Associations between teacher–child relationships, children’s literacy achievement, and social competencies for struggling and non-struggling readers in early elementary school

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Associations between teacher–child relationships, children’s literacy achievement, and social competencies for struggling and non-struggling readers in early elementary school Cheryl Varghese ∗ , Lynne Vernon-Feagans, Mary Bratsch-Hines Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 July 2017 Received in revised form 6 September 2018 Accepted 26 September 2018

a b s t r a c t Teacher–child relationships (TCRs) have been found to play important roles in children’s classroom experiences and learning during the elementary school years. Given the importance of TCRs, the present study examined the associations between conflictual and close TCRs, children’s literacy achievement, and children’s social competencies using a sample of 503 kindergarten and first grade non-struggling and struggling readers and their teachers in ten rural schools in the Southeastern United States. Moderation by struggling reader status was also explored in the associations between conflictual or close TCRs and children’s literacy achievement and social competencies. After controlling for child- and teacher-level characteristics, results from multilevel model analyses indicated that conflictual TCRs were significantly related to lower literacy achievement, more internalizing behaviors, more externalizing behaviors, and fewer prosocial behaviors. Close TCRs were not related to child outcomes, and moderation by struggling reader status was not significant. © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Early elementary school teachers are tasked with helping young children acquire many important skills, with literacy skills and social competencies as two of the most important skills that are critical for children to profit optimally from their early elementary classroom instruction (Bleses et al., 2018; Campbell, Spieker, Burchinal, Poe, & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2006; Sutherland et al., 2018; Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron, & Shonkoff, 2006). Children’s experiences in early classroom environments account for a significant portion of children’s learning, including their abilities to develop literacy and social skills (Downer, Booren, Lima, Luckner, & Pianta, 2010). Teacher–child relationships (TCRs) are important aspects of children’s experiences in early classroom environments and have been found to contribute to children’s learning (Pianta, 1999). Teachers who cultivate close relationships (e.g., warmth, openness, sensitivity) with their students may be able to create predictable and safe classroom environments that encourage children to become independent learners and socially adept. Conversely, conflictual relationships (e.g., discord, frustration) may function as stressors that deter children from participating in classroom activities and may contribute to withdrawal or isolation from, or disenchantment with, literacy and social activities (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 2005).

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Varghese). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.005 0885-2006/© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A growing body of research provides evidence of associations between TCRs and children’s literacy and social competencies and suggests these associations may vary based on child characteristics (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Yet, the majority of this work has focused solely on child demographic characteristics (e.g., gender; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; McCormick & O’Connor, 2015) as moderators of associations between TCRs and child outcomes. Comparatively less research has focused on other child characteristics, such as academic risk (Rhoad-Drogalis, Justice, Sawyer, & O’Connell, 2018; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Additionally, much of the previous work has focused on samples of preschool-aged children from middle income and low-risk backgrounds (O’Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011). In the current study, we examined the association of TCRs with children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, which were conceptualized as separate constructs of children’s internalizing (depression, anxiety, or social withdrawal; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978), externalizing (aggression or impulsivity; Hinshaw, 1992), and prosocial behaviors (controlling temper, sharing; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Our sample consisted of low-income kindergarten and first grade children whom we identified as struggling and nonstruggling readers. We explored whether struggling reader status (an indicator of academic risk) moderated the association between TCRs and children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, given prior research on struggling readers’ risk for literacy and behavioral challenges (Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling, 2008) as well as long-term challenges (e.g., grade retention, entry into spe-

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

cial education, and school dropout; National Reading Panel, 2000; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). 1. Teacher–child relationships, child outcomes, and struggling reader status in ecological and transactional frameworks The study of TCRs has been situated within ecological (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) and transactional (Sameroff and Fiese, 2000) frameworks. A key component of the ecological framework is proximal processes, defined as recurring reciprocal interactions between individuals in an immediate environment over an extended period of time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). TCRs during early elementary school are important proximal processes that can positively or negatively influence children’s academic and social development (Lippard, La Paro, Rouse, & Grosby, 2018). Findings from classroom observational research suggest that the interactions between children and teachers are the primary ways in which children are afforded opportunities to develop skills, including those related to literacy and social competence (Sabol, Bohlmann, & Downer, 2018). A key component of the transactional framework is dynamic interactions, defined as the reciprocal exchanges that occur between the individual and experience of the social context (Sameroff & Fiese, 2000). The degree to which TCRs are close or conflictual is partially determined by the regular, ongoing, and cumulative exchanges and affective quality between young developing children and their teachers over the school year (Lippard et al., 2018; Pianta, 1999). The degree to which children’s developmental capacities are congruent with classroombased learning demands can affect those cumulative exchanges, creating dynamic transactional processes between teachers and children (Sameroff, 1975; Sameroff & Fiese, 2000). An important indicator of developmental capacity, particularly during the early elementary school years, is children’s reading abilities. Children who struggle with reading may not be able to cope with learning demands in the classroom, which may create negative exchanges with teachers and lead to a cycle of negative interactions, ultimately affecting children’s literacy and social trajectories. In a broader interpersonal context, this type of occurrence is related to the concept of “evocative impact,” which describes how a child’s performance can trigger different affective responses from teachers (Nurmi, 2012). Higher-performing children are frequently perceived more favorably by teachers whereas lower-performing children are perceived more critically (Nurmi, 2012; Nurmi & Kiuru, 2015). For example, teachers may feel as though they are ineffective or may feel greater levels of stress when working with struggling readers as compared to non-struggling readers (Bratsch-Hines, Vernon-Feagans, Varghese, Garwood, 2017), which may adversely influence their relationships with struggling readers. These synergistic negative interactions may lead to a transactional cycle that limits struggling readers’ opportunities to engage in activities that promote optimal learning, both academically and socially (Doumen et al., 2008; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). Teachers may perceive a struggling reader as being unpredictable and unresponsive to his/her engagement or teaching efforts (Pianta, 2001), resulting in feelings of fatigue within teachers as well as feelings of rejection by struggling readers. 2. Teacher–child relationships, literacy achievement, and social competencies Prior research has generally shown support for associations between TCRs and children’s literacy achievement (e.g., Lee & Bierman, 2015; Wolter et al., 2014) and aspects of children’s social competencies (e.g., Berry & O’Connor, 2010). Much of this work

