The role of teacher support for the gender gap in students’
behavioral engagement
Abstract
This study examines gender differences in students’ behavioral engagement from a student, teacher
and observer perspective and the role of student perceptions of teacher support. Participants are 385
students (7th grade) and their teachers. Results indicated that boys’ behavioral engagement is lower
than girls’ is, from student, teacher and observer perspective. Boys’ perception of teacher support is
also lower. Furthermore, teacher support (autonomy, structure and involvement) can partially explain
the gender gap in engagement. Finally, it is shown that teacher support can be a protective factor for
boys’ engagement (as measured from student perspective). These findings add to the explanation of
the gender gap in student engagement and open perspectives for further investigating boys’ lower
perception of all teacher support dimensions.
1
Introduction
Boys are generally less successful in terms of school achievement than girls are and they report
higher dropout rates as well (Lam et al., 2012, Lamote et al., 2013). Furthermore, student
engagement acts as a mediator between teacher support and school achievement (Dotterer & Lowe,
2011; Roorda, Spilt, Koomen & Jak, 2011). This paper highlights the connection between teacher
support and student engagement and gender differences in this matter.
Student engagement is a multidimensional construct which consists of a cognitive dimension (selfregulated learning & goal orientation), behavioral dimension (conduct, participation and initiative)
and emotional dimension (interest, identification with school) (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004).
Especially for behavioral engagement, gender differences are favoring girls (Martin, 2007; Skinner,
Kinderman & Furrer, 2009; Wang & Eccles, 2012).
For investigating teacher support, self-determination theory (SDT) suggests autonomy support,
structure and involvement as important instructional styles. These are often measured by studentreport questionnaires. Some studies find no gender differences in the perception of teacher support
(DeWit, Karioja & Rye, 2010; Sierens et al., 2009). Other researchers report that girls perceive higher
autonomy support and structure (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) and higher affective support (Oelsner,
Lippold, & Greenberg, 2011), while boys experience higher control (Soenens et al. 2012).
On the one hand, no gender differences have been found in the relationship between teacher
support and student engagement (Assor et al., 2005; Hafen et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2012). On the
other hand, each of the three instructional styles seem to have a larger effect on the engagement of
boys than on the engagement of girls and could even protect boys from the risk of being disengaged
(Marks, 2000; Roorda et al., 2011; Katz et al., 2006; Geist & King, 2008; Suldo et al., 2009; Van de
gaer et al., 2008).
Furthermore, many researchers point to the benefits of using multiple perspectives to measure
engagement (e.g.: student self-report, teacher report, interviews, observations) in order to counter
shared method variance and to capture the complexity of behaviors in specific contexts.
1
1.1
Aims
Two main research goals are addressed in this study. Firstly, we will investigate whether gender
differences in the perception of teacher support can explain the gender gap in student engagement.
Secondly, we will examine whether teacher support could reduce this possible gender gap in student
engagement.
2
2.1
Method
Participants
Participants were selected from 6 schools in Flanders, Belgium. At these schools, from September to
November 2012, students (N = 385; 58 % boys, 42 % girls) completed questionnaires under the
supervision of the project researchers. At 3 of these 6 schools, the engagement of 10 randomly
selected students per class (N = 156; 62 % boys, 38 % girls) was observed during 6 Dutch language
classes, with a total of 12 observations per student. Dutch language teachers also rated the
engagement of the observed students. At the other 3 schools, Dutch language teachers rated the
engagement of 10 randomly selected students per class.
2.2
Measures
(1) Students reported their gender (i.e. sex) at the beginning of the questionnaires. (2) Student
perception of teacher support for Dutch language was assessed by means of the short version of the
Teacher As Social Context Questionnaire (TASC-Q, Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1988). (3)
Teacher perception of students’ behavioral engagement was measured by means of the subscale
Cooperative Participation (7 items; α = .88) of the Teacher Rating Scale of School Adjustment (TRSSA;
Birch & Ladd, 1997). (4) For measuring student report of behavioral engagement, students also filled
out the subscale Cooperative Participation (7 items; α = .88) of the Teacher Rating Scale of School
Adjustment (TRSSA; Birch & Ladd, 1997, Valiente et al., 2012). (5) The Leuven Involvement Scale
(Laevers, 1994) was used to measure students’ activity-specific engagement during Dutch language
classes by means of 2-minute intervals. The intraclass correlation coefficient between 4 observers
who rated 15 students was excellent (ρICC=.91).
