K. (2011). Teacher—Student relationships among behaviorally at-risk African
american youth from low-income backgrounds: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and
socioemotional adjustment correlates. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19, 41-54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1063426609353607
O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining Teacher–Child relationships and achievement as part of
an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 340-369.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172
Opdenakker, M., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships and
academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes and linkage. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 23, 95-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.619198
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and
implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315-341.
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. New
York. Springer.
Pianta, R.C., Nimetz, S.L. & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and
school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263-80.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 29
Pianta, R.C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child
relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology,
7, 295-312.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 221-226.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and
teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. J. (1991) A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for
Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Pomerantz, E.M., & Moorman, E.A. (2010). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A context for
children’s development. In J.L. Meece & J.S. Eccles (Eds). Handbook of research on schools,
schooling, and human development. New York: Routledge.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A.D., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S., Bohn, C., Mohan, L., Wharton-McDonald, R.,
Bogner, K., & Hogan, K. (2003). Teaching processes in elementary and secondary education. In W.M.
Reynolds & G.E. Miller (Eds). Handbook of educational psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Putwain, D. W., & Daly, A. L. (2013). Do clusters of test anxiety and academic buoyancy differentially
predict academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 157-162.
Putwain, D.W., Connors, L., Symes, W., & Douglas-Osborn, E. (2012). Is academic buoyancy anything
more than adaptive coping? Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 25, 349-358.
Reeve, J., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for
understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds).
Big theories revisited. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Régner, I., Loose, F., & Dumas, F. (2009). Students’ perceptions of parental and teacher academic
involvement: Consequences on achievement goals. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
XXIV, 263-277.
Reschly, A.L., & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future
directions of the engagement construct. In. S.L., Christenson., A.L. Reschly., & C. Wylie (Eds).
Handbook of research on student engagement. New York. Springer.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate,
student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2014). To what extent
do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in
mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037252
© 2014 Martin & Collie 30
Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (1998). Academic and emotional functioning in early
adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school.
Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321-352.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective Teacher–
Student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach.
Review of Educational Research, 81, 493-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
Rosenshine, B.V. (2008). Five meanings of direct instruction. Lincoln: IL: Center on Innovation and
Improvement.
Rosenshine, B.V. (2009). The empirical support for direct instruction. In S. Tobias & T.M. Duffy (Eds).
Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
Rudasill, K. M. (2011). Child temperament, teacher–child interactions, and teacher–child relationships: A
longitudinal investigation from first to third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 147-156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.002
Rudasil, K.M., Reio,T.G., Stipanovic, N., & Taylor, J.E. (2010). A longitudinal study of student-teacher
relationship quality, difficult temperament, and risky behavior from childhood to early adolescence.
Journal of School Psychology, 48, 389-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.05.001
Ryan, A.M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’
motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437-
460.
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.
Schunk, D.H., & Miller, S.D. (2002). Self-efficacy and adolescents’ motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds). Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior
and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner, E.A., Kindermann, T.A., Connell, J.P., & Wellborn, J.G. (2009). Engagement as an organization
construct in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 223-245). Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Thijs, J. T., & van, d. L. (2012). Supporting teachers’ relationships with
disruptive children: The potential of relationship-focused reflection. Attachment & Human
Development, 14, 305-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672286
© 2014 Martin & Collie 31
Stipek, D., Giwin, K.B., Salmon, J.M., & MacGyvers, V.L. (1998). Can a teacher intervention improve
classroom practices and student motivation in mathematics? Journal of Experimental Education, 66,
319-337.
Teven, J.J., & McCroskey, J.C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning
and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.
Tomasik, M.J., & Silbereisen, R.K. (2009). Demands of social change as a function of the political context,
institutional filters, and psychosocial resources. Social Indicators Research, 94, 13-28.
Tomasik, M.J., Silbereisen, R.K., & Heckhausen, J. (2010). Is it adaptive to disengage from demands of
social change? Adjustment to developmental barriers in opportunity-deprived regions. Motivation and
Emotion, 34, 384-398
Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in
school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1-12.
VandenBos, G.R. (2007). (Ed). American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology. Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.
Wang, M.T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and
academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633-662.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas.
Educational Psychologist, 45, 28-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596
Wentzel, K.R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for
understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.
Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in
early adolescence. Child development, 73, 287-301.
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.
Wentzel, K.R. (2010). Students’ relationships with teachers. In J.L. Meece & J.S. Eccles (Eds). Handbook of
research on schools, schooling, and human development. New York: Routledge.
Wessel, J.L., Ryan, A.M., & Oswald, F.L. (2008). The relationship between objective and perceived fit with
academic major, adaptability, and major related outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 363-376.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents’ expectancies for success and achievement task values during
the middle and high school years. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds). Academic motivation of adolescents.
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 32
Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle adolescence. In P.
A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 87-114).
Mahwah, NJ: American Psychological Association.
Wit, D. J. D., Karioja, K., Rye, B. J., & Shain, M. (2011). Perceptions of declining classmate and teacher
support following the transition to high school: Potential correlates of increasing student mental health
difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 556-572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20576
Yu, K., & Martin, A.J. (2014). Personal best (PB) and ‘classic’ achievement goals in the Chinese context:
Their role in predicting academic motivation, engagement, and buoyancy. Educational Psychology:
An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses?
Contemporary educational psychology, 11, 307-313.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance. New York, NY: Routledge.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 33
GUIDED INSTRUCTION AND
ASSESSMENT
BUOYANCY, RESILIENCE,
ADAPTABILITY
GROWTH (‘PERSONAL BEST’)
ORIENTATION
PERSONAL
PROFICIENCY
NETWORK
MOTIVATION AND
ENGAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIPS AND
SOCIAL SUPPORT
Figure 1.
Personal Proficiency Network (PPN; reproduced with permission from Lifelong
Achievement Group, www.lifelongachievement.com)
Note. The PPN has been slightly revised from its original formulation (Martin, 2013) such that (a)
Adaptability is now integrated with Buoyancy and Resilience and (b) Guided Instruction and Assessment
has been added to the Network.
© 2014 Martin & Collie 34
Figure 2.
Motivation and Engagement Wheel (reproduced with permission from Lifelong Achievement
Group, www.lifelongachievement.com).
Self-
efficacy
Mastery
orientation
Valuing Persistence
Planning
Task
management
Anxiety
Failure
avoidance
Uncertain
control
Self-
handicapping
Disengagement
ADAPTIVE
COGNITION
(Adaptive Motivation)
ADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR
(Adaptive Engagement)
MALADAPTIVE
COGNITION
(Maladaptive Motivation)
MALADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR
(Maladaptive Engagement)