125

suggests that positive TCRs may not only set the stage for optimal learning, but they may also motivate teachers to use supplementary resources and to expend additional effort to support students’ achievement (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). 2.1. Literacy achievement In the limited number of studies that have examined associations between close TCRs and literacy skills, researchers have found that close responsive TCRs are positively related to early elementary children’s literacy skills (Baker, 2006; McCormick, Turbeville, Barnes, & McClowry, 2014; McCormick & O’Connor, 2015). Other researchers have shown only indirect relationships (e.g., engagement as a mediator between TCRs and literacy skills, Hughes & Kwok, 2007), or no relationship at all (McCormick, O’Connor, Cappella, & McClowry, 2013). In many of these studies, however, researchers have focused on TCRs as a collective construct (Liew, Chen, & Hughes, 2010; McCormick et al., 2013; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007) rather than examining constructs of conflict and closeness separately in analytic models. Conflict and closeness are two unique constructs of TCRs that may have nuanced associations with literacy achievement. For example, teachers who perceive close relationships with individual students may be more motivated to provide them with differentiated high-quality instruction on core literacy skills. However, teachers who perceive relational conflict with individual students may not be as inclined to spend time engaging in literacy-based activities, particularly in small groups or one-on-one instruction, thereby limiting opportunities for these students to improve literacy skills (Pianta, 2006). 2.2. Social competencies A robust body of research has linked TCRs with social competencies, predominantly focused on children’s externalizing behaviors (Doumen et al., 2008) or on conflictual TCRs (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). The unique manifestations of externalizing, internalizing, and prosocial behaviors warrant further examination of how close and conflictual TCRs are related to each type of social competency. Further, studies of TCRs and children’s social competencies suggest that close and conflictual relationships may be associated with children’s social competencies in different ways (Fowler, Banks, Anhalt, Der, & Kelis, 2008). For example, teachers who perceive close relationships with individual students may provide more emotional security, which can help children learn or develop more prosocial skills (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008). Teachers who perceive relational conflict with individual students may feel fatigued or emotionally drained working with students, which may lead to a cycle of punitive interactions that exacerbate children’s behavioral difficulties (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). Punitive interactions and negative responses from teachers may exacerbate smaller behavioral difficulties into more serious ones, such as inattention, increased aggression, or diminished social skills (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, & Mashburn, 2008; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). 3. Moderation by struggling reader status Compared to non-struggling readers, struggling readers may be particularly susceptible to the influences of TCRs, which have potential to either hinder or support their acquisition of key reading skills and social competencies (Downer, Sabol, & Hamre, 2010; Ewing & Taylor, 2009). As described above, children’s literacy abilities may evoke different responses from their teachers (Nurmi & Kiuru, 2015). On the one hand, teachers who are able to form close relationships with struggling readers may be more attuned to their specific instructional needs. Struggling readers may be more likely to engage in literacy-focused opportunities because they feel secure

126

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

in knowing the teacher will help them if needed (Bowlby, 1992; Hamre et al., 2013). Close TCRs may also indicate that the teacher feels effective working with a particular student and thus can afford children with enhanced opportunities to develop stronger social competencies. On the other hand, teachers may feel higher levels of stress, frustration, or dissatisfaction when working with struggling readers, which may lead teachers to perceive conflictual relationships with struggling readers and, thus, adversely affect children’s academic performance or social competencies. In the one known study of TCRs that focused on a sample of children with reading difficulties, Kiuru et al. (2013) found that Finnish kindergarteners who were identified as being at risk for reading disabilities were less likely to experience positive affect from their teachers, leading to lower reading fluency skills in the fourth grade. However, Kiuru et al. focused exclusively on teachers’ positive affect in their study and a specific reading outcome (reading fluency) in an exclusive sample of children identified at risk for reading disability. Thus, it remains unclear whether associations of close and/or conflictual TCRs and child outcomes (beyond reading fluency) vary for struggling and non-struggling readers.

4. Goals of the present study In the present study, we used data collected from control teachers participating in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a professional development program for early elementary teachers, the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI; Vernon-Feagans, Kainz, Hedrick, Ginsberg, & Amendum, 2013; Vernon-Feagans, BratschHines, Varghese, Cutrer, & Garwood, 2018). To test the efficacy of TRI, we specifically designed the study to sample non-struggling and struggling readers and their teachers living in rural areas marked by high poverty. Our first research question asked whether close or conflictual TCRs, as reported by teachers in the fall, were associated with children’s spring literacy achievement and social competencies. We hypothesized that after controlling for childand teacher-level control variables, close TCRs would be associated with higher spring literacy outcomes and higher social competencies (e.g., lower levels of internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors and higher levels of prosocial skills), and conflictual TCRs would be associated with lower spring literacy outcomes and lower social competencies (e.g., higher levels of internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors and lower levels of prosocial skills). Our second question examined whether struggling reader status would moderate the associations between TCRs and children’s spring literacy achievement and social competencies. We hypothesized that compared to non-struggling readers, struggling readers would experience greater magnitude in the associations between TCRs qualities and literacy achievement and/or social competencies (e.g., associations of close and/or conflictual TCRs and outcomes would be stronger for struggling readers).

5. Methods The current study used data from the TRI RCT, which was conducted in ten Title I elementary schools across three rural school districts (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2018). Approximately 64%–87% of students were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch (i.e., falling at or below 185% of the federal poverty threshold). Although teachers participated in the study for two years, a new sample of students were included during each study year. Only the sample of kindergarten and first grade teachers and students from the control condition were included in the current study in order to eliminate potential confounds of the TRI professional development with our exploration of TCRs, literacy achievement, and social competencies.