2.3
Data analyses
To address the aims of this study, the following analyses were conducted. To begin with, descriptive
statistics and correlations between the variables were calculated and t-tests for detecting gender
differences for all the variables were performed. Furthermore, a mediation analysis was conducted
for examining whether gender differences in the perception of teacher support can explain the
gender gap in student behavioral engagement. Finally, the possible protective role of teacher support
for boys’ behavioral engagement was investigated by means of moderation analysis.
2
3
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables measuring student
engagement and teacher support. Girls reported higher engagement and higher perceptions of
teacher support.
Next, boys’ lower perception of teacher support seemed to explain their lower behavioral
engagement, with partial mediation found for teacher, observer and student perspective on
behavioral engagement, except for involvement, which did not mediate the relationship between sex
and observer report of engagement. This could mean that the gender gap in student engagement can
be partially explained by gender differences in the perception of teacher support. Interesting for
future research is to investigate this lower perception of boys and higher perception of girls
concerning teacher support. Do teachers interact differently with boys than with girls and do gender
stereotypes in education actually exist?
Furthermore, teacher support can be a protective factor for boys’ behavioral engagement. However,
these results were only found when student perspective of behavioral engagement was considered
to be a dependent variable. Students perceive that teacher support can make a difference for their
engagement, but teachers and external observers do not seem to notice that. These findings indicate
that it is important to consider different perspectives on engagement. Furthermore, it is possible that
because teacher support is only measured by means of student perception, a stronger connection is
found between this teacher support and student perception of student engagement.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the main relationship between teacher support and behavioral
engagement is quite strong for both genders and that improving teacher support can enhance
engagement for both boys and girls.
3
References
Assor, A., Kaplan, H.,Kanat-Maymon, Y.,& Roth, G.(2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as
predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The roles of anger and anxiety.
Learning and Instruction, 15, 397–413.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomyenhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours in predicting student’s engagement in school work.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.
Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as social context: A
measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and autonomy
support (Tech. Rep. No. 102). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children's early school
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.
Dotterer AM, Lowe K. (2011) Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in
early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(12):1649–1660.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74, 59-109.
Fredricks, J. A. & McColskey, W. (2012). The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative
Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments. In S.L.Christenson, A. L. Reschly, &
C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). New York: Springer.
Freudenthaler, H., Spinath, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2008). Predicting school achievement in boys and
girls. European journal of personality, 22, 231-245.
Geist, E.A., King M. (2008). Different, Not Better: Gender Differences in Mathematics Learning and
Achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35 (1), 43-52.
Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Gregory, A., Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. C. (2012). The pivotal role
of adolescent autonomy in secondary school classrooms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3),
245-255.
Katz, I., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2006). Interest as a motivational resource:
Feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference. Social Psychology of Education, 9,
27-42.
Laevers, F. (Ed.) (1994). Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education. Studia
Paedagogica. Leuven, Leuven University Press.
Laevers, F., & Laurijssen, J. (2001). Well-being, involvement, and satisfaction of pupils in nursery and
elementary school: A guide to systematic observation and survey. Internal report, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Center for Nursery and Elementary Education.
Lam, S.-F, Jimerson, S., Kikas, E., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Nelson, B., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F.,
Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P., Liu, Y., Negovan, V., Shin, H., Stanculescu, E., Wong, B.P.H., Yang, H.,
Zollneritsch, J. (2012). Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The
results of an international study from 12 countries. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 77-94.
4
Lamote, C., Speybroeck, S., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van Damme, J. (2013). Different pathways
towards dropout: the role of engagement in early school leaving. Oxford Review of Education, 39 (6)
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,
middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153–184.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Cheng, J. H. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom
motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of educational
psychology, 100, 78-95.
Martin, A. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using
a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-440.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology,
44, 351–373.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
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(4), 493–529.
