What Are Teacher–Student Relationships in Adolescent Motivation Research? A Systematic Review of Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Analysis

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1007/s10648-025-09998-y
Emma C. Burns, Penny Van Bergen
{"title":"What Are Teacher–Student Relationships in Adolescent Motivation Research? A Systematic Review of Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Analysis","authors":"Emma C. Burns, Penny Van Bergen","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-09998-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Positive teacher–student relationships are critical for motivation in secondary school yet are conceptualized and measured inconsistently in motivation research. Motivation studies that draw on relational theories typically treat teacher–student relationships as a multidimensional construct, comprising positive (e.g., closeness) and negative (e.g., conflict) dimensions. In contrast, studies drawing on motivation theories typically use unidimensional relationship measures (e.g., only closeness). Studies also differ in their measures of teacher–student relationships and in whether they study dyads (“my teacher to me”) or broader groups (“teachers to me”; “my teacher to us”), and it is unclear which approaches are most common in current adolescent motivation research and how they have shaped current understandings of relationships in the field. Given this confusion, the aim of our systematic review was to map how teacher–student relationships have been conceptualized, measured, and analyzed in adolescent motivation research published between 2010 and 2023. Using PRISMA guidelines, 237 studies and 222 unique relationship measures were identified. The findings showed that teacher–student relationships and teacher support were used interchangeably across studies, both in terms of terminology and measurement. Most studies also examined teacher–student relationships using unidimensional measures, rather than multidimensional, with dyadic and non-dyadic relationships both common. Finally, there was no clear pattern of conceptualization or measurement for specific motivation constructs. These findings raise concerns regarding alignment between theorizing and measurement of teacher–student relationships in motivation research. We offer a path forward for identifying and appropriately using existing measures of teacher–student relationships vs support, as well as highlight the need for the development of measures which critically engage with conceptual concerns regarding teacher–student relationships and which reflect an integrated understanding of core relationship components (e.g., dyadic, multidimensional) identified across relational and motivation theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09998-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Positive teacher–student relationships are critical for motivation in secondary school yet are conceptualized and measured inconsistently in motivation research. Motivation studies that draw on relational theories typically treat teacher–student relationships as a multidimensional construct, comprising positive (e.g., closeness) and negative (e.g., conflict) dimensions. In contrast, studies drawing on motivation theories typically use unidimensional relationship measures (e.g., only closeness). Studies also differ in their measures of teacher–student relationships and in whether they study dyads (“my teacher to me”) or broader groups (“teachers to me”; “my teacher to us”), and it is unclear which approaches are most common in current adolescent motivation research and how they have shaped current understandings of relationships in the field. Given this confusion, the aim of our systematic review was to map how teacher–student relationships have been conceptualized, measured, and analyzed in adolescent motivation research published between 2010 and 2023. Using PRISMA guidelines, 237 studies and 222 unique relationship measures were identified. The findings showed that teacher–student relationships and teacher support were used interchangeably across studies, both in terms of terminology and measurement. Most studies also examined teacher–student relationships using unidimensional measures, rather than multidimensional, with dyadic and non-dyadic relationships both common. Finally, there was no clear pattern of conceptualization or measurement for specific motivation constructs. These findings raise concerns regarding alignment between theorizing and measurement of teacher–student relationships in motivation research. We offer a path forward for identifying and appropriately using existing measures of teacher–student relationships vs support, as well as highlight the need for the development of measures which critically engage with conceptual concerns regarding teacher–student relationships and which reflect an integrated understanding of core relationship components (e.g., dyadic, multidimensional) identified across relational and motivation theories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Classroom Carrying Capacity: A Resource and Limiting Factors Framework What Are Teacher–Student Relationships in Adolescent Motivation Research? A Systematic Review of Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Analysis Enhancing Academic Performance Through Self-Explanation in Digital Learning Environments (DLEs): A Three-Level Meta-Analysis Emotional Wellbeing in the Context of Primary-Secondary School Transitions: A Concept Analysis Paper Examining the Academic Effects of Cross-age Tutoring: A Meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1