5.1. Sample 5.1.1. Students In the study, all students were initially screened using gradeappropriate subtests from AimsWeb (Shinn & Shinn, 2002) and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—6th Edition (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002). AimsWeb and DIBELS benchmarks, based on grade and fall time point, were used as a screening instrument to categorize all students (treatment and control) as a struggling reader or as a non-struggling reader. Kindergarten students were screened using the AimsWeb Letter Sound Fluency (LSF) and DIBELS First Sound Fluency (FSF) subtests. First grade students were screened using the DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) subtests. Grade-level and fall time point Aimsweb/DIBELS benchmarks were used to categorize all students as being at high risk, some risk, or low risk for reading difficulties. Students from both the high risk and low risk groups were randomly ordered onto a list to have their struggling status confirmed by additional assessment on two subtests (LetterWord Identification and Word Attack) of the Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery, III (WJ; Woodcock, Mather, & Schrank, 2004). Consented students who were identified as high risk on DIBELS subtests were required to score below 35% on the grade percentile score of one or both WJ subtests to be selected as a struggling reader. Consented students who were identified as low risk on DIBELS subtests were required to have an average grade percentile score on both subtests greater than 50%, with scores on neither subtest falling below 35% to be selected as a non-struggling reader. In the classrooms that did not have sufficient numbers of consented low risk and/or high risk students, or congruent DIBELS-WJ student scores, consented students from the some risk group were tested and further classified as struggling or non-struggling based on their WJ scores, as described above. Optimally, three struggling readers and three non-struggling readers were selected from each classroom. The final sample of control students in the current study yielded 503 students. Of this subsample, 287 (57%) students were in kindergarten and 216 (43%) students were in first grade. 5.1.2. Teachers In the present study, control teachers (n = 52) from the RCT were included. Teachers who were a part of the control group received a laptop or iPad and a computerized mathematics curriculum, Building Blocks (Clements & Sarama, 2007). Of this subsample, approximately 28 (54%) were kindergarten teachers and 24 (46%) were first-grade teachers. 5.2. Procedures Child assessment data were collected by assessors (graduate students or former teachers) who attended training sessions over a two-day period, during which they completed a full battery on a non-participating child or with the Research Coordinator in order to become certified. The Research Coordinator then scored and evaluated the full assessment to ensure reliability. Teacher questionnaire data were collected online in order to obtain information about teachers’ professional background and child-specific behaviors or knowledge. Assessments were administered in the fall and spring of each study year. 5.3. Measures 5.3.1. Teacher–child relationships In the fall of the academic year, teachers completed the short form of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001). STRS consisted of 15 items that assess the quality of relationships between students and teachers across two primary domains:

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

127

Closeness (7 items; e.g., I share an affectionate, warm relationship with the child) and Conflict (8 items; e.g., This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other). Teachers rated students across these two domains, using a five-point Likert-type scale (definitely does not apply = 1, not really = 2, neutral, not sure = 3, applies somewhat = 4, and definitely applies = 5). Children were rated an average of 1.64 (SD = 0.96) and 4.25 (SD = 0.66) on the Conflict and Closeness scales, respectively. For the Closeness subscale, ˛ = 0.89 and for the Conflict subscale, ˛ = 0.93.

iors composite score. On the externalizing behaviors composite, the average rating for children was 1.01 (SD = 0.90).

5.3.2. Literacy achievement In the fall and spring of each study year, research assistants assessed children on the WJ (Woodcock et al., 2004). For children’s literacy scores, we created a composite score, Basic Reading Skills, by using the w scores for two of the WJ subtests (Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack). Compuscore, provided from the commercial test provider, was used to calculate a w score, which is a metric derived from the transformation of the Rasch model. A w score aids in interpretability, as it represents an equal-interval scale to capture comparable amounts of differences across the scale (Jaffe, 2009). The Letter-Word Identification subtest measured children’s word identification skills, in which students identified letters or read words. The published median reliability of this subtest was 0.98 in the 5–7 age range (McGrew, Shrank, & Woodcock, 2007) and the sample reliability was 0.92. The Word Attack subtest measured children’s abilities to apply phonics and structural analysis skills when pronouncing unfamiliar printed sounds or words; that is, students read letter combinations of non-words or low frequency words that were phonetically consistent with patterns in English orthography. The median reliability of this subtest was 0.93 in the 5–7 age range (McGrew et al., 2007) and the sample reliability was 0.82.

5.3.7. Moderator Children’s struggling reading status was included in each of the models and was used as a moderator in analyses. Struggling reader status was included as a categorical dummy variable (0 = non-struggler, 1 = struggler). Approximately 50% of students were identified as struggling readers. Boys, 2 (1, n = 503) = 8.40, p = 0.004, ϕ = 0.13, were more likely to be struggling readers. Non-struggling readers had mothers with higher educational attainment, t(490) = 4.29, p < 0.0001. Struggling readers were also more likely to exhibit internalizing behaviors, t(490) = 2.60, p = 0.009, and externalizing behaviors, t(855) = 4.44, p < 0.001. Additionally, teachers were more likely to report more conflictual relationships, t(855) = 0.10, p < 0.001, and less close relationships t(855) = −0.14, p < 0.001 with struggling readers.

5.3.3. Social competencies In the fall and spring of the academic year, teachers completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001). The SDQ is a norm-referenced behavior rating scale that consists of 25 items. This measure is designed to assess risk for behavioral difficulties in children between the ages of 3 and 17. In the current study, we used recommendations from Goodman, Lamping, and Ploubidis (2010) to create separate composite scores for externalizing and internalizing behaviors, and we included an additional subscale measuring prosocial skills. All items were scored using a three-point Likert-type scale (not true = 0, somewhat true = 1, certainly true = 2), with scaling reversed for negatively phrased items and subscale ranges of 0–10. Note that children in this sample primarily fell within the Normal categorization (Goodman, 2001) of internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors, suggesting that teachers did not perceive children to exhibit significant behavioral difficulties within the classroom. 5.3.4. Internalizing behaviors Internalizing behaviors were measured from the Emotional Symptoms subscale (5 items; e.g., Often seems worried) and the Peer Problems subscale (5 items; e.g., Often fights with other children or bullies them). In our sample, ˛ = 0.81 for the internalizing behaviors composite score. On the internalizing behaviors composite, the average rating for children was 0.56 (SD = 0.68). 5.3.5. Externalizing behaviors Externalizing behaviors were measured from the Conduct Problems subscale (5 items; e.g., Often loses temper) and the Hyperactivity/Inattention subscale (5 items; e.g., Restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long). In our sample, ˛ = 0.88 for the externalizing behav-

5.3.6. Prosocial skills Prosocial skills were measured from the Prosocial subscale (5 items; e.g., Considerate of other people’s feelings). In our sample, ˛ = 0.83 for the prosocial subscale. On the prosocial behavior subscale, the average rating for children was 1.48 (SD = 0.48).