Schmidt, J. A., Shernoff , D. J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Individual and situational factors related
to the experience of flow in adolescence: A multilevel approach. In A. D. Ong & M. v. Dulmen (Eds.),
The handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 542–558). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The interactive effect of
perceived teacher autonomy-support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 57-68.
Skinner, E., Kinderman, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and
disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation
in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 , 493–525.
Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Dochy, F. (2012). Psychologically
controlling teaching: Examining self-regulated learning and achievement outcomes and antecedents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 108-120.
Suldo, S. M., Friedrich, A. A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J. (2009). Teacher
support and adolescents' subjective well being: A mixed methods investigation. School Psychology
Review, 38, 67−85.
Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. S. (2012). Kindergartners’ temperament, classroom
engagement, and student–teacher relationship: Moderation by effortful control. Social Development,
21 (3), 558-576.
Van de gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J. & De Munter, A. (2008). Mathematics participation and
mathematics achievement across secondary school: the role of gender. Sex Roles, 59, 568-585
5
Van Heddegem, I., Gadeyne, E., Vandenberghe, N., Laevers, F., & Van Damme, J. (2004). (LOA-rapport
nr. 20) [Longitudinal research in elementary school: Observational measure school year 2002–2003
(LOA report no. 20)]. Leuven, Belgium: Steunpunt ‘Loopbanen doorheen Onderwijs naar
Arbeidsmarkt’, Cel ‘Schoolloopbanen in het basisonderwijs’ (SiBO).
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). 'French is the language of love and stuff': student
perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British educational
research journal, 28, 503-528.
6
Table 1
t-tests and correlations for the variables of teacher support and behavioral engagement
1.
2.
3.
4.
Girls
N = 163
N= 161
N= 162
N = 160
Autonomy
Structure
Involvement
Engagement
(student report)
5. Engagement
N= 93
(teacher report)
6. Engagement
N = 59
(observer report)
Note. **p < .01, *p < .05
Boys
N= 227
N= 227
N= 227
N = 225
t
-5.02**
-5.77**
-5.24**
-4.99**
N= 146
-3.13**
N = 97
-2.59*
1
-
2
.71**
-
3
.58**
.59**
-
4
.54**
.49**
.49**
-
5
.28**
.27**
.22**
.39**
6
.30**
.32**
.16
.34**
-
.33**
-
Table 2.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for moderation effects of the teacher support dimensions
and gender on the perceptions of behavioral engagement.
Predictors
Step 1
Autonomy
Sex
Step 2
Autonomy x sex
Step 1
Structure
Sex
Step 2
Structure x sex
Step 1
Involvement
Sex
Step 2
Involvement x sex
Student report
Δ R²
B
.31**
.29**
.10**
.02**
.-16**
.26**
.25**
.10*
.01*
-.12*
.26**
.23**
.11**
.01*
-.10*
Behavioral engagement
Teacher report
Δ R²
B
.10**
.15**
.12*
.00
-.02
.09**
.14**
.16*
.00
.03
.07**
.10**
.14*
.00
-.05
Observer report
Δ R²
B
.12**
.20*
.18*
.00
-.08
.12**
20**
.16
.00
-.08
.06*
.09
.20*
.00
.06
7
Figure 1.
Mediation effects of all teacher support dimensions on the relation between student sex and
behavioral engagement (student report, teacher report, observer report). **p<.01.
Autonomy
Structure
.29**
.37**
Sex
(.11**) .10**
.25**
.44**
Engagement
(student report)
Sex
(.11**) .10**
Engagement
(student report)
Involvement
.23**
.43**
Sex
(.10**) .11**
Engagement
(student report)
Autonomy
Structure
.15**
.37**
Sex
(.06**) .13*
.14**
.44**
Engagement
(teacher report)
Sex
(.06**) .12*
Engagement
(teacher report)
Involvement
.10*
.43**
Sex
(.04*) .14*
Engagement
(teacher report)
Autonomy
Structure
.20**
.37**
Sex
(.07**) .18*
.20**
.44**
Engagement
(observer report)
Sex
(.09**) .16*
Engagement
(observer report)
Involvement
.08
.43**
Sex
(.04) .19**
.19
Engagement
(observer report)
8