5.3.8. Covariates We included the following covariates in our analyses, which have been associated with children’s literacy achievement, social competencies, and TCRs (Gallagher, Kainz, Vernon-Feagans, & White, 2013; Hamre & Pianta, 2005): grade, child race, family SES, gender, and struggling reader status. Demographic information and descriptive statistics on the final sample of students (n = 503) are available in Table 1. Child grade was included as a categorical dummy variable (0 = kindergarten, 1 = first grade). We residualized children’s fall externalizing behavior, fall internalizing scores, and fall prosocial scores on corresponding social competency spring scores (fall externalizing behaviors predicting spring externalizing behaviors, fall internalizing behaviors predicting spring internalizing behaviors, fall prosocial behaviors predicting spring prosocial behaviors). Note that we did not include fall literacy scores in predicting spring literacy scores because of the strong and confounding relationship between struggling status and fall literacy achievement (i.e., struggling reader status was comprised of both DIBELS subtests and fall literacy achievement scores). Researchers have found children’s race (0 = non-African American, 1 = African American) and socioeconomic status (SES) to be important predictors of children’s behaviors and/or literacy outcomes, especially within the context of examining effects of TCRs (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). The SES variable was created by transforming family income and maternal education into z scores and then averaging those scores. Family income levels were coded on ordinal variables, for which there were five increments of $20,000 (e.g., 0 = 0–$20,000, 1 = $20,001–$40,000, 2 = $40,001–$60,000, 3 = $60,001–80,000, 4 = $80,001 and above). Maternal education was also coded as an ordinal variable with four categories (0 = no high school diploma, 1 = high school graduate, 2 = Associate’s degree or some college, 3 = Bachelor’s degree or higher). Family income and maternal education were standardized and averaged, with these values ranging from −2.05 to 2.57. Approximately 50% of students were boys. In addition, the following teacher-level variables were also included in analyses: teacher education, teacher experience, and teacher race. Table 2 provides descriptive information on the teachers included in the study (n = 52). Teacher education (0 = Bachelor’s degree, 1 = Master’s degree or higher) and teacher experience

128

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

Table 1 Descriptive information for student sample (N = 503). N Control variables Grade (0 = kindergarten, 1 = first grade) Child race (0 = non-African American, 1 = African American) Family SES Maternal education No high school diploma High school diploma Associates degree Bachelors degree Family income $80,000 Child gender (0 = female, 1 = male) Predictors of interest STRS closeness, fall STRS conflict, fall Moderator Struggling reader status (0 = non-struggling, 1 = struggling) Fall and spring scores Literacy achievement, spring Internalizing behaviors, fall Internalizing behaviors, spring Externalizing behaviors, fall Externalizing behaviors, spring Prosocial skills, fall Prosocial skills, spring

% or M

503 503 497

43.74 60.24 −0.08

104 113 208 67

21.14 22.97 42.28 13.62

259 113 46 24 26 503

Range

SD

0.50 0.49 0.86

0.00 0.50 −2.05

1.00 1.00 2.43

55.34 24.15 9.83 5.13 5.56 50.05

0.50

0.00

1.00

427 427

4.25 1.64

0.66 0.96

1.50 1.00

5.00 5.00

503

0.50

0.50

0.00

1.00

473 427 459 427 459 427 459

450.91 0.56 0.59 1.01 1.03 1.48 1.49

23.72 0.68 0.66 0.90 0.92 0.48 0.49

365.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

505.25 3.20 3.80 3.60 3.20 2.00 2.00

Note: STRS = Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001); Literacy achievement = composite of Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack subtests from Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery, III (Woodcock et al., 2004). Externalizing behaviors was measured by the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity/Inattention subscales from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001). Internalizing behaviors was measured by the Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems subscales from the SDQ. Prosocial skills was measured by the Prosocial subscale from the SDQ.

Table 2 Descriptive information for teacher sample (N = 52).

Teacher race (0 = non-African American, 1 = African American) Teacher education (0 = BA, 1 = MA or above) Teacher experience (0 = less than 5 years, 1 = 5 or more years)

N

% or M

SD

Range

51 52 52

21.14 35.10 62.62

0.42 0.48 0.48

0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

Note: BA = Bachelor’s degree; MA = Master’s degree.Correlation Matrix for Model Variables (N = 503).

(0 = fewer than five years, 1 = more than five years) were included given prior research documenting these teacher-level characteristics as related to children’s literacy (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005) and behavioral development (Breeman et al., 2015). Finally, teacher race was included as a categorical dummy variable (0 = White, 1 = African American), given that teachers’ race may contribute to negative biases or stereotypes towards minority children and may thereby negatively impact their relationships with their students (Gallagher et al., 2013). 5.4. Analysis strategy All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4. Across all predictor variables, missingness ranged from 0 to 15% and across all outcome variables, missingness ranged from 0 to 9%. Multiple imputation procedures were used to account for missing data and to avoid inaccurate regression estimations (Berglund, 2010; Rubin, 1987). In multiple imputation procedures, multiple datasets (n = 20) are generated in an iterative fashion to realistically model the linear relationships among the variables (Schafer & Graham, 2002). The values from these datasets were then aggregated to yield the best estimates of the relationships between variables with no missing data. The PROC MIANALYZE function in SAS 9.4 was used to aggregate the model parameters across the imputed datasets. The imputation models included all of the fall and spring assess-

ment scores, child race, child gender, teacher education, teacher experience, socioeconomic status, and the conflict and closeness subscales; additionally, auxiliary variables, which had high correlations with the explanatory variables, were included to improve the imputation models (Enders, 2010). Prior to analysis, all predictors in the model were grand mean centered (Enders & Tofighi, 2007) (Table 3). For our first research question examining the association of close and conflictual TCRs with child spring literacy achievement and social competencies (Model 1 in Table 4), we analyzed twolevel hierarchical models (HLM) to account for the nesting of children within classrooms (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). We created four models predicting each outcome separately. For our second research question examining moderation by child struggling reader status (Model 2 in Table 4), we created interaction terms of struggling reader status by close and conflictual TCRs predicting each of the four child outcomes. At level one, we included fixed effects for child-level variables: gender, race, socioeconomic status, closeness, conflict, and struggling reader status. At level two, we included teachers’ levels of education, total years teaching, and race. Our moderation analyses included interactions between level one variables: closeness and struggling status and conflict and struggling status. For the continuous outcomes used in this study, effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g for calculating student-level effect sizes from multilevel models.

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

129

Table 3 Correlation matrix for model variables (N = 503). Variable

1

1. Grade 2. Child race 3. Family SES 4. Struggling reader status 5. Child gender 6. STRS conflict, fall 7. STRS closeness, fall 8. Literacy achievement, spring 9. Externalizing behaviors, fall 10. Externalizing behaviors, spring 11. Internalizing behaviors, fall 12. Internalizing behaviors, spring 13. Prosocial skills, fall 14. Prosocial skills, spring

– 0.11* 0.09* −0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.49* −0.02 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.07 −0.02

2

3

– −0.08 −0.05 0.05* 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.11* 0.13* −0.00 −0.03 −0.22* −0.25*

– −0.16* 0.01 0.02 0.10* 0.24* 0.02 −0.05 0.00 0.01 −0.10 −0.20*

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

– 0.32* 0.52* −0.44* −0.59*

– 0.52* −0.22* −0.28*

– −0.19* −0.39*

13

– 0.13* 0.10 −0.19* −0.53* 0.27* 0.27* 0.16* 0.19* 0.12* 0.05

– 0.15* −0.16* −0.12* 0.25* 0.29* 0.02* 0.07* −0.22* −0.15*

– −0.27* −0.14* 0.71* 0.56* 0.66* 0.46* −0.36* −0.39*

– 0.18* −0.32* −0.24* −0.32* −0.23* 0.58* 0.41*

– −0.25* −0.27* −0.17* −0.18* 0.22* 0.19*

– 0.73* 0.53* 0.32* −0.55* −0.44*

– 0.61*

Note: STRS = Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001); Literacy achievement = composite of Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack subtests from Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery, III (Woodcock et al., 2004) subtests. Externalizing behaviors was measured by the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity/Inattention subscales from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001). Internalizing behaviors was measured by the Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems subscales from the SDQ (Goodman, 2001). * p < 0.05.

6. Results

6.1.1. Literacy achievement When teachers reported conflictual relationships with their students in the fall, children were more likely to be assessed as having lower spring literacy achievement. In Model 1, child grade was the only control variable that was associated with children’s literacy achievement (B = 29.87, p < 0.001), but the covariate of struggling reader status was negatively related to children’s literacy achievement (B = −29.24, p < 0.001, g = −0.61). Teacher-rated closeness was

6.1. Main findings HLM results for our first research question (whether closeness and conflict in TCRs in the fall were associated with children’s endof-year literacy achievement and social competencies) are shown in Model 1 of Table 4.

Table 4 HLM findings predicting to literacy achievement and social competencies (N = 503). Literacy achievement

Model 1 Intercept Child grade Child race (0 = non-African American, 1 = African American) Family SES Struggling reader status (0 = non-struggling, 1 = struggling) Child gender (0 = female, 1 = male) Externalizing behaviors, fall Internalizing behaviors, fall Prosocial skills, fall Teacher race (0 = White, 1 = African American) Teacher education level Teacher experience

Externalizing behaviors

Internalizing behaviors

Prosocial skills

B

SE

B

SE

B

SE

B

SE

441.27*** 29.87*** −0.83 3.35** −29.24*** −0.91 – – – −5.02 0.87 −0.47

3.10 2.82 2.05 1.10 1.77 1.81 – – – 3.50 3.12 −0.47

0.68*** 0.11 0.03 −0.07 0.14* 0.17** 0.64*** – – 0.19 0.03 0.08

0.10 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 – – 0.12 0.10 0.10

0.46 0.02 −0.01 −0.03 0.12** −0.06 – 0.33*** – 0.23* 0.09 0.07

0.11 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 – 0.06 – 0.13 0.11 0.11

1.01*** −0.00 −0.13*** −0.00 −0.04 −0.09** – – 0.46*** −0.15* 0.05 −0.07

0.10 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 – – 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06

2.07 −3.79***

1.62 1.13

0.06 0.13**

0.05 0.05

−0.01 0.18***

0.05 0.04

0.04 −0.10***

0.03 0.02

2.55 −1.51

2.82 1.93

0.09 0.06

0.03 0.00

0.08 0.05

−0.02 −0.06

0.05 0.04

0.02 0.02

0.06** 0.24***

0.02 0.02

Model 1 — main effects STRS closeness, fall STRS conflict, fall Model 2 — interactions STRS closeness × struggling reader status STRS conflict × struggling reader status

−0.07 0.10

Variance components Level two (classroom) Residual

268.95*** 329.53***

11.50 15.86

0.06** 0.31***

0.02** 0.11***

0.01 0.01

Note: Literacy achievement is comprised of the Letter Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery, III (Woodcock et al., 2004). Externalizing behaviors was measured by the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity/Inattention subscales from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001). Internalizing behaviors was measured by the Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems subscales from the SDQ (Goodman, 2001). * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

130

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

not significantly associated with children’s spring literacy achievement (B = 2.07, p = 0.09), but teacher-rated conflict was negatively associated with children’s spring literacy achievement (B = −3.79, p < 0.001, g = −0.14). 6.1.2. Externalizing behaviors When teachers reported conflictual relationships with their students in the fall, children were more likely to be rated as having externalizing behaviors in the spring, after controlling for initial perceptions of externalizing behaviors. In Model 1, only the control variable of fall teacher-rated externalizing behaviors was related to spring teacher-rated externalizing behaviors. In addition, the covariates of struggling reader status (B = 0.14, p = 0.03, g = 0.13) and gender (B = 0.17, p = 0.004, g = 0.09) were positively related to spring teacher-rated externalizing behaviors. That is, teachers were more likely to rate struggling readers and males as exhibiting externalizing behaviors. Fall teacher-rated closeness was not significantly associated with spring teacher-rated externalizing behaviors (B = 0.06, p = 0.28), but fall teacher-rated conflict was positively associated with spring teacher-rated externalizing behaviors (B = 0.13, p = 0.008, g = 0.14).

6.1.3. Internalizing behaviors When teachers reported conflictual relationships with their students in the fall, children were more likely to be rated as having internalizing behaviors in the spring, after controlling for initial perceptions of internalizing behaviors. In Model 1, the control variables of fall teacher-rated internalizing behaviors and teacher race were positively related to spring teacher-rated internalizing behaviors. In addition, teachers were more likely to rate struggling readers as exhibiting internalizing behaviors (B = 0.12, p = 0.01, g = 0.12). Fall teacher-rated closeness was not significantly associated with spring teacher-rated internalizing behaviors (B = −0.01, p = 0.81), but fall teacher-rated conflict was positively associated with spring teacher-rated internalizing behaviors (B = 0.18, p < 0.001, g = 0.26).

6.1.4. Prosocial behaviors When teachers reported conflictual relationships with their students in the fall, children were less likely to be rated as having prosocial behaviors in the spring, after controlling for initial perceptions of prosocial behaviors. In Model 1, the control variable of fall teacher-rated prosocial behaviors was positively related to spring teacher-rated prosocial behaviors, and child race (African American) was negatively related to spring teacher-rated prosocial behaviors. The covariate of struggling reader status was not a significant predictor of prosocial behaviors, but child gender was negatively related to spring teacher-rated prosocial behaviors (B = −0.09, p = 0.009, g = 0.08). Fall teacher-rated closeness was not significantly associated with spring teacher-rated externalizing behaviors (B = 0.04, p = 0.20), but fall teacher-rated conflict was negatively associated with spring teacher-rated prosocial behaviors (B = −0.10, p < 0.001, g = 0.20). 6.2. Moderation by struggling reader status HLM results for our second research question (whether struggling reader status would moderate the associations between TCRs and children’s end-of-year literacy achievement and social competencies) are shown in Model 2 of Table 4. Moderation of struggling reader status was not significantly associated with children’s spring literacy achievement, externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, or prosocial skills.

7. Discussion The primary goal of this study was to assess whether close and conflictual TCRs were associated with children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, additionally focusing on potential moderation by struggling reader status. Although previous research has primarily focused on predominantly preschool children (Ewing & Taylor, 2009) or older elementary school students (McCormick & O’Connor, 2015), we explored these relationships in a unique sample of diverse early elementary students who were identified as struggling and non-struggling readers. Unlike other studies, we examined close and conflictual TCRs separately in our analytic models predicting to each child outcome. Further, we distinguished among different types of social competencies by examining internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors separately (e.g., Baker et al., 2008; Fowler et al., 2008). We found that conflictual TCRs, but not close TCRs, were significantly and negatively associated with children’s literacy achievement and teacherreported prosocial behaviors. Conflictual TCRs were significantly and positively associated with teacher-reported internalizing and externalizing behaviors. We did not find evidence that struggling reader status significantly moderated the associations between TCRs and children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, suggesting that the relationships between TCRs and outcomes were robust regardless of the level of early student academic risk. 7.1. TCRs and literacy achievement In empirical analyses, after controlling for a number of demographic variables, we found that teacher-perceived conflictual, but not close, relationships were negatively associated with children’s spring literacy achievement, although the effect size was small. Conflictual relationships, as perceived by the teacher, indicate that the teacher may feel ineffective working with a particular student or that the teacher is emotionally drained or fatigued from working with the student (Pianta, 2001). It is possible that when teachers perceive conflict in their relationships with students, teachers may withdraw support from the child or may engage less frequently with the child in classroom activities, thereby limiting opportunities for the child to develop literacy skills. This may lead to child withdrawal from learning activities in the classroom that promote literacy. We did not find significant associations between close TCRs and children’s literacy achievement. Although there is support for close TCRs and children’s literacy achievement (Lee & Bierman, 2015; McCormick & O’Connor, 2015), findings from our study corroborated other work that has found relational negativity to be a more salient predictor of children’s achievement compared to closeness between teachers and children (Hughes, 2012). Our findings extended this line of research, as we accounted for children’s struggling reader status in our analytic models, which was a stringent test given the strong relationship between struggling reader status and literacy achievement. We also looked at reading achievement as a function of young children’s abilities to both decode words and apply phonics rules (Basic Reading skills), whereas other researchers have looked solely at word reading (McCormick & O’Connor, 2015) or reading fluency (Kiuru et al., 2013) in middle to upper elementary school children. 7.2. TCRs and social competencies Findings from this study provided evidence of significant associations between conflictual TCRs with teacher-rated internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors, with small to moderate effect sizes of g = 0.26, 0.14, and 0.20, respectively. Although other studies have examined TCRs and children’s behaviors (e.g., Berry &

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

O’Connor, 2010; Silver et al., 2005), this study was one of the few to use a more comprehensive view of social competencies by distinguishing among three key behaviors. We found that significant associations emerged despite the fact that a majority of children were not identified as having clinical levels of behavioral difficulties or non-normal prosocial skills. Findings from this study showed that when teachers perceived greater levels of conflict with their students, teachers also perceived more externalizing and internalizing behaviors and fewer prosocial behaviors exhibited by their students. Although previous research suggests that conflictual relationships can contribute to higher externalizing behaviors (Silver et al., 2005) and lower prosocial behaviors (Berry & O’Connor, 2010), our findings suggested that conflictual relationships are also related to children’s internalizing behaviors. It is possible that these children may be aware of the relational negativity with their teachers and may internalize the relational difficulties over time. Children who experience relational conflict may be more inclined to “shut down” and withdraw from classroom activities. Overall, the process of conflictual TCRs and social competencies is likely to be bidirectional. That is, teachers may be more likely to perceive conflictual relationships with children who have fewer social competencies, and teachers may also be likely to perceive fewer social competencies when they experience conflictual relationships with those children. It is possible that children may, for example, act out more (externalizing behaviors), withdraw from classroom activities (internalizing behaviors), or engage in fewer positive behaviors (prosocial skills) because they are aware of the relational negativity with their teachers. Teachers who perceive conflict in their relationship with a specific child may even limit interactions, potentially eliciting more aggressive or anxious behaviors from the child. Teachers who perceive conflict with children may even be less aware of when children exhibit positive social behaviors in the classroom. We did not find significant associations between teacher-rated closeness and children’s internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors. Although we expected close TCRs to be significantly related to children’s social competencies given other research in this area (e.g., Eisenhower, Baker, & Blacher, 2007), our findings are consistent with other studies that have found non-significant findings between close TCRs and children’s social competencies (Spivak & Farran, 2012). It is possible that close TCRs may be related to other aspects of children’s social competencies such as their classroom adjustment or classroom work habits (Baker et al., 2008), which were not measured in the current study. In future work, researchers should also explore whether there are certain aspects of close TCRs that are more directly related to children’s social competencies. 7.3. Moderation by struggling reader status Although we found significant associations between conflictual TCRs and children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, we found no significant moderation effects by struggling reader status. Even though conflictual TCRs seemed to hinder children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, this effect was not magnified for struggling readers. This finding was surprising considering that we found significant mean differences between struggling and non-struggling readers on both literacy achievement and social competencies, which is consistent with prior research on co-occurring behavioral and reading difficulties (Morgan et al., 2008). Additionally, we found that there were differences in teacher-rated closeness and conflict between struggling and non-struggling readers, with teachers being likely to report less close relationships and more conflictual relationships with struggling readers. There may several possibilities for why we did not detect significant interaction effects. In their study of

131

Finnish children at risk for reading disabilities, Kiuru et al. (2013) used a longitudinal approach when examining how risk for reading disabilities during the kindergarten years was related to reading fluency outcomes in fourth grade. They found that the association between risk for reading disabilities and reading fluency was mediated by teachers’ positive affect in grades 1–3. Thus, associations of close or conflictual TCRs for struggling readers may emerge over time, particularly as children enter the upper elementary grades and difficulties with literacy tasks or behaviors become less developmentally expected. Replication of these analyses using different and larger samples, as well as measuring additional mediators and moderators, is warranted to provide a better understanding of these relationships. 7.4. Limitations Like other empirical studies, this study has limitations. The STRS and SDQ are both teacher-reported measures; consequently, teacher ratings on these measures are prone to teacher biases. In predicting social competencies, one teacher-reported measure predicted another teacher-reported measure. Although researchers have extensively used both measures in studies of TCRs (Pianta, 2001) and in studies of social competencies (Goodman et al., 2010), observational measures of TCRs and/or social competencies could help to address this bias in future studies. Teacher perceptions of relationship quality are important because teachers are often responsible for negotiating their relationships with students, particularly in elementary school. Yet, our findings only supported the association of conflictual TCRs rather than close TCRs. Some researchers have hypothesized that conflictual relationships may be easier to detect than close relationships because teachers may be more sensitive to conflict (relational negativity) with their students. In comparison, closeness between teachers and children may be difficult to perceive because close relationships are expected to be “the norm,” making it more challenging for teachers to report variation in closeness (Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012). Overall, it is worth noting that the teachers in the current study reported high levels of closeness with students (M = 4.25). With such high levels of teacher-reported closeness in our sample, we may not have been able to detect sufficient variability in closeness between teachers and students. Since other researchers have reported similar means for closeness and conflict (Choi & Dobbs-Oates, 2016; Eisenhower et al., 2007; Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009), it is possible that conflictual relationships may show more variability and accordingly may bear more consequence on children’s literacy achievement. Teachers’ perceptions of children’s social competencies are also important, considering that teachers spend a considerable amount of time with these students and they may have the best understanding for how these students behave within the classroom. In the current study, it is important to note that within the sample of struggling and non-struggling readers, indicators of internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors represented elevated levels of behavioral challenges, but did not represent clinicallysignificant levels of behavioral disorders. However, lower levels of social competencies can present significant risks for children and may result in continued behavioral, academic, and social maladjustment — ultimately compromising children’s development (Baker et al., 2008). It is also unclear whether there were issues of misspecification in our model. The current study was a secondary data analysis, which restricted our ability to include other variables in our analytic models. For example, we were not able to measure whether there was bias in teachers’ perceptions of conflict and closeness based on unmeasured child-level characteristics (e.g., school affect, engagement). Additionally, it may be important to examine other unmeasured teacher-level (e.g., efficacy; Varghese, Garwood, Bratsch-Hines, & Vernon-Feagans, 2016) and child-level

132

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133

outcome variables (e.g., math achievement, executive functioning) to see whether they are related to TCRs and whether these associations vary by struggling reader status. Finally, although researchers have not extensively focused on rural contexts, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to urban or suburban contexts. Teaching dynamics and perceptions may differ in rural contexts, which are not apparent in other settings. Exploring aspects of TCRs across locales may provide greater insights about if and how TCRs vary in different school contexts. 7.5. Future directions Findings from this study provide evidence that TCRs may play a role in children’s assessed early literacy skills and both teacherperceived positive and negative behaviors. We have identified two areas for future research based on our findings: (1) providing professional development and pre-service training that focuses on improving TCRs in the classroom, and (2) conceptualizing TCRs within the context of literacy-specific activities. To date, there are few interventions that have focused on developing optimal one-on-one relationships with children. Pre-service and in-service teachers still receive very little training on how to develop positive relationships with their students (Driscoll & Pianta, 2010; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Including explicit training and specific teaching strategies for cultivating positive TCRs in teacher preparation programs may be especially prudent, particularly for teachers working in rural schools that have higher levels of teacher turnover (Monk, 2007). Additionally, teachers and children may interact differently in literacy-based activities, considering that these activities are more likely to occur within the contexts of small group or individualized instruction. A measure that captures nuances in the relationships between teachers and children during literacy activities may have more direct associations with children’s literacy achievement and may be worth exploring in the future. 8. Conclusion Teachers play important roles in their students’ learning experiences during the early elementary school years (Baker, 2006). Although teachers can leverage close relationships with their students to improve learning, our findings suggested that conflictual TCRs may pose challenges for young children. Specifically, we found that conflictual TCRs were adversely related to children’s literacy achievement and social competencies, but that the associations did not vary based on children’s struggling reader status. Taken together, TCRs may be important resources for all children. TCRs can either hinder or support children’s development of schoolbased competencies (e.g., literacy skills, behavioral development) that typically facilitate successful navigation of schooling challenges during the early elementary school years (Pianta, 1999). Thus, teachers in schools may consider capitalizing on mechanisms such as TCRs to support children’s early learning. Although future work in this area is certainly needed, TCRs matter for children and we ought to be more conscientious of the qualities of TCRs experienced by young children in classrooms. References Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275–1301. Baker, J., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher–student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3–15. Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211–229.

Berglund, P. A. (2010). An introduction to multiple imputation of complex sample data ® using SAS v9.2. Paper 267-25. Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 1–14. Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79. Bleses, D., Højen, A., Dale, P. S., Justice, L. M., Dybdal, L., Piasta, S., . . . & Haghish, E. F. (2018). Effective language and literacy instruction: Evaluating the importance of scripting and group size components. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 256–269. Bowlby, J. (1992). Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bratsch-Hines, M. E., Vernon-Feagans, L., Varghese, C., & Garwood, J. (2017). Child skills and teacher qualifications: associations with elementary classroom teachers-reading instruction for struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 270–283. Breeman, L. D., Wubbels, T., Van Lier, P. A. C., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A., & Tick, N. T. (2015). Teacher characteristics, social classroom relationships, and children’s social, emotional, and behavioral classroom adjustment in special education. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 87–103. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theorectical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley. Campbell, S. B., Spieker, S., Burchinal, M., Poe, M. D., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Trajectories of aggression from toddlerhood to age 9 predict academic and social functioning through age 12. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 791–800. Choi, J. Y., & Dobbs-Oates, J. (2016). Teacher–child relationships: Contribution of teacher and child characteristics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30, 15–28. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Early childhood mathematics learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 461–555). New York, NY: Information Age Publishing. Connor, C. M., Son, S., Hindman, A., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices, and family characteristics: Complex effects on first graders’ language and early reading. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 343–375. Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Buyse, E., Germeijs, V., Luyckx, K., & Soenens, B. (2008). Reciprocal relations between teacher–child conflict and aggressive behavior in kindergarten: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 588–599. Downer, J. T., Booren, L. M., Lima, O. K., Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). The Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS): Preliminary reliability and validity of a system for observing preschoolers’ competence in classroom interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 1–16. Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). Teacher–child interactions in the classroom: Toward a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s developmental outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21, 699–723. Driscoll, K. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Banking Time in Head Start: Early efficacy of an intervention designed to promote supportive teacher–child relationships. Early Education and Development, 21, 38–64. 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. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and children’s behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 92–105. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. Fowler, L. T. S., Banks, T. I., Anhalt, K., Der, H. H., & Kalis, T. (2008). The association between externalizing behavior problems, teacher–student relationship quality, and academic performance in young urban learners. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 167–183. Gallagher, K. C., Kainz, K., Vernon-Feagans, L., & White, K. M. (2013). Development of student–teacher relationships in rural early elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 520–528. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179–1191. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: Manual. American Guidance Service. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.

C. Varghese et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 (2019) 124–133 Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17, 115–136. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., . . . & Brackett, M. A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 461–487. Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher–child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 111–138. Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 127–155. Hughes, J., & Kwok, O. M. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent–teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 39–51. Hughes, J. N. (2012). Teacher–student relationships and school adjustment: Progress and remaining challenges. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 319–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672288 Jaffe, L. E. (2009). Development, interpretation, and application of the W score and the relative proficiency index (Woodcock–Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 11). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18, 915–945. Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M. K., Niemi, P., Poskiparta, E., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). The role of reading disability risk and environmental protective factors in students’ reading fluency in grade 4. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 349–368. Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 10155–10162. Lee, P., & Bierman, K. L. (2015). Classroom and teacher support in kindergarten: Associations with the behavioral and academic adjustment of low-income students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61, 383–411. 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. Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018). A closer look at teacher–child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47, 1–21. Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425–442. McCormick, M. P., & O’Connor, E. E. (2015). Teacher–child relationship quality and academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 502–516. McCormick, M. P., O’Connor, E. E., Cappella, E., & McClowry, S. G. (2013). Teacher–child relationships and academic achievement: A multilevel propensity score model approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 611–624. McCormick, M. P., Turbeville, A. R., Barnes, S. P., & McClowry, S. G. (2014). Challenging temperament, teacher–Child relationships, and behavior problems in urban low-Income children: A longitudinal examination. Early Education and Development, 25, 1198–1218. McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III normative update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 155–174. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Tufis, P. A., & Sperling, R. A. (2008). Are reading and behavior problems risk factors for each other? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 417–436. National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Nurmi, J. E., & Kiuru, N. (2015). Students’ evocative impact on teacher instruction and teacher–child relationships: Theoretical background and an overview of previous research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 445–457. Nurmi, J. E. (2012). Students’ characteristics and teacher–child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 177–197. 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.

133

O’Connor, E. E., Dearing, E., & Collins, B. A. (2011). Teacher–child relationship and behavior problem trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 120–162. Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher–child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444–458. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationship scale: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher–child relationships and early literacy. In D. K. Dickinson, & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (6th Ed., pp. 149–162). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Rhoad-Drogalis, A., Justice, L. M., Sawyer, B. E., & O’Connell, A. A. (2018). Teacher–child relationships and classroom-learning behaviors of children with developmental language disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53, 324–338. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., 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. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment and Human Development, 14, 213–231. Sabol, T. J., Bohlmann, N. L., & Downer, J. T. (2018). Low-income ethnically diverse children’s engagement as a predictor of school readiness above preschool classroom quality. Child Development, 89, 556–576. Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2000). Models of development and developmental risk. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York: Guilford Press. Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human Development, 18, 65–79. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2. 147 Shinn, M. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement.. Retrieved from: http:// www. cnyric. org/ tfiles/ folder1052/ Administration%20and%20Scoring%20of%20Reading%20Curriculum %20Based%20Measure%20%28R- CBM%29.pdf Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher–child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 39–60. Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J.-Y., & Kwok, O.-M. (2012). Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child Development, 83, 1180–1195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x Spivak, A. L., & Farran, D. C. (2012). First-grade teacher behaviors and children’s prosocial actions in classrooms. Early Education & Development, 23, 623–639. Sutherland, K. S., Conroy, M. A., Algina, J., Ladwig, C., Jessee, G., & Gyure, M. (2018). Reducing child problem behaviors and improving teacher–child interactions and relationships: A randomized controlled trial of BEST in CLASS. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 31–43. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217–234. Varghese, C., Garwood, J. D., Bratsch-Hines, M., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2016). Exploring magnitude of change in teacher efficacy and implications for students’ literacy growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 228–239. Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M., & Amendum, S. (2013). Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The Targeted Reading Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1175–1187. Vernon-Feagans, L., Bratsch-Hines, M., Varghese, C., Cutrer, E. A., & Garwood, J. D. (2018). Improving struggling readers’ early literacy skills through a Tier 2 professional development program for rural classroom teachers: The Targeted Reading Intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 118, 525–548. Wolter, I., Glüer, M., & Hannover, B. (2014). Gender-typicality of activity offerings and child–teacher relationship closeness in German Kindergarten. Influences on the development of spelling competence as an indicator of early basic literacy in boys and girls. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 59–65. Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. (2004). WJ III diagnostic reading battery. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.